Jump to content

NameAlreadyInUse

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NameAlreadyInUse

  1. 7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

    This is not a unique circumstance in our legal system.  Almost every trial works this way.  We read in the papers of an indictment of, say, John Gotti, head of the Gambino crime family.  Now I've got a damn good idea that he's guilty but at the time of the indictment I have no real facts.  A massive amount of smoke, but no fire.   And if I'm on the jury I'll await the facts.

    But we do have a unique circumstance in that we have a president who has decided that the emoluments clause of the Constitution doesn’t apply to him. This isn’t a supposition. It’s not speculation. It’s a fact. I’m not hearing any Republicans even giving the side eye over that.  I’m seeing a lot of Republicans saying they are waiting for “proof” as if it hasn’t already been presented as it relates to at least one impeachable offense. 

    In short, I don’t believe you. 

  2. On 4/26/2018 at 11:41 AM, BrickHorn said:

    “But Hillary” is the same logic that morons used to defend Charlie Strong.  “At least he’s not Mack Brown!”  

    Well, he's not Mack Brown.

     

     

  3. 1 hour ago, slorch said:

    I deleted no posts.

     

    Disagreeing with this PC bullshit is not disgusting.  It also does not make me a bad person, as others have accused.  it doesn't mean I hate you are wish you ill will.  i just think you should handle it on your own.  It is absolutely discretionary.

     

    Gotdam you motherfuckers are eaten up with "agree with us, fund our shit, or go to hell."

     

    Our society is on crazy pills.

    Once again I will ask you why you get to draw the line instead of Tom Cruise or a Christian Scientist?

  4. 2 things...all of those people here saying for 100% sure they wouldn't have attended reminded me of Eddie Murphy's bit about his black friends all saying they would never have been slaves.  The established social order is a fucking powerful beast.  I find the very idea of treating people differently because of their skin color so repugnant that its hard for me to fathom slavery or lynchings, but I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have been in a crowd 60 years ago to witness a lynching.  

    And, I didn't look at this thread originally because I have some prejudice of my own to deal with.  I actually thought this was a memorial to celebrate lynchings, since it was being built in Alabama.  I'm going to work on trying to be better at not doing that shit.  I hope all of us can work on that.

     

    • Like 3
  5. 2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I think we should try and help those with gender identity issues.  But does anyone know what is effective?

    If someone wants to transition to a gender and can do it in a way that helps them, let’s do it.  

    We should also consider helping their loved ones. It has to be devastating to their parents, siblings and kids. Maybe more societal acceptance can lessen that. 

    Yes, what's effective is providing hormones to allow a person to express the gender they believe they are.  It's pretty straightforward. But you were upthread arguing against that treatment plan, so maybe that's not the answer you want to hear.

    As for loved ones, I agree.  But the hardness for family is largely because of the stigma.  And the stigma remains because people are against just letting doctors treat their patients without a big political showdown about it.  So all we have to do as a society is stop making snide comments about fags and trannies, and quit trying to pass laws that make it harder for LGBT+ people to just go about their daily lives, and shut the fuck up about what a health care provider might decide with a patient about what is in the best interest of that patient. We do that, and the stigma will fall apart, and it will be way less hard for the loved ones of LGBT+ people to deal with the fact that their loved one is LGBT+.

  6. 11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Trump is pissed Michelle Wolf is getting all the attention instead of him and all the crazy shit he said at his rally.

     

    Sorry to rehash this if its already been stated, but this motherfucker has no business claiming anyone is an embarrassment to this country.  He's the king of embarrassing the USA.  If he's not prepared to resign in shame for the embarrassment he's already caused us, he needs to shut the fuck up about pointing fingers.

  7. 2 hours ago, slorch said:

    Not true.

     

    The dispute is what I should be on the hook for financially.

     

    IDGAF about what you or anyone else wants to call themselves.  Do it on your own fucking dime.

     

    Just like everything else right now, this is not about freedom.  It's about extracting some sick sense of "retribution" against people who might disagree.  

     

    Do whatever the fuck you want.  Don't tell me to pay for it.

    And how, exactly, are you on the hook?  #1, you never went to UT so you never paid the fees as part of your tuition, and #2, you aren't sending your kids to UT.  And if I listen to you and stop treating for something so you don't have to pay for it, does that mean I should also stop treating everything else because some Christian Scientist is up in arms that he's paying for medical treatments for others?  Or mental health services because Tom Cruise and his merry band of Scientologists think they are full of shit?

    Why do you get to draw the line on what you are willing to pay for and the rest of us don't?

  8.  

    3 hours ago, Caddox said:

    So you're going with "I don't believe you." Good talk. 

    Yes, until you prove otherwise.  I've played this game before when it was me in the hot seat instead of Troph.  The language you used to begin your post is the exact language I've heard about myself for years from people who were not going to be happy until I was either dead, in jail or converted to straightness.  If your wording was just an unfortunate coincidence then I'm prepared to adjust my opinion, but I'm not there yet.  Would you like to clarify what you meant?

    • Like 1
  9. 19 minutes ago, Caddox said:

    You clearly didnt read a single thing I wrote bc I clearly said I want these people to get the treatment they need and I want them to be treated with the same dignity we all receive when receiving treatment for our health issues. And I didn't figure out how to make it political, the entire issue is incredibly politically charged. Pretending like its not at this point is silly. 

    It’s politically charged because conservatives decided that they don’t need science to decide how we should live our lives. They did it with the gays and they are doing it with trans people. They also complain about identity politics while they are deriding those of us that are different and giving us a single option. Turn straight, or to your birth gender, or receive our scorn. So when you complain about identity politics you are just carrying on in the conservative tradition we have grown to appreciate as a barricade to our mental health. I don’t trust that you meant the rest of what you said because of the loaded terms you used up front. Those terms speak to politicization of medical treatment, and that is the absolute wrong way to look at this. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Caddox said:

    See I think your first sentence is the problem. By its most basic definition its a disorder of some kind. While it might not originate in the brain it certainly affects it, to the point that suicide is a real concern. To me that means the stakes are pretty high and we should be very precise in the language we use to talk about whats going on inside the body. Its very similar to disorders that are classified as mental, in that the conversation needs to be much more honest and open. Depression is a huge issue, and yet the average person doesn't even know what it is and how it can be treated with medicine to improve actual physical interactions in the brain. 

    When I hear about someone like yourself I think to myself, man that sucks for that person. When I realize its very treatable I think to myself thats great I hope treatment goes well and they can get back on track. When I see the identity politics crowd use someone with this condition to bolster their own narrative, red flags go up quickly. 

    So here’s the problem with your argument. You start talking about identity politics as if it’s out to get you and that raises my red flags. It tells me you aren’t interested in Tropheus getting any kind of treatment to make her whole. You want her to be broken so you can say you stood up to those identity politics bullies. I want Tropheus to live her life to the fullest, free from stigma. I want all of her trans brothers and sisters to be treated the same way. I want all of her gay brothers and sisters to be treated the same way. I want all of her straight brothers and sisters to be treated the same way. If that means I’m playing identity politics then I’m playing identity politics. But medical care should not be a political issue. If you have figured out how to make it political, you are doing it wrong. 

    • Like 5
  11. So UHS is going to start treating for this now.  This is great for those that need it.  For those of us that don't, its much like them treating the flu.  Great for those who need it, and not worth thinking about for those that don't.  Can't believe anyone is wasting brain cycles being upset about this, but some people need to make everything political I guess.

    • Like 1
  12. On 4/23/2018 at 2:34 PM, LonghornJones said:

    It seems like just yesterday when I got my hands on a nice, hot Dude. Just felt right.

    Been there, my friend. Agreed. 

    Also, I learned never to go to DQ outside of Texas many years ago. We stopped at one in Ohio while on a road trip to catch the Texas game in Pittsburgh. Fuckers charged extra for hamburger toppings. And they didn’t have steak fingers or gravy on the menu at all. Fuck non-Texas DQ’s. 

    • Haha 1
  13. 10 minutes ago, slorch said:

    They both have limits.  I did not argue what you are proposing in your post.

     

    I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

    We have an aversion to accountability...so let's go after the possession of firearms by (otherwise) law-abiding citizens.

     

    Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

    I agreed that you were arguing that.  What I was doing is saying that this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation, so comparing those regulations to the 1st amendment  is not appropriate.  

  14. 5 hours ago, slorch said:

    I missed the Constitutional right for citizens to have the uranium.  Could you please cite the provision?

     

    The question remains:  Why do we want to be all Minority Report with guns, but speech is treated with kid gloves until someone actually...um...fires a shot?

     

    Political capital...that's why.

    I don't recall the 2nd amendment putting a limit on what constitutes arms.  If we're going to argue the second amendment gives us an unfettered right to bear arms, it should include all arms, including nuclear.  If we aren't willing to argue that, then we need to all admit that the 2nd amendment, while giving us access to bearing arms, does have some logical limits to it. 

    If you want to say there are limits, then you are admitting that this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation, and that you are in agreement that unfettered access to weapons is an unreasonable reading of the 2nd amendment.  Once you've done that, this isn't a 2nd amendment conversation at all, its a discussion on how much regulation you prefer.  And that means that your comparison between this and the first amendment doesn't hold water.  

  15. 4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    From your lips to voters' ears.

    Look, I'm going to be volunteering to drive people to the polls on election day.  I'm all-in on driving up good turnout.  But angry, hateful people are dedicated motherfuckers. Never bet against them.  They have a pretty solid, lopsided W-L record throughout human history.

    Oh shit, don't forget to bring your walking around money to hand out.  You want to make sure they will actually show up to vote!

     

     

     

     

  16. On 4/21/2018 at 12:05 AM, Lhorn said:

    There was a Kenny Rogers Roaster restaurant in Austin briefly wasn't there?  I'm thinking sometime in the 90-94 range (cause that's when I was there).  Regret that I never got to sample it's chicken-y goodness.  

    RIP in advance.  He had a great voice.

    Those are still going strong in Asia, but I don't think they exist in the US any longer.  I've had some in Malaysia, because its Kenny Rogers,  and it was pretty tasty.

  17. 24 minutes ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

    Please point out which amendment guarantees the right to a dinner knife on an airplane.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

    Or do knives not count?  Ain’t a word excluding airplanes in that whole text either. 

×
×
  • Create New...