sactowndog
-
Posts
23,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by sactowndog
-
-
On 6/11/2024 at 7:52 AM, SDSUfan said:
I shocked to find that the pile of shitposting commies that infest this board don't like Judge Thomas.
Scream into the void commies.
Commies that want Judges to follow the Constitution and respect rights
-
On 6/11/2024 at 6:49 AM, robe said:
Only conservative are held to any kind of standards.
Tell that to Hunter Biden, Menendez, Eric Mazza, Al Franken, Weiner, John Conyers, John Edwards, Katie Hill….
You just don’t remember them because they actually resigned and left public office versus fund raising off the scandal.
-
On 6/8/2024 at 12:48 PM, 818SUDSFan said:
In a prior professional life I worked for a state commission that administered various statutes passed by the legislature. The commissioners, who were located in Sacramento and appointed by the governor, were tasked with hearing appeals of decisions rendered by the commission's staff throughout the state and were assisted by attorneys who performed legal research and drafted opinions for them. During one of my visits to headquarters, I had lunch with one such attorney and the topic of discussion turned to the then-chairman who had been appointed by Jerry Brown and was far-left politically. I commented to the attorney that I couldn't believe the chairman's dissent in a recent case. The attorney replied that before the parties' briefs had been received, the chairman, who was supposed to be neutral of course, as much as told her what his decision was going to be and he wanted her to find some published cases that might somehow support that decision.
Clarence Thomas is clearly a contemporary far-right version of that former California state administrative commissioner.
Well the latest video by Alioto seems to align….
-
1
-
-
On 6/10/2024 at 12:43 PM, Nevada Convert said:
70% of Israeli’s are Arabs.
I was asking Bob
-
On 6/9/2024 at 4:37 PM, renoskier said:
why?
you're a good poster
Let’s just say I don’t hear that often
-
On 6/9/2024 at 11:46 AM, renoskier said:
Haha. I am a bit surprised you added me.
-
On 6/9/2024 at 9:04 AM, grandjean87 said:
You still missed one (or more) from recent history where militarism worked using de-population strategies. Neither Quebec nor N. Ireland were ever subject to large scale, high level military repression so I have no clue why you refer to them other than your confusion. The analysis was, despite some limited historical examples of success, that military repression (militarism) has poor results. The immense costs (esp. for a democracy) exceed the desired results. In other words, the authors are arguing for a change in strategy by Israel that is diametrically opposed to the views of the security minister and others of similar minds. In a way, that means they agree with you in part on the strategy.
But, you go very far out by posting as if every last single Palestinian must be killed or driven from all territory in Israel from Gaza to the West Bank ("Palestinians won’t exist from the River to the Sea"). That's rarely if ever been the case in ethnic cleanings. Think about all the peoples who have survived brutal, genocidal campaigns in the 20th and early 21st centuries. You plead over and over goal of Israel is the final solution for the large population of Palestinians not only in Gaza, but also the West Bank and the substantial number in Israel proper. I see no one here, including U.S. policy, defending that wild position.
Good luck, man. You have passion, but lack a lot of clarity. I'm moving on (gradually) from this forum. We'll see how it all goes. Not totally leaving for now.
I realize other instances of ethnic cleansing exist. I tried to pick examples most people would know.
I’m not stating what I believe Israel should do. I am stating what right wing Israeli’s have said regarding Gaza and done in the West Bank.
Quite frankly your brief comments of what has happened to people facing campaigns of ethnic cleansing as a historical study to me is more relevant than the article you posted. And again I did not use the term Genocide as you implied in your “final solution” comment. Israel does not desire to kill all the Palestinians just to force them into Egypt or Jordan.
Have you watched Israelism?
-
On 6/4/2024 at 8:04 AM, CV147 said:
People are enamored with victimhood.
Conservatives will cry about a supposed "war on Christianity" and "respect for the flag" but at the same time act in opposition to Christ's teachings, and then mutilate the flag with the "thin blue line" bullshit.
Progressives do the same thing. They continually expand what is offensive or unjust to them because it makes them feel indignant, yet they will turn a blind eye to offenses given or injustice if it doesn't fit their narrative.CV you might enjoy this podcast…..
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plain-english-with-derek-thompson/id1594471023?i=1000658153528
-
On 6/2/2024 at 1:15 PM, Bob said:
No congrats, and yes, do away with pride month. Sick of seeing gay shit everywjere
So @Bob tell us how you feel about Arabs while you are at it…..
-
On 6/8/2024 at 7:37 PM, grandjean87 said:
Well, you missed at least one or two contemporary (as in this past year or ongoing) global de-populations/cleansings. You also missed the one from two decades back that was in the article. I'm not interested in tutoring understanding at this point.
Anyway, the thesis was the best strategy for Israel would be to turn away from their failed militarism response and work towards the last two strategies. Not sure why you would be against that, but I didn't voice an opinion on the authors' thesis so whatever.
Below is their last thesis. This assumes, as do you, that Palestinians will remain in the West Bank and Gaza. If Israel follows the stated goals of more than one national leader they won’t. Israel could care less if the Palestinians support Hamas or not because the Palestinians won’t exist from the River to the Sea.
Conversely nobody is trying to depopulate Catholics from Northern Ireland or Francophiles from Quebec. My issue with the article is it obfuscates Israel’s clear intent. An intent if people understood would cause Israel to lose support.
Most terrorist groups end in a sixth way: because they fail, either by collapsing in on themselves or by losing support. Groups that implode sometimes die out during generational shifts (the far-left Weather Underground in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s), disintegrate into factions (remnants of the IRA after the Good Friday Agreement), break down over operational disagreements (the Front de Libération du Québec, a Canadian separatist group, in the early 1970s), or fracture over ideological differences (the communist Japanese Red Army in 2001).
-
On 6/8/2024 at 10:28 AM, grandjean87 said:
Probably goes better/the other longer thread, but just food for thought.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/how-hamas-ends-gaza
Basically argues there a number of ways Hamas could fail as others in the broad historical category have in the past, and that Israel should strategize to the last means:
Ways to end Hamas: Success of Hamas (not likely), transforming into something else: a criminal network or an insurgency (very possible), military repression (too many serious problems w/this strategy),decapitation: the arrest or killing of leaders (Hamas like a hydra so not likely), negotiation (hard to do, but try), and collapsing in on themselves or by losing support (best alternative strategy to push?).
So I said I would read out of respect for your opinion and my opinion hasn’t changed. Through the entire article it compares it to situations that had no relation to the facts on the ground in Gaza: the Uruguayans were not trying to remove Uruguayan citizens, the Protestants were not trying to remove the Catholics, etc.
Anybody that takes a realistic look at Gaza calls it what it is which is an attempt at ethic cleansing which is exactly what is also occurring in the West Bank
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ethnic-cleansing-gaza/
or watch
Israelism
if the article were a responsible piece of Journalism not biased by US pro Israel forces it would have instead compared Israel’s campaign to:
* the Indian Relocation Act
* the Armenian massacres by the Turks
* the expulsion of Germans from Polish and Czech territory
* the expulsion of Bosnians from parts of Yugoslavia
* the removal of Crimean Tatars
* the first Nakba of Palestinians
Instead it starts with a false premise and explores options that have no basis in reality.
Sadly the U.S. is intimately involved in the first on the list and will be intimately involved in the last. It’s also not really a surprise that Trump’s favorite President was Grant. I fully expect him to win and the Palestinian Ethnic cleansing from the River to the Sea to be completed.
May God have mercy on our souls.
-
On 6/8/2024 at 11:26 AM, grandjean87 said:
Except one of the strategies essentially implies that if somewhat different in kind. Which makes your reply quite presumptuous.
I didn't offer any opinion other than very cursory outline of a fair-length read. No opinion, no analysis. Really nothing to exchange unless you read the FP author's analysis and summary views.
I went off the summary and start of the article not any statement of yours. If my assumption from that initial impression was incorrect I will go back and read it and reply with my thoughts.
in that spirit have you watched Israelism?
-
On 6/8/2024 at 10:56 AM, grandjean87 said:
You didn't have time to read that article.
You are correct. And I will tell you why.
It accepts the false premise this war is about eliminating Hamas. I don’t believe that premise is at all true. The real point is about ethnic cleansing. I get you don’t believe me but perhaps you will believe a Jewish person. Watch the movie. Read the Bio of people like Ben-Givr. Then come back and tell me you still believe it’s about eliminating Hamas.
-
1
-
-
On 6/8/2024 at 10:50 AM, Nevada Convert said:
I’ll bet Loose Change 911 gave you a boner, as well.
Did you watch it or do you refuse to hear what they have to say?
-
On 6/8/2024 at 10:28 AM, grandjean87 said:
Probably goes better/the other longer thread, but just food for thought.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/how-hamas-ends-gaza
Basically argues there a number of ways Hamas could fail as others in the broad historical category have in the past, and that Israel should strategize to the last means:
Ways to end Hamas: Success of Hamas (not likely), transforming into something else: a criminal network or an insurgency (very possible), military repression (too many serious problems w/this strategy),decapitation: the arrest or killing of leaders (Hamas like a hydra so not likely), negotiation (hard to do, but try), and collapsing in on themselves or by losing support (best alternative strategy to push?).
That assumes the goal of Israel is to really remove Hamas instead of completing the Nakba from the river to the sea.
if you have not watched Israelism, created by an American Jewish person, you should.
@mugtang please watch it and tell me how you support Americans doing this stuff to other Americans. Worst than Jim Crow in the 1950’s. Tell me again it’s not about ethnic cleansing.
-
This film is now available on major streaming services. Created by a young Jewish woman it is pretty enlightening
https://www.israelismfilm.com/
-
Ironically here is a summary of his concurring opinion in Citizens United. It’s almost like he knew he had something to hide…..
Justice Clarence Thomas, another member of the majority, also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he disagreed with upholding the disclosure provisions of BCRA Sections 201 and 311. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down those reporting requirements, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-by-case basis. Thomas's primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials.[33]
-
On 6/7/2024 at 1:38 PM, RSF said:
To be fair, the only 2 that seem to be ethically challenged are Thomas and Alito. And Trump didnt appoint either one of them.
To be fair when the others choose not to impose a clear standard of ethics when everyone else is subjected to one they are part of the problem.
Let’s not forget Thomas’s opinion in Citizens United
Justice Clarence Thomas, another member of the majority, also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he disagreed with upholding the disclosure provisions of BCRA Sections 201 and 311. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down those reporting requirements, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-by-case basis. Thomas's primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials.[33]
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/7/2024 at 5:28 PM, Nevada Convert said:
I agree with that standard, but it still has to be defined by his employer, not you. Apparently, it isn’t defined. So if you’re going to want to remove Thomas, you need to prove the money actually corrupted him. You have to prove a quid pro quo that meets a corruption standard.
His employer is the American people. I think most Americans not corrupted by teams and shit already believe he has far exceeded that standard. But the discussion is pointless because if 2/3 can’t agree to impeach Trump after Jan 6 they aren’t impeaching Thomas. The Senators are as bought as he is. Let’s not forget he was a key person in Citizens United
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/7/2024 at 3:31 PM, Nevada Convert said:
Answer my question. I’ll ask it again. Are the gifts causing him to vote differently than he always has? I don’t particularly like or hate Thomas. It just so happens to be, by far, the most important question.
Yeah well if you take any of the ethics classes that point doesn’t matter. It’s the appearance of conflict of interest and that’s over a $50 lunch.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well we get the judges he will appoint
-
On 6/6/2024 at 1:39 PM, Nevada Convert said:
They need to pay the Justices a lot more $ and then completely ban gifts over $100. I’ll bet you $1,000 if Thomas had gotten nothing and the other GOP had more, you be declaring that the racist GQP donors only care about white people. You totally would. But you certainly won’t say, “Wow, the GOP donors sure have come a long way paying a black justice in the millions.”
The biggest ethical question isn’t so much the amount of money, but rather is his vote being manipulated. You need to identify that. Just assuming this is causing him to vote differently is nothing but left wing political hack logic with no evidence. So this thread is pretty worthless.
If you prefer in graphical format. What is most galling is we go through ethical training and are grilled for taking a government employee to lunch.
-
1
-
-
Not really a surprise when Ben-Givr and his allies are in the government and so many are willing to look the other way.
-
On 6/5/2024 at 11:54 AM, UNLV2001 said:
I mean let’s be fair here. It’s not like just GOP’ers who are fing hypocrites. This guy runs Israel’s Department of Homeland Security. If it were any other country they would be leading the charge to sanction him and those partnering with him. But given AIPAC money they all have no problem looking the other way.
both parties are beyond repair.
The price of Justice
in Non-Sports items
Posted
My response was to Dems are never held accountable. So basically I’m agreeing with you and I never said Republicans aren’t held accountable.
basically it is only Trump who has not been held accountable. If he were in most other countries he would have been shot or hung already.