I heard “I can’t believe you’re a sick son of a bitch that would come to our political PR event to make a political stance on a political issue! “

Aren’t these the people who have made a mission out of standing up in school, town, and county board meetings and scream ranting at them, often in large numbers, often making threats, until the meetings are ended? Now the same snowflakes are outraged someone does the same to them in an effort to make a better suggestion to protect children than the Republican suggestion, which today is arm every adult and lock all the fire exits, because having armed guards worked out so well in Florida.

Edit: it now sounds like Uvaldi police waited quite some time (1:15) before entering the school, with videos of parents pleading with them to do something and dozens of armed police on scene, during which time the murderer shot down 19 children and two teachers. So much for armed security being the solution…that only works if they act, which is rare.

I don't believe this was ever about taking Ukraine with the Russian military. I believe this is about destroying Ukraine and squeezing Europe's energy-dependent balls until the EU cracks under the economic pressure caused by the sanctions. This is already happening with Germany whimpering to Daddy Vladdy for all that precious, precious oil and gas. "Oh, we gave Zelensky a billion euros!"; yeah, and you gave Putin 25x that in oil/gas purchases.

The mealy-mouthing and dissembling has already begun, most shamefully from the New York Times, who is calling for Ukraine to make "hard choices". "This isn't capitulation" -- fuck you NYT, yes it is.

I had honest hopes that the western powers would show some spine and resolve, but as soon at their economies started to feel a little pain, the number of fucks given for Ukrainian lives went to zero. Russian is going to rape and murder its way from Odessa to the Belarus border until the western powers figure out some way to make it all Zelensky's fault or force him to cede massive amounts of Ukrainian territory before any real economic pain felt.

The worst part is that Finland and Sweden are going to be granted NATO membership, but Ukraine still is denied. Why are these two the hills NATO is willing to die on and Ukraine not? If NATO isn't willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine, what happens when the tip of a single Russian boot touches Finnish soil? What happens when Finland then calls for Article 5 and the rest of NATO suddenly realizes shit just got real? What happens when it's time to shit or get off the pot; put up or shut up? Either NATO charges into the teeth of a potential nuclear war, or NATO is shown to be a paper tiger. If someone sees a middle ground, I'm interested in hearing it.

(Incidentally, NATO's Article 5 is pretty porous. A-5 doesn't say every NATO nation commits whatever forces are deemed necessary by the whole to defend against an aggressor. Instead, it says that in the event of A-5 coming into play, each member will take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Notice the whole 'each member' and 'deems necessary'? Yeah, to quote a popular movie 'I don't think this mutual defense pact means what you think it does'.)

That does not seem to be entirely true. It is true that immunity declines, whether from vaccination or infection. It's not true that vaccination gives better or longer lasting protection than vaccination.

From https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1

RESULTS Confirmed infection rates increased according to time elapsed since the last immunity-conferring event in all cohorts. For unvaccinated previously infected individuals they increased from 10.5 per 100,000 risk-days for those previously infected 4-6 months ago to 30.2 for those previously infected over a year ago. For individuals receiving a single dose following prior infection they increased from 3.7 per 100,000 person days among those vaccinated in the past two months to 11.6 for those vaccinated over 6 months ago. For vaccinated previously uninfected individuals the rate per 100,000 person days increased from 21.1 for persons vaccinated within the first two months to 88.9 for those vaccinated more than 6 months ago.

CONCLUSIONS Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-con

I have a car window breaker/seat belt cutter in my car. I wouldn't be surprised if that guy injured his hand trying to punch that window out. He thought about trying it again but I guess he learned the first time. It's suggested you break a car window in the corner and not the center.

I also have an air horn and pepper spray in the driver door pouch in the event of a wild animal threat during a body removal in remote locations or any other threats.

Birds Aren't Real, so no threat there.

Gossar was just exposed for spending over $1 million for personal travel…more than any other representative including representatives from Guam who must fly to Guam regularly, far more than any other Arizona reps.
$11000 for lodging in one weekend.
These funds cannot be used for travel for political reasons, nor campaign reasons…but many of these expenditures came when he was attending such political events as CPAC and white nationalist political rallies in Florida.

This is one of your people who constantly (since the election) rails against wasteful or excessive spending….and is the worst offender. Why is it not a surprise?

Yes, they are talking about the leak. If you don't see how such a rare event (an entire draft SCOTUS opinion leaked to the press prior to actual release has NEVER happened before) is newsworthy, I don't know what to say.

I do imagine that it MAY also end up being a "potential massive victory", but it isn't right now. I see little point in speculating about what may happen, when there will be plenty of time to discuss the actual decision, once it has actually been released and becomes part of Federal jurisprudence.

Right, then you go on to argue that they have good reason to exclude these people. Pretty much negated your first statement….or indicates that you agree with denying them rights, but not with using that as a political wedge (on either side?), possibly because it paints those denying others rights as evil assholes that would deny rights over ignorant and false equivalencies. Hard to tell since you won’t answer any questions.

If you believe that, why have you spent an entire day trying to get me to admit women couldn’t ever compete fairly with trans women? Because you have done exactly that.

Your position, that genetic male athletes are always better athletes than genetic women athletes …and trans women are the same as genetic males…is exactly the false and ignorant position and argument used to deny trans people their rights to participate. It’s just like you were using the old trope that black people aren’t actually humans so often used to deny them rights and opportunities….then claiming that just because you argue that doesn’t mean you think they should be denied opportunities. WHAT?!

Finally you admit males aren’t always better athletes. If genetic women can be better, there’s no reason to deny trans women their rights at all. Ms Macho Man is hyperbole, not reality. Men can’t put on a dress and claim trans status.

Pointing to two athletes that are excelling as proof that trans women will crush genetic women if allowed to compete together, to say trans women always have advantages, is also a red herring. That’s the “evidence” anti trans people use to prove that they can’t fairly compete. You may not have done that exactly, but you seem to use the same positions people who do say that use to imply it.

Really? And describe again those standards of fairness….because what I read was a ridiculous conflation between allowing trans people to compete and removing any gender separation….you pretended that’s the same thing.

Yes, because pretending trans women are the same as athletic men is hateful, malicious, and denying trans women’s rights to exist as women.

When I hear/read someone trying to give excuses for denying trans people their rights, I see a villian. How could you not?

Discussion? LMFAHS!!
Excuse me….when did you answer ANY of MY questions? You decry being called a villain, but in what way did you explain how your position isn’t dehumanizing, dismissive, and aimed at denying one group of people their right to participate in public events based on assumption and ignorance? Absolutely none. You moaned that I didn’t answer one of your questions the way you expected….but cannot answer any of mine. Try it, you might learn something.

ONE LAST TIME…HOW DO YOU EXCUSE DENYING TRANS PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLICLY FUNDED SPORTS? If you don’t support that, you have certainly hidden that fact with all your arguments supporting doing that, so you might want to ANSWER THE QUESTION…..unless you just love to argue, then we’re done.

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….

@newtboy,

Last try to get anything resembling a straight answer.

If we pick specifically the 100m race as an event: If the olympics had but a single open category to all sex and genders, do you expect to see biologically female competitors ever making it into qualifying and competition?

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?

I wonder why people conveniently forgot that Jada publicly cheated on Will with her teenaged son’s teenaged best friend for some time…had a relationship with him, not a one time tryst. Anyone else think that, more than anything, triggered Will to overreact thinking her eye roll was at him laughing at the joke, not the joke itself? Once a cuckold forever a simp.

Toxic relationships create toxic people. Don’t stay with someone who disrespects you in such a devastating and demasculating way. That kind of wound never heals, and leads to things like this.

Side note, how is “can’t be in the audience for 10 years but can still be honored and attend pre and post events” a punishment in any way? Sounds like a gift to me….but I hate public speaking.
Also, are they going to let him record acceptance speeches they broadcast? I would bet the answer is yes….so they have now rewarded his violent outburst twice.

I hope they have a "safe word" in the event someone stumbles and falls. Thumbs up for the music!

filed under "great minds think alike": once gave my best friend my take on a world event, and a day later HST give the same viewpoint, almost word-for-word, on a TV interview show.

one of my finer hours...and a witness, too.

[have tried to find the interview on the 'net, but, alas, it still remains elusive.]

but worry as i am/was a fan of him...chris cornell...robin williams...

Greene and Gosar were scheduled speakers and celebrities at a racist white nationalist rally last weekend.
Republicans gave lip service to the idea that racist white nationalism doesn’t belong in the party, but have not censured or reprimanded either for what isn’t their first time courting racist white nationalists, because there clearly and blatantly is a place for racist white nationalists, neo-nazis, and white terrorists in your party….way more room than there is for those concerned with direct attacks against democracy and America and other treason.
Also Wendy Rogers (AZ) at different events. Her Republican Governor supported that by funding her campaign.
You can stop pretending you aren’t racist and fascist, your party has all but given up denying it.