Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    14248
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. 1 minute ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

    Nice to show your self jerk off sock - do you keep forgetting what account you are logged in on?

    What is sickening is that you would hope that we lose Americans.  I don't care if you agree with the war or not but to hope Iran would win is absolutely fucking shit.  If you like them so much why don't you pack some fucking bags and move to Iran.    

    He's a shitty poster but he also didn't explicitly say he hopes Americans die. But since you're basing it on deaths, please explain to me why American military lives are inherently more valuable than Iranian lives (a non-zero number of which would be civilians). In your case a lot of it has to do with serving in the Armed Forces, knowing current military personnel, etc.

    But from an objective perspective, why are American soldiers' lives more valuable than Iranian lives?

    Stop and actually think about it. War fucking sucks. While Fozzz in particular is just a troll, I have a feeling that bad_teammate's perspective is based on that notion. And if we agree that war fucking sucks then it is not an inherently faulty position to hope that the defenders defeat invaders in any particular war as that is more likely to reduce the future number of wars.

    Me personally, I hope nobody dies and the two little dick administrations stop being middle school dipshits.

    • Like 3
  2. On 6/18/2019 at 12:27 PM, retread said:

    Return of Freedom Fries? :crossesfingers::

    What was the last war we fought to actually defend our freedom?

    We are told constantly that soldiers are overseas defending our freedom but that's generally horseshit. Let's start with World War II as the basis, because while there is always someone who will argue otherwise, Japan and Germany viewed themselves as threats to our freedom and we were attacked on our home soil. Done and done, that was a war fought to protect our freedom (and really to protect the world).

    So somebody explain to me which conflict we've been in since then that was actually fought to defend our freedom over here. Liberty and security are not the same thing. Fighting to protect our safety is not necessarily fighting to protect our freedom. If there is an enemy we've fought that actually had any chance at the capability to conquer us and institute a new government and/or imprison us then that's clearly a threat to our collective freedom.

    Was the Bay of Pigs invasion viewed as necessary to defend our freedom? Obviously in retrospect not really, but was that the thinking at the time? I need some military history folks to educate me here.

    • Like 1
  3. 10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Good luck proving that negative.  I guess evidence that Boren was in another state would do.  Other than that, ???

    "As you can see from these detailed records, my client could not possibly have been harassing and assaulting the plaintiff on this date as he was elsewhere harassing and assaulting an entirely different young man at that time."

    • Like 1
  4. On 6/14/2019 at 10:19 PM, bad_teammate said:

    electability is a myth and policy-through-compromise is another

    Agreed

    glad to have you on board

    Ha, I've always been on that train, sir. The fact that you and I differ on numerous principles doesn't mean we can't both recognize this problem. 

    As long as the people discussing politics have sincerely held beliefs and approach things from that perspective then the debate can be fruitful and even educational. As soon as the discussion veers off course into electability and political compromise for policy purposes it's gone from discussing social benefit and instead it's more about game theory and Go! Team! Go!

  5. 3 minutes ago, alincoln said:

    The pool of women's teams is way too shallow. 

    Something fucked up happened in the Asian qualifying that led to Thailand making it instead of North Korea (which would have been competitive). Thailand made the Women's World Cup by beating Palestine, Taiwan, Jordan and the Philippines.

    The third CONCACAF bid should have gone to UEFA.  Jamaica is horrid.  The US and Canada had GDs of +24 and +23, respectively in their 4 CONCACAF qualifiers.  

    Weird draw.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_AFC_Women's_Asian_Cup_qualification

    Had to win the group or be runners-up in Jordan's group (Jordan hosted the finals). North Korea was put in a separate pot because they were hosting the qualifying rounds and they got drawn with South Korea. Essentially North Korea missed a shot at the World Cup because they beat India 8-0 instead of 10-0 and Hong Kong 5-0 instead of 6-0.

    I'm sure the North Koreans are one women's team who thought everyone whining about the USA's goal onslaught against Thailand should have shut the hell up.

    • Like 1
  6. 18 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

    So I have to ask...because it's not said here.  Did Tom call 911 when he saw this guy?

    Because if he chose the picture over calling....well...I really hope that's not the case.  If it is, fuck him.

    lulz

    I think firing at a federal courthouse accomplishes much more than calling 911 would when it comes to alerting law enforcement responders.

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  7. Win me back? What the fuck are you talking about? When has my ranking ever been anything other than 1) Bernie, 2) Warren?
    You guys should try having beliefs and goals. That way you don't have to constantly vacillate between which personality grabs you the hardest in the moment and you'll stop basing your beliefs off of how much you dislike the supporters of other candidates.
    This is true. Too many people have no guiding principles or beliefs these days. Lots of Democrats worrying only about electability and potential ability to enact policy by reaching compromise are basically the other side of the TahoeHorn coin and don't even realize it.
    • Like 1
  8. Are there any reports on whether the infield was playing a little deeper because of the no-hitter and assuming nobody would bunt? That's the kind of bullshit that pisses me off. When Schilling whined like a little bitch his infield had backed up because they thought the stupid unwritten rules meant the opponent wouldn't bunt. That cheapens a no-hitter. If the defense is trying to take advantage of the unwritten rules to achieve a rigged result then the opponent should shove those rules right up their ass with a bunt base hit. Just like Lipka did.

    The reason that no-hitters and even moreso perfect games are so revered is because the concept is that you got 27 outs where the opponent was 100% trying to get a hit (or get on base) every single plate appearance. So when people say that the unwritten rules mean you can't bunt your way on after the 6th or 7th inning in a no-hitter or perfect game they're full of shit. Why the fuck would I be as impressed by a no-hitter or perfect game in a situation where the batters have willingly taken away one of their weapons in trying to get on base? I wouldn't, because that's not as impressive.

    And no, I don't care if the score is 9-0 with 2 outs in the 9th. If the batter is sacrificing one of his weapons in getting on base then he's an idiot. If the defense is not playing it straight because of those unwritten rules and he doesn't take advantage then he's even more of an idiot. I'm waiting for the day where a dead pull left-handed hitter comes up in the 9th inning of a no-hitter and the defense plays a major shift. Fuck you, I'm bunting in that situation.

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...