Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 8/1/2025 at 5:22 AM, Bojack said:

You stupid motherfucker, you make a political statement every time you post on this website because your avatar is a dumbass political joke. You do it everywhere except the place that's designated for politics. 

Meh...

 

I changed it from my avatar that was on shaggy/hornfans that was kind of a joke on my school...

 

I'll change it so that the sand will get out of your vag...

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 AM, hookemATL said:

Lot of words and numbers to say “I love nazis and pedophilia”.  

Go fuck, you un-American cunt. 

And you're one of the reasons why this site is nothing but a burnt orange democratunderground echo chamber.

 

Congrats, I guess???

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.

Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

And that's not including the general presumption that we SHOULD be trying to steer this democratic experiment back towards majority rule, and the most simple method of doing so would be to have districts drawn in a manner that invites the most general election competition.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

Fucking pieces of shit.

c43dfpbf6pif1.jpeg

Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

And it’s fucking beautiful. One of the healthiest states with the lowest level of obesity. I love Colorado. Maybe it’s time to start planning the escape 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
8 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, speed817 said:

I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

...and then make it illegal to sue football players and the university.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

Choir preaching.   I’ve lived in Denver, Seattle, most Texas cities, DC and now in SoCal.  Guess which one was the cheapest?  Guess which place I would never move back to?

  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

 

HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

 

Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

 

Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

 

BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

This is a joke right?

Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

QFT because this is really, really, really important.  As we've seen the Karl Rove strategy borne out over the last few decades, this is what we've gotten.  It's not just that we've ended up with Republican congresscritters, it's also that we've ended up with truly shitty, embarrassing, terrible Republican congresscritters.  MTG.  Boebert.  Come on.  Any self-respecting American should be fucking mortified that people like that have offices in our Capitol.  Shit, even when it's not a gerrymander, and you have long-time one-party rule, you end up with awful fucking leaders.  Senator Tuberville?  Attorney General Paxton?  These are pieces of shit who should never have had ANY sort of successful career, much less occupied high office....and today, they are the tip of the spear of Republican leadership and thought.

It's not just that ag with kids wants to elect Republicans.  It's that he favors a system that will elect the Temu version of Republicans.

9c6nuu.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

George Strait summarized Amarillo perfectly. He has to get there by morning because no one wants to the dipshit who has to wake up there every morning.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

A shitload of this.

When you tell your kids that the moon is made of green cheese, and do everything you can to prevent them from accessing alternate information....shit changes when they go to a university with an actual astronomy department, and a real moon rock on display.  Then they come home and say "so, the moon is really made of rock and such," you get all pissed off because the lies/incomplete information you gave them went poof.

That's not to say that young people are the best digesters of new ideas and information.  They also hear certain ideas for the first time, and are enamored by them at a surface level, and their youthful energy and passion get out in front.  That's how you also often have students taking absurd/extreme political positions at a campus protest or whatnot.  But when you understand that an overly enthusiastic embrace of new/controversial ideas and theories is PART OF THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING YOUR BRAIN, it's not that big a deal.  We've had to roll our eyes plenty at some of the "absolutist" positions our kids have taken/stated from time to time.  We know that time and experience will sand he edges off of those extremes.  And we also know it's not the school or any "indoctrination" that gave them those thoughts.  It's just the ordinary process of your worldview expanding.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

Yes, I have been pondering this, as well, and have reached the same conclusion.

True conservatism is maintenance of the status quo, or really more accurately, measured change and acknowledgement of unintended consequences.

Other than history, or studying that principal in action in some other context, there really isn't much to be gained academically or educationally by "teaching conservatism" except actual political indoctrination.  In a lot of ways, conservatism is antithetical to education.  Actual conservatism is "that's a great idea, but  . . . ."  And that means you actually need exposure to great ideas, even if they're ultimately flawed in execution or some other way.

I mean hell, most of the people in this forum are former conservatives or hewed to a fair amount of conservative notions and we all attended that commanis, hommasekshul librul UT.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

Yep. First time o loved outside of Texas was eye opening. Met liberals that actually worked hard and weren’t on the government cheese. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, speed817 said:

Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

repped for the Bomani Jones reference

Far too few people have heard Bomani torch Will Cain on his own show in the aftermath of that Bubba Wallace Nascar controversy. Absolute fire from Bomani.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So you want Texas, which votes about 56% Republican, and is currently gerrymandered to predetermine a 66% Republican outcome, to increase the number of safe seats to 79%? That does not square with your repeated insistence that you think it should reflect how the state votes. 
The fact is that if we just had 38 competitive districts drawn without regard to partisan lean and reflected actual communities it would play out closer to the natural break than anything else. 

 


Designing districts around actual places on the map where people have important things in common is called “representation,” not “gerrymandering.”

So you support efforts to hugely overepresent Republicans?

I don’t have a side, I have a community. You do have a side, and your side is doing this in Texas. I don’t care about states where I don’t live. I care about Representative from Austin who have a reason to pick up the phone when someone from Austin calls.

 

These numbers are skewed because they represent how people voted, but don't take into account how many would vote if they felt their districts were established fairly.  And also in the smaller rural counties they vote Red because that's the only party that has candidates, usually.  

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, the actual tax burden in California is lower for most people than in Texas.

And then when you start figuring in things like cost of health insurance that are directly impacted by a state's political policies, the non-real-estate cost-of-living in Cali is even or cheaper than Texas.

Plus I am betting the return of services per dollar is greater in a lot of those blue states.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
And it’s fucking beautiful. One of the healthiest states with the lowest level of obesity. I love Colorado. Maybe it’s time to start planning the escape 

Met a vendor rep at a conference who splits time living between Texas and Colorado. She says in Texas people meet up for margaritas and queso. In Colorado they meet up for activities like hiking, yoga, cycling or climbing.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


Met a vendor rep at a conference who splits time living between Texas and Colorado. She says in Texas people meet up for margaritas and queso. In Colorado they meet up for activities like hiking, yoga, cycling or climbing.

IMG_2459.gif.f6b6e67d8d5658a286ea944f7ae05508.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Posted
11 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


Met a vendor rep at a conference who splits time living between Texas and Colorado. She says in Texas people meet up for margaritas and queso. In Colorado they meet up for activities like hiking, yoga, cycling or climbing.

You can't spell "excessively fat" without Texas.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

repped for the Bomani Jones reference

Far too few people have heard Bomani torch Will Cain on his own show in the aftermath of that Bubba Wallace Nascar controversy. Absolute fire from Bomani.

Not sure if he went to school here but he’s a Longhorn fan as well

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, the actual tax burden in California is lower for most people than in Texas.

And then when you start figuring in things like cost of health insurance that are directly impacted by a state's political policies, the non-real-estate cost-of-living in Cali is even or cheaper than Texas.

Yeah I figured that out when I got a tax calculator. I would actually pay less tax in California in my position. But the big earners would get soaked.

I cannot speak to the cost of living though. I imagine living inland in California is not too bad. Those coastal cities seem pretty horrifyingly expensive but I have only ever visited them.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah I figured that out when I got a tax calculator. I would actually pay less tax in California in my position. But the big earners would get soaked.

I cannot speak to the cost of living though. I imagine living inland in California is not too bad. Those coastal cities seem pretty horrifyingly expensive but I have only ever visited them.

what would this cost inside the loop in Houston?

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/901-Grizzly-Peak-Blvd-Berkeley-CA-94708/24848629_zpid/

Posted
33 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah I figured that out when I got a tax calculator. I would actually pay less tax in California in my position. But the big earners would get soaked.

This is not how you humblebrag

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Someone’s really interested in Berkeley!

Haha...you got me.

I was with some friends/family from Texas 2 weeks ago - all of whom live in "desirable" parts of DFW and Houston. Their homes are all valued well over 1m, but they were bemoaning the fact that they could never make it in CA due to home prices. Played a bit of cell phone flop out with Zillow to illustrate. No doubt coastal CA is more expensive, but depending on where you live, you might not experience the sticker shock you'd expect. 

Edited by Foosters
Posted
2 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Yep but that’s nine future GOP voters

have that many and the odds of having a 'black sheep' or two go way up.



×
×
  • Create New...