All Activity

Okay, so not being officially peer reviewed does not negate the information in the document.

DSA takeover of this crappy party is almost complete.

Well, you believe it's Fauci, so...... In 1931, 100 scientists got together and wrote a paper on how Einstein was wrong. Ooopsy-doodle. Science is not decided by voting.

Do you ever go back to review your funny 9/11 beliefs and news sources? Do you think they contributed positively or negatively to your credibility and how would you know?

I did not ask you for a link. I informed you this was not published or peer reviewed. You claimed it was. I asked you to show where it was published. Do you not understand the concept of “published?” That means it has been placed in a scientific journal and was peer reviewed. Providing a link to where this was submitted to a Senate hearing is not “published” nor peer reviewed. Even is this were true, which it is not, it still doesn’t mean the rebuttal is wrong.

You know someone who screws up their thread title and never fixes it? Do you know what this picture from your cite depicts : It looks like a Xerox copy of a ballot APPLICATION

After all this time and with the level of science at hand, where is this individual, when will they emerge with the evidence that proves there's no crisis? Economically it would be like the 2nd coming of Christ in terms of saving us. And as always, there will be a Nobel...millions in cash...renamed high schools everywhere...Steven Tyler blushing at their mountain of panties. Is this saviour among us now, even as we speak?

I don't watch "CBC News", to find out if it's suddenly news, just like I don't eat rocks to figure out if they're suddenly food. Do you frequently eat rocks to find out if maybe they're food, Barqy? And the fact that I know why CBC 'News' doesn't qualify as actual "news" is what makes me an expert on the subject. I get A LOT of my news from FB. And a lot from Fox News. And then I verify it all before I walk around citing it as if it's carved in stone. You, on the other hand, get all your news from CBC, verify nothing, cite it like gospel, insult anyone who questions your narrative, ignore all facts that go against your programming, and when you finally get to the point where you have to act like an adult and admit that you're wrong, you run off to push CBC's next false narrative. Was Fox wrong about collusion, or were they close to 100% correct while CNN was 100% wrong? Was Fox right about M Brown, the violent criminal, or was CNN right about "M Brown the Gentle Giant"? Was it wrong to force kids to take the jab? Was there ever a single moment in time where that made sense? Was the BSL4 lab leak theory really just a huge conservative joke? Were fiery riots ever "mostly peaceful"? Was Biden really mentally fit that whole time? Did 60% of Florida's population have to move because of flooding? Did I miss it? Was Greta the Dropout really an expert on US race relations and climate change? Is Carney really some kind of awesome, trustworthy, 'elbows up' guy, who's winning trade deals with the US, and who's more popular in Alberta than Poilievre or Smith? And if you wanna try being honest for a sec, doesn't that sound a lot like "Dear leader got 99.3% of the votes in the last election"? OF COURSE I DON'T WATCH THAT FARCICALSHIT, BARQY! I know that it's all lies and BS, so I don't watch it. How does that not make sense to you? Answer this if you're so knowledgeable: do you watch CBC News, and if so, do you think that it is a legitimate "news" show? If your news sources are so valuable, and mine so shitty, then why are you always the one who's stuck looking back on your crushed beliefs, while I'm laughing at you?

No, that's bullshit. Trump has also been kissing Israel's ass, which is why we are also attacking Iran. If Israel can handle this shit by it self, like Ben Shapiro has insisted, why in the hell are we over there in the first place? We have more than enough to do right here in the US. I've heard multiple times that we bombed the shit out of Iran, yet they're still talking smack and calling shots in the Strait. The MOU lasted what, a day? We haven't accomplished a f*cking thing. Iran is run by terrorists. There is no way in hell they should be allowed to have anything but swords and knives - that's it.

To me the rules should be no more universal mail in voting unless you have good reason for an absentee ballot, 2 weeks maximum of early voting and voting day is voting day all absentee ballots must be in on voting day. Its just like money the more people between you and your vote the more chance that it is stolen. California's voting rules are insane and full of ways to cheat. Making it so anyone can vote harvest including political organizations is just down right stupid and that is how you get the people on skid row paying for votes. Automatic registration when you get a Drivers License and give licenses to anyone including illegals is bad. Universal Mail in Ballots and never cleaning your voter rolls not only is a huge waste of taxpayer funds, you can end up with 10 ballots at your house and those vote harvesters would be happy to collect those for you. I think voting should take some effort. If its important to you you will find time to go do it and you are more likely to know what/who you are voting for.

He wasn't aware of the paper and he's not going to read it either. All he's going to do is quickly plug the paper title into Google and click on the first rebuttal. He won't understand either the paper or the rebuttal.

Made a mistake with the second link. should have been.. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-Childhood-Vaccination-on-Short-and-Health-Lamerato-Chatfield/0f10638ced368ffb3440b9d512b8617a54168461 My apologies. The first link was correct. If you were aware of the paper, why ask for links?

Nope.

No, he's being specific. It's people like you - mysanthropic, miserable and terminally online little cretins who waste their lives regurgitating the bullshit their algorithms feed them on the interwebs and screaching it at anyone who will listen. That's not representative of the normal population. 🙃

But doesn't that mean federal overreach or fascism or commyism or somthing? Sounds pretty left wing whatever it is.

It doesn't hurt if world leaders have an amicable relationships, despite the country's disposition. Over played, nothing is rare about the rare earth. China just simply has a market monopoly from a pricing and volume perspective, that's not to say that the US can't produce the mineral themselves historically.

How is this obvious? None of what you said is obvious. It’s the conspiratorial garbage you have to go to Candice Owen’s or Tucker Carlson to hear.

That doesn't even look 1% out of place. Hmmmmmm.

Was that so hard?

Here's one of Michael Crichton's very finest quotes, especially applicable to climate "science": "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right ... In science, consensus is irrelevant."

What you define as everyone who's not you Therefore everyone who isn't you or just like you is inferior Hey! Maybe you should run for the liberal leadership, sounds like you're just the kind of person they're looking for

There are many many examples of this kind of thing in America. Anybody that claims voter fraud doesn't exist is an absolute liar, I believe every single federal election they discover some voter fraud. The real question is does enough of it happen to make a substantial difference to the outcome? And that's where it gets a lot harder to say for sure. But it certainly can't be discounted. Americans need to switch to a system where all of the states operate under the same rules and the rules are such that it makes voter fraud easy enough to detect but people can believe with certainty that even if a small amount went undetected it would be too small to make a difference. Democracy only works if people have faith in it. And you can't have faith in a system that you can't be sure is honest

Nope, just you people.