SectionC3

Still a cranky crow, I see. Name-calling is never a nice thing. Maybe instead of hurling insults you should reflect for a moment and determine whether you're clearly articulating your positions. I think, if you can take some time away from your mysterious financial business for such a review, you'll find that much of what you write is incomprehensible gibberish, and that it's you, sir, who is the problem here. Or maybe it's that you don't even know what you think and just defer to whatever you hear on Newsmax or from the MyPillowGuy. Probably the latter, but I'll give Chef Jim Crow the benefit of the doubt and hope for the former.

That's not very nice, Chef Jim Crow. You seem to be a bit of a grumpy goat these days. Or, should I say, a cranky crow.

In addition to being lousy at epidemiology, you're also bad at logic. You will defend the right of anyone to vote as long as they are legally allowed to vote. Yet you believe that we should erect a barrier to voting through a "voter ID." So I guess, perhaps, you believe in the right, but you're also fine with making it more difficult to exercise that right. That's almost as convoluted as insisting that HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Along the HCQ line, any chance you'll be on the front lines of the Trump airlift of all of that excess HCQ to Brazil? It looks like they could use it now. Maybe you could work it out so that it's parachuted into Sao Paulo and just lies about the streets for everyone to pick up and munch. Or, maybe you could mash it up and put it in one of those big sprayer planes and just douse the hot zones with HCQ. Throw in a little Lysol while you're at it. All the fake treatments in one shot. Those are just ideas, of course. I'll leave it to your "expertise" in that field to select the proper course of care. And that's sort of the point, Chef Jim Crow. You support the erection of barriers to voting to address a problem with voting that doesn't exist. Seems like you're in the Wacka boat; he readily admits that the only "problem" this law is intended to address is "one party rule." Personally, rather than trying to disenfranchise people, if I was part of the group that passed this law I might try a moment of introspection and ask myself why my ideas no longer are popular with the majority of the population. But that's not what the MAGA/Republicans decided to do, and it's not what the Crow Crew here thinks is best.

This is especially hoaxy, even for you. I didn't realize that China deceived us about the efficacy of Lysol-to-lung COVID treatments. Sounds like you've had a bit too much hydroxychloroquine today and have become dizzy. Be careful on the roads if you decide to drive.

Tsk, tsk, Chef Jim Crow. Dropping some Q platitude about doing my work doesn’t change the fact that you still cannot identify a problem the GA law was designed to address. That lack of detail is exactly why I can’t hire you as my financial adviser.

You're right. Trying to wish a pandemic away with magic and malarial treatments has caused a big problem. Carry on. I reject your characterization of me as a communist. I note, however, that you agree that the GA law is intended to rig elections in that state. Thank you for your admission. Carry on.

Once again, Chef Jim Crow requires translation. What he meant to communicate is that he still doesn’t have an explanation as to the problem the GA law is intended to address, and he attempts to avoid that issue through deceit. And this guy thought he could be my financial advisor. Perish the thought.

Unfortunately Chef Jim Crow’s latest collection of words and phrases requires additional translation. I’ll help. What Chef Jim Crow intended to communicate is that he has one hilarious nickname and no explanation as to what problem is addressed by the new GA law.

I’ll translate. Chef Jim Crow cannot identify the problem that this law addresses. It’s because there is no real problem. The only “problem” that motivated the drafters is that their side lost.

I still haven't heard from Chef Jim Crow or any of his colleagues as to what problem this law solves. Could it be that the law doesn't solve any problem, and instead is simply a reaction to the voter fraud hoax and the recent statewide Republican/MAGA losses in Georgia? Until I hear otherwise I'll have no choice but to assume that this silly law was driven by that silly hoax and the nefarious desire to suppress the African-American vote for the benefit of MAGA/Republicans. Cheers. Except to the Jim Crow fans here. No cheers for you. Tell that the people who stand in line in Atlanta for several hours to vote on Election Day. Now, thanks to this new Jim Crow law, line warmers can't make their wait easier with such things as the privilege of water.

You’re the only one who brought out the word racist. Just you. It’s nice that you see yourself as empathetic. I hope it’s true. But if it is, it makes your stance with respect to this Georgia nonsense that much more curious. What problem does this Georgia law address?

Let's not change the subject here. I didn't wake up today and say, "I want to give this weird rando on the Internet an incredibly catchy and hilarious nickname." That's not what happened. You made me do this. You made me name you Chef Jim Crow. That's on you. And, to prove the point about your Crowy behavior, the test isn't "only" affects minorities. It's principally affects minorities, or primarily affects minorities, or is targeted at minorities. Kind of like the provision defeating line warmers. Or the part about vesting more power in state election officials. Or the part about limiting remote voting (without basis, I might add)---something in which African-Americans are far more likely to participate. So you have fun doing your Crow thing tonight and reminiscing about the good old days of hoaxes and hydoxychloroquine, and I'll focus on making this country more democratic and honest.

The obvious answer is yes. You’re OK with stifling minority vote in Georgia, I’m not. Don’t like the nickname Chef Jim Crow? Then don’t support laws that harken to the era of Jim Crow. It’s a pretty simple deal.

Well played by Chef Jim Crow. Well done.

We exercise rights in this country, FYI. And, in any event, since you’re cool with waiting several hours to exercise your voting rights, perhaps you can call your local BOE, tell them to lay off the poll workers and close some polling locations to save a couple of bucks, pretend this is Media Play circa 1994 and you’re camping out for the latest Rush Limbaugh book, park yourself in a soft chair, and see how things go.

Or you live in a place where there is largess of polling locations. Unlike places like, say, minority-majority Georgia and Louisville. Either one.

Cool. So what’s voting “with justice?”

Groovy. Where do I get one if I go to GA? Gotta sink time and effort into getting the card? No expense there. Also, what happens if I’m standing in line and I forget it? Back to another three hour wait to vote without anyone being allowed to give me food/water/etc? I didn’t realize that I should have to pack provisions to vote if I live in a minority-majority part of that state. It’s sad that you believe that such suppression measures are acceptable, but in my America they aren’t. Chef Jim Crow, I see. That’s one poll. Got the other one? And, I’ll note, the poll you referenced reflects strong support for the expansion of voting access to such things as same-day registration and broad absentee availability. Interestingly, the poll also reflects the perception that barriers to legal voting are a bigger problem than illegal voting.

Too much HCQ for you again, I see.

Rule #2, please. I’d like to see the polls (plural). Also, it’s interesting to me that there’s so much pearl clutching about capitalism at work. It’s bad law, and enough people dislike it that it makes financial sense for business to stand against it. Don’t like it? Move to Russia where you don’t have to worry about this kind of thing. Or, better yet, don’t fly Delta, drink Coke, or patronize any of the businesses that made the economic decision to disagree with this nonsense. Define “fairly.”

Not really. That’s what the third deck is for. The issue with MLB is that our market can’t support a franchise.

That response is ineloquent even for you.

It depends on the nature of the shooting. One shooter? Two shooters? More than that? Time involved? Casualties? If the hypothetical is such that we eliminate Sandy Hook/Vegas-type shootings from the equation (big casualty counts catalyzed by fast-firing, high velocity weaponry with large capacity cartridges), then no, I wouldn’t agree. I can’t speak to your last few questions. Probably a constellation of factors, one of which is the abundance of weaponry suitable for the perpetration of such crimes.

I don't disagree with this. Do this stuff (kind of like Iceland) and reimplement the federal assault weapons ban and I'm good.

Sure. Whatever you say. Never mind that having to the slaughter to change clips provides opportunity for intervention. But let’s keep on letting people run around with military grade weapons and blame the mass shooting on the shooters. Maybe we could even get some hollow point bullets out there (it’s not the bullets that kill people, right?) and some handheld nuclear devices to bring mutual assured destruction to suburbia. I bet that neighbor across the street will not let the dog out at 6a against my wishes if he knows that I can turn his lawn (and the dog) into a sheet of glass. Groovy.