Multiple governments have committed to signing the WHO global pandemic treaty, which will cede health sovereignty to the World Health Organization.
~ anyone else see a problem with this ? Relinquishing sovereignty to technocrats that are unaccountable.
not accountable to the people, can't be voted out of office, bypassing any relief from the courts
Foreigners calling the shots
In general the WHO and the UN act as recommendation bodies. Any time someone tells you they are invading sovereignty it's worth another look, because it hasn't been true up to this point.
Re: TGIF! It's the PO, Have at it..lol
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 4:11 pm
by Slip Shod
a ratified treaty comes law - passes through both houses of Congress and the president signs it
a ratified treaty comes law - passes through both houses of Congress and the president signs it
Yes and that is the process for passing a law through our sovereign system. It's accepting the recommendation not giving up sovereignty. It gives the WHO no additional powers in our country.
I'll take that as an ' I haven't read the article ' - so much for a centrist non-biased individual, not partaking equally from both sides.
BUT ur free to do so / don't presume to represent yourself as a non partisan in the middle type.
It's all good
Re: TGIF! It's the PO, Have at it..lol
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 8:19 pm
by Slip Shod
And G if you're proving Your opinion upon so-called fact checkers, fact checkers have shown themselves to be unreliable, partial and the times deliberately misguiding.
BUT, you're free to certainly do so.
It's all good - example, the third party fact checkers used by Twitter to misrepresent the truth. I think that's a pretty big deal myself
What a deceiving double standard. Twitter covered their ass claiming innocence by using third party fact checkers. But it's all good
I'll take that as an ' I haven't read the article ' - so much for a centrist non-biased individual, not partaking equally from both sides.
BUT ur free to do so / don't presume to represent yourself as non partisan in the middle.
It's all good
I've never represented myself as centrist. I am not. A lot of my ideas are fairly extreme. I just have some views that are considered extremely left and some that are considered extremely right. For instance I'm strongly pro choice, but believe in little government intervention in the economy.
As far as being non-partisan, I'm not that either. I'm anti-partisan. I think parties are a huge part of our problem in this country.
No, I don't read Brietbart any more. I was reading them when they were a solid right leaning publication then they promoting of conspiracy theories and firing a reporter for getting assaulted by a Trump aid on camera. So no, they get no support from me. I'm voting with my wallet on this. I also don't get my news from Mother Jones, CNN or fox news. If someone posts an article from one of these sources I will read it, but I'm not interested in news that is that obviously biased in either direction. I like Routers, Washington Post (sometimes), Daily Wire (sometimes), Bloomberg, AP, Forbes, and local news site. I also use a few news aggregation sites.
It's a huge jump to go from me not getting news from one site particular site. You really should look at the history of that site and the way it is viewed from non-partisan watchdog groups. If you don't trust that look at what Be Shapiro has to say abou him and Brietbart. Steve Bannon is not a good human being. He's a nothing but a power hungry opportunists.
nd G if you're proving Your opinion upon so-called fact checkers, fact checkers have shown themselves to be unreliable, partial and the times deliberately misguiding.
This is true if you lump all fact checkers into one bucket. Snopes, for instance is awful for anything but debunking urban legions. Media Fact-check Bias, is a well known non-partisan site and is regularly used by MIT when they do research into media bias. They are really good at what they do.
The other site I posted was ABC10 which is a local news affiliate required by law to be non-partisan.
the third party fact checkers used by Twitter to misrepresent the truth. I think that's a pretty big deal myself
That's why twitter is a very bad resource. It is no more reliable then Brietbart and I'm not on there.
Re: TGIF! It's the PO, Have at it..lol
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 8:34 pm
by Slip Shod
I've got a list of people I consider not being 'good human beings', we all do and to begin posting them here would turn things into a muddy finger pointing brawl akin to playing God
I've got a list of people I consider not being 'good human beings', we all do and to begin posting them here would turn things into a muddy finger pointing brawl akin to playing God
I've got a list of people I consider not being 'good human beings', we all do and to begin posting them here would turn things into a muddy finger pointing brawl akin to playing God
Good luck with that.
Guide, it was you who first mentioned Steve Bannon as being 'not a good human being'. And I said listing people as to whether or not they were a good human being is kin to playing God.
It was You akin to playing God.
~But it's all good
Guide, it was you who first mentioned Steve Bannon as being 'not a good human being'. And I said listing people as to whether or not they were a good human being is kin to playing God.
I'm not upset. I've just given you the information I can, implored you to do your own research, if neither is of interest to you there is nothing else to do. My wish of good luck was sincere. There just isn't much else for me to say.
Re: TGIF! It's the PO, Have at it..lol
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 8:53 pm
by Slip Shod
After all that I'm thirsty now. I'm going down to the corner and get me a cold one
~
@Z . You did say have at it
Re: TGIF! It's the PO, Have at it..lol
Posted: Fri May 20, 2022 10:10 pm
by Slip Shod
Out of Newsweek, more craziness, when will it end ?
U.S. planning to destroy Russian Baltic fleet claims blockage of Ukrainian ports contributing to a world food shortage
