Jump to content

SydneyCarton

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20841
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by SydneyCarton

  1. 9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

    The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

    I don't know. You'd have to dig up all of your posts from 2008-2106 praising the nuclear deal for Iran. I'm only familiar with Chainsaw The Poster from about 2022 onward, where your opinions are certain topics are pretty transparent, at least the posts you make that stand out to me. But I do know it's pretty easy to point to something in retrospect and scream "HEY I LIKED THAT ONE THING AT THE TIME THAT WENT AWAY!" Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

    1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

    This is the kind of take, devoid of any and all historical context or understanding, that makes me chuckle to myself and wonder how we are going to move forward as a species. We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s. Yeah, the mullahs fucking suck and they deserve to be launched into the sun, but it's very unlikely they would be in power today, while we're now on the verge of another war that will cost us trillions, were it not for the disastrous results of our past actions.

    Shrugging that responsibility off as if it's nothing seems extremely irresponsible to me.

    e: grammar am hard

    Don't worry. We're not. And if we do it will be so many generations after we're fucking dust it won't matter. 

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
  2. 3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    This is a pudding brain take on Ukraine and what happened and you should sit some of these convos out. 

    He doesn't know how. His entire worldview is "what's bad for Israel is all that matters." Maybe mix in a dash of "What's bad for palestine is fine as long as it's also bad for Democrats."

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. 5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    We have not sent our own troops to Ukraine, but they were invaded so it's not the same thing. Biden's team viewed the Ukraine war as a low cost way to field-test some US weapons, and a way to weaken Russia.

    I don't know enough about Russia to say if someone better is ready to step up in Putin's place, but I don't think direct American intervention should be the way to accomplish that.

    I personally do not object to the support we're providing to Ukraine.

    I don't believe Israel's leadership is good, but that doesn't mean the US should attack Israel.

    We haven't sent any troops to Iran. But I fucking love how earlier you said "What do you know that our presidents don't" when referring to a potential bullpen of leadership in other countries, but here you flat out state definitively what Biden's intentions and strategy were in regards to Ukraine. Are you omniscient now? Fucking LOL. 

    "Field Test Some Weapons in Ukraine" yeah, that's a fair take of the situation, it was a knock down drag out fight for literally with years with our congress to send them 40 year old weapons...to "field test." "Listen guys, Joey Two Scoops saw this as a great opportunity for us to finally field test some mortars...and some HIMARS" might be one of the most laughably insincere lies I've seen regarding Ukraine, and I've had to read posts from GRU Horn. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

    Do you hold the same position for the Ukraine? Are you unable to see how this helps the Ukraine? Do you hold the same position on the leadership of Russia as Iran? Do you object to US involvement in Ukraine? Do you also think Israeli leadership should remain status quo? 

    He's already chosen not to answer that question from me several times. Because the answer is inconvenient to his worldview. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  5. 5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    I don't know what to tell you, man. You seem to be the only person that interpreted it that way. Your initial post seemed barely above the level of the cretins on this board that tell me I want to get buttfucked by a terrorist when I level any criticism of Israel. I'm not sure why you expected me to respond to that with any level of charity when I have repeatedly talked about how much I want the current Iranian governance to be dead and gone.

    Except even when disagreeing with you, I've said that to you. That being said, I don't expect you to respond to me with any charity. Even if I've responded to you with charity.

    We both know I'm capable of removing all charity when posting towards others as well, and I frequently do. I don't have any hard feelings. 

    4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    At this point you're basically just wishcasting that the power vacuum would magically be filled by someone kind and aligned with US interests. History teaches that US intervention is almost never beneficial for the targeted nation. We have never been "greeted as liberators."

    There is almost no upside for getting involved.

    At this point, you're just obfuscating that youre basically go out of your way to muddy the waters from your original post, which was stupid and idiotic.

    I'd be happy if a good person who didn't hate women and wasn't a religious zealot came to power in Iran. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm pretty tired and disillusioned with US interests myself, to a degree. Just not to the point that I'd even bother consider making a comment like "assuming Iran would misbehave more with a nuke is a lazy, stupid take" but then again, I'm not you. 

    I can think of some upside to getting involved, or letting Israel do it's thing. But again, I'm not you, and my entire worldview isn't tied to the worst possible outcomes for Israel. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  6. 1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

    I did not say it was necessarily better for Iraq. I'm saying the world is better off without Saddam.

    We don't know of anyone in the bullpen for Iran, so how can anyone say that there's someone better waiting to rule it? And if that person had existed why would we have waited so long to intervene? What do you know that Obama, Trump, and Biden didn't know?

    How can you say there isn't someone better?
    Uh, because intervening in foreign affairs is messy? "Why haven't we assassinated Putin, and Xi? Gosh, EVERYONE MUST BE WORSE." That's a lot of unearned faith in our Presidents and intelligence agencies, you must think them infallible? By that token, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan were successes! 

    As I said, black and white and absolutes only work when you're declaring them, right?
     

  7. 6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    It's less about "fixing the internet" and more about enforcing baseline data collection and retention rules, like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe. It's a law with real teeth that lets governments and citizens go after data brokers and assert sovreignty over their own identity and data online. 

    It's less about anonymity and more about not allowing any private entity to acquire and exploit the data of hundreds of millions of people for whatever means they want. And yes yes yes, it's never going to completely be gotten rid of - onion routing and the dark web give bad actors a ton of tools to avoid enforcement. But if it's explicity illegal and treated as the bad behavior that it is, it will significantly reduce its negative impact.

     

    That's far afield from THIS specific issue, but goddamn, the dude would not have been able to target and conduct his terroristic assasination plot - but for the easily accessed personal data marketplaces online.

    Right, we're talking around each other. I agree with all of your post regarding data protection and how it's done in Europe. I was more referring to the general concept of civility and lack of accountability the internet fosters, particularly here. 

    Just now, Redneck Mutha said:

    Now This is crossing a line.

    Dude, be yourself. Don't repress it, embrace it.

    Unless you're a pedophile. Then repress that shit. 

  8. 3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    International relations are not a black and white thing. Some of our "allies" do unspeakable things, including genocide. Obama made a deal with some bad people, and Trump tore it up. It's possible to strike a good deal with bad people, and Trump was on the verge of doing that so that we could get closer to stability in the region.

    If we learned anything from Iraq, it's that there are high costs and long lasting consequences for trying to be the hero on every corner of the globe. Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but was the invasion truly necessary to get rid of him? Could that not have been achieved with soft power? With diplomacy? By propping up his internal adversaries?

    The goal was to prevent Iran from having nukes, and I fail to see how or why American intervention is the only way to achieve that. If you believe that's the same thing as "cheering for the bad man to stay in power forever," then that says more about you than it does about me.

    International relations are not a black and white thing, unless you want to make them black and white when it suits your purpose.  The rest of your post is saying shit everyone already knows, or just you wringing your hands that different means should/could be used to achieve the goals we want. You know, unless the folks who started this, Israel, didn't have any of those methods at their disposal because everyone in the region wants them to die. So you know, fantasyland shit akin to "Why didn't they just ask The Avengers to do in there and take the nukes?!?!"

    You can attempt to revise your statements any way you want, but your direct quote was "There's nothing better in the bullpen" and then you cite historical failures to support your fact. That puts the burden on proof that regime change never benefits anyone (even though you admitted it was better for Iraq) on you, dude. Not me. It's your fucking quote, so you tell us how "The bullpen isn't any better and we don't want to go to war with Iran" isn't you saying "leave bad men in power."

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war.

    I won't go too CR because this is DT but this will not be good politics. Much of his base has loved ones in the military and don't want them in harm's way.

    Yes, Everyone has addressed that repealing the nuclear deal with Iran was stupid. Including me in the very post you're quoting. It has no bearing on the actual topic, which was your posting something that could easily have been construed as "Pshhh, we don't think Iran would behave worse with a Nuke! Stupid simplistic take!"

    5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    You realize that chainsaw and I are not the same person, right? 

    Yes. I'm aware that despite you're similar stances on some issues, you're not the same person, as he's borderline unhinged. That doesn't mean that what I said about his post didn't also apply to you, in the sense that timing and context with your messages could be seen as some version of Dismissal of how Iran would behave with a Nuke.

    1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

    Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.

    Oh, so you mean Iran might end up run by the same pieces of shit that are running it now? You cant even respond to how well your logic works when framed in other countries and leadership, like Russia, so you just squeal "But Afghanistan" and "but Iraq." Hey, you know, whoever is next might be worse than Netanyahu. We should probaly just cheer for him stay in power forever, right Chainsaw? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. I know some aspects of this concept are abhorrent to most Americans, including myself, but I don't see a way out of fixing "the internet" and social media, without directly dying everything we do on the internet to a valid SSN/DL. Want to be an evil motherfucking commenting in the comment sections of youtube and reddit? Ok. No anonymity. Buying public data on people? Flag that shit and send a notice to the people who's info got sold, since obviously personal privacy doesn't exist anymore. Uncomfortable with your sexuality because you're a repressed homosexual or like being pegged? Fuck it, your porn history is out there for everyone to see. You'll either let your freak flag fly, or you're going to have to repress that shit more and jerk off without the internet like we all grew up doing. 

    Bring back personal accountability and shame. Anonymity clearly doesn't work. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    I just didn't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I was stanning for Iran based on the rest of the thread.

    First, see my thoughts on Chainsaw's post above. When generally speaking, including by your own admission, almost everyone knows Iran is a piece of shit that abhors the existence of women other than brood mares, sponsors terrorism across the region and world, financed Hamas, sells/trades drones with Russia...but someone goes out of there way to mock someone stating a very obvious truth (to everyone but Chainsaw)...you doing see how someone might view that as stanning for Iran? Particularly someone with your views on the current state of Israel so well documented? Come on dude. 

    6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    Nobody has an appetite for war with Iran. Iran was abiding Obama's deal, and they were actively engaged in peace talks with Trump's guy. Absofuckinglutely they have a bad reputation, but to my knowledge they didn't invade Ukraine or attack anyone else without provocation. The unwashed masses on X need more analysis than "Iran bad," even if you personally might think it's as self-evident as OU sux.

    Apparently at least one country has an appetite for war with Iran. And while no reasonable person here thinks the repeal of the nuclear deal with Iran by Trump was anything other than a disaster, making some false equivalency of "well, at least they're not Russia" is a laughably stupid defense and attempt at deflection as I've seen. And by the way it's Iran that is supplying arms to Russia. But yes, twitter sources should be ashamed of saying obvious things. You're right Chainsaw, notoriously horrible world actors usually act better and clean up their act the more power they accrue. 

    1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

    They are bad, but nothing better is in the bullpen. We should have learned this from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Another horrible comparison. "Nothing better in the bullpen." What does that even men? Let Iran off the hook for their horrible behavior because what's next might be worse? 

    You're right, we should apply that same concept to Russia and Putin.

    "I'm not sure the guy after Trump is any better, lets just let him do whatever the fuck he wants" - Chainsaw

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 2
  12. 4 hours ago, Chopper said:

    image.thumb.png.2d121ad45618ad0350e1c6a3508a118b.png

    spoilered for length
     

      Reveal hidden contents

    More states seem almost certain to adopt their own creative ways to gain an edge — or at least keep pace — in the rapidly evolving and highly competitive field of college sports.

    “These bills, and the inevitable ones that will follow, are intended to make states ’college-athlete friendly,'” said David Carter, founder of the Sports Business Group consultancy and an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California. But “they will no doubt continue to stoke the debate about the `perceived' preferential treatment afforded athletes.”

    The new NCCA rules allowing direct payments to college athletes kick in July 1. In the first year, each Division I school can share up to $20.5 million with its athletes — a figure that may be easier to meet for big-time programs than for smaller schools weighing whether to divert money from other purposes. The settlement also continues to allow college athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, such as donor-backed collectives that support specific schools.

    Louisiana bill sponsor: `We love football'

    The Louisiana legislation won final approval just two days after a judge approved the antitrust settlement between the NCAA and athletes, but it had been in the works for months. Athletic directors from many of Louisiana's universities met earlier this year and hashed out a plan with lawmakers to relieve some of their financial pressures by dividing a share of the state's sports betting tax revenue.

    The biggest question for lawmakers was how large of a tax increase to support. The initial proposal sought to double the state's 15% tax on net proceeds from online sports betting. But lawmakers ultimately agreed on a 21.5% tax rate in a compromise with the industry.

    One-quarter of the tax revenue from online sports wagering — an estimated $24.3 million — would be split equally among 11 public universities in conferences with Division I football programs. The money must be used “for the benefit of student athletes,” including scholarships, insurance, medical coverage, facility enhancements and litigation settlement fees.

    The state tax money won't provide direct NIL payments to athletes. But it could facilitate that indirectly by freeing up other university resources.

    The legislation passed overwhelmingly in the final days of Louisiana's annual session.

    “We love football in Louisiana – that’s the easiest way to say it,” said Republican state Rep. Neil Riser, who sponsored the bill.

    Smaller universities are feeling the squeeze

    Many colleges and universities across the country have been feeling a financial squeeze, but it's especially affected the athletic departments of smaller schools.

    Athletic departments in the top Division I football conferences take in millions of dollars from media rights, donors, corporate sponsors and ticket sales, with a median of just 7% coming from student fees and institutional and government support, according to the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database.

    But the remaining schools in Division I football bowl conferences got a median of 63% of the revenue from such sources last year. And schools without football teams got a median of 81% of their athletic department revenues from institutional and governmental support or student fees.

    Riser said Louisiana's smaller universities, in particular, have been struggling financially and have shifted money from their general funds to their sports programs to try to remain competitive. At the same time, the state has taken in millions of dollars of tax revenue from sports bets made at least partly on college athletics.

    “Without the athletes, we wouldn’t have the revenue. I just felt like it’s fairness that we do give something back and, at the same time, help the general funds of the universities,” Riser said.

    Other states are investing in college sports

    Louisiana would become the second state behind North Carolina to dedicate a portion of its sports wagering revenues to colleges athletics. North Carolina launched online sports wagering last year under a state law earmarking part of an 18% tax on gross gaming revenue to the athletic departments at 13 public universities. The state's two largest institutions were excluded. But that might be about to change.

    Differing budget plans passed by the state House and Senate this year both would start allotting sports betting tax revenue to the athletic programs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University. The Senate version also would double the tax rate. The proposals come a year after University of North Carolina trustees approved an audit of the athletics department after a preliminary budget projected about $100 million of debt in the years ahead.

    Other schools also are taking actions because of deficits in their athletic departments. Last week, University of Kentucky trustees approved a $31 million operating loan for the athletics department as it begins making direct NIL payments to athletes. That came after trustees in April voted to convert the Kentucky athletics department into a limited-liability holding company — Champions Blue LLC — to more nimbly navigate the emerging financial pressures.

    Given the money involved in college athletics, it's not surprising that states are starting to provide tax money to athletic departments or — as in Arkansas' case — tax relief to college athletes, said Patrick Rishe, executive director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis.

    “If you can attract better athletes to your schools and your states, then this is more visibility to your states, this is more potential out-of-town economic activity for your state," Rishe said. “I do think you’re going to see many states pursue this, because you don’t want to be the state that’s left exposed or at a disadvantage.”

    David A. Lieb, The Associated Press

     

    Genius. It's a little easier in the land of LSU to be able to smash all that towards one university. As in Texas, we'll have multiple groups jockeying for a piece of whatever Tit for Tat legislation we plan to do to counter this effort. But Louisiana did something smart, for once, they monetized an entire industry where they have a regional monopoly or semi-monopoly (I can't remember if Mississippi has sports betting or not in their casinos). I don't know what an equivalent would be, but it would be like charging an out of state sales tax on Destin beaches, or charging florida women an extra surcharge for barbwire and lower back tattoos. 

    I can't think of an offhand thing Texas offers similarly that you can't get elsewhere. But would love to see this force movement on gambling in Texas. And THC. But again, the fact we'd have to split that pie with so many other schools that would be fighting tooth or nail for it makes it tough. 

    I will say, any sports gambling in LA I'm probably no longer doing. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  13. 3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

    I was making fun of Abrams. You can't criticize someone else for being simplistic about a topic and then, in the same tweet, offer a simplistic analysis on the same topic. I found the hypocrisy amusing.

    The similarities between Iran and Pakistan are superficial. One is majority Shia, the other is majority Sunni.

    One has an ongoing territorial dispute with a nuclear-armed neighbor, the other does not.

    What does Abrahms even mean by "ramped up" or "support for terrorism" here?

    How does he know that the "ramping up" didn't simply coincide with a global trend? How is he so sure that it was Pakistan's nuclear program that enabled it?

    Just because I disagree with his analysis (which, yeah, more or less boils down to "Pakistan bad ergo Iran bad") doesn't mean I "stan" for Iran. I just wish we didn't have to deal with a social media environment where a platform like X allows someone to post dogshit takes and get millions of views.

    I don't think it's simplistic to assume that a notoriously bad actor, one of the worst in the world currently, will act even worse if they have a nuclear shield to hide behind. Some statements are just pretty fucking obvious, like OU sucks, water is wet.. It's not surprising that lobbing barbs at obviously true statements and poisoning the well of the person delivering it...could be seen as stanning for Iran. 

    3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

    Would you like me to quote the multiple times I have stated that the current government of Iran needs to be removed, or would you like to actually read the thread yourself instead of forming a tapioca-brained opinion based on one single post you are misinterpreting?

    I haven't read the thread now? And that whole post is an interesting take, considering the entire second half of my post was me saying "Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, please help me understand what you meant." Tapioca, eh?

    3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

    @SydneyCarton to be clear, what I was saying was that it was ironic because Israel literally does that, not that Iran (under its current governance) wouldn't do it.

    These seems like a much more calm, rational response, and explanation, and good faith effort to have a conversation. Thank you.

    • Like 1
  14. Just now, chainsaw said:

    It's "stanning" to not want a hot war in the middle east. Okay buddy. Don't forget who launched the first attack here.

    This you, bruh?

    image.thumb.png.b249af424c49c61a4cb8fca69c5e909e.png

    The topic of my quotes, specifically, was two posts flat out saying (yours) or implying (Fantana) that just because Pakistan has nukes and has used them as a shield to misbehave regarding terrorism, doesn't mean that Iran would do the same. Fucking Iran. Now, if you want to correct my interpretation of your post, by all means. I'm all ears. 

    But the post your quoted, and then your, to paraphrase, "Pakistan is bad therefore Iran is bad, right?" well, only has one obvious interpretation to me. Which is...a defense of Iran. So by all means point how I crossed my wires. Were you just agreeing with Abrahms?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 14 hours ago, chainsaw said:

    "Don't oversimplify, but Pakistan bad ergo Iran bad."

     

    14 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

    There is some level of irony in discussing using nukes as a shield to do terrorism when discussing Israel specifically.

    I didn't have anyone basically stanning for Iran on this thread, but here we are...

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 2 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

    Sure seems like we are currently seeing the fruits of the KGB's meddling in the 60's, 70's and 80's.  How many different assassination attempts have we had in the past 12 months due to political violence?  Seems to be increasing unfortunately.

    Shit. I think the meddling is more of the last 30 years. But there's more than just that happening. If's a confluence of shit...but yeah, social media is certainly at the heart. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  17. 14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    I believe most folks on this board are more interested in finding out if their employer offers a "strained your elbow from jerking off too much to Albanian midget porn" coverage.

    At least, that's what the fellas on the football board told me.

    This isn't a joke, I know that most of this board is probably gainfully employed and insured, that being said, finding employers with even DECENT health insurance at decent rates these days, even if employed full time, is fucking tough.

    14 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, that's offensive.

    I much prefer Serbian midget porn myself.  F'n insurance companies probably draw the line there, some sort of "pre-existing condition" or some such.

    Wait till you discover SYBIAN midget porn. 

    • Like 1
  18. 6 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

     

    Oh shit. You were fucking serious. Wow.
     


     

    Quote

    Here is a list of American billionaires who's heights are known:

    Bill Gates = 5'10

    Jeff Bezos = 5'8

    Warren Buffett = 5'10

    Mark Zuckerberg = 5'7.5

    Larry Ellison = 6'3

    David Koch = 6'5

    Michael Bloomberg = 5'8

    Larry Page = 5'11

    Sergey Brin = 5'8

    Kevin Systrom = 6'5

    Paul Allen = 5'10

    Sean Parker = 5'10

    Elon Musk = 6'2

    Steve Ballmer = 6'5

    The average height of billionaires is 5'11.6 Which is 2.4 inches above the national average (5'9.2 according to the CDC). Billionaires are about as tall as the average CEO

     

×
×
  • Create New...