safe and effective
might be disappointed by what you find. Most synagogues I've been to are pretty tame, kind of like a different flavor of your everyday church. if there is something to find, it would be in a place of exclusivity.
The guy is a doctor, not a detective. While he clearly does not go with the prescribed narrative with regard to COVID, his experience with viruses prior to 2020 is probably speaking here. If this one also ends up being a massive hoax, he'll probably see it. Until then, he's probably just going to make recommendations as if the news he reads is fact.
Obviously this facility is not equipped to handle this person's violent tendencies. Instead of having effective school teachers receive prison-style beatings, he should be under the care of professionals with the correct training for such violence.
Regular people are not liable to beat you within an inch of your life when confiscating property in a place where said property is not appropriate.
Care or not, if being around this person is this dangerous, he needs to be locked up. If not prison, then a mental institution.
Motherfucker I'm autistic. If I beat someone within an inch of their life over a fucking gameboy, I'd sure as hell expect to be thrown in prison.
The normies largely don't remember. anyone who does remember is a filthy conspiracy theorist.
anyone got a source on this bluecross policy?
better
bitch. The word you're looking for is bitch. grow a pair
u/ drama
faggots the lot of you
walkable cities
I welcome them, but
walkable cities where traffic in and out is heavily congested to the point where you can't realistically leave
can die in a fire. A real worthwhile walkable city would be designed from the ground up, surrounded by a ring of parking garages, and have good public transportation leading from the parking ring to the center. Maybe also city staff with utvs to help people ferry stuff from the parking ring to their home.
None of the cities currently in existence would make good "walkable" cities.
Lol, they can try all they want. Unfortunately Internet porn will exist in circulation so long as there is an Internet.
He definitely was, but he was an establishmentarianist who actually did his own research. I wouldn't even say he's fully /our guy/ now or anything, but his latest videos are full of quips and lamentations that he can't mention """certain things""" for fear of being deplatformed.
He's definitely swallowed the most important redpill: don't believe everything they tell you.
watching this man get slowly redpilled has been a sight to see. His faith in the institutions he upheld seems to be almost completely shattered, yet he carries himself with dignity and continues to search for the truth.
funny how often genocide is thrown around these days.
A mirror is what you need
Both of us are convinced FE is bullshit, but sadly there are those who are not. Simply refusing to let them speak like a moral busybody convinces no-one, and actually further roots the annoying conspiracy theory.
On the other hand, people claiming to be the unquestionable arbiters of truth is precisely why this forum exists in the first place.
I have never claimed nor endorsed the idea that the earth is flat.
The idea that the earth is flat, and this fact is being covered up, is a conspiracy theory by the most literal definition. Just because it it a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's true.
I never said it was
I've posted many details and thought out arguments in our conversations. I may be right, I may be wrong, but don't insult my character.
it's definitely a tough one, but banning whole conversations is not the right answer.
I suppose one step would be to make the posting of ad-hominem a bannable offense. For example:
person A: The earth is flat, nobody can prove otherwise
person B responding to A: I can personally attest that this is false, I just completed around the world trip over the Pacific, through China, then India, then South Africa, then Argentina, then back home. It was a lot of fun.
person C responding to A: That's so provably false, you are genuinely retarded.
Person's A and B would be fine, as they are engaging in legitimate discussion. person C brings nothing of value to the discussion and only serves to stir emotions. person C, in my opinion should receive a warning or a ban.
Don't get me wrong, Russia Today has reported on good information, particularly during the covid bullshit. but you would be deluded if you think this news story about a war Russia is involved in is in any way impartial.