COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 2228

starting strength gym
Page 2228 of 2478 FirstFirst ... 1228172821282178221822262227222822292230223822782328 ... LastLast
Results 22,271 to 22,280 of 24776

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #22271
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    147

    Default

    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    • starting strength seminar april 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovan Dragisic View Post
    When I said that the US government took out a bunch of innocent lives, I meant American lives as well. The rest of your post is repeating US government talking points, which I really do not want to debate. Sure, have your combat ready troops or whatever, this will keep you safe. I just hope they all wear masks.
    Again, as far as "personal perspective" goes, I am most likely the only person here with personal experience of being bombed for a year straight, so you can dispense with the theatrics.
    That's a bit of a detour on the original point, but yah, the devil is in the details Say I'm a young American male, patriotic, ready to serve, I get trained, I'm ready to fight anyone and anything for my country and my cause. I drank the kool-aid, I follow my orders and programming, and I love to kick ass and I'm good at it. I'm sent to another country, I go on an op, I enter a house, another young male is in a room sleeping with his family, he reaches for his gun--boom, headshot, he's dead, his wife is a widow, kids don't have their father. This was a guy who was probably as patriotic and a believer in his cause as I am in mine. If I met him at a bar in Paris, perhaps we would have shared a drink, had a few laughs, and argued a bit about government, religion, philosophy, etc, and became friends. Instead, because some aging old narcissists in charge of our countries programmed us to believe that we needed to kill and hate each other so I had to kill him and destroy his family. Often it seems these conflicts are started for personal/group gain, not some patriotic war against a real threat (Haliburton conspiracy?). I'm ignorant on this topic, but it seems in recent years the only real threat that needed a bitchslap was North Korea, which is most likely just a proxy for China to test US resolve. But, WTF do I know. All these other conflicts seem to just be about profit, or some other selfish political reason. Trump comes in, starts going to task to end these conflicts quickly. Why? Perhaps because he doesn't profit from war. He quickly noticed how US generals seemed to be purposely dragging out the conflicts, he makes some changes, and starts having success. The end of these conflicts is in sight. What happens to him? In his 2020 election, we see PSYOPS tactics on US soil that are exactly the tactics the US agencies/military (CIA) have used in other countries to invoke regime change. Coincidence?

    Eisenhower warned about this, but hey, we are young, dumb, and programmed to not ask questions. Our orders are to just go kill these "foreign enemies". People we'd actually have more in common with than the sheep we are protecting and the narcissists we are serving. I'm all for killing enemies and threats, hell, it's pleasurable and honorable to kill bad guys, but not made-up enemies that only serve selfish interests of tyrants in power.

  2. #22272
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Man buddy, did the Bushes ever fool a lot of people!
    Fool me once, shame on… me?

  3. #22273
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by od1 View Post
    Trump comes in, starts going to task to end these conflicts quickly. Why? Perhaps because he doesn't profit from war. He quickly noticed how US generals seemed to be purposely dragging out the conflicts, he makes some changes, and starts having success. The end of these conflicts is in sight. What happens to him? In his 2020 election, we see PSYOPS tactics on US soil that are exactly the tactics the US agencies/military (CIA) have used in other countries to invoke regime change. Coincidence?
    Exactly. The American permanent government is by far the biggest danger Americans face, especially since it is now for all intents and purposes bankrupt.

  4. #22274
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by od1 View Post
    What happens to him? In his 2020 election, we see PSYOPS tactics on US soil that are exactly the tactics the US agencies/military (CIA) have used in other countries to invoke regime change. Coincidence?
    They could have at least had the decency to tell us the color they chose for our color revolution! My guess is purple, based on Hillary's concession speech and all the purple at Biden's inauguration. Like I've said several times before, these are very theatrical people, and they love their symbolism.

    Infant Denied Life-Saving Transplant Over Vaccines

    But when they referred the baby to the hospitalÂ’s transplant team, its head, David Bearl, told AugustÂ’s parents Hannah and Clint Stoll that he would refuse to perform the transplant until their son received several childhood vaccines.

    “It’s so illogical,” Hannah Stoll told The Epoch Times on June 24. “He’s an immunocompromised baby in critical condition and this doctor wants to pump him up with vaccines… We know it will kill him.”

    The Tennessee couple, homeschoolers with four other children, asked Bearl yesterday to reconsider his position, but Hannah said he refused. Stoll said her son is so fragile they canÂ’t even consider moving him to another facility.
    That doctor has a name and an address.

    I wonder how wal would have defended this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    Merrick Garland launches legal insurrection against the United States - revolver news

    The article mentions a tweet https://archive.ph/e85MR from Mike Cernovich worth highlighting:

    DOJ does not issue statements like these disagreeing with Supreme Court rulings. It doesnÂ’t happen. It has no lawful basis.

    This can only be seen as a direct threat against the judiciary by Stasi agents.

  5. #22275
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,097

    Default

    This is amazing:

    Justice Department Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

    The Department of Justice today released the following statement from spokeswoman Dena Iverson following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.:

    “We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

    Then, today, Old Man Merrick took things one step further. The DOJ issued yet another statement “disagreeing” with the Supreme Court, this time on their ruling against a Constitutional “right” to abortion. But this time, Merrick Garland personally issued the statement himself, which makes this escalation that much more dangerous to our Republic.

    Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

    “Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

    “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

    “The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.
    This is a fundamental change in the relationships between the 3 branches of government. They are trying everything they can to start a hot civil war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Note that Roberts voted with the minority. Man buddy, did the Bushes ever fool a lot of people!
    Oops. Looked at the wrong numbers. Sorry.

  6. #22276
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    450

    Default

    And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.
    Well, shit, if that's how we operate in the Biden era, it's time to cancel out Brown v. Board of Education, go back to the original Plessy vs Ferguson, and bring back separate but equal. After all, precedent is all that matters.

  7. #22277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrfunk View Post
    Well, shit, if that's how we operate in the Biden era, it's time to cancel out Brown v. Board of Education, go back to the original Plessy vs Ferguson, and bring back separate but equal. After all, precedent is all that matters.
    They focus so much on stare decisis in this case because Roe is so weak on the merits that no one even attempts a positive argument for it. The best they have is "it was decided fifty years ago!"

  8. #22278
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Oops. Looked at the wrong numbers. Sorry.
    I had read that the original draft opinion that got leaked was 5-4. The one today was 6-3 with Roberts with the majority. A lot of people are speculating the leak spurred him to join in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    TAs tempting as that is, I hope you realize that doing this would be the same as the SCOTUS voting for Roe v Wade. They lacked the Constitutional authority then, too. Charge the fuckers with the crimes they have committed, fine them out of existence, and jail them. But follow the procedure.
    According to the article, they are going after Gates based on existing North Dakota law. Specifically I believe they just forbid LLCs and corporations from buying up farmland there. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not a lawyer. It looks like this law is designed to prevent the same sort of fuckery Gates is attempting. Since Gates is doing it via "Red River Trust" and not personally with his own money, it's subject to these laws.

  9. #22279
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Northern USA
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrfunk View Post
    Well, shit, if that's how we operate in the Biden era, it's time to cancel out Brown v. Board of Education, go back to the original Plessy vs Ferguson, and bring back separate but equal. After all, precedent is all that matters.
    Let's not forget Dred Scott v. Sandford.

    Stare decisis y'all.

  10. #22280
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    50,097

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by CommanderFun View Post
    I had read that the original draft opinion that got leaked was 5-4. The one today was 6-3 with Roberts with the majority. A lot of people are speculating the leak spurred him to join in.
    Some people are speculating that they have pictures...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •