Cameroni

That's a good question. I think masks bother me so much for a variety of reasons: 1) They are worn by fools, because at the height of the pandemic top medical advisers said there is no evidence for masks providing protection 2) It is absolutely abhorrent to look at, it's like those Burqa wearing people (and I have no issue if they want to do that at home), it's sinister actually. 3) You cannot see people's facial expression or how good looking they are, so understandably ugly people love wearing masks. 4) People throw their masks all over the place and it's pointless garbage. 5) Last but not least there is that totalitarian dictatorship experience we all went through with the pandemic, of which the mask is a symbol

Sorry to break it to you, but action by government saved 0 lives, maybe you'd like to provide the evidence that 100 million would have died?. The lockdowns came much too late and were a giant mistake. As for your previous point, in the words of that greatest of thinkers, the unequalled Jonathan Sumption, former Supreme Court judge in the UK: "Human beings have lived with epidemic disease from the beginning of time. Covid-19 is a relatively serious epidemic, but historically it is well within the range of health risks which are inseparable from ordinary existence, risks which human beings have always had to live with. In Europe, bubonic plague, smallpox, cholera and tuberculosis were all worse in their time. Worldwide, the list of comparable or worse epidemics is substantially longer, even if they did not happen to strike Europe or North America." https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/institute-news/lord-sumption-a-state-of-fear

Yes, hysterics. Mankind has lived through countless pandemics before. Nothing special about this one. The flu pandemic killed 100 million. We're still here.

The reason is that Democrats want wars due to ideological fanaticism. When Conservatives opt for war it is generally a small contained serious dispute that leads them to war. However, the left is internationalist, and their nternational thinking , coupled with righteous moral mania and ideological righteousness, makes them far more dangerous.

When I see people wearing masks I am reminded of the horror of this pandemic, people who wear masks, about which senior doctors at the height of the pandemic said they confer no tangible benefit, should really be dragged into a public square and humiliated by the public by the throwing of rotten eggs and vegetables. These smug mask wearing fools.

What are you talking about, Taylor Swift HERSELF insists on putting her private life to the public and has made a career of washing her dirty linen in public! Her speciality is humiliating her exes and whining about her exes in her songs. She exploits her private life to make money. Hence we DO know she has hat AT LEAST 12 exes, though, indeed, you have a point Patong, I also suspect her body count is much higher, I would say 36 is a reasonable estimate. She is a party girl after all and has endless opportunities, background dancers (we all know Britney partook!), meeting celebrities at music events, actors throwing themselves at her, actually 36 maybe far too low. Of course her Gollum-like hunchback may end this debauchery soon, assuming her rel with Travis is real I don't think he will have much influence. Her manners are, by all accounts, excellent, but I'll give you a hint, if people throw 900 million Dollars at you, you might be nice to them too! Lol.

First of all you explained the micro capitalist procedure quite well congratulations. I want to make clear that I do not support tariffs in principle because I believe in a free market economy. However, what lie are you referring to specifically?

See, this is how history becomes lies. You quote this without saying that all this was done AFTER the British initated the bombing of civilians officially in May 1940. The Second Great Fire of London was of course payback for the carpet bombing the British had started in May 1940. You should state the full facts.

I owned the Lexus ES300h, it had good driving manners, the only disconcerting thing is the dead quiet, you do not know if the engine is on just by ear. So quiet it is almost eerie. But driving was good, economical. No issues. I think the Civic is a great choice. Enjoy.

Of course he <deleted> understood it. Hardly rocket science, is it?

Praise the <deleted> Lord. So all the hysterics when the pandemic broke out, all the mask fanatics...they were all wrong. Those of us who said it is another respiratory disease, we were all right. And the governments that locked down, all wrong.

The ethnic cleansing of Germans that took place after the war. "The idea to expel the Germans from the annexed territories had been proposed by Winston Churchill, in conjunction with the Polish and Czechoslovak exile governments in London at least since 1942." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950) Churchill did sign off on the Morgenthau plan. Hull had informed Truman that 32 million Germans would starve to death. It gave him nightmares and affected his health. It is inconceivable that Churchill would not have been informed of these reservations or advised by his own staff that 32 million Germans would starve due to the Morgenthau Plan. This was Plan was partially implemented and informed the occupation policy of Germany for a long time. In regards to bombing, the British bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4th September 1939, killing 435 Germans. Between Britain and Germany the British started the bombing. And they certainly started serious carpet bombing, whilst Germany did bomb Polish cities and Dutch cities, that was always within the context of military operations. The bombings of German civilians by the RAF were just bombings of civilians plain and simple terror operations. A big difference. The same with the Blitz, the German intent was always to hit military targets until the British started carpet bombing German cities. Middle ages? I do not think I mentioned the middle ages. I think the distinction you make between the big three is not a sustainable one. They were all murderers.

Apologies, I thought you were only talking about WWII. I see what you're saying now. However, the punishment raids Churchill authorised for subject colonial tribes, can hardly be called "wars". I strongly disagree that Churchill did not engage in genocide. He carpet bombed German civilians, signed off on their ethnic cleansing and also signed off on the Morgenthau plan, which was genocidal and envisaged 32 million Germans dying of starvation. All this was okayed by Churchill.

Strategic bombing, ie the deliberite carpet bombing of civilians, did not start with Poland. As was established the British invented this in the Middle East. They were the first to use it. Bomber Harris was carpet bombing Iraqi civlians long before he bombed civilians in Europe. Neither Poland nor Rotterdam, especially not Rotterdam, were "area bombings" of the kind the British invented and started since 1942 in Germany. "In February 1942, the British abandoned their "precision bombing" strategy. For the rest of the war, the British concentrated on the systematic widespread destruction of German cities by RAF nighttime air raids, a strategy called "area bombing." One reason the British took this fateful step was to "dehouse" the German people, which hopefully would shatter their morale and will to continue the war." https://teachdemocracy.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-15-3-a-firestorms-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-world-war-ii Remember we have the actual Strategic Bombing Directive from the British where it is documented they seek to target civilians. Nothing like this exists for the Luftwaffe, which did of course on occasion bomb civilians inadvertently during military operations. However, what the British did was qualitatively different. They actually invented carpet bombing and then systematically sought to carpet bomb civilians. Of course after the British started this Hitler replied in kind. But before this happened Hitler offered to outlaw the bombing of civilians for all parties, but unsurprisingly the British did not take him up on it.

The law has been passed very recently. By their nature these cases will be rare. And many parents will not want to talk to newspapers after such an event, indeed cannot do so because of ongoing litigation possibly. This is a problem that will happen. And if you look at the rewrite Tim Walz has signed you can see it is an all comprehensive, unfettered pro-abortion extremist rewrite. He even deleted the provision whereby the coercion of women into abortion was penalised. So pregnant women have no protection against such practices now.

Then we get to the kicker: Walz actually signed the repeal of the ban on coercion: Coercion; penalty. Any person who receives compensation for services under any program receiving financial assistance under this section, who coerces or endeavors to coerce any person to undergo an abortion or sterilization procedure by threatening the person with the loss of or disqualification for the receipt of any benefit or service under a program receiving state or federal financial assistance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Why is Tim Walz in favor of coercing women into abortions? And if he says he’s not in favor, why did he repeal the law against it? https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/08/tim-walz-made-it-legal-to-coerce-women-into-abortions/

Yes it is, the parents and infant need the protection of the law, they need doctors to have a duty to do everything to save the life of the infant. Under this law doctors can just turn around and say "in our view not reasonable care" and that's it, the baby will be left to die. The doctors have no obligation to save the life of the infant because Walz and his cabal did away with this protection. Just as they eliminated the monitoring of the babies that are born despite abortion and what happens to them.

You don't understand, the previous law gave parents the protection that doctors had to do all things possible to save the life of the child. Now, if a doctor is involved at all, and of course nurses can do abortion in Minnesota now, the doctor can tell the parents "not reasonable medical care in our view" and that child is then left to die. It is a truly evil law.

Says who? You? If I had child that was born, luckily mine were heallthy, God forbid with some medical issue of course doctors should do all they can to keep it alive. Now doctors have no obligation to do so, thanks to Liebling and Walz, they can just turn around and say to the parents "in our view not reasonable", since "reasonable medical care" is not defined in this abomination of a law. Nor is "care" defined. And for good reason, because this is an extremist abortion law. Imagine not having a single gestation period limitation! Doctors don't have to do abortions, nurses can do it! So under this law there may not even be any doctor involved in the abortion,

Liebling would say that, since she was the ultra feminist behind this law, she's a lawyer not a doctor. Let's have a look at the actual wording: The language about preserving the infant’s life and health is gone. The law now requires “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice … shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.” What Walz and Liebling did was to deliberately water down the protections for the infant. "What are "reasonable" measures? It's not defined, jus as "care" is not defined. Who can play God here and say a child has no hope of survival? Liebling? There should be a requirement to ensure everything is done to keep a living being alive. Walz and Liebling destroyed these protections in their pursuit of pro-abortion extremism.

Nobody in their right mind would deny an abortion where the mother or child would die or have serious health consequences. That's not the issue. The issue is that the law in Minnesota does not contain a single limitation on gestation period so even viable post 27 week babies can be aborted if the mother decides. She needs no specific reason under this abomination of a law. You said that doctors decide. In fact the law specifies that doctors don't even have to do abortions, nurses can do it! "Finally, Minnesota law no longer requires that abortions be performed by a physician. Nurse practitioners can now provide reproductive health care services" https://www.ag.state.mn.us/AbortionRights/ It is absolutely vile and evil what Walz and his cabal have unleashed on Minnesota. We cannot have extremists like Walz and Harris pass abortion laws that require not a single gestation period limit! Abortions not performed by doctors. It's insane. Swift may like it but it goes against all that is decent and reasonable.

Yes and Winston Churchill was a Liberal and Adam Kinzinger is still a Republican. You're keeping up very well.

Trump saying this nonsense, that babies are murdered after birth, I can't fathom why he'd say such a stupidity. However, it is very clear that in Minnesota the thing they were very subtle about was to remove the duty on doctors to use life saving measures and ensure now that only "care" is required. You have to understand that before a doctor was obliged by the law to do all life saving measures possible. Now, no longer. He, the doctor, and the mother can play God. Of course this won't happen a lot, because people are not insane, but in law this is the state of affairs. This is bad, and the Democrats did a very bad thing in allowing abortion without any gestation period limit. I mean this is completely insane. No civilized country in the world has such laws on abortion.

“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. It only requires ‘care.’ So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures,” Paul Stark, communications director with the pro-life group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told the Register. Republican state Rep. Peggy Scott of Andover described the language in the new bill as “very vague.” She noted that it doesn’t define “care,” and she argued that everyone deserves potentially lifesaving intervention. “Whether that baby lives or dies, that is not up to a human being — another human being — to decide that. In my opinion, that baby should be treated and given lifesaving care regardless of the maladies that baby may be born with,” Scott said. https://www.ncregister.com/news/tim-walz-born-alive-abortion So in Minnesota now women and doctors can play God and decide if they save the life of a child or not. Whereas before the law required them to use life saving measures, now it only requires "care". I addition where abortions resulted in babys born alive there was a law passed in 2015 in Minnesota that required to document these cases and what happened to the babies. Walz also made sure to repeal this law, so there will be no more mechanism to track anything related to such cases.

No because previously the law required doctors to keep a baby alive. This has now been changed to say "care for the baby". A crucial difference,.