I wonder if Robert remembers Anthony, Texas as well as he remembers Booker.

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

Wouldn't they be hate speech only if they said "WOMEN ARE TRASH"? So many things in liberal world are dependent on which group(s) you attack and which you champion.

OK to attack: Old, White, Men.

Not OK: the rest.

(09-29-2018 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wouldn't they be hate speech only if they said "WOMEN ARE TRASH"? So many things in liberal world are dependent on which group(s) you attack and which you champion.

OK to attack: Old, White, Men.

Not OK: the rest.

*That* explains the drumbeat of old white men relating to the Kavanaugh hearings.

But it still begs the question of what 'old' and 'white' has to do with anything related to the issues of the hearings. Maybe Robert can tell us since he is the ostensible Texas expert (all over Texas, in fact, including Booker) on intersectionality and social justice these days. I mean, even the question of him in the debate on whether he tried to bolt from the DWI crash was somehow integral to the idea of social justice.

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

Donald Trump Jr. is coming to Conroe next week to campaign for Cruz.

But I haven’t heard anything about when POTUS will be in Texas to have a Rally in Texas in the “largest stadium he can find.”

(09-29-2018 03:39 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  Donald Trump Jr. is coming to Conroe next week to campaign for Cruz.

But I haven’t heard anything about when POTUS will be in Texas to have a Rally in Texas in the “largest stadium he can find.”

Crud. I may have to go to Conroe next week for work.

That’s gonna make traffic miserable.

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

Ironically in the link all the T Shirt Models are Men.

(09-28-2018 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 06:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 05:52 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*
But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.
Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Easier said than done, no doubt. I think I was struck by how emotional he was from the get-go. The whole "this is ME" bit...yeah...maybe he should've gotten a few more eyeballs on it first lol
It's been an emotional time for him sure, but he seemed to lean into that yesterday whereas I think he'd have been better served by better maintaining composure. How long did he have to prepare for this? And that's what he went with? Wasn't feelin it

I thought he was a lot better yesterday than in the original hearing. I was glad to see him come out swinging.

This entire episode has made me rethink my rather deep critiques of the Trumpian mode. Seriously.

I already have done something in the last 24 hours I have never done before: I dumped a pretty healthy amount directly into some swing Republican Senate candidates, the NRC, and NRSC.

Didnt send any Cruz's way. By the middle of the day today I actually got emailed and texted by the Cruz campaign -- the same rather unused email account and Google voice-like phone number I tagged with my previous donations . Ended up giving to the ferret as well.

Oh well. Blew my entire yearly firearms budget on those. Maybe next year's as well. And at least a year's poker night funds, maybe more..... I guess I should use the calculator to figure how many billable hours I just flushed. No more than 4 days or so is my best guess.

My only regret is that I ended up giving to a ferret. And I'll have to ditch the (somewhat throw down) phone number and email address at some point.

I see Cruz looking more as “Grandpa Munster” than a ferret

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

How do you feel about them?

You’ve already told us how you feel about the other examples.

(09-29-2018 03:43 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

Ironically in the link all the T Shirt Models are Men.

Funny how there are umpteen explicit entries for the "Men are Trash" logo. Another couple related that say "Men ain't worth ****"

Because I am a curious yet still deeply disturbed scumbag and deplorable, I instead searched for "Women are Trash" and "Women are Useless"..... Anyone care to guess how many matches there were?

Then I tried to order a custom T-Shirt with the first logo.....

Perhaps we need to get Robert onto this stunning example of social inequality.

The embarrassing thing is that Mrs Tanq came into the office as I was searching/ordering that T-shirt. For some odd reason she didnt look too happy about it. When I explained what I was doing, with all the skill that I could muster, she just walked away shaking her head and muttering 'warped....'.

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.
Do you think Lad would like this one?
https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts
Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

Not answering for George, but interesting question. I view Brandenburg much more favorably.

(09-29-2018 04:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

How do you feel about them?

You’ve already told us how you feel about the other examples.

I think it makes sense to have some limits on speech in the way that Schenck initially set out to do, and that Brandenburg refined, for public safety purposes.

You’ve decided to absolutely twist my comments about supporting the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the Constitution in how it applies to laws, to suggest I believe that hate speech doesn’t need to be protected.

I asked you what your opinion was because in reading the constitution, it’s not clear that ANY speech should be regulated, yet we live in a world where the Supreme Court has routinely ruled that there are limits. So how do you feel about those rulings?

And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

The Kavanaugh DC hearings forced Cruz's team to postpone Sunday's debate (makes sense). But then after the even crazier turn of events on Saturday, Cruz's team told O'Rourke's team they were available to debate after all. But O'Rourke has supposedly made other plans so the debate is off for now. I imagine they'll re-schedule one before the election. I'm not sure it made sense to do them so far in advance of the election anyway.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...ady-booked

(09-29-2018 04:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.
Do you think Lad would like this one?
https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts
Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

I would not worry about those shirts. They are obviously hate speech, and under Lad's theory, hate speech need not be protected by the First Amendment. While some readers of the Constitution might think otherwise, hate speech is one of those obvious wrongs (like abolitionism in 1850s America, or being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or wearing glasses in Pol Pot's Cambodia, or dissent of any kind in much of human history) which -- as Lad confidently told us -- simply needs to be righted, and on which the stupid public is not moving fast enough.

George, how do you feel about Schenck vs United States? Or Brandenburg vs Ohio?

Not answering for George, but interesting question. I view Brandenburg much more favorably.

I’m admittedly no legal scholar, so I learned a bit about these cases this morning as I was looking into Supreme Court cases that limited free speech.

From what I read, I’d agree with you about Brandenburg. It seems to have created a really well thought out standard to use to evaluate laws/government curtailing free speech. And that standard is fairly narrow.

You should think of the main edifice as Schenck, but amended slightly by Brandenburg. You also need to consider Debs and Abrams for a full view.

(09-29-2018 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

Well you're not supposed to appreciate it, but it seems like an accurate take. You declared that unelected, unaccountable, but enlightened experts must take it upon themselves to "right" the "wrongs" which they discern, regardless of written law. So did those others. It's this philosophy that's beneath you -- beneath any civilized person.

(09-29-2018 04:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 04:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And George, I really don’t appreciate you suggesting that I agree with Hitler - that’s a really disgusting take and beneath you.

Well you're not supposed to appreciate it, but it seems like an accurate take. You declared that unelected, unaccountable, but enlightened experts must take it upon themselves to "right" the "wrongs" which they discern, regardless of written law. So did those others. It's this philosophy that's beneath you -- beneath any civilized person.

By the way, it is not my voice that has become unreasonable regarding the Constitution; it was yours, when you took the horrific position that you did.

(09-29-2018 04:38 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The Kavanaugh DC hearings forced Cruz's team to postpone Sunday's debate (makes sense). But then after the even crazier turn of events on Saturday, Cruz's team told O'Rourke's team they were available to debate after all. But O'Rourke has supposedly made other plans so the debate is off for now. I imagine they'll re-schedule one before the election. I'm not sure it made sense to do them so far in advance of the election anyway.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics...ady-booked

The October 16 debate is still scheduled, correct?