Infidel Dog

No, an intelligent reader would have realized it was an allegation on social media meant to encourage discussion. You know...like it did on this discussion board.

I'm not going to look this up unless Moonbox or one of his progressive ilk challenge me on it but didn't I read somewhere that Big Pharma had some law passed that you couldn't sue them for liability on any harm their "Vaccine" did?

Yeah see, like I said, that's the story they should have wrote, and offered up the French lawyer's allegations as one source.

I think a better title for that and a better story would have been: "Allegations of refusal to cover covid deaths denied by Insurers." That was a claim in the article. If they could make that stick that's the article they should have wrote. Then you could simply offer the lawyer and the family's allegations up as first source. They did allege it and they'll tell you they alleged it.

I disagree with you Goddess. The bit Moonbox cut out of his quote was this: So they're being perfectly clear and up front with you as to what the information is they're offering. It's simply presented for your consideration as is and they're not attempting to pass it off as anything else. Moonbox doesn't seem to think a reader would be intelligent enough to understand that and take it into consideration. Apparently in at least one case he appears to be correct. The title may be a little click baity but the description immediately below it says: Any discerning reader should be able to at least get that far and understand social media is the source until they're told different. And they were. It's a story from the lawyer involved he made viral on social media. He's the source. I've seen the CBC offer less than that.

But was 2020 rigged. Yeah it was. In a multitude of ways. The problem with posting them all at once is the point gets lost in the chaos and those who want you to ignore the obvious will simply cherry-pick the easiest to attack out of the pack then vilify the source. So let's do it one at a time. I'll start with Zuckerbucks. Know what that is? Many don't but they should. I'll bet you remember when Dinesh D'Zousa was jailed for election tampering though, even though you may never have known exactly why. A buddy of his was running for office and he slipped him more than he should have. There are legal limits as to how much you're allowed to donate. Zuckerberg, his wife and I'll wager many more wealthy democrats found a way around that. https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-information-confirms-zuckerberg-connected-group-funneled-majority-election

Cause it's funny. Right, Ironstone? No sense of humor from the Progressive side of the aisle, I tell you.

That's another problem I have with Progs. They don't seem to think I know how to use the internet: Here's what the Prog at mediabiasfact check said: I redefined nothing. You did though. Not unsurprisingly. They rendered nothing useless. They called the credibility mixed. They put AIER in a category they find generally trustworthy but don't like the way they use language. Fair enough. I have problems with the way they use language. I already gave you an example of that. They say they go mixed rather than outright factual because they disagree due to what they call "misinformation related to Coronavirus." This "misinformation" turns out to be the much debated idea of whether or not there is asymptomatic spread. Both sides offer studies to support their argument. So what you have there is an opinion. They have an opinion. I have an opinion. And that's exactly what I said. I redefined nothing. I called a spade a spade. BTW did you know they use the very biased and often questionable if not at times outright wrong, Snopes for their fact checks?

What "progressive" means is rendered moot by the fact that one of the key factors identifying those, identifying themselves as progressive is the consistent perversion of definitions. For example we use to think if we got a "vaccine" it meant we wouldn't transmit the disease. Now the definition has been all progged up to mean a shot that decreases the severity of symptoms. By the more classic definition there's nothing "progressive" about Progs. In fact classic liberals have been known to refer to you guys as the "regressive" left. Now as to this new found affection you have for libertarians wasn't it just a few pages back you were posting an opinion as fact from one of your Proggy "factcheckers" claiming their libertarian bias rendered the archive of scientific and medical information at the American Institute of Economic Research useless (if not evil.) I believe Moonbox insinuated the fact they were Libertarian rendered anything on the site "Garbage." When Progs tell us they're going going to "Build Back Better" they hope we won't notice the kind of restrictions necessary to dismantle the structure of a freedom seeking society to create this promised utopian future. But Equity means controlling others to decide who can have or do what. Equality of outcome over equality of opportunity means you're no longer free to pursue happiness. Some other body will decide when you're happy and how you get there. That's what progdom is about. Equity and Equality of outcome which if you clean away the BS means control.

And slipping off topic for a sec but this new fear Progs have of Libertarians surprises me because last week I was browsing a Progressive's list of recommended sites. I think it was about # 5 where they listed Reason magazine. Reason is a Libertarian's go-to source.

And to use the dreaded S word - Suicide. Moonbox won't be interested in this because she's a Conservative but Sydney Watson makes some interesting points on lockdown suicides. (She doesn't get into it until about the 3 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWwzgGW-ovY Don't bitch at me about it Moonbox, or I warn you I have another one from one of your dreaded Libertarians and I'm not afraid to use it.

Well, there's old faithful, Bill Clinton. He's in the sex scandal soup again. I'd give you that perv behind the Lincoln project but you'd deny leftist ownership of that rodent too.

What? You don't at least try to read the abstracts? I generally try to. Actually there's one in that list that's better than an abstract. It's by some Professor. Ben Israel or something like that. He more just describes his study in a separate paper in easy to understand language. His conclusion is covid runs a similar pattern of peak and decline with or without lockdowns. Speaking abstracts though there's one that's not on that list. I bookmarked it. It's from a Canadian economist. " Douglas W. Allen∗ April 2021 ABSTRACT An examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on assumptions that were false, and which tended to over-estimate the benefits and underestimate the costs of lockdown. As a result, most of the early cost/benefit studies arrived at conclusions that were refuted later by data, and which rendered their cost/benefit findings incorrect. Research done over the past six months has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths. Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness of lockdown stems from voluntary changes in behavior. Lockdown jurisdictions were not able to prevent noncompliance, and non-lockdown jurisdictions benefited from voluntary changes in behavior that mimicked lockdowns. The limited effectiveness of lockdowns explains why, after one year, the unconditional cumulative deaths per million, and the pattern of daily deaths per million, is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries. Using a cost/benefit method proposed by Professor Bryan Caplan, and using two extreme assumptions of lockdown effectiveness, the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282. That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history." https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf Another thread I see pop up here and there including that list is how adverse effects from lockdowns even out harm from the virus.

"Cherry picking doesn't work with me," warns the cherry picker hoping I'll ignore what looks like some sort of selective dementia.

What conclusions? There's an intro and links to the actual sources. You'd know that if you weren't afraid of being corrupted by a Libertarian website. Anybody who thinks they're more clever than the intro can click the links and see what the original non-partisan source says.

BTW Moonbox, didn't Fauci order you 'consensus of the narrative' guys to take the CDC as your lord and master? Did you not hear what one of their studies more or less said? Mask Mandates are pretty much useless at slowing the spread too. CDC: 85% of COVID-19 patients report ‘always’ or ‘often’ wearing a mask Pretty sure it would be a higher percentage than that in Canada.

And one more time. Lockdowns don't work because they didn't.

Also Moonbox, if you want get fixated on consensus you don't actually know what science is. If you're dismissing Universities, medical journals and peer reviewed studies (and you are) because they don't confirm to what you want to believe is a consensus you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Lockdowns didn't work. To say otherwise is to say 'Don't believe your lying eyes."

I've always been on the "science" bus. Just not your "science" bus. Not necessarily the politically endorsed one. Mine is the examine the evidence through scientific method one. You seem to think it's good policy to ignore one and brag about the other. I guess we have kind of the same policy just different buses. Although that's not fair to me. I will check yours out. I just won't necessarily agree with what's in it once I have though. Believe it or not you're allowed to do that in real science with fact or reason based critique. The embedded links in those three sources I gave are decent science or reason based argument. Your science denying refusal to check out evidence contrary to the Progressive Socialist narrative is meaningless.

" MADISON – A Waukesha County judge ruled Thursday that absentee ballot drop boxes can't be used in Wisconsin, potentially upending aspects of the spring elections and the fall's high-profile contests for governor and U.S. Senate. After hearing three hours of arguments, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren determined state law allows absentee ballots to be returned in person or by mail — but not in a ballot drop box. "It's all good and nice, but there's no authority to do it," Bohren said of the use of drop boxes." https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/13/judge-bars-use-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-wisconsin/6512589001/

" Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and his counterpart at Google, CEO Sundar Pichai, secretly struck a deal in 2018 to carve up the digital advertising market between the two tech giants, according to newly revealed allegations from top state law-enforcement officials." https://nypost.com/2022/01/14/facebook-and-google-accused-of-secret-deal-to-carve-up-ad-empire/

Is that a fact old-timer? Hate to sound nasty but you might want to check up on short-term memory loss. That case is ongoing. Filing a lawsuit is not the same thing as getting a conviction. You know that, right? It's not even settling out of court like what CNN had to do with Nick Sandman, the Covington school student when they lied about him. (Did you miss that one btw, Memory Man?) A few days ago this happened. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/13/fox-news-seeks-access-to-expert-report-on-georgia-/

I post this one for Beaver Fever. He appears to have missed this scoop and I like to help him out.

" Jeffrey Epstein paid more than a dozen visits to the Clinton White House throughout the former president's first few years in office - even bringing along with him multiple women, including four known to be his girlfriends, DailyMail.com can reveal. Unearthed visitor logs last month confirmed the late pedophile had visited the Executive Mansion at least 17 times during Bill Clinton's first term, beginning shortly after his inauguration in 1993. " https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10394863/Jeffrey-Epstein-brought-eight-women-Clinton-White-House.html