Exactly. I see you beat me to it.
If a drug is found to have the side effect of giving you something positive (like a super power), then that effect gets bumped from side effect to intended effect. You know: the “it’s not a bug, its a feature!” reasoning.
One very good example, though far from the only one: Sildenafil was developed as a drug to treat hypertension and angina (a symptom of heart disease). During the clinical trials it was discovered that it gave men… let’s say a kind of “super power”, so the intended use for the drug was changed. It was then marketed as Viagra.
Ha! It seems that something went wrong with the conversion of comments that happened a few years back…
I was clearly replying to someone who complained about the lack of color in the board game in the 3rd panel. That comment disappeared… maybe the author deleted it, which should have deleted my reply, and then my reply was resurrected when the comment system changed.
Regarding Clayton’s ears… Compare the images of Clayton above with those from 2008 (when Brian Basset was still drawing the strip), or with modern versions (as of 2021). Clearly Rob Harrell was still struggling to get Clayton right in 2011. In particular his large ears with a very large, empty ovals inside… they look… weird. The 2021 Clayton looks much better.
Even in the archives the strips are smaller than normal:
But they should return to normal on Thursday of next week:
(Note that the we are out of sync with the original weekdays by one day.)
The Mueller investigation was in part about how the Russians spread misinformation in social media in order to confuse people and convince them to vote against a candidate that was very inconvenient for them (the Russians). That is unacceptable interference from an alien actor in an American election, sure.
But once the voters made up their minds (even if that was based on believing lies) and voted accordingly, their votes were legitimate and no election stealing took place. So: Did the Russians interfere in the election? Yes, clearly. Did the Russians steal the election? No, absolutely not.
But again that is completely beyond the point because Hillary Clinton is not Mueller and did not take part in his investigation. So again, for the third time, you provided an example of something that does not show that “Hillary Clinton said the Russians stole” the election which, again, is the whole point of the discussion.
So that’s a triple fail, Rand. Try yet again. But this time make sure that you know what you are answering to.
We could enter into a debate of what she meant by stolen in your first quote, or what she meant at all in the second one.
But there is absolutely no need for that, because in neither of the two quotes she said that “the Russians stole it”, which is the whole point of the discussion.
As such, double fail, Rand. Try again. But this time make sure that you know what you are answering to.
Absolutely false. Hillary Clinton never said the Russians stole the election. In fact, no serious politician said that.
On the other hand, the very next day after the election, early in the morning, she called Trump to concede. And later that day, in her concession speech she asked her followers to accept the results:
“We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
Yes. Even in the archives the strips are smaller than normal:
You are failing to understand how VAERS works and what the data collected really means.
For the people who actually care about what they actually mean (as opposed to those obsessed with advancing a misguided political agenda), here is a nice explanation in layman’s terms: