Leftfield

With every Rand Paul statement, I find myself sympathizing more with his neighbor.

You could certainly be right. I personally don't see why Biden will absolutely act just as Obama did just because he was Obama's VP. I don't believe it is a mistake to not publicly state what our red line would be. If he states that chemical weapons would be a red line, and then Putin releases a chemical weapon outside of a city that doesn't hurt or kill anyone from Ukraine, just to see what our reaction would be, would that be worth going to war? I would argue no, but if you've stated that chemical weapon use is a red line and then you don't act, what does that signal to the rest of the world? At this point I see no benefit to drawing a line in the sand that hasn't already been drawn, like the NATO charter. But we're not in an armed conflict. You may think we should be, but we're not. You may be right that Putin wouldn't launch a nuclear strike, but what if you're not?

I'm assuming you mean direct military action, and not the sanctions that have already been put in place, nor providing weapons and ammunition or humanitarian support? Maybe never. Putin may not cross a red line that would trigger that. Hence why I said it was doubtful. There would have to be a tremendous public outcry by the Chinese population to make the government believe it would be better to isolate Putin. That would cross a red line. At that point you have to act, as it renders the NATO charter worthless if you don't, and truly does signal to the Russian and Chinese governments that they can pretty much do whatever they want. Whether or not the Biden administration and the rest of NATO would actually act? Hopefully we don't have to find out. I think you probably have this backwards. Certainly some in lower-level government, who have no hope of making a difference, may have more concerns about the fate of their country. Those higher up have already been scrutinized over the years, and would be too afraid to act against Putin because of what will happen to them now, as opposed to some nebulous future that they aren't certain will come to pass. I appreciate your confirmation of what you think this is all about.

The cavalier attitude toward nuclear war is just stunning to me. You claim Putin doesn't want Russia destroyed. To an extent I'm sure that's true, but I don't think that's his primary concern. The man is a dictator, and like all dictators, his survival and continued hold on power is paramount. He lives in a bubble of extreme entitlement. How do people like that usually react when threatened with something being taken away from them? It's just like the controlling, abusive husband who, when finally faced with losing the object of his abuse, says "If I can't have her, nobody will." As Gary Kasparov said, "Dictators don't ask 'Why?' They only ask, 'Why not?'" You think Putin (or China's leaders, while we're at it) doesn't have contingency plans to survive if there is a nuclear war? You think he cares if the rest of his country lives as long as his power structure remains in place? The dynamic may change if Putin does something that causes Chinese public opinion to shift to outrage, forcing the Chinese government to isolate Putin, though I find that extremely unlikely. Certainly if Putin targets a NATO country, we will have to act. Short of that, as painful as it is to watch what is happening, you do not risk the existence of most of the human race for a d**k measuring contest.

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite movie quotes: "If we let them get away with this on our own grounds, it will never change." "History disputes you." "History takes too long." "Yes, I know it does. But it's never kind to those who try to hurry it."

AU f***

It's because if we get to page 300, Lache Seastrunk will be our next coach.

All these people getting badges....

Well, at least we built depth on that part of the O-line. Or something.

Eh, custard is hit and miss for me. Richer than ice cream, so sometimes it works, but often it's a bit much. I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that Wisconsin found a way to make something less healthy. Their goal is to make everything an edible version of the five finger death punch.

Well, since I stated that homosexuality was not normal, in terms of not being the majority of the population, I figured that pretty well addressed the ridiculous cucumber/necrophilia thing. With so many definitions being thrown about, I'll just say this: Homosexuality is obviously not normal in the sense that it is the majority, but it is normal in the sense that it occurs regularly. It is natural in that it is not a choice. And sexual orientation is not the same as a sexual fetish.

I didn't say homosexuality was normal because that would imply it was the majority of the population. Being left-handed also isn't normal, but they are both naturally occurring. However, with your comparison, you've completely revealed your disdain for homosexuals. You're comparing them to people with fetishes for inanimate objects, which cannot give consent and provide no reciprocation of pleasure or caring. You're basically saying that homosexuals only see their partners as sex objects. Certainly that is sometimes the case, just as it is for heterosexuals, but not for committed relationships. Do you see your wife/girlfriend as just a sex object? Personally I couldn't give two s**ts about the cucumber, as long as the person using it isn't putting it back in the Produce section. The body is problematic because of the emotional attachment we assign them - whether or not they are being harmed, they are still considered to be the property of the person who inhabited that body and therefore, a violation. I think you know that. But thanks for revealing your true colors on homosexuals.

It's estimated that less than 1% of the population has a genius level IQ. Synesthesia occurs in 2-4% of the population. 10-12% are left-handed. None of these are "normal", but they have no negative connotations. Consciously or not, you used only negative abnormalities as examples, and psychopathy is not generally a sexual abnormality. You can find it as predictable as you like, but would you have used those examples if you were talking about someone who could only be sexually aroused by women with green eyes, or curly hair? You may not be arguing this from a moral standpoint, but your choice of examples seems to betray your feelings about the issue, and that ingrained bias goes back to the point about the constant negative pressure applied to gay people by much of society. I'll take your numbers at face value, and I'm certainly not saying the Jews had it "better," but I believe there are different psychologies at work in these situations. The Jews were facing an existential threat, which the mind finds ways to fight in order to survive. Many in the gay community feel cut off, isolated, and with little hope of ever feeling happiness or acceptance, most especially in teens, whose minds have not fully formed and are still learning coping skills. The Nazis were a tangible external tormentor. Isolation is quite a different enemy.

I appreciate that you feel homosexuality is not a choice. However, I wonder if you are conscious of the fact that just about everything you've compared homosexuality to, including psychopaths and pedophiles, is extremely negative. You are vilifying a behavior that, outside of offending the sensibilities we as a society have imposed over time, has no effect on anyone outside of a consenting relationship. Pedophilia, while involuntary, by definition is an attack and harms another person. Usually when a psychopath is diagnosed it's because they've harmed someone or themselves, or just can't function in society. Why are you comparing these people to such intensely negative things? How about this: There aren't many people I know that would choose to eat lima beans, but hey, for those that would? Have at it. It may not be normal, but it's natural and doesn't affect me in the least. I also wonder if you've considered why the rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence might be higher among homosexuals. Do you think the negative stigmas constantly being pushed on them by a society that compares them to pedophiles and psychopaths might have a part to play? My wife and I are good friends with a lesbian couple. Their daughter and one of our daughters have been best friends for years. One of that couple was raised by a mother that was stunningly abusive, both physically and mentally, particularly after she came out. She was also bullied quite a bit in school, because she came out her sophomore year. It became bad enough that she dropped out and got her GED. Our friend is still in therapy (mental) years later because of what she went through. Fortunately, she is a great mother to her daughter and she has broken the cycle of abuse, but my point is her feeling of self-worth is negligible because of the abuse she went through. When she was younger she turned to drugs, fortunately just for a short time, was a cutter, and came very close to suicide. Obviously not every gay person goes through that exact scenario, but I think you may be underestimating the effect that constant negative pressure can have on a person's mental state.

Don't think I've heard that it's too late to make a difference. I do know some scientists believe that it may be too late to avoid some severe consequences and now it's a matter of mitigation. I see it as sort of akin to the "Foundation" series: If we see an inevitable catastrophe coming, shouldn't we work to limit the damage, to increase chances of survival and allow those that remain to rebuild sooner?

I thought it was glorious. It's rare that someone puts that much effort into showing they have no idea what they're talking about.

A Trump mouthpiece complaining about unacceptable comments and breaking norms? That would be the funniest thing I've read in a while if it weren't so pathetic. Anyone who knew anything about the pandemic knew that Fauci disagreed with the way Trump was handling it. It was no secret - Fauci had been trying to steer him to handle it responsibly for months. He was as diplomatic with his answer as he could possibly be. Just because you didn't like his answer doesn't mean he was being political. While he serves at the pleasure of the President, his duty is to the American people. He saw the disaster that was about to happen, and spoke truthfully about what needed to be done. It would have been irresponsible for him to not be vocal about it. It's lovely how you admit he was right, then put all the blame on him and the scientific community, but none on the population that ignored their advice. We've already gone over when the surges took place. The death rate from the winter surge began to peak shortly before Biden took office and stayed at that level for almost a month. That was not the Delta variant. Then when cases started going down too many states relaxed, including some blue states, but certainly leading the charge were the Trump lackey governors hell bent on fully opening and removing mask mandates because 'Murica. I wonder how you expected "Science and Dr. Fauci" to be able to quickly have a solution to the Delta variant? Just come up with a new vaccine by the time it reached the States and save us all, before the first vaccine had even been mass distributed yet? For someone who constantly preaches that we're all responsible for our own health and safety, you sure seem to put a lot of undue responsibility on the scientific community. When it suits your argument, at least. I guess that's critical thinking.

Someone asked him a question, he answered truthfully, and you say that's him becoming political? Would you prefer that he lied? It's not like he held a press conference or released a written statement. I wonder if you noticed that he was right? The surge began in earnest right around that time.