Bud Light Controversy Spreads to Target, Sending the Stock Lower

1. I have no buddies on this site
2. I am not a mod, and have no interest in policing all posts/forums
3. I skip over all kinds of posts from all "sides" all the time, and only respond when I feel like it.
4. If I had to guess, I probably align more with gogetem on various topics than you do, but certainly not everything. So his posts don't trigger me quite as badly as they do you and the others. Its probably why I'm more reserved in my responses to their posts, but still find them asinine at times.
5. I'm flattered by your post, though. Rent free, I guess.
So you only call out "juvenile and extreme" posts and behavior that express an opinion you disagree with.....and turn a blind eye to it when you align with it.

You have no interest in trying to police/moderate all posts/forums....only those from people you disagree with. If it's a "juvenile/extreme" post you agree with, it's all good.

You're as transparent as Saran wrap.

An unprincipled rank hypocrite.
 
So you only call out "juvenile and extreme" posts and behavior that express an opinion you disagree with.....and turn a blind eye to it when you align with it.

You have no interest in trying to police/moderate all posts/forums....only those from people you disagree with. If it's a "juvenile/extreme" post you agree with, it's all good.

You're as transparent as Saran wrap.

An unprincipled rank hypocrite.
lol at "unprincipled"... Hilariously inaccurate... I call out anyone and everyone that I feel like calling out for dumb behavior all the time, and really don't care if it hurts your feelings. I don't call out literally everyone, because I don't have time to police the forum full-time. Not sure why that's a difficult concept for you.

Of course I engage more with people I disagree with, just like you do. If you had a shred of objectivity in your nature, you would notice that I've disagreed with my "buddies" on here just as often as I've liked your posts or agreed with PF5. The difference appears to be that such disagreements are met with (generally) more reasoned responses as opposed to the childish nuclear meltdowns that you and your ilk seem to favor.
 
lol at "unprincipled"... Hilariously inaccurate... I call out anyone and everyone that I feel like calling out for dumb behavior all the time, and really don't care if it hurts your feelings. I don't call out literally everyone, because I don't have time to police the forum full-time. Not sure why that's a difficult concept for you.

Of course I engage more with people I disagree with, just like you do. If you had a shred of objectivity in your nature, you would notice that I've disagreed with my "buddies" on here just as often as I've liked your posts or agreed with PF5. The difference appears to be that such disagreements are met with (generally) more reasoned responses as opposed to the childish nuclear meltdowns that you and your ilk seem to favor.
LOL. I love that "unprincipled" is the characterization you take issue with.

The fact that you think you have "reasoned responses" while JD and "his ilk" favor "childish nuclear meltdowns" simply shows you have no self-awareness. I find it humorous, but not surprising.
 
LOL. I love that "unprincipled" is the characterization you take issue with.

The fact that you think you have "reasoned responses" while JD and "his ilk" favor "childish nuclear meltdowns" simply shows you have no self-awareness. I find it humorous, but not surprising.
You can believe whatever you want, bro. Good luck with the continued defense of your tribe. Must be exhausting being so vigilant.
 
If the Christian Right is really concerned about protecting children, then why don't they ever insist that research be done to find out why some children feel they were born of the wrong sex and if it can be prevented?
Because God cannot contradict himself nor make a mistake. If a person is "born of the wrong sex" then God made a mistake. To admit this would throw the infallibility of God and scripture into question.

Once you allow for that, then you have to allow people to decide which parts of scripture are still applicable. Most Christians do this anyway, but won't admit it. Some disregard most Old Testament commandments, saying they are under a new covenant (dispensationalism). Still, some are willing to even overlook New Testament commandments about women remaining silent in the church, wearing head coverings, having long hair, etc. They allow that these may have simply been customs of the time, but views on homosexuality or transgenderism have to be universal truths.
 
You can believe whatever you want, bro. Good luck with the continued defense of your tribe. Must be exhausting being so vigilant.
I accept your concession.

As to rebutting you being exhausting...

Aubrey Plaza GIF by BuzzFeed
 
LOL. I love that "unprincipled" is the characterization you take issue with.

The fact that you think you have "reasoned responses" while JD and "his ilk" favor "childish nuclear meltdowns" simply shows you have no self-awareness. I find it humorous, but not surprising.
He claimed to "principled response" is that he will " call out anyone and everyone that I feel like calling out for dumb behavior all the time"....rather than calling out everyone that violates his stated principle of non-militant, non-extreme, and mature postings.

In his attempt to defend himself as principled, he actually admitted exactly what I said about him.

Pigeons and chess boards, man. Pigeons and chess boards.
You can believe whatever you want, bro. Good luck with the continued defense of your tribe. Must be exhausting being so vigilant.
Right back at you, unprincipled hypocritical bro.
 
He stated his "principled response" as " call out anyone and everyone that I feel like calling out for dumb behavior all the time"....rather than calling out everyone that violates his stated principle of non-militance, non-extremism, and maturity.

In his attempt to defend himself as principled, he actually admitted exactly what I said about him.

Pigeons and chess boards, man. Pigeons and chess boards.

Right back at you, unprincipled hypocritical bro.
Why would I call out everyone that violates a stated principle? I don't have time nor the interest to do that. Just because it violates one of my principles doesn't necessitate a response. You're making an assumption to validate your weird position.

My interactions on this board aren't involuntary, binary responses like you and the other bots who only seem interested in "if / then" levels of thought. That, and I don't have time to read all posts and respond like your programming allows you to do. As a human, I have other tasks and stuff to do, and can't monitor pages for changes constantly as you can.
 
Why would I call out everyone that violates a stated principle? I don't have time nor the interest to do that. Just because it violates one of my principles doesn't necessitate a response. You're making an assumption to validate your weird position.

My interactions on this board aren't involuntary, binary responses like you and the other bots who only seem interested in "if / then" levels of thought. That, and I don't have time to read all posts and respond like your programming allows you to do. As a human, I have other tasks and stuff to do, and can't monitor pages for changes constantly as you can.

hugh laurie facepalm GIF
Give Up Reaction GIF


Wow......

Pigeons and chessboards, man.

Pigeons and chessboards.
 
He claimed to "principled response" is that he will " call out anyone and everyone that I feel like calling out for dumb behavior all the time"....rather than calling out everyone that violates his stated principle of non-militant, non-extreme, and mature postings.

In his attempt to defend himself as principled, he actually admitted exactly what I said about him.

Pigeons and chess boards, man. Pigeons and chess boards.
It must be fun for your principles to be whatever you feel like. Sounds like solid bedrock there.

Episode 19 GIF by The Simpsons
 
It must be fun for your principles to be whatever you feel like. Sounds like solid bedrock there.

Episode 19 GIF by The Simpsons
My principles don't change. I just don't feel the need to respond to every post on this forum when such principles are disagreed with. This really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, but you're doing your best not to get it.
 
My principles don't change. I just don't feel the need to respond to every post on this forum when such principles are disagreed with. This really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, but you're doing your best not to get it.
Selective application of your principles towards other individuals based upon whether you agree with the individual's statements is an unprincipled, hypocritical position to take.

This really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, but you're doing your best not to get it.
 
My principles don't change. I just don't feel the need to respond to every post on this forum when such principles are disagreed with. This really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, but you're doing your best not to get it.
Something tells me I'm not the one who doesn't get it.
 
Selective application of your principles towards other individuals based upon whether you agree with the individual's statements is an unprincipled, hypocritical position to take.

This really isn't a difficult thing to grasp, but you're doing your best not to get it.
You are the one that made up the requirement (principle) that I must always engage with people I disagree with. Its asinine to suggest that a person must engage everyone on every topic of disagreement (or agreement). Its total nonsense that you're using to support your delusions.

Did you know its possible to disagree with someone, not respond to their post on a sports message board, and still maintain the principles you had before reading the post?
 
Last edited:

Ron DeSantis loses in court on anti-transgender healthcare law for the 2nd time in a month as judge rebukes 'dog whistles' from Florida officials​

  • A Clinton-appointed judge struck down Florida's Medicaid ban on transgender healthcare.
  • The judge accused officials of enacting the ban "for political reasons."
  • This is the second battle over anti-trans healthcare measures that DeSantis has lost in a month.
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down regulations in Florida that banned government healthcare programs from paying for treatments like puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy for transgender people.

Judge Robert Hinkle tore into Florida officials in his opinion, writing that the ban was issued through a "biased" process "from the outset" that saw transgender identity as "made up," a "woke idea," or "profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors."

Proponents of the ban "should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated," he wrote.

The governor's office and representatives from Florida's healthcare agency, the Agency for Health Care Administration, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Insider sent after hours.

Florida's ban went into effect in August 2022 and specifically applied to patients who receive their health insurance through Medicaid. This is a program paid for jointly by the state and the federal government that covers low-income people, many children, and people who qualify because of a disability.

The ban began to take shape in 2022 when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' office directed the state's healthcare agency to do an analysis on Medicaid patients who received transition-related medical care. Roughly 12,000 transgender patients in Florida are enrolled in the program, according to Lambda Legal, one of the firms that represented transgender plaintiffs in the case.

The medical services are known in the field as "gender-affirming healthcare" and include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery. Florida's healthcare agency concluded they were "experimental"— even though numerous medical groups have determined these services medically necessary — and blocked Medicaid from paying for them.

In response, healthcare and LGBTQ+ rights organizations sued in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida on behalf of four patients in the state — two adults and two children who are 13 years old. Without Medicaid coverage, patients had to find other ways to pay for medical care themselves.

As the case was still being litigated, the GOP-majority Florida legislature sent a bill to DeSantis, which he signed into law, that adopted the regulations. Hinkle struck down the law as part of Wednesday's order.

In his 54-page opinion, Hinkle accused health officials of instituting the ban "for political reasons" given that Florida's Medicaid system long "paid for medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria."

"There are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham," he wrote. "Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person's transgender existence."

Hinkle, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, is the same judge who, earlier this month, blocked portions of a Florida law that aimed to ban transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset," he wrote, using similar language to his earlier opinion. "Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear."

The state failed to show that people receive transition-related healthcare without first receiving therapy and being evaluated by numerous medical providers, Hinkle wrote. Even if that were the case, he said, the solution should be better regulations rather than an all-out ban.

DeSantis is running for the 2024 Republican nomination for president and has made anti-trans measures a centerpiece of his platform.

During a book-tour stop in Charleston, South Carolina, in April, he defined affirming the identities of transgender people as "unmoored from truth" and dismissed medical organizations who back transition-related healthcare as "ideological" and called supporters of transgender care "rogue elements of the medical establishment."

He signed several bills into law in Florida this year that severely disrupt the lives of transgender people in Florida, including criminalizing instances in which people use restrooms at government facilities that don't match the gender they were assigned at birth.

"It is unfortunate that Florida politicians like Ron DeSantis have sought to attack the most vulnerable to score political points," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Counsel and Health Care Strategist at Lambda Legal, said in a statement on Wednesday.

"However, today's ruling makes clear that discrimination is wrong and recognizes that every person in Florida, including transgender people, deserves equal access to evidence-based and lifesaving medical care," Gonzalez-Pagan added.
 
You are the one that made up the requirement (principle) that I must always engage with people I disagree with. Its asinine to suggest that a person must engage everyone on every topic of disagreement (or agreement). Its total nonsense that you're using to support your delusions.

Did you know its possible to disagree with someone, not respond to their post on a sports message board, and still maintain the principles you had before reading the post?

Maybe you really DON'T get it.

Selective application of supposed principles upon identical behavior of different individuals based upon whether or not you agree with their post is unprincipled and hypocritical.

city street pigeons GIF by HUANG'S WORLD
Spin Chess GIF by Feliks Tomasz Konczakowski
 
Last edited:
Back
Top