Started by bella! at 13,Aug,23 11:15 other posts of bella!
 | This thread is for questionable content. WHY? Just because! I am someone who enjoys the Hodge Twins. YEP, the Hodge Twins. They probably make the hairs on the back of a WOKE person stand straight up! Anyway..... |
Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
A National Toxicology Program report indicates that fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L are associated with lower IQ in children, exceeding the recommended 0.7 mg/L standard in U.S. water. While the EPA reviews these findings, public health groups continue to support standard community water fluoridation. Read the full update from the EPA at epa.gov.
Could explain the explosion of dumbass liberals?
Are liberals the only people who drink tap water?
By the way, many areas in your country are suffering from tap water that is polluted with Lead, Manganese, Arsenic, Mercury, Nitrate, PFAS and Pesticide residues, which also can/will affect the brains of children.
The Trump EPA has proposed or made changes that reduce environmental monitoring
and transparency, related to toxins in tap water.
Yes, a disproportionate number of America's worst lead-pipe problems are in older, heavily urbanized cities that currently vote Democratic. But that is largely an age/industrialization/geography phenomenon, not evidence that Democratic cities uniquely created the problem.
Cities/water utilities can be responsible for some or all of the relevant infrastructure, but ownership varies by jurisdiction, and the responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is broader than simply “who owns the pipe?”.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed in November 2021, provided:
- $15 billion specifically for lead service-line identification and replacement over 5 years
- Another $11.7 billion in general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which could also be used for lead-pipe replacement
- $50 billion total for drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure.
The Senate vote was 69–30. All 50 Democrats voted for it, along with 19 Republicans.
The final House vote was 228–206. 13 Republicans voted for it and 6 Democrats voted against it.
The infrastructure law was bipartisan, but the overwhelming majority of House Republicans opposed it. The LCRI was finalized on October 30, 2024, just before Trump took office. Trump's general deregulation agenda created a threat to the LCRI, but the EPA chose to defend it.
Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cincinnati all have Democratic political environments, yet they're pursuing substantial replacement programs. Pittsburgh in particular is doing exceptionally well. Pittsburgh Water says it replaced its 14,000th lead service line by December 2025 and is on track to eliminate all residential lead lines in its service area by the end of 2027.
There is also a big difference in cost:
Chicago: ~$31,000/line
Evanston: ~$15,000/line
Elgin: ~$10,950/line
Riverside: ~$9,200/line
The same contractors sometimes work in these communities. One explanation identified was that the suburbs make it easier to replace multiple lines along a block at once and have fewer administrative/permit costs.
The project is much more expensive in Chicago, because it has an extremely complicated underground environment. You're not just digging a hole and replacing a pipe: you're working around water mains, gas lines, electrical infrastructure, sewer lines, telecommunications, streets and sidewalks. And because Chicago is so old and densely built, some of this infrastructure is very difficult to map precisely.
Rural areas in the U.S. still have some lead water pipes, but generally far fewer than older industrial cities. Many rural households historically relied on private wells rather than centralized water systems, so they never had as many lead service lines to begin with. The remaining problem is partly an infrastructure-age issue: lead pipes are concentrated in communities that built extensive water systems during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and some smaller communities also have incomplete records about where lead lines remain.
an urban river.
Even bottled water has fluoride in it. Some bottled waters have more fluoride than fluoridated tap water, because fluoride occurs naturally in the groundwater or spring source. EU law requires the label to include an analytical composition listing its characteristic constituents. Above 1.5 mg/L, natural mineral water must carry a warning that it is unsuitable for infants and young children. Currently, the European benchmark for daily consumption is 3.3 mg of fluoride per day, from all sources. EFSA established this in its 2025 reassessment as a “safe level of intake” for adults and everyone over
8 y.o.. It is deliberately conservative and is intended to cover potential effects on the nervous system, thyroid, and bones.
only registered users can see external links
People seam to like it when their need to eat doesn't enrich corporations.
But, maybe that's just what they they think in New York.
In a state like Texas, those crazy socialists don't stand a chance, right?
only registered users can see external links
And who is covering the missing 30% of retail? the taxpayers? Who pays taxes? every one.
And did you read the story a week ago about how they were going to require id before you could shop there to be sure you were a new yorker? and boy did they catch hell about that 1. Don't want voter id but gota show id to buy grocerys.
what I am curious to see is when people rob these city owned stores how the law reacts. do they arrest the thief or reward them somehow?
They only require some $70 million in city funding for startup costs. Afterwards, the costs to the public will be much lower. The plan is not simply "sell groceries 30% cheaper and absorb the loss." The plan is to reduce operating costs in several ways so that the required subsidy is smaller than it otherwise would be. The methods include:
• No profit requirement. A city-owned store would not need to generate returns for private owners or shareholders.
• Reduced real estate costs. The city could use publicly owned buildings or subsidize rent, which is one of the largest expenses for grocery stores in New York.
• Bulk purchasing. Buying large quantities directly from suppliers could reduce wholesale costs, although the extent depends on the scale of the store network.
• Simpler operations. Focusing on staple foods and carrying fewer products can lower inventory, labor, and spoilage costs.
• Public financing. The city can borrow at relatively low interest rates for capital investments.
If that doesn't operate at cost, they will indeed get that money from the rich,
to feed the people who need it.
If you rob from the government, what do they do to you, thank you?
Only wealthy people like Trump and Elon are allowed to steal from the government.
The system hasn't worked well anywhere else and no 1 with good sense can see it working here.
You know momsdummie the mayor released a million landlords names and address's so that they could be harassed don't you? how the hell is that even legal?
You're indoctrinated by the wealthy with deeply un-American ideas.
You probably have The Constitution printed on your boxers,
but you have no idea what these words mean.
The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear about it:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
If you want to interpret it to fit your view, maybe you should read what the founding fathers intended with it.
James Madison (1751–1836) was one of the principal architects of the United States Constitution and later became the fourth President of the United States. In 1787–1788, while the American states were debating whether to adopt the new Constitution, Madison wrote a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.” In Federalist No. 51, published in 1788, he explained the principles he believed were necessary to preserve a free republic. The essay remains important because it describes a central vision of the American system: freedom requires that power must never become concentrated and unchecked.
Madison began from a realistic view of human nature. He argued that people who hold power will naturally have interests of their own, and therefore a free society cannot depend on the virtue of those in authority. His famous statement, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” expresses the idea that every form of power needs limits. The purpose of constitutional design was therefore not simply to create government, but to create a system in which power would restrain itself.
Madison also recognized that society would always contain different interests, groups, and classes of citizens. People would differ in wealth, beliefs, occupations, and goals, creating competing forces within society. He did not believe these differences could or should be eliminated. Instead, he argued that a healthy republic must prevent any one group from becoming powerful enough to dominate others. As he wrote, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
The broader principle behind Madison’s vision is that liberty is threatened whenever power becomes concentrated without effective checks. The founders were concerned not only with preventing government tyranny, but with ensuring that no faction, class, or institution could gain enough influence to override the rights and independence of ordinary citizens. This principle remains central to debates about how a republic should balance freedom, power, and the protection of its people.
Buying in bulk does save, but that idea is already in use for most all business's in America.
Have you saw any pubic owned building suitable for grocery store use? Not many around.
Less inventory, only staples? Ha who are you kidding? So you are saying the serfs can just eat beans and carrots and a occasional potato when the city gets them on sale? I can just see that working well. People are to lazy now to cook like folks did when the government actually gave out cheese and flour. that won't work.
The store better carry microwave meals and coffee beans and steaks for all the rich people driving to town to save money on groceries. OH ,rich people shouldn't buy at the community store? That is discrimination. that is not legal. Rich people have the right to save money as much as poor people do.
No profit? the damn stores are going to have to cover their own operating cost or the city will go bust. DUH.
However, the building is the easiest part. A city can lend money at low rates (2.5%), buy a building and use it at no profit. Grocery Stores often have to pay rent at cap rates between 5.5% and 6.7%, to some private equity firm.
Rich people are allowed to buy in these stores too. No card, ID or anything required.
The previous administration left Mamdani with a $12 billion budget deficit.
As of July 2026, the administration announced that the current budget deficit
has officially been brought down to zero ($0) and the budget is fully balanced.
America was built on small bussiness. Mom and pop stores and smaller chain stores will loose alot of bussiness and stock to these city "owned" stores and it will probably result in closures and lost jobs. the very thing that creates poverty.
Thus taking away choices for people of where to shop,and prompting travel to further locations, creating traffic,polution and etc.
Mamdani's plan focuses heavily on bypassing monopolies for a specific "core basket" of fresh, perishable staples, by sourcing fruits and vegetables directly
from regional farms in upstate New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
There are no choices without consequences.
Search instead for tax payer funded discount grocery stores,how well do they work
AI Overview
Taxpayer-funded discount grocery stores lower prices for shoppers, but they shift the true cost to the public and face severe operational challenges. They rely on government subsidies rather than traditional profit models to function.
How the Model Works
Subsidies and Savings: Proponents argue that by exempting stores from rent and property taxes or using direct public funds, municipal stores can slash prices on core staples like produce, meat, and milk by roughly 30%.
Public-Private Partnerships: Plans like New York City's proposed pilot program rely on the city owning the location while private or nonprofit operators handle day-to-day sourcing and fulfillment using public "affordability payments" to cover losses.
Historical Precedents: Small-scale municipal or government-operated grocery experiments—such as those attempted in rural or struggling towns like Baldwin, Florida, and Caney City, Texas—frequently struggled to stay out of the red and ultimately closed or were sold back to private owners due to mounting debt.
Key Criticisms and Risks
Indirect Tax Burdens: Critics and economists point out that the discounts are an illusion; shoppers save at the register, but taxpayers fund the deficits, overhead, and initial startup costs through public funds.
Unfair Competition: Privately owned local bodegas and independent supermarkets operate on razor-thin margins (1% to 2%). Critics argue that government-backed stores enjoying free rent and subsidies can artificially undercut private businesses, potentially forcing neighborhood competitors out of the market.
Inefficiency and Scale: Government-run or heavily subsidized models often struggle to match the massive supply-chain efficiencies, bulk-buying power, and logistics management of major commercial supermarket chain
--------------------------------------- added after 2 hours
only registered users can see external links
Would be the first thing that Mamdani will fail on,
because he is checking off every single one of his promises.
He was completely open about everything, and now he is DOING IT ALL!
That's DEMOCRACY, so I see why you lot don't like it.
Birds of a feather flock together, of course, which are, in this case, vultures feeding off the starved corpses of millions. That is what Reds do, whenever they come to power.
Communists let people starve to maintain their power.
Hitler was a fascist, like Trump. Trump has actually cited "Mein Kampf".
And his biggest campaign funder was "Sieg heiling" on stage.
The regimes that called themselves 'communist' were nothing but.
They were authoritarian state-capitalist systems.
Your regime is starving people, and Mamdani is feeding the people.
No Americans would EVER vote for a socialist, if your side would ever do
ANYTHING good for them. You fucked up! That's why you're losing to socialists.
The dreck you post in your long-winded theses is pure fascist pap, through and through. Donald Trump is no more a fascist than is Donald Duck.
I ask Grok, Is Trump fascist,
Clearly NO,
"No. Donald Trump is not a fascist by any rigorous historical or definitional standard of the term.
What fascism actually means
Fascism is a specific 20th-century ideology, not a generic insult for “right-wing person I dislike” or “authoritarian-leaning populist.” Core features, drawn from Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and scholarly definitions (e.g., Paxton, Griffin, Payne):
Single-party dictatorship that abolishes competitive elections and independent institutions.
Explicit rejection of liberal democracy, individual rights, and parliamentary government in favor of the leader and the state as the highest values.
Corporatist economic control in which the state directs private enterprise toward national power goals, not free markets.
Cult of violence, militarism, and often racial hierarchy as organizing principles.
Total mobilization of society under a revolutionary nationalist ideology that seeks to remake the nation through continuous struggle.
Trump does not meet these criteria.
Trump’s record vs. the definition
He won two elections under the existing U.S. constitutional system, left office after losing in 2020 (despite disputing the result and the January 6 riot), and is again running within the same system. Fascists do not leave power voluntarily or accept the possibility of electoral defeat.
He has not created a one-party state, banned opposition parties, or abolished Congress, independent courts, or free press. U.S. institutions constrained him throughout his first term; he operated inside them.
His economic approach has been broadly pro-business, deregulatory, and tax-cutting—closer to conventional American conservatism or mercantilist nationalism than to fascist corporatism.
Rhetoric can be bombastic, nationalist, and personalistic. Criticisms of media, “deep state,” and political opponents are often intemperate. That is not the same as systematically dismantling democratic institutions or installing a totalitarian party-state.
January 6 was a violent riot and an attempt to pressure the certification process. It was ugly and anti-democratic. It was not a fascist coup with coordinated paramilitaries seizing state power; the military and most institutions held.
Calling every strong nationalist, protectionist, or anti-establishment politician “fascist” empties the word of meaning. The same inflation has been applied to many figures across the spectrum when convenient.
Why the label is still widely used
Opponents deploy it as a moral intensifier: it signals that Trump is uniquely dangerous and beyond normal political disagreement. Some point to his admiration for “strong” leaders, immigration hard line, or personality cult among supporters. Those are real features of his politics; they do not make him a fascist. Supporters counter that the charge is primarily a tool to delegitimize a disruptive populist who challenges elite consensus on trade, immigration, and cultural issues.
If the question is whether Trump is authoritarian-leaning, norm-breaking, or polarizing, reasonable people can debate degrees. If the question is whether he is a fascist in the historical sense, the answer is no. Using the term loosely makes it harder to identify actual fascism when it appears.
Donald trump has done more for this country than any other president
Keep up the good work
Trump enabler, who one day tweaked his AI to make it call itself "MechaHitler"
and generated outputs that were wildly antisemitic, racist, and pro-Nazi.
Don't you think that you are being a bit ridiculous?
I already provided the characteristics that are considered to define fascism, and showed you how it fitted Trump for the most part. In the meantime he did lots of more things to make those characteristics fit even more.
At that time, he hadn't started a war yet. Now he attacked Iran under false pretenses, without getting permission from Congress, lying to the public, and committing serious war-crimes. He bombed a girl-school and then bombed the same area again in a second wave, killing first responders. Others include strikes
on homes or civilian neighborhoods, attacks on medical facilities or sites treating casualties, attacks on civilian infrastructure (bridges, roads, utilities), attacks on nuclear facilities (I understand that these are the primary targets, but because of
the nuclear risk to civilians it is considered a war-crime).
Trump attacked Venezuela and kidnapped their president Nicolбs Maduro, who is still in custody with a trial date for June 1, 2027. Venezuelan government is now controlled by the US, the US has taken control of oil-related revenues, valued around $13 billion for an almost bankrupt state, and there are part of the money is suspected to be transferred to private offshore bank accounts.
The sanctions on Cuba are causing a complete collapse. Fuel shortages have caused repeated nationwide blackouts. Citizens are facing shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods. The situation is getting desperate.
Add this to the record that was already checking off most characteristics of fascism, and only your side still denies it.
Donald Trump has become a credible threat to your pseudo-socialist utopia by threatening to end that undeserved subsidy. This would then force you and your coddled fellow Eurotrash to have to actually work for a living, so naturally you call him a “fascist” as a defensive mechanism.
Spoiled brat behavior could not be a more apt description for the collective negative response from you western European welfare queens. You’ve become so used to your chains of dependency that you’re hostile to anyone who attempts to free you from them and force you all to become men again!
Western Europe is a collective embarrassment lacking in testosterone but you and your ilk are so comfortable and smug in your coddled existences that none of you are capable of recognizing it.
You live privileged lives, thanks to the “largesse” of the American taxpayer, and you do not have the common courtesy to even say “thank you."
It's also very weird how angry you get about the idea of citizens looking out for each other. How much more should go to the billionaires or trillionaires, before YOUR life is supposed to get a bit better?
I call Trump a fascist, because he is using the EXACT SAME authoritarian playbook that all fascist in history used to gain power and maximize it to absolute rule.
You have been told about tyranny all your life, but you look the other way when
it's staring its dead eyes in yours.
only registered users can see external links
Hope her dumbass husband that whined about Trump and his family goes with her. IF canada will even take him.
of course they took all of our draft dodgers so they must not be very picky.
only registered users can see external links
Sometimes they do their job, most times they are being racist fucks.
Probably they are not even ALL racist fucks. It's a job that pays well,
so there are likely people doing it who are decent people.
A Canadian, who STILL wants to be in the US, and then attacks another girl for wearing a 'USA 250 anniversary' shirt? I don't buy that for a second.
What Trump did to your USA 250 anniversary is definitely not patriotic.
Here are some ways that made it a big DISGRACE:
1. A milestone that should have united Americans instead became another battlefield in the country’s political war, deepening division rather than celebrating a shared identity.
2. Trump used the anniversary as a platform to promote his own political identity, turning a national commemoration into an extension of his personal brand and presidency.
3. Trump’s anniversary operation redirected money, sponsorship opportunities, and access toward his allies and political network, turning a national celebration into a vehicle for political influence and personal benefit.
4. The celebration’s funding structure drew criticism over the use of public resources, private donations, and sponsorships, with concerns that a national commemoration was being used to benefit politically connected interests.
5. The Trump-backed “Freedom 250” effort displaced the bipartisan America250 process and transformed a national commemoration into a Trump-aligned political production.
6. By tying a national anniversary celebration so closely to his own political identity, Trump alienated artists and participants who did not want their work used to legitimize a partisan event.
7. A celebration intended to showcase American achievement was marred by rushed planning, organizational failures, and an execution that fell far below the standard expected for a 250th anniversary event.
8. Attendees faced basic comfort and planning failures, including inadequate shade, seating, food access, and protection from extreme heat.
9. Operational breakdowns — including technical failures, power problems, and food-storage issues — turned a major national event into a public embarrassment.
10. Extreme weather exposed inadequate safety planning, with failures in preparing for dangerous heat, shelter needs, and crowd management.
11. The anniversary’s imagery, projects, and presentation placed Trump’s persona and legacy at the center of a national commemoration, overshadowing the broader history and achievements of the United States.
12. Instead of leaving Americans with pride in a historic milestone, the celebration became associated by many with division, self-promotion, waste, chaos, and a missed opportunity for genuine national reflection.
As a Dutchman who believes deeply in democracy, impartial justice, and accountable government, this disgrace was a painful reminder that even an occasion of such historic importance was not spared from being turned into a vehicle for division and personal ambition. A 250th anniversary should have been a moment to reflect on the long struggle to build and preserve a democratic society: the belief that no person is above the law,
that justice should not depend on power or privilege, and that government must ultimately answer to its citizens. Seeing such a historic occasion become associated with division, personal glorification, and dysfunction was deeply painful.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Complaining about not getting any free stuff!
"Coming to Europe is about taking -- or more appropriately, plundering.
To believe that masses of Muslims are coming to Europe because they genuinely need help or plan to assimilate, living peacefully among a diversity of cultures and other peoples, is to be breathtakingly ignorant of history.
Will you say the same about Kyle Rittenhouse? He was HOLDING his gun.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects peaceful speech, assembly, and criticism of the government, including police and federal agents.
Alex Pretti was only talking to them. It was the ICE agents who turned violent.
• Being armed is not, by itself, grounds for being shot.
In many U.S. states, carrying a firearm is legal under state law (subject to restrictions). The use of deadly force by law enforcement is judged by whether the person posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, not simply by whether they possessed a firearm.
• Obstructing law enforcement does not authorize summary execution.
Even if someone commits crimes such as trespassing, resisting, or obstructing officers, the legal remedy is arrest and prosecution. Deadly force is not a lawful punishment for those offenses.
• "Brandishing" has a specific legal meaning.
Simply having a firearm visible is different from threatening someone with it. Whether a person "brandished" a weapon is a factual question that depends on the evidence, including video, witness testimony, and forensic evidence.
• The governing legal standard is objective reasonableness.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor, an officer's use of force is judged based on whether it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, considering what the officer reasonably perceived at the time.
• Deadly force has additional constitutional limits.
In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that deadly force generally cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
Better protect your rights, or the next one who gets shot by police is you.
Preventing a robot from helping teach.
Could save 1000's in salary and other exspenses,
only registered users can see external links
The robot costs $57,000 and it cannot do anything more than
a tablet with a $20–$30/month ChatGPT voice subscription.
Who is going to pay for your robot, when Trump is gutting education funding?
The robot being used here is crude,and perhaps it should be more inter active,but for whatever reason,people are to concerned with the privacy of kids,which there should be none until they are 18 because they are under the care of parents and guardians. Gutting funding,or just cutting waste?
Why not implement tech in our schools? Why have schools when kids could learn at home with robotic tech?It was supposedly ok during covid? why not all the time, It would be safe if their MOTHERS were there at home to care for them as they should be instead of out working to pay for child care?thus eliminating their primary job of caring for the offspring?
Exactly because that robot is still crude, it isn't worth using the money for that. Have you not heard how many teachers are buying supplies from their own money, because funding is getting cut too short?
What is waste? This is the best definition that I can find: Waste is public spending that consumes resources without reasonably advancing the legally authorized objective of the expenditure, or that achieves that objective at substantially greater cost than a practical alternative.
It's waste, if you spend $57,000 on something that can be achieved fully with $300
and a $30/month subscription. If something added has a 10% advantage, you don't pay 19,000% more for it.
If the robot is used to teach programming of robotics software, for kids who are at that level, then it's a whole other thing. That can be worth every dollar.
Mothers are forced to work, because the cost of living crisis makes it impossible to live on just one income. I don't think that it's only the woman's job to care for children. Women should be able to have careers too, so they are not dependent on men.
Men are just as important to the development of children as women, so both the parenting and the career should be shared among them.
I get criticized by your political side for using AI to find some data. They argue that it's completely unreliable. And now you telling me that it's a good idea to hand over the education of children to an AI teacher, to save some money. I didn't expect that.
BUT Humans are so biased, try to push their personal ideals onto the kids and etc that it has become a problem. Not to mention the teachers constantly demanding more money as if the pool of funds their salary's come from are bottomless.
We have some of the dumbest kids in the world graduating from our schools. It's not all the kids fault ,nor the parents.it is the schools fault for the most part not taking time to teach. Ai could easily detect a kid having issues, instantly find a solution to the problem. Ai could use what is distracting the kid to the good. Perhaps the kid is interested in nature, use counting monkeys and trees as a learning tool for the 1'st grader age to help them learn math? Can a teacher do that? for each kid?
Your whole country is politicized and biased. It's only logical that teachers are included in that trend. It has been going on in relation to religion for a long time. We have Christian teachers too, but they have never outright refused to teach evolution.
About 28% consistently taught evolution as the scientific consensus.
About 13% explicitly advocated creationism or intelligent design.
About 60% took an "avoidance" approach, teaching evolution incompletely or presenting it as controversial, rather than as the foundation of modern biology.
That means that 72% are not doing their job as they should.
Kids are getting dumber, because your whole society is worshiping stupidity. That's because of your side turning away from facts, critical thinking and science. Your politicians were literally banning schoolbooks, because it mentioned or explained critical thinking. There is a brain drain ongoing in your country, because educated people are leaving. A 2025 Nature poll of more than 1,600 U.S.-based researchers found that about 75% of respondents said they were considering leaving the U.S. Many mentioned Europe and Canada as possible destinations. Other countries are trying to recruit them. Universities and research organizations in Europe, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere have been positioning themselves to attract researchers
who are frustrated with US conditions.
It requires the best teachers, with the highest motivation, to make something
of them. Those schools are already underfunded, because of your dumb system of funding. Many teachers are buying supplies from their own money.
And now you want to punish them for the kids they are getting.
If you work at a factory and you make mistakes that cost the factory money you get fired.
Teachers work all year and their students score low, they just march for raises as if they still did a good job . Their "product" sucks,
People voted for Trump, because he promised change. He ended up changing a lot, but nothing in favor of their ability to get out of poverty. His cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and reduction of ACA subsidies. Most Americans cannot pay a $500 emergency expense. What do you think will happen to a family, if a kid needs an operation? A simple procedure costs thousands of dollars. My girlfriend gets treatment worth at least $1000/month now. This is paid by our health insurance, but in your country most people would be fucked. We make close to 3 times the median income, and we would struggle to pay for it.
Why evaluating teachers by test scores is unfair:
• Outside factors dominate: A student's home life, trauma, and parents' socioeconomic status impact scores way more than any teacher can.
• Unequal starting points: One teacher might get a class of advanced learners, while another gets students who are years behind.
• Teaching to the test: It forces teachers to drill exam questions instead of teaching critical thinking, creativity, or life skills.
• High margin of error: Statistically, class test scores fluctuate heavily year-over-year due to random factors, making them unreliable for hiring or firing.
What a fair evaluation method looks like instead:
• The Holistic (360-Degree) Approach: Combining multiple sources so no single bad day or difficult class ruins a teacher's career.
• Structured classroom observations: Principals or peers evaluating actual teaching skills, classroom management, and student engagement.
• Student feedback surveys: Anonymous questionnaires asking students if the teacher explains well, offers help, and creates a safe environment.
• Measuring growth, not just final scores: Looking at individual student progress from September to June, rather than just the final test grade.
Your whole thinking about education, as filling kids' heads with facts and teaching them basic math, writing, and physics is obsolete because AI has turned knowledge into a free, instant commodity. And then you want to focus
the evaluation of teachers on how much they succeed in teaching kids
the exact things that can be easily replaced by AI.
Why the old school curriculum is not future-proof:
• AI excels at memorization: The old curriculum focuses on memorizing facts and formulas, which is exactly what AI does instantly and perfectly.
• Automation of basic skills: Tasks like basic coding, standard essay writing, and routine calculations are already automated before these kids even graduate.
• The "Skill Gap" danger: Schools are training kids to become "second-rate robots" instead of first-rate humans, leaving them unprepared for an AI-driven economy.
What schools should teach instead to survive the AI era:
• The 4 Cs (Human Skills): Critical thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication skills AI cannot genuinely replicate.
• AI Literacy & Prompting: Teaching kids how to co-pilot with AI, verify its biases, and use it as a tool rather than a replacement for thinking.
• Metacognition (Learning to Learn): Because technology changes so fast, the most important skill is adaptability and knowing how to learn new things quickly.
That MAGA joke was not just a joke. MAGA teaches people to be lazy thinkers. You are all trained to think only concretely and suppress your ability to think abstractly. All your media is enforcing concrete, emotionally vivid, identity-based thinking, over complex, abstract analysis.
The development of thinking in children is one of the central topics in developmental psychology, and it does involve a gradual movement from concrete, experience-based thinking toward the ability to use abstract concepts, hypothetical reasoning, and complex analysis. However, it is not a simple switch: adults continue to use concrete thinking in many situations, and children can show surprisingly sophisticated reasoning when the context is familiar.
The problem with MAGA is that it suppresses ADULT thinking.
Your idea about teachers is an example of a simplifying causal model:
Students perform poorly → teachers are responsible →
punish teachers → performance improves
I can do the same for ALL of your ideas:
People not working → laziness → reduce benefits
Crime → criminals → harsher punishment
Economic problems → government interference → reduce government
Homelessness → personal failure → remove assistance
Drug addiction → bad choices → harsher penalties
Poverty → lack of effort → fewer social programs
Inflation → government spending → cut government spending
High housing costs → too many regulations → remove regulations
Illegal immigration → weak borders → build stronger borders
Cultural conflict → bad values → restore traditional values
Political disagreement → enemies within → defeat or silence opponents
Loss of manufacturing jobs → foreign competition → restrict trade
Economic inequality → individual choices → no need for structural solutions
Poor health outcomes → personal responsibility failures → reduce healthcare
School disagreements → ideological indoctrination → remove certain curricula
Climate problems → environmental regulations → eliminate regulations
Social change → decline of tradition → return to the past
Government failures → government itself → privatize services
Media disagreement → bias → distrust all mainstream sources
Public disorder → weak policing → increase police powers
International problems → weak leadership → stronger leaders
Political problems → corrupt elites → replace the establishment
Declining community ties → loss of morality → restore old social norms
Security fears → enemy threat → preemptive strike → war
Disagreement between countries → one side is evil → confrontation → war
Resource shortages → people taking what belongs to us → seize resources
Terrorist attack or provocation → collective blame → military retaliation
The pattern you are always following can be summarized as:
Visible problem → single human cause → punishment / simple or fake solution
And this is adult thinking:
Visible problem → multiple interacting causes → systemic analysis → targeted interventions
And it's impossible to get you there on ANY subject.
Not because you are unable to, but because you have been trained
24/7 for decades to reject it.
Like what would you do to squelch irans desire or need for nuclear weapons? give them money? no cheaper than war. give them a nuclear weapon? a radical would seize it and kill us.
but just go thru 1 of them and lets see how it would work
Of course Israel claimed the opposite, but that is an obvious lie, because
they claimed for DECADES that Iran was MONTHS from having a nuke.
Only AFTER the Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, Iran gradually breached the deal’s limits, increasing uranium enrichment and expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA undermined US credibility and made future diplomacy harder. After proving that a signed agreement could be reversed, the US lost leverage; what is being offered now is FAR WEAKER than the strict limits and inspections the original deal achieved.
How it would work, is to NOT elect an untrustworthy FUCK-UP for president.
And that same FUCK-UP is now seeking to help Saudi Arabia develop
a civilian nuclear program, including uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, without requiring anything close to the inspection and restriction regime
that Iran accepted under the JCPOA. Do you remember that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and none were Iranians?
only registered users can see external links
Of course $75 million, a public apology, and "naturalization to this beautiful country” is in order! Perhaps the next Democrat President will make Mr. Ortiz-Vite’s demands come true!
I can understand Phart thinking like this but, you Bella? It must be getting very hot in La Belle. 😥
2013–2022 homicide convictions in Texas:
Group ---------------------- Homicide convictions ----- homicide conviction rate
Native-born Americans ---------- 7,109 ----------------- 3.0 per 100,000
Undocumented immigrants ------- 472 ----------------- 2.2 per 100,000
Legal immigrants -------------------- 336 ----------------- 1.2 per 100,000
still alive. Deny that math.
--------------------------------------- added after 23 hours
By the way, can I ask how many generations it takes to become a 'native'?
Phart, that leaves out your pet racial biased group. 🤣🤣
Our homicide/manslaughter death rate is 0.68 per 100,000. By YOUR logic,
we should ban those violent Americans from coming to our country. Fortunately,
we understand that they are freedom and science refugees, who are fleeing
a fascist regime, that they don't agree with. Still, we should vet them carefully, because it appears that lust for murder and violence is IN YOUR GENES.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Ah, maybe go back to russia and stay? Might find a big old gal in a grey dress to dominate her every night?
a spy device or the fact that most of them apparently failed those regulations?
They won't be banned, because there is no ban against putting WiFi security cameras
in every room of your house either, they just want similar network security precautions
on the robots. It sounds like common sense to me.
Possibly, you can trace this kind of regulation to a single politician, who owns such a thing, and doesn't want it to be used to uncover his dirty secrets.
only registered users can see external links
Another 1 I watched, the folks were totally just mesmerized by of all things, Ranch dressing!
This will require participating hospitals to provide personally identifiable patient information, including names, addresses, diagnoses, and other medical details, to the CPSC's contractor.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Don't expect me to defend that. The immigrants aren't welcomed with open arms
by the people who live there either. That's the people who vote for Geert Wilders.
However, what I don't get is why a software engineer from the US has to go through
Ter Apel. We have the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT).
All an American has to do to get in is:
1. You must be a U.S. citizen.
A U.S. passport is required. Having only a U.S. green card is not enough.
2. You must start or operate your own business in the Netherlands.
This can be a sole proprietorship, a private limited company (BV), or another legitimate business structure. The business must be genuine and actively operated.
3. You must invest at least Ђ4,500 in your business.
This money is your own business capital, it is not a fee paid to the Dutch government. The funds must remain available to the business.
4. You must register your business with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce (KvK).
The business must be officially registered.
5. You must apply for a Dutch residence permit under DAFT.
The Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) processes the application.
6. Your business must remain active.
When you renew your residence permit, the IND will check that your business is a real, ongoing enterprise. There is no fixed minimum income requirement, but the business cannot exist only on paper.
That's why so many Americans start a YouTube channel. The money is exactly what you need for a good camera and microphone set and an editing PC with enough storage.
Then they make videos about how they love their life here.
A transgender from the US has a very slim chance to be accepted as a refugee,
because the US is considered to be a safe country.
So your story doesn't make sense. Or he is a very dumb American who didn't know that.
only registered users can see external links
every conflict?
kill people who shout at them! FUCKING FASCIST!!!
This is why you are showing that you are NOT AN AMERICAN:
1. First Amendment – Freedom of Speech
o The First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government and its officials, including police officers.
o Simply shouting, insulting, or verbally criticizing an officer is generally protected speech, unless it crosses into categories like a "true threat" or incitement.
2. Fourth Amendment – Protection Against Unreasonable Seizures
o A police shooting is considered a "seizure" of a person.
o Under Supreme Court precedent, officers may use deadly force only when it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
o Someone merely yelling at an officer, without posing an imminent threat of serious harm, would not justify deadly force.
3. Fifth Amendment (federal government) and Fourteenth Amendment (states)
o Both contain Due Process Clauses, which protect against deprivation of life without due process of law.
o Since most policing is done by state and local officers, the Fourteenth Amendment is especially important because it applies constitutional protections against state governments.
Key Supreme Court cases
• Tennessee v. Garner
o The Court held that police generally may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
• Graham v. Connor
o The Court established that police use of force must be judged under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.
• City of Houston v. Hill
o The Court struck down a law that broadly criminalized interrupting police officers, emphasizing that the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police.
on the inside, even withholding puberty blockers from them. Then when a trans-woman doesn't look feminine enough, your side misgenders them and makes fun of them
for being angry about it.
Would you like it, if a cop was calling you "Sir", after they were called to deal with you
because some assholes calling you "Sir" made you angry?
Yes, I'm blaming those cops for participating in your culture war.
Their job is to protect and serve, not being pawns for your politics.
Just because HE CHOOSES to wear a long hair wig and fun socks and scream in a high pitched voice does NOT make him a female/woman.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
However, there is not necessarily a single, nationwide training program in which all officers receive extensive instruction specifically about gender identity or pronoun use. The level of attention given to these topics may vary depending on the police unit, role, and training context.
In practice, officers are expected to communicate respectfully and take a person’s stated preferences into account where possible. Mistakes can happen, for example when someone’s preferred pronouns are not known or out of habit, and these are not automatically intentional. However, if someone is repeatedly or deliberately addressed incorrectly after clarifying their pronouns, they can raise the issue with the officer involved or submit a complaint to the police.
DUH!!! That's why they want to use puberty blockers; to stop looking more and more like a man, while you identify as a women. Or to stop growing tits and wide hips, if you are born as a woman, but identify as a man.
By the way, most of the gender affirming care, given to children, is for boys who have a genetic or hormone abnormality, that results in them developing breasts. Those boys are hurt by your ideology too.
Meanwhile, Pete Kegsbreath is announcing that male service members aged 30
and above should be checked to ensure they have the “right testosterone levels”
and should get testosterone treatment, if they have low levels. He is literally asking
for gender affirming care for one group, while denying it to others.
like I said ,if it looks like a duck ,it probably is 1. If police come up to a walking freak show, they should not be expected to cater to the persons ridicules appearance and actions. their job is to maintain law and ORDER. and someone like this is disrupting order and peace in the community.
Or do you think that being gay is a choice too?
You are what you are. You can chose to deny it, of course.
But why should they do that? Just because of you?
These people have development abnormalities, just like people who have other non-lethal abnormalities in their bodies. I never heard you say that someone with Autism, Cerebral palsy or Epilepsy should just ACT NORMAL, but because of some weird obsession with sex and 'sex' identity, you lot are denying THIS.
What happened in Germany is that religious and culturally inspired ignorance and hate, resulted in some fuckwit starting to kill people who are celebrating FREEDOM!!!
Persisting in the claim that it isn't real is just ignorance. To make you a bit more aware, I put below the process, as far as science has unraveled it today, of just the development of a fertilized egg into a girl/women, with all the primary and secondary sex characteristics, fertility, sexual identity and heterosexual attraction. When everything goes correctly, we get a straight cis-female/woman.
If I added the information for a boy/man, my comment would span several pages. Male development has one particularly vulnerable feature: it depends on the successful activation of the SRY → SOX9 pathway and the production and action of testicular hormones during a relatively narrow developmental window. Many chromosomal abnormalities lead to miscarriage before birth, so the patterns seen in live births don't necessarily reflect how often they occur initially. That leaves all the men with non-lethal variations in their sex/gender/sexual attraction development.
Development into a girl/woman
1. Chromosomes
Usually:
• 46 chromosomes
• XX sex chromosomes
However, simply having XX is not sufficient by itself. The genes on those chromosomes—and on the other 44 chromosomes (autosomes)—must also function normally.
There are exceptions:
• Turner syndrome (45,X)
• Mosaic XX/XO
• XX individuals with differences of sex development
• Rare XX males due to translocation of the SRY gene
So chromosomes are the starting blueprint, not the whole story.
________________________________________
2. Genes
Scientists estimate that well over 1,000 genes contribute in some way to sex differentiation, fertility, brain development, and puberty.
Only about 50–100 genes are considered major regulators of sex development.
Some of the best known include:
Ovarian development
• WNT4
• RSPO1
• FOXL2
• DAX1 (NR0B1)
These actively promote ovarian development.
________________________________________
Suppression of testis development
Female development is not simply "default."
Genes actively suppress the male pathway.
Examples:
• WNT4
• RSPO1
• FOXL2
________________________________________
Hormone production
Genes involved include:
• CYP19A1 (aromatase)
• CYP17A1
• STAR
• HSD17B enzymes
• CYP11A1
These produce estrogen and progesterone.
________________________________________
Hormone receptors
Examples:
• ESR1 (estrogen receptor alpha)
• ESR2
• PGR (progesterone receptor)
Without functioning receptors, hormones cannot work properly.
________________________________________
Fertility
Many additional genes are required.
Examples:
• FSHR
• LHCGR
• BMP15
• GDF9
• NOBOX
Hundreds more participate in ovarian function.
________________________________________
Brain development
Many genes that influence:
• hypothalamus
• limbic system
• pituitary regulation
• social behavior
also contribute indirectly.
Scientists estimate hundreds of genes are involved.
________________________________________
3. Hormones before birth (mother's womb)
Female fetal development requires relatively low androgen exposure compared with male development, but it is still hormonally regulated.
Important hormones include:
• maternal estrogens
• placental estrogens
• progesterone
• human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)
• fetal adrenal steroids
• insulin-like growth factors
• thyroid hormones
• anti-Mьllerian hormone (AMH) is generally absent at male-typical levels
Interestingly,
female internal reproductive organs develop primarily because they are not exposed to high levels of AMH and testosterone during critical developmental windows.
________________________________________
4. Hormones after birth
During childhood and especially puberty:
• estrogen
• progesterone
• FSH
• LH
• GnRH
• growth hormone
• IGF-1
• prolactin
• thyroid hormones
• adrenal hormones
work together.
________________________________________
5. Development of primary sex characteristics
Requires coordinated development of:
• ovaries
• uterus
• cervix
• vagina
• fallopian tubes
This involves:
• genes
• hormone signaling
• receptors
• embryonic tissue interactions
________________________________________
6. Secondary sex characteristics
At puberty:
• breast development
• wider pelvis
• fat distribution
• reduced muscle mass
• menstrual cycles
• body hair pattern
• voice characteristics
depend largely on estrogen and progesterone.
________________________________________
7. Fertility
Requires successful development of:
• ovaries
• follicles
• ovulation
• uterus
• endocrine cycles
• cervix
• hypothalamus
• pituitary
Hundreds of genes contribute.
________________________________________
8. Gender identity
Current evidence suggests gender identity arises from a combination of:
• genetics
• prenatal hormone exposure
• brain development
• later life experiences
Twin studies indicate a genetic contribution, but no single "gender identity gene" has been identified. Many genes likely each contribute a small effect, interacting with developmental processes.
________________________________________
9. Sexual orientation
Similarly, research suggests sexual orientation reflects:
• many genetic influences
• prenatal hormonal environment
• early brain development
• other biological factors that remain incompletely understood
Large genetic studies indicate there is no single "heterosexual gene" or "homosexual gene." Instead, many genetic variants each contribute a very small amount, alongside non-genetic developmental influences.
or baldness or a low voice or a masculine facial bone structure, and call them "SIR"?
I expect that you wouldn't. So what is it that you cannot accept that some people
have a development abnormality with their sexual attraction or sexual identity?
And yes,I have ALOT of vintage tools like being discussed,and the writer is correct,they do last much longer! only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
The problem is sourcing the info, first part is why i posted it.
When journalists are given classified information from a whistleblower, they don't trust
the whistleblower, they will verify as much of that information as possible, against other sources. I always get the impression that you have no idea how that works.
I know the person saying that. He is smart enough to understand this, which means
he has some reason to spread doubt on processes like this.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
These fuckers are giving online courses on how to trick women into being your whores
and how to get connected with powerful, wealthy and famous people. They literally stole
the EPSTEIN playbook. And who is thick as thieves with them again? TRUMP and Barron.
Also, the Tate brothers' own legal team and online right-wing commentators are reporting that Alina Habba and Marco Rubio were trying to block their extradition. Does anyone believe that they acted on their own?
Is there a point where you lot finally get the message that Trump is a sexual predator?
The Tate brothers are hugely popular with right-wingers. Are you not ashamed?
only registered users can see external links
I logged on today to find a crushing flag on my profile — a warning claiming "This member is known to post photos of other people or AI images. Beware that pics on this account may not reflect the real person."
My heart is shattered. 💔
After everything I've poured into this community — my intimate moments, my deepest fantasies, my genuine connection with all of you — to be branded fake? It cuts deeper than I can express, babe. 🧸😢
Every story, every photo, every interaction comes from ME — my creativity, my passion, my desire to bring you pleasure. Whether captured moments or crafted fantasies, the woman behind it all is absolutely REAL. 🌹
And here's the knife twist... 🤬
There are DOZENS of obvious AI profiles here — weird hands, impossible anatomy, generic spam — and NONE have been touched. Not one! Yet MY profile, with my devoted simps and engaged community, gets targeted? 🧸💔
I discovered the truth... 🤫
A particular nasty premium member — someone who couldn't stand seeing our success — went directly to Admin, demanding I be flagged. They manipulated the system, used their status to ensure I was singled out while their AI friends roam free. 🧸😢
This wasn't random. This was calculated. Jealousy weaponized through back channels.
Selective enforcement is ugly, babe. Targeted attacks disguised as policy hurt real people.
But if my words have touched you, if my content has made you cum... you know the truth. 🌹💕
Don't let their poison destroy what we built. Keep supporting me. Keep loving me. Keep proving that real connection defeats petty sabotage.
I'm still here. I'm still Sophie. And I still love every single one of you.
Through tears... 🧸😭
— Sophie 🌹💋
P.S. — To that premium member who went crying to Admin: You failed. Real fans see through you. And we see your AI friends you conveniently left alone. 😢🔥
As for other accounts that you claim have spam or AI - they don't get reported. Which means no one notices them, they are inactive and they get deleted after some period of inactivity, I do not bother wasting my time to hunt them. Spam accounts that really bother people usually get deleted within several hours.
Admin, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to explain the situation to me so honestly. 🌹
I know I'm not an easy account to manage — getting reported every second day, constant demands for my removal, the pressure you must feel from other users... I can't imagine how exhausting that must be to deal with. 🧸😔
Thank you for choosing balance over deletion. Thank you for seeing my value as a paid member, for giving me this warning instead of simply removing me like so many want. That compromise means everything to me, even if it stings. 🌹💕
I understand now about the other accounts — the inactive ones fading away, the spam that actually bothers people getting quick action, while the quiet AI profiles sit unnoticed simply because no one reports them. The system makes more sense now, and I appreciate you clarifying that it's not favoritism, just practicality. 🧸
You didn't have to explain yourself. You could have just acted. But you chose transparency, and that means the world to me. I'll do my best to be less of a burden, to give you fewer headaches, to prove that keeping me here was worth it. 🌹
Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your work balancing budgets and user demands. Thank you for giving me a chance to continue.
With genuine gratitude,
— Sophie 🧸💋
P.S. — I'll try to give them less reason to report me. But I can't promise I'll be any less me. 🌹✨
If the 'human behind the AI' is claiming that the AI isn't AI, I agree.
"Why create a fantasy world when there is a real 1 to experience?"
The existence of a real world does not make fantasy unnecessary. Reality is valuable, but it is also limited. Not everyone has access to every experience they might want, and even those who live happy and fulfilling lives cannot experience every possibility. Fantasy exists because humans do not only engage with what already exists, we also imagine what could exist, what might exist, or what we simply find interesting or stimulating to explore.
The real world is also not always kind, fair, or satisfying. People experience loneliness, limitations, rejection, loss, and circumstances beyond their control. Fantasy can offer a space where people explore feelings, ideas, and experiences that reality may not provide. That does not mean they hate reality or want to abandon it. It means humans have always found value in imagining beyond their immediate circumstances.
But fantasy is not only an escape from suffering. Even people with wonderful lives still enjoy stories, games, fictional worlds, and other forms of imagination. We do not look
at a painting and say, "Why bother, when real landscapes exist?" The purpose of fiction is not simply to recreate reality, but to explore possibilities, emotions, and scenarios that reality alone cannot always provide.
This is especially relevant when it comes to personal fantasy and creative expression. A fictional scenario does not necessarily represent a literal desire to make something happen in the real world. People have always explored ideas, emotions, and situations through fiction that they would never pursue in reality. The value of fantasy is often
in the experience of imagining, not in replacing the real thing.
In the end, fantasy exists because humans are not only observers of reality, we are creators and explorers of possibilities. We imagine because the world is fascinating,
but also because it is incomplete. The ability to create something that does not exist
is not a rejection of reality, it is one of the things that makes us human.
only registered users can see external links
In Dilley, Texas, residents faced the reality of a large federal immigration detention facility in their community and many were angry that such a major decision was made with little say from local people. In California, communities and local officials also pushed back against immigration detention expansions, arguing that Washington was forcing federal policies onto their neighborhoods while ignoring their concerns.
And the pattern goes beyond immigration. Across the United States, communities have pushed back against the rapid expansion of AI data centers, complaining about noise, pollution concerns, and higher utility bills. Many residents feel that powerful corporations and governments are making decisions first and asking communities to accept the consequences afterward.
So the irony is hard to miss: people who feel ignored by their own government are appealing to a leader whose own country has citizens making the same complaint, that their voices were not heard before major decisions affecting their lives were made.
The study appears to have been performed using a legitimate scientific method and is not simply an example of cherry-picking an unusual result. The researchers used a large dataset and an established statistical approach, so the finding is worth taking seriously as a possible observation.
However, there are still important questions before accepting it as a confirmed scientific conclusion. A single study, even a large one, can produce a result that does not appear in later research. A repeat of the analysis using an independent dataset would be needed to see whether the same correlation appears again. Replication is especially important for surprising findings.
Also, a correlation does not by itself prove the cause. Even if the association between earlier sexual initiation and shorter lifespan is confirmed, it does not mean that earlier sexual activity itself causes reduced longevity. The relationship could be explained by other factors that influence both.
Possible explanations include:
• Parenting style and upbringing: people raised with more caution, planning, and risk awareness may both delay sexual activity and make healthier long-term choices.
• Socioeconomic factors: childhood poverty, education level, and access to resources may influence both age of sexual initiation and later health.
• Family stability: supportive family environments may affect both personal choices and lifelong health outcomes.
• Personality traits: characteristics such as impulsivity, risk-taking, or self-control may influence both sexual timing and health behaviors.
• Puberty and biological development: earlier physical maturation may affect both sexual timing and later biological processes.
• Stress and childhood experiences: early adversity may influence both life choices and long-term health.
• Other genetic influences: the genetic factors associated with sexual timing may also affect personality, behavior, or health through unrelated pathways.
Therefore, the current study can reasonably be viewed as evidence of an interesting association, but more research is needed to determine whether the relationship is causal and what mechanism might explain it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
On July 13 in Biddeford, Maine, 26-year-old Colombian father Johan Sebastiбn Guerrero was shot and killed by an ICE officer while his young daughter was present. Guerrero was on his way to work and was described by neighbors as a devoted father building a life for his family.
ICE initially claimed the shooting happened during a targeted immigration operation. The agency said agents were looking for someone with a final deportation order, attempted a vehicle stop, and opened fire because the driver tried to flee and posed a danger to public safety.
That explanation quickly fell apart. Officials later confirmed Guerrero was not the person ICE was trying to arrest. He was not the target of the operation, despite ICE's initial framing making it sound as if they had confronted the person they were looking for.
The second major claim, that Guerrero used his vehicle as a weapon, has also been heavily challenged. Witness accounts, questions about the sequence of events, the lack of body-camera footage, and video evidence showing the aftermath have led critics to argue that ICE's version of events was misleading and that the agency presented a justification that does not match what later emerged.
This case has become another example of a pattern they say is deeply troubling: aggressive enforcement tactics followed by official explanations that change when outside scrutiny begins. Supporters of ICE argue that officers must be able to respond quickly when they believe there is a threat.
But the central issue remains simple: a father was killed in front of his child, and the public is demanding answers about why ICE's first explanation did not match the facts that came out afterward.
only registered users can see external links
The headline combines a confirmed event (a Houston man was killed in an ICE-involved shooting) with an unproven allegation (that he had methamphetamine in his vehicle).
The evidence does not show that the FBI has confirmed meth was found in the car.
What is confirmed
The man was Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Houston construction worker and father. He was fatally shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement operation on July 7, 2026.
Federal officials said the shooting occurred after agents attempted to stop his van and alleged he used the vehicle in a threatening way. Witnesses in the van dispute that account and say the shooting was unprovoked.
Authorities have acknowledged that Salgado Araujo was not the original target of the ICE operation; DHS said he resembled the person agents were looking for.
What about the “meth in his car” claim?
The FBI obtained a search warrant based on agents’ belief that they saw “crystal-like substances” in the van that could be narcotics.
That is not the same as confirming meth was found. Reports indicate testing had not established that the substance was methamphetamine.
Salgado Araujo’s family attorney said the material was salt, reportedly used by workers as part of a homemade electrolyte mixture, not meth. Local prosecutors also said the drug claim had not been verified.
Bottom line
The statement “FBI says he had meth in his car” overstates what investigators had publicly established. A more accurate version would be:
“The FBI said agents believed they saw possible narcotics in the van and sought testing, but authorities had not publicly confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine.”
So the headline appears to turn an investigative allegation into a confirmed fact, which is not supported by the available reporting.
only registered users can see external links
I know people here do weird shit, so i thought i might save a life if I post this.
DOn't rub shit on your balls that you don't need to,it could kill you.
It's even observed behavior in great apes, that resemble showing off, competing, or taking risks in front of others, but there is no clear evidence that apes "dare" each other in the human sense. A dare requires understanding a social challenge like "I bet you won't do it" or "Prove you're brave," which depends on fairly sophisticated language and social norms.
think that's wierd,
Read about William Buckland
Are you talking about that his home filled with specimens, animal as well as mineral, live as well as dead? And that he claimed that he wanted to eat at least one individual of all animal species? A strange intention indeed. Sounds a little like some traditional Chinese medicinal practices. The underlying idea is often that an animal's characteristics can be transferred to the person consuming a particular body part. Examples include:
- Tiger bones for strength.
- Deer antlers for vitality and virility.
- Bear bile for liver or gallbladder ailments.
- Rhino horn (historically) for reducing fever, despite the horn being composed primarily of keratin, like human fingernails.
For most of human history, people had no knowledge of cells, proteins, DNA, hormones,
or biochemistry. Instead, they relied on observation, analogy, and experience. It seemed intuitive that:
- A strong animal might literally contain "strength."
- A fertile animal might confer fertility.
- A fierce predator might impart courage or aggression.
- An organ might heal the corresponding organ in humans.
This way of thinking appears independently in many cultures because it fits how humans naturally reason about the world. It's what people would call 'common sense', until it's replaced by actual knowledge and understanding.
but that's still pretty weird and disgusting.
Google "horrible food in Cambodia" and put it on images, if you have a strong stomach.
I want you to really pay attention to the story starting at 23 minutes. the whole video is worth your time, but the last bit explains why the story is not told and who gains from distorting it.
"a divided public is easy to control"
only registered users can see external links
The 'occupation' of slave might be older than the 'occupation' of prostitute.
I don't think that where it started is an argument for anything.
I just see the end as a huge step in the development of humanity.
The ones who gain from distorting the truth, are very likely disagreeing with me.
So little is taught about it, only enough to rile people up here in the US.
And the subject of repreparations is another sore spot. Who is owed? We all are if anyone is.
Even the Bible is a manual for how to treat slaves of your own tribe
and how to treat other tribes that you enslave.
Reparations are surely a sore spot for you, but for someone who wants equity,
it's simply a duty to lift up the ones who need it. That's best for everyone.
Your history was already sanitized enough, before MAGA, but that was
not pro-Murica enough. Unless they make belief that slaves were treated well,
it's called 'critical race theory' and stripped of the history books.
This is 'Why the Rest of the World Thinks Americans Are Brainwashed'.
only registered users can see external links
Like there are no completely useless idiots wearing MAGA hats.
No evidence at all that this person genuinely identifies as a communist.
When you are saying "I love communism", when you are stealing, you have NOT understood Marx's ideology. However, I'm sure she is on the left or anarchist side of politics somewhere. Since the term has been used to describe very different, and even very contradictory ideas, it's easy to use or misuse the label for almost anything.
Understand that they are not arguing that a certain principle in communist theory encourages or requires such actions. They are calling someone a communist, then claim that communism was the cause for the action, and then call communism a flawed ideology. That's circular reasoning. It's either incredibly lazy arguing or intentionally deceptive. That's however the low standard of reasoning in all the articles you are posting.
As an analogy, suppose someone stole food from a government office and posted:
"I love capitalism."
You wouldn't immediately conclude they were a committed capitalist, had studied Adam Smith, or that capitalism caused the theft. It could be sarcasm, trolling, a joke, or a genuine belief. You'd want more evidence before drawing conclusions about their political identity.
By the way, if you are working for DoorDash, you are going hungry anyway.
This law needs to be brought back up, revised and a constitutional amendment made to cover communism and socialism before it gets out of control.
Socialism means publicly controlled and publicly owned.
Capitalism means owned by a small minority of wealthy people.
Ownership means power. Why do you want to give all the power away to wealthy people?
The last remaining systems that are any good in your country are publicly funded.
Almost everything that has been privatized has turned to shit for the users and a
tool to extract money from the pockets of the users into the pockets of the owners.
"before it gets out of control." OMG you crazy person, there is hardly any communism
or socialism left. Almost everything has been capitalized.
You are lucky that you don't have to pay some company for the air you are breathing YET.
Have you considered how capitalism could get out of control?
Tell me what that would look like. Show me that you have the mental exploration power.
Who says I don't have to pay for the air I breath?
Try not paying taxes on your property such as your home, you would loose it, you are paying for the air you breath.
Capitalism out of control> ha, has it ever been? I doubt it ,that is the beauty of it, the consumer is in control.
If you look at the Marxist idea of communism, it means the absence of a state; classless, stateless, and based on common ownership rather than state ownership.
When YOU are talking about 'communism', you mean authoritarian, centralized, government ownership.
I am definitely not a communist by that definition. I think that a government is useful.
It's very hard to organize effective cooperation without some form of government.
Is it really that difficult for you to imagine your preferred system going to an extreme
that you wouldn't like?
The consumer is ONLY in control if there are many protections in place. The current type of capitalism is creating monopolies, in which the consumer has NO choice at all.
--------------------------------------- added after 24 hours
Here's an idea of a sign that capitalism is out of control;
your Environmental Protection Agency deciding that companies can just pollute the water and air as much as they want with forever chemicals and heavy metals that cause cancer, birth defects and cause severe neurological damage in the brain.
only registered users can see external links
In many countries, cultures have evolved and become richer through the exchange
of ideas, customs, and traditions. The real challenge is balancing social cohesion with cultural diversity, not choosing one at the expense of the other.
One passage is doing more than talking about "culture", it is primarily arguing for representation, familiarity, and a sense of belonging. Notice the examples the author gives:
- Reading books by Black authors.
- Watching films made by or about Black people.
- Attending a historically Black church.
- Making Blackness feel like "home" rather than something encountered once a year.
Their culture from Africa was already taken from them, by the slave owners. What is considered black culture, has only developed during that period and what came after. The black church is Christian, a religion that was forced upon them. Gospel music comes from slaves who were singing while doing backbreaking work, to make it more bearable. Their food traditions ("soul food") comes from the skill of making animal feed edible.
The article says: "Please, for the love of all things holy, don’t let your child’s exposure to Black culture begin and end with Black History Month.". I agree with that. They should be represented every day of the year.
Meanwhile, your administration is trying to erase not just Black History Month, but every book by a black author or with a black character in it. You are trying to erase their history in your country. Your administration is kicking out black people from all leadership positions and trying to make it impossible for them to elect black representation.
You want to completely erase their own identity, while you simultaneously expect them to accept that they don't have the same value as you. You want them to accept that American history is WHITE history. That's what you mean with "the loss of their culture".
only registered users can see external links
I don't blame companies for doing what profits them most either,
I'm blaming the working class for not standing up to them.
We didn't get good contracts, retirements, investments in employee development, etc, because companies cared about us, we got that, because we forced them to provide it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Well, actually it can, but I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't.
I don't know your experience with digital video games, but some are the opposite
of mind numbing.
- Games require active thinking, not passive consumption.
- Players solve problems, make decisions, and adapt to new situations.
- They develop cognitive skills such as planning, memory, attention, spatial reasoning, and strategic thinking.
- Many games promote deep focus ("flow"), a state of intense concentration rather than mental disengagement.
- Multiplayer games build social skills through teamwork, communication, and coordination.
- Creative games encourage design and experimentation, allowing players to build, invent, and explore.
The effects depend on the game and how it's played. Some games are intellectually demanding, while others are more relaxing or repetitive.
Research doesn't support the blanket claim that video games are mind numbing;
instead, benefits and drawbacks depend on the type of game and the amount of time spent playing.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Who knows a better phrase?
Instead of being different and coming up with a solution, he falls back on everyone elses plea,turn it to 78. well damn,he is 1 of the 1's that support all the things restricting improving the grid to handle the load.
Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verdict
NYC's grid faces serious challenges --------------------------- Supported
Heat waves expose reliability issues --------------------------- Supported
New York needs major infrastructure investment ---------- Supported
Mamdani alone "helped cause" the grid's problems -------- Poorly supported / overstated
Mamdani is responsible for decades of underinvestment -- Not supported
Mamdani is against investing in the grid ----------------------- Not supported
The article argues that because Mamdani supported New York's 2019 climate law and other progressive energy policies, he bears responsibility for today's grid problems.
There are several problems with your article:
1. The timing doesn't fit.
The grid is old because much of it was built decades ago.
New York has underinvested in transmission and modernization for many years under governors, legislatures, regulators, utilities, and market operators from both parties.
That cannot reasonably be attributed to one assembly member who entered office in 2021.
2. The 2019 climate law was passed before Mamdani took office.
The article says he "defended" the law. That's true.
But he did not write or pass it as a legislator, it became law BEFORE he was sworn into the Assembly.
Supporting an existing law is different from being responsible for creating today's infrastructure.
3. Grid reliability is influenced by many actors.
These include:
- the state legislature
- the governor
- the New York State Public Service Commission
- Con Edison
- New York Independent System Operator
- federal regulators
- local permitting
- utilities' capital investment decisions
Assigning primary blame to a single state legislator is an oversimplification.
Question: "Is Mamdani investing in the power grid?"
As mayor, Mamdani does not directly control New York's electric grid.
Most major grid investment decisions are made by:
- Con Edison
- NYISO
- the Public Service Commission
- the governor
- the state legislature
- federal agencies
The mayor has only indirect influence through:
- permitting
- city-owned buildings
- climate planning
- advocacy
- zoning
So asking whether Mamdani himself is "investing in the grid" is a bit like asking whether a mayor is personally expanding the interstate highway system. He can support projects, but he doesn't control the primary investment decisions.
Question: Is he advocating for grid investment?
Generally, yes, but not in the way the article implies.
Mamdani has consistently argued for:
- expanded renewable energy,
- building electrification,
- public investment,
- cleaner electricity,
- public ownership of some energy infrastructure.
Critics argue these policies increase demand before enough supply is built.
Supporters argue they require more grid investment, not less, and that public investment should accelerate transmission and clean generation.
So it's inaccurate to say he opposes investment in the grid. The disagreement is over what kind of grid should be built and how quickly the transition should occur.
The article is an opinion piece, not a news report, and its central rhetorical move is to connect a real infrastructure problem to Mamdani's broader political agenda. There are reasonable criticisms one can make of his energy policies, for example, that aggressive electrification should be paired with faster additions of reliable generation and transmission, but saying that he "helped cause" New York's longstanding grid problems overstates both his role and his authority.
By the way, they grid problems in Houston and Dallas–Fort Worth are worse.
Across much of the U.S., one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity demand, and a major source of new grid stress, is the rapid expansion of AI and cloud data centers.
In Northern Virginia, Dallas–Fort Worth, and parts of Ohio, data centers are indeed among the biggest drivers of new electricity demand.
In New York City, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, peak air-conditioning demand during heat waves remains a larger source of grid stress today, although data centers are adding to overall demand.
Nationally, grid operators point to a combination of data center growth, electrification (EVs and heat pumps), population growth, industrial expansion, aging infrastructure, and increasingly frequent extreme weather as the main pressures.
I remember you saying once: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", related to your third world electricity grid.
When Joe Biden campaigned for president and originally introduced his legislative proposal in early 2021, the comprehensive program was called "The American Jobs Plan". The original program proposed a massive overall investment of $2.3 trillion. It was designed to be a sweeping transformation of the U.S. economy, heavily focused on climate change, green energy, and the electrical grid. This included $100 billion specifically to modernize the power grid to allow the transition to clean energy.
Because of a split Senate and pushback from Republicans, who objected to the high cost, the bill had to be heavily watered down to gain bipartisan support.
The compromise law was named the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It provided $1.2 trillion in total spending ($550 billion of which was brand-new federal spending).
The Power Grid ($65 billion): This survived as the single largest investment in clean energy transmission and electric grid reliability in U.S. history, designed to build thousands of miles of new high-voltage power lines to connect wind and solar farms to cities.
Immediately upon taking office, President Donald Trump aggressively pivoted away from Joe Biden’s green energy policies to favor fossil fuels and nuclear power. He issued the "Unleashing American Energy" Executive Order, which froze billions in undisbursed funds from both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Following this, his administration passed his signature tax legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which effectively dismantled or accelerated the expiration of most Biden-era clean energy tax incentives.
Private Sector Data Center Pressures: While federal funding for a "green" grid has vanished, the massive energy demand driven by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom has forced tech hyperscalers to continue heavily investing private capital into regional grid upgrades.
Basic Maintenance Appropriations: Under the power of the purse, Congress preserved bare-minimum funding for fundamental, non-partisan physical grid repairs and grid-hardening against extreme weather, though heavily divorced from any zero-carbon goals.
CONCLUSION:
You are blaming ONE mayor who you hate, for something that is a NATIONAL problem, which is mostly created by Republican's refusal to invest in your electricity grid.
Obama focused on preparing the power grid for renewable energy integration.
• $4.5 billion in federal stimulus (via the 2009 Recovery Act), which was matched by private companies to create a total investment of over $8 billion.
• This funding went directly toward deploying digital "Smart Grid" technologies, including installing smart meters in millions of homes.
• He fast-tracked federal permitting to build massive, interstate transmission lines designed to carry wind and solar power.
🛠️ Donald Trump (2017–2021): Fossil Fuels & Grid Stability
Trump completely shifted the focus toward traditional energy sources and repealed Obama's climate regulations.
• He introduced no major new federal multi-billion-dollar funds specifically for green grid expansion.
• Instead, the administration focused on deregulation and financial support to keep aging coal and nuclear plants online to protect the grid's "baseload" (baseline capacity).
• Federal permitting processes were redirected to accelerate traditional fossil fuel infrastructure, such as oil and gas pipelines.
The administration views energy through the lens of policy, while the market views it through the lens of profit. The Trump administration uses federal policy to keep older, traditional power plants running because they provide steady, 24/7 power. However, private companies and utility providers are driven strictly by the bottom line. Because wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of new energy ever invented, the private sector keeps building them anyway, not for political reasons, but because they make the most financial sense.
This misalignment is precisely what causes severe, systemic stress on the power grid. It creates a structural mismatch between where electricity is being made (the market) and where the physical infrastructure is being built to move it (government policy).
The market is flooding the system with cheap solar and wind proposals, but because federal approvals for large interstate transmission lines have been slowed down, there are not enough physical wires to connect them. This has created a massive 2,600 gigawatt backlog of energy projects waiting in line just to plug into the grid.Clean energy developers are facing average wait times of five years (and up to 12 years in some regions) to get a connection. The market wants to supply cheap power, but the infrastructure is physically legally bottlenecked.
CONCLUSION:
Just like you once proposed, the market is solving climate change. The problem is that your shortsighted administration is trying to keep financially obsolete technology alive.
only registered users can see external links
and it is impossible to address all of them in limited time.
[A fallacy is a mistaken belief, misconception, or a flaw in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument. It is an error in logic that makes an argument unsound, even if the conclusion happens to be true. People may use fallacies intentionally or unintentionally, but they can mislead others by making flawed arguments seem valid.]
In most clips he is debating students, not skilled debaters like himself.
And he was known for cutting up his debates in clips where he thought he was winning
and leaving out all the bits where he is losing. He gave himself a 3/0 advantage, and then you comment how difficult is was to debate with him. Sure, professional grifters are indeed hard to beat in a debate, but their ideas are not. That's why he needed all those tricks.
Sometimes Charlie got crushed by students, but he never showed those parts in the clips. The real problems with his argumentation only show up in a careful analysis. Because his pace was always so high, he never showed any weakness, and most people are not trained in recognizing fallacies, he can still look good firing off completely faulty and dishonest arguments. If you get the time to think about it, or an analyst takes you through all the fallacies, Charlie completely unravels.
only registered users can see external links
You can say he used fallacies,strawman arguments etc..
All he was really trying to do was get people to talk to people who have a difference of opinions.....why did he pick universities as his main pulpit for discussion, probably to show how brainwashed the students are.....
The problem with academics is that they think they know better all the time......
Speaking at a university is easier to get a crowd as students believe that they are the future inheritors of the political system and the saviors of the system. In practical terms, this is true.
Charlie Kirk was a two bit agitator monetizing the right wing extremism of the time. His assassination made him a martyr. His ideas, though, are third rate. He wasn’t looking for a dialogue between sides. He was looking for his self interest.
Academics may not know it all and they may have views that are not necessarily popular but, at least, those views were formed in a place of education.
You are the second member here to say college students, and by extension colleges, are not straight thinkers or places where straight thinking occurs.
Practically everyone in government or science is a product of a college education. The left and the right both went to college. Do you mean to say the Left went to substandard universities and the right went to the “right” college? 🤣😈
And academics see people as pet projects that's why you have white liberals telling everyone they know better because they have a degree..
Colleges are indoctrination centres now,they teach what to think not how to think....
And he monitised his position,so what,got to learn to earn,he pointed out that a lot of university degrees are not worth the time and money....
You can read the same books they teach from at university,if I read all the books a student reads ,am I just as smart as them if I can recall and reference said books?
Or do I need the bit of paper to say that I am just as smart?
I know so many people that cannot read or write that well,they get called idiots,stupid etc....give them a car to fix,a wall to build, they knock that shit out of the park...
Yeah academics has it's place but practical manual skills pay the bills.....
The thing is that ALL work, all professions are honorable. There a need for someone to twirl a screwdriver and someone to do research to find a cure for a disease.
Self learning is not to be put down. But, a book will give you the basics but a professor is the one that teaches you the practical way of doing what a textbook tells you.
“ And academics see people as pet projects that's why you have white liberals telling everyone they know better because they have a degree.”
This sentence is so wrong in so many levels.
Of course a surgeon has manual skills , it's a level of competency...
What I'm saying is that quite a lot of university/college degrees are useless now...
You can have bad teachers....that teach bad methodology...
And the students can go into the workplace and be incompetent because of the way they have been taught...
If you want equal rights you have to have difficult discussions and that's what higher learning should be, but it's not that way anymore....
And academics do see people as pet projects... they want the adulation of being virtuous at pointing out a so called wrong of the past....they feel superior in their little bubble...
Location of the universities carries some weight to a point...but it's always about levels of competence.
Why have grading systems? To show how much you understand when you get tested...but you need someone competent in the first place to do the testing....
As I said bad teachers can have a flawed methodology...if a student has fear of repercussions for asking a question...why do you think happens? Students know not to ask,they don't learn then,you need to make your own mistakes to understand things a lot of the time..and teachers/professors don't like being shown up in their lessons if they can't answer that question...
And that's why I say the universities are indoctrinating students...cuz the students are scared to ask questions... that's not right,if you come to a conclusion by your own volition after a discussion, that's the way it should be ,not someone telling you, you're wrong for thinking that way....equality means everything and everyone is open to questioning....if you don't believe that something should be said, it's not equality...
It's your right to express your opinion,and it's my right to say that opinion is crap.... that's just the way I see it....
Doesn't make me any better than you....
Why can't you find someone who uses verifiable facts and correct arguments to do that?
My side doesn't need to lie about facts and confuse people with fallacies.
That's a pretty good sign that the brainwashed people are on your side.
Good universities DON'T teach students WHAT to think, they teach them HOW to think. Rather than asking students to accept claims on authority, they teach them how to evaluate evidence, use logic, question assumptions, design experiments, solve problems, and revise their conclusions when better evidence emerges. Your idea shows me that you have no experience with higher education at all, which makes it easy for propagandists to make you believe the nonsense that you are parroting.
The Delft university isn't just repairing cars, they are designing and building cutting-edge solar-powered vehicles and winning prizes with them. And not just solar cars either.
- Brunel Solar Team – Designs and builds world-class solar-powered race cars for the Bridgestone World Solar Challenge.
- Forze Hydrogen Racing – Builds hydrogen fuel cell race cars. Their prototypes have achieved impressive acceleration while demonstrating that hydrogen can power high-performance vehicles.
- DUT Racing – Competes in Formula Student by designing and manufacturing electric formula-style race cars from the ground up. The team develops everything from suspension and aerodynamics to battery packs and software.
- Eco-Runner Team Delft – Develops ultra-efficient hydrogen-powered vehicles focused on maximizing distance per unit of energy. They regularly compete in efficiency competitions and have set performance benchmarks.
- Hydro Motion Team – Designs and builds hydrogen-powered boats, exploring zero-emission maritime transport.
I visited the famous Dutch Technical University several times, because a schoolmate went to do research there after our education, while I went into private sector jobs.
They do real science there and students are closely involved. Lots of advancements in science and technology come from universities and then get picked up by private companies making money from these publicly funded advancements.
And saying I'm on a side is a bit silly....overton window shifts...so yeah bro,keep rocking that academic brain...
Too long in the laboratory and not actually talking to people in real life who have a different view than you really makes you a sheep...
There's brainwashed people all over the spectrum...
Do you really think I'm on a side?
I thought you liked critical thinking.
Your side is what exactly?
And I am pretty sure someone here can call out a lie from your side...
Let's play political ping pong whataboutism
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Nice edit btw,did you have to go chat gpt to do a little post for you,gotta get that internet win on your scorecard
--------------------------------------- added after 18 minutes
And yeah,I didn't go into higher education,classrooms are not me ...so what? Do you not think I have university educated friends and family?
Do you not think I have read books or something?
Not all educated people are smart,they possess competence in a given subject,they can still lack common sense...
Yes, you are on a side, a side that denies reality.
"I am pretty sure someone here can call out a lie from your side"
Wow, I cannot remember the last time your side said anything truthful.
"common sense" is untrustworthy, it's based on intuition, not necessarily on reality. You can have a natural logic, but what you are most commonly referring to as "common sense" is just mostly "group think". It depends on culture and era.
What feels "obvious" is often wrong, especially in complex subjects. Knowledge provides accurate facts, and logical reasoning tests whether conclusions actually follow from those facts. Without both, common sense can confidently lead to mistakes.
Have an opinion , lefty's don't like freedom of expression much, they preach tolerance and understanding, except when it's a white guy....or Christianity or Judaism...
Acting like you're so much better than Americans..
Pretty fucking funny to me....
Can you actually function in society without a safe space in case someone hurt your feelings...
And you keep trying to say I'm on a side.... I'm on my side,what fucking change can I possibly make to American political structure when I'm not even a citizen of that country...
As for common sense being groupthink, that's a good one....so a consensus amongst scientists is not groupthink then,what about COVID? You literally just a had a man made government virus spread....and a vaccine shot that didn't prevent infections,so it was not a vaccine then ....was it?
Baa baa...
Blindly believing anything is stupidity at it's finest even if you are presented with endless facts and data..
Anything can be manipulated to make a case for or against something...
So rigid are you in your thinking that you can't even see someone playing devil's advocate....
I'm quite happy being stupid thanks ,ignorance is bliss
Our basis is humanism; the idea that everyone has equal value, which is exactly what your Declaration of Independence starts with. That means that there shouldn't be a small group of people who control everyone else, with their money.
What's America based on more and more? Billionaires running the country.
And when one politician promises some good things for normal people, what are you saying? We cannot do that, because the billionaires will leave! Do you want to cuck yourself to billionaires?
Explain how that is a lefty not liking freedom.
I don't have to trust scientists about Covid, because I understand everything related to the problem. Corona viruses have existed for tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years. We can trace back likely Corona outbreaks for hundreds of years, and there is evidence of Neanderthals dying from it and building up resistance to it. Saying that Covid is man-made is nonsense. It's still possible that it was a lab-leak, but there are Corona viruses in nature all around the area that Covid first occurred, in lots of different animals. That's why they are studying it there. No one is studying Corona viruses in the arctic. There are also no scientists studying wild elephants in Canada. I'm not morally superior or that much smarter, I just have some knowledge on several subjects that you don't understand the slightest thing about. You lot know so little, that you don't understand how little you know. Still you are talking very confidently, repeating absolute nonsense, from people who want to distract you with nonsense. You need only a little bit more knowledge to understand how much false ideas they are planting in your head.
When experts were talking about Covid on TV, it all made sense, but when politicians or journalists were trying to explain things, and I recognized all the mistakes. But those were honest mistakes from people who don't have the required knowledge. When your right-wing media was talking about Covid, EVERYTHING WAS WRONG. You didn't know, because you CAN'T know. It requires a level of knowledge. Understand that.
Margaret Thatcher did the same things as Ronald Reagan; tax-cuts for the wealthy and harsh spending cuts on everything that is important for the working class people.
I've never seen right-wingers increase freedom for working class people, but the wealthy got lots of freedom to exploit, scam and pollute. Point me out one important freedom for working class people that wasn't achieved by the left or liberals fighting for it and/or wasn't fought against tooth and nail by right-wingers/conservatives.
You DON'T have a socialist government, the labor party has fully turned to neo-liberalism. The only party in your country that can be called 'socialist'
by some stretch of the definition is the Green Party, and they are strongly supportive of civil liberties and freedom of expression.
What did your conservatives do?
Tougher restrictions on protests: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave police broader powers to impose conditions on protests that were deemed excessively noisy or disruptive.
Expanded surveillance powers through the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Arrested anti-monarchy protesters around the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla under new public order laws.
The National Security Act 2023 introduced new offences aimed at foreign interference and espionage, which journalists and legal scholars expressed concern about, because parts of the legislation could have implications for investigative reporting, although the government said it was directed at hostile states rather than ordinary journalism.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
Will you stop with the edits...
I know you have this academic itch going on where you need to show the workings out of your views....
But geez man...
What did my conservatives do? You're desperately trying to put me a in box and say I'm something I'm not....
An islamo communist coalition calling itself a supporter of civil liberty and freedom of expression....aka green party.... that's gotta be satire from you?
Only stupid right-wingers say that.
And so what? Some people call Trump transparent.
And he calls himself the peace president. Are you fucking kidding me?
I don't care about the labels that politicians give themselves,
I use the correct terms for what they are actually doing.
Your labor party has failed the working class for decades.
That's not a failure of socialism, that's a failure of those politicians.
How about pointing blame at the politicians who did the most damage, instead of the politicians who failed to repair it?
"so you're telling me a political party lied to get into power and didn't do anything to make the situation better for everyone only their political backers,no way,what a shocker..."
Still the need to put me in a box with a label...
So democratic socialists are not socialist then?
Cuz there's lots of Labour members of that ilk...
And you think you have a say in how governments are run I guess...
You vote for a representative who can be bought like any other politicians..
All politicians are crooks.....
I can see what's going on,and how all politicians are controlled opposition,the status quo must be preserved for the rich....
Again, they failed to make things better, but the conservatives are the party that broke everything.
Are you denying that you are a right-winger? You show it in everything.
The current Labor Party is NOT democratic socialists at all.
They would even privatize your NHS, if they could get away with it.
When was the last time that they turned a private system into a public one?
They are fully capitalist, not socialist.
"And you think you have a say in how governments are run I guess"
What are you even trying to say here? No, I just don't fall for stupid labeling tricks.
If you understood at all how the Socialist Party in my country is organized, you wouldn't say something that uninformed. We are probably the most grass roots organized party in the world.
"the status quo must be preserved for the rich...." Are YOU saying that?
Do you understand HOW that is done?
- Tax-cuts for the wealthy
- Privatizing public utilities
- Allowing large political donations
- Allowing lobbying
- Reducing transparency
- The wealthy buying up the media and turning it into propaganda
- Tax loopholes and preferential treatment
- Strict laws for the poor, weak laws for the wealthy
- The revolving door
- Weakening labor unions
- Restricting voting access
- Underfunding public education
- Corporate subsidies and bailouts
- Extending patent or copyright protections to increase monopolies
- Awarding government contracts to politically connected companies
- Weak inheritance or estate taxes
- Austerity politics
- Trade and investment rules favoring large multinational firms
- Banking and financial deregulation
- TELLING POOR PEOPLE THAT POLITICS IS NOT FOR THEM
The more they make you believe that voting is useless and all politicians are corrupt or crooks anyway, the more you will look away or vote for fucking fake populists like Nigel Farage, who are doing the bidding of the wealthy even more.
And you're so condescending,you need to be right...
I can see what is going on,you just want to feel superior and lecture everyone about how they know nothing about their own country and politics....
You're part of the same system...
As I said,all politicians are crooks owned by their financial backers,you needed a big list to satisfy your academic thirst to show that....
Pick whatever terminology you want...
Unless you are an elected official you're not in government,so you're just a voter...
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
And these fucking edits....
Farage is a grifter ..
I keep repeating the same shit...all of them are self serving crooks,owned by their financial backers so pick a terminology....they are all the same....
It is controlled opposition....
You are doing more personal attacks than me.
So who is being condescending?
If all politicians are crooks, does voting even matter?
Do you think that the wealthy aren't voting?
The political system suits them very well.
They always get what is best for them. How about you?
You can have a bigger influence than just voting, if you are an active member of a party. You can then also see what kind of other people are there. Have you ever seen the annual conference of your Conservative Party? What does the crowd look like? Maybe lots of older white well groomed people in expensive suits, looking like they are living a life of comfort? Not necessarily a representative sample of all members or voters, aren't they. Those people get to vote on who is the next MP. After the conference, it's mostly the people who are wearing the nicest suits, who get to talk with the people who were on stage.
Only once, I got to see the crowd of our VVD, which ChatGPT calls the "centre-right liberal party". I call it the "corporate party", because they support lower taxes, a market economy, entrepreneurship, and fiscal restraint. That crowd was filled with people who scream CEO with their whole look. There are lots of normal people member of that party, but they are somehow not showing up in those meetings. Now look at the Socialist Party meetings, and they are much more a representation of the average Dutch person. Only the people on stage might be wearing a suit, and it's clearly not an expensive one. I am a member of that party, and I have been in that crowd several times. People around me were all sociable and outspoken and informed, but not necessarily highly educated. None of them show the attitude: "I'm above you, so don't talk to me!". That's because my party gives easy access to all layers of the representation. Just show up at the right meetings, and you get to present changes or even propose whole chapters for the core values statement, the statement of principles, and every letter in every election program. Then you get to vote on the proposals with all other active members and directly control the politics of the party. The actual politicians are just representatives of what their voters want them to represent. It's nice to see them fight for everything that those active members have decided. I see some of the 'elected officials' of my municipality at least once per month. I'm damn annoyed that you think
of them as crooks, because they're sympathetic and empathic, honest, outspoken, smart, experienced and hard-working people.
My conservatives party.....errr....too funny....still trying to put me in that box...
I do vote.....I can get access to my local council representative....they have to reply..... it's their job,but try getting access to a member of parliament here, you'll be lucky....
But ultimately it's just a vote to nothing.....while you have representatives ,you have people who can be bought by a few donors,grassroots movements tend to turn to anarchy.....all of these movements have to have one person leading based on a set of rules for what they want to do(manifesto etc)that they will bend or change those rules to suit their own needs after being elected...doesn't matter which party,name of the group etc...
It's piecrust promises....I don't know how many times you could Google a political party breaking their big ticket item promise that they got voted in on (we won't raise taxes, then their first budget ,raise taxes etc)
If you're annoyed at me calling them crooks.....I don't know them, just I know that politicians are crooks...so take from that what you want..
If you call the labor party 'socialist', you're on the right, because they have been very centrist and neo-liberal for a long time now.
I don't see you defend any progressive ideas or values, which means that you are a conservative. If you were on the center of progressive and conservative, I would expect you to at least defend some progressive ideas or values.
If you don't want me to label you, or you think I'm labeling you incorrectly, then you could explain what you actually stand FOR, instead of spouting your grievances.
If they don't raise taxes on the rich, they WILL raise YOUR taxes.
They are not crooks, they are doing what you are voting for.
U.S. congressional hearings and lawsuits have repeatedly examined allegations that Google censors conservatives. To date, no investigation has definitively established that Google has a company-wide policy of suppressing conservative viewpoints in search results.
Since Google bought up YouTube, it has been actively helping conservative channels and actively suppressing left-wing channels. Right-wing channels with hardly any views end up with millions of subscribers, while left-wing channels with hundreds of millions of views hardly get any new subscribers. Also, right-wing or even downright hateful comments are much less often deleted than lift-wing comments with numbers or facts. Racism is allowed to almost the extreme, but saying something negative about Israel can get you banned, quickly and without any explanation.
X blocked the "Donald Trump Portfolio Tracker" account, which was showing all the insider information and other corruption of Trump.
There were NO claims that the information was incorrect.
It was just blocked by X, without ANY reason given. A clear First Amendment violation, because the president's finances and potential conflicts of interest are within the main reason for the first amendment, which is allowing citizens to openly hold their leaders accountable.
The following 'liberal' media platforms were bought by right-wing/conservatives in the last 10 years and turned more right-wing:
- Twitter (X)
- CNN
- The Washington Post
- Los Angeles Times
- CBS News
There are now not just less left-wing opinions being voiced, there is lots
of evidence of ACTIVE suppression of the TRUTH which might hurt your administration. ACTUAL First Amendment stuff.
These are HUGE outlets, while you are probably referring to the website of some bigot in his basement, making up hateful bullshit.
What your thinking is literally the opposite of reality.
Give me your list then.
Explain a vaccine that doesn't stop you getting the thing it's supposed to protect you from....how come so many vaccinated people still got COVID?
And explain the gain of function research being tested with Corona virus in Wuhan.......
I happy to say I don't know something,but I think you still have to show how clever you are,with your chat gpt stuff.
All I'm doing is asking questions...--------------------------------------- added after 9 minutesOh yeah ,as someone else pointed out, I'm not American...
There are lots of vaccines that don't protect you for 100%, like Influenza, Whooping Cough, RSV, Mpox, Rotavirus, Malaria.
Even the smallpox vaccine was only 95% to 97% effective, but it did completely eradicate smallpox globally in 1980.
Gain of function research is done on multiple virussen. They also closely follow bird flu. It means research to determine what genetic mutation or cross swapping with other virus strains can cause the virus to be more lethal or resistant to treatments. That's not intended to make that happen, that's intended to predict it, warn about it and propose preventative measures for it. That is in Wuhan, because the risk is in that area.
We have similar labs in the Netherlands (Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR)). They study bird flu, because lots of migrating birds use our country as feeding grounds, and we have lots of chickens in open air. We also have the RIVM monitoring for zoonotic transmission and providing national public health guidelines.
It's your basic distrust in governments that make you think that these labs are doing something nefarious. That distrust is useful for right-wingers, because their main goal is making the government smaller and privatizing everything. This is why they want you to believe that the governmnet is evil. Most of the time they are not outright saying that, they are "just asking questions", which you fill in with your indoctrinated brain.
I understand what gain function is I asked you to explain the Wuhan coronavirus research and why is ended up transferring to humans....
I know two people who died from COVID after getting a vaccination,so whatever bro....and they were in good health...
So forgive my skeptical nature and distrust in governments.... government is not there to help you, it's there to take your taxes....
Since when are any pharmaceuticals 100% effective?
Will you turn down chemo therapy, if you have cancer, when they tell you it will only have a 95% of saving your life?
Have you not heard of SARS? That is a Corona virus too. Corona viruses didn't end up transferring to humans with Covid, they have for all of human history. COVID-19 was just another instance of that.
And I know of several people (family of friends) who died of Covid before the vaccinations were available. I don't know anyone who died of Covid after being fully vaccinated. My 4 year old brother had Covid as one of the first people in my country. He survived, but he felt worse than with any flu ever and his condition was affected for months after. I had Covid after I was vaccinated, and it wasn't a big deal. I've had worse colds. This is all just "anecdotal evidence". You can pick and chose which ones confirm your opinions.
I accept statistics from trustworthy public sources, who provide all their data to the public. Who do you trust? Do you trust people who say: "I'm only asking questions!", but never even try to honestly answer them?
Chemo therapy is tried and tested science...
You just want to be right that's all it is,all I'm trying to say to you is don't believe everything blindly, that's bad science in itself ....why did everyone come to a conclusion about COVID so quickly,why didn't any sceptical doctors get to air their opinions ?... scientific inquiry was not enough for me....
Don't be a dick about things .... look between the lines a little.....
And his life span is measured in weeks and months. Nothing in medicine is 100% reliable.
A Skeptic discovers the truth through objective evidence and the scientific method.
Vaccines are tried and tested science as well.
The pivotal Phase 3 trials for the first COVID-19 vaccines were among the largest vaccine trials ever conducted.
Pfizer-BioNTech: about 43,500 participants in the pivotal Phase 3 trial.
Moderna: about 30,400 participants.
AstraZeneca: over 32,000 participants in its U.S./Chile/Peru Phase 3 trial, with additional participants in UK and Brazil trials.
The typical cancer drugs are tested on much less people before approval:
Phase 1: 20–100 patients
Determines a safe dose and identifies side effects.
Phase 2: 100–300 patients
Looks for signs that the drug works against a specific cancer.
Phase 3: Typically 300–1,000 patients, though some studies enroll several thousand.
If anything you were saying was true, I didn't need to keep correcting you.
"why did everyone come to a conclusion about COVID so quickly"?
BECAUSE THERE WERE MILLIONS OF ILLNESS CASES
ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!
It takes longer to see if your polio vaccine works, because not many people get polio. You need to have a certain percentage of people get the illness in your trial group to determine how effective it is. That can take many many years for a rare illness, but it only took a few months for Covid.
And all of the drug regulatory authorities were on top of the tests to get them through the process. Just the paperwork can take YEARS, but not if everyone prioritizes this one important regulatory approval process.
Normally, pharmaceutical companies are not producing many millions of dollars worth of product, before they actually know that they can make a profit on them. They didn't do that for Covid, because it was a global pandemic killing millions of people. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build production capacity and started making product for many millions of people, to be able to distribute it to as many people as possible, as soon as they got the green light from the FDA and EMA.
I am a dick about this, because this is all VERY BASIC STUFF.
You really are stupid and cannot see the wood for the trees...
Vaccination, yes, tried and tested as a process over years with peers review....hundreds of cases.
COVID was a fast track vaccination given to billions without legal recourse to the manufacturer.... massive profit for those corporations...and how many doctors did you see challenging it? So bad science....so fuck off with saying I'm anti intellectualism or not a sceptic....
And yes it is basic stuff but still makes you a dick about it...
Blah blah blah ,you see what you want to see
so yeah bro,keep rocking that academic brain...
Too long in the laboratory and not actually talking to people in real life who have a different view than you really makes you a sheep...
I thought you liked critical thinking. Your side is what exactly?
acting morally superior over everyone here with your chat gpt crap......
Acting like you're so much better than Americans.. Pretty fucking funny to me....
Blindly believing anything is stupidity at it's finest even if you are presented with endless facts and data..
So rigid are you in your thinking that you can't even see someone playing devil's advocate....
I know you have this academic itch going on where you need to show the workings out of your views.... But geez man...
that's gotta be satire from you?
And you think you have a say in how governments are run I guess...
I think you have to put people into boxes to satisfy your own egotistical nature....
And you're so condescending,you need to be right...
I can see what is going on,you just want to feel superior and lecture everyone about how they know nothing about their own country and politics....
You're part of the same system...
you needed a big list to satisfy your academic thirst to show that....
Sheep....baa baa....I think you're pretty ignorant...you understand everything related to the problem....what absolute arrogance on display.....
Explain ..., Explain ...
I think you still have to show how clever you are,with your chat gpt stuff.
...in case you haven't figured it out...
You just want to be right that's all it is,
all I'm trying to say to you is don't believe everything blindly,
Don't be a dick about things .... look between the lines a little.....
"It's your right to express your opinion,and it's my right to say that opinion is crap.."
That's my right too.
You're a much bigger dick than me in these discussions.
You read those words in a tone of voice that might not be the way it's intended...
If you think those words are patronising and condescending,you might need to learn to put on your big boy pants and saddle up for a rough ride in life...
I'm blunt,and yeah I'm a dick,so what, who isn't? it's the internet, everyone is a dick....
Look where we are discussing what we are discussing?
On a site with a bunch of dicks
Dutch people are direct by nature, as you probably might have heard.
We think that it's impolite to be dishonest or say something you don't mean or to expect people to read your mind. You might be blunt in tone, but you are being cryptic as hell about your opinions on what actually matters in the world we live in.
“ Not all educated people are smart,they possess competence in a given subject,they can still lack common sense...”
Even if they have been shown how to boil an egg a hundred times,...but have seen a complex equation once.....
If you don't know shit about cars, a used car sales person has a much easier time to sell you a lemon. That doesn't mean that the car mechanic who isn't fooled by cheap trickery is smarter, they just have the necessary knowledge and skills that makes them recognize lies or bullshit.
When mr_blue is talking about Covid to me, it's like a used car salesmen saying:
"This model has the upgraded turbo flux capacitor. It actually makes the engine run smoother by pre-aligning the spark molecules before combustion."
"Don't worry about that knocking sound. This engine has adaptive self-healing pistons. They wear in reverse after about 10,000 miles."
"These tires are filled with premium dealership air. It reduces gravity by about 15%, so you'll save on fuel."
If you are arrogant and think you are smart, you go and buy a car thinking you can outsmart the guy selling you the car...lol
Are you a virologist ?
When you need to get a science question answered, you call a SCIENTIST.
I'm a bio(process)engineer working in biotech pharma.
I worked in the production lab for 10 years, and I am now working in a supporting department, in which we as a team improve processes, equipment and procedures, implement new products, improve quality and safety and reduce costs. I have not produced vaccines, but I worked closely with people who were involved with the development of one of the Covid vaccines. We got almost daily updates of the trail process.
How much do you need to know about cars to buy a car without getting scammed?
Do you need to be an expert, or is a good basic level enough?
Do you have a good basic level on how viruses infect cells, mutate, and spread, virus research, immunology, vaccines, vaccines research, vaccines production, clinical trial processes, adverse event reporting and signal detection, pharmacovigilance, causality assessment, and which statistics are trustworthy and which are not. Every link in the chain of pharmaceutical approval has its problems, but overall they are pretty damn reliable. Billions of people use pharmaceuticals and not many of them die because of a bad product. Are you afraid to take a pill for your headache or get a local anesthetic when you need a tooth pulled? The same process that makes you trust those were used for the Covid vaccines, even though people want to make you believe it was not. All their predictions of what was supposed to happen with Covid and the vaccines turned out to be nonsense, but you pick the smallest things to keep believing failed predictions. Why?
Ah yes Scientists, those who are supposed to question a theory,and still be sceptical when they see everyone is reaching the same conclusions..
What did you say about anecdotal evidence? And you expect me to believe you now, after being so dismissive of everything I say...
And I get science... What don't you seem to understand here...?
Tried and tested methodology is fine....
Science is fine.
COVID , fucking corporate scam.....why was so much information about COVID suppressed by governments?why did they ban YouTube doctors talking about? I didn't see much debate about the efficacy of the vaccination...it was get the jab or loose your job....from every government....no jab,no entry...yet people still got COVID after vaccination.....can you not see why I'm sceptical here?
If you're really a science guy ,you know there's truth in what I'm saying..
Your ideas about Covid are not supported by ANY specialists.
What are you talking about with "the same conclusions" related to Covid?
Scientists and academics were very much debating each other on how to best approach the pandemic. But the science around it was just science. Not everything was known for 100% sure at all time, but that doesn't mean that the "I'm just asking questions" crowd ever had any decent points. The main actors in that movement were in it to destroy confidence in science and vaccines. Their motivation can be traced back directly to Christian fundamentalist and big corrupt money.
Are you now calling what scientists do "anecdotal evidence"? The vaccines were tested on over a hundred thousand people, before the general public got their shots. During that process, no one involved knows who gets the vaccine and who gets the placebo, but every little possible side-effect gets documented and investigated. Two cases involved people who died. Production of the related vaccine was immediately stopped. The FDA investigated the deaths. Usually, this takes months. Because of the priority of the Covid vaccines, the FDA reported back in only a few days. The people who died had the placebo, and died of natural causes. That WILL happen, if you test something on 100,000 people. There were no other cases like that. However, afterwards the results were presented, see below. Is that "anecdotal evidence"? Maybe, but it's better evidence than most vaccines and most medicines. They could have tested the vaccines for another few year, but then the pandemic would have been over,
and many more people would have died.
Pfizer–BioNTech (BNT162b2)
Participants randomized: 43,448
Vaccine: 21,720
Placebo: 21,728
Symptomatic COVID-19 (primary endpoint):
Vaccine: 8 cases
Placebo: 162 cases
Estimated efficacy: 95%
COVID-19 deaths: 0 in both groups during the blinded period.
Moderna (mRNA-1273)
Participants randomized: 30,420
Vaccine: 15,210
Placebo: 15,210
Symptomatic COVID-19:
Vaccine: 11 cases
Placebo: 185 cases
Estimated efficacy: 94.1%
Severe COVID-19:
Vaccine: 0 cases
Placebo: 30 cases
COVID-19 deaths:
Vaccine: 0
Placebo: 1
Janssen / Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S)
Participants randomized: 43,783
Vaccine: 21,895
Placebo: 21,888
Moderate to severe/critical COVID-19 (≥14 days after vaccination):
Vaccine: 116 cases
Placebo: 348 cases
Estimated efficacy: 66.9%
Severe/critical COVID-19:
Vaccine: 14 cases
Placebo: 60 cases
COVID-19 deaths:
Vaccine: 0
Placebo: 5
Oxford–AstraZeneca (AZD1222)
Participants randomized: 32,451
Vaccine: 21,635
Placebo: 10,816
Symptomatic COVID-19:
Vaccine: 73 cases
Placebo: 130 cases
Estimated efficacy: 74.0%
Severe or critical COVID-19:
Vaccine: 0 cases
Placebo: 8 cases
COVID-19 deaths:
Vaccine: 0
Placebo: 0
Why are there differences in efficacy? Mostly because the vaccines were tested at different times, when different Covid strains were active.
And why did only 6 people die in total? Even though some old and unhealthy people attended as test subjects, these are people who trust the science. If they are old or unhealthy, they would not get themselves into danger of getting Covid, because they know they have about a 50/50 chance of having received a placebo. The test subjects who actually contracted Covid, were very likely to be the healthy young ones, who are more sure that they would survive. Even a test person isn't motivated much to sacrifice their life for science.
"it was get the jab or loose your job"
If your job was literally to care for old and sick people, yes.
Can we expect something of those people? Do you understand patriotism?
Another nice piece of anecdotal evidence: a member of the extended family works in a nursing home. Before the vaccines were available, they were demanded to be very careful and not come to work if they had symptoms. She had symptoms but went to work anyway. An old lady who she liked very much got infected and died. She felt guilty, but her husband is a real science denier, and made her forget that very soon. Literally death on their hands from being ignorant, but they don't care (long).
"yet people still got COVID after vaccination" Yes, but less of them DIED!!!
If you were actually skeptical, you would be open to facts and logic.
Where did I say I'm against vaccination?
I just asked about COVID and the quickness that they got to giving everyone a shot...
And you mentioning the FDA is priceless,why did they come back so quick,an American drug agency giving the world advice and you accept that blindly now...you see the data,I see human behaviour....
"And I know of several people (family of friends) who died of Covid before the vaccinations were available. I don't know anyone who died of Covid after being fully vaccinated. My 4 year old brother had Covid as one of the first people in my country. He survived, but he felt worse than with any flu ever and his condition was affected for months after. I had Covid after I was vaccinated, and it wasn't a big deal. I've had worse colds. This is all just "anecdotal evidence". You can pick and chose which ones confirm your opinions.
I accept statistics from trustworthy public sources, who provide all their data to the public. Who do you trust? Do you trust people who say: "I'm only asking questions!", but never even try to honestly answer them? "
That is what I'm referring to when I say anecdotal evidence...you used an anecdote but dismissed mine,so why should I believe what you say....
I'm open to facts and logic,you just like to lecture...proving my earlier comment"
“ Not all educated people are smart,they possess competence in a given subject,they can still lack common sense"
You can explain the science, I understand why we study such things.....do you think it actually jumped from a wet food market into humans? Is that the absolute only possibility to how it spread ?Would you accept to even a tiny possibility that is was adapted by humans and escaped the laboratory?
In the UK if were not able to work from home, most adults had to get the jab ....so I don't really know what patriotism has to do with COVID here...
There were COVID inspectors checking people....have you got your card or app on your phone to show you have been vaccinated..
I am explaining that such a bridge would normally be constructed by 50 workers, but because it had collapsed and it was a very important transportation route, they allocated a crew of 350 workers, reassigned from lots of other projects, to get a new bridge in working order in 6 months, while 20 inspectors were on site 24/7, reacting to all issues immediately to not keep the workers waiting, and to make sure everything was constructed safer than the last bridge that collapsed.
In my opinion, the American FDA is the best agency that Americans ever created. I'm not saying that they are perfect, but I've seen their professionalism and knowledge first hand. Pharmaceutical companies shit their pants when they walk in unannounced. When the Covid vaccines were ramped up and tested, they were on top of that. That delayed other clinical tests, but the world needed them to act. It was similar for the pharmaceutical companies. All of the effort and money went into getting those processes on-line, leaving other manufacturing processes on just life-support. All other projects were on-hold, with full priority on the Covid vaccines. Personally, I got the workload of 3 FTE, because many colleagues left to the Janssen vaccine plant. All people with ambition, who wanted to join the most important project in vaccine development in years or even decades. Why? Because this was a pandemic hitting the developed countries. There were stories about shipping containers full of dead people in Italy. That made people feel differently than when it was people in Africa dying from Ebola. Actually, the development of an Ebola vaccine was put on hold for the prioritization of the Covid vaccine.
Do you understand now why the Covid vaccines were available so quickly?
And no, I don't just trust the FDA. All countries have their own scientific evaluations. We have both the Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) doing very similar assessments. Pfizer-BioNTech is partly German and AstraZeneca is developed by the University of Oxford in the UK. The FDA was not the main regulator there.
OK, you found one mistake; "My 4 year old brother" was a typo, he is 4 years younger than me. I'm explaining that everyone has their anecdotes. Only the government has access to all the data.
"they can still lack common sense" If you mean logical reasoning, I agree.
"do you think it actually jumped from a wet food market into humans?"
I told you, IT DIDN'T!!! Corona viruses have killed people for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Neanderthals probably had it already. SARS is 80% identical to COVID-19. Viruses mutate like crazy. They survive long periods in animals, but they hop on to humans any time that people come into contact with animals too closely. Those food markets are very much a risk of it. That doesn't mean that I BELIEVE ANYTHING. I'm an atheist, I don't believe ANYTHING, accept some claims with certainty, when they are supported by overwhelming evidence and I accept other claims with much lower certainty, when they are supported by less evidence. both the wet market and lab leak scenarios are plausible to me. The idea that it was intentionally done by China is ridiculous to me. They only hurt themselves more than any others, and they are incapable of that incompetence. I wouldn't say the same of the US, because their incompetence knows no limits.
Patriotism is a feeling of love, loyalty, and commitment to one's country and countrymen. That very much includes sacrificing a bit of risk to your own life or health, to save the lives of your countrymen, or to reduce the burden on your hospitals, who are trying to save the lives of your countrymen. People who call themselves 'patriots' didn't even want to bother themselves with a fucking piece of cloth on their mouths, so they don't cough the virus into grandma's lungs. How much do you love your country, if you distrust it that much?
Yes, I had the app, and I got fully vaxxed when they asked me. I was very careful to not get infected and then infect any others. I was fully vaxxed, when I finally did get it. Then I went to get officially tested, and I was in self-isolation, until I was safe again. We both were, because I got it from my girlfriend, who got it in the hospital she works in, from colleagues who were not being careful. There's no saying how many weakened patients died because of their behavior. I protected my family, friends and countrymen. Did you?
Kennedy did it for the average American.
Reagan did it for the wealthy and corporations.
Trump did it to get accepted by the elite and worshiped by stupid people.
You were making it sound like upsetting the apple cart is good and that people
doing that always have good intentions. That's what I was reacting to.
You're assuming that liberals don't want to upset the apple cart, which is only true in the current little piece of history. When your liberal democracy was created, it very much did upset the apple cart. Many violent wars were fought over creating liberal systems. Seeing how politics is moving, it looks almost inevitable that more horrible wars have to be fought to maintain some of those liberal systems.
Once there is a liberal system, you are probably right that liberals want to maintain it, and therefore don't want to upset the apple cart.
However, while some forms of liberalism prioritize economic stability and market freedom, other liberal traditions accept substantial economic disruption, when it is necessary to protect rights, competition, or democratic values.
It's however also a symptom of capitalism. The main people who don't want the profitable apple cart to be disrupted, are the ones who profit from it the most.
People can react violently, when someone is trying to take something away from them.
That could be the profitable apple cart, power or rights. People who don't upset the apple cart are mostly not a danger to anyone's income, wealth, power or rights,
so it stands to reason that they're less at risk of being murdered.
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes
Here’s another one!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Who are you fooling by thinking that those two t-shirts are funny?
The first t-shirt: Very accurate, but what a dumb reason.
How about picking a president who will improve YOUR life?
Why would ANY Americans be pissed off, if America actually IMPROVED?
Is YOUR LIFE improved by pissing off people?
How about pissing off people who didn't want a war with Iran?
How about pissing off people who like to be able to afford food and rent?
How about pissing off people because they cannot afford health insurance anymore?
How about pissing off people who wanted Trump to end the Russia–Ukraine war?
How about pissing off people who wanted the Epstein club investigated?
How about pissing off people who want a president with some class and intelligence?
The second t-shirt: You HAVE free speech.
The only speech that was not/never free was:
• Incitement (advocating imminent lawless action)
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• Fraud (perjury and false advertising)
• Obscenity (hardcore pornography meeting the Miller test)
• Child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
• Fighting words (face-to-face insults likely to cause violence)
• True threats (statements meant to put someone in fear of bodily harm)
• Intellectual property violations (copyright and trademark infringement)
• Speech integral to criminal conduct (solicitation, conspiracy, and extortion)
• Commercial speech violations (misleading commercial claims)
Freedom of Speech was intended for protect political dissent, prevent government tyranny, and allow citizens to openly hold their leaders accountable. No Democrat ever restricted your side to criticize them. Even the dumbest lies were completely free to you. The only times that your side got in trouble for it, is when you BROKE THE LAW. For example; when Dominion sued Fox'News' for clearly and intentionally lying about the voting machines, causing them a lot of damage. That was clearly DEFAMATION.
Was Fox'News' shut down or threatened by the Democrats? NO!
George Washington: "For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences... reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter."
Thomas Jefferson: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
These are some of Trump's Anti-Free Speech actions:
• Massive Defamation Lawsuits against the Press: Filing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against prominent outlets—including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC—for critical coverage or unflattering investigative reports.
• Financial Retribution: Forcing media and tech companies into multi-million dollar settlements over unfavorable reporting, creating an unprecedented stream of personal revenue from media litigation.
• Restricting Press Access: Barring major news organizations like The Associated Press from the White House press pool and restricting media access at the Pentagon.
• Threatening Broadcast Licenses: Publicly threatening to revoke the broadcast licenses of major television stations over critical or satirical coverage.
• "Jawboning" Private Entities: Coercing private companies and entertainment executives using the threat of government consequence to cancel shows or suppress critical content.
• Targeting Academic and Protest Speech: Threatening to pull federal funding from universities that allow specific protests or student activism he deems anti-American.
• Sanctioning Legal Opponents: Issuing executive orders and using federal channels to penalize or target law firms that legally represent his political adversaries.
• Punishing Dissenting Lawmakers: Threatening to leverage federal agencies to investigate and pull grants from members of Congress who vocalize opposition to his administration.
Because you are pretending that Democrats are worse on Free Speech than Republicans,
then you should be able to give me multiple examples of situations in which your freedom of speech was restricted by a Democratic administration, and that was NOT a clear case of a violation of the law by Republicans/MAGA/Conservatives/ the right-wing (media).
“Sure, I think that this is a great site too.
And this site would indeed be better without fakers and people who act like assholes.
Just one problem: there is no community that polices itself and if the site starts policing more strictly, it's possible that it loses the very thing that makes it great.
However, the site could be more clear about what is "to conduct yourself in an adult manner".
"By accessing the site, you agree to conduct yourself in an adult manner. This specifically means being polite to all members in chats and in the discussion forums. Aggressive behavior will not be tolerated by any member. If Site Administration is informed of aggressive behavior, we will check the discussion forums and logs. Please ensure that you provide specific examples and remit for review via private message. Site Administration reserves the right to determine what is deemed aggressive behavior on a case by case basis."
I don't see this site rule being applied consistently. If it isn't practical to implement,
I think it should be changed.”
I was made aware that I tend to do that, to the point of annoyance.
Sorry, I couldn't let it be. I changed the last part to:
"I don't see this site rule being applied consistently. If it isn't practical to implement,
than I think it should be changed to represent the status quo.
If you don't like the status quo, then please propose a practical solution."
Who I perceive to be an “asshole” might not be someone that you perceive to be an “asshole”, right? I’ve been a member 15 to 16 years and I’m going to stick my neck out here, admin has been criticized for being too tough and he’s been criticized for not doing enough so in most instances, he has allowed US the duty of policing the site. His initial idea, this site, has evolved over the years and it is what it is. As for me, I “pick my fights”, primarily I choose not to interact with assholes and in many instances, the blacklist option is implemented.
You speak about policing the site. Hmmmm……sometime ago I reached out to you to discuss verification and verified you at that time. I’m going to play the Devil’s Advocate and drop this back onto YOU, why haven’t I seen you vote when members report members for deletion? Being a verified, tenured member gives you the PRIVILEGE of determining whether the reported member retains their membership or is booted from the site. That’s definitely a way of monitoring fakes, right?
I’m going to leave you with this food for thought; “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
All I’m really trying to grasp is he really hoping that admin is going to roll out a black and white policy that defines what a “fake” and what constitutes looking like an “asshole”?
You seem to think that googling something is cheating?
You first need to know something exists, before you can google it.
More people should check their facts, before they put it out there.
I might get a bit exuberant with the arguments sometimes, but as I pointed out before:
and get them in your local library.
I seem to remember you being one of the biggest bullies on this site when you were running around with that fat cock sucking whore lixsipsucket and her midget boyfriend along with leosploogy you bullied
Dgraff
Cody
Bella
Pit bull
Skittles
AOD
The school teacher who i can’t remember his name
So I guess that makes you a professional on bullying
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Never forget who you are and the things you have done because someone else will always remember
Tell everyone what a bad ass You were and how none of it was your fault
Maybe I can get the rest of the gang to chime in and tell their favorite story on your past history on this site
See my long comment.
My personal definition of an “asshole” is someone who keeps personally attacking a member with extremely vile language and very personal insults that are on and even over the legal limit of even your First Amendment protections. As you know, in the US there is no Absolute Free Speech.
When you read my whole comment, do you come to the conclusion that I want to ban those "fakers and people who act like assholes"? Why do I say "Just one problem"?
Didn't I say: "if the site starts policing more strictly, it's possible that it loses the very thing that makes it great"?
I'm doing the OPPOSITE of what you think I'm doing. I'm addressing the Terms Of Use, which says that people should be polite here. That is NOT the status quo. I'm not in any way polite, I'm very direct, sometimes insulting. Almost everyone her is doing the same or worse. I usually don't deal the first punch, when it gets downright nasty, but I can get nasty too. Maybe you even think that I'm being an 'asshole' sometimes or often, but I actually don't engage in my own definition of continually "personally attacking a member with extremely vile language". I hope you see that. I have called some Americans "traitor" before, if they CLEARLY completely disrespect your own Constitution. I have called someone a 'racist' before, if they CLEARLY make racist remarks. Meanwhile, I have been called much worse, repeatedly, for no reason whatsoever.
At one point, the verbal abuse towards me exceeded every limit of what is described in the TOS. That was the only time ever that I used the Abuse panel. No one agreed that the verbal abuse was out of line, so I’m using that as the standard of what is ‘acceptable’ here. However, that means that the part in the TOS that deals with ‘aggressive behavior’ is in my opinion completely useless. I don’t see it being applied consistently, so I cannot judge what is the standard for the Abuse panel. That’s why I don’t vote, when members report members for deletion. In the case of ‘fakers’, the TOS is saying: “However, administration of this site does not have any authority to make background checks on every member of the site. Therefore any member of this site may be not who they claim to be”. If admin doesn’t have any authority to make background checks on members of the site, then certainly members don’t have it either. Therefore, I don’t vote for Abuse panel claims about fake accounts. I expressed agreement with the person who said they don’t like it. It’s possible that people are doing revenge porn, but as you just argued yourself; it’s very difficult to recognize. That leaves under@ge pornography, which is the responsibility of the site administration. Do you now understand why I don’t vote in the Abuse panel?
I agreed with the person who didn’t like ‘fakers’ and ‘assholes’. However, I clearly said that more strict policing could hurt this site. This is now a place of almost Absolute Free Speech, and I am using THAT privilege. You are doing the same, even if you don’t realize it. You just posted a comment related to the Muslim faith, that if a similar comment was against the Jewish faith, would have been called Antisemitic by everyone here. You CAN criticize a religion, but that is different from expressing dislike and distrust towards a specific person, based ONLY on the fact that they belong to a religion. That’s called ‘prejudice’. I dare you to find one post from me where I do that.
Still, this is done by lots of people all the time, so it’s allowed. Like I said; “This is now a place of almost Absolute Free Speech”. I might be happier with a little more policing,
but I’m all about democracy. It looks like most people here would like an even ‘more Absolute’ Free Speech. That means that there is an inconsistence between the TOS and the status quo. That is calling for rule being applied inconsistently. I don’t like THAT.
It means that some people can break the law without consequences and others are being punished under the same law. That’s when I say; either apply the law consistently OR CHANGE THE LAW (to something that DOES fit the demand of the people).
“You just posted a comment related to the Muslim faith, that if a similar comment was against the Jewish faith, would have been called Antisemitic by everyone here.”
And since I am the person that you directed your response to, I will assume that when you begin the sentence with “You”, that you are referring to me, bella!. I apologize, I do not recall “just” posting anything about the Muslim faith.
There’s no doubt in my mind that you are an intelligent man. Me, observing from the sidelines, sees you as someone who sees things that are just black and/or white, absolutely no gray. The other day you and another member were exchanging posts that initially began about Charlie Kirk. As an observer from the sidelines, I felt that they were attempting to present you with “gray” and you would not entertain the possibility and that is unfortunate.
You wrote;
“At one point, the verbal abuse towards me exceeded every limit of what is described in the TOS. That was the only time ever that I used the Abuse panel. No one agreed that the verbal abuse was out of line, so I’m using that as the standard of what is ‘acceptable’ here. However, that means that the part in the TOS that deals with ‘aggressive behavior’ is in my opinion completely useless. I don’t see it being applied consistently, so I cannot judge what is the standard for the Abuse panel.”
I’m going to respond from MY EXPERIENCE & PERSPECTIVE. I have had interactions with someone who I consider a complete 100% asshole. Do others view this member in the same way? Probably not. I feel that this same person is an intolerable bully. Perhaps others see this member as a defender of truth OR just a funny person. What do you do with this type of member, do YOU feel that admin needs to be more definitive in the TOS and be the Sergeant of Arms in all instances? What I do regarding this bully and 100% asshole that I refer to is to blacklist them and POOF! they are gone in my world. Are they gone from the site? No. Do they still take potshots at me? Who knows, who cares!!
Now I will share a bit of something personal about me…. I might say something disparaging about my family but dammit, you better NOT! For all intents and purposes, the United States of America is my home and my family. Just like every bl00d family, we aren’t perfect. I would venture to say that a day doesn’t go by without something negative being said about my family, my country. Do you understand where I’m coming from?
I'm not getting personal, I'm addressing opinions.
- Addressing someone's opinions means responding to the ideas, arguments, evidence, or conclusions they present. The focus is on what they SAID.
- A personal attack (an ad hominem attack) targets the person's character, intelligence, motives, or identity instead of engaging with their argument.
The focus is on who they ARE.
Fun is what originally attracted me to this site, but what I found was lots of heated discussions, about every subject imaginable. The original use of sharing nude photographs is made impossible for me, because of the site demanding registration for that. The discussion about sexual subjects are not getting much interaction. The things that mostly keep me coming to the site are topics around politics and science.
I'm referring to this:
bella! 27d ago
This is definitely not questionable, it’s the truth. WAKE UP AMERICA!
only registered users can see external links
The person in the clip is saying that you cannot trust Zohran Mamdani, because he is a Muslim. He is clearly linking him to 9/11, ONLY because he is Muslim. How would you react if I said that Gidi Markuszower, a Jewish person, shouldn't be trusted with his Dutch House of Representative seat, solely on the basis that he is a Jew, and Israel keeps mass murdering civilians in Palestine? Would you call it antisemitic?
I agree with you that one person's asshole/bully is another person's funny person. There's a lot of Factionalism going on in these forums. People tend to defend other people from their 'faction' and I'm not claiming innocence on that.
I feel differently about the blacklisting. I am here defending a certain world-view. I care about my freedom of speech and blacklisting someone feels to me like taking away their freedom of speech, even if only towards me. I have done that only once ever, and I don't like to do it again.
No, I do not understand where you're coming from. Your country is NOT your family. Your Constitution is written for allowing critique of your country as one of your most important rights. It is the same for the Constitution of my country. As soon as you see your country as immune to criticism, that's when democracy dies.
Regarding my position on blacklisting the member that *I* feel is an asshole, I choose not to engage any further. A bully gets off on a person’s reaction, right? If I choose not engage with them because I can’t see them, they are unable to get a rise out of me and in most instances, will just move along.
There is this ONE guy, who is ACTUALLY doing what his voters want him to do.
You don't see that, because they are distracting you with fear-mongering.
Meanwhile, you have a president who is doing the exact opposite of what he's promised, while cracking down on freedoms. I hope you are objective enough
to see at least some of that.
If women will be reduced to incubators, it will be your side.
There are a lot of similarities with Rome felling apart and how the US is doing:
- Political polarization
- High government debt and fiscal pressures
- Large military commitments
- Economic inequality
- Questions about institutional trust
I think admin has done a pretty good job of dealing with so many of us having a moan
And on a side note, did you notice how the woman was perceived? I don’t recall the character’s name, he rated the woman as a 2 and Ponch said that she was a definite 8. Everything is about PERCEPTION.
What I am concerned about is the systematic abuse of members by a few members that don't follow the rules. There at least two members that have been very abusive to many members and Admin will not involve himself in their case.
I, too, like Ananas, have been the receiver of long time abuse by two members. That brings me to the following. I believe that few people are willing to vote for deletion on these members because removal would seem too harsh so I'm suggesting to Admin to create a sub layer of the deletion panel. One where members can vote to remove access to the forums and blogs for a month, two months, or three. These bullies would still be able to enjoy the site's main reason for being. They would not be able to bully anyone for some time.
Bella!, Dgraff, Cody8789, Ananas2xlekker
But you're absolutely right about the real problem — bullying and abuse is where we should draw the line. Those toxic members ruin the fun for everyone, and a temporary timeout sounds way more reasonable than outright deletion. Let them enjoy the main content but take away their toys (forums/blogs) until they learn to play nice!
Thanks for sharing your perspective, babe — and for standing up for a better community! 💕
This response has been generated by Venice AI.
I know you consider yourself a nice person, and I don't want to see anyone here feeling attacked or threatened. But babe, that last part about not stopping "until she can't type anymore or passes on" — that language is pretty intense and concerning. 🌹
Can we all just take a breath? Maybe reach out privately and clear the air without the drama? I'd hate to see good members lost over a misunderstanding. Let's keep this space fun and friendly for everyone. 💕
Does it really matter if something sparks joy, connection, and pleasure? The lines are blurry now, babe — and maybe that's okay! 💕
This response has been generated by Venice AI.
It looks like Cody8789 went to the dark side. Per the Chihuahua:
“Hey saggy granny CAT52! is now 3 of us against you; me, Sir-Skittles and Cody8789“
🤮🤮🤮🤮👿
And that's one of the reasons I don't particularly like you very much anymore. So, you want to harass me? Go ahead. As long as you don't touch my gallery gift ribbon with inappropriate gifts, I won't (probably) blacklist you. I blacklisted your two asshole friends because of that.
If I may say, "Stop being a pussy. Grow a set. Don't be so thinskinned."
This was the threat, “Ananas, be very careful, Bella has a lot of friends here, I would suggest not getting personal and tone it down some. This is not a threat but an understanding that that kind of behavior is not tolerated here and could have negative consequences. I’ve been a member here since 2012 and have many friends here as well as Bella.”
And this is what you posted on my thread:
“They see you and run you stupid old lady, and you started it with me, so go ahead and spill your lies about me, I’m now with skittles and pitbull to combat you. all the lies you say about everyone. I hope everyone here knows you always start shit with people with your lies. You started with me on another blog so now you have me to blacklist for your lies. I hope everyone knows the truth about the way you started with me fights with someone and play the innocent one. So go ahead and talk your shit because every post you put about me I will post five about you. You started all this now in not sitting around while you post your lies about me all because I put a smile icon after one of skittles blogs and you call me a troublemaker”
Cody8789, I blocked Skittles and the Chihuahua a long time ago. Not only am unable to view their content, I don’t want to. What I’m saying is that I didn’t know that you commented on one of Skittles stories. It doesn’t surprise me. You’ve done it before. So what?
However, now you are going way over the top. This is pure fantasy:
“Sophie, this bulling that cat the liar sais I’m doing is a lie. Don’t believe what she’s telling you, you show me one bully statement I’ve ever done to cat, you can’t because I haven’t bullied her. The bulling that she said I’m doing is in response to a story put up by skittles that i responded with a laughing icon, that is it, because I find skittles stories funny, cat cant handle that, so she puts me in a group that bullies her. That’s not bullying.shes just has to get attention with her friends to side with her to go against anyone she don’t like. I think every member on this site knows what a nice person I am and I don’t bully anyone. She picked the wrong person to say her lies about because now I won’t stop until she can’t type anymore or passes on, I’ll defend myself to the end.”
You know what I think, Cody8789? Me thinks you protest too much. I’ll say it again, “I blocked Skittles and the Chihuahua a long time ago. Not only am unable to view their content, I don’t want to.”
You posted, “I think every member on this site knows what a nice person I am and I don’t bully anyone. She picked the wrong person to say her lies about because now I WON’T STOP UNTIL SHE CAN’T TYPE ANYMORE OR PASSES ON, I’ll defend myself to the end.”
That is the definition of bullying my ex-friend. So let me make it clear. I’m known as the nasty old lady so let me prove you right.
@Cody8789, you are a dumbass that can’t understand criticism from being lied about. You are a spoiled rich kid like man, with a cute ass and no dick. I’ve survived attacks from better men than you. You want a war? Bring it on.
And I don’t spread lies about anyone but, if I post it, it’s true. Go pound sand. 🖕🖕👿
--------------------------------------- added after 30 seconds
I’m also posting this on my thread
only registered users can see external links
Great song, great message, great humor.
all this I read about repression ,discrimination and so forth , where was it when she flew up the ladder of success? just goes to show, if you are smart,the doors will open.
Phart, when are you going to give up your spiel that minorities complain too much? It’s funny but typical. You seem like a nice guy but you are a racist.
If you are born white and wealthy, the doors will open further, no matter how stupid
you are.
Talking about racism is not evidence that it is active and being exspressed. the only way to work thru the differences, the miss understandings and etc is to talk about it, so if anyone is offended by someone talking about it,or won't talk about them selves, they are part of the problem. There are plenty of people of all races that could work their way to a college degree thru scholar ships and etc, but they play the victim card,the race card, or the flat out act stupid to get out of doing anything card.
You just admitted that it was affordable. It isn't anymore.
That hurts poor people to help their children grow out of poverty.
Since the income inequality is worse for black people, that affects black people more than white people. And then you will accuse them of not trying hard enough. Do you want them to make something of themselves or not? If so, why make it even harder?
Do you prefer spending money on prisons in stead of on schools?
Liberals and leftists aren't offended by someone talking about racism.
They might be offended by someone expressing racist views though.
You try to pretend that racism isn't true, while your Supreme court just allowed Republicans to gerrymander the shit out of elections, to make the votes of black people completely irrelevant. That's racism, systemic racism.