Your 1.23.19 Playpen

The funniest thing I’ve seen this month, non-politics division:

I swear, I laughed so hard at that, I had tears.

The funniest thing I’ve read this month, politics division:

A GOP lawmaker has a novel idea for how a border wall with Mexico should be funded: Force every Arizonan who wants to access pornographic material on an electronic device to pay $20.

That’s just the lede.  Add in a random John McCain reference and this touch:

The bill also appears to be connected to a prominent anti-gay activist who is most famously known for attempting to marry his computer in protest over gay marriage.

… and you’ve got a complete laugher.

One thing you’ve got to say about politics — it’s reassuring to the cynic in me to see how morons of all political stripes are constantly willing to display their ignorance in public.  This really is a case where bothsiderism does apply.

And with that, the floor is yours.  Keep it light!

147 Comments

Filed under GTP Stuff

147 responses to “Your 1.23.19 Playpen

  1. Hogbody Spradlin

    It’s redundant to mention political types and morons together.

    Like

  2. ASEF

    Not exactly original but

    SEC Shorts: 2018 Season Board Game

    Like

  3. Chopdawg

    Guess I’ll just have to hope that Porn Tax exempts Dawg Porn.

    Like

  4. SWGA

    It appears Arizona has a porn addiction. At $20 a person (assuming it’s a once a year thing) it would take quite a few porners to get to $5 billion. 250,000,000 to be exact. Now if that is per site each time…..take about 30 minutes. Funny in one regard. Not so much that those sites could generate that kind of tax money.

    Like

  5. 3rdandGrantham

    The only politically related comment I’ll make is that I rarely discuss anything politically related with anyone. I mean, it’s just not worth it, as seemingly everyone is up in arms about whatever triggers them from the other side on a daily…make that hourly basis.

    Even people with whom I mostly align or agree with politically, more and more I rarely comment on their opinions or bother to get involved with whatever political discussion they may be having, as I’ll quickly find myself getting sucked down a rabbit hole filled with depressing negativity, blatant misinformation, and unchecked emotion. And again that is with people I generally like and/or agree with.

    What makes it all worse is our enemies are loving this stuff, as the Russians and Chinese continually fill social media with bot generated argumentative crap in effort to divide us as a country. Yet we are so ignorant as a country that we are oblivious to this, and instead eat up all the garbage they feed us.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Russ

      You are dead on. I’ve gotten the same way. I remember 25 years ago when we’d gather with a group of friends specifically to talk about current issues, often politics. We all had different opinions, we’d all listen and occasionally one of us would be swayed. Then we’d drink some more and enjoy each other’s company. Now, I wouldn’t do that on a bet.

      I read a book recently about a KGB Colonel that defected to the US after spying for the US for years during the 60’s-80’s. In the book, he talked about how the KGB had an on-going program to spread dissent in western countries by using op-eds and articles in local news. Just imagine how easy it is now.

      Like

      • 3rdandGrantham

        Yep. I’m in the cybersecurity space and you wouldn’t believe the ongoing social media campaigns they have running. Something like 41% of all politically inflammatory rhetoric on social media was bot generated in ’18, with the overwhelming majority of those bots emanating from Russia or China.

        Take the ongoing Covington mess with the HS students and Native American protesters. What really helped to inflame everything were retweets and gross misinformation (flat out lies, actually) from a so-called concerned U.S. teacher residing in California. It turns out that Calif. teacher was a Brazilian blogger instead attempting to inflame us, and sure enough it worked.

        Like

        • ASEF

          The Gatlinburg inferno a couple of years ago was fascinating (I live near there and know people in the area). It was at night, so there was no real news coverage of it, just an alert on the news tickers. And the Twitter stream on the event almost immediately was blanketed by bots calling it a terrorist act and talking about terrorist camps up in the national forest. Other bots were pumping the likes, moving those messages front and center. And sure enough, it rerouted the conversation. The thing that amazed me was how quickly the stream on the event was populated and how readily people consumed that information. Turns out a lot of followers and likes, even if they’re completely fake, convey enough ethos to give those mechanical messengers real authority in that space.

          My mother in law believes things that make my head spin. Next time she starts spouting off about towns being taken over by Muslims imposing Sharia Law, I am going to challenge her to pick one and drive her to it. I am going to guess she backs down – because at some level, deep down, she knows it’s made-up crap. But it makes her feel better to believe it, and that’s what really scares me. She has a good heart, really – but her desire to leave the world a better place than she found it has been hijacked.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ChiliDawg

          Putin has very strongly said “it’s not Russia.” I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Bulldog Joe

          The majority of foreign social media traffic is being financed by politicians here in the US.

          https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/03/19/cambridge-analytica-and-russian-bots-used-the-same-strategy/

          https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/

          Both parties are responsible for it.

          Like

    • Yurdle

      I agree. It’s some sort of Aristotelian paradox that we use our rights of free expression to make ourselves angry and divided from each other.

      I like y’all a lot more than I agree with y’all.

      Liked by 3 people

    • ChiliDawg

      This is exactly what Trump supporters voted for. You get what you vote for.

      Like

      • 3rdandGrantham

        This all really started during Obama’s administration, with those opposing Obama in any capacity immediately unfairly labeled as racist, while various folks on the right were inflaming their followers by essentially painting Obama as a horrid, socialistic president set on destroying the foundation of America. Both sides dug in at that time, and the rapid expansion of social media over the past several years + a grossly inflammatory new president made things even worse as a result.

        Like

        • ChiliDawg

          Your assertion that anyone who opposed Obama was labeled racist ignores an important fact: that the central theme of opposition the GOP built toward Obama was based on a lie that he was a foreign-born Muslim, which was very much racist, and it was largely started by the current occupant of the WH. To act as if the labeling of critics as racists was wrong is to deny that racism was at the heart of the entire anti-Obama theme. This is furthermore proven by the undeniable fact that MANY things that right wingers absolutely skewered Obama for have been done by Trump on an absurdly more excessive level without even a peep from those same people.

          Like

          • Derek

            The point though isn’t to focus on whether you could oppose Obama on merit. The point is that look at how much political value you gain if the opposition is much more visceral.

            Trump beat the gop at their own game by stripping away the pretext and actually saying the words the base already believed and was willing to accept.

            Obviously anyone should be disgusted by “Mexican rapists” but as a political strategy it was pure genius because the base loved it and all the milquetoast politicians who ran from that direct language suffered by comparison.

            So I’m sure that there are well founded and well meaning opponents of Obama. But they weren’t winning in today’s gop by talking about those issues in any mature fashion.

            They wanted the unapologetic and blatant racist.

            Like

            • ChiliDawg

              Exactly. The GOP was happy to nurture that racist element because leaving the unspoken racism and bigotry out there unchallenged was to their benefit because they could count on their votes. When John McCain stood up to it in that now infamous rally where the one white lady stood up and said “why won’t you say it – he’s a muslim,” McCain took the mic from her and shut that down. Republicans never forgave him for that. Instead, they elected Donald Trump who maliciously started that and fanned it, then they began making up stories to impugn McCain’s record as a war hero. So here we are and that nasty element is completely in control of the right wing branch of politics.

              Like

            • Anonymous

              This is really really wrong. You and ChilliDawg have a fundamental misunderstanding of Conservatives. “Mexican rapists” is not what Trump said (check the quoted section below). That is what you inferred because of YOUR bias and YOUR bigotry. You believe that the majority of Republicans are nothing more than angry racist white people. Conservatives / other Trump supporters heard a very different message in the “Mexican rapists” speech at his campaign announcement. They heard a message about protecting their family and community from crime.

              The main reason they like his inflammatory rhetoric is because it makes people on the left deranged with anger. They don’t hate Mexicans or blacks (well some do, but not nearly the amount you think), but they do hate smug Democrats.

              Go talk to some working-class Trump supporters with an open mind. Ask them to describe the type of immigration system they want. You will find out that they want basically the same thing you want. They really do separate the ideas of legal vs illegal immigration, where as you see the complaints of unchecked illegal immigration as a complaint about race and not about control / legality.

              Here is part of the transcript from Trump’s campaign announcement (i.e. the “Mexican Rapists” speech).

              The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

              source: http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

              Like

              • ChiliDawg

                This is really really wrong. You and ChilliDawg have a fundamental misunderstanding of Conservatives.

                No, I think I have it pretty well nailed down.

                Mexican rapists is not what Trump said (check the quoted section below). That is what you inferred because of YOUR bias and YOUR bigotry.

                Oh?

                When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. THEY’RE RAPISTS.

                That’s the quote YOU shared. You’d have to be either an idiot or a liar to deny the plain meaning of this statement.

                Conservatives / other Trump supporters heard a very different message in the “Mexican rapists” speech at his campaign announcement. They heard a message about protecting their family and community from crime.

                Because you’re racists. And you think brown people bring crime to your community. A belief that is literally the opposite of what the facts show, which is that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

                The main reason they like his inflammatory rhetoric is because it makes people on the left deranged with anger… they do hate smug Democrats.

                I’m well aware of the fact that conservatives have no principles other than desiring to make liberals angry. It’s why everyone thinks so little of you. People who will vote against their own interest just because it makes the other “side” angry are not serious people and should be disregarded as fools.

                Go talk to some working-class Trump supporters with an open mind. Ask them to describe the type of immigration system they want. You will find out that they want basically the same thing you want. They really do separate the ideas of legal vs illegal immigration, where as you see the complaints of unchecked illegal immigration as a complaint about race and not about control / legality.

                Trump supporters are either liars or fools, because Trump himself doesn’t differentiate between legal/illegal immigration or legal seeking of asylum. He lumps them all together and refers to them all as invaders and animals, rips their children from them and locks them in cages. Trump supporters cheer this barbarism. Because the cruelty is the point.

                Like

                • Anonymous

                  Firstly, I have no idea how many times I have said this on here, but I am not a Conservative and I am not a Trump supporter. I am a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and philosophically associate myself with the Classical Liberal movement. You are so trigger happy with calling a racists that you keep forgetting that.

                  As I said, it is your bias and your bigotry as to why you read Trump’s statement as “all Mexicans are rapists”. The problem is that he isn’t talking about Mexicans (which is not a race btw). He is very specifically talking about those that are crossing the border illegally as he is also claiming that Mexico’s “best” are not the ones coming here and that Mexico is sending us “the wrong people”. He is claiming that many of the people that cross the border illegally are members of drug cartels, human traffickers, etc. while some of them are good people. You should take that last statement as a bit of hyperbole.

                  When asked by Don Lemon, an actual racist, to clarify his “they’re rapists” quote (interview sourced below), Trump referenced an article from Fusion (sourced below) that was referencing a publication from Anmesty International, surely a hive of right-wing villainy, that estimates that 60% of migrant women / children passing through Mexico are raped by “criminal gangs, people traffickers, other migrants or corrupt officials.” Here is a quote from that publication (sourced below):

                  Women and girl migrants, especially those without legal status travelling in remote areas or on trains, are at heightened risk of sexual violence at the hands of criminal gangs, people traffickers, other migrants or corrupt officials. Sexual violence, or the threat of sexual violence, is often used as a means of terrorizing women and their relatives. Many criminal gangs appear to use sexual violence as part of the “price” demanded of migrants. According to some experts, the prevalence of rape is such that people smugglers may require women to have a contraceptive injection prior to the journey as a precaution against pregnancy resulting from rape.

                  It is a widely held view – shared by local and international NGOs and health professionals working with migrant women – that as many as six in 10 migrant women and girls are raped.

                  I encourage everyone to read the Amnesty International publication. It is heart-wrenching.

                  You again misquote Trump. He did not call Mexicans “animals”. He was very specifically talking about members of the Salvadorian gang MS-13. Again, it is your bias and your bigotry.

                  It is really sad that you think so little of people that disagree with you that you just assume that they could

                  It is really sad that you think so little of people that disagree with you that you assume that they don’t actually care about crime or lawlessness and instead are just blindly racist. You seem to think that Conservatives wouldn’t care if their daughter was raped and murdered so long as the culprit was a WASP, but they just lie about it so as to attempt to hide their very obvious racism.

                  Here is an example of what I am talking about when I mention your cognitive bias and your bigotry. Here is an discussion between Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Ben Afleck about Islam. When I read comments from you and Derek, I see the exact same behavior as displayed by Ben Afleck. Apparently, Afleck was not familiar with Sam Harris or his political leanings. Afleck’s bias leads him to hear that Harris’ statements are about ALL muslims despite the fact that, as always, Sam is very clear with his actual statements.

                  sources:
                  Don Lemon interview

                  Fusion article
                  https://splinternews.com/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-1793842446

                  Amnesty International publication
                  https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/36000/amr410142010eng.pdf

                  Like

                • ChiliDawg

                  As I said, it is your bias and your bigotry as to why you read Trump’s statement as “all Mexicans are rapists”. The problem is that he isn’t talking about Mexicans (which is not a race btw). He is very specifically talking about those that are crossing the border illegally as he is also claiming that Mexico’s “best” are not the ones coming here and that Mexico is sending us “the wrong people”. He is claiming that many of the people that cross the border illegally are members of drug cartels, human traffickers, etc. while some of them are good people. You should take that last statement as a bit of hyperbole.

                  I’m not wasting anymore time arguing with someone who will go to these kind of absurd contortions to rationalize a statement that had very plain meaning and was flatly racist.

                  You’re in denial.

                  Like

          • SouthernYank

            How do you “largely start something”? And you’re wrong.

            Like

            • ChiliDawg

              You seriously need me to remind you? Google “Donald Trump birther” dude. You just fall off the turnip cart yesterday?

              I have people down in Hawaii right now and you wouldn’t BELIEVE what they’re finding.

              What am I wrong about?

              Like

              • SouthernYank

                It was started by an IL politician in the early 2000’s. That truck just drove by and you’re not on it.

                Like

                • Derek

                  They started it!!

                  What your mom taught a 4 year old to stop.

                  It was an Iowa “political operative.” And it’s not much of an excuse if you’re 5 and up.

                  Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            Like

            • ChiliDawg

              You do understand that liking some black people doesn’t disqualify you from being racist, right? A lot of people like pizza but I’ll bet they don’t consider it to have equal rights as they do.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                So the test is just Obama? If one doesn’t like him, then it’s proof of racism, regardless of ones’ feelings on other blacks?

                Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              Good points, Derek. All right-thinking people know that black people think alike. They have what could be called a hive-mind seen in some sub-human species in the animal kingdom. So, of course, any black person who claims to think differently, especially if he uses facts and evidence to support his argument, is obviously nothing more than a house nigger trying to appease his white masters.

              As right-thinking progressives, the best approach for these Uncle Toms would be lynching. Just to show our sensitivity. If you disagree, you’re obviously a racist.

              Like

        • Derek

          The divisiveness and resentment started (back?) in the 1960’s and hasn’t stopped. Between civil rights, the war and Nixon it really Balkanized the country to the point where there is less thinking and more emoting and arguing over who is and who isn’t “American.”

          The problem we have is that far too many Americans vote based on who they are and not what they think. If you’re white, rural, southern, male, Christian, you’re voting GOP. If you’re an urban minority, you’re voting democrat.

          As long as the country is at about 50/50 along those fault lines the politicians are going to continue to use that divide to drive votes.

          Willie Horton, the nfl and the anthem, the wall, the birth certificate are all ways of creating political advantage from this division.

          Eventually the demographics are going to shift and the gop will no longer be able to win by animating and agitating their demographics. I think that will normalize things and we’ll be able to get back to discussing the issues and not the people.

          The Democrats have gotten more votes nationally in 6 of the last 7 elections and won 4. The tipping point is approaching fast. Once reached I predict our national politics will get much healthier. Once national politics are healthier it will make local politics healthier as well.

          I’m hoping that the Orange Menace is the last gasp of George Wallace/Southern Strategy politics in this country.

          But even if I’m wrong this country has been divided against itself from the beginning and we’ve still done ok as a nation even if we haven’t done ok by far too many of its inhabitants.

          Like

          • Tony Barnfart

            I can’t disagree with that, and I hope things get better. But I certainly hope we’re never in a world where 51% of the nation is entitled to shout (shut?)down, dismiss and completely disregard the other 49%. I hope we pull through this because of changed minds not pure force of my way won.

            Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            Right. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, etc., voting as racial blocks is just healthy democracy at work. White people voting at more than 50% for any particular candidate is evidence of racism. And racism (from white people) is bad.

            #OrangeManBad

            Like

              • Ozam

                This issue too is subject to debate. 😊

                Like

              • Derek

                short hard on with flatulence doesn’t have time for your “facts.”

                Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  You should be in school, Derek. Put your phone down and listen to your teacher. It’s possible you could graduate to eighth grade this year.

                  Like

                  • Ozam

                    I wasn’t even trying to be funny or stir anything up. The Senator and I share a religion so I felt it was appropriate to point out the issue.

                    Derek makes me think of a line from “Justified”….“If you run into an asshole in the morning…you ran into an asshole. But, if you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.”

                    Like

                    • Derek

                      Never been a label that I shy away from.

                      I prefer it to stupid. Or cowardly. Or diplomatic. Or mediocre. Or even “agreeable.”

                      If you don’t like it, well, I have exactly zero fucks.

                      Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Fine. They still vote as a group. Out of curiosity, would you even call Jews a religion at this point? Would cultural group be more appropriate?

                Like

                • ChiliDawg

                  Oh my god…
                  Do you not understand that Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity and they are not mutually inclusive?

                  Like

                  • ChiliDawg

                    And FTR – Jews aren’t a monolithic voting bloc either, so that’s an equally stupid comment and makes it evident you don’t know any Jews.

                    Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      If you mean that not EVERY SINGLE JEW votes Democrat, you’re correct. But in the 2018 election, 79% of them voted for the Democratic representative on the ballot. So they certainly qualify as a voting bloc in the real world.

                      But your virtue signaling is noted. Nice job.

                      Like

                    • ChiliDawg

                      in the 2018 election, 79% of them voted for the Democratic representative on the ballot

                      Jeez, do you think that could have anything to do with the rampant anti-semitism rising in the GOP ranks and Trump’s dismal non-condemnations of neo-Nazis? Or is that just a happy coincidence?

                      I’m not aghast at your asking questions, just your repeated displays of your own ignorance.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      So, in your opinion, voting blocs are rational unless they’re white? Whites voting as a bloc are racist? Just curious what the sophisticated NPCs believe.

                      Like

                  • Napoleon BonerFart

                    Really? Because my Wikipedia’s broken. Plus, I’m from Georgia, so I’ve never been exposed to Jews before. They’re a mysterious and fearsome minority!

                    My question was to a Jew who took issue with Jews being included in a list of racial voting blocs. Given that most American Jews don’t consider themselves religious, and even amongst religious Jews, there are serious disagreements and disputes, my question was how Jews see themselves.

                    Do you speak for the Jews? Or are you simply aghast that I’m asking?

                    Like

          • PTC DAWG

            What exactly does the pure number of votes have to do with electing the POTUS?

            I wish Governors still appointed Senators myself.

            Like

            • Derek

              Most multi-celled creatures have noticed a strong historical correlation. Minority winners are rare. Less than 10% of all the races so it has at least “something” to do with it.

              I’m so sure that if NY broke into 10 parts that you be all for that plan…

              500k in Wyoming should have the same votes as 38 million in CA because democracy?

              You’re pushing boner for the lead here.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Federalism is an archaic system for racists. Monarchy is much better. At least there’s always the potential for a kind, benevolent dictator. Sure, it hasn’t happened yet. But Schoolhouse Rock taught me that I should just believe harder!

                Like

              • PTC DAWG

                Obviously, you don’t understand how this works…

                Like

          • SouthernYank

            The demographic argument is a weak one, considering Hispanic voting patterns. It’s a wish of Dems, nothing more. The real reason for division in this country is that neither party can handle that the other makes the choices they do. They feel the need to force their ways upon the other. If the Fed Govt wasn’t so all encompassing, it wouldn’t be an issue, because each state could do what they do – which is how the nation was designed. But now the party in control of the Fed goes balls to the walls.

            Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              You’re arguing that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for 320 million people to be ruled from one city, with national bureaucracies in charge of every aspect of our lives? Wow. Just wow.

              You probably voted for Orange Man and want slavery to come back. So obviously nobody should take your points seriously. I can’t even.

              Like

            • Derek

              That’s a lot of dumb to unpack.

              So I’m guessing that SC with legal slavery and demands escapees be returned by neighboring states is your type of federalism?

              As far as Hispanics, I think calling Mexicans rapists is nothing more than a democrats dream. My personal dream is that people wouldn’t vote for a piece of shit who would race bait like that.

              Politics is about power? Allow me to clutch my pearls now. Who knew?

              FFS.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Derek is just as good as usual. Evil federalism allowing neighboring states to refuse the requests of SC, unlike nationalism where the federal government enforced the national law requiring all states to return fugitive slaves, was a horrible injustice. Sadly, some states like Wisconsin nullified the law and refused to cooperate with federal marshals trying to return slaves to slave states. But all states should recognize the wisdom of their betters in Washington and support slavery, before ending slavery.

                That’s why we need one party to have absolute power over everyone and every thing. Then, four years later, we can give absolute power to the other party and see if anything changes. Obviously, we can’t give power to the people to live their own lives. We can’t trust them with power. So we have to trust people with the power of government to force everyone to do one thing. Because power doesn’t corrupt and absolute power doesn’t corrupt absolutely. Or something.

                Like

              • Derek

                In case you were wondering, the answer for some is “yes.” They may use a lot of other really stupid words instead of a simple “yes,” and say “SC residents should be allowed to keep people as property because otherwise you’ll have slavery.” Make sense? I know it doesn’t because its the sincere thoughts of a mad man.

                Oh and this reminds me of a public service announcement:

                don’t smoke crack.

                Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Exactly. Slavery was bad, so the federal government enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act was good. And states nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act and refusing to return slaves was bad. Because a powerful national government is always good. Even if it does bad things. Because elections.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  And they’ll avoid the question entirely which is:

                  Are the 13th-15th amendments to the constitution consistent with, or contradictory to, your view of federalism?

                  Stupid meets coward at a corner and they both run while screaming irrelevant stupid babble.

                  Like

                  • Napoleon BonerFart

                    Calm down, Derek. I’m on your side. Power residing with people is always bad. That’s why federalism is bad. And that’s why concentrating power in the hands of a powerful elite ruling class is always good. In the whole of human history, I bet nobody can give a single example of an all-powerful state being a bad thing.

                    So should the original intent of Jefferson, Madison, et al be honored and the United States be a mutually beneficial federal compact of different societies? Of course not. Not when the alternative is 320 million people being ruled by 535 congressmen, one imperial executive, and 9 black-robed people in power for life. That’s how real liberty is achieved. Through the government telling us how to live.

                    Like

                  • Derek

                    We still have pro-slavery opinions out there who base that opinion on the idea that the federal government can’t tell people what to do but the state government can tell enforce rules on who are “people” and which people are “property.”

                    They do this because government can only have so much power over people, but not people who are property because freedom or something.

                    Another public service announcement:

                    don’t sniff glue.

                    Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      I’m still in your camp, dude. Like you, I base my opinions on government and federalism on a Middle School student’s understanding of the history of the Civil War.

                      It’s much preferable to argue that states are bad (because slavery) and that nations are good (because slavery), and ignore all the instances where our beliefs are wrong, than it is to stick to some basic principles.

                      That way, we can’t have any principles to abandon. Since slavery is bad, every injustice and tyrannical action taken by the government that eventually freed the slaves can be excused. Why get bogged down in morality of whether Union troops were guilty of war crimes by raping and pillaging their way south? They freed the slaves! Gold stickers all around. And simultaneously, we don’t have to excuse a Southerner who fought to try to save his wife and daughters from being violated by Northern troops. Because slavery! It doesn’t matter whether he owned slaves or not. Because Middle School history!

                      And we can keep the game going right up to the current day. Obama is a right-thinking black man. So the fact that he killed a bunch of kids in far-off lands is cool. Because ‘Murica! Drone strikes on hospitals is what it takes to stay free.

                      And no perspective is required. Trump enforcing border security is obviously the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of ever. Illegal aliens have just as much right to our country and our property as we do. Because fascism. Or something.

                      Anyway, it’s not because of principles. We just have to watch MSNPC for the talking points.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      I find it easy to say that I oppose slavery in any state or locality in America.

                      Some don’t. They “think” its more complicated than that.

                      PSA#3:

                      huffing gas may cause severe and irreversible brain damage

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Right. That way, we don’t have to worry about rule of law. Might makes right. We favor whatever guys with guns tell us to favor. It’s so easy.

                      And we don’t have to learn history. We don’t have to think hard about how the federal government supported slavery in Southern states right up 1862 (which is ironic since Middle School says the federal government started the war to free the slaves in 1861.) We can just wave our hands and think about rainbows or something.

                      So let me be clear. Like you, I support violence and ignorance. It’s all those principled people saying crazy stuff like, “war is bad” who are doing drugs and stuff. And Nancy Reagan taught us that drugs are bad. So we believe her. Because her husband was elected to tell us what to think. And we’re good ‘Muricans.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      Some say that slavery must be tolerated otherwise we’re allowing the government too much power over the property owners by force of arms. Power then must remain in the hands of the slaveholder, am I right?

                      You may ask what of the power of the slave?

                      That answer to that question was lost in a bucket during the lobotomy.

                      PSA#4:

                      being trapped in a “lost cause heritage” loop of stupid babble may lead to gross public displays of insanity. I mean you’re liable to say damn near anything.

                      You could argue that a man with such opinions would have made one proud defense lawyer at the Nuremburg trials. (Although we all know that such a person would have much preferred to have been a defendant.)

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Still with you. If you don’t like government power, you’re pro-slavery. It’s beautiful how that works. There’s nothing to discuss. We don’t have to exhibit our profound ignorance. We can just be zombies chanting “Slavery and Orange Man bad!” Anybody trying to argue nuance is a neoConfederate racist, amirite?

                      And of course, slaves must not be empowered directly. That would be chaos. Instead, right-thinking people will just elect caretakers to provide for the slaves indirectly. After all, who knows best how to live our lives? Us? Or our masters in Washington D.C.? The question answers itself.

                      No. It’s best not to ask questions or read primary sources. The entirety of antebellum American history was best summed up in the couple of pages we read in seventh grade. Don’t get bogged down in inconsistencies and contradictions. Just trust in the all-powerful state to educate you in what you need to know and ignore everything else.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      The debate over slavery is so complicated…if you’re mentally disturbed. In such a state you just can’t take a position.

                      You remove the functional part of a mans brain and you start thinking that a free people must protect these freedoms from totalitarianism, amirite?

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Exactly. Slavery was bad. So anybody opposed to Title IX obviously supports slavery. It’s only the morally despicable people who oppose violence that can’t see that. And obviously war was the only reason slavery ever ended anywhere. Unless we start killing people, nothing ever changes. That’s why everybody still listens to disco and farms and there’s no such thing as the Internet.

                      Private overseers = bad. Government overseers = good. Simple.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      If someone had only asked slaveowners very nicely to stop it.

                      I’m sure a kind word with hitler would have stemmed the holocaust.

                      Pol pot? How about a nice card with a sentiment?

                      What you can’t do is use force of arms to bring the evil to heel.

                      That is if you’re an unreconstructed and remorseless apologist for southern slaveholders and their government representatives AND you have very little grasp of reality.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Right. The fact that slavery ended peacefully in other areas proves nothing. It couldn’t have possibly have done so in the United States. That’s just basic logic.

                      And saving 3 million Jews was absolutely worth 65 million people dying in WWII. That’s just basic math. After all, Hitler was headed straight for Washington after Poland.

                      There’s no price too high in lives and treasure when it comes time to flex ‘Murica’s muscles. And hey, it’s the economically disadvantaged who die in war anyway. But screw them. They owe it to their betters to be cannon fodder in the wars that serve no real purpose other than furtherance of the National Security State.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      If you’re insane/stupid/moronic you think we declared war on Hitler because of the Holocaust, not because he declared war on us.

                      If you’re really going for the gold medal for idiocy you allow your defense of the Confederacy to turn your half-wit ass into a pacifist so you’re world view somehow makes sense to an audience of 1.

                      PSA#5:

                      Know the first rule of holes or you may end up being outed as the biggest dumb ass ever known to man.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Exactly. War is so great that only the morally repugnant don’t get their jollies revelling in death and destruction the way we do. Because if people think that an imaginary line on a map should be in a different place, or that bureaucrats don’t have the right to dictate their lives to them, they obviously deserve to die. Only morons think killing people in pursuit of state power is wrong. And we’re not morons, eh Derek?

                      Like

              • SouthernYank

                Hey, I’m back in freshman year listening to an idiot. Great.

                Like

        • ASEF

          To be fair, that’s probably when you noticed it for the first time. It’s not when it started. I wouldn’t feel competent making that determination, but I’ve seen variations of that dynamic going back decades. Example: I spent a lot of time in rental cars driving across the country in sales during the Clinton administration. The talk radio side of things was off the hook, and you could see even then different audiences living a different set of facts and realities. Wasn’t it Daniel Moynihan who lamented we were all entitled our own opinion but not our own sets of facts? The man died in 2003. Yes, the ability to push that messaging through social networks and personal devices, mouth to mouth, is a huge accelerant – Plato, 2500 years ago, talked about the ways bad ideas (false rhetoric) can move like wildfire friend to friend without challenge, and Facebook and Twitter means that process literally now moves at the speed of light.

          We all have make an effort to be better consumers of information rather than broadcasters of ridicule. And yes, that includes me.

          Like

          • ChiliDawg

            100% This is why we now have a looming crisis some places due to the anti-vaxxer movement, which has grown by word of mouth and social media based on lies and misinformation to the point where there are communities facing measles outbreaks. And the subscribers to this stuff are religious in their zealotry.

            Like

            • Got Cowdog

              Ah yes, the Anti-vaxxers. Not my favorite group of delusional idiots (That would be the Flat-Earthers) but by far the more dangerous.

              Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            You’re correct. The result of the 1860 presidential election was the secession of several states and the U.S. government going to war to prevent it. The result of the 2016 presidential election was #OrangeManBad trending on Twitter and hysterical liberals insisting that the world has never seen a worse crisis than Trump appointing a Supreme Court justice who drank beer in college.

            The problem with social media and the 24-hour news cycle is that mountains are made out of mole hills. Perspective is completely lacking in todays voters (especially on the left).

            But don’t worry. The world is ending in 12 years anyway. I’m sure we can all stick it out until then. 😉

            Like

        • Former Fan

          There’s no doubt that the previous president paved the way for the current one.

          Like

      • doofusdawg

        That didn’t take long.

        Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        I think we can all agree.

        Like

  6. Bulldog Joe

    “Sir, can we check Meeka’s papers?”

    Like

  7. ilini84

    I’ve worked from home for years and my pups are right here with me! If you haven’t seen “Roma” on. Netflix there is a weird scene where there is a big family reunion at a villa in the country and they have the heads of all their previous dogs mounted on the walls.

    https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/roma-production-design-planes-dog-heads.html

    Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Like

  8. Dogs rule, cats drool!

    We have 4 dogs (all shelter adoptions including a foster failure), 3 named for former Georgia football players and the foster failure (a female pit mix) is the daintily-named Poppy (really our first granddog). When I work from home, they love to go hang out in my home office and look out the doors to bark at the occasional squirrel or chipmunk.

    I can’t imagine life without a dog in the house.

    Like

    • Got Cowdog

      Currently:

      The Cowdog: Promoted recently to Ranch Manager. Currently residing at the farm with Got Sr. and trying to remember to “Don’t eat the kitty”.

      The Boykin Spaniel: Magically able increase her BMI at bedtime to pull covers off both sides of the bed. Did not make dog-of-the-month due to continued failure to grasp the concept of potty outside.

      The Shih-tzu: Definitely not DOTM material. Neurotic, unfriendly, smelly, messy, beloved by Mrs. Cowdog and the pups. Spends a lot of time in the backyard on “Hawk Patrol” when the Missus isn’t around.

      The Granddog, A beautiful Shepard/Husky rescue mix. Uber friendly, always hungry, not fond of exercise. Will actually stop mid-walk and lay down if shade is discovered during afternoon walks.

      I’m with you,EE. Can’t imagine a home without them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tony Barnfart

      My wife, the Tennessee grad, named the dog we adopted in 2011 “Dooley.” That dog is now named after Vince Dooley.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Charlottedawg

      Amen. We have two, both rescues. One is a pure bred mutt that we think has some jack Russell terrier somewhere in there. He thinks he’s the greatest dog in the history of dogs and needed less than 24 hours to convince my wife to go from “he’s not staying with us” to “can we keep him?”. The other is a beagle mix who believes she runs the house. There is no employee of the month because the beagle thinks the employees (jack Russell mutt, wife, baby, and myself) are lazy and worthless but it would look bad if management (herself) appointed herself EOTM every month.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Got Cowdog

    Off topic but saw it posted that Saint’s season ticket holders are trying to sue the NFL over the officiating versus the Rams. It was on social media and I’m to lazy to go back and find the link so take it with a grain of salt. I didn’t watch the game but some of my Cajun Kin take their Saints pretty serious and they are up in arms about it, too.
    We’ve all seen piss poor officiating (especially as UGA fans) and how it impacts outcomes, made even more apparent when it affects the outcome of meaningful games. What’s the answer? Even if some sort of suit is allowed to be brought against the NFL, what are they going to do? Play the game again? Make the Rams vacate should they win? That ain’t gonna happen.

    I say fine the Referees behind closed doors. Have a “performance review” after each game by a panel of their senior peers. Every improper call has a monetary penalty based on yardage lost or gained. Going into the playoffs, those with the best record are selected to officiate. Having the Ref’s put a little skin in the game couldn’t hurt, could it?

    Like

    • Russ

      The answer is either (a) quit whining and realize people make mistakes, or (b) have the game totally ruined by replays after nearly every play.

      The Saints absolutely got hosed on that call. However, there were plenty of calls/plays before AND AFTER that could have turned the game either way. They blew a 13-0 lead and threw an interception in overtime. That one call didn’t lose them the game.

      Like

      • PTC DAWG

        Exactly, one call rarely means a ballgame.

        Like

      • Got Cowdog

        I make mistakes, you make mistakes. In my employment if the mistake is egregious enough there will be consequences up to and including monetary penalty and termination. Why should Referee’s get a pass?

        FWIW, I agree with (a). It’s just a freaking game, people.

        Like

      • Morris Day

        I will bet you had that one call been made correctly it would have won them the game, though. But, honestly, screw the Saints.

        Like

        • PTC DAWG

          What if the facemask was called correctly on the Saints vs the Rams QB a series or so earlier…first and goal at the one for the Rams…and a bigger lead. Saints can suck it.

          Like

          • Morris Day

            Fair enough, you’re probably correct. And, yes, the Saints can suck it, so much. I ain’t shedding tears for’em.

            Like

    • Bulldog Joe

      Leave it to the Saints to finally put a smile on Atlanta traffic.

      Like

      • Mick Jagger

        Is that NFL blew it or NFL blow it? LOL

        Like

      • SouthernYank

        Yes, the refs blew the call. And yes, the Saints should have been running the ball as they were in FG range. What is it about NFC South teams that they don’t run the ball and kill clock? Falcons, can you explain this?

        Like

    • Derek

      I hope it leads to booth reviews of obvious misses of “judgment calls.” If the whole stadium saw it, the booth should step in.

      I also hope it leads to coaches challenges of these types of calls. No reason for anything to be “unreviewable.” The point should be to get it right and for the game to have integrity.

      Like

      • PTC DAWG

        Maybe give the coaches one challenge per game, assuming they have timeouts left. And not everything can be game..holding for one, too judgmental.

        And see my comment above about the missed facemask..that was also a game changer.

        Like

    • They are citing an obscure NFL rule where the commissioner can overturn game results or force a game to be replayed for extreme circumstances. No idea what the author originally meant for the rule (coach was kidnapped? Proof of ref being paid off?)

      All i know is I’m enjoying every second of it.

      Like

    • W Cobb Dawg

      Well, 54 weeks ago the Dawgs got f#@ked out of a championship by refs too. So I have some empathy for New Orleans’ gripe.

      I agree something should be done. We have plenty of technology at our disposal to help better officiate games, and at a far faster speed than current reviews.

      Like

    • ASEF

      Not sure which would be more entertaining:

      A) Rams versus Patriots, as scheduled
      B) A federal judge stays the Super Bowl –> Goodell’s, Owners’, and CBS’ heads explode

      You have to admit, B has real potential.

      Like

      • B and then we can’t review the case until the government shutdown is over.

        Like

        • Got Cowdog

          Nice touch, Waterloo.
          “Gummint’? We don’t need no gummint’. Them lazy assholes need to do what us real workin’ folk does and go get another job. Go Pats! Wait… whut?”
          Democrat NFL fans: “Fuckin’ Trump”
          Republican NFL fans: “Fuckin’ Pelosi”

          Same old shit.

          Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Like

  10. MDDawg

    Not that anyone really cares about the Oscars, but Black Panther for Best Picture, really? It’s not even the best superhero movie this year, much less best movie overall.

    Like

    • David K

      I don’t like superhero stuff and have never seen any Avengers and X men movies but I watched Black Panther on Netflix due to all the buzz. That movie sucks.

      Like

      • Russ.

        Well, I like superhero movies, and in particular the Marvel movies. But your sentiment is one reason why Black Panther as an Oscar contender is bogus. To me, it was a pretty good superhero movie, but that is it. People are attaching too much significance to this movie.

        Like

    • Cousin Eddie

      Oscars are made to make the people in Hollywood feel better about themselves it has nothing, very little, to do with actual movies. All award shows are just made for self gratification.

      Like

    • Godawg

      My brother was the VFX producer for the movie First Man. His team was nominated yesterday for the Oscar for VFX. He was also the producer for Interstellar that won the Oscar for VFX. Here’s a short video that shows how they do it. Cool stuff, check it out…

      Obviously, I’m happy and proud of his accomplishment. Hope you’ll root for him come Oscar night. He’s currently in London working on the next Star Wars film.

      Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Um … OK. Wow. Racist much? I can’t even.

      Like

  11. Mick Jagger

    Open the government up already. Then, both sides be reasonable and negotiate – like that’s gonna happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Opelikadawg

    The picture of Meeka with ball in her (his?) mouth is the best thing I’ve seen in a long time.

    Like

  13. Godawg

    Speaking of dogs, what with this?
    https://www.ajc.com/news/rockdale-sheriff-deputy-swerves-avoid-dogs-crashes-into-convenience-store/HvwLqmQxry8hqervmyzSMJ/

    “…he swerved to the left to avoid the dogs crossing the street. He went off the road, into bushes and hit a street sign in front of a Taco Bell. He then hit a sign and a light pole, and continued across Breedlove Drive into the gas station.”

    How freaking fast was he going? That’s a lot of things to hit driving through Monroe. 🙂

    Like

  14. Napoleon BonerFart

    Only in Trump’s America could a white kid get away with SMILING at a Native American!
    #MicroAgressions #OrangeManBad #RacistSmile

    Like

    • Gurkha Dawg

      Yeah, the commies really made fools of themselves on this one. The Indian guy speaks with forked tongue.

      Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        You’re doubting that these high school kids were directed by Trump himself to attack peaceful Native American protesters with their heteronormative and racially oppressive smiles? You should just kill yourself.

        Like

  15. 3rdandGrantham

    By the way, the employee of the month dog was both really funny and sad at the same time. I too have a home office where I spend most of my time when I’m not meeting with clients, and sadly we just had to put our lab down yesterday.

    No doubt he was my employee of the month for many years, and the fact that he’s not laying beside me at my desk as we speak really tugs on my emotions. Damn I miss him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rebar

      Sorry for your loss, these pets steal our hearts.

      Like

      • We who choose to surround ourselves
        with lives even more temporary than our
        own, live within a fragile circle;
        easily and often breached.
        Unable to accept its awful gaps,
        we would still live no other way.
        We cherish memory as the only
        certain immortality, never fully
        understanding the necessary plan.
        — Irving Townsend

        Like

  16. Gurkha Dawg

    I think Plankton on Sponge Bob married his computer.

    Like

  17. 92 grad

    Is it me, or wouldn’t this shutdown mess be fixed by all the representatives casting their vote on the budget true to the wishes of their districts/constituents wishes? Seems to me that there’s a lot of them voting differently than their folks at home would want.

    Like