26 Replies to “Friday On Turtle Island”

  1. Q ‘which news paper does jeff bezzos own’
    A: washington post’

    hmmmm. so bezos is ‘in on it’?
    or its ‘hands off the editorial schtaff’?
    wellllll guess whut jeffy IT WAS OK FOR HEARST IN HIS DAY TO DICTATE THE DAYS HEADLINES
    but you dont on such a major story so, hopefully the thing will cease to exist

  2. Indian Ancestral Law.
    That’s has to make about as much sense as their ‘written language.

    Then again, can I torture the prisoners I take from raiding another tribe?
    Can I enslave them?

  3. The Anglican church went off the rails a long time ago. Our local Anglican priest consistently reposts rabid antiIsrael HAMAS propaganda on her Facebook page and supports transitioning children, little children. The idea that they now have specific liturgy for euthanasia is no surprise.

    As for euthanasia itself, my husband died recently at age 82. The death sentence was discovered after a blood test because he was running a fever, acute myeloid leukemia of the most aggressive type. He refused further treatment and specifically told his doctor to do nothing to extend his life but do nothing to shorten it. He had five lucid days to prepare himself and us and dictate his closing wishes, meet with his publisher to tie up the details on his last book, before air hunger and bone pain began and his mind started to wander. He passed quietly three days later, heavily sedated, without pain or agitation, his dignity intact, under his own terms. With modern palliative care there is no need to rush death.

    2. Sorry for your loss. Congrats to your husband for living … and dying … on his own terms. Terms that respected; himself, his family, and his Creator.

  4. I’m don’t think that the press were wrong to ignore Gabbard’s release of the documents regarding Fauci.

    First, the contents of these documents were over hyped, with some claiming it proves things that in fact were admitted to many years ago. Second, the documents stretch for hundreds of pages, and it’s not clear what parts are supposed to contain damning evidence. I read some of it, and nothing stood out. Third, it’s heavily redacted, which does not engender confidence in any conclusions drawn from it.

      1. When I have a — you know — rebuttal, get back to me.

        But I recommend you read at least part of the released document to prepare yourself. Maybe you can point to where it proves that “Fauci funded the Wuhan lab research that sparked COVID”, as Gabbard alleges. To help you out, here are the documents:

        https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2026/4165-fauci-funded-wuhan-lab-research-that-sparked-covid

        No need to thank me.

        1. No need at all. Just shut up. You’re a liberal bootlicker.
          Your beloved media hasn’t reported any of this and that means it’s accurate. Because if it wasn’t they’d be all over it to discredit the documents.
          So, do you now understand how stupid you are?

    2. “I’m don’t think that the press were wrong to ignore Gabbard’s release of the documents regarding Fauci.”

      But that same press ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop was just fine with you, because Trump.

      1. I love how you make shit up about my views on Hunter Biden and fitgure that’s an argument.

        The reason I don’t think the press were wrong is because I read a fair chunk of the released documents — something I doubt you did — and was underwhelmed. Now maybe there is something new and damning there, but no one seems to have found it. In particular, Gabbard’s claim that the documents show that “Fauci funded research at the Wuhan lab that resulted in the COVID” seems to be unfounded.

        1. “I love how you make shit up about my views on Hunter Biden and fitgure that’s an argument.”

          Pointing out your TDS-inspired hypocrisy requires no argument.

        1. Yes, when it exposes our illegal skullduggery around the world. She has no choice. SHE is not the one doing the redacting.

          But all of Congress, I imagine, can read the unredacted version in a skiff of somewhere.

          1. Whatever, but so far as evidence is concerned, a redacted document is a compromized one. It can not be given the same weight as a complete one.

          2. Except Congress and the DOJ can read the redactions and file charges. Or at least make permanent changes to the way our Deep State operates outside the permission and regulation of the Three branches of government.

          3. We’re talking about whether the media should take this document seriously. The heavy redacting is just another reason not to give it much weight.

          4. That’s funny …when the media saw all the redactions in the Epstein Files … they went into overdrive …

  5. “Indigenous ways of life and Indigenous laws are not seen as valid as Canadian law,” wrote the Commission. No kidding and for good reason.

    1. I subscribe to the “you do you” philosophy of life. YOU … want to live like a primitive in the dirt? Go right ahead. Just leave me the hell out of it. The only time I’ll live in the dirt is on a camping trip … and I’ll still be taking many modern niceties of life along with me.

  8. Someone found a dead duckling and threw it into the reflecting pool.
    Otherwise there would have been the rest of the nestlings dead from the chemical.
    It’s no different than the faked rodent in the leg-hold trap video. The rodent in the video is too light to trip the trap used. If it had tripped it, the trap would have crushed its torso. Unfortunately most people are too emotional to figure that out.

Leave a Reply

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation