SectionC3

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.

We’ll have to look into the particulars of this particular mass shooting. The answer probably is that some people may have died, but the casualty count would have been lower b/c the shooter couldn’t fire as many shots as quickly as he did. But, in the meantime, let’s keep on circulating military-grade weapons among a society that believes in QAnon, hoaxes, “Stop the Steal,” etc. Seems like a really good plan that definitely won’t backfire on anyone. Enjoy your musket, sir.

No kidding. At first (and incomplete) glance shooter seems to have checked all of the "loser" boxes: hoaxes, porn, and clinging to his guns as a measure of self worth. EDIT: I may have conflated the "hoaxes" and "porn" things with the Atlanta shooting spree. Too many shooting sprees this week to keep them straight.

AR-15s don't kill mass quantities of people. People with AR-15s kill mass quantities of people. /end sarcasm. Interesting timing, too: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nra-bragged-blocking-boulder-ar-040000858.html

Heyyoooo!! Looks like it was a hoax all along!

Agree on all counts. An NFL receiver can't be getting hit in the face with the ball. When the ball went through his hands in the AFCCG and was intercepted, my immediate reaction was that Brown is gone. I'm not surprised they didn't offer him a chance to stick around. Return/gadget guy to come at WR5, Hodgins at WR6, and on we go.

Don’t forget we destroyed man last year too with deep crosses. Having 4 good receivers is a good thing.

It means that a multiple week injury to Allen is less likely to derail the season. Barkley seems like a great dude, and I hope they bring him back and tell Fromm to hit the road. But Trubisky is a piece we need if we’re going to take a run at the Super Bowl. Love the signing.