5
fponick 5 points ago +5 / -0

You can bet the rent that every single one of those “flu” vaccines is loaded with mRna, which is the genetic material that tells your body how to make proteins.

Spike Proteins.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/vaccines/COVID-19-mRNA-infographic_G_508.pdf

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

One shot? Perfect for killing yourself when you’re surrounded.

Goons always attack in packs. Never alone.

Even 3D printer guns with six rounds would be better than one shot with no reload time.

What were you thinking??

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

Water in an open bottle on the far right. Or maybe it’s gin?

4
fponick 4 points ago +4 / -0

Here ya go. An 1888 edition from the Army Medical Library.

110 Rules start on pg. 15 after an intro.

https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/dw/01010330R/PDF/01010330R.pdf

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Perhaps I should have stated that “freedom of reach” brought to the same extreme as “freedom of speech” is equally damaging. Hooking the two together compounds the excess.

Many thanks to u/BillPigg, whose comment was unavailable when I posted mine, and which I acknowledge (and adapt) with thanks:

What about Antifa free reach?

What about Pedophiles free reach?

What about BLM free reach?

What about the Communists in American Government lying to us free reach?

What about Voter Fraud supporters free reach?

What about Drug dealers free reach?

What about Anti-God free reach?

What about spammers free reach?

Thank you for prompting me to think deeper.

4
fponick 4 points ago +4 / -0

Those whacky Russians! Having a balloon festival in the dead of winter!

-1
fponick -1 points ago +6 / -7

Sounding good is not the same as making sense. Putting these two phrases together is a rhetorical mistake their originator foolishly fell in love with.

Sort of like giving birth to Siamese twins but not wanting to separate them because they look so cute when they squirm around and smile at each other.

Freedom of speech and freedom of reach are two totally separate concepts.

Just because they rhyme doesn’t mean they’re linked in any other way.

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s all they do—give each other awards. And commendations. And prizes. Oh, and cash …. It’s Approval-seeking (and approval-giving) at its finest—a fascinating topic, the main theme permeating the entire WEF website, and the essence of Nazism, Communism, and all the other -isms we loathe.

4
fponick 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sloppy work. Both the floor and the flag! 😏

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

Desperate for the attention she lost because she’s not a kid anymore. Time to ramp up her game as a full-grown attention whore.

2
fponick 2 points ago +2 / -0

Temporary truce for Thanksgiving while 🐸🐸 and 👹👹 eat 🦃.

Separately.

2
fponick 2 points ago +2 / -0

I live in Virginia. You can definitely own a gun in Virginia.

5
fponick 5 points ago +5 / -0

From Robby Starbuck on FB: Balenciaga’s new ads feature kids with dolls in bondage gear and a reference to Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, a Supreme Court case that made simulated child pornography legal, in effect overturning part of a law that had been passed to protect children. At the time, Chief Justice Rehnquist (R) opposed the majority of the court and warned in a dissent that simulated child pornography must be illegal because in the future it would become indistinguishable from the real thing. The court majority ignored his warnings and today we know he was right.

We have a lot of work in front of us to correct that vile decision but first let’s talk about Balenciaga’s ad campaign. This is sick. At best it’s using sexual imagery paired with children to sell products. This is NEVER acceptable.

The photographer they hired has a strange affinity in my view for photographing kids as he’s famous for traveling the world taking photos of kids in their bedrooms and homes. At best this is all very weird and inappropriate. BALENCIAGA should do the right thing and remove these ads from their site. Sexualizing kids even by association with the dolls in bondage gear is NEVER okay. I hope they see their error, remove these photos and commit to donating a portion of sales to groups that fight child sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking.

Their CEO is Cedric Charbit @cedriccharbitt on Instagram and here’s their VP of Marketing if you want to let them know how you feel about this ad campaign: http://linkedin.com/in/danielmottamello — I won’t ever support a company that thinks this marketing is okay!

1
fponick 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wasn’t talking about merchandise. I was talking about donations.

WinRed charges a 3.94% processing fee for every transaction. Basically 4%. You think you donated $100? No, you donated $96. Multiply that by a few thousand donors, and what the candidate doesn’t get starts looking like real money.

Winred is also endorsed by the Republican National Committee. We recently learned that the RNC is packed with RINOs. To me, Winred now seems to be a strange commingling of RINOs and MAGAs, one with which I’m not entirely at ease.

(https://donors.winred.com/en/articles/3773571-where-does-my-donation-go)

I don’t care where anyone donates; it’s essential to put your money where your mouth is, and Winred might be right for you.

But given the hard financial times now and the unknowable battles ahead, if I want to contribute to a campaign, I will find the candidate’s mailing address and send a check.

Example:

Donald Trump

c/o Mar-a-Lago Club

1100 S. Ocean Blvd.

Palm Beach, FL 33480

4
fponick 4 points ago +5 / -1

NEVER donate through WINRED! They take a significant percentage of every dollar.

ALWAYS donate DIRECTLY to the CANDIDATE!

3
fponick 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sauce?

view more: Next ›