No VPN here but it did take a while to load
Check Nuremberg code. It should have ended long ago.
Sorry I can't get behind this one. And your evidence for supporting this claim is the same youtube video over and over. Anyone can make a youtube video to claim anything they want.
I have one now; got it from my son who had it for the last few days. The cold is definitely still out there and circulating. Oh and we're in a mask nazi state.
This needs to be redone with the office meme (corporate needs you to find the differences in these two photos... They're the same photo).
"someone else". You would think they could have released a name unless they were hiding something.
Sounds like great advice coming from a SME (subject matter expert) on killing grandma's
If she takes most of the assets in the divorce, then he is arrested and his remaining assets are seized, does she get to keep her portion? I think there's a lot more to this than irreconcilable differences.
They may be protected from lawsuit but not an angry mob
Changing rooms are closed here so you have to buy the clothes, try them on at home, and return if they don't fit. Yesterday, I overheard a mom explaining it to her daughter and saying how stupid that was because there would be more germs in people's houses than just letting them try the clothes on in the store.
It can act as a blood thinner so it could reduce the risk if heart disease/issues.
Hit up your nearest outdoor store (cabela's, bass pro, sportsman's, etc) and chat with the folks in the fishing section. I'm sure they'd love to help you get set up with everything you need. I've found chartreuse power bait to be the best.
Mine went straight to the shredder.
I don't think it's weird. I've refused to attend a wedding for less.
I didn't wear one at the grocery store yesterday. No one said anything and they're 'mandated' here.
I think I'll pass on seeing that picture ?
I've been thinking about the whole "organic food" people. Specifically those that are so conscious about their health that they only eat organic, but around here, they've been the first in line for the jab!
While that may be your observation, it's not a correct representation for the entire country.
Just north of you a bit and noticed people waking up in the Valley. Went to the grocery store the other day and there were several people without masks. It's rare here to see one person not wearing a mask, let alone three.
"I have a disability as defined by the ADA". You don't need to give details as medical info is protected by HIPPA.
FYI - I tried to post my reply to you but it posted further down. The CDC exempts for disabilities; you have to define "disability" which is very broad according to the ADA.
A person with a disability who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, for reasons related to the disability https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
From https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm#a105:
(1) Disability means, with respect to an individual: (i) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (ii) A record of such an impairment; or (iii) Being regarded as having such an impairment as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) Is regarded as having such an impairment. The following principles apply under the “regarded” as prong of the definition of “disability” (paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section): (1) Except as set forth in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, an individual is “regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual is subjected to a prohibited action because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits, or is perceived to substantially limit, a major life activity, even if the public accommodation asserts, or may or does ultimately establish, a defense to the action prohibited by the ADA. (2) An individual is not “regarded as having such an impairment” if the public accommodation demonstrates that the impairment is, objectively, both “transitory” and “minor.” A public accommodation may not defeat “regarded as” coverage of an individual simply by demonstrating that it subjectively believed the impairment was transitory and minor; rather, the public accommodation must demonstrate that the impairment is (in the case of an actual impairment) or would be (in the case of a perceived impairment), objectively, both “transitory” and “minor.” For purposes of this section, “transitory” is defined as lasting or expected to last six months or less. (3) Establishing that an individual is “regarded as having such an impairment” does not, by itself, establish liability. Liability is established under title III of the ADA only when an individual proves that a public accommodation discriminated on the basis of disability within the meaning of title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12181–12189.
Given the size, I would say it's unlikely. Early pregnancies where the baby is microscopic are usually just expelled like a heavy period and the woman can just use feminine products like a regular cycle. I guess it's plausible someone could use a microscope to go thru the blood for the remains but why do that when they have planned parenthood and a larger baby?
I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who can help. He's in a van down by the lake. Just don't remember which lake.