It is true, though. There really is a scenic overlook of the stockyards with bad horseshoe “art”.
Did they ever?
Well, there’s Astroturf, I guess…
\
Indeed.
And if I didn’t suspect his name is Legion (so to speak) in that part of the country, I’d be more impressed.
\
Good point.
Unsurprising answers might be ‘organizing militias,’ ‘finding ways to harass people of color,’ and ‘disappointing his family.’
I grew up in “Dog Shitty.” None of this is a shock.
Crazy (even by MAGA standards) person Laura Loomer suggests that Wussolini should “physically refuse to leave the White House as a form of sit in protest against voter fraud and stolen elections”.
Hey, if they have to drag his sorry ass out of the building, all I ask is that the pay-per-view price be reasonable.
Once more…stockyards no longer exist. The scenic overlook is above a really bad smelling feedlot, just outside of town. Thousands of cattle in that location.
Maybe there is some technical distinction between a stockyard and feedlot, but in general parlance, a stockyard is just a yard with livestock in it. That would include feedlots as a special case.
Stockyards were a location where cattle and other livestock were brought by the farmers and usually sold to the slaughterhouses, which were generally nearby. So a cow would be at the stockyards for no more than a day or two.
Feedlots, on the other hand, are where just-weaned calves are brought, and they live the rest of their life there, usually 9-12 months. When they have reached the desired weight, they are then shipped to the meat-packing plants.
/end hijack
Ogdammmit, this is the Dope: pedantry is strictly prohibited.
It is, of course, a stupid attempt at a parallel, because AFAIK absolutely no abortion-rights supporters are advocating for a pregnant person’s being allowed to have an abortion on the floor of the House of Representatives while that body is in session.
Likewise, no abortion-rights supporters give a crap if House Republicans or anybody else wants to go maskless in the privacy of a separate room.
Therefore, there is no hypocrisy or inconsistency whatever in supporting both the right to have a legal abortion in decent privacy and the requirement for Congresscritters gathered together in their workplace to wear facemasks.
I guess we need to modify the slogan to “My body, my choice, within the limits of self-evident common-sense public health priorities that apparently Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican maskholes are too squirrel-brain stupid to be able to grasp.”
I don’t think I need to add anything to the tweet.
The linked story, in case you don’t want to click through:
<Consults rules>
I was under the impression it was mandatory. 
Tucker Carlson has too much time on his hands. And too much empty space in his head.
I guess it would be OK if she had posed naked for a soft-core lesbian porn shoot in the past? This is proper first-lady material right?
I was going to say so, but worried that I’d be dinged for junior modding.
To be absolutely fair, if what is linked is indeed her dissertation, there is a typo in the first paragraph. That said, I don’t find her illiterate. I haven’t read the whole thing because I don’t want to, but it seems to be an appropriate scholarly paper.
Remind me: what did Tucker Carlson get his doctorate in, and what was the subject of his dissertation?
The typo appears to be
Which does render the sentence somewhat wrong, but everyone who reads that in context will figure out what it is supposed to mean.
I posted this in another thread:
I can’t get her whole dissertation without using Interlibrary Loan, but the preview pages appear to be the same as the cited document. I converted it to Word and ran a spelling check. I find a few typos (slcoholism, liason), which is better than most major news sources these days. There’s some variability in her use of hyphenation, though I don’t know which academic stylebook was required. Similarly, she uses “&” in an occurrence of the school’s name and “and” for the same later. I see a misplaced figure (repeated on the next line; from context it’s clear it’s a typo). I see a few places where she might have used the wrong word, or might be using her profession’s jargon. There are some infelicities of expression. I’m not going to go through the numbers. On the whole, the writing is fine and organized coherently, and significantly better than many of the theses, dissertations, submitted manuscripts, and professional publications I routinely read or edit.
As to content, while not sparkly, it serves the need it was intended to address and probably actually helped underserved people, which is more than I can say of Tucker Carlson’s oeuvre.
From a covfefe/hamberder perspective, it’s golden.
ETA to the above: It’s a typo (undeserved for underserved) that wouldn’t be caught by spellcheck.