Willfully Horn

Frank’s a chump. It is known.

Didn’t I already say the same thing in my post you quote? Each of the second tier outlets has a left-center bias, so I see from where you are coming. News, however, doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and explaining the context of news is, to me, an important part of journalism. Knowing their bias is on me. Which led me to mbfc, which, you will find, says what you say about op-ed.

Reuters and Science.org. Then: AP, BBC, NPR, and the Texas Tribune, which differ from Reuters not on accuracy, but on story selection, and the perspective from which they tell it. There’re other outlets that belong in the discussion, Mediabiasfactcheck is on the level.

Is this true? Because it sounds like rhetoric. No doubt, there are propagandists masquerading as journalists, but, absent proof, I would think there are upstanding souls fighting the good fight. Any reason I should believe you?

YouTube has a number of clips from the Stern interview. I challenge those who think Biden is significantly diminished to do the same. He’s hanging with Stern. Going forward, such disinformation will warrant a fuck you emoji.

Friend of mine was awarded the contract to remove those relics of shame. Win - win.

Thank Lucifer Surly has experts in death, mayhem, and caliber.

Whatever happened with that baasskap?

I was thinking the price for keeping Texas weed intolerant went up precipitously.

I’ve been on that list since I called the FBI and told them they were fools for not releasing the unabomber’s manifesto. They’re just pissed I was right.

None of these links load an image for me. But, I don’t have a twitter account. Nevertheless, links usually load. Has their policy changes? Do they load for anyone else?

Holy fuck, spoiler that shit. Clicked to see sexy women, left with axe murder stuck in my head.

I enjoyed his closing comments. Not particularly funny, but he was respectful to Joe, and he honored his own grandfather. He invoked decency. Worked for me. IMO the campaign should make that footage unavoidable.

Apologies for the delay in responding. I have spent not a little bit of time trying to find the interview I heard, or an article that mentions that interview. In the process, I have learned she has made other controversial remarks, and they dominate search results. My memory is that, when she was discussing participating in Dancing with the Stars, she was nonplussed about folks being surprised she was being paired with a male dance partner. She went on to say that she is gay because she fell in love with a woman. I remember her stating she thought it possible that she might have fallen in love with a man, but that never happened, because she had already fallen in love with a woman. One quote of hers I did find sort of explains her thinking about sexuality: ”"People (the straight ones) often ask: Why are people gay? I say, well, why are people straight? There is no straight answer here, so to speak. Human sexuality is multi-faceted, complex and quite fluid; genes play a part as well. How much? Who knows? But that's not really the point anyway." The interview mentioned that she upset people who felt she was saying being gay is a choice. Which I thought was an unfair characterization of her words. She did say folks who are certain that sexuality is a choice might have had feelings for both genders, and then made a choice about which gender they will love. She fell in love with a person, not a gender. https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/01/27/martina-asks-whether-margaret-court-suppressing-her-own-lesbianism

Thanks. No argument, but also, agree to have a different opinion.

Thanks for the frank and honest response. I confess confusion at the notion that any government is illegitimate, and need to express the importance I give to those seeking asylum due to threat in their home countries. While I can’t fault your suspicion of novel science, my question remains. What business is it of yours? Your thoughts are appreciated. I am left, however, wondering I f the tent image was taken at it.

Truth is, I regret this is so. I want to believe my experience as a kid left me unwilling to be intimate without a gung-ho, unquestionably willing partner. (I was five when my babysitter taught me to how to use my fingers to make her orgasm. An experience both scary and exciting). In college, I was walking home and encountered a classmate I was attracted to who was waiting for a bus well past bus hours, who declared she was very drunk. Because I held a crush, I told her to walk with me to my place, and we could use my truck to drive her home. When we got to my house, she explicitly made clear she was dtf. But, I was inhibited. I drove her home. But, I wanted to take her to bed. She died in a car wreck the next week, with her boyfriend at the wheel. And I am left to wonder what might have been. To be clear, opportunity without inhibition has always been a fact of my life, and taking selfish advantage of those opportunities is one of my regrets. But, maybe impairment doesn’t feed my ego? Or, perhaps, I aspire to not do that which was done to me.

Two women together in a sexual situation is absolutely erotic. But, I’m going to stir the pot, because no one likes scorched gumbo. Certainly, there are women who are wired to be attracted to women. But, there are women who are attracted to individuals, and who are unconcerned about the gender of their attraction. Also certainly, there are men who similarly are attracted to individuals, with gender not being a factor in their affection. I am compelled to make this post after understanding the experience of Marina Navratilova, and deciding she wasn’t treated fairly by those unwilling to agree with my second paragraph.

As has been stated, my understanding is that obstructions were the result of police instructions. Would be interested to learn different. Posted to thank you for the image of tent assembly, thoughI am still wondering how I can be certain that photo was taken at UT. While I am willing to concede your point, I am left wondering why your concerns are more relevant than those of the people involved. Do you join other Surly posters in dismissing the conclusions of doctors and national institutions? I have another question, concerning immigration. Do you make a distinction between immigrants seeking asylum and immigrants disregarding the law? My understanding is that asylum seekers are the reason we are witnessing immigrants overwhelming our infrastructure. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Disgusted =/= afraid. OTOH, when you’ve got to go, you go.

Aside from the issue of first amendment rights, my main takeaway from this thread is whose wives would break their hips spreading for me.

Let’s not overlook this:

I had felt somewhat removed from news of this social development, though the rhetoric I encountered was offensive. Yesterday, I learned two adult males were set up on UT campus bringing this misogyny to light in a confrontational, demeaning, and sexually explicit sideshow. And my youngest daughter was assaulted by this depravity and delusion on a regular basis. I am less interested in counseling shortshanks than I am in kneecapping them.

Youngest is in college, wife is retired, and my business is portable, though that would be an enormous hassle, but we haven’t made the decision to leave. This is our state. Moving to another wouldn’t put us beyond the darkness of imminent fascistic rule. If we move, we will become expats.

Best analogy I have is scatmuncher.