Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3266
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. Can't speak for anyone else, but I've been below the max income threshold each time so that's clearly not why I've been stiffed on the last two.
  2. I got the first but not the subsequent two
  3. Message from a Midwestern State grad: Y'all have no permission to drop a game to a former Lone Star Conference school.
  4. Because feelings and emotions. If anyone could fathom that a 43-year old man-baby reading Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of the US Senate as a "legitimate intellectual tactic to stimulate crucial debate," they're living in a world that's even more Make Believe and Pretend than the shit that's vomited over here on that Daily Texan forum. Anyways, that's why the GOP wants to keep it. They're aware that they are wildly unpopular among the eligible (or should-be eligible) voting populations, so they need to have a mechanism in at least one chamber of Congress that literally legitimizes a stall tactic that recognizes the Chewbacca Defense as legitimate, especially when they don't have the WH and control neither chamber. It's also the same reason that they're very much in favor of gerrymandering. In fact, they no longer even attempt to hide that. Filibustering, gerrymandering, etc. Those are polysyllabic words, but apply their real world function to the world of 4th graders and what you have is "I'm taking my ball and going home, but first I'm going to whine and bitch to the principal until he changes the rules" after losing in dodgeball for the 142nd consecutive time.
  5. Yeah that was hilarious. Everyone's standard response needs to be "bitch, you done said that shit 4 rings ago."
  6. That’s just you pretending to know things
  7. As I once said of Mitch McConnell, so too is it true for this buffoon: He has never been particularly bright or articulate, but even by the embarrassing comparisons of his previous screeds, it seems to indicate he has suffered some sort of stroke or there's a tumor in his brain that grew exponentially in size on January 6th. What's particularly astounding is that he is completely unaware of how incredibly tone deaf and dense his nonsense comes off. He's either very good at pretending to believe something in order to play to the idiot rubes that voted for him, or he himself is an idiot rube that believes the horseshit he spews and this is just another inmate running the asylum. It's not particularly necessary to dissect the things he said about January 6th. Everyone here is at least partially educated and a lot of you, I'm guessing, are familiar with the phrase "projecting with false equivalence." "The other side is just as bad as us, but since that's true, we're not bad and they still are because...feelings and emotions and things." Even by his own meager standards, this logic would indeed give intelligent people diabetes if they read it often enough. Here, he's literally suggesting "well in the previous 58 elections, there never was an attempt at an insurrection, but it was going to happen here regardless of who won" as if that's a fucking given. I have a 13 year old nephew that would read that and say ".........riiiiiight." Just as a side note, I noticed that floating around was some article indicating that most Iowa Republicans prefer Chuck Grassley not run for a re-election bid. My response to that is the same here and with all other 48 GOP senate seats: well it's not some fucking law of nature that you have to vote Republican in the first place.
  8. It was actually Harlingen, but yes, they tried very hard to scare the shit out of every single breathing American about a country that basically had 2 elevators and a fucking escalator "following the script of Mein Kampf." There are still Americans to this day that fall for that horeshit hook, line and sinker, and I haven't the slightest atom of sympathy to afford to them.
  9. They'll get someone to flip. These are people with no honor and no principles. That's not the problem. The problem is whether Trump himself would face actual punishment after all of that. That's where I have no trust or hope in the system because the system now is about feelings and emotions. We can't punish people like Donald Trump because that would make him feel bad, and that would make his family feel bad, and that would make his supporters feel bad, and we can't have that many people feeling bad because that would make us feel bad that we made them feel bad...so let's just agree to disagree, forgive and forget, and let bygones be bygones right? Water under the bridge, eh?
  10. It never really started, actually. Those lawsuits, collectively, were a dog and pony show. They had nothing to do with the law, and they had nothing to do with the facts. It was just a show for the idiot rubes that fall victim easily to this feeble, garbled drivel about how "oh wah wah wah, the evil Dems are stealing the presidency from our orange Jesus wah wah wah." It's just like when a professional wrestler cuts a post-match promo about how he got screwed by the ref, the promoter, the other guy's manager, etc. They're playing this up as if it was the Montreal Screwjob, except the most "in on it" people are, in reality, the Trump campaign themselves. They know he fucking lost (well maybe not Lin "Dave Wills" Wood, but the rest of them certainly do). They had no real ambition of winning these suits, and that should have been abundantly clear in the performances they put on gavel-to-gavel. They just wanted to scream as loudly as they could in the best microphones that were available to them outside of the court rooms, not so much inside them. Anyways, this is far from over. The actual challenge before us is this absurd roster of state-level legislations that are trying so desperately to squash voting rights for as many Americans as they possibly can.
  11. They also set their Nike shoes on fire in reaction to Colin Kaepernick. These are not bright people.
  12. Well I think the bigger takeaway is that, again, this is performative outrage and it's done so selectively. I don't need to go into the history of all of it, but sufficed to say that the history of two-facedness on this "cancel culture" shit over the past 100 years has been voluminous. Jim fucking Crow was a gigantic cancel culture initiative. So was the MPAA ratings system, so was the PMRC, so are all these initiatives to overturn Roe v. Wade, so was the outrage when compulsory prayer in school was outlawed, etc. Those things are all cancel culture, and much more destructive to society than Theodor Giesel's own fucking family deciding to stop publishing new editions of a small fraction of his books. They who rant and rave about "cancel culture" in fucking 2021 are among the most dishonest people I've seen in quite a while, far surpassing death penalty proponents, "pro-lifers," and opposers of the NCAA football playoff in that regard. All true.
  13. It really is. Performative outrage is the favored pastime as well. Football? That's small potatoes compared to putting on a performance pretending to be upset at someone who either was upset or, at least, the performer assumed same.
  14. Misleading. Power was out all over the PC's. It's just that these rich fucks have generators (nearly all of our block does), so there's less incentive to call and bitch to Oncor. Those little bubbles only reflect reported outages, not necessarily actual ones. But yes, more importantly to your point about deregulation, of course that's what it's about. Anyone who argues that deregulation somehow helps the consumer is an absolute fool. Of course it's about skirting regs in order to trim costs and maximize profit. That's a given to serious people. When you hear Republicans ranting and raving about regulations, you're not hearing "alternative points of view." You're hearing the ravings of retarded people parroting corporate talking points that have zero to do with the public good. That much is obvious to a serious person.
  15. The part where his feewings got huwt because someone said something meanie butt about Trump.
  16. I reject his contention. He’s trying to frame the issue as being “oh these hysterical democrats are just out for blood.” This is textbook gaslighting
  17. Well not only that, but like I said, the Walter Nixon case definitively refuted the GOP argument fully 27 years before it was advanced. As Rehnquist put it, “we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” In order for this trial to lack constitutionality, there has to be a textual limit on that exact authority, and that limit has to have been demonstrated to have been exceeded. There isn’t. It doesn’t exist. It’s make believe. Pretend. All this shit the GOP is pumping out about this amounts to bells and whistles, colors and lights, smoke and mirrors, partisan feelings and emotions...and pretty much everything else that just simply doesn’t matter when examining the constitution, law and order, and really anything meaningful in life itself. They are waving their hands around, stomping their feet and yelling as loudly as they can, in the words of Tom Tucker, “Pay attention to me! I'm trying to ruin you!”
  18. Forgot to address this part earlier: Well I think you need to throw in “legislators” to that last sentence as well because when I said Republicans get confused on impeachment, that’s not limited to Donald Trump. They also expressed such confusions, albeit in a very different way, in the Clinton impeachment. If you look at the rhetoric they were spewing, you’d come away thinking that Clinton had already been convicted of a crime and that Congress HAD to impeach him...like there was some sort of legal obligation on their part to impeach a guy who perjured himself regarding blowjobs. They had complete discretion, but the thing was Republicans are gonna Republican and they had the votes to impeach even though they knew full well they were never going to get the 67 Senate votes to remove. My guess is that if they did, they wouldn’t have taken it that far because as much as they hated Bill Clinton, they would never have tolerated “President Al Gore.” It was a political stunt, not a legal proceeding. They knew it full well. And the root of the confusion that you (and I) alluded to is that far too many people get way too hung up on the deliberately vague “high crimes and misdemeanors” terminology that’s expressed in Article II Section 4. That is not the guide as to the bounds of when someone can be impeached. That’s found in Article I Section 3.
  19. I don’t expect it to be adjudicated and precisely for what Rehnquist mentioned: “The first sentence is a grant of authority to the Senate and the presence of the word "sole" indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else. We reject Nixon's argument that the word "try" in the first sentence requires the Senate to conduct a judicial type trial...So we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” I’m sure that if Trump is found guilty (and I do not expect that to happen), and if he were to take his case to SCOTUS, they’ll do what they did in the election suits: either turn it down or agree to hear it, but turn it down with a one line ruling, perhaps even citing that specific case.
  20. Not only that, I would implore anyone who’s even vaguely curious to review Nixon v United States. Republicans in general get very confused on what an impeachment proceeding actually is. It’s a political proceeding; not a legal one. All this technical crap they’re trying to push with these tortured arguments and turns of phrase does not amount to a hill of shit when juxtaposed to what precedent SCOTUS case law says about it. https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/rehnquist7/opinion_announcement_audio/19792
  21. Oh no doubt. You will never see Rogan challenge even the battiest shit that squirts into his podcast.
×
×
  • Create New...