TimHauck

So, you agree with not making it more difficult to get abortions?

Well we know Brand was dating a 16 year old when he was in his 30s. So at best he’s a groomer. The GC taught me that the punishment for grooming should be death

I see your disclaimer but I think you are going to regret comparing Portnoy to Brand. Like I said in that thread much more smoke to the Brand allegations IMO. Even in the video in the OP Portnoy says “nothing that I say is ever off the record,” and yet there is evidence Brand tried to hide his relationships. Even the allegations from this email are simply “mysoginist comments,” not rape. I am trying to be my usual centrist self and look at each issue on its own merits. Meanwhile the GC: “BAHH THE MSM IS EVIL AND IS TRYING TO CANCEL ANYONE THEY DISAGREE WITH!!”

Apparently Justin can neither confirm nor deny if he wants to see nuclear war

Bump for start with hello week. Also @Cdub100 is a horrible human being

How would a “small monthly payment” eliminate bots anyway?

Lol that’s dumb if true

I agree that there were several people trying to break it up. It's not clear when the "medical event" happened though. Witnesses say he was knocked unconscious from a punch, so the "medical event" could have happened after that and thus likely would have been caused by the punch.

Probably the Covid vaccine

I think I read that she was doing it to fundraise FOR the campaign?

Sorry guess it was three sentences not two. Here’s the one before your last excerpt: In the pooled analysis, we observed non-significant less COVID-19 positivity rate in the prophylaxis group as compared with non-prophylaxis group (RR = 0.27 and CI = 0.05, 1.41) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%, P < 0.001) It wasn’t three different “studies,” it was 3 different groupings of studies, with only 1 of them finding a significant result. And that was based on three studies, at least one of which was confirmed to be fraudulent (maybe more). I didn’t ignore the authors’ conclusion, I stated the overall result was not statistically significant which is true. “Needs further study” is pretty much the same thing as saying the results aren’t statistically significant… And again, I’ve acknowledged that there is more data regarding ivermectin’s ineffectiveness as a treatment than a prophylaxis. But the other part of the conclusion that you posted is that they said based on their analysis that “it’s not the magical silver weapon” like some such as Weinstein have claimed. But because we know it doesn’t work to actually treat Covid, I’m not sure where the logic is that it could prevent it. And even if it could, it’s still not a real alternative to the vaccine (getting back to the incredibly stupid “ivermectin could have invalidated the vaccines’ EUA!” argument) because you’d have to take it every day.

Did they use a night vision camera? Sounds like a setup

It’s honestly not really for ten year old girls, it’s more targeted for adult women and maybe teenagers. I did see it with the wife and some friends, it was weird.

It wasn’t focused on one attendee you focking idiot

You don’t think it’s a good idea for theaters to have cameras for security purposes?

Why should she step aside unless they have another candidate that can easily replace her? She didn’t do anything illegal. I’m sure it will cost her votes, but it’s not like she’s George Santos (who of course did not step aside)

Usually when people talk about missing context, they’re talking about like a 5-10 second quote being taken out of context. That was a minute and forty seconds where both the question and answer were included. The context was provided. And holy sh1t, in literally the same post where you complain about missing context, you take out context from the study. You deleted the prior two sentences where the results were not significant. They were only significant in “cohort studies,” where there were only 3 to begin with, and at least one of them (Carvallo - which was why Weinstein claimed it was “nearly perfect” as a prophylaxis) was proven to be fraudulent. C’mon jerry, be better.

No I’m commenting about Joe Biden, Chicago, the border, trannies and drag queens

Generally when people are already acting obnoxiously, that brings more eyeballs to them than there otherwise would have been. Same with being a public figure. Combine the 2 and yeah, I’m pretty sure.

It’s right in the beginning. It pops out, then she covers it back up

It was clearly exposed, you’re joking right?

Assuming it occurred after the flash photography, singing and vaping, I’m sure someone did. Maybe not children, no one knows.

Oh, now you “doubt very seriously,” nice backtracking from your confidence that “nobody saw anything “

Oh sorry, didn’t realize you were there. She was one seat from the aisle, so in addition to people sitting near her, her exposed fake boob may have also been able to be seen by people on the other side of the aisle. Honestly at first I thought she didn’t appreciate the dude feeling her up. But clearly that wasn’t the case…

Ok, so you admit you can see other people in theaters you just don’t pay attention to them?