More accurately, his girlfriend is, he’d probably be consider an asset. An important distinction on whether you protect them when they’re in trouble.

My major concern is that faced with defeat either way, they use dirty bombs to irradiate the population centers of israel. We’d have 9 million refugees and a huge environmental catastrophe.

We can always get international standards from more advanced countries.

If they’re going to rogan they’re media consumers, but they’re not news consumers. People who go to a strip club aren’t moving away from traditional bars.

If Iran fires dirty bombs into Israel, sure you can attack them, but the damage is done.

Presidents can attack basically anyone under the blanket provisions given for 9/11

Important comment, this has been fraying for several years and now it’s unravelling.

I love the theory that if Klarna folds, there will be some small window where you can pay using klarna and get something for free. It will never happen but I love the idea.

Depending on the state, you may detain someone in the process of a crime until law enforcement can take them. I know in Texas, civilian arrest powers are very similar to police.

Being active military throws a huge wrench in this, however, as well as being ordered to a place and deployed with the purpose of policing. You can’t just throw up a “this is federal property” defense, because this is also a public building.

While they have the physical ability to resist, they don’t have the legal right. They are subject to the same laws as anyone in the US.

In fact, they might be commanded to stand down and accept it, because the legal implications of acting like an occupying force would have long term, very bad effects for the existence of the marines.

While that might sound far fetched, the marine corps is smart, and would allow a few soldiers to face some humiliation and risk the government that funds them thinking “what if that was my kids?”

ICE, ICE, Barbie.

I too heap scorn on people who don’t do everything this guy thinks is appropriate.

Mon Walmartha

Article 4 of the Constitution, they can’t take your house to do anything.

First video we see of a drone strike officially makes it a civil war. Either side.

Having seen all the other choices so far, I’m going to give this kid a chance.

It’s not exactly that.

I mean, they greatly diminished the strategic bombing fleet, probably did billions in damage (assessments still coming in), and have caused logistical snarls in the country as security tightens.

But this won’t end the war, it will only reduce the number of missile trucks they fly, which were already limited by the rate of missile production. It’s a long term hobbling of russia, but it doesn’t take them out. China and the US were the big winners here on the nuclear playing field.

A big, quiet thing not being discussed was 2 trains going down in bridge collapses in russia recently. Logistical bites like that add up.

The war can continue a long time, slowly grinding down both countries. Hopefully strikes like this will remind russia they cannot win, only not lose as badly.

Texas is a dumpster fire with barbecue.

What are you going to do with it, haul four-foot boards on flat paved roads?

Often it comes down to liability and an attractive nuisance. Long term parked vehicles create cover for activities, while short term traffic has a flow of people.