ADVERTISEMENT

Forget it….

AzIllini said:
I agree but the Atlantic doesn't help America by sharing the texts with the Houthis and anyone else that wants to harm the US. I guess I am old fashioned and wish the media would be more patriotic. The Atlantic got their clicks yesterday,
Click to expand...
There was ZERO chance of the Houthi's being able to use any information from that chat.

The US technology and efficiency of delivering ordnances is BEYOND Iran OR Houthi equipment or capabilities !

For example, normal planes on Carriers can deliver bomb loads of MULTIPLE 3,000 pounds for sunken bomb cellars !
They can all be on delay fuses that explode AFTER impact and penetration ! Additional 3,000 'ers can hit thru the SAME hole and explode after the first bombs penetration !

Growlers can emit to or collect radar from sites to jam OR destroy. Emitting pulses to jam/destroy sites can pulse electricity to destroy receivers with the same amount of electricity a normal US house uses in a week !
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6 and ILisBest
dtrain79 said:
Yes, correct, we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. There are some bounds to it, but publishing classified information given to a news outlet is well within those bounds.

You have the freedom to think The Atlantic is wrong in doing so, however. But its behavior has been adjudicated as Constitutionally permissible. Whether that's right is a different matter.

My view is a bit more nuanced. I think it'd be crazy not to publish it after the fact (and Rs would agree with him in a Dem Admin). I have reservations with pre-action publication that would have compromised the operation, that could put Americans in harm's way.
Click to expand...
I was ready to give you a big like until you added that part about them being crazy not to publish it after the fact (I assume you mean all of it).

My view remains that the release on the 1st day made their point and the rest was not helpful to America. I would not like journalists beating on Obama or Biden in a similar situation. Just my 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6, ILisBest and Uncoach
dtrain79 said:
The Atlantic is free to publish it no matter how it got it (with the possible exception of the below situation where The Atlantic committed underlying criminal acts to obtain the information). That isn't and cannot be criminal.

If the disclosure was inadvertent, no one has possible criminal liability beyond a governmental employee who may have mishandled classified materials.

If the disclosure involved something like theft or acquiring information under false pretenses, the individual obtaining the information in that manner would be subject to criminal sanction for the underlying wrongdoing. I think it would be interesting if you could get a prior restraint on publication of the materials, as well. Stealing something is obviously different than being given it, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
Click to expand...
Jane Fonda-like !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bung23
tjfleck6 said:
Well, Jeffy. First of all, where is your proof? None offered, of course. Just another drive by post.

Second, for "Education" funding at the DOE, only 25 percent made it to the actual classrooms apparently. For one example over the past 25 years (Minnesota), the student population increased by 4 percent. Administration was UP something like 117 percent and 70 percent. Teachers were a more modest 14 percent UP.

Like colleges, there is a ton of waste to be removed - mostly administrative.

So, nice try. The continued loss of all of your beloved illegals really seems to make you even more mad at Trump. Well, egg prices are down 61 percent in a month. The Fake News has stopped covering that "story". Another problem created by your guy and gal that was fixed quickly by your President, Donald J. Trump. You're welcome.
Click to expand...
www.statnews.com

Cancer research, long protected, feels ‘devastating’ effects under Trump

Cancer research has had bipartisan support. But Trump administration budget cuts and delays threaten to reverse progress of recent years, experts say.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com

Here you go. It is happening. So are you for cutting cancer research?
 
JeffT818 said:
www.statnews.com

Cancer research, long protected, feels ‘devastating’ effects under Trump

Cancer research has had bipartisan support. But Trump administration budget cuts and delays threaten to reverse progress of recent years, experts say.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com

Here you go. It is happening. So are you for cutting cancer research?
Click to expand...
I'm not a subscriber over there. Could it be that they're simply moving medical research funding out from under the Pentagon unless it uniquely pertains to the military? I think the current administration sees a big problem in that chronic "lifestyle" diseases are a growing epidemic and research funding isn't doled out proportionately to the problem. That's why Kennedy caused a stir when he said we should spend more money on chronic disease (which includes many cancers) and less on infectious disease. (It was reported as Kennedy saying he wanted to spend less on infectious disease only). I suppose if money was unconstrained we'd research everything more. If were relying on the Pentagon as the tip of the spear for US cancer research, we were doing something very wrong.

To answer the question, whatever amount there is for federal funding of research should be weighted towards whatever would help the most people with serious conditions. And the chronic/metabolic diseases, which includes heart disease, vascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's/dementia, stroke, and a number of cancers, probably wins that morbid competition. If at the end of the day, when everything is tallied across all the agencies, the net effect is that some amount of certain cancer research pools are decreased to increase research in other areas that affect as many or more people (and put enormous burden on the healthcare system) I's say that's an acceptable trade. Not ideal, but the real world comes with constraints.

If it's purely a budget lowering move and not part of a realignment of funding within all the entities that manage grants under the medical umbrella, it' understandable but unpleasant. And I suppose one could argue that DoD may have more pressing needs directly related to its core mission (like replacing depleted weapons stores) than medical research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6
JeffT818 said:
There is a huge portfolio of documented behavior that supports the fact that he is a scumbag. However, you met him and thought that he was a great guy. That means nothing. Keep drinking that MAGA kool-aid.
Click to expand...
Most of hardcore MAGA has moved from “I’m just voting for policy” to denying an entire lifetime of well documented scumbaggery.

Not a cult though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffT818
djpc said:
I'm not a subscriber over there. Could it be that they're simply moving medical research funding out from under the Pentagon unless it uniquely pertains to the military? I think the current administration sees a big problem in that chronic "lifestyle" diseases are a growing epidemic and research funding isn't doled out proportionately to the problem. That's why Kennedy caused a stir when he said we should spend more money on chronic disease (which includes many cancers) and less on infectious disease. (It was reported as Kennedy saying he wanted to spend less on infectious disease only). I suppose if money was unconstrained we'd research everything more. If were relying on the Pentagon as the tip of the spear for US cancer research, we were doing something very wrong.

To answer the question, whatever amount there is for federal funding of research should be weighted towards whatever would help the most people with serious conditions. And the chronic/metabolic diseases, which includes heart disease, vascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's/dementia, stroke, and a number of cancers, probably wins that morbid competition. If at the end of the day, when everything is tallied across all the agencies, the net effect is that some amount of certain cancer research pools are decreased to increase research in other areas that affect as many or more people (and put enormous burden on the healthcare system) I's say that's an acceptable trade. Not ideal, but the real world comes with constraints.

If it's purely a budget lowering move and not part of a realignment of funding within all the entities that manage grants under the medical umbrella, it' understandable but unpleasant. And I suppose one could argue that DoD may have more pressing needs directly related to its core mission (like replacing depleted weapons stores) than medical research.
Click to expand...
apnews.com

NIH research cuts threaten the search for life-saving cures and jobs in every state

Ripple effects of the Trump administration's crackdown on U.S. medical research promise to reach every corner of America.
apnews.com apnews.com

Research cuts are being made across the board.
 
dtrain79 said:
The Atlantic is free to publish it no matter how it got it (with the possible exception of the below situation where The Atlantic committed underlying criminal acts to obtain the information). That isn't and cannot be criminal.

If the disclosure was inadvertent, no one has possible criminal liability beyond a governmental employee who may have mishandled classified materials.

If the disclosure involved something like theft or acquiring information under false pretenses, the individual obtaining the information in that manner would be subject to criminal sanction for the underlying wrongdoing. I think it would be interesting if you could get a prior restraint on publication of the materials, as well. Stealing something is obviously different than being given it, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
Click to expand...

The chances that Goldberg was inadvertently added to the chat are remote at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6, BigWill, AzIllini and 3 others
BigWill said:
Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is enroute !

That DOUBLES the USN fighters/bombers everything the Truman had brought. Not to mention cruise/tomahawk missiles from the support ships and subs !

The technology that you glimpsed in the Top Gun II movie is there, just better !
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen TGII
 
Last edited:
ILisBest said:
Is it possible accrues the board cuts are necessary? What is our national debt again, Jeff?
Click to expand...
These figures represent the total public debt outstanding at the end of each fiscal year (September 30), unless otherwise noted, and are sourced from U.S. Treasury records and other reliable fiscal data:
  • 2016: $19.57 trillion
  • 2017: $20.24 trillion
  • 2018: $21.52 trillion
  • 2019: $22.72 trillion
  • 2020: $26.95 trillion
  • 2021: $28.43 trillion
  • 2022: $30.93 trillion
  • 2023: $33.17 trillion
  • 2024: $35.46 trillion (as of October 2024, the most recent monthly figure available)
 
AzIllini said:
I agree but the Atlantic doesn't help America by sharing the texts with the Houthis and anyone else that wants to harm the US. I guess I am old fashioned and wish the media would be more patriotic. The Atlantic got their clicks yesterday,
Click to expand...
I love that The Atlantic told the Houthis we were COMING HOT !

There was NOTHING they could do, but pray that they weren't vaporized !
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6
tjfleck6 said:
Once again, your derangement and lack of brain power limits you.

History lesson: George W. Bush was truly presidential. He did not dignify 6-7 years' worth of insults from the Left: "Murderer", "War Criminal", "Illegitimate", and so forth. He let it slide and in his last 2 years he was completely neutered and signed everything the leftist Congress sent him. Allegedly, you were an R back then. After Bush, McCain was slaughtered by his previously adoring press buddies and Romney let them tag him as a cruel dog abuser.

People like me were deeply upset with the lack of fight, but Bush was presidential! Your current party which very few Americans like, but you love, created a void for Donald J. Trump to fill. After 3 straight Jeff-approved "presidential types" / "LOSERS", Americans needed a winner and a fighter. Enter Donald J. Trump - a winner and a fighter.

I'm also glad you call him scum based on 3rd hand information. BigWill and I have first hand information that he is awesome. Best has secondhand information to that effect. So, nice try.

And just to demonstrate your complete and total stupidity in believing what you hear, there is the awesome nickname for Phil Mickelson - FIGJAM. "Fleck I'm Good, Just Ask Me". Sounds bad, right? Well, my neighbor grew up competing against Phil even beating him in a US Open qualifier. He says Phil has always been a great guy. What should one believe?
Click to expand...
Long time personal contact of years with people in the public eye from posters with no axe or syndrome, should be relied upon before manufactured and PAID FOR lies and innuendo.

Phil Mickelson not a bad guy, but his Wife and he were/are awful gamblers, to the total of MULTI (Tens) millions of dollars.
His losses became so bad, that he required and received appearance money to attend PGA Tour events and fuel for his jet.
As personally told to me by the Sponsor/Director of a Tour event that this happened !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6
tjfleck6 said:
Well, Jeffy. First of all, where is your proof? None offered, of course. Just another drive by post.

Second, for "Education" funding at the DOE, only 25 percent made it to the actual classrooms apparently. For one example over the past 25 years (Minnesota), the student population increased by 4 percent. Administration was UP something like 117 percent and 70 percent. Teachers were a more modest 14 percent UP.

Like colleges, there is a ton of waste to be removed - mostly administrative.

So, nice try. The continued loss of all of your beloved illegals really seems to make you even more mad at Trump. Well, egg prices are down 61 percent in a month. The Fake News has stopped covering that "story". Another problem created by your guy and gal that was fixed quickly by your President, Donald J. Trump. You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Day 62, Inflation on the way DOWN !
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjfleck6
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bucshon

Supinie: Illinois rides three-game winning streak into Big Ten Tournament

Replies
0
Views
387
Henson Court
bucshon
bucshon
J

What will the earnings be for the big ten

Replies
4
Views
1K
Grange Grove
jerstead33
J
C

TSJ making the best out of an embarrassing situation

Replies
6
Views
1K
Henson Court
CptParlay
CptParlay
O

2025 game times?

Replies
1
Views
594
Grange Grove
ChiTownChief
C
rillaman

Minnesota job

Replies
5
Views
672
Henson Court
BigWill
BigWill
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back