Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 5 hours ago, bolverk said:

    Full text of the article cited above about IDF soldiers ordered to kill unarmed Palestinians around food distribution sites:

    https://archive.is/rHhMU

    image.thumb.png.e50f6018ca0b6f6f795450337634f2ce.png
     

     

    The situation in Gaza is truly heart breaking.  I really do not know what to make of a situation where aid can't even be provided safely.  And it is not just one side at fault for that.  The reality at this point is that Israel is the bigger bear by far and Hamas needs to give up if it has even a sliver of care for its people.  I'm not saying Israel doesnt deserve blame.  I'm saying sometimes you have to face reality if you care about your kids.

    As to the article, if we have learned anything in the last few years it should be that anonymous quotes in articles are worthless.  They may actually be true, but if there isn't a name attached it is worthless.  

  2. 14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    "We've seen the end of major ground wars in Europe."

    And we don't have to abandon Germany entirely.  We just need to give them sufficient reason to doubt that we will continue to provide our umbrella of nuclear deterrence.  Dude.  We've done that ALREADY.  The discussions on the european side are already (and rightly) happening: https://apnews.com/article/france-nuclear-weapons-deterrence-ukraine-russia-trump-a53dc73395455c753287ae2ecbb7a9a5

    The only question is whether Germany will accept France extending its nuclear deterrent as sufficient.  If I were Germany, I sure as fuck wouldn't.  I would get me some nukes, and right quick.  They have to make themselves too prickly a hedgehog for Russia to even think of ingesting.

    The logic just doesn’t even come close to adding up.  Not everyone over reacts to the stupid things that Trump tweets. 
     

    But by your logic, we have Putin sitting in Russia contemplating an attack on Germany. Germany, who’s two biggest trading partners to the tune of over half a  trillion are the United States and China. Germany, who is the fifth most powerful country in the world by most analysis.  Germany, who buy all accounts is the strongest member of the EU.  
     

    And what exactly in your scenario does Russia think that they will gain from invading Germany? Are they going to take it over? Are they going to force Germany to buy more oil and gas from them?  
     

    But even though the idea of Russia invading Germany is so far-fetched to the point of not even really needing to be talked about, and even though Russia knows that if they did for some reason invade Germany, that China and the United States and the European Union and the UK would all mobilize against them instantly, in your mind it is possible.  However, if Germany suddenly had a nuclear bomb, then Putin would decide against it?   
     

    I can just see Putin thinking to himself that he could invade Germany and take on the US and China and the EU and the UK and somehow win (knowing full well that those countries have literally thousands of nuclear weapons) but mighty Russia could probably pull it off. But if Germany decides to get a nuke, then it would be too hard.
     

     

  3. 33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Well, the hypothetical was US withdrawal. Germany only has nukes because the US does. Without NATO, the EU only has nukes because France does. So if the US nuclear umbrella weren't reliable, I absolutely believe Germany and other EU powers would scramble to develop and deploy their own. 

    I missed the part about the US withdrawal, but it really isn't even worth discussing.  You are hypothesizing that the US would pull all of its military out of Germany and the rest of the EU.  That would seriously harm our own defense interests.  Not even Trump would consider that.  Something like that would actually be a reason for impeachment.  

    But even if that impossible scenario came about, it would still take more than that.  The UK would have to abandon Germany.  The EU would have to dissolve and abandon Germany.  NATO would have to abandon Germany.  France has what around 300 nukes?  300 isn't enough of a deterrent?

    And who does Germany think they need to protect themselves from that could attack them without the US and the EU and other NATO countries getting involved?  Russia?  China?  Pakistan?  Even if the US got out of NATO, they are still getting involved in any scenario where Germany gets attacked.  

    There is no scenario that exists where some country is considering attacking Germany but would then change their mind if Germany has a nuke.  If someone attacked Germany it is full on WWIII and the attacking country is getting obliterated.  And maybe the rest of the world too.

     

     

  4. 17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Ukraine is an obvious example. And I don't really see why it would require coordination with another country. You could also see countries like Germany in the EU wanting to add a nuclear arsenal if US protection weren't guaranteed. 

    Germany is a non starter.  They are a NATO and EU member and both entities have nukes already.  It is not even on their radar.  No one is fucking with Germany whether they have nukes or not.  They do not need them.  Their people do not want them.   They are costly.

    Ukraine may want them but play it out.  Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Ukraine is going to be extremely dependent on the US and EU for survival.  They lose all of that support if they try and get nukes.  Of course we support Ukraine against Russia but it is still a fact that Ukraine is a terribly corrupt nation and has many rogue entities.  We will not let it happen.  Russia will go even more scorched earth on Ukraine if they try and get nukes and the rest of the world would likely "allow" Russia to destroy Ukraines sites if the try.  

    If anything, this past few weeks has shown that the world is not tolerant of new nukes.  

  5. 5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    Here's the problem. Even if we did destroy everything including the uranium (which we most likely didn't), it doesn't matter as long as the Iranian regime is still in power. They can just say they have uranium and capabilities to produce quickly. You think we'll just say "we don't believe you" and assume they're lying? Khameini and his cronies lie about everything. To the point where we bombed them even though there was no real proof they were close to a nuclear weapon.

    We tore up the Obama deal and no one is going inside Iran anymore to assess/inspect. All of this is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't move the needle until the regime is gone.

     It seems pointless at this point to argue the JCPOA but if we consider the factual tenets of the deal including the sunset clauses combined with the "legal under the agreement" ability for Iran to upgrade their centrifuges after just a few years combined with even Obama admitting that after 12 or so years the break out time would be days and in exchange Iran would get 100s of billions in unfrozen assets and trade deals- the JCPOA was a far, far better deal for Iran than the rest of the world.  

    But, to your post above, we need to remember that it seems very obvious at this point that Israel/Mossad has infiltrated Iran up to the highest levels.  They apparently knew where the highest ranking military people were in Iran up to the exact floor and apartment number of a particular building.  The "world" will never, ever know the depths of the intelligence that we have on Ira. Reacting to tweets and news articles and quotes from supposed insiders (from all sides) is a fool's game.  It is all either subterfuge or guesses.  Guesses might actually be right sometimes but they are still guesses. But it certainly seems that whatever Iran decides to do next, the intelligence agencies will know about almost immediately.  More importantly, the Iran regime now knows that they have been infiltrated so they have no real way of doing much of anything nefarious.  Couple that fact with the now known fact that the US will call their bluff and that no one is going to defend them and you have a regime that really can't do much of anything nefarious without getting killed.  

    I do not know enough about internal Iranian politics to know who might be the next leader of Iran (likely in the next 5 years) but based on the actions of this past week or so, I doubt a true believer/hardliner is going to get the gig.  Hopefully that helps Iran move forward

  6. 15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Between Israel attacking Iran and Russia deciding it wanted a piece of Ukraine (or all of it), and the US pulling back from being Top Dog/kicking countries out from under our tent, I don't see how more countries aren't considering nukes.

    Like who?  Not necessarily disagreeing but what countries, realistically, could start a program for nukes that don't already have them?  It is very expensive.  It requires illegal coordination with another country that has them already.  Add in the fact that really no other country on the planet has condemned the strikes against Iran suggests that if a country did try to get a nuke now that they would likely be bombed/sanctioned etc.  What could possibly be the upside?

  7. On 6/5/2025 at 2:18 PM, Texzilla58 said:

    That’s my issue with the cold climes.  It’s basically a race for fat, and then outlasting the other starving players.  I’d rather it be a set time and survivors split the pot.  Say 75-90 days. 
     

    Australia is very limited on what can be hunted or not.  Most things are protected for natives.

    Totally get your point.  However, one of the challenges and charm of the show is the not knowing when it may end for the contestants.  If you give an end date you remove a ton of that issue.  It is infinitely easier to steel yourself for a final few days if you know the end is near.  Having no idea how long someone else might endure is what makes the show so interesting.  

  8. 59 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


    On Iron Claw, they mashed up a lot of things to fit into a movie. A flawed masterpiece but the only casting they missed was Ric Flair. That was the climax of the movie and the actor whiffed.

    For Reacher, the movie which was made possible by Cruise, it doesnt make sense from the screenplay and direction to have a huge intimidating guy with a complex backstory. The movie worked because he was a mystery and he was underestimated. The mystery unraveled as Reachers specific interaction with the suspected shooter was revealed.

    Fans of the source material hated it, and they may be right, a better movie could have been made, but the movie was crafted with Cruise in mind. Not a casting miss for the movie.

    Some fair points.  On Iron Claw, they didn’t need giants to play the roles but the 2,big stars are what around 5’8”?  They are fine actors but we know they are really short.  And I don’t mind using shorter or taller actors for certain roles, but when you’re playing a professional wrestler, then your physique is a definite characteristic of the role.

    My understanding is that Tom Cruise‘s production company bought the rights to reacher. So I do think it was poorly cast if he bought the rights with the expectation that he himself would play the lead.  The books are very popular for a certain segment of the population. I cannot believe that other companies were not interested in purchasing the rights.
     

    it just seems like a bad idea to me to make a movie that is certainly tailored to a somewhat specific group of audiences. And the people that like the reacher books are definitely a big segment of that particular audience. So you kind of alienated a large percentage of the target audience that you were going for.  And, for the record, I think Tom Cruise is a fantastic actor.

  9. Iron Claw (I never saw it for this reason.  Was it any good?)

    It really bugs me when they just completely ignore physical stature in movies.  For many roles the physical size is probably not that important.  But it is critical in some roles.  Like the Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher comments.  It matters because a TON of the backstory and appeal of Reacher is his size.  So they make a professional wrestling movie and cast 2 of the shortest actors in Hollywood.  I'm turned off before it even comes out.

  10. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    ...yes.  Because the voters won't let someone sane make it through the primary.  See this:

    "Non-idiot" is a non-starter in elections in Louisiana, Texas, etc.  You are REQUIRED to be a fucking insane moron in order to get enough votes.  The math maths on this one.

    I just completely disagree.  I also think it is funny that you think that Texas and Louisiana have more "insane morons" than the state legislatures in California or Oregon.  This is a political board so I assume people here know some of their reps.  I'd say 75% are wholly unqualified for the job.

    The truth is that the best and brightest among us do not run for office.  It is hard to blame them.  It pays next to nothing.  Your life is on blast.  Any moderate position taken will be blasted by the fringe of each party.  People will twist your words and take comments out of context to try and score political points.  It is a lousy gig for a competent person. 

    As an attorney I am certain you have met and worked with people from every spectrum of the law.  I am also certain that there are a small percentage of attorneys out there that you may have genuine disagreements with and may have been on opposing sides of issues with that you would say were honest, forthright, competent, moral, ethical and smart.  None of those people are going to run for office in the state legislature.  And yet, you would most likely agree that that smalll percentage of folks (be they dem or rep) would be light years better than who we have now.

  11. 13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    ....the voters are electing the representation that they want.  Forget the dollar, forget Bitcoin....stupidity is the only currency of real value in the marketplace in 2025.  A candidate running on a platform of banning fire, vaccines, and breathing wins in most red states by 10 points or more.

    I tend to disagree a bit.  The voters are electing the people on the ballot.  

  12. 2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    No. He is a fascist apologist. This case is a perfect example of the law binding but not protecting the outgroup and protecting but not binding the ingroup. It is that simple and anyone trying to defend it deserves to be negged to Bolivia 

    Jesus.  You are a kook.  I am not defending the arrest of the judge.  Not one time did I suggest the judge should have been arrested.  Multiple people posted that the arrest was illegal or that  the warrant wasn’t legally enforceable or that the agents came into the courtroom to try and arrest the defendant or that they threatened the judge or tried to coerce or influence the judge.  None of that is true.  I have watched this board go apoplectic when someone posts something that is false.  
    At some point I would think a few of you would care about the actual truth. 
     

    I pointed out that it is reasonable for people to think the actions taken were over the top or unreasonable or whatever.  That’s a decent debate.  But the actions were not illegal.   

    Also, you are presumably a doctor and smart and educated yet you go around negging posts on an anonymous message board like a petulant 7 year old.  You really need to take some stock.   

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 6
  13. 2 hours ago, Bookman said:

    Because to be properly charged and arrested for a crime, there needs to be some indication that the elements are met. My hypothetical is related to what "harbor" and "conceal" mean.  

    I'm open to the possibility that she concealed him, but that would be a very broad definition that is troubling to me. You seem okay with it though. 

    Obviously there are layers to this thing.  If we go back to what Twice originally posted:

    The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." 

    This was the general legal break down of how the statute is applied.  This is what the lawyers and courts have "generally" found.  It is inarguable that the judge violated this.  She absolutely had a "physical act" providing assistance to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension"

    The judge knew the parties were waiting outside the courtroom with a legal warrant to arrest the defendant.  She snuck him out through a side/back door.  There is no other explanation that she did that to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension".  Some argued she did it to avoid some type of "circus".  It still doesn't matter.  She knew the parties were there to arrest him.  She didn't like it, so she snuck him out.

    To me, the thing that is so disturbing is that she is a freaking judge.  Presumably she knows the law better than most.  She absolutely knew what she was doing was illegal but she did it anyway.  That to me is worse than if you or I did the same thing.

    Lets say you own a restaurant and the FBI shows up with a legal warrant for one of your cooks.  If you tell them to wait outside and then you go and alert the cook and sneak him out the back door of the restaurant, there is a good chance you will be arrested.

    To the people saying this was just an example of sending a message.  No shit.  But to act like it is just one side that does this is just ridiculous on its face.  

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-life-activist-arrested-swat-171717669.html  Obviously that was a "message" designed to intimidate.  25-30 FBI agents with guns drawn to arrest a guy who preached outside of abortion clinics.  Guns drawn in front of his wife and small kids.  The initial charges were already tossed before the raid and this guys attorney said the guy would help in anyway, including coming in to speak with FBI people.  Guy had no weapons and wasn't a threat to anyone.  But the DOJ/FBI did it to intimidate other people from speaking out against abortion near abortion clinics.  No one here claimed Biden was Hitler and that they were fascists etc.  

     

    • Fuck You 6
  14. 10 minutes ago, achooloco said:

    Except you don’t follow The law When your shit head side is arguing for the DOJ that ice warrants allow cops to enter homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the 4th amendment, fuck you, and because I’ve been warned I’ll say it like this instead: CHINGA TU REputa-SIMA MADRE. You’re on the wrong side of history and when karma comes for you and your kin I’ll cry tears of joy. 

    you have no good will to rely on, it’s scary you’re so goddamn fucking stupid, don’t reproduce, magats like your ilk are the stain of this country and there will be only one solution to it. 

    Wow. 

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 7
  15. 2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    They were talking to the trial judge, who referred them to the Chief Judge.

    If they wanted to just loiter in public spaces outside the courtroom, they could have without ever approaching the judge.

    Twice.  I am really surprised you keep arguing things that are easily found to be untrue if you cared.  The ONLY reason anyone was talking to the "trial judge" is because the "trial judge" LEFT her courtroom and went out into the hallway to confront the agents.  She started yelling at them because she knew that they were there to arrest the defendant when the defendant LEFT her courtroom.  No one asked the trial judge to help in any way.  No one tried or was even considering coming into her courtroom and arresting the defendant.  The "trial judge" initiated the contact.  Then, after confronting the agents in the hallway, she went back into her courtroom and snuck the defendant out the side/back exit- in the middle of the hearing.  She didn't even notify the other parties/lawyers that were there for the hearing.  Literally in the middle of the hearing, she just whisked the defendant out of the courtroom and out through the side/back exit.

    That is why the act of trying to send them to the chief judge is possibly damning.  It can be argued (not really an argument I would personally make) that she tried to send them to the chief judge to give her more lead time to sneak the defendant out while the agents were talking to the chief judge.

    • Fuck You 8
  16. 2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    The part about the chief judge is no big deal.

    There are legitimate issues about whether a court should permit another jurisdiction or private party to serve process or warrants IN A COURTROOM.  The judge controls the courtroom and pretty much everything that goes on there, subject to any local rules or practices that emanate from the Chief Judge.

    Plus, that is not concealing or harboring the witness.  It may be interfering with the officers, but that's not what the statute addresses.

    It boils down to the private exit.

    Jesus.  Et tu?  The agents with the arrest warrant were not attempting, at all, to "serve a warrant IN A COURTROOM."  You know this.  They were waiting outside of the courtroom to arrest the defendant.  They asked for ZERO cooperation from the judge or the judge's staff.  Zero.  People get arrested outside of courtrooms and courthouses every single day.  You know this.  

    • Fuck You 8
  17. Just now, Bookman said:

    If I see a guy I know walking down the street and say "hey, there are cops around the corner," did I harbor or conceal him? 

    LOL.  If my aunt had balls.  But to answer your hypothetical, If you knew the person coming towards you on the street had a legal warrant for their arrest and that the cops around the corner were coming specifically to arrest that person and then you warned him that the cops were there, then yes you would/could be subject to arrest.

    • Fuck You 8
  18. 2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

    So what is the argument that the Judge did violate the statute? 

    Seriously?  Have you even read about the case?  The judge went outside the courtroom to confront the ice/dea/fbi agents.  She tried to send them to the chief judge to get rid of them.  She then went back into the courtroom and asked the defendant and the defendant's lawyer to come with her out of the courtroom and then she ushered them out through a side/back door.  The judge did not even tell the rest of the people in the hearing they were having what was happening.  It is inarguable, except for maybe sawbonz, that she tried to aid the defendant in avoiding the agents there to arrest him.

    • Fuck You 7
  19. 5 minutes ago, Bookman said:

    Why do you think she "clearly" aided the defendant? What is your analysis? And what about the rest of the elements? 

    You can do your own searching if you want to.  This is the actual language from the statute:

    Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    It is comical you guys are even arguing this.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 7
  20. 7 minutes ago, scottsins said:

    Lots of words. Cool. Now post the definition of “fugitive”.

    This is the language.  I just copied what Twice posted.

    Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

    I can see no argument that the Judge did not violate the statute.

    • Fuck You 6
  21. 12 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

    Yes you do you stupid fuck

    Responding to you is sort of worthless but since you felt compelled to be moronic, show your work.  My entire point was that it was perfectly within the law as written for the judge to be arrested.  She certainly could be arrested.  Was arresting her the right move, that is what I do not know.  But she absolutely opened herself up to being arrested.

    Do you believe her arrest was illegal?  What exactly are you arguing?  

    • Fuck You 6
×
×
  • Create New...