bstew3006
| Favorite team: | USA  |
| Location: | 318 |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | LSU football |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 13049 |
| Registered on: | 12/19/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Megyn Kelly is a phony hypocritical POS.
She’s an opportunist, like Carlson.
They squeezed out everything they could over Trump the past 10yrs.
Trump is out in 3yrs and now play to another crowd for $$$.
0
re: Excerpts from the manifesto: it’s indistinguishable from stuff Nola dems post on here
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/26/26 at 12:20 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
They really think they will become heroes.
They’ve convinced themselves that this is 1940 Nazi Germany and they are stopping Hitler.
re: Yeskie is wothless
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/24/26 at 7:04 pm to PP7 for heisman
quote:
You quite literally have no idea what pitch was called. Like not a clue.
Correct, we don’t have a clue what was called
However, the pitcher threw 3 straight curves.
quote:
Yeskie
2outs
Runner on 2nd
Calling 2 straight curves to get to 0-2
Calling it a 3rd time was impressive.
quote:
em.. You get what you voted for
I love voting for these policies… bc I’m not a sexist, xenophobe, misogynistic, Nazi, like you!! But I don’t want to live where those policies are enacted.
quote:
I'm no forensic accountant, but looks almost like an opportunity to wash...er..reinvest cash into real estate and almost profitable c-stores.
Crazy hiw a guy in NY finds Cstores in lake providence, Jena etc., pays $1m+ cash…sells it a year or 2 later to an Indian in California, who also pays cash, usually at $1.5m-$2m , and also buying 3 more in the area.
re: Why did we hand over convenience stores and hotels to non-Americans?
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/23/26 at 6:06 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
We didn't. The Indian immigrants came in with a business plan to buy lower tier businesses (primarily budget motels/hotels and convenience stores) and they executed on the plan along with living on the cheap and helping other Indian immigrants execute the same business plan.
C-store loan is top 2 hardest loan to get…they are buying majority of them with cash. I’m not talking $250k cash, but $1-$2m+ a lot of C-store owners in Louisiana live in NY, Cali and send ppl down to run and only sell to other Indians. . There’s definitely some crazy business plan happening. Lol
quote:
Now lets talk about pitching
Sure
They currently rank 2nd in strikeouts
Are they giving up walks, yes, but it’s not bad.
What is hurting them is a walk followed by what should be a routine out or double play, but instead fielding error.
That then leads to run or multi run innings.
LSU defensively has committed more errors this season than all of last year. That’s pretty alarming.
So when you bring up pitching, you have to acknowledge the strikeouts are elite. They’re about avg on walks, but the fielding is killing them.
So to summarize, hitters are swinging for the fences instead of having an approach to move runners.
Pitching staff isn’t elite or has elite starter as in past, but 2nd in strikeouts ;(elite), but avg on walks.
Fielding is avg, more errors at this point than all of last year and its first of April.
re: Most candid jay johnson quotes of the season
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/18/26 at 6:39 am to TheRouxGuru
quote:
think the issue is that potential wise, they have (9) 3 hole hitters in the lineup. If we’re not slugging the ball around the park we’re not scoring
No
He’s saying we have hitters trying to hit homers instead of taking the ball oppo or looking to drive the ball up the middle. With 2 outs, guys are hitting weak ground ball, infield fly, easy fly to center. Their approach is wrong.
LD% / GB% / FB% Show that.
When ppl complain about runners left on base, Ba/risp this is why.
Clinton (last 2 years) then Bush followed by Obama…those admins and policy really F’d the American ppl. National debt, surveillance, wars, healthcare…
re: So, who's the worst president ever?
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/11/26 at 8:14 am to Lutcher Lad
quote:
So, who's the worst president ever?
Instead of focusing on one president, the real question is which two consecutive administrations did the most long-term damage. I’m sure there can be arguments for others, but I can’t think of 2 more deserving than the following.
Bush / Obama:
16+ years of continuous war
Expansion of surveillance powers / USA PATRIOT Act / NSA data collection
Growth of executive power, increased reliance on executive orders and federal agencies
Financial bailouts and government intervention
Healthcare overhaul, Affordable Care Act (mandates, expanded federal role)
Rising national debt and long-term spending increases
Housing market collapse and lasting credit tightening
Expanded role of federal agencies in everyday life
Increased politicization concerns around federal institutions
Honestly, you could even extend it further, late Bill Clinton (last 2 years) into George W. Bush and Barack Obama…because a lot of the groundwork (financial deregulation, housing policies, etc.) was already in motion before 2001.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/10/26 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
You’re not “killing a digression” you’re rewriting the argument.
I never said this was about permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz or that regime change is the only mechanism that affects behavior. That’s your construction, not mine.
Your own framing has shifted:
From “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk,” to dismissing decades of documented seizures, harassment, and disruption as irrelevant, to now saying only regime change would change the future.
Those are three different standards, not one consistent argument. Pointing that out is not a pivot it’s highlighting inconsistency in your position.
And you still haven’t addressed the core contradiction: you claimed there was “no real risk,” yet now argue the system is so entrenched that only regime change would alter it. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.
So the standard has shifted from “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk” to now “regime change is required” that’s not a continuation of an argument, it’s a changing framework to avoid the original claim.
I never said this was about permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz or that regime change is the only mechanism that affects behavior. That’s your construction, not mine.
Your own framing has shifted:
From “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk,” to dismissing decades of documented seizures, harassment, and disruption as irrelevant, to now saying only regime change would change the future.
Those are three different standards, not one consistent argument. Pointing that out is not a pivot it’s highlighting inconsistency in your position.
And you still haven’t addressed the core contradiction: you claimed there was “no real risk,” yet now argue the system is so entrenched that only regime change would alter it. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.
So the standard has shifted from “US/Israel caused this” and “no real risk” to now “regime change is required” that’s not a continuation of an argument, it’s a changing framework to avoid the original claim.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/10/26 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
You’ve shifted this multiple times instead of addressing the original point.
First, you reduced “risk” to a single metric, whether Iran has formally closed the Strait of Hormuz and dismissed everything else as irrelevant.
Then when I pointed to decades of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence, you called that “pivoting” instead of engaging with it.
Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.
And at this point you’re explicitly saying you won’t acknowledge anything while still claiming the argument is wrong.
That’s not a debate, that’s just refusing to engage with the actual question.
The only point I’ve made from the beginning is that there’s been a consistent pattern of maritime coercion over decades.
If you can’t answer whether that pattern exists, then you’re not actually disputing the argument…you’re avoiding it.
At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.
First, you reduced “risk” to a single metric, whether Iran has formally closed the Strait of Hormuz and dismissed everything else as irrelevant.
Then when I pointed to decades of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence, you called that “pivoting” instead of engaging with it.
Now you’ve shifted again to regime change and what should be done going forward, which is a completely different discussion from whether a long-term pattern of coercion exists.
And at this point you’re explicitly saying you won’t acknowledge anything while still claiming the argument is wrong.
That’s not a debate, that’s just refusing to engage with the actual question.
The only point I’ve made from the beginning is that there’s been a consistent pattern of maritime coercion over decades.
If you can’t answer whether that pattern exists, then you’re not actually disputing the argument…you’re avoiding it.
At this point it looks like you’re trying to force “gotcha” moments instead of engaging with the substance because acknowledging that pattern would directly conflict with your earlier claim that there was “no real risk” prior to this war.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/10/26 at 8:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Without regime change with the US inserting a puppet replacement regime, what is going to be different in this "potential threat" status?
You’re still misreading the original point.
My statement about “any other nation” wasn’t limited to a single event or a formal closure..it was about sustained behavior over time and how it’s been handled.
And at this point you’ve shifted the discussion again, from whether there’s been a long-term pattern of coercion to “what should be done about it” or regime change.
Those are two different conversations.
You originally said there was “no real risk” until this war. That’s what I responded to and the historical record of ship seizures, harassment, and constant naval presence contradicts that.
Acknowledging that pattern doesn’t automatically mean “invade Iran” or impose regime change.
It means recognizing that a single state has maintained recurring leverage over a critical global chokepoint for decades, and that inconsistent enforcement is part of why it persists.
So before jumping to hypotheticals about regime change, the first question is simple:
Do you acknowledge that this pattern of maritime coercion has existed over multiple decades, yes or no?
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/10/26 at 7:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How many times have they closed the strait in the past 50 years? That's the discussion. Not vaguely tangential potential outcomes or completely unrelated things like terrorism.
You’re trying to define the entire discussion by one metric..whether Iran has formally “closed” the Strait of Hormuz.
That’s not what my original post was about, it was about pattern of behavior over decades…including terrorism.
And that’s not how maritime risk or coercion is measured in the real world.
So I’ll ask you directly:
If there was “no real risk,” as you claimed “for obvious reasons, why have there been decades of naval escorts, ship seizures, mining threats, and repeated harassment of commercial vessels in and around the Strait?
Why did Iran detain U.S. Navy sailors at gunpoint in 2016?
Why do global powers maintain a constant military presence there?
The answer is simple: because the risk has been persistent, not hypothetical. You know, for “muh 47 years”, by the way, that’s not how you use “muh”.
A chokepoint doesn’t have to be officially “closed” to be weaponized. If a country can repeatedly disrupt shipping, threaten transit, and create instability over decades, that is coercive leverage / terrorism in practice.
So no, the discussion isn’t limited to “how many times it was fully closed.”
The discussion is whether Iran has consistently used the Strait as leverage.
And the documented history shows that they have.
If your position is still that there was “no real risk,” then you’re arguing against decades of observable military posture and maritime incidents…not me.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 9:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’m not shifting anything. I’m responding directly to your claim that Iran “hasn’t” acted on their threats for “obvious reasons.”
I pointed to documented maritime incidents across multiple decades to show this is a pattern of behavior, not a single isolated reaction.
So I’ll keep it simple: are you saying Iran has not engaged in seizures, harassment, and disruption of shipping in and around the Strait over the last several decades? Yes or no?
I pointed to documented maritime incidents across multiple decades to show this is a pattern of behavior, not a single isolated reaction.
So I’ll keep it simple: are you saying Iran has not engaged in seizures, harassment, and disruption of shipping in and around the Strait over the last several decades? Yes or no?
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 9:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
You’re shifting the argument from pattern of behavior to justification based on trigger events.
Even if you accept your framing that Iran’s actions are reactive, it doesn’t change the underlying reality..over decades and across multiple administrations and regional conditions, Iran has repeatedly used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point through seizures, harassment of shipping, and periodic escalation threats.
That’s not a one-off response to a single war, it’s a recurring strategic tool across different time periods, which is exactly why global navies maintain a constant presence there.
And on the claim that this only happens because of recent conflict…that doesn’t explain the 1980s tanker war, or the repeated maritime seizures and harassment incidents in the 2000s and 2010s.
At some point, consistent behavior over decades becomes the baseline reality you have to account for, not something you dismiss as temporary reaction.
You can choose to ignore that pattern, which is effectively what the international community has largely done at different points in time, but that doesn’t make the underlying risk disappear. It just means it persists.
The issue isn’t moral approval or assigning first blame, it’s acknowledging sustained coercive leverage over a global chokepoint and treating it as a long-term security concern rather than an occasional reaction.
What are the “obvious reasons” you’re referring to specifically?
Even if you accept your framing that Iran’s actions are reactive, it doesn’t change the underlying reality..over decades and across multiple administrations and regional conditions, Iran has repeatedly used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point through seizures, harassment of shipping, and periodic escalation threats.
That’s not a one-off response to a single war, it’s a recurring strategic tool across different time periods, which is exactly why global navies maintain a constant presence there.
And on the claim that this only happens because of recent conflict…that doesn’t explain the 1980s tanker war, or the repeated maritime seizures and harassment incidents in the 2000s and 2010s.
At some point, consistent behavior over decades becomes the baseline reality you have to account for, not something you dismiss as temporary reaction.
You can choose to ignore that pattern, which is effectively what the international community has largely done at different points in time, but that doesn’t make the underlying risk disappear. It just means it persists.
The issue isn’t moral approval or assigning first blame, it’s acknowledging sustained coercive leverage over a global chokepoint and treating it as a long-term security concern rather than an occasional reaction.
quote:
And haven't, for obvious reasons.
What are the “obvious reasons” you’re referring to specifically?
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 9:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
You’re narrowing it to “how many times did they fully close it,” but that’s not the standard of maritime coercion or security risk that exist.
Over the last 47 years Iran has been involved in dozens of direct ship seizures and attacks and well over 100 documented maritime incidents, including harassment, boarding, missile/drone attacks, mining threats, and forced inspections tied to the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters.
they have repeatedly threatened closure of the Strait for decades, which is why global naval forces regularly posture there even when it’s not “fully closed.” So the argument isn’t “has it been permanently shut down” it’s that a single state has maintained recurring coercive leverage over one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for 40+ years, and periodically escalates it.
Also being the global leader in terrorism, it’s not a pivot, it’s a fact.
Again, you’re the mayor in jaws, ignoring the problem until swims up and bites you in the arse.
Over the last 47 years Iran has been involved in dozens of direct ship seizures and attacks and well over 100 documented maritime incidents, including harassment, boarding, missile/drone attacks, mining threats, and forced inspections tied to the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters.
they have repeatedly threatened closure of the Strait for decades, which is why global naval forces regularly posture there even when it’s not “fully closed.” So the argument isn’t “has it been permanently shut down” it’s that a single state has maintained recurring coercive leverage over one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for 40+ years, and periodically escalates it.
Also being the global leader in terrorism, it’s not a pivot, it’s a fact.
Again, you’re the mayor in jaws, ignoring the problem until swims up and bites you in the arse.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 8:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In that 50 years, how many times did Iran close the strait?
How many terrorist attacks have the funded?
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The US and Israel caused this
Every nation that allowed Iran to do what they have over 50years caused it.
Basically, Iran has been “jaws” for 50years and every nation has ignored it like the Mayor and U.S. / Israel are hooper and Brody.
“You’re gonna ignore the problem until it swims up and bites you in the arse”.
re: National Review: We are worse off than before
Posted by bstew3006 on 4/9/26 at 8:35 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
We have made the Ayatollah MORE influential internationally not less.
No.
What this actually shows is not that Iran is more powerful / influential…it’s that deterrence and enforcement have weakened. NATO has no balls.
The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of global oil trade. Any disruption of that scale through threats against civilian commercial shipping, restrictions on passage, or imposed transit fees directly undermines established principles of free navigation and global trade.
And the reality is this: if any other nation attempted to exert that level of control over a critical international shipping lane, the response would have been immediate and decisive.
The concern isn’t just Iran’s behavior, it’s the lack of consistent enforcement that allows this situation to persist and escalate in the first place.
Given their threats on the straight should be called out and shut down immediately by any means necessary.
Popular
26
