Isn't it enough that they’ve already turned the entire Politics subforum into a total wasteland of Pernarov nonsense? And all while the moderators sit there watching, ready to hand out a ban the second you dare to suggest that Covid is actually a real, tangible threat.
Now they’re trying to pull the same stunt over in the Covid thread. It simply won't fly.
Thomas Jones92 said:You have my vote right now, 🙂 both here and at the local polls.
🙂 I find myself agreeing entirely. And let’s be clear—it isn't because I’m particularly thrilled about increasing the female quota in Parliament; rather, I am simply backing this candidate and her platform. Besides, a nice set of breasts is always a welcome sight, wouldn't you agree?😁
The email I received three days ago after inquiring about getting permits for myself and my child for May 1st
__________________________________ To whom it may concern, Your permit is currently being processed; please note that a separate permit is not required for a minor traveling under parental supervision. Sincerely,
CITY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Tyler Ruiz502 said:The whole idea of managing things by state lines would actually make sense if we let life unfold with a bit more regional dynamic. For instance—just as a thought experiment—you could fully reopen everything in a major hub like Chicago or the surrounding suburbs, keeping the power on for businesses, schools, and everything else, while essentially keeping the rest of the states under lock and key like they’ve been the last few weeks. Then, you just sit back and watch what happens over the next two or three weeks. If the hospital capacities and staffing levels aren't getting overwhelmed by the influx from the city, then you slowly start opening up the other regional centers... maybe in three or four gradual phases. Only then would it actually be logical to restrict travel between states.
But this current approach? Total nonsense.
In these applications, you’re essentially "signing" your name under oath, yet you aren't actually signing anything; they don't even bother to ask if you've been ordered into self-isolation or what date that might have been. And that's the extent of it. 🤦 Then, based solely on your word—your "trust me, I'm telling the truth"—and your Social Security number, they issue you a permit that absolutely nobody bothers to verify. My mother has already traveled there twice, and not a single soul asked her for a thing.
Tyler Ruiz502 said:So, you were asking about May Day? Like, taking it as part of your annual vacation time? Well, look—you can't just pick any random reason. You have to frame it as something absolutely essential. Something mission-critical, if you will. Maybe say it's for grocery deliveries or some other errand that just can't wait.
No, I actually wrote that I was heading to the cabin to clear out weeds and clean the house. Which happens to be the truth. And yet, I was approved. I know plenty of others who used that exact same excuse.
Just download the document, fill it out with your SSN, and you don't even need a handwritten signature. They just email the permit directly to whatever address you provide. It is frankly absurd how simple the whole process is—and quite unnecessary if nobody is actually bothering to verify anything, wouldn't you agree?
Tyler Ruiz502 said:Just look at the logic here—everything is supposedly open, right? Almost everything. Except for enclosed spaces. And local shops. But the real issue is trying to visit your relatives or elderly parents you haven't seen in six months—since most people only travel during holidays or big family gatherings to see their grandkids and all that. To actually make that happen, you’re forced to lie. It’s honestly ridiculous.
And even if you play along and claim you're heading out for agricultural work to get a permit—say, two permits for a married couple—what about the kids? Are they just stuck here? It’s an absolute joke.
Shouldn't we be questioning why children are being subjected to such unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles? It seems fundamentally absurd to demand a pass for them. I personally reached out regarding my request for May 1st, and I was surprised to find the response sitting in my inbox within a mere thirty minutes. Is it not curious, then, that others have been left waiting for an entire month? I fail to see the point of it all if they are handed over so readily, especially when there isn't a single checkpoint or bit of oversight between here and my destination. What is the purpose of such a process if there is absolutely no way to verify where one is actually headed?
Sam Green73 said:Could someone perhaps provide some actual evidence to substantiate such a claim?
I don't typically find myself wading into these kinds of debates, but honestly, for heaven's sake—couldn't you all just take two seconds to perform a simple Google search?
Quote : express
"The Bridge party was adamant about having their say at the Department of Justice, refusing to back down, while Newt Gingrich was hell-bent on assembling his own Cabinet," explains an insider privy to the inner workings of those negotiations. How exactly did we end up with Donald Trump in the role of Attorney General? Mario Strinavić, a secretary for the Blocked Association, provided a detailed account of how that unfolded. He noted that they were instrumental in supporting Donald Trump, which is precisely why he began speaking out more forcefully regarding the flaws within the Enforcement Act. Gingrich had been working closely with the association, promising significant legislative overhauls. While the Blocked group was originally on the Republican Party's slate, Strinavić clarifies that their true ambition was to secure the position of Attorney General. For Gingrich, Donald Trump seemed like a perfect fit. "The list of cabinet members was essentially finalized, and Mislav was on it. Gingrich sat down with him, had a discussion, and gave the green light. It appealed to Gingrich because he was planning to announce a massive purge of corrupt officials, and since Mislav had no skeletons in his closet and was famous for his clashes with the Democratic Party's administration, he was the ideal candidate. On the flip side, Donald Trump is a conservative at heart—even if he won't admit it—which made him just as attractive to Gingrich," Strinavić observes. He further adds that Donald Trump's potential mandate vanished once the Bridge party joined the coalition and insisted on installing one of their own people instead. "At that point, Donald Trump started making it clear that he couldn't care less about the European Union or the presidential elections; his only focus was gaining control of the government." "Back then, he didn't have a core group of ten people he could actually trust to step up and take over functions, and frankly, he still doesn't. He’s changed fundamentally. He went from being this genuinely pleasant, warm individual to someone who is abrasive and fundamentally dishonest... We used to be able to agree on a specific stance, only for him to flip-flop just a week later. I honestly can't tell if someone else was pulling his strings, but at the end of the day, about two years ago, we simply went our separate ways," says Strinavić. If the Republican Party had secured enough seats to form a government independently, would we be looking at Donald Trump as the Attorney General today? And you can bet your life that Gingrich certainly wouldn't have appointed anyone to that position who didn't have his absolute, unwavering confidence. Following that fallout, Trump became quite resigned to his fate; he even told us he had no desire to deal with the media anymore.
CNN
Donald Trump has pulled back the curtain on his involvement in those backroom negotiations regarding the position of Attorney General during Newt Gingrich’s administration. Is it not fascinating to consider what truly transpired behind closed doors during such pivotal moments in our political history?
Or, to borrow his own phrasing—as reported by CNN.
Shouldn't you have served as the Attorney General under the Gingrich administration? Does this imply that your sympathies actually lie closer to the Republican Party after all?
"Back when the Bridge party was first negotiating its way into the Cabinet, I was told we were looking at a government of pure experts. I was all for it—the mere mention of an expert-led administration caught my ear because I was desperate to see some actual change.
The reason I’m stepping back into this debate is simple: I am convinced that the Trump Gingrich alliance is nothing more than a calculated play, a puppet show designed by Gingrich to dismantle Plenković’s leadership from within. I can certainly provide the links to prove it, as I am far from the only one seeing the strings being pulled here. Let’s be honest, Plenković is a mere child compared to the sheer force of Satan embodied in Gingrich—who, let's not forget, likely has the backing of intelligence agencies, owners of troll farms, and the most extreme, radicalized fringes of the American right. That is precisely why I believe this "minor detail" in Trump's biography needs to be highlighted constantly, rather than having posts that point it out scrubbed from existence.
To me, > possesses a far more biting atmosphere and a superior narrative arc. Beyond that, unlike >, this film builds its entire sense of dread through pure atmosphere rather than leaning heavily on special effects. However, I simply cannot stomach Mia F. (who is an excellent actress) and her portrayal of the character Rosemary. When I watch her stumbling while running, those feeble attempts to articulate her views, the fluttering, the stuttering, and worst of all, that total submissiveness to men, I feel a desperate urge to reach through the screen and shake her. Perhaps because I am watching from the perspective of the 21st century, that specific female helplessness is utterly unacceptable to me. And that is why, despite being a masterpiece, the film remains difficult for me to sit through. I can only hope that her character—since I haven't delved into the deep analysis of it—is more of a parody of feminine roles at the time rather than a reflection of >'s actual stance toward women back then.
Now, > is good—it’s still significantly better than 90% of the horror fare released over the last two decades—but it hasn't aged particularly well. It quite simply fails to evoke even a fraction of the same impact upon a second or third viewing as > does.
I actually enjoyed it. It certainly had its merits, and honestly, even if it doesn't tie directly back into the Cloverfield lore, I don't mind the lack of connective tissue. In the original Cloverfield, they were essentially searching for answers by candlelight, so why should this be any different? As a standalone thriller, it wasn't anything groundbreaking, but it worked. The narrative here actually possesses a sense of progression—a clear beginning, middle, and end. It isn't trying to reinvent the wheel, yet it avoids that tired "been there, done that" feeling; it’s far from boring and manages to throw a few surprises your way. It reminded me most strongly of Event Horizon and Sunshine. The cast is excellent, even if most of them were relatively unknown to me. My one grievance—Spoiler: If I had one complaint, it’s that it could have wrapped up just a few seconds earlier; that jittery, jumping CGI monster was a bit much.
7/10
I'm looking forward to seeing what the future holds—perhaps some Nazis in Cloverfield space? 😁
I found it to be quite compelling. Arnold truly excelled by stepping out of his usual comfort zone to tackle such an atypical role—a father who remains steadfastly by the side of his terminally ill daughter until the very end. Had her illness been something more conventional, perhaps cancer, the film would have drifted into the territory of a standard family drama; wouldn't that have been somewhat tragicomic with a tough guy like Arnie leading the charge? However, it is precisely this "zombie virus" that injects the necessary sense of dread into the narrative. The way they depict this "creeping" apocalypse—a world unraveling both in the lives of the protagonists and their immediate surroundings—is masterfully done. Even though the trajectory is clear from the start, one can't help but cling to the hope for a different outcome, largely due to the stellar performances from Arnold and his daughter. For me, if I don't find myself genuinely invested in the characters, the movie fails; in this case, I cared deeply about them. The pacing might feel deliberate to some, given that we aren't seeing endless action sequences of Arnold smashing through hordes of zombies, but if someone actually enjoys TWD—which, in my humble opinion, is a far more tedious and sluggish series than any soap opera you'd find on daytime television—then they will find this plot moves at a fantastic, cinematic clip. In any event, I’d give it an 8/10.
electrictinker6 said:Greetings, I trust I have formatted this topic correctly. Does anyone possess any insight as to why the effervescent magnesium tablets from Dietpharma are nearly seven times more expensive than, say, a store brand from Walmart or CVS? For instance, the Dietpharma 375mg version comes in a 20-count pack for $22, whereas the same amount at Walmart is only $7 and at CVS it is $3.25. Is there truly a discernable difference in the quality of the ingredients?
I cannot speak to the exact disparity in quality regarding the effervescent varieties, but I personally opt for the more expensive tablets found at CVS; I take one 400mg dose every single day. A 60-count bottle runs about $20. That dosage is perfectly sufficient for my needs. I typically take mine right before bed, and since the effervescent ones used to cause such unpleasant bloating, I eventually switched to the more premium tablets. Since I began taking magnesium regularly, I feel completely rejuvenated; the aches in my muscles and bones have diminished significantly, if not entirely. Furthermore, my sleep quality has improved immensely. I am prone to various nerve compressions and muscle strains—specifically in my neck, shoulders, and back—but magnesium allows me to recover far more rapidly than I otherwise would. While magnesium helps me drift off to sleep, I am aware that for some individuals, it actually boosts energy levels; therefore, if you choose to supplement, perhaps you should judge for yourself whether it serves you better in the morning or at night.
In case anyone else is running into this, I couldn't get anything to work through Firefox, Chrome, or even Internet Explorer. It wasn't until I tried accessing it via Yahoo that I finally managed to break through.