Oh, I really like her
Which part of my statement makes me a shill? No, the FDA did not make this admission. Yes, the statement was made by Steven Kirsch.
Yes, I think some stickies around here are sensationally written and glaze over facts.
It's kinda-sorta fake. The very true statement was not made by an FDA employee, but rather by Kirsch. I think some of the stickies around here are on the edge of tabloid fact twisting.
My guess is that they won't do it. It'll be bad for sales when a couple dozen hypersonic missiles takes it out. You cannot hide a patriot missile system, you have to defend it.
I do not believe we have an answer for the Kh-47M2. I know for certain we don't have an answer for a boatload of Kh-47M2s.
You would think! Suddenly these freaks have cognitive dissonance and believe that VAERS has overstated the risks through false attribution. On that note, I disengaged. I love debate, but hate cultish banter.
At this point, the judge is way less hostile and more accommodating than anything we saw in 2020. He just split the difference between the parties positions 50-50 on two different motions.
First, agreed - I prefer that Russia succeed in their mission to destroy the cabal in Ukraine.
Still, I have to say - I believe this war is supposed to destroy both participants. While Ukraine is by far the worst human rights violator in this war, Russia has been evil AF. The abuses are outsourced to mercs, but still tolerated and used tactically and strategically.
Of Russia's many crimes, using inmates as human wave cannon fodder is terrible. One cannot be pro-life and be in favor of human slaughter because someone is a prisoner.
While Russia has been mostly a good host for their POWs, there are plenty of horrific Geneva Convention violations by the Russians.
Oh, these are great. Appreciated!
Thank you!
Very nice. Thank you!
Thanks Fren! Yes, I included Dr Malone. Thankfully, he was recently stored to Twitter and his twats provide a whose-who of experts.
Yea, agreed. Actually, this is happening naturally, because he is Ukrainian. He wants me to join in his delusional worship of the pervert in high heels he calls a President.
OK - yes - one more slide down the slippery slope. No, it does not change the age of consent. Nor does it legalize pedophilia. It's another step into oblivion for California. Yes, they already allowed judge's discretion if a 24 year old raped a 17 year old girl. The judge could decide if that perverted piece of crap should be on the registry, or if he would be able to continue to rape kids.
But the law did not allow the judge to have discretion when a 24 year old raped a 17 year old boy. In that case, the judge had to put the perverted piece of crap on the registry. This squares the triangle of kid rape.
Interestingly, it will likely result in more convictions, not fewer. Judges have been exercising judicial restraint through suspended convictions in order to circumvent the requirement to put the child raping piece of crap on the registry.
I'm not saying that something isn't happening in Brazil, but this specific video is sketch.
I am seeing mixed messages about this. I haven't been able to verify yet, but some local Brazilian sources indicate that these videos are from 2018. Need to verify.
Yes, if disproportionate services are offered or rendered to the different campaigns, that would clearly be an in-kind contribution.
It might be difficult to prove in court. But the court of law isn't the point. The point is the court of public opinion.
From a historic perspective, the rise of Hitler comes to mind. The majority of his rise to power was either legal or in a grey area. That, combined with forced compliance of corporations and media, some false flags and presto! We have a new form of government.
I wonder if negotiations are going on behind the scenes as this gets dripped out.
Glow boy meltdown. Completely love it.
This is an absolute wild movie. No one guessed that Ye would have a full scale meltdown on Alex Jones. I'm full-on blown away!
This so much! Very little value in friendly fire.
I would refer you to the 1979 ruling - Burch v Louisiana. Here, the court established that a jury must be composed of at least 6 people and that a non-unanimous conviction by juries of less than 12 people is not valid.
I think you would find that the 6th amendment was written intentionally vague, because the original colonies were not in agreement as to the structure of their judicial system.
I do not know how far back 6 person juries go in the US, but it has been a while. Check this archive.org article from 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150602210951/https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/types-juries
At the end of the day, I think you are right based upon the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It was based largely on this, that Louisiana's non-unanimous jury convictions were overturned. I am torn from a perspective of state sovereignty.
So, I am aware and love the basis for the number 12. It's literally drawn from the number of disciples of Jesus. I love that.
The argument that 12 is an inviolable number is absurd, given that 12 is the law of the land in only 34 of the 50 states of our country.
I am not sure on this one. It seems that this is a question of tradition versus what is actually in the Constitution. It was a tradition that a jury consists of 12 people. It is not in the constitution as such.
I would imagine the slippery slope came into play here. Are there other constitutional disputes between the literal interpretation and traditions in effect at the time which would be affected by a ruling that the tradition of a 12 person jury establishes the Constitutional meaning of the term and thus defines the meaning of the right to a trial by jury?
It's interesting - I do not believe the courts can circumvent certification. Quite probably they can order certification at the threat of sanctions. Perhaps they can order the removal of officials who refuse to certify. I'd be very interested to know if there is any precedent for such a conflict.
Amazing. I sure hope he survived.
It might even serve our purpose better if she loses. It's going to be appealed all the way up. At the same time, there are a solid percentage of normies who understand that AZ was either stolen or handled terribly. Two of my normie friends have conceded to me, that this time the fraud is not deniable. I think there are many in that bucket.
So, if she "loses", it will help those who see the fraud to understand how broken the entire system is.