Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3456
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I think you are probably correct that the latest worldwide rightward lurch may be an anti-incumbent sentiment.

    However, there has been a worldwide rightward/populist lurch that preceded the pandemic.  Do you have an explanation for that?

    That certainly was a concern but not nearly as widespread. The issue this go-around, to repeat, was incumbency. How else would you explain the Tories getting fucking trounced by Labour? How else would you explain Iceland? How else would you explain Modi’s party underperforming against that big tent INDIA coalition? The New Popular Front in France? There are a lot of other examples of this, and while it certainly is not to suggest that it was uniformly to the left, it certainly suffices to reject any notions of uniformity in either direction. So yes, there have been rightward lurches…in some places. Others? Not so much. And that’s the point. The most common of threads this year was incumbency regardless of ideology. 

    18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Conservatives resorted to culture wars as a substitute enemy and refined that into pretty hideous populism and manufacture of other enemies (also conveniently identified with the Soviet threat, e.g. socialism!) while liberals mostly just flailed and in the meantime became enthralled by corporate interests and money to nearly the same extent as conservatives, as you note.

    well they resorted to the culture war crap when the Soviet Union was still alive, but they kinda had to in order to maintain their positions of power. Their economic policies do not enjoy a strong following, so they have to throw in that red meat to keep people voting against their interests. And that’s why neither party really talks about that because there’s no way to sell it. It’s funny that we’re talking about this on a Bill Maher thread because he of all people once explained the difference in domestic/economic policies between the two parties in this way:

    Republicans: “we’re pissing on you.”

    Democrats: “the Republicans are gonna piss on you, here’s an umbrella.”

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  2. 19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

     

    Lol it's pronghorn. Dude acts like he's paid to discredit reputable news and pump up whatever formerly PLANDEMIC Twitter accounts are now rabidly pro-Israel. Of COURSE Reuters is not an acceptable source for him

    You could have a verified video of IDF personnel dropping a 2-ton bomb on a Gaza daycare center and he’d say the camera was antisemitic.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  3. 21 hours ago, PRONG HORN said:

     

    The way that article was written is exactly why other sources are needed.

     

     

    Because you don’t like the content because it makes you feel bad. We get it. 

  4. 51 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

    My buddy has a son on the Reedy team, so he was at the game.  Georgetown got a FG on its opening drive.  Reedy then scored a TD on its opening drive.  So it’s 7-3 Reedy.

    Georgetown then scores the next 42 points and is up 45-7 midway through the second quarter, he said.

    Then Reedy scores 42 unanswered points and wins.  Holy shit.

    Reedy plays Highland Park on Friday night at The Star.

    What amazes me is that Georgetown even had that many possessions before the half. I’d really like to know more about this game. Sounds to me like Georgetown landed some haymakers and their defense followed up with either forced turnovers or quick 3’s-and-outs. Sounds like they followed all that with the 1994 John Tyler “take the starters out so they can take off their pads and interact with the spectators” approach to the second half.

    We’re all pretty disappointed in the outcome here. My dad and my godfather went to Georgetown and we’ve never played against those motherfuckers in football. 

    Oh well. In the first round of the playoffs I went to watch my nephew play in his first playoff game for WT White, who lost to Lone Star. Went to the Highland Park game last night against Wakeland and will likely attend the Reedy game. Nothing but Frisco folk on the other side of the stadium in these damn playoff games I attend this year.

  5. On 11/19/2024 at 1:23 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Let's examine the case:

    Evidence cited
    Tyson was much more aggressive in the first two rounds
    Tyson did not slip punches he saw on them
    Tysons punches seemed to lack power in the last 3/4 of the fight
    Tyson did not react to obvious openings
    Tyson did not slip punches he saw coming
    Tyson biting glove

    One possibility is that Mike Tyson participated in rigging the fight. The other possibility is that he's 58 years old, recently recovered from an ulcer, was wearing 14 oz gloves, a notorious biter, and can't do 8 full rounds of what they saw in training highlights used to hype the fight. 

    Well again, Tyson had just been concussed 4 days prior to the fight. Also, those training highlights? Most of that really good shit was filmed pre-ulcer, pre-blood transfusions, pre-weight loss, and pre-concussion. You don’t see much after all that because honestly it was cringeworthy to see.

  6. On 11/16/2024 at 4:27 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    I happen to agree with those who believe that the Tyson team avoided a match with Holyfield in 89-90, in part because he was the #1 heavyweight contender basically the entire time while Tyson was dicking around with Frank Bruno and Carl Williams,

    Except he wasn’t. Bruno was the number 1 contender for the WBC and WBA titles. The number 1 contender for the IBF? Yep, you guessed it: Carl Williams.

    Holyfield only became the number one contender after (and because) Tyson got rid of them. It’s not like Holyfield instantly achieved that ranking when he moved up to the heavyweight division. It took some fights to earn that. But he was, nonetheless, going to get his shot at the title after the Tyson-Douglas fight. 

    On 11/16/2024 at 4:27 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    before losing to Buster Douglas. And who beat Douglas after Tyson lost to him? Oh right, #1 contender Evander Holyfield (if i recall correctly).

    Holyfield was going to fight the champion regardless of who won in Tokyo and that’s kind of my point. If the Tyson-Douglas fight had any other referee counting Douglas when Tyson put him down and not taking 14 seconds to get to “9,” Tyson-Holyfield happens in 1990/1 and not 1996.

    On 11/16/2024 at 4:27 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    As for Tim Witherspoon, it would have taken his best and they were stablemates on top of it,  but it’s widely understood that Don King didn’t want Tyson in the ring with Tim Witherspoon and put him up against Bonecrusher Smith instead.  In his prime Spoon would have been a very tough draw for Mike Tyson, hard to imagine he couldn’t have taken him the distance for all the same reasons Quick Tillis did. 

    This is just historic revisionism.

    1. Again, Witherspoon was not in his prime during those years. He was (or was nearing, depending on the year) 30, he was an admitted mental basket case at that time, and his in-ring vulnerabilities were very visible.

    2. In perfect abstraction, there’s no reason whatsoever to believe Mike would have had a minute’s worth of trouble against him. 

    3. You’ve got to be kidding me with that line about Smith. James Smith had already smashed Witherspoon to take that WBA belt off of him via 3-KD’ing him in the first round, which is why Tyson fought Smith in the first place: because he was the WBA champion.

    4. That’s to say nothing about the fact that this was all a part of what Don King himself literally orchestrated; the so-called Heavyweight World Series, which was specifically designed to culminate with an undisputed champion.

    So as of December 1986, there’s Witherspoon with no belt, Smith with a belt, and Tyson with a belt. Any fool could see who Mike Tyson was going to fight after he bitchslapped Trevor Berbick, and it sure as shit wasn’t gonna be the guy who couldn’t survive James Smith for as long as Berbick “survived” Tyson. This was an elimination series, and Witherspoon was eliminated by Smith. Had Witherspoon won the Smith fight, he faces Tyson next.

    And even if this wasn’t some part of a Don King extravaganza, there still would be no intelligent way to argue that Tyson was “ducking” anyone by trying to take another belt off someone else. What or who was anyone to say about it?

    Tyson then went against Pinklon Thomas because Thomas was the number 1 contender for the WBC belt and the number 3 for the WBA, and also because Tony Tucker was to fight Buster Douglas for the vacant IBF title (vacant because Michael Spinks refused to fight Tucker and instead took the bigger payday of fighting Cooney)…on the same card, which effectively rendered that night to be a semifinal round on both sides of the ad hoc bracket with the two winners facing each other next. And again, as any fool could see, Mike’s most sensible next step was taking the IBF belt off Tony Tucker even if this wasn’t a part of a Don King extravaganza.

    5. At that point (August of 1987), I would seriously encourage you to look at that roster of fucking bums Tim Witherspoon fought against. Again, he was nowhere near psychologically capable of handling a fight like Tyson in that period.

    When Tim had his resurgence nearly a decade later? Sure, there’s an argument to be made for that, especially given the shit shape Tyson was in. This was all post-Douglas, post-divorce, post-dipshit Don King idiotically firing Kevin Rooney, and post-prison.

    But 1987-1988? Man, kill that fuckin’ noise. Mike would have bulldozed him and it wouldn’t have meant dick to anyone for him to do it. There was no upside for Mike to take that fight, which is why he didn’t waste his time with it regardless of what Don King’s position on it was. And speaking of Tim Witherspoon and Don King, you’d do well to consider the possibility that the reason he didn’t book that fight in the aforementioned era was to protect Tim and not Mike.

    From a pure boxing standpoint, the only booking decision that could have been deemed “questionable” when Tyson was the undisputed champ was Larry Holmes, but that was a grudge match (at least in Tyson’s mind) that had little to do with him and everything to do with revenge for Muhammad Ali; concept that was actually a hobby of Tyson’s in his earlier years.

  7. On 11/2/2024 at 8:40 PM, CTC2 said:

    Tim Miller was worth the watch. He befuddled Maher by flat out rejecting his stupid false equivalency.  Maher is just not funny anymore. His New Rules last night was the best thing he’s done in a while. 
    Israel broke him somehow. He can’t accept that just because they were attacked and fully have the right to defend themselves, some people just don’t believe that they should slaughter the whole civilian population of Gaza to do it. 

    The Israel issue has always been a blind spot for him. He has always been a complete dumbass about it. What really broke him was the pandemic, and all this “woke left” stuff is really just a side effect of that. 

    One of the guests he’s had over recent years is Bari Weiss and he just fawns over her. Bari Weiss is a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person is, and she’s an illiterate person’s idea of what a journalist is. On some other show, she couldn’t help herself in explaining that the reason the democrats lost big in the election was because all they could talk about was all this fringe social issue crap, especially the transgender issue.

    Harris never even mentioned those issues on the campaign trail. Yeah there was a media blitz by the far right intimating that, especially when it came to those disgraceful ads that Cruz was running about Allred and that one clip where Harris did make comments about it five fucking years ago, but that’s exactly who was talking about that shit: Republicans.

    Bari Weiss and her chickenshit ilk fell for it hook, line and sinker. So did those who still watch and take Bill Maher and people like him seriously. They couldn’t wait to clap really hard drooling over how smart they think these clowns are. They’re as clueless as Peggy Noonan was when she penned that ridiculous op-ed that said under the headline “America, after its long journey through the 2010s and ’20s, is becoming more conservative again.” It’s just more of the same self-serving bullshit from the elite “intellectual” class that comes up with these on-the-fly comments that they think are just loaded with intelligence…when all it really does is tell the story of how truly fucking stupid they are.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  8. 1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Like the years where he was duckingTim Witherspoon and Holyfield because they were problematic matchups?

    Well now you’re clearly not talking about 1986-1988 because Holyfield wasn’t a heavyweight by that time and Witherspoon was over 30 and his weaknesses were already exposed

    • Hook 'Em 3
  9. 5 hours ago, futureman said:

    canelo?  surely you mean another alvarez. 

    He wants to fight him at 200

    Even at 200, Canelo is a 6-pack can of worms compared to a 58-year old that just received a concussion 4 days prior. Jake claims Canelo will come calling him for a pay day. Not sure if that’s just a terrible promo or if Jake really believes his bullshit, but he’s not going to like now that negotiation turns out.

  10. Wanted to wait until now to post this:

    If you’ve seen that 9-minute video of Tyson in training at my gym, there’s a reason he kept saying “I wanna box more.”

    He was concussed from having been knocked out by his sparring partner on Monday. His team had to pick him up off the canvas. And this was after he showed up 2 hours and 15 minutes late to the workout and had a verbal confrontation with both of his trainers and his brother-in-law about him not wanting to do any cardio. 

    If Jake doesn’t carry him, this is going to be nightmarishly ugly.

  11. 3 minutes ago, G650 said:

    So I haven't seriously followed boxing in quite some time, for lots of obvious reasons, but my gut instinct is there is no way this match isn't somewhat scripted.

    Depends on what goes down. If it goes 5 rounds or more? Yeah. Likely a work, especially if Tyson ends up winning in that scenario. Over in the first two? Total shoot regardless of who wins. 

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  12. 22 hours ago, AbeFroman said:

    Jake is going to side step and shuffle all night. 

    Actually he won’t. That’s not his way, and his actual way is what’s going to get him over tonight. 

    There’s a reason that when you watch those impressive-looking videos of Tyson working out, there’s a lot you don’t see. You do see a guy looking very good for a few seconds at a time, but it’s always against a trainer wearing a belt pad and mitts. You don’t see him doing cardio and you don’t see him sparring. There’s a reason for that. There’s also a reason that you see vids of his team going nuts over him executing the most mundane moves like slipping out of a corner.

    And I take no glee in saying that. I’m one of the biggest Mike Tyson fans there ever was. But I’m also a realist. For this fight to seem competitive will require an outrageous carrying effort by Jake. Otherwise this will end quickly.

    Could Tyson catch Jake with a hard, square right hand that puts him down? Yes. If there’s one weakness about Jake Paul that you can say that makes him vulnerable to Mike Tyson, it’s that he’s very sloppy and that sloppiness could potentially leave him open. But as others have said, I’m not seeing it and that’s Mike’s sole path to a win: a first/second round shot heard ‘round the world. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  13. 11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Man.  Y'all remember when I was an irrational alarmist out on the ledge, talking insane shit about how bad a Trump regime would be?

    I remember. 

    I really wish that I'd turned out to be an insane alarmist who was totally wrong.  Instead, I'm just insane.  I'll take it, I guess.

    BUT THE COST OF EGGS AND BACON!!!

    • Hook 'Em 2
  14. On 11/11/2024 at 12:39 PM, bolverk said:

     

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna179837

     

    Checks out. The Palestinians are finished; two-state settlement is dead, one-state “settlement” is dead. This is a one-state conquest that confirms the words of Moishe Dayan when he said “we have to be able to tell the Palestinians: we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and if you wish you may leave.”

    And that still will not stop people from vigorously applauding and saying “look at me, me am smart.”

    • Rage+1 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    Goodbye federal funding for special needs kids. This is another policy that people have no understanding of the real impact - especially in rural communities 

    They will get what they asked for, they will be absolutely indignant about the grisly consequences of their choices, and then they  will find a way to blame the Democrats like the feculent intellectual beggars they’ve always been.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Rage+1 1
    • Drool 1
  16. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    Want to guess what 100% won't happen under Trump?

    Your pitch is akin to "yes, you should jump out of a plane with failing engines".....presuming that part 2 of that plan ("with a parachute on") will happen.

    There is zero interest in any such immigration reform from MAGA.  Less than zero.  Negative infinity type levels.  The only thing that will be a marker of success is images of pain and suffering of a brutal deportation.  None of this is about an actual economic or immigration policy.  It is about masturbatory indulgence in our worst nativist impulses, full-stop.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it true that when Trump was in the WH for his first two years and the GOP held both the House and Senate, the number of immigration reform legislations they sent to his desk was not greater than zero?

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...