Posts posted by hpslugga
-
-
-
Edited by hpslugga
10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:if you're going for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, I think it does.
#1 is a statutory crimeÂ
#2 is redirecting official U.S. policy for your personal gain, very akin to bribery.Â
Â
They may both be impeachable, but the latter is definitely impeachable. Â
Public officials can be impeached for any reason, so I’m not sure what you mean by “impeachable.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
4 minutes ago, Chooky said:
The call with Mexico revealed that he didn't know Canada was part of NAFTA. You know, the trade agreement he considered a "disaster" but didn't even know the most basic thing that 7th graders already knew. And I don't think they're above using that as a defense -- "it would be irresponsible of us as a staff to rattle the country by allowing them to know how really just how stone fucking dumb this guy really is."
Between that and this

I legitimately wonder if these people know what Mexico even is.
-
-
-
-
Edited by hpslugga
On 9/23/2019 at 4:17 PM, Ted Lange said:80% of Americans support NN. Â
Exactly. This isn’t like the US Senate where the balance of power is decided by one or two people. This is a situation where, as you say, 80% of Americans support NN and the remaining 20% don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.
-
-
8 hours ago, Bookman said:
Today in the UK they said "Nobody is Above the Law."
Today in the US they said "Nobody is Above the Law."
Their applications of that principle, historically, has always been curiously selective. So take the US.
Nixon would have been impeached, had he not resigned, for crimes relating to the burglary of DNC headquarters at Watergate. Nowhere in his articles of impeachment is his participation and endorsement of COINTELPRO mentioned; nowhere are his war crimes in Vietnam, Laos, or Chile mentioned. His crimes in Cambodia were mentioned, but those got voted down; and that’s the problem: it was ok, for the Democrats, when Nixon was committing heinous war crimes against a defenseless country like Cambodia, but it wasn’t ok when he was covering up for the goons that burglarized the DNC headquarters.
-
-
Edited by hpslugga
18 hours ago, Homercles said:but I feel that their uptempo offense is bringing the defensive struggles of the BigXII to the SEC
LSU 2011: 62 offensive snaps per game
LSU 2019: 71 offensive snaps per gameQuote...don’t get a lot of rest
By what standard? Their TOP isn't significantly different than it was under Miles, their offense is more efficient than Miles' could be in his wildest fucking dreams, and they turn the ball over considerably less.
Quotedefend more possessions
They're averaging 0.5 more possessions per game than they did in Miles' best years, and their average TOP is different by a factor of 3 minutes.Â
Seems to me like their D just flat out isn't as good as it used to be, but they've more than made up for those deficits with outstanding offensive play.
-
-
-
Edited by hpslugga
What’s gotten lost in this conversation is the embarrassingly dishonest tactic the anti-NN crowd has used in support of their view, which is the perpetual employment of the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.
As previously stated, Net Neutrality was instituted as a consumer protection measure. It was well justified as 40% of the country (129 million people) are serviced only by one option for ISP’s. Ajit Pai lobbied strongly against it, and his reasoning was that NN is a “burdensome regulation.”
That is what’s known as a positive statement, and positive statements require positive evidence. In this case, Pai has to satisfy 2 measures of proof in order to justify the repeal:
1. How exactly is NN “burdensome” to ISP’s?
2. If it can be proven that NN is burdensome to ISP’s, what evidence is there that it is so burdensome that ISP’s deserve the benefit of the doubt in weighing corporate interests against public/consumer interests?Â
Ajit Pai failed spectacularly in every way he could fail to meet that standard of evidence. Similarly, the OP here cannot answer these questions rationally. He uses logical fallacies, emotionally potent oversimplifications and canned retorts as a means to conceal the reality that, as numerous others have stated, he hasn’t the foggiest clue what this issue is even about. That’s been the common thread that I’ve observed in every single poster on shaggy/surly that supported the repeal. FCHorn thought NN was the internet’s version of the fairness doctrine, and everyone else’s argument basically came down to “Trump supports the repeal, therefore it is good and right.”
-
-
-
18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of why regulation to prevent telecom companies from fleecing their customers is a bad thing.
You will wait forever. All he knows is what someone else told him, which is "regulate bad, deregulate good."Â
-
-
5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:
 Beyond, “evil corporations might”.
Explain away brainiac.
No explanation is needed. You tried to plead a case in favor of the repeal of net neutrality, you didn’t give any rational person a single reason to believe you, so we therefore have no reason to believe you.  Come back when you have something to consider.
To top it off, you come out with these one-liners that you think are loaded with intelligence, but all they do is confirm what we suspect: you suffer from “a cognitive bias in which [you] mistakenly assess [your] cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from [your] inability to recognize [your] lack of ability.”
Donald Trump 2019
in Cloak Room
Well yes but only if the president is a By Gawd Republican