Jump to content

MeerkatBong

crowd sourced
  • Posts

    389
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MeerkatBong

  1. 2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

    People don't live in the real world anymore. 90% of what they see comes from a screen of some kind. They believe turkeys are out of stock because they saw a picture somewhere; they didn't experience it in person. They believe Portland burned down because someone told them that over and over while they were looking at a picture of a building on fire. They believe there's a crime wave because they saw video of a crime that happened somewhere, sometime. They believe there's a border crisis because they saw a video of some brown people wading across a river somewhere, sometime. They believe skittles have rainbow fentanyl because a cop said so on camera.

    There is no literal public square anymore. Nobody does anything in person, anymore. Even if you go to a game at DKR, you're virtually forced to pay attention to an enormous screen that's somehow even worse than the amount of intrusive ads you'd have dealt with watching a fucking television broadcast.

    It's pretty crazy how in the 90s and mid-00s we dreamed of a future where tedious bullshit could be eliminated with technology, where I can walk into an HEB, grab a six pack, and check myself out, where if I needed to wait in a long-ass line at least I could play video games or watch tv or do something to be less bored.

    Now that we have that world, pretty much, we all kind of dream of a world where people can actually just experience something directly without any interference.

    This thread is a good one. I think it's good and healthy to reflect and process where we are as a society (like this post above) and gathering for the holidays with people we don't see often and who often have different lifestyles and viewpoints and value systems makes us think. Heck for a lot of us the only thing we have in common with some family members is that we share the same parents or grandparents or there is a marriage-in-law relationship and we wouldn't associate with each other otherwise.

  2. 25 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    big time sub saharan africa too, where there is a lot of cultural importance to having a lot of kids and very little upward mobility of women.

    I should have read my emails this morning first before posting:

    “Today, the population of Earth will reach the 8 billion milestone, according to UN projections. It’s the result of an epic growth spurt in the last century: There were just 2 billion humans in 1925, and 4 billion as recently as 1974—so we once again doubled our numbers in less than 50 years. Corporate will love to hear that!

    What drove the growth? People are living better, for longer. Child and maternal mortality rates are down, scientists have developed cures for deadly diseases, and extreme poverty rates have plunged.

    But growth is hitting a wall, and it will reshape society

    The world population is expected to peak in the 2080s at 10.4 billion people, hang there for a few decades, then fall at the dawn of the 22nd century. The reason: Fertility rates are declining, and many countries are not producing enough babies to maintain growth. The populations of 61 countries are projected to drop by at least 1% by 2050, with Eastern Europe suffering the biggest losses.

    Shrinking populations alarm economists. Fewer kids means fewer workers contributing to the economy, at the same time the growing ranks of older people will require financial support. Everything from our cities to our healthcare systems will need to be reimagined.

    Other countries have the opposite issue. While dozens of nations are grappling with population loss, other countries are experiencing population booms. Eight countries, including Nigeria, Tanzania, and Pakistan, will account for more than half of the projected population increase by 2050. Such blistering population growth can strain resources and make it harder to reduce poverty and provide education, the UN says.

    Still, with peak human population on the horizon, we should expect demographic decline to become a more prominent policy issue. Per the UN, in 2050 the number of people 65 or over will be more than double the number of kids under five”

  3. I’m morbidly (no pun intended) curious to start at the beginning of this thread and see how it’s evolved over time…and will continue to evolve. Because while it’s okay to not find fat or bigger people attractive, at some point it’s not going to be politically correct (or at the very least, polite) to admit it out loud.

    Being plus sized is a really strange identity and gray area still on how to socially accept and accommodate.

  4. 10 hours ago, ajax said:

    Wife is making me watch it right now. Lohan's face barely moves, what with all the botox and fillers in her face. She looks horrible. Julianne Moore is 26 years older than Lohan and looks better than her.

    Yes, an observation shared by many is that she has aged horribly.

  5. Lindsay Lohan's first movie since 2013 I believe it was, Falling for Christmas.

    Schlocky, Christmas movie. Netflix does it's best Hallmark movie impression (unpopular opinion alert, I love Hallmark movies this time of the year), complete formulaic garbage to cuddle up with in the cold weather next to a fire and fall asleep halfway into.

    But really, it was like that 80's movie with Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell (Overboard?) meets a Lindsay Lohan movie.

  6. 12 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

    He did have the luxury of playing the Raiders in his first game game, let's see how he does against the Eagles next Sunday before he's anointed 

    You mean the team that nobody has beaten? So if he loses to the Eagles then he's a fraud, just the same as....checks notes, Mike Tomlin, Lovie Smith, Kevin O'Connell and Mike McCarthy?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  7. I know it was just one game, but I'm anticipating that Jeff Saturday is going to win more than he loses and make a bunch of very vocal people look dumb. 

    I'm assuming most people aren't going to allow that beating the hapless Raiders means you can laugh in the face of people who called him a disgrace or the situation shameful, but when do we get to point and laugh at this creatures?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 5
  8. 21 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    1. post oak bumped it

    2. why are you clicking on a thread about a show you didn't watch and don't think is funny?  

    Idk, I’m a hater. Also thought you’d like the mean girls reference.

  9. 7 minutes ago, horn4life said:

    I guess I also should have clarified.  I am not saying get into a debate.  Just a dismissal, like... "Is there any stupid lie you won't believe, and repeat? Good Lord!" with your eyes rolling and a laugh coming.

    Anything more than that, and you will go down a rabbit hole of denial that will engulf the next several hours with dumbass "but whatabout" endless false "truths" they "heard about...."

    I read a good story about “boundary phrases” that everyone should use. Things like “im not your target audience for that joke or this topic” or “wow I’m embarrassed you would say that outloud” or “what is the response you are looking for when you say that?” Etc.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  10. Our gatherings (25-30 people) for holiday parties are almost universally politic-talk free. Everyone knows it's not polite and is counterproductive and there are wide ranges of political opinion. I don't know, maybe we are rare in that way. We also don't serve or drink booze, so maybe that helps (tons of little kids), as people are less apt to get mouthy or controversial when drinking tea.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

    51-49 D Senate with 220-215 R House is just about best case realistic scenario.  Only need to find 3 sane Republicans in order to be able to pass everything needed to keep the lights on.

    By 2024 there’s a good chance inflation will be <3% and unemployment will still be <6%, making for a better environment for Dems, which they’ll need since the senate races coming up look bad for them.

    This is an ideal situation as you describe above at this point. As a conservative I love a gridlock where change, if any, is incremental, and the stock market is stable and happy.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. This episode is a disaster for crypto

    "FTX’s meltdown could single-handedly wipe out whatever legitimacy the crypto industry had left. Don’t take it from us—here’s what crypto execs themselves said about it.

    Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said the FTX calamity was not “a win” and had “severely shaken” confidence in crypto.

    “That’s a not a good thing for anybody,” Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong said.

    Why? It has to do with regulation. SBF frequently visited Washington, DC, to work with lawmakers on regulating the Wild West of crypto. But with crypto’s most trustworthy diplomat left holding the bag after an epic collapse, regulators who feel duped could try to buckle the industry.

    The most humiliation in this entire episode is, of course, reserved for SBF himself. When he was at the top of the crypto world, the 30-year-old billionaire discussed his grand ambition of giving away his fortune to help humanity.

    Now, there’s little fortune left. On Tuesday, SBF’s net worth plunged from $15.6 billion to less than $1 billion. That 94% evisceration is the worst one-day wipeout for a billionaire ever tracked by Bloomberg."

     

    WOW! Kinda hilarious and appropriate that a crypto billionaire rises and falls as fast as that. SBF will probably end up doing jail time if half of the Alameda and other financial tomfoolery is true.

  13. 4 minutes ago, troph said:

    you may be right about that. but I'm pretty much done hoping and thinking it's possible because those voters are taxes and economy only and on that front it's really only taxes.  with the cycle of irresponsible tax cuts and then responsible tax increases dysfunctional cycle we find ourselves in, I just don't see urban republicans that still vote republican switching.  I'd love to be wrong, I'd love for you to be right.

    You and I agree (I think if I'm remembering correctly) on the way to really throw a monkey wrench into the works and disrupt and change the trajectory of "Politics as usual" in Texas. 2 words:

    Matthew.

    McConaughey.

  14. 1 minute ago, troph said:

    truth is the Republican vote in parts of Texas is as automatic as the Democratic vote for 3-4 generations after Reconstruction. My grandmother was a "yellow dog democrat" (RIP) and would not vote for a Republican for any reason, she wouldn't even listen. In fact, she would get loud and tell you you're wrong, she doesn't want to hear it, it's Christmas, don't ruin the Lord's birthday talking about those awful bastards.

    Today, I think there is a similar mental entrenchment for Republicans among rural elderly voters (65+).

     

    For sure you are right. But again. That 40% is the lost cause. The 40% in urban, ethnic/diverse areas for the other team is lost cause for R's.

    The real fight is the 20% in the middle that can be a RINO or Blue/Yellow Dod Democrat and not an indoctrinated dyed in the wool card carrying member of one team or the other.

    Or whatever the real #'s and %'s are-- I just used round numbers.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  15. 26 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Sorry, man, I don't buy the argument that his gun comment has anything to do with the loss. It's a convenient excuse.

    As far as I know, guns were not up to debate in any of the other statewide elections. Beto got 43.8% of the vote, which should be considered the benchmark to beat if he were an exceptionally poor candidate based on that rationale, so let's take a look at the election results of other statewide offices.

    Lt. Gov: Collier got 43.4% against Potty Patrick.

    Atty Gen: Garza got 43.6% against indicted felon Paxton.

    Ag Comm: Hays got 43.6% against Jesus shot Miller.

    Comptroller: Dudding got 40.9% against Hegar.

    Land Comm: Kleberg got 42.1% against Buckingham.

    Railroad Comm: Warford got 40.5% against Christian. 

     

    What we see with these results is that far from being an exceptionally poor candidate based on his gun stance, he slightly outperformed every single other statewide Democratic Party candidate -- even those whose opposition included someone who wasted a session on transgenders going to public restrooms and one who recently, and quite literally, ran down his driveway to an awaiting truck driven by his wife to prevent from being served papers.

    The results from this election were not about guns nor even Beto. They were wholly due to just over half of voting Texans voting R no matter the candidate nor the issue.

     

     

    The bold highlights the point I think you missed; in order to win Texas you have to win over some of those blind, straight ticket R voters. You don't win those voters over by having the message he had on guns.

    Everything else you said is true though and he was as good a candidate as any, but LonghornMatt nailed it. You need a blue dog democrat who looks and feels more like rural Texas (the poster who mentioned knowing how to comport himself around a shotgun, wearing some boots, tough talkin'/hard drinkin' as a shout out to Ann Richards who was awesome) to have a prayer in Texas and Beto ain't that.

    At least until Gen Z is here in full force and even then, who knows.

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