ewsieg

6+ months is a long time, especially for Russia given how the last several months have worked out for them. As stated above though, reports are that they are strengthening in Donbass and while western media has exhaulted gains from Ukraine towards the Russian border near Kharkiv, the fact Russia was moving back certainly played a part in it. A coup for Putin still feels like a pipe dream, but I do think it has legs now. That happens, whoever comes in can 'save face' by getting out and keeping Crimea. I can see Putin, or anyone that he has picked to take over for him should his health require it, to ignore what's happened so far and just consider it sunk cost and even show more of a need to keep eastern Ukraine for the resources that they'll need to recoup from this.

Absolutely true, you're describing a legitimate strength with our system. It's just ironic some of the more 'right side of this board' are pointing out the complaints about big pharma and one of the most left wing folks on this board is defending them. What a crazy few years this has been.

In this case, I haven't seen any evidence of Merck doing this, but absolutely that is one of the legitimate Bernie Bro's complaints that has some value. They will have a revenue driving drug and put money into a replacement. Sometimes that replacement is far superior and they launch that and advise against the use of their old one, but sometimes, the replacement gives barely any advantages, yet they spin the same message in order to get the next big winfall. Insulin is a good example, where studies have shown older forms of insulin is just as effective in certain types of diabetes patients, yet the doctor prescribes the 'latest and greatest' or sometimes the insurance company themselves don't even allow the older versions.

This is where I am as well, although I would not be surprised to learn in a few years that it did have some benefits. And as much of a concern there is of a certain group of people deciding it's beneficial without true evidence, I find it equally concerning that the other side has to play the other extreme and call it a horse de-wormer, when it's already been proven to be so much more, when early on, they didn't have any evidence either.

Great point, which is why in the end, choose to believe the ones that match up with what you want to be true and you'll always be right.

My wife is still dealing with intense itching and an occasional rash due to mast cells that are still elevated and they continue to say based on all of their testing, that it's fallout from getting her Covid booster and Flu shot together, so yes, anything is possible with drugs, but 'albeit rare' is the exact point that should have made you question it.

Not sure I would trust that local reporter as much anymore. Considering anyone that got past the meme's that made fun of ivermectin users would know that it has regularly been given to humans for decades without any issues. Yet somehow it only affects people that want to take it to help with Covid....hmmm, one would think it wouldn't pass the smell test if....you know, they didn't want it to be so true.

I joked with my brother last week that the GOP has convinced me and now i'm so pro-life, that even if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother, no abortion allowed. Furthermore, should the mother die giving birth, I want that baby brought up on capital murder charges because it killed it's mom! No appeals either, fast track that baby right to the electric chair. While a joke now, we're on pace to that being on Trump's platform in 2 years.

My bad, i've been studying for a cert and haven't paid as much attention lately, but saw the left jump down Manchin's throat like he was the lone reason why it failed. Assumed there was some reason why they only needed 50 for this one.

This is Trump's endorsement of a state house candidate. No way he'd know these names, but I could see him having some say in this one. I got to talk to one of her canvassers who assured me the first thing Eubanks would do is impeach Whitmer. Had a fun conversation for a minute or so and she cut ties and just handed me a brochure, at least she realized she didn't have my vote and wasn't going to waste her time further.

You're spot on with everything you posted, i'm only singling this portion out, not because you're wrong, but just a point I want to make. I may be off a bit, but i'm pretty confident the last time I read about when abortions happened, 99% of abortions occur by the mid-way point of the second trimester. So your point above is well taken. But that brings me back to this past week when if the dems only put in a ban in the third trimester outside of the health of the mother, you might have seen it pass. So to me, the Dems are willing to allow what we know is likely inevitable to happen, in the hopes that they only get beat a little bit in the mid-terms. Instead of doing something that their voters want, they are once again choosing to use it as a campaign issue. How did that work out for them with Garland? I don't get it.

https://www.covid.gov/tests You can order some more free covid tests. Just had to use another yesterday as I have several symptoms, guessing just the flu for me though.

Well, I'm sure that is the case with some issues, but it's not the case with all. We treat our pets more humanely at end of life than we do our own grandparents, but that's just my opinion. Additionally, it's tough to say 'medical fact'. What is true today in medicine, doesn't mean it's true tomorrow. Most people do not support abortions through the third trimester. My opinion on that is most start to look at the baby bump on a mom as a baby, not a fetus, at that point. Add in the fact that fetus' can survive without their mother as early as late 2nd trimester and it adds to the argument that they are separate human beings at that point. My sister was the smallest baby to survive in Michigan at the time she was born, now babies born 2-3 weeks earlier than her still have over a 50% chance of survival. Still though, your point you're making on the opposition is spot on, there is no change for a legitimate debate with folks that are extreme. In the end, I'm with Bill Clinton, I want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare.

There is a fact though that we need a legal standing, not just a medical one. Most states have laws on the books which add charges for killing an fetus during a felony. Even in blue states, democrats have conceded that a wanted baby is worthy of having the hands of justice defend it. There is no medical book out there that will say there is a medical difference between a wanted or unwanted fetus. I'm not sure what the answer should be, but playing politics with this issue isn't benefiting the country. I think the Dems could have codified abortion after a set period and/or after the case of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Instead, it lives to play it's part in the 2022 election. To note - pretty much all of the outrage towards the GOP I've read in the last few pages is justified as well.

That's an interesting point, although my guess is, people are getting sick with the variant that is around them period. Add to the fact that vaccines/boosters do still show effectiveness in in the current variants. As such, my guess is, if you were in close contact with a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person, with the same variant in both cases, the unvaccinated person is more likely to have more symptoms which may not be as noticeable to you at the time, but more likely to infect you. I suspect much of this is the reason why we didn't see vast amounts of spread in schools, kids simply don't get as sick, have less symptoms, and as such, don't spread it amongst themselves as easily as others.

I had a feeling he wasn't white based on the reporting. Not that I saw any reporting initially say what he was, it was just missing from the story. That's odd.

The way he talks is a way I could see him pulling away Trump voters that aren't necessarily Republicans. In short, blue collar union employees that have felt the Democratic party left them and regardless how crass Trump was, at least he spoke (at) to them. He's one of the few democratic voices i've heard in the last year that really seems to be for that blue collar worker. On top of that, imagine Oz trying to say he looks weak on a subject, GTFO. The 'strong man' ideology that Trump has installed within his voters is going to peak interest in him come voting day.

A senator/rep looking like an idiot during their questioning of a witness? Tubberville obviously is an exception as I've never heard any other senator/rep ask stupid questions before.

From someone who recently switched from Outlook to Gmail at work, I absolutely believe this is happening along with the suppression of mails from your boss, calendar invites, peers, etc. And if you don't catch it immediately and have to search for it....forget about it.

20 bucks your doctor is following Oz because she was tired of getting blindsided by something stupid he said on his 'doctors' show and used it to be prepared to handle questions from her patients.

Vindman is right to be upset at Esper for holding this info for personal gain, but while infuriating, we definitely should care about it and need everyone in that administration to come out with their stories.

So, back to serious, but this does bring up a question that I honestly think isn't just something the right asks. My wife and I wanted our kids and let's say she was robbed and assaulted and we lost our baby over it, I know personally I would want murder charges. Is that right? I don't know. I know there are some states that do charge like that though. Sounds like Alabama is one of them. If the pregnant mother was the one committing the felony, from a law stance, I think it opens up to the fact that she would be responsible. I can only assume she wanted to have this baby and likely any charge pales in comparison to what she is already going through, so i'm not going to say it serves the greater good of the community, but it doesn't seem as far fetched as Reason makes it out to be IMO.

Definitely a joke, unless we can get the right messenger to make it. I mean, Trump says this and within months of Roe v Wade being overturned, the GOP would be pushing through a bill that effectively subsidizes and ensures access to abortion across the entire country, just because Trumpee's would look at it as 'owning the libs'.

There are solutions to this folks, i'm not sure why everyone thinks it's a big deal. A compromise can be reached, but it'll take some blinders. For my left leaning friends here. (Right leaning, move to the next paragraph without reading this) Publicly say abortion isn't a good thing, you don't even have to say bad, just say it's not a good thing, no one wants it, etc. Then accept a 'penalty' against the person that gets the procedure. Because it's not desired, it needs to be well regulated, like Pot. You have to go to a federal approved site to have it done, that'll ensure you pay the penalty. In looking it up, it says the average abortion is $750 but less in some states, let's just say $500 is the cost of the 'fine'. We're actually subsidizing it, but shush, be quiet. Please stop reading now. Hey my right leaning friends. We all know abortion is really bad, but c'mon, who gets abortions? Yeah, you're right, people that go around having sex or allowing themselves to get raped or molested. Do we really want those people being mom's? So let's have a federal legal ban on abortion but for those that are going to do it anyway, like those stupid hippies smoking their 'reefer', we'll punish them with a tax penalty of $500 bucks everytime they do it. That'll show them and help them lead life without hopping into bed outside of marriage (to a man of course, amirite?!?!?) Good God fearing women would never break the law, so this will help save them from a horrible sin that the devil currently tempts them with. Plus all the tax money we get out of this ,we can put towards cops to protect us from those babies that liberals end up not aborting due to this.