placeholder

Well if calling people a liar on this form is a violation of the rules, it could be that it's not me but you who could be said to have committed that infraction. This is of a piece with your overwrought demand that I apologize. In short, it's laughable.

Of course what you wrote is dishonest. In your reply to me, you didn't write Johnny Bangkok blames it on men. What you wrote was: "Yet people blame it all on men. So I can only deduce from that information that they think Sturgeon is a man." And, of course, your excuse fails even if you had just cited JohnnyBangkok specifically. Claiming that she looked like a man was obviously a gratuitous slap. Had you confined your comment to the assertion that people must think she's a man, you could have gotten away with it. But you didn't. You just couldn't resist taking a shot at by asserting how she looks as the source of their confusion by likening her appearance to a specific man. It's the kind of shaming that women in public life still have to put up with from certain unregenerate parties. You've got nothing. And as for your emotionally overwrought demand for an apology...

No. They could have blown up the pipelines to spare themselve being massively sued for not fulfilling their contract to provide gas. Keep in mind that before the explosion Gazprom blamed equipment problems for the lack of delivery. That kind of pretense can only be sustained for so long. With the pipeline blown up, they could plead force majeure and not be held liable.

What is it with this bizarre fixation you have on details? Details can be invented. They can also be debunked. And they have been debunked.

I guess if you don't believe that Twitter is fundamentally a business, you're making a good point. Otherwise, not so much.

Well, you can be preemptively pardoned before being prosecuted as well as after. In fact, Flynn was pardoned both ways by Trump.

Maybe he believes that $400000 per year is how much middle class taxpayers earn. On the other hand, he may have a point insofar as it could hurt contributions to Democratic candidates.

I've looked for evidence to support that claim? You got any? From the landing page of the World Forum "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." On the other hand... Judge says Trump pardon doesn’t make Michael Flynn innocent of lying to FBI, but he tosses case The criminal case against President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn was formally dismissed Tuesday, two weeks after Trump pardoned him. The dismissal of the case by Judge Emmet Sullivan in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents, was expected because of his pardon by the president. The retired Army lieutenant general was fired by Trump in February 2017 after lying to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. in the weeks before Trump was inaugurated. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/judge-dismisses-michael-flynn-case-after-trump-pardon.html The Qanon supporting clown who claimed that there were signs in Arabic along the border with Mexico that directed terrorists to various destinations. Even the Border Patrol, rife with Trump supporters, said this was false. Flynn was notorious for making things up and his assertions got to be known as Flynn Facts. The scary thing is that he may have actually believed them.

Because taxing the wealthy is unpopular? You've got to be kidding.

So, has Tucker Carlson shared all the footage that features Chansley?

First off, these cameras are everywhere in the building. Not just at the focal points of the violence. Secondly, because once the rioters had violently forced their way into the capitol they didn't face any real opposition until they tried to storm the area where the Senators and Congressman were being protected. That's where Ashli Babbitt, martyr to the cause, got shot by the Capitol Police.

I don't know what you mean by "not crazy". It's certainly not popular. Desantis is in a tough position. He can't really oppose it for fear of inciting the extreme anti-abortions who are at least a sizeable minority of Republicans and highly motivated to vote. But come the general elections, if he's the Presidential candidate, it's not going to be easy to explain away his acquiescence.

Another go-nowhere lawsuit. A right-wing specialty nowadays.

If there's one thing polls show repeatedly, it's that there's broad support for raising taxes on the rich. Even from Republicans. It's a testimony to how powerful the rich are that they are mostly very successful in fighting tax rises. Of course it helped that the right wing Supreme Court green lit unlimited contributions. So the more money the have, the more they can contribute to get politicians elected. A vicious circle. The Republicans modus operandi for thwarting tax rises is to use trivial but highly emotional issues like transgenderism to distract their attention from issues that are actually important to their welfare while delivering the goods to their wealthy patrons.

I think his M.O. is focus on the small picture.

Great. The US can have another Iraq war right on its border. Except in this case it would be easy to put an end to. The narcotraficantess aren't fanatics. They're just greedy violent criminals. If you want to kill the drug trade and impoverish the narcotraficantes, just decriminalize drugs. Take the profit out of it.

We have seen numerous videos of violent crowds storming the Capitol and the police defending it. I'm sure there are many more thousands of hours also of nothing violent happening. So what?

Poor record of getting things done? He had a huge record of major accomplishments in the first 2 years. You may not approve of them, but that's not relevant to the question of getting things done.

And I noted that because it's clear yours is an opinion that has nothing to do with any kind of systematic evaluation of the situation or any familiarity with the actual science. Your opinion seems to be based entirely on belief.

In none of these studies had the trans participants undergone hormone therapy. This parameter was established so as to preclude any effects on the structure of the brain. In this one they started with a normalizing process that was 305 women and 242 men. A normalizing process is one in which norms are established. In this case the norm for cisgender men and cisgender women. Once that was established 24 cisgender men 24 cisgender women and 24 transgender women had their brains scanned. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/ this one used 40 transgender adolescents and 39 cisgender adolescents https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453017305590?via%3Dihub This one had 29 trans men and 17 trans women https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.25905

And you have proof of its rarity? Although the fact that you used "may" indicates that you've got nothing. Whereas scienitist who actually imaged the brains of people who said they were transgender, found significant discrepancies between their biological sex and the gender they felt they really belonged to.

In other words you haven't a clue.

The invocation of Marxism is a strictly Pavlovian conditioned reflex amongst right wingers. It has no connection to the higher centers of thought. Which is why there's no explanation forthcoming.

So you were replying to johnnyinbangkok's post by replying to my post? Really?

From the World Forum landing page: " Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." On the off chance that you don't have a link to a credible source to back up your claim, maybe you should consider posting to the Fiction Forum.