Your 10.23.19 Playpen

I agree with Ted Cruz’ sentiment in this op-ed criticizing the NBA for kowtowing to China.

Whether it’s baseball in America, cricket in India or rugby in New Zealand, sports teams are influential in forming the identity of a nation and direction of a culture.

Yep.  It’s impossible to separate sports entirely from real world considerations because of that, too.

Which is why it was totally consistent for Cruz to push back on this.

Oh, wait… he didn’t?

I’m picking on Cruz, because he’s a easy target here, but I could just as easily have taken a shot at that tool Clay Travis, who’s been just as hypocritical on the subject of keeping sports separate from life since the NBA botched this China thing.

The reality is that when people like those two claim they want that separation, what they really want is for people in sports not to express sentiments and opinions that vary from theirs.  That’s not how this is supposed to work.

201 Comments

Filed under GTP Stuff

201 responses to “Your 10.23.19 Playpen

  1. Normaltown Mike

    This China kerfuffle got me interested in the subject and I ran across a book by Stewart Paterson that seems interesting. In a nutshell, he says WTO status rescued the Chi Comm Party from internal pressure and gave them a lifeline to continue their brutal authoritiarian control over the Chinese people

    Like

    • AthensHomerDawg

      And they still have developing Nation status?

      “China systematically violated every tenet of international trade and commerce. It stole copyrights and patents. It ran up huge trade surpluses. It dumped products at below the cost of production to hook international customers. It threatened critics with boycotts, divestments, and expulsions. It manipulated its currency. It demanded technology transfers from companies doing business in China. It created a vast espionage network in Western countries to steal technology. And it increasingly bullied and threatened its Asian neighbors.”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Dawg Vegas

    Ignoring the proposed topic (apologies-pointing out hypocrisy from our ‘leadership’ right now is like shooting fish in a barrel)….. I’m very curious who Anonymous is, and how accurate will the book be? And no matter how damming or tame, is there anyone left without an intractable opinion?

    Like

    • I don’t know about accuracy, but I don’t see how someone protecting his/her identity can tell the complete story.

      Like

    • Derek

      I think people can be moved by facts the problem is 40% of the people are inundated with propaganda 24/7.

      That’s the problem and if you go back Roger Ailes’ inspiration was that he firmly believed that Nixon survives impeachment had he had friendly media outlets to spin for him.

      And that’s why the “fairness doctrine” had to go.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawgxian

        40% of the people are scared of having our churches taxes, being forced to aid a lifestyle we disagree with, having our children put on drugs and castrated all, and late term abortions * while getting the hell taxes out of us. The far left shift of the Dems is why you will lose in 2020 and are impeaching Trump just before he’s on the ballot.
        *seriously, wtf is wrong with you. A birth has to occur at that stage of pregnancy regardless. Just let the child live, you monsters

        Liked by 1 person

        • Derek

          See what I mean?

          Insane nonsense pumped into eyes and ears 24/7 leads to Birchian zombies.

          Liked by 3 people

          • dawgxian

            Insane nonsense? I’m just repeating what your presidential candidates are saying. But, yeah keep telling yourself it’s because we’re a bunch of bigots as Trump gets re-elected and keeps stacking the courts

            Like

            • Joe Schmoe

              You are creating a complete caricature of the left and then arguing against it. It’s kind of funny because on so many of these issues Democrats are actually arguing for positions that could easily be viewed as conservative:

              Abortion – Dems believe that these difficult decisions shouldn’t be made by the government but rather by parents and doctors (seems like a more libertarian position to me). The idea that tons of women are using abortion (which is expensive and very unpleasant) as a primary means of birth control is really dumb. Also, why did the GOP fight so hard against the ACA provision that plans had to cover birth control if they want to reduce the number of abortions? As to late term abortions, there are generally less than 10,000 of these that occur in the US in a year. The level of dehumanization of the people involved in the extremely difficult circumstances that surround these by the right shows an amazing lack of empathy. Most of these are people who wanted to have the child and now for medical reasons are making an extremely agonizing choice.
              Taxes – Democrats (despite everything that the right wing propaganda machine says) are actually saying that we should pay enough taxes to fund the government services that we want (see Nancy Pelosi’s support for pay-as-you-go). For example, Obama’s major legislative accomplishment, the ACA, was fully paid for by tax increases. Counter to that, Trump’s major legislation, the tax cut, blew a minimum of a $1.5T hole in the deficit. Bush cut taxes while starting to wars and passing an unfunded medicare prescription drug plan, and deregulating the finance industry leading to the financial collapse of 2008 – all of which added massively to the national debt.

              Can we please have a real discussion about the kind of society we want to have rather than making shit up about each other? Are we not supposed to be in this together as Americans / humans?

              Liked by 2 people

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                It’s not possible to argue against a caricature by using talking points spin. The best case scenario would be to use actual facts.

                Abortion – Pro-lifers believe that unborn babies are people. Thus, abortion is murder. And decisions about whether to murder someone shouldn’t be left to parents and doctors. Murder should be banned. And perhaps the GOP fought against birth control provisions from the ACA because they earnestly believe that the government has no right to coerce some people to pay for the behaviors of others. Especially when it violates the religion of some of the coerced to do so. Just a theory.

                Taxes – Despite what Democrats may claim, they have no desire to properly fund government. The ACA was “fully paid for” for the first 10 years by using accounting gimmicks. After 10 years, even the most partisan estimates show that it runs a deficit.

                The federal budget deficit is $1.7 trillion per year. And it’s going up. Trump’s tax cuts reduced taxes by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. In other words, the deficit could be cut by 8% with the higher tax level of the Obama years, to about $1.35 trillion per year. That’s what Democrats are calling being “fiscally responsible.”

                And yes, Bush started Medicare D that was not funded. And it fits alongside the unfunded Medicare A, B, C, and unfunded Social Security (started by Democrat presidents) quite nicely. He also started Iraq War II, along with invading Afghanistan. And Obama, after campaigning on ending the wars, escalated them, started Iraq War III, and went to war in Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, started ISIS, and entered into the illegal, genocidal, and treasonous war in Yemen.

                The conclusion one should draw from this is that Washington policy is nothing, if not bipartisan. Neither party wants real change. Both parties want to argue about trivial details. Should we go bankrupt in 40 years or 50 years? Should we be bombing 8 countries or 9?

                Liked by 1 person

                • Joe Schmoe

                  Funny that you mention that you shouldn’t have to pay for the behaviors others when it was mentioned above about concerns over taxing churches. I don’t think I should have to subsidize the christian church through tax exempt status when I don’t agree with that philosophy. Churches could be treated as non-profits (i.e., the entity isn’t taxed because it isn’t making profits) but donations are not tax write offs for donors. That would be reasonable, but you want YOUR special interests to be treated differently and fuck everyone else. You are obviously only concerned with your own perspective, not with any sense of societal fairness or justice.

                  On deficits, look at the attached charts. The facts are that Obama inherited a massive deficit due to the economic crash caused at least in part by Bush’s policies. By the end of his term, the deficit was 1/3 of what it was at the beginning of his term (i.e., it had been reduced by 2/3s). Bush inherited a budget surplus (including the profligate entitlement spending you hate so) and left Obama with half trillion dollar and rising deficits (due to the declining revenue base coming from a contracting economy.

                  https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

                  Facts matter.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I never made a point about churches. But it’s fine. Let’s stipulate your concern. Start taxing churches the same as any other nonprofit. Or, eliminate nonprofits completely and force the Catholic church to pay taxes alongside the Southern Poverty Law Center. I don’t really much care. The fiscal impact of either policy is negligible.

                  On deficits, you’re still just looking at spin. Obama HAD to spend trillions to “fix” Bush’s economy. Why, without the Great Recession, he would have balanced the budget and paid off the national debt. Whatever. Look at the trend. National debt grows regardless of whatever party controls the White House or Congress.

                  Facts. Not spin.

                  Like

                • Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Bush promptly spent that and more. Facts or spin?

                  Like

                • Joe Schmoe

                  You right. Details don’t matter. Let’s lump everything together and forget any analysis of context that caused these things. The specifics I provided are from official public sources on the actual annual deficit.

                  Like

                • dawgxian

                  Fact. I remember when the surplus ended… just after 911. Obama didn’t have to spend that money. I also remember “recovery summer” and how the economy was always just about to take off. We didn’t recover till he lost the Senate

                  Like

                • Joe Schmoe

                  Another thought: If both parties are spend happy lunatics then why do Reps act like the Dems are the only ones who want big spending? If we are going to spend like this, shouldn’t we be raising taxes to pay for it?

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  It depends on your goal. If it’s to cheerlead for big government Democrats, then hooray for Clinton! If we’re talking in terms of the above chart for federal debt (which doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, which have eclipsed $100 trillion), then not so much.

                  Clinton did have a small surplus in his second term. He obviously didn’t cut spending to get it. Tax revenues increased. And why was that? Primarily, because the internet took off and spurred historic growth. Also, the Boomers hit their peak earning years and contributed massive tax revenue.

                  Like

                • So it’s spin and fact! LOL.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Whatever, dude. That’s like believing the color of your shirt made it rain last Saturday. If you actually believe in the cult of the supreme all-powerful executive who bends space and time to his will, what can I say? Agree to disagree.

                  An $80 billion surplus is a drop in the bucket. Expenditures are growing exponentially. Neither party wants to do anything about it. But by all means, keep cheering for your team. Maybe the 17th Democratic president will be the charm.

                  Like

                • So you’ve gone from “National debt grows regardless of whatever party controls the White House or Congress” to the surplus wasn’t big enough, eh?

                  Them facts sure are stubborn things.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  On January 20, 1993, the US Treasury lists the national debt was $4.188 trillion. On January 20, 2001, the US Treasury lists the national debt was $5.728 trillion.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  On Joe’s question, the Republicans and Democrats both emphasize their marginal differences because that’s how you win elections. Republicans aren’t going to admit the truth that, in reality, they would like to go bankrupt slightly slower than Democrats want to go bankrupt. Because nobody is going to be passionate about volunteering for that guy.

                  Most of the Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal, or something close to it. None of them actually want it passed. If the GND were actually passed, it would bankrupt the country and cause mass death. But we can just spin it as “standing up to Big Oil.” So that’s what they do.

                  The one candidate that has demonstrated a difference is Gabbard. She actually wants to end the perpetual wars. And her own party is calling her a Russian asset. Both parties think she’s crazy for not wanting to bomb brown people for indefinite generations into the future. Republican and Democratic foreign policy in the Middle East is identical. Stay forever. But during the general election, we’ll hear some nonsense about how moving a couple dozen guys from this place to that place is a HUGE development that TOTALLY threw everything into chaos and it’s VITAL that we elect the guy who will FIX everything NOW!

                  Like

                • Joe Schmoe

                  Lots of false statements to parse there but a couple of points:
                  1) If GOP and Dems are basically the same, then why the total freakout about the apocalypse if a Dem is elected by the right (Trump has threatened civil war)?
                  2) The Dems have introduced the Social Security 2100 Act to shore up the finances of SS and have as typical been totally stoned walled by the Reps. One party is interested in seriously and effectively managing the government. The other is interested in “starving the beast” in Reagan’s terms. The first thing republicans do every time they get power is cut taxes – they don’t give a shit about fiscal responsibility.
                  3) Sanders has a long history of being against foreign wars, particularly wars for regime change. Agree with you that the corporate “moderate” wing of the democratic party is totally in the pockets of defense contractors, and that’s why many of us are fighting and supporting primary challengers to change our party.
                  4) Being more non-interventionist doesn’t mean there are never instances where intervening is justified and in our national interest. Turkey is a NATO ally. If they get into a shooting war with Syria / Russia, that means WE are at war with Syria / Russia. International relations are complicated, and meaningless tropes like “America First” are just that.
                  5) The Green New Deal is about addressing the biggest threat to human life. But fuck it. We should just continue to spend $1T / year on the military (who by the way believe that climate change is real and are planning for how to deal with it) and pretend that we can’t afford anything else.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  1) Both parties are best served by emphasizing differences. Even where the differences are minor. Nobody is going to volunteer for a candidate that is 4% different than the other guy. So it has to be good vs evil. Remember the #NotMyPresident trends? Remember the folks threatening to move to Canada? Hell, the 2016 election has continued until NOW. There are still people who actually believe that Trump is a Russian spy.

                  2) The Social Security 2100 Act does several things to address the $43 trillion unfunded liability. Most significantly, it significantly raises taxes on workers. But at the same time, it raises benefits. And leftists constantly point out how regressive payroll taxes are. So young, poor workers are taxed more so that retirees, the richest segment of the population, can get more money. If that’s your idea of fiscal responsibility, so be it. The Republican proposal I’ve seen (raising retirement age from 67 to 70) makes sense and it doesn’t have the drawbacks of the Democrats plan. I haven’t seen either of them scored. I doubt either one would erase a $43 trillion liability. But they both probably reduce it.

                  3) Sanders is certainly better than most other candidates on foreign policy. But he’s inconsistent. He supported Clinton bombing Serbia. He backed Obama bombing Libya. And he’s in favor of ramping up Syria intervention. Gabbard is just better than Bernie on foreign wars.

                  4) Yes, foreign policy is complicated. Which is why we can’t reduce it down to “whomever has a problem with Turkey invading Syria will be at war with the USA.” Maybe Turkey will be a little more circumspect if America’s might wasn’t assumed to be automatically eager to jump into any fray on its behalf.

                  Since 2003, one could easily argue 1990, or 1953, or 1947, the Middle East has been destabilized by foreign intervention. And the hawks apparently believe that just a little more intervention will do the trick. We’ll win their hearts and minds with just a few more bombs and sanctions. It never works. It never will work. We can’t get in a time machine and not get involved in the Middle East in the first place. But the next best thing is to get out now.

                  5) The Green New Deal is about power. If we REALLY had 12 years to live, should we waste time ensuring that federal contractors doing the vital work to save our lives comply with gender quotas in their hiring practices? Or should we say, “You know, maybe we can worry about quotas when we’re not facing extinction?”

                  Bless AOC’s heart. I suppose she’s earnest. I hope her parents put the Green New Deal on their refrigerator. But that’s as far as it should go. We’re not going to save the world by forcing everyone in the country to put solar panels on their roofs. We’re just going to enrich the solar companies who get big fat contracts given out by the politicians who tell us to trust them. They’re just looking out for us little guys.

                  Like

                • MDDawg

                  On abortion, pro-choicers believe it isn’t murder to terminate a fetus that’s not viable outside of the womb, so how do you propose to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints?

                  And before you go making any assumptions about me, allow me to share a personal story. My wife has a condition which made it very difficult to get pregnant. We sought help from a fertility clinic and were able to successfully conceive, but there was a catch. The first ultrasound showed that there were two developing fetuses in the womb, and because of the aforementioned condition, the likelihood of her successfully carrying twins to full-term were low and the risk of premature labor and birth defects was high. The doctor told us we had a few options. They could perform a “selective reduction”, which is a nice way of saying terminate one of the fetuses. We could wait and see if one of the fetuses stopped developing on its own (we’d already suffered one miscarriage so we knew that was a possibility). Or we could attempt to keep both fetuses, knowing all the risks. We wrestled with the choices for a couple of weeks and resolved to gather as much information as possible before making a final decision. Fortunately (if you can call it that), the second ultrasound showed that one of the fetuses was developing on schedule while the other had stopped growing and no heartbeat could be detected in that one. So the decision was mercifully taken out of our hands. But what if all abortion, even “selective reduction”, were banned? What would/should we have done then? Just some food for thought.

                  Sorry to bring such a heavy topic to the blog. On a lighter note, our beautiful daughter was born in December of last year. She’s almost one year old and getting ready to take her first steps any day now.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Congratulations on the birth of your daughter.

                  Like

                • Joe Schmoe

                  Thanks for sharing a personal story. Unfortunately, we too often seek to dehumanize people so that we can demonize them. We forget that we are talking about real humans who ultimately want the American dream – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – not monsters trying to murder unborn children for the pleasure of it.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  There is no real way to reconcile opposite viewpoints. You can’t simply split the difference and declare that murder is fine Monday through Wednesday.

                  Personally, I would restrict elective abortions and allow abortion in cases of true medical necessity.

                  As to your personal story, I’m glad you didn’t actually have to make the life or death decision. And congrats on having a rugrat. They sure are fun.

                  Like

                • dawgxian

                  That’s not the issue. Few if any would argue against that course of action. The problem is using it as a form of birth control. As for reconciling the 2 points of view, we’re not doing that now. It’s all one sided. You can have an abortion for pretty much any reason. Over turn Roe and debate this in the state legislatures. We’ll have to work and compromise. Personally l’d support a rape exemption and for saving the life of the mother . That would eliminate about 99% of abortions.

                  Like

            • But, yeah keep telling yourself it’s because we’re a bunch of bigots…

              Whatever you say, brother.

              Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            This reminded me of my favorite playpen poster. 😉

            Like

            • Traitor Joe

              Per Duh’ Ranged comment above. I hate to pop his Cherry but….
              “Imagine . . .

              If in early 2015, some White House staffers transcribing confidential presidential calls were disturbed about one conversation that President Obama had with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. The two allegedly had confidentially discussed the staggered release of some $1.7 billion in withheld U.S. dollars to Iran — as an understood exchange for the release of 4 American hostages, $400 million of which was to be delivered, in an unmarked cargo plane at night, and in various currencies to Tehran.”
              do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.

              Like

              • Joe Schmoe

                Obama released the funds which had been blocked as part of the sanctions regime in exchange for the discontinuation of Iran’s nuclear program, but feel free to continue to believe the propaganda.

                Liked by 1 person

                • AthensHomerDawg

                  It was for the release of 4 American hostages, $400 million of which was to be delivered, in an unmarked cargo plane at night, and in various currencies to Tehran.

                  The payments were allegedly to take place in the general context of the ongoing “Iran Deal” nuclear nonproliferation negotiations, and a time when Iranian-funded Hezbollah was staging terrorist operations in Syria and from Lebanon.

                  Like

                • AthensHomerdawg

                  Imagine further that a few of the insider staffers/transcribers talked about their worries over such a quid pro quo and the disconnect between what their president was saying to the Iranians and what the administration was denying to the press. And they were further outraged because such payments were hidden from the public and in apparent violation of US policy prohibiting cash payments for hostage releases.

                  Like

              • SpellDawg

                Your analogy is plagued by several facts:
                – Obama wasn’t up for reelection.
                – There was no personal value/gain to Obama.
                – He didn’t use a private lawyer, remove gov’t officials, etc.,

                Here’s what Trump-supporters will likely have to come to terms with, and this is the best-case scenario. Rudy Giuliani was paid half a million dollars in 2018 by the now-jailed Ukrainians to influence Trump policy in their favor (they also donated heavily to Trump and other Republicans, but I digress). Rudy sold a scheme to Trump who, as anyone who has done business with Trump can confirm, expects some benefit for his action. Rudy’s pitch, Trump would clear the way for the Ukrainians to turn some big profits, in return Rudy would orchestrate the Biden investigation. Trump, given his aversion to reading & work, may have genuinely believed Rudy’s assertion that Biden did something wrong and taken it at face value.

                That the best-case. Worst case is Trump was in on this from the beginning, conspired on everything, and is as complicit as Rudy. Rudy is going under the bus regardless of the case. You can cry “fake news” and “witch hunt” until you are blue in the face, it cannot drown out the damning, voluntary testimonies from Trump-appointees and non-partisan career officials. History will probably retell this story with irony, Trump surviving the Russia Investigation only to do himself in with this bumbling Ukrainian plot.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Yep. We’ve got him this time. Investigating Democrats is an impeachable offense.

                  Like

                • SpellDawg

                  No, he got himself. The irony is Biden won’t even be the candidate.

                  Like

                • Chris

                  Let me guess, you’ve used the term “Mueller Time” at least 10 times since 2016?

                  You got him this time! He can’t keep on getting away with it!

                  Like

                • SpellDawg

                  Nope. Name-calling, juvenile jingles, etc., shit like that ain’t my bag. Mueller will most-likely factor into this though, indirectly. The Ukrainians currently sitting in jail on campaign finance violations were likely one of the dozen or so cases referred to the FBI by Mueller during the course of his investigation.

                  Like

                • Chris

                  Serious question, where do you find these talking points? I’m genuinely curious, especially considering the lack of transparency in the informal inquiry.

                  Like

                • AthensHomerDawg

                  After failing with the voting machine gambit, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the emoluments clause, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup, the Comey memos farce, the “resistance” efforts outlined by the New York Times anonymous op-ed writer, the campaign finance violations accusations, Stormy, tax returns, whistleblowers, leakers, the Mueller 22 months charade, and now impeachment 2.0, what exactly is the point of impeaching Trump just 13 months before the election?

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  You can’t lose if you never stop playing.

                  Like

        • Russ

          Jeebus. You actually believe any of that shit?

          Like

          • Uglydawg

            Showing liberals the fallacy of their position is like showing Alabama fans video of zebras cheating for their team. They just can’t grasp the truth. It can’t be because it doesn’t fit their wonderful narrative.
            They are superior, dammit!
            It never occurs to most liberals that they could be wrong…about anything or a lot of things. Doesn’t compute.
            Their silly self sense of superiority blocks their vision. But reality is coming soon and they shall know the truth and the truth shall piss them off.

            Like

        • Russ

          While I’ve never called myself a liberal, I sure can’t call myself a conservative anymore if this is what it’s come to.

          Like

          • Agreed. There is no room in the middle politically and its just depressing. This guy just made me agree with Derek, which doesn’t happen often.

            If some of y’all legit think that democrats(Roughly half of society!) want to castrate children and murder babies, you need some help friend. I hope we can one day wake up from this “My neighbor is out to get me and take my land/gun/lifestyle” mentality the news networks push down the throats of the masses.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              Like

              • Chris

                Child abuse. Thank God for the Second Amendment if that case happened to me.

                Like

              • Got Cowdog

                I was ready to call bullshit on this one NBF, but checked it out anyway. I wish TF I hadn’t now. Poor kid.

                “Jesus Christ you’ve got him parading around the locker room like a fruit!”

                Like

                • Derek

                  Why did your fellow citizens (on a jury) fuck this up?

                  What would you propose we do to insulate us from juries?

                  Is it possible that they followed the evidence and the judges instructions?

                  Like

                • MDDawg

                  Reading the article, I’m not sure the jury made the decision on the gender transition issue. I think they instead decided on the sole custody vs. joint custody aspect. I didn’t see anything regarding the judge’s instructions, but that may have been a factor as well.

                  That said, do you seriously believe that a 7-year-old has the decision-making capacity to opt for gender reassignment? It’s insane.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  As a conservative, I think the government should raise children. Not parents.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  As the Texas decision shows, we must trust government to decide that fathers have no rights to dictate how their 7 year-olds live their lives.

                  Like

              • As he feeds back a story running on the daily wire (rolls eyes).

                This is exactly what I’m talking about. That story, if true, is horrendous, and a nightmare for the father. If you think that’s what people that consider themselves democrats want out of life then you are not very intelligent. You’re just spitting out stories from the Daily wire.

                Whatever happened to that caravan of murderers coming up from Central America to enter the US?

                Like

                • Jayson Blair

                  Well, since it’s on the Daily Wire, it’s probably not true. If it were true, it would be on a legitimate news outlet like the New York Times.

                  Like

                • AhensHomerDawg

                  They detained them and then released them with bus tickets to vanish into the countryside.

                  Like

              • MDDawg

                I read it, and I still can’t believe it. Unreal.

                Like

              • SpellDawg

                The Texan doesn’t link to the court case or any official records, google just returns the usual suspects (Daily Caller, Daily Wire, CBN, etc.,) all linking back to The Texan. But let’s assume there is an actual case, the facts are as stated, and the jury decided as purported, it will not result in the boy being “transitioned” into a girl. Gender reassignment surgery does not happen until someone is at least 18, hormone therapy might begin a year or two sooner, but it’s doubtful you’ll find a doctor who will allow it below the age of 16.

                As someone says below, this was likely a custody decision, nothing to do with gender transitioning.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Yes and no. No, it appears the mother apparently isn’t planning to give the child hormone blockers or have surgery immediately. For now, the child is limited to wearing girls’ clothes and going by the name “Luna.” Yes, the custody case was about the child transitioning. The mother is for it. The father isn’t.

                  According to the father, the mother has been treating the boy like a girl since birth. She refuses to give him affection unless he states he is a girl. When the boy is with his father, he refuses to wear girls clothes and goes by his given, masculine, name. Again, this is the word of a father in a divorce, so take it with a grain of salt.

                  Like

                • SpellDawg

                  The mother can’t do either of those things, the boy is far too young. All we are hearing/seeing is the father’s side of the story. It’s just as likely this was the best ploy/angle the father could think of to win custody, so he went all-in with it. The fact that no national media outlet (Fox included) is covering it is suspicious.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Juries have a well known liberal bias and should be banned!!

                  If we’d never separated church from state we could have just burned mom at the stake and stoned the child to get out the Satan.

                  But the liberals didn’t like that. Liberals ruin everything!

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  The mother is a pediatrician. Apparently, she is planning to evaluate her son at age 9 to determine whether hormone blockers would be appropriate at that time.

                  Like

            • Derek

              Juries are “fake news.”

              We need a Talabam!

              Who will be our Ayatollah?

              Every free country needs one.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Don’t worry. That boy/girl is probably a Russian asset. He deserves what he gets. The jury should have just hanged him.

                Like

        • Will (the other one)

          I’ll admit I haven’t watched all the Dem debates, but I clearly missed the “let’s get kids on drugs and mandatory castrations” part. Even the John Birch Society thinks that’s a bit far-fetched.

          Like

          • AthensHomerDawg

            Isn’t he talking about “forced beliefs”? Gender reassignment? Hormones and surgery? Perhaps?
            I am not real comfortable with gender reassignment At such a very young age or the use of appropriate pronouns or fungi gender humans. YOMV

            Like

        • Sweet J*sus, overreact much. Did you not just witness where the tax break went? And don’t concern yourself with having your children PUT ON drugs: If you teach ’em the correct lessons they probably won’t end up there. But it’s their choice ultimately, so you don’t have much of a say.

          Like

    • Will (the other one)

      I’d say they’re less worried about whatever they’re witnessing in the WH and more interested in making money off their story.

      Like

  3. Derek

    First, I don’t know if an occasion where someone said that James Woods, as an example, should shut up because he’s an actor. That sort of authoritarian instinct to react based on the speaker’s status isn’t without an ideological identity. (I’m not suggesting there’s no authoritarian instinct in the left, it’s there, but it’s going to be about the perceived value of the speech, not of the speaker.)

    Second, the fact that we have a guy in the White House who says China should investigate his political opponents and refuses to comment on Hong Kong in order to improve his chances that will happen is frightening to say the least.

    Third, why is colluding with Ukraine by means of extortion for personal political benefit acceptable to anyone?

    ”Announce an investigation on my political opponent and maybe I’ll help you fend off Russia.”

    The facts are clear on this. If you find this ok, you are a traitor.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Normaltown Mike

      And what shall we do with these traitors, comrade?

      Like

    • Chris

      First, James Woods has been ostracized by Hollywood for his conservative views (not that he cares at this point). The authoritarian instinct of the left you gloss over, was responsible for 10s of millions of deaths in the 20th century. The only thing tolerant by the left is their own bigotry.

      Second, plenty of reasons to look at the Bidens in China: https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/6-facts-about-hunter-bidens-business-dealings-in-china/. The fact you find that frightening is ironically frightening.

      Third, there is absolutely zero evidence of quid pro JOE by Trump as evidence by the call transcript. However, there is an open DOJ investigation of the 2016 election that in some part involves Ukraine and its vast corruption network that has entangled the previous administration. Anyone who has read the transcript of the Ukraine call has just as much information than the whistle blower. There is a reason there has not been a formal impeachment inquiry vote. Comrades like Derek get to parrot the impeachment talking points, without the Dems actually having to go officially on the record for when the American people see this coup for what it is.

      President Trump ran on draining the swamp. Apparently it’s treasonous to point out the left’s corruption. Sadly, even if the OIG report and/or Durham’s investigation factually show corruption and wrongdoing by the left, lemmings like Derek will justify it as a means to an end because Orange Man Bad. Textbook definition of “useful idiots”.

      Like

      • Derek

        No one says he should shut up BECAUSE he is an actor.

        I have not ruled out, but actually included, content based “shut up” from the left.

        Concerned about China and Biden. You have a Justice Department for that not diplomatic, military and economic coercion. Not dumb people get this.

        Any literate person 1) does not care whether there is a quid pro quo with your collusion and that 2) the quid pro quo is obvious. Hell Mulvaney admitted it. Clearly.

        Trump is rooting out corruption? Who knows and associates with more felons than Trump?

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          Exactly! Just because the Justice Department lied to a FISA court as an “insurance policy” to help swing a presidential election to a Democrat doesn’t mean we can’t trust those same guys to be hard on the Democrats! Can you imagine the chaos that would result if we just started investigating Democratic corruption? It can’t happen, I say.

          You really think guys like Brennan/Clapper/Comey can’t be trusted? Just because they’ve been caught lying repeatedly? What are you, a traitor?

          All literate people can tell that 1) facts don’t matter, and 2) fuck you.

          Like

        • Chris

          James Woods double majored at MIT in political science and computer science. Lebron didn’t even finish high school. You picked a bad example to prove a point I actually agree with. Shut up and dribble. Shut up and act. However the left says, “How dare you disagree with our dogma, we will cancel/boycott/get you fired”. Intolerance of the left.

          Political policy changes every administration. If Trump wants to dictate aid in a 3 prong approach, as easily explained by Mulvaney, he has every right to do so. One of those prongs was agreeing to participate in an ongoing DOJ investigation (kind of a big deal). The other 2 were related to the vast network of corruption that is evident in Ukraine. The fact that the Bidens are part of the web of corruption is the real news here. To normal people, that is.

          Muh Ukraine. Muh Russia. Muh quid pro Joe, Muh Emoluments. Demand the house vote to start the inquiry process! You got him this time!

          Like

          • Derek

            I understand that Nazis don’t get that: “shut up because you are ____” is bad.

            I also understand that Nazis find: “shut up because your opinion is hateful” is bad.

            I don’t like Nazis.

            Chris, you’re a Nazi.

            Like

            • Chris

              The authoritarian left labeling those they oppose Nazis. Classic.

              Like

              • Derek

                Nazis deciding that certain groups of people are not deserving of the public square! Not because of what they say but because of who they are.

                So classic!

                Liked by 1 person

                • Chris

                  Conservatives roll their eyes when someone who didn’t even finish high school and whose job requires dribbling a basketball suggests others are uniformed and uneducated on complex foreign policy.

                  The left will demonetize and persecute conservatives like James Woods, who has a double major (1 in political science) at MIT political science, for speaking out against liberal indoctrination.

                  Tech companies like facebook, google, twitter, youtube, etc., literally censor and shut down conservatives on social media.

                  The authoritarian left is more Nazi like than anything in modern American history.

                  Derek, shut up and make more french fries.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Why is it impossible for Nazis to assess the opinion itself rather than the characteristics of the person with it?

                  Why are you wired to resent the people rather than their ideas?

                  Btw: you know that most people with post-grad degrees are flaming liberals right?

                  I’m sure something other than their schooling is wrong with them and makes them lesser.

                  Like

                • Chris

                  You mean like those flaming liberals in the tech companies censoring conservatives on social media platforms? No conservative is advocating for censoring Lebron, in fact, I support his right to sound like an idiot. Except I didn’t ask him for his opinion, whether educated or not, on the matter.

                  I resent the Gestapo like tactics of the authoritarian left and your ilk. Conservatives actually embrace freedom.

                  Like

                • No conservative is advocating for censoring Lebron…

                  LOL. I literally put up the “shut up and dribble” clip.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  You know how those facts lie!

                  He’s giving you the “alternative facts to that.”

                  Like

                • Chris

                  “Shut up and dribble” refers to scope not content of the matter. Not a hard concept, Senator.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  You’re parsing “shut up?”

                  Really?

                  You’re suggesting “shut up” means something other than “shut up?”

                  Well, then allow me to retort:

                  Shut up.

                  Get my meaning?

                  Like

                • Chris

                  Derek, shut up and make more fries.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Stop restricting the “scope” of my speech!

                  Like

                • Chris

                  The burger flipper doesn’t care what you think anymore than we do. I suggest sticking to your fryer.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  “First they came for the fry guy and I did not speak up because I was not one.”

                  Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              Like

      • Will (the other one)

        Biden’s son is an incompetent hack who’s only gotten the jobs he’s had because of his last name, and I’m fine with that disqualifying Joe from the nomination. But I think it’s pretty rich for Don Jr. to call Hunter Biden out on getting a job based on who is father is.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      You’re correct. With the left, it’s about the speech more than the speaker. As long as the ideas expressed are approved by the wise custodians of society, it doesn’t matter if an autistic teenager is expressing them. She will be celebrated. On the other hand, if an expert expresses disagreement with the narrow range of allowable opinion, he will be attacked. That’s why the left accuses Ben Shapiro of being racist and throws milkshakes at Nigel Farage.

      It’s also amusing that the left, months after having their “Trump is a Russian asset” conspiracy theory debunked, just doubles down. “Not only is Trump is Russian asset, so is Tulsi Gabbard. So is anybody I don’t like. You’re ALL Russian assets.”

      That’s what nuanced thinking looks like. Accusing the entire world of being stupid and evil for having the balls to disagree with you.

      Like

      • Will (the other one)

        Here I thought conservatives were tough, but getting a milkshake tossed at you after you drove around the UK in a bus with a blatant, easily-provable lie on it in the run up to the Brexit vote is terrible. I mean we’ve already established that money=free speech, and money was used to buy the milkshake, so that counts as free speech at least as much as Exxon-Mobil counts as a person, right?

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          Exactly. That’s why the Brexit vote was illegitimate. Because one side (and one side only) had the temerity to paint the issue one way. The other side simply laid out the facts dispassionately and truthfully stated that voting for Brexit was a racist and fascist act.

          So now, the UK has to ignore the result and redo the Brexit election in order to get the correct result that should have happened the first time. Because that’s how democracy works.

          Like

          • Will (the other one)

            Ah yes, it should be one vote and never voted upon again after the fact, even as more people come of age and others die off. That’s why we can’t buy alcohol on Sundays in GA because that was decided years ago and we can’t go back on it, wouldn’t be democratic.

            Like

        • Chris

          The tolerant left supports political violence. Well, against there opponents I suppose.

          Liberalism is a mental disorder.

          Like

          • Derek

            End Social Security and Medicare NOW!

            Like

            • Charlottedawg

              I know you mean this in jest but as a guy in his thirties who is being asked to foot the bill on the biggest government handout, I am completely on board with abolishing social security. It is literally a government mandated Ponzi scheme. Also a sign of how self unaware and clueless most people are that almost every “conservative” baby boomer will fight tooth and nail to keep SS while saying the problem with ‘merica is all these lazy bastards wanting government handouts.

              Like

              • Derek

                I only wish you fuckers would be honest about it so we could be done with you politically.

                But you’l keep lying about how you want to protect them for your political power while you slowly choke them death.

                You know why?

                You’re evil.

                If you weren’t evil your campaigns would tell the truth that you want rid of them.

                And you complain of sick ideologies? Yours is built on a mountain of bullshit.

                Like

                • Charlottedawg

                  I genuine have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. But you do you bro.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  Do you generally make announcements that you are stupid or is this the exception?

                  Let me give you the slow version:

                  Social Security and Medicare are LIBERAL policies.

                  Conservatives hate liberals AND their policies.

                  The people LOVE social security and medicare.

                  Conservatives won’t say: rid our country of Social Security and Medicare!

                  Why? They will lose.

                  So they cut taxes so that we can’t afford these programs and promote so called “reform” and call these popular program “unfunded liabilities” and “entitlements.”

                  They get away with this game to the point that stupid people, like yourself, show up at political events and say:

                  “Keep your damn Government hands off my Medicare!”

                  By the way, was that you?

                  Like

                • Charlottedawg

                  I really shouldn’t feed the troll but here goes….

                  did you actually read my post? Or did you just layer on a bunch of your personal projections? Since you’re clearly making a bunch of assumptions about me, let me spell out, my stance: social security, Medicare, and Medicaid account for almost 2/3 of the federal budget. They are bankrupting our country. In addition ss is literally a Ponzi scheme where my social security taxes are used to pay a retirees benefits. As someone who pays a lot of taxes I’d at least like to see my tax dollars go towards things the federal government is mandated by the Constitution to do: roads and bridges, common defense, etc. Not a retirement program it was never intended to fund and is increasingly becoming harder and harder to fund as our population gets older.

                  As far as your comment about “keep your government hands off my medicare” I 100% agree that it is an idiotic statement made by people who almost always claim to be “conservative” but as evidenced by their quotes that they have no idea that they themselves are the recipients of one of the largest hand outs from the federal government. If you had actually read my previous post, you might have actually picked up on that.

                  I don’t give a damn that people both Democrats and as mentioned previously Republicans with tremendous cognitive dissonance support social security. It’s a terrible program instituted when our population lived shorter lives. It needs to go even if no politician has the balls to do it. If wanting a better fiscal future for myself and my kids makes me an “idiot” or “evil” I could care less.

                  I also don’t know why you’re so worked up. Abolishing social security would leave a lot of Trump voters destitute (old, lower income, less educated white people) and maybe even kill them off, based on your comments I thought you of all people would support that Derek.

                  Like

                • Derek

                  I only read the one I replied to.

                  I have no problem with people wanting to get rid of those programs.

                  I have a problem with not being honest about it.

                  My position is this: if Republicans said what they meant they’d get 3% of the vote because the vast majority of people want those programs.

                  It is this disparity that triggers conservative discomfort with majority rule and their coming to peace with foreign influence on our political processed. They just want to win. That’s it. If it takes russia and a criminal in the WH to keep taxes low, fuck it!

                  Because they are evil.

                  I hate evil and I hate the stupid people who don’t observe the obvious nature of that evil.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Yes. Math is an evil Republican scheme to deny leftists the Utopia that only government coercion can provide.

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Imagine the stupidity required to think the president is a Russian spy. Now amplify it with an ego that believes it’s smart. Now combine that with the impulsiveness and narcissism of a child. And you’ve got Derek.

                  “Robbing Peter to pay Paul is popular. That means it’s good. People who don’t like it are evil. Everybody agrees with me or they’re Nazis. Fuck fuck fuck fuck!”

                  I love Wednesdays!

                  Like

                • Derek

                  The concept of “consent of the governed” being important was for the colonists not this rag tag bunch of heathens, so lie until your heart is content. Just win baby!

                  “They” don’t know what’s good for themselves anyway.

                  When we take our country back!!! from “those people” we can revisit democracy and a country of, for and by the people. After all, if you aren’t a straight white male Christian property owner you ain’t “people” as God intended the word!

                  Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  He’s saying that Bernie Madoff is a hero and people who are against Ponzi schemes are Nazis.

                  Before Social Security, 10 million Americans died every day from Republicanism. FACT

                  Like

          • Hate to do it to you, freethinker: but it is “their”. You have a productive day, now.

            Like

    • Argondawg

      Which one of y’all had 11 minutes on Derek calling someone a traitor? You win. Everybody pay up. I know I had the under.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Reverend Whitewall

    I normally don’t wade into the waters of the playpen, but yeah, this whole thing is full of hypocrisy – but don’t forget it was started by stupidity. Just because you “can” do something doesn’t mean you “should”. Given who he works for (Rockets) and the amount they have invested in China, it was dumb to send that retweet. And honestly, I’d have no problem with him being fired, as long as the reason was that he did something really stupid that cost his employer – and the league he is in – untold amounts of money, and not because it was a Chinese demand (yes, it would be a fine line to split those two, but they are two separate issues) But politicians on both sides of the aisle would jump all over it if Morey was fired. But if any one of us did something that cost our employers that kind of money, we’d be gone in a heartbeat. The First Amendment has nothing to do with protecting your job in the private sector for saying things that hurt your employer. Even Clay Travis has said it was dumb to send the tweet in the first place.

    Like

    • Normaltown Mike

      Twitter is banned in China so I assume you mean he should not say something “dumb” that is monitored by the Chinese Communist Party information gatekeepers?

      It’s good to know that criticizing a regime that literally, not figuratively, LITERALLY puts civilians in concentration camps is stupid if something something money.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Reverend Whitewall

        Here’s the thing – I agree with your sentiment. But again, context is everything. Look at who is writing your paycheck and where their investments are. If you truly want to take a stand, resign and let people know you can’t work for an organization that relies so much on profiting from said regime. But he didn’t do that – his job is safe because of how politically charged the issue is, and he’s still (as far as we know) gladly taking those paychecks. He hasn’t received any financial pain from this. But he’s caused a lot of other people financial pain. I still stick to my guns on this one that it wasn’t a smart move for him to do. In no way do I think he had a master plan of having this blow up the way it has – on the contrary, I don’t think he gave any thought to sending the tweet at all – which is largely the reason for the situation. If he wants to resign and become an activist for Hong Kong, then by all means, more power to him. But as long as he is employed by an organization with significant financial interests in China, it kinda gives the look of just more hypocrisy.

        Like

        • “A lot of other people financial pain”. You’re talking about the billionaire owners and the millionaire players that are kowtowing to a communist, oppressive government I assume? You’re not incorrect, money is money, I’m just searching for a fuck to give.

          I’ll admit to not being the biggest Lebron fan in the world. He’s whiny on the court, and entitled off of it. But he’s a respected voice in the black community, and at least has been aware of what weight his opinion carries in the past. It will be interesting to see if that is still the case after he went full on “Brand-Protect” mode.

          Like

  5. MDDawg

    I haven’t seen it mentioned here (unless I missed it) but how many of you guys were aware that Mark Richt had a heart attack a few days ago? Judging by his twitter account he’s doing fine, but I couldn’t believe that happened when I first heard about it.

    Like

    • Reverend Whitewall

      Yeah I’m glad he’s ok. I saw a tweet last night from someone who had talked to him that apparently it was a little more serious than has been portrayed, I think he was genuinely scared he was gonna die at one point. Will be interesting to see the whole story, I’m sure he will be pretty open about it once he’s back up and going. For as much as I criticized him at the end, I still love the guy and will always consider him one of us.

      Like

      • Got Cowdog

        He’s one of us and always will be. It’s family: I can call my Uncle a dumbass for doing something I think is a dumbass thing to do, but that doesn’t mean I don’t love him.
        Best wishes for a full and fast recovery, Coach.

        Like

    • Guess it was those cheese puffs on the beach!

      Like

  6. Will (the other one)

    So which pro league steps into this hornest’s nest? I can’t see the NFL doing it, as they seem focused on getting a team to LA (my suggestion: send the Chargers: they won’t be missed.)
    But MLB? The owners there are greedy enough they’re basically colluding to keep free agency prices down for all but the top top players (Gerrit Cole will likely get a $300 deal, but anyone who’s not a #1 starter will take less than they used to get or pull a Keuchel.)

    Like

  7. Faulkner

    Ukraine.
    Funny how this little country has been front and center in the news lately. Nobody seems to remember how foreign interference just a few short years ago resulted in a coup that overthrew the elected government. The hypocrisy of the “elected” is overwhelming.

    Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Seriously? You’re going to compare our overthrowing an elected foreign government to a foreign company that may, or may not, be tied to a foreign government buying a few Facebook ads? What are you, a traitor?

      Like

  8. Thecoondawg

    My issue, especially with the NFL is, if your going to allow players/Coaches to show support or take a stand for whatever causes they feel the need to (kneeling for the Anthem, supporting a ChiCom citizen death machine) then let them all do it and support/promote all causes.

    Like

  9. Napoleon BonerFart

    Like

  10. Only point I will make is simple. This is the United States, where you are free to voice your opinion about anything you would like to voice your about. Here’s the catch, if you do voice your opinion, you may count on someone disagreeing and if they have the facts on his or her side, then you need to be prepared for that. And if you happen to be very vocal about rights in country, but not so vocal about rights in another (especially if it’s hurting your bank account) – then be prepared for some blow back.

    Like

  11. Random thoughts:

    I was never a huge fan of John McCain’s political career. But I always appreciated his support of true representative democracy in Ukraine and his efforts to lead US support of resistance against Russian invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    It’s one thing for an isolationist president to say we have no business

    I consider it a shame how Barack Obama did nothing of consequence to help Ukraine expel invading/occupying Russian forces in 2014. And I consider it an equal shame that our current President is (evidently) quite gutless as there has been, so far, exactly zero instances of him actually standing up to a authoritarian leader in any meaningful way (stupid tariffs – as he’s implemented them – don’t count, as they amount to shooting ourselves in the foot).

    Bleah. I hope one day we have a true conservative and defender of freedom in the White House. Today isn’t that day.

    Like

  12. Since this the playpen, I thought I would give a shout out to Andrew Yang, who I hope wins the Democratic primary, although I give him a snowball’s chance in hell. If you don’t know who he is, check him out because he has some interesting ideas on a lot issues. Just don’t immediately rule out his idea of Universal Basic Income until you read on his reasons behind the idea, which is primarily from the fact that automation is about to put a shit ton of people out of work. I personally think he is the only one up there who can possibly beat Trump. No way Sanders, or Warren, or Biden can.

    Like

    • Will (the other one)

      UBI isn’t a bad idea, but his “automation is coming for your jobs” spiel is a bit overblown. Most automation solutions still struggle with reading handwriting, self-driving tractor trailers are a long ways off. There’s a big reason the full buzzword in corporate circles is “robotic process automation” rather than simply automation–it’s coming for boring data entry right now.
      But Yang was very good overall in the last debate — I’d thought he was going to fall into the trap of many single issue candidates and not be able to talk about anything beyond that, but he didn’t.

      Like

      • Some opinions are that self driving trucks are decades away, but I personally believe that it will come much sooner than that. Especially when you consider that, to start, they will likely be driven remotely similar to a drone at complex interactions, i.e. pickup, heavy traffic, refueling, delivery, etc., and will only be driven by robot once on the interstate. The technology is mostly already in place to do that.

        Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Automation has been around for literally hundreds of years and has resulted in increased prosperity for billions of people. Short term, automation may hurt a few. Long term, it will help many.

      Personally, I think the best Democrat is Gabbard. She’s the only one earnestly willing to end the perpetual wars the US is engaged in. Not only is that the most moral thing to do, it could result in saving hundreds of billions a year in decreased military spending.

      Like

    • HiAltDawg

      How dare you? It’s not Universal Basic Income! it’s THE FREEDOM DIVIDEND!!!!

      Liked by 1 person

  13. *** Somehow the second paragraph above was cut off. Should read:

    It’s one thing for an isolationist president to say we have no business in interfering in how a sovereign nation governs its own citizens. It’s another for a president to ignore Russia invading a sovereign nation and staking claim to a portion of sovereign Ukraine and fomenting violence (and shooting down an airliner).

    Like

  14. HiAltDawg

    Let’s re-wind the PlayPen a ways, there was a whiskey discussion and I inquired about the older releases of Redbreast and one of y’all recommended not shelling out the jack for them. Anyhoo, I ended up getting the cask strength 12 yr (a few bucks more than the regular) and found it outstanding. Still a bourbon guy always but it was nice to enjoy something different. I apologize for boorishly not remembering the individual that gave me the scoop so I will thank all of you. GO DAWGS!

    Like

  15. Comrade James having a public high school education declares that Daryl Morey, who has a bachelor’s degree from Northwestern and a MBA from MIT, was uneducated having spoke out on supporting the freedom protesters in Hing Kong. A man that bounces a ball for a living calling out a man with multiple degrees. If it was not so sad it would be funny. Comrade James is an idiot.

    Like

  16. RangerRuss

    I’m still waiting to hear more about Gurkha Dawg’s college girlfriend.

    Like

  17. Derek

    https://apple.news/A_mzMvp_ZQ5me7szA5EdwXQ

    I look forward to the rebranding as:

    оранжевый человек плохая холдинговая компания

    Like

  18. Connor

    Senator, has curating this PlayPen of yours given you any insights? It’s probably worth it just to keep people from trolling all of your other excellent posts but wondering if having all of it in one place has made you think about it differently.

    Like