view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Perhaps she knows what she's talking about. The rate of MS in Saskatchewan is ten times higher south of highway one than north of it, and american air force pilots have admitted to using that highway as a visual marker to spread chemicals in other instances in the area. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-carcinogen-in-western-canada-during-the-cold-war-researcher-discovers
First off that article says nothing about MS increased rates anywhere. But also, it talks about something that happened from July 9, 1953 to Aug 1, 1953. It's one instance of testing a chemical for the cold war that was for trying to determine how Nuclear Fallout would spread in the area. Also, worst of all, you said there was an increased rate of MS in Saskatchewan but then posted an article that talks about something that happened in Winnipeg, which last I checked, was in Manitoba not Saskatchewan.
Edit: It does list an event that happened in Alberta but those were just claiming they could see some "distanctly visible emissions" but no study has shown any evidence for that being an actual chemical being ejected from the planes. There is also a supposed instance of it in St. Lois where they use just two people as evidence for it. It also talks about other tests the cia and other government agencies have done on the populace but none of those listed were a chemical dispersal except the original.
Maybe cause that's not exactly why I posted the article. There's a whole lot more to dig into, from reputable sources, I was just pointing you in the general direction with an article from a national paper. And not only 1953. They've been trying to figure out that geographic MS thing for years. You have enough info now to look into it yourself. (Medicine Hat is also mentioned too, it's like you skimmed that article) It's hilarious y'all are always like "They'd never do that, blah blah blah" "Here's a documented and verified instance of them doing it at least twice, in the fifties and 60's" "Welll..... so what?" You're (not subtly) misrepresenting what was in that article in order to belittle it. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, i know,
"Do your own research"
Classic.
Had a verified link and pointed you in the right direction, This isn't university, if you care, look it up.
I don't really but thank you
Gee. I wonder why I can't be bothered to recall everything i've read on the subject over the years, track it all down, and serve up a bunch of neatly listed links for people bitching i don't
Probably the same reason why I can't be arsed to "look up" every deranged conspiracy I see on the Internet.
There ya go again, comparing it to that after verified proof was posted, at least to one aspect. You all already showed me you'll immediately misrepresent what you're shown to assuage your prior held beliefs.
I'm gonna need at least a dozen YouTube videos to really be convinced.
Or you could just google rates of MS in south Saskatchewan and start looking in medical journal reports