TIL by pkvi
1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

The people didn't sign up for that.

2
Michalusmichalus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Planned parenthood switched to transgender treatment. The gag order they refuse to discuss was not talking about hormone replacement.

https://www.wbal.com/article/611347/124/honfest-reportedly-denies-planned-parenthood-maryland-as-vendor/amp

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree. It has been the one drug I can't let go. Caffeine is waaaay easier in comparison.

2
Michalusmichalus 2 points ago +2 / -0

The teaching I'd women to have self hatred was very sneaky. Women being triggered by their own biology is the most asinine brainwashing I can think of on this topic.

2
Michalusmichalus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Also this part.

"If this is the hill that we die on, I'm gonna die loud and proud because we've always fought and said equality for everyone," Sac said.

She did. The bakery died on that hill.

3
Michalusmichalus 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don't live near there, but when it was first brought to my attention they started the article with an interview of the owner saying, "gluten free, and vegan products should not be 5X more expensive" I was totally excited, and supportive of her goal. Even paying for shipping would have been inexpensive. Then they discuss how a drag queen event caused public backlash... What do drag queens have to do with bakery products?! Why did she have to do that? Then the article I read called everyone in that community bigots and, " turned on her" for boycotting her bakery. She took the woke stance that the people have to respect her politics rather than her realizing that her store should stay out of politics.

She closed her own store.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

People even have withdrawals from sugar. Addiction is an easily thrown around word, but a very detailed and studied topic.

3
Michalusmichalus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Before drug reps were severely restricted, they lied about how addictive these drugs were. I am lucky I don't have an addictive personality, I was Rx'd this for migraines back in the day. The effects we see today are the people that weren't so lucky.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, you have no facts to explain your OPINION. Meanwhile the rest of us are using, and sharing the facts we have to understand this case.

Go take your bullshit somewhere else. If you continue to refuse to cite your imaginings it will not be taken into consideration.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where did you find it? I'm very curious because legalese nitpicks words, and everyday words have different a meaning in legal contexts. As it stands, suing a person into compliance because they can't afford any more legal fees is what I see when I look at this case. And, that's a tried and true legal method.

I'd like to understand why you see something different.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

You turn everything down for nonsensical reasons. I don't believe you posted in good faith.

4
Michalusmichalus 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes, they are. Now we won't have nearly as many. Sad, but true.

0
Michalusmichalus 0 points ago +1 / -1

Seems like you need more math classes.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

I watched an hour long interview on rumble because of this thread. It was good, ty.

4
Michalusmichalus 4 points ago +4 / -0

He was publicly attacked just before / while he kicked cancers ass. He rightfully made himself more difficult to bother.

9
Michalusmichalus 9 points ago +9 / -0

We don't want woke people making more woke kids. Have optimism about who refused to participate in this trial.

7
Michalusmichalus 7 points ago +7 / -0

“On June 22, 2010, O’Keefe entered into the Employment Agreement with Plaintiffs, with the operative version being the Employment Agreement as amended on September 20, 2022, which O’Keefe and Project Veritas signed on September 30, 2022,” the suit states. “As part of the Employment Agreement, O’Keefe agreed to certain terms and conditions, both during and after the term of his employment. In Paragraph 1(B) of the Employment Agreement, O’Keefe agreed that he, identified as ‘Employee’ thereunder, ‘shall devote Employee’s full working time and attention and best efforts to the performance of Employee’s job’.”

They fired him. He's not an employee. This lawsuit is one of those attempts of the big guy to bully the one with less funds. Surely it's illegal to ask someone to never work again when you fire them? This isn't even an agreement not to work for others. This is a frivolous lawsuit.

1
Michalusmichalus 1 point ago +1 / -0

They have other incest relayed defects in Lancaster, PA.

3
Michalusmichalus 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Q account was sold at least twice. That's 3 distinct goals.

view more: Next ›