2
deleted 2 points ago +7 / -5
5
AllowMeToExplain 5 points ago +5 / -0

What are you supposed to take? The old EUA stuff is gone now. Only the "bivalent" jabs are available and under EUA. Would be interesting to see the exact language of the contract. That might be an out for you.

I'd still go talk to an attorney. That is a long way to go to end up stopped short. It might be a miserable experience, but at least finishing your residency will allow you to go into private practice. I think you got a good case.

10
deleted 10 points ago +18 / -8
5
AllowMeToExplain 5 points ago +6 / -1

Would pay the $99.99 ppv fee. And put it on a projector outside for more lulz.

0
AllowMeToExplain 0 points ago +1 / -1

It has been that way for years. I don’t click that either because Ive not seen a benign explanation for that happening.

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +6 / -3

Or at least 14 days…come on man!

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +2 / -1

I, too, will never forget my first forced shenis experience. I don’t know what it is about dems, but they have a different kind of mangina you’ll never forget. It stays locked in your hippocampus along with the indelible laughter. My therapist tells me that my sphincter will eventually return to normal size as long as I keep up the kegel exercises.

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +5 / -1

What's the real number of they are telling us its near 60%? Is it 85%? 90%?

7
AllowMeToExplain 7 points ago +8 / -1

Looks like we got a climate change denying patriarchy promoting transphobic misogynist democracy undermining qanon conspiracy theorist here, guys.

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +4 / -1

With a September 25th trial date as originally scheduled, its interesting that she resigned effective June 1. Thankfully gone but who is the replacement?

0
AllowMeToExplain 0 points ago +1 / -1

That sentence is only available for crimes committed after the law takes effect. It would be an unconstitutional ex post facto law to apply it to past acts.

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +6 / -2

Count me as not believing this. They’ll never have the numbers they need to carry this out. Would take several years of hiring, training, and planning. His term would be over before this could take off.

The only thing remotely possible on this scale would be if they had a 90-180 day sign up period for a work visa. Miss that deadline and you’re gone when you are found. Inadmissible for reasons other than illegal entry? You’re gone too.

We gotta be up to 30+ million of these people. Maybe higher. Would need to be rounding up and removing 20,000 people a day to achieve this in a 4 year term. One would think you’d need a minimum 1:1 ratio of law enforcement to illegal ratio. Maybe 2:1…the FBI has 35,000 employees; not all of which are agents.

Unrealistic and unachievable promises are just adding insult to injury. We got so many things to deal with that this is not walking and chewing gum at the same time. How about we deal with election fraud, child trafficking, the pillaging of the federal treasury, and the Uncle Sam alliance with the Mexican and Colombian cartels first?

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +5 / -1

Why do I feel like a leftist every time these stories come out? Replace all of the MSM stories about muh Russia collusion with this. “Walls closing in.” “Bombshell report.” Or whatever other cliche bullshit you want. 2 MOAR WEEKS!

You know what congressional subpoenas are? Political theater. Expecting something to come of this is like circle jerking waiting for the mueller report. Wake me up when there are 4am swat team raids. Until then, this is just a giant tease.

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +2 / -1

My family is Australian, though I have never lived there. I just have citizenship.

I don't know why the Mabo case was controversial. It didn't do anything new. Though the justices jumped through a lot of random hoops to create the impression there was something new. The Australian government could have authorized Queensland to make laws governing Mer. Instead it was like a LARP resulting in the native title act. You halfway wonder if the entire sequence of events wasn't designed to produce this.

Australia needs to get rowdy. There is too much compliance down there. During covid it was embarrassing to listen to my relatives act like all of that was necessary and none of it was bullshit. Was like 1938 Germany the redux. I know there are many who are hell bent on not putting up with this. But there are far too many eager to be governed harder by installed officials rigging elections just like here.

0
AllowMeToExplain 0 points ago +1 / -1

Are you talking about the old birthright citizenship case? Or a different one?

Mabo has a lot more in common with the Marshall Trilogy SCOTUS cases of the late 1820's/early 30's than the birthright citizenship case. The same concept of sovereignty is explored.

I suppose one of the trilogy cases - johnson v mcintosh - might be similar to the birthright citizenship case. The short version is that SCOTUS held that the purchasers did not hold title to the land because the sovereign at the time of purchase was the english crown, and after getting kicked out, the US now had title and did not have to recognize grants from the old sovereign because of the doctrine of conquest. It has been awhile since I read that birthright citizenship case but I believe it had to do with the unification of the crown. Scotland and England had separate kings until something like the 1620s or so...my English history sucks so I am shooting from the hip. And because this guy was born under the new crown he was not technically a foreigner trying to own land in England.

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +4 / -3

While I fully understand Australia is under full Marxist attack, this story doesn’t make sense. No definition of “Native Title” I am aware of could be a vehicle for this. Only radical title. Native title is simply possessory rights. Radical title is vested in a sovereign through which all other property rights are derived in western property law. Possessory rights do not equal title or deed.

Native title became famous in Australian law from a case called Mabo v. Queensland. All sorts of fake news was written about that case. As if it were some radical departure from centuries of english common law. It wasn’t. Native title has always existed in the common law. But the doctrine of terra nullius was speciously used to avoid applying the doctrine of native title. In essence, by declaring discovered land idle/vacant, terra nullius vested title in the crown with the crown determining the possessory rights. Which was true of much land taken by the crown. But also, if the native population wasn’t Christian, they would declare terra nullius and just take it. Or kill everyone and take radical title by conquest.

Basically, if Australia wanted to give all this to another sovereign, they could. And Native Title would not be the vehicle to transfer radical title. That simply could not happen. It would be non sensical. A doctrine that grants only possessory rights subject to the sovereign could not convey radical title to another sovereign.

1
AllowMeToExplain 1 point ago +2 / -1

Jim Cramer said its all good. So no need to worry, everyone. Jim’s word is gospel.

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +5 / -1

If I had to date fag, I would say it has to be summer 2024. I don’t believe you can lock people down for extended periods in winter…especially with unrest. A good chunk of the country could be sub zero and without power. That would be really bad. And this would line up with typical election year shenanigans the dems pull with BLM and ANTIFA stuff.

Of course, that is just date fagging. No clue whether that will be true or not.

18
AllowMeToExplain 18 points ago +19 / -1

If she was actually fired, it wasn't for performance. It was for being Obama's apparatchik. She's not on the Biden team. Only when their goals align is she a team player. Otherwise, she is undermining him.

I've believed for a long time that there is an internal battle going on there between the Clintons and Obamas, and Biden is caught in the middle. The Clintons basically protect Biden. It is why the press doesn't defend Kameltoe and she gets assigned no win positions like border tsar. Her already poor ratings have made her less popular than dark brandon himself. This is by design. It is to prevent changing horses. Can't replace an unpopular buffoon with someone even less popular and possibly dumber.

The one difference between the Clintons and Obama is that they have awareness of how the public perceives things. This is why Hillary has come out openly questioning the wisdom of this trans movement thing. Not that she is against it; she's aware that ramming this down everyone's throats is a recipe for disaster. Obama has never given a shit about perceptions. Rarely does he back off. He's willing to drive off the cliff to reach his goals. Just like he did with Obamacare - which was a policy he could have achieved without expending all of his political capital with proper timing and planning. His legislative goals basically ended in 2010 with the passage of a law that pissed off everyone and gave the house to the reps. This left him having to work with a pen and a phone to continue the march to totalitarianism.

At some point, either a truce between the clintons and obama has to be made, or someone has to win that fight. I don't think a truce is possible because Obama ALWAYS backstabs and simply cannot be trusted.

5
AllowMeToExplain 5 points ago +8 / -3

Would be better off having said “no homo.” Because it would not have left the implication you’ve tried fake vaginas before.

view more: Next ›