This standing ab workout engages every muscle in your abs, back, and ... band, various weighted dumbbells, a medicine ball, and kettlebell workouts for lower abs

I like the way you explained that. It's perfectly fine to hold unsourced opinions, but "When stating fact we should provide reference." It's easy to forget that sometimes in the heat of a discussion. Myself, I appreciate being reminded to keep it real. Besides, people's personal opinions are more valid and interesting when backed up by outside reality.

It's odd though, isn't it? In this fast-paced world of instant access to a reservoir of seemingly endless knowledge, you'd think that providing precise documentation from a body of facts that we can all agree is objective and true would not present such a huge problem in the course of constructive dialogue. Yet, the fact that we do have so much knowledge at our fingertips creates the conundrum of also having instant access to a seemingly bottomless pit of misinformation that seriously dilutes honest debate.

My opinion is that the vast body of lies of the Trump era will be Republicans' longest-lasting legacy. And our great nation is so much poorer and weaker because of it. Lady Liberty Enlightening the World is dying under an onslaught of willful ignorance from one of her major political parties.

This won't end well for any party, or democracy itself, as the electorate gets more and more disaffected and disillusioned. Naturally, Wall Street and the billionaires love voter cynicism and apathy because it increases their already disproportionate influence on government and society and further reduces the anemic checks and balances meant to reign in such ungodly power.

Mr Legend:

Would you please provide documented proof of your statements. It's only fair, you are always asking it of others.

Does he have a "mommy complex?" Enquiring minds want to know.

Once more, Tinhip the "whiner" cites the moderator who warned about personal attacks -- while he is engaging in another one of his personal attacks! Check. Will he likely try to ignore or lie his way out of that naked hypocrisy too? Check.

And now, not so subtly, he is deflecting blame for his own bad behavior on the April 13 blog, and this one, by trying to make it about me simply for calling him out. (Heehaw, if that makes me a "loudmouth" so be it.)

To whom it may concern: The following is not intended as a personal attack but as an analysis of events that strive to set the record straight beyond the egos involved ...okay, and maybe with a wee bit of colorful commentary to boot all in good fun:

What Tinhip judiciously refers to as my "claim," as if he might be innocent, was, in fact, an actual occurrence in real-time that was witnessed firsthand, the cause and effect of which is still quite evident in black and white on the thread primarily in question. That would be April 13, Exhibit 1. This is not merely a "claim" but also a very loud, distinct, and unwavering "charge!"

[All the following #s refer to this thread unless otherwise indicated April 13.]

That makes Tinhip the defendant, not the prosecutor, and a perp doesn't get to dictate the terms. He takes "the deal" (#23) or no deal. Screw six months -- it's a life sentence, buddy! "Put up or shut up!" What's he so afraid of if he's so innocent? (Go figure: the same question applies to Tinhip's mentor and daddy figure, The Donald, Boss of the Trump Crime Family.)

Since the original charge hasn't deviated in essence and is still germane to the discussion, it is Tinhip who has "moved the goalpost" (nice try) by changing the story to a case of why he did what he did, and to what he basically admitted (#s 12, 17). And, of course, the thread of April 13 is also submitted into the record as indisputable evidence of the central charge of felony "Edit Abuse." (I'm sure it's in common law somewhere.)

So, how did April 13 post #3 "magically" become #6, rendering the two contrary responses illogical at first glance by forcing them out of order, thereby confusing the casual reader? Tinhip "claims" it was because he was just, la-dee-da, innocently "editing." And, dang it, wouldn't ya know it, when one edits after posting, well, ya see, the dumb program just "magically" moves the comment to the end of the thread. Huh, weird. Not to be fooled just once, Tinhip does the same thing at least seven more times all within the same short thread like a little brat with a new popgun -- edit, edit, edit, edit, edit, edit, edit!

Is he a slow learner or what? Can he throw himself at the mercy of the court and plead ignorance if not insanity?

Then, to pile unbelievability on top of unbelievability, each edit just so happened to follow immediately, "magically," right after each response that he evidently did not appreciate, understandably so. };--)) But why not be a man and defend all those ludicrous, Fux News-inspired, off-topic talking points deemed important enough to eagerly share for the scrutiny of all on a liberal social media site?

Nope. Instead, Tinhip runs and hides, shucks and jives with the new little edit-toy he found. To hell with adult responsibility and objective truth! Let's make this gawddamn liberal backwater blog just another stupid knock-off of Fux News.

Trump, Trump, Trump! Make Americans Sick and Dead!

How does it add up to seven edit-jumps in one little thread (possibly more when no one was looking)? The thread itself is prima facie evidence of three. To get there though, Tinhip jumped past what is now #3 twice and #'s 4, 5 once apiece. Then, when it became quite obvious Tinhip's little game was afoot, which he thought was so clever, I played leapfrog with him to confirm my suspicion, I think at least three more times.

Now, let's get to the rub:

In #s 12, 17, after getting caught redhanded and called out rather loudly (haha), he changes the whole story ("moves the goalpost" -- so to speak in his words, which is another classic case of knee-jerk projection), as guilty people are wont to do, to be a narrative about why he committed the offense he is charged with rather than the offense itself.

Do you see that? Bam -- right there! Tinhip grasps at the suggestion in #10, and, poof, "magically" it's suddenly all about his, shall we say, "faulty" editing process and not the underlying "crime" (as long as we're being judicial and all).

"Oh, well, you see, ahem, I was doing some very important, uh, "editing" that just couldn't be posted in a logical order with a succeeding comment like normal. No, no, this was much too important for all that nonsense. Tut, tut, who cares that other people, those damn liberals, "think differently"; they're not as important as editing MY very, very important comment at their measly expense. I'm a so-called conservative -- that whole white privilege thing we're all supposed to accept -- so I get to go to the front of the line ...ah, like when I call into Thom's radio program?"

(That's a parody of the accusation against Tinhip in the tradition of Adam Schiff, and I think it captures the essence just as his editorial did at the start of the impeachment proceedings much to the chagrin of the Senate Trumpets.)

Regrettably, I played into that narrative unintentionally because the initial charge (#s 9,11,13) was not accurate in one detail: I said he had moved his post without editing. Although I admitted that in #19 and went on to explain, I will say further that from my perspective it did not appear that he edited a damn thing because, from what I could tell anyway, he did not "alter" his main points. Having already read them the first time in his original post I didn't bother to scrutinize the minutia of every little detail he may have changed during his succeeding jumps. My bad; mea culpa.

Nevertheless, that error does not dismiss the more fundamental charge of screwing up the sequential flow of a thread so that it becomes nearly unreadable. The prosecution therefore and thereby to wit and whatever does hereby charge that Tinhip aka Tinhat, Tinhorn deliberately and dishonestly manipulated the public record. (The horror, the horror!) Mmm... well, this is Thom's blog, so I suppose that means Tinhip destroyed private property, which to a Republican probably sounds even worse.

It's up to the jury now -- which one is the real story, the more important one? That is if by important we mean keeping the public record straight, or "unaltered" in the euphemistic lexicon of Tinhip. For instance, can you imagine how much more meaningless (sorry) this interminably long post (sorry again) would be, containing so many numbered references to other posts, if everyone could just higgledy-piggledy skip their comments ahead on a whim or while in a panty-wad because he or she didn't like someone else's thoughts, however harsh? ("Politics ain't beanbag.")

It seems to me, that once someone else submits a subsequent post after yours is already on record then editing should no longer be an option. That would halt the abuse that Tinhorn seems to have so readily adopted. Can the word processor and/or comment-section program be tweaked a little perhaps to make that happen? Or is that a big problem?

How many times, I wonder, would he have done so in this thread had he not been directly called out? Isn't that a consciousness of guilt that Tinhip seems to be no longer "editing" in such a contemptuous fashion that shows regard for neither his fellow commenters nor for the hapless reader who happens by Thom's Blog?

Of course, Tinhat is free to choose the easy way out and take the red pill. (Dammit, or was it the blue one?) He can stick with his story of deflection and denial, which is nonsensical in so many ways as expounded upon in #19. And I'll stick to mine, which is God's honest truth as best as I can recall and retell, and which I will swear to on my deathbed, hopefully not with COVID-19, please God! (Unless I have too many other more important things to swear to in all those last-minute confessions before the sand runs out. Hey, life was interesting.)

The prosecution rests its case.

}:--)))

Amen!

Geez, the Russiian trolls are invading. #5, this is just personal opinion but I think the Republicans have seen this virus as a way to cut Social Security, Medicare and Welfare.

What is it with Republican-style logic anyway?

Another truly twisted but psychologically revealing argument is looking at a relatively smaller pile of dead bodies down from an estimate of "100,000 to 240,000" and seeing a good thing -- you know, as far as how much preventable mass death could have happened if the fake president wasn't finally slapped upside the head bone with hard reality after 70 days of... what exactly?

It follows (not really) that the lower numbers "prove" that strict social distancing policies that shut down social hotspots (like, say, hotels and golf courses?) with lots of patrons with lots of money was probably over-kill and therefore can be, how to say this, "eased" into reopening -- whatever the hell that means in the context of piss-poor testing, surveillance, contact tracing, and lack of critical supplies?! But Trust in Trump's magical thinking. He alone can fix it.

Wait, isn't social distancing the main reason the numbers are down in the first place? Never mind; forgot that deductive reasoning is not trending these days in Trump-Republican circles.

Notice how many of the protestors are elderly and/or overweight. Both put you in the high risk group and these are the people that should be self isolating. Also Try taking on this virus with those guns.

Because they are "RINOs" -- religious in name only.

Ding, ding! Haha, sure got a rise out of Tinhat this time.

@#17 (unless you skip ahead again):

Well, look at who the big whiner is now! Whatever, dude. Go for it. Defend yourself. I'm sure the webmaster is eager for that chore. >:-(

Admittedly, I didn't study every minor "alteration" you may or may not have made that didn't significantly alter your salient points. Why would I? Anyway, the salient point here is the underhanded tactic you employed, not the supposed editing.

Oh, I get it now; that's your transparent excuse for altering the sequence? Because it's obvious you wouldn't or couldn't argue the merits fairly, point by point? Who knows or cares what the inner motives of a troll are, but why not just post a succeeding comment like normal? And why skip ahead so many times after I did so only to correct the sequence and to test your tenacity for intellectual dishonesty? Do you not care if the public record is correct? Or do you only care that your pithy comments are, ah, "edited" to your exacting standards? So many questions! Enquiring minds want to know. Not.

Besides, the "preview" button is where one usually edits before committing to a public forum, so as not to disrupt the flow of conversation once others have posted afterward. Why does no-brainer etiquette need to be explained out loud? I edit a lot, even after posting, but would never intentionally do so after someone else had already posted, unless to retain the original sequence if possible. If there's still something major that should be changed, why not simply post another comment to correct that particular part of the record? That just seems like the proper way to do it; otherwise, chaos would ensue -- right?

But then, I'm me and you're you. (Thank God!) This is not a difficult concept and has nothing to do with whether there are "people that think differently than [me]." (#12) See, that's an unfounded insinuation on your part, which is yet another lie in different clothing. Seriously, guy, you should swear off Fux News.

This graph posted by deepspace is a great example of wearing masks and the effectiveness. I have worked in Taiwan, South Korea and China and they wear masks when needed. But Americans cannot pay attention to what works in other countries. We are paying a severe price for having a President that "knows more about pandemics than anybody else". We would be reopening the economy if the masks were required and out Government leaders lead by example. But when Trump suggested wearing masks the next words out of his mouth were "he was not going to wear one".