Social WR Lounge v247: I ain't no sexy boy. I don't dance, son.

[My Spot]

I was at wm 6 and X8. Summerslam 2004, unforgiven 2006, a few tv tapings and house shows. The independent shows were by far my favorite though

You lucky bastard, you were there for Hogan/Rock.

 

[irish_thug]

You lucky bastard, you were there for Hogan/Rock.

Sure was. It was hilarious watching it on tv afterwards and hearing the commentary regarding the crowd.

 

[Deorum]

Austin’s best years were 98-99.

No '97? Preposterous. He won the Royal Rumble through heel methods with a survival time of over 45 minutes (nobody else was in the ring for even half that), had the greatest match in the promotion's history at Wrestlemania 13, feuded with the Hart family all year, won the tag team titles with HBK, survived a career threatening neck injury to win the Intercontinental, dropped his first stunner on Vince, and his promos were all raw as fuck.

1997 >>>

 

[My Spot]

Sure was. It was hilarious watching it on tv afterwards and hearing the commentary regarding the crowd.

What did you do when Hogan kicked out of the Rock Bottom and started hulking up?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The guy talks about AOC wanting to organize primary challenges against "any congressional Democrats who dare to embrace bipartisanship," rather than anything specific about the GND. I read that as kind of hippie punching (meaningless attacks on people to your left to show you're "reasonable"). And I don't think progressives want slightly less progressives to GTFO because in most races rightists are also an option. If you're deciding between a 7 and a 9, take the 9, of course, but if it's between a 7 and a 1, take the 7. Look at what Biden has already accomplished in office (which wouldn't have been possible without the Georgia wins). None of this would have been possible if a lot of takes that we saw here in the WR were more common.

Agreed.

In 2016, there was some blame of "Bernie bros" that refused to vote for Hillary and brought Trump to power. But I really don't think there were THAT many of them. Not enough to make a difference.

 

[LazaRRus]

@Gregolian @HockeyBjj @LazaRRus

NFL.com finally released their NFL Draft prospect database where they aggregate all their analyst rankings into a prospect score.

Things of note:

• Trevor Lawrence is by far the highest rated prospect of any position
• Devonta Smith (#3 overall, #1 WR) is rated higher than Ja'Marr Chase (#4 overall, #2 WR)
• Penei Sewell is rated as the #10 prospect, below Rashawn Slater
• Rashod Bateman is ranked as the #9 WR, below Tylan Wallace, Nico Collins, and Elijah Moore
• Trey Lance just barely edges out Justin Fields; all of Wilson/Lance/Fields are really close to each other but far down from Lawrence
• Asante Samuel is the #11 CB, and Greg Newsome is the #3

Lawrence ranking doesn't surprise me. I think Chase will be a better pro than Smith. That's low for Samuel imo. I like him

 

[irish_thug]

What did you do when Hogan kicked out of the Rock Bottom and started hulking up?

Cheered. Just like everyone else. When else has a crowd forced a face-turn

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

No '97? Preposterous. He won the Royal Rumble through heel methods with a survival time of over 45 minutes (nobody else was in the ring for even half that), had the greatest match in the promotion's history at Wrestlemania 13, feuded with the Hart family all year, won the tag team titles with HBK, survived a career threatening neck injury to win the Intercontinental, dropped his first stunner on Vince, and his promos were all raw as fuck.

1997 >>>

Yes 97 but he was Climbing and reaching his peak throughout the year. His peak was 98-99.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The key part is you claimed that I usually scoff at blah blah blah, when I don't even usually get in those threads because it's an issue I don't care about (that is completely unrelated to this one, and that you only brought up as a deflection).

"Usually" in relation to the times you comment, not the times the subject comes up. Pretty simple to grasp.

Your position that Twitter should be shut down because they pointed out that the president was saying something untrue?

I never said shut twitter down. So yeah, that's untrue.

??? I know that you're spinning it as we need to limit some people's freedom of speech for the greater good, but you are, in fact, arguing that we need to limit some people's freedom of speech.

I'm not spinning it that way. I'm pointing out it's been done via the CRA, both in an attempt to discern how much of your stance is principled and how much of it is rationalization, and to establish that in practice the limiting of speech by a business for the greater benefit of society is not a black and white issue.

"People who criticize whataboutism are hypocrites, but your whataboutism is bad." Good lord. How do you type that kind of thing and still feel good about yourself?

I didn't type that. You did. I'm sorry you missed the point.

No, to the first question. "You're inconsistent when you claim to support the principle of free speech, but only when doing so is convenient" is what I said, and your response was, "you're anti-gun or some shit." It's the "look over there!" defense. I have no thoughts on CU specifically. I generally support allowing people to make political contributions without limitations (and frequently take heat from leftists on the issue).

But I didn't defend the actions of the politicians, nor was my comment reliant on your view on guns. That particular topic was just an example of you dismissing concerns over something because (like in this case) the legislation did not pass. Which is relevant to any complaints you have on the lack of outcry from whoever you seem to be holding to the standard of needing to comment on the GA story. I shouldn't need to explain that to someone claiming to be above my level.

I proudly believe and will say that it's an irrelevant distraction that you bring up only to soften the criticism. The gov't should not be punishing people for political speech. Whatever one thinks about the merits of any particular bit of legislation, that's not how it should be used.

You understand there's a difference between how you feel about something and what's legal, right? And that what's legal is most certainly relevant, yeah? If you have your mind made up without exploring the difference between losing a right vs. losing a special privilege that's your prerogative, but to say it's irrelevant is at best your opinion. It's very much related to the subject at hand and is (that I can see) the only thing in question of probative value.

Seems like you didn't want any discussion on this. You just wanted to vilify some mysterious group, spike the football, backslap with your chums, and do a victory dance.

 

[Deorum]

Such amazing powerful and deadly creatures.

This is now the croc/gator power hour

The silence and disappearing act...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

lolz @ calling for backup in the lounge because you were butthurt.

lol at me getting "backup" in the Lounge. Unlike some posters, I don't have a group that automatically takes my side.

I moved the comment to the lounge since it seemed like the sort of tangent that we're encouraged to bring here.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

The silence and disappearing act...

 

[Clifford_Harris]

lol at me getting "backup" in the Lounge. Unlike some posters, I don't have a group that automatically takes my side.

I moved the comment to the lounge since it seemed like the sort of tangent that we're encouraged to bring here.

I'll automatically take your e-side in textual scuffles.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

The silence and disappearing act...

this man was legit insane

RIP

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'll automatically take your e-side in textual scuffles.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Worst, he's the editorial editor (manager?) for the biggest paper in St. Louis.

It's just hilarious how he describes the USSR as well. But the best is "where the socialism begins." He could have easily realized at that point that neither he nor the general public have a firm understanding of what socialism entails other than it being a very shameless political bookend on good policy when you can't argue against it on its merits.

The fact he brought up Spanish Civil War was hilarious.

From St Louis eh? Marxists played a huge role in the 1877 Saint Louis General Strike. Which was transformative of the labor movement across the country. What a silly fuck.

 

[irish_thug]

I'll automatically take your e-side in textual scuffles.

I do about 80% of the time

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

*facepalm*

so you jumped to a conclusion and pretend i'm wrong because you made a stupid conclusion? a+ airtight logic! can't refute anything i said?

btw, your interpretation of this would also mean that the 1994 assault weapons ban was not a ban. herp. derp.

You're just a fuckin' prick. You treat people like shit for no reason whenever I see you post.

I've got nothing more to add. Final word is all yours.

 

[Andy Capp]

"Usually" is another part of your claim. Anyway, I don't care a whit about the issue. I do not believe that any proposed gun restrictions would be likely to materially affect public safety, and I don't particularly care if some types of guns are restricted or if people have to register their guns or whatever else gun nuts whine about. I don't think the "ignore the half the sentence" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes sense. Just a nothingburger. Not related to the discussion anyway.



I think it's fair to say that it's a correct (and thus obviously honest) claim, but not spun the way you would prefer. Your position is still that if they fact-check Trump, they are a "publisher" and thus should be subject to draconian regs that would kill their business as it's currently modeled, no? You also made some kind of weird argument about how ending Jim Crow already was a big attack on freedom of speech so who cares anymore.

Ed:

I'll let you keep your account, but be careful next time!



Hmm. Pretty sure I answered that in the part you snipped. "the criticism is sandwiched between weak whataboutism and an irrelevant comment about them not having a right to tax breaks."

I gave this post a like, but Captain Pedantic demands that I point out an "if a then b statement" is not, in and of itself, something you can contradict or dispute without additional information/context. Before it means anything to me, I'd need you to show that b does not follow logically from a or that a or b is objectively false, or in this particular case, that the conclusion that b follows from a is contradicted by Cubo's latter claim ITT. Now, perhaps that has all been shown and I missed it, but if so, I'd ask that you reiterate it for my edification since I'd like to confirm my intuition that what you're saying is correct and I've found it impossible to keep up with lounge threads lately. I hope that makes sense--otherwise I may have smoked too much pot today.

 

[Andy Capp]

You're just a fuckin' prick. You treat people like shit for no reason whenever I see you post.

I've got nothing more to add. Final word is all yours.

I won't argue with that post, at the very least.