Eggs in Canada today: $4.85; in Mexico today: $3.40. What I paid at Albertsons this morning: $6.49. Bird flu doesn't end at the border— this isn't about bird flu, it's about profit.
If their many chickens are alive enough to lay eggs enough to sell it doesn't matter! Testing for bird flu isn't at issue— morbidity of bird flu is. Your challenged is flawed.
The straw man fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone misrepresents or distorts their opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, then refutes this weakened or fabricated version instead of the actual argument.
Solidarity is and has been the only real leverage we have. There will always be different opinions on strategy, but we need to stay united in standing up against this fascist regime.
That pleading of DOJ to Boasberg was the most amazing bull I've ever seen. Interesting why they want to go to a showdown on this. You'd think they'd do their defying on some case they had a chance of winning higher up. Apart from "is it a war/is it a nation" argument, the actual statute they are invoking requires a court hearing,
Boasberg gave them a chance to explain WHY the national secrets privilege applied. "Because we think the info is not relevant" is not actually an answer to that.
I've looked at the actual pleading. It ENTIRELY depends on the idea of the "plenary executive" distorted from "in full control of the executive branch" to "in full control of all branches, and damn well better respect him for it and not question anything he does." Most of their case law involves discovery, which this is not. Revelation of these facts is to the judge, not the public. Further, apparently the times airplane did things would somehow "erode the trust our ally has in us" and "disclosures can cause harm to intelligence sources, methods, and operations." SPIES were involved in the times the planes did things?
The laundry list of "reasons" given could easily have been lifted from Wikipedia. There is NOTHING that shows how these particular facts fit any of them. Their citations of cases often contradicts the point they are trying to make. In the end they say "when a judge has
satisfied himself that the dangers asserted by the government are substantial and real, he need not—indeed, should not—probe further" I guess the judge has to be satisfied by someone telling him "oh, yes, they are real."
It looks like the DOJ is ASKING for a finding of contempt of court. Presumably it wants to test the boundaries of that power of the court. You'd think they'd choose a better case for it.
So are they hiding something? Whatever it is, sounds like bombshell territory.
Eggs in Canada today: $4.85; in Mexico today: $3.40. What I paid at Albertsons this morning: $6.49. Bird flu doesn't end at the border— this isn't about bird flu, it's about profit.
Mexico doesn’t test as much for bird flu, so your premise is flawed
If their many chickens are alive enough to lay eggs enough to sell it doesn't matter! Testing for bird flu isn't at issue— morbidity of bird flu is. Your challenged is flawed.
Testing is important so one knows if flick is infected or not. My premise is exact.
Whatever you think, straw man.
The straw man fallacy is a type of logical fallacy where someone misrepresents or distorts their opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, then refutes this weakened or fabricated version instead of the actual argument.
And you were expecting what other action by this administration?
In another world fecking Hegseth should be on the next flight for El Salvador, and a personal tour and stay at the CECOT super-max.
Solidarity is and has been the only real leverage we have. There will always be different opinions on strategy, but we need to stay united in standing up against this fascist regime.
All their filings are "bumptious".
Hey, we just met
And this is crazy
But here's my number
We're bombing Houthis
That pleading of DOJ to Boasberg was the most amazing bull I've ever seen. Interesting why they want to go to a showdown on this. You'd think they'd do their defying on some case they had a chance of winning higher up. Apart from "is it a war/is it a nation" argument, the actual statute they are invoking requires a court hearing,
Boasberg gave them a chance to explain WHY the national secrets privilege applied. "Because we think the info is not relevant" is not actually an answer to that.
I've looked at the actual pleading. It ENTIRELY depends on the idea of the "plenary executive" distorted from "in full control of the executive branch" to "in full control of all branches, and damn well better respect him for it and not question anything he does." Most of their case law involves discovery, which this is not. Revelation of these facts is to the judge, not the public. Further, apparently the times airplane did things would somehow "erode the trust our ally has in us" and "disclosures can cause harm to intelligence sources, methods, and operations." SPIES were involved in the times the planes did things?
The laundry list of "reasons" given could easily have been lifted from Wikipedia. There is NOTHING that shows how these particular facts fit any of them. Their citations of cases often contradicts the point they are trying to make. In the end they say "when a judge has
satisfied himself that the dangers asserted by the government are substantial and real, he need not—indeed, should not—probe further" I guess the judge has to be satisfied by someone telling him "oh, yes, they are real."
It looks like the DOJ is ASKING for a finding of contempt of court. Presumably it wants to test the boundaries of that power of the court. You'd think they'd choose a better case for it.
So are they hiding something? Whatever it is, sounds like bombshell territory.
Going to be a fun week.
Criminals and incompetents all.
Yes, DOD, CIA, NSA, DIA,
VP, NYT, WSJ, WP, TPM,
Atlantic should all be in
on war and bombing
plans on secret message
apps. This way, the
people can find out
exactly how brilliantly
dumb the new heads of
our National Security
and 2nd in line to PINO
are.
The judge will ask the DOJ to prosecute itself for perjury ?
Because we are at war with Venezuela
We have always been at war with Venezuela