Also note. The safety plan is permanent.
Sept 1st plan will Not happen, because we'll see the pre-flu season cases 2nd-3rd week of August(as we do every year) and they'll say it's too dangerous with the increase and revert to phase 1, then the circuit breaker come November.
Those are lazy human comments, not even bots.
Bots contribute more than a series of singular adjective comments.
That is a bit ironic.
The grocery near me in Vancouver has these new tags for "Black owned business" - I've deliberately avoided buying those products.
Not because I don't want to buy something from black owned businesses. But I don't want to play that stupid game.
There is a family run mobile coffee van that's all black except one person by marriage, best coffee in town and they've never played the stupid race game.
My mother accepted the risks as I presented them.
"yeah, but I'll risk that instead of die from covid"
... Wtf? You've already had covid, and you're not even 60. You're fit, the worst thing you do is smoke 1-2 cigs a day. You're fine.
"PeOPlE aRe DyINg"
I know this link looks phishy AF.
You can search "Bitchute video downloader" and paste the Bitchute link to the video yourself if you like.
But that'll get you here: https://www.tubi.sk/bitchute-video-downloader#url=https://www.bitchute.com/video/F8StorUnA9q8/
This is wrong think. YouTube wouldn't allow this video.
So no
My doctor wrote me a note, but I got the impression he REALLY didn't want to have to do it. Mine was kind of an extreme case, though.
I mean... He was shot dead for threatening them with a blade.
Their president did say he'd order police to kill lockdown breakers, though... So it'll come, eventually.
They'll bring that here if we start actually getting people to stand up for themselves, though.
Leftism is feelings creating policy without considering any real world consequences.
Besides last time PPC got 3% of the vote. If they get 7%, that's EXACTLY what Ham is saying sends the message to Conservatives, even if the PPC had no seats. If they lose seats because they don't represent 20% of their potential voting base, they'll adapt or die.
I'm in my late 20s, so I'm not much ahead of you, and I only woke up to politics in 2015 anyhow.
If you want a good historical context of what the PPC is trying to do, look up the reform party 1987 and what they became.
How else do they cheat if they don't know how many votes they need? Come on, guys... Give them a break /s
My ex was supposed to be on that bus, but slept in.
Kind of wish I woke her up in time.
"at the cost of millions of lives"
... That's a lie. Texas has 50k. Florida had 35k.
How many of those were really covid deaths, first off.
If it's the national average of 6%, I'm gonna call 5000 people for 52 million to get their lives back a fair trade. But let's go ahead and argue it's probably higher than 6% because they didn't pad their death stats for federal funding. If say it were probably 25-35k, based on how the flu trends in most years, plus some allowance.
Hell, let's give them the full 85k.
85k people with the average age of death at 86 is worth 52 million people getting their life back
Edit: second off, it's SUMMER. People have the lowest chance of spreading it and the best odds of beating it right now. Hiding people away till fall is completely counterintuitive(then again, I said that last year, too)
I'm pretty sure he actually did, sadly.
Tbh, he's got every right to do w/e he wants here. That doesn't mean he's not stupid for doing so. Dudes no better than leftist Reddit mods.
"everybody I disagree with is a racist" (even if only 14/4000 of you are calling people racist names)
Copy paste from two threads from Ham "defining" racism...
I'm 100% against racism.
Everybody else is correct, however. That needs a definition. And not a textbook one with loose terminology.
Using the N word? Course a bad idea. Beyond that, you need to make it clear.
Is racism to you:
- Speaking disparagingly of a race without any facts relevant to the subject matter?
- Speaking disparagingly of a race with facts relevant to the subject matter?
- Focusing (mainly) on subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
- Sharing subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
- etc.
Personally, for me, its bullet point 1. Speaking with facts is legitimate critique, not racism.
It's important to allow such discussion.
Per example: Speaking as to how much crime migrants/blacks commit as opposed to other immigrants or native population is important for our future and being able to admit a problem exists is a baseline to solve prevent and solve such problems.
Personally, I dislike any needless name-calling and don't think it has a place on forums - which is probably the root of Hams feelings, but it's manifested into something beyond that now, either through lack of enforcement or excessive trolling that he's overly focused on and manifested to be a collective of everybody he doesn't like.
IMO, abuse in that regard should be removed or banned outright, ESPECIALLY if you're associating with a specific political group. (edit: others disagree and think we let the collective just downvote them to oblivion - which works, and I'm a bit of a fence sitter there - I just feel that if it's gonna be "X supporter forum", it's better to take action than let leftists and journo-types latch on). The caveat, of course, is bullet point 2 in my copy-paste above. Calling someone black/yellow/white/brown/aboriginal is NOT racism, some people try to make it to be. They're wrong. Speaking of a group having issues specific to that group is NOT racism in the slightest(it's actually the opposite, addressing problems IMPROVES life for that group). Eg. "First Nations literacy rate is abysmal" is not racism. 33% is abysmal. Neither is saying that the Canadian literacy rate as a whole at 56% is trash. One could argue that it's probably low due to family immigration system being seemingly en masse year after year. Also not racism. Saying "those damn sand n***** can't even read"; probably racism. It certainly isn't conducive conversation, at minimum.
is it free speech? Sure. That doesn't mean you aren't an asshole for espousing it, and it doesn't mean a forum has to welcome that use of language.
Simple answer? Mirror TD and make a "PPC supporters only" rule. It doesn't mean you ban people for disagreeing, but it means you can take transparent action against the extremists/trolls. People who come in with respectful disagreement/discussion are always great to engage with. I do it all the time over at patriots.win, often changing their mind or at least helping them see things in a different light. It means you aren't a "free speech haven", but you don't have to pretend to be either. Just be respectful and you're welcome. It isn't difficult to conduct yourself in a respectful manner. But omega bans feel somewhat arbitrary at times.
I'll support whatever comes out of this, I don't actually think the average visitor to this page actually disagree with Ham, but the lack of transparency and childlike tantrums just don't fly. I think the trolls and a few actual racists have cracked him.
^My insert is kind of rambley, but I'm not editing it as I'm at work now, sorry
You need at least 2 major symptoms to be articled as a vaccine condition.
Eg. "6 people having blood clots" was actually hundreds, but because it didn't pair with another serious adverse effect, it is a "natural" cause, not vaccine induced.
I thought you were kidding, but you're probably correct.
Copy paste from the last thread you made...
I'm 100% against racism.
Everybody else is correct, however. That needs a definition. And not a textbook one with loose terminology.
Using the N word? Course à bad idea. Beyond that, you need to make it clear.
Is racism to you:
- Speaking disparagingly of a race without any facts relevant to the subject matter?
- Speaking disparagingly of a race with facts relevant to the subject matter?
- Focusing (mainly) on subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
- Sharing subject matter reflecting poorly on a race, or someone of a race?
- etc.
Personally, for me, its bullet point 1. Speaking with facts is legitimate critique, not racism.
It's important to allow such discussion.
Per example: Speaking as to how much crime migrants/blacks commit as opposed to other immigrants or native population is important for our future and being able to admit a problem exists is a baseline to solve prevent and solve such problems.
Tbh, the treatment and use of the covid vax may have turned me anti-vax as a whole. But if I had a child tomorrow, I'd still be doing the base 24 recommended(not the new age 68-69,mind). But you can put a bullet in my head before you give me the covid one.
I ask every single one of them if government has ever lied to their people.
Some see the point, but the most common answer is "they aren't this time"
How sure of that are you?
Tbh, I've had their iced coffee 4 times at my local. It was great 3 times, but the 4th the person had NO IDEA what they were doing and I'm pretty sure used regular coffee, then added WAY too much cream.
So yeah, probably a bit of both, depending on location and staff.
The Pfizer trial documentation has a condition of study for "Exposure During Pregnancy" that includes a condition of "exposure to study intervention by inhalation or skin contact".
Section 8.5.3.1 under 8.5.3 - exposure during pregnancy
I imagine that's what contributes to high spread, but most are adult age males, who have an incredible survival rate of covid.
Ok. Whats stopping a kid who's already vaxxed from going and claiming an ice cream... For another vax.
8 vaxxes later, kid dies. They charge the parents for not supervising their children's vaccinations...?