2
AnnaGram 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tread lightly with this one - the article actually alleges that the previous admin originally dispersed these doses and were unable to account for them during the turnover, not that Biden's admin sent them out and then lost track of them.

10
AnnaGram 10 points ago +19 / -9

No debate there, I just mean that the original poster's assertion that they're claiming she invented TV is not accurate.

1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am of the - admittedly minority - opinion that there should be some major overhauls to how the sport should be played in middle and high school for this very reason, so I understand that decision.

6
AnnaGram 6 points ago +7 / -1

The senate voted yesterday to treat the additional $1400 checks, as part of a +$1 trillion dollar relief package, as reconciliation, meaning they'll only need 51 votes to pass it. That vote kicks off a mandatory debate period and then they'll vote and will most likely easily clear the simple majority requirement.

It isn't happening as fast as leftists hoped it would, and there have been squables on their side about $2000 total versus $2000 in addition to the original $600, but you can bet your asses they're about to pass another huge budget package despite the possibility that not a single Republican will vote for it.

1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +2 / -1

But they're letting that happen to their sons?

24
AnnaGram 24 points ago +37 / -13

The modifier of "3d" is being applied to both "movies" and "tv" in this sentence. They are not claiming she invented TV.

3
AnnaGram 3 points ago +4 / -1

I dunno. They were clearly trying to keep him on the topic of a media entity censoring him, but he went off script so they as a media entity had to censor him lol.

0
AnnaGram 0 points ago +1 / -1

....what CSPAN channel is showing a musical?

5
AnnaGram 5 points ago +6 / -1

I mean yeah, the ultimate defense to defamation is being able to prove what you said is true.

No idea why they'd be so hesitant to report on the evidence they say they have.

1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +2 / -1

If it's any consolation, this is a bunch of fake bullshit

0
AnnaGram 0 points ago +1 / -1

Even if it did gain any political traction (which it won't, it hasn't got nearly the kind of support needed to implement such an expensive and potentially devastating policy) it would take decades to happen.

1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +2 / -1

Not to be a buzz kill, but at no point in PA did Trump's lead exceed outstanding vote estimations, so a definitive "impossible win" is not going to be shown in that way.

by narf8h1
1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +2 / -1

If they have anywhere near thme evidence they claim to have, there shouldn't be any reason not to.

1
AnnaGram 1 point ago +2 / -1

Aren't like 99% of the people who need convincing going to be avoiding IRL parties and bars?

0
AnnaGram 0 points ago +1 / -1

I mean, it's work for tradespeople, right?

6
AnnaGram 6 points ago +8 / -2

That is extremely creepy. And it sucks, because this sort of thing is almost always about power and control. There's no way you can dress, or talk, or act, that will dissuade him if a feeling of power is what he's after.

I'm not a lawyer - full disclosure - but I think it'd be worth it to talk to legal rep in your area to see what criminal, civil and unemployment insurance-assisted options you have at your disposal.

I'm sorry this is happening to you.

-6
AnnaGram -6 points ago +3 / -9

Honestly, there isn't anything to worry about. If your grandmother is 90, she's lived through vaccinations with a lot less efficacy and safety testing than this one received. MRNA vaccine technology isn't new, it's just that we haven't ever had a need to exchange the cost (literally - it's expensive) for the unique benefit it provides (rapid, mass production of a novel vaccine).

Millions of people have been vaccinated already. I am actually halfway through an efficacy trial myself.

She'll be ok.

-1
AnnaGram -1 points ago +1 / -2

Link to the video of this??

9
AnnaGram 9 points ago +10 / -1

Do you have an HR department, or is this a private business where he's the head of the company?

If it's the former, you should file a complaint with them immediately. This is sexual harassment and any company worth their salt would want to eliminate that immediately.

If not, you should seek a local employment lawyer. Most offer free consultations and could give you options on any harassment claims you could file - this is probably going to be location-specific. They'd also be able to advise on your options as far as simply quitting and filing for unemployment would go. That's one of the things the system is designed to support you through. You pay into it with every single paycheck, there's no reason not to use it to get out of a harassment situation.

I have been in a similar situation (I'm a woman, and ultimately chose to leave a job because of sexual harassment from my boss, not knowing I had other options). It's humiliating, and difficult to talk about, and no one should have to worry about that happening at their job.

32
AnnaGram 32 points ago +40 / -8

This. They're doing this to avoid a defamation lawsuit - and the ultimate defense to defamation is proof that what you said was true.

They don't believe it is.

0
AnnaGram 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm sure Biden takes a moment to check his YouTube stats before bed every night 🙄

by narf8h1
-1
AnnaGram -1 points ago +5 / -6

I mean, they've already filed two $1,000,000,000+ defamation suits, I'd try to avoid being #3 as well.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›