NFL

3 NFL Teams Wait in Limbo, Possibly Moving to LA. But Why Would LA Want Any of Them?

Never finance billionaires' vanity projects with public money.

|

The fanbases of the St. Louis Rams, Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers wait in limbo, unsure if last week was the last home game they'll ever see their beloved teams play in their current cities.

All three NFL franchises have expressed an interest in moving to Los Angeles, a very large media market that has done perfectly fine without a professional football team for two decades, but that hasn't stopped the predictable efforts of the league and its billionaire owners to push for publicly-financed stadiums to keep teams from relocating. 

As Deadspin's Barry Petchesky wrote last summer:

You don't even have to be particularly cynical to believe the NFL doesn't actually want a team in Los Angeles—it just loves having the helpful L.A. bogeyman around to blackmail cities into throwing taxpayers' millions at owners to get them to stay. 

In a 2014 interview with Reason TV, ESPN columnist and author of The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America Gregg Easterbrook said, "The NFL is good at fleecing taxpayers…It's about a billion dollars a year I've calculated in public subsidies to NFL owners and this is a group that consists almost entirely of billionaires and yet receiving significant public subsidies every year."

As the 2015 NFL regular season wraps up tomorrow, it's worth remembering that billionaire crony capitalists do not have your best interests at heart and that the promised economic benefits of public-financed sports stadiums almost never come to pass

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

205 responses to “3 NFL Teams Wait in Limbo, Possibly Moving to LA. But Why Would LA Want Any of Them?

  1. Nobody has your interest at heart.

    Except your mother.

    Maybe.

    That’s why we need more Top Men.

      1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

        Clik This Link inYour Browser….

        ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  2. Government by the billionaires for the fucking billionaires is no representation of any shade or angle of a free fucking society. Fuck your capitalism if it digs its finger into the shitty pooper of governing stooges decidedly attentive to sell entire generations down the dark roads of implausible liberty for the vagaries of minuscule powers today.

  3. The fanbase in LA is already fairly set. There are a lot of Raiders fans. Seeing the Chargers move to LA proper would be a bit like the Dallas Cowboys moving to Washington DC. The Chargers shouldn’t want to go to Carson or the old Hollywood Park in Inglewood. Maybe if they moved somewhere in Orange County–but that’s mostly Raiders fans, too.

    The Rams aren’t likely to be a big hit in LA or Orange County either. They’ll be like the Clippers are to the Lakers in the market. Only they’ll be playing second fiddle to two out of town teams, really–the Raiders and the Cowboys. Why would they want to do that?

    If the Raiders moved to town, they’d have a huge built in fan base. I went to Raiders games back when they played at the Colosseum. It was a nightmare. The stands were filled with gangs, and there were constant fights. I don’t mean like every once in a while you’d see a fight. Despite having LAPD watching in every other section, the fist fights were constant throughout the entire game. And that was when the Raiders were winning.

    I’ve seen street fights with less violence than there was at those Raiders games.

    P.S. Direct TV (off of which the NFL makes a huge contract as the exclusive sellers of NFL Prime Ticket) probably doesn’t want a team in LA either. All those fans are subscribing to Direct TV and buying NFL Prime Ticket to watch their favorite team, and if Raiders games were broadcast locally, Direct TV would lose that revenue).

    1. Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys paid something like 80% of his new stadiums cost.

      It is the reason that his franchise is the one of the top valued sports franchises in the world.

      I don’t understand why more owners don’t follow that model. He makes more money than they do and his asset is worht considerly more. Financing would be a breeze as no NFL team is a money loser.

      1. It is the reason that his franchise is the one of the top valued sports franchises in the world.

        No, it is not the reason for that. Seriously? The Cowboys had that status before Jerry World went up.

        You think that the Jacksonville Jaguars would suddenly become the most valuable team if they built their own stadium?

        1. Which reminds me, Tulpa, what a Jag You Are.

          1. Sorry, didn’t mean to agree with Tulpa if that’s what I did.

            Party foul.

            My bad.

        2. Actually, the Redskins are the same way.

          Yeah, owning a ton of real estate–and a bunch of commercial real estate around it–makes your franchise much more valuable than it would be otherwise. Especially if you don’t have to split concessions sales with the city.

          Building your own dams stadium for the Redskins went back to the philosophy of their former owner, Jack Kent Cooke. He used to own the LA Lakers and the LA Kings, as well, which is why he built the LA Forum with his own damn money. He said he couldn’t understand why he would stick his fans with a tax bill and then expect them to root for his teams. So, yeah, when you buy the Redskins, you get a lot more than the team. You get a ton of valuable real estate, as well.

          According to this, the Redskins stadium was worth $336 million–I believe that’s from 2011.

          http://www.forbes.com/lists/20…..00925.html

          Why wouldn’t owning the stadium increase the value of the franchise vis a vis other teams that don’t own their stadiums?

          1. They’re debt financed. It shouldn’t have much of an effect at all on their value, assuming they get normal market rates.

            1. Asset value minus debt is still an asset.

              And even if that $336 million were all debt, with $80 million in just annual ticket sales (according to my link) they’re more than covering debt service–especially if you add in concessions and advertising fees within the park.

              P.S. The cost to construct the building was $251 million. If they had to put down 25% of that when they refi’d the construction loan and haven’t changed a thing since, then they’re servicing $187 million on $80 million in ticket sales alone.

              That cap rate is outrageous.

        3. “You think that the Jacksonville Jaguars would suddenly become the most valuable team if they built their own stadium?’

          No I don’t think that.

          I know that they would be worth more than they are now if they did that and did a good job of it.

          So you “know’ that his owning his own stadium and the revenue increase that that results indoesn’t account for the increase in his asset’s value but you don’t say what is ?

          Interesting .

        4. the cowboys were the NFL’s most valuable franchise because of it’s history and love them or hate them fan basebefore jerry world.

          Now that Jerry has built his state of the art stadium they are one of the WORLDS top sport franchises.

          Tourists go the Jerry World even on days when there aren’t any football games for all the other attractions.

          You don’t know what you are talking about oy.

    2. There’s the reality – L.A. has exactly what it wants as far as NFL fan-dom goes: all the people there follow the teams they were loyal to before they moved to L.A. Why the hell would they want any of those three teams, none of which are winning or likely to be soon?

      The real risk to the NFL is that there isn’t a team there, and the rest of the fanbase may wise up and realize they don’t have to subsidize their local billionaire.

      1. you think a team moving to the #2 metro in the US couldn’t make some fans quick?

    3. The $17 beers would more than cover that.

    4. The fanbase in LA is already fairly set.

      Like that matters.

      1. L.A. fans of the NFL aren’t that interested in the local team “experience”. They wouldn’t have lost TWO franchises if it were otherwise. Right now they have it great – no assigned local team that they have to watch (or have a local blackout to protect stadium attendance).

        I really hope the NFL finally overplays its popularity and they hit the skids with rocket boosters.

        1. True, LA doesn’t have much of a sense of “community”.

          1. It does, but the sense of community is built around two things:

            1) Gang aesthetics.

            Being a Raiders fan is like driving around in a ’62 Impala with a drop top. Rollin’ down the street, smokin’ smokin’, suckin’ on gin and juice, laid back, with their mind on the Raiders and the Raiders on their mind.

            2) Mexican sense of community.

            For a long time, the only NFL broadcasts you got in Mexico was from Dallas Cowboys affiliates. Hence, there are tons of Cowboy fans in Mexico, and tons of Mexican Cowboys fans in LA. (Incidentally, before the Panthers came to Carolina, everywhere north of Georgia used to be Redskins territory for the same reason–part of the reason for the fight song ending with “Fight for Old Dixie”.)

            Those Mexicans who are relatively newly arrived–especially since after the Raiders left town–tend to be Cowboys fans.

        2. Does LA really not get blacked out of Chargers games? Looking it up, the Chargers get a blackout up to Irvine.

          1. Who claims which hometown for blackouts is absurd.

            If you frequent Las Vegas for work, and you think you’re going to buy the MLB package to watch your team online? A multitude of baseball teams claim Las Vegas as their home team for blackout reasons. (You can’t watch your home team live on the internet cast while it’s being broadcast live).

            The Dodgers, Padres, A’s, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamond Backs, and the Angels all claim Las Vegas as their home team for blackout purposes. You get blacked out of the internet broadcast if the Giants are playing at home–and it isn’t even broadcast in Las Vegas on cable or regular TV.

  4. Green Bay doesn’t have an owner, or anything else to bring in tourism money. The question of paying for a stadium upgrade was dealt with by referendum. A .5% sales tax for the county I believe, with a sunset. Once more money was gained in taxes than the stadium upgrade cost a refund was issued to tax payers (although as it was a sales tax this was more like a redistribution than a refund as I’m sure much of the tax money was gained from people outside the county coming there, even unrelated to the Packers as Green Bay is one of the bigger cities in the area and people in the whole region go there to shop or eat at restaurants that aren’t in the smaller towns.)

    Just more info.

    1. It;s likely that Green Bay Packers may be one of those exceptions to the rule. They may actually pull a lot of people who otherwise would not be near green bay and do boost revenue for the city.
      Let’s say an excess of 30k people who otherwise would be in milwaukee or madison. The city probably does get a substantial net gain.

      Green Bay a city of 105k and a metro of 320k. similar in size to other mega metros like Lubbock, Evansville, South Bend, and Kalamazoo.

    1. They should have put a disclaimer… “to discuss their privilege and feel kind of sad about it while eating snacks and having fun, but not too much fun. We promise!”

    2. Finally, a place in Utah where white people can meet other white people. Way overdo.

    3. I don’t see how this is different than dating sites like blackpeoplemeet, blacksingles, JDate, or the billion or so Hindu matrimonial sites.

      1. Just for shits and giggles, I searched for a mulatto-centric dating site.

        It exists.

          1. I’m in Wisconsin a lot, so I’m used to it, but my friend had such a “wtf lol” moment when he saw an ad for it last week

          2. I’m in Wisconsin a lot, so I’m used to it, but my friend had such a “wtf lol” moment when he saw an ad for it last week

          3. I wish ESPN had shown the entire Farmers Only halftime show.

        1. Heh. Too bad you are already taken, eh?

          1. Indeed. I’ll never fulfill my dream of marriage to Rashida Jones.

            1. I’ll never fulfill my dream of marriage to Rashida Jones.

              I’d watch you watch her poop.

              1. I just, I can’t…..

                1. Crusty is this generation’s Apollonaire.

      2. Because reasons. oh,and some feelz too.

      3. It’s only ok to meet white people to discuss privilege and talk about how you’re going to “help” people of color, who are all sitting around poor and downtrodden desperately waiting for white people to figure something out

        1. When I get together with white people we mostly talk about how to keep the people of color down, and how we are preparing for the upcoming war.

          1. I want to side with the people of color in that, but I’m so pasty that self tanner just makes me pastel orange. No one’s buying it.

            1. The Italians and Irish are considered to be white now, so I have been kicked off Team: Color.

              1. NO NEWLY WHITES NEED APPLY

          2. My white friends and i also discuss the best ways to exploit poor people for increasingly small pecuniary gain.

      4. It’s racist when white people do it. Duh.

        1. But what’s weird is that on a dating website, you already have total control over who you interact with. I believe that most allow you to set racial preferences, and you can always just ignore whoever you want. So this is about as necessary as a “no fat chicks” dating website.

          1. So this is about as necessary as a “no fat chicks” dating website.

            *John recoils in horror*

    4. “Finally, a way to be with my own kind.”

      White men?

    5. To these people, the events of past times entirely justify a permanent state of reverse-racist bullshit against whites, and makes minority-supremacist positions permissible — in fact, preferable. Progressivism is a cancer.

    6. You know who else preferred dating white chick?

      1. Foghorn Leghorn?

  5. I was at Motherjones the other day. Man, do they really have it in for Uber. To them it’s a company that skirts the law and deserved to be punished if not put out of business.

    Apparently, break the law be put down by top men is justified.

    1. Well, of course. People approve of the idea of an all-powerful state enforcing whims and regulating petty normalcies, they just thing the wrong people are in charge.

      1. If you think the proggies hate Uber you should see what they think of Air BnB.

        1. Good. They can keep paying the extortionary taxes and fees.

    2. I dislike Uber but not because of its law skirting ways. It tends to treat its drivers like shit — nickel and diming them, denying the company ever offered a bonus for reaching certain benchmarks, etc. Uber drivers spend a lot of time dealing with b.s. just to get paid for services they delivered. Uber wouldn’t be anything without its drivers but seems to almost go out of its way to piss them off (if it’s hoping self-driving cars will save it from its labor isssues, that is likely too far in the future to be viable). Lyft, I believe, is a much better service all around. I hope Uber goes down due to a mass exodus of its drivers and a well-earned shit reputation.

  6. “The following new laws will take effect!”

    New laws in 2016

    Some excerpts:

    Texas, the second-most populous state, joins 44 other states in allowing at least some firearm owners to carry handguns openly in public places. Under the Texas law, guns can be carried by those with licenses and only in holsters.

    Meanwhile, California, the most populous state, has multiple new laws on gun control. One tightens a ban on firearms in and around schools. Under the new law, the prohibition applies even to most people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons generally. Another allows people to request that a judge order weapons be taken away from relatives who are believed to pose a threat.

    1. In California, a new law lets female employees allege pay discrimination based on the wages a company pays other employees who do substantially similar work. Under the law, it is up to employers to prove a man’s higher pay is based on factors other than gender.

      Oregon becomes the fifth state with a paid sick leave mandate for many employers.

      Some cities in traffic-congested urban areas are trying to ease the burdens of commuting. Employers with at least 20 workers in Washington, D.C., and New York City are required to offer commuter benefits such as tax-free mass transit subsidies to their workers. San Francisco already has a similar ordinance.

      In Missouri, a new law links the duration of jobless benefits to the state’s unemployment rate. When fewer people are out of work, those claiming the benefits will be cut off sooner. The maximum length of the benefits will be reduced from the current 20 weeks ? already among the shorter periods in the nation ? to 13. Only North Carolina, which has a similar sliding scale, has a shorter period: 12 weeks.

      1. Income tax rates dropped slightly in Oklahoma, where state revenues have fallen sharply, and Massachusetts.

        Massachusetts lower taxes? WTF?

      2. Under the law, it is up to employers to prove a man’s higher pay is based on factors other than gender.

        Guilty until proven innocent.

        1. This won’t matter after women are driven completely out of the workforce.

          1. The magic of good intentions will keep that from happening.

        2. There are probably some cases where men are given higher pay for their gender, so why would a woman want to work there? It’s not like a law is going to magically bestow the management with objectivity.

          I worked for one manager who hired girls if their photos on FB were hot and they looked fun. Then he was surprised to learn that most of them were irresponsible employees, some of whom got caught getting drunk on the job by customers. Shitty decisions have shitty consequences

          1. You can’t fool me. That’s from Horrible Bosses 2.

            1. I never saw that. Actually this boss wasn’t too bad he was just dumb. He knew who his good employees were, he just didn’t know how to hire.

              1. It’s actually a pretty clever scene in an otherwise stupid movie. Part of it even made the trailer.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJYcB3UdP0

          2. I worked for one manager who hired girls if their photos on FB were hot and they looked fun.

            Well, someone here just released a stealth brag.

            1. I was there before him. I’m only hot in the sense that I always wear wool long underwear under my hazmat suit while commenting.

    2. I’m really enjoying the pants-wetting articles on CNN and Yahoo News about the Texas open-carry law.

      And California needs to break off and sink in the ocean.

      1. Penna. is open carry and I’ve only seen one man, in a grocery store, open carrying in the last five years.
        Stop pant shitting about every town is going to look like Dodge City in outlaw days.

        1. If you open carry in Pittsburgh, douchebag leftists will call 911 and claim you were brandishing. Even assuming the cops believe you when they arrive, it’s not worth it.

        2. The expansion of open carry has made me wonder when Hollywood will have to acknowledge that for extras and background. They already exaggerate stereotypes to set the atmosphere, such as cowboy hats and boots for Texas or Wyoming or the southwest in general (excepting the left coast itself); how long before they start including an open carrier or two?

          I think this open carry movement is going to be a huge hammer on hoplophobes. Either Hollywood ignores it, and their movies and TV shows look increasingly incorrect, or they include some small amount of it and desensitize the hoplophobes and reduce their number. What will Europeans do — will they ban movies showing that, or will they embrace it as just another quirk of American movies? It’s going to be interesting.

          1. Meh. I doubt you’ll even notice any difference, as open carry is legal in a lot of places, but not that prevalent. I doubt it will ever become the norm.

            1. Doesn’t have to be the norm. All it would take is one open carry in a crowd. How many city Texans actually wear cowboy hats and boots? All you need to see is one to set the mood.

              1. During the James Wood (I think that was his name ) trial where some idiots drug a black man to death behind their truck one of the trials was moved to my at the time home town.

                The DA was interviewed by a national TV station and showed up for his interview in full modern day cowboy costume.

                He wore jeans with a jacket and boots and a bolo tie with a big ole cowboy hat.

                All the locals cringed. We had never seen this asshole wear a cowboy hat before, ever. Prior to that day he acted like he was all cosmo and more sophisticated than the locals, some of whom were actually ranchers and country people. Phony mother effer.

                So many people were pissed because he made us look like a bunch of backward asshats to the rest of the country.

                He did lose the next election, though I don’t know if his costume that day was a contributing factor or not.

                1. I think it was the James Byrd trial.

                  It didn’t happen there but one of the trials was moved there.

          2. The Euros will wonder why so many Americans carry walkie-talkies on their belts in movies.

      2. Oddly, Wisconsin had open carry before concealed carry, and everyone freaked out that now you WOULDN’T see the guns after concealed carry passed.

        With open carry there were no signs about not taking guns into private establishments, once concealed carry passed every business slapped up a “No Guns” sign.

    3. One tightens a ban on firearms in and around schools. Under the new law, the prohibition applies even to most people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons generally.

      That’ll do… something.

      1. Allow them to punish their enemies.

      2. Well, yeah. Obviously. I mean, someone who is planning to commit murder will be totally dissuaded by those Gun-Free-Zone signs. They’re like magic and stuff.

        1. As with the open carry argument below, I really think the explanation is more along the lines of sentient-guns. If you let law-abiding gun owners carry on to campuses, you risk the gun corrupting its owner and starting a rampage.

    4. Texas, the second-most populous state, joins 44 other states in allowing at least some firearm owners to carry handguns openly in public places. Under the Texas law, guns can be carried by those with licenses and only in holsters.

      I don’t get this.

      In most states, open carry has fewer restrictions than concealed carry. IOW, the concealed part is the part that’s “scary”. That Texas, of all places, disallowed OC and allowed CC is completely bizarre.

      1. Yeah, the news report I saw last night had some pants-shitting about how scary open carry is, including the Austin chief saying it was a terrible idea. They included the argument that open carry might deter mass shooters, and responded with the cop saying that it was a bad idea to let people walk around with guns on their hips. No explanation why; presumably, we’re supposed to think people go nuts and start shooting if they have a gun in open view or see others with a gun.

        Which doesn’t make sense. You can see who has a gun. Isn’t that better than not knowing that someone is carrying a gun?

        1. There’s no way I would open carry. Not when surrounded by fellow Americans looking for any opportunity to see something/say something to thugs with immunity from the law.

          My driver’s ed teacher once said, “Guys, I do not want to see anyone here in the morgue, telling themselves, ‘Yeah, but at least I was right.'”

          1. There’s no way I would open carry. Not when surrounded by fellow Americans looking for any opportunity to see something/say something to thugs with immunity from the law.

            Yep. Even where open carry is legal, it’s a good way to get arrested. Because someone will call the cops, and rather than inform the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, some cops will be dispatched. Then you will be stopped, questioned, searched, run for warrants, and finally if that doesn’t give them an excuse you’ll be arrested on false charges only to have them dropped. Meanwhile the cops will steal your weapon, and now you’ve got to hire a lawyer to get it back. That is assuming that they don’t fear for their lives and shoot you on sight.

            1. Because someone will call the cops, and rather than inform the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, some cops will be dispatched.

              Much of that depends on where you live. I have no doubt that’s the outcome in major urban areas, particularly on the coasts. In flyover country, not necessarily.

              1. You seriously think that the cops will ignore a call about a man with a gun? I don’t think so.

                  1. In Montana? Are you kidding?

                    I suppose you’ve got a point.

                    1. I was following my hunting buddy through Belle Fourche SD a couple of weeks ago. Asshole cop (fucking kid) pulled him over for doing 35 in a 30. My friend said, “I just want you to know, so there are no misunderstandings, that there is a loaded, permitted, weapon in my console.”

                      Cop says, “If you don’t show me your gun, I won’t show you mine.”

                      That’s a pretty common story. It’s a culture thing.

                1. I’ve known North Carolinian cops (local department, mind) to ignore calls concerning men with firearms, and in one instance, police dropped by on an armed guy in the street to inform him people were shitting their pants over the presence of his weapon, and laughed about it.

                  In Austin, or Houston? Prepare for harassment.

            2. That’s assuming that the caller doesn’t lie and say the person is brandishing rather than merely carrying. Pittsburgh progs have been known to fib in this manner.

              1. I suppose that’d be an issue where brandishing is illegal.

            3. if that doesn’t give them an excuse you’ll be arrested on false charges only to have them dropped

              No blanket “disturbing the peace” law to throw at them? People were alarmed enough to call in, ergo the law was violated.

        2. Armed peasants might defend themselves from aggressive cops make sport of attacking peasants who fail to show sufficient respect. Can’t have that.

        3. pants-shitting about how scary open carry is, including the Austin chief saying it was a terrible idea. They included the argument that open carry might deter mass shooters, and responded with the cop saying that it was a bad idea to let people walk around with guns on their hips.

          The cognitive dissonance is strong with that one.

          1. it was a bad idea to let people walk around with guns on their hips

            A privilege reserved only for the king’s men.

        4. Yeah, the news report I saw last night had some pants-shitting about how scary open carry is, including the Austin chief saying it was a terrible idea. They included the argument that open carry might deter mass shooters, and responded with the cop saying that it was a bad idea to let people walk around with guns on their hips. No explanation why; presumably, we’re supposed to think people go nuts and start shooting if they have a gun in open view or see others with a gun.

          I have no doubt a police chief thinks this. After all, he knows his coworkers best.

      2. In most states, open carry has fewer restrictions than concealed carry.

        That’s because the laws date to a time with very different attitudes. In those days concealed carry was evidence of malicious intent and sneakiness, while modern onlookers feel intimidated by open carry so consider it more as evidence of maliciousness.

      1. I’m convinced that’s a transvestite.

        1. There’s a greater than 50% chance.

        2. Oh please, you’re just bitter that the picture doesn’t show her bottom half.

          I assume the pizza goes straight to her cankles

          1. Yes and no.

            As an ass man, I HATE fake boobs. HATE THEM. I’d rather eat at Chipotle for a week.

            If you look at her (his?) rack to arm ratio, something ain’t right. I have no interest in seeing any more than I already have.

            1. As an ass man, I HATE fake boobs. HATE THEM.

              aye

            2. I don’t understand them myself. I think someday they will be considered a horrifying and backwards beauty practice, like foot binding

              1. I mean, come on. They’re surgically implanted saline bags. Would they look good on me?

                1. With all the softness of a bag stuffed with sand.

                2. Maybe in the right lighting you could look stunning and brave

                  1. To truly be stunning and brave, I’d need to kill somebody while texting and driving first.

            3. Amen. I’ve never known what some guys see in implants, which are usually ridiculously obvious. If you ask these guys, and say something like “but they’re fake”, the response is always “Who cares? They’re huge!”

              Give me a tight and grab-able rear instead every time. Fake boobs, or big fatty floppy real ones, just get in the way, and the women have little to no sensory response there. In women with smaller breasts, they actually get off on your manipulations, and respond in very nice ways.

              1. Seriously though, my wife has said that if she had the money she’d get implants. I like her tiny titties, but she’d prefer a c-cup. It’s not like we’ll ever be able to afford it so it doesn’t really matter.

                1. If you ever have the money, hide it.

                  1. If you ever have the money, hide it.

                    I dunno. She looked good with C-cups when she was pregnant.

              2. Yep. WRT boobies, any more than a mouthful is overkill, (unless you are a hungry baby, I guess).

                1. Some women are obsessed with desiring larger or “better breasts.” Men are stupid, and they also like women. It is not that complicated, but I agree that breast implants are usually fatuous.

                2. My wife’s C-cups are perfect. I viciously combat any suggestion, however seemingly unserious, that larger breasts would be better.

            4. Also, it’s fun to say “itty bitty titties”

    1. That one is great

    2. Imma guess David didn’t really leave, he’s composting in back-yard.

  7. Oh, a football thread.

    Can someone look up the score top the Cal-Air Force game? I don’t have the internet right now.

    1. 45-16, Stanford.
      Oh, uh….

      1. As much as a I hate Stanford, their win makes Cal look better too. I was rooting for them yesterday.

    1. Al Gore looks like a pudgy vampire

      1. That was 10 years ago. He’s been eating his way through this planetary emergency ever since.

        1. Winter is coming. He’ll need a thick layer of insulating blubber. Not to keep warm, as many would assume, but rather he plans to tap the backfat as a ready supply of energy to run his hot tub and laptop.

      1. Oh man. One of the comments:
        “Amazing awareness”

        I just can’t even

        1. Koko is probably senile by now

          1. Doesn’t really matter to the propagandists. That gorilla was like totally trying to save the planet, ya know?

            1. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

        2. “Amazing awareness”

          I just can’t even

          All that’s missing is someone saying “he clearly understands the science better than the Teathuglicans”

          1. I can fly anything better than any pilot in the fleet?

            Ooops, wrong Poe.

      2. My guess is that she just wants the camera crew to fuck off, so she’s accommodating their retardation.

      3. I watched the same geture mean 3 different things.

        Koko must be multilingual.

        That’s like amazing and super special because only super cereal leftists can translate his grunting and head scratching into English..

    2. Fuck.

      I think we’re gonna need a bigger derp model.

  8. So the El Nino season is gearing up.

    We’re looking at 3-6 inches of rain here by Thursday, and 2 feet of snow in the Los Angeles area mountains at elevations as low as 3500 feet. And this is likely to happen several times a month through the end of Spring. There’s a good chance that by the end of the winter, we’re going to break every rainfall total on record.

    My New Years prediction: All of the bullshit will continue. Moonbeam loves the perpetual state of emergency, and loves power for the sake of power. We’ll still be under water cutback orders and green lawn shaming, and the crony turf rebate scam will continue. OBEY

    1. So the long drought that was cause by global climate change will be replaced by flooding caused by global climate change. There really is nothing it cannot do.

      1. The argument is that climate change will cause rain to be feast or famine, rather than small amounts spread out over time so that the ground can absorb it.

        1. If we evolved into beings enlightened enough to subsist upon the universal energy all around us, this wouldn’t be an issue.

        2. The argument is that climate change will cause rain to be feast or famine, rather than small amounts spread out over time so that the ground can absorb it.

          When has this EVER been the case in the western US?

          1. 1987. It was perfect that year.

            1. For us, last year was pretty close to average, both in temperature and rainfall.

              But that’s the oddity. The reality is while the average temperature for today is 24 (35h/14l) , the records range from -32 to 65.

              Precipitation has similarly large divergences from the mean.

    2. Just last night on the local news they said “it doesn’t matter how much rain we get. We need to understand drought is the ‘new normal’, and start living with less from now on.”

      These types love this. Also, the developers are happy that they can create more high-density housing now without landscaping, because they care.

      1. I actually think this could be the undoing of the supermajority in Sacramento.

        They’re going go on camera and tell farmers that there isn’t enough water for crops while there are cars floating by in the background. Yes, they are that stupid.

        1. Governments are rarely adept at masking their petty despotism, and yet the citizenry complies benignly. Californian officials are spectacularly retarded in their conduct, but I doubt enough of an outcry will occur to compel them to retreat from their current course.

          1. Oh, the course will continue.

            I just hope and dream that a loss of the supermajority could slow it down ever so slightly.

    3. Drought Flooding is proof of global warming.

    4. The Governor is attempting to rescue Holy Terra from the demonic excesses of mankind, corrupted and callous as it has become by the ruinous temptation of fossil fuels.

    5. “…Moonbeam loves the perpetual state of emergency, and loves power for the sake of power….”

      We’re to suffer for his sins; he is a failed Jesuit. And he’s got a closet full of hair shirts he’ll loan to anyone.

    6. There’s a good chance that by the end of the winter, we’re going to break every rainfall total on record.

      And most of that water is going straight back into the ocean because the ground can’t absorb it fast enough. Rainfall that causes a flood following a long drought is useless for human purposes. What we need is consistent rainfall in amounts small enough for the ground to absorb.

      1. So, “fast” rain doesn’t fill reservoirs?

        1. Not in Tulpatown, it doesn’t.

          1. Wait, I thought Tangerine Muppet was Tulpa?

            1. They’re all Tulpa!

          2. Imagine how uneventful this conversation would be if there had not been an opposing view expressed. Yet you revile me for having given life and context to your comment. You truly do not understand.

            1. Yeah, a roach running around makes things lively.

            2. yes deaf Con we are dependent upon you for our entertainment.

              That’s why Reason comments was a wasteland before you showed up.

              How can we ever thank you enough from saving us from ourselves.?

      2. We’re not really a groundwater state (or we weren’t until they turned off the aqueduct pumps in the delta). We’ll get plenty of water from the snowpack.

        There is a lot of ag well pumping in the central valley, and that’s the one place where it’s flat enough that the rainwater will sit for a while.

        If we properly impounded the San Joaquin river, we’d have enough water to last a hundred years. But we won’t, because California sucks and they don’t fix problems.

        1. “If we properly impounded the San Joaquin river, we’d have enough water to last a hundred years. But we won’t, because California sucks and they don’t fix problems.”

          But then moonbeam assures us we should trust the government to “fix” climate-change! I know I’m convinced!

        2. It’s more important that the river water go to save the Delta Smelt.

          1. Have you seen the latest smelt census?

          2. You mean *this* fish? What’s the saying? You can divert trillions of gallons of water into the SF Bay to save a fish, but you can’t make it live? Something like that.

            1. You beat me to it.

              3 smelt. They only found 3 fish in the last census.

              1. “3 smelt. They only found 3 fish in the last census.”

                Yeah, they’re commies, but they’re the only ones I know who have figured out hopw to make money fro0m ‘saving species’: the Chicoms and the Pandas.
                Not the ‘free-market’ USA; we spend millions (The California condor conservation project may be one of the most expensive species conservation projects in United States history,[60] costing over $35 million, including $20 million in federal and state funding, since World War II.[61] As of 2007 the annual cost for the condor conservation program was around $2.0 million per year.[61] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_condor ) to save some bird that the watermellons hope no one (out side of them) ever sees.

            2. Another saying is “he who Smelt it Delta-ed it.”

              1. *taps nose, points to Moonbeam*

              2. And he who denied it, uh, shit, I know this one.

                1. Hitler?

  9. Returning to the topic, the Oakland mayor seems to be sticking by her guns regarding no more taxpayer money, but the circumstances are such that her choices are limited.
    The taxpayers are still on the hook for the upgrades to the stadium to get the Raiders back from LA, and no one is letting her forget it. And then the Raiders’ owner is being particularly tone-deaf over the issue.

    1. Returning to the topic,

      *Blocked*

  10. Who knew that war and ethnic strife could have such potentially positive side-effects?

    “Ukraine, which marks Christmas on 7 January in accordance with Orthodox Christian tradition, has begun a national debate about whether it should also celebrate on 25 December, a step that would bring it into line with western Europe.

    “The debate, reflecting the country’s re-examination of national identity under the impact of the falling-out with Russia, could sharply divide opinion and comes amid a heightened battle for influence between the Russian and Ukrainian branches of the Orthodox church….

    “Activists in favour of making 25 December, an ordinary working day in Ukraine, an official holiday have launched two petitions that have appeared on the presidential website.

    “If they garner enough support, the president, Petro Poroshenko, will have to consider the matter, though the Ukrainian parliament would have the final word.

    “Oleksandr Turchynov, the secretary of Ukraine’s security council, has backed the idea, saying he favours a transition period during which Ukrainians could celebrate Christmas on both 25 December and 7 January.”

    1. And again in the spring which would be when Jesus was most likely born.

      1. September.

    2. I had a bizarre experience last week at St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. St. Peter’s Square was choke full of Ukrainians. At first I thought they were there to see Pope Francis who spoke from the balcony (it was on Dec. 26). But after the speech they entered the cathedral and attended a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church service there. I couldn’t believe to see (or mostly hear) a service in Church Slavonic in the Vatican.

  11. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a new initiative with the Biblical-sounding name of Protect Thy Neighbor. The purpose is to protect LGBLTs from being “harmed” by private businesses and nonprofits who refuse to serve them, cater their weddings, and so forth.

    As part of the new initiative, Americans United is filing a legal brief saying a Lexington, Ky print shop should be compelled to make gay pride T-shirts.

    A state trial court ruled for the printers, saying that forcing them to make the T-shirts would violate their Christian beliefs.

    That ruling is one appeal, and Americans United has weighed in against the Christian printers.

    “The Americans United brief argues that the act of printing a T-shirt is less “artistic and expressive” speech than “just stenography of customers’ words.”

    “”It is the paying customers of Hands On Originals who generate and then disseminate the messages that the company is hired to print,” the brief states.”

    1. The ruling is *on* appeal

    2. I’d like to see the reaction if some religious racists want T-shirts done for an Anglo-Israelism Pride March.

      That, of course, won’t be religious discrimination, even if they can prove that they made T-shirts for the Episcopalian Pride March.

      It will be a Totally Different Situation.

  12. Fuck off, Tulpa.

  13. All three need to move to LA.

    As a matter of fact, I propose that LA be officially crowned the official ‘Best city in the United States’ and *all* sports teams, opera houses, and art museums be required to move there.

    Then the rest of us won’t have to deal with this bullshit. And once everyone moves out of LA – neither will they.

  14. Yeah, except, um, the proposed Los Angeles stadiums don’t include public financing.

  15. I have been watching pro. football for 53 years. started at age 11. 2 years in army in Germany back in early 70s no tv on base. anyway I seen the afl start the dallas cowboys, a little history lesson. the rams were in La since the 1950s, Rosenbloom owner. La chargers were in afl moved to become san diego chargers. dallas texaNS WERE ALSO FORMED. they became the chiefs. raiders moved to La in the 80s. moved back to Oakland where they belong. I am saying is the arrogance of the Nfl, shoving two teams in a market that doesn’t want football. that is why the rams left. no support. and now they want to move back. st louis lost the cards that haven there for a long time. Arizona didn’t want them either. the new York fiasco is the same. the jets were originally the titans. the jets had loyal fans at shea stadium just like the mets. I don’t understand this mentality. I feel this move will backfire. the nfl is going to pack the stands with who. might work for one seasons. alienate san diego fans who have loyal for 55 years. my opinion is that the nfl should have moved some of the old usfl teams. they had a market in Oklahoma and other cities like kanasas city. ypu mean to tell me Jacksonville or tampa is a media market, equal to Miami. this long time fan is digusted with this arrogance. thank you, I will later comment the leagues arrogance in turning this sport into flag football

  16. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.