Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    43135
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    236

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. The problem is, there's only one amount of power and control that he wants: ALL OF IT. Anything less means society is not giving him the due and respect that he deserves.
  2. And this. Painting a movement/position that you don't agree with as necessarily anti-semitic is not doing anyone, including you and your cause, any favors.
  3. The simple answer: you don't solve that VERY REAL problem with the boot of the government. You have to solve it by doing the work against it. And yes, I know that those things can fail, because THEY HAVE FAILED, AND THEY ARE FAILING. I have no problem with people on Jan 6th standing outside and protesting an election result they don't like. When they entered the Capitol, they should have been shot. But in between that is the problem with their message -- lies about election fraud, meant to undermine our entire civil society and government. We HAVE to fight back against those with everything we have. When you see nazis, you stand against them. Every time. You show society this is not okay, we do not condone it, we will stand and fight against that. I did just that a year or two ago when the nazis showed up in my neighborhood. I wanted my neighbors to know that they were not alone, and that we have their back. So I went out there with my own statements and sign, on my own. That was not an act of the government. It was an act of the people to take back our society. That's what we have to do. The nazis I protested were abhorrent slime. But I did not call the cops on them, nor would I have wanted that to happen, as they were being peaceful. Slimy and evil, but peaceful. We have to do the work. WE have to do the work.
  4. The answer is "yes, it would have been stated in the Constitution, like similar concepts are mentioned." That's a "strict textualist" approach, it's one of the canons of interpretation they are supposed to follow. The Alito wing will totally disregard that, because they are not actually "strict textualists." They are right-wing authoritarians, who are angry and want to get revenge on a society they feel has wronged them.
  5. Yep. The answer to "the prosecution of Trump is unprecedented" is "yes, because the utter disregard for the law by Trump is unprecedented."
  6. It's fact-specific. In other cases (state law cases), it is determined in the course of litigating the case itself. Here's a good example: Obama orders a drone strike on 3 dudes at a camp in Syria. Likely an official act. BUT...facts are introduced that 1) he had no intel informing him that these people were legit terror targets, and 2) he knew that one dude there was a dude to whom he owed a lot of money. So, the facts demonstrate that the POTUS didn't order a drone strike on an identified target, but rather used the weapons of the US to achieve an entirely personal purpose and in doing so, broke the law (murder). That's how the standard works for every other executive in the US, and we do just fine. And the standard Alito was arguing for would 100% permit a president who loses an election to order, and conduct, the assassination of the winning candidate before that person takes office....as well as killing the VP candidate, and all opposing party leadership. Indeed, nothing would stand in the way of the executive of a party (especially if the party controlled Congress, precluding impeachment) rounding up every member of the opposing party and executing them. As well as any stupid-ass judges who try to stand in his way. Alito is proposing an imperial, completely authoritarian presidency. These people are as anti-American as anyone in our history.
  7. Ding ding ding. Cops are PERFECTLY capable of conducting themselves like civilized beings. It just depends 100% on whether they like you. Which is bullshit.
  8. There are real examples of anti-semitic statements etc. from other demonstrations -- someone posted a photo yesterday where a protester somewhere else was carrying a sign with an israeli flag on it and suggesting a "Final Solution." It's a real thing, let's not be intellectually dishonest. NO, it's not necessarily the message. And NO, there is no evidence of any material openly anti-semitic signs or statements at the UT rally. But....EVEN IF THERE WERE....non-violent/non-threatening anti-semitism, or anti-muslim, or anti-gay, or anti-liberal, or anti-conservative, or anti-motherfuckers who serve red beans and rice without sausage when everyone knows red beans and rice comes WITH sausage, is 100% protected by the First Amendment and such speech cannot be repressed based on its content. LOATHSOME SPEECH IS PROTECTED. That's the whole fucking point. It's a really important point. Because I'm convinced that Donald Trump finds speech that says "Trump is a criminal unfit for office" is loathsome, and the jackboots should crack the skulls of anyone who says it. And I'm sure there are those on the left who find speech that says "vote Republican" loathsome, and pro-Republican demonstrators should be beaten. Fuck both of those positions. "I don't like the content/message" is never, ever, not even once, a justification for cracking down on a demonstration. If you don't like that, GTFO, because you are unwilling to follow one of our more essential foundational and formational values.
  9. Quoted and emphasized for spot-on truth. This is it. This is the rule.
  10. I won't rep you for this, because you've been a POS on this thread.....but a Blazing Saddles reference really should get rep.
  11. This. Be prepared. But that doesn’t mean “squash a peaceful protest because maybe possibly it could turn into something else.” That’s not how the First Amendment works.
  12. Once they got rid of the bar at the corner of old Love Field, the best bar in Texas, love was dead to me. Just another sterile modern airport now.
  13. I think it’s pretty plain. Most of us have observed that the horseshoe theory on antisemitism is in play: we have a strong strain of it on the right, including among sitting members of Congress, advising members of the Texas state govt, Nazis marching, etc. And we see it on the left, as there is an undeniable strain of it present among SOME of the pro-Palestine crowd. What’s clear is that when our state leadership says “we won’t tolerate anti-semitism,” what they MEAN is “we won’t tolerate anti-semitism from the left….but from the right, it’s a-ok, because we need those votes.” They’ve made that fucking transparent as hell.
  14. Why should he resign? He’s a hero to the governor and the BOR. He’s locked himself into the job for years to come. He played it perfectly if he wanted to 1) secure his job, and 2) demonstrate total contempt for the people (to be fair, item 2 is how you accomplish item 1).
  15. That word still terrifies me. I know how to say it. I use it. But if I ever READ it, my brain first reads the wrong pronunciation. So I never write it on anything I’ll have to read aloud (like notes for an oral argument in court), because I’m afraid I’ll read and say it wrong before my brain can correct itself.
  16. It’s nearly impossible to draw the line in the abstract. The answer is “it depends.” Yes, physically hurting someone is over the line. Brandishing weapons may well be over the line (although our governor and his buddies have so protected that, that about the only time you can deem someone carrying an AR to be a threat is after he starts shooting. Unless he’s black to brown, of course). And yes, words can be over the line, but that’s where it gets tough. Painful speech, speech that makes people feel bad, feel worthless, is not necessarily outside first amendment protection. It sucks. I hate it. But the law allows many things I really don’t like. If those words are directed to terrorize, threaten, and the like, then they may be actionable under the law. I know that’s not the answer you want. It’s not an answer that makes me happy. But in order to protect all speech, essential speech, the law must protect abhorrent speech.
  17. Simo Häyhä sends his warmest regards to his Russian friends. He sends those regards 175 grains at a time.
  18. But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED. Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them. Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims. That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views. I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent. Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America." It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series. I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series. ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must. SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors. But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university. That's a big difference.
  19. Ummmm.....show me the problem here? It's perfectly fine for any group to tell the university "this shit/that shit doesn't belong here. You shouldn't sponsor it it." Put the complaint on the desk, let the university consider it and act/not act. That's how the process works. The Palestine in Austin committee can make the ask/demand - as is their right. The university can weigh their ask, considering constitutional factors, and the university's mission (I note the distinction here -- the presentation at issue was not a public protest, but rather a SPONSORED lecture put on by the university. So....there's a difference between speech the university allows (and must allow) vs. speech that the university endorses). In any case, let them bitch to the university. If the university thinks they have a good point, then the university can cancel the lecture If the university doesn't agree, then the lecture stays, and the PIA folks are free to protest, peacefully. That's how this works. America, the Constitution, all that. If these guys were demanding that the university not ALLOW a jewish group to march, speak, etc., because of the CONTENT of that message, they'd be in the wrong. They can still make the demand, of course. It's just that it should be summarily rejected.
  20. Yes....if only there was a trail of past actions of the folks who submitted those affidavits, DPS officers, with which to discern.....hmmmm. "DPS says it, I believe it." That's not something to put on one's resume. Unless you're applying to join the new gestapo, I guess. Oh, and again, based on your stated standard, we need to shut down having crowds at UT football games, right? I mean, we KNOW that there will be lots of lawlessness among that group of miscreants, why wait until they actually do something? Let's nip it in the bud, and just get all of those assholes off our campus. That's your rule. Let's apply it.
  21. Being that the probable cause affidavits on over 80% of the arrests (so far) look to have been bullshit....I wouldn't hang my hat on "they were bad guys because the cops say they were bad guys." And who gives a fuck if they were confrontational? Being an asshole isn't a violation of the law (the fact that most all Surly posters walk free is testament to that). If they committed an illegal act, then they should be arrested and face valid charges. See, that's still the whole, entire point. You don't get to fucking crush an entire protest of thousands of people because, say, 25 shitheels are in there. Nope. What do you do? You arrest the 25 shitheels. And it these guys were indeed shitheels....and they indeed got arrested, groovy. That STILL doesn't translate to "shut down the whole thing, including the thousands of people who aren't doing anything wrong." Fuck, by YOUR standards, we should ban people attending UT football games (studies show that at D1 CFB games, there are usually around 60 arrests....MORE THAN WE EVEN SAW HERE, AT THIS LAWLESS MELEE!!!) That's right. We KNOW that at these rowdy, wild gatherings, typically 60 people (maybe more -- the cops really can't get to ALL the troublemakers) commit arrestable offenses. Since the standard of "dozens of people in attendance will break the law" is what we apply to declare gatherings unlawful and shut them down, the only rational choice is to shut down attendance at all D1 football games. We've established the rule, you celebrate it. Fine. Let's apply it.
  22. The State of Texas established that I get to be a loquacious blowhards on all public lawns. All we gotta do is eminent domain yours, and I'm back in business.
  23. PTINS' boss hired PTINS. His boss's idiocy has already been established. You'd just be pouring salt in the wound. Have you no decency?
  24. This. All of this. I love the classic "outside agitators." It's one of the laziest fascist tropes out there, and you trot it out shamelessly. You know why non-students were there? Because our right-wing government thought it was so important that non-students be allowed to use the public spaces of this state - expressly including college campuses - to state their views, THAT THEY PASSED A SPECIAL LAW ENSURING THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. They were on campus the same reason any other citizen might be on campus: to state their views and peaceably assemble. What's that you say? Some of them may have been intended to engage in non-peaceful activities? Cool. Then the second that they do something that makes it clear that non-peaceful action is imminent, arrest them. But you don't ever, never ever ever, get to arrest someone for what they MIGHT MAYBE DO. The Bureau of Pre-Crime ain't a thing.
  25. Jesus. Tapdancing. Christ. Way to make my point. We are talking about GOVERNMENT action, which actually happened, to restrain speech. That's what the fucking First Amendment is about. No shit, your boss can fire you for what you say. BUT THE STATE CANNOT BEAT YOU UPSIDE THE HEAD FOR WHAT YOU SAY. THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. Then pay the fuck attention to the fucking law. You know, the one that our governor -- who just openly attacked speech BECAUSE OF ITS CONTENT -- signed: That "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression?" It ain't some hippie dippie commune. It's a right-wing group. How 'bout that? Some folks - with whom I disagree on many things - get free speech right. And I will damned well defend their right to gather and speak in ALL COMMON OUTDOOR AREAS OF MY UNIVERSITY. Of course they are. But that is not a pre-emptive right. If you shoot a guy walking by your car because "the #1 precursor to someone stealing your car is them walking up to it," you're going to fucking prison (well, probably not in Texas, and certainly not if the dude you shoot is brown or black). You don't get to crack skulls because someone MIGHT be a threat. Read the citation to the law above. If Trump wanted to give a speech and hold a rally in common areas of the university, so long as he did not use artificial amplification so as to disturb classes, IT WOULD BE 100% LEGAL AND ALLOWED. And if my university or governor sent in jackboots to crack the skulls of peaceful Trump rally attendees, listening to Trump yell his inanities and lies, I would be just as angry and outraged as I am today. Because the law and the Constitution apply to all of us, regardless of whether we agree with the content of the speech or not. And in Texas, every person....every single one....is allowed to speak freely and assemble in common areas of the university, so long as they aren't violent, threatening harm to others, or impeding the rights of others (they can't actually block a roadway on campus, for example....they can march down a pedestrian roadway, they just can't blockade it). You're a jackboot, and you support fascism. You don't get to beat up the dirty hippies just because you don't like them, or because they MIGHT do something that breaks the law, and I know that's a possibility because one time I saw another hippie break the law. By that argument, we get to have the DPS shoot anyone wearing khakis in the face, right? Because we once saw a group wearing those do some bad things....
×
×
  • Create New...