Jump to content

Want to be a UT contractor? Pledge your loyalty to Israel

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
Perhaps I should clarify my first post.
Texas law doesn't require this.  The law named above is specifically about public pension investments.  Title 8 is literally "PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS" and Title 10 Ch 2270 deals with contracts for the same.  The law is that state pensions cannot be invested with companies that boycott investment in Israeli companies.
The lawyers for the ISDs are highly regarded and probably think these waivers will stave off some lawsuit. I haven't seen this provision pop up in a 2269 contract yet, but I'll keep my eyes out.

Are you arguing that HB 89 is restricted to pension investments? If so...you need to read HB 89 again. It applies to all contracts by all Gov’t entities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,655

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Are you arguing that HB 89 is restricted to pension investments? If so...you need to read HB 89 again. It applies to all contracts by all Gov’t entities.

It reads poorly but the entire thing is within sections dealing with public pensions.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
It reads poorly but the entire thing is within sections dealing with public pensions.

The remainder of HB 89 indeed talks about pension investments. But the first part is this:

CHAPTER 2270. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING
ISRAEL
Sec. 2270.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Boycott Israel" has the meaning assigned by
Section 808.001.
(2) "Company" has the meaning assigned by Section
808.001.
(3) "Governmental entity" has the meaning assigned by
Section 2251.001.
Sec. 2270.002. PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT. A
governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for
goods or services unless the contract contains a written
verification from the company that it:
(1) does not boycott Israel; and
(2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the
contract.



That is in no way limited to pensions. It’s all contracts, by its plain language. Nobody has interpreted that language to be limited to pension investments...because it’s not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5,076

Posted
Posted
Check your bible. Jesus preached that the end of the world would come within the lifetime of those listening to him. The belief that the end is nigh is literally as old as Christianity. 

I thought that was Paul. Most of the stuff Jesus clearly talked about was love, mercy, and a personal relationship with God. Maybe there were some vague references people interpreted as end of world stuff. Don’t recall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,777

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

the damn thing passed almost 100% in the Texas legislature. Why is everyone so scared of AIPAC?  You see NRA bumper stickers but not any AIPAC ones, do you? I don't know why the politicians are so dickless when it comes to Israel, except for one Bernie Sanders,  the elderly Jew who had some family perish in the Holocaust, of all people. 

d28.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,655

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


The remainder of HB 89 indeed talks about pension investments. But the first part is this:

CHAPTER 2270. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING
ISRAEL
Sec. 2270.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Boycott Israel" has the meaning assigned by
Section 808.001.
(2) "Company" has the meaning assigned by Section
808.001.
(3) "Governmental entity" has the meaning assigned by
Section 2251.001.
Sec. 2270.002. PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT. A
governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for
goods or services unless the contract contains a written
verification from the company that it:
(1) does not boycott Israel; and
(2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the
contract.



That is in no way limited to pensions. It’s all contracts, by its plain language. Nobody has interpreted that language to be limited to pension investments...because it’s not.

10.F Chapter 2270 is "PROHIBITION ON INVESTING PUBLIC MONEY IN CERTAIN INVESTMENTS"

The Israel language was added under that title.  Alongside provisions barring investment in Somalia, Iran, and terrorism. 

 

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
10.F Chapter 2270 is "PROHIBITION ON INVESTING PUBLIC MONEY IN CERTAIN INVESTMENTS"
The Israel language was added under that title.  Alongside provisions barring investment in Somalia, Iran, and terrorism. 
 

Right. Doesn’t matter where it is. It matters what it says. That’s a basic of statutory construction.

The Lege can put mandatory govt contract language in the penal code, and it says what it says and means it’s mandatory Gov’t contract language.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,777

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Tuco said:


I thought that was Paul. Most of the stuff Jesus clearly talked about was love, mercy, and a personal relationship with God. Maybe there were some vague references people interpreted as end of world stuff. Don’t recall.

Correct, that was Paul in I Thessalonians and then he has to correct people in II Thessalonians due to people just sitting around waiting for the end to happen. As I recall, Jesus stated, no one knows the day or hour.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,655

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Right. Doesn’t matter where it is. It matters what it says. That’s a basic of statutory construction.

The Lege can put mandatory govt contract language in the penal code, and it says what it says and means it’s mandatory Gov’t contract language.

And that's the most terrible interpretation possible and reason for my quip on originalism (which really should have been on textualism).

Title 8 is 100% about pensions (which I believe you agree with me on).

Title 10.F.2270 is 100% about the contracts and the fund management of these pensions...except for that part about Israel???

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,788

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Tuco said:


I thought that was Paul. Most of the stuff Jesus clearly talked about was love, mercy, and a personal relationship with God. Maybe there were some vague references people interpreted as end of world stuff. Don’t recall.

Jesus said it in the first (ordinally, not chronologically) gospel:

Matthew 16:28

28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,655

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Jesus said it in the first (ordinally, not chronologically) gospel:

Matthew 16:28

28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

He said it in all the synoptic gospels.  And you said he predicted the end of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4,378

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Don't tell my Dad that. He has been saying that he feels like the end of the world is around the corner for the past 15 years because of Israel and the ME.

My grandma is the same. She also says shit like everyone wants to take over Israel because the land is so fertile. I point out that New Jersey is more fertile than Israel at about the same size.  And New Jersey is nothing compared to the Great Plains. Israel does well for desert, but it ain't fertile compared to world breadbaskets.  Then the conversation turns to the Bible says.

 It's a big world. The middle east is a tiny part of it with countries that arent world powers. Nothing that happens there is going to end the world for anyone except the people who are there. A South China Sea or Ukraine conflict are more world enders. 

And how is this dumb ass law constitutional? Has it not been challenged yet?

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Dominionism -- a batshit, heretical theological approach, controls our government.  Again, a theological subset which is effectively manufactured out of whole cloth, has an amazing amount of control over our actual laws.

In short, we need Israel so the prophecies and the rapture (made up shit) can come true.

And if you're a Jewish Israeli, the really insulting part about all this is that (spoiler alert) in the final days according to the prophecy, the Jews get hammered, too.  In short, we need the Jews around so that they can die and fulfill the prophecy so all of us good Christian types can ascend and play our harps.

To be fair, the Israel lobby doesn't give a shit about that, because they know it's wacko kookiness.  BUT....they'll happily take advantage of said wacko kookiness to implement US policies that are favorable to Israel.  Because (spoiler alert again)....there ain't no "end of days" coming.

Hellooooo...

ds9edit.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orca of Peace

Orca of Peace 109

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. 

he meant to say that if someone is does not support the movement against the Israeli boycott, then that person is an anti-semite.  Too many negatives, but the basic idea is that boycotting Israel makes someone a Jew hater, or that's what the Israeli propaganda wants people to believe, to shut people up and end the debate. Problem is the general public is too dimwitted to see through this and,  against the backdrop of guilt-shaming, will drop the conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Aw look, Aphelion's feelings are hurt again. So cute.

We could have an actual discussion if that is what you wanted.  All it would take is for you to honestly engage and not post easily falsifiable statements and then disappear when I show they are false.   I know this is more effort than you are used to but you are more than capable.  It’s such a waste that someone with your puzzle solving abilities is content with the role of a jackal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, JBJ said:

10.F Chapter 2270 is "PROHIBITION ON INVESTING PUBLIC MONEY IN CERTAIN INVESTMENTS"

The Israel language was added under that title.  Alongside provisions barring investment in Somalia, Iran, and terrorism. 

 

Sigh.  Here's the index of Chapter 10, Subtitle F of the Government Code, prior to the addition created by HB 89:

Quote

2015 Texas Statutes
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 10 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
SUBTITLE F - STATE AND LOCAL CONTRACTS AND FUND MANAGEMENT

When it comes to Chapter 10, Subtitle F, HB 89 added one thing:

Quote
SECTION 1.  Subtitle F, Title 10, Government Code, is
  amended by adding Chapter 2270 to read as follows:
  CHAPTER 2270. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING
  ISRAEL
         Sec. 2270.001.  DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: 
               (1)  "Boycott Israel" has the meaning assigned by
  Section 808.001.
               (2)  "Company" has the meaning assigned by Section
  808.001.
               (3)  "Governmental entity" has the meaning assigned by
  Section 2251.001.
         Sec. 2270.002.  PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT.  A
  governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for
  goods or services unless the contract contains a written
  verification from the company that it:
               (1)  does not boycott Israel; and
               (2)  will not boycott Israel during the term of the
  contract.

So, to the 2015 index I copied and pasted above -- an index that covers such topics as payments for goods and services, prevailing wages, and contracting and delivery procedures for construction projects -- in other words, a variety of issues related to government contracting in general -- the Lege added chapter 2270, PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL.

It's a broad restriction on government contracts.  It is in no way limited to pension investments.  Seriously, how on earth can you read HB 89, and Subtitle F, and reach that conclusion?  Are you confused by the fact that the REMAINDER of HB 89 amends Title 8, Subtitle A (so, NOT Title 10, subtitle F) to add a restriction on investing in companies that boycott Israel?  HB 89 did TWO things -- 1) it added 2270 to Title 10, subtitle F, and -- and this is a totally separate thing -- 2) it amended Title 8, subtitle A.  Doing the second thing in no way limits the first thing.

Read Title 10, subtitle F as it exists today, with sections 2251 through 2270.  You will see that the entire subtitle is about government contracting in general, and applies to government contracting in general except where specifically limited by a particular provision.

Section 2270 applies to all government entity contracts.  There's no argument on the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32,996

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

We could have an actual discussion if that is what you wanted.  All it would take is for you to honestly engage and not post easily falsifiable statements and then disappear when I show they are false.   I know this is more effort than you are used to but you are more than capable.  It’s such a waste that someone with your puzzle solving abilities is content with the role of a jackal. 

You posted this:

17 hours ago, Aphelion said:

The evangelicals are roughly split as follows:

  • 50% protestant
  • 20% catholic
  • 20% Muslim
  • 10% atheist (meaning allegiance to Richard Dawkins)

Politically they are split like this according to the internet:

  • 110% Trump
  • 80% Nazi

 

Nobody who posts that gets to claim that they want to honestly engage in actual discussion. You've become a caricature of yourself, and I'll go right ahead and continue calling it out.

Edited by Huckleberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAROON

MAROON 445

Posted
Posted

The US has had anti-boycott legislation for trade forever.  We have to check for it all the time when shipping goods to the mid east.  Many times the PO will say they will not accept a shipment if the ship makes a stop in Israel.  That is a no-no that has to be deleted from  the PO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,655

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Sigh.  Here's the index of Chapter 10, Subtitle F of the Government Code, prior to the addition created by HB 89:

When it comes to Chapter 10, Subtitle F, HB 89 added one thing:

So, to the 2015 index I copied and pasted above -- an index that covers such topics as payments for goods and services, prevailing wages, and contracting and delivery procedures for construction projects -- in other words, a variety of issues related to government contracting in general -- the Lege added chapter 2270, PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL.

It's a broad restriction on government contracts.  It is in no way limited to pension investments.  Seriously, how on earth can you read HB 89, and Subtitle F, and reach that conclusion?  Are you confused by the fact that the REMAINDER of HB 89 amends Title 8, Subtitle A (so, NOT Title 10, subtitle F) to add a restriction on investing in companies that boycott Israel?  HB 89 did TWO things -- 1) it added 2270 to Title 10, subtitle F, and -- and this is a totally separate thing -- 2) it amended Title 8, subtitle A.  Doing the second thing in no way limits the first thing.

Read Title 10, subtitle F as it exists today, with sections 2251 through 2270.  You will see that the entire subtitle is about government contracting in general, and applies to government contracting in general except where specifically limited by a particular provision.

Section 2270 applies to all government entity contracts.  There's no argument on the point.

I see what they did now.

From the original Chapter 2270:

Quote

For another Chapter 2270, consisting of Secs. 2270.001 to 2270.002, added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (H.B. 89), Sec. 1, see Sec. 2001.001 et seq., post.

I'll use 2270A (investments) and 2270B (Israel).

Instead of inserting the language into Chapter 2270A.  They created a separate Chapter 2270B.  Which kind of forces the municipals to apply it outside the general provisions of 2270A

Hard to believe that's not just a dumb mistake.

 

Here's the text of 2270A

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,495

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, MAROON said:

The US has had anti-boycott legislation for trade forever.  We have to check for it all the time when shipping goods to the mid east.  Many times the PO will say they will not accept a shipment if the ship makes a stop in Israel.  That is a no-no that has to be deleted from  the PO.

Yeah, I suppose this finds its justification somewhere in national security/foreign treaty obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3,432

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, David Dennison said:

For someone who spent a great deal of time in Catholic school, evangelical Catholic just sounds funny to me. 

Believe it or not there is such a thing.

Now it is not the garden variety literal interpretation of the bible, prosperity gospel, evolution hating, end of times type of evangelical but they are "fundamental" in their beliefs and behave much like  their protestant brethren when it comes to belief in miracles and daily duty to god.

I went to Catholic school back in the 70's and, of course, my education was not the slightest bit "evangelical".  However, there was a not insignificant movement in our large church that was part of what came to be know as the Catholic charismatic movement which dealt with being very open about your Christianity and delved in laying on of hands for healing, prayer for healing, and being baptized in the Holy Spirit (Catholics never use the term "holy ghost") .  They were staunchly anti gay and anti abortion.   Interestingly enough, like most Catholics, even the evangelicals did not really go in for much literal biblical interpretation, unless it dealt with very small daily acts that are, biblicaly speaking, not really controversial on any level. 

From a political standpoint they were necessarily republican, a fact that I was intrigued by given that just about every other catholic demographic (think Mexican, Irish, Italian etc.) voted democrat at that time.

My family's interest in the movement fizzled out in the mid 80's, not really out of disillusionment, but  more because my brother and I got older and more independent and my parents had shit to do.  Back on the shag, I wrote at length about some of my religious experiences which were on the whole very positive but as I look back on them, ended up holding me back from a lot of critically thinking that I should have been doing at that stage of my life.

If I am being honest with myself, I would describe my 16-25 year old former self as somewhat racist, homophobic, war mongering, close minded, staunchly republican, anti government, and profit centered.  It was hard to shed the absolutism of those beliefs and I am sure some still linger deep down in places that I that I have not cleared out-which is kind of the problem that we have with evangelical fundamentalist-its hard to undo because it is belief based and not fact based.

TLDR: There are evangelical Catholics, I was one, I made some mistakes, sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JBJ said:

I see what they did now.

From the original Chapter 2270:

I'll use 2270A (investments) and 2270B (Israel).

Instead of inserting the language into Chapter 2270A.  They created a separate Chapter 2270B.  Which kind of forces the municipals to apply it outside the general provisions of 2270A

Hard to believe that's not just a dumb mistake.

 

Here's the text of 2270A

It wasn't a mistake.  It was quite purposeful.  This statute isn't unique to Texas -- mirror image statutes, which apply broadly to ALL gov't contracts, have been adopted by many states.  The Lege did exactly what they intended to do here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

You posted this:

Nobody who posts that gets to claim that they want to honestly engage in actual discussion. You've become a caricature of yourself, and I'll go right ahead and continue calling it out.

That post wasn’t intended as an attempt at generating actual discussion.  For some reason you would rather snipe flippant posts than engage at length when I do post something serious.  As I said, it seems a waste to be relegated to that role.  Instead of calling out behavior that matches some pattern of your useless constructed  internet psychological profile, why not call out and dispute the ideas & points I do post?  I know that takes more effort and opens one up to the possibility of being proven wrong, but the alternative is to be reduced to these types uninteresting back and forths that will eventually be ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongestHorn

LongestHorn 759

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It wasn't a mistake.  It was quite purposeful.  This statute isn't unique to Texas -- mirror image statutes, which apply broadly to ALL gov't contracts, have been adopted by many states.  The Lege did exactly what they intended to do here.

Most states now either have this law on the books or about to enact.  All in the last few years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Every time I think this, it’s immediately followed by this thought: “...but it’s the only thing keeping the imbecile mobs from atrocity.”

In fact, I’d argue that Trump is largely a result of Christianity waning in this county.  At least the good parts of Christianity.  You know, the “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor” parts.  A prevailing (and growing) strain of Christianity in America neglects that shit in favor of a bunch of allegedly Christian ideas that Jesus would have loudly denounced.

Just kidding, of course.  There never was a Jesus.

What proof do you have that Jesus did not exist?  Asking for a friend.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,103

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MAROON said:

The US has had anti-boycott legislation for trade forever.  We have to check for it all the time when shipping goods to the mid east.  Many times the PO will say they will not accept a shipment if the ship makes a stop in Israel.  That is a no-no that has to be deleted from  the PO.

This.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

Don’t do it. 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude, that's the way shit works now.

 

"There hasn’t been any non-evidence yet." (see 2:28)

Okay well I'll admit the "asking for a friend" part was a joke.  Let me put it positively then.  My question simply is: Did the man, Jesus Christ, exist or not and are their any texts that lend proof, besides the bible, that he in fact was a documented human being?  

Seriously.  Threw in asking for a friend because I thought it would put that surly, jerky spin on it, but apparently it struck a nerve with some of you guys.  Sorry it hit some of you in the vag.  

And nice work throwing me in with the Qanon group, wouldn't be a Surly politics thread without generalizing anyone who disagrees as a Trumper conspiracy theorist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Okay well I'll admit the "asking for a friend" part was a joke.  Let me put it positively then.  My question simply is: Did the man, Jesus Christ, exist or not and are their any texts that lend proof, besides the bible, that he in fact was a documented human being?  

Seriously.  Threw in asking for a friend because I thought it would put that surly, jerky spin on it, but apparently it struck a nerve with some of you guys.  Sorry it hit some of you in the vag.  

And nice work throwing me in with the Qanon group, wouldn't be a Surly politics thread without generalizing anyone who disagrees as a Trumper conspiracy theorist.  

I noted that you went with the absurdity of "prove the negative."  Which is a logical fallacy.  Which had strong echoes in the news as of late.

Don't want to share a room with the Q crowd?  Don't commit their same crimes against logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4,606

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Okay well I'll admit the "asking for a friend" part was a joke.  Let me put it positively then.  My question simply is: Did the man, Jesus Christ, exist or not and are their any texts that lend proof, besides the bible, that he in fact was a documented human being?  

Seriously.  Threw in asking for a friend because I thought it would put that surly, jerky spin on it, but apparently it struck a nerve with some of you guys.  Sorry it hit some of you in the vag.  

And nice work throwing me in with the Qanon group, wouldn't be a Surly politics thread without generalizing anyone who disagrees as a Trumper conspiracy theorist.  

You didn’t strike a nerve with me. It was actual advice to not seriously engage that topic. The same way I’d advise someone to not engage a 9/11 truther, or a flat earther, or Dolemite on anything.

But you didn’t listen. Good luck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


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!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...