Best Of
Re: Hey Haie! I hate it when I’m right - Part 2
I know I’m going to regret this. 
When was Part 1 ?
.
 pawz
pawz            
                Re: Hey Haie! I hate it when I’m right - Part 2
The program manager is heated today, look out.
 Bob_C
Bob_C            
                Re: Jon Wilner defends DAWGS
I haven’t been to most places so only know so much. My thing with a list like this is how much are you factoring in just that a team wins because they’re good versus actual stadium environment swing. Like some of the big boys on here I’ve never hear anything specific about their stadium. My Coug friends went to a Texas game and said it was pretty generic and average not really comparable to Husky Stadium
 WoolleyDoog
WoolleyDoog            
                Re: Hegseth investigating Iran Strike Intelligence Leak
There is actually an interesting story here, if the media was interested in telling it. Why are members of the intelligence community leaking incomplete reports against the elected leadership of the country? Why have the same reporters who have gotten so much wrong learned so little? What is the purpose of these leaks--who is behind them, and what are they trying to achieve?
The media won't investigate that story, though it would be in the public interest to do so. So pay attention to the reporters who are laundering talking points from junior careerists in the intelligence community.
 RaceBannon
RaceBannon            
                Re: Hegseth investigating Iran Strike Intelligence Leak
JD Vance
This is such a revealing clip. The American media is full of the least curious, least insightful people in our country.
To recap, an out of context, "low confidence" and incomplete intelligence report was selectively leaked to the media. The media reported on the findings without any real effort to figure out whether they represent any part of (much less the full) truth. The way the media has presented the report is contradicted by the IAEA, the Iranians themselves, and the administration's political and defense leadership. More importantly, the media's reports are contradicted by common sense.
To summarize: a dozen 30,000-pound bunker busters were dropped on Iran's main nuclear site. (The other two sites that were targeted suffered heavy damage too). No one disputes they hit their targets. No one disputes the explosive or destructive power of the weapons. No one disputes that a week ago, Iran could have easily assembled a nuclear weapon and now they can't.
The entire debate--even accepting the press's dishonest framing--is not about whether Iran can now build a nuke. They can't. It's about how much rebuilding the Iranians would have to do in order to achieve a nuclear weapon. In other words, after a wildly successful military operation with no American casualties, the American media is trying to blame Donald Trump for the existence of facilities that haven't even been built yet.
(Set to the side Iran's willingness to rebuild their program. As the President himself said, they now know there are serious consequences for rebuilding. They also learned that we can very easily set their progress back.)
There is actually an interesting story here, if the media was interested in telling it. Why are members of the intelligence community leaking incomplete reports against the elected leadership of the country? Why have the same reporters who have gotten so much wrong learned so little? What is the purpose of these leaks--who is behind them, and what are they trying to achieve?
The media won't investigate that story, though it would be in the public interest to do so. So pay attention to the reporters who are laundering talking points from junior careerists in the intelligence community.
President Trump has obliterated the Iranian nuclear program. The American media seems destined to obliterate their own credibility on this fake story.
 RaceBannon
RaceBannon            
                Re: New threat
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Would Trump just authorize the Dep't of Ed (or whatever) to fund more internships in the Middle East earmarked for white chicks? Please. I'd take a tax hike to pay for it.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
 creepycoug
creepycoug            
                Re: Jon Wilner defends DAWGS
to be fair UW not being easily inside the top ten is terrible by EA
 ntxduck
ntxduck            
                