@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?

and the Republicans will do everything they can to let him. "For the regular folks!" and for spite of Biden/Democrats.

have to say, that's spot-on.

"adults in the room"?

best curse could imagine would be to cast a spell that these candidates can only argue with reason and logic (turn campaigns into debates on ideas and solutions).

then this show would resemble cctv of a laundry mat's lounge area. nothing being said, and most folk would find themselves watching the dryers than the canidates.

saw this https://tinyurl.com/yu22kfd6 and might be the under-lying reason why these little men are so testy.

@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

When you cancel a project, you don’t lose the money, you just don’t spend it. Really?!

I’m guessing you think I’m “urban” (racist code in the US btw, might wanna go with “city folk”). You would have guessed wrong. The nearest town to me is Eureka, 25k people 25 miles away.

You just don’t understand money if you insist canceling a billion dollar project is the same as losing the same amount of money. Edit: that’s only true if it’s canceled after it’s completed.
I’m using the figures Auto manufacturers gave as their lost production value, not including the collateral damage temporarily closing those plants cost the communities and both up and down supply chains.

Funny, you don’t include hospitals, which the truckers also reportedly blocked.

Protests can be permitted. If you’re disrupting someone else’s or public property without a permit, expect arrest for trespassing/breaching the peace at least.

Odd, if that’s really your position, why would you defend the truckers rights to blockade a city of worksites, job sites, and trade routes…reasons be damned?!?

I’m of the opinion that protests designed to disrupt the lives of people completely uninvolved in your cause always hurt your cause and make you look selfish. I tend to not defend self centered tantrums. I do not put pipeline protests in that category, permanent contamination of watersheds effects everyone, and almost everyone buys oil.

@newtboy,

??? How exactly do you figure cancellation of a billion dollar project is no where near the economic cost of blocking a border crossing for awhile at similar cost???

I'll tell you what the difference in Canada is, the dollars lost from the pipeline were being lost in Alberta, the dollars lost from the convoy were in Ontario. In Canada we've got a pretty sad history of if it happens to western provinces, it doesn't matter. Much like the urban/rural divide in the US. The response is pretty similar as well, the urban side just laughs at the loss of the stupid backwards country folk. When the same thing hits them though it's a national emergency.

I've tried pointing out costs and your just rejecting them out of hand , while whole hog accepting the highest estimates for the convoy cost as gospel truth. Like the literally a company walking from a multi-billion dollar project and you insist that's nothing and the days the border was blockaded clearly must have cost more...


For years now I've insisted that illegal blockades of worksites, job sites or trade routes should be met with prompt arrests and re-opening of the route/site.

Until January of this year, the entirety of the Liberal minded half of my country(Ottawa centric) called that authoritarian, repressive and were against the notion. Now I find myself in a weird spot, as suddenly that same crowd DOES want that action and more to be taken promptly. And the conservative crowd that agreed with me before is now kinda walking things back.

Yeah, the crutch of it for me is the UBI moniker.

What you describe at the end of your post, minimum income, is really just a rewording of the existing social security and welfare systems across the western world. I know they look different in each, but here in Canada what you describe is more or less our already existing system's design goal. Welfare money exists for those that straight up can not work, and an employment insurance system exists to protect those inbetween jobs, meanwhile other multiple programs are aimed at distributing financial assistance to the lower income groups.

Despite all of that already existing, UBI is still being heralded up here in trials as well as a replacement. The problem being that for the needy the UBI pitches are generally a step backwards.

Eg. $500/month is the UBI pitch, and they say it'll be great because everyone gets it no matter what so it's simple and fair and nobody is left behind. The trouble though is that the reality is the truly in need people were already benefitting more than the $500/month under the existing systems, and the cost was much less because it was targeted.

I here UBI and get very worried about folks just selling snake oil 'solutions' that in the end are just a demand to adopt their own particular flavor of wealth redistribution.

I'm gonna have to be that guy. $500 a month for a family of four is $2k, which is a very good chunk of money to drop in your lap.

That works out the same as it they were on a single income, working 40 hour weeks at $10/hr, so almost equivalent to a full time job. No doubt that's gonna be a big deal and noticeable financial improvement to the recipient(s).

As always with UBI schemes, the devil is in how you pay for it. If it's truly universal, paying $500/month to ~330 million Americans would cost $1.98 Trillion dollars, meanwhile the current entire US gov budget for 2022 is estimated at $1.2 Trillion.

So, to implement $500/month universally in America would require not only increasing overall tax revenues by almost 50% it would also require the cancellation of 100% of every single other expenditure. That not includes military spending going to zero, but even cancelling the jobs of everyone that collects taxes and would presumably have been responsible for distributing the $500 checks.

If the 'fix' is to just tax the pants off anyone earning more than the $500/month, or limiting who we give it to, then it ceases to be a UBI scheme, and is instead just a mundane modification of the existing social security scheme by shuffling more money back and forth between different folks.

Aren’t you going to tell us all about 7 year old victim Lachlan Leary, son of Steve Leary, who died from his Covid vaccination?
Or are you afraid of getting caught spreading another ridiculous right wing lie?

Steve Leary, claiming to be an Australian father of a (now dead) 7 year old son who died directly from his vaccination, is becoming a right wing folk hero for posting his story…..problem is there’s no record of this child, there’s no record of his death or any child death from vaccination, and Steve Leary turns out to be a mayor in Winter Park Florida, not an Australian father….but the story lives on and I’m certain you would believe it were it not pre-debunked.

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

@newtboy,

Those have been attacked by extremely tiny, but vocal minorities on the very far left, not main stream leftists nor centrists. Just as all on the right aren’t raving lunatic Trumpists that gladly put orange daddy before reality, country, and democracy, all on the left aren’t as you’ve described them….very few are.

*doublepromote feeding hummingbirds during this drought, the entire population in the West is struggling. Get them feeders out, folks.

It's the barely contained trigger rage that is weird about these folks.
And they feedback into themselves with their choices of information. So odd.