It’s Dale Earnhardt and a couple other people

Yeah because slogans always tell the whole story and middle eastern politics never mixes with religion 🙄

Also, even if it IS a group of religious nuts, does that make ALL of them terrorists?

So much fucking stereotyping!

Houthis are a mostly political movement and the de facto government of the most populous parts of Yemen.

Saying “our action targets the Houthis and not the people of Yemen” is straight nonsense deliberately designed to paint the chosen government of most of the Yemeni people as identical to small groups of terrorists within the large movement.

It’s straight out of the Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld playbook of manufacturing consent for war crimes.

Nah, that was SENATOR Mullin on the senate floor having to be talked down by Bernie

Says a lot about the political climate that not only were you able to ever forget about something so bizarre, but it’s actually completely understandable!

Good point!

Your mom’s nonsensical.

I agree, but must say I’m pretty disappointed that you didn’t use the time a GOP candidate literally body slammed a reporter and STILL got elected as your example of someone actually getting slammed…

Yup. I’ve mentioned it a couple of times, but most people seem to think or at least pretend that the Houthi terrorists came out of nowhere for no reason and suggesting otherwise gets you downvoted a lot.

You’re discounting the many actual communists that are also actual idiots.

Idiots who truly believe in communism, but also think that the fascist Russian government and the equally repressive Chinese one are that.

Once again proving the old adage that every accusation from the fascists is a confession, in Russia too.

Actually, European fascism started in the early 20s the first time around too, with the Italian National Fascist Party founded in November 1921 and Mussolini becoming Prime minister a little under a year later.

I’m sure everything’s gonna be fine this time around, though! 😬

Nope, some game called “IfSunSets” that I’m not going to try 🤷

A pinky swear is better than nothing when arguing intent, even if a bunch of justices signed it because there is no explicit enforcement

Not really, since that’s what almost precisely what they already did separately when they were sworn in.

To go through the trouble of affirming what you’ve already affirmed while insisting on no enforcement or consequences in response to a public demand for enforcement and consequences is borderline suspicious behavior…

It’s the most Republican thing you can do with a car, except maybe driving into protesters.

The joint statement that they didn’t want any enforceable ethics rules was signed by all of them.

That means that, while not anywhere near as obviously corrupt and otherwise awful as the Federalist Society ones, the rest of the court is also against transparency and being held to a higher standard than a pinky swear, which isn’t a great sign…

That’s basically what AIPAC and similar groups do, though they blackmail during primaries as well as general elections.

That, and there’s groups like AIPAC that’ll do their best to crush any politician who’s not sufficiently deferential to the apartheid regime.

Incidentally, Biden once bragged about going to more AIPAC events than any other politician in Washington.

Me too 🤜🤛