That image they claim is 7 weeks is of a fetus well beyond 11 weeks at a minimum…at 7 weeks there are not individual fingers. Always more dishonesty from bob, who always believes his ends justify any means, any lies, and any violence or crimes necessary to achieve them.

There’s a barely perceptible nerve pulse at week 7 but not any heart at all… no functioning heart until week 20 you liars. No heart=no heart beat.

Typical

I've seen this demonstrated before, but the individual finger / knuckle reflex testing was new, and damned interesting. I have a hard time making my individual fingers twitch on purpose, the instinctive response working that well is impressive.

Also, this guy seems high as *fuck* to me. Anyone else?

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

Hey Bob, do you know….who is “Trucker” Randy Bishop?
I’ll tell you since he’s playing make believe, he’s a far right wing radio host and Trump lover who’s running for the senate in Michigan (as a far right wing Trump loving racist anti gay fake Democrat…wtf is that!?) who complains that all families aren’t all white anymore, and race mixing should be outlawed, he shouldn’t have to see it on tv, and whines that black Americans own the nation, the media, the politicians, and the public schools.

Bishop was ranting about the media indoctrinating children through TV commercials, just like racist Trumpist often do (but never Democrats)….

“You will not believe what this country looks like in 20, 30, 40 years from now,” he said during the show, “If we continue down this path with public indoctrination of our kids and their socialist and communist agenda. What is it? Destroy the nuclear family.”

A few seconds later he clarified how the nuclear family is being destroyed.

“Now every single commercial has a biracial mom and dad,” Bishop said in the show.

“I can’t even watch a college basketball tournament without commercials telling me that I have to feel guilty,” Bishop said, “Because I think a family should be a white mom a white dad and white kids.”

Let me guess, 1) you think this proves Democrats are racists (he’s about as much a Democrat as Regan or Dick Cheney or Manchin) and 2)you would vote for him.

Btw, Michigan Democratic Party has denounced him, said they will not support his candidacy, and are deeply insulted this far right wing racist would pretend to align himself with them.

“Views such as the ones Trucker Randy Bishop espouses have no place in the Democratic Party. Candidates who say or believe these things are not welcome. Randy Bishop is not a Democrat, he is a dishonest minor social media personality that enjoys getting attention from making outrageous statements. He shows nothing but disrespect to our system of government by using a run for elected office to promote his personal agenda, entirely based on lies, hate and fear.
Disgusting racist belief systems are not welcome in the Democratic Party and frankly should not be welcome in any political party or community. We will not support his efforts to run for Senate and find it deeply insulting that he would dare to put a D next to his name.“
“With dangerous views such as this, this individual masquerading as a Dem has no business anywhere near any branch or level of government or in policymaking. Calling for the erasure of entire families/groups of people, is another example of & in line with the backwards, heinous views & actions clinging to white supremacy that we’ve been seeing in anti-history & anti-LGBTQ bills & it’ll only get worse w/someone like this in office.”

Republicans, on the other hand, have been supporting him for years, with Republican senators, representatives, and others often going on his show, including supporting his failed campaign as a Republican for the same seat.

More blatant Republican dishonesty, racism, intolerance, vitriol, and more dishonesty. Par for the course if you’re a Republican. You guys REALLY need to stop huffing the keyboard duster.

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

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?

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

Did they offer that in the program, or was it only random individuals….or are you extrapolating, assuming the program became universal? I thought this plan was just for the indigent.

$500 each for 4 works out to more than my wife brought home for 40 hours a week after 15 years at her last job…..barely livable for 4 anywhere in California, a nice income in some states. Not a huge amount to provide for 6 months. How much does temporary housing, services, extra law enforcement, etc cost over that time for 4 people? I assume they’re close.

Yes, universal income is costly, but most on the right won’t consider giving the destitute money if they don’t get a handout too, that likely multiplies the amount by over 10 times. With a means test, it would be billions, maybe under $100 billion. We spent nearly $6 trillion on bad Covid response in 2020, including trillions to corporate welfare handouts with no strings attached and they still fired millions of workers. I think if that’s ok we can afford to invest in making people productive again instead of drains on society (of course, not everyone will benefit, but 75% success must be a win overall). If not, socialize any corporation that took a bailout, we bought em, we should own them.

…Or taking on more debt like every government project, but the increase in gdp from turning costs into profits likely pays for the program without a dime in new taxes, just a reduction in costs of handling the homeless and new taxes from their incomes….especially if you have a means test and not universal income.

Yes, they convoluted by calling it universal income but focusing on homeless. It should be UMI. Universal Minimum Income….under employed get less than unemployed up to a certain minimum livable combined income, fully employed (with living wages) get nothing….IMO. Sadly, a large portion of people can’t see what’s in that plan for them (no homeless, less crime dumbshits) so won’t consider it unless they also get $500 even though that’s not even a noticeable amount to them….one more ivory backscratcher.

Who’s committing generational warfare?
Who’s receiving it? BLM?
What!?

Do you mean generational welfare recipients?
Easy to point out that Red states take WAY more than Blue states from the fed and get less for it, and almost always take more than they put into the federal coffers too. Consistently….over generations. Your policies aren’t producing the results you insist they will. Republicans are in fact the welfare queens here, buddy. Wasting exponentially more through corporate welfare than all individual welfare recipients collectively because….FREE MARKET PRIVATE PROFITS! (But socialist public losses). D’oh!
*🦗 🦗 🦗*

Uh oh. Now the bank and tax fraud surrounding the Trumps acquiring the lease for the DC hotel are under investigation. This time Ivanka is going down with Daddy, because she overvalued properties used to secure the loan bu 3 times, claiming things like her apartment with a for sale price of $8.5 million was worth 25 million, etc.
nothing new, just more Trump fraud, more Trump theft from America, banks, and the public.

This is you pick. This is you guy? Only makes sense if you’re an anti American Russian troll trying to damage America as much as possible.

Edit: D’oh! Pence’s lawyer, present at many meetings in the whitehouse discussing the coup plans, testified for over 9 hours to the Jan 6 commission. He has direct personal knowledge of exactly what the president’s involvement before, during, and after the attack against America for Trump was, and apparently has no qualms about talking about it. He didn’t plead the fifth like all Trump’s lackeys (which Trump says is proof of guilt except when he does it), he didn’t fight subpoenas (which Trump has said is proof of guilt….when it wasn’t him). He testified, with members coming out of the session calling him a patriot who cares about America, unlike many others they’ve subpoenaed and interrogated. A man who put country before a person. Not good for Tangerine Palpatine.

Delay tactics are failing, obstruction is failing, destruction of evidence is failing, hiding the forging of fraudulent certifications for fraudulent electors failed, hiding and denying direct Republican Party involvement has failed, denying individual involvement has failed, denial of the event has failed, abusing expired privileges to hide evidence has failed, whining and crying like spoiled children has failed, threatening prosecutors has failed. Whole lotta fail going on over there.

interesting video, but many of his same examples were in this 2012 NASA video: https://youtu.be/Q3YYwIsMHzw

Also, not to detract it's usefulness (and cool factor), but many people seeing this photo think that's how the Earth actually looks at night - it isn't. That composite uses satellite data from Suomi NPP's VIIRS sensor, which can detect much dimmer light than the human eye, and part of the compositing process was to normalize brightness of individual pixels (so dim lights get brighter, and bright lights don't washout adjacent pixels). More details here:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.html

Even some cool night-time videos from ISS (example: https://youtu.be/FG0fTKAqZ5g ) are made using still photos with long exposure time (1+ seconds) See FAQ.

This did lead me to a live webcam from ISS that I didn't know existed: https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESRS/HDEV/

Poor Bob.
Every case of voter fraud found I’ve heard of was committed by a Republican bar one, a Democrat who’s husband died but she cast his vote anyway….for Trump. That’s 399 Republican cases, one semi-Democrat….or as you say, both sides….good people on both sides. 🤦‍♂️

Yes, I’ve had enough Republican voter fraud, schemes from single fraudulent votes to ballot harvesting and changing to schemes to throw out millions of votes based on Republican lies and false claims. Voter ID doesn’t address any of the fraud that actually happens.

Remember Trump’s national commission looking at voter fraud, the voting integrity commission….from 2017!? Remember how it quietly disappeared because they couldn’t find ANY fraud? Back then Trump said he would make certain there wasn’t any fraud going forward….what happened? That seemed vitally important to you people. Did he just forget? Did he fail miserably? Or did he make up the fraud fraud because his ego can’t accept that he lost in a historic landslide?

That said, under 400 possible cases nation wide, barely any in person frauds at all, none capable of changing the outcome of any elections (well, there actually was a mayoral race I read was overturned because of one fraudulent vote scheme by one candidate, but that wasn’t in person and the system caught it) …that is absolutely not a reason to disenfranchise millions of voters (I remind you that’s exactly what Republicans called for when you lost in 2020…just throw out any votes in areas where you claimed an individual fraud, invariably areas where Democrats won). It’s not a reason to put up road blocks that disenfranchise millions by putting poll taxes and hurdles in place.

I support a voter ID, if the ID is free and obtainable by anyone regardless of their documentation….but that makes it worthless. If the ID costs money, that’s a poll tax, and illegal. If the requirements to get the ID cost money, that’s a poll tax and out. If the affluent can obtain the ID easily, but the indigent have to spend a day or more in line to get one, no. Issue free national ID to everyone, including homeless, then it’s not too much of an obstacle. I think voting should be an obligation for every citizen over 18…I’ve never skipped an election even though I rarely like who I can vote for.

I point out that a voter ID law would do almost nothing to combat any fraud, because in person fraud isn’t the issue. Falsely claiming fraud is the issue. Republicans trying to defraud the system with fraudulent electors is a problem. Republicans harvesting mail in ballots from the elderly and filling them in for Republican candidates is a problem. Voter ID doesn’t address these problems, the real election fraud issues with real consequences, instead they target the poor with clear intent to dissuade them from exercising their rights, effectively blocking millions of votes from fear one invalid vote might be cast. That is the intent, and the result…not election security, but massive vote denials of a targeted population.

How about imagining requiring a firearm ID, required to buy, own, or possess a firearm, with fees, renewal fees, and documentation requirements to obtain….oh wait, I don’t have to, someone in congress suggested it (in the 90’s I think) and the right lost it’s fucking mind over the draconian government trampling their rights…but similar requirements to vote, sure, that’s fine because the ID they already have is acceptable….fuck the rights of people who don’t have a drivers license.
In person voter fraud is not an issue, voter ID solves a problem that doesn’t exist and creates a major problem for millions….intentionally.

His ratings are crappy largely because he’s not doing enough, not because of what he’s done. He needs to replace Garland with someone willing to prosecute sedition against representatives and ex presidents. They’re in the shitter because 35% (you) automatically disapprove simply because he’s not Trump, and 35% disapprove because he’s not replacing Trump era policy enough. I’m in the latter category, as are most people I know, but we understand that without congress functioning there’s little he can do, and Republicans have the practical majority even though they’re the minority on paper. Keep killing off right wingers and maybe that will change this year, but I’m not holding my breath.

Lol. Failed economy? Sorry, Trump is the one who gave us a negative GDP, tens of millions unemployed, and an unmitigated pandemic with a cadre of morons unwilling to believe in it or take any safety measures to combat it. My portfolio lost 8-10% over 4 years under Trump, it gained over 30% in one year under Biden. If that’s failing, keep failing! GDP near -3% in 2020…+4% 2021…predicted to be 9% 2022. -3%!!! And you want to talk economy?! You fucktard.
Inflation….Trump printed 1/3 of every dollar circulating! That’s what causes inflation, you devalue the dollar when you print more. The market takes time to react….there’s going to be more coming to pay for Trump’s spending spree. Dumbass.
Covid! You’ve got to be fucking kidding me! Covid is a right wing (Trump) caused issue, made much worse by far right insanity of denial and conspiracy, and now nearly all hospitalization and death is anti vaxers, who are nearly all far right nutters that followed Trump’s “lead” and who’s heads exploded when he recently told them to get vaccinated. Look at “leftist” countries like New Zealand to compare a leftist government’s response results. (52 deaths). Moron.

Trump’s tax rates didn’t improve unemployment rates, or the economy. They didn’t trickle down. Growth went negative under those cuts, unemployment went to double digits! Debt and deficit went into orbit, rising faster than ever by miles….but that didn’t matter one whit to you when it was Republican debt and deficit, a much worse Republican economy, and insanely higher Republican unemployment rates. Idiot.

Holy fuck. Talk about ignoring reality. What color is the sky in your world? Is the ocean in the air with fish swimming overhead there?!

They (chinese communist state) really need to move on from the old hammer and sickle to upholding individual human rights. Until they do no display is dazzling enough to cover it all up.

Drones are machines, only as evil as their masters.

There you go again, insisting that if police can’t kill with impunity and immunity, then anarchy will rule, there will be no police, and crime rates will skyrocket, making the US into Thunderdome in months.

Infantile, ignorant, and asinine, police in almost every other country kill far less than American police who kill around 3 people per day on average. In many countries they don’t carry guns, without a massive jump in crime. Imagine that. Are you saying US police are so incompetent that every other nation can police itself without letting them murder over nothing but contempt of cop, but divided America is totally incapable of that type of policing?

I would remind you, in the racist, sexist fantasy time period Trumpists wish to return to, police murdered non whites routinely and without fear. Wanting to return to that is pure racism…not surprising. Also, the Uber rich payed over 90% in taxes, without going bankrupt or just shutting down. Your “capitalist utopia” doesn’t exist without taxes at 3 times what they are now without loopholes. D’oh!
(For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981)

I would also remind you how you screamed and cried over that terrorist bitch that was shot attacking the capitol with hundreds of armed violent cohorts that had already murdered and disabled dozens of police. You absolutely wanted that officer prosecuted if not just lynched….for a good shoot of a violent attacking murderer (part of the violent murdering mob makes you a murderer). Your blatant undeniable racist prejudice and obvious hypocrisy are showing, Bobby.

If police need to murder unarmed citizens over misdemeanors, they should absolutely stand down as that makes them the murderous criminal gang, not the police.

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.