Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3523
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 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

    190401-fox-and-friends-three-mexican-cou

    I legitimately wonder if these people know what Mexico even is.

  2. On 9/23/2019 at 4:17 PM, Ted Lange said:

    80% of Americans support NN.   

    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.

    • Like 1
  3. 12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    Anyone pushing an ill informed 16 year old as some kind of leader on policymaking. 

    I could count the number of people who do that worldwide on one hand and I would have 5 superfluous fingers

  4. 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.

    • Like 1
  5. 10 hours ago, GRHorn said:

    This is some good, high level thinking. Are you 16? They could use you. 

    There’s more collective wisdom in that post you quoted than anything you’ve ever said about the topic. 

  6. 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 game

    Quote

    ...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.

    Quote

    defend 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. 

    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.

  7. 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? 

    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.”

    • Like 1
  8. 17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    It gets better.  You’re going to be OK.

    If you knew what it was you were arguing, you'd have already stated it instead of resorting to these useless canned retorts. 

  9. 5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Are you arguing that service levels in the airline industry are better today than they were pre-deregulation?

    green_shirt_guy.gif

    He doesn’t even know what the fuck he’s arguing. 

  10. 18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    You will wait forever. All he knows is what someone else told him, which is "regulate bad, deregulate good." 

    • Like 1
  11. 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.”

  12. 4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    Talk about pantsing yourself.

    yup, I’m the one who doesn’t understand.

    Leftist fucking drivel. 

    Just give up. You’re like the boxer who wants a rematch with Mike Tyson after he knocked him out 60 seconds into the fight. 

  13. 8 hours ago, Incredulity said:

     

     Explain away Mr. Helper.

    Telling that you rely on insults.  

    Let me guess, not worth your time.  Taking your ball and going home.

    He doesn’t rely on insults, he’s just using them for decorative effect. He’s a colorful one, that hayden.

    You, on the other hand, are relying on the greatest weapon you have: the inability to understand simple things.

    • Like 1
  14. 1 hour ago, Todd Gack said:

    And the one response is an editorial from a guy (not a climatologist) who also wrote an article called "Coal is Clean".  This is after he laments that "there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation."  Jesus...

    I understand it's easy to think you're enlightened and above it all when you stay in your echo chamber and only ingest info from people who already agree with you.  But to then lecture everyone else about propaganda and manipulation is just too much cunty condescension to ignore.

     

    1 hour ago, Longhornmaniac8 said:

    A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

    And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

    And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

    It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

    He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    I think it’s very informative that when I very obviously accused mop, who’s held to be some sort of concerned citizen by his fanatic right wing brethren, to be a sufferer of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, he chose the route of negging the accuser rather than refuting the accusation.

    He didn’t do that because he thinks it’s false; he did it because he knows it’s true and he’s too much of a chickenshit to admit it. If one were to roll his balls into a drinking straw, it’d look like two kernels of corn rolling through a storm drain.

  15. 11 hours ago, DixonHur said:

    The "evidence", as far as I can tell, consists of an inability to read a line chart, a creationist, and a writer with no science background.  So, I did evaluate it and decided it was BS.

    As would anyone else with an IQ greater than that of a lima bean

    • Like 1
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...