
sheeeit
-
Posts
761 -
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
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
On 12/22/2023 at 12:26 PM, Irish Wrist Watch said:
Can't stand Ethan Hawke.
Great example!! Absolute movie star. Not a great actor. Not terrible at all but would have never made it strictly as an actor.
-
On 11/11/2021 at 12:07 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:
I have a legitimate question for everyone that opposes more open borders. How is your life made worse by someone that has come over illegally?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/nyregion/adams-migrants-destroy-nyc.html
Too funny.
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
They kinda say that...for now.
The legal standard is an impossible one for a physician to follow with certainty. Dr. Jones thinks it's plainly within his reasonable medical judgment that Jane Doe needs an abortion to save her life and/or avoid destroying her uterus. So, he performs the abortion. Ken Paxton and/or another zealous Republican prosecutor solicits the opinion of Dr. Smith, member of the board of Jesus Hates Women Bible Fundamentalist church, to opine that Dr. Jones opinion was NOT a reasonable medical opinion. Case submitted to grand jury, with only Dr. Smith's opinion presented. Grand Jury indicts Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones is now in the fight of his life, with literally his freedom FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE on the line.
The standard is impossible to know with certainty, and can be opposed/refuted by the offer of an opinion from a "friendly" Dr. on the side of the prosecution. "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion. So, that means there is always, 100% of the time, a risk of prosecution of a Dr. for performing a life-saving or health-saving abortion. Which is how the GQP wants it. There is no fixing this because they do not think it's broken.
You use your typical histrionics but I don't disagree with the sentiment. There are certainly things the hospitals and doctors can do to insulate them from this. In house medical panels that review, rigorous documentation etc. And if you read the statute jail time is only for doctors or others that "wantonly" violate the statute. But your point stands that there is risk. From a purely legal standpoint, I don't think this particular line of thinking is a winning strategy.
Obviously getting the law repealed is ideal. Short of that, I think a woman is going to have to sue a doctor or hospital for denying her an abortion under the vagueness of the statute and force the courts to put in language that removes the ambiguity. We already have laws that deal with medical reasonableness and things like experimental drugs and procedures. These are not, at all, issues that the medical world hasn't dealt with before.
-
4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:
they're empowering this case against Ms. Cox, not because they have issue with the hospital protocol or don't recognize that her life, fetal liability, and future fertility are very much at stake. They completely know that. What they are doing is laying a groundwork so that down the road if any physicians or their patients get any funny ideas about claiming "mother's life is in danger" or "fetus will not be viable after month 3" or whatever, they can use this as a base claim that she has to carry to term anyways. They know the harm here, but the idea is that later on doctors and women will start using the exceptions as a rationale for more abortions. And they can't abide that. So they have to make some early examples and that's what you're seeing unfold here. Next will be interstate travel, then menstruation tracking, and then contraception. They're already getting on the interstate while we're still pulling out of the garage.
This is just not true or accurate. SCOTX as well as the AG's office have all agreed that Ms Cox is entitled to an abortion under the law. What SCOTX and the AG's office are saying is that she and the doctor and the hospital have to follow the requirements for the abortion as defined under the law. This case sets no precedent on dealing with exceptions to the rule because the plaintiffs admit they didn't follow the rule.
I agree with you that the intent of the statute is to make it difficult to get an exception. That was by design. Possibly a case can be made that the requirements are too onerous but that is not the case they are bringing.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, C-Man said:
Please re-read what you wrote here. Paxton has a lengthy track record of criminality and cruelty and WE didn't "give him the chance" to do the right thing. "We." Give me a fucking break.
You missed the point. The staute will never be changed or repealed based on someone's belief that something might happen. Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.
-
11 hours ago, safe sex said:
It's too late for changing minds, holy shit. Women are having to flee the state to get abortions now. And lmao, even if "minds are changed," like in Ohio (sort of...), the Republican-stacked government is trying to find ways to ignore the will of the votes.
I guess we'll just have to let them try here, too, right? Cause I mean...we wouldn't know if they'd try it or not until they do.
Gimme a break.
So what is your solution? You and others seem pretty emotional about this and rightfully so. I am sure the women this law affects are happy that you are screaming about it on a message board but I don't see how that actually helps them.
Let's assume that the federal SCOTUS is not likely to change their stance on abortion anytime in the near future. SCOTUS said abortion needs to be defined by the states. As a result if you really want a change to the Texas law then it is going to have to come from Texas voters and by their proxy the Texas state legislatureor through SCOTX. I assme we can all agree on that?
If your stance is that a majority of Texas minds will never be changed on this subject and further that even if the majority of Texans favor change, that the legislature is going to somehow ignore the will of the people and then insulate themselves from having to be re-elected so that the current statute/law will never face repeal or change then why are you even discussing it?
You and so many others keep saying that you KNOW how the issue is going to be decided in a hypothetical scenario. That isn't knowing, that is speculating. You could be 100% correct in your speculation but you don't know it and it isn't fact until it happens. And, more importantly, your speculation does not have the power to change anything. Only allowing the actions to actually happen has the potential to change things. I would like the actual statute/law changed. I am advocating for a path forward that might actually produce a change. But what is happening now with the current cases isn't going to work imo. I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them. Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute. So there is no case. What the plaintiffs are saying is that they do not want any restrictions on the abortions and that they do not want to go through the procedures required to get a legal abortion under the statute. That isn't goling to fly imo.
I think a much better case would be a woman that has a viable prgenancy and did not realize she was pregnant until after the reporting timeline based on the statute but would have opted for an abortion if she knew. I think the statute is very shaky on this issue. It has been written in such a way to make it almost impossible for anyone in this scenario to get an abortion. I think a challenge on the vagueness of the statute and the hypocritical nature of the wording has a chance to win at SCOTX.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, safe sex said:
I mean, no one gives a shit because it's completely beside the point. Even if the paperwork had been fully completed, Paxton would've appealed for some other reason or the Court would have found some other flaw.
You shouldn't have to appeal to a fucking court to get necessary, life-saving healthcare!!
This is the point. You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method. But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance. If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with. Then you have a case to fight with.
-
34 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:
We are well into the enforcement part of the law. We have four counties (good ole Lubbock leading the way) who have laws on the books that encourage private citizens to file lawsuits against anybody using various roads within the counties to transport/assist somebody having an abortion - and the folks behind it are the folks driving the unborn sanctuary city bullshit, tc.
Notably, they can't sue the woman seeking the abortion, so there has to be some self-awareness there, that it's a bad look if they sue a woman whose pregnancy is not viable.
We have Paxton making damned sure that, whether the abortion is technically legal or not, he wants all hospitals on notice that he will go after them with the power and resources of the State of Texas if he so desires. Paxton and his supporters can claim the abortion was legal and it was simply a matter of her doctor fucking up, but he sure as hell was not acting like it.
This is the canary in the coal mine.
I'm pretty high and not sure I understand the point you are making. I thought that you and the other guy were saying that because this case has legs and is getting a lot of national press and that this is an election year that it might actually change the minds of the Texas voters that approved the people in the legislature that put the statute into law. But then you post above about how truly crazy the people are. Which leads me to believe that no amount of national pressure is going to shame enough people to actually change the legislature, which was my point.
-
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:
No way man, this case has some serious legs in the country right now. It's getting a ton of play/conversation.
41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:It is getting a lot of play in the national conversation, and 2024 is an election year, so FAFO.
Hopefully you guys are right. But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature. That is going to require a pretty serious conversion. I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things. Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law. Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.
-
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
I was responding to TexasHammer's mischaracterization of the law and facts based on Paxton's "advocacy."
It does not actually appear that a serious effort was made here to comply with the statute. I have not read the pleadings, but this seems to be an appeal to the equities of a factual abomination more than a serious effort to invoke the medical exception.
There may have been some "publicity stunt" aspects to it.
ETA: and that's ok by me. Without bringing these court cases involving real situations, this runs the risk of being a bunch of gnarly anecdotes that are easily dismissed by those so inclined.
Agreed to a point. I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies. I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced. But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute. In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed. Perhaps they never will. But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.
-
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:
Well, I hope you feel nice and snug and warm in your odd little tower of knowledge.
My poor little auto-lobotomized pea-brain recollects, or "seems" to recollect, I suppose. Who can be sure when lobes are missing?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we had a reasoanbly successful effort going in Afghanistan finally using special forces in the role they are designed for.
Suddenly, the president of the US and his minions start telling lies about Iraq's WMD capabilities and constantly suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 911. So Bush did lie. The neo-cons stated a purpose about the delightful welcome that our boys and democracy would get after we finished killing people.
That was on the surface. After the invasion, pallets of cash were shipped to Iraq with virtually no accounting because a PO Box operation was hired by the GOP administration to track it. (Vanity Fair) Also, sweet deals for buying up Iraqi industries were handed out to the rich GOP faithful. (Atlantic) Cheney's old friends at Haliburton where he had been a board member raked in 100s of millions of dollars.
Oh, and we squandered the unity of the world behind us after 9/11 and created more terrorists than we killed.
Annnnd, any possible success in Afghanistan was squandered because we pulled the special forces out of that country to attack Iraq from the north where Turkey, one of those gravely threatened by Iraq's WMDs wasn't worried enough support the invastion in any way.
I can't imagine anyone other than fucking lobotomized morons not privy to your elevated knowledge believing that maybe things would have been different without neo-cons holding sway, an administration willing to lie to set neo-con wet dreams into action (at least on the surface), and big money wanting to use their GOP puppets to do stealing on a large scale.
The Dems opposed the invasion but were too weak and cowardly to risk their seats to say and vote so.
Everything would have been exactly the same, I'm sure. Thanks for the convincing argument, my friend.
I think Rimbo is more right on this issue. Of course we will never know. But Gore believed, unequivocally (and as VP he had access to all of the intel), that Saddam had WMDs and was actively looking to share them with terrorists. Gore stated that in multiple speeches at the time. He couched support for the invasion by saying we needed more of an international consensus (and he was probably right about that in hindsight) but the die was cast and the US was going after Saddam regardless of who won the election. Further, no one could plausibly argue that the Clintons would not have had a major impact on Gore as POTUS and both Bill and Hillary supported the invasion, with Hillary being in the minority of dems that voted for the resolution (21 dem senators and 126 dem house memberts voted against the resolution). I did agree with Gore that we should not have slowed down our fight against Al Queda but that fight was proving to be harder than we thought.
As to Haliburton, I think that line of thinking is just completely flawed and weak. When the authorization to invade was made there was absolutely no way to do a formal "bid" process to support the troops and handle the oil fields and Haliburton was, in fact, the best US corp to handle the work. Haliburton obviously made a shit ton of money but I do not believe, at all, that Haliburton getting the work played any role in the decision to invade. I think Cheney was an idealogue and truly thought he was helping the country. I don't think he actually did help the country but he was not motivated, nor was Bush, by Haliburton profiteering off the war.
-
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures.
And this whole thing is fucking nasty. They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital.
Humanly indefensible.
To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP. It is ghoulish. The law is too vague and needs serious reform. It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals. It is terrible. I would never support any of the people responsible for it.
But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law. To your points:
1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does. The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies. The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties. This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure.
2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again. The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality". No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute.
18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:No they're not. They're saying it's only permissible if the mother's life is in danger.
Again, they are not saying this at all. You, as a lawyer, know this. That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case. There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger.
As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors.
As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive. But it was passed into law. And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments. There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions. Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have. The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion. I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue. They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed. What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise.
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
On 11/18/2023 at 10:48 AM, 956 Worldwide said:This op-ed in The Guardian is very clear eyed and scathing about Netanyahu. And I agree. I will also say that there appears to be serious momentum and pressure on Netanyahu internally and hopefully this will spell the end of his tenure, one way or another.
It is equally clear-eyed about Hamas and the need to eliminate them as a capable governing authority. It really is adequate to compare them and their ideology to the Nazis. Adolf Hitler was quite clear in his ideology that if Germans could not win the war, they did not deserve to exist. They were willing to sacrifice every single German to accomplish their aims and did end up with their country ruined. People need to be clear-eyed about what it means to live next door to a political entity with similar fanatical aim and outlook.
Good read. Just my opinion but I believe that after this conflict is resolved, Bibi will step down. I hope so.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
On 11/18/2023 at 12:50 PM, Brian Fantana said:Killing a bunch of them without addressing the environment and conditions that lead to a far-right fundamentalist group like Hamas gaining power is just kicking the can down the road. They'll either return or something worse will replace them.
I have a real problem with this sentiment. Maybe I am not understanding your point.
The vast majority of people who are condemning Israel for their offensive and seemingly being supportive of Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) all seem to suggest that Hamas represents a small percentage of Palestinians. I hear this a lot. Israel is killing "innocent" non combatives. I hear most Palestinians just want to live in peace and go to work and raise kids etc. So, IF that is true (I do not believe it to be) then why or how could another Hamas type group emerge in a post Hamas Gaza? Israel is going to shred Hamas including both people and weapons. It will be effectively destroyed.
So if we assume that post Hamas Gaza gets vast international aid to rebuild their territory and some sort of international police force is present in Gaza during the rebuilding, how would a new Hamas get a foothold there? The only way would be if there really are a larger percentage of Gazans that are fine with killing Jews and trying to destroy Israel.
I firmly believe that we are going to find out. Hamas is going to be wiped out. Gaza is going to be given an opportunity at true self determination after this conflict is over. International aid in the billions will flow into Gaza. If in 10 years, Gaza is living peacefully then they will be left alone by Israel. If in 10 years another Hamas type emerges to some position of control then Israel is going to decimate the whole population.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
On 11/17/2023 at 5:49 PM, InkaUtexas said:Yep. And with the same logic so could Israel. Neither will of course.
You truly think if Israel "surrendered" that Hamas would stop trying to kill them? What has Hamas ever done to make anyone think that?
-
3
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:we are talking about right now.
you're saying you're not defending the jews. you should be. it's not a monolith. if you don't agree with what israel or netanyahu is doing, that's ok. but saying you're not defending the jews is not what you're trying to say i don't think. but i could be wrong.
why is some hate of jews justified from history?
I understand your point. And you are correct. I am saying that it is likely that events have occurred throughout history that would cause some hatred of jews. Just like there is hatred of any societies that have had conflict. I am sure there are chinese that hate japanese due to the atrocities prior to ww2. I am sure there are americans that hate japanese for pearl harbor or japanese that hate americans for Hiroshima etc. And sure the hatred should be reserved for the leaders but that just defies human nature. But all of those societies have seemed to evolve to some extent and are willing to be mostly peaceful. The palestinians seem to not want to evolve. They continue to foment hatred and wish violence on the jews and they teach it to their children as a religion.
-
1
-
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
30 minutes ago, 'stache said:I guess I don't consider refusing to exterminate 2 million people as any form of restraint, its just following international law. The US could have leveled a lot of places over the years, I don't really consider it restraint that we didn't. I agree there are mostly bad guys in this, but the Israelis haven't been blockaded and starved for decades, so I have some sympathy for civilians in Gaza, children especially, even if the adults there otherwise harbor bad feeling or whatnot. And yes, of course I also have sympathy for victims of Hamas terrorism, just as I do victims of terrorism anywhere else in the world. I don't view terrorism in Israel as all that different, but the western world does, and I'm not a fan of that in general.
This is an interesting post and one that I think a lot of people agree with. To me, it is just a feel good response by people who are detached from the issue and have no skin in the game. It is also a very general use of the word terrorism.
When you say the Israelis havent been blockaded and starved, you offer no reason why that has occurred. You seem to insinuate that the Israelis are doing it out of spite or meanness. It is not a disputed fact that rocket fire and suicide bombers were routinely coming out of Gaza and into Israel for years and years before Israel cut off the passageways. It is not a diputed fact that Iran/Hezbollah were sneaking weapons into Gaza through the passages that were open. What is Israel to do?
Why has Egypt kept their border with Gaza closed during the same period? Why are they not called out by you and others to help with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to the blockade? Gaza is tiny. More than enough aid could come through Egypt to care for the whole country. Would you try to equivocate the response if Hamas had attacked Egypt on Oct 7? Would you or anyone have condemned their response? Maybe I have missed it but I do not recall any pro palestinian spokesperson or leader or Hamas or anyone that has condemned Egypt over the last decades due to the blockade.
And Jewish Israel and Arab Egypt enjoy normal realtions and have hundreds of millions of trade between them.
And what I mean by detached is that we in the US have the luxury of making comments like "I dont view terrorism in Israel as all that different". But you would think it was different if you lived in Israel and had family members killed by those terrorist acts that you seem so indifferent about. Attacks that have gone on for decades unabated.
I am frankly amazed that people who constantly poke a bear are then horrified when the bear eats them.
I do not see any chance of Israel stopping short of eradicating Hamas from Gaza. My hope is that it is done as quickly as possible and with as few casualties as possible. Then I hope the world pours a lot of money into Gaza to rebuild and establishes a temporary international police force in Gaza to keep a Hamas like group from reforming and allows the Palestinians to actually self govern and live in peace.
-
2
-
This past weekend I learned
in Cloak Room
Posted
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.