Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Today in JIVE ASS News
Comments
-
Will you idiots respect the bidness please
-
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies. -
My dad won’t fly. He just won’t!RaceBannon said:Will you idiots respect the bidness please
-
Some socialists argue for the abolishment of capital, but none argue for anywhere close to a 100% tax as long as capital exists. The point of socialism is also to give the value produced to the people who produce it, not to take it away from them. Very few US democrats argue for that, and the few that do are outside of the main establishment.PurpleJ said:
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies. -
Socialists are just communists that are too pussy to come out and admit it. Their policies are a stepping stone to their true goal of seizing the means of production. Kind of like how Obama claimed to be a capitalist but wants the government to take over health care.NorwegianHusky said:
Some socialists argue for the abolishment of capital, but none argue for anywhere close to a 100% tax as long as capital exists. The point of socialism is also to give the value produced to the people who produce it, not to take it away from them. Very few US democrats argue for that, and the few that do are outside of the main establishment.PurpleJ said:
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies. -
What’s the upper threshold? 81%?NorwegianHusky said:
Some socialists argue for the abolishment of capital, but none argue for anywhere close to a 100% tax as long as capital exists. The point of socialism is also to give the value produced to the people who produce it, not to take it away from them. Very few US democrats argue for that, and the few that do are outside of the main establishment.PurpleJ said:
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies. -
I’m Still a little uncertain about the emphasis on working hard and grinding to reach your potential. I know it’s true and a part of it, but I think that detracts from what should be our selling point, that the coaches and process here have some special ability to develop your talent to the fullest.
When you emphasize that it takes hard work, you are detracting from the special qualities at the UW. All of these kids think they are going to work hard, so they can just work hard somewhere else and get the same results, right? Imagine going to some real estate seminar and the secrets to making millions in real estate as divulged by the host is that you just gotta buckle down and work hard at it. You’re not going to be leaving there paying him no $199 for his book and DVDs revealing his “secrets.”
Wish they’d put more emphasis on the coaching, teaching, process.
-
@NorwegianHuskyNorwegianHusky said:
Some socialists argue for the abolishment of capital, but none argue for anywhere close to a 100% tax as long as capital exists. The point of socialism is also to give the value produced to the people who produce it, not to take it away from them. Very few US democrats argue for that, and the few that do are outside of the main establishment.PurpleJ said:
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies.
-
Coming in late for a ribkick on Crossfire. For fucksakescreepycoug said:
Majority of the guys who don't make lifetime $ in the league will sell real estate, cosch or run camps.
Molder of men. Pfft. I bought that shit hook line and sinker wiTh willingham. That @RaceBannon , who remembers, doesn't rub it in my face is act of maturity and restraint.
The biggest joke in sports is this never-ending urge to make it about more than sports. Jimminy. Fuck life lessons. That's what parents and real mentors are for.
My kids have never had a coach I ever wanted to role model anything for them. I would actually tell them: unless you want to be a fucking youth soccer coach at Crossfire and make $40 k a year in a town that impoverishes people making 100, whenever [name] starts talking about anything other than soccer tune her the fuck out. She knows soccer; but she's a moron for everything else.
Texas All American stud D 1 player and now coaching teenage girls. Sports is a brutal way to make a buck. It's like acting. 99.8% starve while .02% live large. Not a cohort from which you want to draw wisdom. Most coaches are stupid. -
Swaye said:
This is a great post and basically sums up how I feel about it. We aren't racist here. But the measures we seem to most value in recruits prize cultural elements of shitty white people more than other races (though Malloe has Poly family shit on lock). B4L is a much more inclusive (I hate that word but whatever) strategy that says we can get the most of anyone - white, black, poly, 50/50, whatever.Dennis_DeYoung said:
I have always hated OKG. OKG is a Boise thing. It's 'we don't get our pick of the litter, so we have to do EXTREME vetting'.Swaye said:I am glad they are hitting the "draft" branding hard. Said this in the other thread but it amazes me with how detailed and on top of things everything about this program is, that our recruiting has taken 5 years to finally try to get messaging right and on point. Feels like Pete just doesn't like recruiting, so that is the one ad hoc thing about this program.
But new branding centered on B4L and Come to UW to Get Drafted seems like a strategy that will work.
#scoducks#wareagle
Because at Boise, you had to really make sure you were homing in on guys who would be productive past their rating, etc.
At UW - we are recruiting basically the same kids everyone else is. How hard is it really to scout Bijan Robinson or Sav'ell? Are they OKGs?!?!
I mean - they have superlative talent. That's why we got our shit pushed in by tOSU, Penn State and Bama. We need guys like that. It doesn't take some insane OKG-meter to figure out who we need.
B4L is Washington branding (I believe Pete came up with it when he came to UW) and it suits their current mission much better. Instead of having the undercurrent of 'THIS IS THE HARDEST THING YOU WILL EVER DO - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GO TO OREGON' in our recruiting message, B4L is more 'we will take kids that can go anywhere, and do something with them nowhere else will do'.
OKG is about Pete and Co. prizing slow strategy values and (even though they don't realize it) selecting for obedient, beta kids (yes sir, no sir!!).
B4L is about 'hey, we can get kids like Kevin King (not that he was some extreme knucklehead or anything, but almost certainly a kid we would not recruit now) and make them into big time players and give them a real foundation in life'.
I have ALWAYS felt the tragedy of the OKG recruiting approach was that the kids who desperately NEED B4L won't get it because you are selling it in such a way that it turns off everyone who could REALLY benefit from it. Then we end up preaching to the converted and getting a bunch of beta kids. Nothing wrong with them, but we need a MIX.
As I said on Ep #49 - I NEED B4L!!! I DO!!!! My rich friends who grew up in Magnolia and went to O'Dea don't need it. It's fine for them... but I have ALWAYS felt that Pete's fire for college football will burn brighter and longer if he realizes he has an opportunity to change the lives of a bunch of fast strategy kids who will be used up and spit out by Oregon, USC and whomever else.
I have always felt if Pete could really get in touch with that reality he would really prize his opportunity. And if he realized what a shit-show OKG is perception wise, and what a disaster their 'anti-hype/anti-fun' stance is, and how much it impedes his ability to CHANGE LIVES of kids who NEED it... he would drop it immediately.
White people are really sensitive about this stuff, but it's not that complicated...
For reasons that you will have to pay me to really get into (this is a LONG story)... fast strategy values are baked into black culture in America even if the people themselves are not fast strategy. This is the same in opposition about white people culture in America. In the south with all these meth head lunatics, I see white people talking about 'hard work' and all its virtues (even though Squirrel is not a particularly hard worker).
I love all you white people. Shout out to white people. There is nothing wrong with white people and SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE WHITE!! I have always said, I don't want to eliminate white people from our program. I love Cade Otton and I love Josh Calvert.
But it's more about a message that is not INTENDED to be exclusionary, but ends up being that way.
That's why I really hope they take this rebrand seriously. I don't want to be Oregon. But just look at the team that won the Natty last year. They have fun, they are a bunch of JIVE ASSES... ...but if Pete honestly looks at the trajectory of Christian Wilkins' life and is able (PLEASE GOD) to realize that this OKG-branding, anti-fun/anti-hype approach will prevent UW from having stories like CW's, I know he would want to change it.
I seriously hope they do.
Nobody actually thinks our staff is racist, but OKG coupled with some of our lame ass white coaches can be easily interpreted that way, unintentionally. B4L has more of a ride or die vibe with some OKG elements sprinkled in. This will work a shitload better than what we've been doing imho.
Anyone have any meth? I'm out.
Dear faggots, take it to the tug.LoneStarDawg said:
@NorwegianHuskyNorwegianHusky said:
Some socialists argue for the abolishment of capital, but none argue for anywhere close to a 100% tax as long as capital exists. The point of socialism is also to give the value produced to the people who produce it, not to take it away from them. Very few US democrats argue for that, and the few that do are outside of the main establishment.PurpleJ said:
If you can tax someone at 100% that is slavery, but they will settle for getting as close as possible. And you don’t think dems share ideals with communists. That’s cute!NorwegianHusky said:
US Democrats have almost nothing in common with communists or socialists. A few fringe Democrats might believe in socialism or at least a mixed economy, but the vast masjority are capitalists. None of those three groups advocate slvery though, nor does taxation have anything to do with slavery. You can't tax someone who isn't being paid. Funny how you seem to think I'm the one who isn't well read. You're contradicting yourself repeatedly.PurpleJ said:
Democrats, communists, socialists. All cut from the same cloth. If they can’t have actual slavery, they’ll just tax as much as possible and get as close as they can.NorwegianHusky said:
Literally any book? I don't think every book in existence will validate your view point. Also, you didn't define what you mean when you say leftist.PurpleJ said:
Leftists LOVE slavery. Crack open a book for me one time.NorwegianHusky said:
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you say leftist, what exactly are you thinking of? Because I'm struggling to think of a single leftist ideology that's pro-slavery, and a lot of leftists (not liberals, mind you) are against the concept of shareholders as well. But maybe you equate the inability to make capital gains with slavery, in which case your definition of slavery is objectively wrong.PurpleJ said:
That’s pretty much what leftists want.NorwegianHusky said:
Imagine thinking fucking Google pushes a leftist agenda. They put a liberal veneer on shit like any company does if they think it's good for business. If they had opportunity to enslave all of mankind except their shareholders they would.DerekJohnson said:Something just occurred to me. At the time Google shut down our adsense, I was told it was for all the profanity and took that explanation at face value. I spoke with the former owner of Shaggy Bevo about it and he was perplexed because he was able to have ad revenue despite all the profanity on his site. In retrospect, I think HH might have been flagged because we were too conservative for Google's agenda. I'm not saying it's certain but I think that's definitely possible.
Google doesn't pay ad money to anything their advertisers don't want to advertise. For HH, I'm guessing it's because of all the casual racism and jokes about suicide. You should see the stupid reasons they demonetize videos on Youtube for, and it's always because advertisers are scared of losing business, not because Google's boardroom is full of liberals (hint: It very much isn't).
Man, fuck me for even trying to have this discussion on HH. I'm gonna go kill myself before I have to read the replies.
