War Room Lounge v63

[The Diplomat]

Same. I figured DC hit him hard and often enough to put him down. Worst case scenario a damaged Stipe gasses and loses power in his hands and DC rides out a decision.

Looked about right after rd. 1. Then DC got complacent and was clipped enough times to scramble the eggs a little.

I thought something was wrong when he asked his corner if he was losing. Then Stipe actually took him down.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I thought something was wrong when he asked his corner if he was losing. Then Stipe actually took him down.

Agreed, that was an "uh oh" moment. He took a pretty huge right in the moments before that iirc.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

Great fights last night. Nate was very impressive, considering he came with 3 years of ring rust.

More confirmation that @WarDosAnjos is a troll, though. He said Pettis won the fight in the PBP thread.

I had him two to one. Close fight. Nate didn't do any actual damage. Pettis first and second round clearly

 

[Lead]

Great fights last night. Nate was very impressive, considering he came with 3 years of ring rust.

More confirmation that @WarDosAnjos is a troll, though. He said Pettis won the fight in the PBP thread.

They mentioned Nate got a vacation house thirty minutes from the arena too instead of using the hotel. Really could’ve questioned whether he was taking this seriously or in shape but he looked like he never left.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Which definition? With American jurisprudence I very strongly doubt that the police officer will face any discipline whatsoever. In Canada, though? That police officer is fucked.



This person had just killed 10 people with that van, and was repeatedly ''reaching'' and ''drawing'' his cell phone in an attempt to get the police officer to kill him. It might be hard to believe, but in other places in the world you can't be summarily executed for reaching.

Yeah those cops did a good job. That has nothing to do with my post or reasoning. I’ve never defended shooting someone for “reaching.”

You don’t see the difference between someone who has a gun and is actively fleeing vs someone who is surrendering and is unarmed? Because those are the kind of facts that determine whether a shooting is justified or not.

Police in Canada do shoot people and if an armed suspect is resisting I’m not aware of them being “fucked.”

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/03...page_tiwdkz83gze&utm_campaign=mw_entry_recirc

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03...page_tiwdkz83gze&utm_campaign=mw_entry_recirc

These are cases with hammers and screwdrivers, not guns, and the officers were not fucked in Canada. I don’t think either of those shootings are as justified as the one we were discussing before.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is misleading. First off liberalism isn't the difference between the left and right in Americas paradigm the status Quo in America is one of liberal though hence the term "classical liberalism" this is again why the paradigm is also not to be quantified by equality or inequality but statism and anti-statism, because it's not the differentiating factor anymore. Remember they broke away from the status quo themselves making them the ones who valued reason over tradition. Here we are today where it is now it's own established status quo.

I understand that you're asserting that the American right is liberal, but there isn't any good reason to think that's true, and at the very least, I think you have to realize that there are significant illiberal elements that have influenced the movement (and currently control it).

True American conservatism aka classical liberalism is on the far right of the spectrum. The further right one goes the further state and it's affairs on the individuals lives dissolve.

Incorrect. The far right of the spectrum is monarchy or monarch-like systems. The far left is no gov't at all and a totally flat hierarchical structure (no property, essentially).

Beyond that would be complete anarchy in the truest sense of the meaning and not what leftists believe comes after a communist state. How the current majority of the right in America votes makes no difference in negating that fact. Just like it doesn't negate the history and existence of communism if registered Democrats don't happen to vote in a communist. That reasoning is completely irrelevant.

It depends. If you're discussing the American right, which you have mentioned many times, the character of the American right is relevant. If you're simply saying that right-wing liberalism is not authoritarian, that's true, as liberalism (left, right, and center) is inherently opposed to authoritarianism.

This is exactly the point I'm making. If you have taken the time to read into the philosophical under pinnings of American rightism you would know that it's a completely base in individualism and is completely unlike the status quo which it broke away from which, as you are now verifying for everyone, was collectivist.

I have taken the time to read into the philosophical underpinnings of American rightism, and it is deeply collectivist. There are right-wing liberal thinkers who are individualists, but that's not the whole American right, or the dominant element in it.

American rightism is an amalgamation, a mish mash of many different people's thoughts. I'm sure you could pick specific passages that some how made them seem unlike the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that those people are the foundation they stand on.

The American Constitution is a liberal document, and the liberal right has good things to say about it, but it doesn't define the "American right." Calhoun is a much bigger influence on the American right than Locke or Smith, who generally (not just certain passages) promote a different, opposing viewpoint that fits better with the American left.

We already understand that we have a fundamental disagreement on what a conservative even is since you still think they want to maintain institutions they broke away from. That needs to be cleared up (even though it won't) to continue.

I think that what conservatism is (well-described here, which I recommend) is a belief in the wisdom of tradition.

Again. Left and right in America isn't seperated by liberalism. This is why equality and Inequality is an outdated mode of quantifying it.

It mostly is. You're not American, right? Can you clear up where you get your ideas about the American political scene?

How the right votes today or what the Republicans do is irrelevant to lockes influence on the constitution. Again I'm talking about the ideology.

Correct, but it is relevant to identifying what the American right believes. Maybe after all this, we're really on the same page? We agree that the American right is authoritarian and not particularly liberal but also that Locke and Smith (big influences on the American left) are liberal?

What we are discussing is the political paradigm. How you view the right wing American base is irrelevant as I've said numerous times. Your last sentence "most of the right in America disagrees with that" is you not taking your own recommendations, keep this to ideological talk. People vote for all sorts of nonsense and yet it doesn't negate history and the terms associated.

How I view them is irrelevant, but how they view them defines what the "American right" is. And what the American right is, is mostly an authoritarian movement that is increasingly disconnected from liberalism and conservatism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are operating under the assumption that there was choice in that election.

There was a choice between a highly competent liberal technocrat and a buffoonish, authoritarian demagogue with no understanding of gov't. Authoritarians chose one of them, and liberals chose the other.

I assume you are alluding to the fact that he is like a "dictator" therefore reinforcing the "rule of one" or monarchist which is laughable. Decentralization is still a huge theme of his no matter how hard he comes off as a dick-tator. How ever I would say that he isn't a true American rightist in the ideological sense.

Remember, I already mentioned that he has a lot of right wingers criticizing him.

I don't understand the decentralization comment. That's a theme of Trump's? The president who is trying to get involved in city policing decisions? Also, he's absolutely a rightist, and has the support of the overwhelming majority (90% or so) of the American right.

 

[Andy Capp]

Wow, I gotta say, I've never had somebody so desperate in their butthurt, they attempted a "phrasing" gotcha on me before. Especially one as benign as that. What was the thought process here? You saw "I imagine" in my post, and thought, "Oh', I got you now!"

Damn, you sure showed me. LOL.

I made my point. It's worth what it's worth. Again, just an observation. On the other hand, all anyone needs to do to understand butthurt is read the posts of yours I quoted. As far as I can tell, the only reason all your posts aren't like that is because even you need a break eventually. Here's something you can substitute next time.

 

[HereticBD]

I made my point. It's worth what it's worth.

Yeah, that would be absolutely nothing, and you made no point at all. You sound kind of embarrassed about it, TBH.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah, that would be absolutely nothing, and you made no point at all. You sound kind of embarrassed about it, TBH.

You sound like you needed to get a new hanky before you hit reply. Run along young'un.

 

[HereticBD]

You sound like you needed to get a new hanky before you hit reply. Run along young'un.

"You sound like"...hmm...I distinctly recall you using the phrase "you seem like" in the past. I should search the boards for those highly contradictory posts, so I can burn you as sick as you burned me.

LOL.

 

[The Diplomat]

They mentioned Nate got a vacation house thirty minutes from the arena too instead of using the hotel. Really could’ve questioned whether he was taking this seriously or in shape but he looked like he never left.

That's actually smart imo. Feel more comfortable and relaxed, train whenever, don't have to deal with hotels. Show up to the arena and fight within minutes.

 

[Lead]

That's actually smart imo. Feel more comfortable and relaxed, train whenever, don't have to deal with hotels. Show up to the arena and fight within minutes.

In that Netflix Connor documentary, it looks like that’s what he did when he was scheduled to fight Aldo the first time and it got switched to Mendes.

 

[The Diplomat]

I wonder what the UFC policy on weed is, now that the landscape has changed

 

[Andy Capp]

"You sound like"...hmm...I distinctly recall you using the phrase "you seem like" in the past. I should search the boards for those highly contradictory posts, so I can burn you as sick as you burned me.

LOL.

Oh yeah, totally, a bunch of posts that show I don't arrogantly presume to speak for others. Dead to rights no less.
Are you planning to "last word" me all the way into the next thread? I made my point and tried to move on. Why do you insist on being repeatedly flogged with it?

That's a rhetorical question by the way, but then, everyone knows that, right?

 

[Lead]

I wonder what the UFC policy on weed is, now that the landscape has changed

I wonder this in the broader sense of employment. Like if every state allows weed, do employers start removing that from what counts on a drug test? I think the stigma may still last awhile even if the laws change.

 

[Andy Capp]

I wonder what the UFC policy on weed is, now that the landscape has changed

It's whatever third party they find to scapegoat says it is. They will never take any responsibility to make such a determination when they can blame the athletic commission or the police or whomever for the outcome.

 

[The Diplomat]

It's whatever third party they find to scapegoat says it is. They will never take any responsibility to make such a determination when they can blame the athletic commission or the police or whomever for the outcome.

Still can't believe Nicks best win was taken because he smoked some weed.

 

[HereticBD]

Oh yeah, totally, a bunch of posts that show I don't arrogantly presume to speak for others. Dead to rights no less.
Are you planning to "last word" me all the way into the next thread? I made my point and tried to move on. Why do you insist on being repeatedly flogged with it?

That's a rhetorical question by the way, but then, everyone knows that, right?

Still going on about it...

LOL. It would be better just to say you were drunk, and thought it was a really sick burn at the time.

 

[Andy Capp]

Still going on about it...

LOL. It would be better just to say you were drunk, and thought it was a really sick burn at the time.

Next.