Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, UpperWestside said:

...and doctors and psychologists in other countries that fund scientific research will be studying this for decades.

FIFY.

Heard that NSF laid off another round of employees. Academia is facing some very real very bleak problems given that most states have reduced their portions of higher ed support. An MD-Phd scholar cannot rely on NIH funding for mental health as that was one of the areas with cuts. In the state of Texas, it is the teaching portion of the trifecta (teaching, academic research, and service) that brings in dollars and one of the reasons why tuition grew so high when the state cut out its support. However, what the *research grants fund are not insignificant and not meant to imply that there is no economic benefit to the universities, the local communities, the states, and the nation (not to mention the world at large).

*Salaries (for post-doctoral positions, lab managers, PhD candidates, etc), supplies, equipment (this is often a pooled shared resource to save start-up funds), and doesn't include the cut off the top that the institution takes for utilities, maintenance, staff support, and so on.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Organizations build cultures over time and culture is powerful. There is a reason for example, that the Red Army was a target and not a tool of repression. 
 

DHS and ICE are uniquely suited for being tools of abuse. 
 

We are not that far away in time from when FBI agents only wore white dress shirts.  Hoover certainly abused liberties, but he built the bureau into one of the most trusted and elite institutions in America.  You cannot imagine Hoover’s G-Men wearing balaclavas and disappearing people. Subsequent reforms made it hard for them to return to freelancing.  It attracts a better class of person with more education and more options and they tell you your job is to catch spies and terrorists and the worst criminals. They are told that to do their job effectively they must be trusted by everyone but the real baddies. They believe it, mostly. 
 

The CIA cannot be effectively and widely used against regular Americans. The people they hire and the skills they recruit for are completely unsuited to doing something like listening to opposition politicians or infiltrating domestic gatherings.  Their people would be angry, insulted, and resentful if you even asked.  Not even on (only) moral grounds but simply because they’d be bored and see it as beneath them.

DEA and ATF are cowboys who deal with a lower class of criminal, who often are immediate and urgent threats. Adrenaline junkies who want to kick down doors and exchange fire (or at least they imagine they are). Again— nothing would be more insulting to them than to ask them to go put cuffs on a fucking mayor who is angry about a new jail.

DHS is new and has no real culture and is a hodgepodge of weird toys. ICE is already conditioned to arrest people who are not really dangerous and whose crime is really just procedural and administrative. They are comfortable rounding people up with a standard of evidence much lower than for a real court.  They are conditioned (unlike the FBI) to go into communities and be feared and distrusted even by people who aren’t doing anything wrong.  They are a large force present across the country.  They are perfect for this stuff. 

It should also be noted that some of those non-insignia/masked people can also be private security firms or freelancers.  IIRC the guy in Massachusetts who broke the window of the people waiting to see their immigration lawyer was not an actual government employee. 

I'd say in about 6 months their will be a division of J6ers getting paid to arrest anyone they think looks suspicious.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

 

I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm pretty sure the President cannot accept personal gifts from foreign governments or officials without the consent of Congress. This is stipulated by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 9) and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
9 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

When an extremely destructive F5 tornado hit Moore, Oklahoma in 2013, the city received about $13 million from FEMA and another $52 million from HUD for a total of $65 million. The charity, Americares, was able to donate about $3 million. Since it's likely that HUD will be joining FEMA in the 'new phone who dis' category, and the state would have to pick up the tab were something so catastrophic were to recur, Oklahoma and every other state (pretty much all of them) had better start manufacturing bootstraps because they're going to need them.

If you live in an area that could be impacted, time to talk to your neighbors. The ones you like. If you don't fuck em.

1- Who can do what? Anyone with skills or tools for after an emergency? Medic, have a chainsaw, etc.

2- Map. What are your routes out? Are there alternates?

3- The 72 hour bag? Yeah, fuck that, move it to 7-14 days.

4- Buy a weapon. One thing FEMA did was pay for extra police hours until the National Guard is deployed.

The states should carry more weight, but they are not ready. Shit takes time. Like building a National Champion football team.

Be Excellent To Each Other Keanu Reeves GIF

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


And yet, here we are.

Do you think this Congress will attempt to stop him?

The caveat I think is the end user. It goes to his library.

"My fellow Americans, I know times are hard. Eggs cost 18/dozen. But check out my new jet from Sand Aggy."

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

all houston hurricanes, i'm leaving town 

With National weather down, will you know?

Edited by InkaUtexas
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

The caveat I think is the end user. It goes to his library.

"My fellow americans, I konw times are hard. Eggs cost 18/dozen. But check out my new jet from Sand Aggy."

With National weather down, will you know?

 

back of my neck will tingle 

Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

back of my neck will tingle 

That can be watching UT football. It is when your balls shrink that you know it is coming. Pressure and all that

Posted
If you live in an area that could be impacted, time to talk to your neighbors. The ones you like. If you don't fuck em.
1- Who can do what? Anyone with skills or tools for after an emergency? Medic, have a chainsaw, etc.
2- Map. What are your routes out? Are there alternates?
3- The 72 hour bag? Yeah, fuck that, move it to 7-14 days.
4- Buy a weapon. One thing FEMA did was pay for extra police hours until the National Guard is deployed.
The states should carry more weight, but they are not ready. Shit takes time. Like building a National Champion football team.
200.gif
 

Counterpoint: fuck em all. They probably voted for Trump. Take care of yourself, and arm up to fend off the zombie trumpers. That’s it, that’s your full prep. If they need food, water, help removing debris….thoughts and prayers.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

 

I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm pretty sure the President cannot accept personal gifts from foreign governments or officials without the consent of Congress. This is stipulated by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 9) and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966. 

Yeah, about that…

Edited by Kermit
Posted
34 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

 

I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm pretty sure the President cannot accept personal gifts from foreign governments or officials without the consent of Congress. This is stipulated by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 9) and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966. 

I feel better now, he checked that out already

Quote

Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump's top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be "legally permissible" for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump's presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination.

 

  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


And yet, here we are.

Do you think this Congress will attempt to stop him?

When it comes to Trump they are repeatedly gargling the little button mushroom. So, no I don't think they'll stop him.

 

Fingers crossed the gift from Qatar doesn't have a remote kill switch to the engines. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, tx ind said:

Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump's top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be "legally permissible" for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump's presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination.

I wonder if there is anything that Bondi would deem legally impermissible for Trump. Like, anything. "Hey Rachel Maddow really pissed me off with her show the other night. I was thinking about having her knocked off."

"Of course! it would be reckless to not do it, Mr. President."

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder if there is anything that Bondi would deem legally impermissible for Trump. Like, anything. "Hey Rachel Maddow really pissed me off with her show the other night. I was thinking about having her knocked off."

"Of course! it would be reckless to not do it, Mr. President."

As long as we go thru official channels, sir, it’s allowed. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, tx ind said:

I feel better now, he checked that out already

 

And also that it wasn't "conditioned on an official act."  Mhm.

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder if there is anything that Bondi would deem legally impermissible for Trump. Like, anything. "Hey Rachel Maddow really pissed me off with her show the other night. I was thinking about having her knocked off."

"Of course! it would be reckless to not do it, Mr. President."

Evolution of a profession in crisis:

2002-2005: John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and others write secret memos outlining that torture is permissible (and not actually really torture) because reasons.

2020: Cleta Mitchell and others orchestrate plan to defraud courts in pursuit of illegally overturning a free and fair election. 

2024- ? : Pam Bondi and her successors write public opinions outlining that the language of the constitution should not be interpreted to limit this president and his designated successors, and that no reason or justification is needed to permit his or their actions. 
@TwiceHorn weighs in that these opinions are “dubious,” but that the constitution “doesn’t have a lot to say about accepting jets,” and at any rate lawyers aren’t in the midst of an ethical crisis that doesn’t also apply to carpet installers and independent Scentsy consultants. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Counterpoint: fuck em all. They probably voted for Trump. Take care of yourself, and arm up to fend off the zombie trumpers. That’s it, that’s your full prep. If they need food, water, help removing debris….thoughts and prayers.

No.

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Evolution of a profession in crisis:

2002-2005: John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and others write secret memos outlining that torture is permissible (and not actually really torture) because reasons.

2020: Cleta Mitchell and others orchestrate plan to defraud courts in pursuit of illegally overturning a free and fair election. 

2024- ? : Pam Bondi and her successors write public opinions outlining that the language of the constitution should not be interpreted to limit this president and his designated successors, and that no reason or justification is needed to permit his or their actions. 
@TwiceHorn weighs in that these opinions are “dubious,” but that the constitution “doesn’t have a lot to say about accepting jets,” and at any rate lawyers aren’t in the midst of an ethical crisis that doesn’t also apply to carpet installers and independent Scentsy consultants. 

Did the profession stop being in crisis during the Clinton and Obama administrations?

Was it in crisis when FDR was pulling his stunts?  Should the government lawyers defending Korematsu have been disbarred?

How about when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional consent?  Should he have been disbarred?

There are two sides to every dispute.  One ends up being wrong most of the time.  Sometimes they're more wrong than other times. In some cases, they actually advocate an unconstitutional position. Gasp. Does that make them un-American?  Or does it depend on HOW unconstitutional it is?  Who's the arbitrator of that? 

How do you solve this alleged crisis?  Do you disbar every lawyer that advocates an unconstitutional position?  Or one that isn't actually supported by facts (short of actually lying to the tribunal)?

What if a lawyer brings a righteous civil rights case that's borderline frivolous in view of settled law, or requires development of facts in discovery and the fact don't develop?  Disbarred or disciplined if they lose?  Or is it the purity of the motivation that matters?

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

I'm listening to John Heilmann's podcast, and an interesting point from Michael Scherer of the Atlantic. He said interviewing Dotard, that he expressed concern about the lack of democratic opposition to him. "He spoke of it almost mournfully". It's why he keeps bringing up Biden all the time. He needs the bad guy, or the heel. 

Seriously democrats, you've got Dotard feeling sad that there is no opposition to him. Great, great work. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

<snipped>

Surely you don't think the Bondi et al opinion is valid?  I mean, how clear does this have to be?  There is NOTHING remotely close to "it's OK if a gift is temporary and is transferred to a (currently nonexistent) Presidential library before leaving office".  It would seem the only way to legally get around this (ha!) would be with the approval of Congress.  Whether that's a majority or a super majority, I don't know.

  • Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
  • No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Surely you don't think the Bondi et al opinion is valid?  I mean, how clear does this have to be?  There is NOTHING remotely close to "it's OK if a gift is temporary and is transferred to a (currently nonexistent) Presidential library before leaving office".  It would seem the only way to legally get around this (ha!) would be with the approval of Congress.  Whether that's a majority or a super majority, I don't know.

  • Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
  • No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Of course I don't.  I don't think half the shit my opponents dredge up is valid at all.

But you see, Bondi's opinion sidesteps the existence and enforceability of the Emoluments Clause by claiming that it's a) a gift not to Trump but to USAF and b) to Trump's library post-office.  It of course ignores that Trump is the beneficiary or beneficial owner of the aircraft completely and at all times.  And the ludicrousness that it isn't conditioned on an official act.

But as we have seen from prior cases, without a statutory enactment from Congress implementing the Emoluments Clause, it's difficult to enforce.

But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem.

I'm not addressing or defending in any way the shitass arguments and positions of Trump and Trump lawyers.  But again, if we disbar every lawyer that makes a shitass argument, it's gonna be a problem.

I'm addressing Bozo's contention that the legal profession is somehow in a greater crisis than ever before.  Is there a crisis in this country?  Yes, absolutely.  Is it somehow more acute for the legal profession?  I'm not really seeing it.  The larger proportion of the legal profession on the front lines of this stuff is fighting it and winning.

I mean, you have a couple hundred lawyers doing shit legal work in support of a shit regime.  The greater balance of lawyers oppose it.

You have several thousand legislators sitting idle or actively passing unconstitutional and "UnAmerican" legislation.  Even the ones ostensibly on our team can't get off their ass.

You have 50 million American voters voting for lies or hatred or some combination of both.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem.

Now there's some irony.  Maybe we should do that.

Posted

Here, take this luxury jet (full of spyware), use it for government business (and to hide record of anything you want to hide)…

We are a failed and sold out nation. Grotesque.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Has he released his Mother’s Day greeting yet?

Mothers are women, right?  

I'm sure he'll get right on that.

Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem.

Are you saying lawyers are so stupid they’ll keep doing it even after it’s clear there would be such severe consequences, until there are no lawyers remaining?

Posted

Not a racist rant…

That’s a fucking “I’m a dictator” type rant/threat. Which is 10x worse than a racist rant.

If “you/courts” don’t do what I say…we will unleash violence on you. My followers want this, I was voted in for this…I will unleash them on you.

  • Like 2
Posted

But yeah, also racist….

“YOURE NOT LETTING ME GET RID OF NON WHITES WITHOUT ACTUALLY CHECKING TO SEE IF THEY ARE HERE LEGALLY OR NOT”

  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Are you saying lawyers are so stupid they’ll keep doing it even after it’s clear there would be such severe consequences, until there are no lawyers remaining?

When it comes to regulating their bad actors, the legal progression has tried nothing and they're all out of ideas. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Happy Mothers Day, even to the radical left lunatics!! 

...and all those nasty women who lied about me. Terrible women. They say I touched them, but they're all too ugly for me to care. They're ugly like nobody's ever seen before, and they're dangerous to our country. A lot of people tell me that I'm the politest person they've ever known. I don't know, but that's what they say. I must be pretty polite. I won the election in a landslide including all seven swing states.

So happy Mother's Day even to the lying nasty women and your ugly children and the loser you married. 

Ivanka, call me.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Did the profession stop being in crisis during the Clinton and Obama administrations?

Was it in crisis when FDR was pulling his stunts?  Should the government lawyers defending Korematsu have been disbarred?

How about when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional consent?  Should he have been disbarred?

There are two sides to every dispute.  One ends up being wrong most of the time.  Sometimes they're more wrong than other times. In some cases, they actually advocate an unconstitutional position. Gasp. Does that make them un-American?  Or does it depend on HOW unconstitutional it is?  Who's the arbitrator of that? 

How do you solve this alleged crisis?  Do you disbar every lawyer that advocates an unconstitutional position?  Or one that isn't actually supported by facts (short of actually lying to the tribunal)?

What if a lawyer brings a righteous civil rights case that's borderline frivolous in view of settled law, or requires development of facts in discovery and the fact don't develop?  Disbarred or disciplined if they lose?  Or is it the purity of the motivation that matters?

 

I can’t think of a better example of a profession in crisis than a licensed member of the Federal bar asking a salesman how to conduct fact finding. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, texas08 said:

Not a racist rant…

That’s a fucking “I’m a dictator” type rant/threat. Which is 10x worse than a racist rant.

If “you/courts” don’t do what I say…we will unleash violence on you. My followers want this, I was voted in for this…I will unleash them on you.

 

the deportation of citizens will soon be a regular event. midnight round ups 

Posted

@Brisketexan business opp ...

are you a us citizen and have been critical of trump ?

in fear of being part of a trump round up ?

we got you covered, get a micro chip that sends a beacon the second you leave us borders. loved one will be able to track you down !

  • Haha 1
Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

@Brisketexan business opp ...

are you a us citizen and have been critical of trump ?

in fear of being part of a trump round up ?

we got you covered, get a micro chip that sends a beacon the second you leave us borders. loved one will be able to track you down !

Slight tweak- get your scannable  “MAGA Chip” so that ICE and DHS can quickly scan and identify you as a loyal citizen if you are accidentally taken into custody.

In addition to the tracking chip, it would also include a voucher to have your unique Saving America for Trump And Nation number tattooed on your right hand for visual confirmation at checkpoints.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I can’t think of a better example of a profession in crisis than a licensed member of the Federal bar asking a salesman how to conduct fact finding. 

I raised factually analogous situations relating to your opinion that the legal profession is in crisis.  An opinion that I don't believe I share.  I didn't ask you to do fact-finding, I asked you about your opinion.

But I'm willing to entertain non-conclusory argument.

Problems with the legal profession/system:

  • Politically corrupt/incompetent judges (longstanding problem, possibly more acute today).
  • Delay in the system (also longstanding problem, no more acute today than the last 50 years or so, at least).
  • The "pay to play" nature of the system (longstanding, virtually inherent to any legal system),

One problem that I don't really see as a problem is parties arguing for popular or unpopular positions based on strained or "interstitial" constitutional arguments.  If you somehow quash those cases before they start, then you don't get Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Counties,  Reed v. Reed, and countless others.

You seem also to tie the crisis to incompetent lawyers that are not disbarred or otherwise disciplined, sometimes equating "political" incompetence with plain ol' incompetence.  I'll accept for purposes of argument that the bar is perhaps not zealous or competent in disciplining incompetent lawyers.  But I think political incompetence is far too subjective to be a basis for discipline/disbarment.  And once you open that can of worms, like "wEApoNiZation," it's too easily turned on the good guys.

 



×
×
  • Create New...