Infidel Dog

So basically Hodad and I can't agree on what is ostensibly radical. So be it. Barbie is convinced transsexualism and homosexuality are the same thing. No real world facts will ever penetrate the comforting fantasy of his delusion on that one. Look, it's been fun but we're just repeating ourselves and nobody else seems to care. Give yourselves some high fives and tell yourselves you won or something. I'm out of here.

Ok, and here's what I think. If you push traditionally abnormal people into positions of power; not based on their merit but a sad need to signal your hope of appearing to possess superior virtue the abnormality will manifest itself in radical ways. As it did and does with Levine and Brinton. There were WTF moments when their appointments were announced and those who expected radical weirdness to come of it have not been disappointed.

Well no, not to you. You only hear what you want to believe so how can anything else make sense to you when you're not capable of hearing it much less understanding it. Did you ever hear the saying "common sense is not that common?" With you it's completely foreign.

Angry? I'm having fun. Projection much?

It's pretty important to you to believe that, is it? They can be. Just as anybody can. But no, it's not in the definition. Ask the female prisoners that were raped in female jail by transsexual men if they think trans can only be homosexual. Or read this one from the BBC: The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

I know Brinton was caught on multiple occasions stealing women's undergarments from airports. Not the kind of mind I'd want managing anything to do with anything nuclear. A little too radical for me. And in my mind Levine's a groomer. Same thing. Brain's not on right.

I think I get it. You're not on board with the male tran types mad at lesbians for not being attracted to you. You'd like to pretend they don't exist. You prefer to think trannies are all out for same sex action. Would it interfere with your visits to your local porn site if I tell you that's not the case?

Will you bozos never learn to read your own sources? That post has no suggestion the study it references has anything to do with "Trans" anything. Look if Ru Paul is your thing, good for you but don't be trying to do tell me grooming kids for radical medical procedures isn't radical? I have to wonder why that would be important to you. And why is it so important to you that transsexualism be the same thing as homosexuality? It isn't, you know. Is this a personal thing for you to insist it is? I have to wonder why.

I don't know where you thought you saw me 'fighting an attraction to homosexuals.' In fact, I'm kind of chuckling that you're so sure I'm not homosexual. I'm saying some, and more everyday homosexuals, don't want to be associated with the weird psychosis of the transsexual groomer movement. I've said it a few times now. Why is it so important to you to pretend I'm saying something else. That's abnormal. You've got me thinking. What are you hiding?

Actually what this is about is what's radical. Is Rachel Levine's appointment radical. I think it is. You think it isn't. Very well, what about Joe's other political appointee, Sam Brinton - the Transsexual airport lingerie thief? Is he/she/mx radical?

Why are you so opposed to homosexuals when they don't support your hidden attraction to transsexuals? Are you homophobic or transophobic? A little of both maybe.

It's been done 6 times since 1989 when the practice began and one of them did come up through the ranks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Public_Health_Service_Commissioned_Corps_four-star_admirals And push a tranny through there, especially one pushing for radical medical procedures on children and you're entering the Twilight Zone.

Well, as long as we're calling names, if you're supporting Rachel in supporting puberty blocking drugs and snipping breasts or penises or what he/she calls "gender affirming care" you're a psycho weirdo. BTW where did you get the idea that all Trans are homosexuals? Actually there's a movement now by actual homosexuals to have the T removed from LGBTQ. Those lesbians and homosexuals no longer want to be associated with them.

Well if you're into wonky stuff, Sharkman, technically it isn't the Presidential Records Act that give the Vice President some authority to declassify. It's 2 executive orders. The first by Bush. The second by Obama. https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2006/02/the_vice_presidents_declassifi/ Progs who like to dis links are free to check out their Snopes if they prefer and see if it says much different. It only differs in not stressing the Bush order and offering up the Obama one. Oh and more partisan rhetoric, of course. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/

And now he/she is like, "Uncle Sam wants you! (kiddies to snip and clip, take puberty blockers and go trans.)" He's a groomer. That's radical.

No. He didn't invent it, but he did invent Levine as an Admiral in it. Levine didn't work his way up through the ranks of Public Health Service Commission. The wokeists behind the Biden regime had him slipped through Senate hearings as Assistant Secretary of Health then 7 months later it was like whoever's in charge of the Biden regime said, "Hey Rachel, how'd like to drive the traditionalists even more crazy," and poof he/she's an Admiral.

Speaking of "radical" though... Did you hear Biden made that freak Levine some sort of special Admiral? That's not just radical, it's an insult to real admirals. I thought opening the border to 5 million invaders was kind of radical. As is the new "woke" military. More affirmative action, minority generals. More women. More trannies. I can see China quaking in its boots. The radical over reaction to the pandemic stopped being understandable at a point and started to look more like a radical attempt to see how far they could go to reshape society. The data trickled out showing they were making mistakes and they didn't just ignore it, they censored it. That was radical. Government working with social media to censor news that might favor the opposition was radical. Illegal even. There's more radical, globalist-left, crazy-think, of course but that's enough to make the point. I'd love to tell you why pushing global warming as an existential threat is radical politics not science but off we'd go down that rabbit hole with the climate cultists who want to call all heretics to their new religion "deniers."

This came out today: Biden to Sell More Oil From Strategic Reserve After Draining It to 40-Year Low

Actually this is the first time I've seen the one you tell me you've shared with Legato. This one: It pretty much shows what I said. Except when you go way back like that what you see is oil production rising during Obama's term from the cellar he found them in to the peak levels of the 70s. The dip from the continuous rise in 2020 was when Biden took over and shut everything down. And here's why (from EIA): "Historically, crude oil production had been declining in the US in the 80s and 90s, but began a precipitous rise in 2010-2018 due to new methods in extracting oil like hydraulic fracturing." But it rose to new levels during Trump. And rose even further due to Trump deregulation and opening of previously closed lands. When Biden took over it was confusing where he stood on Fracking but he wrote down there would be no new fracking. Recently he's come out for and said he never was against it. So that's what the little downturn then return is to the peak he inherited is about. Trump did not inherit a peak from Obama. He inherited a rise to an old 70s peak due to oil companies adoption of fracking techniques. And don't tell me to ignore my lying eyes about the Saudis flooding the market with oil going into the pandemic, and Biden having to open the strategic oil reserves because of shortages, and beg cap in hand to Arabia and Venezuela for more oil from them. WE know he did that and we know Trump didn't because we saw it happen or not happen. You can debate wonky little data bites and bafflegab it until the cows come home, we saw that happen and we remember when oil was cheap during the Trump years and we notice that it isn't today.

What you describe can be seen on Legato's chart. But no, it does not show Trump inheriting any kind of rise in oil production from Obama like Biden inherited from Trump. I do remember what happened in 2020. The Saudi's had been engaged in a price war with Russian and had been flooding the market. This went into the pandemic and left the world with a glut in oil. The idea energy independence during the Trump years doesn't matter is wordplay bafflegab. Yes, energy independence simply means more exporting and the importing. An online progressive fact check will tell you therefore it doesn't actually matter. In reality why aren't we still doing it? Joe had to go into the strategic oil reserves. Trump didn't. Biden had to go to the Saudi's cap in hand begging for an oil production increase. Trump didn't. Towards the end he was trying to get them to cut back. Trump cut regulations and opened reserved lands. Oil production increased. That was not left over magic from the Obama years. The moment Joe took power he put a stop to all Trump energy policies. Oil prices rose. Production took an immediate dump but now it is rising again approaching Trump levels. Things rise and fall in steps. They rose drastically during the Trump years took a small dump when Biden took power and currently they are leveling high where Trump put them. Much as a drastic rise in global temperatures happened during the 1998 Super El Nino then temperatures leveled high and still are. It happens. But as Nationalist said prices are still higher than what they were during the Trump years. That's what people see and no amount of Proggish bafflegab will make them stop seeing it.

It's not necessary to prove the 2020 election was fraudulent to offer overwhelming evidence it was rigged. Absolute proof of fraud may not even be possible since the Progressives have hijacked legislative structure. But yeah, Zuckerbucks, pandemic lawfare changing election law, collusion between government and social media etc. It was rigged. Was it also fraudulent. Probably, but the courts will never allow that to be proven. See the Arizona mid-terms for support of that one. That one's not over yet but it's doubtful the cheated candidates of Arizona will ever get a fair trial.

Yes and the neocons were originally Liberals. People sometimes forget.

Not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about your link where they talk about how oil profits are up? Profits and production are not the same thing. The price of oil skyrocketed and they invested less. Joe made sure there was less to invest in. So yeah the oil companies made out like bandits. But they produced less not more. It they were pumping out the fuel to record limits like you suggest why would Joe have to empty out the emergency reserve? Or are you talking about Legato's graph? Maybe we read graphs differently but the way I read that one Joe inherited an amazing rise in oil production. He did not create it.

I'll even help you, Mikey. Would you like to go with this one: https://www.thoughtco.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-1690919 I couldn't remember the name of it so I had to look it up. I call it Lassoing. Will that do? I hope so because I'd like to make it famous. It's the left's favourite trick. The parameters don't quite catch what I'm talking about once you stop pretending you don't understand I'm talking about a projected possibility based on real life examples and not claiming that projection as existing fact.

Oh and speaking of logical fallacies, I love that stuff. I notice you didn't want to name the one you're accusing me of. Go ahead, name it. Let's see how big an expert you really are.