-
Posts
4213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by pyrohornIII
-
-
9 hours ago, Celery Man said:
Well, echo chamber, weak net banking system, etc. However, the point stands that even among the Cruz supporters who have waded in, its been maybe literally 100% name talk, dui talk, “burglary” talk (at times fabricated from the factual charge of burglary that represented trespassing to “he was convicted of home invasion”), California money, etc. Not a bit of what is good about Cruz. Maybe there has been some edging into that with gun control talk, although even that has been centered around misrepresentations of Beto’s stance.
Don't forget (((Soros)))
-
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:
I believe most of the republicans in here don’t think much of Cruz and can’t defend his record or actions. Cruz’s main and only value is that ultimately votes with trump and McConnell 100% of the time. And you can say that only so many times.
a few Cruz supporters post on this thread from time to time. I imagine a whole bunch of them will come back on Election Day gloating when Cruz most likely wins.
Just like the BK thread the past few days.
-
texas 52
baylor 17
-
2 hours ago, Tired of Lurking said:
But he's young and relatable and who else can sell Austin better than a dorky white dude with a faux-hawk and hipster glasses?
avatar checks out
-
-
-
Another plot twist
-
2
-
-
hosting a beto popup office
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:
Sorry this might be a dumb question, but are they registering people to vote during those Beto rallies on college campuses?
It would probably help. I bet a lot of those kids aren’t registered. A good rule of thumb for democrats is “the higher the turnout, the better.”
Yes. They have trained and put in the field a lot of volunteer voting registrars. I bet they had 30 there at Rudder. Most of the block walker groups have a registrar close by if needed.
Watch the Willie video, they had tables set up all over and blue balloons aloft over each to help people find them.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Foosters said:
Do you have a learning disability? A person's sworn testimony is evidence and is enough to convict. If you are still having trouble with the concept, I can try and break it down further but I'm not sure there's much more I can do.
I think he was trying to be clever with me since I said Icono's allegations against Soros should be held up as proof. And I am still waiting on the goods on Soros, not just regurgitated Fox sound bites.
-
6 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:
Soros is hated in Israel too. With regard to Israel, all he has said that “it has a right to exist”. He is a leftist who supports open borders and agitates against nationalists all over the globe. Fuck him
Again, no proof, only accusations. What I expected.
-
32 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:
Spare me with anti-Semitic crap when it comes to Soros. He doesn’t identify as a Jew and his ethnicity is not mentioned by me or anyone else here when discussing one of the most evil men in the world. Plenty of Jews hate him too including my friend greggym.
Still waiting on what makes him "one of the most evil men in the world" All kidding aside, it is unsupported statements like this that by the right that have put Soros into the role of Universal Bogey Man. Nobody knows what he did to deserve this supervillain status, and we don't really have time to explain it to you, so just accept it and move on with life.
It's like somehow a branch of the Q crap that has been chosen to be legitimized by the right. Maybe because so much of his works are global and not solely in the US, so he can be demonized easier, since we don't pay much attention to what goes on outside our borders?
So yes, you guys keep touting how all the accusations against BK are asinine and false. Please give me credible evidence that Soros is the monster you claim him to be, or STFU.
-
10 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:
I know that if you turn in a tax cheat to the feds, you are entitled to some "reward". Does anybody know if that is true for NY state or NYC taxes? If so, would the NYT be getting paid?
Would they get paid enough to not be failing any more?
-
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:
Oh, my epitaph is gonna have a LOT more words in it than that...ISWYDT
-
I'm in. Gotta wonder if they ever did one Eastwood movie without that little sideways squinty eyed grimace/stare. Not that I don't like it, just seems like his signature.
-
1 minute ago, retread said:
I guess he's too busy with Russia
Funny how all that talk has died down, right? Almost like this BK diversion was all planned by someone, huh?
-
2 hours ago, Mack Tripper said:
The Rs will get what they want this weekend and there's still four weeks to the election.
I expect our mailbox to start filling up with all kinds of unfounded shit I will call dark matter, from the dark money interests during the next 4 weeks. They tend to put things out there leaving little to no time to refute anything. I wonder when the SC ruling on doxxing those behind the dark money will be activated.
-
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:
it really is this basic.
you don't have to believe dr ford, or the gang bang lady or the ramirez lady.
he is a fucking lying partisan piece of shit. period.
"what goes around comes around" <- right there by itself is disqualifying.
He just hasn't come off as wise nor mature through all this. That is what we expect of our highest judges of the land. Like someone else said, the other justices are not going to be too happy with him and how all this has tarnished their reputations or the reputation of the SC.
-
24 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:
The way I wrote how someone can come to think this way, was by giving the premise that one believes it to be false, so the false stands in the first point. Reread the premise:
if you tend to think in terms of "probably didn't happen that way, no proof and 'not buying it'", then you look at it in the following light:
- Kav was falsely accused of something horrendous.
You are right, I didn't read the preamble that way the first time. I was more engaged with the idea that people lean a statement one way or the other without having proof. But there is a lot of that going on right now, in all arenas.
-
16 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:
"We got ours....and I'm happy to mend fences and work with whoever.....when we lose control after the mid-terms!!!"
ran outta rep. That's exactly how it came across to me.
-
46 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:
So here is, what is to me, a compelling argument for those like Hayden who are Anti-Kavanaugh because of Decorum:
Start first with whether you instinctively believe in the brand of sex assault/rape that Kav was accused with, if you tend to think in terms of "probably didn't happen that way, no proof and 'not buying it'", then you look at it in the following light:
- Kav was falsely accused of something horrendous. It's one of the worst things a man can be falsely accused of. There is probably a bit of subconscious sympathy built in right there.
- Kav responded in a very emotional way; the way a man would if he was being railroaded and falsely accused of rape/sexual assault
- Kav has had like a decade or longer as a Federal Judge. There is plenty of film on him as a judge that his judicial decorum can be extrapolated from and can tell the real tale of the tape as far as if he's fit or unfit demeanor-wise.
- This is as opposed to trying to say, "See! He freaked out after being accused of something horrible that could ruin his life so he won't continue to be a great judge!"
Now, if you believe he did sexually assualt this woman, then the calculus changes. Which is why I think the lynchpin is on the issue of, do you think Kavanaugh did this or not. Which to further drill down is basically, do you believe in the modality of Guilty until proven Innocent (at least in this case) or the Innocent until proven Guilty?
You could just as easily say he was accurately accused of these things since there is no evidence one way or the other. He was simply accused, to throw in "falsely" is nearly subliminal in its slant of things. I can understand the use of the term in the second point, because he is defending himself from something he supposedly knows first hand did not happen.
I think his "freak out" has more to do with a display of a lack of self awareness on his part. His inability to put himself in the shoes of those accusing him, trying to see it from their standpoint and then rebutting it with logical reasoning would have done him much more good than throwing that tantrum. To separate from himself and judge himself, then develop a defense, that is what I feel he should have done. I think the country is tired of the tantrums, after all this time with Trump, or at least a good deal of us are.
-
1
-
42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
But I don't believe in absolute democracy. I believe in the representative republic, with three branches of institutional government, that we organized under the Constitution. That's something that protects against governance by the whim of the people and/or tyranny of the majority. That's a good principle to have no matter which "side" is in power as of a given moment.
This. If we have anything close to a 50/50 nation and election, and govern only for the extremes, then we lurch from guardrail to guardrail, smashing into them with increasing force until we eventually break through and go over the edge. I don't mind if we periodically drift into the right lane. I don't mind if we periodically drift into the left lane. So long as we stay in a lane and on the road. The government governs ALL the people. Right now, we have created a mindset that there are two classes of citizens: the victorious and the subjugated. That is anathema to our system, and is a recipe for destruction from within. And the currently "victorious" are celebrating that with glee. I don't want the subjugated to become the victors, and make the same play (although goddamn, it's really hard to fight that temptation a lot of times, and I do give in to it). I want the governed to be the governed -- for the benefit of "we the people."
But, I ain't getting what I wished for. The die has been cast. Lurching from guardrail to guardrail is the only future we have in front of us....
I agree with this. I would say though that the whole liberal vs conservative arguments are a smokescreen for what is really going on which is the making of money and the manipulation of the government to further that goal. It's not our concepts (left/right) that are going to kill our nation, but the greed for power and/or money.
I like your driving down the road analogy, but I'm pretty sure our destination has become muddled. I think after WW2 we were able to use the Marshall Plan to build this image of Big Brother/Policeman to the rest of the world. Battling the evil communist movement. I know that arguments exist that we used that cloak of goodwill to basically rape smaller defenseless countries, but still at home a lot of Americans were hearing only the good things, the Red Cross, Unicef, poaching defense funds, the sally struthers adopt a kid thing. And that largesse was in our own country. Cal Farley's Boys Ranch was an annual check. We felt good, because we had full plates, and we shared. That is what made America great, not isolationism, not bullying your allies and cozying up to old nemeses. But that is what Trump is saying, and people are buying into it. Their plates aren't full anymore, though not many of them look to be starving.
So yeah, I am not sure what road we are on anymore...where we are headed, or want to be headed. Regardless though, through all the muddle someone who doesn't need anymore money is making money through all this. Lots of money.
Until we get serious campaign reform in place, we are destined to watch our representative republic die a slow death.
-
28 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:
If you believe in democracy above all else, then technically they should....
But we don't have a purely representative democracy. We have electoral colleges, gerrymandering, superdelegates and other mechanisms to deter the popular vote.
-
It's interesting to see the gender breakout of donors to these two candidates.
Cruz has 2 men donating for every 1 woman, and Beto has more women contributing than men. cruz donor demographics O'Rourke donor demographics
While Beto has more women than men, the men usually donate more, which shows more money coming from men than women. But there are more women, they just donate less.
Like so many have stated in this thread of wives, daughters, mothers, female friends getting energized to vote, I am sure this is part of what has TC running scared. This unknown of previously inactive voters showing to not only be awake, but donating, wearing tees, getting active has to be frightening to them. While the red side can only push their base to the polls, it is limited in size. On the other hand, the blue side has a lot of potential for growth. That scares the TC campaign and energizes many of us.
That website https://www.opensecrets.org/ is a interesting site. A lot of it is way over my head, so if anyone has a link to a documentary or article that can explain PACs., superPACs, 527s and the like to me, I would appreciate it.
I found that site when I searched for a group called Community Health Counsel PAC. Got a call from them this morning for a donation, something about influencing legislation for breast cancer. These type of groups never have a website you can go to, they want to send you a envelope and have you send back a check, or do it by card over the phone. I just keep asking for a website, then i got the spew about CHCPAC. No website, but it took me to OpenSecrets.
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but they raised $772,000, but spent $694,000 on fundraising. CHCPAC summary
I could be wrong, but that site is pretty interesting anyway for rummaging through.
Real Issues
in Cloak Room
Posted
I live in a small town that has one little donut shop. I asked the lady what they did with all their leftover donuts and such. She said they had to throw them away now. Can't even feed them to pigs. She used to donate the surplus to the nursing homes in the neighboring town but they can't do that anymore due to Texas Health codes. I could see that for food that had meat in them, or eggs..but plain breads? I imagine there are other regulations that prevent others from donating excess goods as well.
Anybody know where most of the mental health money spent by the state goes? Or goes through?