Jump to content

hayden_horn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    8879
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by hayden_horn

  1. I also love how in the league run in or cup quarters through finals, your opponents become stifling defenders in every passing lane, while you or your guys can't take the ball off anyone's foot and even if close to a passing lane nobody stops out. 

    I don't mind losing, I want to lose some games. I don't want to feel cheated when doing so.

    And I get what the game is doing I think. It wants me to learn all the fancy passes, tricky dribbling moves, etc, but I'm a father and husband. I can play maybe two matches per night. Semi pro is too easy but pro is stupid hard. Which is fine! Make it hard but make it equitable. My defenders should be doing equal to what theirs are doing. Difficulty should be a bit more complex than nerfing and hulking skills. 

  2. Just now, Ragnarok said:

    These boards have no serious discussion on them any more, if they ever did. It's just one long boring parody of liberal rage.

    well, except when you, johnny sack, tahoehorn, ttomterrific, el guapo, and any number of conservative posters post. this idea that you are somehow persecuted because there people unlike you on the board does not mean it is a circle jerk. this narrative stretches all the way back years to the other board. conservatives seem to think different philosophies and world-views mean that somehow they are being shouted down. no, people call out your shit because it's all fucked up. yes, that's run some conservatives off these boards, because it's impossible to defend the current shitshow with any semblance of dignity or self-respect.

    • Like 3
  3. 22 minutes ago, Kringelbert Fishtybuns said:

    The challenge was bad without any contact and would get a red now (more worthy of a caution back then), but Klinsmann had his arms flailed as Mozon dove in.  It was also the first video I found.  If you don't know Klinsmanns reputation as a flop, I don't really know how to respond.

    oh, i agree about the hysterics, and said as much in my post. i just didn't think that was as blatant as i've seen. now i know why that was the video was chosen, fair enough.

  4. 4 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    I don't think Trump meant to say all Latinos. I don't know what he actually believes, but there are other strong indications that he is a racist.

    I know it feels like a victory for the Trumpists who can actually be supported by the careful examination of what Trump said, but isn't that the problem? Trump says something outrageous or unclear, and his supporters have to dig and think and reach to put some type of positive spin on it. 

    We have a president who can't clearly express a thought. The paragraph in question here is a demonstration of how a president shouldn't sound: like an idiot. In fact, idiocy is sort of his defense here. Look how far back you have to go for the missing "context." Look how easy it is to hear him calling immigrants from the south animals. That's a problem. 

    Trumpists have to claim this as a victory: "I know it sounds like he said something really bad, but if you go back a few paragraphs, he seems to be talking about criminals."

    Sad.

     

    this is a very good point and appears to have been largely overlooked. 

    trump supporters, those on here and those pundits on the cable networks, always seem to have to find a way to stretch what trump says into some kind of positive context.

    in this instance, i'll grant that it is possible he was speaking strictly about ms-13. but it's not at all clear. he speaks generally about deporting illegals, then he shunts aside into his "animals" bit without a shred of context. now that could be because he was talking strictly about ms-13 gangsters, or it could be he was talking about all illegals crossing because they are poor or dirty or something, or it could be because he hates brown people.

    but the thing we're left with is we don't really know, do we? that's on him, 100%.

  5. 7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    DhF1QhSXkAAY3D-?format=jpg&name=small

    look at this douchebag who doubled up on the "y" nicknames. you don't double up on "y" nicknames. one is fine, two is full douchebag. or italian gangster.

  6. On 6/29/2018 at 9:27 AM, wildcat09 said:

    Republicans only ever need around 45% of House votes to win a majority in the House. Their advantage in certain states is even greater. That's no basis for legitimate representative government.

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government

    • Like 1
  7. 5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    What does it mean to "jam a justice through"?  Trump nominates some dude(tte), confirmation hearings commence, new Justice.  I don't think it will be perceived in any way as being out of the ordinary, and I don't think there will be much chance of contrasting it against the Garland stall as far as the average voter is concerned.

    because, and here's the fool in me again, i hope that the electorate will see the rank hypocrisy from the republican leadership.

  8. 11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Dems angling to make the midterms a referendum on the scotus. I actually think that is precisely the wrong play. The gop is dejected. Give trump the ability to float a nomination and you only give them a chance to rally with a good map

    i agree with this, but the inverse is also true. if the republicans go nuclear and jam a justice through, their november may be even uglier than i currently think it could be.

  9. 5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I think liberals are fucking nuts. Well classical liberals aren’t.  I’m basically one. But the modern left of victimhood, freebies and identity politics, yeah.  You all suck. 

    your use of the word "you" there is most curious. i don't really consider myself a liberal. i am for SOME policies that the democrats support, and i am for SOME polices that republicans embrace.

    i'm basically against everything this current cabal is doing to destroy america, i don't care what letter they claim. and when the democrats eventually go fucking crazy at the federal level, i'll be here still, probably speaking against their overreach. because the teams don't matter to me. the polices are what matters. but you don't care about that as long as your team is doing the winning. 

    • Like 3
  10. 3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I’ll be just fine either way.  I don’t live and die with politics.  I rarely discuss politics outside of this board.  I enjoy the liberal crying and gnashing of teeth.  Because I don’t really care for most liberals and think their policies are terrible.  

    oh we know you are far more against what you perceive as liberals than you are actually for anything, except yourself.

    • Like 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    He should.  He took a gamble that paid off and dragged his old saggy nuts across the face of the left. 

    because that's all that matters any more. what have we become? i suppose it was always inevitable. 

    you won't enjoy the pendulum effect when it goes the other way. your boys are paving the way for the democrats to act like fucking maniacs when they take control.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...