|
twodot posted:No, perhaps you could provide a quote where they say "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America"? Otherwise, it seems like standard otherizing. Here you go. That's pretty close, with a minute's googling.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
twodot posted:No, perhaps you could provide a quote where they say "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America"? Otherwise, it seems like standard otherizing. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Venn Diagram of white males who believe the following looks like? "If you support BLM you are simply a racist. Period." "white male conservatives are the most persecuted group in America" Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Venn Diagram of people who believe the following looks like? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
 What a charming person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:
If he were charming he'd be able to sell it, obvs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, perhaps you could provide a quote where they say "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America"? Otherwise, it seems like standard otherizing. Couldn't find that quote, but I did find a editorial he wrote comparing having to take photos for a same-sex wedding to rape. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/08/18/rape-wins-n2206755 And accusing BLM of targeting speakers because they're white instead of the subject matter of the speeches. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2016/07/15/silencing-whitey-n2192787 Then there was his column about the College Republican club he was advising having to include a non-discrimination clause and a "we will follow the rules and laws" clause in their constitution for campus recognition. Clauses that were required for every organization on campus. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus Original Story: http://www.popecenter.org/2003/12/uncw-faculty-accuse-college-republicans-of-fighting-for-right-to-discriminate/ Sounds like a really stand up guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Here you go. That's pretty close, with a minute's googling. Unzip and Attack posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you think the Venn Diagram of white males who believe the following looks like? kelvron posted:Couldn't find that quote, but I did find a editorial he wrote comparing having to take photos for a same-sex wedding to rape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:Please quote the "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America" part. There probably isn't one. Get to whatever stupid point you want to make It's not out of line to suggest a known racist has other racist beliefs
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There probably isn't one. Get to whatever stupid point you want to make
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:It is out of line, there are all sorts of racist beliefs, stick to accusing racists of the beliefs you can actually demonstrate. Ok. http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2013/08/22/inclusion-means-excluding-white-males-n1670014
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:It is out of line, there are all sorts of racist beliefs, stick to accusing racists of the beliefs you can actually demonstrate. "Well this guy didn't explicitly say X did he? No? He just inferred it while saying a bunch of poo poo that is in line with believing X? Well I guess since he didn't say it specifically he can't be said to believe it. Checkmate.  "Whether you realize it or not, this is what your argument is right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Just so we’re clear on how far you can take this logic: Hitler never gave an explicit, written order for the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Well this guy didn't explicitly say X did he? No? He just inferred it while saying a bunch of poo poo that is in line with believing X? Well I guess since he didn't say it specifically he can't be said to believe it. Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, perhaps you could provide a quote where they say "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America"? Otherwise, it seems like standard otherizing. Its a fairly short piece, perhaps you could read it? I don't do alot of twitter embedding or linking of images because I don't really know how to. If you want an exact quote containing what what said, it simply isn't there. Perhaps you should take action for a poster breaking their guarantee!!! What a pointless and stupid derail. The title of his piece is "Inclusion means excluding white males" Does this not qualify? Edit: How would this guys conduct jive with the NC disorderly conduct law? Seems like provoking language through and through designed to breach the peace Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:You keep posting articles when I asked for quotes, I'm not seeing any of these words in there "most prosecuted" or "conservative". Like I realize this is a tough burden to meet, but I'm not the one making specific allegations. I'm pretty sure no one said that he actually said "white male conservatives are the most persecuted group in America", only that he holds that belief. He doesn't have to say those magic words to hold that belief. Lacking that, showing a pattern of behavior, such as complaining about the lack of white males on an inclusion committee or fighting to exclude a required anti-discrimination clause from a conservative group's constitution can be evidence for that belief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
twodot is just doing the nitpicky fishmech bullshit, except failing because fishmech is probably sincere (or just more intelligent and subtle than twodot). Arguing with fishmech is an embarassing flaw that we've all fallen prey to on occasion. This is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
kelvron posted:I'm pretty sure no one said that he actually said "white male conservatives are the most persecuted group in America", only that he holds that belief. He doesn't have to say those magic words to hold that belief. Lacking that, showing a pattern of behavior, such as complaining about the lack of white males on an inclusion committee or fighting to exclude a required anti-discrimination clause from a conservative group's constitution can be evidence for that belief. His actual stance is: "show me the exact quote" so it's probably best to just ignore and move on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:His actual stance is: "show me the exact quote" so it's probably best to just ignore and move on. I figured as much, still wanted to put in more effort than twodot. On a completely new subject, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has already borne fruit. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/01/politics/saudi-arabia-9-11-lawsuit/ Article posted:Stephanie DeSimone was two months pregnant when her husband, Navy Cmdr. Patrick Dunn, was killed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Complaint is here: https://www.scribd.com/document/326074287/Saudi-Lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:His actual stance is: "show me the exact quote" so it's probably best to just ignore and move on. Edit: Seriously post a quote, not an article, just a quote that you think is evidence that they believe "white male conservatives are the most prosecuted group in America" twodot fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's "show me a quote that implies it or says it" if you don't have such a quote then do move on, because you can't substantiate your argument. For instance, "Inclusion means excluding white males" even in the best case you can't make any conclusions about conservatives, never mind the fact that excluding white males in no ways implies they're the most prosecuted group in America. There's no way anyone here would accept such weak evidence against anyone they agreed with. Why do you care so much, is this your father?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
duz posted:Why do you care so much, is this your father?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's "show me a quote that implies it or says it" if you don't have such a quote then do move on, because you can't substantiate your argument. For instance, "Inclusion means excluding white males" even in the best case you can't make any conclusions about conservatives, never mind the fact that excluding white males in no ways implies they're the most prosecuted group in America. There's no way anyone here would accept such weak evidence against anyone they agreed with. I showed writings where he expressed the belief that white males are highly persecuted in America, and conservatives are highly persecuted in America. And while he may never have flat out stated the magical phrase "white, conservative, males", assuming that those sets somehow cancel out when they overlap is ludicrous. I didn't think having to read a few thousand words would be such a huge deal. And you keep saying "prosecuted". Repeatedly. Unzip and I have both been using the word "persecuted". Are you deliberately misquoting us?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
kelvron posted:I figured as much, still wanted to put in more effort than twodot. Yikes, I wonder how the Trump administration will deal with this mess. No, really, I have no idea how the Trump administration would deal with something as complex and messy as this poorly considered break in conventions of international law. A competent president would have trouble with all the problems this can create.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Declare an emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, dismiss all claims against Saudi Arabia. Might be more steps but I never bothered to read all of Dames & Moore v Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
I take it back, turns out there are three now. DeSimone v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia McCarthy et al. v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Bowrosen et al. v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia http://www.law360.com/articles/863207/9-11-victims-face-tough-path-to-prove-saudi-claims It might get narrowed, but lol: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/graham-mccain-saudi-arabia-911-232026
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Was it passed with some legal loop hole in mind where "Yeah this will actually never bear fruit, sorry, you're out of luck! Bye!" was the actual legal thought process of the Congress criters in question or does this actually legitimately allow a law suit to come forward, will go to court unless the Saudi's settle, and compels the President/government to do something about it since it passed Congress? Or is it "Technically you can sue Saudi Arabia in US courts" but it doesn't have any provisions to seek recompense?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Was it passed with some legal loop hole in mind where "Yeah this will actually never bear fruit, sorry, you're out of luck! Bye!" was the actual legal thought process of the Congress criters in question or does this actually legitimately allow a law suit to come forward, will go to court unless the Saudi's settle, and compels the President/government to do something about it since it passed Congress? My understanding is no one knows what will happen! The congresspeople behind it appear to be actual Saudi conspiracy theorists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Good thing Trump's pick for WH Counsel is competent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Was it passed with some legal loop hole in mind where "Yeah this will actually never bear fruit, sorry, you're out of luck! Bye!" was the actual legal thought process of the Congress criters in question or does this actually legitimately allow a law suit to come forward, will go to court unless the Saudi's settle, and compels the President/government to do something about it since it passed Congress? It waives immunity, so it could waive the immunity that would protect Saudi governmental property for being seized to satisfy a judgment. Said property would likely have to be outside of the embassy, so maybe some over zealous plaintiff will try to seize a jet or a car or something. First someone is going to have to prove that the Saudi government itself intentionally supported the 9/11 attacks. Good luck
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:First someone is going to have to prove that the Saudi government itself intentionally supported the 9/11 attacks. Good luck By "prove", you mean "convince a US jury," right? I'm pretty sure if you file in Texas and then tell the jury Saudis are Muslims that will be enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:By "prove", you mean "convince a US jury," right? There is this thing called "appeals".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
I still don't get this bill. Is this one of those things where the Republicans just assumed they would lose the Presidency and they could just blame all the consequences on Hillary so they went ahead and overrode Obama's veto? Seems like a win-win: if she seizes Saudi property to pay judgments you get to blame any retaliation on her weakness or w/e, if she doesn't then she hates 9/11 widows and America. Pretty good deal unless you accidentally win an election and have to govern. See also: sabotaging Obamacare in the courts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
ulmont posted:By "prove", you mean "convince a US jury," right? LeftistMuslimObama posted:There is this thing called "appeals".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:There is this thing called "appeals". Appeals from Texas go first to the same 5th Circuit court that upheld the nationwide injunction against Obama's immigration program and then to a Supreme Court with one more conservative member than the Supreme Court that split 4-4 on DACA when it came to them. Also, there is a big gap between "I think this jury got it wrong when they found X" and "I am convinced that no reasonable jury, on this evidentiary record that I was not part of making, could have found X" Dead Reckoning posted:It doesn't matter, because no sovereign is going to set the precedent of appearing before a domestic court. Even if some slack-jawed judge enters a summary judgement against Saudi Arabia, they can count on it being totally unenforceable. "Totally unenforceable", you say, like Saudi Arabia has no assets in the United States to execute against. Even Libya had US assets tied up in court for decades after the Lockerbie bombing. EDIT: prior to that bill passing, Saudi Arabia was threatening to sell off $750 billion in US assets. Even if that is overstated by a factor of 100, that's still $7.5 billion to recover. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:It waives immunity, so it could waive the immunity that would protect Saudi governmental property for being seized to satisfy a judgment. Said property would likely have to be outside of the embassy, so maybe some over zealous plaintiff will try to seize a jet or a car or something. The United States government doesn't have the power to waive the sovereign immunity of another country. It's not a matter of it being unconstitutional, but state immunity (not sovereign immunity) is customary international law. The KSA would have to voluntarily waive their state immunity in order not only for any enforcement mechanism to go forwards but in order for a legally valid decision to be rendered. In other words, no domestic court has the jurisdiction. This is all besides the fact that even if you could somehow prove the involvement of the KSA, prosecution or redress from individuals who aided Al Qaeda in 9/11 (if at all substantiated) would fail due to rationae materiae, or, if still in office, rationae personae. Check out Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014 SCC 62 for a somewhat similar case on that. In any event, broader relevant caselaw referring to state immunity is of course Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). Give it a read, it's pretty interesting. So setting aside issues of international relations and precedent setting and enforcing a judgement, the whole thing, on a legal basis, doesn't matter in the slightest. The Bill as written is legally meaningless. Suing a foreign state in U.S. domestic courts is quite simply impossible. Even suing individuals wouldn't work, and the Pinochet Case doesn't apply here due to the lack of a CAT equivalent. Torture may not be state action due to customary international law, but war crimes absolutely can be. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:12
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Foreign countries have already appeared in US courts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:The United States government doesn't have the power to waive the sovereign immunity of another country. It's not a matter of it being unconstitutional, but state immunity (not sovereign immunity) is customary international law. The US absolutely has a right to waive another country's sovereign immunity as it applies to American courts. Its a statutory right. 28 U.S.C. 1605 lists a bunch of exceptions to this right. 28 U.S.C 1602 posted:The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests of justice and would protect the rights of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction of judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter. Also, a supreme court case from Canada, and a ICJ case are not precedent in American courts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The US absolutely has a right to waive another country's sovereign immunity as it applies to American courts. 28 U.S.C. 1605 lists a bunch of exceptions Neither are binding, and ICJ cases themselves are decided on a case by case basis; previous decisions can be used for informative value, but you're right that they're not precedent in American courts. I was using those cases for illustrative purposes to demonstrate what the international law in regards to the matter is. Nonetheless, state immunity is customary international law. If the United States decided to enforce the judgement, the KSA would respond through the ICJ - and they'd win. I'm not arguing about U.S. domestic law. I'm saying that the United States can pass whatever laws it wants, but it doesn't matter because international law in this regard is settled. Now the United States could refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, but the ICJ ruled in US v. Nicaragua that, in case of doubt, the United Nations Charter provides the ability for the Court itself to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction, and that every member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the Court. Now the United States could obviously just decide not to pay the fine or remand Saudi property back to their owners, but that's an issue of enforcement, not legal correctness. E: The Security Council could mandate that the United States pay the fine, but the U.S. has veto power so that'd obviously go nowhere. Still, it's a mechanism for enforcement for the ICJ, if one obviously hamstrung in this case. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:The United States government doesn't have the power to waive the sovereign immunity of another country. It's not a matter of it being unconstitutional, but state immunity (not sovereign immunity) is customary international law. If its so meaningless and unenforceable then why is the KSA bothering to threaten retaliation and making statements about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:32
|
|