The Frankish Reich

Still can't unsee the mental image that conjured. BTW, his son is a DL recruit at WV. Keep your pants on, kid.

Yes. Because you are either incredibly naive or self-hating if you openly support a party pledged to undo recognition of your family as legitimate. So go ahead, plead with the OP to change the title of this thread to "Naive gay man proves naivete yet again."

I've not been a fan of Greenwald for a long time. I think he is incredibly naive in his view of the world. Championing Edward Snowden. Supporting Trumpism given all that comes with it (and yes, that includes backtracking on LGBT rights). And so now everyone sees that.

Funny how no one is singing Glenn Greenwald's praises now. Hint: he seems to think Trump was no intellectual match for Bibi's hypnotic skills of persuasion.

Agreed. And just because it's federal land doesn't mean it's undisturbed wilderness. The old joke is that BLM stands for Bureau of Livestock and Mining. And here in Colorado all major ski resorts are located on leased Forest Service land. Is the system rational? No. Is the taxpayer getting rents that reflect the true market value? No. Would it be better if we sold off the land to the highest bidder? In theory. But my experience with land use in the West is that the truth is there is no free/open market and that developer or mining interests always seem to win out and get a sweetheart deal. Add to that the scarcity of water and multiple claims for water rights and I don't think we're at a point where larger scale land sales would benefit the American people.

I second Ty Johnson. My other fave role player (it's too easy to name the starters): Alec Anderson. Just seems to have the killer flatten-whatever's-in-my-path run blocker instinct.

Fairly typical BLM land in Nevada.

A lot of it is far from "pristine." Most of it is not "developable" because it is far, far away from anywhere where people or business are likely to locate. I'm not against a sale of some of the land, but people have a legitimate concern that this is a foot in the door technique, and that somehow (I wonder how ...) big developer interests will wind up buying the land for far less than what they deem it to be worth after an intensive lobbying effort for water rights, road access, etc. No offense intended here, but sometimes I wonder exactly how much time these proponents of federal land sales have actually spent on western USFS and BLM lands ...

The real Vance Boelter: https://slowcivilwar.substack.com/p/on-the-christian-education-of-dr Boelter, we know, was a Trump supporter, but he was a student of the man who preached a violent-prayer-a-day, the founder of Boelter alma mater Christ for the Nations Institute, Gordon Lindsay. We can no more pin Boelter’s crimes on Lindsay than we can say he’s the “fruit” of Trumpism’s spirit of political violence; the criminal bears the true weight of his actions. But it’s worth a moment to trace some of the tributaries which feed into an assassin’s death dreams. Gordon Lindsay was born in 1906, in what was then called Zion City, Illinois (today just Zion). It had only recently been established as a “Christian utopia”—or, some said, a massive exercise in securities fraud perpetrated by faith healer John Alexander Dowie, of whom Lindsay’s father was a follower. As a young man, Lindsay would attribute to another faith healer his own recovering from “poisoning,” via exposure to this verse from the Book of Acts—seen here as depicted in a movie about Lindsay made by Christ for the Nations—sometimes taken by antisemites that Jews are “Christ-killers.” The Christ for the Nations film skips over the late 1930s and early 40s, during which Lindsay was involved with British Israelism, an antisemitic movement which maintained that Anglo-Saxons were the true Israelites, not the Jews. That movement was forerunner of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. In 1940, Lindsay organized the “Anglo-Saxon World Federation Convention,” which was about what it sounds like.

They're not getting manipulated now. They are covering up the fact that all objective/verifiable information we have about this latest loser assassin shows that he was a religious right nut who'd come under the spell of Trumpy conspiracy peddlers. "Kill list" composed of all Democrats? Hah! That only shows the disinformation network at work. Attended crackpot phony religious university? Yeah, right, that's exactly the fake background they'd create for a lefty Manchurian candidate killer. I will grant you that the line between "embarrassed when one of their own takes their bs seriously and acts on it" and "legitimately believes any nonsense some fool spouts" is blurry these days.

Yet. What happens if Iran strikes U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq?

I am in the small minority who believes that Wilson has a second act in him. Leinert was probably the biggest surprise bust for me. I realize some analysts saw a limited upside, but I was sure he'd have at least a decent NFL career. Does it really come down to lack of intensity/will to succeed?

Yep. Too soon. The injury thing takes him out of the out-and-out bust category. Heath Shuler was one of those total busts too.

You're right - we have consistently seen presidents construe their war powers authorities broadly. In my career I've seen a huge shift here. In the early 90s (the time of the first Iraq war), one of my law profs was probably the leading hawkish war powers proponent. He characterized the post-Vietnam era as an age of "Congressional Supremacy" in which the unconstitutional War Powers Act restrained the President's clear constitutional authorities. But we've seen the pendulum swing - Serbia was one big one, then the never-ending congressional authorizations that let Bush 43 do all sorts of things far beyond the intended scope. I thought Trump and the neo-neoconservatives were trying to swing the pendulum back. I'm not sure it need to go back to 1975, but it does need to go back to at least the early 2000s when everyone understood that congressional authorization (even if not a declaration of war) was necessary for action against Iraq.

You are almost always going to overpay for the anticipated decline years in order to afford the anticipated 2-3 productive years. At this point with the Bills, you gotta do it.

Or see Afghanistan and Iraq. These were studied/contemplated/debated uses of U.S. military force against the ruling forces of sovereign nations. Say what you will about the results of the debate, but there were debates in Congress and an AUMF. I see no reason why - with the "two week pause" - that debate isn't happening now in Congress. This is not a situation involving an immediate defensive action against an attack on the United States or United States interests abroad, nor is it a military action compelled by Senate-ratified treaty obligations. The constitution is the constitution regardless of which party is in charge. Those were the Cold Warrior conservatives. The roles are reversed now. The post-neocon conservatives are supposed to be about appropriate debate and authorization before we get involved in foreign wars.

Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran? Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault? If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?

You guys should go back and read the OP in this thread. Tulsi Gabbard is his hero. It appears that the Deep State has gotten to Trump and they've won. Again. I mean, if you're into this kind of conspiratorial thinking ....

She was a convenient "independent thinker" back then, a leading voice against U.S. involvement in forever wars. She is no longer convenient now that the next forever war is about to begin.

Wow, amazing that 57 year old loser weirdo left behind crazy-ass nutcase scribblings. Let's try to decipher them!

Weird, seemed to me that all private business were open yesterday. As for "too many holidays" - not too many, but it's time for a re-do. New Year's Day: never got why it was a holiday. Some pagan thing? An excuse for taking a day off after NYE revelry? Get rid of it. Use that day to make Dec 26 a holiday like the UK Boxing Day. Makes more sense. MLK Day: a worthy honor. But the date is bad, just as people are returning to regular life after Xmas. Honor MLK for something that happened during the great federal holiday lull of March/April. There's gotta be some noteworthy date. President's Day: all will be fine when the Super Bowl finally lands on it's obvious spot of the Sunday of that weekend. -- MARCH/APRIL: find a nonreligious excuse to make Easter/Passover a holiday. Or just call it the Easter/Passover Spring holiday. Or put MLK day there. We need a holiday in this time of year. MEMORIAL DAY: needs to be merged with Veteran's Day. A good traditional start of summer day, so keep this one. JUNETEENTH: Who can complain about an extra 3 day summer weekend. But maybe move it to a Friday or Monday closest to June 19? 4th of JULY: no messing with this one. LABOR DAY: brackets summer too nicely to change. Weird that some anti-labor group hasn't lobbied against this. COLUMBUS DAY: controversial, kind of weird (didn't "discover" what is now the USA), bizarro kind of Italian St. Patrick's Day in the NE. Another fine landing spot for that MLK day that we should move. VETERAN'S DAY: Armistice Day, but nobody pretends to celebrate that. So it's a weird non-moving Nov 11. Merge it into Memorial Day and for goodness sake just make the Friday after Thanksgiving the extra late fall holiday. CHRISTMAS: see Boxing Day.

Rumor: Kristi Noem's ER visit was due to complications from yet another cosmetic procedure.

I don't know where Stephen Miller got his law degree,* but the constitutional guarantee of due process has never been limited to citizens facing criminal charges. That's why the U.S. government can't deprive someone - anyone - of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Life. Liberty. Even property. It's kind of right there in the 5th Amendment. *Trick question: he doesn't have one.

No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. [Sigh] Another lesson in Logic is required here. Are there people who are not citizens of our country but who are in our country and subject to its jurisdiction? Venn Diagrams may help you. [Probably not]