Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3454
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 4 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

    Trump claims to be an isolationist who wants out of NATO. Yet he wholeheartedly supports giving billions to Israel and is moving the embassy to Jerusalem to inflame the Middle East. 

    Sort of inconsistent there. 

    Claiming to be an “isolationist” implies the possession of an ideology. Trump has none.

  2. 1 hour ago, Orca of Peace said:

    Israel has killed 2 medics, one a girl shot in the back, 2-4 well tagged journalists and lots of innocent unarmed protestors - 2 guys in wheelchairs shot in the head.  They have killed about 150 protestors on the Gaza border this year alone. Not to mention the weekly killings of West Bank protestors, home demolitions, settler burning crops, vandalizing cars, smashing home windows etc. etc. For 50 years. It's understandable why the Palestinians are pissed off at the daily dehumanization. 

    MANY SIDES!!!

  3. Just now, AbeFroman said:

    What is that 4 straight times on Isner's serve he goes down 0-30 and comes back to win the game.

    Yep, and then Anderson comes to serve and dispatches him in less than 2 minutes. It's almost like Isner is just hoping Anderson fucks up on his serve.

  4. 1 minute ago, HoustonFrog said:

    Although it seems like Isner has no shot at the moment. He is on last breaths

    At this point, "fumes" would be an improvement. I have no idea how he's keeping his serve.

  5. 50 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    The first guy said he was the worst “by every metric imaginable”, which simply isn’t true if you’re going off who won the most games. The correct thing to say would’ve been “by almost any metric”, or “by every meaningful metric”. Hyperbole has no home on this site. 

    Again, number of wins isn't really a metric because it has limited historic parallels and it doesn't tell the whole story (percentage is way more important). Fielding Yost, for example, won 198 games, and it was out of 245 which gave him a winning percentage over 80. All of that is impressive, especially considering that it took him 29 seasons to do it, which translates to 7 wins a year. Find a coach that can last a single school for 25 years winning just 7 games per season in the present era. 

    When you consider that some guys coached as few as 5 games in a season and Charlie was coaching fucking 12, getting 16 wins means precious little when your winning percentage is fucking .433, and it means even less when almost every pre-WW2 UT HC coached only for one year regardless of how good that one year was. What you're suggesting is analogous to "well this guy was the greatest QB in football history because he has the most passing attempts." The fact that he won 16 games elevates him over absolutely no one. You show me a person who thinks that Strong was better than Frank Crawford and I'll show you a professional bullshit artist.

    That's not hyperbole at all.

     

  6. 11 hours ago, Helobious said:

    Factually incorrect. He had more career wins than several previous coaches. 

    Yeah, 11 of them only coached for one season because that's how shit was done back then. You coached a year, then you left. Hell, Frank Crawford never lost a game at Texas, and he left too. He coached 6 football seasons...at 5 universities. Of the 16 coaches who have fewer wins to their name than one Charles Strong, 9 of them didn't even coach 10 games and none of the 7 who did got to 30 (Strong coached in 37 games). And btw, all 16 of those coaches, including the terrible Jack Chevigny, had better winning percentages than Strong did, as did every other coach beyond what I just went over. Charlie Strong's .433 winning percentage is the worst in Texas history, which renders your charge of "factually incorrect" to be factually incorrect. He most certainly was Texas' worst coach ever. Worst winning percentage, never had a .500+ season, never won a bowl game. Or to put the ball in your court:

    if Charlie Strong wasn't the worst HC ever, then who the fuck was?

  7. 18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.

    I’m sincerely not trying to be a dick, but perhaps you could list what, in your view, constitutes these “advancements” of cultures and civilizations. And again it’s not to be tedious, but the reality is you’ve presented a vague topic and I cannot answer your question without knowing precisely what you mean in order to analyze the cost/benefit element, which is really what you’re posing here. Once you’ve demonstrated what you mean, it’s easy to identify the “malfeasances” and to estimate their severity in terms of their impact on world culture. Interesting topic.

  8. On 6/28/2018 at 4:45 PM, lemonlime said:

    The GOP will confirm anyone Trump names.  Given how sycophantic he's been on tv, I'm going with Alan Dershowitz.  Or Pirro.

    I would actually be ok with Alan. That lying sack of shit turns 80 in two months, so he won’t last long and he won’t lift a finger to overturn Roe or do any bidding of the religious right.

×
×
  • Create New...