Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3484
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. 3 times in 35 years. Cleveland had four #1 overalls in 12 fucking seasons. But sure, let's all talk about how fucking rigged it is for the Spurs to land it at a clip of once every dozen fucking years. Once again, stupid motherfuckers with their ideas of a smart thing to say.
  2. As I’ve often said even before the Mueller Report was released, even if the very worst of the allegations about Trump re: Russia were 100% true, they barely constitute a blip on the radar in terms of the shittiest things he’s done since 2015. I do love seeing all his sycophantic followers gushing over this news as if it changes everything…or even anything. Reminds me of…
  3. I mean...that should not surprise anyone with a modicum of honesty and/or a conscience. This is what these people do: they take, at least what they view as, the most outrageous element of some service provider and morph it into an entirety with their little chickenshit emotional appeal gimmick. Planned Parenthood's abortion services accounts for somewhere between 3-12% of what they do, which means at least 88% of what they do is exactly not that. Third trimester abortions constitute less than 1% of total abortions, and virtually all of those are triggered by some sort of medical complication that arose late while the rest have to do with restricted access... ...but the same people you're describing would have us (and themselves) believe that all Planned Parenthood does is perform partial birth abortions on women who just suddenly changed their mind about the whole having-a-child thing because they suddenly realized it interfered with some trip to Cabo. They're easily the most dishonest people you'll encounter in terms of political discourse, so it shouldn't surprise you at all that douchebags like Paxton are doing this type of horseshit either. This is just more of the same: the so-called "party of small/limited government" taking a huge interest in what other people do with their peepee parts.
  4. So what was Bryan’s problem?
  5. They’re a de facto platform for a bizarre collection of social media personalities and the “political party” for whom they carry the water have adopted that same principle as an electoral strategy. Let’s all just sit back and let them continue because they’re on their asses and from said asses do they absolutely love to tell everyone willing to listen to their feeble effluvia that they “own the libs.” Nothing guarantees consistency in failure better than when said failures are absolutely convinced of their own success.
  6. Based on what?
  7. He has always been in control of creative. Even when he took that brief hiatus, there’s no doubt he was constantly in Steph and HHH’s ears about it.
  8. Hell the Supreme Court had to be asked whether or not they could intervene on behalf of a federal judge who had been convicted and sent to fucking prison and still wanted to be a judge from the inside of his cell. The House voted to impeach, Senate voted unanimously to remove, and this motherfucker actually wanted the SCOTUS to overrule the removal. But the point is it took acts from both chambers of congress to stop that freak from being a federal judge inside a goddamn prison cell since there is no explicit rule against it. So of course a criminal conviction doesn’t preclude Trump’s run. And personally, I don’t want it to. I want Trump to be their nominee. He has no chance to win, and the more damage to the GQP his lingering in the mainstream of it, all the better. As to Trump having a jury rule against him today…
  9. It’s because he says the right words in the right tones. The people who are attracted to him are insanely superficial. Seriously that’s all that needs to be said about it.
  10. Was the guy named Steven Crowder?
  11. People have asked me about her and the best description I can give is "50 degrees nuttier than Lisa Murkowski but 10 minutes short of Lauren Boebert."
  12. He was mine until the latest freakshow moved him eastward.
  13. That’s all well and good, but here’s the problem: Far too often, religious people will read into their holy texts things they do not say, and then they will not read what it does say. So they read in between the lines, but they don’t read the lines.
  14. See, that’s the thing. There are people who cannot for the life of them understand the difference between the two. Interestingly, they who are guilty of this overwhelmingly tend to be on the same side of the aisle of this bullshit. It’s almost as if it’s an institutional blind spot.
  15. So let’s just start with “others hostility or contempt and derision.” That’s just a persecution complex that wanna-believers are well known to create. Person A says “I don’t believe there is a God” Person B says “person A is persecuting me and my faith!” So it’s not so much that it affects your “faith walk,” it’s that your “faith walk” affects your judgment. You see persecution where there is none and persecutors where there are none. For what? That they don’t believe what you believe? Again spare us the “hostility and derision” schtick because that’s all an act. It’s pure make believe. That’s just you projecting. You’ve been told repeatedly where they (we) stand on all this: You want to believe in all that stuff? That’s one thing. You want to force the state to teach my child that it’s all literally true? That’s a whole other ballgame. And yeah, we don’t play that ballgame nicely, and we’re right not to. The one thing religious adherents won’t say about that out loud in public is that “you have an obligation to just lay down and passively allow us to indoctrinate your kids,” but that’s what they want to do. That’s why this state, for example, is trying to ram the Bible down children’s throats. You will never see a secular humanist/atheist equivalent of that, at least not if you’re honest. What you will see, to repeat, is the common refrain “separation of church and state,” and sans a handful of extremist barking lunatics, that’s as far as it goes. It’s pure theatrics to assert otherwise. There are some religious adherents that are at least honest when they both acknowledge the existence of a separation of church and state and admit to being offended by it. But here is my response to it: thank you for your refreshing honesty; I’m offended that you’re offended.
  16. It’s really not even that. It really isn’t. It’s that these wanna-believers are so damn fragile and insecure in their beliefs in superstitious and ridiculous nonsense that, to them, it can only be validated if enough of their peers believe like they do. I saw up the thread the old “atheist atrocities” trope, but one in particular does bear mentioning: Pol Pot. Pol Pot didn’t murder people in the name of atheism. Pol Pot murdered people because he was a rocket surgeon that acted purely out of fear. One of his fears, for example, was that people who wore eyeglasses were smarter than him. He probably was right in that they probably were. The wanna-believers are of the same general inferiority complex. Just substitute “wore eyeglasses” with “do not believe in a deity” and see how well that fits on them.
  17. Wait, you guys are still reading his bed-wetting effluvia?
  18. Oh you had to know that was coming
  19. His presence on the court in general has been absolutely disgusting.
  20. Yes, the land that accounts for less than half the acreage of the King Ranch.
  21. That is so fucking stupid, even for him.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...