
sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by sheeeit
-
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
sheeeit replied to Hagbard Celine's topic in Daily Texan
Oh for fucks sake. I will happily admit my percentages were off. It is really hard to get accurate data. Here is NBC news tracking of current migrants in ICE detention. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/us-immigration-tracker-follow-arrests-detentions-border-crossings-rcna189148 54% with either a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges. From the same article, they estimate there are 435,000 immigrants currently free in the US with criminal convictions. If you want to argue the stats, take it up with NBC. Good rant though. -
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
sheeeit replied to Hagbard Celine's topic in Daily Texan
Agree with a lot of this but you are over simplifying and ignoring context. No serious person ever bitches about reporting of increased temps in the Gulf of Maine. Some may question the methodology of the temp data or question if the data is raw or smoothed, but most every serious person will agree with the findings to some degree. It is the opinion of what caused the increase or what that means for the future that is debatable. I remember the very old thread by MOP (I think) talking about the prediction of an ice free arctic. There was wide spread coverage of the issue. The implications were catastrophic. Now, a few decades later, Arctic ice extent is within a few percentage points of its mean and I haven't seen a show or read an article about arctic sea ice in years. My guess is that if someone did simply report that "for 2024 the arctic sea ice extent was within 5% of the historical average of testing" (which is true) that it would be met with conservative, climate denying slant/bias. Your last point is just too stupid. There is so much more information available today than in any point in the world's history. To suggest an "authoritarian" government can gut these entities is just ridiculous. The numbers are provided to everyone. The government has no control of the numbers or their dissemination. All of the data collected gets shared with the entire freaking world. The govt may get a first look but all the info gets out. If Trump decided tomorrow to completely eliminate the BLS, all of the information that the BLS publishes will still be available. Hell, AI could analyze payroll data of virtually every company in the world in almost real time and give us a much better picture of what is going on. -
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
sheeeit replied to Hagbard Celine's topic in Daily Texan
Don't we have a few hundred page topic on the bias of some conservative leaning news sites? I agree there are biases in almost all news organizations. As far as I know, none of them are a topic of what I am posting about and none of them receive federal funding. Surely you are not suggesting that having NPR is necessary to offset conservative leaning news sites? It is not always about simply editorializing or analyzing. You have to look at the guest list for interviews and the topics discussed. Plus, as all humans do, we often fail to see a bias if the coverage supports our own worldview. Quick example, I queried Immigration and NPR. There is actually a link on NPR's website that collates NPR's coverage of immigration. Of the first 15-20 links, all of them were negative towards the current policy and its actions. Fine. Its newsworthy discussion and the negative impacts need to be made public. But not one single article about the positives. Not one. Just throw in one article out of 20 that details the deportation of hardened criminals, rapists, human smugglers etc. When ICE raids a plant and say ten people are rounded up, there likely will be 1 us citizen wrongly swept up, there likely will be 2 cases of immigrants that really should be here that are law abiding and productive and the rest will likely be really horrible people that never should have been here and need to be deported post haste. We absolutely need reporting and transparency on the first two groups. But we equally need transparency and reporting on the bad guys. How were they able to get here? How have they not already been deported or arrested? When you are publicly funded, you need to try to be even handed. Sure they have been bitching since Nixon. You are unwittingly making my argument. The reason nothing could be done previously is that in Nixon's day there were about as many conservative hosts/panels as there were liberal. There was actual political diversity in the editorial positions at NPR. The right could bitch but there were legitimate facts the left could argue. I think it is a bit telling that you ignored the fact that there seem to be almost zero republican editors currently at NPR. That is a staggering fact. It is almost impossible to explain away. On your last point we agree mostly. I completely favor continued funding. I do think there should be some changes but it is foolish to just abolish. I will also argue that it is unlikely the next great breakthrough in children's educational programming will come from a source like PBS. Today, PBS just doesn't have the reach or funding of other sources and the competition is brutal versus the 1960's when there wasn't any competition. -
corporation for public broadcasting shutting down
sheeeit replied to Hagbard Celine's topic in Daily Texan
I think the cutting of funding for public broadcasting is short sighted and wrong. I think some changes needed to be made but cutting funding is just silly and non productive and political theater. To the above, when shows like Mr Rogers and Sesame street were created (late 1960s) there were only 3 real channels for television. Marketing for the fledgling tv industry had to focus on shows that adults watched because that is what advertisers would pay for. The networks did not have the financial ability to generate exclusively kids shows because there were no advertisers for those shows. There were cartoons that offered mindless entertainment for kids but not educational. So getting PBS to do shows like Sesame was great. A really good use of public funding. What some are suggesting is that times are different now. There are literally thousands of shows on network, cable, streaming services etc that are considered educational children's programming. So it is a fair question whether the public funding is still necessary. I personally think it is but I can see the argument. There is also a pretty big distinction, in my mind, from PBS and NPR. For anyone to suggest that NPR does not have a political lean to liberals/democrats is just foolish. When Berliner resigned he uncovered a lot of what people certainly suspected. Berliner was as "inside" as you can get and worked there for 20 years and was a strong liberal. The staff at NPR, especially the editors, are overwhelmingly registered democrats. Berliner suggested that there were zero registered republican editors at the headquarters. May or may not be true but the democrat numbers there are overwhelming. That is an astonishing fact for an institution that receives federal funding. It will never be 50/50 but to not even have a few token republicans on the editorial staff just opens NPR up to legitimate criticism by hard core conservatives. NPR did it to themselves. Even if in their hearts the editors wanted to be balanced and thought they were being balanced, they just couldn't. Every human has personal biases. It is part of our DNA and unavoidable at a subconscious level. When the numbers of people editing stories is 95% left leaning, then it is absolutely inevitable that that bias is going to creep into their thought making. Inevitable. Not every single time. But over a period of time it is simply inevitable. And for certain NPR is not over the top bias like OAN or MSNBC, but it is there. And there is plenty of programming on NPR that is not political at all. But they opened themselves up for this by their own actions and hiring practices. And I have zero objection to any private outfit aligning their staff to a certain ideological similarity, but it just can't exist when receiving public funds. As an analogy, if there was a publication of some sort in Texas that prided itself on diversity of opinions and the entire editorial staff of the publication were TAMU graduates, no one here, including myself, would believe the publication was not biased. We all know aggies that are hard core, moderate and a small group that are actually liberal. But putting them all together will guarantee a right leaning bent to their reporting. It is just human nature. If NPR announced back in 2024 when Berliner resigned that it was going to look inward at their editorial staff and make some changes and really try to add a percentage of diversity of opinion to their staff then they would have a good argument against the far right wanting to defund them. Maybe add 20% of conservative leaning editors. But they didn't. They dug in and kept the status quo and are now suffering for it. -
Great? Does not pass smell test.
-
I think I finally really get John Prine.
-
In my mind, character actor in this thread should mean an actor that maybe 25% of the population could put a name with a face. Pesci, Seymour Hoffman, Duvall etc are fantastic actors that play a myriad of roles, but have become recognizable stars. Been some really great ones named here. I have a couple (and hopefully a few people will not recognize the name but will the face or the other way): Mark Strong, Ben Mendelsohn, Luiz Guzman, Scott Glen Interestingly, very few women come to mind. Not sure why that is?
-
The situation in Gaza is truly heart breaking. I really do not know what to make of a situation where aid can't even be provided safely. And it is not just one side at fault for that. The reality at this point is that Israel is the bigger bear by far and Hamas needs to give up if it has even a sliver of care for its people. I'm not saying Israel doesnt deserve blame. I'm saying sometimes you have to face reality if you care about your kids. As to the article, if we have learned anything in the last few years it should be that anonymous quotes in articles are worthless. They may actually be true, but if there isn't a name attached it is worthless.
-
The logic just doesn’t even come close to adding up. Not everyone over reacts to the stupid things that Trump tweets. But by your logic, we have Putin sitting in Russia contemplating an attack on Germany. Germany, who’s two biggest trading partners to the tune of over half a trillion are the United States and China. Germany, who is the fifth most powerful country in the world by most analysis. Germany, who buy all accounts is the strongest member of the EU. And what exactly in your scenario does Russia think that they will gain from invading Germany? Are they going to take it over? Are they going to force Germany to buy more oil and gas from them? But even though the idea of Russia invading Germany is so far-fetched to the point of not even really needing to be talked about, and even though Russia knows that if they did for some reason invade Germany, that China and the United States and the European Union and the UK would all mobilize against them instantly, in your mind it is possible. However, if Germany suddenly had a nuclear bomb, then Putin would decide against it? I can just see Putin thinking to himself that he could invade Germany and take on the US and China and the EU and the UK and somehow win (knowing full well that those countries have literally thousands of nuclear weapons) but mighty Russia could probably pull it off. But if Germany decides to get a nuke, then it would be too hard.
-
I missed the part about the US withdrawal, but it really isn't even worth discussing. You are hypothesizing that the US would pull all of its military out of Germany and the rest of the EU. That would seriously harm our own defense interests. Not even Trump would consider that. Something like that would actually be a reason for impeachment. But even if that impossible scenario came about, it would still take more than that. The UK would have to abandon Germany. The EU would have to dissolve and abandon Germany. NATO would have to abandon Germany. France has what around 300 nukes? 300 isn't enough of a deterrent? And who does Germany think they need to protect themselves from that could attack them without the US and the EU and other NATO countries getting involved? Russia? China? Pakistan? Even if the US got out of NATO, they are still getting involved in any scenario where Germany gets attacked. There is no scenario that exists where some country is considering attacking Germany but would then change their mind if Germany has a nuke. If someone attacked Germany it is full on WWIII and the attacking country is getting obliterated. And maybe the rest of the world too.
-
Germany is a non starter. They are a NATO and EU member and both entities have nukes already. It is not even on their radar. No one is fucking with Germany whether they have nukes or not. They do not need them. Their people do not want them. They are costly. Ukraine may want them but play it out. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, Ukraine is going to be extremely dependent on the US and EU for survival. They lose all of that support if they try and get nukes. Of course we support Ukraine against Russia but it is still a fact that Ukraine is a terribly corrupt nation and has many rogue entities. We will not let it happen. Russia will go even more scorched earth on Ukraine if they try and get nukes and the rest of the world would likely "allow" Russia to destroy Ukraines sites if the try. If anything, this past few weeks has shown that the world is not tolerant of new nukes.
-
It seems pointless at this point to argue the JCPOA but if we consider the factual tenets of the deal including the sunset clauses combined with the "legal under the agreement" ability for Iran to upgrade their centrifuges after just a few years combined with even Obama admitting that after 12 or so years the break out time would be days and in exchange Iran would get 100s of billions in unfrozen assets and trade deals- the JCPOA was a far, far better deal for Iran than the rest of the world. But, to your post above, we need to remember that it seems very obvious at this point that Israel/Mossad has infiltrated Iran up to the highest levels. They apparently knew where the highest ranking military people were in Iran up to the exact floor and apartment number of a particular building. The "world" will never, ever know the depths of the intelligence that we have on Ira. Reacting to tweets and news articles and quotes from supposed insiders (from all sides) is a fool's game. It is all either subterfuge or guesses. Guesses might actually be right sometimes but they are still guesses. But it certainly seems that whatever Iran decides to do next, the intelligence agencies will know about almost immediately. More importantly, the Iran regime now knows that they have been infiltrated so they have no real way of doing much of anything nefarious. Couple that fact with the now known fact that the US will call their bluff and that no one is going to defend them and you have a regime that really can't do much of anything nefarious without getting killed. I do not know enough about internal Iranian politics to know who might be the next leader of Iran (likely in the next 5 years) but based on the actions of this past week or so, I doubt a true believer/hardliner is going to get the gig. Hopefully that helps Iran move forward
-
Like who? Not necessarily disagreeing but what countries, realistically, could start a program for nukes that don't already have them? It is very expensive. It requires illegal coordination with another country that has them already. Add in the fact that really no other country on the planet has condemned the strikes against Iran suggests that if a country did try to get a nuke now that they would likely be bombed/sanctioned etc. What could possibly be the upside?
-
Totally get your point. However, one of the challenges and charm of the show is the not knowing when it may end for the contestants. If you give an end date you remove a ton of that issue. It is infinitely easier to steel yourself for a final few days if you know the end is near. Having no idea how long someone else might endure is what makes the show so interesting.
-
Some fair points. On Iron Claw, they didn’t need giants to play the roles but the 2,big stars are what around 5’8”? They are fine actors but we know they are really short. And I don’t mind using shorter or taller actors for certain roles, but when you’re playing a professional wrestler, then your physique is a definite characteristic of the role. My understanding is that Tom Cruise‘s production company bought the rights to reacher. So I do think it was poorly cast if he bought the rights with the expectation that he himself would play the lead. The books are very popular for a certain segment of the population. I cannot believe that other companies were not interested in purchasing the rights. it just seems like a bad idea to me to make a movie that is certainly tailored to a somewhat specific group of audiences. And the people that like the reacher books are definitely a big segment of that particular audience. So you kind of alienated a large percentage of the target audience that you were going for. And, for the record, I think Tom Cruise is a fantastic actor.
-
Iron Claw (I never saw it for this reason. Was it any good?) It really bugs me when they just completely ignore physical stature in movies. For many roles the physical size is probably not that important. But it is critical in some roles. Like the Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher comments. It matters because a TON of the backstory and appeal of Reacher is his size. So they make a professional wrestling movie and cast 2 of the shortest actors in Hollywood. I'm turned off before it even comes out.
-
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
I just completely disagree. I also think it is funny that you think that Texas and Louisiana have more "insane morons" than the state legislatures in California or Oregon. This is a political board so I assume people here know some of their reps. I'd say 75% are wholly unqualified for the job. The truth is that the best and brightest among us do not run for office. It is hard to blame them. It pays next to nothing. Your life is on blast. Any moderate position taken will be blasted by the fringe of each party. People will twist your words and take comments out of context to try and score political points. It is a lousy gig for a competent person. As an attorney I am certain you have met and worked with people from every spectrum of the law. I am also certain that there are a small percentage of attorneys out there that you may have genuine disagreements with and may have been on opposing sides of issues with that you would say were honest, forthright, competent, moral, ethical and smart. None of those people are going to run for office in the state legislature. And yet, you would most likely agree that that smalll percentage of folks (be they dem or rep) would be light years better than who we have now. -
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
I tend to disagree a bit. The voters are electing the people on the ballot. -
Louisiana House of Reps passes bill to ban chemtrails
sheeeit replied to Beau Vine's topic in Daily Texan
Wow. Stupid is as stupid does. We really need to find a way to incentivize people to run for state office. With few exceptions, state legislatures are populated by wildly incompetent people. -
Jesus. You are a kook. I am not defending the arrest of the judge. Not one time did I suggest the judge should have been arrested. Multiple people posted that the arrest was illegal or that the warrant wasn’t legally enforceable or that the agents came into the courtroom to try and arrest the defendant or that they threatened the judge or tried to coerce or influence the judge. None of that is true. I have watched this board go apoplectic when someone posts something that is false. At some point I would think a few of you would care about the actual truth. I pointed out that it is reasonable for people to think the actions taken were over the top or unreasonable or whatever. That’s a decent debate. But the actions were not illegal. Also, you are presumably a doctor and smart and educated yet you go around negging posts on an anonymous message board like a petulant 7 year old. You really need to take some stock.
-
Obviously there are layers to this thing. If we go back to what Twice originally posted: The third element that the government must prove to establish a section 1071 offense is that the defendant actually harbored or concealed the fugitive. The courts have uniformly held that 18 U.S.C. § 1071 does not prohibit all forms of aid to a fugitive. Instead, what is generally required to establish a violation is "any physical act of providing assistance, including food, and shelter, and other assistance to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension." This was the general legal break down of how the statute is applied. This is what the lawyers and courts have "generally" found. It is inarguable that the judge violated this. She absolutely had a "physical act" providing assistance to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension" The judge knew the parties were waiting outside the courtroom with a legal warrant to arrest the defendant. She snuck him out through a side/back door. There is no other explanation that she did that to "aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension". Some argued she did it to avoid some type of "circus". It still doesn't matter. She knew the parties were there to arrest him. She didn't like it, so she snuck him out. To me, the thing that is so disturbing is that she is a freaking judge. Presumably she knows the law better than most. She absolutely knew what she was doing was illegal but she did it anyway. That to me is worse than if you or I did the same thing. Lets say you own a restaurant and the FBI shows up with a legal warrant for one of your cooks. If you tell them to wait outside and then you go and alert the cook and sneak him out the back door of the restaurant, there is a good chance you will be arrested. To the people saying this was just an example of sending a message. No shit. But to act like it is just one side that does this is just ridiculous on its face. https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-life-activist-arrested-swat-171717669.html Obviously that was a "message" designed to intimidate. 25-30 FBI agents with guns drawn to arrest a guy who preached outside of abortion clinics. Guns drawn in front of his wife and small kids. The initial charges were already tossed before the raid and this guys attorney said the guy would help in anyway, including coming in to speak with FBI people. Guy had no weapons and wasn't a threat to anyone. But the DOJ/FBI did it to intimidate other people from speaking out against abortion near abortion clinics. No one here claimed Biden was Hitler and that they were fascists etc.
-
Twice. I am really surprised you keep arguing things that are easily found to be untrue if you cared. The ONLY reason anyone was talking to the "trial judge" is because the "trial judge" LEFT her courtroom and went out into the hallway to confront the agents. She started yelling at them because she knew that they were there to arrest the defendant when the defendant LEFT her courtroom. No one asked the trial judge to help in any way. No one tried or was even considering coming into her courtroom and arresting the defendant. The "trial judge" initiated the contact. Then, after confronting the agents in the hallway, she went back into her courtroom and snuck the defendant out the side/back exit- in the middle of the hearing. She didn't even notify the other parties/lawyers that were there for the hearing. Literally in the middle of the hearing, she just whisked the defendant out of the courtroom and out through the side/back exit. That is why the act of trying to send them to the chief judge is possibly damning. It can be argued (not really an argument I would personally make) that she tried to send them to the chief judge to give her more lead time to sneak the defendant out while the agents were talking to the chief judge.
-
Why do you think your hypothetical has any relation to this case?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!