6
FreedomBoner13 6 points ago +6 / -0

I guess I never thought of legalizing it as good for tax revenue (we spend too damn much already), but more of a way of reducing the prison state that the US has become. Less non-violent offenders behind bars is a good thing. Maybe we will even end of with some more fathers around?

3
FreedomBoner13 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is from the EEOC and should have you covered. You definitely don't need to have a spiritual leader to have a religious belief.

"Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.[18] Religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.[19] Further, a person’s religious beliefs “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.”[20] A belief is “religious” for Title VII purposes if it is “religious” in the person’s “own scheme of things,” i.e., it is a “sincere and meaningful” belief that “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.”[21] The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”[22] An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23] "

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_9593682596821610748647076

2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

You should get some outdoor speakers and put "Dreaming of a White Christmas" on repeat when you have your lights on.

1
FreedomBoner13 1 point ago +2 / -1

So, we use about 100 million barrels a day globally. How far down do you think twelve hours worth of gas will drive the price? And how long do you think that price will stay down?

38
FreedomBoner13 38 points ago +38 / -0

Imagine thinking that COVID killed enough people to make a dent in any voting demographic.

2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Definitely, the study design reeks of someone just taking the data and manipulating it until it gave them the results they wanted. How can we prove the vaccine saves lives? Well we just remove all these people, then these people, divide by this, then viola scientific proof!

2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't know anything about this place, but that almost reads like a Wink wink type of notice. We will check WHATEVER form you have. Like they don't actually care what you show them.

3
FreedomBoner13 3 points ago +3 / -0

"After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2). These rates were lower than the rate of 1.11 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated mRNA vaccine comparison group (p <0.001)."

Why would you feel the need to exclude deaths related to thing that the vaccine is meant to protect against? Wouldn't leaving COVID related deaths in the group make the evidence even stronger if it worked?

0
FreedomBoner13 0 points ago +2 / -2
  1. Take a little accountability for your own actions. There was a sticky of the announcement of his whole plan. It had DWAC as the company he is working through in it. I was able to find that company and put in an extended hours trade last night, that went through this morning before open. I didn't need anybody posting about it to do so. Nothing stopped you from doing the bare minimum and seeing if the company in the stickied post was publicly traded. 2) No one could have been certain what would happen with that stock today, nor what will happen with it in the future. This wasn't a sure bet. 3) Expecting strangers on the internet to gift you home run investing advice is not a good investment strategy.
2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I put in an extended hours trade last night when I saw the news. Got in at $11.92 this morning.

3
FreedomBoner13 3 points ago +3 / -0

For Capitalism to function properly, you have to let the obsolete companies die. Companies going under is not a failure of capitalism, but the necessary risk to drive innovation to avoid becoming obsolete. The failure of capitalism was bailing those companies out in the first place.

13
FreedomBoner13 13 points ago +13 / -0

And what is the actual number? Like three . . . worldwide?

2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean that headline does make perfect sense. Obviously catching COVID improves your immunity when apparently you had no immunity before. Makes sense to me.

9
FreedomBoner13 9 points ago +9 / -0

Seriously, wealth is generated through goods and services, and your ability to obtain/purchase said goods and services. Money is useless when no one is producing. Kind of like what happens when you pay large portions of the population not to work.

by Biggly
4
FreedomBoner13 4 points ago +4 / -0

So how many votes do you think they can count in California with mail in-ballots forever now? 100 million? If your most populace state has rampant fraud, that state will decide every presidential election going forward.

2
FreedomBoner13 2 points ago +2 / -0

Another interesting thought along those lines is to look at the countries that have been largely unaffected, or unvaccinated. Third world shit holes. You might want lots of cheap/slave labor for your new world order and a populace that is used to living in shit conditions.

7
FreedomBoner13 7 points ago +7 / -0

I think operative word there is inequalities. Nowhere do they say that the actual operations will get worse. Probably less diverse . . . so better?

Disclaimer: I have not read the article.

37
FreedomBoner13 37 points ago +37 / -0

This is not the way. Do not play their stupid ass games, unless you want to win stupid ass prizes, like more mandatory medical procedures. Do not pretend to go along with this, it gives the impression that what they are doing is ok. It is not, and should not be entertained.

5
FreedomBoner13 5 points ago +5 / -0

Seriously, percentages make misrepresentations far too easy. 2% could very well be 1 phone call. It's like the county that reported something like a 100% increase in COVID cases to drum up the fear. It went from like 4 to 8.

7
FreedomBoner13 7 points ago +7 / -0

Seriously, monetary policy is a thing. Do you want congress in charge of it? Because that would be even more of a shit show than it is now. Now auditing the Fed, on the other hand, I am behind that.

view more: Next ›