Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3311
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 4 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

    from his wiki:

    On March 13, 2018, Cain tweeted about the death of prominent physicist Stephen Hawking. In his tweet, he stated "Stephen Hawking now knows the truth about how the universe was actually made. My condolences to his family." The tweet was largely perceived to be insensitive and was criticized by legislators on both sides of the aisle.[27]

    As if that fucking dunce had the first damned clue about that.

  2. 21 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

    They allowed use of a tee on FGs as well back then. The rule changed in the late 80s. 

    The goalposts were also 23'5" wide as opposed to their current width of 18'6"

    That guy was exposed as a fraud of a field goal kicker when he had to take it to the ground to go through NFL goalposts (18'6" wide). Sorry, I can't be compelled to be impressed with a lifetime 50% FG average.

  3. 6 hours ago, futureman said:

    was it grapevine?  dallasnews.com recap from tonight says it was denison we lost to at home in 1998.  I know we lost a playoff game at amon g. carter to denison (and chris robertson) around that time, so maybe they have shitty reporters. 

    Just looked again and Denison is the correct answer. Played them two weeks after grapevine 

  4. 26 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    Ends their 33 game winning streak. 

    HP's 2nd home loss in the past 21 years. Their first loss at home to a team from Texas since 1998. 

    Damn, I was at that game too. Grapevine back when they were slinging the ball around when hardly anyone else would. I was 14 freaking years old. Scott Smith could never figured out how to defend the spread back in that day.

    Turnovers were the big story tonight. 4-0, all picks

  5. 2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    This.

    Now that we're years after the people voted for the CONCEPT of Brexit, how about we let them vote on the REALITY: the choice is stay, or leave with no deal.  Vote on that.

    The "Leave" crowd is both 1) uniformly opposed to doing that, while 2) crowing about "honoring the will of the people."  The cognitive dissonance -- it's impressive.

    And they have that inbuilt into their electoral processes. Yeah they may have voted for Tory candidates, for example, but that doesn’t in itself mean it’s a “til death do us part” proposition. Again it’s only when they want to execute outcomes that they think they want. 

    3 years ago, I said that the American public is going to learn for the first time what buyer’s remorse is on 1/20/2017. The UKIP and their idiot Tory colleagues are hellbent and determined to learn that same concept on Halloween.

  6. 50 minutes ago, zork said:

    yes, yes, Jiminy, a russian conspiracy!  Or maybe just someone who is supporting the will of the people, in the UK, and observing with the latest prime minister that brexit is more likely to happen than with the utter failure to make it happen, multiple times, under May.  Clearly only anti-brexit followers from the US are allowed to follow the shitshow that has been brexit/anti-brexit since the vote long ago.(and subsequent currency movements)

    BTW,  I've been posting on UT boards probably longer than you've been alive.  Back when it was celebrated that Dell was moving into Russia,(among other multinational companies at the time) more than a decade before Hillary 'reset' with Russia.  Russia, Russia, Russia.  It isn't all about them.

    You only support that when it’s convenient to do so

    • Like 2
  7. 4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

    Any chart that has progressivism sitting next to capitalism and completely on the other side of the scale from socialism is an absolutely worthless chart.  The biggest progressives in Washington D.C. are AOC and Bernie Sanders.  When was the last time either defended capitalism or criticized socialism?

    It also has authoritarianism halfway across the chart from communism.  Communism is absolutely impossible to impose without authoritarianism.  If this chart is the best representation of the political compass you have ever seen then it is either the only chart representing the political compass you have ever seen or you are an idiot.

     

    Amazing...every word in that post was wrong.

    • Like 2
  8. 8 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

    What does it mean when it shows progressivism on the right side? I'm on the libertarian side of it.

    That word doesn’t mean what it used to. When it’s affixed there, it indicates “progressivism” as being associated with the Progressive Era of 1890-1920, not the social justice movements of today, which I would agree belongs more along the lines of where Social Democratism is located.

    Wiki has a rather good summary:

    ”Initially the movement operated chiefly at local level, but later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers, and business people.[8] Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[9] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913[10] and the arrival of cooperative banking in the US with the founding of the first credit union in 1908.[11]Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[12][13]”

    • Like 1
  9. 9 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    International Policy says that people who need it are entitled to political asylum.  It also says that people are not entitled to economic asylum.  I think International Policy is correct.

    Right now we have great difficulty figuring out how to deal with political asylum.  Many are gaming the system.

    So, I have a solution.  (I have solutions for all political issues.  You know that though.)

    My solution grants political asylum to all who want it.  No detention.  No trial.  No long wait.  Not even any big costs.  BUT, it does not grant economic asylum.

    Here's how:

    We identify a bunch of shithole countries which will take economic refugees for a fee.  Think Haiti, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Burkina Faso.  The list is actually very long.

    If you need political asylum the US will find you a spot in a shithole country.

    I predict that if your life is in danger you'll jump at the deal.  Better Bangladesh than gangs killing your daughter. But if you're just looking for  economic opportunity, you'll probably prefer your shithole country to a new one.  Or maybe you'll go to some place like Mexico or Brazil - a place that isn't a shithole but isn't the USA.

    I'm looking for good ideas that make the Berkeley sociology crowd boil with rage.  We need to have an open dialog on such topics - to further social harmony.  We need teachable moments.  I'm trying to conduct a "teach in" on such.  This board has a bunch of such people who need teaching.  How am I doing?  My students don't seem to be learning very well but you can't always tell.

     

     

    You're not interested in those things. You're lying again.

  10. 5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

    Why would you place National Socialism next to Communism when the Nazis were privatizers?  Were the Nazis not authentic National Socialists under this schema?  

    There's no doubt that some of the terms are a little off in terms of where they're located, but in terms of inclusiveness, that's about the best I've seen so far.

    Although I will say, to your point, the Nazi's were Fascist, and that's located exactly where it should be. 

  11. 18 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

     

    I say: War.

    As in civil war. As in the Republican party is completely eliminated as an organization, and DOTARD,  his administration, Turtle fuckface, Graham, and all the grifters, enablers, apologists, and donut bringers are either executed for treason or serving life in prison. Then we start at the top (Gorsuch and Kavano-means-yes) and work our way down (the POS immigration judge who threatened to sick his dog on a two year old immigrant), impeaching every mother fucker DOTARD appointed and the Senate "confirmed".

    It is too late for "bipartisanship". It is too late for "peace". One does not negotiate with terrorists or traitors.

    You, Tahoe,  do not get to support a lying, traitorous, senile bigot, claim the other side is acting like an "ass", and expect anything less than scorn, derision, hate, or a "fuck you" reply to anything you post.

    Until the GOP is completely destroyed and utterly rejected-- war. Until DOTARD and his cabinet are executed or in prison- war.

     

     

    tldr: DIAF you POS.

    There is no value in bipartisanship...at all, at least not in the US. Here's why:

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best representation of the political compass I have ever seen-

    PhPdn.png

    When people speak of Democrats and Liberals interchangeably as if the two meant the same thing, you see them for what they are. They are people who think that the center of the aisles of the Senate and the House represent the center of the political spectrum. They're catastrophically wrong. 

    The Republicans, by and large, are right above the "i" in "Traditionalism" along the border between it and Fascism, and the Democrats, again by and large, are around the "r" in "Conservatism." 

    So when we're talking about "bipartisanship," understand that's all for show. The difference between these two parties is a flea's hop, and there's nothing noble about splitting that narrow difference, especially when you consider that the bulk of the population is well to the left of all of that. When you also consider how this current crop of Republicans want to drag their spot on the compass even further Northeast, it's especially inappropriate to consider bipartisanship as some sort of moral good. All it really amounts to is the DNC chasing the GOP to the right and begging them to meet them halfway, but "halfway" means "exactly what the GOP was like 10 years ago." 

    Right now, for example, the DNC's claim about anthropogenic climate change is that it's happening and we have to take moderate steps to alleviate it while the GOP just flatly denies that it's happening. With the way we're going, in about 10-15 years, the DNC position will be "it MIGHT be happening" while the GOP position will be "there's no such thing as climate."

  12. 56 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

    It's a parliamentary system. Do you know what that means? 

    Do you know what a majority is? 

    What you’re talking about is what’s known as a “plurality.”

  13. Whether it’s “stupid” is not even relevant. The issue is that it’s a fucking crime that should put its chief perpetrator in a noose

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...