Let's celebrate the #SecondAmendment and our right to bear arms! It's not just a constitutional right, it's a fundamental part of our liberty and self-defense. As responsible gun owners, let's continue to uphold the values of freedom and protect our families and communities.

@RepJasmine @OversightDems If a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped. You’re really not very bright, are you?

I’m still waiting for one of you leftists to articulate the law broken. Secondly, how is it a coup if you are already in charge of the government? You don’t like it because your money laundering operation has been exposed. Go cry me a river, he’s doing exactly what we voted Trump in to have done.

@carolecadwalla Wow, I didn’t know. What exactly is he doing? I’ve read he has just exposed all the fraud and leftists are big mad that their slush fund (U.S.A.I.D.) is dry now.

Skepticism toward synthetic compounds with a history of causing harm, being rushed to market, or pushed by industries with financial incentives isn’t ignorance—it’s basic critical thinking. The idea that all skepticism toward synthetic chemicals is irrational is laughable. Let’s go down memory lane: •DDT – Declared safe, later banned. •Thalidomide – “Perfectly safe” until it caused birth defects. •Vioxx – Approved, then pulled after it killed thousands. •mRNA shots – Rushed to market, now we’re seeing record-breaking safety concerns. People aren’t skeptical just because something is synthetic—they’re skeptical because there’s a pattern of regulatory capture, corporate dishonesty, and long-term consequences conveniently ignored by people like you. Meanwhile, blindly embracing synthetic compounds pushed by pharma and government agencies that have repeatedly lied to the public? Now that’s ignorance.

Oh, this is classic projection—you’re claiming victory without presenting a single piece of proof, while insisting I need to do your homework for you. That’s not how this works. re correct because you say you are? •That’s not how science works. You make a claim, you back it up. Otherwise, you’re just another loudmouth pretending credentials equal facts. 2.“Already answered” isn’t a rebuttal. •No, you haven’t answered—you’ve just repeated your own talking points without providing a single citation. You expect people to take your word for it, which is ironic considering you demand skepticism toward others. re still dodging the aluminum issue. •You claim aluminum only accumulates in those with renal issues—prove it. Show me a study that says aluminum never bioaccumulates in the brain of a healthy person. 4.Formaldehyde being “bound” doesn’t erase toxicity concerns. •Again, show me a peer-reviewed study proving that injected formaldehyde is instantly metabolized and poses zero risk in all cases. Just because something is “bound” doesn’t mean it has zero potential for harm. And your final attempt to shift the burden of proof is pathetic. “Why are you unable to find it?” Because I’m not the one making the claim—you are. This is your argument, and you refuse to back it up because you either don’t have the sources or know they don’t say what you want them to. You’re not debating, you’re posturing—throwing out dismissive nonsense and hoping no one notices you can’t back up a single claim. If you were confident in your position, you’d be posting actual evidence instead of deflecting. So, one more time: Where. Is. Your. Proof? Or are you just here to waste everyone’s time with arrogant, unsubstantiated rambling?

Oh, so now you’re just the messenger? Convenient. You expect everyone else to just accept your claims without evidence, yet when challenged, you retreat to “Do your own homework”. That’s not how a debate works—if you make a claim, you back it up. Otherwise, you’re just talking out of your ass. Let’s go through your weak excuses one by one: 1.Thimerosal was removed for public confidence? •If it was truly harmless, there would have been no reason to remove it. The fact that they took it out proves that even the medical establishment acknowledged concerns about mercury exposure. “Public perception” isn’t a scientific reason—it’s a PR move. 2.Aluminum can bioaccumulate only in people with renal issues or BBB compromise? •Wrong. Studies have shown that aluminum adjuvants can persist in the body, travel via macrophages, and accumulate in the brain even in healthy individuals. The idea that this is only an issue for people with kidney failure is misleading. Citation needed. 3.Injected formaldehyde is metabolized quickly, so it’s harmless? •You ignored the real issue—the difference between endogenous (naturally produced) and exogenous (introduced from outside sources) formaldehyde. Just because the body can metabolize small amounts doesn’t mean it’s safe in all contexts. •And let’s see the study that proves that every last bit of injected formaldehyde is instantly metabolized and poses zero risk. I won’t hold my breath. You’re not here to debate—you’re here to parrot talking points while dodging actual scrutiny. You say you’re “not in the mood to play the antivaxxer link game” because you know you can’t actually back up your claims. If you had real evidence, you would have posted it already. Instead, you’re hiding behind arrogance and hoping no one calls your bluff. So, I’ll ask again: Where’s your proof? Because right now, your entire argument is just hot air and condescension.

Eric Weinstein Geometric Unity aims to extend gauge theory and differential geometry beyond the Standard Model, but where does it fit within deep arithmetic and topological structures? Consider the twisted index formula in the picture below: If GU is the unifying theory it claims to be, how does it resolve the missing dualities in geometric quantization and arithmetic T-duality? Are these structures truly accounted for? I’m ready to engage in a first-principles debate on the hardest, least-examined aspects of modern math and physics. Your move.

This is the classic “police yourselves or we’ll do it for you” scenario. If the scientific community refuses to hold bad actors accountable, then the public and policymakers will step in and do it for them—through funding cuts, stricter oversight, or defunding entire programs. You can’t keep demanding endless taxpayer money while turning a blind eye to: •Unreproducible junk science •Fraudulent studies •Politicized “research” designed to push an agenda instead of facts •Cronyism in grant funding If you refuse to clean up your own field, don’t be surprised when people lose trust and demand reform. That’s not “shit logic”—that’s how accountability works.

Maybe you should take that resentment and direct it where it belongs—toward Fauci and the corrupt NIH system he controlled. Under his leadership, grants were handed out based on politics, favoritism, and ideology, not just merit. •EcoHealth Alliance? Funded. •Gain-of-function research? Funded. •Labs overseas instead of American researchers? Funded. •Dissenting scientists? Shut out and blacklisted. You worked for years, and you still got shoved to the side. Meanwhile, Fauci’s preferred cronies were getting their grants fast-tracked—just look at how any research that contradicted the “official” COVID narrative was suppressed. So yeah, you were cheated. But not by “changing times.” You were cheated by an NIH that became a political machine rather than a scientific institution. Maybe instead of complaining, you should start demanding real accountability.

Pete Buttigieg, the failed mayor of potholes turned inept bureaucrat, just demonstrated that he has no understanding of how the U.S. government actually works. Let’s break this down slowly, so even the most civics-challenged leftists can follow along: 1. The Judiciary Does Not “Make the Law” Courts do not “make decisions about what is legal and illegal.” The legislative branch makes the laws (Congress), the executive branch enforces them (the President), and the judiciary interprets them (the courts). Buttigieg is falsely implying that judicial rulings have absolute power over the executive branch, which is blatantly wrong. The courts can rule, but the President (or other executive officials) can refuse to enforce unconstitutional or overreaching decisions—just as has happened throughout American history. 2. The Executive Branch Can and Has Ignored Judicial Rulings If Pete had ever read even a single page of historical precedent, he’d know that multiple U.S. presidents have outright ignored or defied court rulings when they believed the judiciary had overstepped its bounds. •Andrew Jackson (1832) – Ignored a Supreme Court ruling on Native American land rights, famously saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” •Abraham Lincoln (1861) – Ignored Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in Ex parte Merryman and continued suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. •Franklin D. Roosevelt (1930s) – Threatened to ignore Supreme Court rulings striking down elements of the New Deal and even tried to pack the court to get his way. •Barack Obama (2011) – Defied a federal court ruling by continuing to implement his offshore drilling moratorium after the court struck it down. •Joe Biden (2021) – Ignored a Supreme Court ruling by reinstating an eviction moratorium even after the court ruled it unconstitutional. So, no, courts do not have unchecked authority, and the executive branch is not obligated to blindly obey every judicial ruling. 3. “In America, Decisions Are Made By Courts of Law” is a Laughable Oversimplification This embarrassingly ignorant take suggests that the courts are the sole arbiters of legality, which is completely false. •The President can issue pardons, bypassing court decisions entirely. •Congress can rewrite laws or defund enforcement mechanisms if they disagree with a ruling. •The executive branch can simply refuse to enforce a decision, as history has repeatedly shown. Buttigieg’s logic is so bad it should be grounds for immediate disqualification from public office. He is literally arguing for judicial supremacy—a system where unelected judges dictate policy with no checks or balances. That is not how the U.S. government was designed. Conclusion: Pete Buttigieg is a Clueless, Posturing Buffoon This is the same guy who couldn’t manage potholes in South Bend, so it’s no surprise he doesn’t understand the basic functions of government. He’s not a constitutional scholar—he’s a failed mayor who got a diversity hire position in an administration that values identity politics over competence. JD Vance is right. The executive branch has the constitutional authority to push back against judicial overreach. Buttigieg and his cheerleaders are just throwing a tantrum because they think courts should only be obeyed when they align with their political agenda. Try again, Pete. Maybe after you figure out how to run a transportation department without constant disasters, you can attempt to grasp basic constitutional law.

@doristsao So glad you can see the future, how about those powerball numbers?

Where’s your proof? I cited actual sources—you’re just throwing out claims with no evidence and hoping no one notices. 1.Thimerosal wasn’t just removed because of “misinformation”—it was removed because mercury exposure in any form is a legitimate concern. If it was so safe, why remove it at all? Show me a study proving thimerosal exposure is 100% risk-free instead of just saying it was a PR move. 2.Your aluminum argument is misleading. You claim it’s “neutralized and excreted,” but studies show aluminum adjuvants can persist in tissues, cross the blood-brain barrier, and accumulate in the brain. Post a source proving all injected aluminum is completely harmless and excreted without bioaccumulation. let’s talk about formaldehyde. You’re conflating two completely different things: •Endogenous formaldehyde (produced naturally in the body as part of metabolism). •Exogenous formaldehyde (injected directly into the body, bypassing natural metabolic processes). These are not the same. The body is equipped to handle internally produced formaldehyde because it has built-in pathways to regulate it. But introducing it from an external source bypasses those pathways and can lead to toxicity. Just because your body produces a chemical naturally doesn’t mean adding more from an external source is safe. And since you’re talking big, where’s your source proving that injected formaldehyde is completely harmless and poses zero risk under all conditions? You’re making bold claims with zero citations. Try again.

We know exactly what the NIH is doing—they’re creating viruses for humans in labs all over the world. •NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. •They funneled money through EcoHealth Alliance to skirt oversight. •They lied about it for years, until leaked documents exposed them. •They cover up lab leaks, suppress dissenting scientists, and push corporate-driven narratives. This isn’t a “comms failure.” The public is waking up to the reality that NIH is not just some benevolent research institution—it’s a government-funded bioweapons lab masquerading as public health.

You’re throwing around chemistry jargon while ignoring the actual science. Let’s break it down with sources so you can stop pretending to be the smartest person in the room: 1.Thimerosal wasn’t removed because of “misinformation” alone—it was removed because of public concern over mercury exposure. If it was so harmless, why remove it? And no, it’s not completely gone—it’s still in multi-dose flu vials. People can request thimerosal-free versions, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was phased out for a reason. 2.Your aluminum claim is misleading. You admit that 0.6% of injected aluminum is absorbed, but fail to mention that aluminum adjuvants can persist in the body and travel to the brain. The argument that “it’s only a small amount” ignores cumulative exposure and potential long-term effects, particularly in infants. 3.Formaldehyde being produced naturally in the body doesn’t mean injecting it is safe. By your logic, because the body produces stomach acid, people should be able to drink hydrochloric acid without harm. That’s not how physiology works. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, and while vaccine levels are low, dismissing concerns outright is disingenuous. Your smug dismissal of safety concerns is not science—it’s blind trust in authority. If you actually want to engage in a fact-based discussion, here are real sources for what we’re saying: Thimerosal: Aluminum: Formaldehyde:

So your defense of taxpayer-funded, low-quality, often fraudulent academic research is… it stimulates the economy? By that logic, we should just set piles of money on fire—after all, that would “generate economic activity” too. Just because billions are spent and recirculated doesn’t mean it’s being used productively or ethically. Let’s talk about what NIH-funded academic research actually produced in recent years: •Garbage pandemic models that were completely wrong. •Fraudulent mask and lockdown studies used to justify authoritarian policies. •Weaponized public health used for political control instead of actual science. •“Research” that insists red meat, eggs, and even a single glass of wine will kill you. Meanwhile, NIH showers billions on useless studies that can’t be replicated, props up pharma’s R&D pipeline, and pushes government-funded propaganda disguised as “science.” If your best argument is “but muh GDP!”, you’re not defending science—you’re defending waste, fraud, and academic welfare. Try again.

Oh, you’re an MD? That explains a lot. You treat symptoms but don’t actually cure anything—and yet, you think questioning the system that keeps people sick is “anti-science”? If modern medicine actually worked the way you pretend it does, we wouldn’t see: •Chronic disease skyrocketing despite “better treatments.” •Patients on lifelong drug regimens instead of getting healthier. •Medical errors as a leading cause of death. Big Pharma profits off managing illness, not curing it, and you’re part of the system that keeps the treadmill running. When people start asking why, you cry “anti-science” instead of confronting the corruption in your own industry. So, Doc—what have you actually cured? Or is it just more prescriptions and billing codes?

Ah, the classic “It’s not the same form of the chemical, so it’s totally fine!” defense—because clearly, injecting neurotoxic metals and synthetic preservatives into the bloodstream is no big deal as long as it’s in a different molecular structure. Let’s break down this nonsense: 1.Thimerosal is metabolized into ethylmercury, which still has toxic effects. It was phased out of most childhood vaccines because it was a health concern—so if it was “perfectly safe,” why remove it? And yes, it’s still in multi-dose flu shots and used in some vaccine production. Pretending it’s completely gone is disingenuous. 2.Aluminum salts—ah yes, because binding aluminum to another compound magically eliminates its known neurotoxicity. 4.4 mg of aluminum salts injected is not the same as ingesting aluminum (which the body can filter out). Injected aluminum can persist in the body, travel to the brain, and cause immune activation. Tiny amounts of lead are also dangerous over time—should we ignore that too because “it’s only a little bit”? 3.Formaldehyde “reacting” doesn’t mean it’s completely neutralized. The idea that it’s all rendered “non-reactive” is an assumption, not a guarantee. The body is complex, and residual exposure over time can cause harm—especially in infants whose metabolic pathways are still developing. And your water analogy is ridiculous. Water is essential for life. Aluminum, mercury derivatives, and formaldehyde are not. The fact that they exist in different molecular forms doesn’t change the fact that they shouldn’t be injected into the human body without long-term safety studies proving zero risk. But hey, if you really believe in your argument, go ahead and inject yourself with controlled doses of aluminum salts, ethylmercury, and formaldehyde every few months and let us know how that works out for you.

Oh look, a desperate attempt to defend a failed argument by pretending to be the logic police. His whole premise was that people should stop being afraid of “chemistry”—as if skepticism toward synthetic compounds is just ignorance. My response highlights how ridiculous that blind trust is by pointing out that some of the deadliest substances on Earth are “just chemistry” too. He implied that the fear of synthetic chemicals is irrational, while completely ignoring the real-world dangers of many lab-created and naturally occurring toxins. If the “dose makes the poison” argument is absolute, then by his own logic, a controlled dose of cyanide, botulinum toxin, or arsenic should be perfectly fine too. So no, it’s not “hateful nonsense”—it’s exposing the flaw in his oversimplified reasoning. But by all means, keep frantically nitpicking while avoiding the actual discussion. It’s entertaining.

Oh, so you expect taxpayers to subsidize your six-year vacation in a lab so you can write a dissertation no one will read? Got it. Meanwhile, the rest of us work real jobs, pay real taxes, and don’t expect handouts to fund our careers. If a PhD is worth it, then you should be willing to invest in it yourself—just like people do with trade school, business ventures, or any other career choice that requires effort. Or, you know… you could stop whining and get a job like the rest of us. If your work is so valuable, surely the private sector would be lining up to pay for it—unless, of course, it’s just another overhyped degree with no real-world demand.

The Vice President has no constitutional obligation to obey every court ruling—because, believe it or not, the judiciary is not an all-powerful branch that dictates absolute authority over the executive. The courts interpret laws, but they do not enforce them—that’s the role of the executive branch. If a court issues an unconstitutional or overreaching ruling, the President has every right to refuse to comply—and history proves it: •Andrew Jackson ignored SCOTUS, saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” •Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling (Ex parte Merryman) that tried to limit his war powers. •Barack Obama ignored court rulings against DACA and immigration laws—yet no one screamed “end of democracy” then. A coequal branch of government pushing back against judicial overreach isn’t the “end of democracy”—it’s literally how the system was designed. But let me guess—you only care about “our democracy” when it’s politically convenient.