ThreePointTakedown

1st bold: Not that they 'cannot compete' because they do. Often and with much push back to women playing in "men's" sports. The incentive to play, which is why we play sports, is not worth the hassle to most women. Bad ROI. Some enjoy it. Challenging themselves. Overcoming odds and obstacles with little to no recognition or fanfare. Mostly because we, as a culture, put winners on a pedestal as ones to be admired and celebrated. Don't meet your heroes. Or if you are a Bulls fan from the 90's don't watch the docu-series. MJ is kind of a jerk. Because at one point there weren't men and women sports because women were not 'allowed' to play any. 1st Italics: I'm sure there is a way, legally, for a man to start playing a 'women's' sport. They would likely be ostracized from the community due to the obvious, self-serving, nature of the stunt. Sponsors would not want to be associated with them. So no money. Invitationals wouldn't invite. So no competition. Not seeing the parallel. But again, not sure you understand what transitioning is or the process involved. Lia Thomas took time away from competition to transition in order to clear all the benchmarks to return. For any serious athlete, that is quite the sacrifice. Was not the fastest, by any means, in her events, as evidence by the 5th place finish. 1st underline: Sorry, but you're wrong. You can whine and moan about it. But its not going away. It will only get bigger and more widespread. The more people that understand this as an option will realize that they now have the freedom and security to be who they have always thought they were. Much like gay or lesbian, people were afraid to let those around them know. For fear of being shamed or worse. It baffles me that you can't see the parallels between the groups and how your opinions and statements are as hateful and dangerous as the anti-gay activists that led to the assassination of Harvey Milk. This must be tough to read. I don't say that lightly. I don't think you wish anyone harm but your words offer cover to those who might. 2nd bold: Age limits are a thing, still. Sorry. Also, so what? Let people that want to swim, swim. They pay the fee. They can compete. Teach your kids the difference. Swimming like all other races is not a competition against others racing but with the clock. Winning doesn't always look the same in every situation and its not everything. ''Swimming Canada and Swim Ontario believe swimming is for everyone... people of all shapes, sizes, genders, beliefs and backgrounds should have the opportunity to swim to the best of their ability... with the expectation that our registrants treat each other with respect and dignity, and keep our sport environment free from harassment and abuse.' Can't agree more. 2nd italic: I'm sorry you feel this way. It might make you upset to think of this being accepted more and more. But it is. Are there bad people out there that might take advantage? Sure. There always were. And we can be equally upset when those situations happen. But people are starting to understand that there are other options out there for them to explore. To make them feel more at home inside their own body. I don't feel you have made the case to enough of an extent to change my mind on the issue. 2nd underline: Is your issue just the changing room situation or the competition part too? Do you think this person is being malicious in wanting to participate in sports in this way? What could be the benefit? Do you know of any mitigation efforts the person has taken to ensure they are not seen by other athletes in the changing room? Perhaps they have. Would that change your opinion? I hope you take these questions seriously because it is an important topic and I am interested to see your take.

Tough but fair. A Reader hire might indicate something at Wisconsin. Can't imagine HC at CMU pays as much as AHC at a big 10 school. Getting let go from a big ten school could set his career back a few years. Bolyard, I think is a shoe in. Experience at a smaller MI school with some individual success. Given more resources, could be boone for CMU. Maybe reunite with Smith. Lets say that happens, who takes over at Bakersfield if/when Smith comes home?

Sorry but again different passages in your response seem to reverse your position. Why not include the OT? Its part of the story, right? Treated as truth? And of course the bible is being changed. It has been changed. Its been translated, which would change, even slightly, the story. Also, there are denominations that agree or disagree with passages in the book and therefore formed their own tax shelter, I mean church. We do not follow great swaths of the 'teachings' of that book, thankfully. Slavery, for instance is condoned and encouraged but now is not. Again, thankfully. Stoning is no longer a punishment carried out for sinners or unruly children or blasphemers, etc. No original copies of the book or the writings that make up the book. So none of it can be trusted to be authentic. Anyone that claims to be all knowing and all powerful should've seen that coming.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/us/tulsa-race-massacre-final-appeal/index.html

Why does that bother you? What is the harm? Do we know the hires were, in fact for diversity, or maybe they just weren't the best candidate. That happens too. Not saying either way, just that taking someone's word for it is a great way to be deceived. Is he? Seems like they're doing alright. Get confirmation of the facts before making a commitment to your opinion. Who gets 100 holidays? (participation trophies? sure! I have a bowling trophy from years ago. Want it?) Uneducated and fearful people make all kinds of situations uncomfortable and violent for all kinds of reasons. I keep going back to 'Leopards eating faces party'. Once the people are homogenized for a given/comfortable trait, someone will exploit smaller and smaller differences to maintain an emotional pique for their gain. Once the easily accessible faces are eaten they still need faces to eat. Inoculate yourself from getting your face eaten by recognizing them and putting things in place to keep them from gaining power/influence to eat faces.

Did you even try to understand why I think your reasoning is flawed? Can you remedy that issue or no? If you can't, there isn't much reason to address your loaded questions. Because it seems as if you're only going to accept one answer and you've given no evidence to support it. I'm sorry if you feel attacked and feel the need to lash out. But your reasoning skills are flawed and you have not proven your point with evidence or facts.

44-63 tax rate was 90% for the top tier. Loopholes: carried interest, all tax incentives for fossil fuels, increase social security tax ceiling to $(infinity symbol) of earned income, Medicare tax loophole for LLCs, capital gains tax, Stepped-Up loophole, Pass through business deduction, for starters Lets start with the $80b, ' That is, a $1 increase in spending on the IRS’s enforcement activities results in $5 to $9 of increased revenues.' That's a great ROI. Apple, Amazon, and Google regularly pay fines based on anti-competitive practices. They engage in monopolizing practices, get caught, pay a fine, then begin working on other ways to deter competition, cycle continues. All of it. Make elections publicly funded. And rank-choice voting, while we're at it. Google the Glass-Steagall and report back. Google estate tax. Rich paying taxes, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaires-jeff-bezos-elon-musk-164830206.html or https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax from IRS documents. And of course it should change because they get the roads and bridges for free and should help to pay the cost. Accountability: we can't trust people with power, influence, and/or authority. Transparency helps to keep people accountable. Businesses that put up firewalls to keep their dirty deeds from coming out, need to be better policed. Prevention rather then reaction. Who has to? Government. Defense spending: Because its the most palatable and offers glide path to industries that rely on the spigot of defense money to diversify. Its compassionate to an industry that thrives on having little to none of it to begin with. Education: Yes. Yes. And yes. But all should be free. I look forward to your response.

Because I believe the people that say, as current tax policy, it will do better for the growing wealth gap if the estate tax increased. If other loop holes and policies change, then my opinion will likely change on the estate tax. Hording wealth for the sake of hording it, is unethical.

So you answered the one question that you could and ignored the ones you couldn't or didn't want to answer. That's telling. Can you back up any of your examples, that includes the amount? Oh, and $80b+ is stolen, annually, from tithed money to churches around the world. Does this count in your total.

First bold retort: That's not a good enough reason. It never was. Your painting a target around a randomly shot arrow and calling it a bullseye. It isn't. Try again. But since you didn't the first time I would hardly expect you to this time. Second: What risk does a CEO take on running a company these days? So we're clear, not a start up. An established company with products and market share. That's been around for decades. Seems like your example is much like other's data or anecdotes. Cherry picked to fit your opinion. Many get paid huge sums to keep profits humming, stock price rising, cost and tax liability low. The only risk is a golden parachute if they can't accomplish those things to enough of an extent the board would like. Explain to me the risk? Again, not a start up. Also, can you give me an example of someone trying to start a legitimate company, it fail and they wind up homeless as a direct result? Final comment on your final comment. Again, you have an opinion of my opinion that you have no justification for. You won't let it go because you've convinced yourself of it and need it to be true for some reason. Have you thought about that? Why do you need me or us to say a thing? So you can pat yourself on the back for knowing in your heart of hearts the truth that no one else saw? If you're wrong, and you are, what will you do? Admit it? Change your approach to issues or conversations? I hope so. I doubt your reading this anymore, so, Frankenstein, but I hope you understand how toxic your approach is, for you, and those that read your words. You give permission for others to act and believe in similar ways. To come to an unjustified conclusion in order to feel good about something rather than seek a complete understanding of the situation that might be uncomfortable.

The thing by itself cannot take action of its own. So no religion is not malevolent. I would say the use of it is. Good, bad, or otherwise its wrong to threaten people with punishment for no other reason than they exist and thus deserve it. That's just one iteration of religion but other ones aren't any better. Saw an interesting video the other day. Person was talking about changing churches based on the morality they would rather have preached at them. If morality was actually a thing it should be universal and unchanging. But we change it all the time. So morality is relative to your situation and choice. Each person makes up their version of the religion to follow. For whatever reason they have, fear or convenience, it changes from person to person and church to church. Which means they can't all be right but can all be wrong. How do we tell?

https://www.commerce.gov/hr/employees/leave/holidays 11 recognized holidays. Some states have more. All the others are not official by any means and can be annoying, I'll admit. But require little to nothing from anyone to 'celebrate' the occasions. Helping to recognize groups that have been marginalized, or at best ignored blissfully, by the rest of the population is a good thing. We all do better, in a multicultural society, when more culture is presented to the society.

That's not how reason or rationality works. Just saying 'we all know' does not mean anyone could or does. They just think they do. Evidence to confirm your suspicion would be nice. Considering you've been presented with evidence that would contradict your position. Saying, 'nu uh' is what a fourth grader does when they can't back up a claim. Apologies to any fourth graders that have learned how to present evidence to make a point. The last line seems to say it all. You have an opinion and you'll bend over backwards not to change that opinion. I wonder if this is the only one where it applies. Usually isn't.

Tell us how you really feel?

You feel backed into a corner by words? That must be stressful. I trust you can deflect your way out of it.

Considering I didn't argue it but corrected it and agreed with you at the same time. Pump the brakes and understand when someone is actually on your side. Also, no comment to the thought police? Must've missed it.

Deflection

Which policies would those be? Cutting funding for SNAP, medicare, medicaid, Pell grants, education in general, pre-k, after school programs, school breakfast/lunches, banning books in the public libraries, not being taught sex education in school, not cracking down on predatory pay day loans, cutting funding for public transportation, forcing religion(one brand of religion) into public schools? Which of these or other policies do you think contributed to someone being poor, through no fault of their own?

Iranian cities all around the world? Syntax aside, do you mean they are known through out the world as being beautiful? Maybe. But those pesky thought police tend to be a fly in the ointment.

You heard it here first. Not normal. Check and mate! Glad we figured that out. We can all go back to yelling at clouds.

How is it you think this clarifies any of your babbling?

Based on your comments and the stories you post its pretty clear you don't want these people competing on such a team. You can whine about assuming all you want. Doesn't stop you from doing it, assuming or whining. There are no such things as "women's sports". They're just sports. Many of them differ because of the people that were in charge at the time were misognystic and ignorant that one iteration of a sport needed to be 'fairer' so that they wouldn't hurt themselves. Examples: Tennis, 3 sets vs 5 sets. Differences of Baseball vs Softball, not allowing certain people to run a marathon until the 60's or Olympics until the 80's. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1484&context=honorstheses&httpsredir=1&referer= good paper about this and other gender/sex issues that might need to be cleared up. Go Colby! Coed sports have been around forever.

I can only imagine how exhausting it is to be this petty. Sifting through all this to find something to call a 'win'. That's not virtue signaling at all. I know how you all hate that.

Illinois Short answer, they are in the basement right now. Nowhere to go but up. And an army of redshirts or returning from injury