SIDS isn't caused by vaccines, at least as far as can be seen. Chances are that the families are just taking the kid to a mortician straight away due to the lockdowns. I'm sure doctors, especially in places like New York, have been seeing fewer cases among a wide range of conditions and age groups.
Most of those that died "from COVID" likely would've died this year anyway, given their average age and health condition.
Nontroversy over serving football players Burger King and McDonald's, kids in cages, muh taxes
Why would I care about other comments?
No it doesn't. Repetition does not equate to being correct.
They no other motivation? According to who? You? Please.
Again, were that the case, anyone who said Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor were right since it was repeated over and over. That is directly comparable because it relies on the exact same logic.
Proof is not democratic. You aren't correct simply because people agree with you. That's what's known as "confirmation bias".
You dumb. Notice how none of those were in response to anything I said? Why the fuck would I crawl through the whole page looking for irrelevant shit?
So why didn't you link it in the first place?
Lazy sack of shit.
Lackadaisical pile of manure.
Lethargic stool sample.
Except none of those articles support your claims. Repetition =/= support
By that logic, there was plenty of support for the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election in his favor.
No you didn't, all you did was link to articles that simply repeated your claims. Repetition =/= support.
You didn't put a single link in any of your comments.
But remember, there's no fraud.
Or you can actually back up your claims with something more substantial than a few statements from a lobbying group and unfounded claims of heritage. Chalk you up as another person who can't answer the real questions.
"Disinfo" says the one who hasn't backed any of his claims.
You haven't presented any evidence at all. All you said was "they said it". No corroboration from other sources, no transcript of said intelligence or even any detail about what said intelligence contained.
So what you're saying is that you have no actual evidence, got it.
According to who?
Based on what evidence? The same lame-ass AIPAC statements people claim were made?
The monopolies aren't forced, it's just that there's no incentive to get rid of them because most people aren't interested in doing so. That is entirely inherent to the free market. If most of your customer base doesn't have a problem with you, why stop what you're doing?
Who said that I assumed you were against paying for those services?
"I just don’t want to be forced to use a service provider that I don’t like"
You mean like those supposed "pre-government" roads? What, you think those were all free to use or something?
What about a service provider that doesn't like you?
Small areas are typically "forced" to deal with a single provider because no one else wants to come into those areas. Hard to have "free market competition" when only one provider wants to have a place in your market. Sure, it may be a viable option to do without when it comes to more luxury things like cable/internet service, but apply that to running water or power.
The problem with supposed "free market competition" in these areas is that you'll see all of the problems we see now in Big Tech. Government has done very little in regards to these companies, and in their inaction has facilitated the current situation. Why do you think Google is so pervasive? It's because the government has sat back and watched instead of breaking it up. It has no real competition because most that could compete are of like mind, and those that aren't of like mind are either shut down by Google (again, facilitated by government inaction) or never try to compete at all, washing their hands of the whole thing.
Should I be forced to deal with the terms of a service provider that doesn't like me when it comes to stuff like that? And don't even try the whole "Just make your own" deal. The "free market" has deemed me persona non grata.
"or be forced to pay for services I don’t use"
Who said you were? Do you have full knowledge of where your tax dollars are spent? Pretty sure you don't.
The "free market" only works in an objectively moral society, and we don't have that.
At this point it's pretty much the only legitimate reason why anyone brings that old shit up.
You're the one sperging out over dissent.
My source literally links to two, not "several".
The only person shilling and arguing in bad faith here is you, the ever-present rabbi painting swastikas on the synagogue wall.
The best you've got is a few AIPAC memos advocating the US to not lift sanctions, a stance not solely held by AIPAC btw.
"Obviously, because they want pliable leaders that will give them near complete control over the region. In any case, they wanted it. And they got it."
Again, where's the evidence that they had any control? If they desired control, why didn't they bring up WMDs and the like in 1991?
Notice how your link only repeats claims made by other outlets and doesn't offer any evidence?
Oh man, Wikileaks are CIA memos? Guess that means all the stuff they released about Hillary are just CIA memos too, right? Nevermind that only two of the ten links are related to the CIA.
How is it "not an argument"? Your entire claim is that Israel uses the US to "fight it's wars", but not only have you failed to prove ANY Israeli involvement at all, your claim falls flat when you consider that Israel hasn't needed the US in the past. If they didn't need the US in the past against stronger enemies, why would they need the US to fight a substantially weaker enemy in the future?
You continue conflating the possibility of benefit with the surety, all the while basing yourself in little more than heresay.
According to who were they holding bin Laden?
So again, presumption upon presumption.
Biden told them? I thought it was Obama. Get your story straight.
It isn't a non-sequitur at all. If the goal was to get Seal Team Six killed, then it would benefit whoever wants them death to know their names and locations. That implies that such information was released.
"Solid point that isn't sourced in any way".
Except pretty much every time the US does anything with it's military.
We publicly announce which units are going on rotation to various places in Europe:
"They hovered the helicopter over a hostile town with no close air support and no tactical reason to do so."
According to who did they do so? They also had CAS on station:
The only person shilling here is you. You can't back up your claims, which rely on chains of unverifiable accounts.
Why would the Israelis (and the Israelis alone) want a war in Iraq? I'm familiar with this trope, and it always falls flat.
For one, they aren't the only ones that benefit. If anything, I can think of three countries that benefited from the Iraq war MORE than Israeli conceivably did. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. All three of them were physically invaded by the Iraqi military. All three of them were Iraq's competitors on the international oil market. We already intervened on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait's behalf once regarding Iraq as well.
As for WMDs, maybe you're not old enough to know that we found them, but we did. https://archive.is/uY2jc
For two, Israel already has a history of being able to fight wars without US troops being involved, and that was when their enemies had the backing of a super power as well. Iraq didn't have that in 2003.