Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Seriously, you suck at this.  Not sure if you are good at anything.  Start bad mouthing Sioux Hockey.  I want them to have a good year.  

3hqlzm.jpg

Key word is Works.  Hunter has no clue a gift of 1 billion plus for a company he is involved with.  His only work is having a name and father was VP.

  • Upvote 4
Posted
27 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Those with body armor aren't peaceful protesters, those are thugs.      

But I'm fully aware the Right wants to conflate the two because they don't like the peaceful protesters either.   The ethos of today's Right is adherence to authority.  You people have an aversion to dissent.  

 

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying protesting is wrong. Accosting people while they’re minding their own business isn’t peaceful. Standing in the road isn’t peaceful. it’s illegal. Throwing debris at cops, and yelling at them an inch from from their face isn’t peaceful. I am all for peaceful protest, but we cannot as a nation allow lawlessness or destruction of government property. Or city property for that matter. 

What if we allow these spoiled Soytifa clowns to burn down the court house in Portland? What is a federal employee get killed during said fire? I suppose some will say they had it coming. Attacking a federal court house is an attack on us all. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Goon said:

I don’t recall anyone on the right saying protesting is wrong. Accosting people while they’re minding their own business isn’t peaceful. Standing in the road isn’t peaceful. it’s illegal. Throwing debris at cops, and yelling at them an inch from from their face isn’t peaceful. I am all for peaceful protest, but we cannot as a nation allow lawlessness or destruction of government property. Or city property for that matter. 

What if we allow these spoiled Soytifa clowns to burn down the court house in Portland? What is a federal employee get killed during said fire? I suppose some will say they had it coming. Attacking a federal court house is an attack on us all. 

 

Antifa/Violence/Lawlessness are symptoms of the disease.  Treat the disease, symptoms will go away.   What is the disease?  It's called divisiveness.  We are a nation that currently espouses a party over country ethos.  iAs Ive previously mentioned, there is nothing unifying about Trump.  His entire Presidency is predicated on division and it henceforth filters downward to both Democrats and Republicans.  Everyone follows suit in this divisiveness  to keep up.  Unlike Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GWB, or Obama, our current government has no common ground whereby problems can be solved.       

If both sides come together, this county can achieve anything.  But this isn’t happening, nor will it happen under Trump's leadership.   He does not have the ability, nor the political will to unify the nation.  Unifying a nation does start from the top.      

You spamming this board with 546,000 posts of Antifa violence is akin to having a sore throat and incessantly blaming it on the evil democrat flu, yet choosing to not solve the problem by ignoring the doctor's office.      

Posted
31 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

Key word is Works.  Hunter has no clue a gift of 1 billion plus for a company he is involved with.  His only work is having a name and father was VP.

You know how stupid that sounds?

 

Well, no you don't.

Lol 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

Stupid on Biden and those who see that as a problem.

 

You really didn't.  

I am not disappointed though. It was expected   

Posted
On 8/29/2020 at 10:57 AM, Frozen4sioux said:

Bud, you're spare parts and if you're brains were gas you couldn't power an ant's gokart one lap around a cheerio.

see... I can just spout insults instead of addressing facts too. Damn shame you lack the ability to comprehend.

BTW.. Call of duty......is nothing like Kandahar, can confirm. Wouldnt expect your incel-infantry brigayde to know that.

 

dang, that is some damn fine chirppin!  i love letterkenny

Posted
12 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Those with body armor aren't peaceful protesters, those are thugs.      

But I'm fully aware the Right wants to conflate the two because they don't like the peaceful protesters either.   The ethos of today's Right is adherence to authority.  You people have an aversion to dissent.  

 

The electoral college and the Senate were created to give low population states better representation in the federal government.

The 3/5 compromise was created to give slave-holding states better representation in the House (and the electoral college) and was created entirely due to slavery.

The electoral college wasn't created because of slavery and should not be conflated with the 3/5 compromise.  It was created because of population differentials.  It did however benefit most the states that were also slave-holding states at the time.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
12 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

Those with body armor aren't peaceful protesters, those are thugs.      

But I'm fully aware the Right wants to conflate the two because they don't like the peaceful protesters either.   The ethos of today's Right is adherence to authority.  You people have an aversion to dissent.  

CNN and the left are also conflating the 2.  They refuse to call the rioters what they are.

Posted
13 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

The electoral college and the Senate were created to give low population states better representation in the federal government.

The 3/5 compromise was created to give slave-holding states better representation in the House (and the electoral college) and was created entirely due to slavery.

The electoral college wasn't created because of slavery and should not be conflated with the 3/5 compromise.  It was created because of population differentials.  It did however benefit most the states that were also slave-holding states at the time.

It wasn't.  It was created to support the 3/5 compromise.  To give slave states more representation in the electoral college based on the 3/5 compromise. 

Small states have equal representation in the US Senate.  And to this day do get a better share of the electoral votes,  but it came due to the 3/5 compromise.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

It wasn't.  It was created to support the 3/5 compromise. 

You flunked basic civics. 

You're attempting to rewrite history to associate something you don't like with evil.  It was done to support low-population states, which, at the time, were also slave-holding states.  It wasn't done due to slavery.

  • Upvote 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

It wasn't.  It was created to support the 3/5 compromise.  To give slave states more representation in the electoral college based on the 3/5 compromise. 

Small states have equal representation in the US Senate.  And to this day do get a better share of the electoral votes,  but it came due to the 3/5 compromise.

You've yet to provide any backup for that.

Posted
21 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

The electoral college and the Senate were created to give low population states better representation in the federal government.

The 3/5 compromise was created to give slave-holding states better representation in the House (and the electoral college) and was created entirely due to slavery.

The electoral college wasn't created because of slavery and should not be conflated with the 3/5 compromise.  It was created because of population differentials.  It did however benefit most the states that were also slave-holding states at the time.

exactly.  Thank you

Posted
8 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

You're attempting to rewrite history to associate something you don't like with evil.  It was done to support low-population states, which, at the time, were also slave-holding states.  It wasn't done due to slavery.

No and yes to the degree that it wouldn't count slaves. 

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Posted
3 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Low population.

unless slaves were counted.  Thus, the 3/5 compromise is the reason for the electorsl college 

I'm beginning to think Goon has several accounts. 

Posted
Just now, Hayduke1 said:

unless slaves were counted.  Thus, the 3/5 compromise. 

I'm not arguing the 3/5 compromise was about slavery.  You're attempting to conflate that with the electoral college, which was about representation for low population states.  The 3/5 compromise was about additional representation for slave-holding states.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...