You got a very straight answer, you just didn’t like it. Ironic to claim something you don’t like doesn’t exist while arguing that something that doesn’t exist bothers you.

I’ll try again, but I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. Women can outperform men, so clearly there’s more to it than just gender, more than just the shape of your 23/24th chromosome. If there wasn’t, the worst man would always outperform the best woman. That being the case, discriminating based on gender is not just wrong, it’s illegal. That goes for trans people too, they aren’t excluded from having rights just because you seem to want it that way.

I note there’s no answer at all about excluding a group of citizens from publicly funded events. Don’t like that question I guess. No answer for it, I guess. Straight or otherwise. Last try to get anything resembling a answer at all.

Absolutely a blatant Red herring. I refuse to cooperate with your ridiculous loaded cherry picked false premise fantasy.
Try asking a realistic question on point instead of a loaded, ridiculous fantasy hypothetical you think makes your point. Your question implies that you believe trans women are just ordinary men.

If we pick the 100m sprint and had the two categories and trans people were allowed to compete with their current gender (with specific requirements, like they are), would you expect the trans athletes to always dominate?
Same question, but 50k race.

If so, why?
If so, explain why that hasn’t happened even though they’ve been competing in the Olympics under those rules for near 20 years now.
If not, what’s your point? I think I know, your point is that trans women are men, an ignorant, inflammatory, intentional insult to them and what they go through to be comfortable in their own bodies.
No surprise since you support just excluding them because you assume wrongly that a trans woman is a man in a dress. It’s ignorance and intolerance dancing together in your mind, making false assumptions and attempting to deny rights to others based on them. I might note, sexual orientation and gender are two categories that in America we are barred from using to discriminate against someone. I must assume you aren’t American, so what’s your dog in this fight? Just trans hatred?

Now explain why trans kids shouldn’t be allowed to compete in school competitions. Last try to get an answer.

Now explain how this is different from the racist arguments for excluding blacks from sports.

Edit: now explain why women like these need protection from other women….

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

If you have been under the assumption that raising Vit D levels by supplementing will help with covid outcomes, you should watch this. TLDW it seems it has nothing to do with vit D levels , but everything to do with another spectrum of sunlight (near-infrared). *promote

No. They do not. What stupidity.

Twitter is a public company owned 10% by one hard core Republican and a hundred thousand more own a lot more of it.

Republican babies have fled from these giving Democrats and independents a strong majority because Republicans simply cannot stand others contradicting their insanity with fact….and yet you whine like a baby.

The company decided that they don’t want to become the next failure like Truth Social, no matter how much money it makes them in the short term, likely because they don’t want to see it end within 6 months which it absolutely would if they allowed it.

Likely they also hate being associated with a man who just had to pay a $15 million (reduced from $137 million) judgment, awarded for Musk allowing constant racist attacks against an employee by others including supervisors despite repeated verified instances and reports, including one supervisor who called him the n-word over 30 times in front of others without reprimand ….for his companies unrepentant blatant out of control culture of racism that he did nothing to curb.

Grow up, learn something, and maybe stop just saying whatever ignorant nonsense comes into your delusional mind….your assumptions are always wrong, usually stupid, consistently ignorant, and come from a partisan cultist that won’t accept reality.

Bob, please read this carefully. I know we fuck around a lot here, but I 100% honestly don't want to see you get hurt financially.

Obviously, if you believe in TSLA, I understand you putting your money where your mouth is (full disclosure: I'm holding POTX and CURLF, so I'm on the same page with what I'm saying on this) but PLEASE don't bet money you don't have on TSLA.

“At 10-times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback (P/E 10, my note), I must pay you 100% of revenues for 10-straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. It also assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company.

That assumes zero expenses, which is hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that expects you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10-years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate.

Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those underlying assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes.

What were you thinking?”

-- Scott McNealy was the CEO of Sun Microsystems
2002

At the peak of the Dot-Com, roughly 30 stocks in the NASDAQ 100 traded above 10 P/E. Today ALL stocks in the DAQ do: the average P/E is ~25.5.

TSLA is at a P/E of 175.

There is no American economy. There hasn't been since since October 3 of 2008. Things got catastrophically worse on September 17th of 2019 when the repo market came within hours of completely locking up in a catastrophe that would have made AIG look like a rounding error. The Fed was forced to firehose astronomical amounts of money into the system to keep this from happening and this was before Covid.

In Jan of 2021, there was $2.6 TRILLION in Zombie Debt out there. That's $2.6 TRILLION on the verge of default at 2021 interest rates. The Fed is now in a horrific position: raise rates and watch massive defaults explode like financial nukes, or keep rates steady and watch inflation implode the economy.

People don't understand how bad this is and how much worse it can get. If the Fed has to raise rates by 500 BP -- and Christ fucking help us if they do -- the first order defaults will be the worst in Capitalist history and the second and third order effects could very well be the nightmare scenario we came within 36 hours of in 2008.

Save your money, Bob. Cash is king. And fuck BTC.

I don't normally make fun of speeling or grammar mistakes, but I do find this funny. The logical place to match the quote in the title made me read it as sarcasm:
"Report" blames Biden administration for chaotic withdrawal.

I'm sorry to say it, bob, but you've been so thoroughly discredited over the years that I automatically skip any of your political vids on the assumption that they're misleading as best.

i really don't care for this odd assumption-based analysis


When my grandfather died of a heart attack at 89, i was in another state. At the funeral, talking to people, I was a brick wall of emotion. Nothing in or out.


When i went home I started weeping. It occured to me later, "good thing im not a murder suspect."


"he showed almost no emotion at the funeral."
"Just very cold and unfriendly"
"he's hiding something.
"She used to light up the room!"


like, body language is NOT a reliable indicator of truth

Its not so much a theory. We make so many simplifying assumptions about our surroundings that the underlying physics tend to elude us.

How many people REALLY understand how a steam engine works? Sewing machine?

Hilarious….you need to ask why someone doesn’t like nazis?…but who said to kill them all? Wasn’t me.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that being a mine defuser is a death sentence, and they all died? Is that what happened in the movie? This was a German plan to have them earn their freedom and not starve to death in POW camps.

I can’t abide Nazis. If you feel the urge to defend nazis, that’s on you, buddy.

So, you’re just trolling then….or are you so dense you don’t see a difference between captive invading murderous soldiers who are around 16 and who were committing a genocide and non combatant children who are 10 and not indoctrinated into violent expansionist racist and murderous fascism? Nazi youth aren’t cub scouts….Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a historically accurate documentary.

If we had not abandoned Vietnam and our soldiers were captured instead, our soldiers there should have been forced to demine Vietnam and Cambodia, including the 15 year olds (the idea that non combatant children be sent there is brain numbingly ludicrous)(Dan Bullock (December 21, 1953 – June 7, 1969) was a United States Marine and the youngest U.S. serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War, dying at the age of 15. Yes, we use youth soldiers too.).

The mines we left all over those countries have killed and maimed numerous generations, tens of thousands, and continue to do so to this day, and if I’m not mistaken, many POWs did clear mines during captivity. Leaving an active minefield on foreign soil should be a war crime if it isn’t already. It’s definitely targeting the civilian population once the war is over.

Wow. Remind me to never be around your family then. Everyone in my family knew it was wrong to invade and murder our neighbors because we like their stuff and land, and wrong to try to exterminate an entire ethnicity by the time we were 6. If you didn’t know that by 14, you have serious issues. Nazis exterminated the mentally feeble.

The young republicans aren’t a murderous group exterminating Jews, blacks, gays, and anyone not Republican…nazis were. If the young republicans were a murderous group like the nazis, any member should get the death penalty, even the murdering racist 15 year olds….young adults kill just as thoroughly as 35 year olds, their victims were just as terrified and are now just as dead.

The nazis didn’t have a tiny majority through which they controlled German politics, they had a monopoly. Another false equivelent. Christ on a cracker. If Trump had won in 2020, and used the Jan 6 attack on congress as a false pretext to outlaw any opposition to Republicans, taking over completely through violence and intimidation and held and consolidated power for nearly a decade you would be almost there. Holy Ghost on toast!

Are you shitting me. You equate these things, refusing vaccines, creating bad state laws disenfranchising voters, to accepting and participating in genocide. Just fucking wow, buddy. Stretch much? Almighty God on cod!

Old enough to murder, and you do it, you’re an adult. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re 9. If you know what your doing when you put that gun to a Jews head and say “your children are next, you fucking kike” or a similar slur then pull the trigger, you just became an adult and eligible for the death penalty. We try 12 year olds as adults, but you would shield murderous hitler youth, many of whom turned in their own parents for liquidation, from responsibility from committing genocide among other disgusting atrocities. These kids aren’t Jojo Rabbit. Mother Mary with her cherry!

Besides…as I informed you, it was the German commander who had the idea and gave the order. At least get mad at the right nation.

You said “ but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.”
1) you have lost your ever loving mind if you think a little danger is as bad as anything the nazis could ever do….you simply have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The atrocities the nazis committed make clearing a minefield they layed look like a nice summer job with a friendly and generous boss by comparison. Try abasination, sewing twins together, seeing how long people can live without skin, raping people to death, melting people alive in acids, starving babies, stomping babies, gassing entire populations, etc. you really climbed so far up on that high horse you can’t see reality anymore. Sweet Zombie Jesus!
2) it was something the nazis did. This was a nazi plan from a nazi officer. Get it straight. The nazis did this, not the allies. That’s what I mean by learn the history instead of getting mad over a story….you are upset over fiction….and defending nazis in your outrage over nothing.

You have a problem. Your position is that nazis shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions…apparently going so far as excusing college age men for fascist, racist genocide because you know some people that age who made some mistakes. (I say that proves my point that just as being older doesn’t mean making better decisions, being younger doesn’t mean you can’t make good decisions. I learned to not hurt other people except in defense in preschool.)

I say if you pick up that gun and march, you’re a soldier and responsible for your actions. If you kill, you’re a killer, no matter your age.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

Not making any assumptions, just raising possibilities that goes through the mind of any cop facing such a situation. And I'm not condoning his behaviour, but I do see how the recent racial unrest would make some cops second-guess their actions, and become reluctant to respond the same way had they faced a white guy.

Also, you never shoot to wound. Shooting is lethal force.

You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

Nothing here indicated Chicago police didn't shoot or otherwise kill anyone....where did you get that @bobknight33? Just an assumption because Fox didn't say they did?

I don't think you realize how awful, disgusting, and insanely wrong it is that you would have to put that disclaimer, that police weren't involved in mass murder THIS WEEKEND!!!? You probably didn't realize you were saying that "look, everyone. Cops weren't the perpetrators THIS TIME like we have all come to expect them to be"....and you say it with no apparent evidence that it's correct besides police shootings not being lumped in with gang shootings on one Fox broadcast?!

Just wow, buddy. Way to make the point that even anti BLM, pro blue lives matter idiots are surprised when cops can go one weekend in one city without committing any racist murders....not that there's any evidence they actually didn't.

Btw, Chicago is the 73rd worst city in America for violent crime with 9.4 violent crimes per 1000 residents. There are dozens and dozens of Republican led towns and cities worse. Spartanburg SC made the list this year coming at #29 with 12 violent crimes per 1000 residents. Why aren't you decrying the sorry state they're in?

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous


Edit: maybe the cops were all at the fireworks show.....
https://videosift.com/video/LAPD-Intentionally-Sets-Off-5000Lb-Bomb-In-Neighborhood

If true, and she pleads guilty to whatever charges they levied, then maybe, but if she fights them in court that altruistic assumption is out the window and she gets another strike for wasting the court's time (and our money) on a case she knows she's definitely guilty of.

We assume she's being honest and this was just a security test, but more than one mother has murdered their daughter's high school rival. I'm not willing to take a criminals word when they suggest they were only trespassing as a public service, not falsifying their identity to hide from crimes they're planning.

I don't think school shooters have ever disguised themselves as students when they weren't...and she didn't bring a gun sized piece of metal through the metal detectors....so she wasn't testing against how easy it would be for armed intruders, only unarmed imposters.

The message he was trying to make is perfectly valid and worthwhile. He just did an unartful job of making it. If I was one of the guys in the back and we knew each other, I would be insulted to be referred to by my race instead of by name. "Chris, Robert, and Mike over there are faster than you all" comes off a lot more respectful than "those black guys". If he didn't know their names, "those guys in the back" would have been preferable.

And if he is making assumptions, that is exactly why I highlighted his choice of words, to point out that he was making assumptions. Pointing this out doesn't detract from his message that nobody has equal opportunity.