All Activity

This is what AI generates when you ask it to create a Trump supporter vs a Biden supporter. I love the sandal with an actual foot in it for the loser Marxist fool on the left.

You finally attempted to answer the four questions, but the answers still don't really support your original claims. Lets go back to the beginning, wich the statement that started all of this: "Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way" Question 1: What risk? Your answer was: "Because it's an unknown and untested medical product there is a higher risk of unknown and dangerous side effects." This sort of answers the question, but only by identifying the possibility of unknown risks. You did not identify a specific risk that officials failed to disclose. "Unknown risks" is not itself a specific risk. It is simply uncertainty. So you answered: There could be risks. You did not answer: What specific risk are you claiming officials concealed? Question 2: When did officials know? Your answer was: "Officials knew from minute one that this was an untested brand new medical technology and that there may very well be significant unknown side effects." This answers a different question. I asked: When did officials know about the risk? You answered: They knew uncertainty existed from the beginning. Those are not the same thing. If your claim is that officials knew about a specific risk and failed to disclose it, then you need to identify: The specific risk When they learned about it What evidence they had What they disclosed Instead, you're simply pointing out that everyone knew uncertainty existed, which was never in dispute. Question 3: What did they say publicly at the time? Your answer was: "They said that the risk was the same or lower as any other vaccine..." and "People that disagreed were bigots..." At least this is a factual claim that can be evaluated. The problem is that you still provide: No quote No source No date No citation No official statement You are making a claim about what was said publicly, but you are not providing evidence that it was said. So this remains an unsupported assertion. Question 4: What should they have said instead? This was your strongest answer. You stated that officials should have said something closer to: "This is a new product with limited testing and there may be serious unknown side effects that cannot yet be anticipated." That is a legitimate opinion about how risk communication should have been handled. However, you still have not demonstrated that officials failed to communicate uncertainty, nor have you shown that they claimed there were no unknown risks. So while this is your strongest answer, it is still an opinion about what should have been said, not evidence that your original accusation is true. At the beginning of this discussion, your claim sounded like: The government knew about risks and failed to warn people. After several rounds of questioning, the argument now seems to be: The government should have emphasized uncertainty more strongly. Those are very different claims. The first is a factual claim that requires evidence. The second is a subjective judgment about risk communication. The reason I kept asking these four questions is because they force the discussion away from assertions and toward evidence. Even now, most of your answers are still assertions rather than demonstrations.

LOL, now you are talking to yourself. Clearly, internet forums are not your thing. You are unable to engage on any level of real intellect here to defend your positions and mostly end up talking to no one and now yourself.

Carney is backpedaling and now the Libtards have to, too.

What I have to say has nothing to do with what you are doing: stealing other people's work and passing it off as your own.

No. I just don't give a flying f*ck what you have to say anymore.

So, you justify your lack of integrity, your constant stealing of other people's words and work, because I might criticize the source? ROFL I know you are stealing because it clearly isn't your work, given the way it is written. It appears to be a copy-and-paste job, and I can go to Google to find the source and criticize it that way.

Look, I found a boomer who still has some brain cells and a firm grasp on reality.

hypocrisy is the brain froze imbecile who feels only a hair-shirt wearing sandals can speak oi environmentalism. What's the point if we can only reduce CO2 by 50%, why even try? Those rage posting over a teenage girl because she doesn't swim from New York to Paris for meetings.

BINGO.

I wonder if it isn't the other way around. Canadians just like trump so when he's talking to them it's all about how trump is ruptured and relationships with America are a weakness etc etc. He thinks to himself " They'll like me if I say this bad stuff about trump!" Then when he's in front of trump it's all make America great again, allies forever, we have a few technical things to work out but otherwise things are great! And he's thinking "If I say the stuff about trump trump will like me" I think he just says whatever the hell he thinks the people he's talking to at that moment want to hear. There's no doubt that when he's not in front of trump he absolutely Stokes the hatred of trump. Different story when he's actually in front of trump

And when I do, you accuse me of posting "anonymous" sources, even though the name is there. So I don't really feel it matters. This is what Libbies do all the time. You attack the source and ignore the substance. And unless a source says what YOU want it to, it's a bad source.

6 or 7 simultaneous running copies of the same spambot.

Pointing out that you're a teenager and no way she perform has anything to do with being a pedophile. And your mother is alive and well and almost certainly brutally disappointed in you And by the way, everybody knows that the pedophile thing is one of your fantasies. So every time you bring it up you're kind of making people Snicker at you in the background I mean you're trying to convince people of something and you start off with an immediate lie that everyone can see. Calling me a pedophile because I correctly point out that you're not anywhere near as old as you claim you are there's nothing to do with pedophilia, so why would anyone believe you when you try and pretend your mother is dead when she is alive and well? And frankly considering how you turned out she deserves a little critique. I mean I'm sure she tried her best but she turned out to be such an absolute failure of a child that I feel like she owes us all an apology for having to put up with you

Of course it was the message. There's a reason why every single Liberal cheerleader can't stop talking about how much they hate Trump and the US.

Ahhh yes, back to pedophile and insulting dead people. Typical LOSER response when LOSING with every post you make HA. HA HA So sad you have such reading issues LOSER so, here it is for the third time HA HA HA "Oh...did you miss it the last time LOSER??? LOL Here it is for you again LOSER I am sure you have seen this before but you do not seem to get it so, here it is again LOSER LOL LOL LOL As usual, a zero value post from a ZERO LOSER LOL LOL LOL A LOSER like you does not deserve anything new. I repeat so you won't forget you are a complete ZERO LOSER and need your equally ZERO LOSER buddy veradahbouy to back you up HA HA HA No meltdown...that is what happens to you when I tap dance in your LOSER head LOL LOL LOL Once again, your post only proves confux the LOSER is suffering from blatherskite HA HA HA

Again, wtf do you even mean by that? He's saying that people should break the law? Do you have an example? You know that's a daily occurrence from the Dems, right? They're constantly inciting riots, or telling their supporters to harass political opponents, etc. There are no retribution cases, dingbat. Trump was repeatedly charged by Dem AGs for BS offences, and his investigation into Carroll is "an investigation of a known crime". She lied during her deposition. And then she admitted to it because she's braindead. I'm not following your Bolton story. What's that even about?

That comment would imply there is more than one. Although it does stretch the imagination.

This is a new shit all over leftism thread. Black Lives Matter - everyone else, f*ck off.

If he advocates for breaking the law then there wouldn't have been retribution cases. You're literally proving that he's following the law. They have their day in court and they were able to win, trump actually respected the legal process You don't have much luck with thinking do you?

Weasel words again. Do try to put brain into gear before dropping the clutch.

Yes he did. No he didn't. The other words are yours and yours alone.

No, I replied to the last time as well. We all saw it. You're Having an emotional breakdown because somebody was mean to you on the internet like a teenager who lives in his mom's basement who said because no one likes him in the real world See? I was paying attention and frankly so was everyone else It's hilarious that you think that I'm sure he appreciates you lending out your family photos