- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
NC_Tigah
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Make Orwell Fiction Again |
| Biography: | Warmest climes but nurse the cruellest fangs: the tiger of Bengal crouches in spiced groves of ceaseless verdure. |
| Interests: | Cornucopian ends attained. |
| Occupation: | Physician |
| Number of Posts: | 136074 |
| Registered on: | 9/28/2003 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Renee Good shot 4 times: 2 to chest; 1 to forearm: 1 to left side of head.
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/17/26 at 7:32 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:Not necessarily. Left forearm and left head could easily be from one bullet.
Also shows that the NYT analysis of the "three shots" was wrong.
1
re: Woman who doxxed MN ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ address FIRED from her job
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/17/26 at 7:19 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:Powell, Wray, Sessions, Pompeo, and Burr would like a word.
Bondi is the biggest mistake Trump has made in his two terms
re: If you're 5 feet from a car going 2 mph
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/17/26 at 7:10 am to PurpleCrush
quote:bullshite!
she tried to avoid him
quote:He did. Just not fast enough. The footing was terrible.
His training was to move
re: The problem with this country is the freedom
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/17/26 at 5:33 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:Not if it is maintained as foundational to exchange of ideas, the questioning of them, the testing of them, and secondary improvement in application.
But it is going to be the cause of the downfall of this nation.
It's actually only when free speech and the exchange of ideas is contravened that the real trouble begins. Success of leftist screed depends on such contravention.
quote:Link?
You have the oppressor premise
quote:Cubs, virtually every interrelational argument you've made has to do with deployment of a power structure against an oppressed class.
What oppressor premise?
Further, you've laid those arguments out in archetypal generalities (e.g., "Men don't value women"), as if they are not just stereotypes, but universal truths. That is classic critical theory. You claim such thoughts are entirely your own. You say they are not derived from reading, or sourced to feminist pedagogy.
I've called that claim to question.
Why?
Because those misandric archetypes, as universal truths, don't even fully apply to your personal experiences. When the personal inconsistencies eventually register ("Men don't value women" vs "Love = Value"), you soften the pretext as both overstated, and less than universal --- "Many husbands take their wives for granted." "Many" is less than universal. "Taking for granted" does not equate to generally not valued.
To illustrate the latter, the fact Renee Good took life for granted, does not mean she didn't value life. When she moved her foot to the accelerator 10days ago, she took for granted she'd not be dead 5 secs later. Taking life for granted is contradistinct with not valuing it.
In your case, the postulate inconsistencies -- personal experience vs asserted universal truths -- indicate you're either source influenced, or you knew when assembling your thesis, it was not even fully applicable to your own situation, yet, you went with it anyway. "Went with it anyway" would indicate dishonesty. Perhaps I'm being naive, but you don't come across to me as dishonest...
... which leaves derivation, based on influential CT sourcing, as the conclusion.
quote:Don't you though?
I don’t use ... whatever critical theory you keep referencing as fundament for my own political holdings.
quote:I don't actually. See the CT premise above.
Many husbands take their wives for granted. You may find that phrasing less offensive.
A questioning of your oppressor premise (I know that's anathema to CT) would include a related inquiry as to how, why, and how often wives take their husband's for granted.
Both propositions raise the additional question as to why the unappreciated party would not simply express the concern to his/her partner. After relaying such concerns, any future "taken for granted" element would need be an error of commission, rather than one of passive omission.
re: 12th Grade Girls Are Far Less Likely Than Boys To Say They Want To Get Married Someday
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/16/26 at 8:58 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:But, in all seriousness, what is not clear is why an 'offended' party in a partnership would not air those concerns, and in this instance, pursue re-divvying domestic responsibilities.
It's very clear why they would simply abandon the institution rather than even up that 2%.
It's sort or reminiscent of the Mika Brzezinski - Joe Scarborough situation. Joe negotiated a pay raise for himself. Mika found out, but said nothing. She got strangely hostile to JS over the ensuing weeks. When confronted by JS, she told him she was pissed he was being paid so much more than she was. He asked her what number she'd been denied when she attempted to negotiate her own raise .... Turns out she had not attempted to negotiate her raise. She thought it was too brazen. When she finally did approach management, she got the same step up Joe did.
Sometimes, all it takes is to ask.
re: If you're 5 feet from a car going 2 mph
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/16/26 at 8:39 pm to Schleynole
quote:In tennis shoes with good footing? Yep.
If you're 5 feet from a car going 2 mph
Do you think you could move out of the way before getting run over?
In the Good case, with every one of the officers slipping all over the place, attempting a quick movement would likely have left the officer on the pavement, flat on his back and crushed under a wheel.
Why do you ask?
quote:You don't what?
I don’t though
quote:You're not being "accused."
accusing me
If you don't follow what I'm saying, it may be that you're so enveloped in the oppressor belief set that you don't even recognize the influence. But the influence is there nonetheless. It's evident in the incompatibility of your social and personal characterizations.
Maybe this will bring home the point.
Here are a set of your contentions:
• Women are not valued by men.
• You are a woman, and therefore not valued.
• Your husband loves you.
• Your husband is a man.
How can a man value anything more than something/someone he loves?
quote:Not exactly. A scholar using Marx and Engels as fundament for their own political holdings is sharing their own ideas.
You're accusing me of regurgitating some CT pamphlet I received from someone at some point instead of sharing my own ideas.
quote:Again, as illustrated, you have it backwards.
It lasts only as long as power remains concentrated enough to enforce order.
Think of it this way. Simplistically, every example laid out in my post was economically based with power secondary to enhanced societal productivity. Productivity is not a top-down pretext. GDP and/or revenue is driven by bottom-up productivity.
Productivity begets stability. Top down leadership can enhance it, but cannot duplicate it. Poor leadership can undercut it. Power can keep poor leadership in place for a while (Venezuela, Iran, USSR). Ultimately though, such an arrangement deteriorates to instability. With instability, power disappears.
quote:Your word, not mine. CT is not thoughtless
thoughtless
quote:Your derived conclusions don't arise from the ethers. They don't derive from critical thinking or reasoning, because they are CT based. So they are sourced from somewhere.
Why do you assume I am incapable of drawing my own conclusions?
quote:No.
Can you point to an example of power being derived from stability? We mostly see power exerted during instability in this country.
Stability might legitimize power, but stability doesn't create it. If stability were the source of power, instability would weaken authority. Yet history shows the opposite
Stability => Power is exactly what history shows.
In fact, some of the most durable forms of power in history depend on stability so much that the threat/use of force demonstrably weakened them.
The Roman Republic (early–mid Republic)
Source of power: legitimacy, norms, and institutional stability. Rome expanded before it became a military autocracy. Power flowed from mos maiorum -- shared civic norms, predictable law, and elite buy-in. Consuls, Senate authority, and courts worked because people supported and accepted them. Armies were citizen militias loyal to the state because the state was stable and legitimate.
When social stability eroded (late Republic), Rome increased coercion—and collapsed into dictatorship. i.e., : Force followed stability; it did not create it.
Medieval/Renaissance Merchant Republics (e.g., Venice).
Source of power: trust, contract enforcement, and social continuity.
E.g., Venice maintained a relatively small army, but dominated Mediterranean trade for centuries. Its power rested on: predictable commercial law, stable political institutions, long time horizons (families planned across generations). Venetian merchants extended credit and risked capital because the society was stable.
When Venice lost institutional stability, its power evaporated—without invasion.
The British Empire’s Financial Core (18th–19th century).
Source of power: stable institutions and credibility, not raw force.
Britain’s advantage was not founded in the navy or red coats. Its basis was the ability to borrow cheaply. Investors trusted: parliament, rule of law, banking, and continuity of contracts across governments.
It was such stability that allowed Britain to outspend rivals militarily. Social stability made financing possible. Napoleon had armies. Britain had credit.
Current Examples:
The U.S. and the dollar.
Source of power: institutional trust and social stability. The dollar’s dominance rests on: predictable (Constitutional) backing yielding confidence that contracts will be honored decades into the future. So countries hold U.S. debt voluntarily.
The moment social stability erodes, or we hit the instability of fiscal dominance, our power declines—without a single shot fired.
Post WWII Japan.
Source of power: social cohesion and institutional continuity.
After WWII, Japan renounced military power, yet became one of the most influential economic powers on Earth. It did so sans coercive empire or conquest (pre-WWII model). It did so with social stability: High social trust, strong norms, long-term planning culture. Modern Japanese power comes from being stable and indispensable, not feared.
Corporations as Micro-Societies (Apple, Visa, Amazon, etc). Source of power: internal stability and trust.
E.g., Visa moves trillions of dollars daily. It has no army. Its power comes from: Reliability, network trust, institutional continuity
If people stopped trusting Visa’s stability, its “power” would vanish overnight.
Bottomline:
Force can seize power, but stability sustains it.
Force is expensive, brittle, and reactive.
Social stability is compounding - it grows power quietly over time.
Contrast this with cases where force failed without stability (e.g., USSR, Warsaw bloc countries)
re: Could not happen to a nicer guy. Eric Swalwell
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/16/26 at 11:11 am to SirWinston
quote:There is no "Henrietta Swalwell."
There are no links attached to this tweet
Swalwell's wife is Brittany Watts Swalwell.
Appears to be a spoof.
quote:Spoofed? There is no "Henrietta Swalwell." Swalwell's wife is Brittany Watts Swalwell
Bye, bye, frick face.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
re: The most political biased Federal Reserve Chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve.
Posted by NC_Tigah on 1/16/26 at 7:03 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Because that is not the way it works. Rates are swapped as old bonds hit maturity and new instruments are auctioned. As low rate ZIRP bonds mature, they'll be exchanged for higher yield securities. How high depends in part on FOMC influence.
It's a cute idea. Why not lower rates to 0% for one day, sell all the debt, then raise it the following day?
quote::lol: :bow: :bow: :bow:
What is emotional labor? I need to know if I do that, too, and if I like it or not.
quote::rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
The ice agent's internal bleeding is a recoil injury from firing a pistol
That's more ridiculous than the guy claiming to be "treated" for internal bleeding at all.
quote:Oh FO, liar.
She wasn't given a chance to comply
"Drive Baby, DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!" related to what?
quote:You got that right, Einstein.
Wrong. Nobody gets killed for just sitting in their car.
You're imparting wisdom that would have saved her life.
It's a shame for her kids that she chose to love up on a woman who screamed, "DRIVE BABY, DRIVE!" instead of you, with your reminder .... "Nobody gets killed for just sitting in their car."
Popular
8
