14
SHALL_NOT 14 points ago +14 / -0

Lol no they didn’t spring for the rubicons

3
SHALL_NOT 3 points ago +3 / -0

“I’ve never heard of being transportation, but I have a lot of trans friends and I will always be on the side of the trans community. It has to be hard to be born with one biological portation but identify as a different portation. I imagine it causes a lot of strife that people who are cisportation wouldn’t understand, and I don’t think we should add to that.”

86
SHALL_NOT 86 points ago +87 / -1

This is my issue with the people who say you need to get the vax because it affects other people. It’s a slippery slope away from individualism and into collectivism.

9
SHALL_NOT 9 points ago +9 / -0

SHUT UP DAD! SHOVEL THE STEPS AND DONT GIVE ME NO LIP ABOUT THIS ALLEGED HIP REPLACEMENT YOUVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT SINCE LAST WEEK!

4
SHALL_NOT 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lmao just wait until they feel all spiffy and then they get told “no you need a mask. You can’t just pull your shirt over your nose!”

2
SHALL_NOT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Betraying the US for a new Buick is the worst fucking deal ever made. I’d sooner betray the US just to NOT get a new Buick.

That said...who is getting new buicks?

11
SHALL_NOT 11 points ago +11 / -0

I doubt it. They’ll Weekend at Ruthie’s him or use a body double to get through inauguration. If he dies now, there are more obstacles to president Brown Hillary than if he dies after inauguration.

5
SHALL_NOT 5 points ago +5 / -0

Whenever I tell people covid deaths are exaggerated since CDC report that 96% of “covid deaths” list at least one other cause of death, they invariably say that it’s because they technically died of something else but that it was only deadly because it was exacerbated by covid. This is true in many cases, but other cases from that 96% have comorbidities unrelated to covid like gsw, mva, od, etc...

All that is needed for covid to be listed on cause of death is a positive test within the last x days.

36
SHALL_NOT 36 points ago +36 / -0

If they were a ruse then he’d have been handing the dems a perfect opportunity to prove he is as they’ve been saying all along. All they would have had to do is say “here are the machines, here are all the records, here is every video taken of vote casting and counting, here is every piece of paper in the country that relates to the election. You can have you best guys take a look and let us know what you find.”

And then when trump couldn’t find anything they have the highest of high grounds to hammer home that they were right and trump was a power hungry narcissist willing to tear the country apart on the off chance he could steal the election, just like the dictator they’ve been calling him all along.

In fact, without seeing any evidence at all, you can usually tell who is telling the truth. The liars do everything they can to suppress evidence and stymie investigation.

1
SHALL_NOT 1 point ago +1 / -0

Toxic is not aka kill the mother.

You can read my reply to your other comment for context. As a hint, people who know when and how to find package labeling usually know how to read it. I guarantee you that it means exactly what I said about it, which is “might not be great for pregnancy”.

Not “it causes problems in pregnant women”

Not “pregnant women can’t take it”

Just that it might not be great.

1
SHALL_NOT 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’d also like you to point out a study done on pregnant humans, because right there in the excerpt from the labeling it says there haven’t been any adequate and well controlled studies done on humans.

This is from the manufacturer of the drug, and telling people not to take their drug works directly against their interests. In fact, pharma is notorious for doing the opposite whenever possible. These are the people who spun lies about OxyContin being less addictive and created the opioid epidemic to make a buck.

This labeling was published in 2009, it is not some conspiracy to prevent people from getting effective covid treatment.

Animal studies are often the best you’ll get for teratogenicity data since it’s generally frowned upon to use pregnant women as test subjects.

They’ve appropriately rated it as Category C, based on the type of data available, as opposed to D or X

Category C means exactly what I said “might not be great for pregnancy”

Oh shit sorry never mind, I saw you have a Vimeo link and all I have is my Doctor of Pharmacy and a decade of experience. My bad.

2
SHALL_NOT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Get ready for alinsky 101: “Chinese collusion is a trump campaign fabrication designed to delegitimize a Biden presidency, according to recently discovered notes Trump’s DNI took during conversations in late 2020”

2
SHALL_NOT 2 points ago +2 / -0

“President Taft, are the voting computers capable of being connected to the internet while people are tabulating results?”

“I have never heard of internet or computers, so I would think not”

“You heard it here folks, President Taft confirms voting computers are not capable of being connected to the internet! This has been known for decades, as we can now see.”

3
SHALL_NOT 3 points ago +3 / -0

True, but then their shit just goes up. They can still get the insurance, just costs more.

18
SHALL_NOT 18 points ago +19 / -1

From the mfr labeling:

Ivermectin has been shown to be teratogenic in mice, rats, and rabbits when given in repeated doses of 0.2, 8.1, and 4.5 times the maximum recommended human dose, respectively (on a mg/m2/day basis). Teratogenicity was characterized in the three species tested by cleft palate; clubbed forepaws were additionally observed in rabbits. These developmental effects were found only at or near doses that were maternotoxic to the pregnant female. Therefore, ivermectin does not appear to be selectively fetotoxic to the developing fetus. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Ivermectin should not be used during pregnancy since safety in pregnancy has not been established.

Might not be great for pregnancy.

4
SHALL_NOT 4 points ago +4 / -0

Would be nice if they allowed for some insurance companies that only accepted low risk folks. That way some folks could get back more affordable insurance.

3
SHALL_NOT 3 points ago +3 / -0

I just checked the election map. If all the red states secede, the blues would be split in two, with no friendly land route between them. They’d only have California as a major agriculture source afaik.

Red states would have two states on the Great Lakes, complete control of the southern half of the Mississippi, the entire gulf, three states on the Atlantic itself, and access to the pacific through Alaska.

With Utah, red could stymie the flow of the Colorado, which would fuck over AZ and SoCal.

Red would completely surround GA, which would only have a small Atlantic coast for shipping. Red would surround CO and IL on three sides. In contrast, only UT and WV would be in similar positions. From what I know of UT, they’ve got a lot of kids and a lot of guns. In WV, the hills have eyes.

3
SHALL_NOT 3 points ago +3 / -0

Under W, there was that big price gouging scandal where the war construction contractors were billing crazy prices for very basic and cheap components and tools. If W had spent a billi on a semi functional website he’d probably have been impeached. St. Obongo of the Chicago Politik got praised for it.

2
SHALL_NOT 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry, I’m not following. AFAIK, trump built his wealth by his part in building NYC.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›