The Frankish Reich

I didn't even know he was gone. But given what we know about Adams and his critical behind the scenes role, this makes sense.

Or maybe not. Trey Lance, Zach Wilson (assuming Rodgers hadn't blow out his Achilles), Baker Mayfield (if the Browns hadn't gone all in on Deshaun), Josh Rosen, possibly Kyler Murray ... ... I'm not sure that rule applies anymore.

Perhaps the most naive comment ever. "I'm going to spend 90% of it on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other 10% I'm going to waste." - Pitcher Tug McGraw on what he planned to do with World Series money.

Republicans, until this week: they're hiding hundreds of hours of videos of January 6! Release them now so the public can see for themselves that these poor Americans were nothing more than peaceful protesters! Republicans now: but blur their faces so Americans can't identify their neighbors and co-workers engaging in a riot, and maybe send in a tip to the FBI!

No. Just ... No.

The current Israeli government won't. But the current Israeli government won't last. Jordan has the benefit of not being a failed state (it's a low bar in that region) that could, at least in theory, provide adequate security for Israel. Of course, Israel would have to start taking down settlements too. But I do think Kissinger (say what you will about him, he started the process that resulted in the Camp David accords) was probably right: the idea of having a wholly independent Palestinian state in the classic "two state solution" ship has sailed.

Correct. I think I had a stray leftover "loss" in there. So here's how it stands. With everything else remaining as projected (in other words, games involving other teams give us predicted results): - beat KC, chances improve to 24% - beat Dallas too, 41% - beat LAC too, 61% - beat Pats and Phins, 99% Lose even one game, the best we can do is 59% (losing to the Cowboys, since they're a non-conference opponent). Unfortunately they have Browns, Ravens in the next two (could definitely lose), then Bucs (maybe) and Titans/Panthers (no way). So even without Trevor I don't see them giving us a lot of help.

So @Justice let me ask you a question. We're talking about when a population group is "a people" or something that would fit the definition of what we consider for a nation-state. Some here think the Ukrainians are just Russians who insist on being difficult. I mentioned that Jordan used to be Transjordan, immediately post-WWII, after the setting of boundaries as the British and French "mandates" dissolved. "Transjordan" because it meant the territory east of the Jordan River, so not the West Bank. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan didn't like that notion, so they dropped the "Trans" part and claimed the West Bank for themselves. Then after the 1967 war they relinquished their claim to the West Bank in favor of the idea that the West Bank should be at the core of what should be a nation of Palestine (not recognizing Israel). Or something like all of that. I saw in the last interview Kissinger gave (let's reserve judgement on him as a person for the moment), he said he'd given up on a two-state solution and would like to see the West Bank revert to Jordan again. Now, there's a practical problem: the King of Jordan doesn't like that, probably mostly for practical reasons as it would dilute his power. But: (1) we are talking about generally the same "people," right? And (2) why wouldn't this be the more natural and obvious solution? I don't know what becomes of Gaza, but in general shouldn't there be Israel and Jordan, not Israel and Jordan and some other new state? Jordan could allow the West Bank some manner of autonomy in local affairs. And the world community could bribe them in some way to back down on their opposition to once again claiming the West Bank as their own.

I don't pretend to understand terrorists, so I don't understand what Hamas' strategy is here. But as an outside observer: in what way does it advance Hamas' cause today - with large parts of Gaza destroyed and effectively under Israeli control - to keep lobbing bombs into Israeli territory? It is counterproductive; it makes it that much easier for Israel to occupy continued strikes on Gaza because you have an enemy that continues to present an imminent/continuing threat to he territory of Israel. In other words, it undermines a "we're the victims now" argument.

I'd like to think you aren't spouting Russian propaganda. Really, I'd like to think that. But you are just plain wrong here, whatever the basis. It is true that Ukraine was not historically an independent entity. Neither was the United States of America. Neither was Israel. Neither was Jordan, initially known as Transjordan. None of that advances the argument. The fact is Ukraine is, and has been, and independent state for three decades.

No it didn't. That is not how it works under international law. And on the larger point: one could say the same thing about Israel - "historically, it [Palestine] is not Israel's land." Israel, like modern Ukraine, exists as a legal state through international law. You mean when the USSR dissolved. The USSR was not Russia. The "Republics" of the USSR became independent states.

Sad thing is that even if we pull it off and win out this season, we still only have a 47% chance of making the playoffs. That Philly loss was a killer.

I feel for Mr. Kantor. This is tough for seniors. But really ... what does he find "ridiculous" about the increase in the value of his home? Or that it costs a whole lot more to insure a home that's worth 600K rather than 150K? Time to leave Florida for Buffalo.

And Von Miller played every game in 2021! Oops.

I'm gonna miss you, you big schlub.

I don't usually like these Twitter hot take monkeys, but I gotta admit this part nailed it: "Homophobic Moms for Liberty founder gets caught in a bisexual throuple." Can't make this crap up ....

Don’t say gay; just say three way!

You sound like that Moms For Liberty menage a trois lady. https://flcga.org/florida-gop-chair-christian-ziegler-husband-of-a-moms-for-liberty-cofounder-accused-of-battery-by-alleged-menage-a-trois-lover/

Except in those instances where you think there should be more. In other words: there should be more government restrictions on freedom when it fits your idea of the common good. Stop. I won this argument.

I don't even know what this means. People here seemed all hot and bothered about the general notion that governments restrict freedoms in service of the common good. I pointed out that that's what having a government is all about. It's the opposite of anarchy. You want to make it a crime for drag shows to allow teenagers to attend, even if it's with their parents express permission. In other words, you want to restrict the liberty of people to do what they damn well please in service of your idea of the common good.

There is nothing here about "lying." In fact, our commenters were shocked (shocked!) by the very concept of restricting freedoms for the common good. I'm just pointing out that that is the core of the idea of government. The devil is in the details of course - which freedoms, and in what way, and for what sense of the common good? Hobbes in the 17th century thought you needed an absolute monarch to restrict freedoms and impose order. Needless to say, he was not in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat; he was no Marxist.

"Restricting freedom for the common good." What a radical notion. Radical when Thomas Hobbes thought of it in 1651, that is. Hobbes would be quite surprised to find that he is now a Marxist, at least according to some of the usual suspects right here.

I like Erin Burnett. I mean, her reporting and her ... style. Right now I am more focused on the women of CNBC.

I'll save my Carter comments for later, but suffice to say that I've reconsidered the general idea of a "failed presidency."

Greenwald posted this today? AFTER Hunter said he's willing and ready to testify in public? That seems to have gutted his second argument.