Beerman

Common sense prevails: https://www.foxnews.com/sports/supreme-court-makes-ruling-trans-athletes-womens-sports

A lot of nonsensical speculation you make off of one sentence. Anyway, David said every provider he's visited in the past has wanted to do HIV testing. Later he said that assuming a gay person is higher risk HIV is homophobic. Following that logic, the providers must all be homophobic. So, just asking why that would be? How did you Scots enjoy the World Cup? One goal in 3 games? Well, it was nice that they came.

Went do you think American Healthcare providers are homophobic?

Predictable, indeed. And, predictably things would be different if the dress code required them to wear the name of a pro-life organization on their jersey, wouldn't it?

And what was forfeiting the game in the first place?

You Brits have a unusual sense of humor.

They could gave simply been allowed to wear a regular jersey. The only reason to forfeit the game was to punish the team. I can only magine if a team forfeited because they refused to wear pro-life jerseys. https://broadandliberty.com/2026/06/22/jeremy-samek-cancel-culture-literally-cancels-the-york-revolution-baseball-game/

It does seem odd that there are some who plan celebrations and enjoy recognition for who they prefer to have sex with.

https://allnurses.com/this-interesting-news-today-t749672/page/166/#comment-8261288 https://allnurses.com/this-interesting-news-today-t749672/page/166/#comment-8261288

I've done the research. I've found out that money they raise goes to "promote public awareness initiatives". That's as specific as it gets. And about as much You're always so amusing.

I'm not seeing outrage anywhere. I'm certainly not outraged. They're being mocked more than anything. I've done my research. Instead of sharing though, I'll just suggest you do your own if it's that important to you.

These are elitist liberal celebrities who apparently think their support and care for the First Amendment is something special. Per the website, to become a member of this "committee", you must provide credentials to show you are a part of the entertainment industry. Fundraising activities support public awareness and the promotion of free speech. I'm just curious as to how they do that. That's all. I think the event at the White House was a bit much, but not a big deal. It was privately funded, except for things such as security that comes with any kind of appearance by POTUS. My biggest issue was that the event venue obstructed what usually is an iconic view of the WH. I happened to be there a week before, and witnessed this. Not a biggie for me as I've seen it several times, but I was disappointed for all the visitors who haven't and may not have another chance to visit.

Started at $49. I'm sure some were much higher. I agree the history is interesting, but has little to do with the current version. Their website seems short on substance. Committee for the First AmendmentCommittee for the First Amendment I still wonder where the money for this and other fundraising goes.

Didn't I hear in these threads that fans weren't going to travel to the USA and that attendance Any idea how much it had cost to attend? The ad says proceeds go to the Committee for the First Amendment, which was restarted by Jane Fonda last year and seems to be supported by a large group of multimillionaire liberal celebrities. I'd be interested to know how much money they raised and what that money is used for.

I think what you mean is that instead of indulging and rewarding you for deflecting, backtracking, and moving the goalposts, I simply call out the behavior.

If the ejected group of scientists main aim was to alert more people to the issue of the administration's actions towards diabetes care and research, I think they succeeded. Again, backtracking. deflecting, and moving the goalposts from your original comment on the topic The longtime SOP for a few of you here...LOL

They were removed by organizers of the conference, the American Diabetes Association. Maybe you meant to say that the scientists need approval from the organizers of the conference before handing out their editorials to attendees?

I can't seem to make an original post. Only reply by quoting. And not always easy to do that. You'd think it would be noticed that activity on this site is waaaay down. Garbage.

Couldn't agree more.

You could have just directly answered the question to begin with.

You suggested to the group that we watch her videos. To understand if she has a bias, it's a fair and relevant question. I understand why it's not important to you. What she says is what you want to believe.

Hate? I'm not seeing any hate anywhere in either piece I posted. Deflection again. By follower, I mean those who follow her videos and articles. So, why won't you answer a simple question?

"But in fact, the alleged shooter was not someone on the left. The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical." Great. So back to my question. Are Ms Cox Richardson and her followers still maintaining that the murderer is someone who "embraced the far-right"? And, if she has corrected course, I'm sure you'll provide a citation since we're being sticklers for such a thing. What Patel or the administration says about the killer is irrelevant to this discussion and nothing but deflection. We're talking about this because you recommended, without qualification, that we read and listen to what Ms Cox-Richardson has to say. Here's an interesting opinion piece about her: https://www.piratewires.com/p/heather-cox-richardson-revisionist-history

Did you not see the article I posted above yours? There are plenty of other sources including the video of Sept 13 (the day after the video you found). I'm surprised you had trouble finding one. You can listen to her, at the 5:20 mark. https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/September-13-2025-2c3 And, I didn't include one with my original post as the person I was replying to seems to be a follower of Richardson. If I know her comments on the Kirk murder, I'm sure@nursej22 does as well.

Are you serious? Well, here's one: https://www.vox.com/politics/462173/charlie-kirk-killer-motive-tyler-robinson-jimmy-kimmel And, what does not being a fan of someone have to do with spreading a false political narrative?