Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

What about in the history of autocracies?

cornelius-projectrunway.gif

  • Replies 40.3k
  • Views 2.4m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

He really thinks the cognitive tests he’s been taking are like IQ tests. And that the former Vice President and the current Governor of Minnesota wouldn’t be able to correctly identify a cartoon horse, or draw a fucking clock.

That's what they tell him

16 hours ago, Sbbruin said:
  17 hours ago, Pancho said:

laws don't matter any more. Goons out front shoulda' told ya.

25 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He really thinks the cognitive tests he’s been taking are like IQ tests. And that the former Vice President and the current Governor of Minnesota wouldn’t be able to correctly identify a cartoon horse, or draw a fucking clock.

And in reality he could be failing the shit out of all of these tests and we would have no way of knowing.

He's a great golfer because he keeps his own score and can't count past potato.

Jon Stewart, as per usual, nailed it last night in The Daily Show's return after the holiday break. The opening monologue was excellent and his guest as Senator Mark Kelly. Great show all around.

37 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Jimmy Kimmel took the cognitive test that dotard is most likely being subjected to on a regular basis on last night's show.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/jimmy-kimmel-bravely-submits-himself-to-trumps-dementia-test/

Click the link and scroll to the video.

For daily proof that his brain isn't complete mush, he should be forced to solve Wordle on live TV each morning with a bonus for solving Connections.

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

He really thinks the cognitive tests he’s been taking are like IQ tests. And that the former Vice President and the current Governor of Minnesota wouldn’t be able to correctly identify a cartoon horse, or draw a fucking clock.

And in reality he could be failing the shit out of all of these tests and we would have no way of knowing.

No, we do know he's failing the tests because he keeps talking about how difficult they are.

  • Popular Post

Preach, Ruben

Planting the seeds.

2025 was horrific, but 2026 is going to be WAY worse. Polling will continue to to plummet for Republicans. They are going to attempt to cancel mid-terms.

Wait...they will cut my kid's cock off and won't tell me?

Edited by Gil Bang

  • Popular Post

It's not believable because it's a lie.

  • Popular Post

Governor Newsome chimes in

First, the grifters went to Minnesota. Mission accomplished.

California up next.

We all see what's happening here. MAGA citizens being protected by the Trump administration to go after elected Democrats (and potential Presidential candidates). We are at war.

4 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

It's not believable because it's a lie.

Seemingly twice a week since 2015, I’ve thought “This latest claim is so preposterous, no functional adult could possibly believe it” only to watch my Facebook aunts and uncles cite said claim as evidence of Democratic evils.

Every.

Goddamned.

Time.

21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Wait...they will cut my kid's cock off and won't tell me?

Well you be finally seen him say some true things. That’s actually not believable and it’s true nobody believes him.

I put this in the J6 thread but wanted people to see it here too. What happens when the rhetoric surpasses 1984 levels? "Orwellian" doesn't really cut it anymore.

The White House
No image preview

January 6: A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

Discover the real January 6 story: peaceful protest turned tragedy, Deep State entrapment, media deception, and President Trump's triumphant pardons restoring justice to patriotic Americans.
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well you be finally seen him say some true things. That’s actually not believable and it’s true nobody believes him.

Think Tim Robinson GIF by NETFLIX

47 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well you be finally seen

Maybe I need a cognition test

The President of PEACE!

19 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Pretty sure you could also color in Mexico with orange, given previous statements about going in to fight cartels, though the threat hasn't been explicitly directed at the Mexican government as far as I know. Maybe a fifth color should've been chosen for that type of invasion.

36 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Pretty sure you could also color in Mexico with orange, given previous statements about going in to fight cartels, though the threat hasn't been explicitly directed at the Mexican government as far as I know. Maybe a fifth color should've been chosen for that type of invasion.

He says the cartels run Mexico, and wants to strike the cartels. That for sure counts.

lots of drone bombings all over mexico. but don't worry! there are some other crises before we get to that one.

I thought he did discuss removing Mexico's President. But hey what we have there is bad enough.

5 hours ago, Pancho said:

This drives me a little insane. Dan is right in the pre-social media/propaganda age, but now it just seems like he's missing the bigger picture.

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Planting the seeds. 2025 was horrific, but 2026 is going to be WAY worse. Polling will continue to to plummet for Republicans. They are going to attempt to cancel mid-terms.

Yep. People keep talking about who needs to run and what the platform needs to be.

A lot of people still don't understand what happened last fall.

There is no way to win it back when the other side has all the power and they're willing to cheat. These people do not intend to leave power, ever.

If that isn't AI, he needs to be put down.

37 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

If that isn't AI, he needs to be put down.

shit, i didn't think about the possibility he's already dead and all of his recent videos are AI generated. that would be a great late xmas present

  • Popular Post

Here's a nice little conundrum.

NATO is a treaty, ratified by Congress in 1949. What force does a treaty have under US law? It is literally the supreme law of the land:

"Article VI  Supreme Law

Clause 2 Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

What does the NATO treaty, which is the supreme law of the land provide? Article 5 plainly states that an attack on one member is an attack on all (functionally those exact words), and all members (including the US) are obligated to come to the defense of the country attacked. That is, we are legally obligated to come to the defense of Denmark if someone attacks Denmark. There is no exception if WE are the attacker.

But there IS a prohibition on us being the attacker, as stated by the Supreme Law of the Land, the NATO treaty, at Article 8:

"Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty."

In no uncertain terms, Article 8 -- which is the Supreme Law of the Land pursuant to the Constitution -- PROHIBITS an attack by the US on any member nation of NATO, necessarily including Denmark.

Bottom line: if the Trump administration orders an attack on the territory of Denmark, that order will be an illegal order, in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Pursuant to the UCMJ, all service members will be obligated to REFUSE to follow that order. And, if by some way, forces following orders of the Trump administration do attack the territory of Denmark in plain and open violation of the Constitution of the United States, we can and should be in a state of civil war, with all Americans -- especially including American service members -- obligated to protect and defend the Constitution against....well, the mad men in the administration who are openly at war against the United States (recall that the NATO Treaty, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, states that an attack on one is an attack on all). Thus, an attack by the administration on the territory of Denmark is an attack on the United States. By attacking the territory of a NATO member nation, the administration will have attacked the United States, will be levying war against the United States, and well....I'm just reading the Constitution:

"Article III  Judicial Branch

Section 3 Treason

  • Clause 1 Meaning

  • Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The punishment for treason is set by federal statute:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Old Brisket kinda wishes someone would put this out there plainly, so that the nation knows that if this administration attacks Greenland, it is committing unambiguous treason against the United States as defined by the Constitution, and all who levy war against the United States should face the death penalty. Want to test "Presidential immunity?" There is not and can be no argument that open treason - levying war against the United States - is within the scope of the Executive's duties.

If we attack Greenland, we are well beyond a mere constitutional crisis. We are in an existential crisis, and we will be in a state of civil war. Will you side with the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, or with those who levy war against it?

Edited by Brisketexan

5 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Was this leaked from the Epstein files? Because if not, it seems like it probably is a close approximation of something in them. The sick fuck.

Edited by dcbc

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's a nice little conundrum.

NATO is a treaty, ratified by Congress in 1949. What force does a treaty have under US law? It is literally the supreme law of the land:

"Article VI  Supreme Law

Clause 2 Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

What does the NATO treaty, which is the supreme law of the land provide? Article 5 plainly states that an attack on one member is an attack on all (functionally those exact words), and all members (including the US) are obligated to come to the defense of the country attacked. That is, we are legally obligated to come to the defense of Denmark if someone attacks Denmark. There is no exception if WE are the attacker.

But there IS a prohibition on us being the attacker, as stated by the Supreme Law of the Land, the NATO treaty, at Article 8:

"Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty."

In no uncertain terms, Article 8 -- which is the Supreme Law of the Land pursuant to the Constitution -- PROHIBITS an attack by the US on any member nation of NATO, necessarily including Denmark.

Bottom line: if the Trump administration orders an attack on the territory of Denmark, that order will be an illegal order, in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Pursuant to the UCMJ, all service members will be obligated to REFUSE to follow that order. And, if by some way, forces following orders of the Trump administration do attack the territory of Denmark in plain and open violation of the Constitution of the United States, we can and should be in a state of civil war, with all Americans -- especially including American service members -- obligated to protect and defend the Constitution against....well, the mad men in the administration who are openly at war against the United States (recall that the NATO Treaty, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, states that an attack on one is an attack on all). Thus, an attack by the administration on the territory of Denmark is an attack on the United States. By attacking the territory of a NATO member nation, the administration will have attacked the United States, will be levying war against the United States, and well....I'm just reading the Constitution:

"Article III  Judicial Branch

Section 3 Treason

  • Clause 1 Meaning

  • Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The punishment for treason is set by federal statute:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Old Brisket kinda wishes someone would put this out there plainly, so that the nation knows that if this administration attacks Greenland, it is committing unambiguous treason against the United States as defined by the Constitution, and all who levy war against the United States should face the death penalty. Want to test "Presidential immunity?" There is not and can be no argument that open treason - levying war against the United States - is within the scope of the Executive's duties.

If we attack Greenland, we are well beyond a mere constitutional crisis. We are in an existential crisis, and we will be in a state of civil war. Will you side with the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, or with those who levy war against it?

So, just like the UN Charter, right? Bill Barr says hold my beer. From yesterday on The Daily (NYT Podcast):

"But just to add the final twist, there’s the question of, well, what about the fact that the UN Charter that makes it illegal as an international law matter is a ratified treaty in the United States? And the Constitution says ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land. As a matter of domestic constitutional law, was this unlawful because Trump had a constitutional duty to obey the UN charter?"

"Young Bill Barr had a very expansive view of executive power, and he wrote a memo that said that the president had inherent power under the Constitution to dispatch the FBI, in that case, abroad to carry out its mission of arresting people who were fugitives from charges. And the Constitution empowered the president, essentially, to override international law. It was OK to violate international law, at least as a matter of domestic constitutional law."

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What does the NATO treaty, which is the supreme law of the land provide? Article 5 plainly states that an attack on one member is an attack on all (functionally those exact words), and all members (including the US) are obligated to come to the defense of the country attacked. That is, we are legally obligated to come to the defense of Denmark if someone attacks Denmark. There is no exception if WE are the attacker.

So right now I'm enjoying rereading Catch 22 along with my HS senior. I'm pleasantly surprised it hasn't been cut from the curriculum, because it makes for fantastic ledge reading:

“Milo's planes were a familiar sight. They had freedom of passage everywhere, and one day Milo contracted with the American military authorities to bomb the German-held highway bridge at Orvieto and with the German military authorities to defend the highway bridge at Orvieto with antiaircraft fire against his own attack. His fee for attacking the bridge for America was the total cost of the operation plus six percent, and his fee from Germany for defending the bridge was the same cost-plus-six agreement augmented by a merit bonus of a thousand dollars for every American plane he shot down. The consummation of these deals represented an important victory for private enterprise, he pointed out, since the armies of both countries were socialized institutions. Once the contracts were signed, there seemed to be no point in using the resources of the syndicate to bomb and defend the bridge, inasmuch as both governments had ample men and materiel right there to do so and were perfectly happy to contribute them, and in the end Milo realized a fantastic profit from both halves of his project for doing nothing more than signing his name twice.”

I'd forgotten it's like the bookfag version of Idiocracy.

  • Popular Post

So, I know most of us with half a brain already knew this shit, but just wanted to put this quote out there for any brain-addled lemmings and lurkers perusing this thread:

Having campaigned on an "America First" platform and his desire to end wars, rather than start them, Trump has seen some of his political allies question the wisdom of the U.S. entering into a long-term commitment in Venezuela.

But he said in the interview that he is confident his political base will stick with him.

"MAGA loves it. MAGA loves what I’m doing. MAGA loves everything I do," Trump said. "MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too."

DO YOU FUCKING IDIOTS NOT GET IT?

This is « l'état, c'est moi » bullshit.

It doesn't matter what I said yesterday; this is what I want today. Oh, I told you to believe that a while back, but I've changed my mind, so now you have to change your mind to suit my interests.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

"Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party."

@Incredulity Are you still incredulous about his intentions? You voted in a capricious tyrant who wants to be an absolute monarch.

But some of you, like that weird cocksucker, @Macklemore, actually want to have a gotdam king.

It's fucking Orwellian, but somehow fucking dumber, like Ignatius J. Reilly playing Palpatine or some shit.

19 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Donald J. Trump, oilman:

This season of Landman is even worse than the other 2.

11 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

This season of Landman is even worse than the other 2.

God I hope there's no nudity

Edited by aggie08

Dammit, guys. I'm really sorry, but I just had to try it. Presenting Emperor Ignatius J. Palpatine. It's awful. Don't open the spoiler.

Go ahead and neg me. I deserve it.

ignatius j palpatine.jpg

6 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

The ARISTOCRATS!!!

One day we're gonna teach our kids to stop acting like a baby president.

Edited by Superhero

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Rubio Tells Lawmakers Trump Aims to Buy Greenland, Downplays Military Action

The secretary of state said the White House is using rhetoric to pressure Denmark into negotiations

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/rubio-tells-lawmakers-trump-aims-to-buy-greenland-downplays-military-action-5c94e05c

oh-sure-john-candy.gif

With what money? $2000 x hundreds of millions. $1776 x1.3 million. Argentina, $40 billion. Venezuela, god knows how much. All of the military actions. The fucking ballroom. And now purchase Greenland? A sovereign nation? Fucking lunacy.

Just a reminder of what kind of COWARD we have in the Oval Office. He can’t stroke out soon enough.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.