ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

that likelihood hasn't occurred to you?
No... it hadn't, at all. It's not something that I'm threatened by or vulnerable to, to even notice or care. So what if he was? When guys like Vance and Carlson say shit like this, it merely outs THEM! They just reveal their own sexual insecurity... like you just did! It implies there's some alleged defect or weakness that doesn't exist in being gay and/or bi, or whatever the hell. Whatever it is, you DO NOT want to be gay or bi... oh, lord, no! That's worse than cancer! "Straight" is a mental construct that humans created, just like everything else.

Judging by looks, Trump wears more facial bronzer than Siegfried AND Roy. So, clearly Trump has blown a ton of guys! I'm sure you can excuse him.

Preseason Rankings: AP vs Pomeroy

Now that you've wasted all our our time reviewing what was NOT the issue - even though you got part of that wrong, too - maybe you can get back to the thought experiment.

I'm sure you won't. Is it because you don't understand? Now that you have sort of agreed that Pomeroy is better than random, what do you think the next step is?
SMDH. I got every last bit of it right. What is wrong with you?

As my breakdown clearly shows, if you think it's some sort of validation to do better than random, it makes it painfully clear you are just obsessed with pomeroy.

One last time: AP will be better than random (outside of the ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely outlier in which a random array gets close to getting the good teams in the right places), USA Today will be better than random. Yours, mine and rankings from everyone here will be better than random. All because all of the above have precondition knowledge. Again, period.

I'm gonna resist the temptation to disparage anything beyond the incredibly faulty logic, but FYI, I made damn good money from the Athletic Dept in college as a math major tutoring my fellow jocks in a particularly notorious required math course that featured a healthy dose of probablilty and statistics --- a course that had previously cost several athletes their eligibilty --- in which I took groups who were at a D or F level before midterm and got everyone through with final grades usually no worse than B --- and that was a course with a Prof who, trust me, was NOT jock-friendly.

What I laid out for you (on a silver platter) was the most basic of scenarios concerning the most basic of concepts, i.e., randomness --- something that I can tell ya every one of my struggling tutees would have easily understood in a matter of minutes before we went into far more complex concepts. I can only hope you can put aside your blinders and grasp what should be so obvious. Nothing I told you is arguable. It is (simple) mathematical truth.

But honestly, I've wasted far too much time on this. So nutshell? Your "thought experiment" is, ipso facto, meaningless, so the only "next step" is to step away and just read what you want and like what you want and leave me out of it. I'm done with this nonsense and don't care to see any more about it.
Period.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

jeezuz. I already commented on this. It's as plain as day that he's only saying that because she's such a warhawk, more than ready to send soldiers into battle, then let's see how she would like having those guns trained on her instead. Anything at all read into it more than that is either the result of severe brain damage or severe TDS or just plain old lib disingenuity.
Even if he had been specific that he wanted Liz Cheney put in front of a firing squad, you'd have an excuse for it. The easiest being just call it "TDS." It's the most lazy and intellectually dishonest way to go. That's the best part of the whole Trump-cult experience. We get to watch the floor get lower and lower. There's no bottom. It's the boiling-frog metaphor in real-time.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

When I hear that... I don't think he's saying he wants to have Liz Cheney shot. They edited this quite a bit. She, and her father, are/were pro-war when it came to sending US troops into the Middle East. That was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of American foreign policy. So, what I heard, or understood Trump to mean, was that if Liz (and, maybe her father), or any of those GOP warhawks, were on the business end of the bombs and the weaponry, they might be a little less eager to use military force to police the world, when it's your country in the cross-hairs. Of course, I understand how people could also understand it to seem like a man who is looking to get even with his own domestic political rivals, especially when you only hear 20 seconds of what he said.
jeezuz. I already commented on this. It's as plain as day that he's only saying that because she's such a warhawk, more than ready to send soldiers into battle, then let's see how she would like having those guns trained on her instead. Anything at all read into it more than that is either the result of severe brain damage or severe TDS or just plain old lib disingenuity.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Looking for your insights here.

Login to view embedded media
Vance is a treat. I think I saw Tucker Carlson somewhere insisting that Tim Walz is gay! The projection is just dripping off these mf'ers. Big fvcking deal! Sexuality is so fluid it can't be measured! I think it comes from the evolved indoctrination that "real men" have to fit into very specific, rigid, and totally-made-up-for-reasons-of-their-own-insecurities categories and/or rules/norms.

I was watching a Yale History lecture series (without having to pay tuition) about the 19th Century, leading up to the Civil War and Reconstruction... and, these "norms" were really necessary back then too... the appearance of proper behavior! But, the best part is... the rules were ALWAYS broken, and it permeated all the more because of the rigidity and value placed on them, because they couldn't be adhered to! And, all of that creates a cultural deception that just festers.

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

When I hear that... I don't think he's saying he wants to have Liz Cheney shot. They edited this quite a bit. She, and her father, are/were pro-war when it came to sending US troops into the Middle East. That was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of American foreign policy. So, what I heard, or understood Trump to mean, was that if Liz (and, maybe her father), or any of those GOP warhawks, were on the business end of the bombs and the weaponry, they might be a little less eager to use military force to police the world, when it's your country in the cross-hairs. Of course, I understand how people could also understand it to seem like a man who is looking to get even with his own domestic political rivals, especially when you only hear 20 seconds of what he said.
I think it is funny (or sad for our country) that he is focused on Liz and Biden instead of ripping into Kamala and Walz.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT