Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 19 hours ago, Jatrain said:

    It’s ingenuous to say that Israel literally tried a two state solution with Gaza.  Nothing about Gaza over the last twenty years even remotely approximates a functioning state - not when Israel controls its borders, food, water, electricity, etc, doesn’t allow it to engage in commerce with the rest of the world, controls the movement of its people into and out of it, etc.  

    there is context here that is very important.  I actually think you bringing that up is the one being disingenuous.
     

    I may not have my dates exactly right but Israel vacated Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians in 2005.  Initially, there were no restrictions on trade. Within the first six months of taking control, over 1000 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza.  1000. Even then the Israelis did not restrict trade. Additionally, there were several suicide bomb terrorist attacks, as well as a tunnel attack on Israel from Gaza. It wasn’t until Hamas became the elected leader of Gaza that Israel really started to take control.

    And, the thing that nobody really seems to talk about that much, Egypt also imposed the same kinds of restrictions on the flow of goods into Gaza.  
     

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Rage+1 1
  2. 24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    So....yeah....that's not what this case or the Chevron doctrine is about.  There would be some function of there being a hodgepodge of regulations when the vast majority of federal regulations are voided.  So, for example, Texas will allow you to manufacture product X, spewing whatever you want into the water and air, saving money and having manufacturers flock there to save 2% on production costs.  Whereas a state that maybe gives a shit about its population will prohibit poisoning the water and air.  And then....how do you deal with the fact that River X runs through Texas and some other state?  How about the fact that Texas's massive air pollution will make it to another state?  This "fuck the federal government, let's run everything like each state is a separate country answerable to nobody" is insanity.  Seriously, it defeats the very things that helped build this nation to be the powerhouse that it is.  50 fiefdoms, each saying "fuck all the rest of you" as loudly as possible is brutal idiocy.  But truly, that's not the real risk/problem here. 

    The real risk/problem is the unpredictability of regulations.  Because yes, while regulations do vary SOME when a new admin comes into power, you actually might be surprised by how little they actually end up varying.  Because it takes time and work to undo/rewrite regulations.  So, no, lack of predictability generally is not a problem for regulated industries.  There are exceptions of course, but generally....we have predictability.

    But not when the SCOTUS just says "naah, federal regulations are illegal" - or rather "any number of federal courts can declare any number of federal regulations on a whim, just as soon as someone challenges them" -- which is where they are headed.

    When you say that the regulations usually don’t amount to anything, you may be correct, but it does not appear so in the case that was brought.   
     

    As I read the case, there was a mandate some 40 years ago by a federal agency to force certain fishing vessels to keep federal watchdogs on their ships to make sure that they were observing safe fishing practices.  Congress was mindful at the time that this would put a large financial burden on the fishing companies and capped the amount they would have to pay for the federal monitors at 2% to 3% of their daily haul.   However, now the federal agency is mandating that the amount the fishing vessels must pay for their federal oversight is 20% of their daily haul.  Obviously, that is a massive increase.  These fishing companies have sunk lots and lots of money and time into their equipment, and now suddenly face the prospect of not being able to make a profit. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that international fishing companies that fish in the same waters are not subject to these costs, which allow them to sell their fish at a lower cost.  This would seem to be unsustainable for the US fishing vessels.
     

    My understanding of what has happened to date is that the various courts have determined that the Chevron guideline is in play and as a result, the federal agency has complete authority to impose the higher fees.

    In reading the responses on here, from most of the posters, it seems that the argument is that the regulatory agencies should have more control than the courts in these matters as the regulatory agencies have industry specific knowledge that the courts would not. However, simply imposing a higher fee has nothing to do with anything industry specific in this case.  
     

    We eat lots of fish in the US, and our domestic fishing operations are pretty critical to our food supply.  It seems in this case that the funding for the federal agency was drawing up and as a result, the agency just arbitrarily pushed those costs onto the businesses. I know everybody on here likes to make fun of people that complain about federal overreach, but this certainly seems like a good example of it. I can see why this particular case made its way to the Supreme Court.

  3. On 1/17/2024 at 5:32 PM, Brisketexan said:

    The irony is, your dumbass doesn't even begin to grasp why stare decisis is a thing, or the fact that "consistency and predictability" is one of the bedrock principles behind the rule of law.  People and businesses build decades-long business plans and life plans based on well-established law.  When the SCOTUS just arbitrarily says "nevermind, we void the past 40+ years of completely consistent law on this point" you just changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fucking game.

    Imagine building a football team around the established rules that you can both run and pass the ball.  You invest millions in personnel, including a QB with a great arm and a corps of good WRs.  Then, they change the rules to ban the forward pass.  Your investment just went up in smoke.

    Reversing decades of established precedent is reserved for only the most egregious of errors.  This SCOTUS has demonstrated that it has zero regard for stare decisis, and will reverse anything and everything because they now have 5 judges who feel all Koch-y.

    Let’s try to leave all politics out of it, and just debate the law. But isn’t what you seem to be lamenting above with your football team analogy kind of exactly what is happening now?  If you own a fishing company like the one the case is based on or an energy company or a technology company or just about anything and you base your business model and your research and development and the hundreds of billions of dollars that go into that based on a set of rules under a Democrat administration, and then those regulations can change dramatically in four years under a Republican administration you can potentially be screwed just like you are worrying about above.  Take the EPA as an example. I think everyone would agree that the mandate given to the EPA under a John Kerry administration would be wildly different than under a Ted Cruz administration.   
     

    So isn’t what the courts are potentially saying is the state of Oregon can regulate the fishing industry in Oregon  whatever way the Oregon legislature sees fit.   It seems to me that everyone here is saying this is going to give judges more power, but I think it is really just trying to restore power to state legislatures.  
     

    from a purely theoretical standpoint I’m not sure I would disagree with that.  

  4. On 1/18/2024 at 2:47 PM, Brisketexan said:

    Just in case there remained any doubt as to whether Bibi was a piece of dick:

    So.  We have two sides, each functionally dominated by its more militant elements.  And each one pledging that there side will be the one dominating the region "from the river to the sea."

    There is no end to this.  There never will be.

    There is a lot of truth in this.  I do think that the Biden admin is being a little flaky in this deal. BB may well be a complete piece of shit, but he told the US what he was going to do when they started this offensive and we supported him right up until the point that we seem to not be supporting him. I think the whole concept of a measured response is simply absurd. This is war for the Israelis. Either one weapon delivered to Israel is too many or there really should be no limit. Our government under any administration is so busy trying to appease every loud voice that we wind up pissing everyone off.
     

    as to a two state solution, it obviously sounds logical and the only sane thing to do from our perspective as Americans. From Israel’s perspective, they literally just tried it with Gaza, and it resulted in tens of thousands of missiles being shot into Israel, thousands of dead Israelis and tens of thousands of dead Palestinians. It was an absolute disaster by all accounts.  I can certainly understand why Israel does not want to try that again.
     

    As to BB,s popularity, I think those opinion polls are not very accurate. I don’t think anyone likes to see mass killing, but deep down I think the majority of Israel’s are OK with this war going on until Hamas is effectively neutered. The absolute horrificness of the Hamas attacks just steeled Israel to the point that they are not going to stop this time. I hope for everyone’s sake that it can be done quickly and then BB rides off into the sunset.

     

  5. 22 hours ago, Macanudo said:

    I really don't think that is true.   I bet the vast majority of Pizza Hut pizzas are sold through delivery or pickup.  And...  Drive through small town America.  Those ubiquitous Pizza Huts that used to be in every decent sized small town are now out of business or morphed into some other small restaurant.   

    I did a little checking and you are correct, that Pizza Hut is transitioning away from dine in stores. Ironically, they actually added more than they closed in 2023, but The trend is downward. But they do still have over 1000 dine in restaurants, and several hundred in California, and the truth remains that having in-house delivery drivers for those locations is a loser.

  6. 35 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

    Shit pizza places like Pizza Hut and Dominos; why do they operate out of storefronts when (if) the vast majority of the business is delivery? 

    Seems like a spot in an industrial park or similar would be cheaper to operate.  We all know about "ghost kitchens".  Maybe that's the future for big pizza?

    Adding to the answers above, those places do a pretty sizable percentage of their sales in  takeout/drive through.

  7. 14 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    That article is basically about office employees (cost of space and equipment.)   A pizza delivery guy does not coast an employer anywhere close to 40%.   Take it from a former pizza delivery guy.  30+ years later and I still can't stomach Mr. Gatti's pizza.

    LOL.  My condolences on Mr Gattis.  That is tough work for sure.

    Associated payroll taxes (especially in Cali) and insurance alone add up to nearly 15% already.  We are also talking about Pizza Huts which almost all still have an in house dining option.  Pizza Hut makes money from in house dining and drive through business but barely breaks even or loses money on their in house delivery business.  

  8. 1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

    Obviously this kinda thing isn’t needed right now.  But I enjoy the rush of being part of the beta test in case shit goes sideways.  They won’t stop our trucks and I have it in writing from a few county commissioners out that way whom pledged otherwise.  
     

    as for the $500 gift cards placed in the glovebox of some of those cabs to give to the scared women for food and hotels (their medical bills are on them for obvious reasons), I wouldn’t know anything about that.  The fucked next fucked up thing to sweat though is when Texas starts monitoring online communication or does an undercover/sting deal.  That’s not just Lobo internet hyperbole, it’s just what’s next so they can toss some red meat to their base.  

    You have county commissioners putting in writing that they will not stop trucks delivering women to New Mexico for abortions?  Are you sure this "beta test" isn't just in your head?

  9. 31 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    I highly doubt that delivery drivers are getting benefits.  Here's what Pizza Hut is offering in my neck of the woods:

    Benefits
    SOME Perks & Benefits (Based on eligibility requirements:)
    A discount program that has discounts on things like glasses, hearing aids, weight loss programs, step tracking devices, shoes, etc
    A provider finder/cost estimation tool, allowing members to find in-network providers and get a cost estimation before the visit
    A wellness program, where earning points for things like achieve step goals, can be redeemed to purchase wellness related items
    A pregnancy planning tool, that helps track fertility, baby growth, milestones, etc
    Receive your GED credentials at no cost to you
    Tuition Assistance
    We invest in YOU by Empowerment and Building Confidence for your future
    **Tips are paid daily for drivers

    The generally accepted average for "cost of employees" is 25%-40% of wages. 

    https://web.mit.edu/e-club/hadzima/how-much-does-an-employee-cost.html

    California is higher as there is an additional 7% or so for state payroll taxes.  But, we can just use 15% and the calculus doesn't change much.  I have studied this stuff a bunch.  Low cost pizza has to do delivery of some kind to stay competitive.  It is cheaper to offload that delivery cost now than to do it internally.  It is not even close.

    And the employer headaches suck.  If your in house staff has a guy out (cook, wait staff etc), everyone else can make up the difference generally.  If your delivery driver is out you are stuck and your customers get mad and go to another restaurant.  

  10. 49 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    We transported a few with no issue.  I didn’t personally go.  But they ended up taking 3 or 4.  Drop in the bucket.  But cool thing was one driver who had a mom and daughter with him said he chatted with some dudes at a fuel station out west and that guy was Doing the same thing.  Ladies were inside using the restroom.  Texas won’t stop commerce.  I’ll post some other details with anonymity later.  

    hmmm.  interesting

  11. 1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

    There's some related scuttlebutt that Pizza Hut used the wage increase in California as an excuse to fire all of those delivery drivers.   However, they've shifted the expense of delivery to Uber Eats, Grubhub, etc.  The rumors are that Pizza Hut had this planned all along to cut costs while using the wage increase as cover. 

    Walgreens completely over expanded, both in store fronts and acquisitions of other entities in the last few years.   They've been cutting staff and hours for a while now resulting in overworked employees.   Pharmacists are striking here and there.   Blaming the shoplifting gives them further cover to shut stores,  

    These moves are simply corporate shenanigans to drive profit and increase shareholder value at the expense of all else.  We're all just pawns in the game of life.

    The issue with delivery drivers is a tough one.  I am all for people getting paid whatever they can.  California is one of a few states that have outlawed a minimum "tipped wage".  Essentially, the delivery drivers were going to get a $20 min wage, plus mileage reimbursements, plus all of their tips.  

    From an economic standpoint (and I am using round numbers to make the point), the cost to have those employees just doesn't work.  On average, a Pizza Hut delivery person will make 3 deliveries per hour.  That driver's cost per hour to Pizza Hut is approximately $34/hour ($20 wage plus 30% for mandatory taxes/benefits/insurance etc, $8 in mileage reimbursement).  An average Pizza Hut has about a 40% gross (as opposed to net) margin.  So that driver has to deliver at least $80 worth of pizza per hour just for the store to break even.  The average price of a delivery is $25.  3 deliveries a shift equals $75.  Adding in a $2 delivery fee basically justs get the owner to a break even point.  

    Also, drivers for places like Pizza Hut are usually required to help with dishes, folding boxes, clean up after shift etc.  Most people do not want to do that so they drive for one of the delivery companies.  As a result, staffing for drivers for Pizza Hut was very difficult.  It became too much of a customer relations pain in the ass than it was worth.  So they just cut out a portion of their business that was not profitable and was causing customer issues.  Easy decision.  And the customer experience was actually better as there is an almost unending stream of drivers available to deliver for them through the services.

    I will be shocked if any delivery heavy restaurants have their own drivers much longer.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. On 12/12/2023 at 3:33 PM, YGIFS said:

    Paxton's sudden embrace of the minutiae of hospital policy is curious, if not disturbing.  

    And "where I'm going with this."???   I'll tell you.  On 2 January, I'm in a caravan of trucks (hint, hint---the logo is a horse) with a half dozen women to New Mexico to receive medical care.  We should have the funding in place for their lodging secured by end of this week, Christmas at the latest.  I'll deadhead back and they can get bus or train tickets back from same pool of funds.  Nobody's gonna stop our trucks, not in pro-business Texas.  When they've recovered and rested, they can travel back at their convenience. 

    I'm tempted to send photos of the trucks crossing the border to Paxton and Patrick as a "fuck you", but it would just draw unnecessary attention to the drivers who are trying to do a solid.  

    Saw the thread bump.  Was curious if anything ever happened here.

  13. 2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

    Reuter’s disagrees.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia used a scheme of hacking and propaganda to cause discord in the United States and harm Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

    Mueller's probe, with several Trump campaign figures already pleading guilty or being convicted, has documented numerous contacts between Russians and people close to the president.“

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-collusion-explainer/explainer-in-trump-russia-probe-when-does-collusion-become-a-crime-idUSKCN1QJ0AL/

     

    Links, or

     

    image.jpeg.a6b22bc480b88d3f1b4ed54a9a3c390a.jpeg

    lol.  I am not interested, at all, in rehashing Trump.  I would prefer to never have to hear about him ever again.  But this topic has to do with the NYT.  This article is by the Columbia Journalism Review.  Google them if you want to learn what they do, but they are considered the gold standard in journalism ethics by everyone.  The attached article is very long.  It goes directly to the point of what I have been saying.  The short version is that supposed respected papers, most notably the NYT and WAPO, essentially abandoned their journalistic ethics when reporting on Trump. 

    https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

     

  14. 39 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    What is your point?  The NYT article clearly insinuated that these collectives may be running afoul of the IRS like they are doing something illegal or somehow committing tax fraud.  The collectives don't get to just say they are non profit.  They approach the IRS asking for status as a 501(c)(3) entity.  Either the IRS grants it or it doesn't.  If the IRS comes back later and changes their mind then the collectives will have to re classify.  Nothing will change with the NIL program.

  15. On 1/6/2024 at 3:06 PM, Captainant said:

    I really doubt there would be this much acrimony towards NYT if trump had not targeted them so relentlessly. Because genuinely, I haven't heard a single addressable complaint aside from the usual "well they're just a RAG, ok??? MANY PEOPLE ARE SAYING!!"

    If y'all had something more than boohoo victimhood it would be much more interesting 

    I do not think the NYT is a rag.  But it has become way more left leaning in the last 10 years.  Part of that is simple numbers.  The vast majority of journalism students are liberal, the vast vast majority of journalism professors are liberal and the majority of print newsrooms are liberal.  It would be impossible for journalism to not lean left.  But the fact that you posted this is the perfect example that you are just like the people you seem to detest.

    Anyone could start with Trump Russia collusion headlines and stories in the NYT.  They willfully printed stories that were inaccurate or complete fabrications.  They clearly did not do their own reporting or their own verifying because, as we know, virtually all of the nefarious allegations proved to be false.

    But let's just examine a few things the NYT has done regarding big headline grabbing stories in the last few years that might cause a person to think that they were biased.

    1) The NYT headline and story about Israel Bombs Hospital in Gaza.  I suppose the NYT can be sort of excused initially but not really.  First, they said the information was "from Palestinian spokes people.  Obviously trying to insinuate that it wasn't Hamas saying it but supposedly unbiased Palestinians.  Lending credibility.  Second (and almost worse for a supposed venerable outfit) they put a picture under the headline of a bombed out building.  Now, of course, they admit the info was from Hamas and admit the picture was not the hospital in question.  Someone with more compassion than me might forgive the original headline and story because it was a race to get out the news.  But there can be no excuse for the blatant picture misrepresentation.  That is like National Inquirer level for a political publication.  Can you see why Israeli's might think the NYT is biased?

    2) Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.  This one was really bad.  The NYT used headlines saying he had been killed during the insurrection by someone bashing him in the head with a fire extinguisher.  Someone on this thread made the absurd statement that the NYT always sources the people in their stories.  Its just bullshit.  In this case they said "according to two law enforcement officials".  They obviously just either made up the quotes or, certainly, did absolutely zero investigating on their own.  They kept the articles coming for months.  They even then tried to insinuate he died from mace or pepper spray from one of the insurrectionists.  These were Pulitzer winning journalists.  Jan 6 was a big deal in America.  Tensions were very high.  Yet somehow the NYT and multiple Pulitzer winning journalists couldn't fact check a huge incident like this?  Not a single phone call to his family or the doctors or anyone?  The reporting absolutely flamed the fires.  It was 3.5 months before they finally printed a retraction that the officer sustained no injuries on Jan 6.  Obviously the damage was done.

    3) Russian Bounty Stories.  The NYT pushed this story full scale in the months leading up to the election.  The NYT claimed not only that the bounties were real and that US soldiers were murdered but that also Trump knew about it and did nothing in response.  They used "intelligence officials" as their source.  No one identified.  They ran stories right through the election.  Months after the election the NYT "updated" the story to say that the intelligence was never confirmed and no US soldiers had ever been killed or even injured.  You think they run a story like that about Biden or Obama?

    4) Nick Sandman.  The NYT headline was "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March".  The story was completely one sided, no comments from any of the "boys".  Weeks later an "updated" story to "provide more context" went up.  No boys "mobbed" anyone. 

    5) Caliphate.  The NYT promoted, sponsored, ran multiple stories etc on this report from one of its prized reporters.  The story won a Peabody and was nominated for a Pulitzer.  Again, months and months later, the NYT admits that the story was likely bullshit.  They gave back the Peabody. 

    6) Duke Lacrosse.   NYT first reported the story.  Then after it became apparent the story was wrong, the NYT wrote a lengthy article defending itself and the reporter and later admitted to leaving out all exculpatory information.  The reporter, Selena Roberts said this "I wrote that a crime didn't have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night"  That is the standard for the NYT?  It doesn't matter if we get a story wrong and ruin lives if we "feel" it was bad? 

    7) 1619 Project.  The NYT promoted the story vigorously.  Multiple "fact checkers" were called on by the NYT to check the story/essay.  Multiple fact checkers came back to the NYT and pointed out numerous errors.  The NYT published the essay without any corrections.  Months later they admitted that many of the historical points were in fact false and had to "correct" the story multiple times.  This is the NYT.  They can not do stuff like this and be considered a venerable institution.

    Like I said, I do not think the NYT is a rag and I truly believe it is a worthwhile publication.  But I can absolutely see the argument made from some.  And those that blindly champion it are just as wrong as those that now won't read it.

    • Fuck You 1
  16. I read most of this topic and have some comments.  While I think it is stupid to disregard an article because of someone's belief that the publication offering it is biased, I can see where they are coming from.  And, those that vigorously defended the NYT seem just as obtuse if given a true read.

    The cry from the detractors was that if the article was in the NYT then it would be biased, socially liberal and/or not very informative on a subject like NIL.  So I read the article and, to be certain, it had a biased, socially liberal lean and was pretty devoid of any real news.  I believe that anyone who is a college football fan, regardless of school, knows more about the NIL situation in college football than was shared in the article.  So the article, presumably, was directed to people other than college football fans. 

    Looking at the article in those terms (people reading the article that do not know much about college football) it really is very biased.  Starting with the headline "Best Teams Money Could Buy" is obvious clickbait but it still paints the picture that these four teams were somehow unique.  It is WAY down the article that it even insinuates lightly that other schools do the same thing.  I would bet that if you polled every just passing college football fan that read the article, almost all of them would think Washington was a major NIL player and the primary reason they were in the playoff.  Obviously that is untrue.  Just within their own conference their NIL program is dwarfed by USC and Oregon.

    Next, there was this little nugget in the article "They have also undermined the push for gender equity by immensely favoring male athletes."  What purpose does that have in the article?  When I first read it I assumed they would have some follow up or some evidence that it was true but it was just a throwaway line.  It was a socially liberal throw in.  Again, a person that is just a casual football fan but active NYT reader would infer that schools are somehow lessening their commitment to womens sports when that is absolute bullshit. 

    They also suggest the IRS is investigating as if there is some nefarious stuff going on because most of the collectives are registered as non profits.  For fucks sake, the only ones that could possibly have an issue with the IRS are the players not reporting their money.  The collectives put in their own money for the lion's share of the funds.  The collectives make no profits.  It is, again, a shitty angle especially to non fans.  They say it has created an "imbalance" with teams.  As any fan knows the imbalances between programs has been in place since WW2.  But for the ignorant it reads that the 4 teams are big bad wolves and the others are sheep. 

    So, as said, it is silly to just ignore an article because of the source but I can see the argument and the article did nothing to help argue against it.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1

    High

    1 minute ago, thunderlounge said:

    Me too.  

    There was a fatwa. Now he gone. 

    Given the crowd, he must have deserved it.  

    High

    On 10/24/2023 at 3:17 PM, brakeman said:

    Dunno about Vegas, you can buy shrooms legally, here in DC.

    Unless you guys know each other really well, this was of absolutely no value to the question asker.  

    High

    On 12/13/2023 at 3:53 PM, FonziDelNegro said:

    JOIN ME FOR THE BEFORE I BROUGHT WORLD ELITE FOR THE JOURNEY ITS GONNA BE EPIC AND PROLIFIC!!!

    I’m high.  Why did you guys neg this?  Is there history?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. On 12/13/2023 at 6:28 PM, RomaVicta said:

    I've only read this page, but I think antipathy towards Anastasis is affecting judgment around here. I agree what I've read of his on this page.

    Perceptions that strike me as odd:

    Hamas will exterminate Israel if we don't support Israel right now in their shamelessly brutal slaughter in Gaza. This page has a lot of posters that I respect. They are intelligent enough to recognize what Israel perpetrates in the West Bank and Gaza and even use the harshest terms to describe them. Hamas deserves whatever fate they meet. They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country.

    Opposition to American military support must mean the opposer doesn't care about Israel at best and is fine with Israel paying for their crimes by being genocided off the planet. Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page.

    I'll tiresomely repeat my stance. I don't want my country associated with the vicious slaughter going on in Gaza. I would halt all materiel aid right now. I would extend humanitarian aid and support to both countries as needed; clearly the greater need there is in the country that has sustained a lengthy attack by heavy, conventional forces.

    Some have answered that stopping military support would spell the end of Israel. Again, nope. Suspension of war aid need not be a permanent policy no matter what. As I said above, I wouldn't be party to seeing any nation or people obliterated. As Jerry said to George once, "We're trying to have a civilization here."

    Written without rancor.

    "They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." 

    This is absolute speculative bullshit.  If Iran or some other could figure out a way for Hamas to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into Israel they would do it in a heartbeat and Hamas would set it off in a heartbeat.  The continued rule by Hamas in Gaza is the literal definition of an existential threat to Israel.

    "Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page."

    This sort of perfectly illustrates the current thinking of so many.  Think about what you wrote?  You are against military aid to Israel right now because you believe that Israel has the upper hand.  Yet you readily admit you would be for military aid to Israel if the balance of power was reversed.  This is such a self rightous, self serving , its all about my feelings and my need to make myself feel good sentiment.  You are basically saying that in any conflict anywhere if one side has a perceived power advantage over the other that the side that is weaker can do almost anything to the powerful side and if the powerful side fights back they are immediately the opressor. 

     

     

  18. 4 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

    Holy Sheeeit! 

    There are dudes in here doing exactly what Smith did to Winston in 1984. Telling him that the laws in Oceania are not madness, are not insane, not contradictory because the "true citizen" knows 2+2=5. Say it Winston: "2+2=5" Say it!

    Eventually, Winston says it: "2+2=5." Now dead inside, the torture is stopped and Winston is released, a "free man."

    That's exactly what this abortion law, Paxton, Texas S. Ct (et al) are counting on. Complete Orwellian doublethink. 

    I have said from the begining that the Texas law is madness, contradictory, hypocritical, ghoulish etc.  I have said it perfectly summarizes the current Texas GOP.   I am suggesting ways to get the law repealed. 

  19. 32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    When the penalty is spending your life in prison, it is 100% something the medical world hasn't dealt with before.  That's the whole point.  It's what they want the law to do -- be so vague, with such a draconian downside, that it functions as a complete ban on ALL abortion, including procedures that are necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.  This situation is not a glitch, or an unintended consequence.  It is 100% the intent and purpose -- it is terrorism by legislation. 

    Get used to it, we're gonna get a lot more of it.

    We seem to be getting to the point of "do you want comfort or solutions".  I don't disagree with your post in spirit.  I have readily agreed on the intent of the statute and think it is repugnant.  I am hopeful the Zurawski case will help.  But if it doesn't then a different approach is going to be needed or else we all just join the choir and bitch. 

  20. 2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    Oh, so it's just responsible policing of hospital policy?  Okay, remember that when their Covid protocols come up in the next election cycle.  

    It is not that either.  Not sure where you are going.  The Cox case can only be used as a precedent for women wanting abortions that refuse to follow the legal requirements to get an exception.  And SCOTX and the AG's office have said that avenue is closed.   And in that narrow window, the AG and SCOTX are correct.  We all agree the law sucks but it is standing law.

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...