Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    1) no idea but I doubt it 2) I don’t think so 3) I don’t think so Now answer mine. 1) What relevance or difference does it make that Flynn was a registered foreign agent, just like Biden’s incoming national security advisor is, when he was talking with Kisylak. This “foreign agent” stuff is hilarious. Biden has at least 2 members of his team that are registered foreign agents. His national security advisor and his senior advisor ( hired to run the campaign for a Ukrainian prime minister). Bidens freaking picks for sec of state, sec of defense and director of national intelligence all formed a consulting group in 2017 to leverage their government contacts with foreign governments and businesses on how to gain US government contracts. And I have absolutely no problem with that. But they did the exact same thing that Flynn did and yet somehow you mopes don’t care about that anymore. 2) Does the law that the idiots above were referencing that said that Flynn should be put in jail only apply to certain foreign governments or all of them?
  2. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    I feel like I have stated imy position pretty clearly a few times now. I am laughing at the people that said Flynn should be criminally charged for talking to foreign governments about new policy directions before his administration was sworn in and Biden doing the same thing. I think that Biden has every right to talk to foreign leaders and I believe that he has every right to even talk about new policy stances that his incoming administration will have. I think every administration has done this and they should. I am laughing that when trumps national security advisor did the same thing it was suddenly a criminal act. I am laughing at the inconsistent mental twisting. I am laughing at the total and complete moronic behavior described above. These are great examples: jimmyjazz - He (Flynn) was acting against US foreign policy. He should be in prison. That's the end of the story. I fucking dare you to put up a cogent argument to the contrary. CaptainAnt- His (Flynn’s) goal was subversion of US policy of a sitting US president, literally acting against the national interest abroad. Read those quotes. Not anything about Flynn being a foreign agent or negotiating or anything else. Those two idiotsthought Flynn should be put in jail for doing his actual job. As I said, their stances were retarded then and they are retarded now. The only difference is that now that the shoe is on the other foot they can’t seem to remember their piousness
  3. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    Fair points. A bit hyperbolic but fair. I suppose one could argue that anyone who lobbies on behalf of foreign dictators or cigarette companies or China or any number of bad actors are slimy. It would be a really big net of prominent people but I agree that Flynn was chasing the cash more than worrying about his conscious when they accepted the contract.
  4. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    You guys are just too stupid to even respond too sometimes. You don’t even know what you are talking about. First, to claim that the national security advisor to the POTUS is simply a “ Foreign agent dip shit “ is kind of telling. Flynn was trumps national security advisor. Before joining the admin he started a firm that had foreign business dealings and, as a result, he registered as a foreign agent. Jake Sullivan is going to be Biden‘s national security advisor. After leaving Hillary‘s campaign Sullivan joined a company called Macro Advisory Partners. The firm has many ex government people in it and has contracts with multiple foreign governments. As a result, Macro/Sullivan are registered foreign agents in the exact same filing that Flynn was. Literally identical. I’m guessing you and the usual suspects did not know that. Biden‘s incoming national security advisor is a registered foreign agent in the identical sense that Flynn was a registered foreign agent as trumps national security advisor. And go do a little search of the thread where all these lunatics up above made their quotes. All of them were saying that Flynn was actually talking to the Russian ambassador on behalf of Trump. That Trump, the freakingPresident elect of the United States as you referred to Biden,should really be the one who should be charged for interfering with the current administrations policies. The combination of your ignorance and hypocrisy is stunning.
  5. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    First of all, I do not care one bit if Biden changes our immigration policy. I thought trumps position on immigration was flawed and I think Biden‘s position on immigration is flawed. But both have the right to do what they think is best. To be clear, my original post (Confusing as it may be) was not, in anyway, meant to say anything about what Biden is doing or what Trump/Flynn did was either good or bad. I was just making fun of people for having stupid hypocritical positions. That being said, I would like to debate your response a bit. First, when Biden and his team admit that in the call they talked about redeploying border assets and changing current US asylum laws and so forth, I do not see how you would say that is not negotiating foreign policy. It clearly is. Biden is openly telling a foreign country that the current approach with them under the current administration regarding immigration is going to change. again, I have no problem with that. It is how it should be. The new administration gets to call the new shots. It is actually much more of a negotiation and an undermining of the current policy though then what Flynn did. Flynn did not say that any current policy between Russia and United States was going to change. I read your posted transcript 3 times and it is just not in there. Flynn is asking that Russia refrain from a knee jerk reaction to the existing administration that would put the incoming admin in a tough spot. I fail to see how that is even controversial. Certainly not shady. And Kisylak initiated the call, not Flynn. For you, or anyone, to insinuate that what Flynn was doing was undermining US policy, then you would have to say that the US policy at the time was a hope that Russia would retaliate strongly against the United States. That is too stupid to even consider. I have no issue with you or even the new Biden administration. We will see what they do. But, you have to admit, that a few of the lunatics above like Denison and Jimmy Jazz, openly stated that Flynn should be charged with a crime for solely having a conversation with a foreign leader before the new administration was sworn in. And, based on that, they are being absolutely hypocritical when Biden is doing the exact same thing now. What they were saying was retarded then and is still retarded now.
  6. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    I know reading is hard but I think you can probably get there. I am not at all talking about the character of the Biden administration. I am talking about the character of the idiots above who openly argued a position that they now say is just fine.
  7. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    Sure it is. Explain to me how it is different? The idiots above said Flynn was a criminal because he was negotiating US foreign policy before the new administration was sworn in. That he was openly undermining the Obama administration. Now, Biden is negotiating US foreign policy before he has been sworn in. Buy that exact same definition, how is Biden not undermining the Trump administration‘s foreign policy? Do you not see the naked hypocrisy of the idiots above? as I said, I had no problem with what Flynn did in his conversation with the Russian ambassador and I have absolutely no problem with what Biden is doing with his conversations with the Mexican president. I am merely laughing at the stupidity of the posters that I quoted above.
  8. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    I don’t think that means what you think it does.
  9. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    No shit. And Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor. The idiots above are the ones who referred to Flynn as a private citizen because Trump wasn’t inaugurated yet. That’s the point. By their own idiotic words Biden is just a private citizen at this point who is undermining current IS policy.
  10. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    Lmao. Maybe you guys should read the post again. Countless idiots on this board said Flynn was a criminal for interfering with US policy before Trump was inaugurated by having a phone call with the Russian ambassador and “discussing” US policy. One of the biggest idiots was even presented a hypothetical where the incoming administration would do the same thing and if he would still feel the same way and he indignantly said that he would. i guess you either have principles and character or not. it was no big deal when Flynn talked to the ambassador and it is no big deal that Biden is doing it. The naked hypocrisy is amusing to me
  11. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    Just curious why you think his work with Turkey was "reprehensible"?
  12. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    I forgot where I was. President elect Joe Biden has openly admitted to talking with foreign leaders about changing US foreign policy while still a private citizen. A few years ago, there were a lot of people that thought such an act was worthy of jail time. Also, I have not yet started drinking which is a flaw on my part.
  13. sheeeit

    Biden/Flynn

    https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-12-19/mexicos-president-says-spoke-by-phone-with-us-president-elect-biden For no other reason than I found it funny. I am sure the usual suspects will be posting how Biden should go to jail and is a miserable traitor for discussing policy before inaugurated. A few of my favorites: jimmyjazz- He was acting against US foreign policy. He should be in prison. That's the end of the story. I fucking dare you to put up a cogent argument to the contrary. Hugo- Flynn is a fucking traitor. That is all. dennison-Why was MikeFlynn talking to the Russians?" Hayduke- Flynn interfered with Obama’s foreign policy by negotiating with Russia and lied to Pence and the FBI about it. That was not legal. Lagunamadre- That would be a good defense. Guessing the prosecutors would probably point out that Flynn was a private citizen (not an "intelligence official") on December 29, 2016 when he spoke to the Russian ambassadors about sanctions. What would be your next defense after the courtroom got finished laughing at your first one? CaptainAnt- His goal was subversion of US policy of a sitting US president, literally acting against the national interest abroad. CaptainAnt- Suck my hairy ass and read and respond to the rest of my post while you celebrate the clearing of a person who actively conspired to subvert US foreign policy jimmyjazz- Flynn was working against US foreign policy. It doesn't surprise me a bit that Anastasis and others don't seem to see the problem with this. To me, it's dangerously close to treason, but hey, that's just me. Dennison- The FBI was well within its authority to want to look into what he and the Russians were talking about. Private citizens are prohibited from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the United States. jimmyjazz- He was working against US foreign policy. Only in your retarded "I'm not a freak Libertarian" Libertarian pro-Trump world could you make the argument you just made and then also make any similar case had it been the inverse in terms of parties. Dude, own your fucking Trumpiness. jimmyjazz- No, it's because taking actions to contradict existing foreign policy with an enemy is in my view "treasonous". Are you really struggling with this? TRUMP HAD NOT BEEN INAUGURATED. jimmyjazz- The President correct? What if there’s an election at the end of his term and his successor ran explicitly on overturning many of his policy achievements and defeated someone that basically ran on maintaining the status quo? What if one of the most noteworthy policy differences he was proposing was a change in the tone and direction of the foreign policy? Are you fucking serious? Of course I would have been "OK" with it, disregarding political differences. Nobody gets a fucking head start you idiot. jimmyjazz- Let's try this again: do you think it's cool for a private citizen to contradict foreign policy? dennison- Well, it's against the law. hayduke- It’s ok to not follow the law when it’s my team!!!! Trumpkin cant help but trumpkin!
  14. I think it is a solid hire. Cracks me up how miserably wrong all of the supposed insiders were. Of course it won’t but a LOT of people should clue in that what is reported by websites is just speculative bullshit. This is very true at Texas as well.
  15. I’d say Auburn is a top 20 job. Maybe around 15 but obviously subjective. I did a little checking and during GMs tenure the ranking of Alabama at the time of the game was 1,2,2,1,1,1,5,1. He did manage to win 3 times. My guess is Sark, Fickle or Napier.
  16. Rare night alone in 2020. Weed then beer then prep then beer then start cooking then weed then finish cooking then weed then red wine. love the cooking techniques from here. I went basic, oven for 20, seer on grill 3 a side. Spectacular. The salt for 30 pre cooking is genius and vastly underrated. Filet plus old school mac and cheese because I’m old and the combo is glorious. I am a young firm Asian masseuse away from my greatest night of 2020.
  17. I agree pretty much with everything you posted here and should apologize for lumping you in with the BTs and similar. The issue we are facing though, is what happens when your personal beliefs and another person's personal beliefs, are the subject of change from existing norms. When those beliefs have an actual impact on your life. I think most would agree that the song is not a "life or death" issue but, again, where do you draw the line. The song may not mean much to you personally, but, sooner or later, something that does mean a lot to you is going to face the same situation. If the answer to that is to never offend anyone, then literally every thing we do is subject to being cancelled. Where do you draw the line? Some segment of society is always going to perceive some sort of offensiveness in everything. This is why these types of discussions are valuable and important and not easy to resolve. If the muslim students say they are deeply offended by hotdog sales at games, should we stop selling hotdogs? If the strong baptists are offended by people drinking beer at the stadium, should we stop it? I just do not think telling that muslim or baptist person that I really truly understand how you are offended by this but I am just not going to stop doing it helps in any way.
  18. Your inconsistency and hypocrisy are on full display. "You want me to have the same personal emotional causes that Song Karen does and I just don't. I have sung and will sing the song among Longhorns who appreciate it. I won't perform it among those who don't." "If everyone around is fine with The Eyes, we will sing it. If someone is not, we won't. This is just normal human decency so I can see why it confuses you guys." So even though a large contingent (99% of the athletic department apparently) feels the song is racist and offensive, you will just sing it in the dark. As long as no one hears you sing it then it isn't offensive or racist. Very principled stance. "I don't think The Eyes is a racist song in itself (lyrically). It was played at my wedding. It will be played at my funeral. I will sing it again and again and again until that time. I will most likely be singing it at a birthday celebration this weekend." Interesting that you already know that no one at the upcoming birthday party is offended by the song. Maybe there was a question in the invitation? And your funeral. Its interesting (and maybe telling) that you have zero friends, acquaintances or colleagues that might want to pay respects to you that find the song offensive. You realize you dont put the guest list together for your funeral right. But, fuck it, you will dead so lets just play the song that I have admitted is offensive to many black people because I will be dead and who gives a fuck if they find out I really did not care at all what their feelings were about the song. "I am not going to games this year, but if I could go out there knowing the athletes in front of me had a free choice to be there, I'd sing it myself like I have on hundreds of other occasions." This is a perfect example of my point. You have said that 99% of the football players have a problem with the eyes. Yet, you fully admit that you would sing the song as long as the athletes had a choice to be there. Just classic example of what I have been saying. You are admitting openly that you would sing the song at the games even though you think it will offend 99% of the team as long as they get to go to the locker room first. So the school comes out and says no one has to remain for the song. Some leave and some stay. You sing knowing that each player that left the field is going to be offended. "I've got great news for you. You can sing it whenever you want and I'm 99.99999% certain you will never hear anyone call you racist for doing so!" So the athletes that think the song is racist and offensive will not be offended or think someone is racist if they sing the song that the athletes say is offensive and racist. "The pianist at my wedding played The Eyes and we all sang along. I've heard it at funerals. I've sung it at games and reunions and gatherings dozens and dozens and dozens of times. I'll sing it dozens more if Satan doesn't take my soul." Exactly. As I mentioned over and over, you have no issue singing a song that you fully admit lots of people find offensive and racist. You supposedly validate their feelings that the song is racist and offensive but do not really believe them because you will keep singing the song. Again, very principled. "You can be OK with it, and I can be OK with it, but if a black person isn't OK with it I have no standing to contradict them or "WELL ACTUALLY!" the situation." So according to BT logic, people are free to "criticize as long as you do it in a non-toxic, unoffensive way" or free to "Intelligently criticizing arguments" as long as they never "contradict" them or "well actually" the situation. That is going to be quite a trick to argue with someone over a subjective point and not be able to contradict them or "well actually" point out additional facts that they may not be aware of.
  19. Well that is a much more nuance Props to you. However, I think this creates a very tough position for you and some others on this thread (BT etc) that perhaps you do not realize. At this point there are 3 camps of what people believe: 1) The song is not racist and those that think it is are manufacturing their outrage 2) The song is racist and it should not be sung anymore and should not be a song affiliated with UT 3) They do not personally believe the song is racist but understand why black people could think that it is and that no one should criticize them for having that opinion You and BT etc have posted that you fall pretty squarely in camp 3. I personally think this is a total cop out position and incredibly offensive to the people that you want to support. Your words are completely empty when your actions are the opposite of what you say. All of you make claims that you personally do not think the song is racist and that you fully intend to keep singing the song and have no problem with anyone else continuing to sing the song. BT said it will be played at his funeral. So what you are guys are doing is saying with your words that you acknowledge that black people can find the song racist and you can validate their feelings about it, but you don't really care what they say or what they feel about it because you are going to keep singing it and playing it. This is just classic coddling and patronizing and belittling. This is not arguing purely subjective things like who has the best football program or something similar. This is a group of human beings saying they are offended by a song that they think is racist and you saying that you understand them and then inviting them over for dinner to play the song. When people throw around words like racist and racism, there should not be any middle ground. Lets say you went to a friend or colleague or even a stranger and told them flatly that some act they were doing was incredibly offensive to you personally. And then that person said something to the effect of "I understand where you are coming from. I do not believe what you believe but I have no right to question how you feel because I do not have the same life experiences that you do" You would rightfully think that was a good answer. But if the next 10 times you were with that person they continued unabated doing the exact same thing you told them was personally offensive to you, I think you would rightfully think they were total assholes that actually did not care one bit that you were offended. This is exactly what you guys are doing now. Paying lip service to someone's feelings to their face and then continuing on with the practice. You guys have made it abundantly clear that people that think the song is racist are not dumb or do not lack critical thinking skills or are misguided. You have clearly said that you completely understand how that song can make them feel and then, in the same instance, say that you personally are going to just keep on singing and enjoying the song.
  20. lulz. What point did you imagine in your mind that I was trying to make? I was laughing at one of the idiot Jimmys. "Actually it’s Dotard hating. You think any people lined up at 5:00 am in 2016 because they wanted attention? Those people didn’t exist. "
  21. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/24/some-texas-counties-long-lines-complicate-early-vo/
  22. I am fascinated by this comment. I think I understand it but I have no idea where the line, if there actually is one, gets crossed. And I am not trying to call anyone out. I'm genuinely curious about your answer based on your posts in this thread. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002589/technology-perpetuates-racism-by-design-simulmatics-charlton-mcilwain/ The above is an article written by a black professor from NYU. He basically tries to argue that advancements in technology have been used by white people to discriminate against black people. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. So if a black member of this site said that your avatar of Steve Jobs shows that you are racist because Jobs was one of the most famous and influential people in creating and advancing technology that is being used to and was specifically designed to systematically discriminate against black people and that unless you change your avatar you are a true racist and that person will accuse this site of racism (since you are a moderator) and post it all over social media. Do you get to respond? Defend yourself? Change your avatar?
  23. Changes regarding the whole black community at UT - The replacement of the Eyes of Texas with a new song without racist undertones Critical thinking on full display.
  24. Huh? I think you missed the entire point. I said that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking on the article BEFORE it was published. That is the whole point. Multiple people on this thread have said they believe the story because it was in the Atlantic and the Atlantic has this supposed reputation for "fanatical" fact checking. I simply went to one recent article (the first one that came up when I searched) where it was completely obvious that the Atlantic did not do any fact checking. A story in July of 2020 about a supposed policeman that shot an unarmed kid over not signing into gym registry before playing basketball? That is about as incendiary as an article can be in today's environment. The Atlantic knows that. They counted on that to help drive the story. You think it might be importnat to make sure a story like that is actually true before printing it. And it apparently wasn't too hard to fact check as some other journalist were able to do it. I can't believe an actual intelligent person would type with a straight face that a publication that fails to fact check an article before it is printed and shared on hundreds of sites and other sources actually does care about facts because they then print a correction when they are shamed into having to admit that they printed a false article. It is bizarro world. It is further proof that you and others have completely lost all your ability to think. Yes it was somewhat akin to an opinion piece (which are subject to the same fact checking requirements) which is why I specifically included the fact that an Atlantic editor tweeted the article out under the Atlantic banner.
  25. Fair analysis. And if you read what I have actually typed versus what people have accused me of typing, you would easily see that I never claimed the story to be debunked. I even said it was quite possible it was true. I wasn't defending trump nor was I trying to debunk the story. I was calling out shitty journalism for printing a story based on anonymous quotes when there were plenty of people in the room at the time of the story (if you read the Atlantic story it is very specific on when the alleged quotes by trump were made) that were quite willing to go on the record with what they heard and they were ignored but the anonymous ones were not. Honest journalism would have included the anonymous quotes and also added that the Atlantic reached out to Bolton, who recently released a book that is extremely critical Trump and Bolton said he never heard anything like that in the meeting, and we reached out to the Ambassador who was in the meeting and she said it never happened and we reached out to the chief of staff for Gen Kelly who was also in the room and he confirmed that the the secret service and Gen Kelly made the call to cancel the flight and that Trump never made any disparaging comments about the soldiers. That would be good journalism.
×
×
  • Create New...