It is The Economist. Are you holding out for a more reputable publication?

I included a link

If that were true, then there would be no controversy whatsoever.

However, this is the rare case where facts don’t have a liberal bias.

Transgender women are setting a disproportionate number of new world records in women’s athletics.

Sports should have two categories: “open” and “female”

https://economist.com/leaders/2022/03/19/sports-should-have-two-categories-open-and-female from The Economist

This is a great wedge issue for conservatives to split liberals.

Reading these comments you would think he hates trans people. Instead, he said:

“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness, it’s deeply unfair… I revere sports. So, the issue of fairness is completely legit," he said.

On the topic girls playing sports against genetic males.

Some of them do it now. The problem is they are terrible at it. I just assume it’s because they are putting the paid ads first and so you end up getting routed 70 miles off route.

One that will tell you how far to the next rest stop

Can you imagine what people say if there was a problem and they didn’t check?

Adjudicated.

But it counts the same.

This is a good thing.

Don’t start with the woe is me stuff when we are finally causing real damage to the cult.

Let’s see how much ground we can continue to gain.

Upvote Epstein and warn people off the distractions

He is trying to distract from Epstein

Don’t fall for it

Here is what it looks like, in case you were wondering

The cancer example is plausible, but I am not sure you would always win.

In that case you are asking for help for a specific reason. They “get to feel good about helping solve your problem”.

Your deception deprives them of their having done something good with their money - which is the tort.

In OP’s instance, he was saying that he had a birthday and you are giving him a gift.

Not the same - you can make the same argument, but it is even thinner gruel.

There is no mention of any consideration (a legal term meaning he didn’t promise them anything in return) provided by the “boyfriend”.

This would not be fraud under English common law.

This seemed a little clickbait-y

Remember when there was a natural disaster on the East Coast and when there were fires in California and Texans said it was God’s judgment?

I do.

She will get reelected by the citizens of northeast Georgia because they vote.

Do you?

(More of a comment to the average reader, not an attack on OP)

“Digital Forensics”

Not offensive cyber warfare against US Citizens

If your proscriptions were adopted, at least 4 billion people would starve and/or die from disease.

Kennedy doesn’t care.

This is what happens when you vilify the safest weed killer ever discovered because “chemicals are bad”.

Not to mention that the kind of anti-scientific hysteria around glyphosate led directly to Robert Kennedy Junior.

Sorry I’m an old. What is Tung tung tung tung