Ok so I haven't followed the case very closely but it pops up in my feed and you see it all over the Donald. So if I am wrong and people watched the full trial or have better info I am open to info. This post is based just on my limited knowledge of the case. However, I believe we are being distracted from what the case is really about and that's about prescription drugs and violence and the dangers they cause psychologically. I believe we are intentionally being shown shiny objects like "she didn't do it" , " people ignore women's health" and so on and of course the conservative side is repeating the bits about the left supporting a woman who murdered her children. I believe this is to distract from the real point of the case and that is just like all the school shooters on meds... these drugs are dangerous very dangerous.I have yet to hear any liberal mention this. Imagine if those were the headlines and people stopped hiring nanny's, teachers hell anyone on these drugs. Liberal's and conservatives have been activated yet again to all believe and repeat lines and to disregard any bit about meds. If the headlines were about what this case is actually about... possibly medication induced psychosis imagine what that would to do the people taking these drugs?? Now I am not saying she didn't plan it or isn't guilty but I believe the point of this whole thing is being swept under the rug with distractions. What would it do to the drug industry if the focus was on over medication? I saw the ex husband is suing for wrongful death because of over medication. Is the state the one who has the case against her? Not the husband right? I saw his testimony that she was a great mom. I believe this testimony is to show that something went wrong and that she wasn't who she used to be. Like I said I haven't watched the entire trial but based on his lawsuit for wrongful death...I think this is about over medicating her and we are being very distracted and clearly lines are being fed intentionally. This is actually perhaps one of the largest cases ever against the drug industry and perhaps could save a lot of pointless school shootings and other violent acts if we were instead talking about the psychological dangers of many drugs.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Propagation implies linear procession...consenting to a suggested case confines ones mental thoughts within circular conflict.
That which picks implies ones choice, which can only operate in-between sides aka within balance. Picking either pushed side pulls ones choice off-center into imbalance.
Nature dividing each native implies innocence...natives ignoring this by uniting together implies guilt.
"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to ones consent to any suggested proof by another.
It's an open case until one consents to the suggestion thereof...after which it closes ones perception within the circumference of suggestion.
How does one confine self within a shut case? By choosing to hold onto any side within, which establishes a versus/verto - "to turn" conflict aka circular confinement.
Logos represents a suggested case; logic represents ones entrance into an open case; reason represents ones confinement within a shut case.
Consider the following..."Cases describe the grammatical functions of nouns, pronouns and noun phrases, such as whether they are the subject of the clause or a subordinate object."
That's how a case encloses subordinates aka how few utilize spell-craft to spell-bind many.
Believing implies mentally holding onto a suggested system aka sys (together) stem (to stand) like for example WE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
Doing that distracts the perceiving being (effect) from all perceivable (cause), hence causing a distraction (to draw away).
a) Nature objects each subjective native coming into being within...natives subject one another with artificial objects aka false idols/ideals.
How does one know if an object is false? Nature moves and cannot be held onto without destroying the native who tries, so holding onto mentally (ideal) or physically (idol) is objectively false.
Ob (towards) ject (to throw) aka being thrown towards implies objective (inception towards death) subjection (life).
b) Nature implies light; native implies radiance...few suggest artificial light to dim the radiance of many who in return ignore that only light shines.
If someone else "highlights" a spot within your mind to make you understand, then that isn't natural illumination (discernment), but an artificial highlight tempting your mind into darkness (ignorance).
If one resists what another highlights, then one enters the 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'...