Ted Cruz at NV campaign rally: "How do we know Liz Warren doesn't have a penis?"

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jesus Ted, shrieking like a madman is not a good look - even if I agreed with what he was saying, I would be pretty put off.

I agree with the first part of this.  Now the Liz Warrens of the World have brought some of this on themselves, but it's not somewhere a serious pol should go.  And Liz Warren is one of the few liberals to have been legitimately horrified of the spectre of pretrial J6 defendants being held in Solitary Confinement, so I'll even stand up for her a bit, as she didn't flush all of her principles about what's right and wrong, Constitutionally, down the toilet.

Ted Cruz would be better served, and would better serve America, by articulating the real reason to oppose much of the "trans" agenda.  The real reason is, of course, that it requires people to affirm many things as true which they believe to be false.  This is the most corrosive aspect of the "trans" agenda and how it's being pushed by the Left.

Lia Thomas is a biological male.  As is Caitlyn Jenner.  That's a fact, and it's a fact for every "trans woman" in creation, no matter how much you wish to assert otherwise.  Each one of them have a Y chromosome, which makes them biologically maie.  Science may one day accomplish the feat of enabling a truly biological female to become a truly biological male, and vice versa, but it has not done so yet, and it's a lie to say otherwise.  The effects of this on women are obvious, whether it be in the area of competition in women's sports to the safety of biological females in "women's" prisons. 

In a dignified way, politicians ought to respond to the ridiculousness of the "trans" agenda by pointing out where it is requiring people to declare the false to be true and demand an end to this.  This can be done without scads of transphobic backlash, but it needs to be done because of the effect of forcing people to affirm the false as true.  Lia Thomas is not a biological female, and while it's one thing to deliberately "misgender" her on a personal level, it is a far different to state that she is a biological male for the purposes of athletic competition. 

Is it fair to "trans female" athletes?  We ban athletes from competition for using all sorts of medical enhancements.  Should this not be viewed in the same light?  It's impossible to be "fair" to all in this debate, but I find it hard not to side with the group who (A) has the largest numbers, (B) would be the most deeply impacted, and (C) did nothing affirmative to change their condition other than train naturally.  I understand that the issue is more complicated than this.  Asking biological female athletes to bear (and bear alone) this particular burden that they did not choose to bring on themselves (and transitioning IS a choice).  We ought to discuss this in a dignified manner.  There are real issues of fairness and issues other than this simple one.  But "fairness" isn't "give the trans folks everything they demand", either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lia Thomas is a biological male.  As is Caitlyn Jenner.  That's a fact, and it's a fact for every "trans woman" in creation, no matter how much you wish to assert otherwise.  Each one of them have a Y chromosome, which makes them biologically maie.

On the contrary, transgender women are capable of not having a Y chromosome (in fact, I know an XX trans woman through April Daniels's Patreon server). You're thinking of the SRY gene that causes these women to be born male.

The effects of this on women are obvious, whether it be in the area of competition in women's sports to the safety of biological females in "women's" prisons.

Okay, I'll bite. What is it about transgender women that pose such danger to their cisgender counterparts in women's spaces? Especially those who are post-op--at least with pre/non-op trans women, you have the fact that they are bepeniled creatures as opposed to dongless chicks, but once a trans woman gets bottom surgery, she isn't that different from a cis woman. At least with women's sports, you've got Puberty Mk. I to explain the potential advantage (of course, you think if a woman were to avoid the male puberty she was expected to have, she still shouldn't compete with cis women, but I digress).

In a dignified way, politicians ought to respond to the ridiculousness of the "trans" agenda by pointing out where it is requiring people to declare the false to be true and demand an end to this.  This can be done without scads of transphobic backlash, but it needs to be done because of the effect of forcing people to affirm the false as true.

You think trans people aren't aware that "the false" is false? You think I don't constantly think about the fact that, even once I get surgery, even once I get my name and gender legally changed, I will always feel like everybody is lying to me when they tell me I am who I say I am? That I will never be a woman, no matter how many lies I tell?

I'm sure you realize that.  It's what the rest of us are being intimidated into acknowledging.  The athletic establishment has declared Lia Thomas a female and required competitors to acknowledge her as such.  That has consequences for biologically female athletes who expected to only have to compete against females in their athletic careers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I shouldn't be laughing so hard right now.  I should be tut-tutting and moralizing.  Alas, it's not happening.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I shouldn't be laughing so hard right now.  I should be tut-tutting and moralizing.  Alas, it's not happening.

Jesus Christ would not approve, not that you care of course, but I think it's worth noting.

You hold me up to perfection, but not others.  That's telling.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I shouldn't be laughing so hard right now.  I should be tut-tutting and moralizing.  Alas, it's not happening.

Jesus Christ would not approve, not that you care of course, but I think it's worth noting.

You hold me up to perfection, but not others.  That's telling.

I expect someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ to refrain from publicly and unrepentantly wiping his ass with Christ's commandments, yes. If anything, it is telling that the bar has gotten this low.

You have not treated me as a Brother in Christ for five (5) minutes.  You have had constant criticism but you have never treated me as a Brother.  That's a fact.  One does not have to agree with me on everything, but you do not treat me as a Brother.  You never have.

"A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)  I'm not going to say whether or not you're in the Faith, but I don't detect any of this in you, and this was the Hallmark by which others would know who His Disciples were/are.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I shouldn't be laughing so hard right now.  I should be tut-tutting and moralizing.  Alas, it's not happening.

Jesus Christ would not approve, not that you care of course, but I think it's worth noting.

You hold me up to perfection, but not others.  That's telling.

I expect someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ to refrain from publicly and unrepentantly wiping his ass with Christ's commandments, yes. If anything, it is telling that the bar has gotten this low.

You have not treated me as a Brother in Christ for five (5) minutes.  You have had constant criticism but you have never treated me as a Brother.  That's a fact.  One does not have to agree with me on everything, but you do not treat me as a Brother.  You never have.

"A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)  I'm not going to say whether or not you're in the Faith, but I don't detect any of this in you, and this was the Hallmark by which others would know who His Disciples were/are.

I'm not a Christian. I would never claim to be a follower of Christ because I can't do it justice.

Although to be fair I did delete that post before you responded to it because in hindsight I thought it was too harsh, so baby steps.

It is by His Grace that we are Saved.  That's not a license to sin, and the Bible explicitly says this, but Christ's Redemptive Work on the Cross is sufficient to cover every sin that every person will ever commit. 

It is, indeed, Grace.  No one can be a perfect imitator of Christ, but He DOES give us Grace if our trust for our Eternity is in Him and His Redemptive Work.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do we need to unleash the blood hounds to sniff out Pubs who are not wanna be tax cheats? God forgive them, they know not what they do. Sad I don't really believe that. Tax cheats are are akin to a toxic waste dump.

The Tax Police will not be going after the "Fat Cats".  They'll be going after small businesses who can't afford tons of lawyers and accountants to defend them for following their accountant's advice.  They will go after people that can only minimally fight back.  Not surprisingly, this group (the small business owner) are the MOST reliably Republican group, so Biden knows full well who he's going after.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Asking someone to pay their correct taxes isn't "going after" them. As someone who always pays the correct amount, I expect everyone else to do so too.

Asking is not.  Conducting audits without reasonable suspicion is, and I expect the Biden Administration to do just that.  The people they will be targeting will likely be small business, and these people are likely Republicans.  They will have unlimited resources.

Asking people in NYC to not carry illegal handguns isn't going after them.  Let's reinstitute the Stop-and-Frisk policies of the Giuliani years.  By your logic we ought to do that, no?

[Fuzzy Bear]

...  Conducting audits without reasonable suspicion is, and I expect the Biden Administration to do just that. 

What does this even mean?
"Reasonable suspicion"? When something does not look right, or when a large amount of certain deductions are taken, an IRS audit is called for, to produce further evidence to back what your taxes state.

And what does the Biden Administration have to do with the IRS conducting audits. Audits are conducted regardless of who is in the White House.
Honestly Fuzzy, you are talking out of your _____, and you sound naïve to the topic at hand.

From Nolo:  "Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that applies in different criminal-law contexts, most often where searches and seizures are involved. It requires that officers have an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity before detaining someone. In addition, before conducting a pat-down, officers must reasonably suspect that a subject is armed and dangerous. Officers can, however, ask people to stop and answer questions without reasonable suspicion."

A tax audit is a form of a search and seizure when a criminal investigation is involved.  Calling someone in for an audit can qualify as a form of a detention.  I don't have a problem with enforcing tax honesty in principle, but this is a Trojan Horse for greater surveillance into the private lives of citizens, and let's not pretend that it doesn't.  And again:  If you're position is that no one should be concerned if they have nothing to hide, then, by all means, join me in advocating the reinstating of Stop and Frisk in our most troubled urban areas.