OlDawg

I’m a firm believer in the idea that a POTUS doesn’t really control events. Events control a POTUS. What they do when events occur define them—for better or worse. We may wish there had been another way. We may not be a fan of entering another ME conflict. But, when it happens due to events that weren’t entirely foreseen, and our men & women are in harm’s way following their oaths, they should be supported above all else.

Looking at their policy positions, I don’t see much daylight between the two. I assume you believe Talarico to be more electable?

‘Formal policy’ I guess I owe you (and all) a better explanation. Soleimani wasn’t ‘assassinated’ by the definition agreed to by our existing EO & common rules of war. He was killed without trickery, negotiations weren’t ongoing, and no attempt was made to deceive. Yes, he was killed by a direct “employee” of the Executive Branch. But, not in any way that involved subterfuge. In today’s case, there was a gray line since negotiations could be construed to still be ongoing up until the time of the attack. To make sure there were no questions, the U.S. didn’t partake in the killings of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Same rules were followed when we were searching for Hussein. Formal U.S. policy doesn’t apply to “non-direct employees.” Hopefully, this helps explain.

Good to see he hasn’t forgotten everything.

La Porte Lady Dawgs vs. Leander Glenn Grizzlies Tuesday 3/3, 5:00 pm Mumford HS

For those wondering, yes—Israel launched sorties with about 200 aircraft. In comparison, the U.S. sent over 900 strikes against selected targets. The reason Israel went against the human targets and the U.S. focused on military and industrial complexes is because formal U.S. policy still doesn’t allow assassinations. Plus, Israel doesn’t have the total missile capabilities of the U.S. Now, I’d really like to ask folks to squabble over Trump less in this thread when we have men & women in harm’s way. This isn’t about Trump. There are plenty of other threads for the political trash talking. This is far from over.

Tough matchup

I watched it. At least, I watched one with Musk talking about how AI is already too smart for the trainers, and it’s basically teaching itself now. I think it was from Oct. 2025. Thanks for the refer. Scary Stuff. On one hand, I’d love for it to be able to help with my wife. We even joked we might be able to buy a robot soon to help me take care of her. On the other hand, the misuse possibilities are enormous.

La Porte Lady Dawgs 46 College Station 41 Final Lady Dawgs move on to the 5AD1 State Semis

La Porte 21 CStat 19 Half

I’m afraid Pandora has left the key out now. That’s why it’s called an arms race. Who will be able to harness the deadliest weapon—that has no moral compass—first. Not only that, but to be able to use it against your own citizens—without any warrant—just by easily gathering & compiling all the electronic data on whomever they want within seconds. Then, if caught, use The Patriot Act as an excuse. Everyone has a right to be a little leery. @baddog isn’t alone. ”Now I am become death.” Oppenheimer

They’re just priority questions to ask their voters. Issues they’ll supposedly focus on next session receive the most votes. R’s ask questions that pander to their voters. D’s ask questions that pander to their voters. No one else gets a voice since Texas requires either an R or D vote in primaries.

Michael Flynn & the Christian Nationalist Movement [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

Abbott just signed one law relating to this issue last Fall. [Hidden Content] Chip Roy and Other's Position To Clarify Sharia is Incompatible [Hidden Content] HR 5512 - No Sharia Act Status in Congress [Hidden Content]

Pentagon Threatens AI Company Anthropic and the Pentagon have been locked in tense negotiations in recent weeks over the company’s AI usage policy, which bars its AI model Claude from being used to conduct mass surveillance or develop lethal autonomous weapons. These two issues have become the company’s red lines in the dispute. A source familiar with negotiations told The Hill on Monday that Anthropic’s resistance stemmed from concerns that AI systems are not reliable enough to make life-or-death decisions, and the technology significantly changes what is possible with domestic surveillance. [Hidden Content]