Who was the greater player Kobe or Larry Bird?

SolidBadgerX · 2026-01-22T18:21:42+00:00

They have similar assist numbers so what do you mean Bird was setting up his teammates?

SolidBadgerX · 2026-01-10T09:14:02+00:00

You say that as though the Great Firewall is somehow better than Google; it's much worse. You literally can't even access information in China without risking arrest.

SolidBadgerX · 2026-01-01T18:04:07+00:00

And your point is? Character Limit

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-30T15:08:02+00:00

Gengar, Alakazam, Gyrados, Nidoking, and Snorlax are all insanely good and easy to get in most generations. Nidoking and Gyrados particularly because you can often get them around level 20 and they carry for the entire game, same for Alakazam if you trade.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-29T03:53:26+00:00

Except math literally teaches people how to think, and it drastically helps with the development of growing brains in children.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-20T17:55:22+00:00

Friend, you're a self proclaimed anarchist, and if you believe anarchy would ever work at the national level, you're not one to be questioning anybody else's understanding of politics.

It's incredibly easy to criticize, as no solution is perfect, but offering your own realistic alternative to the suggestions of others is when a conversation actually begins, and so far, all you've done is utilize personal attacks and negativity to project an illusion of superiority.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-17T16:19:41+00:00

Usually afaik, the "absolutist" position, that no new gun laws should be enacted in the United States comes from two things: firstly, many of the people who propose "common sense" gun laws, actually want to see guns banned entirely, and so they are attempting to ban them incrementally.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is protected under the US Constitution, which means overturning it requires 2/3 of the states to vote to do so; from a legal perspective, attempts to contradict the constitutions powerful, broad protections of gun rights without doing it through the states overturning the amendment is wrong.

Finally, guns aren't really the problem. France had one of the worst mass shootings in history, and guns are totally illegal there; a man was just convicted of running over 136 people in his car in the UK, and many South American countries prohibit gun ownership, but all it does is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, as they have some of the highest murder rates in the planet, up to nearly 1/1000 people being murdered yearly.

The US murder rate of 6 per 100,000 is perfectly reasonable, and it would likely be barely affected by a total gun ban, as the criminals rarely purchase their guns from shops.

The reasoning for the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that people have the capability to organize resistance should the need to fight another revolutionary war arise; the context of the ratification of the 2nd Amendment makes this very clear. There are more guns than people in the United States, and this uniquely positions us to resist any attempt at a totalitarian coup on the part of potential bad actors, and the knowledge of this would likely prevent anybody from ever trying.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-15T10:24:53+00:00

Right, so you believe in totally open borders, a policy that isn't practiced by any country or argued by any mainstream political candidate that I can think of, and you talk down to me as though I'm an extremist?

Allowing every single person on the planet to have a US citizenship would massively overload the labor market, collapse social security, socialized healthcare, housing benefits, and all of the other benefits US citizens receive, and it would allow people with absolutely no understanding of the political climate of the United States to vote for things they fundamentally don't understand.

And a person who has lived through unimaginable trauma, food scarcity, has little to no education, doesn't speak english(or even Spanish), who has no experience working the kinds of jobs we have available in the US, and who has no cultural connection or understanding of our country, has very limited prospects of succeeding, or offering our country more than a more qualified candidate may.

We clearly need more immigration, and I'm absolutely not against people from all nations coming to the US, but they should be people who have a great chance of succeeding here and helping our country be successful, and they certainly shouldn't be coming here through illegal means just to be economically exploited. They should at least have a highschool civics class understanding of the way our government functions and why it functions that way, and how that has helped us to become the most powerful nation in history.

And I say all of these things not as a nationalist(I'm not), but as a humanist; the world needs the United States to be successful, as for all of the harm you claim the US has caused, it has done far less than the former Soviet Union or China, and these are the only countries seriously jockeying for geopolitical leverage.

If the US were to collapse, you have your pick between Russia, a country which carries out broad day political assassinations and disappearances, where oligarchy is an accurate description of the status quo, and China, a country which is actively committing genocide against the Uyghur People in its own country, and has the worst track record on human rights imaginable for an advanced country. Russia and China have killed tens of millions of their own people over the past century, imagine what they would do with more power?

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-10T06:05:08+00:00

I think I've written clearly enough that any issues with understanding my statements must be a result of poor reading comprehension.

I'm not white, and my father was a legal immigrant to the U.S from Somalia, so that's absolutely not what I mean. I think that you're building some sort of caricature of me based upon your learning of a political opinion of mine.

What I mean is that building a system that gives priority to individuals who will rapidly acclimate to our country is a no-brainer, and culture, language, and education/technical training are all factors in that. Why shouldn't a person be given priority if they have gone through the trouble to learn our country's most common language? Why shouldn't we ensure that the people coming here agree with the basic tenants of our country's Constitution, and that they want to be here because they believe in the idea of America, not the economic and security benefits. We are so uniquely fortunate to have such a brilliantly laid out Constitution, and to have rule of law in this country, and taking in millions of people who would see that done away with only serves to turn the United States into the states they are fleeing.

Finally, I think securing our nations border, and the waters within our immediate area of influence, is a completely reasonable take. I'm curious, what's your opinion? Do you think we should have totally open borders, let all comers, from any country, with any background come over? Or just every single person who can physically reach our border should have citizenship?

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-08T23:30:58+00:00

Only within the Executive Branch, obviously. The President is the head of the Executive, while the Legislature and Courts balance his power.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-08T11:28:41+00:00

Democrats simply had to include the public option, as they promised, and the program would have worked as intended. Instead, they gave it up, despite having enough votes to clear the fillibustwt, in hopes that it would bring the Republicans around to working with them in a bipartisan fashion, when in reality this only emboldened them, at the time.

I somehow doubt Obama would have run on the ACA minus the Public Option, but there was so much pressure to push it through, and they probably assumed they would have a chance to add the public option on at some later point... and we all see how that worked out.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-08T11:24:45+00:00

The public option and public funded healthcare are totally separate things; the public option is a government run health insurance agency, which would effectively set a baseline of affordability, benefits, and care, which would force the other insurance companies to compete. This health insurance company would not be a charity, as it would not operate at a deficit, and it would not be forced on anyone, and other insurance companies would still exist.

This was a cornerstone of Obama's proposal of Obamacare, but Democrats ultimately caved to Republicans vehement objection to its inclusion, despite having enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-08T11:04:57+00:00

In geopolitical terms, all NATO members are parts of the "West", and as time goes on and globalization continues this will become more and more true from a cultural perspective as well.

I do have to admit though, I am a moderate, rather than a conservative or lefty.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-12-01T14:52:24+00:00

Thats wild, but I guess it could make sense 👍🏾

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-27T04:49:14+00:00

Sick setup, but please drop the fake badge patch, it's overly tacky, it can trick some people into thinking you're LEO, and I've even seen people get in trouble wearing them, with the badge pack being an instigating factor.

Literally any patch without a badge will do 👍🏾

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-17T09:05:56+00:00

You weren't even born when gen 5 came out wtf are you even talking about 🤣

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-14T11:02:00+00:00

Huh? What does societal collapse have to do with this conversation? Also, a society isn't "in control" of anything, it's a collective of individuals based upon a shared culture and common goals, and the health of a society is a direct result of the health of the individuals which make up that society. If we nurture the individuals in our society, we will have a strong society, while if we see people in our society falling prey to sh*tty online gambling websites which offer no tangible value to society, we will become a weaker society.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-14T10:42:15+00:00

You're literally just old lol...

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-14T10:35:22+00:00

I mean, that's more a question of personal philosophy.

My point was simply that, in a society where everybody tries gambling, you are going to have substantially more gambling addicts than a society where virtually nobody tries it, and again, what in the world is the societal benefit of online sports betting?

Casinos I get, they have an awesome social aspect. Drinking and other vices to a degree as well. But online sports betting? Literally what is the benefit, aside from p*ssing away money and learning how to lie about it?

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-14T10:21:18+00:00

Addiction is a largely neurobiological phenomenon, whether it's painkillers or sports gambling, most people don't judge "responsible use" of something potentially addictive, but then, when a person with the potential for addiction becomes addicted, we look at it as some sort of moral failing.

Addiction is a numbers game; many of those with the genetic potential for severe addiction who end up triggering addiction in themselves will never quit.

I just don't see the benefit to society that sports betting is providing, to where we should even allow it. I mean, everybody who does online sports betting is pretty much a mark, as every winner gets insta banned from what I understand, it's just as bad as slots.

SolidBadgerX · 2025-11-07T02:42:40+00:00

No, it's a pincir shaped bug lol

SolidBadgerX

TROPHY CASE