Posts posted by Brisketexan
-
-
-
He is a role model, though. What kind of pandering to Gen Z men would you have preferred? Keep in mind that, no matter what, the right-wing propaganda machine is going to have a problem with it and continue its appeal to their resentment.
Yep. My gen z son liked Tim because…that’s the kind of men he’s had modeled for him (not just by me - by all the men he’s been around, hunting, tailgating, building a deer blind, rigging up a tractor, doing a church service project, disaster relief work, etc). He IS a man’s man.
And funny enough, in terms of “modeling things that help young men get laid,” my son assures me the Walz model puts him light years ahead of his competition. Confident, competent men who treat people with the decency that a non-fragile man who isn’t trying to project false bravado can bring to bear…well, they can get all the dates they can handle.
We’re failing our young men because what we’re modeling for them as a society makes things worse for them, not better. It makes them LESS successful, and LESS desirable. -
Pew Research estimates the number of illegal aliens in the US to be 11 million, so yes, Laura is just counting all Latinos.
Because…and this is very, very important, and very, very true…it’s not about legal status. And never was. It’s about purging an entire ethnicity as “not real Americans.” The veil is gone, the justification has been dispensed with. It is about ridding this country of ALL dirty browns. It always has been, they’re just being honest now.
A Hispanic person voting for a Republican is empowering your own executioner. It’s suicidal. -
Someone who lived in London used to be a regular on the board. It seems like he disappeared.
I lived there for 2 years although it was roughly 20 years ago. The constant low cloud ceiling bothered me so probably the advice that first comes to mind is if you see the sun shining, go outside because chances are it'll be gone in an hour.
Daughter was just sharing the London mixed bag today. Yesterday was beautiful and sunny, she and a friend walked the city, went thrifitng, great day. Today…a damn half marathon through her hood, she went to Stratford, and now has to muscle through 9 million people to get home, packed streets. -
-
46 minutes ago, JMFP said:
(5) covered by motor vehicle liability coverage or self-insurance in an amount equal to the amount of coverage that is required under the laws of this state.
I expect Elon to go the self-insured route.
....and to deny and contest all claims. Because you thought insurance companies were dicks about denying claims, wait until you meet Elon Insurance.
-
18 minutes ago, TexArcher said:
I would 100% rather have Col. Jessup as President.
At least he is honest about what he is.
Zero kidding here -- I'd absolutely prefer Col Jessup. Because, while he was completely wrongheaded about it, his motivation at least included a genuine goal of protecting the country. Col. Jessup wasn't looking out for Col. Jessup (well, not only looking out for himself), he genuinely intended to serve the greater good, even if his vision of how to do so was twisted.
There is not a single atom of Donald Trump that is not singularly focused on feeding his selfish ends.
-
-
11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
We can probably stop taking this thread off topic, but if the bolded language above doesn’t concisely describe a profession in ethical crisis I don’t know what could.
And...this is where you circle back to the point I made above, and have been making for 10+ years now: THE RULE OF LAW IS MADE UP. IT IS JUST AN AGREEMENT. AND WHEN ONE SIDE OPTS OUT, IT'S OVER. THERE'S NO SAVING IT.
Trying to use "the Rule of Law" to save.....The Rule of Law, which has ALREADY been taken out back and summarily executed....well, it's exactly as pointless as it reads. Demanding that our profession save something that society already killed is fucking maddening. We are supposed to fight the death of something using the thing that is already dead. The thing is, many of us ARE charging into the breach with our cardboard sword and shield. You should just set your expectations accordingly.
-
-
-
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:
Who are the most popular democrats right now?
I'd guess AOC and Buttigieg, the same ones are actually, forcefully, calling out R's bullshit the loudest. Not a coincidence imo.
There are no popular democrats right now.
Seriously. The "most popular" democrats right now have slightly more support and popularity than the "most popular Surly posters." And about as much significance on the national stage.
The GQP propaganda efforts worked. All Dems are literal demons who drink the blood of children and require schoolkids to undergo gender reassignment surgery at random over the lunch hour.
-
9 minutes ago, Nivek said:
I can’t tell if this is true or not.It's true. The ONLY financial requirement is that the car/owner carry the liability insurance minimums required by the state. That's it.
QuoteSec. 545.453. OPERATOR OF AUTOMATED MOTOR VEHICLE. (a) When an automated driving system installed on a motor vehicle is engaged:
(1) the owner of the automated driving system is considered the operator of the automated motor vehicle solely for the purpose of assessing compliance with applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle while the vehicle is operating; and
(2) the automated driving system is considered to be licensed to operate the vehicle.
And
(b) An automated motor vehicle may not operate on a highway in this state with the automated driving system engaged unless the vehicle is:
(1) capable of operating in compliance with applicable traffic and motor vehicle laws of this state, subject to this subchapter;
(2) equipped with a recording device, as defined by Section 547.615(a), installed by the manufacturer of the automated motor vehicle or automated driving system;
(3) equipped with an automated driving system in compliance with applicable federal law and federal motor vehicle safety standards;
(4) registered and titled in accordance with the laws of this state; and
(5) covered by motor vehicle liability coverage or self-insurance in an amount equal to the amount of coverage that is required under the laws of this state.
That's it. Can each car be "owned" by a single-asset entity? You bet your ass. Does that entity need to have a human being who has legal, even criminal, responsibility? Nope. Does that entity need to have a penny to its name other than 1) the car, and 2) the minimum insurance policy? Also nope.
Each car is a judgment proof death machine carrying jack shit in insurance: "Texas law requires you to have at least $30,000 of coverage for injuries per person, up to a total of $60,000 per accident, and $25,000 of coverage for property damage. This is called 30/60/25 coverage."
An Elon Death Taxi can kill you dead, and your family gets $30k. So sorry!
-
1 hour ago, Pancho said:
This bill failed in committee voting with 5 radical r’s voting no
....because it isn't draconian ENOUGH. It doesn't END Medicaid. It doesn't budget $50 trillion to ICE. It doesn't cut taxes for the wealthy ENOUGH.
The modern GQP is the perfect blend of "the opposite of fiscal conservatism, but also over-the-top cruel and destructive to humanity."
-
11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
But the bar chooses who can and can’t practice.
Sounds great. But it's a bit different than your Dr. example. I'll cite you to the law -- the law of unintended consequences.
"Make it easier to get rid of bad lawyers." And "We define 'bad lawyers' as lawyers who act to undermine the rule of law."
Sounds good.
Until the Bar, which absolutely can (and in numerous instances and locations, has been) trumped, usurped, and/or made subject to state law. As in....Dan Patrick and crew are now going to define what "undermining the rule of law" is. And that definition will pretty much be "taking any position that opposed Trump/MAGA."
Don't create a nuke that is just going to end up in the hands of the other side. And it WILL end up in their hands (FFS, they're using the weapons they have -- and even weapons they don't actually legally have -- to go directly after lawyers who have dared piss off the regime).
There are very, very, very good reasons to make it very, very, very hard to disbar an attorney for taking a politically unpopular position (and one would hope "trying to destroy the Republic and the rule of law" is such a position). That's because opposing politicians can and absolutely will, with 100% certainty, use such a tool to disbar attorneys for taking the unpopular position of "making America more dangerous by representing dirty illegals who are all rapists and criminals," and "undermining the will of the people by opposing the edicts of our King and Savior, His Majesty Donald Trump."
There is no good or easy answer here. I agree that lawyers who support the admin in undermining the rule of law are betraying at least the spirit, if not the letter of their oath. But understand that right now, no question about it, the regime and its allies think the opposite: lawyers who have opposed the regime are acting in an "un-American" manner and should be punished and taken out of action. It is ALREADY weaponized. My suggestion is....we shouldn't hand them upgraded weaponry so they can finish the job.
-
-
18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:
Pssstttt.....there are no "normies." Not anymore.
Just psychopaths/sociopaths, those who are under their spell, and sane people who are frozen and feel helpless because we don't know how to speak even base-level "absolute nutbar batshittery."
-
18 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:
I believe I understand your viewpoint on most issues in 2025. I've shared on other FDA and UHC related threads that I have a good deal of experience getting medical devices cleared by FDA. It is very frustrating and not efficient. A typical FDA review panel assigned to a new product submission is composed of a manager (usually 5-10 years experience but looking to escape to pharma/med device as a VP of Regulatory), a couple senior reviewers (30-65 yo lifers that got hired by FDA out of school and never left for whatever reason), and a couple junior scientists (the new hires with <5 years experience). Rarely do any of them have industry experience or perspective. They lean hard on testing precedent when it's outdated, but also apply new (more difficult to pass) standards on new products. What's worse is they keep products on the market that were previously approved under old standards and permit companies with old products to piggy back approvals of their products under the old standards. The FDA reviewers consider themselves thoughtful scientists, and often ask for additional studies, experiments, and data that are irrelevant to the product approval or indicated uses. In almost every product submission, there has been a negotiation on sample size and time duration because the FDA has no concern over a product's need on the market or the R&D expenses required for their additional asks. Brisket and thunderlounge took my post as naively supporting big pharma, when the current system favors big pharma over the startups and small companies.
I believe you - truly, I do. I have navigated more than a few inefficient/ineffective bureaucratic systems in my day (for myself and for clients).
My stand here is a direct one, and is consistent with one I took long ago in opposing a light rail proposal in Austin that would have (and eventually did) put the program under CapMetro's control: I don't oppose the concept, and agree there is a need for (better transit operations, a better system at FDA, what have you)....I just oppose 100% any plan to put these people in charge of doing it.
Any actions taken by this regime in this field will serve one purpose, and one purpose only: faster and easier funneling of dollars to billionaires. And the other side of that coin is just as true: that will always come at the expense of everyone else, including smaller enterprises, consumer/patient safety, and the like.
You know it's true. Any "improvement" will be incidental, confined to small parts of the process, and will be dwarfed by the bigger mission of "complete regulatory capture performed on behalf of the oligarchs who own the regime."
-
17 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:
Maybe AI will be better at statistical analysis than the frustrated scientist lifers at FDA so Phase II and III clinical trials could require fewer subjects or shorter time points, thus less expense and time to market.
How that will work...
Pharmaceutical executive, who likely also happens to be embedded in the current presidential administration: "We ran our new drug, HelpsIngrownToenailsButMakesYourDickFallOff, through an AI trial, and it came out just fine and practically no imaginary test subject's dick fell off. You can trust us, and our AI engine, the Aways-Approve-o-Max 5000."
-
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:
Could have used some of this in the last election. "We're not the ones pushing the culture war garbage. They are. Seen a Trump ad recently?"
"I am an ACTUAL believer in freedom and liberty. And that means....leave people the fuck ALONE. I don't care how your neighbor worships -- you don't either. I don't care what color your neighbor is -- you don't either. I don't care what language your neighbor spoke as a kid -- you don't either. I believe what you do: that we should all have good education, real opportunity, and real freedom. The only time the government should knock on your door is to deliver the mail or help after a disaster, NOT with jackboots and facemasks because somebody wants to score political points by being a fucking dick."
-
38 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:
Calling them "weird" seemed effective while we were in a Biden administration with an upcoming election and a decision for voters.
Now that Trump/Republicans are actually back in power and implementing their plan, "weird" isn't good enough. What they are doing is cruel. Work off of that.
Maybe the problem is using pussy-ass weak language. Weird. Cruel. Fuck that.
I just want one person to take to a podium, and say "These people are fucking dicks. My rule is simple -- don't be a fucking dick. I'm running to be your president. To lead the country. Not to be a fucking dick. Imagine what a fucking dick would do -- I'll do the opposite of that. A fucking dick would turn this country over to billionaires, screwing over you, the American people. I won't do that. A fucking dick will violate the law, claiming that he's just going to do it to hurt some bad people, but then he hurts you. I won't do that. Our grandparents saved the world from fucking dicks. We landed on beaches and shot fucking dicks. We dropped atomic bombs on fucking dicks. Be an American, fighting for what's right for the American people. Don't be a fucking dick."
Repeat. Non-stop. Make CNN bleep you out 40 times per interview. GO ON THE ATTACK. RELENTLESSLY, AGGRESSIVELY, AND NON-FUCKING-STOP.
-
-
11 minutes ago, dcbc said:
We'd be lost in a straightforward PI case against a robot car and its in'cel master.
Especially considering the fact that 1) the Texas legislature has passed a law trumping any and all other regulation of driverless cars, and specifies that "the owner of the car" will have the same liability as the driver, and 2) the owner of every individual Robo-Tesla is guaranteed to be a single-asset LLC, something like "Owner of Robo-Tesla #356, LLC".....there will be nobody to send to jail, and no real money to pay for any damage they cause. File suit against that entity? Cool, it's immediately transferred to bankruptcy court, because that entity is now insolvent.
-
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:
No, see, this political movement is all about "draining the swamp," and "taking power back from the elites and giving it to the people." Did you not get the memo? That's totally happening, for real. Yeah....this is definitely NOT a classic trojan horse move on their part, not at all....move along, nothing to see here.

Austin FC
in Futbol
My wife is all about “they aren’t playing together as a team.” I’m all about “nobody in this world is better at killing their own momentum than this team.” They get an advantage or breakaway…and if it’s not PERFECT….they seize up and start back-passing, killing any scoring chance they may have had. It’s MADDENING. It’s a cousin of how our forwards insist on 4 touches at the goal when a one-touch flick, imperfect as it may be, could score.