Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    43402
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    238

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. The best part of post strings like chupa’s last few is that he thinks they make him look good/tough/alpha male. Gotta tell ya, gives me a good Monday evening chuckle.
  2. I mean....how is ANY red-blooded male supposed to resist such sexy talk? "Secret informant love?" HAWT.
  3. But....you shop at the same places.....
  4. It won't be in DC. It will be in states where they can intimidate/pressure the legislature to engage in electoral vote shenanigans. The answer, of course, is the same, whether it's in DC or Atlanta: people who engage in a violent insurrection intended to overthrow the government should be shot dead. Until they stop trying to overthrow the government, keep shooting.
  5. But wait, I'm not sure I understand you. I mean, how ELSE am I gonna impress the hell out of such a gal, who is totally real, so she will show me a picture of boobs that are totally hers and then fly to where I live and have all the sex with me? Huh? Yeah, you didn't think of that, did you Mr. Smart Guy?
  6. We shoulda just gone with this bad boy:
  7. It all just boils down to this. We are reflexively lurching backwards. For a brief window of time, we were decent to women, minorities, queers. We can't have that now, can we? Gotta go back in time: make being assholes great again!
  8. This is what will happen. It's going to be Trump insiders. There will be no spine. The RNC will be the embodiment of servile gelatinous ooze.
  9. Not saying I wouldn't try it....but I too have never seen it. Now....fried okra dipped in cream gravy? Hells yes.
  10. Yahweh....Yesway....potato, potahto....
  11. All I know is that William has been able to hang out and enjoy some guilt-free pegging from his mistress while Kate's away, so good for Will!
  12. Look, man....I got distracted by the prospect of a soul food Christmas dinner, and you aren't gonna get me to take my eyes off the prize.
  13. So.....are you familiar with the MAGAt movement?
  14. You know me, I'm one for the classics and sticking with what works.
  15. I'm more of a limerick guy, but damned if I can start with "there once was a man from Nantucket" and turn it into something on the lack of hope for peace in the Levant.
  16. We don't disagree -- perhaps my last para was inartful/incomplete. IF the conclusion is that the execution of sec. 3 of the 14th is up to Congress, then we are in this dilemma. And the majority decided that it is. Thus, here we are.
  17. I know that you take the fact that I am not 100% on board with your "Free Palestine, they are the good guys!" take means that I am inherently "Western media swallowed" (nevermind that I cited multiple times to Al Jazeera coverage, which I have watched and read for years, as just one example)....I've been pretty clear that Israel's hands "are and remain super unclean." I mean, I literally said that exact thing mere days after the attacks. Here's just a few of my snipped replies by date -- please point out for me the theme of how I am materially weighted towards Israel? I mean, other than the fact that in the present context...Hamas was the aggressor, and Israel was the attacked entity. I mean, re: October 7....yeah....I tilt Israel's way in terms of that event, and there being a justification for response (not the one that followed, but a response nonetheless). I still see two sides in the conflict that are presently operating under the umbrella of their most bellicose elements. On Oct. 7th, Hamas's actions had the greatest unclean hands. Since then, Israel's actions have had the greatest unclean hands. I still see no way out. I see two fires burning with incredible intensity. There is no putting them out. And yes, fighting about who is more justified in wanting to continue to exist, weighed against who has committed how many awful acts against the other, will never ever yield a positive solution. Either the two sides fight to final extinction, or they accept a pragmatic solution that has an eye towards future peaceful existence instead of an eye backwards towards past wrong/grievance. Those are the choices. And the choice has been made. Death and extinction it is. Everyone loses.
  18. I assure you that my half-assed thoughts are mine alone. And yes, I've grown increasingly frustrated and angry with Israel's response since it began. Are we not supposed to adjust our thinking and opinions based on continuing developments? Although I'm pretty sure that my responses in the week or so after October 7th included some version of the phrase "measured/targeted response." But I haven't taken the time to go back and dig through the threads. Oh, I've also learned a lot by watching the tennis match between the two "sides" on this thread. Yeah, it's pretty fucking clear that one contingent....even though they pay minimal lip service to Israel's right to exist....view Israel primarily as evil colonizers who really should accede to circumstances that would lead to extinction of the state and massive violence against the jews within it. And it's also pretty fucking clear that the other contingent views the Palestinians as evil mooslem animals who all like beheading infidels, so someone might as well wipe 'em off the map. Sue me for being disgusted with both.
  19. As to your first sentence, it's a false premise -- although its falsity shouldn't change the calculus in this case. Whether we like it or not, Hamas is the representative government of the residents of Gaza. It's support went UP after the October 7th attacks. It's a big fucking problem for Gaza....just like it's a big fucking problem for Israel that it has chosen a government that is the most bellicose, uncompromising, genocidal government they could select. Yes, a large plurality of Israelis do not support Bibi's government....but enough of them have over the years to empower it, and a large plurality LIKES what the government is doing. I noted it in an earlier discussion -- it really only takes around 30% of the population to opt for the shittiest, bloodiest of paths, to send a state/government down that path. Gaza's path has been tied to Hamas and is still tied to Hamas. That's fucking bad. As bad as Israel's path being tied to Bibi's government. As to your second sentence, I'm all about it. I agree, that's what should have been done: limited broad military action (I'd allow for limited airstrikes and cross-border combined arms assaults, but with discretion and specific targeted purpose and yield, but we'd really only be quibbling about the methodology for "tracked and hunted strategically."). Because the "bomb the shit out of everything" approach is shit from every angle: it's chock-full of war criming, it's not particularly effective at rooting out Hamas, and it is cementing Israel's status as a global pariah (is that standard evenly applied? Of course not. E.g., Iran says Israel is evil for bombing civilian areas, as it happily supplies Russia with weapons to do just that. But, of course, as noted above by @RomaVicta, we suffer from the same inconsistency: condemning bombing of civilians in Ukraine, while supplying Israel hardware to do just that in Gaza. Regardless of whether you think Israel's war against Gaza is just vs. Russia's unjust invasion, knowing what Israel is doing and will do with our weapons makes us culpable). But @RomaVicta, my "accusation of lack of imagination for presenting a solution to how Israel should deal with Hamas" stands. The world (especially including those parties critical of Israel today) missed the opportunity to set the tone and expectations. A clear and simple statement to the effect of "Israel has a right to defend itself from these horrific attacks and the continuing threat from Hamas as an armed threat. Israel should exercise that right with necessary force, tempered with the restraint necessary to protect all civilians in Gaza. Its response should be targeted and methodical, waged against Hamas operatives only, while minimizing the risk/harm to civilians. That may take time and patience, but the requirement that civilians not be unduly harmed requires that patience. We will support Israel in such effort. We will not support Israel waging war against civilian populations" would have gotten out in front of shit and set a standard that Israel could then be called out on, cleanly and unambiguously, when it violated them. We told you the conditions for our support. You violated them. We do not support you in doing so. The fact that the debate has descended to where it always does -- whose long-term grievances are the most meritorious?...is why nothing ever gets fixed. Is it the grievances of the Palestinians, who have chosen terrorism and violence over and over....but who have also eaten a shit sandwich in the region since 1948? Is it Israel and the jews, who have chosen genocidal tactics and exclusionary expansion instead of a path of peaceful co-existence.....but who have also been under constant attack/threat since their founding, and if you are to characterize them as "colonizers," how would one characterize the millions of Israelis who were expelled from other states and have no "colonizing country of origin" to return to? We're never going to settle that argument. People are entrenched, they will not move, and that is that. Israel is an evil colonizer. Palestinians are brutal animals. And on and on, no minds will change. So maybe that's a pointless fucking debate to have. Skip it. Figure out how a path of belligerence can become one of non-belligerence. That's the best we can do. And yeah, I'm disappointed that nobody seems to be pushing it very hard. Maybe the US admin is making some tiny progress behind the scenes, but I'll believe it when I see it.
  20. Say what you will....but I bet the spread they put out at that fake holiday party was fucking DELICIOUS.
  21. Correct. That's why the optimum strategy when subjected to violence outside/above the law is to respond with immediate and brutal counter-violence. We should have mowed down insurrectionists with belt-fed .50 cals, and had law enforcement storm the White House to shut his ass down. But humans are loathe to think creatively, and to do what is oh-so-distasteful. Because the truth is that once one side puts you in a position where the only rational response is counter-violence, then everyone has already lost. All it takes is for one side to shit in the punch bowl, then the punch is turned into shit punch for everyone.
  22. What everyone is skipping is that societies and cultures have LONG had a script for how to handle people who would upend the system by opting out of/doing an end-around on the rule of law. It's a very simple script. It has been written in blood, time and time again. The rule of law is, ultimately, ill-equipped to handle bad actors with sufficient power who simply say "naaah, don't think I'm gonna buy into that 'follow the law' shit." That means that the players have opted out of the rule of law, and the solutions it can impose. That's okay. That opt-out simply means an opt-in to the alternative system. Here is how THAT system works: That simple, binary choice: if you opt out of the rule of law, then you have necessarily opted in to rule of the gun, is the very fucking thing that many of us (ledge dwellers) have been sounding the alarm about for pushing 10 years now. That's the entire point. We're busy arguing whether the penalty should be clipping or unsportsmanlike conduct on the dude who just pulled a gun on the field and shot the opposing RB. The system of rules and yellow flags and 15 yard penalties is not equipped to handle a LB who pulls a gun and shoots opposing players. The only system that is equipped to handle that is a system of "meet lawlessness with lawlessness." Which is, again, why much of our alarmist shouting has been at the fucking GQP voters who are CHOOSING this. "Please don't choose this path, this is how it fucking ends, every fucking time!" has fallen on deaf ears. We apparently are intent on fully FA, so we can fully FO.
  23. I know that people say that. But what they have consistently refused to say is what Israel should do/should have done in response. It’s easy to say “well…not what they’re doing.” But if your position is NOT “oh well, Hamas gets away with Oct 7, so sad too bad,” then you would get credibility if you suggested a meaningful course of action for Israel. And again, pushing that query does not excuse or absolve Israel for the overreach and atrocities of its current campaign in Gaza - I’m just suggesting that a credible position is one that says “Israel should have done X, instead of the Y it is doing.” Understand that most of us are pretty much out of sympathy for either “side,” broadly speaking, in this conflict. The actions of the chosen and supported leadership for each have opted for the most bellicose path, time after time.
  24. The logic is there on the broad administration of elections question, but when you drill down to look at the authority on how states can administer the specific exclusion found in sec 3 of the 14th amendment, the precedent from the period after enactment is pretty on-point for the proposition that states applied it to elections for state office, and the feds had the power to apply it to federal offices. The answer to the “how did this work in its original context?” question strongly points to this outcome. And yes, it’s a hole/weakness in our system. If we survive the Trump period, it’s something that a future government will need to try to address. Of course, legislative fixes are a lot like military strategy: you spend all of your energy gearing up to fight the previous war, not the future one you just didn’t see coming. We’re seeing that in real-time. We have laws and such addressing insurrection, but they are built to address the situation after the Civil War, not the rise of a popular autocrat. Shit, our founding fathers said that impeachment was the failsafe…but our failsafe has failed.
  25. Just read the opinion. It's both good and bad. Good: it reached the correct ultimate result, based on some pretty sound reasoning. That reasoning being that Section 3 of the 14th amendment did not grant to individual states the ability to enforce Section 3 against candidates for FEDERAL office. It granted states the power to do so re state office, but not federal. The power to apply Section 3 to candidates for federal office lies solely with the federal government. Bad: the opinion unnecessarily BEYOND what is stated above, and states an unnecessarily proscriptive interpretation of Article 5, which grants Congress the power to to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The majority (read: all the conservatives except ACB) lays out a detailed set of requirements for such legislation, putting restrictions and requirements in place that did not need to be there. To her credit ACB's concurrence said that 1) she agreed with the outcome, 2) because Section 3 didn't grant any power to the states, and that's where the opinion should have ended -- leave out the pointless dicta. The 3 liberal justices voiced a similar concern, in more detail. What the whole saga really demonstrates is that even our post-Civil War amendments don't sufficiently account for the problem of what to do if the insurrectionists control Congress...which is the present case. The weakness is that the 14th amendment lets the fox guard the henhouse in that circumstance. We are in the middle of another Civil War, it's just that few people have actually acknowledged it.
×
×
  • Create New...