Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It doesn't help that like 75% of the conservative voices are actually just 2 different trolls who keep making new accounts and rightfully getting negged for troll bullshit.

Oh come on, there's like 7-8 of them. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, bolverk said:

My rule is to only neg: 1) lies, 2) trolling, and 3) bigotry. If someone comes in here and can't avoid doing one of those three things, they're not worth talking to.

I’m not sure what this says about me, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually negged anybody except for the cycle. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
55 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m not sure what this says about me, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually negged anybody except for the cycle. 

I’m not a real big fan of “negging” on principle.  I think it’s useful for crowdsourcing but otherwise it’s kind bullying.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I’m not a real big fan of “negging” on principle.  I think it’s useful for crowdsourcing but otherwise it’s kind bullying.  

Nah bro.

It’s how you get all the hotties.

spacer.png

Posted
7 minutes ago, safe sex said:

They are fucking internet points and the only people who ever have to worry about being crowdsourced are trolls and outright bigots. If you are emotionally immature enough to let losing some internet points ruin your day, perhaps you shouldn't be posting to begin with. Ag with kids would be fine. The problem is that it's essentially impossible to defend anything happening to the country or within the American right as "conservative" while also staying in good faith. You just can't. So abloo-bloo-bloo CR so mean much echo chamber it's not worth even trying. 

 

I completely agree. I just haven’t personally used it very much or if at all, I tend to like this stuff that is good and kind of ignore the rest. And I go out of my way to make fun of the dumb stuff. 
That’s another reason why we should be civil to the decent Republicans, so dumb ones will come in here and we can make fun of them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

oklahoma is full of low paying shit jobs

those people are fucked 

 

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

️Massive Oklahoma job loss as 600 federal employees at Tinker Air Force Base will be fired tomorrow
️ Tinker is the largest single site employer in Oklahoma

image.png.f0c2b805cae3eeffc69efb7b070ac91e.png

This.  Those are civil service jobs, which are relatively high paying for Oklahoma, all things considered.

Oh, and you can bet your eternal soul that Trump won the military and civilian vote at that base like 90/10.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, safe sex said:

They are fucking internet points

I agree with you, but bear in mind the entire country’s senior leadership has been essentially kowtowed under threat of mean tweets in ALL CAPS!!!

Posted
2 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

600 will have an impact. That is 600 rents/mortgages. 600 + car payments.

Thinking one for one is wrong. It is why cities fight so hard against BRACs at bases.

And it depends on who these people are. What other jobs are there for them in the area?

Lotta F-150 Raptors about to be hitting the used lots.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

In fairness, one of my old man's high school buddies worked his whole career at Tinker.  We would periodically visit them at their home in Moore.

I enjoyed those visits very, very much, because dad's buddy had a daughter a year older than me who was a ridiculously attractive brunette with very large attention-getting.....things that got Brisket's attention.  Brisket had it bad for her, for many years.

Brisket has since learned that yes, she is an okie through and through, she is a single mom, lives on gov't assistance, and moved back in with her folks.  And, per my dad based on his last visit there, she looked like hell.  50 okie years is like 90 regular years, I think.

She sounds Oklahoma As Fuck.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Lotta F-150 Raptors about to be hitting the used lots.

I’m shorting truck nut futures like you wouldn’t believe!!!!!!!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I’m not a real big fan of “negging” on principle.  I think it’s useful for crowdsourcing but otherwise it’s kind bullying.  

Some people need to be bullied. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
45 minutes ago, safe sex said:

See my post above, Bozo. It is willful at this point.

Not only is it willful, but they know deep down that so much of what they voted for is indefensible.  You know it, I know it, they know it.  But they're damn sure never going to admit that.

They are not serious people.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I don't really consider it bullying, it's just internet points.  Still, I don't do it very often because I feel it's rage and anger getting the better of me.  I'm strivin, lawd.

Posted
49 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

She sounds Oklahoma As Fuck.

Yeah...and as a pathetic, fawning adolescent, I couldn't even clear what I presume were her very low standards.

Lord did she have a body.

Way to rub it in.

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yeah...and as a pathetic, fawning adolescent, I couldn't even clear what I presume were her very low standards.

Lord did she have a body.

Way to rub it in.

Only answer is just rub one out.

  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m not sure what this says about me, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually negged anybody except for the cycle. 

I negged you for no reason just now.

 

I blame it on me being Gen X.  Sorry man.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

It's so telling every "conservative" refuses to even try defending this shit, because the acting of actually putting those thoughts in writing necessitates that you examine them. And they're not in the habit of examining their thoughts. Sometimes doing that makes you change your mind.

"I'm not really into politics"

I'm  sure plenty of Germsns said the same thing in the early 40s.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Consider Sara a prospective future member of this thread:

 

 

 

My wife is on a Lake Travis Moms group. I have no idea why except for the drip of idiocy dopamine hits, like sick fucks that frequent Tex Ags here. Anyway, lots of posts looking for Anti Vax pediatricians- apparently and the ground zero for patriot DRs is Marble Falls.  Least suprising news ever. At least DKR passed peacefully before the freaks killed him vía a previously cured disease.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
34 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Consider Sara a prospective future member of this thread:

 

 

 

And hope you will find a doctor who might straighten your stupid ass out.

Posted
6 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I think there is a method to the madness: All these laid off federal employees can take the places of all the deported farm workers, roofers, and yard guys. 

well-so-im-done.gif.20a5b9cb93420c39c81cc81fd0b2f03a.gif

  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m not sure what this says about me, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually negged anybody except for the cycle. 

Temu coupons, rep cycle, and unblurred images of a naked Trump. Things which should be negged.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/23/2025 at 5:24 PM, Gatorubet said:

No offense Ag, but I have never heard your defense of why gerrymandering districts so that politicians can absolutely and in total safety ignore any good ideas of the other side - and also be safe to refuse to seek  bipartisan compromise (to avoid being primaried by MAGA or a pissed off Trump) is  a good thing.

That sounds to me as valid as building our next generation battlefield tank out of grass.  I mean, I’ve never been in the military, and I’m not an engineer, but there is also a basic common sense/human experience thing that whispers in my ear - even on subjects of which I am not well-versed.

If you don’t wanna give it a go in public feel free to private message me. I promise not to share our discussion and to engage in a polite and respectful way.   But I admit to not being able to conjure one good thing that would come of that system of fully gerrymandered districts - at least not without seeing your input.

The offer is genuine.

Nm.   I should’ve read to the bottom of the thread again.  I thank you for saying that you like that idea, but you failed to say how it avoids the problems I specifically mentioned.    

It’s kind of like me asking why you think all muscle cars should have four-cylinder engines, and you reply more cars should be cheaper and painted red.   Well, those two things are absolutely legitimate standalone propositions, they don’t address the obvious problem with putting a four-cylinder engine in a muscle car.

I've never said the bolded.

But, since you talk about gerrymandering...

New York voted 56%-44% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 73%-27% Democrats...

California voted 59%-38% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 82%-17% Democrats.

Do you think that any Republican good ideas are being looked at there?  Do you think they're seeking any bipartisan compromise there?

 

I think the state legislative representation should be close to how the state normally votes state-wise.

And if an area in Austin is mostly Democrats, they should have Dems representing them.  And if they're mostly Republicans (haha in Austin), they should have mostly Reps representing them.

Bozo keeps going to the "communities of interest"...

But, politics is one of those interests.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I completely agree. I just haven’t personally used it very much or if at all, I tend to like this stuff that is good and kind of ignore the rest. And I go out of my way to make fun of the dumb stuff. 
That’s another reason why we should be civil to the decent Republicans, so dumb ones will come in here and we can make fun of them.

You know, Paul was being sarcastic when he said to suffer fools gladly

Edited by Sawbonz
Posted
On 2/23/2025 at 5:31 PM, CTC2 said:

Well, that’s not the current reality. 

In Texas, people voted for Trump 56%-43%.

The legislature is 59% Republican and 41% Democrat.

 

Contrast to CA:

Trump 59-38, Legisture 82-17...

 

One is actually close like I think it should be.  The other isn't.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

New York voted 56%-44% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 73%-27% Democrats...

California voted 59%-38% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 82%-17% Democrats

Wat

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I've never said the bolded.

But, since you talk about gerrymandering...

New York voted 56%-44% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 73%-27% Democrats...

California voted 59%-38% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 82%-17% Democrats.

Do you think that any Republican good ideas are being looked at there?  Do you think they're seeking any bipartisan compromise there?

I never said you said that, I said you never addressed how to solve that problem.  You seem to ignore the fact that democracy cannot exist as effective  governance without good faith compromise.  Having everyone safely ensconced in deep red and deep blue districts effectively removes any hope of compromise.

That is the concept I addressed, one which you still refuse to address (albeit it I did a poor job at describing that so you know what I was addressing)

But I thank you for your response because you’ve just demonstrated that you have no earthly idea what ‘gerrymandered’ means.  Lots of people voting blue in blue states is not gerrymandering. Lots of people in red states voting red is not gerrymandering.   People voting for the president has nothing to do with gerrymandering.  As the presidential vote is statewide, it only affects the electoral college.    

So perhaps your ideas might be better received if they were bolstered by some basic civics class knowledge. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I've never said the bolded.

But, since you talk about gerrymandering...

New York voted 56%-44% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 73%-27% Democrats...

California voted 59%-38% for Trump.  They gerrymandered their congressional districts to 82%-17% Democrats.

Do you think that any Republican good ideas are being looked at there?  Do you think they're seeking any bipartisan compromise there?

 

I think the state legislative representation should be close to how the state normally votes state-wise.

And if an area in Austin is mostly Democrats, they should have Dems representing them.  And if they're mostly Republicans (haha in Austin), they should have mostly Reps representing them.

Bozo keeps going to the "communities of interest"...

But, politics is one of those interests.

Everything this guy just said is bullshit:

1) if you curate the components of the district to produce a preordained partisan outcome you are denying the salience of all other interests 

2) local issues do not break on national party lines, because if your hypothesis was correct, the partisan alignment of the delegation wouldn’t need to be engineered in advance. 

AND

3) So you are supportive of NY and California’s partisan gerrymander? I think partisan gerrymandering is evil and subverts democracy. Do you support it or not?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/23/2025 at 7:13 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the only way we have of determining that is Presidential elections, which may or may not be representative of a population's more "daily" voting.

In 2024, Texas went  about 56-42 Trump, so R.

Yet, the Congressional delegation is 65-35 R.

Is that close?  Or is that fucky?

I think that shouldn't be the case in TX.

I also think it shouldn't be the case in NY, CA, and IL.  Hell, CA voted 38% for Trump...and has 17% GOP representation...

 

But, if TX plays nice, then the GOP gets fucked.  Since the Dems aren't going to play nice in those states.

I don't like it.  I think it's wrong.

 

But, I also think the GOP allowing themselves to be fucked is wrong.

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Everything this guy just said is bullshit:

1) if you curate the components of the district to produce a preordained partisan outcome you are denying the salience of all other interests 

2) local issues do not break on national party lines, because if your hypothesis was correct, the partisan alignment of the delegation wouldn’t need to be engineered in advance. 

AND

3) So you are supportive of NY and California’s partisan gerrymander? I think partisan gerrymandering is evil and subverts democracy. Do you support it or not?

No.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

If the GOP is claiming that Trump won California and New York then this election really was stolen

I don't think that is what Ag is saying, but it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near one of their bigger lies.

 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Posted
25 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

I think that shouldn't be the case in TX.

I also think it shouldn't be the case in NY, CA, and IL.  Hell, CA voted 38% for Trump...and has 17% GOP representation...

 

But, if TX plays nice, then the GOP gets fucked.  Since the Dems aren't going to play nice in those states.

I don't like it.  I think it's wrong.

 

But, I also think the GOP allowing themselves to be fucked is wrong.

No.

I think we can effectively ignore this guy.  He is team GOP.  Democrats won’t “play nice.” Whatever the fuck that means.    

and he seems not to understand that every congressional district is different with the different issues and different politicians running for office. So if you get a dip, shit, I am not a witch senatorial candidate, she might lose Biggly.     But that will have nothing to do with the merits of the presidential vote, and absolutely nothing to do with the merits of a congressional election on a different part of the state between different politicians.

I think he wants to have representatives appointed to Congress based upon how the state voted in a presidential election.  But it is impossible to know what he wants because it is fair to say he has no idea what he wants, what he means, or how to tie the free floating noodles in his brain into one cohesive theory.

So once again, we have a conservative visitor who mouths incomprehensible word salad - and then blames liberal Cabal for not embracing his thought nuggets.  Bill Buckley is so very very dead.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...