Reason Interviews

Chef Andrew Gruel Survived COVID-19 and Gavin Newsom

What's it like to run a restaurant in California during the pandemic?


Andrew Gruel just might be the patron saint of restaurateurs, small business owners, and service workers during the pandemic. He's the founder and owner of Slapfish, a growing national fast-casual restaurant chain based in Huntington Beach, California, as well as a widely recognized culinary innovator and familiar face on the Food Network and other cooking channels.

Over the past year, Gruel has also gained prominence as an unabashed critic of arbitrary rules that put business owners like him at the beck and call of hypocritical politicians such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Most famously, in an inspired rant that went viral on social media last December, Gruel listed all the ways in which California's ban on outdoor dining made no scientific or economic sense before concluding, "I'm not an asshole. The governor is."

Reason's Nick Gillespie spoke to Gruel in April about what it's like to run a restaurant in California.

Q: What was it like to have outdoor dining shut down again this past fall even though it wasn't a vector of COVID-19 spread?

A: Here in Southern California and across the nation, you started to see a lot of investment in things like outdoor dining patios. You started to see restaurants effectively spill out into parking lots and the streets. And it was great, right? Going into the summertime, everybody was giving everyone else a high-five about this. Now go into fall, wintertime: Southern California is positioned to be the restaurant mecca by virtue of our weather. You started to see restaurants pick back up again.

Then California shut down outdoor dining with no data, no science. People had hired to be able to serve through the wintertime. It was the last week of November here in California. It was every restaurateur's nightmare to have to let go of the majority of their staff. So you've got hundreds of thousands of people now applying for unemployment benefits.

Q: Last summer, you said the enhanced federal and state unemployment benefits also made it hard for you to staff your restaurant. How so?

A: In the very beginning, when the government offered it, I think it was $600 on top of what the state was offering for unemployment. Here in California, it was about $1,100 a week. Initially we did lay everybody off, because we didn't know what was going to happen. As we started helping out with the community and building some business, our business came back, and we needed those employees back. So we started reaching out to everybody. A lot of people were like, "Look, I'm making $1,100 right now not working. I've got books I want to read. I've got classes I want to take online."

If I was 19 years old and I could make $1,500 as a server working 50 hours a week, or I could make $1,100 sitting at home, reading books, learning an instrument, heck, I would do it too.

Q: You caught a lot of heat for making that observation on Twitter.

A: Everybody's response to me was, "Well, you're not paying your employees enough. That's because you're a greedy business owner. Maybe you should pay them more." No, no, no, no. That's not the point. Like I said, even if it's $2,000 that they were making by working here versus $1,100, it's the fact that people are being paid a significant sum of money to not work.

Q: What did you think when you learned Newsom ate indoors at the esteemed French Laundry after imposing strict rules on indoor dining on Californians?

A: Watching the people setting the rules break their own rules is the most offensive thing that's come out of this entire pandemic.

Q: What do you think the long-term damage of COVID-19 business impacts will be to the food service industry?

A: I think that we don't know what the long-term damage is going to be yet, but it is my contention that we haven't seen the worst.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: Feeding the Homeless Should Not Be a Crime

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just surviving in California seems to be the in thing now.

    1. Fake news! With extreme reports of extreme drought, fires, disease, and social injustice, everyone in California must be dead at least twice.

      1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
        HERE…… Work202

        1. USA Making money online more than 15000$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular RED office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. They can still vote though.

    2. Lots of small businesses were driven out of business by the lockdowns. Several restaurants I used to go to are closed forever.

      The guy in the story thinks waiters can make 75K a year, and will pass that up to make 55K a year on the dole, with enough free time to read books, play video games, take classes, or try to become an online influencer. Imagine the disincentive for waiters at lower end restaurants who aren’t making anywhere near 75K.

      1. I don’t think that the scummy, verminous far left will be completely satisfied until the percentage of Americans engaged in the labor force drops all the way down to below 50%.

    3. I’m just amused that the chef’s name is “Gruel”.

      1. Yeah, that was my first thought too.

        Hey, didn’t you have the “Chauvinist” pun in that thread?

        Gotta keep a sense of humor in these oh so serious times.

  2. …an unabashed critic of arbitrary rules that put business owners like him at the beck and call of hypocritical politicians such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

    How dare you identify party.

    1. I’m sure it’s just a typo.

    2. I bet he voted for the guy though.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t see Nick asking that.

      2. I bet he won’t be voting for Newsom in the recall.

    3. Reason usually mentions party affiliation when naming politicians.

      1. “usually”

        Funny way of saying “always” if the miscreant is Republican, and “never” if they’re Democrat.

  3. “I think that we don’t know what the long-term damage is going to be yet, but it is my contention that we haven’t seen the worst.”

    The standard of living improves when consumers are able to pay less for the things they need due to productivity gains, technology driven efficiency improvements, tax cuts, international trade, deregulation, etc. When consumers gain more discretionary income, one of the first things they do is start eating out more. When their discretionary income diminishes due to regulation, tax hikes, inflation, higher costs for transportation, energy, and groceries, for instance, eating out is one of the first things to go.

    What’s good for improvements in the standard of living and consumer discretionary income is good for the restaurant industry. If the trend is for inflation from yet another $6 trillion in spending and higher energy costs from regulation, green energy, shutting down the use of natural gas, etc., I don’t see how that can be good for sit-down restaurants. I believe low end fast food did well back when inflation was in double digits and we had an energy crisis, but I’m not sure we’ll even see a repeat of that.

    As more people are using Uber or relegated to using mass transportation, fewer of them are probably able to use the drive-thru at McDonalds. I’m bullish on home delivery by Amazon’s grocery, food trucks, and ready to eat items at traditional grocery stores.

    1. Sounds like we need more stimulus checks then!

      1. That comes out of the consumers’ future paychecks by way of taxes, inflation, etc. That’s coming out of future consumer discretionary spending, that’s coming out of companies’ investing in technology to improve efficiency and productivity in the future. That’s coming out of . . .

        If we’re doing some kind of “stimulus” spending by government, then taking money away from the government and giving it to consumers is better than Keynesian stimulus, which takes money away from consumers and gives it the government, but either way, there still ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

    2. “I’m bullish on home delivery by Amazon’s grocery, food trucks, and ready to eat items at traditional grocery stores.”

      We’ll make our livings delivering takeout food and stuff Amazon imports from China.

  4. So Olive Garden protestors can also eat at Slapfish? If he put a pic of Fauci on the restaurant and renamed it Slapbitch he’d be immortal.

  5. So how’s the recall going? It seems to have lost a lot of steam.

    1. The recall is officially on the ballot as of a few days ago. There were well over the 1.5 million signatures needed–even after disqualifying however many signatures.

      The dislike of Newsom isn’t as intense as it was when the lockdowns were more stringent. As summer rolls on, and the rolling blackouts settle in, people may get angry enough to boot him.

      Even if he survives the recall, he’ll need to face election in 2022 again. If he isn’t kicked out by way of a recall, and he probably won’t be, chances are he won’t survive a Democratic primary.

      Newsom isn’t about to be replaced with a Republican. We may need to settle for him simply being replaced. And, unfortunately, the driving force behind the anger against him isn’t because of the lockdowns specifically. It’s because he broke his own rules.

      The accusation against him isn’t that he’s a progressive believer. He’s accused of impiety. The Cardinals aren’t about to replace an impious pope with a Lutheran or any other kind of protestant. They’ll replace him with another progressive.

      1. “As summer rolls on, and the rolling blackouts settle in, people may get angry enough to boot him.”

        Right or wrong, people in California don’t place blame for power outages on their governor. They blame PG&E and Edison, or climate change (which often manifests as their blaming themselves).

        1. Wait until they add another million electric cars to the grid.

        2. Moonbeam and Newsom are to blame for the blackouts, period. Requiring PG&E to supplant fossil-fuel plants with wind and solar = blackouts.
          The TV ads are laughable: ‘We have abundant solar and wind power in CA, so please don’t use your A/C!’

          1. Are Moonbeam and Newsom to blame for the blackouts and $600 natural gas prices that Texas and Oklahoma are seeing?

            An angry backlash is building across the middle of the U.S. as states step in to help their constituents pay billions of dollars in natural-gas bills racked up during February’s freeze.

            While most escaped the blackouts that occurred in Texas, states from Minnesota to Kansas are having to help local utilities, businesses and homeowners cover February bills after natural-gas prices surged from around $2 per million British thermal units to as much as $1,200 in parts of the country.


            1. An extreme weather event and failure of individuals to take personal responsibility. And reliance on green energy.
              California’s blackouts are predictable. Black swans are more difficult for which to plan.

              1. Buttplug’s deliberately ignoring the fact that his (D) party bosses are canceling natural gas pipelines left, right and center too.

                1. Also, the windmills failed like the silly fashion accessories they are, and people in Texas died.

                  1. Also the EPA has denied multiple requests from Texas to run coal plants at higher capacity.

            2. Natural gas is super cheap here in the northeast. Maybe we should build a pipeline OR chalk this up as an outlier, pay the bills we owe, and move on with our lives. I’m game for either.

              1. Newsom is trying to shutdown NG production in CA; certain to help with similar occurrences in the future, and turd will be here asking if we should blame lefty shits like him and Newsom.

            3. “Are Moonbeam and Newsom to blame for the blackouts and $600 natural gas prices that Texas and Oklahoma are seeing?”

              Are you paid to change the subject and cherry-pick, you slimy piece of lefty shit?
              Fuck off and die, but make sure all the local dogs know the location of your grave, so they have an appropriate place to take a shit.

            4. “Are Moonbeam and Newsom to blame for the blackouts and $600 natural gas prices that Texas and Oklahoma are seeing?”

              BTW, turd, are you familiar with tenses? That was a brief, temporary circumstance, happening 5 months ago.
              Unlike Moonbeam’s and Newsom’s hand-made, continuing disaster.

            5. No, that’s thanks to increased demand because of all the people moving here from CA and NY, etc. coupled with reduced supply thanks to Obama era policies that the EPA fought Trump on removing.

        3. The San Fran tent city will have a permanent blackout.

          1. Free extension cords for the homeless!

            1. That’ll be another $61k per tent.

        4. Grey Davis would like a word with you.

      2. Newsom is reviled and loathed here in my California county, even though 65% of the people voted for Biden. He is toast.

        Of course, they will replace him with someone with an equivalent level of mush for brains, just not as smarmy and self-important. You take the wins you can get.

        1. Exactly.

          He will pay for it with his political career.

          I just wish it was for him being an authoritarian socialist rather for him being a hypocrite.

          1. We’ll see. He is seen as being future Presidential material, so there are Democratic power brokers who are still going to want to back his political career.

            1. I look forward to being forced to purchase an all electric vehicle and to rationed mains electricity.

            2. Ah, so those power brokers will be sure to fortify this election too?

              Good point, mike.

        2. Maybe they can find a washed-up actor to run as a Republican.

          James Woods or Jon Voight will do.

          1. Fuck James Woods!

      3. The best outcome of the Newsome situation is that – I believe – his national political aspirations are toast.

    2. Recall is happening but it won’t succeed. Democrats will not split the vote again. They will stand with Newsome and he will survive the recall.

      1. You’re probably right. Although I do hear a lot of grumbling from Latinos in California. That may tip the balance, maybe not this recall but a future election. They may be the rapidly rising conservatives in this country.

        If this summer has extensive blackouts though watch out. I have heard that even folks who work in the power industry there want out before the shit hits the fan. What do they know that we don’t.

        1. Except the Democrat Party won’t be so thorough on harvesting the ballots from minority areas for the recall as they were for the Presidential election.

          Speaking of hypocrisy, they disqualified thousands of recall petition signatures, but resist any attempt to check mail-in ballots for veracity.

          1. Do you have a cite on how many recall signatures they rejected?

            1. “Organizers of the recall campaign submitted 2.1 million signatures by the March 17 filing deadline.[2] Weber’s office found 1,719,943 signatures to be valid – more than the 1,495,970 necessary to trigger a recall election. Voters who signed the petition had until June 8 to request removal from the petition. Forty-three signatures were removed during the removal period, leaving 1,719,900 valid signatures on the petitions.



              2.1 million submitted minus 1,719,900 validated = 380,100 signatures disqualified.

              1. Suddenly the Democrats believe in auditing results.

                1. Some audits are more equal than other audits.

        2. We all know it’s those foreign imperialists exploiting CA and causing the blackouts.

    3. While it is buried in the news by His Worships’ supporters, it’s funny as hell to note that only 43 (out of ~ 1.7million signers) removed their signatures from the recall petition even after being threatened with having their personal info published.

  6. Remember Britschgi’s ridiculously half-baked piece about the “bipartisan” infrastructure deal a few days ago?

    By “bipartisan”, Britschgi meant that a group of five Republican Senators (none of which were in the Republican leadership) agreed to bring a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill to a floor vote–without the Republican leadership onboard.

    Biden subsequently held another press conference, two hours later, in which he announced that he wouldn’t sign [would veto] the infrastructure bill–unless his $3 trillion reconciliation bill made it to his desk at the same time. This was meant to appease progressives in the House, primarily, who balked at supporting the infrastructure bill without the $3 trillion reconciliation bill–which contains all the Green New Deal and social spending the Republicans wouldn’t support.

    Once the Republicans who signed off on bringing the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill to the floor found out Biden had promised to veto the bill if Congress didn’t pass his $3 trillion Green New Deal and social spending bill at the same time, they withdrew their support and announced they wouldn’t vote for it.

    By way of an update, in order to try to get the Republicans who voted to bring the $1.2 infrastructure deal to a vote on the Senate floor–back onboard with the bill–Biden has now walked back his veto threat.

    Does that mean the Republicans are back on board with this bill?

    The correct answer is that the Republicans were never onboard with this bill–just five of them, outside the Republican leadership, agreed to bring it to a floor vote, and they might still vote against it–so they can’t be “back” onboard. Whether any Republican Senator will actually vote for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill when it comes to a floor vote weeks from now is still an open question.

    1. It’s important to understand, with all this, that the Democrats don’t require a single Republican vote in order to pass any of this spending. They can pass it by a simple majority through budget reconciliation, which is what Biden and the Democratic leadership plans to do–without any Republican support–with the $3 trillion reconciliation bill anyway.

      The only reason Biden and the Democrat leadership wants the Republicans to sign onto the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill is so that moderate Democrats in red and purple districts and states can claim that the spending was “bipartisan” come November of 2022. They just want a fig leaf to hide behind, but they can pass all this without it whenever they want.

      The problem Biden has now, however, is the same one he had when he threatened to veto the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal unless the $3 trillion reconciliation bill was passed by Congress. That threat wasn’t directed at Republicans. That threat was directed at progressive Democrats in the House, who oppose Biden’s $3 trillion reconciliation bill–because they want a $6 trillion reconciliation bill. Not only do they want a bill that’s twice as large, they don’t understand why the Democratic leadership isn’t pushing for more–since the reconciliation bill doesn’t require a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress.

      In other words, to whatever extent Biden secured any Republican support for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill by dropping his veto threat–if he secured any Republican support at all–he’s probably lost more than the nine progressive Democrats votes he needs in the House in order to pass that bill with Republican support. Progressives probably won’t pass that $1.2 trillion infrastructure instead of an additional $3 trillion they want in Green New Deal and social spending.

      That doesn’t mean the spending won’t happen. My bet is that it means the Democrats will need to pass all of this through budget reconciliation–without a single Republican vote. In the midterms of 2010, in the aftermath of ObamaCare, the Democrats lost nine seats in the Senate and 63 in the House. The agenda they’re pushing with this spending is even more radical than ObamaCare, and if they pass it without any Republican support, we should expect an even bigger backlash in 2022 than we saw in 2010.

      1. “To whatever extent Biden secured any Republican support for the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill by dropping his veto threat–if he secured any Republican support at all–he’s probably lost more than the nine progressive Democrat votes he needs in the House in order to pass that bill with [without] Republican support.”

        —-Ken Shultz


        The Democrats only have a nine vote margin in the House.

        This will be like when Trump couldn’t get a handful of Republicans to get rid of 90% of ObamaCare because it wasn’t 100%.

        If AOC and other progressive Democrats can’t get $6 trillion in Green New Deal and social spending, then they don’t want $3 trillion.

        It’s like that.

        1. The Dems will lose their control of both houses of Congress in the 2022 election.

          Spending like there’s no tomorrow isn’t popular.
          Jacking up taxes isn’t popular.
          Sending tens of thousands of IRS agents after people isn’t popular.

          1. The only reason they’re seeking Republican votes–that they don’t need to pass whatever spending they want–is so they can hide behind the fig leaf of “bipartisanship” in the 2022 midterms.

            And the thing is, the primary reason to hope the Republicans resist the temptation to get extra funding for their state isn’t only because we want the Republicans to win in 2022 per se, so we can go back to divided government. It’s also because we want to avoid all the harm to our economy from all this spending, the Green New Deal, etc.

            There may be a lot of Democrats in red districts and red states, who aren’t willing to back all this spending if the Democrats need to go it alone without the fig leaf of bipartisanship. Watch what happens, too, if the only Republicans to vote for it are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. If every Republican in the House and every Republican in the Senate–except those three–vote agaibst it, the Democrats and the media will still try to spin it as “bipartisan”.

      2. Clandestine mail in voting has implications they may hold or gain seats. JS.

        1. If there were significant cheating in the House elections in 2020, the Democrats did a terrible job of it.

          The Democrats lost 13 seats, some of them in California, in an election against a president with an obnoxious personality, and amid an economic collapse–with a news media and social media environment that was not only in favor of the Democrats but was also shutting down discussion of the origin of the coronavirus and evidence of Biden selling influence through his son.

          Yes, add in the pandemic “justified”, lax voting rules–that benefited the Democrats–and they still lost 13 seats in the House?

          The 2022 midterms will be a bloodbath for the Democrats.

          1. In 2020, they wanted the White House. And got it. There is no POTUS election in 2022. We will see if they are hand to mouth or long play.

            1. Since before World War I, the median number of House seats lost by the party of the president in that president’s first midterm is in the mid-twenties. The more radical the agenda, the bigger the reaction against the president’s party in the House, with Obama’s Democrats losing more than 60 seats in his first midterm in 2010 being an excellent example. I think Biden’s agenda is more radical than Obama’s was. If they pull a fraud big enough to buck that trend, it will be readily apparent to everybody. At some point, the pandemic origin story had to give way to reality, and this will, too.

              The other thing to keep in mind is that stuffing the ballot box is nothing new. The voting stats we have from the past aren’t entirely free of massive voting fraud either, and yet they still show the will of the people shining past the voter fraud. I would not put it past the progressives to stuff the ballot box if that’s what they need to do to win, but I’m not sure that’s likely to change the outcome in every district they need in order to maintain control of the House. If they can’t get away with it in California, where they lost seats, why would it work in Texas.

              The other thing I’ll point to is that the Democrats themselves, from Pelosi and Schumer to Biden and Harris, are behaving as if they’re afraid of what the voters think and the negative consequences for them in the upcoming Midterms if people don’t like them or what they do. If they’re afraid of facing the midterm voters without the fig leaf of bipartisanship to hide behind, who are we to argue? Aren’t they denying themselves all the spending they want, killing the filibuster, packing the Court, adding states, etc., etc. for fear of what the voters will do to them if they go too far?

    2. Yes Ken, we know. It’s. Never. Team. Red’s. Fault.

      When Democrats pass big spending bills without Republican support, Democrats are inflicting socialism on the country.

      When Democrats pass big spending bills with Republican support, Democrats are inflicting socialism on the country and using Republican support as figleafs.

      It’s never “Republicans are complicit in any way”. Oh no no no.

      Just put on your MAGA hat Ken once and for all.

      1. Yes, jeff, we know. Biden is just fine, since there’s no more mean tweets and your pathetic, adolescent focus on personality is soooo much more important than results!
        Fuck off and die, TDS-addled asshole.

        1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

          So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

          Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

          Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

          Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

          At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

          Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to .

          Thank You! -Reason Staff

          1. Well that was pretty stupid. Does this idiot think that he’s witty?

            1. Question for you: Are all right-wing nut-jobs liars, or only the stupidest ones?

              1. You misspelled far-left, you crazy woke wannabe.

      2. Lying Jeffy admitted he’s a collectivist.

      3. When Trump signed big spending bills (like the Trump Welfare and Re-election Bill of 2020) it is like always the fault of Democrats.

        1. Democrats are evil and hate America and want to destroy the country.

          Republicans are well-intentioned, sometimes screw up but nonetheless deserve grace and understanding, and when they do something really wrong, it is only because they are trying to stop the evil Democrats.

          It is known.

          1. Collectivists are so bad at sarcasm.

            1. But good at stoooopid!

            2. Collectivists are so bad. Ftfy.

          2. And don’t forget, “Progressives are the most evil people.”

            1. Man you leftists sure cry everything someone points out the terrible policies you support.

            2. They really are.
              Glad you finally recognize the obvious. Do you ever plan on repenting?

            3. They make it difficult to forget.

  7. O/T: Well well well. Bill Barr finally speaks out.

    Trump is a moron who believed every self-flattering lie that was told to him by venal associates and grifters.

    1. Well, well, well, TDS addled asshole jeff makes a public fool of himself AGAIN!

    2. Does Bill Barr represent white culture?

      1. No individual person represents “White culture” just like no individual person represents “Black culture”.

        1. Haha you admitted you’re a collectivist.

          1. I’ll just add that to your increasing pile of lies.


              “Whiteness” just means “White culture”. How is it racist to discuss “white culture”, or any culture?


              “It is definitely collectivist to be discussing any culture in racial terms,”

              1. As I explained to you, one can discuss a collectivist topic without BEING a collectivist.

                But you are not serious about any of this, it is just trolling. This is Tulpa-level shit.

                1. “It is definitely collectivist to be discussing any culture in racial terms,”

                  You said that.

                  1. Yup. There is a difference between the adjective and the noun. Learn grammar. I’m tired of this trolling nonsense.

                  2. Why do you come here and just troll?
                    Why do you bother?
                    You rarely if ever offer anything of substance. It is just sad.

                    1. Don’t get mad at me because you called yourself a collectivist.

                    2. “Why do you come here and just troll?”

                      YOU are asking someone else that question?!
                      Why do YOU show up here, doing nothing other than lying, and making an ass of yourself?

                    3. R Mac == Tulpa!

                      “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

                      Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
                      My life is a mess,
                      Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
                      I whinny seductively for the horses,
                      They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
                      My real name is Mary Stack,
                      NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
                      On disability, I live all alone,
                      Spend desperate nights by the phone,
                      I found a man named Richard (Dick) Decker,
                      But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
                      Dick Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
                      I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

                      So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
                      Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
                      Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
                      Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
                      Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
                      Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
                      And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

                      So Richard Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

                      So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

                      But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
                      Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

                      Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

                      Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

                      What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

                      -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
                      Yours Truly,
                      Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

                    4. Sqrlsy = = the Devil apparently

                      SQRLSY One
                      November.9.2020 at 4:26 pm

                      Bimsday, 39 Bemberbember 2020 at 6:66 PM
                      I love to LIE my ass off, and suck Satan’s dick! Because I hate humanity! The Evil One is the Father of Lies, just as Der TrumpfenFuhrer is the Stable Genius! So, as the apple falls not far from the tree, I INSIST on telling obvious lies, all day, every day! Butt… Surprise, surprise! Other Evil Ones Junior will fall for my lies… Because they want to!

                    5. *********Mother’s Lament***********
                      Bimsday, 39 Bemberbember 2020 at 6:66 PM
                      I love to LIE my ass off, and suck Satan’s dick! Because I hate humanity! The Evil One is the Father of Lies, just as Der TrumpfenFuhrer is the Stable Genius! So, as the apple falls not far from the tree, I INSIST on telling obvious lies, all day, every day! Butt… Surprise, surprise! Other Evil Ones Junior will fall for my lies… Because they want to!

                      (Originally posted under “SQRLSY One”, who isn’t low enough to deliberately, obviously engage in identity theft)
                      Mother’s Lament
                      Bimbosday, 43 Bimbobember 2020 at 6:66 PM
                      I lust after being abused by power-mad politicians, because I am power-mad myself! And I suffer under the utterly stupid illusion that power-mad politicians will feed me, like a doggy under the table, a wee few, tiny scraps of their vast powers. Biden came up here to Canoodlestanistanistanistanistan to noodle me and my poodle, and give me nookie, with my Wookie and my bookie, but all that Biden would do, is smell my hair! So I lust after Der TrumpfenFuhrer to come up here and grab my pussy good and hard!

                    6. More gibberish.

                    7. R Mac == Tulpa!

                      Yeah I’m beginning to think so too.

                    8. Everything you think ends up being wrong Jeffrey.

                    9. Jeffy doesn’t think squirrel posts gibberish.

                    10. Spaz flags

                2. Lol. Jeff got caught again and is trying to lie his way out.

        2. Maybe you are learning something. Please keep up your studies. Perhaps you can grow beyond the racism.

          1. But it doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a “Black culture” or a “White culture”.

            No individual person represents “Black culture” because “Black culture” is fundamentally a collectivist concept. No individual person represents “Americans” or “the human race” because those too are collectivist concepts.

            If you are going to define “racist” as to mean “any discussion of a collectivist topic where that collectivism is organized by race”, then it’s no longer a term that bears a moral judgment.

            If we note that Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated compared to Whites, what are we to do about that? Do nothing? If we ask “is that a problem?”, is the response going to be “even asking the question is racist and taboo”?

            Are we really going to assume that the status quo is the pure result of individual choices alone, and there are no structural elements whatsoever that have a hand in producing the statistical outcomes that we observe?

            1. Stating verifiable statistics is neutral. Pigeon holing folks based on race is inherently racist. When done by government it can result in policy that institutionalizes this racism. Such as universities discriminating against Asians regarding admissions based on test scores.
              What cultural traits do French, Faroe Islanders, Poles, Welsh, white Canadians and Bosnians have that can appreciably differentiate them from non-white “cultures?”
              If you are incarcerated it is either you did something the LEO believed to be illegal or the LEO decided to arrest you without cause based on other factors. A start is to decrimilize victimless crimes. As well as promoting individual responsibility. I don’t believe there is rampant illegal police action (I don’t live in a collectivist blue area so maybe that is why because I don’t see it); I know it happens but don’t believe it is a major cause of incarceration. The only time in my circle this occurred happen to be a white female Mennonite and the arresting and assaulting officer was black. The officer did something similar a few weeks apart to two young black women and that became a big news story. Media responsibility may have a component to this as well. But it goes back to individual responsibility.

              1. But it goes back to individual responsibility.

                Okay then. So if you think that the criminal justice system right now is largely fair and not structurally biased at least racially, then why do you think it is that Blacks are disproportionately incarcerated compared to Whites?

                1. Because more individual blacks committed crimes for which they were caught and convicted proportionally compared against individual whites.
                  What laws do you think are racist that are resulting in a lot of blacks to be incarcerated that aren’t affecting many whites? What parts of the judicial system are allowing whites to bypass convictions where blacks are not afforded that outcome? Why not compare Asians to whites? Why not compare Jews to whites?

                  1. Q: Pre-Civil-War America, why were blacks enslaved far more often than whites?

                    A: They (or their ancestors) were caught in Africa, and impartially convicted of being suitable for slavery, at rates proportionally far greater as compared against individual whites!

                    1. Iirc the importing of slaves became illegal during antebellum. They weren’t convicted of anything; they were considered property. The Democratic Party fought hard to maintain that evil institution including the majority of justices in the Dredd Scott case, the upper echelon of the Confederacy and the northern copperheads that wanted to let the slave states secede. They continued some of that “inferior race” garbage into more modern times with the likes of Robert Byrd, Harry Reid and Joe Biden. When HR Clinton cited Byrd as a mentor one has to be suspicious of her being in that camp too. Somewhat of a non sequitur but four of the top slave holding countries in 2021 are in Africa. India tops that list with greater than 10 million. Data per World Population Review.

                    2. FYI

                      The gap is closing, but… Blacks more likely to be poor, not able to afford fancy lawyers and inside political connections (like richer whites and Asians). This is passed generation to generation. So are “anti-white attitudes” (defy the “masters”) which are admired by your slaves or fellow-suppressed peoples, dating way back, generation after generation. So I have read, anyway. Sad to say, among some blacks, to this day, then, academic striving (or even working hard for “the Man”) is frowned upon as “acting white”. Again, what I have read, not personally seen. A mix of linger problems… Sad to say, racism (among many people of all races) lingers on and on, to be honest…

                    3. Martha Stewart went to jail for something she didn’t do. She had high-paid attorneys.

                    4. Spaz seems off his meds, flagged again

                  2. Because more individual blacks committed crimes for which they were caught and convicted proportionally compared against individual whites.

                    I absolutely agree that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

                    However there are a lot of steps in between “an individual action that results in the law being broken” and “incarcerated in prison”. For example:

                    How did the authorities even know that a law was broken? Where were the police patrolling, and how frequently?
                    Did the police violate anyone’s rights in the course of the arrest and/or investigation?
                    Did the police follow proper rules of evidence?
                    Did the individual have access to a competent defense attorney?
                    Did the prosecution act ethically and responsibly?
                    Did the individual have a judge and a jury that were fair and impartial?
                    Did the judge apply the sentencing guidelines appropriately?

                    Very few of these are under the direct control of the individual. They are a part of the criminal justice *system*. If the system is rigged or biased, then it can produce inequitable outcomes, regardless of what individual perpetrators do.

                    This is part of the discussion. Very few people actually believe that, say, murderers should be able to get away with murder because “systemic racism”. The question is, once an individual enters the system, for whatever reason, can we be sure that the system produces appropriate and fair results, regardless of race, class, gender, etc.?

                    1. Q: How much justice do you want?

                      A: How much can you afford? How much money, fame, and power do you have?

                      Think OJ Simpson, who had enough money, fame, and power to get a 9-month-long trial! How many poor WHITES accused of murder get a 9-month trial?

                      Racism is real! Justice according to how much money-fame-etc. you have, is an underlying MUCH bigger problem!

                    2. I see jeff avoided the question of which laws are racist.

                    3. Racism is real because OJ could afford top shelf defense attorneys and poor whites cannot?

                    4. And again

                    5. “Racism is real! Justice according to how much money-fame-etc. you have, is an underlying MUCH bigger problem!”

                      OJ was black but rich and famous, so he was able to buy more justice. This does NOT prove that racism isn’t real!

                      Heart attacks and cancer kill zillions, and snake bites kill relatively few (in the USA at least). Can I bring poisonous snakes over to bite you, then? Since cancer and heart attacks prove snake bites harmless? You OK with that?

                      Read AND think, please! Reality is complex! Deal with it!

                    6. There is no such thing as poisonous snakes. There are venomous ones. The snakes in my neck of the woods are all non-venomous. Saw several this weekend. Even found a full skin. Was neat.
                      I agree racism is real. Some folks support assigning behavior based on race. Then making collectivist policy decisions based on that.

                2. Why is your assumption races commit crimes at same rate? Oh, because you’re a lying collectivist.

          2. “Maybe you are learning something. Please keep up your studies. Perhaps you can grow beyond the racism.”

            Or stupidity. or dishonesty, but no one is holding their breath. Jeff seems to have untapped reservoirs of both.

    3. I like how Jeff uses links like these to prove he isnt a leftist. Barry and Trump are not in office. Your brain dead socialist is.

      1. I know, right?

        I think Trump actually believed his own lies. That he was the most popular, greatest of all time, and Basement Biden couldn’t have possibly beaten such an amazing tremendous guy such as himself, so it had to be fraud. I don’t think he had any idea how everyone outside of his little echo chamber and his cult following thought of him.

        1. “iTs a cULt!!”

          This from the resident supporter of CRT and intersectionality.

          1. Fuck off, slanderous asshole.

            1. Are you rejecting CRT?

            2. Hold up, do you even know what “slanderous” means, because you’ve totally plumped for CRT and intersectionality here many, many, many times.

        2. Yea, that totes explains the inconsistent data and coincidental overnight “pauses” that weren’t really pauses but lies used to clear out observers

          1. coincidental overnight “pauses” that weren’t really pauses but lies used to clear out observers

            Even if true, to do what? Stuff the ballot boxes? Alter the counts? If that’s the case, where is the evidence of any of this and why wasn’t it brought up in court when Trump had the opportunity to do so?


    Why do we reward mediocrity to make people feel better about being average or below average?

    1. You’ll have to give a specific example of what you are referring to.

        1. Poor Jeffy the Collectivist.

      1. Mediocrity – a level of performance appreciably above racist Jeff’s but otherwise considered unremarkable. Mediocrity.

        1. What is the definition of ‘racist’ that you are using in your above example?

          1. Attempting to assign behavior based on race.

            1. Do you mean “assign behavior to an individual based on group-level characteristics”?

              1. Why would I put a Silicon Valkey CEO in the same group as a Faroe Island first mate on a small fishing boat, a waitress in Berlin, a New Brunswick logger and a Bosnian vegetable farmer? Because of their skin color?

                1. If you were a racist collectivist like Jeff you’d understand that the original sin of racism and colonialism is carried in the genes.
                  A mid-nineteenth century North Sea fisherman or Russian serf is just as guilty as a Spanish plantation owner in the Caribbean.

                  1. The Spanish plantation owner would be classified as “white-Hispanic.”

                  2. Oh fuck off. That is not what I mean at all.

                    1. Yet it is what you’ve been saying for weeks.

                2. Right, I am trying to clarify your definition of the word “racist”.

                  If you really meant to say, literally,
                  Attempting to assign behavior based on race.

                  then this precludes even making observations or forming neutral conclusions such as “a Black man is statistically more likely to go to prison than a White man”.

                  What I thought you were implying, is if a person were to assign individual motivations based on a group characteristic. So that if Alice met Bob on the street, and Bob was a Black man, if Alice said “Oh hi Bob, why aren’t you in prison?” based only on his skin color, that would be considered racist. Is that what you meant?

                  1. You aren’t trying to do much of anything other than troll. There were a multitude of questions that you fail to answer.

                    1. I am sincerely trying to understand your position here.

                      You say that racism means “attempting to assign behavior based on race”. That is a little vague. That is why I asked the follow-up questions.

                      As to your question about whether to lump together Berlin waitresses and Bosnian farmers: I am not arguing whether you *should* or *should not* do such a thing. Maybe they have something in common, maybe not. Maybe they have something in common due to how they were socialized based partly on their skin color, or how others view them based partly on their skin color. I think it’s worth looking in to. I don’t think it is bigoted to merely ask the question or to study the subject in an academic manner.

                    2. Lol. No you weren’t fatty. It is your usual post modernism take on sophistry.

                    3. We were trying to get you to understand what you meant by “white culture.” You couldn’t explain it then did some whataboutism talking about black culture and Asian culture. You then when collectivist on us. Iirc it was under the context of teaching CRT. I find it wrong to assign behavior based on race.

                    4. I posit that if there is such a thing as “Black culture” then there is also such a thing as “White culture”.

                      If you reject the premise then you must also reject the conclusion. Fine.

                      But if you accept the premise but you reject the conclusion, then explain why.

                      “I find it wrong to assign behavior based on race.”

                      If by that you mean that you find it wrong to make assumptions about the behavior of individuals based solely on group-level characteristics, like race or class or gender, then I agree.

                      But if by that you mean that you find it wrong to even make statistical observations about the behavior of individuals based on group-level characteristics, then I disagree.

                      That is why I was trying to ask you to clarify your statement.

  9. Does this one get your attention? Or is it just fine?

  10. Chef Andrew Gruel Survived COVID-19 and Gavin Newsom

    And one of those is considerably more dangerous to your way of life than the other.

    1. Don’t be cruel, don’t eat that gruel!

      Q: Why did a tribe of cannibals flock to southern California?

      A: They read this article, then they were hungry for some Andrew Gruel!

        1. What, the cannibals might only catch Andrew if he’s as lame physically as you are ethically and intellectually?

      1. Your bad pun was gruel and unusual pun-ishment. Grueling to read in fact. A gruelsome act.

        1. Thanks! Chumby for one has a sense of humor!


    This is Why Minorities and White People Can’t Get Along in America

    How White Rage is Still the Force that Controls Every Level of American Society

    1. You’re a racist if you say angry white dudes are joining Neo-Nazi Proud Boy MAGA groups and shooting up people like in El Paso, Charleston, Pittsburgh, etc.

      Because us white guys never get angry.

      Oh, and slavery didn’t exist in the USA. Just like the Halocaust is fake. Because MAGA types are all sweet and lovable.

      1. What are you if you talk about that angry white dude that shot those Republicans while they were practicing baseball a couple years back? You remember, that Bernie supporter with a van, a gun and bad aim.

        1. Someone who is up on the news, and knows both major parties have nutcase, violent white supporters.

          1. Only white huh?

      2. The Shoa was implemented by national socialists that picked an ethnic group, then demonized them in media and street actions then eventually in law.

      3. Literally nobody is arguing that you retarded piece of shit.

  12. Washington posts admits fabricating timelines and reverses claim that Cupertino, Calif diversity training seminar “never happened”, now admitting it did in fact happen.

    I went through Meckler and Dawsey’s piece line-by-line, publishing a point-by-point rebuttal on social media and sending it to the Post’s editors. Within 48 hours, the entire story collapsed. The paper admitted to fabricating the timeline of events, retracted or added six full paragraphs to the story, reversed its assertion that the Cupertino diversity lesson never happened, and made the absurd argument that the Treasury Department, which had told employees that “virtually all White people . . . contribute to racism,” did not mean that “all white people are racist.”

    This was a deep embarrassment for the Washington Post, which then attempted to hide behind vague “clarifications” and dispatched a vice president of communications to do damage control. But the paper’s actions were indefensible: it sent out deeply partisan reporters with no regard for the facts to do a hatchet job on a fellow journalist.

    Democracy dies in the editorial room of the Washington Post.

      1. We need to keep talking about the totalitarianism of the progressives, why trying to control what people think is integral to being progressive, and why it’s evil–even when the progressives doing it claim to have good intentions.

        There are actual, real racists out there, and the worst thing about this may be that they’re draining the word “racism” of its legitimate meaning–by erasing the distinction between racists and non-racists.

        The progressives are carrying water for the white supremacists–who so often claim to be just like the rest of us. It’s just another example of why progressives are and should be hated as America’s most horrible people. What would the real racists do without them?

        1. “There are actual, real racists out there, and the worst thing about this may be that they’re draining the word “racism” of its legitimate meaning–by erasing the distinction between racists and non-racists.”

          Even when you’re right about the big picture, you still manage to shoot yourself in the dick.
          No, the worst thing about the left’s totalitarianism is not that it diminishes criticism of assholes.

          1. How the fuck do you expect to stop losing when you keep conceding the field up front?
            If you approach conflict with the intent to negotiate your surrender, you’ve already lost.

          2. I didn’t say mean it was the worst thing about totalitarianism. I meant it was the worst thing about them trying to erase the line between racists and non-racists, specifically.

            When they insist that all whites are inherently racist, they discourage people from understanding the difference between racist and non-racist behavior. Racism If racism isn’t something you do but inherent to whiteness, how do you stop being white?

            That really wasn’t hard to follow from the original comment. Regardless, it’s not enough to condemn totalitarian progressives as the most horrible people in America–if you don’t like the way you think they’re being condemned? You seem to be internalizing SJW talking points. When did you become so easily triggered?

            1. No, Ken, I’m pointing out that, like you do with other issues (like global climate change warming), you’ve conceded their thesis that racism is worth prioritizing and obscuring it is “the worst thing about it”.
              You’ve said with that statement that collectivization is the lesser evil than properly identifying who may or may not be the real racists.
              You’re not pushing back on the practice of treating individuals as subsidiary units of a collective based on superficial characteristics, you’re objecting that their process for doing so is mistakenly applied.
              It’s like the woman who said she’d sleep with Churchill for a million dollars but wouldn’t sleep with him for just a dollar: just haggling over price.
              You make a lot of good arguments, Ken, but you make some shitty ones too. It happens. The worst thing about rejecting the existence of an oversight is that blindspots aren’t dealt with.

              1. This makes no sense outside the context of your weird, ideologically driven thought policing. You’d make a good progressive. Maybe you should try it.

    1. Amoral billionaires like Bezos demand profits and so the WaPo becomes a tool of leftist assholes to spread fear uncertainty and doubt.

      1. In all seriousness, Bezos wants the Washington Post so he can defend himself from attacks on the left about him monopolizing everything and funneling U.S. consumer dollars to manufacturers in China.

        It’s the same thing with the rest.

        Nike would rather set Americans against each other by making the woke case against Betsy Ross because they’d rather talk about racism than the sweatshops all over the third world and how much they pay their workers over there.

        Apple is the same way. So is Disney. They’d rather talk about racism, sexism, and immigration–rather than discuss the things they do to pander to a vicious dictatorship in China that holds millions of people as political prisoners for what they say, believe, and their ethnic background.

        Find me an especially woke CEO, and I’ll find you a company that’s neck deep is some ugly shit they want us to notice. Their woke handwaving is meant to distract us.

        1. “Nike would rather set Americans against each other by making the woke case against Betsy Ross because they’d rather talk about racism than the sweatshops all over the third world and how much they pay their workers over there.”

          Nike shoes are made by actual, literal slaves, but they managed to get rich white liberals and NBA millionaires to run to their defense because they mouthed woke platitudes.

        2. I believe the interrogation term is “chaff and redirect.”

  13. Remember Peanuts, the US civil war 1860-65 is properly called the War of Northern Aggression.

    And there was no institutional slavery like the looney lefties say. They were “farm workers” or subcontractors – not slaves.


    1. Well it clearly was a war of northern aggression. Whether the aggression was justified or not is the relevant question.

    2. The Confederates fired the first shot and it was aggressive not defensive. The southern sympathizers are incorrect. Any form of taking the fruits of someone’s labor and keeping/redistributing is immoral. Slavery was the worst form of this.

      1. Yes the confederates fired first after South Carolina had seceded. So the question remains as to whether it was aggression or a defense of their territory. There was no constitutional prohibition to succession. The war that followed was clearly northern aggression.
        I’m all in on slavery bad and I have no interest in refighting the civil war. But to step back in history and make rigid declarations about events is not rational thinking.

        1. They attacked a fort that was not theirs. I’m not convinced the North had enough support to march into the South had that not occurred.

          1. It was inside their jurisdiction. Arguably.

            1. The legal owner was still a legal government.

      2. When Sheridan tore through Shenandoah Valley, burning every farm in his way–whether slave owner or not or owned by Union soldier or not–was that aggressive or defensive?

        When Sheridan oversaw similar tactics to massacre Native Americans in Indian Wars, after the Civil War, do you consider that aggressive or defensive?

        And if you see a difference between the tactics in those two wars, what is it and why is it different?

        1. The North rejected the secession. That is different than using force to take land that was never theirs (the tribal lands). I don’t morally agree with the tactic in either case.

          1. On what legal basis did the north reject the secession? Slavery isn’t libertarian but imposing your will on people claiming their independence by violence leading to half a million deaths isn’t libertarian either. Such a conundrum.

            1. The Confederacy could have surrendered without additional bloodshed. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved and ostensibly the end of slavery.
              I could ask what is the legal basis for owning other people but I think I know the answer. So you supported the Nuremberg Laws from the same perspective of not supporting the Union attacking the Confederacy after Fort Sumter?

              1. Well slavery was certainly the underlying issue. But that’s not the reason the north invaded. And for better or worse, ok for worse, slavery was legal when South Carolina joined the union. If you’re determined to believe that this is all about good versus evil I’m fine with that. I’m just suggesting that life is a little more complicated.

                1. I believe it was economic and slavery was a major component of it.

          2. “The North rejected the secession.”

            You seem to be missing the point that in both instances, Sheridan was targeting civilians.

            And the victims of his scorched earth policy in Virginia often not only had nothing to do with the secession but in some cases were off fighting against it for the Union.

            Again, I’m not asking about the goals. I’m talking about the tactics. When is willfully using the military to target civilians in an attempt to break their will appropriate? They were farmers. Plenty of them didn’t own slaves–especially in the Shenandoah Valley. The Union invaded the valley with the objective of burning their farms to the ground. That was the whole point of the invasion. In what way were they being aggressive?

            1. “I don’t morally agree with the tactic in either case” is ambiguous?

              1. The allegation was that the South were the aggressors.

                Sheridan using a scorched earth policy under orders to purposely target civilians–regardless of whether their farms, crops, and homes were slave owning or not and regardless of whether the family farms were owned by Confederate sympathizers, Union soldiers, or non-combatants.

                That would seem to suggest that the North was guilty of plenty of aggression. In many cases, they left women and children homeless and starving in the middle of winter–after they’d burned all the crops and confiscated or destroyed all the livestock.

                At one point, later in the war, Southern forces were relegated to using VMI cadets (children) in a charge at the Battle of New Market. 43 VMI cadets were wounded and 10 of them died, but they stopped the Union advance and saved local farms from destruction.

                I have a hard time thinking of them as aggressors.

        2. Yeah it’s kinda convenient to forget that the northern aggression didn’t end with the confederacy.

          1. Their fort was attacked. Not unlike Pearl Harbor except Japan formally declared war on the US. What was the legal basis for attacking Sumter?

            1. What was their legal basis for having a fort in a foreign country?

              1. They owned the land and built it.

                1. So if the federal government “owns” land in Hong Kong they can invade if the Chinese declare it now exists under their jurisdiction?

                  1. Does the US federal govt own land in HK? Has China attacked it?

          2. “Yeah it’s kinda convenient to forget that the northern aggression didn’t end with the confederacy.”

            There does seem to be a double standard based on whether you liked the victims.

            Same people attacking civilians using the same tactics.

            One of them is a massacre. The other one is an early example of modern warfare.

            And it’s especially off because the people of the Shenandoah Valley were not huge slave owners on giant plantations. They were mostly single family homesteads. When you picture the victims, picture the family homestead in The Waltons–rather than Tara in Gone with the Wind.


    3. “Remember Peanuts, the US civil war 1860-65 is properly called the War of Northern Aggression.”

      Remember to fuck off and die, turd.

      1. Sevo… Towering GIANT of raw, naked, overwhelming intellect! With persuasive powers NEVER before witnessed in all of human history!

        ALL HAIL SEVO!!!

        1. Moreso than you anyway.

          1. To gain insight into WHY ethically and intellectually extra-lazy people resent the HELL out of the ethically and intellectually hard-working and productive, please read this:

            1. The only insights any will learn reading that blather is that you’re certifiable.

              1. Whoa! The Emperors and the Perfect People vehemently reject ALL ideas concerning their nakedness!

                What a surprise! More news at 11:00!

                1. Spaz shows up and gets flagged again

                2. Sqrlsy thought that the moral of the story was that public nudity is de rigueur.
                  The hospital staffers had a hell of a time getting his underwear back on.

            2. Does your church take in folks that missed out on Heaven’s Gate and Hale-Bopp?

              1. All Hail the Hale-Bopp! Let’s all go out, and get really-REALLY Hale-Bopped, to the Misty Mountain Hale-Bopp tail-bop-hop!

                (Be sure to wear black outfits or pajamas and fancy Nike sneakers, under tasteful purple blankets).

    4. It was the “War for Southern Independence” and the Confederacy would have been happy to leave the Union without bloodshed if Buchanan and Lincoln had simply turned over all federal property in southern states to the secessionists.

    5. It’s really creepy when a pedophile calls people Peanuts. Please stop.

      1. We’re all way to old to be in Buttplug’s strike zone.

          1. Nobody would. That’s why he targets people under five. They don’t know what he’s doing, and he can overpower the weaker ones.

  14. The GOP has a lot of Senate seats to defend in 2022. Has anyone handicapped the races (at this early date) and shown where the GOP can confidently expect a net pickup of even one seat?

    1. My main news sources are CNN and Vox too.

  15. WSJ posts a story today showing that states reducing or removing enhanced unemployment benefits are seeing lower rates of unemployment. Who would’ve thought.

    Sleepy Joe Biden sez just pay em more because he can’t understand economics, and his handlers won’t let him say otherwise.

    1. The current emperor has clothes. They are needed to hide his Depends.

  16. The Oil & Gas industry is rebounding nicely after the Trump collapse.

    Recommended picks AR and DVN. Both leveraged but with a much higher upside.

    You read it here Peanuts.

    and a price recovery is not “inflation”.

    1. Cherry-picking is not data, turd

    2. Are you giving financial advice?

      Because I heard a few years ago you made some kind of financial bet with another commenter and ended up losing. Is that true?

    3. You mean when Trump blocked fracking and pipelines and collapsed the industry? Ooops, actually that was Team (D).

      1. Wait, the oil and gas industry “collapsed”? Because of fracking bans and pipeline bans? When did this happen?

        1. Alberta is a North American bellwether and it has already collapsed and the Dakotas and Saskatchewan aren’t far behind.
          But hey, your pal Tony thought that upgraders didn’t exist and oil went from the ground right into your gas tank.

          1. Now all you need to do is actually demonstrate evidence of this collapse and show that whatever Team Blue did is directly and unequivocally responsible for this alleged collapse. Not hard, I’m sure.

    1. Well that’s a leftist topic. So consistent.

      Whats blue anon up to?

    2. The fuck is Qanon. Only leftists seem to know.

      1. I’m sure your Breitbart buddies will be able to fill you in.

        1. I’ll have to search for the website to figure out what’s going on here. Thanks for the tip.

        2. QAnon is a DNC bogeyman they raise to scare wine moms into staying on the reservation.

          Somehow they’re using it to pretend that Epstein and this are just crazy conspiracy theories.

            1. I was dubious until you invoked Wikipedia.

              1. Glad I could help.

                1. Thanks again.

            2. “The number of QAnon adherents is unclear,[44] but the group maintains a large online following. The imageboard website 8chan, rebranded to 8kun in 2019, is QAnon’s online home, as it is the only place Q posts messages.[5][45][46][47] In June 2020, Q exhorted followers in a post on 8chan to take a “digital soldiers oath”; many did, using the Twitter hashtag #TakeTheOath.[48] In July 2020, Twitter banned thousands of QAnon-affiliated accounts and changed its algorithms to reduce the conspiracy theory’s spread.”

              My gosh, someone wrote a Wikipedia article on it. It must be real.

              This whole thing is faker than wrestling.

              1. It’s another 4chan prank like the OK sign or Pepe, that the media decided to pretend was real anyway, because frightening gullible wine moms is important.

                1. LOL. It was from wine moms whom I first heard about the OK sign thing. They wanted folks to post about it on SlapFace or one of them social media apps.

              2. There you go, carrying water and gaslighting on behalf of right-wing conspiracy morons.

    3. Chemjeff gets obsessively defensive when people call out his pedophile masters.

      1. Nardz, there you are. Why don’t you fill in Gaear above on what QAnon is.

        1. Hook me up Nardz. Jeff is the expert but his time is far too valuable.

          1. If I’m not mistaken, they’re a bunch of people on the internet who think the “elite” are big on raping children, and also that there’s some secret circle of saviors within these power circles that are fighting it from the inside and will one day fix everything.
            The latter seems terribly misguided, though there is a lot of evidence of the former (catholic church, epstein, podesta, etc).
            And chemjeff here is a big child rape advocate, hence his hatred for those who oppose it.

            1. All sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I confess I haven’t done my due diligence in keeping myself apprised of this obvious threat to our beloved democratic institutions. I should probably subscribe to Jeff’s newsletter. But thanks for your help and a big thanks to Jeff for taking time out from this trolling, I mean posting, to enlighten me.

  17. O/T: DeSantis and Florida Team Red strike again.

    In this case, he signs a bill that:

    cities “may not enact or enforce a resolution, ordinance, rule, code, policy, or take any action that restricts or prohibits or has the effect of restricting or prohibiting the types or fuel sources of energy production.”

    The stated rationale is to prevent cities from enacting ordinances to ban natural gas hookups for new developments. But it is so broad, it could also be used to forbid cities from enacting simple goals, not enforced ordinances, for renewable energy targets. Or it could also prohibit municipalities for merely creating building codes that emphasize energy efficiency.

    I don’t think natural gas hookups should be banned by any jurisdiction, city or state. On the other hand, I also don’t think that trying to persuade people to use, or not to use, a particular energy source, should be criminalized either. As usual nowadays, I think the Team Red backlash to what Team Blue is trying to do swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

    1. Cities are political subdivisions of the state. Florida can tell them fuck off. In this case I don’t see a downside.

      1. What happened to local control?

        1. The states are local control in our glorious democratic Republic. Were you out sick that day?


            We used to like the idea that decisions were made closest to the people in the affected jurisdictions.

            1. Until the states all joined the union. Pretty fucked up I know.

    2. What about your thoughts regarding forcing people to subsidize a particular energy source?

  18. O/T: I think we just found the GOP frontrunner for 2024.

    Czech President Zeman calls transgender people ‘disgusting’

    1. A bit insensitive and broad, but not wholly inaccurate.
      Your hivemind, on the other hand, try to force people to date transgenders or be labeled a bigot.

      1. You’re darn right. So-called “genital preferences” are rooted in science-denying transphobic bigotry.


      2. try to force people to date transgenders

        Who exactly is trying to force whom to date transgendered individuals?

        1. Hope it never happens like it did to me. Her name was Lola. La la la Lola.

          1. Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
            It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, except for Lola
            La-la-la-la Lola

        2. Apparently not in Prague, where there position is, “The Czech is not in the male.”

    2. Excellent analysis, jeff.

      Anyone who was paying attention in 2016 knows that Drumpf won the Republican nomination by emphasizing that he was the most religious, socially conservative candidate. And he followed through as President by literally turning this country into The Handmaid’s Tale. So you’re absolutely right — it really does look like the 2024 election will be Harris vs. Zeman.

      1. #chemjeffindividualistradical or something pretty damn close.

    3. The EU is threatening to kick out Hungary for passing a pretty toothless law preventing the trans movement from recruiting minor children. Mutilating children isn’t popular with some. Go figure. Apparently some czechs agree. It’s like Jim Crow all over again or something.

      1. That is not an accurate description of the law.

        Lawmakers in Hungary passed legislation Tuesday that prohibits sharing with minors any content that portrays being gay or transgender, something supporters said would help fight pedophilia but which human rights groups denounced as anti-LGBT discrimination.

        It continues the same old trope that to be gay is to be a ‘pedophile’.

        1. Dunno about the pedophile thing but I’d rather my grandson waits till he’s 18 before he decides to have his dick chopped off.

          1. You are ignoring the part about prohibiting sharing with minors any portrayal of being gay. Why should that be illegal?

            1. Kinda think parents are capable of figuring out this shit. They’ve only been doing for thousands of years. And somehow the percentage of gay and gender dysphoria individuals never seems to change much.

      2. Telling people that gay people exist is the same as “mutilating children”. OK!

        If you would ever like to work on not being evil…

        If you ever come around to wanting to work on your affliction, EvilBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
        People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.

        1. Yeah, Gaear is trying to whitewash a pretty horrible law. The law makes it illegal to share with a minor any portrayal of being gay, and the rationale is the disgusting trope of ‘gays are perverts’. Not only does it infringe on some pretty basic rights of how to parent one’s kids, it perpetuates horrible stereotypes.

          1. Pretty sure parents can still advise their children to be gay and not face jail time. And as far as I can see doesn’t affect gay or transgender adults at all. Why do you hate children?

            1. However, Canada’s leftists have made it illegal for parents to advise their children not to mutilate themselves, or even to “misgender” anyone.

              1. I recall Jordan Peterson opposing Canada’s attempts to make it illegal to mis-pronoun a transgender. The left took it as anti-trans whereas the actual position was anti-controlled speech.

              2. Canada has gone full on lunatic fringe. As bad as it is here it’s far worse there.

    4. Is “white culture” anti-transgender?

      1. By definition. I think. Probably. Or maybe not. Is this an election year?

  19. A chef named Gruel is just too good. Is slapfish like spatch chicken?

  20. O/T: Polyandry, here we come!

    Evidently South Africa already recognizes polygamy, so if they recognize one, seems to me, they ought to recognize the other.

    1. Meh. It’s Africa. Whaddya gonna do? I’m cool with chicks having multiple husbands if they’re prepared to make the sammichs.

      1. They’d have to go on Maury to find out who the father is.

      2. Sammiches? In any case totally on board. With the sammiches I mean.

      3. Don’t forget to bring the beer!

  21. Why is Reason covering this? It’s TOO LOCAL.

    1. They’re not covering it. It’s just an advertisement for Nick Gillespe’s podcast.

  22. I look forward to chemjeff’s CRT dictated explanation of why transracial is wrong but transgender is totes legitimate.

    1. Trans Ams were wrong too. They attracted gold chains, Aqua Velva, REO Speedwagon cassingles and Members Only jackets.

    2. He’ll have to check with his bosses for the latest woke talking points.

    3. It’s because when the wholesale reparations start we don’t need all the white people identifying as black folk.

  23. Thanks for updating us with useful information – Readhindimei

  24. If you are lookin for casual sex contacts in UK you must to visit casual sex in london

Please to post comments