User

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl

The point is that a child who is going through any number of mental issues dealing with their body, puberty, shame, etc... IS NOT TRANSGENDER. And up until a few moments ago in woke leftist history, thinking you are something you are not, was in fact considered a mental issue. You are not interested in science; you are interested in medical associations pushing woke leftist ideology rather than any real science.

Same for going to Canada. They do this to. They will also hassle you about not stealing their jobs and interrogate you.

Yes, you are comparing us to animals. Do you think there is no difference between humans and animals now? This continues to be the stupidity of your whole schtick here. You are conflating human morals and reasoning of right and wrong with what animals instinctively do. Which is why you keep running like a coward when I keep pointing this out and making the point about how animals also do a lot of other violent nasty things to each other.

Not a her. A man with a mental illness. A man strapping fake boobs on that are absurd on their face and parading around in front of children. I don't say this is OK, you do. You are the one defending it.

You’re still missing why I used the analogy. I’m not saying marriage and a country are the same thing. I’m taking your rule and applying it somewhere else to mock your logic. Your are making some absurd technicality argument: “If something didn’t exist under its current name yet, then anything that happened before doesn’t count as its history.” That’s the part I’m mocking. You say Canada is a completely new thing with no connection to what came before. Fine. Then explain this: Did the laws come from nowhere? Did the institutions appear out of thin air? Did the people suddenly become unrelated to the places they lived in the day before? Did the people making Canada magically appear out of nowhere? Of course not. Canada is a continuation and consolidation of the colonies that formed it. You don’t get to pretend there’s a hard reset just because the label changed. Your baby example actually hurts your argument more than it helps it. A baby doesn’t inherit the actions of the parents, sure. No one is saying Canada personally “owned slaves” like an individual commits a crime. But a baby absolutely inherits context, lineage, and conditions from the parents. That’s the whole point. It doesn’t pop into existence disconnected from everything that came before. Same idea here. And no, this isn’t about “trying to make Canada look bad” or whatever political box you want to shove it into. It’s about basic historical continuity. Saying “Canada never had slavery” in that narrow, technical sense is like saying “this company never polluted” when it was formed by merging companies that did. It’s technically tidy, but it ignores how reality actually flows over time. So yeah, it is simple: Changing the name doesn’t erase the past. Forming a new entity doesn’t sever it from what created it. You can keep repeating the label argument, but it’s just semantics doing heavy lifting for a conclusion you already decided on.

You crybabies conflate Trump's harsh words with actual substance. At the end of the day we provide susbtance in objective material support for NATO including decades of toops and weapons and support. But Trump was mean to you because you were not paying your fair share! He said mean things! We don't have to consult with NATO before launching a surprise attack on Iran, where who knows how many people would then leak that information. I did not demand you send anyone; I said they are closing their airspace, which requires nothing more than passivity. No, you and others have been abusing us since WWII, mooching off our defense spending to be under the umbrella of our protection while you fail to spend your fair share on defense. The Middle East loves us right now. They want us there, they host us there, they hate Iran because they also live under the threat of Iran. We are not losing our bases and you cry babies want us in your countries more than we want to be there. If you clowns want to side with Iran over us, so be it. Fend for yourselves.

Yes, I know marriage is not the same thing. That is why it is called an analogy. I am taking your logic, swapping the nouns, and showing you how absurd it sounds when applied somewhere else. If your argument is that once a new legal entity is formed, everything that happened before magically no longer counts because “technically it wasn’t that entity yet,” then by that same logic a marriage would have no connection to anything either spouse did before the wedding. That would obviously be a stupid argument. Which is exactly why I used it. No, a married woman is not literally a brand new human being with no connection to her prior life. And likewise, the political body that became Canada did not descend from the heavens untouched by the histories of the colonies, territories, and institutions that formed it. That is the point. You are trying to play a word game where you erase continuity by changing the label. “It wasn’t Canada yet” is not some magic historical bleach that wipes away everything that led into Canada. The marriage analogy is intentionally dumb because it exposes the dumbness of the underlying move: “Before the wedding, she wasn’t a wife, therefore her past has nothing to do with the marriage.” That sounds ridiculous, because it is. Same basic problem here: “Before Confederation, it wasn’t Canada, therefore the entities and systems that became Canada have nothing to do with Canada’s history.” You can keep repeating “Canada never had slavery” in that narrow technical sense, but all that really means is you are hiding behind the date of the label instead of addressing the historical continuity of the places, institutions, and people that became Canada. So no, I am not claiming marriage creates a mystical new being. I am mocking your logic by putting it in a different outfit and showing how silly it looks.

You don’t need the campaign, he was President once before and said this: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-iran/ Also, he doesn’t need Congress to do what he is doing.

You lie all the time. If you care so much about lying, stop it.

That is not Trumps doing, it is our supposed NATO allies doing. If they don’t want to share their air space with us, their ally, as we are fighting a war, then what good are they? I have long been a staunch defender of NATO, but many of our supposed key allies are proving to be anything but. Screw them.

You made the stupid argument about how chemical/nerve agents are delivered. I pointed out your ignorance. Then you try to claim none were found in Iraq. Once again, I point out your ignorance. Instead of dealing with your being wrong over and over again, you start doing the Beaver filibuster where you post a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with anything. Same thing you did when you were wrong about the Trees and a million other things on here. You would rather prove how much of a liar you are willing to be than just admit you were wrong.

Yes, completely different! Our side condemns this shit. It has to be done in secret. When exposed we call it out for the depraved disgusting shit it is. Your side celebrates it, so much so they push it on children in the classroom and you are here trying to downplay it to defend it.

How are you so dumb? It’s not Noems husband I’m talking about.

You are still too stupid, dishonest, or lazy to follow this discussion.

Typical Beaver BS. You make the stupid false comment that none of these weapons were found in Iraq, period. I point out you are wrong. Again. You go off on some melt down tangent arguing things not said instead of just admitting you were wrong.

I didn’t bring this up. I responded to your comment talking about this. So… now what do you have?

Nothing you posted backs up calling him a racist or sexist. What are the qualifications for his position he doesn’t meet?

The teacher was in the classroom though. Was allowed to remain for some time. And you are here still defending that madness by trying to downplay it being high school as if that makes it OK. Like I said from the start, once we found out about Noems husband, we are rightly denouncing it while you sit here defending someone doing far worse in front of children in a classroom. Mental illness certainly should be and in this instance the dude was wearing breasts absurdly large. Of course you defend this sickness being pushed onto children.

Typical Beaver tactics. Pretend you don’t say what you did. You comment was “weapon system” that “delivers” and how hard it was to make and hide and now you try to act like you were just talking about the artillery shell. It isn’t hard to hide an artillery shell. “The weapon system that delivers the agent is more complex to produce and harder to hide than the agent itself.” Also… you are wrong yet again about finding none in Iraq. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq The Times reports in an extensive article:

You were the kid who cried that your dad was a liar because he promised to come to your little league game but he got stuck in traffic due to no fault of his own. 30 years later you still call him a liar.

I think you are confusing prayer with your posting style here.

But when two people come together to form a marriage, something is born that wasn’t there before. It is a new entity. What you’re arguing is the same as pretending that a married couple is just two single people with a label slapped on, like nothing actually changed and we just call it something else. That’s really not how it works. The individuals didn’t just change their names. Different lives and different histories, with different experiences and perspectives, came together and created something new. A marriage is a Gestalt, it is more than the sum of its parts. It is new and distinct, with its own identity and its own history, just as a child is born of two parents and yet is something entirely new. As much as you want to pretend the marriage existed before it actually did, it didn’t. It only came into being when those two people chose to form it. That’s just the way it works. And just like that, whatever came before belongs to the individuals, not the marriage itself.

But she didn’t just change her name! No! She is married. This was a union of two different people now becoming a new household, something new!

This is a real question: can you read? No where have I insisted anyone bear any guilt.