Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 hours ago, wild_turkey said:


There are shady people in every profession, but any doctor that refuses treatment on the basis of political affiliation is a disgrace and should choose a new line of work. That’s not a doctor acting in his/her best financial interest or covering their ass. That’s a doctor being an intentional asshole for no reason other than to be hateful and deny the care they were trained to provide.

Your buddy’s wife is a different situation altogether, which is terribly sad and an unfortunate consequence of the backwards laws this state has implemented on women’s healthcare. It’s awful and will become more common and every Republican lawmaker and every voter who helped elect them should be ashamed

You misspelled *shot.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Odds that our president’s beautiful Juneteenth message tomorrow will include a mention of “DEI”?

Sheeeit, he'll probably acknowledge it as "one of the saddest days in our beautiful country's history, sadness at levels we've never seen before;"  Or something like that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I’m hoping they hit a large gas line while they’re digging the holes.

i am sure they called 811 first.

Posted
53 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Odds that our president’s beautiful Juneteenth message tomorrow will include a mention of “DEI”?

Celebrated by restoring the confederacy named military bases no doubt. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Odds that our president’s beautiful Juneteenth message tomorrow will include a mention of “DEI”?

He’ll announce a new, big and beautiful patriot Julyteenth the likes this country has never seen 

Posted
3 hours ago, Red Five said:

Odds that our president’s beautiful Juneteenth message tomorrow will include a mention of “DEI”?

A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?

 

No Way What GIF by NBA

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?

 

No Way What GIF by NBA

The message will be “I just learned of this when told staff are not working today- we have too many federal holidays and I’ll be changing that immediately by herewith and hereby rescinding Juneteenth and mlk day as federal holidays.  Thank you for your attention in this matter.”

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Pancho said:

A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?

 

No Way What GIF by NBA

We are closed tomorrow in honor/celebration of Juneteenth. I think I'll set up my "Out of Office" to proudly proclaim *why* we aren't open tomorrow. I'm usually purposely vague on these.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
4 hours ago, Red Five said:

Odds that our president’s beautiful Juneteenth message tomorrow will include a mention of “DEI”?

 

43 minutes ago, Pancho said:

A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?

 

No Way What GIF by NBA

still cracks me up he held a COVID campaign rally on Juneteenth in 2020 in the midst of the BLM protests, and it led to the creation of the Herman Cain Award

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That depends. Which Mexico are we talking about?

IMG_3176.thumb.jpeg.550926198cb65718fdf3a6fcf7b5d0a6.jpeg

if this is an actual screengrab, it demonstrates shows the level of intelligence of the person writing these on screen titles, and the bar to get hired at Fox News.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Pancho said:

A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?

 

No Way What GIF by NBA

Why, yes. “Today, I am announcing that the ship named for a famous trailblazing veteran, who participated in the Normandy landings in 1944, will no longer be called the Medgar Evers. Happy Juneteenth.”

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

 

image.png.6b110c40c410018c2d8a2f74d331cc4f.png

 

Trump is such a pos liar.  CRYING like a toddler trying to get credit for something he had nothing to do with.   100% bitch.

Modi isn't even wearing a suit to the oval office so clearly he's lying and should be kicked out. Probably failed to thank President Trump for forcing the UK to accept Indian independence. Edit: independence under Trump's regime.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
A Juneteenth message? From this president? This administration?
 
200.gif

“Happy Juneteenth, especially to the radical insane democrats who….”

It’s what he does.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

 

image.png.6b110c40c410018c2d8a2f74d331cc4f.png

 

Trump is such a pos liar.  CRYING like a toddler trying to get credit for something he had nothing to do with.   100% bitch.

He wants a Nobel Peace Prize badly.

Posted
49 minutes ago, Red Five said:


“Happy Juneteenth, especially to the radical insane democrats who….”

It’s what he does.

"Happy JUNETEENTH which freed the slaves, I assume. Slavery by the way never would have happened if I was president, believe me. Never would have happened. I would have said 'cut it out!' and they wouldn't have done slavery. They told me, 'Sir, please I need these slaves for my property. Don't set them free' 'No, we're not doing slavery. Set them all free.' But it's very sad what happened with the slavery. And some of the owners who were great people, it was very unfair to them, too, that their property was taken away. Treated very unfairly. Great people. But we can't have slavery. And we can't have political prisoners. No, I said 'set them free' unless they're criminal illegals."

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
10 minutes ago, faps said:

He wants a Nobel Peace Prize badly.

Now I want to open a Nobel Pizza and call Trump’s cell phone to tell him he’s won the Nobel Pizza Prize and we can deliver right away. When he’s confused upon delivery of a large anchovie pizza I can explain someone must have put his name in the jar for our monthly pizza prize. Simple mixup, like your classic Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

if this is an actual screengrab, it demonstrates shows the level of intelligence of the person writing these on screen titles, and the bar to get hired at Fox News.

It’s real and that guy on the right is now the Secretary of Defense. 

  • Rage+1 6
Posted

With regards to the military base name changes, I’m curious how this plays out because the name changes away from confederate generals was a decision made by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in the 2020 defense bill.  Without congressional approval, I’m not sure this legally gets done but the law doesn’t seem to hinder this administration’s depravity.

Additionally, as someone living near one of these bases at the time, the most significant complaint among the locals was that it was a huge waste of money… which was obvious bullshit as they will likely cheer on the reverse, regardless of the cost.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Apparently this hearing on Biden’s health is being led by Grassley who is fucking 91 years old

Grassley is currently 3rd in line to the presidency as Senate Pro Tempore

  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Disco Strangler said:

He saved Latin.  What did you do?

I wanked it to naked pictures of Melania. Tough but I pulled through 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
17 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

That depends. Which Mexico are we talking about?

IMG_3176.thumb.jpeg.550926198cb65718fdf3a6fcf7b5d0a6.jpeg

whoa whoa slow down there maestro....there's a New Mexico?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

 

image.png.6b110c40c410018c2d8a2f74d331cc4f.png

 

Trump is such a pos liar.  CRYING like a toddler trying to get credit for something he had nothing to do with.   100% bitch.

100% Thirsty AF bitch.

Which somehow makes it exponentially worse.

What an insufferable waste of skin.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

They hate public land. 

 

They hate everything, except for whatever Trump changes his mind on and Fox tells them is good and proper.  

On the other hand, they will spin this as a way to offset whatever deficits this bill will generate.  You can bet another of the talking points will be that the selling of public lands is a way to "preserve Medicare and Social Security"

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

spacer.png

Quote

A more complete analysis of the massive public land sell off Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Steve Daines (R-Montana) are inserting into the Senate’s budget reconciliation package shows that areas it would authorize for sale total 294,646,021 acres, impacting vast swaths, if not majority areas of western states and Alaska. The analysis coincides with news that the budget would add $3.4 trillion to the national deficit, according to a non-partisan Congressional report.

Reporting around the amendment, which comes from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Lee chairs and which Daines sits on as the chairperson of the Subcommittee on National Parks, has been challenging due to the intentionally obtuse language it uses to parse lands and direct them for sale. That language is likely a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and conceal these efforts from the voting public.

https://wessiler.substack.com/p/lee-daines-amendment-now-threatens

 

Spoiler

A more complete analysis of the massive public land sell off Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Steve Daines (R-Montana) are inserting into the Senate’s budget reconciliation package shows that areas it would authorize for sale total 294,646,021 acres, impacting vast swaths, if not majority areas of western states and Alaska. The analysis coincides with news that the budget would add $3.4 trillion to the national deficit, according to a non-partisan Congressional report.

Reporting around the amendment, which comes from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Lee chairs and which Daines sits on as the chairperson of the Subcommittee on National Parks, has been challenging due to the intentionally obtuse language it uses to parse lands and direct them for sale. That language is likely a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and conceal these efforts from the voting public.

Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The amendment, which Lee and Daines published on June 11 without a committee hearing or vote, mandates the sale of between 0.5-0.75 percent of all BLM land and that same percentage of USFS land, while designating 11 western states in which those sales can take place, excluding any lands in Montana, and carving out lands that are protected under various federal designations.

That’s a relatively challenging formula to apply, but according to math run by people much smarter than me at The Wilderness Society, total lands mandated for sale here could total between 2.02 and 3.04 million acres. Others running that math have come up with a maximum number of 3.3 million acres.

That amendment will be voted on by the full Senate sometime between now and the July 4 deadline they’ve arbitrarily set for completing the budget. Should it pass there, it will go to the House, where Republican representatives vulnerable in the 2026 mid-terms caved to voter pressure, and removed a previous provision that would have sold-off around 500,000 acres.

Should it become law, the amendment would push through the sale in short order.

“The secretaries of agriculture and interior will have 30 days to solicit nominations for lands to be sold from ‘any interested parties’ and must publish a list every 60 days of lands eligible for sale until they’ve reached the quota,” explained a TWS representative speaking to me on background. “The entire sell-off must be completed within 5 years.”

The amendment fails to give Indigenous people any right of first refusal or other priority for sale, even for lands of religious, cultural, or historic importance to them.

The Lee-Daines Amendment then goes on to define the lands eligible for sale. A TWS representative explains that formula:

Eligible states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY

Excludes federally protected land (defined by the bill as a National Monument; National Recreation Area; component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; unit of the National Trails System; National Conservation Area; unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; unit of the National Park System; National Preserve; National Seashore or National Lakeshore; National Historic Site; National Memorial; National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; National Historical Park)

Subject to valid existing rights (understood to mean it excludes lands with property interests like oil and gas leases, rights-of-way or perfected mining claims in existence before the date of enactment of the bill; note that prior version of the bill defined lands with “valid existing rights” to include those with grazing permits, and the new version strikes that. Since “valid existing rights” is best understood to mean property interests like oil and gas leases, rights-of-way or perfected mining claims, this new version seemingly puts grazing permit lands back on the table for disposal, which sends the eligible acreage skyrocketing).

It’s that provision for including or not including grazing permit lands that has resulted in wild swings in estimates for total acreage made eligible for sale. Those lands were excluded from sale in the bill’s initial version, then quietly removed over the weekend, resulting in the new estimates.

Here’s the full text of the Lee-Daines Amendment, as it stands at the time of writing:

Redline (new25684 Vs

300KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Earlier today, the Outdoor Alliance’s GIS lab compared its calculations with TWS and the two agreed on a new conclusion that the Amendment authorizes the sale of a grand total of 194,629,653 acres of BLM land and 100,016,368 acres of National Forest, which add up to 294,646,021 acres.

You can see that map at this link.

“Perhaps the more challenging part, was figuring out all of the valid existing rights that were listed on the pages following the special designations,” explains OA’s mapping guy. “This included several datasets from the BLM like mining claims, oil and gas leases, permits/easements, mineral rights, and several others. I had a great discussion with TWS staff yesterday morning and they were very helpful discussing all the existing rights layers that should be included in the analysis.”

“In any case, it's A LOT of public land that could potentially be up for sale, and it's hard to pinpoint at this juncture where that could be, because there's not a lot of guardrails,” they continue.

TWS says that the ultimate total very much remains in flux, as Lee and Daines hash out final language.

“We’re hearing that SENR is likely to change the bill text again, maybe tonight, to change the way it treats grazing permits,” the TWS rep explains. “So the eligible acreage will swing back, presumably.”

What’s the difference between the three-or-so million acres mandated for sale by the Lee-Daines Amendment and the 294,646,021 acres authorized for sale by it? There’s nuance to that answer, and that matters.

Lee and Daines have included language that states all lands authorized for sale are, “considered to meet the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act," which, if this passes into law, would mean they can be sold without any further public process.

It’s important to remember here that this budget is being pushed through the Senate using budget reconciliation. That helps Republicans avoid debate on unpopular provisions like this one—the reconciliation process means that Senators will only have to vote on the amendment once, during a full floor vote, and not separately in committee—and avoids the filibuster so that the budget can pass on a simple majority vote, rather than the typical 60 votes, which Republicans do not have.

But, using budget reconciliation also means that any measure which adds to the deficit must be offset by equivalent savings.

(The math Congress uses is of its own creation, and is very much not tethered to reality. A measure passed by the House in January, for example, prevents the consideration of ongoing revenues on these lands from being considered. Those revenues are likely considerable, the BLM nets $262 billion annually, while National Forests rake in over $300 billion.)

Reports indicate that target revenue for the mandated sale is $5 to 10 billion over that five year sale period.

All this is relevant to this discussion because balancing revenues generated by land sales against the deficit in a bill that also authorizes 46 percent of all public lands for sale without public process sets up an impossible scenario for future budgets, no matter who takes charge of Congress or the White House in future elections.

Not only does the Lee-Daines amendment create precedent for selling public land in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires, but it also creates a scenario in which future budgets will need to create new revenue from other sources (like politically challenging increases to taxes) in order to make up for revenues now achieved by ongoing sales of land. Land that, should this measure and budget pass, will already be authorized for sale. And that’s going to come even as lawmakers will have to find money to service massive increases to the nation’s interest payments.

According to polling conducted by the Trust for Public Land in April, 71 percent of Americans oppose any sale of public land.

 

Edited by MC Fresh Breath
  • Rage+1 7
Posted
16 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

spacer.png

https://wessiler.substack.com/p/lee-daines-amendment-now-threatens

 

  Reveal hidden contents

A more complete analysis of the massive public land sell off Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Steve Daines (R-Montana) are inserting into the Senate’s budget reconciliation package shows that areas it would authorize for sale total 294,646,021 acres, impacting vast swaths, if not majority areas of western states and Alaska. The analysis coincides with news that the budget would add $3.4 trillion to the national deficit, according to a non-partisan Congressional report.

Reporting around the amendment, which comes from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Lee chairs and which Daines sits on as the chairperson of the Subcommittee on National Parks, has been challenging due to the intentionally obtuse language it uses to parse lands and direct them for sale. That language is likely a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and conceal these efforts from the voting public.

Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The amendment, which Lee and Daines published on June 11 without a committee hearing or vote, mandates the sale of between 0.5-0.75 percent of all BLM land and that same percentage of USFS land, while designating 11 western states in which those sales can take place, excluding any lands in Montana, and carving out lands that are protected under various federal designations.

That’s a relatively challenging formula to apply, but according to math run by people much smarter than me at The Wilderness Society, total lands mandated for sale here could total between 2.02 and 3.04 million acres. Others running that math have come up with a maximum number of 3.3 million acres.

That amendment will be voted on by the full Senate sometime between now and the July 4 deadline they’ve arbitrarily set for completing the budget. Should it pass there, it will go to the House, where Republican representatives vulnerable in the 2026 mid-terms caved to voter pressure, and removed a previous provision that would have sold-off around 500,000 acres.

Should it become law, the amendment would push through the sale in short order.

“The secretaries of agriculture and interior will have 30 days to solicit nominations for lands to be sold from ‘any interested parties’ and must publish a list every 60 days of lands eligible for sale until they’ve reached the quota,” explained a TWS representative speaking to me on background. “The entire sell-off must be completed within 5 years.”

The amendment fails to give Indigenous people any right of first refusal or other priority for sale, even for lands of religious, cultural, or historic importance to them.

The Lee-Daines Amendment then goes on to define the lands eligible for sale. A TWS representative explains that formula:

Eligible states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY

Excludes federally protected land (defined by the bill as a National Monument; National Recreation Area; component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; unit of the National Trails System; National Conservation Area; unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; unit of the National Park System; National Preserve; National Seashore or National Lakeshore; National Historic Site; National Memorial; National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; National Historical Park)

Subject to valid existing rights (understood to mean it excludes lands with property interests like oil and gas leases, rights-of-way or perfected mining claims in existence before the date of enactment of the bill; note that prior version of the bill defined lands with “valid existing rights” to include those with grazing permits, and the new version strikes that. Since “valid existing rights” is best understood to mean property interests like oil and gas leases, rights-of-way or perfected mining claims, this new version seemingly puts grazing permit lands back on the table for disposal, which sends the eligible acreage skyrocketing).

It’s that provision for including or not including grazing permit lands that has resulted in wild swings in estimates for total acreage made eligible for sale. Those lands were excluded from sale in the bill’s initial version, then quietly removed over the weekend, resulting in the new estimates.

Here’s the full text of the Lee-Daines Amendment, as it stands at the time of writing:

Redline (new25684 Vs

300KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Earlier today, the Outdoor Alliance’s GIS lab compared its calculations with TWS and the two agreed on a new conclusion that the Amendment authorizes the sale of a grand total of 194,629,653 acres of BLM land and 100,016,368 acres of National Forest, which add up to 294,646,021 acres.

You can see that map at this link.

“Perhaps the more challenging part, was figuring out all of the valid existing rights that were listed on the pages following the special designations,” explains OA’s mapping guy. “This included several datasets from the BLM like mining claims, oil and gas leases, permits/easements, mineral rights, and several others. I had a great discussion with TWS staff yesterday morning and they were very helpful discussing all the existing rights layers that should be included in the analysis.”

“In any case, it's A LOT of public land that could potentially be up for sale, and it's hard to pinpoint at this juncture where that could be, because there's not a lot of guardrails,” they continue.

TWS says that the ultimate total very much remains in flux, as Lee and Daines hash out final language.

“We’re hearing that SENR is likely to change the bill text again, maybe tonight, to change the way it treats grazing permits,” the TWS rep explains. “So the eligible acreage will swing back, presumably.”

What’s the difference between the three-or-so million acres mandated for sale by the Lee-Daines Amendment and the 294,646,021 acres authorized for sale by it? There’s nuance to that answer, and that matters.

Lee and Daines have included language that states all lands authorized for sale are, “considered to meet the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act," which, if this passes into law, would mean they can be sold without any further public process.

It’s important to remember here that this budget is being pushed through the Senate using budget reconciliation. That helps Republicans avoid debate on unpopular provisions like this one—the reconciliation process means that Senators will only have to vote on the amendment once, during a full floor vote, and not separately in committee—and avoids the filibuster so that the budget can pass on a simple majority vote, rather than the typical 60 votes, which Republicans do not have.

But, using budget reconciliation also means that any measure which adds to the deficit must be offset by equivalent savings.

(The math Congress uses is of its own creation, and is very much not tethered to reality. A measure passed by the House in January, for example, prevents the consideration of ongoing revenues on these lands from being considered. Those revenues are likely considerable, the BLM nets $262 billion annually, while National Forests rake in over $300 billion.)

Reports indicate that target revenue for the mandated sale is $5 to 10 billion over that five year sale period.

All this is relevant to this discussion because balancing revenues generated by land sales against the deficit in a bill that also authorizes 46 percent of all public lands for sale without public process sets up an impossible scenario for future budgets, no matter who takes charge of Congress or the White House in future elections.

Not only does the Lee-Daines amendment create precedent for selling public land in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires, but it also creates a scenario in which future budgets will need to create new revenue from other sources (like politically challenging increases to taxes) in order to make up for revenues now achieved by ongoing sales of land. Land that, should this measure and budget pass, will already be authorized for sale. And that’s going to come even as lawmakers will have to find money to service massive increases to the nation’s interest payments.

According to polling conducted by the Trust for Public Land in April, 71 percent of Americans oppose any sale of public land.

 

Interesting that a Montana senator is co sponsor and Montana’s land is somehow not on the map as for sale. Lee’s state is- so I can only assume that the church plans on buying up all of it. 

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
20 hours ago, C-Man said:

We are closed tomorrow in honor/celebration of Juneteenth. I think I'll set up my "Out of Office" to proudly proclaim *why* we aren't open tomorrow. I'm usually purposely vague on these.

The other day I got a message saying we (State agency) were closed because the county building where are offices are is closed.  Digging into it a bit, I realized that Emancipation Day is a "Skeleton Crew Holiday" for State agencies, i.e., office is supposed to be open and minimal staff is required.  So if you take off, you don't use vacation time and if you show up you get comp time.  That's fine, but I find it a bit weird that that Texas, the state in which Juneteenth originated and first was recognized, doesn't treat it as a full-blown holiday in state government.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...