Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12111
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. Considering I predicted something like Cruz by 4-6 a while back, the fact that R pollsters have him up by 10 and O'Rourke has it for him by 2 reinforces my preconceptions so my confirmation bias is feeling pretty good right now.

    • Haha 1
  2. Do you really think that's on the same level as when you were screaming at everyone that Sabrina Erdely's story in Rolling Stone should be believed without hesitation and if someone didn't believe it then they were misogynistic rape enablers? Seems to me like the tone was a bit different here, but that may just be me.

    But Hugo's right that the focus should be elsewhere. At least in this thread.

    • Like 1
  3. 32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    His film was the best in that class outside of VY.  He also played wr for Lindale

    He had 6 sacks in 8 games as a backup in 2003.  And a 30 plus yard td on a fumble recovery against Baylor.  It was a very athletic play. 

    Losing him hurt our 2004 and 2005 teams. We were thin at DE and had no one who could rush the passer like he could.  

    Well I wouldn't say it hurt them considering we scored zero points in the only game we lost during those two seasons.

    Although I suppose two fumble returns for touchdowns against Oklahoma in 2004 could have happened.

    • Like 1
  4. See but it wasn't funny this time because he and I aren't actually arguing like you and I argue sometimes. We're trying to have a substantive discussion in this forum so it might seem weird and strange, but it's not really an argument.

    I suppose I'm being too uptight about it but when somebody actually wants to talk policy, logic, and consequences I'd prefer to ride it out as long as I can.

  5. Just now, G650 said:

     

    You mean you guys don't hangout and debate Locke's Second Treatise on Saturday nights?

    You'd be surprised that every few weeks someone tries to start a conversation like that. Fortunately most of the husbands are on my side in terms of not talking about it so we ignore the two guys who try to start those conversations, or we all happen to get up to get another beer right at that moment.

    During election season I just don't hang out with the group for a month or two. Problem solved.

    • Like 2
  6. The Comstock quote lines up with my anecdotal data. My wife is a college educated suburban woman who has been apolitical for her entire adult life. She's now in a message group with about a half-dozen area friends who have been similarly apolitical but have discussed their various reasons to start voting Democrat this year and have agreed to all do so.

    I think it's likely maybe 3 of them even show up to vote but we'll see. And I was sworn to secrecy after my wife left the conversation up on the computer because apparently a couple of the women don't want their husbands to have any clue about the discussions even happening. I thought that was crazy but didn't take much to convince me to stay quiet. I don't talk about politics or religion with anyone around here as most of them would understand classical liberalism even less than voting Democrat.

  7. 5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    *whispering to Hugo*

    "Call him Cuckleberry."

    It's funny that you think name-calling bothers people. Your only effective moments in this forum are when you argue ideas but for some reason you can't manage to stay on task.

  8. 6 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

    But aren't their parents citizen of a country? Or is assertion that in the course of coming to US and having a child that they have renounced their prior citizenship?

    Perhaps there should be different Jus soli rules based on the parent's situation. If you are truly a refugee (say from Syria eg) you are treated differently than someone coming to a birth hotel from China.

    It is complicated, but I think there is a way to improve current process.

    I am enjoying back and forth here. Like I mentioned above I am not a Trump fan/supporter and I do see him positioning this as nothing more than noise.

    I do believe however there is an opportunity to improve this current part of the 14th amendment.  Challenge is how to do it while not further disenfranchising those truly in need/punishing children etc

    The problem is that while the world is growing more global, the laws of the nations vary greatly.

    China, for example, revokes citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation. So if a Chinese couple illegally emigrates to the United States, has a child before they become naturalized US citizens, then becomes US citizens shortly thereafter there is a good chance that the child will not be a citizen of either nation under some of the proposed plans discussed here today. China would be unlikely to recognize that child as a Chinese citizen and the child would have been born here to non-citizen parents.

    Multiply this by the millions of occurrences that would continue to take place no matter what the law is (the United States is still an attractive destination for those living under oppressive regimes) and you end up with millions of stateless people living in your country. And let's not pretend for even a moment that an easy path to citizenship would be opened up for those people. The entire reason that this discussion is happening is because one half of the nation wants fewer people to be able to gain citizenship here.

    • Like 2
  9. You are considering the more global society exactly backwards.

    Jus soli makes more sense in a global society, not less. Unless you're a big fan of millions of people in a country being stateless, not being full citizens with full rights, getting angry, getting radicalized, and becoming violent. Because that's what would happen.

    • Like 2
  10. 3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    If true, these are pretty incredible numbers if the olds have actually decreased (at least in turnout %) from 2014.  I look forward to reading his report and I hope he explains how he knows this info.   To my knowledge, counties are not distributing this info.  I don't even know if they are supposed to calculate it for themselves.

    He's not saying older voters have decreased. That's a 96% increase. So if at this point in 2014 10,000 voters 65+ had voted then this year so far 19,600 have voted.

    But if at this point in 2014 there had been 10,000 voters under 30 then this year so far there have been 60,800.

  11. 2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    "President overturns 2th amendment via Executive Order." ???

     

    1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Yep.  Some future D will do this and the R's will have Trump to thank for the inspiration.

    giphy.gif

    • Like 2
  12. Just now, sushihorn said:

    US exports of goods are DOUBLE exports of services.  California is focusing on the virtual world while their real world crumbles around them.  The state is ranked 2nd worst in infrastructure (#49 out of 50) by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2017.  This it embarrassing for a state that once had a model road system.  We've seen similar declines in the public schools of CA over the last 30-40 years.  California is a state that is consuming its accumulated capital and failing to replace it.

    US export ratio seems fairly irrelevant. IF California were no longer a part of the United States then their exports would be pretty heavily concentrated toward the remaining part of the United States, of course. And that would be a heavy, heavy dose of IP and services. Interstate sales from California become international exports in that scenario so acting like the current US export ratio would apply to the remaining United States' consumption of California exports is pretty questionable.

  13. 13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

    They thought long and hard about using PAC money with which to do it.  Because they called our bank to inquire about it.  

    Nevermind, Beto is gonna win.  I shouldn't have brought up supporting a particular Senate candidate on a thread about Senate candidates.  

    Go Robert!  

    Libertarians get votes when the Republican candidate sucks ass. Democrats encourage liberty-minded Republican voters to vote Libertarian when they point out that the Republican candidate is shitty. The only thing Democrats need to do to get some voters to vote L instead of R is to point out that the R is terrible. The ones who vote L instead of R are almost never going to vote for the Democrat. Some will, sure, but not many.

    Take me for example. I voted for O'Rourke and it was my first vote for a Democrat for national office in my life. I've voted Libertarian for national office for decades. Splitting control of Washington while simultaneously removing power from the current version of the GOP was my goal. But maybe if I'd learned more about Dikeman and liked what I learned I maybe just might have voted for him instead of O'Rourke.

    Your analysis is flawed because you are worrying about a very rare creature. The quantities are so small that it doesn't really matter. There are just as many liberty-minded people like me who are willing to vote against a Trump ass-kissing charlatan like Ted Cruz by actually supporting his Democrat opponent as there are those who would leave Cruz for Dikeman. The reward is not worth the risk.

    • Like 2
  14. 4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    So no benefits?

    Other than elimination of stateless individuals, extreme promotion of immigrant assimilation into American society, defending and ensuring the idea that American society should not be based on bloodlines, and promotion of immigration you're right that there aren't benefits.

    That last one will blow your mind, I'm sure, because you don't realize that immigration is a good thing.

    • Like 3
  15. The President you voted for publicly states he is going to attempt a blatant violation of the Constitution and your stinging rebuke is, and I quote, "Bad idea jeans." Way to take him to task, man, your integrity is unrivaled.

    • Like 7
  16. On 10/10/2018 at 8:34 AM, bernorange said:

    * sigh *

    https://articles.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/10/policing_for_profit_debate_con.amp

    "It's too complex for Twitter or a 30-second TV ad," said state Sen. Dick Brewbaker, R-Pike Road, who is not running for re-election this year. "If you bring it up, you're likely to be misunderstood."

    What a moron. Seems like we have a phrase that people have heard that covers this.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    The government doesn't get to take citizens' shit until and unless they're proven guilty. The end.

    • Like 1
  17. 52 minutes ago, Js1 said:

    The Democrats should pretty much just say it's unconstitutional and would be overturned and go back to talking about health care for the next 7 days.

    What they should actually do is spend the next week blasting that statement by Trump to minorities (particularly Latinos, obviously) all over the country and scare them into thinking that this might literally be their last chance to vote EVER if they don't vote against Republicans.

    Fear-mongering has worked for decades on the other side. Stop trying to rise above if you want to win.

    • Like 6
  18. You act like he's coaching at PissAnt State making mid 6 figures and the NFL would be some huge raise in salary. He's making $25mill over 5 years and that is without any experience before this as a head coach. OU will make sure he is compensated very generously for staying around, especially if he stays on the same track he is so far. How much would Cleveland be willing to pay him? I am pretty sure OU would match that and then some.
    You seem like you're unaware that Saban was one of the highest paid coaches when he left LSU. He was making about a million less than a top 5 NFL coach at the time. Just like Riley is now.

    The money is good enough for a guy who wants to test himself in the NFL. His salary and success at Oklahoma is irrelevant. It all comes down to whether or not he wants to coach in the NFL and nothing else.
  19. Those of you incredulous that Riley would bolt to the NFL seem to be forgetting that some guys just want to test themselves at that level and flaming out in the league while pocketing a shitload of money doesn't exactly kill your NCAA value.

    Devil in Tuscaloosa should have told you.

×
×
  • Create New...