chasfh

All Tik Tok has to do is promise to promote Trump more and the Party will drop its objections.

But everyone is so mean to him. 😭

Sure why not

Yeah, man, welcome to the ... to the ... wait, what was that again? Welcome to the cab? Welcome to the crib? The club? The clip? I forget ...

Oh yeah, we'll be fine, and like I say, it almost certainly doesn't fit into our plans. But I'd sure be OK with it.

I used to hang out at Tech Plaza when I was a kid. I would play pinball at Cunningham's; go to Kresge or Kmart for a frozen coke or cherry (small: 15¢; large: 25¢, plus a penny tax) or a coke and fries (under a buck!); flip through albums at Music Man; read some books at Metro Bookstore; maybe get a hot fudge sundae at Sanders or a chili dog at Grecian Palace. Anytime we needed new clothes, mom would take us to Penney's or Thom McAn. Dad would get new tires at the Firestone. There was even a Kmart Foods grocery store there for a time. Now ... a complete dump. A Walmart and I don't know what else. Bombers could probably tell us what's still there.

Is the age of consent in Michigan still 16? That's kind of mind-blowing if it is, but if someone wanted to call a 16-year-old female in Michigan a "woman" because of that, it would be at least defensible. Although the state should just raise age of consent to 18 and remove any doubt. But I'm pretty sure that one thing we can all agree on (I would think) is that a 13-year-old is not a "woman" by any definition—except, apparently, CNN's. I could see this decision as being political correctness run amok, but really, I couldn't give less of a sht if a 17-year-old get her nose out of joint for being called a "girl" instead of a "woman". If an 18-year-old gets her nose out of joint about it, then yes, she has a legitimate beef.

What's the problem with "underage female"? What quarters would that flak come from?

Good lord, I can't believe CNN actually wrote this in their story about Roman Polanski, talking about the 13-year-old he sexually assaulted: https://view.newsletters.cnn.com/messages/171029497459629e4f556d7e7/raw Prosecuting Polanski: Roman Polanski will face a Los Angeles civil trial in August 2025 for allegedly raping an underage woman in 1973, a judge determined Tuesday. I mean, come on—you gotta be kidding me here. There is no such thing as an “underage woman”. A female is either a woman or a girl, and a girl who has not reached the age of majority is a girl and not a woman, full stop. By stating that an underage female is a woman, the implication, however inadvertent, is that she is a valid option as a sexual partner for an adult, because legally speaking, an adult is allowed to have sex with women, but not girls. That’s basically the dividing line of what separates a “woman” from a “girl”! And even though the phrase “underage girl” is redundant, it is certainly far better than the falsehood that an underage girl can be considered a woman at the same time. This first struck me when some sports website a few years ago referred to a "high school women's basketball team", which is possible only if the entire team is the age of majority or over. The total lack of exactitude of this kind of thing just drives me bonkers. This is a stark example of either sloppy thinking or political correctness, and in this case, neither is good.

Who is this "Aaron Rogers" that this guy Collin Ruggs mentions in his tweet three tiimes?

I wonder whether his eyes are bad, which is to say, not up to major league standards. Maybe he's 20/20 or even 20/25, so he can't see spin.

I know it's never going to happen because it's intradivisional, and probably outside of Harris's plans, and that's OK—but, man, would a controllable-for-the-next-two-years Dylan Cease ever look good in the olde English D, and I would be totally fine sending them Reese Olson-JHM-plus for him.

You probably already know that Sigourney Weaver was seen in the crowd shots of a Beatles concert film in 1965. Even at age 14, she was a woman among girls.

Just a reminder that the courts are not going help us by disqualifying or even besmirching Trump by making him stand trial for acts that constitute legal standing. We're going to have to overcome the “massive resources” that Trump benefactors are going to pour into "election integrity" efforts and defeat him ourselves.

Chaser:

Give the finger to the rock-and-roll singer As he's dancing upon your paycheck. Sales climb high to the garbage pail sky Like a giant dildo crushing the sun ...

I think at this point the organization is going to let Javy keep looping his own rope for the next couple of weeks so he can basically make the decision for them.

"From the river to the sea." Sounds familiar ...

This must be one of the first, if not the first, Church Chat, since the audience didn't go crazy as soon as it was introduced.

Well, maybe this John Barnett guy was evil like that, too, and just didn’t have an island. Who knows. But the bigger-picture issue here is how used to this kind of thing we will get, if we allow ourselves to. Epstein happens and no one cares—everyone cheers, actually. Barnett happens and no one seriously questions it. Next guy happens, and maybe we just shrug and say, well, that’s happened before. The guy after that, and we don’t even pay attention because it’s just business as usual, happens all the time. The guy after that, and we cheer that our team took care of business on behalf of us, the people. Slopes are slippery for a reason.

Which one gave it away? The fact that I couldn’t read straight first thing in the morning, or the fact that I only almost got a woody? 😁

You had me nodding until this …

Not that it needs explicit saying, but there doesn’t have to be. Red hats respond to emotion, not facts, and she delivered high-school-drama-club-level emotion in spades. And she’s good-looking enough to get away with playing the damsel in distress card so that all these tiny-d defenders of honor will come to her aid. I wonder whether that’s what the fakety-fake crying was really about.

I think we all can figure out who the “massive resources” are coming from and what kind of “election integrity” they’re talking about.

This is the first thing I’m reading after waking up this morning, so I almost got a woody because for a split second I thought you posted “facing an indictment”.