Goddess

The question is: Why do left-wing radicals want to protect Nestor the Molester?

I don't know what this cryptic answer means. You're saying they have no failures?

Likeability is subjective and easily biased. Voting based on a person's "likeability" means you are prioritizing superficial traits, rather than how someone will govern. Platforms determine policy outcome, not likeability. Especially when your perception of a person's personality is so easily swayed by media framing. The "marketing" part of elections is all about manipulating a candidate's personality to be palatable to the biggest number of people. But when we vote, we're not choosing a dinner companion. We're choosing the policies that will govern our lives. That's why voting on a party's platform is far more reliable than voting on a person's likeability. If your entire voting strategy is based on "I like this person", you're not taking the responsibilities of citizenship seriously. elections are not popularity contests. A charming personality doesn't fix infrastructure or balance budgets or determine tax policy. It sounds like you treat elections like reality TV.

The wife was right there and yelled at her to "Drive! Drive!" Yeesh. 😢

Why is it so important to you that Liberal party failures never be mentioned or discussed?

This is actually a good point. I think it also reflects that "war" is different now, too. You can destroy a country as much economically, by undermining its' social fabric and infiltrating government, business and real estate. And far less costly than with conventional warfare. You can then just sit back and wait for them weaken.

Ma, a nobody backbencher, is in China with Carney.

This video discussion between Brian Lilley and Sam Cooper, I think sums up exactly what is going on. It's really worth 45 mins of your time, even if just to understand where the "other side" is coming from. I hope that it will enlighten the CBC watchers that the picture is much bigger than "it's all about oil" and "China is our friend". Canada is being incredibly stupid and playing a dangerous game by aligning ourselves with China right now and openly moving away from the US.

You seem very invested in this. Fox and I are here to discuss the topic. You're here to discuss me and Fox. I think that says it all.

Haha, no you don't. It was obvious you had no clue what he was saying. You quickly googled "Daedalus" and posted the first line from Wiki. Then completely missed that he was not comparing YOU to Daedalus. The rest of us understood, we're adults. You're just a little boy who wants to be a Top Gun pilot when he grows up. Thanks for the laugh today. 🤣 (Just to be clear, laughing AT you, not WITH you.)

OMG, @Legato He has no fuquing clue what you just said to him. 🤣

What an odd comment. It's not ME waking up early every morning to search out his comments and following him around the forum, reacting to every post he makes. That's..... YOU. 🤣

Not whining, darling. I'm flattered by your daily attention to everything I post. But I'm sorry......I can't be your mommy figure. And I don't think Fox really wants to be your daddy figure, either. It's amusing. But in a sad kind of way.

I hear you, my friend. I think we have to do baby steps here. People, the normies, aren't ready for the truth. This has been a Pharma racket since the mid-80's when they were given complete immunity from prosecution for vax injuries and so they EXPLODED the number of jabs given to babies. People really believe their babies will DIE if they don't get all 22 recommended shots in the first year of life. Taking so many jabs off the schedule (I think it's about 30% of them) means Big Pharma loses money. They've benefited handsomely from government mandating so many, while barely questioning need. The childhood vax schedule was never tested in placebo trials or RCTs, that will be done now. This is good. Other countries have done this, as noted in the above press release. Pharma will have to defend all 88 of the jabs given to children. People are going to find out how little these jabs are tested. It's eye-watering. The covid jab has been removed from the childhood schedule, as well. Also good. They are all risk, no benefit for children. Removing sketchy jabs from the schedule also opens up the possibility of future lawsuits for vax injuries, something parents have been screaming about in the US for decades. Pharma never used to be allowed to advertise on TV. I think it will go back to that, too. Baby steps.

I would like to thank my biggest fan for being here for me! Your oddly devoted focus is always on me and it's impressive how much time you've chosen to invest in me. Your downvotes arrive with such regularity and in such copious amounts! That kind of precision and dedication is rarely seen in people with so few accomplishments.

Greenland is not freaking out over this and they want the rest of us to stop freaking out about it. They want to talk to Trump, see what is on the table and why.

Did everybody here forget how to play Risk? 🤣 One of the best strategies for the game was controlling Venezuela and Greenland, to protect the Western hemisphere. Everyone else had to go through those countries to get to the US. During WWll, Greenland was made a protectorate of the US, as Europe was unable to secure it from the Germans. If the Europeans are correct in that Russia is intending to take over all of Europe, I don't think they will be able to protect Greenland any better than they did in WWll. I think Trump is trying to secure the Western hemisphere from both Russia and China. Both were making inroads just outside US borders, their "neighborhood" as they call it. The US doesn't like that any more than Russia liked NATO's setting up just outside their borders. I believe the OP is correct - there are 3 powers jockeying for supremacy right now. The Canadian government is choosing China. which will, at some point in the future, put us in the crosshairs of the US. Look at the map again. Do you blame them?

You start being honest with the public. Like this: REVISED HHS CHILDHOOD VAX SCHEDULE ANNOUNCED: After a scientific review of the underlying science, comparing the U.S. child and adolescent immunization schedule with those of peer, developed nations, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jim O’Neill has now further updated the U.S. childhood immunization schedule. The changes stem from reviewing practices in other nations, including consulting experts in Denmark, Germany, and Japan. (FYI from me - JAPAN REVIEWED THE SCHEDULE YEARS AGO AND DELAYED MANY OF THE SHOTS UNTIL AGE 2. RESULT WAS PLUMMETING OF AUTISM RATES AND SIDS DEATHS.) The CDC will, moving forward, stop broadly recommending vaccines against influenza, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal disease. The CDC in 2025 already narrowed recommendations for hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccination, based on guidance from ACIP advisers selected by HHS Secretary Kennedy. The CDC will continue to recommend that all children are immunized against 10 diseases for which there is international consensus, as well as varicella (chickenpox). For other diseases, the CDC will recommend immunization for high-risk groups and populations, or through shared clinical decision making when it is not possible for public health authorities to clearly define who will benefit from an immunization. The updated schedule is in contrast to the CDC child and adolescent schedule at the end of 2024, which recommended 17 immunizations for all children. The Danish childhood vaccination schedule that has influenced this new US schedule is far simpler, slower, and gentler than the U.S. CDC schedule. Denmark begins immunization at three months of age, giving only about a dozen total injections by adolescence, focused on serious diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio, Hib, measles, and meningitis. The U.S. begins vaccination the day a child is born, in some cases with a hepatitis B shot, and continues frequently through infancy, totaling around sixty doses by the end of adolescence. The Danish program avoids vaccines for mild illnesses like chickenpox, rotavirus, and hepatitis A, and it does not recommend annual flu or early COVID inoculations for healthy children. It therefore introduces far fewer antigens, adjuvants, and chemical additives, giving the immune system more time to mature between doses. The U.S. system, by contrast, compresses numerous injections into the first year of life, creating heavy antigen and aluminum exposure during a critical developmental window. Denmark’s approach reflects a minimalist “target the serious diseases” philosophy built on transparency and trust, while the U.S. program embodies a maximalist “vaccinate for everything” model driven by a zero‑risk culture, liability avoidance, institutional inertia, and a cult-like belief that all vaccine products are “safe and effective” and therefore above questioning. Both countries maintain high vaccine coverage, but Denmark achieves comparable disease control with a fraction of the biochemical and immunological load imposed on young children in the United States. The updated CDC childhood immunization schedule: 1. Recommends all vaccines for which there is consensus among peer nations. 2. Allows for more flexibility and choice, with less coercion, by reassigning non-consensus vaccines to certain high-risk groups or populations and shared clinical decision-making. 3. Ensures that all the diseases covered by the previous immunization schedule will still be available to anyone who wants them through Affordable Care Act insurance plans and federal insurance programs, including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Vaccines for Children program. Families will not have to purchase them out of pocket. Among peer nations, the U.S. will continue to offer the most childhood vaccines for free to those who wants them. 4. Is accompanied by a strengthening of vaccine research through HHS’ commitment to double-blind placebo controlled randomized trials as well as more observational studies to evaluate long-term effects of individual vaccines and the vaccine schedule. Scientific Review In 2024, the U.S. recommended more childhood vaccine doses than any other peer nation, and more than twice as many as some European nations. A 2024 comparison between the U.S. and peer nations, found that countries without vaccine mandates had as high immunization rates as the U.S. and other countries with vaccine mandates. Trust in U.S. public health declined from 72% to 40% between 2020 and 2024, coinciding with public health failure during the pandemic, including COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Though the COVID-19 vaccine was recommended for all children on the CDC schedule, the uptake rate was less than 10% by 2023. The uptake rate of other childhood vaccines declined during the same time period. Large placebo-controlled randomized trials on individual vaccines, combinations of vaccines, and vaccine schedules, as well as observational studies, are needed to better inform patients, parents, and providers and help restore trust in public health. Immunizations Recommended for All Children The CDC will continue to recommend that all children are vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), Pneumococcal conjugate, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and human papillomavirus (HPV), for which there is international consensus, as well as varicella (chickenpox). Recent scientific studies have shown that one dose of the HPV vaccine is as effective as two doses. The CDC is following the lead of several peer nations by recommending one instead of two doses of this vaccine. The updated CDC recommended immunizations for all children and adolescents will maintain robust protection against diseases that cause serious morbidity or mortality to children. Immunizations Recommended for Certain High-Risk Groups or Populations Like all medical products, vaccines and other immunizing agents have different risk-benefit profiles for different groups of people. Risk factors can include unusual exposure to the disease, underlying comorbidities, or the risk of disease transmission to others. The immunizations recommended for certain high-risk groups or populations are for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), hepatitis A, hepatitis B, dengue, meningococcal ACWY, and meningococcal B. Immunizations Based on Shared Clinical Decision-Making It is not always possible for public health authorities to clearly define who will benefit from an immunization, who has the relevant risk factors, or who is at risk for exposure. Physicians and parents, who knows the child, are then best equipped to decide based on individual characteristics. The immunizations based on shared clinical decision-making are for rotavirus, COVID19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B. NEXT STEPS For health care providers, the CDC will publish the updated Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule by Age (through age 18) of immunization recommendations for all children, immunization recommendations for certain high-risk groups or populations, and immunizations based on shared clinical decision-making. HHS will work with states and physician groups to educate parents and providers on the updated CDC childhood immunization schedule. The CDC will continue to closely monitor vaccine uptake, infectious disease rates and vaccine safety. IN CONCLUSION: The updated U.S. childhood immunization schedule represents a decisive shift toward scientific restraint, transparency, and individualized care. By aligning more closely with peer nations such as Denmark, the new schedule narrows universal recommendations to vaccines with clear international consensus against the most serious childhood diseases, while reclassifying others, such as influenza, rotavirus, and hepatitis A, for high‑risk groups or shared clinical decision‑making. This balance preserves access and affordability, ensuring that all vaccines remain fully covered by federal programs while reducing unnecessary exposure to antigens and adjuvants in early life. The reform addresses the erosion of public trust that followed overreach and coercive mandates during the pandemic years and acknowledges that vaccination, like any medical intervention, carries individualized benefit‑risk trade‑offs. Strengthening independent research through placebo‑controlled trials and long‑term safety studies will help restore scientific credibility and public confidence. Ultimately, the modernized schedule protects children from the most dangerous infectious diseases while promoting informed parental choice, evidence-based decision‑making, and renewed trust in American public health.

It looked to me like she also sped towards another officer, who jumped out of the way. I feel like this kind of tragedy is the obvious result of fear propaganda. I remember, early in covid, there was a woman in the US whose son had the sniffles and she stuffed him into the trunk of her car to drive him to Emerg and she got charged with child endangerment. But her reaction to her son's sniffles was natural when you consider the amount of fear propaganda going on at the time - a deadly virus that was going to kill almost everyone who got it, case number ticker tapes across every TV channel, lockdowns and fear pumped into the public 24/7. I think it's the same with this woman. Walz, the governor, repeatedly called ICE agents "Gestapo" and ordinary citizens have not only been told to resist but shown how to, various groups encouraging more and more extreme methods of resisting. ICE agents themselves have been subjected to all kinds of abuse, pepper sprayed, rocks thrown at them, constant harassment, screaming, shoving. It's been escalating.

The point, which I have brought up many times and that you consistently ignore, is that the people who "died of covid" were very elderly, very ill or very obese. They had one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peel. The average age of death from covid was 82. Another point you consistently ignore - most of the "deaths from covid" were not deaths from covid. There is enough evidence to prove this. I'm not even debating it with anyone anymore. The people "saved by the vax" cannot be known. The estimated number published is based on the same flawed "models" used all during covid and has been debunked repeatedly. The vast majority of people were never in any danger of dying from covid. The IFR was only slightly higher than the seasonal flu. The survival rate is over 99%. The children who died from the vax were healthy before vaccination and faced statistically ZERO risk of dying from covid. There was no net benefit to jabbing them, only risk. It is ethically immoral to vaccinate children against something that poses no risk to them. Only a psychopath thinks otherwise. We don't yet know how many people died from the vax. We DO know now that it's more than the "very few" you claim. Every country that mass vaccinated is experiencing skyrocketing excess death. Countries that did not mass vaccinate, are not experiencing that. We don't yet know how the jabs will affect future health of people. We DO know that they knowingly lied about it staying in the arm. It doesn't. It travels to all organs of the body and that's why the adverse events from the covid jab span so many bodily systems - cardiac, neuro, hemo, etc. It settles mainly in the heart and the ovaries/testes. We don't yet know how this will affect fertility of future generations. It was an experimental vaccine, using 2 experimental technologies, never used on humans before - mRNA delivery system and LNPs. We don't even know completely what happens to the LNPs after being absorbed by the body. I find it disgusting that you belittle the needless deaths of children, even if you believe they are "very few." You should be ashamed, but I don't think you are in the slightest.

Dead babies and children. Enjoy your celebration.