Jump to content

Horn of Gabriel

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Horn of Gabriel

  1. 44 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I've said some racially disparaging things about old Clarence in certain circles and with certain contexts, but never the n-word. See @Helobious post above for a pretty succinct statement of the difference. 

     

    42 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    This is actually a good point.  Fat Hispanic person belly-slams your wife to the ground, you shouldn't use any derogatory slurs about Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans, IMHO.  But you wanna say, "Hey you Carlos Mencia looking mother-fucker, apologize to my wife..."  If you were to ask a wheelchair-bound Texan if they minded the term "Hot Wheels" in reference to only Greg Abbott, you'd be hard pressed to find a single one who thought anything other than the "crippled asshat who lives to make my affordable access to PT/OT more difficult?"  

    Go into your local VA to someone in a wheelchair and say "How's it going 'Hot Wheels'" and see what type of reaction you get.

    39 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    Again, this is a horrible analogy. Calling the guy a gimp or a retard would be more analagous. This is more like calling a one eyed person fetty wop or something. It’s very targeted and specific. It doesn’t make it right or ok, but it’s not the same as calling someone a historically significant and widely used slur 

    A slur is a slur is a slur.  Whether you're denigrating and stereotyping a whole group of people or an individual you particularly don't like the outcome is the same: you're using language to cut someone down.  The only difference in your distinction is your value judgement on the person's worth and if you agree with their politics.  When something is "ok for me but not for thee" that's called hypocrisy.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 1
  2. 14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    Yes, because he is a cruel hypocritical piece of shit. Sorry CR, but I didn't bring it up. He deserves far worse than a childish insult. Again, context. Like someone said earlier, say what you want, but don't be surprised if someone thinks you're an asshole. If someone thinks I'm an asshole for my opinion of the Texas governor, I'm completely cool with that, because that person is almost certainly someone who I don't care to impress. 

    When we're talking words that demean, offend, talk down to, etc., it seems like you're attaching a judgement not only to the word itself and its acceptability but also the person upon which that word is being directed.  A word considered "offensive" against one is perfectly acceptable against another if they don't stack up to your judgement of if they're an asshole?

    Playing this string out, I'm assuming from your post above that you lean left, is the N-word acceptable to use RE: Clarence Thomas?  Certainly you see him as an "asshole?"

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  3. 1 minute ago, Nivek said:

    This discussion point is absurd.  People are not all good/bad.   This idea that everyone has to pass a purity test to be able to make a change for the better is childishly simplistic.   Lyndon B. Johnson was both a racist and a civil rights hero.  

    The R-word discussion has been on here before, he just refused to adapt to the change in society and here. 

     

     

    Are you saying "hot wheels" is acceptable or no?

  4. 2 hours ago, perfectchaos007 said:

    For 30+ years I've always been hesitant to attend an RRS in person because of the possibility of losing and how devastating that would be to experience in person at the fair in a stadium half full of oklahomans. The RRS in 2021 was the first RRS I ever attended in person, and due to the resulting PTSD of that game, it will be at least another 30+ years before I will consider attending another. *shivers*

    OTOH beating them 49-0 in person and watching their demoralization was orgasmic.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  5. 26 minutes ago, Homercles said:

    Absolutely.  Boeing has continued to squeeze way too much blood from the  stone that is the 737 airframe.  In addition, the FAA trusted them too much to self-regulate.  Both of these things are probably due to a complex mix of corporate profit chasing, poor leadership at the FAA and budgetary pressure by the government.  

    My understanding is part of the reason for the lax oversight was the FAA didn’t have enough funding to adequately staff engineering/inspectors.  That’s obviously not the whole truth but I’m tired of the ‘government doesn’t work, so we cut funding/oversight so business can flourish away from regulation and are acting surprised that businesses pursued profit at the expense of the public’ crowing. 

    Texas just passed a law that’ll strip cities of rules they implemented for worker safety (like water breaks), under the guise of ensuring business isn’t burdened with inconsistent regulation.   Are we going to act surprised when someone dies of heat stroke because the company wants to squeeze more productivity during a heat wave?

    This.  I don't remember all the details but there are internal email threads from the lead test engineer at Boeing with other Boeing employees talking about how to deceive the FAA.  It's easy to draw a straight line connection between that and hundreds of dead people.  We seem to have an aversion to putting white collar criminals in jail for some reason, but this is a case where it may be warranted, at a minimum a trial on that stuff.  I think corporate america might put a bit more balance on profit seeking if there was an actual personal consequence in the balance for the executive choosing to lie/cut corners.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. On 6/18/2023 at 4:05 PM, McCroskey said:

     


    Gonna go ahead and disagree with you there that the carriers are “cutting corners” on safety.

    As you allude to we’re at almost 23 years since the last mainline carrier had a “crash”…AA 587 if I recall correctly in October 2001. Some regional carriers had crashes between then and 2009 but there’s been nothing since then. Southwest of course had the incident in 2018/2019 were an uncontained engine failure caused that poor woman from New Mexico to die, but the plane obviously landed safely.

    IMO I wouldn’t say anything is in a state of “rapid decline” but certainly there are areas that need more attention, especially with air traffic volumes now exceeding pre-pandemic levels. Hopefully congress and/or the FAA get some improvements in place soon so we don’t have to experience a crash first.

     

    I respect your avatar. You probably have a lot of experience in this area.  My belief is that our recent (good) safety record is in spite of the regulators and the government, not because of it.  I don't have much opinion on ATC other than how we all know they're understaffed and it has got to be an incredibly stressful job.  

    The FAA though...yikes.  It's disgusting how much those regulators were allowing Boeing's team to steer their work.  And several hundred people did die because of that, it's more luck that the MCAS crashes happened elsewhere considering those pilots followed documented procedure and the post-analysis showed that they had only a few seconds to diagnose and correct the issue.

  7. We asked for lower prices on tickets and got them via deregulation and debundling. Now we have “Greyhound in the air.” Careful what you wish for, you buy a basic ass ticket you’re going to get basic ass service. Guarantee if that kid was on a first class ticket they’d have figured it out.

    While 70% of this is on is the consumer, the other 30% is on the airlines. They are publicly traded and questing for quarterly results, so of course they are going to cut any corners they can to get there, including safety. That’s why all the major US carriers run their planes down to Guatemala for their regular maintenance. It’s kinda a miracle we haven’t had more major crashes in the US, but it’s a testament to our pilots’ skill and the product created by Boeing and Airbus. Unfortunately that’s rapidly declining as well.

    It will take a few hundred people dying in a crash, including kids, before Americans 1) get the politicians to legislate higher safety standards and 2) are willing to pay for it.

    • Like 1
  8. Another war game simulation about a cross strait invasion of Taiwan by China, this one put "most-favorable" conditions in place for China.  The goal here wasn't to see if the PRC could succeed, but rather what time window would the PRC need to capture Taipei before U.S. intervention arrived?  Prior war games have shown that once the US shows up, the best case for the PRC is a horrible stalemate where they destroy Taiwan's economy while lose tens to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the bulk of their navy, air, and missile forces.  But that picture for the US is not much better, in an all-out, we'd lose a shit-ton of AF assets (mostly on the ground due to missiles).  

    As someone (can't remember who) has pointed out multiple times up-thread, amphibious operations are really hard, prone to failure, the PRC has never done it, and their troop transports are "the size of cruise ships" with a radar cross section to match which makes them vulnerable to anti-ship missiles.  Those are all bad for the PLAN especially vs. the US, even though we are critically under resourced on anti-ship missiles with standoff range (see prior war game upthread).  But what happens if the PLA/N is able to get Taipai before our politicians decide to engage our military in response?  The window is shorter than you might think...

    First, ROC navy is gone on day 1.  Out of the picture, destroyed by missiles.  Second, 90% of their air force is gone too, same story.

    Quote

    Similarly, as other studies have found, most of the ROCAF will be destroyed either on the ground or in the air after during the bombardment. It is important to note that this can be done with an estimated 60 – 200 Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs).16 With an assessed SRBM inventory of roughly 1,000 missiles, this estimated expenditure is extreme reasonable even if as much as 50 percent of PLA missiles are kept in reserve for a possible counter-U.S. intervention operation.17

    ROC does have anti-ship missiles on land-based mobile launchers:

    Quote

    In recent years, Taiwan has significantly increased both its quantity of anti-ship missiles (ASMs) as well as diversified their firing units from ground-based launchers to air- and sea-launched systems. Amongst its ground-based forces, it had roughly 20 Hsiung Feng III missile launchers in 2020, with plans for 70 more in 2023. For this scenario, the ROC fields half of the new launchers by the time of invasion. This brings total ASM launchers to 55. With an average of 490 missiles built a year by 2023, there will be no shortage of munitions to target a PLA invasion fleet.13 Additionally, Taiwan just purchased 100 Harpoon Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM) launchers with 400 missiles, bringing the total number of ground-based platforms for the PLA to target up to 155 launchers.14

    However as soon as they fire they can be located and attrited.  And we have no idea about how experienced these teams are, same questions for the PLA/N also apply here.  But with the limited # of ASMs, the limited experience of the crews, and them being under constant fire, what if the "troop transports the size of cruise ships" are able to get through...?

    Quote

    ...the above modeling shows the practical window for U.S. intervention in a Taiwan invasion prior to the seizure of Taipei and the displacement, dissolution, or capitulation of the ROC government effectively closes 31 days after the initial landings. In the scenario, this is 46 days after the start of the JFSO and 76 days after the “invasion likely” assessment, though both of those times were based on educated assumptions vice data-backed models. As stated, this analysis is based on a best-case-scenario timelines for the PLA, in which the Taiwanese resistance they encounter is more akin to that demonstrated by the beleaguered 2014 version of the Ukrainian military vice its more successful 2022 descendant. U.S. policy in the short run must be focused on ensuring Taiwan’s military is not the overwhelmed, underequipped, and unprepared former, but rather the well-equipped, well trained, and motivated latter.

    I could easily see politicians debating intervention for 30+ days, easily.  And that assumes we are pre-positioned with everything we need to intervene, which is probably not true, there will be travel time, logistics, etc.

    Oh on top of all that, Taiwanese aren't super motivated to defend themselves:

    Quote

    ...a survey conducted by the Ministry of National Defense found that only 73 percent of Taiwanese would be willing to fight if Taiwan was invaded.37

    Again this isn't an assessment of how likely the PRC is to attempt invasion, which is a political decision.  This war game was about could they get it done before we move in, and it looks like the answer could be yes based on Taiwan's assets and willingness to fight.

    A discussion of should the US intervene is also a political decision, but we need to get our shit straight on that ASAP one way or the other so we don't vacillate in the moment.  I'm on the intervene side, which is a whole other discussion but you can make a case for either.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  9. I think I read somewhere last year that Homefield (and others) were limited by the retro logos that UT agreed to release/license to them.  Which I agree are shitty last year and this year.  We're the problem, it's us.

    47 Brand had the best retro t-shirts a few years ago, I still have one that I miss a bunch.  CDC said that they were coming back to UT, we'll see about that.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. On 5/31/2023 at 8:48 PM, boilerhorn said:

    If the professor seems reasonable, a simple question would be “If I knew this was wrong, would I have done something that was so obviously in violation of the rules?”  The counter might be, “you signed off on the code of conduct, right?”  And a response would be, “Yes.  Just like we all read every line of the terms of service of every piece of software we’ve every purchased.”

    At which point dickhead prof says: "Yes, of course I do, don't you?"

  11. On 6/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, hookemATL said:

    If someone can find a place to buy a new one of these hats, I will be forever in your debt (up to and including murder and body disposal).  I’ve worn mine to the point where I believe I can grow a micro society from the sweat germs and the bill is beyond frayed.  I’ve had no luck in searching for it and this may be the best fitting cap I’ve ever had.  PLAAASE HALP!

    - 47 Brand 

    - white State of Texas logo on front 

    - cloth strap with brass button and longhorn logo tag

     

    image.jpg

    image.jpg

    image.jpg

    Why are you replacing that hat so soon?  That still has a few years of life left in it.  Wasteful!

    • Haha 1
  12. 4 hours ago, John80 said:

    The money should have been settled BEFORE further expansion. They shouldn't be haggling over this now when the SEC has zero leverage. Some SEC schools have been successful in spite of the incompetent SEC management.

    No one says no when Texas and OU come calling.  You say yes and figure it out.  We'll get to 9, it's a matter of when and how much.

    ...Imagine Sankey saying "Sorry Texas and OU we'll just need to open a who-knows-how-long media negotiation with ESPN on your value before we say yes."  Everyone knows what would have happened: word of Texas/OU leaving would have leaked earlier, A&M would have a lot more time to rev up opposition at the state level and in the SEC, and we would be stuck in the boat anchor big 12 for god knows how long.

  13. On 6/2/2023 at 1:32 PM, TheContractor said:

    Good question. I think, not sure, espn has a new sec deal from 2024 to 2034 but i dont think that includes Texas/Ou. Logically, IF thats true, espn has to up the deal. If it does include Tx/ou, thats that's bad on Sec part. 

    I believe I read that the SEC's contract w/ Disney included a pro rata increase for any added teams above 14, so they are already getting "more money."  This kerfuffle is that the SEC wants even more than the pro rata increase because they added Texas and OU, which are additive above/beyond the average SEC team, plus going to the 9-game schedule would have added a ton of "extra" high-value games.  No sense to give those extra games in the 9-game away for "free," as part of the pro rata's baked in increase; they have more value than that and Disney should pay for it.  

    Sounds like right now Disney's business situation didn't allow for that, or they weren't open to paying enough for it.  So, away we go with 8.  I really believe if you gave the coaches and AD's of every SEC program truth serum, they'd all say that 9-games is a better fan experience and better for the SEC.  But with just the pro rata increase, losing the home cupcake game revenues (and potentially the bowl game, although I think that aspect is overblown) are bigger than the additional TV cut they're going to get.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. 2 hours ago, PilotsError said:

     

    So...the exact thing he said?  Not sure why you nope'd him.  

    I read that (wrong?) as jk was saying that Saban was pissed that people are buying players, which I found ironic b/c that's exactly what Saban has been doing for years.  Missed the "out and out" part which I guess means in the open.  Gave jk some pos rep :D

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 13 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

    He’s pissed because everyone is out and out buying players.

    Nope.  "Buying players" isn't new.  He's pissed because Bama used to be able to buy players under the table with bags and programs like Texas didn't get into that game as much.  Now it's all above board with NIL and Texas and others are in the game now, legally.  So he's lost a big asymmetric advantage he used to have in our presumptive surrender to not play the bag game.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  16. Interesting bit from the CBS sports article above:

    Quote

     

    As for Missouri, its state law mirrors the rest but with a twist: High school athletes in the state can discuss NIL deals and earn NIL compensation after signing a letter of intent but before enrolling in the college. Here’s the kicker: To qualify for early NIL, athletes must have signed with an in-state school.

    “Game changer!” Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz tweeted after the law passed.

     

    Lulz

    • Haha 2
  17. Different question for the futbol heads: what changed from last year to this year that took us from the top of the standings (er, table?) to the bottom?

  18. Didn't Wolff just get a 3 year extension?

    I don't know enough about soccer to comment on systems, aside from we've sucked at scoring this year.  Also I don't like that Wolff plays his son on the team...if you're going to play your son he better be God-like, and Wolff Jr ain't that.

×
×
  • Create New...