Jump to content

Keef

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    478
  • Joined

Posts posted by Keef

  1. 1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

    1. Yes.  See Mike Leach.  The universities pay buyouts because they don’t want other coaching candidates to get spooked, not because they actually have to pay.

    2. That’s a standard for cause definition. The university’s lawyers would be the ones getting raked over the coals if the definition didn’t include that language.

    Interesting, thanks.  So its all for show anyway.  And would differ with your view on #2, at least outside the governmental employer setting.

  2. Question for the Surly law dawgs - if a state university terminates you for Cause (as defined in an employment agreement) and the employee disputes the finding of Cause and sues the university, is the university protected under sovereign immunity in Texas?  Because you could drive a truck through the cause definition that has been shared and I'm curious why Beard's lawyer allowed so broad a provision.  He had all the leverage in the world when negotiating.  

  3. 29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    For those worried about nukes, The Drive talked to some experts.  They aren’t worried.   Whole article is worth a read, and not long. 

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/nuclear-experts-on-chances-of-russia-using-atomic-weapons-in-ukraine

     

    Did we read different articles?  About the only thing reassuring to me in there is the blurb that there isn't much strategic use for the tactical nukes in Ukraine, so it seems unlikely for Putin to use those.

  4. 1 hour ago, AUS-97HORN said:

    @Keef

     

    reread that tweet again, and again, and again.

     

    They just fucking said they arent stopping at the 4 Oblasts that they DONT EVEN FULLY CONTROL, they are going after every large city not named Kyiv to annex them... and then of course once they "have" those,  they will say they need Kyiv, and then they will say parts of Poland, and then, and then, and then, and then.

     

    THEY ARENT GOING TO FUCKING STOP CLAIMING LAND THAT ISN'T THEIRS.

    The only way this ends is Putin dying. and frankly at this point I dont give a fuck how he dies, a coup, an individual Oligarch, his entire motorcade blown to pieces, or his Sochi palace with him in it hit by every fucking Block II Tomahawk we have in the Air Force out of Aviano, ITA

     

    There are a lot of very legitimate reasons in this thread to take a hardline stance against Russia in this thread, but the Russian Scrubs guy said something crazy at a nationalist rally is not one of them.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 17 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

    What a Trumpesque quote about American history to equivocate Russia with the US. We're talking about a sovergn nation explicitly asking for help after a hypothetical nuclear attack.

     

    There is obviously no equating what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. what Putin is doing in Russia.  They are not moral equivalents, or even close to that.  But my point was we as a population got all riled up about two consecutive wars that, looking back on it, I have a hard time articulating real reasons why we were even there (especially Iraq).

    And the question that was posed was, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, should we escalate further (or even respond reasonably in kind, like by directly attacking Russian troops) and risk a global nuclear war.  I said no, for the reasons I articulated, and others said yes, for reasons (that are very good reasons) that I appreciate and understand.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    ….and none of that has one thing to do with the topic on the table. Apples and potatos. 

    Your stated theory is that Putin is crazy enough to use nukes in Ukraine and start a world nuclear war - but he would not dare attack a NATO ally.

    OK. 

    That's a fair critique.  What I'd say in response is that I think if Putin felt the walls were closing in domestically (dictators don't retire...), I think there's a non-zero chance he'd start a nuclear war to save face.  I don't think those pressures exist to attack a NATO member.

  7. 20 minutes ago, Deej said:

    Looking away from the shit Putin is trying to pull is not going to keep you safe. Trying to convince others to do so at this point reeks of Russian disinformation.

    I can arrive at the conclusion I don't want a global nuclear war all by myself, thanks.  I'm from west Texas, and I can vividly remember the rush up to the Afghanistan war and then the Iraq war (LOL) and how they were painted as moral inevitabilities.  A choice between good and evil.  I wasn't alive then, but I'm sure Vietnam was the same way.  America is my home and I love it, but we have our propaganda too. 

    Putin is an evil evil person, but there are lots of bad people in the world (see, Syria) that Americans don't whip themselves into caring about, and I don't view this an imperative thing for us to be involved in.  He's not going to invade a NATO country, and even if he was so inclined, Russia does not have the capacity to wage war on another country in the near future.  Whatever gains they hold onto in Ukraine (if any) are going to keep them plenty occupied for years to come.  So if I was in charge, which I'm not, we'd be staying out in any militaristic sense.

    I totally hear Underminer's point, and it's a good one.  I just view the risk of pushing your chips into the center of the table to neuter Russia as too high.  They've already done a lot of that job for us.  It'll take years for them to recover economically, politically (both domestically and internationally), and militarily from this huge gaffe.  

  8. 3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

    Calm down Deej, Neville Chamberlain isn't Russian

     

     

     

    but he does have bowel cancer. 

    If Hitler had nukes, we'd all be dead.  Neville Chamberlain was wrong at the time, clearly.  But we're playing with a different set of cards now.  Absent nukes, we absolutely would have been in a conventional war with Russia, probably several times over.  But nukes exist, and we haven't, and I would prefer that we continue to not be in a nuclear war with them.  

    • Fuck You 1
  9. Look I fully appreciate that this is a thread full of people perfectly willing to match Putin every turn in the hope of crippling Russia.  I understand the logic and the rationale.  I just don't agree with it, and would prefer we not mess with a cornered and crazed animal over cause that, while I sympathize with deeply, I also have no wish for us to be involved with.  Agree to disagree.

    • Fuck You 2
  10. 6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:
    2 hours ago, Keef said:
    I'm all for staring down Putin, standing up for Ukraine, etc.  But the ultimate goal of what we do should be this: do not end up a nuclear conflict.  If that means giving Russia the annexed lands, so be it.  I have no interest in America (and the world) being vaporized over a country half a world a way.  Putin needs an off ramp so he can save face, and I'm all for giving it to him.  I doubt that he's learned his lesson or anything, but the odds that he actually mount another land grab in his lifetime seems remote.  He doesn't have the political capital internally to do it.

    I’m reading this and getting an image of some 50 year old guy continuing to give up his lunch money to the grade school bully 40 years later.  Why? Because the ultimate goal is to not end up in a fistfight with a bully. Let’s just continue to give him my wallet every day and maybe sometime in the future he’ll leave me alone.

    He's not taking our lunch money.  Or even a close friend's lunch money.  He's taking the lunch money of a country that was part of Russia in my lifetime.  I'm all for taking every non-military measure in the book against Russia.  Decouple our economies.  Kick them of SWIFT.  Etc.  But the bottom line is nuclear war is the worst outcome from the whole world, and I do not support us being the world's police.  

    • Fuck You 18
  11. 2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    giphy.gif

    If he gets away with it in Ukraine he will absolutely try again elsewhere. All it would do is tell him that all he has to do is threaten to use Nukes and we will back down. 

    Are you willing to risk your entire family on that premise?  I'm not.  He's paid a grave price for his invasion of Ukraine.  Russia is a pariah, both economically and politically.  It's not near the price he deserved to pay, but it is a price, and once the seal is off a nuclear warhead, I think we're all toast.  If you don't die in the initial blast, you'll starve.  That's the choice we're looking at.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 8
  12. I'm all for staring down Putin, standing up for Ukraine, etc.  But the ultimate goal of what we do should be this: do not end up a nuclear conflict.  If that means giving Russia the annexed lands, so be it.  I have no interest in America (and the world) being vaporized over a country half a world a way.  Putin needs an off ramp so he can save face, and I'm all for giving it to him.  I doubt that he's learned his lesson or anything, but the odds that he actually mount another land grab in his lifetime seems remote.  He doesn't have the political capital internally to do it.

    • Fuck You 22
  13. 21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

    So nasty.  The populous is tremendously softer now. I think we see regional domestic terror increase in lieu of a civil war that looks anything like the OG 

    Yep.  This is where I land.

  14. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

    And if that happens, there will be blood in the streets.

    As there should be.

    What makes you say that?  Maybe this is my cold hard political heart talking, but I don't think a damn thing would happen.  To be sure, democrats would rage at CNN and google how to move to Canada, but I doubt there would be an ounce of real violence.  Similarly, democratic law makers would clutch their pearls and complain about norms being broken and the rule of law, but republicans would get away with it. 

    They literally stole a supreme court seat in front of God and everyone and did not pay a single political price for it.  Their base cheered.  There was an armed uprising against the government and, not only was Trump not prosecuted, there's a significant chance he's elected again.

    Someone posted a tweet a couple of days ago that compared republicans to the school shooter and democrats to the Uvalde cops.  It's the perfect metaphor.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 3
    • Rage+1 3
  15. 2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    They’re the Jackrabbits. 

    Yep.  

    And the rationale (as I remember it being explained to me) was that it prevented poor kids from feeling bad that they didn't have brand name clothes.  That seems a bit too liberal of explanation for the Forney I grew up in, but that was the party line.

  16. I went to Forney High School years ago.  They've had a dress code that was basically this as far back as I can remember (late 90s?).  People would try to get around having to wear a logoless polo by putting on a hoodie, jacket, etc.  Not sure why this is a news story now?

  17. Today was a horrible day for folks who care about the rights of women to choose what goes on in their own bodies and for people who care about a SCOTUS with any air of legitimacy.  That being said, can you imagine how much more volcanic it would have been had that draft opinion not been leaked?  People were ready for it and had already let off some steam.  A conservative judge leaked it - wouldn't be surprised if it was Roberts himself.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  18. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    it didn't help that the dems didn't really push the issue because they were cocky and assumed Hillary was going to win the election.

    This is also true.

×
×
  • Create New...