Jump to content

Cacti

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cacti

  1. 16 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    She's been thrust much higher than that, almost as an image of a movement.

     

    4 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

    By who exactly? 

     

    2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

      I'm genuinely kinda flummoxed by why she's been annointed the standard-bearer of all things Democrat by the GOP.

    Flummoxed?

    Well, she was anointed—maybe not of all things Democrat—but nevertheless anointed, but it wasn’t by the GOP. Who then, exactly? It was none other than DNC chair, Tom Perez, who called her “the future of our party.” He singled her out as the ‘future’, thereby putting a face to a not insignificant movement within their party. And his statement gave her immediate national recognition, so much so that other far-left winners were barely noticed.

    So in this case the GOP didn’t have to manufacture a bogeyman…Perez gave them one on a silver platter.

  2. 1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

    Let’s see what OU looks like without a Heisman level QB running that offense next year.

     

    19 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    There has to be a drop off after Murray, in theory. 

     

    OU has had an extraordinary run of good/great college quarterbacks going back nearly 20 years:  Josh Heupel, Nate Hybl, Jason White, Sam Bradford, Landry Jones, Mayfield and now, Murray. That’s not even counting Thompson or Bell, both of whom won 11 games in 2006 and 2013, respectively.

  3. 20 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    I've legit started thinking about getting a gun for home defense solely because of this type of rhetoric. I fear a series of events where bad actors attack our infrastructure (water, electric, etc) while Trump has whipped up his "army" of NRA militiamen. 

    No need for a gun. Just put a MAGA sticker on your door...your house will be passed over.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  4. 46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    One of the things that disgusts me most about Donald Trump is his utter refusal to make any effort to be honest.  The man lies.  And, it should be no shock that his supporters lie.  A lot.  As you just did.

    Donald Trump captured 60% of the veteran vote.  You tell me how that's a 2:1 ratio.  See, you can't help yourself.  You can't just make the solid argument that a good majority of veterans voted for Trump.  You have to exaggerate, stretch the truth, and thus shoot yourself in the dick as far as all future arguments go.

    It’s not a 2:1 ratio. Originally I did a quick search and made the mistake of going with the first headline, without reading the source the article referenced.

    Why US veterans voted 2-to-1 for Donald Trump

    The actual ratio is 1.81:1. As you noted the correct ratio doesn’t materially change my argument.

    My lack of due diligence means I made a mistake, but that’s not the same thing as lying, as I was not intentionally trying to mislead anyone.

    And what warrants your assumption that I either voted for or support Trump?

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 4 hours ago, Agent47 said:

    In fact everybody who ever voted Republican should be sued, mocked, reviled, belittled, blamed, excoriated, humiliated, lampooned, ridiculed, banished, imprisoned, spanked, scarlet lettered, scalped, stripped naked, sullied, wedgied, stockaded, fingered, jet slapped, swirlied, decried, expelled, tarred and feathered ... for their imbecility, immorality and unamericanism. 

    They're traitors. Traitors, I say!!!

    And I'm not kidding. 

    You’re certainly not the first poster on this board who has put the label of traitor on anyone who voted for Trump. As a matter of fact, words such as traitor, racist, immoral, fascist, an enemy of democracy, etc. are commonly used to describe all Trump voters.

    So before expressing gratitude to our veterans this weekend, just remember that they voted for Trump by a 2 to 1 margin. Be careful; given those odds it’s very likely that your appreciation will be directed to a traitor, a racist, a fascist and an enemy of democracy.

    • Fuck You 3
  6. 3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    Life here is really good when you have people like tjhooker and Iconoclast on ignore. Try it guys, it's great. There's no virtue in allowing morons and trolls space in your head. There are PLENTY of people who think differently from you that are worth listening to.

    I visit this forum frequently but I don’t see very many posters with different views; just the opposite.

    Between you and the two posters who agree with you (Wildcat09 and Brickhorn), can the three of you together name five or six out of the “PLENTY” of posters who have different political views, yet are worth listening to?

  7.  

    4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

    One liners are as easy as Alabama sorority girls.

    This is a good start but to be proficient at one-liners you need to learn from the examples of other posters. To grab the reader’s attention—and to show you are serious—you should always include some obscenities/vulgarities. Here are some examples:

    3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    It’s Bammer, you humorless fuckwad.

     

    4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    lol at this Spock motherfucker dropping a “one liner”.

     

  8. On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:33 PM, Bama Chick said:

    This place would be horrible if everyone posted long winded essays of 5, 000 words when they can get the message across in 1/16th of that.

     

    4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    Change the tampon and look into brevity.

    Fuck. 10,000 words, multiple times, to say “Old place good, new place bad.”

    I think you’re on to something. The first choice one should use to get their point across is a gif—no words at all. But if words are necessary, then for the sake of brevity one should not use more than 280 characters.

  9. 8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    I believe in the same God that today’s dead believed in. And I believe that you will one day answer to that God. It will not be a good day for you.

     

    1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    I wish for you to feel the last of their life ebb, as the blood pours from their wounds. 

     

    1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    I simply wish for you to have...The experience of holding your wife, or child, as they breathe their last, staring up into your eyes in terror, not even understanding what’s happening. I wish you anguish. I wish you a life of pain.

    What kind of day will it be for someone who wishes pain and suffering on others?

    • Like 1
  10. 4 minutes ago, DeadSalamander said:

    SUCH a troll. Your reply sounds like every other aggy who comes on here pretending to be a texas fan.

    mop is who he says he is. If you had any familiarity at all with posters on Hornfans and the subsequent sites, you would know that.

    • Like 2
  11. 47 minutes ago, Cacti said:

    That's not the way this works. Even before you know who I voted before, you decided that I'm a Republican. On what basis?

     

    37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Mainly this:

    That’s an understandable characterization of Kavanaugh based on his testimony alone. And if those few hours of testimony were all we had from which to judge him, then it’s only human to conclude that he revealed his true character…you know, first impressions and all. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are not limited to his testimony when evaluating his character/personality. If, at his core he is truly overly emotional and a naked partisan, then surely those flaws could be teased from among the hundreds of opinions that he authored, eleven of which were adopted by SCOTUS.  

    Maybe those faults have been discovered in his writings and I’m not aware of them, but the vast majority of arguments against his suitability to serve on SCOTUS have been based on impressions from his hours-long testimony, while totally ignoring his twelve-year history as an appellate judge.

    And even if you choose not to take his work history into consideration, then at least take into account that Supreme Court Justices—like appellate court justices—don’t work in an environment anything like a Congressional hearing, where their integrity/character is questioned by partisan hacks. In other words, you won’t see the “overly emotional” Kavanaugh again. As for making “naked partisan” decisions…I guess we will have to wait and see.  

    If you think my opinion that work history is more relevant than a few hours of ‘gotcha’ questions is proof that I’m a Republican, then I’d have to say that at some point, logic and you departed ways.

    Consider this opinion: As bad as Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, Garland was treated even worse by the Republicans; after all, he wasn’t even given have a chance to have his work history ignored.

    So by your logic I’m now a Democrat, right?

        

     

  12. 42 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

    ...logic dictates you either believe one or the other or conclude you don’t know.  If you don’t know, you can still conclude that since Ford is credidible, and believes her testimony, that there is enough doubt to move on to the next candidate.  That is what a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee would do....  

    In no way should Senate confirmation hearings be considered “a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee”, not when the vast majority of the ‘hiring committee’ have made up their minds well before the so-called job interview.

    • Like 2
  13. 2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

    ...Kavanaugh is...an overly emotional naked partisan who’s quick to anger with a propensity for stretching the truth. That’s not Supreme Court material.

    That’s an understandable characterization of Kavanaugh based on his testimony alone. And if those few hours of testimony were all we had from which to judge him, then it’s only human to conclude that he revealed his true character…you know, first impressions and all. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are not limited to his testimony when evaluating his character/personality. If, at his core he is truly overly emotional and a naked partisan, then surely those flaws could be teased from among the hundreds of opinions that he authored, eleven of which were adopted by SCOTUS.  

    Maybe those faults have been discovered in his writings and I’m not aware of them, but the vast majority of arguments against his suitability to serve on SCOTUS have been based on impressions from his hours-long testimony, while totally ignoring his twelve-year history as an appellate judge.

    And even if you choose not to take his work history into consideration, then at least take into account that Supreme Court Justices—like appellate court justices—don’t work in an environment anything like a Congressional hearing, where their integrity/character is questioned by partisan hacks. In other words, you won’t see the “overly emotional” Kavanaugh again. As for making “naked partisan” decisions…I guess we will have to wait and see.     

    • Like 1
  14. 57 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    In all honesty, I hope no one does anything extremely stupid and hurts/kills someone involved in this in the next 72hrs or so.

     

    52 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    As polarized as our politics are, violence is inevitable.

     

    14 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Time to water the tree of liberty...there will be blood.

     

    13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Yep. 

    So are you guys predicting that the seating of Kavanaugh will cause right-leaning folks—you know, the Republicans/Nazis/deplorables—to become violent toward the liberals?

  15. 7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Sure, but come on. We all know the clerks write the opinions.

    If we are in agreement that the content accurately reflects his view, then what is the disagreement with what I said? That being, “I think that one can certainly get a reading of a judge’s temperament/personality from reading their opinions, especially if those opinions number in the hundreds.”

     

  16. 55 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    He showed his true colors last week. His judicial temperament in signing opinions that his clerk’s wrote that he edited is not indicative of his true personality.

    I think that one can certainly get a reading of a judge’s temperament/personality from reading their opinions, especially if those opinions number in the hundreds.

    I don’t think that you are suggesting that Kavanaugh’s opinions are not his own, are you?  

    .

  17. 2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

    No. He's unfit to serve because he's a GOP political operative parroting conspiracy theories who has committed perjury multiple times, both before and after the sexual assault allegations, and whose resume is by and large hidden from view.

    The underlined part is demonstrably false; that is, if you are willing to consider his twelve-year body of work as an appellate judge as an integral part of his resume (silly, I know). He has written hundreds of opinions for the D.C. Circuit, none of which are “hidden from public view”, and if it’s true that “he’s a GOP political operative” then it shouldn’t be hard to prove that point by citing examples from his numerous, previous opinions.

    • Like 1
  18. 3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    Are you seriously asking why perjury should be a bigger deal than non-perjurious lying FOR SOMEONE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?

    You seem to think that there is a distinction between lying under oath to Congress and lying to Congress while not under oath. Both are considered perjurious and both have essentially the same penalties.

    But back to my first question: “From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such matters worse than lying while not under oath?” Only one person replied in the affirmative. So if you’re not using the moral argument, then you’re left with the legal argument. And it’s not word games to point out that the statements “one lied under oath” and “one committed perjury” are not synonymous. The former is an opinion, or perhaps charge, not yet proven, while the latter is a conviction in a court or in some other setting covered by law.

    It may be clear that Kavanaugh lied—just as it was clear that Bill Clinton lied—but Bill was never found guilty of perjury and, therefore, was not removed from office. Kavanaugh won’t be found guilty of perjury either, but that doesn’t mean accusations and innuendo won’t end his SCOTUS ambitions.

×
×
  • Create New...