President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#15,576
#15,576
BeardedVol said:
Fox really knows how to write a headline for its target audience.

Project Farm to Feminine Hygiene: Enhancing the Textiles Lab for Research, Extension and Scientific Instrumentation for Teaching at Southern University - SOUTHERN UNIV

Menarche, the first occurrence of menstruation, occurs at approximately 12 years of age and ends with menopause at roughly 51 years of age (Norman, 2014). A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime...
portal.nifa.usda.gov
Click to expand...
Are you now implying only women can menstruate? According to Scientific American - Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia - you're probably just using the USDA study for your devious transphobic ends.

For shame, Beard, for shame!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider and whodeycin85
#15,577
#15,577
swampfoxfan said:
And I watched an entire party happily cutting out research to cure childhood cancer.
Click to expand...
Damn...completety missed that one; link to story substantiating that assertion? Or is this more of the St. Jude's and Maine education funding hysteria where fed funding is 11% and 13% of the respective funding budgets, but that equates to "eliminating!!" pediatric cancer and education funding?

You're not going Henny Penny on us again, are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol and StarRaider
#15,578
#15,578
BeardedVol said:
Because there is of course zero hypocrisy in using a child cancer survivor as a prop in your political theater, while actively dismantling the research funding that contributed to saving that child's life.
Click to expand...
Political theatre? Of course. Actively dismantling? No, that's 1000% absurd. JFC. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, NCFisher and 85SugarVol
#15,580
#15,580
volfanhill said:
Political theatre? Of course. Actively dismantling? No, that's 1000% absurd. JFC. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM
Click to expand...

How exactly does cutting NIH cancer research funding, while raising the debt ceiling in order to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, combat what you perceive as a 'spending problem'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#15,582
#15,582
NCFisher said:
Damn...completety missed that one; link to story substantiating that assertion? Or is this more of the St. Jude's and Maine education funding hysteria where fed funding is 11% and 13% of the respective funding budgets, but that equates to "eliminating!!" pediatric cancer and education funding?

You're not going Henny Penny on us again, are you?
Click to expand...

I can’t imagine eliminating “cancer research” that asked cancer patients their gender identity and sexual orientation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#15,584
#15,584
NCFisher said:
It's "funny" because you either aren't following the conversation, or can't.

Of course people treat them well, that's being decent. And we find ways to help them live better - whether prosthetic or surgical TREATMENT - in a NORMAL world because we're overwhelmingly decent.

Because we're decent, though some of you have forgotten how, we should TREAT the genuinely dysphoric with mental counsel and therapy. At the point they're a responsible adult, they can chop or medicate their parts into oblivion. But even then, the SCIENCE states they likely become increasingly dysphoric and mentally ill following this path.

A DECENT people would advise them of this and state the obvious; "Bill, you will never be Betsy. And deep inside, you know this better than anyone. If you want to dress. and assume the countenance of womanhood with this in mind, you will have a better chance for some peace in your life, rather than radical procedures, which can only mimic womanhood in no more meaningful manner than a wig and tube of lipstick."

That would be the decent thing to do.
Click to expand...
So we fully support and understand both a decision to accept their hand as is or a decision to surgically alter their hand.
 
#15,595
#15,595
BeardedVol said:
The thought behind it is "reality".

Loading…

www.cbpp.org
Click to expand...
Your link is biased. Here's how you know:
1. Tax reductions are quantified in total dollars, while taxes are a percentage of AGR.
For example: a 1% difference on 6M is a smaller percentage but larger amount (60,000) than a 10% difference on $5,000 (500). It is impossible for a household which pays less to receive a larger cut than a household which pays more.

If you and I had a 50% off coupon for season tickets and you bought 2 (and saved 2,000) and I bought 10 (and saved 10,000), was the coupon more favorable to me or equally favorable to us both?

In a flat fee model, your article would be valid.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, LouderVol, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#15,596
#15,596
McDad said:
Your link is biased. Here's how you know:
1. Tax reductions are quantified in total dollars, while taxes are a percentage of AGR.
For example: a 1% difference on 6M is a smaller percentage but larger amount (60,000) than a 10% difference on $5,000 (500). It is impossible for a household which pays less to receive a larger cut than a household which pays more.

In a flat fee model, your article would be valid.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about a "larger cut"?

How about we just start with not increasing the debt to pay for tax cuts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#15,598
#15,598
BeardedVol said:
Who said anything about a "larger cut"?

How about we just start with not increasing the debt to pay for tax cuts?
Click to expand...
My reply is about how your preprogrammed dogma about tax cuts for the wealthy is partisan BS.

How about we get a handle on our spending? We actually raise plenty of revenue. Historically, the amount of tax receipts fluctuates around 20% of GDP (+/- a few points). This has been fairly consistent even with wild fluctuations in tax rates in income brackets. We also increase about 100B in tax revenue on average year over year from growth in our economy.
The counterintuitve thing about taxes is this, tax decreases / increases do not correlate to decreases / increases in tax revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, rekinhavoc, 85SugarVol and 6 others
#15,599
#15,599
NCFisher said:
That they have congenital deformity which appears in the population at a rate 2.5X higher than Swyers, and much higher rate than the SRY gene. Yet, there is no anti-science Symbrachydactyly ideological movement trying to convince us that normative fingers are objectively "anything but binary", and that people who acknowledge deformed or missing digits as abnormal, are Symbrachydactylyphobic.

And at least as of yet, there is no Democrat-based, politically-ideological group denying simple biology, trying to enlarge the Symbrachydactyly base by mind-screwing children with thoughts they may have been unnaturally born into the wrong, normative body. With Joe Camel-like rainbow colors, sparkles, and Symbrachydactyly Story Hour promo campaigns to have them think about surgically webbing, shortening, deforming, or removing their fingers to match their psychological finger orientation.

I mean, that would be really crazy, eh?

What were you hoping I was saying?
Click to expand...
That's what a second beat-down looks like, folks.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top