Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39759
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

    I found their behaviour the year the won to be a bit unseemly.  

    I loved it.  Dirt.  Bags.  All the way.

    Ten strikeouts isn't what you expect from a team with no player having double digit HR.

  2. 1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

    the bunt down the 3rd base line that they didn't execute was a killer.

    There was a good bit of luck for LSU on that, as well.  Like blOwU softball.  I don't think they're all that, but you can't dick around with them.

  3. Just now, WBT said:

    Going to be out.  Another dumbass sticking his arm out on what would have been ball 4.

    Done?  It's 1-0 in Game 1.

    They look  . .  . limp.  LSU is not some juggernaut.  But they're an experienced CWS team.

  4. 12 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

    Sounds like bunker busters deployed if Furdow was a target. Super curious to see if they worked. So far from what I understand it their efficacy on a fortified bunker that deep was theoretical..

    Didn't do shit in Tora Bora.

    ETA: Well, maybe we didn't use it there.  Could have sworn we did.

  5. If Coastal pitcher lets up, they're in deep doodoo.

    Of course Alexander been flirtin with disaster all night, but Coastal keeps letting him off the hook

  6. Coastal finna fuck the dog.

    Correction, they're fucking the dog.  The question is whether for keeps.

    Let these lucky fuckers hang around with a lead and you'll be donezeo.

  7. 5 hours ago, Slacks said:

    I'll play devil's advocate...

    Original Intent gets thrown around a lot by so-called strict constitutionalists. For those who claim this angle, one can argue that all policies should follow original intent.

    Of course the counter to that is that original intent cannot apply, as the Constitution has been amended, thus amending intent.

    But I'm not a ConLaw scholar, so what do I know?

    The way I think it works or is supposed to work is the original text gets original intent, amended text gets original intent as of the time of the amendment.

  8. 6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    Well, since morality cannot be measured objectively, they could not be considered 100% “accurate“

    Well, there are a couple of different aspects to this guy's paper.  First is that "we the people" was intended to exclude non-whites.  Second  is that it was proper and right for it to do so.  I think the former, although a repugnant idea, could be the subject of an award-winning paper.  The second aspect or topic is going to be far less defensible.

    The article above ascribes the first topic or subject to the paper.  Ibram X. Kendi could have written that.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    I categorically disagree if you are talking about a paper written in an academic setting whose basic premise and or conclusions are morally reprehensible 

    What if they are 100% accurate? 

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