Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    54064
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    325

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 4 minutes ago, safe sex said:

    Why the fuck do people still engage with him?

    Because evil of the "oh shucks, I'm just for all the morally good things, and will never admit that what I propose will cause incredible suffering" variety is fucking infuriating.

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 1
  2. 7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Oh and yes. Between the two of us you are the only one that has talked about wishing their political adversaries, their friends and family, death and suffering. Pools of blood and shit while the life leaves their eyes. You're broken brisket. Don't project your brokenness onto me. 

    Just answer the simple question: when you burn it ALL down -- and "all" includes things like USAID and medical and food programs it actively operates on a daily basis in dozens of countries, payment systems like SS that actively fund people living day-by-day, programs that are the basis for the livelihoods of literally millions of Americans both indirectly and directly (example of "directly" -- Catholic Charities in Galveston just laid off 120 people in its refugee resettlement office - they now have no job or paycheck, and the refugees who were in process, promised their assistance, are high-and-dry), etc. ad nauseum -- your "burning it all down" necessarily means that those people are going to suffer, and some of them will die, correct?

    I mean, the fucking irony of you actively rooting for a course of action that will necessarily have direct AND collateral damage that = incredible suffering and death, in the name of your supposedly moral high ground of opposing....that exact sort of action.  You beclown yourself, and you think that nobody sees it.  It's the last part that's most pathetic.  That you think you've fooled.....anyone.  You root for something that is metaphorical area-bombing, claiming "hey, I never said a particular person should be hurt," and think that's absolution, when you spend pages here criticizing that exact moral calculus.  It's fucking rich.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  3. 8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

     

    I might suggest that you workshop your draft valentines day letter with someone.  It could use a little spit and polish.  

    I just go with a pre-written Hallmark card.

    Doesn't change the fact that when you yearn for the entire house to burn, countless charred humans is what you wanted.

  4. 8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

    I don't think it's a good idea for a court to consider the effect of their rulings as a guiding principle for how to rule.  That makes them legislators and that function is reserved for the Congress. 

    It's actually an incredibly effective technique to gauge whether the decision you're contemplating actually makes sense.  If it can lead to an absurd outcome that would undermine the very fabric of the Republic, then yes....you should fucking second guess yourself.  It doesn't mean that your decision is ultimately wrong.  It DOES mean that if your decision would yield an absurd result, that is a strong sign that perhaps you are missing something in your analysis.  It's a "temperature check."

    10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

    I don't think the court banned all evidence behind a presidential act; they banned evidence of motive. 

    Yeah....so, they literally banned all of the evidence that could be used to consider whether it was a crime.  Of course they didn't ban evidence OF the act.  You can introduce the order "Dear Air Force: drone strike terrorist Cal Creditor at his villa in Cyprus."  You can introduce the video of the villa going boom.  You can introduce a photo of Cal.  Whoop-de-fucking-do.  All of it irrelevant to....anything.

    Motive is what MAKES it illegal.  Most every other government official, at every level, can be subject to sanction/prosecution for committing an otherwise lawful act for an unlawful purpose, AND evidence relevant to that purpose is admissible.  The POTUS is now singular and unique among all 350 million of us.  So to answer your question:

    13 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

    I also don't think SCOTUS wants a king or intended to crown one.  Do you?

    ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY THEY DID, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID AND THEY KNEW IT.

    "Dear executive: you have supreme, limitless power [seriously -- the executive literally has the unilateral power to end all human life on earth with nuclear strikes].  And we are making it against the law to even question your use of that power."  What the fuck is that OTHER than a declaration that he is a monarch, answerable only to the God who placed him in office where he acts by divine right?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 2
  5. 9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    Are we in a position where the richest man in the world can commit any crime he wants, and you can't charge him with anything because Trump will just pardon him?

    Edit: Not state crimes I guess, so not literally any crime he wants.

    No, those too.  Imagine the scenario -- Musk commits a crime in New York, and somehow foolishly goes to NY and gets arrested.

    Trump will deploy his personal armed troops to go free Musk, by any means necessary.  Yes, including shooting any NY personnel who get in the way.  Trump will declare the actions of NY "anti-democratic terrorist actions."

    Thus, his actions will be an exercise of "presidential power," and he will have full immunity, both during and after his presidency (spoiler -- there won't be an "after," because he is being anointed king).

    The rule of law is over.

    Rule of the gun is all that's left.  That's it.  Those are the two options, and the regime has opted out of option 1.

  6. 17 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

    The Office Thank You GIF

    1) the court need not adjudicate the question of a POTUS-ordered hit on a rival/creditor/etc.  They DO need to consider that as a possible consequence of their decision.

    2) and...in doing so, MAYBE they shouldn't have issued a blanket ban on considering evidence behind a purported act of presidential powers.  That's the real fucking point here.  They set up a rule that 1) if the act is of a character that puts it within the president's powers (e.g., a drone strike on foreign territory), then that's it.  Full-stop.  There can be no consideration of any facts or evidence of the act to determine whether it was truly an exercise of presidential powers, or was it a use of the resources of the US to perform a personal mission that is wholly against the law.

    Think through the impact of your decision.  That's what any decent court does.  Not only did SCOTUS NOT do that....they barred any future court from considering evidence that could be relevant to determining the impact of their decision.  They knew what they were doing.  They created a king, entirely above and not subject to the law.

    That decision is already having consequences, and it will have many more grave consequences to come.

    Because once you have a king, there's only one way to remove them from power.  This sets up an outcome that is necessarily violent and bloody.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  7. 1 minute ago, Satchel said:

    hat is not to say that rape allegations, even by suspect persons, should be dismissed out of hand. All should be taken seriously, and vigorously and thoroughly investigated.

    This is accurate.

    The problem is one that comes up with respect to ANY statement/allegation.  Once a person has REPEATEDLY demonstrated that they are a lying psychopath.....then their credibility is already destroyed.  It's not destroyed because of what her current allegation is.  It's destroyed because she long ago acted in a way that got here tossed in the "oh...so she's a lying liar who lies all the time" bucket.  It's the boy who cried wolf bit.

    It's why we lawyers tell our clients and witnesses over and over NOT to lie on the stand.  Because once the jury figures out you told ONE lie....they tune you out because they conclude that everything else you say is a lie as well.  Once you tell a lie...then you're just another liar.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. Just now, Trey3216 said:

    I want one of those WWII 1/2 circle hanger buildings with a covered pit room out back and some janky ass Christmas lights strung through the ceiling, with wooden picnic tables and a swamp cooler.   It's BBQ.  Part of the mystique is its utter simplicity.  Having a granite or marble topped bar with Pappy 23 doesn't do shit for me there.  I want a 1958 roll/slide top cooler with the coldest Lone Star 16oz cans you can find and a perfect salt/pepper/garlic bark on my pieces of artery clog.  

    My man.

     

    The term you're looking for is "Quonset hut," by the way.  And that would be perfect.

    • Like 3
  9. 1 hour ago, Pdawg88 said:


    Did not disappoint. Probably some of the BBQ I’ve ever had. 

    To my point.....for the most part, the delta of "how delicious is this?" among all of the "higher-end" BBQ joints is so small as to not matter at all.  For those of us who remember the days of there being maybe 8-10 really good bbq restaurants in the whole fucking STATE, the fact that there are probably 15 places in Austin alone where you can get a bite of BBQ that would make anyone who is not a deeply experienced BBQ snob say "holy shit, that's fucking amazing" is huge.

    Put it another way, get in a time machine, and drop Terry Blacks in Austin 20 years ago.  It would be the most celebrated restaurant, not just bbq restaurant, in town.  For good reason -- it's fucking delicious.

    3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

    Steel buildings or cheap fixer upper bombouts are the only thing you need to spend money on for a BBQ joint.  

    And SO much this.  Because in the end, in spite of how ridiculously snobbified it's become, and how high the prices have soared....it's still fucking BBQ, man.  Find a long-abandoned Dairy Queen, add some second-hand picnic tables outside, and go to town.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 4
  10. Just now, Clintonaldo said:

    Oh, so now we are shaming drunk driving ???

    Naah, not anymore.  Shaming people for hurting others just because they want to do whatever the fuck they want, you can't tell me what to do, is "woke."  And we don't do no commie "woke" 'round here.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 15 minutes ago, safe sex said:

    It didn't have to be like this

    Of course it didn't.

    But it was always going to be.

    Because humanity.  Including the United States, and the prior administration.

     

    The menu of options in this century is "suck, more suck, or all the suck."  Those are your choices.  "Maybe not sucking" is not on the menu.  Not even the secret menu.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  12. 2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    You must give the drunk/addict/Magat the dignity to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

    Yes.  But the problem is that we knew all along that "their own actions" include drunkenly driving their car down a crowded sidewalk.  Sure, they end up crashed against a pole, bleeding and with a totaled car.  But Jesus, the broken people they leave in their wake.

    We learned a lot about fascism, and why it is bad, in the 30s and 40s.  And all it cost us was millions and millions of lives.  Oh, and then....it turns out that the lesson didn't even fucking stick.  What a fucking waste.  That's the problem....what a fucking waste.  20 million dead in Europe, 6 million of them jews.  And....for what?  To learn a "lesson" that lasted maybe three generations, to then be forgotten?  What.  A fucking.  Waste.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Rage+1 1
  13. Just now, Anastasis said:

    "Rooting for suffering"?  Tell you what, quote one post where I have openly rooted for suffering of anyone in such words. I can quote yours quite easily. 

    You've wanted the exact outcome we're experiencing for more than a few years.

    The rest of us, on the other hand, warned and worked AGAINST this outcome.  This is NOT what we wanted, at all.  But....now that we the people have enthusiastically chosen it, so be it.  The only way out of this path is counting on the psychology of pain aversion - bolstered by actual experience of said pain - to do its work.  We picked a path where the only options are 1) continuous, long-term low to moderate level suffering, and continuing social decline, or 2) short term brutal suffering, so harsh that it prompts us to change course.  Given that circumstance....hell yes we root for the one that will lead to us changing course.

    I mean, human society took a "burn it all down" approach in the 30s and 40s.  We learned a lot, and many things were improved afterwards.  Was it worth the price, and wouldn't it have been better to have avoided learning those lessons the hard way?

    • Hook 'Em 4
  14. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

    Maybe I was just ahead of the curve acknowledging "that's how it be." 

    Naaah, your active rooting for suffering far pre-dating the leopards face buffet is not exactly a secret.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  15. 2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

    Why, what do you think is in 2028?

    What do I personally think is in 2028?  The coronation of Trump as king, governing by the divine will of God.  Because see, the Constitution says that a person can't run for president for a third term.  But it doesn't ever say the words "Donald Trump cannot be anointed as king for life," and as a strict constructionist, I say that if the power is not expressly excluded, then he must have it.

    • Rage+1 1
  16. 24 minutes ago, turtlepond said:

    It's almost like all of you silly hypocrites didn't REALLY stand behind your "believe all women" mantra....

    I mean....except for the part where nobody (or pretty much nobody) around here ever adopted a "believe all women" mantra.

    What most folks adopted was something like my approach: listen to and consider every allegation of SA, and do not immediately dismiss them out-of-hand or turn the exercise into a series of questions of "yeah, but you're a slut who wanted it, right?"

    The real problem here is that Mace does NOT allege mere SA.  She alleges a vast conspiracy by a "cabal" involving literally tens of thousands of acts and countless victims.  Without a single shred of evidence other than her bare allegation that was purposefully made in a venue where she is shielded from all consequences of her actions.  "Believe all women" was always bullshit because it would dispense with any burden of proof, substituting a mere "ipse dixit" (because I said so) standard), which is unacceptable for ANY accusation of serious wrongdoing.

    Of course, all that has to happen to take her allegations OUTSIDE of the protection of the Speech and Debate clause is for her to say - while not on the House floor during speech - "yes, I stand by everything I said there," or something like that.  An outside-the-chamber adoption of her statements on the floor removes the full breadth of the adopted statements from the protection of the speech and debate clause.  I've seen the EXACT thing happen to an attorney who filed a pleading alleging a LOT of scandalous things -- which is fully protected by the litigation exception to defamation.  But when he then commented to the press on the courthouse steps that "yes, everything we alleged in our pleading is absolutely true," he got sued for defamation and the court found the litigation exception no longer applied.  The only correct answer to such queries is "I offer no comment here, the pleading speaks for itself" or something to that effect.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...