News today

BigWill

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
53,858
32,491
113
Thinking of the bonehead plot to attack the UFC event:

Since you all are into history. John Wilkes Booth was a nationally known actor so it was not unusual for him to be at a play. He was part of a bigger plot to kill Lincoln, VP Johnson, and Secy of State Seward that night. Wilkes was successful, Seward survived, and the guy assigned to Johnson lost his nerve. Ulysses S Grant also was supposed to be at the play that night and was going to be targeted but his plans changed and he did not attend. It was a plot to throw the Union into disarray -- but by this point Lee had surrendered and the South's capital Richmond was in Union hands, so boneheaded.

The other interesting tidbit is an armed policeman was assigned to stand guard over the entrance to the theater box Lincoln was in. He left his post, reasons vary but one theory was so he could go to a bar next door and get a drink. When Booth showed up the way to Lincoln was wide open. The policeman was investigated but never punished and stayed on the police force.
Do we see any parallels between piss poor protection at Ford's theatre and Butler, Pa ?
 

AzIllini

Senior
Apr 26, 2003
2,425
945
78
Great plan if you want to end up eating lab made fake meat. Farming/ranching is not an easy way of life, so we have to incentivize people to do it. If we are going to incentivize any industry, it should probably be the one putting food on our table.

Without the help of other states, Arizona is not a livable place for 8-10 million people. The land does not provide the necessary water for that many people. I guess you guys just want farmers to be removed from the equation so that it does provide enough water for that area. I believe that is a very bad idea.
Make the water price a fair price, not subsidized by taxpayers for years and decades, and it may be that growing beef on small "farms" in Colorado is not a plus for American taxpayers.
 
Last edited:

BigWill

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
53,858
32,491
113
The Imperial Valley has a population of less than 200k ("it's the f'n desert"), and is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States. We need that part of the country to be productive to feed our country.

A growing Phoenix population (and the water needed to support it) will result in less water for more productive areas. I realize it's stupid, and will only result in higher prices at the grocery store if we squeeze out ranchers and farmers.
Here you go; 1. increase beavers onto Federal managed land. 2. reduce cattle and increase buffalo one for one. Buff have different hooves and don't compact the soil. Meat has more protein as well.

For example, In Scotland Beaver were extinct since 1600 AD. In 2006 the Scots introduced 11 beaver onto one dead river and did nothing else. Now in 2026 there are tens of thousands of beaver in Scotland.
 

rillaman

Heisman
May 10, 2009
18,476
11,694
113
Here you go; 1. increase beavers onto Federal managed land. 2. reduce cattle and increase buffalo one for one. Buff have different hooves and don't compact the soil. Meat has more protein as well.

For example, In Scotland Beaver were extinct since 1600 AD. In 2006 the Scots introduced 11 beaver onto one dead river and did nothing else. Now in 2026 there are tens of thousands of beaver in Scotland.

I actually do appreciate that you are thinking of ideas, and more buffalo/less cattle is a worthy discussion.

Arizona and Scotland are 2 very different climates. Annual rainfall in Scotland is somewhere around 60” per year, ~25” in the driest areas. Dropping off a dozen beavers in the desert is not going to be helpful. Colorado already has about 75k beavers.

Again, I appreciate thoughtful debate on this topic. Some of your talking points are relevant, but many are not.
 

JeffT819

All-Conference
Dec 4, 2001
1,614
1,227
113
This is super dumb, if true. Trump isn’t even on the ballot in 2028. Establishment Republicans in the Senate are some of the most self-absorbed and coddled country club babies in the US. Primary Thune!


Highly doubt that has even a sliver of truth. However, if it were true, there is hope for the US.
 

Semi-elite R2R athlete

All-American
Sep 13, 2008
3,948
9,088
113
 

tjfleck6

All-American
Apr 19, 2008
6,203
7,547
113


For self proclaimed pundits with their head deep up their arse, this makes sense and is not a red flag for fraud. Prove it! Well, my guy RDS has proven you can run an election in a day if you want to do so.

Maybe Ick, Jeff, Stone and Big Mike will like the Trains boots today. Train is not in the same ballpark as me today. Perhaps yesterday, but not today

 
  • Haha
Reactions: illinimike

illinimike

All-Conference
Jun 15, 2001
2,332
1,987
88
lmao

Peace in the Middle East and our MAGA fan bois are the most quiet they’ve ever been. You all love to call others out for not posting. Where’s the love for the Iran deal?

[crickets]
There's probably some wildly entertaining posts if you were to go back a couple months.
 
Last edited:

stoneaxe27

All-American
Sep 22, 2006
5,664
6,657
113
There's probably some wildly entertaining posts if you were to go back a couple months.
It will take a short while for Trump's approval rating to dip into the 20's, but there will be a complete and utter collapse after images of him signing a MOU in Versailles that is comparable to the complete capitulation of Germany that ended WWI soaks into the American people. It will take a while for them to accept that everything he has said is total B.S.: we won the war on the first day; we destroyed their military, their leadership; we did not overlook them cutting off the Strait; we will liberate the people of Iran that we came to help; and finish the job as the entire ME demanded. If Iran does not give up in two weeks, 48 hours, tomorrow the US will obliterate them. More importantly, the American people will all, except the MAGA circle on this Board, realize that the emperor has no clothes, he is not a brilliant or very smart person, just the opposite, he is not capable of strategic planning, he is not a tough guy, but a big mouth bully coward, he is not the World's best negotiator, he is not a good deal maker and more importantly he will surrender to a third rate power, giving Iran everything it wants, to save his personal image or favorability ratings. It is clear that it is all about him, and the US's best interests are not his concern. He has led the most embarrassing international action and the only surrender/capitulation the U.S. has ever seen. How will that damage the American psyche and image of itself? It will be a cataclysmic mid-term and completion of his term for Trump, MAGA and the Republicans in/running for office.
 

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
Actually what some people have around here are brains. We use them to think and have the ability to change our minds.

You are a total ******* idiot.

A few of the bootlickers are not, but you ... really dumb. If you said, "I have no thoughts about politics outside of the GOP winning elections and the Dems being upset," I'd at least understand your position on Trump (even if I think you will learn by 2028 he's not very good for Rs actually winning elections). But slavishly adhering to whatever Trump wants/says isn't changing one's mind, it's bootlicking.

At least you are good at something.
 
Last edited:

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
lmao

Peace in the Middle East and our MAGA fan bois are the most quiet they’ve ever been. You all love to call others out for not posting. Where’s the love for the Iran deal?

[crickets]

The Iran deal is at best bad and at worst terrible. Trump had the opportunity to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He selected cowardice, as is his wont.

There are still some positives to take from the Iran conflict. The Ayatollah died, and Iran was shaken enough to replace him with a guy we still haven't seen. Their military infrastructure was severely degraded, the nuclear materials are still difficult to even access, and the missile program was damaged somewhere between moderate and substantial.

HOWEVER ... Iran's asymmetric advantage in the Strait was not challenged, and now they have full knowledge of the pain point of the West. In my opinion, Trump had to - at the cost of casualties - reopen it, and his biotch @SS did what he's prone to doing - chickening out.
 

Semi-elite R2R athlete

All-American
Sep 13, 2008
3,948
9,088
113
The Iran deal is at best bad and at worst terrible. Trump had the opportunity to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He selected cowardice, as is his wont.

There are still some positives to take from the Iran conflict. The Ayatollah died, and Iran was shaken enough to replace him with a guy we still haven't seen. Their military infrastructure was severely degraded, the nuclear materials are still difficult to even access, and the missile program was damaged somewhere between moderate and substantial.

HOWEVER ... Iran's asymmetric advantage in the Strait was not challenged, and now they have full knowledge of the pain point of the West. In my opinion, Trump had to - at the cost of casualties - reopen it, and his biotch @SS did what he's prone to doing - chickening out.
But have you seen the markets?

Another positive is that his inner circle made billions this spring while he jerked the markets around every weekend.

Seems obvious to me he never had a plan for Iran. His handlers forced him into a strike he didn't run on. If he had campaigned on regime change and confronting Iran's nuclear program, fine, let the voters decide.

Instead, he ran on the opposite, got pulled into Iran by his handlers, and then completely folded when it was too late. What an alpha.

Observing the cultists here change their opinions on war in Iran multiple times has been highly entertaining. Looking forward to the spin on this deal.
 

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
But have you seen the markets?

Another positive is that his inner circle made billions this spring while he jerked the markets around every weekend.

Seems obvious to me he never had a plan for Iran. His handlers forced him into a strike he didn't run on. If he had campaigned on regime change and confronting Iran's nuclear program, fine, let the voters decide.

Instead, he ran on the opposite, got pulled into Iran by his handlers, and then completely folded when it was too late. What an alpha.

Observing the cultists here change their opinions on war in Iran multiple times has been highly entertaining. Looking forward to the spin on this deal.

It wasn't his handlers that pulled him into Iran, there's a ton of reporting on this. Vance was against, Rubio ambivalent, the Joint Chief of Staff dubious, and so on. Maybe Heggie was full speed ahead.

Trump rolled Venezuela in a single mission, he thought Iran would take little more. I'm surprised he stuck with the blockade as long as he did.

I was in favor of the attack and am against this "fake peace." Had Trump pushed open the Strait and then not even done a deal, we'd be better off.
 

AzIllini

Senior
Apr 26, 2003
2,425
945
78
The Iran deal is at best bad and at worst terrible. Trump had the opportunity to forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He selected cowardice, as is his wont.

There are still some positives to take from the Iran conflict. The Ayatollah died, and Iran was shaken enough to replace him with a guy we still haven't seen. Their military infrastructure was severely degraded, the nuclear materials are still difficult to even access, and the missile program was damaged somewhere between moderate and substantial.

HOWEVER ... Iran's asymmetric advantage in the Strait was not challenged, and now they have full knowledge of the pain point of the West. In my opinion, Trump had to - at the cost of casualties - reopen it, and his biotch @SS did what he's prone to doing - chickening out.
He obviously didn't want war and Iran knew that. Will wait to see how it actually turns out but the Iran govt are bad guys so I'm not optimistic.

However, before throwing stones, the US under Obama and Biden caved to Iran and they were merrily funding terrorism all over the Middle East while getting within a hair of getting a nuclear bomb. Gaza is different and Lebanon is different today and Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb. I would have preferred regime change but it would have been costly. /Fingers crossed.
 

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
Btw, I would like to congratulate Trump and Vance for telling Zelenskyy "you don't have any cards."

Here we are 16 months later, Russia's refineries, ports, and oil depots are under sustained attack and burning, while Russia has probably lost more territory than it's gained the past few months.
 

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
He obviously didn't want war and Iran knew that. Will wait to see how it actually turns out but the Iran govt are bad guys so I'm not optimistic.

However, before throwing stones, the US under Obama and Biden caved to Iran and they were merrily funding terrorism all over the Middle East while getting within a hair of getting a nuclear bomb. Gaza is different and Lebanon is different today and Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb. I would have preferred regime change but it would have been costly. /Fingers crossed.

Do you think I believe the JCPOA under Obama was a good/smart deal?
 

Semi-elite R2R athlete

All-American
Sep 13, 2008
3,948
9,088
113
It wasn't his handlers that pulled him into Iran, there's a ton of reporting on this. Vance was against, Rubio ambivalent, the Joint Chief of Staff dubious, and so on. Maybe Heggie was full speed ahead.

Trump rolled Venezuela in a single mission, he thought Iran would take little more. I'm surprised he stuck with the blockade as long as he did.

I was in favor of the attack and am against this "fake peace." Had Trump pushed open the Strait and then not even done a deal, we'd be better off.
I have a different opinion of who his handlers are. lol
 

dtrain79

Heisman
Jul 13, 2006
48,614
27,574
113
I have a different opinion of who his handlers are. lol

Netanyahu hahaha.

Certainly Israel influenced him in this situation. There may be consequences to Israel for that, tho they seem to regularly prove that those challenging them militarily are engaging in a fool's errand.

I do think your Mossad/honeypot theory looks increasingly unsupportable. Again, the Epstein conspiracy was about Epstein's personal sexual predilections, we still have nothing credible showing anything more despite the millions of documents (and Internet sleuths) available. And just this week the NYT did more in-depth on his death in custody, and lo and behold the evidence of suicide only grows stronger.

Ah, the perpetual disappointment of conspiracies.