sheeeit

We will just have to disagree. You act as if luck and competence have never been considered before when making predictions for military battles. He didn't say it's 60/40 or even 80/20. He said 3 days. That means no amount of luck and/or incompetence can stall this. It would probably take the tanks a few days just to get there unopposed. I readily admit that luck played a big part. It always does. I think only an idiot would stick his neck out there and make a prediction like that to Congress and POTUS. His judgement was terrible. Couple that with his assessment of Afghanistan and he was not competent for his position. Plus, these are not under the radar events where somehow the top people got fooled by their underlings. The Russia invasion was the greatest geopolitical event in years. The US, as well as every other first world country in the world, have been assessing Russia and their competencies for years. I believe, just my opinion, that there were almost certainly factions within the intelligence and military communities that had very different opinions on both Russia and Afghanistan. Milley's job was to sort it out and find the reality. He was comically wrong on both events. This is not political. Some poster said Milley fucks. I merely pointed out that for the 2 most significant events that happened under his watch, he failed miserably in his assessment.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/kyiv-russia-ukraine-us-intelligence/index.html

The point is that Milley had access to every bit of military intelligence, cia intelligence, international intelligence etc. I mean one of the main tenets of his job is to know this stuff. There are likely hundreds of military people at the Pentagon and across the globe whose job was to know what the state of the Russian military was as well as the Ukrainian military. It is massive incompetence. I get university officials making bad predictions or even politicians making bad predictions, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to do better. One mistake should have had him demoted but 2 spectacular failures is ridiculous.

Well he made the prediction to congress on February 5 and Russian invaded on February 24. Obviously no material foreign aid was forthcoming in that 19 day window. He is gone now so it doesn't really matter but no person in the world had access to as much intelligence regarding both situations as he did and he was just spectacularly wrong. he should have been fired or, at a minimum, demoted to a lesser position.

Well he did say the Taliban was a "medium" threat in Afghanistan after we pulled out in 2021 and said it would take at least 2 years for them to take over. It took 10 days. He said Kyiv would likely fall in 72 hours if Russia invaded. Its been over 2.5 years.

Had a discussion about this years team versus original dream team. Question was who would make the original dream team from this team and who would they replace. The only ones I think make it from this years team are James, Durant and Curry. I think they replace Magic, Bird and Stockton. Possibly Edwards over Pippen but I don't think people realize how amazing at defense Pippen and Jordan were together.

Thoughts on Loper/Chevron. First, as far as I can tell, the following are the basic facts of the initial case: The Magnuson-Stevens Act gave the NOAA the power to regulate the fishing industry and the herring fishing industry in particular in this instance. For approximately the last 30 years, NOAA has required monitors on certain herring fishing vessels as they are authorized to do under the MSA. The regulations specifically called for boats of a certain size to both have monitors on board and also pay for them. In the Loper case, the size of the vessels was under the specific size regulation and, therefore, there was ambiguity on who would pay for the monitors. In a somewhat agreed upon settlement, the smaller herring fishing vessels agreed to have monitors on board and NOAA agreed to pay for them. This existed for many years. Recently NOAA had severe funding issues and, as a result, chose to impose the cost of monitors on the Loper fishing vessels. The lower courts looked at the case and applied the two part Chevron test which first determines if there is ambiguity in the language of the Act, and, if so, then they must decide if the actions imposed by the regulating agency (in this case NOAA) were "reasonable". In the Loper case, it appears that the lower courts agreed the language regarding who must pay for the monitoring was ambiguous and then further found that the NOAA did have the authority to impose the costs on Loper based on Chevron. What I think the issue is here is whether or not the lower courts actually considered whether the specific action by NOAA was "reasonable" or not but rather simply deferred that NOAA had the authority to do it based on Chevron. What I think SCOTUS did was then tell the lower courts that based on the Administrative Procedure Act they had to make a specific ruling on the "reasonableness". Am I correct that as a result of Chevron, that the courts have pretty much always sided with the regulatory agencies post Chevron? Are there any cases where a lower court actually ruled against a regulatory agency in a case of this type? Has "reasonable" essentially been changed to "egregious" meaning the courts are almost always going to side with the regulatory agencies unless the regulations are so over the top that no one could reasonably agreee to them. At first glance, it does seem that Loper has a really good case. Initially, both parties agreed that the cost of the monitors should not be borne by Loper as evidenced by the fact that NOAA did, in fact, pay for the monitors for many years. Then when NOAA ran out of money they changed the rules in the middle of the game. This is especially hard on the smaller vessels as the cost of a monitor has much more impact on their bottom line than it does on larger vessels that catch much more fish. It is sort of on point in our current bizarro world that liberals are the ones decrying this decision as it certainly appears to be a case where the little guy is going to get squeezed out by the big guys with help from a government agency. Historically the democrats have looked after the little guys and the republicans have favored the bigger guys. On a much broader level, I can certainly see why Chevron was reversed. The issue I see is that, by nature, most of the regulatory agencies and thus there regulations are impacted by the policy and political whims of whichever administration is currently in power. And whichever regime is in power, whoever donates the most money to the party will likely get their way with regards to the regulations that affect them. I think Chevron titled the fairness scales too far in the direction of the agencies and the direction of whichever party has current control.

Holy shit. Seek help. Honestly.

Whoosh

Should they have followed SAG guidelines? The crew.

I must’ve been under a rock, but I did not realize that the trial actually started. I spent a few minutes reading through some articles. I admit I never actually thought this would get to a trial. I actually think he will plea before there is a verdict.

It’s old news but Mixon was suspended for the season. Did not practice, train, eat or attend any team activities.

I'm pretty high and do not want to bring anyone down but this seems like total BS.

In any other election they would abolutely be disqualifying. But what to do when you only have 3 choices and all of them have disqualifying issues. Trumps are the most disqualifying. Between Biden and RFK I am leaning towards RFK. He has positions that I think are incredibly stupid but he at least has explanations for them. As far as I can tell RFK is not clinically mentally impaired. Biden is. We have all seen family/friends in this state. He is going to be 10x worse a year from now and I can not imagine any scenario he makes it for 4 years. So when he inevitably has to go it will be a massive shit show and horrible for the country. We will wind up with an unelected POTUS and the fallout will be devastating. We can easily withstand 4 years of RFK. Some of his positions are ridiculous but none of them would have even a .000001% chance of getting approved by congress or the courts. He gets a lame duck 4 years and then hopefully the parties run solid candidates in 2028.

Like I said I do love this place. The fact that you even typed "But, it could also have floated to shore and been eaten by cannibals" is just proof of how deranged some of you get. So a plane goes down and the lone survivor gets rescued many hours later. There are no other bodies around. They search the area for hours looking but find nothing. But you suggested that sometime later the body came loose from the wreck and washed up on a beach. And further that some cannibals found it and decided to eat a many days old dead and decomposing body that was completely infected. You truly think that is possible? Even cannibals dont eat many days old rotten infested human remains. LOL

OK My bad on that. Feel free to move it.

Like I said. I saw something about this on tiktok, which is not exactly a bastion of truth and accuracy. It sounded so over the top crazy that I decided to look it up and found out that it was, in fact, true. I found that simply amazing. This isn't I graduated in the top half of my law school or some other Biden embellishment. For me, telling a family story abou fucking cannabilism that is so easily disproven is a mental acuity line being crossed that I had never seen before from Biden. I can not invision any politician (even bat shit crazies like MTG or SJL but certainly not a head of state) short of maybe Kim Jong telling a story involving cannabilsm that was so easily proven to be untrue. I don't follow this stuff as closely as most of these guys do. I knew Biden was losing it a bit and have seen clips of him looking confused etc. And most politicians will embellish their own history including academic prowess or business prowess or athletic prowess or whatever. I undertsand why they do that to make themselves look better. To me, this was different. It was Fonzi jumping the shark. If you were talking to some old man and he told you his uncle was shot down in WW2 over new guinea and that they never recovered his body because of cannibals, your first thought would probably be that that is an amazing story. If you then looked it up and you found that the story was not true and that cannibals had nothing to do with not recovering the body you would probably think that that old man had completely lost it. Why bring up cannibals at all? You for sure would not think that old man was the POTUS.

Nice dodge. Only two things are possible. His staff wrote his remarks and included the word cannibal (which seems highly unlikely because his staff is not senile and would be able to easily fact check the story and know that there was no possible way that cannibals played any role whatsoever in the body recovery of his uncle and they would know that if he used the word he would come off as a senile old man which they are trying desperately to avoid) or Biden went off script. Lets assume Biden told his staff the story because how else would they even know about it? I find it hard to believe that when he told his staff the story that he left out the cannibal part and hopefully even the craziest of you would agree that the staff would not include the word cannibal in his prepared remarks. Heck maybe he didn't tell them about the cannibal part and just sprung it on them live. I can not imagine the instant dread felt by every member of his team when they heard him say it. So that is why I think he was told not to use the word cannibal. If I am wrong then the alternative is 100X worse.

When you come into an argument and mis represent what the other sides argument is and then use the wrong clip to further your argument and then go full retard about someone that wasnt even the subject of the argument then the kindest thing anyone can do for you is offer faux disdain.

He was working from a prepared speech. It was written down. Are you suggesting that his staff does not proof read his prepared statements multiple times? You think he wrote it himself and hid it from everyone? Do you think the word cannibal was written on his paper he was referencing?

Stupid is as stupid types. "everything else was demonstrably correct". Your words. What was demonstrably correct about "they couldn't find the body because there were cannibals for real in that part of new guinea" Yes they couldn't find the body and yes there were cannibals in that part of new guinea. Those two statements are demonstrably correct. But "they couldn't find the body BECAUSE there were cannibals" is demonstrably incorrect. Lets play this out a bit. Do you think Biden has told that story before and been corrected by his staff or do you think that was the first time he ever told the story publicly?

Still laughing. The attempted spin from you and Roma is impressive though. Lets pretend FF did have the exact same family story. Then FF got into politics. Then FF was runninmg for relection for POTUS and everyone thought he had mental issues. So one of the biggest issues his campain is trying to deal with is to not let him seem like a dementia patient. If FF still told the story and used the word cannibal it would absolutely be a sign that he was mentally infirm. Especially considering that there is undeniable information that is easily found by a 10 year old that the story waqs untrue. His entire staff is engaged in trying to not let him look like a senile old man. I am sure they told him he could use the story about his uncle dying in the war and how it would be used to show how bad Trump is. But they told him, under no ciscumstance can you utter the word cannibal. But he did.

Just too funny and perfect. Dahobbs- Even when I was high I did not think anyone would try this line of spin. Sorry I underestimated you. Of course this was a "family" story. I am sure Biden has told it many times. The issue is that he has been in government forever, has been a senator forever, the vice president and now president. Google has been around for a while now. It is absolutely impossible that he has not been corrected on the story numerous times over the years by his staff. Yet in a heated campain where his mental state is a huge issue he still said it again. The reason that is so bad and so indicative of his mental state is that everyone, except apparently Biden himself, knows the story is bogus and, most importantly, knows that it is easily refuted. Like I said, if he just never says the word cannibal this story never gets traction. When he said cannibal it immediately sensationalized the story. But he said it anyway. I love this too. "(3) "Shot down" - wrong based on army records (although those aren't always known to be 100% accurate). " LMAO. You do realize that one man did survive the crash right? He was able to tell what happened. He was rescued at sea. Every member of Biden's team knows this. Roma. As always, I appreciate your important service to the board.

Excuse?

flower blooming in your mind. I love this place sometimes. There are 2 different clips of this. One where Biden is walking and talking with the press and one where he is inside giving a riveting campain speech. I quoted the speech where he was inside. I posted it twice. You guys keep quoting from the impromptu speech outside. In the official speech he gave inside his exact words (still laughing that someone called me out for saying almost exactly because I eliminated the weird pauses) were the following- "And he got shot down in new guinea and uh they never found the body because there used to be uh a lot of cannibals for real in that part of new guinea" Spin away.