The Frankish Reich

I am ashamed that this made me laugh.

He's had Marquise Goodwin open deep twice, and either waited too long to throw it and/or seriously underthrew it. Didn't he used to be good? He's been awful with Cleveland.

I don't know what states and cities may be doing. I know where I live it is costing the city money to provide temporary shelter, etc. I am refuting one specific untruth: the federal government is NOT giving illegal aliens $2,200 in cash per month. That was a very specific claim, and it is flat-out wrong. There's no source cited for that (because there is none), so I have to assume this guy just made it up.

This statement is just flat-out wrong. I tried to trace where it came from. It comes from a forum (thing TBD) post from an anti-immigration group, which in turn references what looks like an old Tucker Carlson interview (it has the Daily Caller imprint, which I think is Tucker's old operation) with some guy not identified in the clip simply stating this, without a source. It is not true. Illegal entrants do not get any sort of payment. I know people who work in this field and I can assure you there are no such payments. Is it simply made up? Is the source mixing up people accorded refugee status abroad who are legally admitted to the United States as refugees? They may qualify for some assistance, but that is a very different group (including things such as Afghan interpreters for the U.S. military who risk retribution from the Taliban) than those coming across the border illegally. It is quite literally fake news. People should double-check these things before posting and reposting. If you have an actual source refuting what I just said, please find it and post it here. Spoiler alert: there is no such source. Don't be a sucker for internet lies.

I like old school hardass tough guy Dan Campbell. I also like new school dweeb Mike McDaniel. That kind of contrast is what makes the NFL fun. Go Lions! (and bills)

About 100 days ago there was a lot of discussion about Dawkins weight at mini camp. I think I said "no worries, he'll be in football shape by September 11." Told ya so!

Too bad Spencer Brown is a nice Iowa boy who would never dream of cheating like that.

Homoerotic Trump Worship, Exhibit 81.

A bit of context - READ BEFORE YOU EYEROLL. (I know that won't work, but it's fun) All of the following were folded into the new Department of Homeland Security: the operations of the former INS (including Border Patrol, INS inspectors at ports of entry, people who decide citizenship applications, etc.), the Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Federal Protective Service (they have law enforcement authority at federal civilian buildings), and a bunch of smaller agencies. Yes, the number of DHS employees has grown, often pretty fast, particularly in Border Patrol. But it didn't start from zero. The stuff they took over was already pretty big.

We just had a high-profile police shooting in Colorado. It was a tragedy. 14 year old kid (14!) apparently held up a convenience store with a gun. Police responded and had him in their sights. They say he was going for the gun. Police shot and killed him. Turns out the gun was a pellet gun that was made to look just like a real pistol. There were investigations. The report said the shooting was justified. Tragic but justified. The cops knew he had a gun (and had no way of knowing it was a pellet gun) and that he had used it to threaten the store clerk. His mother is outraged (but where was she when her 14 year old was out at pointing a gun at a store clerk?) The dog that hasn't barked: none of our local politicians (nearly all Democrats now) have expressed outrage at the decision not to prosecute.

Ahh, Ace Ventura. I googled it. Man, that's a long time ago ... I see that "the guy" was making the same allegations as early as 2008 (trying to derail Obama's candidacy). That's when he said he'd even take a polygraph, which he proceeded to fail. So it's old news, Obama ignored it then, it didn't gain traction then, I imagine the same thing will happen now.

Here's what I learned a long time ago. I believe it still holds true today. 1. In the modern world, democracies don't got to war with democracies. Really. Try to find a counterexample. At least one side is some type of authoritarian government. This is called "the democratic peace." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory#:~:text=The democratic peace theory posits,better than democratic peace theory. 2. Wars are therefore explained by two factors: (a) the existence of an aggressive dictatorship or other undemocratic regime; and (b) the lack of effective deterrence. We can easily see that with Russia and Ukraine. Factor (a) is self-evident. Factor (b) is seen in the weak - in reality, nonexistent - consequences of Putin's invasion/annexation of Crimea, and in the tepid expressions of support for Ukraine in the international community, including the United States. With respect to the USA, this is not a Republican/Democrat or Obama/Trump/Biden issue. The support for the independence of an intact Ukraine was tepid under all administrations. There was likewise a lack of clear support from Europe; imagine something formal from Finland and Sweden saying that they are beginning negotiations to join NATO with an eye toward doing so if Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of the (non-Crimea) Ukraine. Sometimes the theory does explain everything, but we only recognize that in the rear view mirror.

This is a caricature of "liberal politicians." Yes, there are some of the defund the police sort who probably believe every police shooting is an outrage. But unfortunately we live in a gun-crazy society where many police shootings are justified as self-defense or in the interest of saving the lives of others. And I haven't heard any outrage from the liberal politicians in my area in response to several high-profile shootings.

Helluva way to "end" a war. And yeah, that won't embolden Putin at all. As I understand it, Musk isn't saying he's doing it to favor Russia or disfavor Ukraine or any such thing. He simply doesn't want his company to get involved in the hostilities at all. If he provides Starlink access to Ukraine to facilitate civil communications, and continues to do so, that's still a good thing.

Yes, it is. But I thought Donald's main attraction (other than that superhero bod) was that he is a straight shooter and not a politician.

Who? I have no idea what you're talking about. It's called the Streisand Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Right now it's just that little corner of social media (don't kid yourself; most Americans probably don't even know who Tucker Carlson is) that's obsessed with the story. He sues, suddenly it's mainstream.

True. Believe it or not, I have posted likes and agrees for lots of posts coming from people ostensibly on the other side of the political spectrum. Read the post before responding!

I've gotten the eye roll when I post something I'm quite sure he agrees with. It's knee jerk. Poster = A; Response = B (eye roll) There's a thread here about "why are you here?" I was nice and said sometimes I learn something. People have different experiences and knowledge, and believe it or not, sometimes I do learn something. More often, though, it's like a window into people who are just impervious to logic or reason. People who keep posting the same things even when I've pointed out how they are objectively wrong. Example: I've now seen the "Vanguard and Black Rock own a huge percentage of Apple/Microsoft/Netflix/Whatever." I've pointed out that this "ownership" represents the mutual funds/ETFs that individual investors and things like pension funds own. Vanguard/Black Rock do not own them in their own portfolios. Instead of saying, "thanks for the clarification" or at a minimum simply not repeating that misunderstanding, they continue on as if nothing has changed. So I'm not here to change anyone's mind. But I have learned a lot about how some people are so dug in to their beliefs, even if those are based on misinformation, that those beliefs will never change. That's real insight ...

Profoundly stupid. In political science, statism or etatism (from French language état, "state") is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.[1][2][3] This may include economic and social policy, especially in regard to taxation and the means of production.[4] While in use since the 1850s, the term statism gained significant usage in American political discourse throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Opposition to statism is termed anti-statism or anarchism. The latter is characterized by a complete rejection of all hierarchical rulership.[5] Yes, I reject anarchy. Go ahead and play your childish revolution of the masses games while you call other people "commies."

Woke --> Commie --> "Statist" Someday you guys will come up with a term that actually sticks with the general (non-cult) electorate. Actually, "statist" is a label I'd wear proudly. At least with respect to what it actually means in political science, not in twitter monkey world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

This is the poll that finally convinced me that it is a cult. A cult of personality, or whatever you want to call it, but a cult. It doesn't have anything to do with policy or ability to get things done, and it certainly has nothing to do with stability and having a steady hand at the wheels of power. It is simply a cult. This is why Ron DeSantis, who believed he could get traction by outflanking Trump on the right on culture war issues, has gained no traction at all. He didn't understand that nature of the almost sexual attraction people (mostly men) have to Trump.

He learned from the master, Donald J. Trump. Never admit anything. Never say you made a mistake, or that upon reflection and new information you changed your position. Just act like your prior statements never even happened, even when they're right there on video for everyone to see.

Perhaps someone out there remembers this guy, who bears a striking resemblance to Obama's alleged coke associate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kimberlin You guys need to spend some quality time with drug dealers. Hint: they're typically not the most honest and reliable people.

Rypien and Dilfer were not similar. Rypien had a relatively short peak, but when he was at his peak he was very good. Dilfer was never good. He was just lucky to be the QB on a team with a great defense. As for Wilson: he's also not in Rypien's class. He's far, far better. We are all Josh Allen fans. Wilson in his prime was an XS version of Josh Allen. 2014: 849 rushing yards. 2015: 68% completion percentage, 34 TD, 8 INT. He was elite.

That's great news. I think like pretty much everyone else here, I had a lot of fun with the Caveman Mike thing and the up in smoke videos he posted. But 10 years have passed and he's still only 36. I need to remind myself of how young a lot of these kids are when they're at their peaks and in the public eye. I wouldn't have wanted the world to know everything I did when I was in my early 20s. Yes, hang in there Mike ...