HERE'S ANOTHER ONE...
JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER ONES...

WAIT.. WAIT... WAIT...!!!

WHY... WHY.. WHY...???

NO REASON... JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN...!!!

STUPID REASON...!!!

STOP IT...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied tocorvette 41m ago
AND I'M "STILL" WAITING... 6 HOURS LATER...!!!

( … page 2)
They explained the reasoning for their policy is because, "Approximately 80% of U.S. Olympians are either current or former college athletes. This policy alignment provides consistency and further strengthens the relationship between college sports and the U.S. Olympics."

Every state has some form of state high school athletic association… And each and every one of them have the same ability to establish policies to accommodate trans athletes… as required by Title IX and SCOTUS rulings... which are fair and reasonable for all athletes participating.

And, it would behoove them to do so for the same reasons as the NCAA… to “provide consistency and further strengthen the relationship” between K-12 sports, and college sports!

You also said that, “In general women can not compete with men in sports.”

Another patently false statement!

As there are numerous examples of women competing in men’s sports all the way from ***-wee leagues to professional teams!

I know that none of what I’ve presented fits into your (and Jim’s) “protect the girls” agenda… but it also doesn’t mean they’re not fact!

YA JESS CAIN'T HEP YERSEFFS, CAN YA...!

DISGUSTING... JUVENILE... AND TOTALLY UNNECESSARY...!!!

STOP IT!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toGARY 44m ago

I’ve read quite a bit about Mr. Hanson.
And while I realize he’s established himself as an intellectual authority in the eyes of many…

I also realize that he’s very selective in the topics and examples that he uses to support his positions.

For example, he’s condemned the Biden administration, and virtually all Democrats, et al, for failure to protect and prosecute the 2020 riots, the threat against Kavanaugh, attacks on pro-life centers, using the Jan 6 hearings to distract from current events, etc, etc…

Yet he completely and uncourageously fails to address the fact that those exact same behaviors have been practiced regularly by Republicans, conservatives, and right-wing radicals!

Instead, he passes out time honored platitudes… in a very intelligent and sophisticated manner, mind you... to plant the most potent weapon the right has at their disposal… FEAR… into the minds of those who are most susceptible to it.

And you’ve just very loyally repeated a bunch of them!

We have a multi-tier, corrupt system of justice…
A complete breakdown of governmental functions…
We no longer have a representative government…
Democrats and Republicans are corrupt and do not care about the country…
Etc… etc… etc…!

None of which are fundamentally true!

So, believe what you want…
But I’d say y’all are getting’ ****** punched!

OH MY GOD... "WHY"...???

Y'ALL ARE REALLY STARTIN' TO **** ME OFF!!!

THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO REASON IN **** THAT THIS POST SHOULD BE REJECTED...!!!

STOP IT...
THIS WHOLE "APPROVAL/REJECTION" THING IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL AND ABSURD!

JUST STOP IT!

Your comment has been rejected.
Replied toDAVID 1d ago

Check out the story, Dave...
Of trans boxer, Patricio Manuel!

He’s been booed every time he wins a boxing match...

Mostly from men, whose male virility is apparently offended by the fact that their "man" got defeated by a trans athlete!

Unfortunately, Manuel's career has been short-ended due to the fact that, although he fulfills the boxing commissions requirements for trans boxers… cis boxers often refuse to get in the ring with him!

Hmmm… I wonder why!

An interesting side note;
In the history of boxing, there was racial discrimination against black fighters, with heavyweight champion, John Sullivan declaring in 1892, "I will not fight a [knee.. grow]. I never have and never shall."

And, he retained his title not by skill alone... but by ducking competitive matches with opponents of color... a strategy later described as white fighters hiding behind "that cowardly protection, the color line."

Rather than suffer that stigma…
Sullivan proposed a solution… a system of segregation…
"Let [knee.. grows] meet [knee.. grows], and whites meet whites," he said.

We all know how THAT turned out!

Echoing that sentiment today regarding trans fighters, podcast host, Joe Rogan has suggested a similar policy. "Fight trans people," he said. "The simple solution is: compete against other trans people."

Or, in effect, let cis fighters hide behind “that cowardly protection”… of a trans line!

Because Lord only knows...
A REAL man certainly never wants to get beaten by... A Woman!

**** THIS IS GETTING ANNOYING...

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toJim on the Coast 9m ago

Before I disappoint you, Jim…
By rising to your challenge… let me remind you of just one of your low-boy accusations.

You said… “you do what you always do. You interpret something the way an emotional 4th grader might, then proceed to argue points never made.”

Which is exactly what you’ve done here… because I never claimed you made “a defense of jan 6 in any way,” as you accused me of!

Anyway… you and Chris were discussing the acceptability of violence. The thread covered the violence of the 2020 riots, the potential violence of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling, and the violent Jan 6th insurrection.

Given that violence, you suggested that “Civilized people do not react with violence when they do not get their way. Isn't that what the current hearings are supposed to be about?”

Several posts later, you said, “It's insulting to imply that the hundreds of people involved in all that violence and burning [of 2020] have been dealt with,” adding that, “given all that … where are the Congressional investigations?” Linking, for the second time, the violence of 2020, with that of Jan 6th!

You then closed that comment with, “I get tired of people trying to link peaceful dissent to pure destruction and theft.”

I responded by simply asking if you were “trying to pass off the events of Jan 6th as “peaceful dissent”!

Which, given the conversation, was a legitimate question! And it’s what got you all riled up and flusterbated…

Now do you remember… Narrow beam?

AND HEEERE WE GO AGAIN...!!!

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE THIS TIME...
BEFORE MY COMMENT GETS TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION?

I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW MUCH I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR BEING SO DILIGENT IN YOUR EFFORTS TO KEEP THIS BOARD CIVIIL...!!!

NOT...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toJim on the Coast 29s ago

I'm sure, Jim...
That the "head fully inserted" excuse works really well for you...

Because then you don't have to deal with the reality of a logical opinion other than your own! Just blame it on "the emotion zone of doom!"

And, I also understand how you find SpaceX's response to their employees as "normal"... simply because, in your mind, you also find their behavior "unacceptable."

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is!

It only means that it's unacceptable to YOU!

As you've said elsewhere...
There are other methods of conflict resolution...

And in MY mind... those "other methods" need to be utilized by BOTH sides of the conflict!

Unfortunately, I realize that probably doesn't fit into your realm of the "obvious"... because it would definitely require that you come out of your self-righteous little shell of authority... and actually deal with "the hired help!"

OH FOR CHRIST'S SAKE...
THIS IS BEYOND RIDUCULOUS AND ABSURD...!!!

STOP IT...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toBOB 48s ago

And I get tired, Jim...
“Of people trying to link peaceful dissent to pure destruction and theft.”

I hope you’re not trying to pass off the events of Jan 6th as “peaceful dissent”!

In both the summer riots, and the Capitol insurrection, there were legitimate expressions of “peaceful dissent”; one, of continuing police violence and racial injustice… the other, based on the lies of election fraud by a narcissist.

They both also had elements of “pure destruction and theft”; one, committed mostly by “hijackers” of the event who took advantage of the situation to loot and pillage… the other, based on the directions of the above said narcissist, to attack our Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the very democratic principles America was founded on!

And, contrary to your belief, the violent offenders of both events are being identified and brought to justice!

According to The Prosecution Project (tPP), the summer riots “resulted in over 10,000 arrests nationwide.” And while prosecution is still ongoing, sentencing has ranged from time served… to community service… to more than 5 years in prison!

HOWEVER…
Since those cases are mostly all adjudicated locally, most of America is not aware of them, or their outcomes!

On the other hand…

Prosecution of virtually all of the Jan 6th rioters is national news, and most Americans are aware of them…

Leading many of the village uninformed to believe there’s a disparity of treatment between the two events.

There is NOT!

OH... COME ON, MAN...!!!

LET ME POST MY COMMENT AND BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION...

THIS "WAITING FOR APPROVAL" OF A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE COMMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS...

IT'S ALSO ABSOLUTELY FIXABLE...
SO FIX IT...!!!

AND STOP BEING SO [DARN] CONTROLLING...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toJim on the Coast 1h ago
AND NOW IT'S... Replied toJim on the Coast 6h ago
AND NOW IT'S... Replied toJim on the Coast 11h ago
AND NOW IT'S... Replied toJim on the Coast 1d ago

AND NOW IT'S... EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS... TWO DAYS AGO!!!

FINALLY... MY POST IS RELEASED... THREE DAYS LATER...!!!
"AFTER" COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED...!

THANKS A BUNCH...!!!

COME ON ALREADY... YOU CAN DO BETTER...!!!

It seems, Jim...
You're twisting Chris's words, and inferring something he's not saying!

He said... "there is no justification for violence."...
Which is a valid, stand-alone statement!

While maintaining that perspective...
One can also have additional perspectives...

Such as;
While there's no justification for violence...
I understand the reasoning behind it!

In the case of the summer riots...
The violence was sparked by the legitimate issue of repeated police violence and ongoing racial injustice!

Whereas the Jan 6th violence was sparked by false accusations from a narcissist, who was/is trying to thwart the democratic will of the people!

Neither reason justifies violence, "HOWEVER"...
One seems far more reasonable than the other!

AAANNND... HERE WE GO AGAIN...!!!

OVERSTEPPING THE BOUND OF THE CRITERIA YOU YOURSELF SET...

AND UNNECESSARILY IMPOSING YOUR AUTHORITY ON YOUR CUSTOMERS FOR NO REASON AT ALL...!!!

AND... IT'S TOTALLY FIXABLE...!!!

IF ONLY YOU WILL...!!!

SO... FIX IT...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toJim 24m ago

I understand the desire for "due process", Jim...
And I believe the concept should be kept in mind as a foundation for any kind of "red flag" law...

However, as others have pointed out, there are numerous examples of how our rights can be taken away, for a number of reasons, prior to our having access to due process.

And virtually all of those reasons, to the best of my knowledge, are for the safety of the public or the person.

So, it seems to me that if there are reasonable criteria, procedures, and time-frames laid out in the law...

That the "temporary" loss of the right of due process is an acceptable concession, considering the obvious consequences.

After all... we're only talking about limiting someone's access to firearms...

Not taking that person off the street and incarcerating them!

OH LORD...
HERE WE GO "AGAIN"...!!!

HOLDING UP MY COMMENT...
PREVENTING IT FROM BEING A PART OF THE CONVERSATION...

WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE OR "UNCIVIL" ABOUT IT...!!!

SIMPLY BECAUSE... "YOU CAN"!

WHICH IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST EXCUSE IN THE WORLD...!!!

STOP IT...!!!

Hold on, your comment is waiting for approval.
Replied toHere 40m ago

"Innocents are not obliged to demonstrate any innocence."

While that statement is technically true, There...
It's quite a deflection from the purpose of discovering the truth!

IF a person truly has a desire to clarify a situation...
And, if they are in fact "innocent"...

Why would they NOT come forward to help clarify that situation?

Robert was simply wondering WHY such people would make that decision... which is a legitimate question to ask!

Because there has to be a reason...

And... given the circumstance... that reason is very likely to not be acceptable!

YOU'RE STILL AT IT... ALWAYS...!!!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...!!!
DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT THE OVERZEALOUSNESS OF YOUR "CENSORSHIP" OF THIS BOARD!

THE FACT THAT WE ARE REPEATEDLY PREVENTED FROM POSTING COMPLETELY "CIVIL" COMMENTS THAT ARE LEGITIMATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CONVERSATION IS...

"TOATALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!"

Your comment has been rejected.
Replied toDaren 2d ago

Interesting perspective, Daren...
In that virtually ALL such investigations have been publicly broadcast at some point or another... whether they were investigations against Republicans or Democrats!

The public has a right to know the details!

This is not about an an election!
Nor is it a casual event that America can simply say "Oh well" about!

This is about the future security and stability of our country!

WOW...
YOU REALLY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON YOUR "DISCUSSION BOARD" DO YOU...???
.
IF YOU DID...
YOU'D LET PEOPLE ACTUALLY POST LEGITIMATE COMMENTS ON "YOUR" DISCUSSION BOARD...!!!

OR NOT...
BECAUSE OTHERWISE...
YOU'D HAVE ALLOWED THIS COMMENT TO BE POSTED...
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG OR OFFENSIVE ABOUT IT...

AND IT MAKES A LEGITIMATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION...!!!

SO, ALLOW THOSE KINDS OF COMMENTS TO BE POSTED...
AND QUIT BEING SO **** AND CONTROLING...!!!

Your comment has been rejected.
Replied toJAMES 3h ago

Clearly, Jimmy...
You don't have an elementary comprehension of how the legal system works!

This is not a trial!
This is merely a presentation of known facts...
Showing evidence of potential wrongdoings!

IF... the DOJ decides there is enough evidence of potential wrongdoing...
THEY will then bring the appropriate charges against the appropriate people!

At THAT TIME...
Evidence for both prosecution AND defense will be presented... Witnesses for both will be examined and cross-examined...
And a legal decision based on ALL the evidence will be reached!

There is no potential for "liberal democrats on the committee ... to not show anything or allow anyone to speak that does not fit their partison narrative."...

Or... "liberal democrats ... cherry picking the evidence they want"!

Unless, of course, the defense team is so incompetent as to allow that to happen...

Which certainly has happened previously... in Trump's case!