(05-27-2026 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (05-27-2026 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-27-2026 12:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: OTOH, not all the news is bad. Adios, Al Green. (the politician, not the singer)
I’ll take the above as your not wishing to address your previous incorrectly quoted, highly rhetorical, and frankly deceptive comment noted above. Cool.
Playbook:
1. Post partisan, inaccurate information not worthy of a junior high text thread let alone a political forum for graduates of Rice.
2. Ignore anybody that pushes against your extreme viewpoint and/or against your blatantly false information.
3. Repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat...
From OO elsewhere —-
“ Any of you lefties who can list the six sexes, feel free to vote for him. Send him money. Then retire to your room to self-flagellate. You must atone for your whiteness.”
With a scintilla of background —- it was responded to. Notwithstanding his hotdog hype directly quoted above.
Seems Talarico is a tad more accurate and on point than the hotdog quotes around here.
And given the hotdog challenge directly quoted above, our local profiles in courage seemingly do not wish to address the issue now.
Tar, repeat easily searchable deceptive comments, cheer those deceptive comments in some odd form of chest beating challenge ——. Then run away when the actual background is noted, and the actual veracity of the original comment proves markedly superior to the chintzy deception that it was presented as.
I’m not surprised that a deceptive corrupt shitbird like Paxton would say it originally, nor surprised that an acolyte like GO would present it in that manner. Not horribly surprised that OO would so readily join the recitation, nor that he would present it in the challenging manner quoted above o4 in his Trumpesque name calling nickname style.
But like true cult followers, won’t respond to factual bases that tend to destroy the underpinnings of their namecalling style.
GO simply hasn’t answered, and OO blithely keeps posting as though it was never even challenged. Quite the spectacle. Lolz.
The answer, OO, is yes. I can state the 6 different genetic based determinants of sex --- each markedly different from one another. I will absolutely vote for whom I deem the best candidate for my vote. If close, it may very well be Talarico. For me, deep levels of graft and corruption are *not* earmarks of candidates I want in office. When one fails that test to the level that Paxton has, it is a hard 'no' for me. I am glad you can so blithely overlook that, but that is your personal calculus. All in all, I’ll stay with mine, my friend.
And, Ill try and stay away from amazingly deceptive characterizations that you seem to enjoy with respect to the issue regarding '6 sexes'. But again, you be you.
But I am sure you are going to parallel your previous comments (actually, evasion of comments) on issues such as this we have laid out such as J6 and its implications on the fitness of candidates for office.
Not to mention the continued evasion of the falseness of Paxtons claims surrounding 6 sexes, which were gleefully propagated by GO and studiously repeated, re-repeated, and childlishly taunted by you. Which genetic basis of genetic sexual dysmorphia do you wish to address first? Or perhaps you will continue your profile in courage of simply jumping to another disingenuous generalized slam that seems to be your calling card presently?