jerryskids

Is this where I say you have no life and could be doing so much more?

Alrighty then.

Just some mental health issues though, amirite?

Sorry, no, Grayson struggled with anxiety and depression, and at least a past history of alcohol abuse. But whatever you do, don't discuss it. It's disrespectful to him. Who knows, maybe his family posts here.

You don't think the suppression of the Hunter laptop story had ANY impact on the election? The parties involved in suppressing it obviously did.

The last two foul calls on Luka shooting were full ratard calls. First was Luka lowering his shoulder and diving into KAT. Second was a phantom call on ANT.

Jason Bateman. I knew his sister Justine from Family Ties (may have rubbed out one or a bunch of times to her), and figured he was just glomming onto the name. But after Arrested Development and Ozark... big fan.

Wood.

I think where we disagree is that, given the relatively few number of trans people, they could use the "family" (or rebranded as "all-gender") restroom that most airports have these days. Unless you define "trans" as people who've physically transitioned, as I said in my post. If you consider men who claim to be women when they woke up this morning as trans, then we disagree.

Bummer, if you admitted to your obvious lie about contributing, you could have gotten my heartfelt response. And I feel like we got along fine until your latest drive by. Perhaps something is going on in your life? You've changed, become more of an ass, not interested in intelligent discussion. I'm open to discuss if you'd like.

I'm not clear of your point here. Obviously you don't disagree with my first point. And your post doesn't address my second point. I've stated here recently that I support trans women who have physically transitioned being in women's restrooms. I see no better way to moderate it, and I don't think that truly gender dysphoric people pose a significant threat to women. In other words, lopping off your boy parts seems like a pretty large commitment to your belief that you are a woman. But I maintain that the progressives (mostly upper middle class hetero women IMO, not actual trans people) want trans women in biological women's bathrooms, because that is "full" acceptance. I agree with you on locker rooms.

Great info, thanks! I'll definitely put it in the queue.

You don't get my point, that's OK. You are stuck on the simplistic "if Trump weren't so sloppy none of these indictments would have happened." Bless your heart.

Watched the trailer. Looks fun.

Barely onto a third page, 3/4 of them are "a little help" posts, are you saying this is "plenty" of contribution? Most of the rest are on the mange bored which is a different beast than here. \ Last thread here was 15+ months ago. Admit that you were full of shiot on the plenty of topics thing, and I'll give you a heartfelt response on your second paragraph.

I'll definitely check it out.

Never saw them?! Get off my lawn! The original started it all. 2 was good IIRC. 3 (Beyond Thunderdome) was a typical mid-80s shmaltzy movie, like Rocky 3, but likeable in its own way. Then 30 years go by and Fury Road is made... Anyway, like I said, it's clearly better than I gave it credit for.

A couple of thoughts on this: - I wouldn't call it Bathroom for the Mentally Ill, I'll stick with "non-gender". - It's important to the progressives that women "deal" with it, which is to say, learn to love it. As has been pointed out before, there aren't that many trans people, so a single non-gender bathroom should be more than sufficient to meet their needs. But that isn't enough, it needs to be embraced, and trans women (biological men) need to feel 100% accepted, after all. - Anyone who thinks that individual doored stalls is the same as a row of urinals does not understand queuing theory. Airport bathrooms are mostly empty, except when flights land, when there is a rush to use them. Removing urinals will likely create some... issues with this.

I would guess that they played the tape -- no way would a judge let it in otherwise. My issue, if it wasn't argued earlier, is that this entire case would not have existed if Bragg hadn't come up with a creative (to be kind) way to link the payoff to "election interference." Then it wasn't brought up in the arguments. And the judge wouldn't let the Federal Elections Committee chairman (I think that was his role) testify, presumably to say that they found it to be a nothingburger. And for this, and paying off a pron star 8 years ago to keep quiet (with a legal NDA), we are trying to convict the presumptive Republican nominee for president. I find it sad that more people don't see the danger in this. But, OMB, gotta get him, Machiavelli would be proud.

The important thing that I learned from this thread was that Fury Road was a good movie. I figured at the time it was yet another sad attempt to reboot an old franchise, with a woke attempt to make a woman (Charlize Theron) a gritty action hero. Although I do respect Theron as an actress... anyway, I'll put that on the list to watch, then maybe check out Furiosa.

My grammatically-challenged post: says I was think[ing]... hence it is my opinion, not a statement of fact. Be better than... other posters here, I'll leave it at that. Saying that I heard what happened, thought it sounded like a cardiac issue, and felt it was unfair to rush to a suicide conclusion, is not the same as metal helmets. Also from my other thread Saturday about the funeral, I was sensitive this past week to suicide-related issues.

I don't know specifically for Seatac, but from Gutter's article it clearly was a motivation. And there has been plenty of lobbying for such restrooms in general. https://www.google.com/search?q=the+push+for+all+gender+bathrooms&oq=the+push+for+all+gender+bathrooms&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhA0gEINTI1OWowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Specific example: https://gmufourthestate.com/2024/02/07/the-push-for-gender-neutral-bathrooms-on-campus/

You've been following this way more closely than I have, so I'll ask you: did the prosecution make this argument during the evidentiary portion of the trial? If not, it seems wrong to argue a key, fundamental part of your case only in your closing, where there is no chance for the defense to rebut.

Yeah, those are the same.