Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think he is trying to separate himself from Trump, but not the Trumpkins.  Skipping CPAC was part of that.   He's trying to establish a new standard of deplorable to follow.  Trump will not run again and he's going to be covered up in lawsuits and everything else coming at him.  Leaving a void, and Rafael figures to fill it.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

I think he is trying to separate himself from Trump, but not the Trumpkins.  Skipping CPAC was part of that.   He's trying to establish a new standard of deplorable to follow.  Trump will not run again and he's going to be covered up in lawsuits and everything else coming at him.  Leaving a void, and Rafael figures to fill it.  

Cruz, Desantis and the other various scum bags know Trump isn’t running again. That’s what this is about.

Edited by JimmyJames
Posted

There will never be another republican president of the United States. And rightly so. Because it would mean the end of the country. We already luckily somehow dodged that bullet. That won’t happen again.

Posted
Ted Cruz somehow thinks he can be president which is absolutely ridiculous. He’s battling Lindsey Graham for who is the biggest cuck cocksucker of Trump’s micro dick and at least ladybugs has the excuse that he’s gay.
Even hardcore trumplicans hate Ted Cruz but he’s apparently unaware of that fact. Or just doesn’t care because he’s a psychopath.
 
His own family hates him. He will die alone.
When?
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
There will never be another republican president of the United States. And rightly so. Because it would mean the end of the country. We already luckily somehow dodged that bullet. That won’t happen again.
Ha ha
Holy shit.
Pour me a glass of that Kool Aide

I put the odds of another one in 2024 at a smooth coin flip. A little global economic decline or a dip in the markets and the independents go R all hurr durr.
That group ways votes base on some blizzard of "feeling"

Feelings aren't predictable
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
6 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

 Leaving a void, and Rafael figures to fill it.  

Sure seems like it. I'd give him credit for paying attention to the plight of Cuban citizens except anyone thinking he is being altruistic here ought to pay more attention to his actions during a crisis....

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He’s the act you’ve known for all these years. Private bone spur’s criminal family band.  

Is that in the song?  I'll have to re-listen.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by Bullneck
Posted
1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

 

 

Wow.  Even though it had already started with his terrible beard, he looks so much worse now than he did even just a year go.  Insurrections must be a terrible stressor on your body and metabolism.  His outward ugliness is rapidly catching up to his soul and personality.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

Native Americans you racist fuckstain. And it’s because they don’t hate them that they changed the name.

If you didn’t find this offensive then you’re a racist too: 

Fanmats-6375-2T.jpg?v-cache=1621169438

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/24/2021 at 11:32 PM, dingleberryswitzer said:

What else is he gonna do?  Spend time with his wife and kids who are desperate for his attention?  Lol

Sadly it seems there are a number on this board who agree with Ted. I can’t remember who said it or in what thread but one guy actually came out and said the Indians name isn’t racist. Never mind what the Native American community says. He knows better. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Sadly it seems there are a number on this board who agree with Ted. I can’t remember who said it or in what thread but one guy actually came out and said the Indians name isn’t racist. Never mind what the Native American community says. He knows better. 

It is complicated because there is no monolithic Native thinking on the subject.
Posted

As a Braves fan, I gotta believe Atlanta is on the clock to change names. I know ownership claims they won't change it, but they all will eventually. Hope we do better than Guardians.

Posted
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Sadly it seems there are a number on this board who agree with Ted. I can’t remember who said it or in what thread but one guy actually came out and said the Indians name isn’t racist. Never mind what the Native American community says. He knows better. 

What bothers me the most is that people like Ted for example HAVE to have opinions about everything.  Like, does Ted Cruz (or the “number on this board”) actually give a shit about Cleveland’s baseball team?  
 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
As a Braves fan, I gotta believe Atlanta is on the clock to change names. I know ownership claims they won't change it, but they all will eventually. Hope we do better than Guardians.

I like The Fighting Stacey Abrams myself.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Blotto said:

As a Braves fan, I gotta believe Atlanta is on the clock to change names. I know ownership claims they won't change it, but they all will eventually. Hope we do better than Guardians.

Lets Go Waiting GIF by Kathryn Dean

Posted
4 hours ago, Blotto said:

As a Braves fan, I gotta believe Atlanta is on the clock to change names. I know ownership claims they won't change it, but they all will eventually. Hope we do better than Guardians.

Crackers is still up for grabs.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

Crackers is still up for grabs.

If we're gonna go that direction, I'd prefer cracka-ass crackas. replace the tomahawk chop with a dance move pantomiming asking to speak with the manager.

ES_VICTORIA_SECRET_KAREN_COMPOSITE2.jpg?

Edited by Blotto
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Blotto said:

As a Braves fan, I gotta believe Atlanta is on the clock to change names. I know ownership claims they won't change it, but they all will eventually. Hope we do better than Guardians.

Eventually the animal rights people are gonna come after the Spurs too. 

Posted
4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

There’s no defense of Chief Wahoo. 

That is a perfect strawman attempt, disguised as a witty quip, mixed with a little self-righteousness.  

All I said was that the Indian term is complicated because some communities did not find it offensive.  That you pivoted to Chief Wahoo clearly demonstrates you are emotionally invested here and not your usual clear thinking self. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

That is a perfect strawman attempt, disguised as a witty quip, mixed with a little self-righteousness.  

All I said was that the Indian term is complicated because some communities did not find it offensive.  That you pivoted to Chief Wahoo clearly demonstrates you are emotionally invested here and not your usual clear thinking self. 

That’s a weak argument. Do you need unanimity from the Native American community in opposition to the Indians name before you accept that it’s a bad nickname? What gives you the right to judge? Are you a member of a Native American tribe? Because there are Native Americans who oppose it and yes, if you don’t find Chief Wahoo offensive, there is something wrong with you. That’s not a straw man. You’re just blind. 

Posted
That’s a weak argument. Do you need unanimity from the Native American community in opposition to the Indians name before you accept that it’s a bad nickname? What gives you the right to judge? Are you a member of a Native American tribe? Because there are Native Americans who oppose it and yes, if you don’t find Chief Wahoo offensive, there is something wrong with you. That’s not a straw man. You’re just blind. 

That is not accurate at all. A strawman is when you frame and argument that someone didn’t say. So in your example, I made a comment about the term Indian is not settled because it is not a monolithic group.

You went on about Chief Wahoo and how that is wrong, offensive, when the conversation was about the term Indians. That is the definition of a strawman. If my reply was, “Well, I think it is wrong to put puppies in ovens” I would be making just as an absurd statement, also a strawman. Because we are not talking about puppies and ovens, and you did not say anything about puppies in ovens.

So let me make it more complicated. I knew a woman who grew up on an Indian Reservation. Should I have corrected her when she told me that?

I usually just go with the flow because I have been around, travelled a little, and met people that seem to prefer different titles.

*The Seminoles refer to themselves as both Seminole Tribe and Seminole Indians on their own website. Feel free to tell them they are wrong.
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:


That is not accurate at all. A strawman is when you frame and argument that someone didn’t say. So in your example, I made a comment about the term Indian is not settled because it is not a monolithic group.

You went on about Chief Wahoo and how that is wrong, offensive, when the conversation was about the term Indians. That is the definition of a strawman. If my reply was, “Well, I think it is wrong to put puppies in ovens” I would be making just as an absurd statement, also a strawman. Because we are not talking about puppies and ovens, and you did not say anything about puppies in ovens.

So let me make it more complicated. I knew a woman who grew up on an Indian Reservation. Should I have corrected her when she told me that?

I usually just go with the flow because I have been around, travelled a little, and met people that seem to prefer different titles.

*The Seminoles refer to themselves as both Seminole Tribe and Seminole Indians on their own website. Feel free to tell them they are wrong.

It’s not a straw man to say that Native American groups have made complaints about the Indians name. That’s a fact. Have all of them done so? I don’t know. I don’t think it matters. How many should it take before you’d agree they should change the name?

I don’t think there’s any rational defense of Chief Wahoo. Against anyone who wants to defend the Indians name or the Chief Wahoo logo, I’m certain I’m standing on higher ground.

Find a Native American group defending the Indians name and we can discuss it further.

Posted
6 hours ago, Nivek said:

That is a perfect strawman attempt, disguised as a witty quip, mixed with a little self-righteousness.  

All I said was that the Indian term is complicated because some communities did not find it offensive.  That you pivoted to Chief Wahoo clearly demonstrates you are emotionally invested here and not your usual clear thinking self. 

I'm pretty sure that being erroneously accused for centuries of smelling like curry while simultaneously also being unable to grow a sweet 'stache that it is at least on the table.

Posted
7 hours ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

Eventually the animal rights people are gonna come after the Spurs too. 

Over my dead fucking body they will

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

How many people in a group need to be offended by a team name to get one changed? 

I object to the Houston Texans' team name representing me, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4


×
×
  • Create New...