Bevo

For now. He was originally listed as 6'2" 215lbs it looks like and is now listed as 6'4" 245lbs. Assuming that he is getting larger as opposed to bullshitting the stats (which is a big assumption if he hasn't attended camps), 6'4" 270lbs as a true freshman isn't out of the question - now I don't know what his build looks like or if he has the tenacity to play inside but it seems to me to be at least a possibility.

Unfortunately, I have a place 30-40mi from Yellowstone as the ash falls - So that would be pretty, pretty bad for me.

That looks a lot like a Shoal Creek homeless camp.

Yeah, but the guy is about 250lbs, so with the right build and attitude, would you consider him over Machu Picchu (Mbatchou)?

I suppose anything over 12" for 'bout a day is going to cause some hurt.

Was it ever definitively determined if the first F16 crashed due to pilot error?

I thought Volcanoes would lower earth's temperature. Please double-check.

Montreal had a three day port strike in early October and I saw signs for port strikes in Newfoundland although I didn't pay attention to the dates. It wasn't just the US longshoremen who were unhappy. And a port strike in early October can absolutely have lingering effects for a week or 2.

Lieutenant Dan?

So what if we tossed in a few blocks of dry ice or have a bunch of planes fly counterclockwise through it?

Russia is also assisting Iran with its nuclear program.

Did he look as good as Simmons did at Target? well said.

Washington Worries the Israelis Will Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Sites. But Can They? For 22 years, Israeli forces have planned for this moment. But it seems unlikely that they will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next round of retaliation, or that they would be successful without American help. Oct. 8, 2024, 10:46 a.m. ET7m ago An Israeli F-15 flying over southern Israel in March. The country is capable of striking targets deep inside Iran, but would prefer to have the support of the United States.Abir Sultan/EPA, via Shutterstock By David E. SangerEric Schmitt and Ronen Bergman David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Ronen Bergman from Tel Aviv. All three have reported on the Iranian nuclear program for more than two decades. Oct. 7, 2024 Two years ago, dozens of Israeli fighter jets roared over the Mediterranean Sea, simulating a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a drill the Israeli defense forces openly advertised as an exercise in “long-range flight, aerial refueling and striking distant targets.” The point of the exercise was not simply to intimidate the Iranians. It was also designed to send a message to the Biden administration: The Israeli air force was training to conduct the operation alone, even though chances of success would be far higher if the United States — with its arsenal of 30,000-pound “bunker busters” — joined in the attack. In interviews, former and current senior Israeli officials acknowledged doubts about whether the country has the capability to do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nonetheless, for the past few days, Pentagon officials have been wondering quietly whether the Israelis are preparing to go it alone, after concluding that they may never again have a moment like this one. President Biden has warned them against striking nuclear or energy sites, saying any response should be “proportionate” to the Iranian attack on Israel last week, essentially acknowledging that some counterstrike is appropriate. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has been clear with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant, that the United States wanted Israel to avoid retaliatory steps that would result in new escalation by the Iranians. Mr. Gallant is scheduled to meet with Mr. Austin in Washington on Wednesday. It is likely that Israel’s first retaliation against Iran for Tuesday’s missile strikes will focus on military bases, and perhaps some intelligence or leadership sites, officials say. At least initially, Israel seems unlikely to go after the country’s nuclear crown jewels. After considerable debate, those targets seem to have been reserved for later, if the Iranians escalate with counterstrikes of their own. Nonetheless, there is a rising call inside Israel, echoed by some in the United States, to seize the moment — to set back, for years or more, an Iranian capability that American intelligence officials and outside experts increasingly say is at the threshold of producing a bomb. While much of the public discussion has focused on the fact that Iran could almost certainly ramp up enrichment to produce bomb-grade uranium in a matter of weeks, the more relevant fact is that it would take Iranian engineers months or maybe more than a year to fashion that fuel into a deliverable weapon. “Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years, to change the face of the Middle East,” Naftali Bennett, a hard-line nationalist and former prime minister who once described himself as to the right of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently wrote on social media. “We must act *now* to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this terrorist regime.” He added: “We have the justification. We have the tools. Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are paralyzed, Iran stands exposed.” American officials, starting with Mr. Biden, have mounted a campaign to take such strikes off the table, saying they would likely be ineffective and could plunge the region into a full-scale war. The question of how to strike Iran has become a campaign issue. Former President Donald J. Trump argued that Israel should “hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later.” It is an approach even he shied away from as president. On Sunday, Representative Michael R. Turner, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, criticized Mr. Biden on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that “it’s completely irresponsible for the president to say that it is off the table, when he’s previously said it’s on the table.” The sudden debate over a strike has raised new questions. If Israel attacked, how much could it really set back Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Or, would the result be simply to drive Iran’s nuclear program deeper underground, leading Iran to bar the few nuclear inspectors who still have regular, if limited, access to its major facilities? And what if an Israeli strike prompts Iran’s leaders to finally decide to race for a bomb — the line that Iran’s mullahs and generals have, for nearly a quarter of a century, stopped short of crossing? At Natanz, an Old Target and a New One For 22 years, the locus of Israel’s attention — and Washington’s — in Iran has been the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant, buried about three stories into the desert. Israel has developed plans to destroy or cripple the giant centrifuge hall, where thousands of the tall, silver machines spin at supersonic speeds until the uranium approaches bomb-grade material. While Tehran officially denies that it is seeking to possess a bomb, in recent months some Iranian officials and commentators have intensely debated whether a fatwa issued in 2003 by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, barring the possession of nuclear weapons, should be reversed. Meanwhile, Iran has stepped up production of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, just shy of bomb grade. It now has enough of that fuel for three or four bombs, experts believe, and getting it to bomb grade, at 90 percent, would take just days. While Natanz would be a fairly easy target, hitting it would be an act of war. So for the past 15 years, the United States has urged diplomacy, sabotage and sanctions, not bombs, to foul up the program. And it has actively blocked Israel from getting the weapons it would need to destroy another centrifuge facility, called Fordow, built deep in a mountain. President George W. Bush turned aside Israel’s demands to give its air force the United States’ biggest bunker-busting bombs, and the B-2 bombers that are needed to deliver them. Those weapons would be essential to any effort to take out Fordow and other deep, heavily reinforced facilities. Mr. Bush’s decision touched off an argument inside the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney embraced the idea of a strike, but Mr. Bush held fast, arguing that the United States could not risk another war in the Middle East. Ehud Barak, who served as Israel’s highest-ranked uniformed officer and also as prime minister, said in an interview with The Times in 2019 that Mr. Bush’s warning “did not really make any difference for us.” As of the end of 2008, he said, Israel did not have a feasible plan for attacking Iran. It soon developed several. The argument over the bunker busters helped give birth to a huge covert operation known as “Olympic Games,” a highly classified Israeli-American program to destroy the centrifuges using a cyberweapon. More than 1,000 centrifuges were destroyed by what became known as the Stuxnet virus, setting the program back by a year or more. But Olympic Games was no silver bullet: The Iranians rebuilt, adding thousands more centrifuges. They moved more of their effort deep underground. And the fact that the malicious computer code escaped the plant, and was revealed to the world, prompted other countries to focus on developing their own infrastructure attacks, including electric grids and water systems. The Israelis also assassinated scientists and struck aboveground enrichment facilities, attacked centrifuge-manufacturing centers with drones and invested huge resources in preparation for a possible attack on the facilities. The Israeli efforts faltered after the Obama administration reached a nuclear deal with Iran that led the country to ship much of its nuclear fuel out of the country. And later, when Mr. Trump pulled out of the deal, he and Mr. Netanyahu were convinced the Iranians would give up their projects in response to Washington’s threats. The Israel Defense Forces focused instead on Hezbollah, and the underground tunnels where it stored Iranian-produced missiles. When Mr. Bennett became prime minister in 2021, Israeli officials say, he was shocked by Israel’s lack of preparedness to attack the Iranian program, ordering new exercises to simulate flying the long distances to Iran and pouring new resources into the preparations. Even today, Israel’s capability is limited. The country relies on an aging fleet of Boeing 707 aerial refueling planes, and it will be years before newer models, capable of carrying fuel for far longer ranges, are delivered by the United States. Israel’s own bunker busters have been effective against the kinds of tunnels where Hezbollah stores missiles, and they enabled Israeli forces to kill Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, last month. The Israelis believe they can take out the air defenses around many of the nuclear sites; they hit one, to send a message, in a missile exchange with Iran in April. But Israel simply cannot get into highly reinforced nuclear facilities dug into mountains. “The nuclear target is a very difficult target,” said Gen. Frank McKenzie, who was in charge of the Iran war plans when he ran United States Central Command. “There are a lot of other alternatives to that target,” he said, adding that many of them — including energy infrastructure — would be easier to execute. Iran’s Next Moves Whether Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities or not, there are new reasons for concern about Iran’s nuclear future. The first is one that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has raised repeatedly in recent weeks: He has asserted, based on intelligence the United States declines to talk about, that Russia is sharing technology with Iran on nuclear issues. Officials describe the help as “technical assistance” and say there is no evidence that it is providing Iran with the hardware it needs to make a warhead. But until the war broke out in Ukraine, Russia had cooperated with the United States and Europe in restraining the Iranian nuclear program, even joining the 2015 negotiations on the side of Western nations. Now, if the American reports are right, Russia’s need for Iranian drones and other weaponry means it could speed Iran’s progress toward building a nuclear device. The second concern is that the damage done to Hezbollah in the past few weeks, including the decapitation of its leadership, could make Iran feel vulnerable. It can no longer count on the terror group’s ability to strike into Israel. Moving to obtain a nuclear weapon might become its only real way to deter Israel. And the third concern is that the Iranian program will only get harder to hit. Several years ago, under the watchful eyes of American and Israeli satellites, Iran began digging a vast tunnel network just south of Natanz, for what the United States believes is a new enrichment center, Iran’s largest. It is not yet up and running. In the past — when Israel destroyed not-yet-complete nuclear reactors in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 — that is exactly the moment it chose to mount pre-emptive attacks. David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than

yeah, I’m no expert as I am building in the mountains. The interior finish out would be difficult. I’ve seen some pretty fiber cement board that would work. But if every house was done that way, it would make for pretty bland interiors. And you bring up a good point on steel framing but most of the steel framing companies are on the gulf coast because of the claim of hurricane resistance. I’m on vacation in Maine and only brought my phone, but I’m curious what the manufacturers are saying about saltwater.

I think these storms show that a beach house should use steel or ICF construction and maybe move away from drywall and towards a breathable yet water resistant wall covering with the first floor above most storm surges. And use tile instead of wood or carpet. It wouldn’t be perfect but would be an improvement.

You could have done it privately, but you chose not to. Anyway, I’m done on the subject.

I think my post is pretty clear that I don’t like that @immamac gaslit me when I reported a political opinion post in DT. Let’s stick to articles instead of opinion like is immamac’s policy.

No for no reason you gaslit me over someone’s political opinion that they posted. 21 False Claims & Hoaxes by Kamala Harris that ABC’s Debate Moderators Did Not Fact Check Alana Mastrangelo10 Sep 2024 Win McNamee/Getty Imagesnormal Vice President Kamala Harris issued a slew of false claims and hoaxes that ABC debate moderators did not fact check during Tuesday’s debate against former President Donald Trump. Here are 21 false claims and hoaxes that Harris uttered on live television, in front of millions of Americans: 1. “Very fine people” hoax Harris claimed Trump called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville “very fine people,” a widely known hoax that Democrats continue to repeat, despite it being debunked for years by numerous outlets, including by the left-wing fact checking website Snopes. 2. Project 2025 hoax Harris accused Trump of wanting to implement Project 2025. This is false. Trump has repeatedly stated that he has nothing to do with it and hasn’t even read it. Trump promptly corrected Harris on the debate stage, saying, “I have nothing to do — as you know, and as she knows, better than anyone — I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven’t read it, I don’t want to read it, purposely. I’m not going to read it.” “I have nothing to do [with it],” Trump added. “Everybody knows I’m an open book. Everybody knows what I’m going to do: cut taxes very substantially, and create a great economy like I did before.” 3. False claims on Trump trade deficit Harris claimed “the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit” that was “one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America.” This is patently false. The trade deficit climbed to around $653 billion in Trump’s final year as president, in part because of depressed global demand for U.S. goods and services and a U.S. economy that recovered sooner than most other developed economies. But the trade deficit never rose to the levels seen under former President George W. Bush or the Biden-Harris administration. 4. Putin can “do whatever the hell he wants” Harris claimed that Trump told Russian President Vladimir Putin that he could “do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine.” This is false. Trump never told Putin he could do “whatever the hell he wants,” and he never told Putin he could invade Ukraine. To add insult to injury, this false claim is also coupled with stark gaslighting, given that Putin appears to be doing whatever he wants during the Biden-Harris administration — such as invading Ukraine — and not during the Trump administration. 5. “Dictator on day one” hoax Harris claimed that Trump “wants to be a dictator on day one.” This is false. Trump has never said this. Oddly, Harris attempted to justify her false claim by making another false claim (the aforementioned erroneous claim coupled with gaslighting), which was that the 45th president told Putin he could “do whatever the hell he wants.” Remarkably, Harris failed to mention that Putin has actually been doing whatever he wants during the Biden-Harris administration. 6. Blaming botched Afghanistan withdrawal on Trump In another example of never before seen levels of gaslighting, Harris blamed her and Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal on Trump. After being asked point blank, “Do you believe you bear any responsibility in the way that withdrawal played out?” Harris segued to talking about Trump’s communications with the Taliban, suggesting that the Biden-Harris administration is not responsible for its own botched Afghanistan withdrawal. This is not the first time Harris falsely claimed Trump is responsible for her and Biden’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal. Last week, her campaign tried to blame it on Trump — even though it happened seven months after he left office — claiming he didn’t give the Biden-Harris administration any “plans” on what to do. 7. Putin “would be sitting in Kyiv” Harris claimed Putin “would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe” if Trump were president. This is false. Russia under Putin invaded neighbors during the George Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden administrations, but never during the Trump administration. 8. “Bloodbath” hoax Harris also repeated the “bloodbath” hoax, falsely claiming that Trump called for a “bloodbath” if he lost the election. This is a long-debunked hoax, as Trump was referring to the car industry. 9. Abortion “monitor” hoax Harris claimed that Trump wanted an abortion “monitor.” This is false. Trump has never said anything like that. This is not the first time Harris has used this false statement. Breitbart News fact-checked this claim when she made it at the Democratic National Convention. Notably, Harris has never provided the basis for her claim, which is calculated to scare voters, but is simply fictitious. While making this claim, Harris also uttered another false claim that Trump seeks to implement a “national abortion ban.” Trump has repeatedly stated that he would not sign a federal abortion ban. Additionally, abortion is not a federal issue. It is a state issue. 10. Rental property hoax Harris claimed that Trump “refused to rent property to black families.” This is false. The claim has been made for years, but it has never been proven. In 2016, the Associated Press did a fact check on the claim, reporting that Trump and his father settled a government lawsuit about it with no admission of fault. 11. Central Park Five “execution” hoax Harris claimed that Trump called for the “execution” of the Central Park Five. This is false. Trump never specifically called for the “execution” of the Central Park Five defendants. Breitbart News fact-checked this claim when Democrats made it at their convention last month. 12. “Suckers and losers” hoax Harris alluded to the “suckers and losers” hoax by claiming that Trump had disparaged the military, including the fallen. This is false. The false claim that Trump called dead soldiers “suckers and losers” is a familiar hoax that has also been repeated by President Joe Biden. It stems from a report by the left-wing Atlantic, which has never been directly corroborated, and has been refuted by many eyewitnesses. 13. False fracking claims Harris claimed she never called to ban fracking. This is false, as she explicitly called to end fracking when running for president in 2019. 14. False oil production claims Harris claimed that the Biden-Harris administration ramped up oil production. This is false. The Biden-Harris administration has actively worked to curb domestic oil production. Early in the administration, Biden ordered the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and review existing permits for fossil fuel development. In 2023, the Biden-Harris administration canceled oil leases sold by the Trump administration in the Alaskan wildlife refuge and blocked new drilling. 15. National Sales Tax Harris accused Trump of proposing a national sales tax. This is false. President Trump has not proposed a national sales tax. During the debate, Harris referred to a “Trump sales tax” and claimed it would add 20 percent to the cost of goods. She was likely referring to Trump’s proposal to raise tariffs on imports. But tariffs are paid by companies that import goods from abroad and not by consumers. They are not a sales tax. 16. Distorting unemployment figures Harris claimed that Trump “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.” This is false, as unemployment was 6.4 percent in January 2021, not far from full employment, when Trump left office. 17. “I was raised middle-class” Harris claimed she had a middle-class upbringing, saying, ” I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.” This is mostly false. Harris had a rich Canadian upbringing, growing up in Westmount — a majority English neighborhood in the French province of Quebec. Amusingly, Harris made her “middle-class” claim while completely dodging the question, “Do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” — and again, ABC moderators never brought her back on track to the question at hand. 18. “Terminating” the Constitution Harris claimed that Trump wants to “terminate” the U.S. Constitution. This is false. Trump does not want to “terminate” the Constitution and has refuted this lie himself. Her claim likely stems from Trump’s reaction in 2022 to a bombshell New York Post report that the Democrat Party colluded with what was then known as Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election. “The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution,” Trump said in a 2022 Truth Social post. “This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their HOAXES & SCAMS.” “What I said was that when there is ‘MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,’ as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG,” Trump added. 19. “Sold us out” to China Harris claimed that Trump “sold us out” to the Chinese government with policies that “ended up selling American chips to China.” This is false. The Trump administration blocked the takeover of an American semiconductor maker by a Chinese investor, restricted exports to China’s top chipmaker, and largely limited sales to China and even to third countries who do business with Chinese companies considered a national security threat, such as the telecommunications company Huawei. In another example of blatant gaslighting, the Biden-Harris administration reportedly started greenlighting third party suppliers to sell chips to Huawei in 2021. 20. “Not one” troop in any war zone Harris claimed there are currently no active-duty troops in any combat zone anywhere around the world for the first time this century. This is false. There are currently active duty U.S. troops deployed to Iraq and Syria who have been under frequent attack by Iran-backed militia forces over the past year. There are also thousands of active-duty U.S. sailors deployed to the Middle East who are facing attacks by drone strikes and missiles fired by the Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. Earlier this year, three U.S. soldiers were killed on the border of Syria by Iran-backed forces. 21. Taking guns away Harris claimed that she and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) “are not taking anyone’s guns away.” This is false. Harris has campaigned on banning AR-15s and other guns that Democrats label “assault weapons.” Just last month, during their first campaign event together, Harris and Walz pushed for a ban on AR-15s and other guns. While ABC’s debate moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir failed to fact-check the plethora of false claims and hoaxes uttered by Harris, they frequently tried to fact-check Trump, with Muir even bizarrely fact-checking a joke the 45th president had previously made.

Sorry, I thought we were sticking to news on DT. “Media Bias? Kamala Harris’s 21 False Claims Unchecked During Debate, According to Breitbart Report” Sep 12, 2024 In her Breitbart News article, Alana Mastrangelo highlights 21 claims Vice President Kamala Harris made during a recent debate that ABC’s moderators did not fact-check. In her Breitbart News article, Alana Mastrangelo highlights 21 claims Vice President Kamala Harris made during a recent debate that ABC’s moderators did not fact-check. The article critiques the media’s failure to challenge Harris, contrasting it with the scrutiny of former President Donald Trump during the same event. Mastrangelo addresses specific points she deems to be false and misleading, starting with the “Very Fine People” hoax, in which Harris repeated the debunked claim that Trump referred to neo-Nazis as “very fine people” in Charlottesville. She also addresses Harris’s comments about Trump’s supposed involvement in Project 2025 and his stance on fracking, both of which Mastrangelo describes as false representations. The article further explores Harris’s claim that Trump contributed to the Afghanistan withdrawal disaster and her argument that Trump’s trade policies caused high deficits. Mastrangelo counters these with data suggesting the deficits weren’t as severe as under previous administrations. She also calls out Harris’s assertion that Trump wants to be a dictator as another unfounded claim, especially in light of the Biden administration’s struggles with foreign policy, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Mastrangelo’s critique includes multiple “hoaxes,” as she calls them, regarding Trump’s stance on abortion, gun rights, and economic issues like a national sales tax. According to the author, Harris painted a misleading picture of Trump’s record, frequently revisiting debunked accusations and ignoring or distorting historical context. The article closes with the assertion that ABC debate moderators did not challenge Harris’s statements, leaving the audience with a potentially skewed perception of Trump’s record, while the same scrutiny was applied to Trump’s responses. Mastrangelo stresses the contrast in treatment between the two candidates during the debate, pointing out Harris’s numerous unchecked claims, which she argues form part of a broader political strategy based on misinformation. Sources: Alana Mastrangelo, Breitbart News, “21 False Claims & Hoaxes by Kamala Harris that ABC’s Debate Moderators Did Not Fact Check.” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/09/10/21-kamala-harris-false-claims-hoaxes-that-debate-moderators-did-not-fact-check

While it is good timing for Israel, it is bad timing for Iran and the US political party in power.

That’s a fucking joke

You all are my tuddy buddies

The suspect has now recently been spotted in Far West and is heading south towards Circle C. He was last seen with a handful of Apple Watches and iPhones. Suspect is suspicious looking and has a penchant for buggary and snatching apple products off of unsuspecting people.

That’s me too. We are on vacation this week though so the only alarm would be about a crazy moose or other moose related activities.