Jump to content

'stache

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 'stache

  1. I disagree with your comment that Bibi's strategy is "to beat Gaza to death, and even if they live they'll never forget how bad it was and they'll never do anything to repeat it." I don't think deterrence has anything to do with his actions. He knows he's not killing Hamas but civilians, and he knows that nothing he's doing is going to dissuade Hamas from being terrorists in the future. My proposition is that he knows damn well he's creating new terrorists with every bomb and that justifies his attempts to either exterminate or remove all Palestinians, or at a minimum, to keep them oppressed under the guise of "security."
  2. Because they're terrorists, full stop. Their intent was to terrorize. The other stuff is part of the bigger picture, but Gaza resident's are caught in the crossfire, and it's not antisemitic to think Israel's disproportionate response it's wrong, evil, and a war crime. Bibi's intent is not to wipe out the terrorists, it's the opposite, to create more of them so that they can always use "security" as a reason to oppress and eventually take over Gaza and the West Bank.
  3. The 1.2 million Palestinians stuck in Rafah who are about to get mowed down like fish in a barrel aren't the ones who committed 10/7. Hamas has shown time and time again that they are not concerned with Gaza civilians, that's not their prerogative, and mowing down civilians isn't going to stop terrorism, because by definition, terrorists don't give a shit. The most basic difference with Germany and Japan have already been stated, and is obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.
  4. The strategy should be to treat Hamas as terrorists and fight them as such, not full scale war against 2 million residents of Gaza. I compared it earlier to the U.S. approach (in theory) in Afghanistan. We weren't just bombing the shit out of every city because terrorists might be hiding there, we were strategic in targeting terrorists (again in theory). I've kind of checked out on this a bit, but I heard on the radio this morning that at least 27,000 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting. An article I saw in the Economist (I think, it was a reputable source) said that official members of Hamas are estimated at 30K to 35K. The dead are almost overwhelmingly not part of that group. It's is completely disproportionate and in my view the definition of "collective punishment" which is a war crime. The same clip from this morning said that over a million people are now in the refugee camps on the southern border town of Rafah, more in fact, they said it was about 60-70% of the population, and Israel's next move is to basically wipe them out with a ground offensive. Israel is literally wiping Palestinians off the map. It's infuriating that, even if Biden wanted to flat out call Israel war criminals, he is completely hamstrung by the overwhelming majority view of voters in this country that think Palestinian = Muslim = Terrorists = "they want to exterminate the Jews." That's just how it is, a temporary ceasefire is all that can be accomplished. I want to see Bibi hung in Brussels, on a live stream, in public, because he is pure evil, no different that Hamas at this point, but with real political power and the support of the western military powers.
  5. It's fun, but none of it matters, as long as there is an R by their name, they'll be reelected with huge margins.
  6. So the maid was definitely a prostitute, right?
  7. Well they’ve changed it a few times, including just last year for playoffs where even a TD on the first drive doesn’t equal a win, so “just win in regulation to avoid advantage / disadvantage of OT coinflips” isn’t the prevailing opinion.
  8. Chiefs fans seem to like Taylor, the most hatred of Simpson came from Cowboys fans. Swift is also a million times richer and more famous than Simpson at her prime.
  9. Soccer doesn’t have set “possessions” like American football or downs. Any advantage to first possession works itself out over 15 minutes. Any system in American Football that includes a clock and possessions in overtime provides a coin flip advantage to one side or the other. Straight to conversion shootouts is the only system that doesn’t have any advantage. It would also be fewer plays almost every time since player safety is an issue.
  10. If overtime went straight to 2-pt conversion shootouts soccer style neither team gets a coin flip advantage. I’d be good with that system.
  11. This was my first inclination but I see the merit of playing for the first sudden death possession if the first two drives are even. The kicking team risks losing overtime having only one possession while the receiving team gets two. But last night shows the risk, giving Mahomes and Reid a full drive with four down playcalling. I think it’ll be pretty rare for two possessions to take 15 full minutes so just a bizarre overtime.
  12. The Kelly thing is really weird. I think UCLA was done with him (bruin seems to confirm this) but he was still the HC. They should have just fired him. The optics are really bad for UCLA.
  13. Not you. I still don't understand what the point of Statmans post was. Seems like the BIG and SEC would be content having all the money, all the recruiting, all the prime TV spots, and 75% of the playoff spots. His point is that Liberty/OKST/ISU are all the same, that’s been the theme for months. Most years the ACC/BXII/G5 will get one spot each. Some years ACC/BXII will get an extra spot. That’s 8-9 spots for BIG/SEC. He’s still pretending that “Irate 8” fans are upset by this despite the fact that everyone from that group that posts here thinks it makes perfect sense.
  14. Odd that a billionaire lives by the fucking airport.
  15. Newsmax will set them straight, the RINO's and Leftists and Antifa smuggled them in somewhere else once the caravan started heading their way, because they skeret. Also, wasn't there like 50 idiots who showed up? Not much of a dent either way.
  16. Yup. And lol at the idea that not supporting the border deal will be held against him or other republicans. They voted it down precisely because they know their voters give zero shits. They like crying about border chaos regardless of legitimacy or any rationality about who is actually proposing solutions.
  17. No commentary on him or his music, just dark humor.
  18. Since a lot of the handwringing (including from Justice Jackson) was that the clause does not refer to the President or Vice-President, but the electors of those offices, and if CO loses solely on that ground, couldn't this issue come back after the election? If Colorado votes for trump, couldn't the electors appointed then be disqualified? I guess then the issue becomes if the electors themselves have to have committed insurrection. It would seem that submitting an elector vote for an insurrection is "aiding and abetting" an insurrectionist ant that would become the closer question. I think the electors also don't act of their own volition, they are only doing a ministerial act of conveying the result of the state's vote. I ask this solely as a thought experiment. CO is pretty solidly blue, and if the voters of that state (or any state) are majority for trump, it's a bad look to overturn that result using this clause, even if legal. And of course I'll just fall back on it doesn't matter, if the majority of voters in this country elect that insurrectionist piece of shit, we're done anyway as a democracy.
  19. In 1868, black people could no longer be enslaved, but were still inferior under the law, therefore, members of today's Democratic party are all disqualified.
  20. SCOTUS has held a number of times that the 14th Amendment, although enacted as a part of Reconstruction, is not limited to post-war matters. As far as should there be a conviction, that's a closer policy issue in my opinion. There wouldn't have been much fact or legal dispute after the civil war that anyone who fought for the Confederacy by definition committed rebellion and insurrection. This question (in a legal vacuum at least) is much closer. He encouraged the mob but was in his bunker so didn't participate in storming the capital. He also can argue (again in a vacuum) that his pressuring of officials to not certify the vote isn't the same as rebellion or insurrection. This issue would be cleaner if brought after he is found guilty in the Georgia case for election interference and for trying to overturn a free and fair election and preclude a peaceful transition of power (he can also argue that he ultimately did leave and Biden took office). I'm trying to be clear here that the above is considered in a legal vacuum because we all know he committed these acts, but I would be more comfortable if a lower court or jury do fact finding and find him guilty of election interference, which leads to a cleaner determination that he is disqualified. My policy concern is that if a court can just determine that insurrection occurred outside the original obviousness of "if you fought for the Confederacy you committed insurrection" the continued packing of right wing loons to the court will result in democrats being disqualified for bullshit reasons. The loons in the House literally just tried to impeach Mayorkas arguing that policy disagreements on border security constitues a "high crime or misdemeanor." They could just as easily say that Biden or anyone in his administration has committed "treason" or "insurrection" based on their bullshit talking points about immigration and the border. And if enough Uncle Clarences hit the bench, that absurd argument could prevail. Ultimately, however, I don't think it really matters one way or the other. Citizens of this country should be loathe to elect an insurrectionist. If he wins the presidency after everything we know about him and his actions on Jan. 6 and beyond, the constitution is meaningless anyways, and we don't deserve to be a civil society anymore. The United States will implode like Rome or the French Empire.
  21. Strict liability is largely a civil standard, most prominently in product liability cases, and even that has defenses, like if the user modified or misused the product. The only widely applicable strict liability crime that I’m aware of is statutory rape. Some states I think have strict liability for dog bites although that again is often limited to civil liability. Either way, it doesn’t matter, in 1789, no laws precluded parents from giving muskets to kids or requiring that they be kept safely, so SCOTUS wouldn’t allow any of that nonsense. These parents’ liability wasn’t based on the gun but their gross negligence in telling the school to fuck off when they were told of the warning signs. If he had killed someone with a knife or a rock or his bare hands the same standards would apply. Conviction probably would’ve been easier in those situations because they wouldn’t have to dance around judicial interpretations of “muh guns.” So everyone “just asking questions” about strict liability gun laws have nothing to worry about.
  22. If I didn't already know he was a UT grad, my guess would have been Oral Roberts.
×
×
  • Create New...