Desantis is a POS and needs his own thread

[Anastasis 23718]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

I apparently started this line of nonsense and I honestly don't know what the fuck y'all are arguing about.

I don't think that you started anything.  I think that the political alignment of the GOP and the evangelicals has ultimately undermined both. I think that that is an interesting discussion to be had. Evangelicals were a very different political beast pre-1980. It is a lot of what ifs in terms of how the political landscape would have shaken out differently under a different set of circumstances. 

[Anastasis 23718]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

God relieve me from shitty men moralizing about abortion.

Fuuuuuckkkkk oooooofffffff

It is pretty hilarious that this thread's origin story is related to Rebekah Jones

[Brisketexan 107042]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Brisket's belligerence is not a coincidence. It's part of how he psychologically processes his own political failings.  

I get cranky when people betray the foundational values of my country, particularly when they lied to me about that shit for decades.  I hate being lied to.  I fucking hate it.  Few things piss me off more.  Few things will make me fire a client faster.  The lie pisses me off more than anything.  The fact that I may have ever bought the lie just embarrasses me.  

What amazes me is that you are incapable of embarrassment or shame.  That's sociopath shit.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Ana's commitment to the bit is impressive as always. 

[Anastasis 23718]

7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Ana's commitment to the bit is impressive as always. 

[Anastasis 23718]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What amazes me is that you are incapable of embarrassment or shame. 

I agree that you have plenty to be ashamed of for your past political affiliations.  Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior, probably more shame in that regard to come.  

Outside that realm, you seem to be an extraordinarily stand up guy, doing the right things, sacrificially, at the drop of a hat for your community and other communities.  It's really a shame that your message board political rhetoric has so significantly taken the form it has.  

Edited August 19, 2022 by Anastasis

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Brisketexan 107042]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's really a shame that your message board political rhetoric has so significantly taken the form it has.

Yeah, my committed opposition to political movements built on cruelty is a super-shame.  I oughta hang my head for that.

As for you, I'm FASCINATED to meet someone whose political choices were always right, never wrong.  We should get some scholars to interview you to write a tome on "how to politics." You stand as a singular example, an outlier from whom we can all truly learn.

Or, alternatively, you are a disingenuous piece of dick.  If I was a betting man........

And as for past being the best predictor of future behavior, that's only true of dumbasses who touch a hot stove.....learn nothing from it, and do it again.  You seem oddly familiar with that type; methinks you project.  As for me, I learned the first time my finger hit a burner when I was 4.  Haven't done it since.  I learn.  And when I learn by getting BURNED, I learn well.

[Brisketexan 107042]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I'm sorry, what do you disagree with in this post that you negged?

The evangelicals never would have gotten the toe hold they did without the coalescence that was initiated by Roe. It's really amazing the wide ranging political consequences of that decision. 

Here you go, dude.  I'm not negging you.  I found your participation in the Covid thread to be something helpful.  But in this thread you confound me.

Quote

 

One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

 

Spoiler

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

By RANDALL BALMER May 27, 2014

ne of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it.

This myth of origins is oft repeated by the movement’s leaders. In his 2005 book, Jerry Falwell, the firebrand fundamentalist preacher, recounts his distress upon reading about the ruling in the Jan. 23, 1973, edition of the Lynchburg News: “I sat there staring at the Roe v. Wade story,” Falwell writes, “growing more and more fearful of the consequences of the Supreme Court’s act and wondering why so few voices had been raised against it.” Evangelicals, he decided, needed to organize.

Some of these anti- Roe crusaders even went so far as to call themselves “new abolitionists,” invoking their antebellum predecessors who had fought to eradicate slavery.

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.
***

Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

Although a few evangelical voices, including Christianity Today magazine, mildly criticized the ruling, the overwhelming response was silence, even approval. Baptists, in particular, applauded the decision as an appropriate articulation of the division between church and state, between personal morality and state regulation of individual behavior. “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

***

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

On June 30, 1971, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued its ruling in the case, now  Green v. Connally (John Connally had replaced David Kennedy as secretary of the Treasury). The decision upheld the new IRS policy: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, properly construed, racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the Federal tax exemption provided for charitable, educational institutions, and persons making gifts to such schools are not entitled to the deductions provided in case of gifts to charitable, educational institutions.”

***

Paul Weyrich, the late religious conservative political activist and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, saw his opening.

In the decades following World War II, evangelicals, especially white evangelicals in the North, had drifted toward the Republican Party—inclined in that direction by general Cold War anxieties, vestigial suspicions of Catholicism and well-known evangelist Billy Graham’s very public friendship with Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Despite these predilections, though, evangelicals had largely stayed out of the political arena, at least in any organized way. If he could change that, Weyrich reasoned, their large numbers would constitute a formidable voting bloc—one that he could easily marshal behind conservative causes.

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” Weyrich believed that the political possibilities of such a coalition were unlimited. “The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated,” he wrote. “If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams.”

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

The Green v. Connally ruling provided a necessary first step: It captured the attention of evangelical leaders , especially as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies,” including Falwell’s own Lynchburg Christian School, inquiring about their racial policies. Falwell was furious. “In some states,” he famously complained, “It’s easier to open a massage parlor than a Christian school.”

One such school, Bob Jones University—a fundamentalist college in Greenville, South Carolina—was especially obdurate. The IRS had sent its first letter to Bob Jones University in November 1970 to ascertain whether or not it discriminated on the basis of race. The school responded defiantly: It did not admit African Americans.

Although Bob Jones Jr., the school’s founder, argued that racial segregation was mandated by the Bible, Falwell and Weyrich quickly sought to shift the grounds of the debate, framing their opposition in terms of religious freedom rather than in defense of racial segregation. For decades, evangelical leaders had boasted that because their educational institutions accepted no federal money (except for, of course, not having to pay taxes) the government could not tell them how to run their shops—whom to hire or not, whom to admit or reject. The Civil Rights Act, however, changed that calculus.

Bob Jones University did, in fact, try to placate the IRS—in its own way. Following initial inquiries into the school’s racial policies, Bob Jones admitted one African-American, a worker in its radio station, as a part-time student; he dropped out a month later. In 1975, again in an attempt to forestall IRS action, the school admitted blacks to the student body, but, out of fears of miscegenation, refused to admit  unmarried African-Americans. The school also stipulated that any students who engaged in interracial dating, or who were even associated with organizations that advocated interracial dating, would be expelled.

The IRS was not placated. On January 19, 1976, after years of warnings—integrate or pay taxes—the agency rescinded the school’s tax exemption.

For many evangelical leaders, who had been following the issue since  Green v. Connally, Bob Jones University was the final straw. As Elmer L. Rumminger, longtime administrator at Bob Jones University, told me in an interview, the IRS actions against his school “alerted the Christian school community about what could happen with government interference” in the affairs of evangelical institutions. “That was really the major issue that got us all involved.”

***

Weyrich saw that he had the beginnings of a conservative political movement, which is why, several years into President Jimmy Carter’s term, he and other leaders of the nascent religious right blamed the Democratic president for the IRS actions against segregated schools—even though the policy was mandated by Nixon, and Bob Jones University had lost its tax exemption a year and a day before Carter was inaugurated as president. Falwell, Weyrich and others were undeterred by the niceties of facts. In their determination to elect a conservative, they would do anything to deny a Democrat, even a fellow evangelical like Carter, another term in the White House.

But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the ire of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale.

By the late 1970s, many Americans—not just Roman Catholics—were beginning to feel uneasy about the spike in legal abortions following the 1973  Roe decision. The 1978 Senate races demonstrated to Weyrich and others that abortion might motivate conservatives where it hadn’t in the past. That year in Minnesota, pro-life Republicans captured both Senate seats (one for the unexpired term of Hubert Humphrey) as well as the governor’s mansion. In Iowa, Sen. Dick Clark, the Democratic incumbent, was thought to be a shoo-in: Every poll heading into the election showed him ahead by at least 10 percentage points. On the final weekend of the campaign, however, pro-life activists, primarily Roman Catholics, leafleted church parking lots (as they did in Minnesota), and on Election Day Clark lost to his Republican pro-life challenger.

In the course of my research into Falwell’s archives at Liberty University and Weyrich’s papers at the University of Wyoming, it became very clear that the 1978 election represented a formative step toward galvanizing everyday evangelical voters. Correspondence between Weyrich and evangelical leaders fairly crackles with excitement. In a letter to fellow conservative Daniel B. Hales, Weyrich characterized the triumph of pro-life candidates as “true cause for celebration,” and Robert Billings, a cobelligerent, predicted that opposition to abortion would “pull together many of our ‘fringe’ Christian friends.”  Roe v. Wade had been law for more than five years.

Weyrich, Falwell and leaders of the emerging religious right enlisted an unlikely ally in their quest to advance abortion as a political issue: Francis A. Schaeffer—a goateed, knickers-wearing theologian who was warning about the eclipse of Christian values and the advance of something he called “secular humanism.” Schaeffer, considered by many the intellectual godfather of the religious right, was not known for his political activism, but by the late 1970s he decided that legalized abortion would lead inevitably to infanticide and euthanasia, and he was eager to sound the alarm. Schaeffer teamed with a pediatric surgeon, C. Everett Koop, to produce a series of films entitled  Whatever Happened to the Human Race? In the early months of 1979, Schaeffer and Koop, targeting an evangelical audience, toured the country with these films, which depicted the scourge of abortion in graphic terms—most memorably with a scene of plastic baby dolls strewn along the shores of the Dead Sea. Schaeffer and Koop argued that any society that countenanced abortion was captive to “secular humanism” and therefore caught in a vortex of moral decay.

Between Weyrich’s machinations and Schaeffer’s jeremiad, evangelicals were slowly coming around on the abortion issue. At the conclusion of the film tour in March 1979, Schaeffer reported that Protestants, especially evangelicals, “have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and  Whatever Happened to the Human Race? is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too.”

By 1980, even though Carter had sought, both as governor of Georgia and as president, to reduce the incidence of abortion, his refusal to seek a constitutional amendment outlawing it was viewed by politically conservative evangelicals as an unpardonable sin. Never mind the fact that his Republican opponent that year, Ronald Reagan, had signed into law, as governor of California in 1967, the most liberal abortion bill in the country. When Reagan addressed a rally of 10,000 evangelicals at Reunion Arena in Dallas in August 1980, he excoriated the “unconstitutional regulatory agenda” directed by the IRS “against independent schools,” but he made no mention of abortion. Nevertheless, leaders of the religious right hammered away at the issue, persuading many evangelicals to make support for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion a litmus test for their votes.

Carter lost the 1980 election for a variety of reasons, not merely the opposition of the religious right. He faced a spirited challenge from within his own party; Edward M. Kennedy’s failed quest for the Democratic nomination undermined Carter’s support among liberals. And because Election Day fell on the anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis, the media played up the story, highlighting Carter’s inability to secure the hostages’ freedom. The electorate, once enamored of Carter’s evangelical probity, had tired of a sour economy, chronic energy shortages and the Soviet Union’s renewed imperial ambitions.

After the election results came in, Falwell, never shy to claim credit, was fond of quoting a Harris poll that suggested Carter would have won the popular vote by a margin of 1 percent had it not been for the machinations of the religious right. “I knew that we would have some impact on the national elections,” Falwell said, “but I had no idea that it would be this great.”

Given Carter’s political troubles, the defection of evangelicals may or may not have been decisive. But it is certainly true that evangelicals, having helped propel Carter to the White House four years earlier, turned dramatically against him, their fellow evangelical, during the course of his presidency. And the catalyst for their political activism was not, as often claimed, opposition to abortion. Although abortion had emerged as a rallying cry by 1980, the real roots of the religious right lie not the defense of a fetus but in the defense of racial segregation.

***

The Bob Jones University case merits a postscript. When the school’s appeal finally reached the Supreme Court in 1982, the Reagan administration announced that it planned to argue in defense of Bob Jones University and its racial policies. A public outcry forced the administration to reconsider; Reagan backpedaled by saying that the legislature should determine such matters, not the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, handed down on May 24, 1983, ruled against Bob Jones University in an 8-to-1 decision. Three years later Reagan elevated the sole dissenter, William Rehnquist, to chief justice of the Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/

 

Also, please note that the more overall important thing to me is the loss of women's rights soon to be followed by the loss of other's rights.  For me, it really does boil down to her body, her choice.   And given this SC and the movement behind overturning Roe, the loss of the country is kind of a package deal, imo.  Just being honest with where I stand.

Edited August 19, 2022 by MC Fresh Breath

[bonnieblue 542]

Men who are super anti choice are creepy and give off Sandusky energy.

Back to thread topic, Desantis looks like a hog that’s been roasting over a fire and seems like a fucking fascist. Discuss.

[Anastasis 23718]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And as for past being the best predictor of future behavior, that's only true of dumbasses who touch a hot stove..

If only. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

Just now, bonnieblue said:

Men who are super anti choice are creepy and give off Sandusky energy.

Back to thread topic, Desantis looks like a hog that’s been roasting over a fire and seems like a fucking fascist. Discuss.

Someone mentioned he's a manlet --- how short is he?  He's got a mighty fat face for a little dude.

[Biff Tannen 46206]

Lol, y'all would have a better chance of getting Fatty to interact in a genuine way than fucking Anastasis.  

[Anastasis 23718]

21 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Here you go, dude.  I'm not negging you.  I found your participation in the Covid thread to be something helpful.  But in this thread you confound me.

 

Nothing in the piece that you quote and bold contradicts the post of mine that you quoted. If further context required, post #2035 should suffice. 

[Brisketexan 107042]

23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Lol, y'all would have a better chance of getting Fatty to interact in a genuine way than fucking Anastasis.  

Fatty is actually honest and forthright, with no subterfuge or disingenuous bullshit.  It may be stupid, and logically indefensible, but he's 1,000 times more genuine and honest than Ana.

[Anastasis 23718]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fatty is actually honest and forthright, with no subterfuge or disingenuous bullshit.  It may be stupid, and logically indefensible, but he's 1,000 times more genuine and honest than Ana.

You should really think about setting up some sessions and talking to a psychologist. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Nothing in the piece that you quote and bold contradicts the post of mine that you quoted. If further context required, post #2035 should suffice. 

In a prior post you stated "that Roe was not a key initiating moment in the evangelical take over of the GOP.  "

Which the article quite clearly contradicts.  Note:
 

Quote

W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.

 

 

 

You tone it down a bit and in your 2035 state "But the political vehicle that that group coalesced behind in a politically effective way was abortion"

But it wasn't Roe, it wasn't abortion, that got the evangelicals a foothold.  Just like the drug war, which I'm pretty sure you oppose, it was racism. 

Quote

 

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

 

That they later turned to abortion to be that catalyst (as better detailed in that piece, and others easily googled)  doesn't mean Roe was some horrible trigger.   No more than a woman wearing a mini skirt is a trigger for rape.

[Brisketexan 107042]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You should really think about setting up some sessions and talking to a psychologist. 

The day I become even 10% as disingenuous as you, I will run not walk to a session.  Probably because my wife already would have kicked me out of the house.  So, for now, I'm good.

[bonnieblue 542]

43 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Someone mentioned he's a manlet --- how short is he?  He's got a mighty fat face for a little dude.

The internet says he’s 5’9 so that means 5’7. He’s blowing up like Violet from Willy Wonka, but an orange instead of a blueberry.

[RDCanecutter 26927]

47 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

Men who are super anti choice are creepy and give off Sandusky energy.

Back to thread topic, Desantis looks like a hog that’s been roasting over a fire and seems like a fucking fascist. Discuss.

He's got a Skoal Brother face. There is a non-zero chance that DeSantis has drooled tobacco spit into somebody else's Coke can.

[Nivek 17427]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You should really think about setting up some sessions and talking to a psychologist. 

Making light of mental health.  From a professional pez dispenser.  

[Anastasis 23718]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Making light of mental health.  From a professional pez dispenser.  

Oh, I am not making light of anything. That is a totally sincere suggestion.  

[safe sex 12043]

I'm not sure you're capable of sincerity anymore

[TexArcher 39078]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I agree that you have plenty to be ashamed of for your past political affiliations.  Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior, probably more shame in that regard to come.

Then how'd you vote for a rapist?

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by TexArcher

[Biff Tannen 46206]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You should really think about setting up some sessions and talking to a psychologist. 

You're proving his point dipshit.

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The day I become even 10% as disingenuous as you, I will run not walk to a session.  Probably because my wife already would have kicked me out of the house.  So, for now, I'm good.

Dude we know. The only behavioral problem that’s transparent about you is this:

You do not use the goddamned “ignore” feature nearly as often as you should.

Edited August 19, 2022 by hpslugga

[Brisketexan 107042]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

 

You cannot see this post because you have this poster on ignore.

[workswithseed 2205]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You cannot see this post because you have this poster on ignore.

[atomheartbevo 90683]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:55 AM, troph said:

This board has been amazing but at times very turbulent. It’s not as bad as it once was (however the last couple of years are the second most turbulent times) but I do believe those that were open to changing their minds have.

You can toss so,e of the blame at Texas football.   I still think the chaos on the board directly ties into how well Texas football is doing.

[Captainant 28605]

38 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You can toss so,e of the blame at Texas football.   I still think the chaos on the board directly ties into how well Texas football is doing.

That and our slow and steady descent into christofascism. Losing to Kansas twice definitely sped things up though 

[troph 25251]

41 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You can toss so,e of the blame at Texas football.   I still think the chaos on the board directly ties into how well Texas football is doing.

I’m very aware this is a real phenomenon. But surliness and pure bigotry are two different lines only one is excusable when Texas sucks. People are edgy sure but haters gonna hate no matter the score and you know what? Fuck them. Shun and silence.  

Edited August 20, 2022 by troph

[TheStoicPaisano 9953]

Send these idiots to finishing school.

 

[Biff Tannen 46206]

2 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Send these idiots to finishing school.

 

He looks like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade float

[DigglerontheHoof 21565]

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

looks like another tiny hands guy too

[TheStoicPaisano 9953]

 

[Underdog 29234]

18 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Send these idiots to finishing school.

 

A monopoly on looking like dipshits. 

[Guest]

If Trump doesn't run, it's Ron's coronation. Get ready to hear "woke, woke, woke, woke woke." It's the only word the guy seems to say.

If Trump does run... man, any sort of debate is going to be must-see TV.

[WhatTheBuck 28941]

28 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He looks like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade float

[tx 3 putt 78776]

damn, he needs to lay off the carbs 

[Post Oak 20590]

47 minutes ago, Underdog said:

A monopoly on looking like dipshits. 

 

[troph 25251]

4 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

 

I can attest. Bread is from the devil. Do not want. I mean definitely want, but definitely don’t eat. 

[Underdog 29234]

Rhonda's been raiding Bongos medicine cabinet for his steroids.

[HornOnTheBayou 9069]

 

[DDD Dad 14663]

On 8/18/2022 at 8:20 AM, Anastasis said:

Love being tagged into a thread and discussion that I haven't posted in for over 6 months.

[HenryJames 67473]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

but he told us "guvmint bad". which is it?

[Gil Bang 26256]

what a cock.

[Anastasis 23718]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

 

Your next president.