RuneImperialist said: He is clearly stating he want's a particular culture (Anglo) for the US, that is my point. So stop misinterpreting my argument. "instead of our Anglifying them," He is saying Anglify not naturalize, he wants to impose a culture upon them. Although Franklin's concerns were not unfounded, he wanted America to remain English speaking, and policies were implemented to further that objective. Such as territories only gaining statehood if they had a WASP population. Prior to the world wars, there was a large German speaking and cultured population, often referred to as Germania, this was completely suppressed during the world wars, and Germans stopped identifying as German and stopped using their language. Yes he like many founders were in an elite class who obviously viewed their specific form of culture as superior with the obvious exception of hating the monarchy that was ruling over them. His concerns were completely unfounded as history has shown us modern day diversity in the United States far exceeds anything the founders even thought imaginable yet the core of American values still remains. He also weighed the needs and advantages for the nation over his personal prejudice which is a factor you continue to skim over. Germans are not the largest identified subgroup in the US, the 1980 US Census shows that British is the largest subgroup. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/1980/1980-ancestry/tab02.pdf English 26.34% Scottish 5.34% Welsh 0.88% American (British people identifying ethnically as American (this is why British is lower % in later Census) 6%. In total the Anglo American population is 38.56%. According to the American Community Survey that the census bureau ran in 2018 44,164,758 people identified as having German origins where 23,638,645 identified as having English origins. Putting Germans at first for the survey and English at 3rd behind Irish. Edit: I mean according to your own Census link from 1980 there was only a .2% difference between German and English and do you really think that didn't change in 40 years? Also your argument is completely archaic, you aren't supposed to be arguing linguistic assimilation, the Establishment & left has moved on, they view America and every Western state as a multi-lingual society, where immigrants don't have to speak the language to assimilate, to naturalize. The modern meaning of naturalization is just getting citizenship. Notice how there is no social stigma about immigrants identifying with their own country or their race over American identity. No I'm stating that because I'm speaking English Franklin's concerns over German immigrants was unfounded because I have German ancestry. If his concern was based in reality then the anglo aspect of the culture vanished long ago and clearly held no significant value as an American core trait. Also nothing that you argued is a negative, the founding fathers didn't want limits imposed on their ability to determine naturalization so the same standard should apply to modern versions of the practice. By the very nature of applying for citizenship they're embracing the American identity because it is a long process just to have their case heard and their application acknowledged. "Just getting citizenship" compared to the time of the founders is a much harder process. During their time the difficulty was securing transportation to the colonies which was completely independent of the naturalization process but if they made it and lived in the colonies for 2-5 years they were able to apply as citizens. to tie it back to this issue many of the people who this law would apply to have lived in the US for a far longer period than that and it offers a path to citizenship that is ironically closer to the founders initial system. Those to eras of mass immigration resulted in modern America, so they definitely a negative contribution to America. So no factual, historical, or even just any examples of cultural changes that were clearly a negative. Just "those mass immigration periods were obviously bad because I say so and I hate modern America". if you hate modern America then get out of political discussions about modern America. The founding fathers and later American politicians wrote numerous laws limiting American Citizenship to Europeans. These laws were in effect in the early 20th Century. United States V. Bhagat Singh Thind 1923. Yes Americans have a history of trying to reject citizenship to entire waves of people, that's not a good thing. Every iteration has consistently been overruled and updated with modern history and the fears of "losing the core of American values" has consistently been completely overblown except to people advocating for literal ethnostates such as you (although conveniently your example of a modern ethnostate also uses an extremely loose definition which would be contradictory to the founders). But the point is historically founding fathers on an individual level found it hard to acknowledge other white people as equal to themselves and deserving of citizenship despite acknowledging equality as a necessity. When laws are considered wrong or unjust they are updated and I'm not one of those Americans who will pretend like the founders were perfect people with amazing foresight who had no personal flaws. The founding fathers wouldn't want their interpretation of naturalization rules to override modern variations any more than they wanted the King to reject their ability to change the naturalization process. They were not all ruling kings and explicitly did not want to be treated as such. |
GamerDLMJan 24, 2021 6:29 PM
RuneImperialist said: In regards to that southerner, that sounds like the officials broke international law, as had had no citizenship/passport from that other country. And it shows how incompetent the US government has become since the 1950s, because back then a southerner would never get deported. Immigration courts aren't serving any American interest, they are serving the interests of illegal and legal immigrants, and are costing the tax payer a lot, and are acting as a way to stall deportation of illegals. When migrants get to the US border, they can claim asylum and get into the immigration court system, or when illegals in the interior get caught, they just get released and told to go to court at a later day, which over 80% don't show up to court. If the US had less immigration, that would lower the amount of illegal immigration. Life is already difficult for Americans, importing more people to the country doesn't help. Laws are irrelevant when it comes to countries really. I dont have time for this How about you read about how things are instead of making things up?. https://theconversation.com/a-long-running-immigration-problem-the-government-sometimes-detains-and-deports-us-citizens-119702 https://theconversation.com/how-immigration-court-works-98678 Also quit it about race. For one thing most immigrants come from Asia now which you previously have considered "honourary whites" and of Hispanics a large portion of them have European ancestry. That aside nations change. They aren't meant to stagnate. The UK was never meant to be a democracy but I dont see you going on about that. Also the INS was a failure that's why it was shut down . |
| Good for Biden then and I doubt the illegal immigrants will overstay their welcome. America is not always what it seems. The American dream, the idea that consists of people losing their jobs, getting robbed, having their mortgages due and also the idea where people's marriage will be through. Does this sound like the life that they or anyone else wants? Fact is, people did get fooled when they came from out of town. Same principle applies if you came to America illegally. By the way, I got American friends who cursed when I asked them how were things in their home. Again, I doubt illegal aliens will love America for long. For the record, everyone hates California, but the other states don't want such outsiders moving over to their homes. Yes, and illegal aliens will get no better treatment either. Again, America is not always what it seems like on TV. Full of dreams, colorful, promising, etc. That's all fantasy. |
| @GamerDLM Yes he like many founders were in an elite class who obviously viewed their specific form of culture as superior with the obvious exception of hating the monarchy that was ruling over them. The elite class is very cosmopolitan and internationalist, so saying they viewed their culture as superior shows your ignorance. It was Parliamentary Supremacy that ruled Britain is the late 18th Century, not the monarchy, the founders even considered having a monarch be part of the US government. His concerns were completely unfounded as history has shown us modern day diversity in the United States far exceeds anything the founders even thought imaginable yet the core of American values still remains. The only "core" American value that remains is "profit". He also weighed the needs and advantages for the nation over his personal prejudice which is a factor you continue to skim over. You misunderstand my argument, it is not about Founder disliking X immigrant group, but that a Founder viewed that America had a specific culture. According to the American Community Survey that the census bureau ran in 2018 44,164,758 people identified as having German origins where 23,638,645 identified as having English origins. Putting Germans at first for the survey and English at 3rd behind Irish. Edit: I mean according to your own Census link from 1980 there was only a .2% difference between German and English and do you really think that didn't change in 40 years? "Demographers regard current figures as a serious under-count, as a large proportion of Americans of British descent have a tendency to identify as 'American' since 1980" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Americans "The latter response is attributed to a multitude of generational distance from ancestral lineages, and these tend be of English, Scotch-Irish, or other British ancestries, as demographers have observed that those ancestries tend to be seriously undercounted in U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey ancestry self-reporting estimates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ancestry While that 0.2% difference of population between English and Germans might have changed, you are leaving out the 6% American population, which are English. Also if Germans were separated into Austrians, Bavarians, Prussians and Saxons from German, then the German % would be lower, so don't separate English, Scottish, Scots-Irish and Welsh from British. No I'm stating that because I'm speaking English Franklin's concerns over German immigrants was unfounded because I have German ancestry. This isn't an argument, you are using the fact that anglicization policies were successful in getting European-Americans to speak English, to argue that historical persons concerns about large Euro immigrant populations might not assimilate was proven wrong. It is because of concerns over assimilation that such rigorous and extensive anglicization policies were implemented. If his concern was based in reality then the anglo aspect of the culture vanished long ago and clearly held no significant value as an American core trait. So because many American Indian languages have went defunct, I guess those languages were never a core American Indian value. Every iteration has consistently been overruled and updated with modern history and the fears of "losing the core of American values" has consistently been completely overblown There are stats showing the majority of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans opposing American values such as Gun rights and Free speech (pro-hate speech laws). The founding fathers wouldn't want their interpretation of naturalization rules to override modern variations any more than they wanted the King to reject their ability to change the naturalization process. They were not all ruling kings and explicitly did not want to be treated as such. It was Parliament that was delegitimizing colonial naturalization laws, not the king. Also quit it about race. For one thing most immigrants come from Asia now which you previously have considered "honourary whites" and of Hispanics a large portion of them have European ancestry. That aside nations change. They aren't meant to stagnate. The UK was never meant to be a democracy but I dont see you going on about that. I don't support mass immigration regardless of race. A nation is a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, and that is being erased through immigration. Political evolution of a state, such as the UK becoming a Democracy is very different from a nation being dispossessed in their country. |
RuneRemJan 25, 2021 5:35 AM
RuneImperialist said: The elite class is very cosmopolitan and internationalist, so saying they viewed their culture as superior shows your ignorance. It was Parliamentary Supremacy that ruled Britain is the late 18th Century, not the monarchy, the founders even considered having a monarch be part of the US government. Inherently anti-immigration focus with an emphasis on culture requires a sense of arrogance about ones own culture. Cosmopolitanism is the exact opposite of what you're arguing, it's the belief that all human beings should or could be members of a single community so that would put them at the direct opposition of supporting an anglo-centric state. Internationalism is in line with his stance in that he favored long term gain over short-term disputes and it's essentially just a slightly distinct variation of globalism. It is a factual statement that the founding fathers in their time were upper to elite class individuals in Franklin's case for example he was an extremely established author with a myriad of other projects he was associated with. The reason they considered a monarchy was due to how generally terrible the revolutionary war was handled to a point where they almost incited a rebellion against them when they couldn't pay the veterans of the war. So they considered instating the most conceptually powerful form of government at the time which was a monarchy. But most grievances in the Declaration of Independence were directly targeted at the king from everything from policy to insults about his physical appearance and a primary issue was quite literally that they weren't granted representation. The only "core" American value that remains is "profit". This is not an American value or even a core value, this is a capitalist value. You misunderstand my argument, it is not about Founder disliking X immigrant group, but that a Founder viewed that America had a specific culture. Culture has developed and America still has a specific culture, as I stated the founders had no conceivable way of measuring what American culture would look like when the complexion of other Europeans was considered too extreme for the time. Some founders like Thomas Jefferson didn't believe there should even be a unified immigration policy and it should be totally determined by individual states. My argument is rooted in the basis that anybody who has argued that culture should effectively stagnate at an arbitrary point is not only extremely arrogant about their view of the culture but generally shortsighted. Which is only emphasized by the fact that the same anti-immigrant argument has been used for over 2 centuries. "Demographers regard current figures as a serious under-count, as a large proportion of Americans of British descent have a tendency to identify as 'American' since 1980" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Americans "The latter response is attributed to a multitude of generational distance from ancestral lineages, and these tend be of English, Scotch-Irish, or other British ancestries, as demographers have observed that those ancestries tend to be seriously undercounted in U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey ancestry self-reporting estimates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ancestry While that 0.2% difference of population between English and Germans might have changed, you are leaving out the 6% American population, which are English. Also if Germans were separated into Austrians, Bavarians, Prussians and Saxons from German, then the German % would be lower, so don't separate English, Scottish, Scots-Irish and Welsh from British. Austrians are already a distinct group from Germans in the survey, no modern person could easily or reasonably identify Bavarian, Saxon or Prussian roots without going through extremely in depth ancestry checks. Americans chose to create distinctions between Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English when identifying their ancestry if they didn't identify as multiple and these are considered surface level ancestry knowledge and those are considered distinct groups. This isn't an argument, you are using the fact that anglicization policies were successful in getting European-Americans to speak English, to argue that historical persons concerns about large Euro immigrant populations might not assimilate was proven wrong. It is because of concerns over assimilation that such rigorous and extensive anglicization policies were implemented. Naturalization processes were historically successful and even if the natural foundation of America changes the one factor that has been consistent for over 200 years is that naturalization policies work. The arbitrary logic that it won't work for the next batch of X immigrant group has no historical basis. Naturalization as a concept will update as culture and demographics change and that is explicitly not a negative as long as there's a unified base then it frankly doesn't matter. So because many American Indian languages have went defunct, I guess those languages were never a core American Indian value. It was estimated that people living in the Americas had a larger population than Europe during the periods prior to colonization so the idea that there would be unified core American Indian values is already a stretch. If those tribes weren't wiped out by what was quite literally a series of genocides those languages would have naturally evolved resulting in just another variation of people who were bilingual. Which was quite literally occurring in Indian boarding schools until the US government intervened and forcefully took over their education system. There are stats showing the majority of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans opposing American values such as Gun rights and Free speech (pro-hate speech laws). Modern day gun rights have also undergone a massive transformation from the founders time, there was no official Supreme Court ruling that stated the right to bear arms applied to individuals outside of a militia or other regulated activities until 2008. Dating back to the early 1900s there was a longstanding assumption that outside of militia or highly regulated use individuals should not allow the "general promiscuous toting of guns" which was stated by the president of the NRA in 1934 who also argued heavily in favor of gun regulation to limit criminal use. Hate speech is a much more complicated subject because harmful forms of speech are already outlawed or limited in a wide range of categories and there is a justifiable argument to say hate speech should be included in those categories. The founding fathers even outlawed potentially harmful forms of speech such as when the 2nd US president passed The Sedition Act which made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous and malicious writing against Congress or the president" with a vote of 44 to 41 in the Senate at the time. It was Parliament that was delegitimizing colonial naturalization laws, not the king. This is semantics. |
GamerDLMJan 25, 2021 8:11 AM
Tell that to the people who lost their friends and love ones in those Democrat run "sanctuary cities." Like the father of Kate Steinle for example who's daughter was murdered in cold blood by illegal immigrant who shouldn't be in our country at all. All of this heinous crimes by illegals happen under Obama and Biden watch. I ask you do want to see more law-biding citizens become victims of murder or rape by illegal immigrants with criminal track records? Is this what you want? |
LaytonPuzzle27Jan 25, 2021 10:59 AM
LaytonPuzzle27 said: Tell that to the people who lost their friends and love ones in those Democrat run "sanctuary cities." Like the father of Kate Steinle for example who's daughter was murdered in cold blood by illegal immigrant who shouldn't be in our country at all. All of this heinous crimes by illegals happen under Obama and Biden watch. I ask you do want to see more law-biding citizens become victims of murder or rape by illegal immigrants with criminal track records? Is this what you want? Appeal to emotion fallacy. The fact still stands Obama deported more people then trump. While the Obama administration deported 1.18 million people in his first three years, the number of deportations has been a little under 800,000 so far under Trump, according to the Post. The Obama administration also deported 409,849 people in 2012 alone, while the Trump administration has yet to deport more than 260,000 people in a year, the Post reported. also nothing will stop murder and rape as long as humanity still exists. there are plenty of "law-biding" citizen that also Comit these crimes, but keep there citizen status and just as many immigrants that have committed no crimes that were here under legal status, but lost it due to how fked our immigration courts is and how slow they are. and become "illegal" due the governments own failings. GamerDLM said: RuneImperialist said: You misunderstand my argument, it is not about Founder disliking X immigrant group, but that a Founder viewed that America had a specific culture. Culture has developed and America still has a specific culture, as I stated the founders had no conceivable way of measuring what American culture would look like when the complexion of other Europeans was considered too extreme for the time. Some founders like Thomas Jefferson didn't believe there should even be a unified immigration policy and it should be totally determined by individual states. My argument is rooted in the basis that anybody who has argued that culture should effectively stagnate at an arbitrary point is not only extremely arrogant about their view of the culture but generally shortsighted. Which is only emphasized by the fact that the same anti-immigrant argument has been used for over 2 centuries. I love how nyu falls back on this same argument of "oh the founding fathers." then proceeds to show his ignorance's of what the founding fathers actually wanted. also again founding fathers didn't want a lot of things we have nowadays. INCLUDING A STANDING ARMY. to believe that a country should remain the same as it was nearly 300 or so years ago is not only ignorant, but irrational. a country that cannot adapted to change is a dead country. i think a lot of people that try this shouldn't even be considered conservitives. stangationists is more like it. |
GrimAtramentJan 25, 2021 12:03 PM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| @GamerDLM Inherently anti-immigration focus with an emphasis on culture requires a sense of arrogance about ones own culture. Cosmopolitanism is the exact opposite of what you're arguing, it's the belief that all human beings should or could be members of a single community so that would put them at the direct opposition of supporting an anglo-centric state. Internationalism is in line with his stance in that he favored long term gain over short-term disputes and it's essentially just a slightly distinct variation of globalism. It is a factual statement that the founding fathers in their time were upper to elite class individuals in Franklin's case for example he was an extremely established author with a myriad of other projects he was associated with. Your original argument was elites viewed their culture as superior. "Yes he like many founders were in an elite class who obviously viewed their specific form of culture as superior" My counter argument was that elites were known for their cosmopolitanism, however I never said that Franklin was cosmopolitan, and he seems somewhat Anglocentric. Your definition of cosmopolitanism doesn't match up with reality, London and Paris were cosmopolitan cities in the 19th Century and they were in Anglocentric/Francocentric states. It generally just means composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. This is not an American value or even a core value, this is a capitalist value. American settlement as early as Virginia was predicated on profit, it is the only continuous throughout American history. Culture has developed and America still has a specific culture, as I stated the founders had no conceivable way of measuring what American culture would look like They did have a way of measuring what American culture would look like, maintaining Anglo American culture, such as socially imposing English names and language. My argument is rooted in the basis that anybody who has argued that culture should effectively stagnate at an arbitrary point is not only extremely arrogant about their view of the culture but generally shortsighted. Which is only emphasized by the fact that the same anti-immigrant argument has been used for over 2 centuries. to believe that a country should remain the same as it was nearly 300 or so years ago is not only ignorant, but irrational. a country that cannot adapted to change is a dead country. i think a lot of people that try this shouldn't even be considered conservitives. stangationists is more like it. This culture stagnating argument is a caricature. There is a massive difference between a culture changing, evolving over time, and it being replaced by another nation's culture. The culture in China, Sweden, Germany and France has changed over the centuries without massive population replacement. English culture between 1800 and 1900 changed, and that was without mass immigration. It was estimated that people living in the Americas had a larger population than Europe during the periods prior to colonization so the idea that there would be unified core American Indian values is already a stretch. If those tribes weren't wiped out by what was quite literally a series of genocides those languages would have naturally evolved resulting in just another variation of people who were bilingual. Which was quite literally occurring in Indian boarding schools until the US government intervened and forcefully took over their education system. I highly doubt the Americas had a larger population than Europe. When I said a unified core of American Indian values, I clearly meant in regards to the tribal nations. 90% of the American Indian population died due to disease. Those indigenous languages were clearly not core values of the tribes since they don't speak those languages anymore. |
LaytonPuzzle27 said: Tell that to the people who lost their friends and love ones in those Democrat run "sanctuary cities." Like the father of Kate Steinle for example who's daughter was murdered in cold blood by illegal immigrant who shouldn't be in our country at all. All of this heinous crimes by illegals happen under Obama and Biden watch. I ask you do want to see more law-biding citizens become victims of murder or rape by illegal immigrants with criminal track records? Is this what you want? Bruh that's a nice anecdote you got there but the claim that immigrants cause disproportionately more crime than native citizens in the US is blatantly false and even shown to be the exact opposite in certain studies. Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses.Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as “undocumented” at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime  |
 |
RuneImperialist said: Your original argument was elites viewed their culture as superior. "Yes he like many founders were in an elite class who obviously viewed their specific form of culture as superior" My counter argument was that elites were known for their cosmopolitanism, however I never said that Franklin was cosmopolitan, and he seems somewhat Anglocentric. Your definition of cosmopolitanism doesn't match up with reality, London and Paris were cosmopolitan cities in the 19th Century and they were in Anglocentric/Francocentric states. It generally just means composed of persons, constituents, or elements from all or many parts of the world. Cosmopolitism, Internationalism and Globalism all fall very closely on the same spectrum. My definition I used of Cosmopolitism is literally the definition of Cosmopolitism that it's an ideology that all human beings belong to a single community based on a shared morality and mutual respect. It's heavily focused on utilitarianism and promotion of basic human rights regardless of identity. On a political level it advocated for a world state or a comprehensive global body. If that's not the definition you're using then it's literally wrong. Your definition of it doesn't even match up with your claim of the founders standings but it is a factual statement to say they were elites, they owned plantations, they were well educated, they made owning land a significant measurement of citizenship and ability to vote all of these are characteristics of elite for their time. You trying to introduce the notion of cosmopolitanism or internationalism does not counter any part of my argument that they as elites views their variation of culture as superior. American settlement as early as Virginia was predicated on profit, it is the only continuous throughout American history. Yes capitalism is a push for profits, American was inherently colonized on the idea of trying to secure a supply of resources that were not native to Europe and falls into general capitalist policies of trying to meet a demand for goods for the sake of profit. They did have a way of measuring what American culture would look like, maintaining Anglo American culture, such as socially imposing English names and language. That's not a way to measure what culture would look like, that's a way to try and force a culture, just because say Benjamin Franklin wanted to push an anglocentric basis does not mean that the country was going to maintain an anglocentric basis. This culture stagnating argument is a caricature. There is a massive difference between a culture changing, evolving over time, and it being replaced by another nation's culture. The culture in China, Sweden, Germany and France has changed over the centuries without massive population replacement. English culture between 1800 and 1900 changed, and that was without mass immigration. The idea of being replaced by another nation's culture is moreso a caricature of immigration because it also continues to have no basis. Cultures tend to naturally blend and create a hybrid of ideas, practices and morals because inherently citizenship for 2 different people results in a mutual respect as members of the same sovereign nation. It's people who continue to reject individuals based on those differences who are the most harmful to the natural cultural progression of a nation. To bring it up again, that's literally the basis for cosmopolitanism which you yourself claimed was a common belief during the 19th century. I highly doubt the Americas had a larger population than Europe. When I said a unified core of American Indian values, I clearly meant in regards to the tribal nations. 90% of the American Indian population died due to disease. Those indigenous languages were clearly not core values of the tribes since they don't speak those languages anymore. It doesn't matter whether you doubt it, this is a factual statement. Languages die when there is no method to pass on the understanding of the language. One of the most common assumptions for American Indians is that they had a heavy emphasis on verbal storytelling but rarely introduced systems of writing. So when tribes were wiped out by disease or colonists there was no remaining examples of the language to reference. That doesn't mean language wasn't important to their culture, it means there was no innate method to preserve it. This is something that could never apply to say Latin despite being defunct language because there were methods to preserve Latin as a language such as a huge base of writings that can be referenced. |
GamerDLMJan 26, 2021 9:41 AM
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |