iNow

Please elaborate. Promise you I’m not. This misunderstanding seems to have been yours since this isn’t relevant to what I said

Others right here in this very thread recognize and accept as valid this phenomenon. Your sloppy language and obstinacy aren’t helping matters. I think you do, and what you really don’t want is to have your claims challenged, criticized, or corrected in any way. This just made me laugh. Very meta.

That much is obvious. You’re wrong, not unclear about your claim.

Arguing is fine, and even encouraged. It’s arguing in bad faith or merely digging in your heels when valid counterpoints are made which grows rapidly tiring. Like this ^ Stop posting to it.

Sounds like a Weird Al parody of Dylan

The problem is the present doesn’t even exist. By the time we sense a “now,” it’s already a stale outdated shadowy construction of lots of different past stimuli and variables. Some of those inputs are 300ms old, others are 700ms old, some others still are from light that was emitted from a star 2 billions years ago… all stitched haphazardly together via a wet meat computer into a narrative we call “reality.”… but it’s not “now.” That happened at least 300-700ms ago.

This is just poor word choice. Call them mental representations or visual constructs instead. The use of “invisible” and “image” here together given their mutually exclusive definitions will only lead to further confusion. Your threshold seems unreasonably high. What specific evidence would you need to see to change your mind on this? Neither is the conclusion that you’re here arguing in good faith if you keep asserting this over and over again despite obvious refutation from others. Are you familiar with the hasty generalization fallacy? It’s too bad you came here to preach and not to learn.

Jefferson had to go and screw that up by making congress pass the 12th amendment. How dare he!

Thx for the heads up. I shared that one tho

The risk is surely higher right now than any of us would like. Roughly 2% of all the members managed to completely stop for an entire week all business of every member of the entire congress, and it surely won’t be the last time they choose to do so. Choosing a Speaker is the easiest vote any one of them will ever take, and they did little more than fumble and turnover the ball with each chance.

Not all democracies are the same. The US is a representative democracy, specifically a constitutional republic, and that constitution has had this succession rule and sequence in place without serious issue since the year 1788. 235 years of consistent success is a good bit of evidence in favor of effectiveness, IMO.

Correct

There’s a whole wiki article for rotating locomotion in living systems which feels like it should’ve been shared by now: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_locomotion_in_living_systems

^this If it’s a person with whom you’d like the exchange to continue, consider a response style such as: ”Thanks so much for the response, though I suspect I’m misunderstanding you. It sounded to me like you said XYZ, however it’s always been explained to me that ABC. If it’s not too much trouble, perhaps you can point me to the source of the contradiction so I may continue correcting errors in my thinking?”

I feel with my heart that the internet is becoming inundated with poorly trained bots

Had a dog once that loved to chew anything it could find. Nothing was off limits. Sticks. Stones. Food scraps, furniture, clothing, anything left laying around on the ground really. Then one day she swallowed a Matchbox car toy. It was painted bright orange with a confederate flag on top just like the one on Dukes of Hazard… so I suppose technically speaking… at least that ONE particular animal had “wheels in it” (at least, that is, until she took a giant General Lee dump a few days later).

Historically, the same mindset was applied to homosexuality. Nobody is identifying as a dog, but you raise a valid point that people’s rights shouldn’t be limited when/if they do. “Gay marriage?!? What’s next… letting people marry their dog!!” Ahh… memories.

Anyone else notice Toucana always posts OPs like this on political topics, doesn’t frame the discussion, then also never really engages? Anyway… Now it’s 11. The House has adjourned and McCarthy has lost 11 votes for Speaker.

Some representatives involved with national security have lost their security clearances this week since they haven’t been sworn in yet.

As did his speaking out against Trump after the January 6 insurrection only to then very shortly thereafter fly to Maralago and beg forgives, kiss the ring, lick Donald’s hiney hole, etc.

I wasn’t clear on topic intent so apologies if this misses the mark or isn’t what you’re after, but thought immediately of this quick mathy 3-part series:

McCarthy previously negotiated that 6 votes is enough to force a broader vote of No Confidence on him. If 218 then later vote to remove him, he’d be gone and need to be replaced. It would start this whole cycle over again. Last night, he then sweetened the deal and offered for ONLY 1 vote to be enough to force a vote of No Confidence on him as the Speaker. His offer is to change House rules to allow that possibility. If it happens, that’s gonna throw a monkey wrench into the already gummy gears of governance if every 7 minutes or so there’s another No Confidence vote on him as the Speaker. Worse? During any debt ceiling votes (where congress must agree to pay bills on spending we’ve already done), they could simply remove him from his chair to prevent the debt ceiling funding vote from even being allowed (votes can’t be called / can’t happen if there’s no Speaker to call them). The government would shutdown. Social security and Medicare payments wouldn’t be made. Post offices would close. Veterans healthcare would shutdown and military would be limited to essential personnel. All others wouldn’t be able to pay their rent, heating, or food bills. National monuments and parks would close, and… All because ONE Representative asked for a vote of No Confidence on McCarthy at a strategic and extremely inopportune time. It’s madness. It’s also 2nd in line for the presidency behind only the VP.

You keep reflexively referring to them as "male identifying as female." They're just "female." Why is this such a struggle for you? You misspelled female again Unless your concern extends to female teachers as well, then it's unclear why this is a problem. Why can we not just all agree as I suggested earlier that rules for teachers in children changing areas should be applied consistently regardless of gender, whether that gender is cis or otherwise? You'll get no disagreement from me here. I think pretty much everyone here agrees with this. However, you seem to be arguing that your daughter is at some extra risk because some teachers are transgendered. That doesn't make sense unless you fear transgendered people, and you don't strike me as the fearful type... not over pretend and invented enemies, anyway.

That plus “owning the libs” constitutes their ENTIRE “policy” agenda. Depends on how we the voters respond in aggregate I do, yes, hence todays photo op with them both together

“Classic” as in nothing “like this has ever happened before, and the nearest event that was even remotely similar was over 100 years ago?”