snafu

Note: I’m not for blowing up or tearing down anything. That said, the Taliban didn’t have too many qualms about blowing up Buddhist statues that were old. I don’t think they cared how old the statues were. Misguided iconoclasts don’t care. That’s where some people in this country are today. Ask ISIS about the antiquities they destroyed. I don’t think the age of the monument is a determining factor at all.

No, it is what 5 Hour Energy drink used to be called before the boycotts started. They wanted to stay ahead of things to keep their doors open.

Thank God South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete weighed in. We can't hear enough from him.

Is this a bomb? Really? from the article: But in recent years, as the two powers clashed elsewhere, the Kremlin grew wary of the prolonged United States presence and moved closer to the Taliban, hedging its bets on who would take power in a post-American Afghanistan. The Russians also saw an opportunity for long-awaited payback for the Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when the Red Army withdrew after being unable to defeat a United States-backed insurgency. The only time time I posted in this thread, I said (a) the Russians paid guys who were going to kill our troops for free, and (b) we did this to the soviets 40 years ago, and everyone thought it was great at the time. Caveat: if the Times allegations are true. I’m of the opinion that everything they’ve written about the current administration has to be viewed skeptically — including the words “and” and “the”. This is the paper which fired its OpEd editor last month for having the bad judgment of allowing a Tom Cotton opinion piece get published. Talk about cancel culture. The first paragraph above implies that the Russians want to cozy up to the Taliban after the US leaves. Good luck with that. It isn’t exactly what I said, but it makes the Russians suckers — like I said. Funny thing, the first paragraph also strongly implies that Trump isn’t such a Putin patsy if one reason for this is “the two powers clashed elsewhere”. The second paragraph is also important. It may take 40 years. It may take a week or a month, but payback will come to the Russians. People calling for action now are either naive or partisan, or both.

The call out thread wasn’t about you.

We are already cutting and running. There's no need for a push. There's a reason, but it is the opposite of what you're saying.

I wonder who pushed the story. Seems like the reason is more than to make Trump look bad. I see it more as a pushback against getting our troops out of Afghanistan. The US deal with the Taliban is horribly one-sided in the wrong direction, but getting out is getting out; and it seems like people don't want us to get out.

I didn’t read any of those articles, but you ignored the fact that he also posted WaPo, Politico, Aljazeera and NY Magazine. Did you not see those? Do you reject those sources out of hand, too? It is telling that you pick out the two you don’t like and resort to ad homenim namecalling. How very honest of you 😕.

Don't bother. You won't get a straight answer to a straight question. Oh -- see.

non-sequitur posts that mention Howie Hawkins.

I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not. I hope so.

Yeah, sorry — it is even more simple than I stated already. I forgot that she dropped out in December — two months before the Iowa caucus. She never made it to the first contest. Pretty simple, nobody donated to her campaign and she couldn’t get votes. And as for a more nuanced description of the disaster that was her campaign, here’s a postmortem. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html Pretty simple. It was a disaster.

I think it would be a mistake to choose a running mate that couldn’t pull 10% of her own party’s votes in the primaries, and who’s campaign flamed out in a sort of ugly fashion. And from a State that Biden’s got locked up.

I find it odd that people who think Barr is fixing the Flynn case actually want Sullivan to have a hearing where the DOJ lays out every dirty deed done to Flynn. That’s what the hearing would be about. Do people who think the Russia investigation was pure as newfallen snow want to see how the sausage was made? Based on the limited facts that have come out, people should want to tiptoe away from any hearing explaining why Barr did what he did.

1) pretty much all of it 2) pretty much all of it 3) I’m sure Trump’s associates appreciate all the help they got while sitting in jail 4) collusion isn’t a crime. Conspiracy to do what?