Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The only people who consider the health clause to mean pretty much abortion on demand is pro lifers. That’s the crux of my point, it’s nothing short of hysteria.
I’m fine with you manufacturing your own hyperbolae, but don’t pretend as if thats the intent or meaning of the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Created:
Posted in:
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
As far as I am aware, and correct me if I’m wrong - the limits this law spells out are identical to roe and doe. While the update of the law from 1970 had the minor impact of replacing “health at risk” with “life at risk”, the idea that this leads to abortion at 9months on demand is primarily the manufactured hyperbolae from hysterical right wingers.
In reality, this part of the law is there for what it says - to protect mothers when their health and life is genuinely at risk, and provides for the option if medically necessary.
While I’m sure the slippery slope and “omg ambiguity!” Teeth gnashing may sound relevant, and compelling - when you start thinking about the human practicalities of such, it’s clear not something thats going to happen, it clearly isn’t the intent of the law, and the idea that the abortion fairy is going to start killing the babies of women in labour is largely a product of manufactured outrage - not reality.
In reality, this part of the law is there for what it says - to protect mothers when their health and life is genuinely at risk, and provides for the option if medically necessary.
While I’m sure the slippery slope and “omg ambiguity!” Teeth gnashing may sound relevant, and compelling - when you start thinking about the human practicalities of such, it’s clear not something thats going to happen, it clearly isn’t the intent of the law, and the idea that the abortion fairy is going to start killing the babies of women in labour is largely a product of manufactured outrage - not reality.
In reality, I am fine with unviable fetuses and those with significant defects and abnormalities being aborted, and in cases where the mothers life is at risk, or in cases where the mothers health is at risk, in the non-conservative-hyperpobale sense of the word: aren’t you?
Created:
Posted in:
Ahh yes, the conservatives are stoking their outrage at the coming of the abortion fairy, who is coming murder babies right before birth because the mother just changes her mind at the last minute! Oh the outrage! Oh the humanity! Oh the slippery slope until you’re Euthanized in your sleep at age 35!
This is primarily just typical Hysteria of triggered conservatives. The law isn’t really changing very much at all, other than the blood pressure and WPM of conservative bloggers.
Although this thread has almost all the tropes. All I need is one mention of transgender toilets, or there being 100 genders and I hit a conservative-outrage-bingo for today!
Created:
-->
@Mopac
1.) You’ve replied to literally no point raised in my previous post, or any of my other posts for that matter.
2.) you have yet to offer any argument or justification as to why “The proper way” is actually the proper way, other than your opinion.
3.) you keep objecting, and asserting that there is some how some “proper” role - yet you have yet to offer any argument or justification as to why these “proper” roles are indeed proper.
4.) The remainder of your post is a largely unrelated, foaming at the mouth, nonsensical rant, where you some how equate society not guilting women into a role, with the downfall of the west. This is just plain lunacy, and quite frankly leads me to question your own reasoning ability if not the level of your mental health.
Given that you seem to be ignoring every rebuttal, and counter point, and simply asserting that your views are correct, that gender roles are correct and appropriate, without every providing a justification of why that makes any sense:
I will treat this as a concession. You’ve gone about 3 pages now avoiding this, that’s quite enough I think. So please, feel free to try and justify your argument, rather than simply restating it.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You have specific and highly restrictive views of gender roles that mean you feel that a woman should chose staying at home and looking after children instead of having a career, as its predominantly her role, and men should not do it as it somehow makes them less manly.
That is very much misogyny whether you are to admit it or not.
As Ive shown, you have no good reason to hold the views you so - so you can’t even argue your position is even justified.
Now, pay attention. I attach no shame to women doing a historically male role, or women doing a historically female role. It should be a free choice based on the people involved and no one should be guilted or compelled into chosing differently because it’s some enforced social norm, enforced by social circles, peer groups and general social views about people acting in some given ways that have no objective justification.
You on the other hand have been repeatedly derogatory, mean, and otherwise disdainful if anyone who deviates from your assessment of gender roles. Implying mothers who chose careers are neglectful, and fathers who actively raise their kids as less manly.
So the disrepespect, and shaming is all coming from you - unanimously. You view people who chose a different path implicitly lesser - or otherwise more poorly than those differently - so please - the spiteful and objectionable beliefs are all yours.
Now, whilst name calling, and offering - yet again - no justification for anything your saying - my position here - is based on reality. Men should be prepared to man up and take a more active role in their kids lives, and it there is no reason a dad should be viewed negatively for taking that type of active role. Despite your unsupported assertion, mothers shouldn’t be guilted into accepting a one sided deal, and should be free to be able to make a decision with their partners about who raises their children free of the social pressure and guilt caused by troglodytes such as yourself who will judge people for making a decision - that you are unable to objectively support.
That’s not progressivism, that’s basic common sense.
Now, as for enlightenment - i view this on the basis of facts - and I like the things I believe, or don’t believe - to be rooted in fact. If my opinion has a factual basis, it’s less likely to be racist, sexist of misogynistic. And less likely to be wrong. The bottom line is that you have absolutely no factual basis for your position, you can’t provided any facts that supported, and the only justification you’ve used to defend them have all been shown to be laughably absurd.
This isn’t about being enlightened or not - this is about basic ability to reason, and basic facts: two respects in which you seem to continually fall short in.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is preferable for a mother to dedicate her energies to being a good steward of the home and for the father to be breadwinner. There is nothing about this that implies subjugation of women or the neglect of children by the father.
Why?
We’ve established that “because history” is a stupid argument - and you’ve yet to provide a counter argument.
We’ve establishes that “because nature” is also a stupid argument - and you’ve yet to provide a counter argument.
All I’m left with, is that you feel it’s precerable for women to do it, because of your views of women and men that you are unable to justify, and are based on your opinion.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You have two problems. The first is that you don’t appear to be bothered by your own misogyny, or even view it as such: and your second is that you appear incapable of either supporting your own position with any facts, nor are you capable of addressing any facts or arguments that are too hard to argue against.
That’s why it’s a concession: you’re showing me that the argument against you is too difficult, or too substantial for you to argue against: so you don’t.
And yes; your argument is that women should be living - and should be happy to live - the 18th century gender stereotypes that you continually assert, and seem unable to justify. You’re entire premise here is that society should be reverting back to these historical gender roles - which are themselves enforced by society - by virtue of continual reinforcement in the media, from people like you, and through the behaviour of role models.
So yes - the entire point here is that society enforces gender roles - and you’ve literally gone the last 3 pages trying to tell us all that it’s acceptable.
Perhaps the issue is that you’re not sufficiently capable of understanding anything outside your worldview, or paradigm?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
1.) Your not a doctor, nor are you telling me I have cancer. You trust the doctor because they are trained and trusted to make those decisions, and it’s their job to be accurate about whether you have cancer or not. It’s expensive and subject to litigation if they get it wrong.
Youre just some random individual on the internet asserting that you are right, with no formal training, that isn’t in a position of authority, that hasn’t been educated to make this particular decision, so please don’t equate the two
The idea that you feel these two are equivalent shows a desperate lack of basic critical thinking.
2.) Subjugate women a joke? Just because you are comprehensively unwilling to look at what your advocating, and realizing that it’s a misogynistic, one sided view of women, where you are treating yourself as special and better, and that women should be by default subservient to their husbands career: is Absolutely misogynistic, and is absolutely attempting to subjugate women.
You don’t view it that way, as you feel that it’s equal for women to be unequal. The laughable issue isn’t that you’re not profoundly prejudice - it’s that you don’t recognize your own prejudice.
3.) No matter how many times you continue to propagate your own ridiculous stereotypes - it doesn’t mean they are any more true.
History and society are meaningless as drivers for what is good and bad - for the history of humanity women have been brutalized, and subjugated - and in many cases have only even been allowed to vote more recently. They still aren’t in many places.
The idea that we should look at history as a guide for how to act - is the most shocking stupid things that you have said. This is merely a ridiculous example of you trying to justify your own misogyny. A point that you continue to ignore.
4.) Nature is a stupid example too. Humans entire history, and current behaviour is to override our own biology. We augment our biology, and our inherent biological background because we’re leaving in global advanced society and not hunter gatherer tribes.
Nature drives humans to fight and kill each other over mates - to chose fats and sugars over vegetables. They drive us to cheat and obscure paternity.
The idea that some how we must be slave to enforced gender roles - in a society which mostly created them - because of nature is equally stupid.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I’m taking what you’re saying as a concession, as it’s an implicit concession.
You said what you were saying is “fact”, the you refuse to actually defend anything with facts. If you are forced to rely on asserting your position is true, and are forced to rely on subjective opinions to establish your facts - both of which you’ve been doing: you’ve conceded the point.
The only reason you’ve given that it’s soley the woman’s job to look after children, is that you think it’s a woman’s job to look after children. That’s the upshot of asserting nature and history, you’ve offered no actual compelling reason.
Theres no biological imperative here - it’s not like men are incapable of looking after children, and there is nothing in our genetics or biology that makes men ineffective care givers to small children. Historical imperative is ridiculous too, women have only been able to vote relatively recently, and have been treated almost like incapable objects until a similar time. The idea that I must rely on historical orwcedent here is ridiculous.
I associate your thinking here with an 18th century caveman - because that’s what it is. It is an attempt to defend your own implicit desire to subjugate women into a position of domestic servitude, and to refuse to accept an equal role in the upbringing of your children.
Your position is literally the proposition that women are unequal and should be treated unequally, that men have somehow an inherent additional requirement and capacity that supersedes the wants or needs of a woman.
You make not like that - but just because you’re trying to justify your opinion that women are not equal - does not mean that’s not what you’re doing.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
As I said, I’ve already accepted your concession.
You keep telling me staying at home is noble - unless your a man, and it’s not a bad thing to go out and have a career and earn a living - unless your a woman.
You can’t give me a factual explanation why either of those things are true - you just keep asserting over and over again that somehow, it’s because of “nature”, though you can’t explain how or why: and you keep asserting that I should beleive you because that’s the way it’s always been (unless your from one of the cultures, where it isn’t.
You can keep going asserting your backward nonsense: but I’m afraid that it is indeed 2019, a full 200 years since your point of view was truly in fashion.
If you want to view your wife or partner as some thankless baby factory, who’s sole job it is to procreate and then take care of the children, and if you want to give your children the male role model of weak, selfish human being who views himself above women, do that: but don’t try and convince anyone else your backward caveman attitude is factual.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
1.) I take it as a concession as you claimed something is a fact - that you now can’t support with any actual facts - and refuse to defend it with actual facts - tells me your conceding the point
2.) The only person who is claiming that going out to make bread is not acceptable, is - literally - you.
3.) The only person arguing that being the steward of the home is not acceptable or noble is - literally - you.
4.) Biology doesn’t dictate these roles, that have a history of going out to work a job is not implicit in your genetics - it is cultural not biological. Women are quite capable of doing men’s jobs and taking men’s rolls, and men are quite capable of doing women’s rolls, stewarding the home and taking care of kods. The only reason people like you don’t like it, is because you’ve been brought up to think that. It’s nothing to do with genetics, biology or DNA. It’s purely social.
5.) If it’s an honour, why take it away as an option for men?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It’s fine, I accept your inability to give me a good reason as a concession.
”that’s the way it’s always been done”, as well as being untrue, and largely ethnocentric (with other cultures throughout history not working this way), is it a valid reason for doing very much of anything.
Its your opinion, you can’t justify it, so your throwing out lazy claims and assorted nonsense.
Its what nature dictates?
Nature also dictates we can’t fly, drive, staff infections should be nominally fatal, that marriage should last about 5-8 years and you shouldn’t eat anything more processed than being naturally farmed and cooked.
No. Kids just need love and care, they dont care whether that comes from mum or dad.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So no actual argument? No justification for any claims?
Thought so.
I accept your concession that your position is your opinion, and you are unable to justify it
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah. As I said - all your opinion. And a terrible, misogynistic 19t century opinion at that.
The idea that caring for your children is emasculating is merely down to your own cultural bias. It’s the result of simply being taught that this is true. You have no objective reason to believe this is true.
The same goes for the idea that it’s only the woman’s role to care for children. This is simply based on you having been taught that this is true, by misogynistic and biased individuals and society. You have no objective reason to believe that either.
If you’re not willing, or not capable of looking after your own children, that’s on you; don’t force your own insecurities on men as a whole. If you feel that your career and position in life takes priority over your wife or partners, then again - that’s on you, just because you’re own self centered opinions put your own needs over your partner - don’t force that on everyone else.
Maybe your position is based on these same insufficiency of your own father - not showing you how to be comfortable being a man and a decent loving caring father: leaving you with a twisted and misogynistic personality, that you’re unfortunately probably going to pass on to your children too - that’s how this sort of cultural bias works, it self propagates.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The only point you made here is that fathers cannot breastfeed - they can bottle feed, and breast pumps exist, so if that’s the only argument you have - it’s a pretty poor reason.
The rest of your non-response is clearly pathetic.
Your entire position is based absolutely on all those ridiculous assumptions, and your whole response seems predicated on a 19th century view of women as baby factories.
The fact that you have no argument here pretty much tells everyone that what you’re saying is not a fact, it’s your own backward opinion based on your own insufficiencies and inadequacies as both a man, and as a human being in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ive not seen any indication of anything that points to maintenance by juggle, so I’m not quite sure what your referencing. The important aspect about money is that if a site doesn’t make money, it appears less of a concern for Juggle - or the next company, so investing in maintenance is likely less important.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Here are the implicit assumptions - based on your own cultural bias - and are not facts by any means, just a product of your own biases:
- That it’s solely the mothers job to be focused on her children, and not the fathers.
- That Fathers are not capable of caring for children, or providing equivalent nurture and care as a woman.
- That care from a family group is solely mother and father, that social groups, grandparents and other family members - or associated surrogates are incapable of providing sufficient care.
- That mother’s have a moral obligation to dedicate themselves full time to their children, but not fathers.
- That the burden of choice between childcare and career is only something that falls on the mother.
None of these are facts, just products of your own social and cultural biases. If any one of them were considered differently - you’re nonsense argument falls apart.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I don't see you making an effort to clarify.
Clarify what - that your initial point and your current point are not the same? Why does that need clarification?
Why are you not clarifying why you feel they are the same - when you’re the only one that knows why you think that’s the case?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Again, mostly unrelated to the point :PIf you don't mind your kids picking up really bad habits at daycare, fine.That isn't raising your kids.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
A child who is raised by one parent is an orphan.They are at a disadvantage. 1 good parent is not going to fill all the roles 2 good parents can do.
That’s nice.
Its also largely unrelated to your original point, of the one I was making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I am fairly certain juggle doesn’t exist any more. The subsiding company OneSpace doesn’t really do the same thing, and the domain related services and emails don’t appear to be answered.
Stuff working and not working is not an indication anything is being worked on - many websites link to external libraries, when they are updated they can cause (or fix) problems. The issue could be as simple as some library being updated on the 3rd party server.
DDO is unlikely to be source of revenue for the company, and my bet is there’s just some email that gets checked once In a blue moon when someone remembers. If that. I doubt you’ll get much more than the occasional patch, if your lucky - and that is presuming there is anyone who remembers the site even exists.
I suspect one of three things will happen:
1.) The site becomes more and more buggy and then gets shut down when the domain expires.
2.) The site winks out of existence one day just like juggle.com
3.) The site is shut down and is replaced with the content of someone else who bought the domain rights.
I suspect that there is a reasonable chance of ddo simply winking out of existence with no warning as a result.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What I said is not an opinion. Its a fact.
Actually, what you said is the embodiment of a social norm. It’s a fact to you, because you a fairly large subset of social mechanisms have been ingraining this into the next generation through upbringing, media representation, marketing, legislation, business attitudes, etc.
It’s not a fact by any stretch, because quite frankly women are just as capable of being good mothers and have a career as it is for men to be good fathers and have a career.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You said speciation, which is a completely different thing.
It’s like using the word “car” in one sentence, and then saying you were referring to “o j Simpson”.
That being said, there are millions of examples of macromutations:
Skeletal dysplasiac Dwarfism is a macromutation. So is Hypertrichosis, so is Polydactyly, and cute attacisms like humans growing a tail (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LC_a0uMy_KY) it’s literally a pretty common occurrence - so common that I can almost gaurentee that you either know someone with, or have interacted with a human with a macromutation.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Speciation has been observed multiple times.Besides, speciation has never been proven
Multipe dozens of not hundreds of cited examples (together with references to the scientific literature can be found here:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
Or you can just google “observed instances of speciation”, and you will see a substantial number of additional examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
pretty sure juggle only bought Debate.org for the name.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #21
Thinking that responding to intellectual opposition with rage, insults, dog whistles is a great idea is the reason republicans lost more seats in the house than they have in 40 years. Keep going.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #20
Specific and detailed objections have been stated, and you’ve ignored them. The neat deflection, where you are forced to ignore all details - is worthy of another bs point!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #18
Yeah, it seems this is Gruppenführer Greyparrots go to strategy, if he can’t defend his claims, he simply repeats the same troll linez
So, this is Trumps shutdown. He is fully responsible, firstly because he said it was all on him, if you forget - and also because this is all about a demand he wants to be included in the budget, when the majority of congress doesn’t care. When politicians want a particular policy goal to be enacted, it requires discussion, research and negotiation: there is no need for the government to be shut down in order to do. Trump told you he was the greatest negotiator, a very stable Genius, and that Mexico would pay for the wall, this shutdown is occuring because al three of those are demonstrably wrong, and regular people are suffering because Trump is not acting like a grown up.
But sure, ignore all that and Troll! That makes you rightx
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #19
It seems that in the process of being unable to say anything, you’ve mostly shut down, stuck your fingers in your ears and are refusing to listen to any facts that are inconvenient; it’s like I’ve upset you after reminding you of some uncomfortable fact or truth.
If only there was a word for that!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #17
GP has been repeatedly fact check, and instead of defending any claims, he again simply repeats an insult.
He won’t defend his claims that this is the fault of everyone, when it was pointing out this was clearly trumps decision - his having previous agreed to a funding bill. Nor will he defend his false statements about the senate, or the blame that can be drawn from if; nor his omission of the fact democrats earned an electoral mandate, nor facts relating to the fact that this is obviously a political ploy and not urgent at all.
Of course, none of this is defended: he simply resorts to repeating an insult.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #15
GP repeats the false and nonsensical claim that this is somehow the fault of Congress. As already covered, the Republican portion of the senate is just following Trumps lead, and it has been trumps implicit rejection of the bill passed in the senate - on the back of saying he’d shut down the government - that is the reason this shut down has occurred.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #16
I have to add another one here as GP is engaging in an outrageous attempt to rewrite both history and the power dynamics of modern politics to try and portray the person he supports as not fully to blame for this shutdown.
Created:
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #14
GP again resorts to trolling having not been able to defend any of his stupid claims.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #11
GP gives up all trolling pretence and simply name calls when it’s clear he has no answer to being fact checked.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #12
GP selectively quotemines, and omits that the BS count was pointed out for him repeatif an outrageously false statement
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #13
It should be noted that GP has dropped every objection so far, and is now simply tying to run away: attempting to raise a number of BS statements and then do everything he can not to defend them in the face of fact-checking.
Created:
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #8
And GP apparently needs a commie Marxist Canadian to explain how government works. That money isn’t being removed as part of the proposal. The money that was appropriated eight remains or has already been spent.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #9
GP earns a Fox News bullshit talking point bonus based on continuing this false nosnense.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #10
The idea that this is a party affiliation argument is patently absurd. This is very much a Democrat and Republican battle. And ar this time, the Republicans suffered a major loss despite campaigning against immigration, and despite Trump arguing to his voters that this election is about him.
While the ridiculous propaganda you try and pull, to deflect against having to defend your nonsense position is sometimes hilarious, it is stop, nonetheless: Bullshit.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #5
Money for Trumps border wall has not been appropriated, thats literally the whole point of this shut down. If the Democrats were trying to remove the $25bn already appropriated for the wall - that would be defunding.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #6
As this is so obnoxiously false, you get a bonus lie!
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #7
Again, the Republicans lost the house by a wide margin. They were defending a total of 9 seats in the senate and wasnt able to pick up any “blue wall” that narrowly handed him victory.
The idea that you feel that Democrats must pick up all 9 republican senate seats in order to claim a moral high ground, and ignore that Republicans got their a** kicked around the nation whilst campaigning on immigration, is ridiculous bullsh*t.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #2
Actually, again wrong. As a commie Marxist Canadian (though all of those are actually untrue), I shouldn’t have to explain that only a third of the senate is up at a time, and it’s clear by the popular vote indicated by the house election clearly indicates that the population broadly voted against the issues raised.
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #3
As Trump made immigration and the wall was part of the pitch for the 2016 and 2018 elections, the fact that the Republicans didn’t win the house, and could have won 60 seats in the senate, it’s clear that republicans and the American people didn’t vote for the people who would fund the wall.
When you pitch an idea to the people, and you get rubbed out as a result - kinda shows the idea sucksz
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #4
You can’t defund something that isn’t funded
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bzzzzzzt: GP Bullsh*t counter: #1
This is so ridiculous that I have to start keeping count!
The senate will not currently vote on the proposal that was carried by the house because the Senate Majority leader wont put it to the senate for a vote. Again, that is, it already passed a vote in the senate.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, awesome! More name calling! That tells me that you are absolutely understand that your point is stupid.
Pray tell, why has the Senate not held a vote on opening the government without wall funding? The Democrats would all support it in an instant!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So all of the above then...
As nothing you have said is actually relevant to any of the current political clImate, operation or scenario.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, why do you ask?
Is it to deflect that the United States population weighed in, and very much disagreed with that the fear you have of brown people is valid?
Perhaps you said it to deflect away from the fact that justification for the wall on the grounds of illegal drugs is yet another big fat lie.
Or did you say it to deflect the fact that Trump has two years to really push for a wall, and only seemed to make it a big priority the moment the Democrats were about to take over?
Or maybe to deflect that the border security issue is such a massive crisis, that Trump was willing to keep the government open until Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh told him to?
Or maybe you’re saying it because the Democrats won a massivs election victory - so can claim a more valid electoral mandate than a president who lost the popular vote by several million?
Please let me know which it is.
Or you can troll about something unrelated, at which point I presume that it’s all of the above.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is that something House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told you to say?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Citation?
The DEA threat assessment from literally two months ago.
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18%202018%20NDTA%20final%20low%20resolution.pdf
Document Page 31, 33 and 34 (starts from around pdf page 43-44) covering specifically heron and fentonyl. Cocaine on 52 (or 64 in PDF)
The DEA threat assessment from literally two months ago.
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18%202018%20NDTA%20final%20low%20resolution.pdf
Document Page 31, 33 and 34 (starts from around pdf page 43-44) covering specifically heron and fentonyl. Cocaine on 52 (or 64 in PDF)
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Are you talking about the drugs that are mostly smuggled through legal ports of entry?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't have to check under the beds or closets for Marxists. You can find them at SJW protests near the Marxist universities, in front of the TV watching CNN, fleeing failed marxist nations like Venezuela, or of course in Canada.
You forgot about how we should all be terrified of a Klingon Invasion.
You know, I’ll be happy to start an organization that will help to protect you from the scary brown people, the scary black people, the scary Marxist’s, the scary SJWs and other imaginary threats to your existence.
For the knockdown price of $1bn, I will give you and all trump supporters a special spray that will protect you from all the Fox News boogymen AND manbearpig!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have a plan: how about we liberals volunteer en mass to go to the houses of frightened white people to check under their beds and in their closets to reassure you that there are no Hispanic’s or minorities hiding there ready to jump out and steal your country.
It will have EXACTLY the same effect as the 5bn for a wall, but you can get it for free!
It will have EXACTLY the same effect as the 5bn for a wall, but you can get it for free!
Created:
Gruppenführer Greyparrot is on the right track. Why bother defending the need for the wall, or your own prejudice when you can simply dishonestly ignore all inconvenient facts, misportray realitg, and troll people who disagree with you.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Knowledge is demonstrable.
So by definition, for you to know it’s Truth, you need to be able to substantiate it.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
[citation needed]Please, there is nothing in common with someone such as myself who accepts The Truth alone as God and this witch who bows down to vain imaginings and creations of men.In fact, the pagan is closer to the atheist than the monotheist, because while the atheist is ignorant of or in denial of the idols they prefer to the truth, the pagan takes pride in their perversity.
You are almost identical. You’re making a series of unsupported assertions, displaying a dizzying array of faulty reasoning, and immediately assume malfeasance or emotional issues when someone isn’t buying your unsupported assertions.
Created: