Jump to content

David Crockett

banned
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

Posts posted by David Crockett

  1. 1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

    Your opinion was uninformed because you hadn't bothered to read my prior posts.

    So had I read your posts, I would have realized that my opinion was in error?  Or are you assuming my post was in response to or in rebuttal of your posts?

    You're one arrogant cat, I'll give you that.

    • Fuck You 15
  2. 6 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

    The point is as self-evident as you being willfully obtuse. You roll out your iteration of this ostensible conservative principle to rationalize overturning Roe- If it's not a right explicitly and specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it's a question left to the states- ignoring (and pretending you don't have an opinion on) Citizens United, in which the SC conservative justices go way beyond that to the point of creating an entity- The Corporate Person- neither mentioned in the Constitution or commonly understood as Walmart, The Person or Exxon The Dude, in order to bestow rights upon. It's as ludicrous as you acting like you don't notice a double standard punching you in the face. 

    Who says I agree with Citizens United?  You created the straw man; you whack away at it.

    I'd also offer that you're not making as much of a parallel argument as you think you are.  

    • Fuck You 16
  3. 1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

    I mean, come on.  Did you not even read my response to JBJ (checks notes) two posts above my reply to yours?  The post where I said that from a purely jurisprudential standard I had issues with Roe (and Griswold for that matter) but could not agree with "leaving the issue to the states" after 30 years of life experience and observation of how our government ACTUALLY works rather than how I thought it SHOULD work based on the language of the Constitution?

    Your posts deserve condescension because they are in fact uninformed, and for that matter pretty fucking condescending themselves.  Maybe come back as a new username again and do better next time.

    No, I didn't.  But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation.  Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function?  Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so.  And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.  

    • Fuck You 17
  4. 1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

    You popped into a thread and started making uninformed posts.  Then, when I elected not to go back and regurgitate several prior posts that explained a point I had made (that, with basic reading comprehension would have been apparent to anyone truly wishing to engage in a respectful manner), you resorted to name calling.  At that point it was clear your posts were not worthy of further substantive discussion.  I'm not posturing, and I think my points have been made crystal clear.  As with my prior post, I can't understand them for you.

    This isn't my "house" either.  I respect the mods and the others who do engage in good faith discussion here.  That's why I don't shit all over it (although I don't shit all over my own house either).

    Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so.  You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead.  You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being.  That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct.

    And now you're doing it again.  "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it."  First of all, I never read any of your previous posts.  My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read.  Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution.  

    For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it.  "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero.  I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site.  I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here.  I can live without either.

    • Fuck You 23
  5. 8 minutes ago, kevwun said:

    Thanks, yes I feel very good about negging an asshole.

    And I'm an asshole because I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here re: the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade?

    I think one could say some of y'all's reaction to someone not falling in line makes YOU an asshole.  Even if that's true, have at it if that's what gets you off.  

    It makes no difference to me.  It's the internet.

    • Fuck You 17
  6. 3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    giphy.gif

    We'll never know since he appears to be uninterested in making a point, instead choosing to posture in front of his e-friends.  The dynamic here is amusing.  It's not my "house" though, so I have at it.
     

    • Fuck You 18
  7.  

    2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

    Dear David Crockett, please post more so we can neg you to Bolivia.

    Is that the internet version of a bunch of pussies acting tough?  If that's what brings you satisfaction and gives you a little dopamine hit, then have at it, big guy.  

    • Fuck You 21
  8. If you're looking to be the recipient of a virtual handjob from your internet friends, then based on what I've seen so far, your current approach of the intellectually shallow drive-by is likely the most effective.  

    If you'd like to make your point about about corporate personhood, then by all means make it.

    • Fuck You 26
  9. 3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    you can keep asking, but you'll never get an answer.

    Because it's a straw man.  If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so.  And I might even agree with it.  Who knows?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 22
  10. 2 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

    Sure but that required the overwhelming majority of the states that were in favor of slavery to temporarily leave the Union. Without that there was a zero chance of that happening and even in the event it was kind of a close deal in the House. It was a total fluke unlikely to ever be repeated for an important issue.

    Further I think passing an amendment to state the right of the sky to be blue would be very difficult under the current political disfunction, nevermind it being a contentious issue.

    So kind of important things to point out if we are going to be talking about facts.

    I personally hoped that we could come together and try to achieve some way of medically preventing unwanted pregnancies or finding a way to remove a fetus from a woman without killing the fetus or something. And maybe we could have if we had used the money wasted by giving it to politicians to do a big pointless political fight to throw people in cages, while also not really stopping abortion, instead.

    Thank you for the reasoned argument instead of taking the shortcut of passive aggressive smart ass comments from behind a keyboard.  Much appreciated.

    Passing amendments is supposed to be difficult.  Maybe not to the extreme you indicate, but difficult nonetheless.  The reason that's a good thing is because most issues, especially contentious ones, should be handled at a level closest to the people.  Californians decide for Californians, Texans for Texans, and so on.  It's not supposed to be easy for State A to impose their beliefs/values/desires on State B, thus the difficulty in amending the Constitution that covers us all.

    As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand the "throw people in cages" reference, but yeah, some sort of solution that makes everyone happy would be ideal.  In the absence of that though, "let the States decide" is the best alternative (because it's the Constitutional alternative).

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 15
  11. 5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    Looks like we have a new troll.  Who's sock is this? (sounds a lot like Animal/tobacco product)

    "Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]."

     

    You don't even know my stance on abortion.  It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling.  Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 20
  12. 2 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:


    Slavery is also a states right. It should go back to the states as well. Best product for a capitalist is slave labor. emoji849.png

    Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.  You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

    • Fuck You 16
  13. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    I don't think you're cut out for the Cloak Room...maybe try the Hobbies forum.

    Is the hobbies forum the place where people make arguments based on calm, rational thought and reason in lieu of simply emoting?

    • Fuck You 12
  14. 2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    your takes are bad and you should feel bad. how's that?

    Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?

     

    • Fuck You 13
  15. Just now, DDD Dad said:

    Your naivete is cute.  I remember having this sort of view of the world.

    Don't be passive aggressive.  Say what you mean.  It's the internet; you're safe.  

    • Fuck You 3
  16. Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works.  

    Roe v. Wade was bad law.  There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level.  It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision.  The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion."  Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't.  Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

    There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion.  Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A.  Want abortion?  Knock yourself out.  Don't want abortion?  Okay.

    Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.  They are there to do legal work, not political work.  It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there.  Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states.  It's an open book exam.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Fuck You 14
  17. 4 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

    No, I meant seasons. 2 for Quinn, and he possibly bolts if he has the draft cache at that point. I cannot see Quinn winning a title. I bet Arch stays for 3. And wins at least one title. This is the turning point we need, combined with Sark’s success in OL recruiting, which is clearly a major upgrade from any of his predecessors*.   If we actually continue to have success in OL recruiting, Sark’s floor is a Mack-like 2000s run, which is very similar to what Kirby has already done. His base is Dabo at Clemson.  He’s clearly trying to recreate Bama after his mentor and that’s the clear ceiling. 

    *Our #5 class ranking was clearly driven by OL and doesn’t even include Ewers. 

    I was being sarcastic; just forgot the smiley.  

    Agreed on the OL; Sark's bringing them in (as he should) and we should be looking good in that regard.  Sark's also a very good QB developer/coach.  Just look at the laundry list of QBs he's coached who've gone into the NFL.  Could be simply correlation, but it's hard to say he had nothing to do with it.  If we can get a defense, we'll win more than we lose for sure.

    • Fuck You 1
  18. 4 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

    He’s a Manning. His Dad and Uncles were raised right. 

    Nuts. I do agree with you about needed trench help and repeat it every post. But Ewers and Arch are insanely talented. Like Trevor Lawrence or Burrow talented, arm talent and mentally. If they each don’t win a Heisman, it’s because we whiffed on OL recruiting / development.

    The concern over the Horns in the SEC is ridiculous. While we will have to get used to a 10-2 season and hoping to get into the playoff as a very successful season, we faced probably a bigger issue moving to the Big 12, facing stalwarts NU, CU, and KSU, and with a program in the wilderness OU that was just about to emerge. From our inception to ‘05, it was clearly the best conference in the land. Just as the case then, our lack of talent to compete in the SEC, which exists now, is our issue and ours alone. We can turn that around in 2 cycles and will do just that. Just like Mackovic started to do and clearly Mack did. 

    I'm not saying they suck, just that they may not be insta-Heismans.  I know quite a few people in Louisiana who know football (not just fans, but KNOW the game), know the Mannings, and have watched the kid play every week for years.  These are people who deify the Mannings, and they still say - when they're being honest/frank - that he's 85% baller and 15% hype from his last name.  The word is that Howard Walker (the kid LSU got) is a better QB - and again, this is from people who worship all things Manning.  All that being said, don't misunderstand me - I'm thrilled we got him and I think he'll be a helluva QB if he's got tools to work with and a little protection.  I'm not being negative here, just not ready to start counting the trophies just yet.

    As for the SEC, I wouldn't call my comments concern.  I'm being realistic based on personal experience.  I played a little bit of collegiate athletics, am still in shape in my 40s, and can still perform at an elite level (in what I do now).  I SEE what my eyeballs are looking at, and there's a difference between large/strong/mature kids and 20-year old grown ass men. I walked into a gym in SEC country and thought I was looking at a bunch of 27-30 year old athletes.  Nope.  19-20 year olds who were redshirted, on the practice squad, not dressing out that week for whatever reason, etc.  I had been around Big 12 athletes and I, myself, scoffed at the idea that the SEC was a different level...until I saw it with my own eyes.  The play on the field is faster, harder hitting, you name it.  Does that mean they always win?  Of course not.  Like I said, it's a team sport where coaching and execution still play a major role.  If it was ONLY dependent on raw athleticism, then yeah, they'd probably win every time.  Texas can and will compete, BUT they will have to move from Big 12 athletes to SEC athletes and change their style of play to mean/nasty/tough.  Otherwise they'll win a few, but lose plenty as well.  If we want consistent 10-win seasons, they can't be the old Texas.

    My opinion only, of course.

    • Fuck You 3
  19. I don't think Arch Manning is quite as good as the hype.  But he IS still very talented and while Sark's record as a HC ain't great, he has an incredible history with QBs.  I think the combination will result in an extremely good QB in the end.  AND the Manning name/hype will bring recruits.  UT just needs to beef up the guys in the trenches on both sides and they'll be a competitive team for awhile.

    The same can be said for Ewers.  They may not win the Heisman, but they'll be good enough at QB to give us a chance in any game (assuming we get them some big guys on the line and a serviceable defense).

    I remember the Big 12 in its heyday and how I used to scoff when people said the SEC is just different.  And then I lived in SEC country for a few years and believe me, it's just different.  The raw athleticism (size/strength/speed) is a cut above what you see anywhere else in the country, including the Big 10.  It's still a team game that includes coaching and execution, but in terms of the raw building blocks (the individual athlete), there's no comparison.  We will have to step up our game on the OL and DL to compete.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 5 hours ago, oldhorn2 said:

    this is a whole new situation. Neither guy has to go to the League to get paid. If they are having a good enough time playing school, one or both might just hang around....

    "You’re getting at least 2 out of each of them and probably 3 out of at least 1."

     

    He meant championships.

  21. 3 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

    Random observation: the first three teams eliminated were, by far, the best three academic institutions represented in Omaha.

    Not sure how you would rank the other five, but it's a big step down from Stanford, Texas and Notre Dame. 

    If you ask an aggy, they'll tell you that their school and ours offer comparable academics.  One is top 50 globally and the other barely makes the top 200.  Yep, virtually the same.  🤣

×
×
  • Create New...