Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

18 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Sorry, that’s just not very convincing.

I see you’re negging all my posts, you’re such a crybaby. I love it. 

I neg because I am. I only neg obvious trolls, of which you are. it’s just my nature. Can’t help it. Sorry. 

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Views 1.1m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

  • Bozo_Casanova
    Bozo_Casanova

    When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

  • In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

29 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

The standard of proof IS irrelevant.  It's a popularity contest where 100 people get to decide whether or not he's Prom King.

How has this escaped you?  How many times do people have to point out in very clear terms that this is not a court of law?  It's a fucking JOB INTERVIEW.  A guy can be denied a job because of his skin color and as long as there is not a trail of evidence, that's the way it's gonna be.  If 51 Senators think his casual approach to the truth and a possible sexual assault are enough to keep him off SCOTUS, then so be it.  There is no "standard of proof" required.

EDIT:  Mojo Hand beat me to it.  Story of my life.  Fucking Mojo Hand.  I'm gonna go blind.

Edited by jimmyjazz

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

I neg because I am. I only neg obvious trolls, of which you are. it’s just my nature. Can’t help it. Sorry. 

I have a different worldview than you do, that’s not being a troll. But I understand the need to dismiss those who disagree, it’s a common defense mechanism. I say if it makes you feel better, then have at it. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

I have a different worldview than you do, that’s not being a troll. But I understand the need to dismiss those who disagree, it’s a common defense mechanism. I say if it makes you feel better, then have at it. 

Oh, sweet, sweet irony.

Just now, David Dennison said:

Oh, sweet, sweet irony.

My irony meter literally just 'sploded.  Oh Chrispy, don't ever change.

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

I have a different worldview than you do, that’s not being a troll. But I understand the need to dismiss those who disagree, it’s a common defense mechanism. I say if it makes you feel better, then have at it. 

Thank you for your concern. It is much appreciated. You are such a reasonable and well thought man, and very very wise. I would like to thank you for your sincere contributions to this board. I realize they are heartfelt and sometime even painful to write.

Thank you chrispy. Thank you. God speed. 

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I have a different worldview than you do, that’s not being a troll. But I understand the need to dismiss those who disagree, it’s a common defense mechanism. I say if it makes you feel better, then have at it. 

lulz. says the guy who always pulls these reasonable troll posts out to disregard someone with whom he disagrees. 

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Chrispy's avatar raped a woman in Revenge of the Nerds. 

Yeah but that was in the early 80s so it doesn’t count and except for the video there’s no proof. 

Actually come to think of it. They never showed the actual rape. So no proof. 

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, sweet, sweet irony.

I don’t neg anyone that I disagree with on this board. 

50 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, I need more evidence. 

Question.  If she testifies and she is credible, is that enough evidence?  Or are you arguing that you need a more aggravated assault? (Action) or some kind of corroborating evidence (witness)?

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I have a different worldview than you do...

Plus, you post a lot of stupid shit.

6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

lulz. says the guy who always pulls these reasonable troll posts out to disregard someone with whom he disagrees. 

I’m not as malleable as some wish me, to be sure, but I only try to disregard he most outlandish claims. 

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t neg anyone that I disagree with on this board. 

But you do support a political party that routinely dismisses those with whom they disagree.

 

Let’s just get it over with and rename this ”Chrispy’s troll thread.”

2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possibe, but I’m going to need more to tarnish a man’s reputation and career. 

How about multiple counts of perjury?

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Question.  If she testifies and she is credible, is that enough evidence?  Or are you arguing that you need a more aggravated assault? (Action) or some kind of corroborating evidence (witness)?

It’s possible her testimony would be enough for me, but unlikely. I think that if anyone corroborated her story I would be more inclined to believe her. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

It’s possible her testimony would be enough for me, but unlikely. I think that if anyone corroborated her story I would be more inclined to believe her. 

You mean other than her husband, her therapist, and the polygrapher?

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t neg anyone that I disagree with on this board. 

Smart troll move. If you did you would’ve been banned months ago due to retaliation. 

They are learning. 

Just now, David Dennison said:

You mean other than her husband, her therapist, and the polygrapher?

Besides them .....

Edited by retread

6 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I don’t neg anyone that I disagree with on this board. 

Is negging worse than being an dense, obstinate troll?

16 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No, we're saying that courtroom standards of proof are irrelevant.   That doesn't mean the allegations and denials shouldn't be evaluated for credibility by each Senator.   And they don't need to be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, to conclude that there is enough merit to decide not to give him the job.   Because this is essentially just a high-profile job interview, and you don't need to have a court judgment to reject a job applicant who has some question marks. 

Ok so how should the American public and our duly elected Senators supposed to evaluate the credibility of this accusation? What is the standard that should be applied to take this data point into consideration or not to do so. Trying to divorce the bedrock American concepts of innocenct until proven guilty and ability to confront your accuser from the confirmation process which in many ways resembles a trial is ridiculous. Even in a job interview, one can correct your interviewer if they have wrong information.

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Ok so how should the American public and our duly elected Senators supposed to evaluate the credibility of this accusation? What is the standard that should be applied to take this data point into consideration or not to do so. Trying to divorce the bedrock American concepts of innocenct until proven guilty and ability to confront your accuser from the confirmation process which in many ways resembles a trial is ridiculous. Even in a job interview, one can correct your interviewer if they have wrong information.

Side with the person you believe. That's it. That's all that is required here.

this cat is interesting.  he clearly chose that pic to appear as annoying as possible.  his task is to wave red flags and get people to charge them.  that pic is perfect to set him up.

his great fear, of course, is being ignored.  his job depends on not being ignored.

 

Just now, Captainant said:

How about multiple counts of perjury?

I tried to find where he was guilty of perjury, but I couldn’t find anything. 

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You mean other than her husband, her therapist, and the polygrapher?

They were there in the early 80’s? 

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Ok so how should the American public and our duly elected Senators supposed to evaluate the credibility of this accusation?

By the normal standards of human interaction. If you hear a story from an obvious victim that a guy tried to rape her, but you have no video evidence, are you going to tell your daughter, "Go for it, honey!"?

Of course not. It's amazing how you guys have to pretend to not understand how life works at a basic level in order to justify your political and cultural beliefs (which are horrifying).

Quote

Trying to divorce the bedrock American concepts of innocenct until proven guilty and ability to confront your accuser from the confirmation process which in many ways resembles a trial is ridiculous.

Innocent of what charge? What is Kavanaugh charged with?

Is he not allowed to speak? Who is forbidding it?

Quote

Even in a job interview, one can correct your interviewer if they have wrong information.

Is anyone saying that Kavanaugh shouldn't be allowed to speak? You're shifting goalposts.

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Smart troll move. If you did you would’ve been banned months ago due to retaliation. 

They are learning. 

No, I did it a few times at first, but I realized how meaningless it was. 

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

They were there in the early 80’s? 

That doesn't matter. They all corroborate her story.

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possible her testimony would be enough for me, but unlikely. I think that if anyone corroborated her story I would be more inclined to believe her. 

Sounds reasonable.  For me, if she's credible, and he's credible, the other issues of how he might have misled the committee on this and prior occasions could come into play.

(Of course, not a big deal for me, because I would vote No simply because of Garland.  Open to filling this seat when next administration is seated.).

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I tried to find where he was guilty of perjury, but I couldn’t find anything. 

Weird. I found it. It was pretty obvious, actually.

Just now, David Dennison said:

That doesn't matter. They all corroborate her story.

How? They weren’t there, it’s still only her word. 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Side with the person you believe. That's it. That's all that is required here.

I side with Judge Kavanaugh based on what’s been made public. RomaVicta, who needs to take a Valium, called me despicable for that. So we are clear there is nothing that would lend greater credence to her claims than his. In fact there is more “evidence” to his since his accomplice denies it ever happening.

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Sounds reasonable.  For me, if she's credible, and he's credible, the other issues of how he might have misled the committee on this and prior occasions could come into play.

(Of course, not a big deal for me, because I would vote No simply because of Garland.  Open to filling this seat when next administration is seated.).

 

 

I have no issue with this particular stance. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

How? They weren’t there, it’s still only her word. 

That just means they aren't eyewitnesses. They are still corroborating witnesses. 

7 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Ok so how should the American public and our duly elected Senators supposed to evaluate the credibility of this accusation? 

The same way hundreds of employers today had to evaluate claims form an employee that were harassed.  You give both sides some due process and then you make a decision.

Just now, Chrispy said:

No, I did it a few times at first, but I realized how meaningless it was. 

I am glad you recognized the error of your ways. I applaud such self actualization as you obviously have. You are the possibly greatest and wisest poster on surly yet. Please do continue as we can all truly learn from your example of how to properly and effectively interact on this place we call the internet. 

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

In fact there is more “evidence” to his since his accomplice denies it ever happening.

Wow, what possible motive could he have for lying?

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I side with Judge Kavanaugh based on what’s been made public. RomaVicta, who needs to take a Valium, called me despicable for that. So we are clear there is nothing that would lend greater credence to her claims than his. In fact there is more “evidence” to his since his accomplice denies it ever happening.

Then he should have no problem testifying under oath.

A guy accused of aiding in a rape attempt says he didn't do it?

Welp.. *slams book shut*

8 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possible her testimony would be enough for me, but unlikely. I think that if anyone corroborated her story I would be more inclined to believe her. 

And this is why more women don't say anything when it happens. Who will believe us anyways? It's our words against his and we could be ruining his precious reputation. We should have proof. You let me know what kind of proof would be sufficient for you to believe her or other woman. Anything short of DNA won't be considered good enough and even then, if there was any sort of DNA, he would just say it was consensual.

 

Just now, tantric superman said:

The same way hundreds of employers today had to evaluate claims form an employee that were harassed.  You give both sides some due process and then you make a decision.

Others on this thread and in the media think he should have his nomination pulled. That’s not giving him due process 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That just means they aren't eyewitnesses. They are still corroborating witnesses. 

To her story. 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Then he should have no problem testifying under oath.

You and I agree. If he is categorically denying even being there then that makes things very interesting 

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Others on this thread and in the media think he should have his nomination pulled. That’s not giving him due process 

He's not owed due process. 

Just now, Chrispy said:

To her story. 

Well, yeah. That's what a corroborating witness is.

Just now, sachick said:

And this is why more women don't say anything when it happens. Who will believe us anyways? It's our words against his and we could be ruining his precious reputation. We should have proof. You let me know what kind of proof would be sufficient for you to believe her or other woman. Anything short of DNA won't be considered good enough and even then, if there was any sort of DNA, he would just say it was consensual.

I think that this case is just the opposite, a good reason why women need to speak up, and report abuse immediately.  The primary issue in this specific case is that she waited nearly 40 years to speak up, and did so publicly only when it became mired in politics.   

Edited by Anastasis

Just now, Anastasis said:

I think that this case is just the opposite, a good reason why women need to speak up, and report abuse immediately.  The primary issue in this specific case is that she waited nearly 40 years to speak up, and did not publicly only when it became mired in politics. 

Yes, Anastasis, a woman is telling you what a woman's experience is. Make sure you tell her how wrong she is about it as quickly as possible and how it's actually STILL their fault, just for a different reason.

lol

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Ok so how should the American public and our duly elected Senators supposed to evaluate the credibility of this accusation? What is the standard that should be applied to take this data point into consideration or not to do so. Trying to divorce the bedrock American concepts of innocenct until proven guilty and ability to confront your accuser from the confirmation process which in many ways resembles a trial is ridiculous. Even in a job interview, one can correct your interviewer if they have wrong information.

How does the confirmation process in any way resemble a trial?   Kavanaugh is at no risk of being locked up, fined, enjoined, or any other form of government compulsion.   Unlike our constitutional rights, which are at issue in a trial, it is not Kavanagh's right to be on the Supreme Court.   The rules are all self-imposed by the Senate, not statute or the Constitution.   With Garland, the Senate didn't even give him a hearing, much less a vote!   By your logic, I suppose, Garland was effectively given life in prison without a trial? 

Senators are free to vote against Kavanaugh simply because they think he's a schmuck.   It's a political process that is left for the voters to resolve in evaluating their Senators.    That said, the populace generally wants a reasonable evaluation of nominees.   My personal standard would be something along the lines of, is there a substantial likelihood, based on the evidence, that he did this?  If so, I'd move on to another nominee, even if I'm not convinced of his guilt.

 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.