Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40414
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Cody Campbell, who is trying to singlehandedly bigdog Tceh into the haves, but knows it can only go so far. I am troubled by SCORE, as reported above, to the extent it relies on NCAA for enforcement. NCAA is a classic example of a captured agency. I'd like to see SCORE be enforceable by criminal authorities, the DOE or something similar, and private civil suit.
  2. There isn't any. There are some emails contemporeaneous with the election that "admit" that Russia did not interfere with election INFRASTRUCTURE, that is, voting machines. But everyone rational knows that it wasn't that kind of interference anyway. Oh, and the Steel Dossier was attached to some report with disclaimers that it shouldn't be relied upon. ETA scottsins covered it above.
  3. Yeah, the stupid and cruel has always been there and always will be. Gaussian distribution out front . . . . It demonstrates the importance of leadership.
  4. Well, politicians everywhere lie their asses off to a greater or lesser degree. You'd never get a representative government to criminalize lies by politicians, ie by themselves. Every country in the world shares this foundational weakness. There are other weaknesses relating to politician behavior and regulation that are a much bigger deal. The greater "foundational weakness" is an electorate that accepts lies great and small without ever holding that particular politician to account for them.
  5. Also interesting to see a coyote that's well-fed and healthy.
  6. Probably true but that is an allegation from the lawsuit against her.
  7. And all of those expenses are completely fabricated by social media.
  8. Publicity. Nothing else. It's brilliant.
  9. I think there had to be something in it for Bond, or he wouldn't have dismissed with prejudice. The opposed motion to seal the summons is bizarre.
  10. If you're at the old Navy Yard, by the Constitution, might as well check out Cassin Young. Most numerous, fightin'est warships of WWII.
  11. Just elaborating. I think you're pretty much spot on. It's pretty confusing what they think they're doing. Whatever evidence she has should have already been part of the "Epstein Files," or, if it wasn't then ipso facto it isn't part of the Epstein files and isn't particularly credible anyway given her history and motivations.
  12. See! She's worth $20M anyway!1!1 #bothsides#rolleft
  13. Pretty insightful, I think. The Yarvin/Heritage/Common Good types think they have the replacement, but it itself is deconstructivist, if not utterly rage-fueled, and seems to be wildly unpopular (P2025). And this is why Dems have no adequate response. There's just no response to rage because it is inherently irrational.
  14. He did not, of course, create that, someone else did. Might be fun to see who.
  15. Well, broadly speaking, even convicted and incarcerated people are offered immunity from prosecution for other crimes, as well as other incentives, to provide evidence against others. But, as has been pointed out, she had the opportunity to give evidence a long time ago and presumably whatever kept her from doing so applies today as well. But yeah, this ain't normal in any way, shape or form.
  16. Really, if the Scots hate your guts, you are probably a really shitty person.
  17. I've been reading a lot of British fiction lately. The Brit term for milf is the delightful "yummy mummy."
  18. He does raise kind of an interesting point. In this particular case, it would seem that there is pretty conclusive evidence that would put the lie to the rumors almost immediately in the form of genetic testing. But then, how and where do you "raise" that so it reaches the Owens of the world and their audience? And then, of course, like the birth certificates, the crazies would continue to crazy about the authenticity of the test and its results. Also a funny thing about the misinformation system of today: a defamation suit cannot enjoin a party from continuing to defame the plaintiff, the First Amendment won't allow it (prior restraint, dude). But most rational actors, once they've lost a defamation suit (hell usually once they've been sued), shut the fuck up. Notable exceptions include Trump, Rudy, Cuntface, and others. Just no respect for the truth or anything else.
  19. Good stuff. I will offer this. Stringer tried to "legitimize" the business, but in doing so he abided neither by the codes of business nor the codes of the street. I think part of Simon's message here is that the codes of the street and business are not all that different from each other, but business has a veneer of civility that the street does not. A man got to have a code. Stringer had no code. Also, I suspect Butchie was himself the major player that got out and went mostly legit.
  20. Point of order, the Nightmare at 20,000 Feet was originally done in the series with William Shatner in 1963.
  21. Well, once this becomes the subject of actual law, it is conceivable that authorities could take criminal and civil enforcement action against violators. And, if the law permits, private civil suits by those damaged by violations. One notable thing about most state NIL laws: they provide no penalty. It is implicit in most of them that as long as they are complied with, athletes keep their eligibility and universities stay above board, both of which seems to rely on the NCAA for those determinations and enforcement. The problem with the NCAA is that it exists and existed by and with the consent of member institutions. It was disincented from taking severe action against too many of its similarly situated constituents. But once there is state-sponsored enforcement, that may change. But then the state, presumably the federal government, is going to have quite a mess on its hands and be pretty busy monitoring compliance and enforcing. It will probably require a new agency. Something needed to change, but I think finding that amateurism was insufficient justification for the collusive action of the NCAA was the wrong way to go about it. It just created Thunderdome. EDIT TO ADD: It is regulation, a line between the legitimate and the illegitimate, that enables Texas to participate. For better or worse, Texas decided as an institution to stay on the legitimate side of the "line" when there was barely any line at all. Now that the line is more clearly discernible, we're all in. But we're also seeing a bunch of schools willing to be on the other side of the line again, or at least straddling it, and we may be suffering for it. More regulation with enforcement can only help Texas given its current and historical position on the matter. But enforcement is a sticky wicket.
  22. Excellent point about FMV. The ultimate determinant of FMV is willing-buyer/willing-seller and so it is not a very helpful measure in this context. I think the phrase they're looking for is "commercially reasonable." Because most NIL deals aren't commercially reasonable from the standpoint of the player's name, image, and likeness. What's being purchase is not NIL, but prospective and current athletic ability. It's a bag. A bag delivered in the open, mostly, with a company logo and some decorative fringe on it, but a bag nonetheless. But even with a different measure, like "commercially reasonable," I don't think there's any principled way of determining it. What people correctly Intuit is that no reasonable company would pay these sums of money for the NIL and promotional efforts of a mostly unknown college athlete. But how you sort what is a reasonable NIL payment from the bag portion is nearly impossible.
  23. Weird suicidal combo, Benadryl, Zyrtec, amphetamine, and booze. The amphetamine could have been adderall or meth or anything in between and would counteract the hypnotic allergy drugs and the booze. The upper/downer combo is long-term super harmful, but not usually a suicide cocktail. Depends on the proportions though. RIP.
  24. Also laughable to think the Trump administration will prosecute anyone except political enemies based on any of this, and only if the risk to Trump can be contained. Remember, Trump was a Democrat for most of this.
  25. Of course it does. But, these people are vetting strangers and using a very specific business model to evade renting and selling. It's not wholly private. Like the deed restrictions in Shelley v. Kraemer, which preceded the FHA, they're using state-sanctioned and enforced vehicles, in the form of LLCs, and, when push comes to shove, I think the scheme very well may be held unconstitutional and the LLC voided for violation of public policy. Of course, then they'd be left with just doing it on a lick and a promise, "hey whitey, for a nominal fee you can come live on muh patch," but I think that's going to end up less attractive.
×
×
  • Create New...