LedRush

9 hours ago, Rhyta said:

especially when we now see that our institutions are failing us. 

Roe undermined our institutions by ignoring the law and process to come to a desired conclusion.  Overruling it, like Plessy and Dred Scott, starts on the path to reclaiming credibility.

 

9 hours ago, Rhyta said:

who promised to uphold stare decisis

This is demonstrably false.

 

9 hours ago, Rhyta said:

Using 18th Century jurists as authorities, what the hell have we become? 

Roe used BC authorities in its ahistorical attack on the Constitution.  Actually reading and following the text of the document you are interpreting seems kinda important to me.  But I guess it can be annoying when you only want a theocratic dictatorship to codify any rules you want regardless of the law.

 

9 hours ago, Rhyta said:

for those who says this will save lives, I say whose lives?

The unborn humans who will no longer be killed in some states, of course.  Did you really not know that?

4 hours ago, goose said:

As to the decision, it will be interesting to see how states respond.  Most of Europe has legalized abortion, but it is highly restricted after the first trimester: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#:~:text=95% of European patients of,is illegal or severely restricted.

This is the really crazy thing.  The US is in a small group of countries which allowed abortion until birth (with Vietnam, North Korea, and China).  Striking down Roe and Casey doesn’t change that…it merely allows some states to choose to take a different approach which will put them more in line with the rest of the democracies in the world.  

8 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

I’m sure this will be huge in China!

17 hours ago, invisible airwave said:

I guarantee you if he was white like Dylan Roof and the Buffalo shooter he'd be arrested instead

This statement.  The ignorance and racism are just off the charts.  

1 hour ago, JohnRogers said:

This was a pretty good list until you got to semi-automatic weapons. The second amendment isn’t about deer hunting.

 

This is a mental health issue. We need to focus on mental health and where mental health meets gun purchase/gun access. Hardening campuses needs rethinking.   

 

These shootings aren't all the same. Mass shootings at school and workplaces, city gang-bangers, domestic violence, armed robbery/car jacking, all probably require different solutions. What isn’t a solution is blanket gun legislation that only serves to stroke the egos of lawmakers. 

 

“We have enough laws on the books to deal with what’s going on now", Joe Biden in Buffalo, May 2022. 

I agree, but I’d let the “break the influence of the NRA” bullet stand.  

13 hours ago, invisible airwave said:

One day before the school’s Summer break was gonna begin.  Just found out on Fugelsang’s SiriusXM program.  So goddamn sad.  Pro life my ass.  Blood is on Q Taliban’s hands.

The Democrats?  I don’t think it’s fair to lay this at their feet just because they support killing children, advocate for violence against political opponents, and stoke racist and identitarian hatred.  

19 hours ago, Rhyta said:

 

Telling half the population that their rights can be rescinded is wrong and why so many are angry about it.

There are a few problems with this statement.  First off, it is not a right to kill your child.  Second, women make up half of the population, and about half of them are pro-life, so even if we were in bizarro world and killing your child was a right, only 25% of the population would be potentially effected.  Also, recognizing that there is obviously not a right to kill unborn children in the Constitution won’t affect potential pro-abortionists in many states as many will allow it to remain legal to kill a fully formed human life even as it is being born, despite the opposition of about 90% of all Americans.  

51 minutes ago, workingcinderellaman said:

This thread seems to be getting too political for RS. I'm curious why this stuff isn't in SOCN. 

I think that many regularly use the facepalm and pissed off threads to drop in political attacks that are affirmed by echoes rather than try and make a supportable point in SOCN.  

1 hour ago, invisible airwave said:

Every accusation is a confession with this "I know you are but what am I?"  crap.

This is true, but of the people attacking Thomas, not Thomas’ responses to those attacks.  

On 5/15/2022 at 8:32 AM, invisible airwave said:

Damn American ISIS to hell.

The shooter claimed to be a former communist who now described himself as a left-wing authoritarian (which is redundant), and a green nationalist.  

On 5/7/2022 at 3:45 AM, Rhyta said:

That we have so called Justices use references from 16th and 17th Century kooks who ordered women to be executed as witches and says there is no such thing as Marital rape to justify nullifying a law?   This is the best they can do??

 

WTH???  Am I in an episode of the Outer Limits???

 

The person who first posited this criticism (not you, I assume) is either extremely ignorant of the law or misrepresenting the argument for maximum frothing effect. Roe and Casey found that abortion was a fundamental unenumerated right by virtue of the 14th and 5th A’s due process clauses (i.e., substantive due process). This argument itself is of dubious legal quality, but even it is obviously not applicable for abortions. This is, partially, because in order to be a “fundamental right” the right has to be deeply rooted in American history and traditions, including in common law. The majority in Roe argued that it was, similarly doing a deep dive that went back not only to English common law, but to Hippocrates, Aristotle, and St. Augustine.  To overrule the law, Alito must confront this reasoning from Roe.  Alito’s opinion points out the obvious: the right to an abortion is not only not deeply rooted in American history or traditions, laws to outlaw abortion were. He brought up that example as one of many, many examples of how his argument is obviously right.  

 

http://youtu.be/avToblb8HkY

hell, the fact that you even referred to your friend as "her" would have got you a few jabs in SOCN.

 

I refer to her as her because she's a woman. To say otherwise is disrespectful, even in a joking manner. ... maybe especially in a joking manner.

 

oh, I know why you did it. I'm just saying you'd get ridiculed for that if we weren't out here in the normie section of the forum.

 

The normies who are a clear minority in America, and an overwhelming minority in the world?

 

https://news.gallup....der-issues.aspx

 

Good article, but did you notice how in the first paragraph they reference "birth gender" and then "gender identity?" For purposes of being clear, it should have said "biological sex" or just "sex" and then contrasted it with "gender Identity/."

 

I don't know if the person who wrote this is as big a pedant as we ironically pride ourselves (or is it ridicule?) on being in SOCN. I even resisted using the term "birth sex" to replace "birth gender" because once you say "birth sex" you are tacitly implying that that was someone's condition at birth, but subject to change later, like "birth weight."

 

The whole language of this movement is designed to obfuscate reality. Once you’ve accepted their unscientific, contradictory, self-referential, and poorly-defined terms it becomes difficult to engage them in disagreement or questioning. That is why I refuse to use the language of that cult. I know people do it to be polite, and if I meet someone in real life who wants to use reasonable pronouns I will be polite. But you give away the entire game if you accept the language, as the language assumes the premises you may be questioning or debating.

Bwahaha, these louts pale in comparison to the inept ownership of the Lions by the Found On Road Dead family.

I dunno, when was the last time the Dolphins were in the AFC Championship game?

 

I had to think about this for a second, and I think the Lions actually have them here. The Dolphins were last in in the mid 80's, I believe, Detroit was in the NFC Championship game in 1992 against the Redskins.

Wrong. The Dolphins were in the AFC Championship Game at the end of the 1993 season (calendar year 1994), two years after the Lions were destroyed by Washington.

 

Ironically, that was also the last time Washington was in the NFC Championship game.

 

Do you mean the 1992 season (lost in yet another humiliating defeat to the Bills in 1993)?

Yes, off by a year. Should have looked it up.

 

I remember watching that game by myself in my dorm’s common room and just not believing that the defense still couldn’t figure out how to stop the run, Olivadatti still had a job, that we seemed to love to give the ball to the Bills, and we still couldn’t run at all. I wanted to stop watching in the third quarter and go play with my friends, but I couldn’t pull myself from the tragedy.

Bwahaha, these louts pale in comparison to the inept ownership of the Lions by the Found On Road Dead family.

I dunno, when was the last time the Dolphins were in the AFC Championship game?

 

I had to think about this for a second, and I think the Lions actually have them here. The Dolphins were last in in the mid 80's, I believe, Detroit was in the NFC Championship game in 1992 against the Redskins.

Wrong. The Dolphins were in the AFC Championship Game at the end of the 1993 season (calendar year 1994), two years after the Lions were destroyed by Washington.

 

Ironically, that was also the last time Washington was in the NFC Championship game.

 

Do you mean the 1992 season (lost in yet another humiliating defeat to the Bills in 1993)?

hell, the fact that you even referred to your friend as "her" would have got you a few jabs in SOCN.

 

I refer to her as her because she's a woman. To say otherwise is disrespectful, even in a joking manner. ... maybe especially in a joking manner.

 

oh, I know why you did it. I'm just saying you'd get ridiculed for that if we weren't out here in the normie section of the forum.

 

The normies who are a clear minority in America, and an overwhelming minority in the world?

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350174/mixed-views-among-americans-transgender-issues.aspx

No, they shouldn't have to compete in their own leagues, not least because the small numbers would make it impractical.

 

As perspective, let's remember that Lia Thomas has set records, but she's also not dominant the way some recent swimmers have been: I read she finished fifth and eighth in her other events, and that's hardly crushing the opposition.

 

For further scale, Utah just passed one of these "protect girls' sports" bills to impact the 75,000 high schools athletes in Utah, ONE of whom is a transgender female now competing as female. I'll eat my head if even five percent of the people who agitated for this bill could tell you who won the girls' cross country state title last year. And I'll bet you a dime they were not terribly interested in the US Women's National Soccer team's lawsuit for equal pay.

 

As for unfair advantage, this exists in sports _all the time_ and we learn to live with it. Rich kids can afford coaches, poor kids can't. The Dodgers get to sign Freddie Freeman, the Royals/Mariners/A's don't. The USA has all-weather training facilities with dieticians, counselors, tutors, physical therapists, state-of-art equipment and computer monitoring, Uganda (for example) does not.

 

If someone's life is "ruined" because she finished second instead of first in a race in high school or college, that suggests rather an outsize importance. Is a person's life really gonna peak at 22? Is that poor woman going to wind up living in a van down by the river because her 10,000 hours of practice didn't result in first? Most people's efforts don't result in first; that's life.

 

As for the transgendered "switching back," this is a question grounded in (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what gender dysmorphia is. Is there even a statistically significant record of this happening? Let's not get carried away on the slippery slope.

 

There's a lot wrong with what you have said here. Right now, I'll just focus on your sophistry regarding what's fair and unfair.

 

You give three examples, and they all three boil down to money. The kids who can afford coaches, the baseball teams with unlimited budgets, and countries with nicer training facilities. This all has to do with the amount of money that is available to spend on training or putting a team together.

 

You are correct about that.

 

However, there are no leagues that are specifically instituted to divide players or teams based on socio-economic status. Maybe NCAA Division One and Division Two comes close.

 

But what we definitely have a distinct division in, and at all levels, is division by sex. There is a reason for that.

 

You say that Lia Thomas didn't win every race against the women she competed against. This is true. But she won a lot of them, and she set many records. Think about that - a man holds several records in women's swimming.

 

As far as her not winning every race, I'm not surprised. When she was a he, he was ranked 554th against other men. He was not even a top ranked male swimmer. But when he competes against women, he immediately becomes one of the best ever. That what it means when you set records like this. Your time in that event was the fastest ever.

 

554th against men, top five at least against women.

 

And you don't care about the women who didn't get to compete because Lia Thomas took their roster spot.

 

She’s not a man. Please don’t call her one.

 

She may not be a man, but she is a male.

 

And given the number of times I have used "Lua" and "her" in this discussion, I think I've shown proper respect.

 

I don’t get the bolded part. If Lia is a male, how could he not be a man? What definition of “man” are you using which may allow for that contradictory conclusion?

 

I'm using "male" to denote biological sex, and I'm using "man" to denote gender identity. The funny thing is, I refer to this person in the present as "Lia" and "her," trying to be respectful, and I've done that throughout this thread. And I referred to her as a "man" one time, and I get called out for it. Why do I even try?

 

But back to my point. It's the whole sex does not equal gender thing that NWK was pushing in SOCN a few years ago. It's like when they would say climate does not equal weather. The idea being that a male can identify as and adopt the gender role of a woman, and a female can identify as and adopt the gender role of a man. The issue here is that the language is being twisted in ways it was never meant to be.

 

The problem with what's going on in sports is that these trans athletes and their allies are now saying that, in fact, sex does equal gender. A fully grown and physically mature male who competed for three years in college as a man begins to transition to being a woman, and demands to be allowed to compete against females.

 

Just like the very misused word "homophobia" if something is spoken long enough it will eventually become the norm whether right or wrong. There are people out there who are irrationally afraid of homosexuals which is what homophobia means but I've yet to meet one.

 

This is why I asked for a definition of the term “man”. There is a term “trans-man” for a female who identifies as a man, but that doesn’t mean that we have to to misuse words to support that delusion. Using the language of the delusional only empowers them. That doesn’t mean that if you meet a trans-woman in real life you need to be rude and refer to him in a way which is different than with which he identifies. But if we are going to discuss or debate the topic in public, accepting the sexist, unscientific language of the religious cultists gives away the whole argument. Lia is not just a male, he is a man. If you think otherwise, please provide me with a definition of the term which is coherent and scientifically provable.

No, they shouldn't have to compete in their own leagues, not least because the small numbers would make it impractical.

 

As perspective, let's remember that Lia Thomas has set records, but she's also not dominant the way some recent swimmers have been: I read she finished fifth and eighth in her other events, and that's hardly crushing the opposition.

 

For further scale, Utah just passed one of these "protect girls' sports" bills to impact the 75,000 high schools athletes in Utah, ONE of whom is a transgender female now competing as female. I'll eat my head if even five percent of the people who agitated for this bill could tell you who won the girls' cross country state title last year. And I'll bet you a dime they were not terribly interested in the US Women's National Soccer team's lawsuit for equal pay.

 

As for unfair advantage, this exists in sports _all the time_ and we learn to live with it. Rich kids can afford coaches, poor kids can't. The Dodgers get to sign Freddie Freeman, the Royals/Mariners/A's don't. The USA has all-weather training facilities with dieticians, counselors, tutors, physical therapists, state-of-art equipment and computer monitoring, Uganda (for example) does not.

 

If someone's life is "ruined" because she finished second instead of first in a race in high school or college, that suggests rather an outsize importance. Is a person's life really gonna peak at 22? Is that poor woman going to wind up living in a van down by the river because her 10,000 hours of practice didn't result in first? Most people's efforts don't result in first; that's life.

 

As for the transgendered "switching back," this is a question grounded in (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what gender dysmorphia is. Is there even a statistically significant record of this happening? Let's not get carried away on the slippery slope.

 

There's a lot wrong with what you have said here. Right now, I'll just focus on your sophistry regarding what's fair and unfair.

 

You give three examples, and they all three boil down to money. The kids who can afford coaches, the baseball teams with unlimited budgets, and countries with nicer training facilities. This all has to do with the amount of money that is available to spend on training or putting a team together.

 

You are correct about that.

 

However, there are no leagues that are specifically instituted to divide players or teams based on socio-economic status. Maybe NCAA Division One and Division Two comes close.

 

But what we definitely have a distinct division in, and at all levels, is division by sex. There is a reason for that.

 

You say that Lia Thomas didn't win every race against the women she competed against. This is true. But she won a lot of them, and she set many records. Think about that - a man holds several records in women's swimming.

 

As far as her not winning every race, I'm not surprised. When she was a he, he was ranked 554th against other men. He was not even a top ranked male swimmer. But when he competes against women, he immediately becomes one of the best ever. That what it means when you set records like this. Your time in that event was the fastest ever.

 

554th against men, top five at least against women.

 

And you don't care about the women who didn't get to compete because Lia Thomas took their roster spot.

 

She’s not a man. Please don’t call her one.

 

She may not be a man, but she is a male.

 

And given the number of times I have used "Lua" and "her" in this discussion, I think I've shown proper respect.

 

I don’t get the bolded part. If Lia is a male, how could he not be a man? What definition of “man” are you using which may allow for that contradictory conclusion?

So it's not OK for Calvin Ridley to bet on NFL games but it is OK for Stephen Ross to bribe his head coach 500K per to lose games. Love how Goodell pontificates about the "integrity of the game" when Ridley drops $1500 on his team to win (in a parlay) while on the IR no less but silence about Ross.

Also love how they pontificate about justice and equality while Daniel Snyder runs an organization rife with sexual harassment and degradation of women.

Look I'm not advocating allowing players, club officials and especially referees to gamble on the NFL, but this league is the very definition of hypocrisy.

 

I thought Ross allegedly offered $100K to lose. And seeing the other parts of Flores’ lawsuit, I take that allegation with a sea of salt.

How about males compete with males, and females compete with females (unless they really want to compete with males and are good enough to do so and not get seriously injured)? The non-parenthetical part is how it’s worked forever without issue, and the parenthetical part is how it’s unofficially been for a while, also without incident.

Even with all the problems that Lorraine was going through, she would still reach out to me to ask me about my father’s health and to let me know she was praying for him. I can’t say I knew her well, even for an internet friend, but she was obviously a caring and loving woman, and I can’t help but feeling that we’ve all lost something which made our world a little brighter.

Governor of Florida berating high school kids that were standing on stage with him for wearing masks. What a POS

 

And please someone come in tell me how masks don't work and yadda yadda yadda............I'll let you off the hook before you do. The point here is that he's berating KIDS!! God what an asshat. We had a state senator do the same thing here. Fukking pathetic pieces of shit.

 

He didn’t berate anyone. He told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted. You should stop believing headlines from news organizations which have made a living out of lying (hint, it’s all of them).

 

His actual quote was, "You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off," DeSantis was heard saying. "Honestly, it's not doing anything, and we've gotta stop with this COVID theater."

"So if you want to wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous," he continued, sighing into the microphones.

 

Exactly. As I said, he didn’t berate anyone and told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted.

Governor of Florida berating high school kids that were standing on stage with him for wearing masks. What a POS

 

And please someone come in tell me how masks don't work and yadda yadda yadda............I'll let you off the hook before you do. The point here is that he's berating KIDS!! God what an asshat. We had a state senator do the same thing here. Fukking pathetic pieces of shit.

 

He didn’t berate anyone. He told kids why he thought they shouldn’t wear them and then told them they could do what they wanted. You should stop believing headlines from news organizations which have made a living out of lying (hint, it’s all of them).

It is also valid to point out there are untapped wells that the oil companies are not using so they can drive up the price of gas for their profit. They are the bad actors in this, it is in their best interests to make more money. Direct your anger at them.

 

Presumably the oil companies weren’t tapping those wells before the huge spike in prices and were greedy prior to 14 months ago, no?

For some perspective:

 

Rising crude oil prices and increased gasoline demand contributed to the average U.S. retail price for regular grade gasoline increasing to $3.01 per gallon (gal) in 2021, the highest average nominal price since 2014. The average price for retail gasoline increased by more than $1.00/gal between the start and the end of 2021.

 

One major contributor to the high retail gasoline prices was high crude oil prices. Crude oil prices in 2021 increased throughout most of the year, and the average crude oil price for 2021 was the highest price since 2018.

 

Other factors contributing to higher retail gasoline prices in 2021 include higher demand for gasoline, reduced U.S. refinery capacity, and low gasoline inventories https://www.eia.gov/...il.php?id=50758

 

After everyone sat home and did less driving our inventories were low. Demand returned but things couldn't start up immediately as someone else quoted here. It always makes me wonder why Americans are so quick to complain and blame the government when the industry reacts to the current situations. There was also a cyber attack at Colonial Pipeline which reduced capacity even more. Let's face it, we are spoiled and expect to have what we want when we want it and cheap too. After coming out of a pandemic with things shut down, it was unrealistic to expect things to remain as they were before.

 

Well, that was sure a fast 180! So now it’s not due to untapped oil wells and corporate greed, but higher demand and and lower supply. Of course that is true from a basic economics standpoint. But when the government artificially reduces demand and incentivizes a reduction of supply, and then later lifts the policies artificially reducing demand, this is all to be expected, no? Certainly virtually every economist I saw had been predicting a “v” shaped recovery since the economy was kicked in the nuts 2 years ago. Yet, for some reason, the government did its best to disincentivize oil production. Of course there are many factors and nuance here, but the government can only control what it can control, and what it controlled it screwed up about as much as it could.

It is also valid to point out there are untapped wells that the oil companies are not using so they can drive up the price of gas for their profit. They are the bad actors in this, it is in their best interests to make more money. Direct your anger at them.

 

I wonder if the people who follow the "let the market decide" paradigm complain about prices?

 

Why wouldn’t they? The increased prices are largely a result of government interventions and actions. When the government distorts the market, it’s not much use to say the problem is because of the market.