UNR Students for Liberty

just so you guys aren't misinforming people…it was the laws from the 76th session. We are entering the 78th session. Also, just a tip (because I'm no longer an officer)…you guys have some valid points and ideas. If you aren't such assholes, people might actually listen to what you have to say. Who knows…diplomacy isn't dead. And please don't pull that “we ran for office and tried,” because you ran for office with misguided and have-assed information and were assholes in the process and lost.

half-assed* But, it's ok I leave it up to ass errr Barry to correct my mistakes..

Let it all out Gracie, let it all out. There… doesn't that feel better?

“Also, just a tip (because I'm no longer an officer)…you guys have some valid points and ideas”

So now that you're unemployed it's okay to say we make good points?

No. It's ok to publicly blatantly admit that you guys act like assholes.

Yes. You guys should know, being an asshole is a hell of a lot easier than diplomacy. And criticizing makes you feel damn good, right?

Gracie saying “asshole” tonight: 6
Gracie proving how diplomatic she is: priceless.

I just “ctrl-f”ed “ass” on this page, and it turns out the Speaker Formerly Known as 'Of The Senate' managed to use it 7 times.

Gracie isn't trying to be a diplomat. You are not my constituent. I'm just being honest. diplomacy works with two parties who are willing to be diplomatic. You never were.

Perhaps you can invite me to yet another committee meeting and we can talk about it? I mean, as everyone should know, completely invalidated, illegal, 4-5 hours senate meetings are the epitome of diplomacy, right? Those who would rather not participate are clearly barbaric “assholes”. Perhaps we can also refer to ourselves in the third person when we meet up too? … and take role call! It will be fun, and we can bring our nameplates.

Now that Gracie is out of office and doesn't feel burdened by being diplomatic due to the office she held, I wonder if the readers here might get some honest answers out of her. Particularly, why did she decide to admit fault in these cases, and do so in a way that exceeded her authority? There had to be some way to defend these cases; instead, it seems as if she, and the other officers named, didn't even try. Why is that? To me it indicates they didn't believe the judiciary was acting legitimately, that they thought it was a joke.

Also interesting is the fact that Gracie feels compelled to give out advice (“Also, just a tip (because I'm no longer an officer)”) but she never once was receptive to advice that could've kept the Senate out of the shitter.

She should also be careful: just because she is no longer in office doesn't mean she isn't in jeopardy for sanctions. She's a student who knowingly violated the code of conduct while in office. And since she's publicly admitted liability, the university probably has a slam dunk if it wants to try to deflect attention from its own faults here.

The resultant scurrying about to CYA should be fun to watch.

I was never given advice that could have prevented Senate from going under during the 76th session. It's funny how I'm being attacked, as if I'm solely responsible for the actions. I was advised by the Attorney General to write a letter. In no way did I ever think it was a joke. The 77th session worked hard to try and prevent the repetition of any mistakes. The 78th session definitely understands the ramifications of those mistakes, and I'm fully supportive and confident in the future potential of Senate.

If you're going to threaten me, at least make it somewhat legitimate, but putting attaching your name to your thoughts.

My goodness, Gracie. You really do have a persecution complex. I'm certainly not threatening you. As the folks down in Texas like to say, I don't have a dog in the hunt.

You are right that it is somewhat unfair to be on the hook for the errors and omissions of the person you succeeded as speaker, Priscilla Acosta. But the cases weren't about you. They never were. They were about the office you hold. A competent advisor would have told you that.

I find this one nugget interesting: “I was advised by the Attorney General…”. The Attorney General isn't the Senate's representative; he is implicitly the executive branch's representative. The executive had a much smaller interest in the open meeting law complaints against the Senate, and thus conflicted with the Senate's interests. The president doesn't care if the Senate violated the OML because he isn't on the hook for liability, but senators are.

(Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, as I am not as intimately familiar with the cases as you are. I am glad you are engaging on this issue, and I do admire your courage to face the SFL asshats.)

It sounds like you never received any advice from the Senate's advisor on how best to respond to these cases. That's a problem. It also seems as though you never discussed these cases with the Senate, one of the named parties in the cases, to seek its direction on how to conduct its representation. That, too, is a problem because no one person represents the Senate unless expressly authorized.

So aren't you really saying that it's more the advisors' fault than the student officers' fault in all of this?

You guys should have a meeting on the role of a club like yours in promoting liberty on a university campus (and perhaps the role a student government could or could not play in such an endeavor). I imagine Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, (Friedman; I know he's not an Austrian), Boettke, Buchannan, etc. would be proud of how you conduct yourselves.