Joke's on you I guess.

It's all fun and games until Slim Whitman gets involved.

Slim Pickens was more fun.

---

It's all fun and games until Slim Whitman gets involved.

Slim Pickens was more fun.

That was my Mars Attacks! reference. 

https://youtu.be/aTe0MjAZvMU?si=qNo8xDZfJolNAOYt

However, a Slim Pickens line is never out of order. 

https://youtu.be/8d8h1lbzoHY?si=ZLWQaLkCTJslPoDm

---

Slim Pickens was more fun.

That was my Mars Attacks! reference. 

https://youtu.be/aTe0MjAZvMU?si=qNo8xDZfJolNAOYt

However, a Slim Pickens line is never out of order. 

https://youtu.be/8d8h1lbzoHY?si=ZLWQaLkCTJslPoDm

I forgot all about that from Mars Attacks! Nice!

And no matter my mood, Blazing Saddles always perks me up. After 50 viewings it still makes me laugh. The timing, the delivery, easily Mel Brooks' best work. And I'm glad Pryor was just a writer and not Bart. Cleavon Little did great and I think Pryor would have made it more goofy

---

So... just like the "insurrectionists," Trump only wanted a peaceful insurrection that lasted 6 hours, you know... just to show everyone he could do it. Then, he stepped down peacefully and watched his supporters get arrested. You really have these dictator types figured out. Brilliant.

The insurrectionists wanted Trump to stay in power.
When Trump himself said "go home", they realized their efforts were pointless.  So they went home.
But Trump also sent them there.
The point of the exercise was to see if they could take a hostage, or turn the loyalty of the cops or the DCNG, or hopefully folks even further up the line.
Trump didn't give up until he realized they weren't going to be able to get any hostages and no one was flipping.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So... just like the "insurrectionists," Trump only wanted a peaceful insurrection that lasted 6 hours, you know... just to show everyone he could do it. Then, he stepped down peacefully and watched his supporters get arrested. You really have these dictator types figured out. Brilliant.

The insurrectionists wanted Trump to stay in power.
When Trump himself said "go home", they realized their efforts were pointless.  So they went home.
But Trump also sent them there.
The point of the exercise was to see if they could take a hostage, or turn the loyalty of the cops or the DCNG, or hopefully folks even further up the line.
Trump didn't give up until he realized they weren't going to be able to get any hostages and no one was flipping.

Do you stretch before these mental gymnastics you do?

---

The insurrectionists wanted Trump to stay in power.
When Trump himself said "go home", they realized their efforts were pointless.  So they went home.
But Trump also sent them there.
The point of the exercise was to see if they could take a hostage, or turn the loyalty of the cops or the DCNG, or hopefully folks even further up the line.
Trump didn't give up until he realized they weren't going to be able to get any hostages and no one was flipping.

Do you stretch before these mental gymnastics you do?

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Do you stretch before these mental gymnastics you do?

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

I asked three questions and you answered none of them. You didn't even acknowledge them. Prove this is fantasy by explaining reality.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

Mikey will show you what an insurrection really looks like..

---

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

Mikey will show you what an insurrection really looks like..

It's fine if you want to bring your personal photos here but at least be upfront about it!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Do you stretch before these mental gymnastics you do?

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

Almost any explanation would be more likely than yours. Yours is a deus ex machina straight out of Hollywood.

---

OK smart guy, why then did Trump send his supporters to the Capitol, and why did he wait for 4 hours after he knew they had become violent before he told them to go home?
I've explained it clearly.
You reject my explanation.
So what's your explanation?
Is your explanation more likely than mine?

Almost any explanation would be more likely than yours. Yours is a deus ex machina straight out of Hollywood.

So try.  If it's so easy? Surely you can.  Surely you've already thought of a couple of complete and plausible explanations for what happened?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yes, and I already said them. You can't comprehend what happened because you don't think people have agency. If I had to guess, it's because you know you're an NPC and think that's how everyone behaves.

---

Yes, and I already said them. You can't comprehend what happened because you don't think people have agency. If I had to guess, it's because you know you're an NPC and think that's how everyone behaves.

Another reading comprehension fail.  The first time you said I don't think people have agency, I replied sarcastically.  Of course I think they have agency.  Every person can choose to obey orders from others, or trust others, or not. 
Ready to answer the questions?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

I asked three questions and you answered none of them.  You didn't even acknowledge them.  Prove this is fantasy by explaining reality.

Well I can try however your preconceived notions will undermine anything and everything I put forth.  We can start with what actually happened leading up Jan 6 which you moderates and leftists will never acknowledge.

Due to a foreign governments negligence (and I am being generous using that word) a worldwide pandemic was brought upon the globe.   It happened to coincide with an election in the country of the leader of the free world which also lead to a lot of “temporary” changes in our voting laws.  The legality of many of these changes were and are still in question.  

On election night many of these changes appeared to have directly affected the outcome of the election on what no doubt can be described as a Lighting Rod of a sitting president.  When questions arose about perceived irregularities in the opposing parties strongholds the official response from the people in charge was “We looked into it and it was all legit”.  A lack of transparency into those investigations lead to frustration and many were left still questioning the legitimacy of the outcome.  

The aforementioned firebrand of a president, being a narcissist of the absolute extreme refused to accept his defeat along with his staunchest supporters which lead to a protest on the day of the transfer of power.  A few bad apples got out of hand which is typical in a large scale demonstration.

There was no insurrection regardless of what you tell yourself.

Granted that is an oversimplification of the topic at hand but more often than not the simplest answer proves to be most correct.

On a side note, many of the concerns raised after the election are being revisited 3 years later.  I do find it interesting that many of those initial concerns after being legitimately scrutinized appear to be legitimate.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I asked three questions and you answered none of them.  You didn't even acknowledge them.  Prove this is fantasy by explaining reality.

Well I can try however your preconceived notions will undermine anything and everything I put forth.  We can start with what actually happened leading up Jan 6 which you moderates and leftists will never acknowledge.

Due to a foreign governments negligence (and I am being generous using that word) a worldwide pandemic was brought upon the globe.   It happened to coincide with an election in the country of the leader of the free world which also lead to a lot of “temporary” changes in our voting laws.  The legality of many of these changes were and are still in question.  

On election night many of these changes appeared to have directly affected the outcome of the election on what no doubt can be described as a Lighting Rod of a sitting president.  When questions arose about perceived irregularities in the opposing parties strongholds the official response from the people in charge was “We looked into it and it was all legit”.  A lack of transparency into those investigations lead to frustration and many were left still questioning the legitimacy of the outcome.  

The aforementioned firebrand of a president, being a narcissist of the absolute extreme refused to accept his defeat along with his staunchest supporters which lead to a protest on the day of the transfer of power.  A few bad apples got out of hand which is typical in a large scale demonstration.

There was no insurrection regardless of what you tell yourself.

Granted that is an oversimplification of the topic at hand but more often than not the simplest answer proves to be most correct.

On a side note, many of the concerns raised after the election are being revisited 3 years later.  I do find it interesting that many of those initial concerns after being legitimately scrutinized appear to be legitimate.

OK, I'm just going to focus on this "few bad apples" thing, and flesh that out.  Please confirm or deny each additional fact I present.

1) The "few bad apples" numbered over 2000 who not only passed the barricades outside but also entered the building.  

2) These "few bad apples" got within 100 feet of members of Congress and the Vice President.

3) These "few bad apples" intended to reach those officials and intended to harm them or prevent them from doing their jobs.

4) This was one of only three days of the entire 4 year cycle of our Constitution that required all of those members to be present and sign off on who would be in power for the Constitution to continue.  The other two days like that in the 4 year cycle are New Year's Day of any odd numbered year.

Now questions:

Q1) You insist that none of these 2000 people are insurrectionists.  What does the word insurrection mean? What is an additional act, that if they had done it that day, would make it an insurrection in your mind? That's addressing the contrapositive.  No declaration can be true if the contrapositive is false.

Q2) Do we apply the law equally? If a Democrat mob had done all of these things above, and left you doubting for 4 hours if the Constitution would remain in effect or not, that would be OK? Those Democrats could all run for office again?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Rice University unveils 'Afrochemistry' class that will 'explore the intersection of racial justice and chemistry' - dubbing it 'the study of black-life matter' (msn.com)

Rice University is offering an 'Afrochemistry' class that promises to analyze science through a 'contemporary African-American lens'.

Marketed as 'the study of black-life matter', a play on words merging science jargon with the Black Lives Matter movement, the course begins this semester.

The course description on the university's website explains students will 'apply chemical tools and analysis to understand black life in the US' and 'implement African American sensibilities to analyze chemistry'.
'Diverse historical and contemporary scientists, intellectuals, and chemical discoveries will inform personal reflections and proposals for addressing inequities in chemistry and chemical education,' it read...


...The class does not give any credits for a chemistry major, but does court towards an African and African-American studies minor. The description noted 'no prior knowledge of chemistry or African American studies is required' and there is no final exam....

---

That’s because your explanations involve more fantasies than an LA Comicon.

Mikey will show you what an insurrection really looks like..

That’s Drifter

---

Rice University unveils 'Afrochemistry' class that will 'explore the intersection of racial justice and chemistry' - dubbing it 'the study of black-life matter' (msn.com)

Rice University is offering an 'Afrochemistry' class that promises to analyze science through a 'contemporary African-American lens'.

Marketed as 'the study of black-life matter', a play on words merging science jargon with the Black Lives Matter movement, the course begins this semester.

The course description on the university's website explains students will 'apply chemical tools and analysis to understand black life in the US' and 'implement African American sensibilities to analyze chemistry'.
'Diverse historical and contemporary scientists, intellectuals, and chemical discoveries will inform personal reflections and proposals for addressing inequities in chemistry and chemical education,' it read...


...The class does not give any credits for a chemistry major, but does court towards an African and African-American studies minor. The description noted 'no prior knowledge of chemistry or African American studies is required' and there is no final exam....

So what?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mikey will show you what an insurrection really looks like..

That’s Drifter

I think you may be right.. 

Mikey protecting the nation from insurrectionists..

---