User

No, you didn’t. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring me. You throw the term risk around, make assertions about it, but then refuse to define what it is you are talking about or expecting. You do this because the game you are playing is you expected people to know the future and fully explain and define a risk they didn’t know existed. Show me. Quote it. I’ve asked you to do this and get and over again now. Argue? I’ve posted link after link showing explicitly they in fact did discuss the risk. The media reported on it. Doctors informed on it. The government published details on it.

Ha ha ha ha ha. This is it? This is your response? First, this is the stupid game you play on here where you find one person allegedly harmed by the vaccine and then ignore all facts, statistics, logic, and reason to conclude that shows how awful the vaccine was. Second, all I needed was one example to disprove your blanket assertion. I can provide more.

Well, obviously, you don't care much about facts here. You can keep denying it all you want, the message was clearly and repeatedly made: Here is another article, highlighting someone with an adverse reaction... talking about the risks: Hamilton PSW says allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccine led to fainting, seizures and CPR Deborah Tilli says she still thinks people should get the vaccine Bobby Hristova · CBC News · Posted: Dec 30, 2020 8:56 AM PST | Last Updated: December 30, 2020 "When you administer a vaccine to enough people, you're going to get adverse reactions ... there's really two safeguards there," Furness said. "One is public communication that says if you have severe allergies, this is not the vaccine for you, not now, not yet. Wait for Moderna, perhaps. So everyone who has allergies should be awake and paying attention to that. Number two is people who are doing screening should also be right on top of that, so it looks like there was a double failure." The person above was not being called a liar. The person above was not ignored, silence, nor was this hidden from the public. I agree in as much as there were clearly more at risk demographics that we figured out as time went on. There was not much need for a healthy adult under the age of 40 to get vaccinated. Again, I do not support mandates here... but that is a completely different issue than the one you are peddling about the vaccine. You have not spent years on this thread or this forum only wanting to oppose mandates. You push anti-vax lies, propaganda to oppose vaccines in general, regardless of any mandates. Show me where in my link, make your argument. Stop speaking out of your rear with baseless assertions. Define the risk. Let's see your argument. Let's see your facts. Let's see you make a well-reasoned, articulate argument.

All 3 of my links were literally messages that went out to the public. They were safe and effective. OK.. and? Lets see the quote. This dude is not the arbiter of all things COVID. The effectiveness of stopping the spread was wildly oversold as we found out, but that doesn't discount how effective they were also proven to be in reducing the risk of death or serious illness. The overwhelming vast majority of people got vaccinated with no issues. The small number of people who did have issues were minor. It was an extreme few people who had severe side effects. These are the facts. OK? That was not me. The argument is not about there not being injuries or not. You do realize A LOT more people died from COVID, right? This doesn't change the facts that I have presented here. So what is your point other than throwing mud at the wall? I literally shared several links that contradict this. You just saying no, doesn't refute that or make it so. I can share more links. The simple reality is that it was in fact shared that there was risk. I did not support the mandates, but as misguided or stupid and wrong as they were, they were based on the fact that people were dying from a novel virus spreading rapidly through the community.

The only one continually changing their story here is you. Once again, this was your assertion: ""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"" Once again, I have proven this wrong. Now you change your story to "any meaningful" way. A subjective pile of BS you did not assert before and can't possibly be countered now because you can just say anything was not "meaningful" enough for you. You have not pointed out anything; you just make the assertion and ignore my asking you to actually quote what you are talking about. You keep talking about the risks but refuse to define them. Once again, you just ramble on making assertions. You offer nothing of substance. Then declare yourself the winner. Back to the point, again, I have responded to your original BS assertion and provided numerous links and quotes, unlike you. Again, changing the goal posts. You said they did not report on the risk, I show you they did. Now you claim it was false. OK, show me what was false with the link I shared. Lets see you make your case. LOL, that is the very definition of hindsight. You are looking at the risks discovered later and saying they should have informed about them before they even knew them. That is not only hindsight, it is just stupid. That is not what my quote said. That is your retarded mischaracterization. What risk? Again, DEFINE this risk they were supposed to inform the public of. More of your baseless subjective BS. Also, moving the goal posts from your original assertion.

Nice to see that you accept your name as a Dumocrat.

You just keep moving those goalposts... first you tried to claim the risks were not told... now you claim, well, no one read them. This stuff was reported on. I already gave you a link. No, this is not complicated at all. The risks were reported on. To the point, you said, and you were wrong that: "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 is not true? Be specific. LOL, the point was that the media did report on this. Now you are playing hindsight. More risks were uncovered later, yeah. At the time, that was what was known about the risk. Nothing was severely downplayed. What are you even talking about? Once again... hindsight. One again, your argument was that they were unwilling to admit there was a risk in any possible way. I have shown you the government said there was risk, the media said there was risk, it was clearly talked about, that there was risk. Now you just keep changing your argument to saying they did not know future risk that would be discovered. Duh. No, it doesn't. You have yet to show or explain what this risk is that existed at that time that they failed to report on or speak about. I asked you. You have ignored me. Here was my question to you that you ignored: OK, please elaborate on what the actual risk is you think existed then and how they downplayed that. I can't argue against an imaginary standard.

So interesting that for all the shit talk you sit here doing, it never seemed to have crossed your mind that you are still responding to me... which makes you just as much my b1tch as you think I am yours. The fact that it takes you so long only shows how much I am living in your head rent-free as you dwell on that. I don't need you to respond; hell, I am not even asking you to anymore. I am just calling you out for what you are.

Thank you! Thank you also for your sacrifices and for those of your fellow countrymen who served.

You: "and his approval being required for the multi-billion media merger. " Also You: "Nobody said Trump explicitly ordered the FCC to do anything." Go jerk yourself off some more. So... no evidence. Just your BS speculations. Another full of shit comment. "regularly." You can probably come up with maybe 3 examples and they will all be your contorted BS twisting of facts and drawing specious conclusions if not outright false claims. Yes, of course... the FCC has all this power to force leftists off the air because Trump doesn't like them... and yet here we are into the 2nd year of Trump and Colbert is all they got? There are literally hundreds of lefists across network TV, and Colbert isn't even near the top for insufferable tools and had abysmal ratings... but yeah, sure, lets go with your conspiratorial BS that somehow he was fired because Trump wanted him fired while ignoring the fact that his shit show was costing CBS something like 40 million dollars a year with their shit ratings. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR bUt It WaS tRuMp!!!! dURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

No way. What we do is, we ship all the coal and industrial base over to China, where they don't give a shit, and then we can brag about how amazing we are and what we did to stop climate change!

I literally provided you a link to what was said in December 2020. I even quoted the part that said it was from December 2020. Another article from 2020 talking about the risks from the CBC: ""You do have to communicate out that there may be risks, and rightfully so, and also communicate about the magnitude of that risk and get people to really understand what that means," he said. "The risk of an allergy happening is probably beyond winning the lottery — that's not to say it's not going to happen, but it's something we need to watch for, it's something we're equipped for."" ... "Chagla also stressed that health officials will be monitoring for other reactions to COVID-19 vaccines that may show up over time. He said communication and transparency are the best ways to assuage vaccine hesitancy — as well as clearly stating to those who are eligible the risks of not getting the vaccine." https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pfizer-vaccine-allergy-risk-canada-1.5839397 Back to the point, you originally asserted: "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" I have given you links to the government website, public health statements, and media coverage now. You are attempting to whitewash history here with your revisionism and the facts show you are wrong. I read up some more on this and yeah, looks like Canada screwed this up, giving out the contract to a 3rd party who spent most of the money on their administrative costs and only in the last few months has the government taken it back over themselves. Pretty shitty. Typical government stupidity. OK, please elaborate on what the actual risk is you think existed then and how they downplayed that. I can't argue against an imaginary standard. I have given you ample links and quotes now to show you they did in fact discuss risk. Your original assertion was not that they downplayed, but that again: "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" That was wrong, so now your claim is they downplayed the risk. So... lets hear it, what is the risk, what is you based that on? I figured that much out, it is on you to provide the source when you copy paste.

Where are you getting this from? Canada has maintained this page as well as has had this position from the beginning, outlining risks: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vaccines/safety-side-effects.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com Here is official statement early on: Statement December 13, 2020 Ottawa, ON Public Health Agency of Canada Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, issued the following statement today: "Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it's common to have mild side effects, such as redness and swelling at the injection site — this is the body's natural response, as it's working to build immunity against a disease. In most instances, these effects resolve quickly and completely. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. " https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/12/statement-from-the-chief-public-health-officer-of-canada-on-december-13-2020.html Do you have any statistics to show how much vs how little support was provided for those injured? You have one example... that shows it may not be perfect, but... say, the government did provide assistance to the vast majority of folks... then what is your point? They were honest about risk. I gave you two examples. Can you provide any examples where they said there was no risk as you sit here claiming?

What exactly are you just saying? You are conflating distrust of the COVID vaccine with the government's management of compensation for those injured. Those are two different things.

You ignoring my data and your seeing the flaws with it are two separate things that can both be true at the same time. I provide data, you ignore it. IF you think there are flaws, then let's see it. If you are going to copy and paste, provide the source. What point do you think this copy-and-paste job makes that you are trying to make?

I literally quoted you. You say something, you get called out, you act like you didn't say it, deny it, deflect, lie, run away... "drawing the connection" ROFL, you mean, you jumped from one vague comment to the conclusion? No real argument or evidence given. Shortly before... what? What is the exact date of the merger approval? Do you realize it is the Democrats who are actively opposing the FCC approving the merger right now? Once again, you are a clown.

Yeah... it is a naval blockade of IRANIAN ports, not the entire Strait. Notice your deceptive language? So... now you want Iran to be able to trade freely while they block everyone else that doesn't pay them? You do little more than talk shit on the US all the time here... but now you are crying they are not going to do enough to protect Taiwan? Where is the rest of the world you love so much? Where do you live? Why are they not doing anything?

Racists find a lot of things welcoming. They go to McDonalds, Walmart, the movies... You better hide in your basement! Almost anything you do, a racist likely does too! It is the dumb dishonest game the left plays. They start with the presumption that everyone on the right is a racist, then any little thing is proof of that! While anytime a leftist does anything, it was an innocent mistake... nothing to see, move along.

Reminder of what a cowardly, lying, POS @BeaverFever is:

Just to be clear here... you are quoting yourself with "less evolved" as I don't believe he ever said that. You did.

I swear, can you ever come up with something intelligent to say?

Still pushing your pathetic lies.

Oh no, the crybaby coward is going to ignore another poster! LOL

Reminder of what a cowardly, lying, POS @BeaverFever is:

Tell me, are the racists all around you? Do you see them in your sleep? Are they hiding in your closet? ROFL