Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. You are correct if we are talking about right now. My point was that the Palestinians have hated the Jews and have been calling for their extermination almost throughout history. They have raised their children preaching violence and death to Jews for a long time. Certainly well before Israel or Netanyahu. No one can possibly understand all of the history between the two. Perhaps some hate of Jews is justified from history. But no hate is justification for calling for mass extermination of a group of people.
  2. I really disagreee with both of these points. On the first, your feelings are understandable in todays world where we are able to view everything in real time. Coupled with the fact that it really doesn't impact 99% of the people here (USA) personally. It is not our children and neighbors being killed. But imagine what the reaction would be to WWII say 4 months after D Day or after Dresden or during the bombing of Britain. War is hell on earth. Germany was indiscriminatetly killing civilians and, in turn, German civilians were getting killed in response. Imagine a bunch of people from Mexico calling the Allied forces barbarians when German civilians were killed. But Roosevelt and Churchill knew that a ceasefire against Hitler was pointless. He was never, ever going to stop. So "innocent" Germans were going to get killed. Hamas is never, ever going to stop killing Jews. Never. It would be great if Israel could eradicate Hamas in a week but that just isnt how it works. I hope it is quick and that the body count is low but Israel is not going to spare Hamas this time. On the second, I just don't think that sentiment reflects reality. It is 2023. The citizens of Gaza have cell phones and internet and all kinds of communication capabilities. Yet very, very few criticize Hamas publicly and, to my knowledge, none have given intel to outside organizations about tunnels and weapons. One can certainly argue that criticizing Hamas is dangerous but it is certainly less dangerous now as everyone sees everything now. Further, the Palestinians are taught in school at very early ages and taught at home to hate the Jews and that the Jews are the sole cause of every bad thing that happens to Palestinians. To be clear, I am not defending the Jews. I am saying that the Palestinian population, from their very childhoods, have had hate for the Jews ingrained into their very psyches. That is a mental cycle that is immensely hard to break. It is hard for me to comprehend the depravity required to use hospitals and schools as shields for tyranny. I don't think many Americans can understand this. Hamas literally hate Jews more than they love their fellow countrymen.
  3. sheeeit

    High

    That is a shockingly descriptive post.
  4. This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here. I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong. I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them. If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded. Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country." I do not think that is true. And Texas isn't the country. I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy. Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it? I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in. When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided. Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar. In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated. We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past. That is undeniable. Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy. Abortion- Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad. However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life. An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception. I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that. But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious. It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal. I can respect that argument. Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time. Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot. But attitudes change and our govt laws change. Gay marriage is legal everywhere now. Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening. Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did. If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them. If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights. LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out. I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person. I read over some of the bills you linked above. Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing. The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents. I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes. There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor. My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided. Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants. It is a brutal thing for them to deal with. Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation. But the subject needs to be treated carefully. I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped. When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it. However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues. To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy. We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.
  5. Your first paragraph is kind of making my point. It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion. It did not. The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory. And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life. You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision. There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group. Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc. They all give tons of money to their causes. On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief. I read your link and have read many other links. Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married. They can and they can get married in the church. What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs. That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not. You say there efforts to push legislation through. That is why I asked for specifics. Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.
  6. Appreciated. Lets start with abortion. I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now. Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt. I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible. That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find. No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard. Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins. We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary. It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position. But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal. On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific. Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties". It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted. If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious. Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately. Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking. I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written. No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides. I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past. Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses. Now we get to see and read everything. I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning. To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant. And, more importantly, you shouldn't. Religion is never, ever going away. It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction. The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence. The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far. But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.
  7. Good thread mostly. I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification. Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state? It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities. I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy. I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy. It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness. That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion. He might actually feel in his heart that this is true. He might just be saying it to gin up his base. I suppose only the author knows for sure. But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation. It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature. By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation. Not at all playing gotcha here. But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?
  8. Thank you! Now crack him on his knuckles and deny recess. I don't think I am the only one who sleeps better at night knowing you are out there protecting us from "improper use of quotations".
  9. Classic CR. Went back and read the whole thread. Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs. We need him on that wall.
  10. @Brisketexan @InkaUtexas I am having a really hard time understanding your positions here. You keep telling everyone that Musk is cozying up (affinity) with Putin/Russia and cares nothing about the people. Yet, he is essentially spending hundreds of millions personally to provide Ukraine with internet access via Starlink that every person with any knowledge of the situation has aid is absolutely vital to Ukraine's success. It has resulted in saving thousands of Ukrainian lives and led to the killing of thousands of Russian soldiers and caused Putin to lose massive amounts of money/power/influence etc in the world. The whole invasion could possibly topple Putin. Listen to what you posted and liked "Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want. " No one single person (and really many countries) has done more to oppose Putin/Russia in this invasion than Musk.
  11. This is so indicative of the attitudes of many like yourself. Maybe Musk is a horrible person. I dont know him. But your post is so stupid. First, he founded his first company (Zip2) with his brother and another guy in 1995 at 24 years old. They used angel funding of around $200K or so and 4 years later they sold the company and Musk personally made around $25M. More money than 99% of people will earn in their lifetime. Not even remotely "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent". From there he founded X.com with a few others which eventually morphed into Paypal and he sold out in 2002 and personally pocketed around $160M. 31 years old and a hundred plus millionaire, again, without even a shred of "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent". He very well may be a horrible person with no morality, but to suggest he wasn't extremely successful and a wildly successful businessman is just you being a petty, jealous fool. As for SpaceX and Tesla, he absolutely utilized govt money. But he didn't steal it. He asked for it and they gave it. Many, many if not most successful businesses started with some type of direct govt funding or SBA loans. I once advocated to short Tesla stock as I thought the numbers were fishy and I thought Musk was fishy. I did not think there was any way it would be successful long term. Yet, their latest reporting showed around $12B in operating profit and free cash flow of almost $7B (almost equal to the entirety of their current debt). It is actually remarkable. It could still fail as competition increases and margins fall but, by any business measure, Tesla is a resounding success.
  12. This is a fair point, but my thinking is that Ewers had a redshiort season in a great system with loads of talent. The issue is that we all saw what Card has to offer. If Ewers isn't noticably better right now than Card then we will likely have issues.
  13. Fantastic band. Pete was a pretty conflicted and complex guy but he is a true musical genius. Daltry is pretty great too but a poor man's Jagger.
  14. And this is why people stop coming here.
  15. This is why people come here.
  16. This is why people come here.
  17. One of my favorites from him. He said his daughter was arguing with him about something and said things were not fair. His response- you were born in the USA, white, smart and well off. You better pray things never start getting fair.
  18. sheeeit

    High

    While I appreciate all of the technical stuff on this thread, I really like the stoned posts better. I am feeling fan fucking tastic right now!!!!!!!!
  19. I can certainly see the perspective of your posts. Especially in hindsight. But, IMO, the "FDR knew the attack was coming and let it happen to galvanize the country" withers under scrutiny. We could debate this for 100 pages as historians have done for years but the following points are what seal it for me: 1) Carriers- At the time of the invasion, carriers were considered secondary to battleships for naval warfare. They were used much more for transport than active warring at the time. Obviously in hindsight, they were critical. Most of the conspiracy ideas come down to the carriers and radio intercepts (next point). As mentioned above, the carriers were not coincidentally missing from Pearl. They were all out on missions that had been in planning for a while and one (there were only 3 in the Pacific at the time) was in repairs and had been for months. Also, as recent intel has shown, Japan had a spy at Pearl giving them regular updates. Yamamoto knew on 12/5 that there were no carriers at Pearl. The spy gave them direct intel. He decided to attack anyway because they still figured that they could cripple the US fleet long enough to get strongholds around their supply lines. 2) Radio Intercepts- Contrary to current thinking, we really did not have word for word ability on Jap codes. But, most importantly, the Japs (just like us and every other military) would routinely send out false messages to try and fool us. The attack on Pearl could very easily have been an elaborate ruse designed to get us to pull back our defenses so that the Japs could take over the fuel routes that they desperately needed. We sort of knew where their ships were but not really and they could move around without detection. One of the reasons that our carriers were not at Pearl was because they were reinforcing bases that we thought were more likely to be attacked. 3) Audacity- Using carriers as attackers was relatively new in 1941 (interestingly neither Germany or Italy had a single carrier at the beginning of the war). Attacks from carriers were mostly short ranged and involved 6-10 aircraft. When the Japs used 6 carriers in a combined long range strike it was the first time in the history of war that it had been done. Trying to convince FDR and the military that Japan was going to do something so bold that had never even been contemplated before was a tough, tough sell and rightfully so. Japan used something like 350 aircraft in the strikes on pearl. No one in the world had ever seen anything like that before so it is not surprising that we did not plan for it. At the end of the day, we knew there were Jap ships near us and that an attack somewhere was likely and that war was likely inevitable. We also had the foolish (certainly foolish in hindsight) belief that Japan would make a declaration of war (as was customary at the time) and give us some time to prepare. FDR made mistakes and we got very, very lucky. But I will never ever believe that a US President would knowingly allow an attack on our troops and fleet. Ultimately the overwhelming industrial might of the US and our spirit were going to win any war but it probably should have been a lot harder and taken a lot longer to beat back the Japanese.
  20. I hear this a lot but just completely disagree. On 12/6/41 and before, there was deep disagreement about the war. Even after Pearl there was still opposition to the war. The opposition post Pearl was much smaller but it existed. There were near constant marches and protests in DC at the time, but no one really heard about them nationally. The difference is that in 1941 the crazies did not have a voice. The media, as it existed at the time, would rarely, if ever, give anti american voices a platform. But there were just as many extremists on each side of the political spectrum then as there are now. Perspective is really hard at times. We all saw mass protests and looting/burning etc in Portland. Seemed like the whole city was taken over. At its absolute peak there were about 1000 people involved. That represented .15% of the population of Portland. Crazies like Antifa, Proud Boys etc garner an oversized and undeserved percentage of news coverage in today's world but represent an almost statistically insignificant number of people. Obviously small groups can do great damage but they do not represent the actual morals and values of 99% of the country. If the US was directly attacked in some fashion where the actual fate of the country was at stake I firmly believe there would be millions of citizens lining up to fight.
  21. sheeeit

    CDC letter

    I actually think that if this statement was put out specifically for recruiting then it is an even dumber thing to do. Who are we kidding? Recruits are 17. They know the Head Coach and the coach specifically recruiting them. 95% have no idea who the AD is. You think they know the AD at OU, A&M, Alabama etc. No chance. The negative recruiting with this is also really easy. Any outside coach/recruiter will ask a current recruit why they would want to go to a program where the admin has to make excuses for the poor performance on the field. They will ask a recruit why so many highly rated and talented players that signed with Texas are no longer on the team. Other coaches will rightly call it a train wreck and that Sark will get fired soon enough just like their last few coaches. The elite and confident players needed to win already expect to get playing time wherever they go. They want to be developed. CDC is getting barraged with calls/texts/emails/tweets etc on what is wrong with Texas and what Is wrong with Sark. He is tired of answering the same question over and over and over. He put out a letter so people will stop contacting him. He will just refer them to the letter.
  22. sheeeit

    CDC letter

    Lol. So recruits watch the games and know the talent is lacking. The coaches tell the recruits directly almost daily that there are all kinds of opportunities to get meaningful playing time immediately but a nuanced letter from the AD that likely none of the recruits will ever see from a guy most of them have never even heard of is going to be the clincher for them signing. Shit maybe he is a genius.
  23. Quite possible. My dad said the very best port/duty or whatever it is called was Cuba.
  24. Interestingly, my dad was an officer on a ship (I think it was the Blandy) during the Cuban missile crisis. 13 Days was a pretty good movie about the crisis for those interested. It is almost impossible to explain what happened in those days to my kids today. They just can not imagine a world where no one knows anything about what the other side is doing.
×
×
  • Create New...