Is Haiti in our tournament bracket?
Four games in four days — even this couch potato needs a rest.
Play of the tournament: Badger playmaker Chuckie Hepburn harassing opposing guard Braden Smith to give up the ball on an offensive foul in overtime with Purdue leading by one point, allowing Max Klesmit to score the winning basket — with a few bounces on the rim to heighten the suspense.
After defeating Purdue Saturday, Klesmit uttered our Quote of the Week: (via WI State Journal’s Jim Polzin): “The legs may have been going out a little bit, but the mental toughness was only getting stronger. Our minds are calloused to fight to the end.”
A little mental toughness is in order for our body politic, as well. To replace the blisters from what has already been a bruising campaign and promises to get worse.
Pray that we do not become numbed by the violent imagery conjured by a certain former and possibly future President who invokes violence as readily as Vladimir Putin dispatches rivals. The 45th President said this in Dayton OH USA on Saturday 03-16-24:
“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
xxx xxx
The candidate’s 24/7 shovel and wheelbarrow clean-up crew excuses his unveiled threat as a mere reference to market loss in the auto industry. But turmoil in Detroit, he also said, is “gonna be the least of it.” Context people: the same demagogue promises to pardon the insurrectionists. Medal ceremony to follow.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: The Badger basketball team is calloused to fight to the end — but to play by the rules or foul out of the game! We will indeed lose our country, as the MAGAts warn, but only if America discards the Constitution. Lose the rule of law and we become another Haiti, run by gangs! Whether Antifa or Proud Boys, Brown Shirts or Gang of Four — macht nichts.
39 responses to “Literally, a ‘bloodbath’?”
C’mon Dave, he was talking about the auto industry. Geesh, your TDS, continues to cloud your thinking.
Yeah, and he inserted “peacefully and patriotically” in the middle of an hour and a half-long, red meat speech claiming the election had been stolen. And the January 6 insurrectionists are patriots, “very special people.” And The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are FBI moles. And he didn’t say Mike Pence deserved to be hung. And he doesn’t really idolize Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. And 2 + 2 does not equal 4. You are welcome.
You’ve just proved my point
2nd biggest play? When (fewer than three [3]!) seconds counted, Chalky (his certified Red Room nickname) curled off a screen, took the inbounds pass, reversed his dribble on the way to to rim, and laid it in just before time expired to force overtime.
“Four games in four days”
The Badger Flags (plural) flew four (4) days in a row for the 1st time EVAH!
Both Chalky and A.J. make the B1G Ten All Tournament Team?
Priceless!!
ON WISCONSIN!!
The Gotch
David wrote,
That statement from Trump has been taken out of context and if I’m reading what you wrote correctly, I think you just did the same thing.
I know you really dislike Trump, so do I, but I will not parrot what appears to me to be statements that have been clearly taken out of context and used for the purpose of pure political propaganda.
How many times a speech does Trump interrupt his theme to interject a different thought? Watch and listen some time. He said what he said. Words matter. He is the master of plausible deniability. Imprecision in a President is fatal.
David Blaska wrote, “How many times a speech does Trump interrupt his theme to interject a different thought?”
Do you honestly think that Trump had some kind of brain fart and interrupted his auto manufacturing theme and inserted a statement invoking violence if he doesn’t get elected and then immediately returned to the auto manufacturing theme? I’ve listened to a lot of Trump’s speeches and yes sometimes Trump’s speeches turn into random word salads of a sort, but nope, I’m not buying into that interpretation for this. I think the context in this was about as clear as Trump usually is on a specific topic and I think it’s nonsensical to try and twist it into something it’s not.
Do I think Trump had some kind of brain fart? Do cows produce methane?
BLASKA, YOU’RE GETTING TO BE ABOUT AS TRUTHFUL AS MSNBC. SHAME ON YOU.
DB repeating Biden/Harris propaganda now.
Interesting.
Drawing that foul from an outstanding point-guard opponent at that crucial juncture in the waning moments of an important game was one of the best defensive plays I’ve ever seen from a Badger, and I’ve been watching them play since Don Rehfeldt was there. Kudos to Chucky for pulling it off–a lasting testament to his talent and skills.
Yes, THAT was the play of the game! Getting the ball handler to foul when he was trying to dribble out the clock!
“one of the best defensive plays I’ve ever seen from a Badger”
That it was; heads up!
Right up there was a 12/29/2007 both offensive AND defensive play by Michael Flowers against 9th ranked UT Longhorns in Austin.
Down two (2) with ~ 11 clicks left, he got the inbounds pass, dribbled up to the left frontcourt, picked up a high ball screen going right, drained a contested 3 from the deep strongside wing with 2.7 left, then had the presence of mind to jump the inbounds pass and throw it high up in the air as he careened out of bounds.
(FF to 02:18)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGGtJ-TZtg
The Gotch
Very cool. I lived long enough to see what Dick Bennett achieved and what grew under Bo and now under Gard is nationally recognized and a respected tradition. There’s been some great moments, we’ve had a share..
Really funny to see so many people urging Blaska to contextualize the bloodbath comment, but only in an extremely limited manner. If you guys want to talk context, take a couple more steps back to an even wider view. What else was said in this speech? Other speeches? What other notable events have occurred by supporters inspired by Trump?
The context is precisely why these types of phrases are notable and telling. Any normal person who is not a psychopath would take a step back and think “Boy, things sure did get out of hand in the past. I better be more careful with my language.” That Trump, if anything, takes less care in his language is enough context to understand what is going on and who he is.
The man is fundamentally flawed. He perpetuates proven falsehoods, he is comfortable with violence, he does not believe in democracy, and he is incapable of gracious defeat. These are facts, not opinions. This is not a set of character traits that any serious candidate for president should have. He makes Biden look like a hero in comparison, and I don’t even like Biden one bit. That he is the R nominee is a terrible sign for our country, and a terrible indication of the character of the majority of the R voter block.
“The man is fundamentally flawed. He perpetuates proven falsehoods, he is comfortable with violence, he does not believe in democracy, and he is incapable of gracious defeat. These are facts, not opinions. This is not a set of character traits that any serious candidate for president should have.”
Ergo, DementiaJoKe shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office…it was him you were referencing, am I right?
Anywho, it gets worse.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the FIRST AMENDMENT HAMSTRINGING THE GOVERNMENT IN SIGNIFICANT WAYS in the most important time periods,” Ketanji Brown-Jackson-AA Hire/SCOTUS (bolds/caps/italics mine)
Thanks to DementiaJoKe, we have someone sitting on the Supreme Court who has no earthly idea WTF the Bill of Rights is SUPPOSED_TO_DO, which is (to borrow a phrase) “hamstring the government in significant ways”.
Despite the fact that she’s unable to define “woman” either, this is constitutional imbecility and personal stupidity on a galactic scale….and this is the price Lefty wants us to pay for Diversity Inclusion Equity.
Yessiirree Rollie…Righty’s the threat to Democracy!
The Gotch
KBJ = Diversity hire.
“KBJ = Diversity hire.”
C’mon Kooter, JoKe’s appointees can’t all be (heh!) hole-in-ones like DoT’s ButtGiggle, HHS’s Rachel Levine, and DoE’s Sam Brinton…
The Gotch
I don’t like Biden and feel no desire to defend him. But you quoted me and said ergo Biden… but none of those traits apply to Biden. Biden does suck, but in wholly different ways than Trump. This is like a failed I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I. Get on your game and at least try to make sense, you’re pushing too hard. But go ahead, dig up something to save face, please. There must be something out there where Biden didn’t graciously accept defeat. Maybe a racketball game or something.
And since this conversation is all about taking phrases out of context, how about contextualizing Brown-Jackson’s quote? There are contexts when the Bill of Rights does not “hamstring the government”. The common household example (though arguable that it isn’t prohibited) is that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech under the 1st amendment. Even Alito has said that the First Amendment doesn’t protect all speech, and there are situations where the government is empowered to intervene against this unprotected speech.
That idea can be extrapolated into many situations. It is the role of the courts and legislators to apply the concept to modern society. So it appears you yourself have “no earthly idea WTF Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED TO DO”. It is literally her job to critically examine the meaning and applicability of the constitution to current issues in society, but it’s only a problem when an “AA hire” does it, isn’t it? (unfortunately no time to unpack the racism of using that term as a pejorative) She really should listen more closely to the wise men like you who can show her feeble brain the correct way to interpret the sacred texts. Make America Great Again!
Again, you make no sense and can’t or won’t string together anything resembling a logical set of thoughts. You’re simply regurgitating talking points from Fox News and/or the Libs of TicTok account. Let me guess: Fox News is on your TV at this very moment?
It appears your (their) argument is that because a liberal Supreme Court justice is interpreting the constitution (doing their job) and didn’t play along with strange man/woman binary word games, our democracy is under threat; and this threat is greater than that posed by Trump’s presidential nomination. Strange!
Rollie…buddy, The Gotch sure misses you during your intermittent absences, no one else takes the time to manufacture offense out of whole cloth and call him a White Supremacist RAYcist; been with some underworld spy, or the LGBTQIAEIEIO unit of a close friend…?
“yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech under the 1st amendment.”
Sooooo…you CAN’T yell fire in a crowded theater? What if the theater is, in fact, on fire?
You may find the following interesting, despite it not being from any of your handlers (MSLSD, HuffBLOW, Salon, et al); none of whom would touch it with a 10 foot pole because it it uses facts, logic, and employs rigorous legal reasoning (anathema to the Lefty Way!): Ken White Deconstructs The “FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER” CANARD About Free Speech
“unfortunately no time to unpack the racism of using that (AA hire) term as a pejorative”
Sigh…more’s the pity, am I right?
Anywho, that’s EXACTLY what she is; FF‘sS, in one of those all too rare moments of clarity, DementiaJoKe all but said it. What’s more? If we relied on her…um…definition of a women, we’d never know what one was.
Not enough? Take a look at how despicable Lefty REPORTED the KBJ hearings as opposed to how they covered those of Justice Kavanaugh.
One more thing.
The Gotch patronizes neither FoxNews nor Libs of TikTok. Another beautiful theory slain by ugly facts; try harder…
The Gotch
Sheer chance that you randomly used the same language and example as two sources you definitely do not patronize. You just grabbed that topic, which had literally nothing to do with the point you were replying to, out of nowhere, and it happened to mirror those sources. Great minds think alike apparently! I bet they’re copying you. You should be flattered.
As I said, and you conveniently ignored, I’m reasonably aware of the various viewpoints around the yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater example. But it is the common colloquial example for the concept.
But once again, there is no tangible counter argument set forward by you. You begin by saying it’s bad for a Supreme Court justice to consider what the appropriate limits are in the present-day for the 1st amendment. I counter by saying that it is indeed their job to do just that, and remind that there are situations already where this right is limited, and limits are even accepted by the court’s preeminent conservative. You then reply with a nitpick and subject change, avoiding the substance of the debate. Quite typical.
Single Parent Households Are One Of The GREATEST INDICATORS Of An IDIOT’S Future Poverty And Substandard Education.
The Gotch
“I counter by saying that it is indeed their job to do just that, and remind that there are situations already where this right is limited, and limits are even accepted by the court’s preeminent conservative.”
Sigh; yes, the right has been limited, but not with the flagrantly clueless language and open-ended, scattershot preferences recommended by the AA hire; to wit:
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
Judge Jackson’s ‘CHILLING’ First Amendment Comments Leave Jonathan Turley ‘Very Concerned’
Please note that Professor Turley is a REAL Constitutional Scholar (not the Cracker Jacks Prize/Mail In Box-Tops type Hopeless Changey supporters slobber about profusely) who has forgotten more about the Constitution of the United States of America than KBJ will ever know, juuuust so happens to be a lifelong democrat.
MONEY QUOTE: It was chilling in the social media case to hear justices like Jackson repeatedly say, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH GOVERNMENT COERCING SPEECH? Why shouldn’t they, when there are really troubling periods … like in the pandemic. And many of us were really sort of agape at that, because MUCH OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID ON CENSORSHIP WAS WRONG. Many things that they were censoring, by SCIENTISTS WHO WERE FIRED AND DISCIPLINED AND BARRED FROIM SOCIAL MEDIA, in some cases. THEY WERE VINDICATED, ultimately, on things like the ORIGIN OF THE VIRUS [in a Chinese lab], showing that it’s not just a possibility, many consider it the leading possibility. CLOSING OF SCHOOLS. They were vindicated on many of those things. And YET YOU HAD JACKSON SAYING, I DON’T SEE WHY THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T COERCE SOCIAL MEDIA. So we’re all very concerned where the government will land there.
The Gotch
Trying to defend the press taking someone’s words out of context in an effort to slime them is deplorable. I don’t like Trump, but I’m objective enough to defend him when his detractors lie by omission to misconstrue his words and meaning. Like the “very fine people” debacle.
The First Amendment guarantees no rights to the government to censor anything—it was written for the benefit of those being governed. And this Supreme Court case once again shows that the Biden administration harassed and colluded with social media companies to censor speech they didn’t like. That is at least as concerning as anything Trump represents. Perhaps more concerning (but certainly not surprising) is papers of record like the NYT trying to excuse and downplay it.
What frightens me even more is that we have and could re-elect a commander-in-chief that is prone to “senior moments” as his sycophantic press calls them. And that he could be tasked with negotiating peace with China while they blockade the Strait of Taiwan. Or have to react when seconds matter while Russia slings nukes into Eastern Europe or over the Arctic Circle. Biden’s biggest issue is that people feel he’s not mentally fit for the job. He could alleviate most of those fears by debating Trump on live television. But he won’t because he can’t, and because his handlers are terrified of what it would reveal.
To Mordecai:
Imaging me the city government “harassed and colluded with” property owners get graffiti removed from their buildings. Is that against the 1st amendment? No. Private property owners can censor whatever speech they want. So why can’t social media companies censor speech? Well, they can. So the issue is the degree to which government urges private entities to do so. Doesn’t the government, which is actually the people ourselves, have a free speech right as well? Can’t “we the people” lobby and urge and cajole private actors to make our world a better place, and remove the graffiti? Unlike actual graffiti, they don’t even have to remove it, but we can ask, can’t we? Asking private actors to be responsible isn’t government censorship.
Now I agree that we the people should not FORCE private actors to censor except in very narrow cases. But what those narrow cases are should be open to vigorous debate and should evolve along-side the evolution of our society.
As for senior moments, we’re stuck with a binary choice between two candidates who are both not as mentally competent as they should be. So for me, the next consideration is if they can have a competent team assembled to actually take care of things. The track records speak for themselves, and team Biden is far and away the more competent team. Just ask dozens of the former high ranking officials that have worked for Trump. It is clear from their first hand accounts that he will not listen to logical reasoning. So who would put us in more danger, you say?
And by the way, quite a lot of the “Biden is senile” reporting is precisely “taking someone’s words out of context in an effort to slime them”. Really deplorable, isn’t it?
“Imaging me the city government “harassed and colluded with” property owners get graffiti removed from their buildings.”
Red herring. There is ongoing legal debate on whether graffiti is speech, but for the time being, the majority opinion says that it isn’t.
”So why can’t social media companies censor speech? Well, they can.”
If they acted on their own, you would be correct. But that’s not what happened. The FBI harassed, intimidated, and threatened social media companies to take down posts that questioned the Biden administration’s pandemic narrative. The Twitter Files story had piles of documentation showing this. The government cannot coerce or collude with private entities to commit acts that would be unconstitutional for the government to undertake on their own. The legal word for that is “entanglement” and there is ample precedent showing it to be off-limits to the state.
”Doesn’t the government, which is actually the people ourselves, have a free speech right as well? Can’t “we the people” lobby and urge and cajole private actors to make our world a better place, and remove the graffiti?”
You’re honestly arguing that the American electorate wanted an unelected law enforcement agency to censor pandemic response dissent, some of it from highly respected medical minds, from our eyes and ears? That is at best unfounded, and at worst Olympic-level mental gymnastics. There are only a narrow few types of speech that are not subject to First Amendment protections. Dissent from government narratives is not one of them.
”It is clear from their first hand accounts that he will not listen to logical reasoning. So who would put us in more danger, you say?”
Yes, we have one candidate that will not listen to reason and another that is quickly losing his grip on reality. Both have made infuriating policy decisions and said things that are a big WTF. For many, the choice is not a given. Some would rather take their chances with a giant meteor impact.
”And by the way, quite a lot of the “Biden is senile” reporting is precisely “taking someone’s words out of context in an effort to slime them”. Really deplorable, isn’t it?”
Any objective person who pays attention to Biden’s words and actions can see what’s going on with his mental state, even when given all the context. The guy struggles to stay awake. He talks like he’s immersed in molasses. He mistakes people he’s with for others that are dead or elsewhere. He got taken out by a sandbag. He’s a shell of the guy that ran four years ago and told Trump to his face on the debate stage to shut his big mouth. I thought a presidential race couldn’t get worse than the one in 2016. I should not have underestimated our two-party system.
Tour de Force, MTR; worth the wait!
You want “Olympic-level mental gymnastics” (READ: mindboggling imbecility)? Senator Kennedy Eviscerates AlarmaCYST lOlympic Skier
The Gotch
Egad. Why members of Congress would treat an athlete as equivalent to an expert in climatology or atmospheric science is beyond me. It’s equivalent to The View watchers taking acclaimed metallurgist Rosie O’Donnell seriously when she said that fire cannot melt steel in the aftermath of 9/11. Our society has gone mad with celebrity worship.
“Why members of Congress would treat an athlete as equivalent to an expert in climatology or atmospheric science is beyond me.”
Surprised that didn’t get more air play? The Gotch should have posted a Trigger Warning for head-exploding STOOPIDITY. (sic)
To answer your question, Lefty’s supreme arrogance has them convinced that members of a more discerning public are as gullibly imbecilic as their true-believin’ base.
The Gotch
Isn’t it past your jail time?
One of Progressive’s fundamental problems is they believe their opinions are facts. It is arrogant.
I find it fascinating that people with TDS primarily complain about his personality or that he is “mean” or what not. Rarely do I see progressives criticize the policies. For the most part I’m in agreement that Trump is a loose cannon but I’d rather have him and his track record of successful policies then the incompetent, corrupt and corrosive Biden administration.
I assume you mean me. What did I say that was unsupported by evidence? You call Biden “incompetent, corrupt and corrosive”. Isn’t that an opinion too?
As far as policies, it’s kind of odd, because Trump doesn’t really have policies as much as whims. And those appear to change depending on how it impacts himself personally/politically. TocTok? Ban it, don’t ban it. Build a wall, have them pay for it! But no actionable realistic plan to actually do it. If competence is what you’re looking for in an administration, I’d argue the advantage goes to team Biden.
Yes my views on Biden are my opinion and opinion only. Notice I did not say they were facts, unlike your views on Trump (or most things that I’ve seen you post). It would probably benefit you to step back a little bit and check your arrogance. Just because you feel strongly about something does not make it so.
Now we have the MAGgAts and Vos calling each other names. Eating their own once again. Wonderful. Dow went from 19k to 38k in four years under Joe. Even a repug likes that.
Amendment VIII of the US Constitution “EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS BE INFLICTED.”
Any American who can condone, much less celebrate, what is being done to Citizen Trump deserves to live in a banana republic.
Confucius said, “Be careful lest you become what you hate.”
Agree that the three New York prosecutions are garbage.
Know anyone so mind-numbingly STOOPID (sic) that they think DementiaJoKe has been in office four (4) years?
Let’s say that same bespawling addlepate compares a 2020 Dow close, decimated by the despicable Lefty PLANdemic, to that of today?
Think about it; that person is actually allowed to vote.
The Gotch
Thanks Mordecai. I agree that there should be a line between government urging private actors to be responsible and government harassing private actors. I’d be perfectly content if the government were sued over this issue and the courts enforced these limits.
I push back against some of the more sensational rhetoric on this topic because I feel like there’s an organized “forgetting” being orchestrated around COVID – on both sides of the political divide.
Recall that literally thousands of people were dying EVERY DAY of a relatively unknown and highly contagious virus. If the US were under attack by another county and killing thousands of people a day, it would not make sense to let everybody backseat drive and spread their opinions about what we should do IN THE CASES IN WHICH those opinions were endangering others’ lives. Sure, sit on a bar stool and speak all you want, but if it is literally endangering thousands of peoples’ lives, perhaps we should try and stop it.
Now the retort is typically “but there were some experts who actually were giving good advice! We should have listened to them.” Again, it’s helpful to be in context. Imagine a war where retired military officers were telling citizens to ignore the advice of the current military and instead do something else. These people could indeed be giving what turns out to be correct advice, but just as well be giving bad advice. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking that lets us know.
The fact is, during actual national emergencies we need actual national unity. My graffiti example obviously came from the “lighter” side of things, because COVID was much more like a war in regards to the level of extreme danger and uncertainty.
Should we have done things differently? Yes. Was the government actually unreasonable? That’s debatable if one seriously considers the reality of the circumstances, and I believe there is a problematic and coordinated effort by Cons (and others) to distort the reality of what we went through.
”I agree that there should be a line between government urging private actors to be responsible and government harassing private actors. I’d be perfectly content if the government were sued over this issue and the courts enforced these limits.”
On that, we agree.
”If the US were under attack by another county and killing thousands of people a day, it would not make sense to let everybody backseat drive and spread their opinions about what we should do IN THE CASES IN WHICH those opinions were endangering others’ lives.”
There might be some extreme situations where I could get behind this, such as an enemy military operating on U.S. soil. But that is a far cry from a disease that had a less than one percent mortality rate and that largely targeted the immunocompromised. Shutting down the world’s largest economy to combat it was reactionary, desperate, and ill-informed, and we’ll be paying for it for a long time. The signers of the Barrington Declaration protested this approach. They made convincing arguments backed up by solid research that quarantining the high-risk few and leaving everyone else alone was the way to go. The Biden administration declared them quacks and charlatans and demanded they be silenced. Bad speech is best combatted with better speech, not censorship. Censorship breeds distrust toward the institutions doing it. The way this was handled has eroded trust in public health institutions for years to come. That the SCOTUS might side with the government on this is horrifying to me, and we will have crossed the Rubicon if they do. We have become so partisan that many, including elected officials, would shred the First Amendment if it became inconvenient to their political aims. It has to stop.
”These people could indeed be giving what turns out to be correct advice, but just as well be giving bad advice. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking that lets us know.”
Then I say let them have their discourse in the open and see how convincing each side is. We’ve got a serious problem with our citizens not knowing how to think, discern fact from BS, or make reasoned arguments. We’re not going to improve upon that by censoring people. Healthy discourse makes for healthy minds and better citizens. It’s part of why I have these exchanges with you and others here, although I’ll admit that sometimes it’s just me venting frustration.