Adam Faris

he/him

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@Open_Wire @Liz_Wheeler Im all for an independent investigation, run by a neutral party unconnected to either the state or the feds.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@Liz_Wheeler Except in the case of the robbery, we know assets were taken.

Your analogy fails unless you assume the votes did not land where legitimate voters intended them to land. In other words, it assumes fraud in order to support the claim of fraud.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@laurenlself First date is too early, 8th date is too late. Right about the point where you think this may actually become a thing is the right time. If it scares them off, it was supposed to.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@DatNightingale @justicenow_alan @jimiuorio The dropping out of the heavy favorite late in the game flipped conventional trends on their head. People were holding back their ballots until much later, waiting to see where it looked like the consensus was going.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@sunnyright When you are allowed to mail in ballots on election day, it would indicate fraud to suggest you knew the outcome on election night. You can disagree with the ability to mail in that day, but as long as that exists, this is the timeline.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@BuckI_Joe @GerryCallahan There was always so much evidence for that, right up until they had the chance to present it in a courtroom, under oath. Suddenly then the claim was watered down to nothing.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@politicalmath @Godel_number The last minute drop of the favorite caused most mail in ballots to be sent in much later than usual. People were waiting to see who could gain the momentum. This was all reported on before election day. The late shift is significant, but also logical within that understanding.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@PutAimovigOnNHS @jess_ann_pin Those side effects vs benefits were assessed bu the individual. At no point in fda approval did they say, "this side effects would normally result in rejection, but for the greater good we'll allow it.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@koorinohonou @MikeB2030 @MendlovitzMark You people are beyond accepting new information. If you weren't, youd have already absorbed thus the first 50 times it was explained. You aren't worth the effort anymore.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@PutAimovigOnNHS @jess_ann_pin Even within that we considered the body getting the meds first. Those who were medically unable to get the vaccine were not administered it, and were granted an exemption from the other participatory exclusions.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@TKo3o3 @swd2 The odds of a single data point don't compound. But the odds of a set of data points do. Flip a coin 4 times. What are the odds you get heads on all 4? Under your theory its 1/2. But we know the real answer is 1/16. Because the data set as a whole becomes a unique data point.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@politicalmath @neoavatara @RonColeman You would think a person with both "politics" and "math" in their user name would actually understand at least one of them.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@TruthAgape Like for instance, if a very old man became senile, and refused to jand over power to someone more responsible, instead letting his dementia ruin a formerly good entity? That person should then be terminated?

Okay, sure, I'm in on your proposal.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@BiblicGrounded @somajoe69 And if the response is "the morality is lure, but people have free will," then fine.

But of people choose to behave morally, or not, then it only seems logical that the morals they choose are just that. Chosen, not objective.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@BiblicGrounded @somajoe69 If his followers actually followed that, you might have an argument. But much murder has been done and continues to be done under the banner of the Christian god. Seems its not so "objectively wrong" as you claim.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@HansFiene Or, just respond, "no, the church is not in support of such an arrangement, but perfection is not expected here. We'd love to have you "

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@TKo3o3 @swd2 Multiply .995 by itself over and over again. Do that 150 times. Your odds of avoiding pregnancy in ALL of those times is 47%. Meaning a 53% chance you got pregnant at least once. Say twice a week, thats not even 2 years.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@TKo3o3 @swd2 Okay, so if you don't take that pill, then you SHOULD have and raise a child you can't afford. Right?

So your "if you cant afford one, dont have one" really isn't your standard.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@PutAimovigOnNHS @jess_ann_pin I like vaccines. I also support people's right not to have them, although that may mean choosing to not participate in parts of the community.

And pain is real and real meds are needed. They just require very close scrutiny. Its an incredibly difficult balance.

[Adam Faris @afaris1978]

@TKo3o3 @swd2 When bc pill fails, you don't know until you get pregnant.

But I'll ask directly. Low income woman, can't afford a kid, takes BC, properly. But she's the 1 in 1000 that gets pregnant anyway.

Should she have the baby she can't afford, or end the pregnancy?