
sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by sheeeit
-
Perhaps, but I see no way this event will change any persons mind/vote on their senator/congressman. It just stirs up the already stirred up folks. For every person that thinks this is an example of the gop supporting a rapist there is another person that thinks this is an example of a cheap political trick that smeared a good man with no evidence. Zero sum game.
-
Fair response. Pos rep. I also do not see the issue with the support letter. If GOLL was up for a supreme court nomination and an allegation from 35 years ago suddenly popped up, I think it would be pretty easy to get signatures of support. Someone writes a letter and emails to friends from that time period and asks for support and asks them to forward to anyone else they have contact info for. This is a pretty educated and, I am guessing, informed group of people. I think it would be pretty easy to get 60 people to sign on in less than 24 hours.
-
Perfect example of what I posted up thread. No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact. Well done! Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.
-
This is a tough issue. As usual, the opinions of the zealots on either side of the argument are amusing and, mostly, worthless. This thread is a great example of why communications are so different and dangerous in todays world. People take half stories with limited information and conflate supposition with fact and then create plausible scenarios in their own minds based on nothing and then fight like mad to defend their made up theories. It really is fascinating to watch. We really do not know much at all. Anastasis comes pretty close to a similar opinion of mine. I believe that something most likely happened to Ford. It is possible that she made everything up to garner sympathy at some point in her life (she certainly would not be the first) but I doubt that is the case. Based on what we know right now, though, it is hard to do much with her accusation. I do not know what people expect the FBI to do. She claims that she can not remember the day of the event or the location of the event. That obviously makes it almost impossible to question other potential witnesses. She admits that she did not ever tell anyone what happened until decades later. Nothing wrong with that except how can anyone outside of the people she identified as being in the room possibly comment on the episode. The FBI has her and the now 3 people supposedly involved. As to credibility, she may very well come across as very credible. Obviously Kav is credible as he has been through multiple background checks and has a long history as a judge and attorney. Not sure how credible the other 2 are but each has already released statements that they were not involved in such an event in any way. Again, what exactly should the FBI do? It is almost impossible to ask people about a specific event if no one knows the date or location of the event. Coupled with the fact that Bird said she told no one, there really isnt even a place to start. Also, I am guessing most people do not know how in depth the vetting is for federal judges. I was interviewed by phone (taped) by the FBI for a potential federal judge that I was only peripherally acquainted with. The questions were pretty vague but they asked about any negative story or rumor I had heard about the potential judge. Kav has been through this multiple times. His circle of acquaintances has been asked to identify anything negative on more than one occasion already. I would surmise that if there was such an event as described by Bird and if anyone knew about it, then it would have come out. The fact that it hasnt actually supports Bird's contention that she told no one. I would agree that if another woman comes forward with a similar story that it changes everything. Even a remotely similar event between Kav and someone else would be enough to discredit him. I disagree with Anastasis that just knowing there was a party where he and she were present is enough. Also, I definitely agree that she needs to come forward and tell her story right away. She has a doctorate, she is an intelligent woman. When she sent a letter to Feinstein she absolutely knew where this was likely headed. Not even the crazies could argue that a person can make extremely strong accusations against someone and expect to then be kept anonymous. We do not and should not do that in the US. I really fail to see where this has much impact on Kav. If she never testifies then he gets confirmed easily. If she does testify but offers no additional supporting proof then I think he gets confirmed. And I think he should. If she offers any type of additional proof then he should not get confirmed. As to telling her therapist, I do not find that compelling enough. The decades old story just has so much room for vagueness. To ruin a persons reputation for life, there is going to need to be more clarity. If she can tell us where the party occurred, what was the date, who did she come with, who did she leave with, who else was there. Did she tell her best friend, or parents or siblings. Anything that can be used to verify or corroborate her story needs to be discovered. Finally, if Kav is some sort of creep it is almost impossible to believe that there were no red flags up to this point. If he is some entitled/elitist snob then it would have come up before now. The vetting process for a federal judge includes all sorts of political ramifications and polarizing sorts very rarely, if ever, get those nominations. As far as I can tell, there have not been any stories from people bashing Kav on his personality or behavior. People take issue with some of his legal decisions which is completely normal but no one has attacked his character until now.
-
I fully support increased teacher pay. But this was a a typical political stunt. Illinois is actually pretty good at teacher pay relative to other states. In the bigger cities teacher pay starts at well above $40K and with a masters it climbs into the $70-$80K range very quickly. That is solid pay for a teacher. Plus, there are a myriad of financial aid packages for working teachers and evening and online classes. The real problem with your suggestion is that Illinois is essentially broke. https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/investing/illinois-budget-crisis-downgrade/index.html
-
Lol. Wasn’t posting that to correct you. But I was shocked that Michigan has been so poor over the last nine years as well
-
Just because I am stuck in an airport I looked this up. In the last 9 years Mich actually has won only 5 more games than texas. Less than a game per year difference. Amazing.
-
It really isnt that hard to understand. The communications in the world are so different today than anytime before. The 24 hour constant presence of media, both professional and amateur, is new. There was no medium to get the news out in real time before. Now there is. People havent changed. We just never had a way for literally everyone to express their opinions in real time before. There have always been crazies and zealots but they never had a platform before. I read an article critical of D Fienstein and the article author quoted a few random twitter responses in support of his position. That is just ridiculous. It is like judging the UT fan base based solely on the tweets of the 5 most ignorant belligerent fans out of the million or more fans in total. I really do not believe we are any different as a people today than we have ever been. Imagine the internet and twitter during WWII or Vietnam or the Kennedy assassination or any major event. The kooks would be out in droves spouting the worst things imaginable and making up ridiculous stories and generally fueling the fire. As to your last point about actually solving the issues of the country as grown ups- the only way, imo, is strict term limits on representatives where not a single one is ever running for reelection while in office.
-
I liked 1. Havent started 2. I do not know why but Robisis (?) is sort of mesmerizing on screen.
-
Had not seen that article. It seems like I suggested above. CNN ran with a story based on info from, likely, Davis. No fault in that to CNN. CNN is basically saying that Davis is now changing his story and CNN can not be held responsible for that. Fair enough. They also seem to imply that Cohen was one of their sources. Who knows. Honestly, I do not trust any media outlet anymore when they quote anonymous sources and this case is exactly why. There seems to be exactly zero negative ramifications to the sources or news outlets when they rely on sources that are lying. It happened to Obama, Bush, Clinton too. It is just too easy in todays world to find a "source". There is simply no way to get to the truth. Just using this particular story, I find it impossible to believe that Davis was not the originator of the story. So Davis tells the media and then Davis tells other people who the media go to to "corroborate" the story and then, voila, you have multiple sources confirming the story, it is so incestuous. This is almost exactly like the Carter Page FISA stuff. The FBI uses Steele and his dossier as evidence. They ask Steele if he has talked to anyone in the media and Steele says no. They then use a media story that corroborates the evidence in the dossier and say it is a second stand alone source because Steele swears he did not talk to the media. Of course then the media guy who wrote the second corroborating story says that of course he talked to Steele and that Steele gave him all of the info for the story. But by then the warrant is in place and the damage is done.
-
I think it is shitty for anyone to leak private conversations from any potus. I do not get, at all, this notion that anything the potus says or thinks, at anytime, should be public record. That is just too stupid. Any potus has to have the ability to strategize openly without the fear that the conversations will go public. Be it defense, intelligence, trade, immigration, the economy or whatever. Questioning the wisdom of renegotiating NAFTA and other trade agreements is fine and a worthy endeavor. Leaking privileged info that has a direct impact on those negotiations should send someone to jail. Not just in this case and this potus but any. Concerning the Cohen/Davis story, people are just playing semantics. CNN is standing by the fact that they reported exactly what their sources told them. So they think they are in the right. They did not make anything up. It is not CNN's fault that some of those sources are now claiming something different. Where they are wrong, imo, is by not at least clarifying that at least one of their sources as well as Cohen himself have now denied the original story. It appears that CNN was possibly duped by Davis but does not want to admit it. It is also amazingly disingenuous to make a claim that they did not get a comment from Davis when Davis has now admitted to being one of their sources. The reality is that only Davis, Cohen or one of his other lawyers are the only possible ones that know the facts. Davis and Cohen are both now denying the story and CNN should report that.
-
Whoops. 10 million. I type poorly. Still a shitload.
-
It is strange the way people let their hatred or bigotry or whatever you want to call it compel them to just post anything they want regardless of truth or facts. You can hate religion all you want and you can hate Osteen all you want. You can argue that churches should be taxed, but the above post is just so stupid. Osteen pays the same tax rate as everyone else for every dollar that goes to him personally and he pays taxes on every fringe benefit provided to him by the church.
-
Not sure you quite understand this. Churches can not buy houses and cars for their pastors. Those assets are in the name of the church and when the pastor dies or leaves or whatever, he gets zero equity from them. In almost all cases, the pastor is required to pay the nominal amount the irs requires for getting a benefit. The big houses thatsome live in, like Osteen, are owned by Osteen and are paid for with after tax dollars and are subject to property taxes. Any salary or benefit paid to Osteen or any pastor is subject to taxation like anyone else.
-
Osteen is an unusual case. I personally do not care for his opulence but his message (admittedly I have only seen a few sermons on TV and have never been to the church) seems genuinely good and, obviously, many people find inspiration and solace and peace in his teachings. Church going and tithing are completely voluntary and I have no problem with people choosing both for whatever reason. The tax thing is sort of a misnomer. For the actual church, as many have mentioned, they do not really make any income. No business is taxed on their revenue, it is on the income/profit. Churches typically operate at a loss on a financial statement. The rely on large donations and fundraisers etc to offset their operating expenses. So even if there was a movement to tax them, it would yield little or no revenue from an income standpoint. For property taxes, I think of it the same way as Private Universities. They have a mission to do good and are recognized as having an impact on the well being of society. I do not have a problem with that. Also, church employees pay taxes on their wages just like any other citizen including FICA which the church matches by law. As for Osteen personally, he has not received any money direct from the church for many, many years. His income comes from books and outside speaking engagements and other media. I think I remember that his most popular book from several years ago sold over 100,000,000 copies. Osteen, of course, pays personal taxes on all of that income and he pays property taxes on all of his personal holdings. The one grey area that I do not like is that the church sort of promotes/advertises his books and stuff. I think that should be more separated but I am not sure it is a big deal. In short, the churches do not make any money that can be taxed anyway. Osteen is taxed just like everyone else on his personal earnings. And I am confident enough that churches do enough good for enough people that giving them a break on their property taxes is just fine. As for Harvey, there is not enough info to know the real situation as there are always two sides to a story. I will say it looked very bad and seemed to be handled poorly by Osteen and the church. The award, by the way, was really for everything that the church has done and continues to do for Harvey relief.
-
I was referring to the fact that she wants an attorney to take it pro bono, Watson.
-
Looks like they are getting cold feet about pleading guilty and want to hire a lawyer to sue the government saying that he did not commit any crimes. It would not shock me if some lawyer somewhere took up case.
-
Want to be a UT contractor? Pledge your loyalty to Israel
sheeeit replied to Gil Bang's topic in Cloak Room
Love a good right turn on a surly thread. I actually never knew there was debate on whether the person Jesus was real or not. Learn something new everyday. -
Heading to a poker tourney and wanting to play a little craps. I think I get the HG method but would love a confirmation. When I do not have the dice- No bet on the initial roll. When a point is established I place 3 bets on the non-point inside numbers (point is 6 so I bet on the 5,8,9). Just straight bets at this point with no odds correct? If the numbers hit I collect the winnings for the first two hits (next roll is a 5 I collect, next roll is a 9 I collect). After that if a number hits I leave the bet as odds behind my initial bet correct (8 hits so I press the bet on the 8)? So now I am getting "odds" on my 8 correct? Or do I not ever get odds since I did not bet on the initial roll? Or better question, when I play the 3 inside numbers can I put odds bets on them right away?
-
A couple of things and I appreciate the civilized discourse. On the rivers, there is not any evidence anywhere that the rivers in France are warmer on average than they have been in the past as a result of global warming. Of course rivers and lakes get warmer when it is hot outside. But sporadic heat waves (which have occurred forever) that cause temporary problems are not a sign of whole scale climate change problems. As mentioned in the article, the current heat wave that led to the issue in France was NOT as hot as it was in 1868. Heat waves happen all the time. Attributing this latest shut down to macro global warming is completely disingenuous. The issue was that due to increased temps the reactors were working harder/longer/ and required MORE river water for longer durations to cool so they backed off. And literally for less than a day. The issue with crops has been brought up repeatedly and it is, again, very disingenuous. Global grain production is at all time highs. That some areas suffer from drought each year is completely normal and has been happening since forever. It is very disingenuous to blame lower grain production in Sweden in 2018 on global warming when Sweden set records for grain production last year. And on the Chevron lawyer, you may be misstating what they actually agreed with. The difference is slight but meaningful. Everything I have read has said that the oilies have agreed that humans were contributing to warming. Not that humans were the main drivers. I find this in the IPCC report also and the 97% claim. I could very well be wrong about this but I have tried to find definitive facts and it is surprisingly difficult. What I think I have found and what I generally agree with is that the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming through CO2 and other green house gas emissions. What I could not find was that a vast majority of the scientists agreed that humans were the primary driver of the warming. Virtually all agreed that humans contribute but not nearly as many believe that humans are primarily responsible. As mentioned it is hard to get true numbers from surveys but I did find this: Of course that is a small sampling and is 6 years old. I just couldn't find anything else that was actually definitive. And ultimately, the thing that matters is what happens if we keep warming. What is the economic and social impact. There is zero consensus on that front. You can find as many scientists that will say warming on the lower end of projections will have a net positive impact on the world as those that do not. And even the most ardent believers in climate doom must agree that, to date, the ability of us to predict the actual temp increases has been horrible. I think the issue is important and I support continued funding and research of the issue. Like all things, we will get better at making predictions on the future as we go along. I support continued awareness objectives to make people aware of the issue and let them do what they can to help reduce emissions. I just do not support radical, expensive measures to combat the issue yet. And I am not sure I will ever support any measure that does not have a global buy in from everyone, especially china and india . China seems to be at least paying lip service to curbing emissions which is good.
-
I will be shocked if he gets off. His only chance is the fact that Gates admitted stealing from him. Without that, there really isnt any defense. I do not think it will or should work, but the argument that Gates was stealing so he kept Manafort in the dark on the details is at least a half court shot.
-
Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects. But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point. You seem fine with that.
-
This paper is a perfect example of why some people question the hyperbole around climate change. I do not question the actual science as I am sure that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have some influence on warming. I think the actual influence is way, way overstated and I think the negative ramifications of an incrementally warming planet are way, way overstated. It is doubtful people will ever agree on those points but, ultimately, time will tell. However, this paper is just full of shit under even basic scrutiny and serves as an example of why people tend to dismiss the entire issue. Here is a direct section of the paper where they lay out the supposed dire effects of climate change: One by one: California fires- No evidence at all that these are the product of climate change. Ca has had fires forever and these current fires and their scope were predicted years ago and Ca was warned of what would happen if thinning and brush removal were ignored. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/#314f7ff70af9 Wheat/Corn- Typical cherry picked data regarding Sweden. First, just last year Sweden set an all time record for grain production. http://www.world-grain.com/Departments/Country-Focus/Country-Focus-Home/Focus-on-Sweden.aspx?cck=1 The issue with wheat in Sweden this summer is tied to actually too much rain last fall which prevented the winter wheat from fully developing. Hardly an act of warming. Further, globally wheat and corn are at historic highs. Droughts happen ever year somewhere in the world. The Oklahoma dust bowl and droughts was n the 1930s. Rivers too hot for Nuclear- This one is just too good. It is completely misleading and just plain wrong. First, the temp of the rivers used to cool the reactors was never changed or too high as the article states. There was a fear that the water RELEASED from the reactors would make rivers too hot and that it might have an affect on fish life. It was really just 1 old reactor in France (not anywhere else in Europe as the article suggested) and it was shut down for a whopping 1 afternoon. Not mentioned in the article was that the same thing happened in 2003 and that the temps in France are still below the temps recorded in the 1940s there. Totally bogus claim. Electric grids crashing in 4 continents- I searched every combination I could think of from 2018 and can not find 1 single case of an electric grid crashing due to excessive heat anywhere. Japan heat Deaths- Obviously any deaths are tragic, but this is about climate change effects. 138 people died of heat related issues in japan this year. Comparatively, over 900 died due to heat waves in 2007. Further, the current average high temps in japan are still not as high as those recorded in 1868. I am certain recordings are much more accurate now than in 1868 but, somehow, the temp in japan got just as hot in 1868 as it is now and that was way before the industrial revolution. So, to recap, every single thing that the article claimed as alarming effects of climate change was just bullshit. It is the problem with the issue. The facts do no stand on their own so people resort to lying and exaggerating and cherry picking to try and prove their point. For the sane folks, that is just a sign that their underlying premises are bad.
-
I actually kind of like this. So the russians help trump but do not actually let trump know that they are helping. Then, after he wins, they let it be known that they helped which in turn creates chaos and causes the country to implode. I kind of like that angle. I mean it completely removes any conspiracy angle but it actually would be a pretty sinister plan.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!