Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40753
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Leave. Take your hateful bitter shit out of here.
  2. More facile legal analysis. Second, Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12–13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.
  3. Yeah, that makes sense. A lot of "incidentals" to give away LDS membership. And it's probably pretty hard to be a nominal Mormon in that part of Utah.
  4. When you say "no religion," I'm assuming you mean nothing overtly "advertised." Or do you mean expressly disclaimed? That is unusual I think in that part of Utah, which is pretty heavily Mormon. But I'm not sure all Mormons "advertise." Especially in a heavily Mormon place.
  5. Maybe some weird bullpup thing in a small caliber, but not a bolt-action rifle if that reporting is accurate.
  6. Um, yeah, most apprehensions of criminals are happy accidents, maybe helped along a bit by dumbassedness on the part of the perp. See Luigi, see this guy. I didn't follow the Kohlberger thing that closely, but wouldn't be surprised if a simple traffic stop led to his arrest.
  7. Nintendo switch. Clearly not the stock of a rifle.
  8. You're making some weird, partially informed legal statements. Sup with that? What does the finder of fact have to do with a legal interpretation of an executive order? Why do you mention Amarillo, in the Northern District of Texas, when eaTme is in the Southern. Other than the presiding judge there? Why mention Tyler and Marshall, when one has a Trump appointee and the other Obama? You seem to suggest if there's a legal cause of action for this and there probably is, that it should be resolved in the most ideological courts in the nation.
  9. Do you even know how your team works? And, as a government institution, is governed by the First Amendment, which has considerably more force than an Executive Order, which has almost no force and in this case is no more than a statement of opinion.
  10. One other thing that I thought bizarre about Kirk-Newsom is that Kirk said two related things. First, he said Democrats (and he kept saying "Democrat party" where the addition of party dulls that a little bit but it's still that dumbass Democrat thing) didn't do long-form podcasts (that much is true). But he also said something to the effect that they lacked the intellect or flexibility to do so. And then went on to say there's no debate in the Democratic party. And went on to say there was healthy debate among Republicans. That was laughable bullshit. There was a takeaway from that though. Democrats have tons of internal debate, it's fractured as hell, it's just never resolved is the problem. Republicans get resolution in terms of whatever Trump wants. And it gets ignored when Trump flip flops on the resolution with the popularity wind and/or personal pique. He was very much a demagoguery enabler, if not a demagogue himself. Also very, very savvy about internet media. Related note. Just finished Careless People by accident. Trump's people manipulated Facebook in ways Facebook wasn't even aware of until after the fact, using its demographic tools to persuade and dissuade voters in the 2016 election. The Republicans have become extremely adept at using behind-the-scenes techniques to persuade and tilt the playing field in their favor, far far ahead of Democrats. Even still, without Trump's bizarre appeal to dumbasses, I don't think they are where they are.
  11. MIght want to revise that to Supreme Court. Because, again, the judicial branch is really the only thing standing in Trump's way. I don't love the Supreme Court. It has always been almost exclusively a political entity when it comes to political issues, ie Calvinball. They also happen to do regular, actual law. It just so happens that sometimes what people think is a nakedly political decision is really more of an application of law. Sometimes, more rarely, what appears to be a strictly or fairly "legal" decision is nakedly political. It has to be something of an accident, a lucky one for the right, that the Roberts court learned to use and abuse the shadow docket in favor of Trump/executive power. Because if and when these cases come up on the merits, and they do what they did on the shadow docket but with reasoning this time, shit's going to get even more unpleasant for them.
  12. I am intrigued by Oxbridge and that level of British education. From here, it seems to be more rigorous than US university education. But I can't really be sure. I work with Oxbridge educated lawyers on a pretty regular basis and they're sharp, no question, but I can't say moreso than US lawyers.
  13. https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022 One "flaw" I see is they are counting any murder committed by any extremist. Which literally fits the description, but is probably not what people expect that data reflects.
  14. Im me can't be anyone else. Kirk was sharp, no question. I think he was probably quite a savant on electoral politics. But on substantive ideas, he starts talking fast and spewing bullshit. Like on the trans issue, the words he said most were "chemical castration."
  15. He also spews a whole lot of bullshit. He does a more rational way than the usual TP or Charlie Kirk show, but its still bullshit.
  16. Im watching it. It is a reasonable discussion. Kirk has or had a habit of talking over Newsom. Which is something else I note from his interactions with others that I have seen.
  17. What strikes me after watching a few minutes of that is that they're not discussing issues, they're discussing electoral politics. I've been told that Charlie Kirk is kind and a sane debater. I have seen a lot of excerpts of the Charlie Kirk show and TP shit and there's no debate and little sanity. Also, I detest Newsom's hand gestures.
  18. First thing to note is that it is the Gavin Newsom show, not the Charlie Kirk show.
  19. I avoid video media mostly like the plague, especially that with an algorithm like YouTube, but I have never seen Charlie Kirk having a reasonable discussion with an opponent. I understand he and Newsom may have had one and that my exposure to him is mostly from here.
  20. That's really the scariest thing about a shit FBI. They are the domestic anti-spy, anti-terrorist organization with a substantial intel component. And I think these people are really suffering under the regime and the combined onslaught of Patel, Gabbard and the other clowns. Moreso than conventional law enforcement.
  21. That's the water faucet, it just goes south, to LA. But only if Trump turns it on.
  22. From a satellite, bro.
×
×
  • Create New...