DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Well, the Guards tie up their series with the White Sox 2-2, with a 9-5 win tonight.

It all comes down to game 5 in Cleveland on Saturday evening.

I hate that these have been on TBS, because I don't have TBS on Fubo.

Pentagon says the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan will be livestreamed
KONSTANTIN TOROPIN, ERIC TUCKER and CLAUDIA LAUER
Updated Thu, October 8, 2026 at 5:09 PM EDT


Firing squad execution of Ft. Hood shooter will be livestreamed, Pentagon saysScroll back up to restore default view.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan will be livestreamed, the Pentagon said Thursday, a stunning revelation about plans for the first military execution in more than 65 years after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had described it as being "public."

The Army announced this week that the execution would take place at Fort Hood on Dec. 3 after Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 others in a shooting at the military base in 2009.

Hegseth, speaking to the conservative TV outlet Real America's Voice on Wednesday, said, "We'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public." Officials in the Pentagon clarified Thursday that the execution would be livestreamed and that more details would follow.


The revelation from Hegseth about the public nature of the execution — let alone one as violent as a firing squad — has raised further questions about how the death penalty is carried out in the U.S., especially after the botched lethal injection of Christa Pike in Tennessee.

Experts offer mixed reactions on the plan

Hasan could choose to resist execution and file a habeas petition — a legal request to review the legality of a detention — in civilian court, which could significantly delay the execution, experts said.

"It frankly might outlast the current administration, and who knows if the next one will have the same penchant for executions," said Eugene R. Fidell, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School specializing in military law.

Deborah Denno, a death penalty expert and law professor at Fordham University, said livestreaming an execution could make the process "much more transparent" and inform the public about all that capital punishment entails. Those are benefits that she said would be useful at a time when Pike's botched execution has raised fresh questions about the manner by which criminal defendants are put to death for their crimes.

"I think it could possibly be a good idea because it would be transparent and the public would be fully aware that it's happening," she said.

When many states have had difficulty carrying out lethal injections due to difficulty accessing drugs or finding medical professionals willing to participate in executions, firing squads are coming to be seen as a less inhumane alternative, said Brenner Fissell, a professor at Villanova Law and vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice.

"Firing squads can be a quicker, cleaner, more precise way to execute a prisoner," he said. "I don't think that's what's motivating this. There's a perceived masculinity and military-ness to firing squads that is part of the aura Hegseth is trying to emphasize — the 'lethality culture.'"

Elisabeth Semel, co-director of the Death Penalty Clinic at UC Berkeley Law, said Hegseth's announcement raises a host of legal and public policy questions, including concerns for the dignity of the defendant, who will be eligible to view the execution and what the Trump administration has in mind in opting for an unusual spectacle.

Though there has been long-running discussion about the idea of televising an execution, "I don't recall a situation in which it was instituted by the government. I think that also raises serious questions about what is the motivation of the government," she said.

"This is a president who's about spectacle and that's, I think, precisely the message that he intends to deliver," Semel said, adding that she was skeptical that the administration had given second thought to the legal and social questions being presented by the decision.

Trump has spoken out against public executions in Iran

Trump, who approved Hasan's execution, has previously been critical of public executions in Iran, at times using the possibility of protesters being killed by the Iranian government as a possible rationale for military action that preceded his ultimate choice to attack Iran on Feb. 28.

"We've been told that the killing in Iran is stopping," Trump told reporters on Jan. 14. "It's stopping, and there's no plan for executions."

In his State of the Union address just days before launching the Iran war, Trump reiterated, "We stopped them from hanging a lot of them with the threat of serious violence."

The White House on Thursday referred questions about the plans for the livestreamed execution to the Pentagon.

Hegseth was asked Wednesday if Hasan had made any final requests or reached out to the Trump administration. The Pentagon chief replied: "Don't care. We'll see him on Dec. 3."

It's not clear if Hasan will try to appeal

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who held the rank of major, walked into a medical building on Nov. 5, 2009, where soldiers were waiting in long lines to receive immunizations and medical clearance for deployment. He shouted "Allahu akbar" — Arabic for "God is great!" — and opened fire with a laser-sighted handgun. He also shot at the backs of soldiers fleeing toward the parking lot.

Hasan said it was an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims. A military judge barred him from presenting that as a defense during his 2013 trial. Hasan was left paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the back by law enforcement, and he now uses a wheelchair.

Hasan could seek a lengthy delay of his execution, though given his behavior at trial, he may not want to.

After firing his lawyers and representing himself, Hasan began his portion of the trial by telling jurors he was the gunman. He said little else over the next three weeks, which convinced his court-appointed standby lawyers that Hasan's only goal was to get a death sentence.

The military called nearly 90 witnesses, but Hasan rested his case without calling a single person to testify in his defense and made no closing argument. Yet he leaked documents during the trial to journalists that revealed him telling military mental health workers that he could " still be a martyr " if executed.

Attorney John Galligan, a former military judge who had represented Hasan in several civil matters following his criminal trial, spoke with Hasan on Wednesday but is barred from offering much detail about that conversation. He is not representing Hasan in his criminal case but said he's worried about his physical health under the plan laid out by officials, and that Hasan has not yet had access to legal counsel.

Galligan said that according to Hasan, the commandant of the facility brought a chaplain but no attorney from either the Trial Defense Service or from his civilian defense when he was notified that Trump had signed off on his execution. Galligan called that a breach of Army regulations.

A spokeswoman for the Army said Thursday that multiple attempts were made to contact Trial Defense Service attorneys, saying they made every reasonable effort and adhered to policy.

"The civilian counsel was not reasonably available to be physically present for the notification on the 5th," the spokeswoman said, adding that counsel was located in Virginia but did not provide a name.

The spokeswoman also said Hasan has not been kept from contacting and communicating with his counsel.

Hegseth said the military hasn't executed a service member by firing squad since World War II. The last military execution took place on April 13, 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was executed by hanging.

Amnesty International said in its report on executions in 2025 that it knew of at least 17 public executions — 11 in Iran and 6 in Afghanistan.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/pentagon-says-firing-squad-execution-210940574.html

Pit I hope it was made clear to your neighbor that he did a very bad and unforgivable thing.

Great posts guys.
Kudos to both of you.

"Something a dictator would say for $1000 Alex."....................

Trump declares anyone who uses the term Artificial Intelligence to be ‘The Enemy!’

President Donald Trump on Thursday opened up a new front in his ongoing war against commonly-used terms and geographic place names by warning that anyone referring to Large Language Models such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Anthropic's Claude as "Artificial Intelligence" would earn themselves a place on his enemies list.

Writing on Truth Social, he declared that the White House "considers anyone that uses the term, 'Artificial Intelligence,' as opposed to the highly accepted new and more accurate term, 'Super Intelligence,' THE ENEMY!"

The president's outburst-[censored]-veiled threat landed just over a week after he signed an executive order directing executive branch agencies to begin referring to artificial intelligence, which is now embedded across the federal government, as "super intelligence" following a lunch with leaders in the AI industry, including Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Dario Amodei and others.

That widely-mocked directive followed bizarre remarks to the U.N. General Assembly in which he declared that the U.S. "totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme" for regulating AI and declaring that the technology would be "hereinafter officially called superintelligence" because "use of the word artificial makes intelligence fake."

"It makes it sound fake, and it is not fake. It's actually amazing," said Trump, who the week before had launched a poll in his Truth Social feed over the weekend asking respondents to vote for either "SuperIntelligence," "Superior Intelligence," or "Extreme Intelligence."

The president's latest linguistic ultimatum is the most recent example of his ongoing effort to change the minds of voters — including many of his own supporters — who've increasingly soured on the industry that has tied itself tightly to his unpopular administration.

In recent months, that souring has shown up in nearly every poll that asks about AI. A Quinnipiac University survey of 1,032 registered voters taken late last month found 73 percent oppose "the building of an AI data center in your community," including 55 percent of Republicans, and 79 percent said safety matters more than keeping the United States at the forefront of AI development. Just 25 percent approve of Trump's handling of the technology against 58 percent who disapprove, and 71 percent said they'd be more likely to back a candidate who supports "stricter guardrails" on it — a figure that includes a majority of Republicans, at 52 percent, and nearly three-quarters of independents.

A separate Fox News poll of 1,211 registered voters conducted earlier in September put overall opinion of AI at 37 percent favorable to 60 percent unfavorable, a net rating of minus 23 that has worsened from minus 11 in April and minus 9 in July. The same survey found voters trust Democrats over Republicans to handle data centers by 14 points, and that among those who oppose the facilities anywhere, Democrats lead the generic ballot by at least 19 points.

Trump's demand for widespread adoption of "super intelligence" in lieu of AI comes just over a month after his last attempt at linguistic coercion, an executive order directing the executive branch to rename Lake Ontario as "Lake America."

The order to rename one of the five Great Lakes along the U.S.-Canada border came in a fit of rage over his ongoing trade war with Ottawa and echoed a similar move from early in his second term when he attempted to unilaterally rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America."

While the president does have the authority to direct how the government recognizes the names of places and landmarks, he cannot force Canada or individual citizens on either side of the border to follow his preferred naming conventions.

The same goes for use of the term "super intelligence." He can direct the government to use it but he cannot force Americans — or anyone else — to use his preferred terminology.

The Independent has reached out to NVIDIA, Palantir, Meta, OpenAI, Google, Tesla and Anthropic regarding whether the companies have any plans to use the president's new terminology in promotional materials or other customer communications; none responded.

But the White House has touted a short list of tech CEOs who'd used the phrase, including Elon Musk and NVIDIA's Jensen Huang.

Complicating the matter, the word superintelligence already means an AI system that surpasses human intellect and ability across multiple domains in couding reasoning, social skills and scientific research — a step toward the kind of rogue AI that many fear, sparking the calls for guardrails and kill switches.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-declares-anyone-uses-term-165314716.html

Who could possibly read all of the ignorant and idiotic things that spew from this mans mouth every day and then ask the question "Why Democrats"? Because those running for office give Trump carte blanche for thing like this and the dems are the only other legitimate choice left as sad as that is to say.

Thanks all.

Normal is a setting on a washing machine. That's the problem right now. People think if someone has a different sexuality, a different religion or a different value and priority list then their own, they aren't their version of what "normal" means.

I "framed it" the way it is. Yes, you could "frame it" as though Iran was "on the verge" of acquiring nuclear weapons. And I could "frame it" as trump's own fault for canceling the nuclear deal with Iran.

But saying that one statement about Covid vaccines was about saving lives isn't framing anything. It's accurate.

The vaccine greatly reduced the odds of death and hospitalizations. So while that quote you posted would certainly be an overstatement, not getting the vaccine was very dangerous and greatly increased the risk factor.

That's not "framing" anything. And yes, discouraging people from getting that vaccine, especially in certain circumstances of age or preexisting conditions would directly increase the death count.

Let me guess. That's just the way I'm "framing" it?

I actually can't believe you are trying to compare the two but I shouldn't be surprised by it.

And BTW- This comment was about people posting crazy supposed cures and railing against vaccines on social media and nothing more. Just so we're clear here.

Speaking of trying to "frame" something.

And pretty much all of the above apply depending on the situation.

Not every person who votes for trump is a Nazi but every American born Nazi votes for trump.

nice job 66!

Coulda, woulda, shoulda---- Nothing in this forum since the Jax massace. WOW, now 3-1 and in FIRST PLACE. Coulda kept Ski....JMHO, Stefanski’s message had run stale in Cleveland. Woulda our OLD DC been 3-1....I doubt it. Shoulda hired our current head coach, he has worked hard to get the best out of an offensive line with whole new crew.....and they are doing well. He has brought "freshness to the O, and has Watson playing his best football since the trade......GREAT, go Browns!!!!

Interesting to see what the Browns do once they activate him....namely, whether or not they keep 4 QBs.

Alito says Supreme Court can’t stem emergency appeals and voices concern over Trump’s rhetoric

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says the escalating volume of emergency appeals before the court isn’t a good thing, but he adds there’s little the court can do to change the trajectory.

The number of petitions asking the justices to intervene quickly has skyrocketed during President Donald Trump’s second administration, putting the court at the center of hotly debated issues such as the Republican president’s new ballroom construction and his proposed restrictions on mail ballots in the midterm elections.

The number of emergency applications now rivals the annual tally of cases the justices consider with full briefing and oral arguments, Alito wrote in a new book released Tuesday.

The justice told The Associated Press in a rare interview that the rhetoric about the court from Trump and his administration doesn’t sit well with him.

“I personally am not pleased with that,” he said. “Everybody in this country has the right to criticize what we do. The substance of their criticism can be quite harsh. If we deserve it, then that’s fine. But rhetoric is a different story.”

Alito spoke in connection with his first book, “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of The Constitution, The Court and Our Country.”

Coming 20 years after he was confirmed to the court after his nomination by President George W. Bush, a Republican, the book is a collection of speeches the 76-year-old has given over the years on religious liberty, his judicial philosophy and constitutional rights.

Alito calls it ‘offensive’ to cast his opinions as MAGA

Alito is perhaps best known for writing the decision that reversed Roe v. Wade and ended abortion as a nationwide right, and he has been one of the most consistent members of the court’s conservative bloc. He’s also voted in favor of some of Trump’s signature policies, even those the rest of the conservative wing has struck down. But he rejects the idea that his decisions are in the “Make America Great Again” camp.

“It’s offensive,” he said. “I honestly try to decide every single case on the merits, every single application on the merit. And that’s true whether the president is Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Barack Obama or anybody else.”

Trump, for his part, has cheered Alito as “one of the Greatest of All Time” even as he maligned justices whom he appointed as “unpatriotic” and “merely a shell of their original selves.” Alito said the harsh rhetoric from across the spectrum doesn’t affect how the justices rule but does play a role in the public’s declining trust in the court.

“The terms used by presidents and by members of their administration, Cabinet officers, other high-ranking officers in describing the Supreme Court and their decisions, and sometimes individual justices, is far different from what we saw 15 years ago,” Alito said.

Much of the president’s frustration has come after the court ruled against him on some of his central initiatives, including tariffs and birthright citizenship. Those decisions have been handed down after months of consideration, including oral arguments.

Surge in court’s emergency decisions is likely ‘going to continue’

In emergency decisions, by contrast, the president has a much stronger track record of wins.

Typically made in days or weeks, emergency orders are designed to be temporary, lasting only as cases continue to play out in lower courts. But since that process can take years, those decisions can still have important real-world consequences.

Critics, including Alito’s liberal-leaning colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, have complained about the court’s recent handling of the emergency docket and outlined proposed steps the justices could take.

Alito, though, said there’s little the court can do to stem the tide. Presidents have increasingly used executive orders to enact their policies rather than passing laws through Congress, leading to lawsuits and “robust” decisions from lower-court judges that send a case quickly to the Supreme Court, he said.

“Unless something changes there, and I don’t foresee it right now, I’m afraid this is going to continue,” he said. “An application is something that I think we have to rule on.”

Alito says recusal from climate change case wasn’t required but a ‘judgment call’

Alito also detailed his decision to step away from hearing a climate change case that opened the term. Dozens of similar lawsuits have been filed on whether cities can sue oil and gas companies over damage linked to global warming. Billions of dollars could be at stake, a potentially serious threat to the industry, according to court documents.

Alito had faced calls to recuse himself because he owns stock in oil companies. He told the AP that the stock came from an inheritance his wife received from her father that she doesn’t want to sell.

He initially stayed on the case because he doesn’t have stock in the companies involved, he said, adding that the court’s legal office agreed that he could hear the case under its ethics code.

But as he delved deeper into the substance of the case, he decided to step aside.

“This particular decision was a judgment call,” he said. “I gave it very, very serious consideration.”

https://apnews.com/article/alito-su...8eb38760?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

I would suggest this may be longer with injuries; before the end of the year, the number of QB's injured and the severity of each injury will determine who is playable/out and for how long. Some clubs are having headaches with their declared starters, much less than the second, third, or other alternate starters. DW has proven to be a surprise. Small favor, that, but the alternative is not brilliant. That market for a quality starter in a picked over market for QB could be challenging, especially with playoffs' imperatives.

NFL suspends officials Jeff Seeman, Adrian Hill for conduct toward players

The NFL has suspended line judge Jeff Seeman for two games and referee Adrian Hill for one game as punishment for instances of unprofessional conduct toward a player.

NFL Vice President of Officiating Ramon George issued the suspensions.

Seeman was caught on camera apparently cursing at Arizona Cardinals tight end Trey McBride during Sunday's 36-24 loss to the New York Giants.

McBride felt he was interfered with by Giants cornerback Dru Phillips on a third-and-8 pass from quarterback Jacoby Brissett that fell incomplete. McBride got hit and complained to Seeman, who appeared to yell a profanity at McBride, according to video of the incident.

After the McBride incident, NFLPA Executive Director J.C. Tretter posted a statement on X that called for the same scrutiny of officials as for players.

"This kind of behavior from an official towards a player is unacceptable. Players are consistently held accountable when roles are reversed. We expect the NFL to hold officials to the same standard," Tretter wrote.

Hill's incident involved Minnesota Vikings linebacker Eric Wilson in their 15-10 win over the visiting Miami Dolphins.

Wilson was pushed into Hill by Dolphins running back Ollie Gordon II midway through the first quarter after a third-and-10 play was whistled dead because of a Minnesota penalty. Gordon drove Wilson away from quarterback Malik Willis and right into Hill, who was knocked down. As Wilson tried to help him up, Hill jumped up while pointing and yelling at Wilson to get away.

Wilson said he laughed off the incident with Hill.

"That was funny, honestly," Wilson told reporters in the Vikings' locker room. "I ended up apologizing to him and explained the situation. He was cool about it. He understood what was going on. He just said he didn't want us fighting, me and [Gordon]. He said he was just trying to break us up."

Vikings coach Kevin O'Connell said he didn't get a great view of the play, but did defend Hill as an official in the league.

"I think Adrian's a really good official and does a really good job," O'Connell said Monday. "And I think that was just kind of a fast moment that happened and we can put it behind us hopefully."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...-jeff-seeman-adrian-hill-conduct-players

...on this site. (Though I'd complete that thought for you...lol). Actually, posting on here could be a full time job, perhaps unpaid though.

Thats a fact

Love that dude. From last week...

So trump's FCC goes after talk shows over equal time of political parties and then trump says this........

Trump says ‘MAGA and REAL Patriots’ will never like Fox News over hosting Democrats

President Trump on Wednesday went after Fox News over hosting Democrats on its network, with the president saying “MAGA, and REAL Patriots will never like Fox!”

“Why does FoxNews always put Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Jessica Tarlov, and every Democrat on, saying bad things about the Republican Party and, of course, me?” the president said in a Wednesday afternoon Truth Social post.

“I actually think they get more airtime than Pro Republicans. This is why MAGA, and REAL Patriots, will never like Fox! They repeat a completely negative narrative, on and on it goes, and then we get a quick retort. It’s truly amazing that I won all three Elections,” he added, repeating his false claim that he won the 2020 presidential election.

Trump has a long history of attacking the media and press outlets, but Fox News has a history of being praised by the president, and he has also hired former Fox News personalities for his administration.

Last month, Trump went after “Fox News Sunday” anchor Shannon Bream because of on-air guests, charts and polls he claimed did not show off successful actions by his administration.

“In any event, Shannon’s ‘show’ is beyond redemption. Fortunately, MAGA, which is close to 100% of the Republican Party, understands that, and watch her ‘Ratings’ start to fall,” Trump said on Truth Social at the time.

“Chris Wallace was bad, but Shannon is even worse,” he added, referring to her predecessor.

Fox News is also one of the major TV networks that rotate covering the president for wider media distribution and recently said it would not do so after Trump barred three media outlets from the White House earlier this month.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...riFgIjtphGygU_aem_jEoi_Ck5tsGOMXqX8h7o9g

So Trump's own FCC launches punitive threats against what they claim to be the left wing news media for not giving equal time to Republicans on one hand. Then trump himself lambastes a conservative network tor giving Democrats equal time. Yet from people who support trump they act like this is no big deal and never mention it.

Somebody certainly Schmitt the bed on that one!

RIP GM.

Classic.

College, for many, has historically been something "you just go and do". You come out with a piece of paper and hopefully it works for you.


I think college, nowadays, should be viewed as an investment. There are good investments and bad investments, and bad investments will set you back. You really have to put some thought into your degree beyond how interesting it sounds. Will it help you land a higher-paying job and pay the bills? You have to think about that because you're going to have at least 1 big bill coming out of school. Obviously, scholarships can play a large role in college choices, but those can be tougher to come by and you're still likely to come out of it with loans to pay.

Anyone else annoyed with "The Athletic" crap that keeps popping up on NFL.com? They are trying to get you to subscribe. It sucks I do my best to avoid the "A" prefixes now

well done Nick