scourge165

Yeah, it's not that hard to understand other cultures. They rape little boys there when there aren't women around or...just as a form of humiliation. American Slave owners used to do that in the United States. They'd take the biggest slave, tie him up and rape him in front of everyone else...just to take that fight out of him. Yet...somehow they weren't viewed as homosexuals. Maybe you could make an ATTEMPT to understand those cultures. The lack of a prosecution and ignoring is a BIG different than taking a person who you KNOW is part of the LGBT community and putting them on the WORLD STAGE so as they can represent you're Nation. Do ya think Afghanistan would do that with a gay man? Maybe lets not conflate only SOMETIMES putting the people we're talking about to DEATH with making a point to elevate them to the World Stage while they wear your Countries Flag. Sorry if that went over your head.

No, she was not. She was NEVER banned by the IOC...at any point. At least that I'm aware of. But you're claiming you and others talking about this were aware of the situation before the Olympics, so if you could show me when the IOC banned her, I'd be very interested in reading that.

No, I don't see that happening on a thread like this... I'm sorry, what were you saying about nonsensical arguments making it impossible to respond to? Lets compare the veracity of Pashtun Men abusing younger Boys and a Country that has laws against Trans people having a Trans-women Represent them on the World Stage at the Olympics? And you thought this would become a topic about whataboutism to rationalize any argument!

I don't think anyone said you "can't ask what's fair." I think that's EXACTLY what we're talking about and may be more useful without the morons like Scout(who just happens to have the PERFECT personal anecdote from last night...while this topic was going by the way) just yelling over the conversation by calling her a man. I have no clue what's "fair" for people like that. I think in order to be qualified to answer that question, you'd have to have a MUCH better understanding of this topic than I have. I know it can't just be 'they're stronger.' Most great athletes are born physically superior. I can say if you're born male, you can't compete in the women's events. That it as far as I'm confident in commenting insofar as what I know or believe to be "fair." At least fair to the most number of people. I'm also incredibly skeptical that anyone on here was talking about an average Albanian fighter BEFORE the Olympics.

What MORE would you like me to say about Lia Thomas that I haven't made...ABUNDANTLY clear regarding my opinion on here? Never said 'Yeah but it's only one race.' Didn't say 'yeah, but it's rare.'

I'm just tired of Gaines and her grifting. I mean, good for her, she's turned tying for 5th place and getting mailed the medal and making a couple million dollars a year to just say the SAME things over and over and go on bad debate shows. I'm not even sure what we're talking about at this point. Are we talking about the nuance of women who may be DSD or have higher levels of T(which is not that for elite women athletes). Or "someone that was a dude last week, competing against the women this week has nothing to do with any person?" Either way...enough of Riley Gaines. We can have his discussion without Gaines.

Did someone say the first? Because she ONLY finished behind Girls. If you say so...

Oh stop Tripnsweep. Scouts/Jimmy understand how open minded those theocratic Muslim Nations are. Haven't you seen the Iranian Drag Queen parades! They also have to either be the same person or share a singular brain cell. This VERY topic stupid. I reacted to the girl from California who won some CIF sectionals and was called trans and I was wrong and admitted I was wrong. You just post under your two accounts, repeat yourself on each and then post 4-5-6 times in a row and say nothing. Maybe you'll link something to Twitter. That's about it.

You realize THIS isn't the "unique example," right? It's the trans athletes in sports that is FAR more rare. It ABSOLUTELY does make this complicated and you have to be obtuse to not understand this. 1 in 20,000 people are born with DSD Roughly 1 in 100 Female Olympic Athletes are born with some form of DSD. YOU'RE ignoring the complexity of this issue because you want it to be this simple. I agree. No biological Men in Women's sports. You still have people calling the Algerian boxer a Male. People want to make this as simple as you're making it...it's not. It's just not about trans athletes.

Yeah....I get it. I was mocking Scouts "If you say so" comment. He really isn't curious about anything ever. Or won't say he's wrong. You think you'd read that and rather than say "If you say so," use that prodigious googling ability. Or common sense.

I guess I'd always thought the Lia Thomas examples were obvious. This is a more complicated issue than I'd looked into. Some controversies were just insane like the Ohio bill that ended up not passing after a lot of objection where if an opposing parent or coach questioned the gender of an athlete, they needed to have an inspection. The Algerian Boxer... But then I feel like Fallon Fox and... again, Lia Thomas was kinda the catalyst. Riley Gaines has made a career out of this. DSD just makes this whole thing... far muddier. It's a little easier to see why it's not just "common sense" now.

It sounds like you're asking him, telling him...and then answering him all in one post Jimmy.

He doesn't know. He's clueless. I'm pretty sure he's just Jimmy posting under another handle. "If you say so." Yes...you're making the laws for a Muslim Country on Women transitioning to Men... if YOU say so!

Yeah, Coleman beat Brooks. Letts beat Ruth. Coleman got...pretty lucky and scored 5 and had to hang on for the win. I don't think that swings it much. Letts took a 7th, Coleman took a 5th and a 7th. I think Ruth was great. He made it look so easy...I just think Starocci and Brooks stayed in such great position, they VERY rarely got scored on. 141-Yeah, that's fair. I was just trying to get the best 10 on the team. Could have put Dake there, but...neither should be at 141. It's gotta be Yianni, Stieber or Ware and... I don't know how to pick between Yianni and Stieber. I'll go with...Yianni and that's just because I think he's a tougher matchup for Stieber, but it's really 1 and 1A. Nolf-JB would have been interesting, but I think JB was just starting his ascent then. He went to Junior World's that year and took a 10th. He was still becoming...Jordan Burroughs. Askren-Starr, I've always said that I don't think you should rank a guy based purely on titles won...I don't think there's much of a gap here. I guess I just thought of those two and then how I thought that match would go...which would be Starocci staying in good position and IMO, winning a 1 TD match. But I could be wrong. I'd have thought Mark Hall would end up here at one point, but then he couldn't beat Valencia. Well...I said I'm prioritizing their College careers and then said I'm only going off College. Meaning, I'm taking a guy who won a couple titles over a guy like...Fix who took a World Silver AND that I'm limiting it to what they did during those 4 years(or 5 years, or 6) but I'm not including Burroughs illustrious career post-College and I'm putting more weight on how awesome Vito looked vs RBY and Fix vs the WC, but I'm not ignoring the WC... or how Brooks beat a guy like Amine who took a Bronze. The guy who gets screwed the most on mine is Snyder(but he did pay for it...ba‑dum‑tss). No, cheap shot, but he's a 2/1/1/1 and he's one of the 4-5 best College Wrestlers, but he Wrestled at a Weight class with two absolute studs in Stevenson and Cael. The other guy is Lee, but I've always thought Abas was underappreciated(this thread is telling me otherwise). Just so incredibly slick.

It was the first example of your stupid cut and past contradicting itself stupid. Deficit decreased (annual average or trend) Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, 1963–69): reduced deficit by about $8.2 B per year newyorker.com+9reddit.com+9congress.gov+9gordonwaynewatts.com+1goliards.us+1jacobin.com+2reddit.com+2reddit.com+2. Jimmy Carter (Democrat, 1977–81): cut by roughly $11.7 B per year . Bill Clinton (Democrat, 1993–2001): brought deficits down and finished with multiple budget surpluses, reducing debt by an average of $21.6 B per year, and even achieving surpluses from 1998–2001 . Barack Obama (Democrat, 2009–17): also achieved meaningful deficit reduction, averaging ~$179 B less per year over his full term reddit.com+10gordonwaynewatts.com+10reddit.com+10. Done with you now scout. Jesus Christ....15 pages and Jimmy needs to Google was the deficit is vs the debt and Caerira still doesn't get it.

"Manage your credit cards?" Serious question, you just learned tonight there was a difference between deficit and debt, didn't you? Even the most rudimentary Economics are over your head, but you have it solved how we can dig ourself out of a debt 130% the GDP(which is going down under Trump) and pay down 36.3 TRILLION in debt, mostly added by Republicans. This isn't even complicated and you people are too stupid to understand the distinction between deficit and debt...or how Government spending works. You're a Republican though... So you'd probably add most of the money to it and still blame your wife, make 18K, but get upset at the idea of corporations paying more than a 6% or even 9% effective tax rate(and I just realized...you likely don't know what effective tax rate means either).

Shocking the sarcasm was lost on you.... You are just another account for Jimmy, aren't you? The posting 4-5 times in a row, one or two sentences? Effective corporate tax rate 6% right now. Effective corporate tax rate between 35-45% in the 1950s.

You mean where it literally says Obama cut the deficit? I think like Caveira, you're both SO clueless, you don't understand the difference between DEFICIT and DEBT. The DEBT is the total amount of money we owed. The DEFICIT is the YEARLY spending... so when it says "Barack Obama decreased the deficit during his Presidency, but still ended with a deficit." You really aren't smart enough to understand what that is saying? Then why are you arguing?

Ok...so you do NOT understand what the deficit is vs the DEBT. This is BASIC-BASIC economics.

Same question I asked Caveira to you...

OK...FIRST you define what the DEFICIT is and lets see if you can distinguish that from the DEBT. Then you go and compare Bush and the DEFICIT he left and Obama's deficits. Jesus Christ...

I was really just pointing out your inability to read and understand what YOU were writing.

I clicked on your post...probably 1 of the last 40 or 50 I've seen and... you're not smart enough to understand what you're reading. "Barack Obama decreased the deficit during his Presidency, but still ended with a deficit." "Joe Biden decreased the deficit in his first fiscal year, but his overall impact on the deficit remains to be seen." Hey, Jimmy, really, stay out of the grown-ups arguments. THEY'RE LITERALLY SAYING THEY CUT THE DEFICITS. FIRST of all, it helps to know what a deficit is. It's the LAST YEARS budget. So when you take over for a Republican, you either spend MORE money than him or LESS than him. You just showed me a link saying Obama and Biden did just that and Carter absolutely did. What you APPARENTLY thinks this means is did they ELIMINATE the deficit...which just once again indicates that...when the adults are talking, even if you are able to type words into Google, just...shhh. There is a reason you're on ignore. So again, EVERY Democrat has cut the DEFICIT and Ever Republican has INCREASED the deficit.

I like how the moron "Scouts Honor" is liking your post when he cited a source that was even lower than mine. It's also cute how you're just listing off a bunch of exemptions. You can gift 13.99M dollars in your life tax free, 19K a year, 38K married. The Estate Tax doesn't start until ~28M for married couples. The Government Collected 17.1B from Gift and Estate taxes TOTAL because you have Dynasty trusts with executors where you can just avoid it. The "alternative minimum tax?" Do you even understand what this is? This is for people like Trump who paid 750 dollars in taxes how many years in a row(despite being a billionaire because...you get to claim depreciation on your properties despite the fact that they're not depreciating). It doesn't work and it feels like you're just citing taxes now. The carried interest tax, the QBI, tax loss harvesting, carried interest, Family Office... Yeah, you're wrong, you're just repeating an old, tired talking point. JUST as you did when I predicted you'd tell me to "just give more money to the IRS, nobody is stopping you!"

Yeah, it's not about WANT you child. I don't think they WANTED to go fight in a War because a pathetic little guy with a Mustache started a war vs...the world. They did it though. That's the point stupid. And they did at a rate 6,7 TIMES higher. Who would argue with an EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate of 15% if their tax rate is supposed to be 21%? Someone who knows those numbers are meaningless. Cut Fema, Cut the FDA, Cut ICE, cut...all Federal funding for EVERYTHING... keep the defense spending, Medicare, social security and paying the interest. Tell me with JUST those cuts and Trump's proposed tax cuts...how long until we pay off the debt? So basically EVERYTHING except for Military and the programs we pay into?