User

It’s the same circular assertion you ignorant clown: You: people will need to move because of AGW. Me: Why would they need to? You: AGW

The point was you keep changing your assertion. So… pathological liar then? You are the one who ignored most of the last post I made. Then you call me a coward?

More of your non-answers. You just spew BS. As opposed to your cowardly tactics to just run away? Never admit your ignorance? Double down and lie?

Why would “all” the others leave? Why would “all” the others perish? Humans are not hunter gatherers anymore living in caves going out to forage berries and lizards to eat. Why are you so ignorant?

And yet he operates in the bounds of the law every day.

Humans are not all the other species. It isn’t going to get too hot to live there. This is your stupid argument to make. You said “need” and you can’t back it up. Like usual. You assert stupid ignorant shit.

Not an issue of understanding. You have offered nothing to explain why you think they (humans) will need to leave.

There is no distinction. There is only you trying to both blame Trump for being directly responsible and then balk when asked to provide any evidence he was directly involved. Right in the open? Yet you can't provide any evidence to show that Trump demanded that Colbert be fired or that the FCC withhold the merger. The point is that you would have us believe some conspiratorial BS you can't provide any evidence for over the most obvious explanation. CBS clearly said they were canceling the show because of this. See, watch, this is called evidence and backing up your claims, you should try it sometime: CBS will end "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" and retire "The Late Show" franchise in May 2026, the company announced Thursday, calling it "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night." CBS called Colbert irreplaceable and said the show's ending was "not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount," CBS' parent company. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-late-show-stephen-colbert-end-may-2026/ Where did Trump or the FCC openly threaten Paramount/CBS that if they did not fire Colbert there would be no merger? As one of the forums most deranged Trump haters, you have yet to link this to Trump in any credible way.

So... again, the question was "need" I love the weather in San Diego. I do need to move there.

Ah yes... anyone that plays you leftists will attack, threaten their lives, and try to ruin them... and then you turn around and mock that no one is playing.

LOL, now you use the word "indicated!" In the same breath, you say you are not jumping around. OMG Do you even realize what you are doing, or is it really just pathological? What evidence did "they" have that showed it was more than it was that they then misled the public? No, as I have pointed out repeatedly now, this was the first shit thing you said, that you have run away from admitting you were wrong about: "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" You respond, you do not actually directly answer. Calling me names and acting like the petulant child you are doesn't change the facts. You were the one who came here to cry and spread lies. I am calling you out.

No, you just jump all over the place from one assertion to the next. When I challenge and question you, then you do crap like this. LOL, you have certainly avoided the question a lot. Speaking of being a coward... here you are acting like one.

Why would they need to go anywhere?

Well... you could start with the medical definition of what schizophrenia is... Then ask yourself, are they competent enough to make that decision? I mean... hell... how long should a depressed person have to be depressed before you are OK with them killing themselves? The boundaries never stop moving.

Of course, you conflate socially embracing and celebrating transgender people with their existence. They can exist all day long, without having to allow men into women's spaces, force men into their sports, without painting the sidewalks, putting flags in the classroom, and letting them walk around half naked on the White House lawn....

Ah yes... anyone that plays you leftists will attack, threaten their lives, and try to ruin them... and then you turn around and mock that no one is playing.

Wow. You should teach courses on logic. I mean, you are brilliant.

Oh man, are you going to fear monger about Ebola response now?! LOL

LOL, States do not get to arbitrarily say money is illegal and then tax it. Clown.

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase!

Glad you are not an anti-vaxxer. So... what were the two risks? What was the lie? What risks? No, your point started with this false statement, that you have long run away from. We have clearly established the government was willing to admit there was risk. "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" What dangers? Far more risky. Define far. What is it you think the risk was that was explained and how did it turn out to be "far" more risky?

I do. Nowhere has my position been to defend the Trudeau government. "Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here?" <- This is called a question.

You continue to make me believe my theory that some posters here are locked up in a mental institution somewhere, and this is what they allow you to do with some of your free time. Perhaps it is part of their experiments to see how you behave and interact with folks.

Lovely strawman you have there. I am pointing out the lies and dishonesty you and the anti-vax conspiracy mongers here push. Are you one of those crazy anti-vaxxers too? Is that your angle here? Because that is Goddesses.

No, the problem is that you keep saying they knew there were risks, and YOU can't define what risks they were supposed to warn people about. I have clearly shown they said there were risks. YOU are the one who keeps saying they knew there were more they should have informed on and YOU can't define what that was. You keep changing your language... now it is "suggested." Listen, there is no "they" as if it were some single monolothic entity. There is the general scientific community, the World Health Organization, government health organizations, politicians, leaders, etc... You are still playing this game "same as" as if it was some absolute comparison to any other vaccine.... So... you say they are supposed to have informed you of the risks, that you now say they can't define. What was this "defined" risk you claim it was presented as? Lets see this argument of yours cite something. Show us where they said they knew ALL the risks and they were clearly defined and there could be no other risk. You can't because that was never the general position from any of those organizations or the community. The quotes I provided show you are wrong. They talk about risk in general. LOL, the point is you are full of shit. The quote did not lump all the vaccines together. That is your full of shit comment. What lie(s) am I repeating? What makes them a lie? That is your false characterization of things. Nowhere in that quote or article does it say that it's the same as any vaccine. Again, you are full of shit. What was said, is that vaccines in general have risk, so this one does too. "Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions." You are the one who said it. What risks did they underplay? How?