Jump to content

TurkeyChew

Full Members
  • Posts

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TurkeyChew

  1. 1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Scalia sailed through Senate approval with a 98-0 vote.  Some Democrats didn't want to oppose him because he was Italian-American.

    You could call that "political", I suppose, but there's a difference between not opposing a nominee because of their race and opposing them because of their race.

    literally (40 years ago) a different political time and age.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    KBJ will be confirmed. 

    For sure, but I think he meant if there is a deadlock, which isn’t the case today.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    McConnell isn’t hypocritical.  Since Merrick Garland, he’s been extremely consistent and open about his principles.  Democrat presidents should not be allowed to nominate justices but Republican presidents should. I can’t believe anyone could posit a universe where McConnell DID vote for a democrat president’s nominee. 

    100% this. Supreme Court is 100% political.

    • Fuck You 1
  4. 7 minutes ago, Lurch said:


    Yes. That’s precisely the point. Just because you are unaware does not mean irrelevance

    So you are saying it does make a sound?

    That tweet you posted which literally nobody on all 33 pages of this thread would have known of its existence if you hadn't posted it, has like 1000 views. That is as non-audience as you can get for a once-upon-a-time national name on social media. I have random comments on YouTube videos doing more comments and likes than that.

    For all intents and purposes, that guy has been relegated to nobody-status and in rather short order. If your argument is that he still has obscure attention-grabbing status for those who want to follow him and shame or that he might get minimal views and likes for his desperate attempts at outrage attention, then I guess you are right. Once a political celebrity I guess you never really go back to anonymous everyman, but it's impossible to argue he's as relevant as he once was.

    He's like a Cory Feldman or other disgraced and ridiculed failed child actors-- will always have some sort of name recognition but only briefly and to laugh at for a second before moving on.

  5. 3 minutes ago, sidis said:

    welp, this thread is now completely worth all the horseshit that i semi-waded through because it corrected an erroneous presumption i have been making this whole time.

    i have spent the last ten years operating under the assumption that wildcat09 was a kstate guy...but he's a fucking arizona guy.

    huh.  so many mike stoops and kevin sumlin opportunities missed.

    Dan. Buckner.

  6. 54 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Great article. Thanks L_H68. 

    The public housing the US built in the 60s seemed almost punitive in their prison-like appearance and immensity. You get the feeling that our delusions about bootstraps created a faction that didn't want "anything fancy" for these deadbeats.

    The Vienna plan creates social integration instead of concentrated poverty. It provides surroundings where one doesn't feel depressed just waking up in them.

    The article reveals that is was started in the early 20th Century by a socialist government. In the present state of political discourse here in the USA sector of Idiot World, That's enough generate instant resistance. If we adopt the term social housing, strike two. This big-hearted, Christian, self-congratulating, NIMBY bleeding heart will balk altogether at the notion that a person without a home might be provided one with nice windows, lots of light, and maybe even a view of something other than a concrete parking lot or highways.

    spacer.png

    I don't know if the model in Vienna works because it was started so long ago when the city apparently owned a lot of land. Thus, I don't know the diffulties of starting a plan like this in an American city.

    Difficulties could be summed up with 1) money and 2) people in a public sector role with the ability to execute such a strategy as you suggest, without a blank check (see #1) and a modest budget. 

    The answers are always painful in the short-term with a promise of pain-relief in the longer term. Those sorts of visions and policies take a special personality to marshal them and for the populace to have a faith in their leaders/government that is nearly non-existent from most people with finite resources/money and eyes/ears that have seen what government and politicians are capable of the last few decades.

    In my opinion.

    • Like 1
  7. 6 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

    The skin thing was extremely bothersome and it had been going on for 5+ years. My ears constantly itched and I didn't like the appearance of having scaly skin there. That's all 100% normal now.

    I also wanted to know why I had leukopenia and thrombocytopenia.

    As a practitioner, and I'm not sure what you specialize in and I suppose it doesn't really matter, but given your background does it cause you to think about your own auto-immune and auto-immune generally, in a more curious and investigative way? Have you dug into why there is so little known or what we can do with these things (and why so many variations exist)? Has it made you read up on the research and all that stuff (twin newborn studies, etc.)?

    What I've found in the last decade or so:

    1) The internet is simultaneously your best friend and worst enemy when it comes to all things medical information, and

    2) Doctors are the same as you and me (literally, with you), in that they have chosen a craft or profession and dedicate their time, to varying degrees, to honing their skills and abilities. They aren't magicians and what they, and we as society, know about the human body and medical conditions is akin to what we know and have explored about the universe (or our own oceans even). We have good grasps of some basic things but what we don't understand and have seen is way more vast than what we do understand. That is a far cry from my child-like innocence when I viewed doctors as prime intelligent beings in our society with answers to all things human health and body.

  8. 22 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    Just because you bury your head in the sand doesn’t mean they went away. They remain very dangerous, perhaps more so when they think no one is watching

     

     

     

     

     

    If a tree falls in the woods with nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?

  9. 59 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    I personally think that those who link to the idiocy to mock it also feed it.  In this thread, somebody quotes Charlie Kirk.  Why the fuck does any sentient person care what that guys says, and linking to it just gives it another forum.  The monsters who feed off if it bear watching, but watching. Not quoting and linking and increasing the post count. 

    People who insist on reading the trolls can feed their habit, although to me its bizarre.  And then they should count to 10 and determine if its worth spreading the troll's message.

    100% this. Just look at the last page where Ted Cruz was scrolling through his Twitter for mentions and retweets after he did his bit. As everyone knows there is no such thing as bad publicity; anything that gets you mind space for folks, whether outrage or adoration, is solidifying as relevant or legitimate. It’s always been that way (hence that Hollywood adage from yesteryear) but exponentially so in todays attention-based economy with 24 hour news cycles and feeds and algorithms vying for eyeballs and eliciting the aforementioned outrage/love response.

    Case Study: Yiannis Milapious or whatever that Greek agitator right wing gay guys name was. As soon as the oxygen was sucked out of his go to market (deplatformed, not doing speaking tours, going broke, etc.) nobody has heard from him since. No mentions, no existence. 

  10. 3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

    Why don't you get back to us when the leader of the left falls on the wrong side of an election and decides he/she doesn't really want to vacate the office, calls the election unfair and then directly fuels his backers to stage a violent insurrection with the aim of derailing forever the peaceful transfer of power in this country. Until then, you can kindly shut the fuck up with this "both sides are terrible" mealy-mouth bullshit. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

    You really should ignore me, like yesterday.

    @wildcat09 great post.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 4
  11. 12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    There's practical politics, and there's this.

    Whether Felito would have preferred a more high-minded approach to political power at some point is irrelevant.  He has, in fact, willingly chosen to dance to the beat that he dances to.  And he dances like a motherfucker.

    Politics is a nasty business in terms of pandering and other corruptions.  I have always believed that and generally been repulsed by politicians.

    But what Cruz and his ilk are doing is absolutely beyond the pale.  He could quit at any time, but he fucking loves it.  I think he likes twattering and the power he gains from it more than being a lawyer.

    In my pollyannaish world, I wish more politicians would "do the right thing" and appeal to the higher nature of Americans.  I get that the vast majority of them don't do that.

    But not all of them actively whip the absolute worst tendencies of the American public for their own personal gain.

    And that's why I don't fuck with the GOP anymore.

    ADDENDUM:  I don't think you're a troll or a bad-faith poster.  But a lot of your posts, like the above, have a tendency to try to normalize what the GQP and Trumpists are doing as "politics as usual."  I don't think you're trying to be a dick about it, but I suspect you may be struggling to hold on to your "conservative" beliefs in the face of this dogshit.

     

    I just saw your addendum.

    I don't see it as "normalizing" as much as just accepting that politics is a disgusting business full of disgusting people, on all sides. Sure there are degrees, for me the differences don't move the needle for me as much as they do for others. It's probably the chaotic neutral version of Brisket's ledge; a political nihilism.

    But that said of course I have my own "politics" that are derived from my north star beliefs which means if pressed for political comment which, to your point, I'll generally default to tacitly supporting whichever team is more conservative.

    I am privileged enough (as I suspect you are as well) to not really care either way, however. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's of course, but beyond that, I take no joy in being either outraged or thrilled, depending on which team is in temporary control. I try to keep an even hand and emotionless approach to my criticism of both sides. I am actually surprised at how emotionally you responded because your hot take seemed to be an opinion without much supporting evidence (your take that the GOP are proactively creating the monsters rather than reactively feeding the monsters akin to blaming the cartels for creating the demand versus servicing the demand that inherently exists).

    • Fuck You 3
  12. He wanted it pronounced JIF but the masses (e.g. everyone else in the world except hornian, it seems) has spoken. It organically has become hard-G-GIF and that's just how critical mass and evolution of language and normalization of words, works. 

    It's like George when he tried to give himself his own nickname. You don't get to come up with your own nickname, Coco, others will dictate that for you.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 22 minutes ago, huge said:

    I think I speak for many when I ask "who?"

    I tried to deduce who she was based on the award she's holding, but that's certainly not an oscar and not sure what is a star trophy-- maybe BET awards or something? Rapper probably.

  14. 45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Yes. She's been on hormone replacement therapy for nearly three years. Her times are in line with cis women and are not record breaking. If her testosterone levels are within the parameters established by the NCAA, I have no problem with her competing in womens' events.

    Thanks for answering. You are the one person who has said it's fair for Lia to race against bio women recently.

  15. 8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    They are simultaneously fueling the demand and satisfying it.  And using fiction in both instances to do so.

    I disagree. The politicians who pander to their base/people are doing so for one reason and one reason only; pursuit of political power. Take Ted Cruz for example since people have mentioned him. You really think an hispanic guy named Rafael who was an ivy league legal beagle and scholar would choose to willingly dance to the beat he has been dancing to? Of course not-- he is smart enough to see his line of sight to political power is to play the part--and play it well-- hence, practical politics. 

    Politicians are merely responding to the demand of what their constituents want to consume. When/If MAGAT falls out of favor and XYZ is the new absurd political rage, these politicians will be XYZers if it means the path of least resistance to obtaining and maintaining power. Any other explanation beyond this is assigning too much credit to these politicians, IMO, and nothing you've said has bolstered your strong opinion a few posts up otherwise.

    • Fuck You 1
  16. 30 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Ever heard of Pavlov's dog? That's what they're getting at, but it also has a feedback loop.

    After decades of conditioning, the base only craves red meat, which is kind of like electrolytes. It's what plants crave.

    After decades of feeding the plants electrolytes, it's the only thing their masters know to give them which, ironically enough, slowly poisons them and starves their masters.

    In other words, it's a toxic, codependent, and addictive relationship wherein the abuser gains perceived self-worth by gaslighting the abused but, over time, inflicts harm on himself.

    While a decent explanation, I'm not sure that is what Twice was saying.

  17. 1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:


    Many autoimmune diseases take a long time to properly diagnose because the symptoms are general and can be attributed other things early on.

    In my case, I had scaly skin on my ears that multiple dermatologists couldn’t figure out and kept saying was pre-cancerous. Treated me with 5-FU and different steroids with minimal improvement. Did multiple skin biopsies. This was over a period of 6-7 years in my 20s when I saw about 5 dermatologists without getting an answer.

    Then, in my early 30s, I had shingles twice. My medical training was that a young healthy person with shingles needs at minimum a CBC and HIV test so I pushed for that. Luckily the HIV was negative but the CBC showed low WBC and low platelets. That led to more blood work and I got referred to a hematologist who did a bone marrow biopsy that was inconclusive.

    My new dermatologist at that time was the first person to suspect lupus so she ordered an ANA which was positive. A positive ANA is suggestive of autoimmune disease but not specific, and many normal people have a positive ANA without having autoimmune disease. That led me to a rheumatologist who did a lab workup that showed high anti-dsDNA antibodies which is fairly specific for lupus. Started treatment with hydroxychloroquine and my skin symptoms went away and all blood work normalized for the past ~5 years.

    Heck yea; your doggedness and perseverance paid off. Curious if your experience informs your approach to your own practice with folks, but that’s another conversation.

    How soon did your blood normalize? Gradually over 5 years, or quickly and has been normal for the last 5 years?

    What, if any, are the long term damages that could have happened had you not figured it out and had low plt and wbc for years on end? Organ failure or anything weird? What are your risks as someone with Lupus today? Anything extreme you have to do to accommodate your disease?

  18. 15 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

    Clearly you have no concept of what that phrase means or who it refers to.

    I thought it meant that stupid accusations that are lazy and baseless mean that you are really projecting your own thoughts and feelings and betraying yourself, and that it’s a universal axiom for all?

  19. 1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

    I'm pretty sure that not everyone thinks it is inherently unfair to let trans women compete in womens' sporting events. I don't.

     

    Talking specifically about Lia and the specific circumstances of the last week or so. Everyone seems to agree her competing given the context and circumstances (including troph) is unfair to the other women. Do you disagree?

    • Fuck You 1
×
×
  • Create New...