Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cacti

  1. Cacti

    Israel

    Sure. O.k. I’ll amend my comment; does this sound fair?
  2. Cacti

    Israel

    You mentioned the ‘backers’ of Israel. If you weren’t referring to America, to whom were you referring?
  3. Cacti

    Israel

    It sounds like you’re saying that Palestinians killing Israelis or even Americans (their backers), is not an act of terrorism and therefore should not be condemned. Is that a fair reading?
  4. Cacti

    Israel

    Even though Baruch Goldstein’s act of terrorism is celebrated by a small number of Jewish supremacists, the Israeli government condemned his murderous act, as did the vast majority of Israelis. According to Wiki, the Israeli government outlawed monuments to terrorists and they discourage those making pilgrimage to Goldstein's grave site. Contrast that with the Palestinian authorities purposefully naming public schools after terrorists, thereby giving them special status among the Palestinians. More than a dozen public schools are named in honor of Palestinians who murdered Israelis. The list includes—but is not limited to--Ali Hassan Salameh, Dalal Mughrabi, Abu Jihad, and Nash’at Abu Jabara. In Israel, a few crazies (your words), honor a murderer; in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian society in general has no reservations about honoring such criminals.
  5. This site compares—by state—teacher salaries, public school expenditures, math and science achievement, and much more. Some of the most interesting stats: Texas ranks in the 2nd quartile for 4th and 8th grade math and science performance. Not bad when one considers Texas ranks in the 4th quartile for expenditures per pupil and in the 3rd quartile for teacher salaries.
  6. The long list of “disproportionately affected” groups is intentional. It is so extensive that nearly everyone could claim that they are one of the aggrieved. Sort of like a physic reading—nearly every person can say, “Hey, they’re talking about me”. And that’s exactly why that language is included in the resolution.
  7. Dems are having an awful week --- and Howard Schultz is having a good one
  8. As the clip showed, Warren did indeed call out Maduro, so good for her. And thanks for the enlightenment. I’m sure we can agree that accurate information is always better than the alternative. What is not accurate, however, is your assumption that I get talking points from Fox. The one FNC program I used to watch was Special Report, and that was specifically for the commentary from Will and Krauthammer. And those two—especially since Trump was elected—were not exactly a gold mine from which to grab conservative talking points. You say that as if it’s a given. Are accusations/charges proof enough for you?
  9. Same here. These type of exchanges are a refreshing break from the usual discussions; discussions which often are nothing more than pictures, gifs, re-tweets, and one-line barbs.
  10. Is whataboutism still accepted as a defense? Trump—with all the seemingly justified accusations of corruption directed at him—is hardly in a position to accuse any leader. He certainly isn’t going to point the ‘corruption’ finger at any of the leaders you mentioned, nor is he going to call out Netanyahu. But then again, I don’t recall him saying that we should “call it out wherever it occurs.” Warren, on the other hand, said we should do just that. Fine. But why would she direct her corruption-threatens-democracy comments at Bibi (who is not a threat to Israeli democracy), while saying nothing about Maduro, or Duterte, or Erdogan (all of whom are a threat to local democracy)?
  11. Elizabeth Warren: It’s about time that she ‘called out’ Maduro.
  12. Maybe so, but that’s not a given. It’s entirely possible to win the Big 12 with a combination of a great offense and a bad/terrible defense; after all, Baylor was co-champions in 2014 with a defense nationally ranked at 51st and OU won the conference in 2017 and 2018 despite a defense ranking of 67th and 114th, respectively.
  13. Not too long ago, it was the left that criticized Will; now, most of the condemnation comes from the right. What his current-day critics don’t realize is that one can be to the left of Trump and still be a conservative, which George is.
  14. George Will agrees with you. Reality continues to leak from American life
  15. I don’t think it diminishes Brady at all if the Patriots lose. If fact, it was his performance in a loss—the Super Bowl loss to the Eagles last year—that sealed the deal for me. Philadelphia had a stout defense, limiting opponents to 18 points and 227 yard per game, yet Brady put up 31 points and he passed for an astounding 505 yards—again, against a very good defense.
  16. Cacti

    Damn Space, You Scary

    Causality in a quantum world
  17. So much this. In September 2017, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bill called the OFF Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act), a bill that would require 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (and 80 percent by 2027), place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, ban the export of oil and gas, and also move our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy. It has subsequently been folded into the Green New Deal, championed by Cortez. Trump’s base has been criticized for believing anything he says, no matter how preposterous. And there’s good evidence for that; for example, not a small number of people believed Donald when he said that Mexico would fund building a wall on our Southern border. And that’s just one example; there are plenty of others. But how can Gabbard—and more recently, Cortez, along with other Democrats—be taken seriously concerning energy matters when they make a claim that renewables can replace fossil fuels by 2035 (or even reduce our fossil dependence by 80 percent in 8 years)? What they propose is not possible, but that doesn't stop them from doing exactly what Trump does; that is, they’re making an appeal to a base of uncritical thinkers.
  18. Out of curiosity, what is it about you specifically that causes this everyday apprehension? Gender? Race? Other? And what proposed or pending legislation causes this fear of legal discrimination?
  19. You’ve previously said that our republic is already dead, and now you add the following comments. And your attitude isn’t “woe is us”?
  20. You guys are making a strong case as to why voter suppression is needed.
  21. There you (and your ‘Like’ partners) go again! You’re assuming that I’m a Trump supporter, all based on what you see as an erroneous assertion that Cortez, too, makes use of whataboutism (she does, but more about that later). But for now I’m more interested in the logic you used to determine that I support Trump. Talk me through it, if you will. And since you assume that I’m not too bright, please talk slow and don’t use big words. Again, you’re making an erroneous assumption—this time it is as to which twitter comment that I’m talking about. A few days ago, she said this: In effect, she’s saying that she was treated unfairly; that Ron Paul was given the benefit of the doubt, but she wasn’t. In other words, what about Paul? Was she treated differently because of her gender? Probably. Because of her skin color? Again, probably. But the point is not that she’s right; the point is that she used whataboutism to make her case.
  22. Pointing out that ‘whataboutism’ is not unique to Trump doesn’t indicate support for Donald nor is it an indication that any standards are being abandoned. Whataboutism is a comparison that is commonly used as a weak, but effective defense or distraction, and that’s exactly why Trump uses it often. But it is not hypocritical nor an abandonment of any principle to point out that Cortez and others—like you and me, for example—make frequent use of it. But the use of whataboutism isn’t in itself a bad thing, unless it is used solely to justify a dubious deed or position. Unfortunately, that’s the only way I’ve seen it used by politicians or by surly posters. There is however a constructive use of whataboutism, and that is when it is used to cause one to reevaluate a hypocritical position. Such an example can be found in John, chapter 8, verses 3-7, where Jesus used it effectively when he caused the Pharisees to silently admit their hypocrisy. tl;dr: I wish the word had never been coined.
  23. I don’t know if Murray could have wrecked the system, but he could have—and still could—throw a wrench in the selection process. All he had to do is wait until O.U. was selected for the playoffs, and wait until he won the Heisman, and then announce that he had decided to skip the game—for winter baseball or some such nonsense. Not only would O.U.’s chances of beating Alabama go from less-than-not good to no chance at all, but without the draw of Murry the TV ratings would hit an all-time low for a playoff game. Such an event would dominate college football talk for several months and just might lead to some changes...or not.
  24. Geez guy. Jimmyjaz says I’m pushing a stupid narrative; bad_teammate says I’m obsessed; Biff Tannen says something about fear (I’m assuming that was directed toward me); and you say I’m a shitbag. Just because you guys post on Surly doesn’t mean that you have to be surly at all times, under all conditions. And you really shouldn’t make the false assumption that I’m terrified of young women. I raised a daughter from the age of four through early adulthood—and I did so by myself due to some unfortunate circumstances. As a result I’m probably more familiar with the female demeanor than the average guy, and, despite being raised by a “shitbag”, she turned out to be a well-adjusted woman and a successful professional. As an aside, she is also quite liberal. Well, since this world prosperity was due to a massive gender gap—and the gender gap is the direct result of 10s of millions of men killing themselves off—shouldn't the men get the majority of credit?
  25. I wasn’t questioning the accuracy or motives of Perez’s statement when he said “she represents the future of our party.” Whether he was referring to her age, her ideals, her ethnicity—or all of those—is not the point. The point is that she has far-left views and out of all the left, far-left politicians that won, he singled her out. She was specifically named as a representative of the party’s future and, as such, is going to be a focal point both for praise (see Surly) and criticism (somewhere not Surly). By calling national attention to Cortez, Perez gave the GOP the ideal political focal point. ` Thanks for the clarification. Now, was this clarification is response to something I said? If so, a quote would be helpful.
×
×
  • Create New...