4 ms·

It's just bizarre. What's Texas' compelling interest in punishing the boycott of foreign state? If I were a Texan, and I found out that my state government i

by skohan 5y ago

It's just bizarre. What's Texas' compelling interest in punishing the boycott of foreign state? If I were a Texan, and I found out that my state government is potentially over-paying contractors based on a completely irrelevant criteria to the work, I would not be pleased.

ramraj07 5y ago
For the most part the folks who continue to call themselves Texans don’t seem to actually care about things such as logic or freedom, only about reinforcing whatever it is they have been told to reinforce on that day. I feel bad I wasted so much of my life in such a place, but happy that I didn’t contribute my money to them because of their own inane policies.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Not to defend Texas, but every federal contract contains the same language. That's just as true if you live in San Francisco.
leeroyjenkins11 5y ago
It's a strategic ally in the region. US strong support of Israel was the foundation of the Abraham accords that got several major players together and provide stability. The government also does this with domestic companies. There are contractor criteria that requires companies to meet political goals. I guess the question is, does a company have a right to a government contract? I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. It doesn't stop those companies from operating, but they don't get public funds. If they don't like it, they can leave for a state that's ok with their boycott. Or the people can change the legislators out.
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  > I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. You can "say" this all you want, but in fact states do not have this right: their criteria can't violate individual Constitutional rights. If their criteria said "whites only" or "you can't support gay martiage" the issue would be the same: there is nothing special at all about which specific freedom the criteria violates.
- skohan 5y ago
  This doesn't make any sense to me. The government is working for the citizen, the citizen is not working for the government. It should not be the individual citizen's responsibility to respect the strategic interests of the state in a liberal society however strong they may be. I mean if it's relevant fine: like if the project is to provide security to Israeli diplomats by all means make this a hiring consideration, but for a contractor in Texas?

by skohan 5y ago

ramraj07 5y ago

For the most part the folks who continue to call themselves Texans don’t seem to actually care about things such as logic or freedom, only about reinforcing whatever it is they have been told to reinforce on that day. I feel bad I wasted so much of my life in such a place, but happy that I didn’t contribute my money to them because of their own inane policies.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Not to defend Texas, but every federal contract contains the same language. That's just as true if you live in San Francisco.

leeroyjenkins11 5y ago

It's a strategic ally in the region. US strong support of Israel was the foundation of the Abraham accords that got several major players together and provide stability. The government also does this with domestic companies. There are contractor criteria that requires companies to meet political goals. I guess the question is, does a company have a right to a government contract? I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. It doesn't stop those companies from operating, but they don't get public funds. If they don't like it, they can leave for a state that's ok with their boycott. Or the people can change the legislators out.

kthejoker2 5y ago
> I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. You can "say" this all you want, but in fact states do not have this right: their criteria can't violate individual Constitutional rights. If their criteria said "whites only" or "you can't support gay martiage" the issue would be the same: there is nothing special at all about which specific freedom the criteria violates.
skohan 5y ago
This doesn't make any sense to me. The government is working for the citizen, the citizen is not working for the government. It should not be the individual citizen's responsibility to respect the strategic interests of the state in a liberal society however strong they may be. I mean if it's relevant fine: like if the project is to provide security to Israeli diplomats by all means make this a hiring consideration, but for a contractor in Texas?