Moonbox

What's going wrong here is what's happening between your keyboard and your chair. Pfizer recorded and published their data and the fact that you're completely baffled and confused by them is your problem, not theirs and certainly not mine.

You mean pay people to promote the vaccine, but whatever. You go with your more interesting version. ?

or that you're just mad and looking for things to get mad about ?

I'm not hung up on anything. The hantavirus is just the most hilarious example included in the 40,000+ cases referred to in the Pfizer documents. Out of millions of people who received the vaccine by the time that study was published, that was the total number of people recorded with health problems of any kind, not the recorded cases of vaccine side-effects. There are pages and pages of conditions listed in those documents and almost all of them were coincidental and had nothing to do with the vaccine (like hantavirus lol). You can't/don't even freaking read the stuff you wave around as proof. It's stupid desperation defying reason.

How many freaking threads are you going to start here? The liberals paid money to promote vaccines. You turn that into this hot-take forum OP?

The battery argument is kind of awkward though too...because normal cars have batteries that need to be disposed of as well (obviously smaller ones) and we've been doing that for as long as any of us have been alive. They're not exactly spent-uranium fuel rods.

Good comeback. ? Your facts are wrong though. None of the studies showed the vaccines caused 45,000 injuries or 1200 deaths. IIRC, the study you referenced included hanta-virus as some of those recorded "injuries", which clearly demonstrates that the numbers you were quoting were the injuries and adverse affects that people had recorded from any causes whatsoever after they got a COVID-19 vaccine, rather than the injuries that COVID-19 caused. Goddess, are you trying to tell us that the Pfizer vaccine caused hantavirus?

That's not what they showed, brainlet. We've been over this before. Your attempt to source and evidence these claims faceplanted spectacularly. As usual, you either can't understand the stuff you're reading, or you're making it up and lying about it.

No, a "literal assault" has a very specific definition and you don't use it vaguely and generally. People like you use the word "literal" or "literally" for emphasis (I catch myself doing it sometimes too) and it's little more than an emotional appeal - like "yugely". Tons of folks see what they want to see, and they'll happily confirm amongst themselves how based and red-pilled they all are. ? There are lots of arguments to make against Trudeau or the Liberals, but these vacuous slippery-slope Orwellian conspiracy theories are silly. When the Liberals lose their next election (whether that's 2025 or later, depending on the opposition) you'll be crowing about the restoration of democracy and it'll be the NDPers and Far Left complaining about dictatorship. These arguments aren't new. They're the sustenance of election-losers and it's little more than a coping mechanism, tried-and-true going back generations.

I saw the Emergencies Act as an abuse and I wish Trudeau wasn't PM. Yes. A literal assault? Come on. If you want to make an adult argument then let's hear it, but if you can't write three sentences without derailing into hyperbole, nobody's going to listen to you.

That's sort of a truism, isn't it? It was popular with the small percentage of people who supported it, and unpopular with the overwhelming majority who didn't. Very good.

Okay Karen.

This is all I'm really hearing from you. Yep, keep going. There are five year olds with more emotional maturity.

I'm going to belittle people when they say dumb shit that makes no sense. I'm more than willing to have a long conversation about the Emergencies Act and the gross overreach that it was. I'm all on board to roast Justin Trudeau. I just don't have any interest in humoring angry bed-wetters parroting QAnon style trash.

You're right. They gave it more coverage than it otherwise deserved, but it was easy ratings to bash on the freedom convoy. The movement couldn't have been much less popular so from an editorial bias perspective, this was low-hanging fruit.

Who cares what some dude on Twitter says? You figure that's a relevant point worth bringing up? You guys say so much dumb made-up bullshit here on a daily basis I can't believe you seriously think Twitter comments are worth mentioning here.

Show me some of them. Show me the lies and the retractions. Surely you can give us some examples.

What lie? Nobody lied. You didn't like the speculation, or the reporting on it. That's fair, but nobody lied and you're just frothing over it. Trudeau's a laughing-stock, but then so was the Freedom Convoy. This was a the political equivalent of monkeys throwing poo at each other. If the Freedom Convoy was such an inspiration, it would have been successfully imitated elsewhere. It didn't, because it was dumb. That being said, there's really no defending the Emergencies Act either. That was a sad chapter for Canada and, perhaps fairly, the rest of the world trolled Trudeau for his hypocrisy and virtue-signaling. Basically they're all smirking and laughing at him now because he's so clearly full of shit.

I've been posting here since 2008. You can look me up my posts and see I was a Harper supporter back in the day. You can even find posts from me back when Justin first became an MP warning that he'd eventually be Prime Minister and that his father was our worst PM ever. Your silly clowning about dictatorship is just another coping mechanism. Unable to articulate your points, you fall back on emotional hyperbole and conspiracy copypasta.

When a fire is lit during civil unrest, the first and most reasonable assumption is that it was tied to the unrests. Both the residents and the police speculated on this, and the media reported on it. The only real argument you have here is that the media was all-too-willing to report on it and give it more coverage than it otherwise may have. Even so, they made a point of reporting it wasn't and they had absolutely no reason to do so if they were trying to make the protest look bad. It would have served their purposes far better to just pretend it never happened, which is actually how misinformation and conspiracies work. You just talk a lot of bullshit and hope something turns out to be true, and then sort of walk away from and ignore all the times you were wrong and never talk about it again.

Out of touch with "many" Canadians? Most Canadians are out-of-touch with you guys. You're living in a massive coping fantasy world. Trudeau is a joke and he's a laughing-stock in the international community, but nobody serious views him as a dictator. It's just the conspiracy clowns and every country has its own brand. Lots of people criticize the government and I have nothing to say about them. I criticize the government. I've hated the Trudeau brand long before you ever joined this forum, goof. It's the conspiracy theorists I criticize - their incoherent rambling and over-emotional hyperbole. Stuff like this - it's the same banal garbage over and over again and I barely read it now: "Something something China/Communism/Fascism/Liberals/MSM blah blah blah."

He knows, he just doesn't have anything intelligent to say and thinks he's triggering people.

Cope and seethe more.

That's not really how the system works. You don't vote for individual issues. You vote for a representative and a platform. Obviously the NDP voters are for these social programs, and presumably enough of the Liberal constituency is on-board with compromising and avoiding another election. This is really, really silly stuff. It's the same crap that the left-leaning whiners said back when Harper was in power. The fact that your preferred party is lame-duck opposition doesn't mean dictatorship.

What accusations? The police investigated whether there were links to an arson and the very visible protest that was happening around it (which is entirely reasonable). The building's The media reported this. You could maybe make an argument about the media's bias against the trucker's protest here, and that they were all too happy to report on any/all potential news that made them look bad, but that was just low-hanging fruit and easy ratings. That's an actual argument you could make with a straight face, but there's no hoax here, lol. It doesn't seem like you can help yourself though. You're so riled up and emotional that you blow everything out of proportion and can barely articulate beyond wild hyperbole and silly conspiracy theories.