Ingeniero

Might be time for some hearing aids then, pawpaw

quote:

---

Sydney Sweeney is the most overrated thing since Dolly Parton.

I am tired of seeing both of them shilled everywhere.

---

Down vote #253

This might take the record from the Georgia co-eds thread.

I just checked the prices. It looks nice but I think we'll stick with t shirts and drawers :lol:

quote:

---

Fun fact: She was never diagnosed with any PPD. That was literally made up by her and her defense attorney.

---

Did any of her care team testify? I haven't been following that closely. I did read that none of them had ever diagnosed her with PPD/PPP. The reddit/feminist defense is that she didn't tell any of her medical staff about hallucinations or voices...wait for it...because of psychosis. Very convenient!

quote:

---

Looks like will be $55 for 90 day but not including insulin.

---

That's a great price. Insulin is probably going to be super cheap if your plan is covering that much of the Omnipod. I use Fiasp in mine because it's faster acting but Humalog/Novolog works fine too. A word of caution, I tried Lyumjev in my Omnipod because it's even faster and the pens worked for me, but it was too irritating on my skin for 3 days in a row. I was getting welts and it wasn't absorbing properly.

quote:

---

Do you still take the Long acting Lantis or equivalent? If your numbers shoot way up lets say after a binge or something, do you take regular Insulin to get it back down or does the Omnipod do that, like if numbers are 300, etc.

---

Nope. Your pump is your all-in-one pancreas now. You put your insulin in there and it drip feeds you throughout the day on its own. If you binge and your blood sugar goes high, the Omnipod recognizes that and starts to give you correction doses. It's not super aggressive but it'll work to get your numbers back down without making you go low.

Once you get more comfortable counting carbs and figuring out how the insulin affects your blood sugar, you can give yourself corrections if the pump isn't fixing your mistake as fast as you'd like. For now, the pump will take a lot of the load from you.

quote:

---

I think the point is to bring up the postpartum psychosis issue + failure of the medical system to get her proper treatment instead of just throwing a library of medicines at her.

---

In no way is this a failure of the medical system, unless you're arguing that uncooperative patients like her should be able to be committed much more easily. She went doctor shopping, didn't take her medicine as prescribed, and was waited on hand and foot. Her husband hired a nanny, people offered to watch the kids to give her a break, doctors were responding to her frequently through the online portal. At some point your only logical conclusions are that people like Lindsay should be A. involuntarily committed because she's having a psychotic break (which women don't want because you're trampling her rights!) or B. held accountable because she has knowingly exhausted her support and it led to the killings of her children (which women don't want because she wasn't in her right mind! See: option A)


Also welcome back SFP :cheers:

A few days ago I got an Instagram reel of a girl doing standup. She made a joke about how all the moms were getting their GLP-1s from one of the dads who coaches little league. I didn't realize there was some truth to the joke :lol:

David Attenborough maybe

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

LINK

quote:

---

A federal district judge in Houston has ruled that Senate Bill (SB) 12, which would forbid drag shows with children under 18 years old in attendance, is unconstitutional.

Judge David Hittner, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan serving in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, wrote that the law “is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on speech,” and “violates the First Amendment.”

---

quote:

---

Hittner ruled that even under the frameworks required by the 5th Circuit, his earlier decision stood, writing that “[t]he Court holds that Plaintiffs' facial overbreadth challenge to Section One of S.B. 12 succeeds under the Moody framework and that Plaintiffs continue to prevail on their facial vagueness challenge to Section One of S.B. 12 under Roy.”

On the first issue, Hittner argued that “S.B. 12 applies to countless protected performances that might contain elements that are ‘in some sense erotic’ and meet either the law's definition of ‘nude’ or ‘sexual conduct’ but are not obscene or obscene for minors and are thus constitutionally protected.”

He said that these include “(1) a gymnast performing a floor routine wearing a leotard or other garment that rides up and reveals a small part of their buttocks; (2) a vocalist wearing a low-cut dress that reveals a small part of the breast; or (3) a ballet dancer who experiences a wardrobe malfunction and reveals a portion of their buttocks or breasts.” In summary, Hittner said that the “law's sweeping and often undefined terms” meant that it violated the standards set by Moody.

On the second framework, Hittner wrote that “S.B. 12 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to give a reasonable person notice of what is prohibited.”

“Even though multiple aspects of the law render it vague, the most glaring issue ‘relates to the term “prurient interest in sex.”’ Because the term ‘is undefined in Texas law, lacks a readily ascertainable ordinary meaning, and applies to all performances targeted by the statute,’” he said, “it renders S.B. 12 irredeemably vague… in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.”

---

Paxton has commented and said they'll appeal again.

quote:

---

Funny, 2 days ago I said:

Any author who writes about this conflict and doesn't mention JADO and China doesn't understand what is going on. This covers about 99% of people covering the action.


Your reply:

Tell us more please.

---

That'll show you stupid libtards for pulling against Trump's endorsement. Can't wait for Senator Graham to take down whatever communist the Dems nominated