Jump to content

quigley

Full Members
  • Posts

    1440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by quigley

  1. 2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

    Incremental change my ass.

    They don't want change ever. Unless it's to regress.

    1. Agree with Buckley being an ass.

    2. Agree with incremental change as a fallacy.

    I'm commenting on their propositions, not their practice. We agree that they don't live up to their word (see above).

  2. 8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Donald Trump is a reactionary populist. He is not a conservative.

    He's a populist in the European tradition with his severe xenophobia. American populism has been more economic generally (Wallace would be an exception to this).

    Populists in America want class rebellion, not race war.

    He's definitely reactionary.

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

    I think the discussion is supposed to be about ideology. Not party alignment. Libertarians are more extreme in pushing for a market completely free of regulation and absolute personal freedom - and I'm not sure I would consider either of those platforms part of traditional conservative rhetoric. You're kind of bastardizing what I wrote but I appreciate the response.

    I agree about this being ideological. The values you're espousing are Libertarian. Conservatism is different.

    Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo with incremental change.

    It supports gun rights because they're part of the American tradition (at least the spaghetti Western version). Conservatism supports free market philosophy for the same reason (ignoring history also). It doesn't support accountability/responsibility for marijuana use because it isn't part of White American history.

    Libertarianism focuses on rights/responsibilities and free markets for the sake of these individual principles.

    In practice, the Republican Party has housed both strains of American political thought. Now, it's focused on preventing any meaningful change and reverting to a nostalgic past.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Part of me wants to say, let’s be real, conservative in America means white patriarchal supremacy.  

    Agree with hobbes2702 in a sense.

    The Wm F Buckley-ish version of the term described incremental change to the society. The rationale for slow change was that society was functioning pretty well and that changes have unintended consequences.

    In practice, things weren't good for all.

    And "slow change," for those who benefited from the status quo, wasn't desired at all.

    Ego, the current Republicans want to block everything because things are okay in the eyes of their supporters.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 7 hours ago, ztejas said:

    The core tenet I subscribe to above all others is individual accountability. When that is put into practice everything else falls into place. 

    Another key point for me is promoting the efficiency of a free market economy over the efficiency of a typically overly bureaucratic government.

    Then there are fringe ideologies that I sometimes subscribe to but sometimes divorce from like Judeo-Christian values. 

    Also really big on the individual freedoms and rights as protected in the constitution, and am generally of the opinion that they got it right the first time around (minus necessary amendments like abolishment, women's suffrage, term limits).

    Accountability, free market theory, individual freedoms would best be described as "Libertarian."

    There is a Libertarian wing to the Republican party, but, in as governing practice, that has been squeezed out. Republican administrations have been adept give Federal subsides to favored industries to allow them to win a governing coalition (fossil fuels, agribusiness, eg), contrary to free market theory.

    Republicans focus on certain freedoms for individuals (guns) over others (drugs, reproductive rights) in illogical ways. They favor rights of business, especially big, lobbyist-supported business, without recognizing there responsibilities of these businesses.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6. 7 hours ago, Parliament said:

    Re: hawkishness.  Why is strong defense a conservative thing?  I've always wondered that.

    In theory, because "Conservatives" want to protect the society from outside invaders. See Eisenhower.

    In practice, because "Conservatives" use the military-industrial complex to enrich themselves at the cost of American soldiers lives and money from American taxpayers.

  7. 34 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    I completely hate gerrymandering and the way it makes it so difficult for good candidates to run. In some ways, maybe it hastened the brazen shamelessness of some of the GOP candidates.

    Anyway, viva the resistance.  3 votes for Biden in Texas from our house.

    Gerrymandering is one of the "original sins" of American politics. The GOP Supreme Court's denial of this shows that they have no problem being complicit to voter suppression.

    Corporations have political voice (Citizens United), but people no longer do (Common Cause).

  8. On 10/22/2020 at 10:26 AM, Bateshorn said:

    I voted in Maryland in one of the bluest minority majority CD in the entire country.  I have no idea who the GOP candidates even are down ballot (in many cases there aren't GOP candidates for school board or country council races) , there are no Senate races. and the Legislature and governor are not up until 2022. Straight blue ticket.  The only hard part was a ballot question about expanding gambling obstentible to create more state education revenue.  I personally believe gambling should be legal, but I also don't believe the state should be promoting such a destructive and addictive vice. Also, The first time any of those dollars actually make it to a school instead of general revenue will be, well, the first time. So I voted no. 

    Yes on all my bond measures except for more county buildings.  I had jury duty two years ago and the PG County courthouse is beautiful, no need to generate Wall Street fees borrowing there.

    I did something similar in MoCo.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. On 10/22/2020 at 10:27 AM, Scholz said:

    But they're one and the same.  Your fans, coaches and administrators think violence against women is acceptable if it garners Ws on the football field.  That's nothing short of despicable.

    Joe Mixon.  Now go get your shine box.

    Please see above.

    • Fuck You 1
  10. On 10/22/2020 at 11:45 AM, Newy25 said:


    on a steroid crazed frenzy and beating a friend nearly to death. 

    I'm guessing your referring to Dusty Dvoracek, who I'd view a positive example of can be done with a second chance.

    Dvoracek was addicted to alcohol and did almost kill a friend. Stoops made him sit out a year and get clean had a zero tolerance policy. Dusty graduated, got drafted, and is calling the UT-Baylor game today.

    If he'd been thrown into the trash heap, his recovery would undoubtedly been harder.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  11. On 10/22/2020 at 11:06 AM, closetojumping said:

    I don't think you're following along, okie. What is being said here is that we don't actually find entities like Joe Mixon to be human. I know I personally don't give one iota of fuck about him being humanized. That piece of shit could get run over by a car today and I'd shrug and say "good riddance". I'd think the same about the people within the police department in Norman and the legal system there who hid the camera footage and covered for him for multiple years. 

    You see, while I value human life, I wouldn't lend the sweat off of my balls to people who foment corruption and abuse and those who protect such behavior. Society would be better if we could just put the proven female beaters, rapist and child abusers into a spaceship and launch them all directly into the sun. Maybe pack a new one up every Tuesday and repeat the cycle. 

    I realize you're against that kind of position under the guise of "but we should hold hands and love all humanity" while it's quite obvious to the rest of us that you know fully well without the female beaters and other violent criminals, OU couldn't regularly field a fucking football team. 

    Your words of derision hurt the discourse and yourself.

    People are multidimensional. I'm better at some things than others, and I'm better one day than the next. Using the extreme example, Mixon wasn't at his worst one day and at one instance. Do you deny that he can improve beyond it?

    If you carry your simplistic view beyond your internet bluster into your real life, most people will eventually disappoint you. They have and will make severe mistakes. Those people won't be famous and they won't be caught on camera, but those instances have and will occur. Hopefully, in the real world, you'll be able to find a way to use your ability and position to help them succeed beyond it.

    RE: the Mixon situation. I didn't support his return to OU. I'd have like to have seen him transfer. It would have afforded him an opportunity to more definitively state he'd paid a price and learned from the incident. I was also baffled and disappointed by OU giving Green-Beckham a roster spot.

    • Fuck You 2
  12. On 10/22/2020 at 11:42 AM, Burt Macklin said:

    Shouldn’t the guy decrying words that dehumanize on an anonymous internet message board have been pounding the table for Justice to be done when players punch a girl in the face or throw their girlfriends down a flight of stairs? Where are all of quigley’s posts raging against his program’s purposeful choice to allow and enable that type of behavior? Where was he all the times OU players dehumanized women by beating them?
     

    I guess that’s no big deal because it’s how his team stays good without the built in recruiting resources of other blue bloods, but using words that dehumanize those guys on a message board is where quigley draws the line. 

    You'll have to remind me when I said I supported it. I didn't, and I don't.

    I also don't think that a person should be define by his single worse action if there is contrition and advancement.

    And definitely don't support language that makes him subhuman.

    • Fuck You 1
  13. 5 hours ago, Tex Pete said:

    Shut up, bitch. 

    The first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

    If your trying to show you're superior, using language that would make 5th graders laugh at you isn't the helping. My goal isn't to get you to lay off criticizing OU, it's allow you to do better.

    • Fuck You 2
  14. 5 minutes ago, Scholz said:

    But they're one and the same.  Your fans, coaches and administrators think violence against women is acceptable if it garners Ws on the football field.  That's nothing short of despicable.

    Joe Mixon.  Now go get your shine box.

    Sure, define the actions as despicable, even define them as despicable.

    Defining them as inanimate objects or sub-human coarsens the discourse without aiding your point.

    • Fuck You 4
  15. 1 hour ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

    That being said it's important to consider the fact that flukes of history completely change the perception of reality. Imagine how different we'd consider our respective histories of Akers turned one or two one loss seasons into a undefeated season. He was tantalizingly close a bunch of times. If you played each of those losses which were the only loss in the season how many of those losses would turn out to be Longhorn wins in a majority of a hundred trials? What if Big Game Bob pulled his Big Game Bobbiness in his only title?

    How many coaches in both team's histories should have been obvious successes but turned into abject failures? Schnellenberger seemed like an obvious success given how he took Miami from an almost canceled program to a title. He resigned in a year. That's an obvious example but if you look through the history of most teams you'll find inexplicable failures and successes.

    I agree, and what you're talking about is "close game luck." OU's certainly had it during the Riley tenure.

    OU regular season record under Riley in one score games (final less than 7 pts)
    2017: 3-1
    2018: 4-1
    2019: 4-1

    One score games trend to W-L that are ~ 50%, so OU record of 79% is unsustainable. This year, with a first year QB, the Sooners may have a reckoning (already they're 1-2 in such games).

    Schnellenberger is poor example. He was a reactionary hire based on severely flawed logic. OU wanted to throw the ball (true), and his Miami teams had beaten OU (true), because they threw the ball (not true!), ergo he'd turn OU into a school that could throw the ball and win. This ignored the fact that he'd gone 26-23 in his last four years at Louisville and that his passing attack was no longer cutting edge.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 3 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

    OU has had exactly ZERO head coaches with prior major college head coaching experience since they hired Biff Jones from LSU in 1935. Biff left two years later for Nebraska, and they’ve hired nothing but assistant coaches since then.

    Texas has had 8 in the time frame of Scipio’s article which started the year Biff left Norman to replace D.X. Bible who left for Texas.

    Prior to Biff, OU hired two coaches since 1902 who were head coaches at Bethany, currently an NAIA school school in Kansas. I didn’t go back any earlier than 1902  

    The key to OU’s success (other than the cheating part) is they don’t tolerate mediocrity. 

    OU and Texas are different jobs, and this is probably reflected in the coaches who've been successful at these schools.

    OU has a dedication to winning (including pushing beyond the boundaries of the rules) like other schools with similar histories and resource bases (eg, Neb and Tenn). The Sooners don't have the financial or, more importantly, recruiting resources that other elite schools like UT or USC do. Coaches who've been successful at OU, Wilkinson (split-T), Switzer (wishbone), and Stoops (air raid), have all installed innovative offensive systems and recruited to those systems. OU needs that innovation because of their relative lack of cache vs other elite college football programs (UT, USC) with built in recruiting advantages.

    Without innovative coaching, OU can easily slide into the morass that they were in during the 1990s or become perennial also-rans like Neb or Tenn.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 37 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

    human refuse

    Please chose a derision that doesn't dehumanize, or better yet, describe the objectionable behavior specifically.

    For example, "They’ve taken a lot of players we wouldn’t have, and they’ve kept around a lot of players who've committed crimes or gotten into trouble."

    And yeah, I'm the thought police if those thoughts minimize the humanity of others because it seeps into the way people treat others.

    • Fuck You 4
  18. 1 hour ago, Voldemort86 said:

    https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-senate-iowa-to-leans-democratic/
     

    election expert Sabato has moved Iowa senate from toss up to leans democrat. It looks like Iowa could save the day and still get the democrats that coveted 50th senate seat if Cunningham chokes it away by not being able to keep his pants on.

    Unfortunately, not so fast.

    A Democrat from Michigan should have no trouble this cycle, but here we are. If the Dems don't control the Senate in 2021, Peters in Michigan may share blame with Cunningham. Peters will hopefully hang on this time but needs to announce his retirement in 2025.

    • Like 1
  19. 31 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

    anyone who starts with "i'm pro-life can fuck off", even if they support the right guy,

    I understand and agree with the sentiment overall.

    Here, the point of leading with it is to emphasize that, despite disagreement with Biden on these issues, he's still clearly preferred to the alternative.

    This licenses others with similar views either to vote for Biden or at least stay home.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 5 hours ago, gmr548 said:

    When your hypothesis is rooted in the idea that people like Ted Cruz, maybe it's time to reevaluate.

    I kid. Sort of. Trump is the one with the cult of personality. Cruz hasn't been particularly well liked, even among Republicans, since he showed up in Texas politics. Look at his performance vs every other statewide GOP. Fucking Potty Patrick ran ahead of Cruz. He may not be any worse liked than Trump, but he isn't any more popular either. Trump lost or won with
    That theory also just doesn't really pass the smell test. The 2018 midterms were very much a referendum on Trump at the national level. The result of the senate race was very much in line with approval/ disapproval of the president. Who looked at Cruz gargling Trump's balls for two years and said, "Fuck Donald Trump, but this Cruz guy is alright!"?

    The part about new voters in urban/ subruban counties is true, but not material to 100+ rural counties getting more Democratic. And as I said before, even if they break overwhelmingly for Biden, he barely gets to Cruz's number. If we assume 2018 is the base case (reasonable based on polls), it's not impossible that Biden could win if the stars align. It'd mean new voters breaking hard for Biden as mentioned, additional suburban defects and defects from seniors in urban counties, record breaking black turnout in Houston, Dallas, and East Texas, and a turnout surge in the RGV and El Paso.

    But seriously, everything has to go perfect for that to happen.

    I'd argue that shift largely showed itself in 2018 in the senate race. Could be some wiggle room there for older voters, but I doubt it in the rural areas. Cult 45 country.

    Good stuff.

    All of the positives for Biden are supposed to headed his direction except Latino vote. Apparently Latino vote is slightly better for Trump in key states so may save him in FL, TX, and less likely AZ.

    For TX to finally get purple/blue, correcting the longstanding anemic turnout of Latinos in TX needs to be addressed. If Beto's done it, it's probably his most significant political accomplishment.

×
×
  • Create New...