'Merica officially becomes Venezuela: Maralogo raided by Biden's goon squad

Hodad · October 28, 2022

11 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Is Tucker your own personal boogeyman or something?

Whatever...here ya go. No Tucker though:

Nah, Tucker is just the favorite megaphone boosting conspiracy nonsense right now.

As expected, your facts aren't correct. This woman, Pam Hemphill of Idaho did, in fact, enter the capital. You can see the evidence in the complaint. What's worse, this wasn't her first Rodeo. She claims to have also broken into the state capital in Boise.

She's an Alex Jones nutter type and frankly got off lightly. But to circle back to the point, this is totally consistent with what we've generally seen so far. People who stormed into the capital get charged, people who were in the crowd outside do not. Can I assume that you'll stop holding her up as a contrast to Epps?

To the earlier point about Tucker-- and maybe it wasn't him, but you listented to someone of his ilk who told you that Ray Epps was an FBI plant and blah blah, and to convince you they told you about this woman. "If a 60-something grandmother is being prosecuted for "parading" and Epps isn't being prosecuted then it's evidence of special treatment." When in fact, as I've said before, there's nothing unusual about the picketing and parading charge and indeed that was a plea down from more serious charges. Whoever it was that you were listening to, they told you lies and manipulated you to further their conspiracy theory. The way you fight back against being manipulated by misinformation is to turn it off. Turn it off.

Hodad · October 28, 2022

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

The same David Brooks that wrote an article," Why is there still no strategy to defeat Donald Trump?"

Opinion | Why Is There Still No Strategy to Defeat Donald Trump? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

NY Times’ David Brooks Rips ‘Mental Corruption’ of Republicans (yahoo.com)

Opinion | The Rotting of the Republican Mind - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

These are all articles by Republican David Brooks.

A more accurate description of him would be a RINO?

I would disagree to some extent. He's a conventional Republican, or an actual Republican of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush variety. Trump is truly the RINO. He and his inexplicable cult of personality did effectively take over the Republican party, alienating principled Republicans like Brooks. If the inmates continue running the asylum in the GOP, Brooks may indeed become a RINO. Or he may abandon the party altogether if it no longer represents his views, as other principled conservatives have done. But Brooks status is currently TBD as the civil war inside the GOP shakes out. But, honestly, if Trump's brazen parade of inexcusable behavior hasn't lost him the populist base then things aren't looking good for traditional conservatives.

ironstone · October 28, 2022

It's not the first time any protester has occupied Nancy Pelosi's office.

Protesters Arrested Outside Nancy Pelosi's Office In Climate Demonstration | HuffPost Latest News

But I would guess that all of those people were not met with the full weight of the law with regards to punishment.

No equal application of the law with Antifa/BLM rioters and Jan 6 rioters.

Judge asks prosecutors why Jan 6 protesters are being treated worse than BLM rioters (bizpacreview.com)

ironstone · October 28, 2022

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I would disagree to some extent. He's a conventional Republican, or an actual Republican of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush variety. Trump is truly the RINO. He and his inexplicable cult of personality did effectively take over the Republican party, alienating principled Republicans like Brooks. If the inmates continue running the asylum in the GOP, Brooks may indeed become a RINO. Or he may abandon the party altogether if it no longer represents his views, as other principled conservatives have done. But Brooks status is currently TBD as the civil war inside the GOP shakes out. But, honestly, if Trump's brazen parade of inexcusable behavior hasn't lost him the populist base then things aren't looking good for traditional conservatives.

On the flip side of that argument, what the hell happened to the Democratic party? From just a short time ago during Bill Clinton's two terms, they had a very strong economy and pretty reasonable policies overall. Even abortion was supposed to be "safe, legal, and rare". Not anymore.

Today's Democratic party is unrecognizable compared to that era. They have moved far, far left on the political spectrum and promote policies that are not working for Americans. Bernie Sanders was appointed by Biden as an economic advisor! What does that tell you? This is a party more beholden to George Soros than to the average working American. Their policies are failing on virtually every front, and they keep pushing for more of the same.

Infidel Dog · October 28, 2022

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

As expected, your facts aren't correct. This woman, Pam Hemphill of Idaho did, in fact, enter the capital. You can see the evidence in the complaint. What's worse, this wasn't her first Rodeo. She claims to have also broken into the state capital in Boise.

What facts aren't correct. Read what your critiquing for God's sake.

On 10/26/2022 at 7:39 AM, Infidel Dog said:

Here's the problem with that theory. He was such an activist about everybody entering the Capitol building. Why didn't he enter himself?

And why was there never any charges against him when so many protestors were imprisoned as political prisoners for so much less?

The best example would be the grandmother who was sentenced to 6 months for some bogus charge they pulled out Garland's sleazy, commie butt called "Parading."

Show what specifically I said there that isn't true. What Ray Epps did on Jan. 6 was much worse than anything Grandma did on Jan. 6.

"Hemphill pleaded guilty in January to one count of demonstrating, picketing, or parading in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine up to $5,000, and up to five years of probation."

But OK, I said she got 6 months. My video says it was 60 days. The point remains. Epps got nothing. A pat on the back from the DOJ and the Jan 6 committee maybe. "Nothing to see here."

Hodad · October 28, 2022

28 minutes ago, ironstone said:

It's not the first time any protester has occupied Nancy Pelosi's office.

Protesters Arrested Outside Nancy Pelosi's Office In Climate Demonstration | HuffPost Latest News

But I would guess that all of those people were not met with the full weight of the law with regards to punishment.

No equal application of the law with Antifa/BLM rioters and Jan 6 rioters.

Judge asks prosecutors why Jan 6 protesters are being treated worse than BLM rioters (bizpacreview.com)

Are we at the "Just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks!" phase? Was the protest at Pelosi's office (not the Capitol, BTW) a violent attempt to overthrow the government? (That's not hyperbole, BTW, it's the literal consequence of killing Pelsoi, Pence etc. and negating the outcome of the election.) How many people died as a result of the climate protest?

None? So these events have very little in common and would be rightfully handled differently? Okay then.

Hodad · October 28, 2022

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

What facts aren't correct. Read what your critiquing for God's sake.

Show what specifically I said there that isn't true. What Ray Epps did on Jan. 6 was much worse than anything Grandma did on Jan. 6.

"Hemphill pleaded guilty in January to one count of demonstrating, picketing, or parading in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine up to $5,000, and up to five years of probation."

But OK, I said she got 6 months. My video says it was 60 days. The point remains. Epps got nothing. A pat on the back from the DOJ and the Jan 6 committee maybe. "Nothing to see here."

Basically all of the facts you offered. I believe you got her age wrong, you definitely got her sentence wrong, but materially and meaningfully, you either didn't know or deliberately misrepresented what she had done.

You said that what Epps had done was worse that what she had done and attempted to use that to support the conspiracy theory. When, in fact she, was part of the mob inside the capitol and he was not. That fact absolutely destroys the comparison you were attempting to make. It's been said many times--and you've quoted it many times yourself--people who were on the grounds but didn't storm inside the capitol are largely unpunished. People who went inside are going to prison. -- Both she and Epps are being treated in a way that is consistent with everyone else.

ironstone · October 28, 2022

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Are we at the "Just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks!" phase? Was the protest at Pelosi's office (not the Capitol, BTW) a violent attempt to overthrow the government? (That's not hyperbole, BTW, it's the literal consequence of killing Pelsoi, Pence etc. and negating the outcome of the election.) How many people died as a result of the climate protest?

None? So these events have very little in common and would be rightfully handled differently? Okay then.

Quite a big disparity in how Antifa/BLM rioters got treated vs those that rioted on Jan 6. Not to mention the sheer number of people that engaged in rioting. I think most of those on the left aren't even aware of the vast amount of damage caused by Antifa/BLM over the last few years. Whoopi Goldberg didn't know anything about it, rather typical of people that share her views.

Jan 6 has been blown all out of proportion by the usual suspects, as admitted by a NYT reporter.

Hidden Video Captures NYT Reporter Calling Coverage About Jan 6 ‘Overblown.’ Fake Trauma, Fake News, Full ‘Of FBI Informants’ | Newstalk Florida - N

Hodad · October 28, 2022

26 minutes ago, ironstone said:

On the flip side of that argument, what the hell happened to the Democratic party? From just a short time ago during Bill Clinton's two terms, they had a very strong economy and pretty reasonable policies overall. Even abortion was supposed to be "safe, legal, and rare". Not anymore.

Today's Democratic party is unrecognizable compared to that era. They have moved far, far left on the political spectrum and promote policies that are not working for Americans. Bernie Sanders was appointed by Biden as an economic advisor! What does that tell you? This is a party more beholden to George Soros than to the average working American. Their policies are failing on virtually every front, and they keep pushing for more of the same.

I've been a registered independent for most of my voting life, primarily because I think party politics are poison to democracy--and with every passing year that opinion is more validated. I'm socially liberal and economically literate, and from my perspective the Democrats haven't changed or moved as much as re-messaged. There are fewer "Blue Dog" democrats and probably more (relative) progressives, but the bulk of the party is still pretty moderate. In the rest of the world the Democrats would be the conservative party. We don't have an actual liberal party in the US.

There's a lot to unpack in your post--it's sort of a broad indictment-- but if you break it down to a few of the specific policies, what do you see as being radically different? Or what, particularly, do you think isn't working?

Presidents have a limited amount of control over the economy, but they definitely can have an effect. Clinton doesn't get all the credit for his great run, but he also managed it effectively and- more importantly- didn't screw it up. And when you look all the broad indicators of the economy -- GDP, jobs, stocks and deficit/debt -- pretty consistently fare better under Democratic presidents. And it's not close. So what are they getting wrong? Top marginal tax rates are about the same Clinton, Obama and Biden (proposed) so where is the wrong turn? How are they not working for Americans?

Or the abortion thing- there's no real change there, it's a change in message but everyone who supports a woman's right to choose thinks legal, safe and rare is right. Nobody says "rare" anymore because it creates an unnecessary stigma, but nobody (and I mean nobody) wants abortion to become more common. It's (typically) stressful, inconvenient, expensive--and like any medical procedure it includes some risk. So nobody wants anything but rare--and the way to make them rare is through sex education and contraception. And indeed the rate has declined significantly and steadily since Roe.

Once you get past the sort of ingrained dogma and tribalism I think Democrats clearly have the winning economic record, and their social policies are aligned with mine (and I think favor freedom and fairness for individuals) so they get my vote far more often.

I don't see the radical movement you mention, but I'd explain that by the rise of niche media.

Hodad · October 28, 2022

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Quite a big disparity in how Antifa/BLM rioters got treated vs those that rioted on Jan 6. Not to mention the sheer number of people that engaged in rioting. I think most of those on the left aren't even aware of the vast amount of damage caused by Antifa/BLM over the last few years. Whoopi Goldberg didn't know anything about it, rather typical of people that share her views.

Jan 6 has been blown all out of proportion by the usual suspects, as admitted by a NYT reporter.

Hidden Video Captures NYT Reporter Calling Coverage About Jan 6 ‘Overblown.’ Fake Trauma, Fake News, Full ‘Of FBI Informants’ | Newstalk Florida - N

To me there's quite a big disparity between BLM and the Jan 6 insurrections. Obviously, rioters should be punished in a nation of laws. But even then, not all riots are created equal.

I have zero sympathy for rioters in Philly after the Eagles won the super bowl. That's just wanton destruction. But I do have sympathy for an oppressed people whose protests against injustice sometimes included violent elements. -- Don't you have a soft spot in your heart for the Boston Tea Partiers, who destroyed the property of a "private" business in defiance of an oppressive government?

Whoever is on tape there is welcome to his opinion, but I don't Jan 6 has been blown out of proportion. Groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers had talked loudly and openly about violence, about civil war, about bloodshed, about dying for the cause--about killing Pence and Pelosi. What happens if a group of those men corners Pence or Pelosi on that day of lawless violence? I think the mob mentality ends in murder--and specifically murder to secure for Trump the office he couldn't maintain through democratic means.

Rebound · October 28, 2022

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

The same David Brooks that wrote an article," Why is there still no strategy to defeat Donald Trump?"

Opinion | Why Is There Still No Strategy to Defeat Donald Trump? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

NY Times’ David Brooks Rips ‘Mental Corruption’ of Republicans (yahoo.com)

Opinion | The Rotting of the Republican Mind - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

These are all articles by Republican David Brooks.

A more accurate description of him would be a RINO?

He is a Republican who does not like Donald Trump. But that doesn’t mean he is a Democrat. He is not.

Hodad · October 28, 2022

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OK, fine, you still believe in Russian collusion and the covid 'vaccine'. That's not anything to brag about.

Apparently Trump is on his way to jail then?

And our own government is lying when they put out stats showing that people with the jab are actually getting infected. And spreading covid. And even ending up in hospital. ICU. Wait, how many lies are they at already, an dthose are just the small ones.... "Vaxed" people are also dying... by the thousands. In fact, vaxed people die at the same rate as unvaxed - 86% of us are vaxed, and 86% of our deaths are among the vaxed this year.

That's a vaccine, you say?

Thanks for comin' out.

Yes, it's a vaccine. Yes, vaccines reduce transmission. Yes, they reduce hospitalization. Yes, they reduce death. These aren't matters of opinion. These are known, established facts that you can find in any medical journal or authoritative agency-or even through your own analysis (well, maybe not your analysis, but any capable person).

And when you say these absurd things you're just making a clown of yourself. It's flat-Earth territory, where you can see- literally see- the evidence that proves you wrong and still can't manage to admit it. Oy.

Quote

I don't have to provide evidence of anything that is common knowledge. That evidence forms the whole basis of this dialogue.

If you're haven't even bothered to look at the basic evidence of this topic then you're also saying that your opinion is worthless.

I wouldn't talk about the economy if I didn't know what a dollar was. I would never chime in on a debate completely unprepared, and just willing to wing it on a few lies, like you do.

I commend you on your ability to maintain your false sense of self confidence in the face of all evidence I guess?

Wow, I guess a guy can say pretty much anything they want to, and it's not a crime, hey?

But wait, why do they keep talking about Trump's words? Do words matter? Not according to you they don't. Trump didn't rush the capitol, guns blazin', chuckin' nades left and right, chompin' on a ceegar and biotch-slappin cops and Demmies, did he?

I can't wait to see that video ? (FYI that's sarcasm, it never actually happened, but you can believe it if you want. Nothing would surprise me less)

Do you really think you're going to convince people that the public claims and exhortations of the President of the United States of America -- the most powerful person on the planet--are in any way comparable to those of some random dude in a crowd who simply repeats the president?

It's nonsense. It's absurd. You're just clowning yourself again.

Much like yourself, Ray Epps is a victim of misinformation. The greater sins by far lie with those influential who are suckering you.

Quote

I know that video evidence presented under oath is weak by your standards, leftists only consider "anonymous sources" to be gospel truth. My bad.

You haven't any evidence, let alone video, that Epps is anything other than what he (and all available evidence) indicates he is: just a MAGA kook from Arizona. Your flights of fancy are not evidence.

Quote

Go ahead, tell us what you "know" about the lizard people, Hodad.

I promise I'll give it the same level of consideration as I give all of your other "delightfully colourful" commentary. Sadly, that's no joke.

Nope. Spinning wild yarns is your turf, though I'd encourage you to stick to harmless diversions like fantasy and sci-fi instead of cheap political fan fiction.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Hodad

WestCanMan · October 28, 2022

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, it's a vaccine.

No, it is not a vaccine, because it doesn't even come close to meeting the traditional definition of "vaccine".

If you gave 86% of Canadians tinfoil hats, you'd still expect 86% of covid deaths to come from the people with tinfoil hats, because there's no real reason why they should prevent covid infections or deaths.

If you gave 86% of the population "covid vaccines" you would not expect to see 86% of our covid deaths coming from the vaccinated. You'd expect FAR less than 86%. Ideally almost 0%. Realistically 5%. Hopefully it would be 15% at most. But it's 86%. Just like the tinfoil hat.

FYI between Aug 24 and Sept 25 there were 155 unvaxed deaths, 122 dbl-vaxed, 482 triple vaxed deaths and 323 quadruple-vaxed deaths. That's 1,082 deaths total, and 155/1,082 is 14.3%.

86% multi-vaxed, 86% of deaths among the multi-vaxed, 14% unvaxed, 14% of the deaths among the unvaxed, do you see a pattern there?

No pressure Hodad, I will absolutely believe you if you say "no".

Quote

Yes, vaccines reduce transmission. Yes, they reduce hospitalization. Yes, they reduce death.

Yes, "vaccines" do all of those things. That's why they're called "vaccines".

I don't call the jab a vaccine because the jab does none of those things. Get it?

Lt's take a trip down memory lane....

Fauci et al told us that eating a bat in Wuhan was the origin of covid, and any mention that it came from the lab where they were conducting gain of function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan was "DISINFORMATION", and had to be crushed and scoffed at. Turns out that covid actually did come from experiments in a lab that he was aware of, and which he was partially responsible for. Turns out Fauci and his science deniers were "wrong".

Then Fauci said "The experiments just increased transmissibility, that's not 'gain of function'". Turns out he doesn't even know the definition of "gain of function". It's pretty "weird" for someone in such an elevated position to be so "wrong" on such a basic part of his job.

And although Fauci's minions were ramping up this airborne virus's ability to infect humans, for some reason they decided to tell the world that this particular coronavirus wasn't airborne. They were "wrong" again.

Then they told us that vaccines were coming which would be "safe and effective". Safe, you say? Well, some people died right away from massive clotting of the lungs after vaxing. So maybe those ones weren't safe, but the rest were "safe enough", right? Safe enough for whom though? The people who don't need the vax at all - young, healthy people - actually get extremely bad side effects from it. So the vaxes aren't actually safe. Fauci et al were "wrong" again.

But are they effective?

We were told that there were clinical trials done (only in-house, at Pfizer and Moderna) which proved that the jab would prevent infection. That's pretty effective in my books. SIGN ME UP! But by the time people in my age demo were cleared to go in for vaixing, we already had results from Israel indicating that they were 100% "wrong" about preventing infection.

That's when we were told it would prevent hospitalization. That was 100% "wrong" too.

We were told that it would prevent ICU visits and that was also 100% "wrong".

We were told that it would prevent deaths, which was by this time - predictably "wrong".

Then we were told that "It's mostly the extremely old with underlying health issues that get infected" as if that was somehow a breakthrough, but that was known to be the case among the unvaxed too, as early as spring of 2020. So te way that they presented that information was 100% wrong" as well.

The truth is, you and I don't have any proof that the jab actually works at all. Just the opinion of the people who said all of ^^those things^^ on behalf of the sentient being now referred to as "science".

I say we don't have proof, because the percent of multi-vaxed people in our country is the exact same as the % of covid deaths in our country which come from the mult-vaxed. That's a pretty big sample size to come back with an efficacy rating that's well below "meh".

Quote

These aren't matters of opinion. These are known, established facts that you can find in any medical journal or authoritative agency-or even through your own analysis (well, maybe not your analysis, but any capable person).

Yes, the things I just said above are all well known, and if you choose to doubt me I can prove every single one.

Do you want to see video of Michelle Welenski, the head of the CDC in America, or Fauci, saying that the vax will prevent infection? And that you don't need to worry about getting covid if you take it?

Do you want to see health Canada's own data showing that 86% of covid deaths are among the 86% oc Canadians who are multi-vaxed?

What do you want to see, jabberjaws?

Quote

And when you say these absurd things you're just making a clown of yourself. It's flat-Earth territory, where you can see- literally see- the evidence that proves you wrong and still can't manage to admit it. Oy.

You're calling snake oil a vaccine. I'd stfu if I was you, but why worry about a little thing like credibility now, right?

Quote

Do you really think you're going to convince people that the public claims and exhortations of the President of the United States of America -- the most powerful person on the planet--are in any way comparable to those of some random dude in a crowd who simply repeats the president?

The President never told anyone to go into the capitol. The president told people to peacefully stroll, etc. When Trump was saying "stay peaceful", he was clearly not trying to incite a riot.

Epps told people that they needed to go in, on multiple occasions. Epps clearly was trying to get a riot started.

What we typically look for when we're deciding who's a criminal and who's not is - who's committing a crime and who's not committing crimes, not "who do I wish was guilty".

Quote

some random dude in a crowd who simply repeats the president?

At what point did Epps repeat what Trump was saying? When did Epps ever say reman peaceful? Is "you need to go into the capitol buildings" the same as "stroll peacefully" to you?

Quote

You haven't any evidence, let alone video, that Epps is anything other than what he (and all available evidence) indicates he is: just a MAGA kook from Arizona. Your flights of fancy are not evidence.

Yes, I have plenty of evidence, and it's not my job to get you to: Step 1 of this debate - find out how many different videos there are of Ray Epps telling people that they need to go into the capitol", or of "Ray Epps aiding in the assault on the front-line officers".

Your complete, willful ignorance speaks volumes about you.

Rebound · October 29, 2022

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, it is not a vaccine, because it doesn't even come close to meeting the traditional definition of "vaccine".

If you gave 86% of Canadians tinfoil hats, you'd still expect 86% of covid deaths to come from the people with tinfoil hats, because there's no real reason why they should prevent covid infections or deaths.

If you gave 86% of the population "covid vaccines" you would not expect to see 86% of our covid deaths coming from the vaccinated. You'd expect FAR less than 86%. Ideally almost 0%. Realistically 5%. Hopefully it would be 15% at most. But it's 86%. Just like the tinfoil hat.

FYI between Aug 24 and Sept 25 there were 155 unvaxed deaths, 122 dbl-vaxed, 482 triple vaxed deaths and 323 quadruple-vaxed deaths. That's 1,082 deaths total, and 155/1,082 is 14.3%.

86% multi-vaxed, 86% of deaths among the multi-vaxed, 14% unvaxed, 14% of the deaths among the unvaxed, do you see a pattern there?

No pressure Hodad, I will absolutely believe you if you say "no".

Yes, "vaccines" do all of those things. That's why they're called "vaccines".

I don't call the jab a vaccine because the jab does none of those things. Get it?

Lt's take a trip down memory lane....

Fauci et al told us that eating a bat in Wuhan was the origin of covid, and any mention that it came from the lab where they were conducting gain of function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan was "DISINFORMATION", and had to be crushed and scoffed at. Turns out that covid actually did come from experiments in a lab that he was aware of, and which he was partially responsible for. Turns out Fauci and his science deniers were "wrong".

Then Fauci said "The experiments just increased transmissibility, that's not 'gain of function'". Turns out he doesn't even know the definition of "gain of function". It's pretty "weird" for someone in such an elevated position to be so "wrong" on such a basic part of his job.

And although Fauci's minions were ramping up this airborne virus's ability to infect humans, for some reason they decided to tell the world that this particular coronavirus wasn't airborne. They were "wrong" again.

Then they told us that vaccines were coming which would be "safe and effective". Safe, you say? Well, some people died right away from massive clotting of the lungs after vaxing. So maybe those ones weren't safe, but the rest were "safe enough", right? Safe enough for whom though? The people who don't need the vax at all - young, healthy people - actually get extremely bad side effects from it. So the vaxes aren't actually safe. Fauci et al were "wrong" again.

But are they effective?

We were told that there were clinical trials done (only in-house, at Pfizer and Moderna) which proved that the jab would prevent infection. That's pretty effective in my books. SIGN ME UP! But by the time people in my age demo were cleared to go in for vaixing, we already had results from Israel indicating that they were 100% "wrong" about preventing infection.

That's when we were told it would prevent hospitalization. That was 100% "wrong" too.

We were told that it would prevent ICU visits and that was also 100% "wrong".

We were told that it would prevent deaths, which was by this time - predictably "wrong".

Then we were told that "It's mostly the extremely old with underlying health issues that get infected" as if that was somehow a breakthrough, but that was known to be the case among the unvaxed too, as early as spring of 2020. So te way that they presented that information was 100% wrong" as well.

The truth is, you and I don't have any proof that the jab actually works at all. Just the opinion of the people who said all of ^^those things^^ on behalf of the sentient being now referred to as "science".

I say we don't have proof, because the percent of multi-vaxed people in our country is the exact same as the % of covid deaths in our country which come from the mult-vaxed. That's a pretty big sample size to come back with an efficacy rating that's well below "meh".

Yes, the things I just said above are all well known, and if you choose to doubt me I can prove every single one.

Do you want to see video of Michelle Welenski, the head of the CDC in America, or Fauci, saying that the vax will prevent infection? And that you don't need to worry about getting covid if you take it?

Do you want to see health Canada's own data showing that 86% of covid deaths are among the 86% oc Canadians who are multi-vaxed?

What do you want to see, jabberjaws?

You're calling snake oil a vaccine. I'd stfu if I was you, but why worry about a little thing like credibility now, right?

The President never told anyone to go into the capitol. The president told people to peacefully stroll, etc. When Trump was saying "stay peaceful", he was clearly not trying to incite a riot.

Epps told people that they needed to go in, on multiple occasions. Epps clearly was trying to get a riot started.

What we typically look for when we're deciding who's a criminal and who's not is - who's committing a crime and who's not committing crimes, not "who do I wish was guilty".

At what point did Epps repeat what Trump was saying? When did Epps ever say reman peaceful? Is "you need to go into the capitol buildings" the same as "stroll peacefully" to you?

Yes, I have plenty of evidence, and it's not my job to get you to: Step 1 of this debate - find out how many different videos there are of Ray Epps telling people that they need to go into the capitol", or of "Ray Epps aiding in the assault on the front-line officers".

Your complete, willful ignorance speaks volumes about you.

Did you ever get a Math grade higher than a D?

Mortality RATE.

WestCanMan · October 29, 2022

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Did you ever get a Math grade higher than a D?

Mortality RATE.

Stop throwing down terminology that you don't understand Rebound.

I'll make this really easy for you.

86% of Canadians were multi-jabbed between May 1 and Sept 25.

86% of Canadians who died of covid were multi-jabbed between May 1 and Sept 25.

If they all got tinfoil hats you'd expect that exact same result. If this was an HCQ trial or an ivermectin trial you'd be claiming victory (yes, I meant "victory", because for some reason it's really important to leftards that dirt-cheap, off-patent drugs don't work).

The overall mortality rate of unvaxed and vaxed people is the same here in Canada in 2022. The exact same number of deaths per 100,000 vaxed/unvaxed are occurring here in Canada. Are ya good now? I can only explain this to you, I can't understand it for you.

What else matters Rebound? What is more important than increasing your chances of survival? Sorry but the only numbers that really count don't tell us that the vax is increasin your chances. The vax isn't slowing the spread of covid either, so what is it doing?

Leftists finally achieved the equality of outcome that they wanted all these years and now you're unhappy?

Rebound · October 29, 2022

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop throwing down terminology that you don't understand Rebound.

I'll make this really easy for you.

86% of Canadians were multi-jabbed between May 1 and Sept 25.

86% of Canadians who died of covid were multi-jabbed between May 1 and Sept 25.

If they all got tinfoil hats you'd expect that exact same result. If this was an HCQ trial or an ivermectin trial you'd be claiming victory (yes, I meant "victory", because for some reason it's really important to leftards that dirt-cheap, off-patent drugs don't work).

The overall mortality rate of unvaxed and vaxed people is the same here in Canada in 2022. The exact same number of deaths per 100,000 vaxed/unvaxed are occurring here in Canada. Are ya good now? I can only explain this to you, I can't understand it for you.

What else matters Rebound? What is more important than increasing your chances of survival? Sorry but the only numbers that really count don't tell us that the vax is increasin your chances. The vax isn't slowing the spread of covid either, so what is it doing?

Leftists finally achieved the equality of outcome that they wanted all these years and now you're unhappy?

Show me the data. Cause I think you’re full of nonsense.

In Canada:

”Between August 29, 2022 and September 25, 2022, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series. During the same 4-week period, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series and 1 or more additional doses.”

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/cases-following-vaccination.html

Edited October 29, 2022 by Rebound

WestCanMan · October 29, 2022

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

Show me the data. Cause I think you’re full of nonsense.

No problem.

The stats that I get from Statista come straight from the infobase site that you quoted.

The statista stats and the infobase stats for "covid deaths by vax status" from Sept 25 are attached. You can see the death stat on the far right side of the infobase page. They're exactly the same.

I also attached the same stats from back on June 19th. You can go back further if you want, I have a bunch of older screenshots, but June 19th was the first day that they had all 4 columns the same as they are for Sept 25. If you go back further some don't have 4x deaths on them, and some have 1xers and even people who got the jab but died before the waiting period was over.

You can see for yourself how many were dead in each category by J19th, and how many were dead on Sept 25. Simple subtraction shows you how many died during that period among the unvaxed, 2x-vaxed, 3x-vaxed, and quadruple vaxed.

Add the total for all the columns, that's how many died between J19th and Sept 25.

You'll find out for yourself how many people are dying in each category, and the numbers that you get won't match up with their own story about 3x more likely to.... and 5x more likely to.... etc.

Unvaxed

10800 Sept 25

10385 Jun 19

415 between J19 and S25

2x-vaxed

3821 Sept 25

3577 Jun 19

244 between J19 and S25

3x vaxed

5209 Sept

3577 Jun

1,428 between J19 and S25

4x-vaxed

1031 Sept

265 Jun

766 between J19 and S25

Total = 415 + 244 + 1,428 + 766 = 2,853 covid deaths betweem Jun 19 and Sept 25

Multi-vaxed = 244 + 1,428 + 766 = 85.5%

Unvaxed = 415/2853 = 14.5%

For shits and giggles I also threw in the amounts from July and Aug:

Vax rates for Canada are also attached.

Edited October 29, 2022 by WestCanMan

eyeball · October 29, 2022

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm still wrong but I just don't care.

FIFY

WestCanMan · October 29, 2022

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

i'Me a mahts exspert and a virologest

FIFY

eyeball · October 30, 2022

50 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm a math expert...

So is anyone else compared to you.

Edited October 30, 2022 by eyeball

Hodad · November 1, 2022

On 10/28/2022 at 7:46 PM, WestCanMan said:

No, it is not a vaccine, because it doesn't even come close to meeting the traditional definition of "vaccine".

You don't know the definition of a vaccine. Full stop. That is why you, an inexpert layperson, continually contradict every medical authority on the planet in making this erroneous claim. Hell, you tried some weeks back to tell us that that the annual flu vaccine isn't a vaccine--citing supermarket ads as evidence (when even the supermarkets identify it as a vaccine). The reason that doctors, pharmacists, manufacturers, researchers, journals and every medical organization on the planet refer to the COVID vaccines as vaccines is because they are vaccines. The fact that you want to contradict them with whimsy and supermarket flyers if farking mind boggling. And whatever delusions of grandeur make you think that you are qualified to contradict an entire field of study and redefine vaccines for yourself is something you should probably work out with a therapist.

Quote

If you gave 86% of Canadians tinfoil hats, you'd still expect 86% of covid deaths to come from the people with tinfoil hats, because there's no real reason why they should prevent covid infections or deaths.

If you gave 86% of the population "covid vaccines" you would not expect to see 86% of our covid deaths coming from the vaccinated. You'd expect FAR less than 86%. Ideally almost 0%. Realistically 5%. Hopefully it would be 15% at most. But it's 86%. Just like the tinfoil hat.

FYI between Aug 24 and Sept 25 there were 155 unvaxed deaths, 122 dbl-vaxed, 482 triple vaxed deaths and 323 quadruple-vaxed deaths. That's 1,082 deaths total, and 155/1,082 is 14.3%.

86% multi-vaxed, 86% of deaths among the multi-vaxed, 14% unvaxed, 14% of the deaths among the unvaxed, do you see a pattern there?

No pressure Hodad, I will absolutely believe you if you say "no".

There is a pattern. It's your continued abuse and misuse of statistics. You are at least looking at a sort of rate now, but you're artificially timeboxing it to a set of conditions that will only reinforce your biases--whether you are aware of that or not. I have to think that Canadians are generally reasonable people, open to research, science and expertise, because the nation's vaccine response was rapid and very successful.

Canada itself is overwhelmingly vaccinated, which provides significant protection to the unvaccinated free riders. But more importantly, your timebox of the whole population does not control for obvious variables-even ignoring age. To explain why that is problematic, in Canada during the time period you want to examine, nearly 99% of people aged 80+ are fully vaccinated, And the other 50-year+ age groups aren't far behind. So it's a scenario in which the most vulnerable people are also the vaccinated people. A vaccinated 70-year-old is more likely to be hospitalized or to die than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

You look at the raw numbers (or even your proportions) and incorrectly assess that the vaccines don't help, but you're doing it wrong. Apply some critical thinking. An unvaccinated 70-year-old is much more likely to be hospitalized and to die than a vaccinated 70-year-old. And the same is true for a 20-year-old. The total vaccinated population is disproportionately at higher risk, and the unvaccinated population is disproportionately at lower risk. To evaluate vaccine efficacy you'd want to compare like to like. -- And compounding your problem are the infection rates. Young people (at low default risk and making up the bulk of the unvaccinated) are infected at much higher rates--the case count goes up so they are overrepresented in a view of the whole population.

And I'm not going to hold it against you that you don't understand all of this on your own, but please have the humility to respect the authorities that do. Again, the authoritative source from which you get your numbers tells you this on the exact same page: From August 29, 2022 to September 25, 2022, compared to fully vaccinated cases, unvaccinated cases were times more likely to be hospitalized and times more likely to die as a result of their illness.

They are not confused. They are not lying to you. They are not part of some conspiracy. They simply know the data better than you do. For you to latch on to the numbers that you mistakenly think support your argument and then to casually dismiss the explanation and analysis of that data from the same exact source is something you should be talking over with a therapist.

Quote

Yes, "vaccines" do all of those things. That's why they're called "vaccines".

I don't call the jab a vaccine because the jab does none of those things. Get it?

[snip irrelevant ranting]

But are they effective?

We were told that there were clinical trials done (only in-house, at Pfizer and Moderna) which proved that the jab would prevent infection. That's pretty effective in my books. SIGN ME UP! But by the time people in my age demo were cleared to go in for vaixing, we already had results from Israel indicating that they were 100% "wrong" about preventing infection.

That's when we were told it would prevent hospitalization. That was 100% "wrong" too.

We were told that it would prevent ICU visits and that was also 100% "wrong".

We were told that it would prevent deaths, which was by this time - predictably "wrong".

You are wrong on each of those points, just regurgitating bullshit you took in from somewhere other than a qualified source.

No vaccine can stop a virus from entering the body, but they certainly do alter the way the body reacts to that invader to reduce spread of disease within the body, which in turn reduces symptoms, which in turn reduces risk of transmission to others. That's the nature of vaccines, including the COVID vaccines.

You are contradicting the CDC, PHAC, the Mayo Clinic and every other health and medical authority on the planet. Vaccines do reduce transmission, they do reduce hospitalizations, they do reduce serious complications and they do reduce death.

Again, they are not lying to you or part of some conspiracy. They are just MUCH better at doing their jobs than some random dude on the internet, no matter how grand his delusions.

If you want to criticize the vaccines for being less effective against the mutated strains, fine. They still improve outcomes against the variants, but as one would expect, they are somewhat less effective.

Quote

What do you want to see, jabberjaws?

You're calling snake oil a vaccine. I'd stfu if I was you, but why worry about a little thing like credibility now, right?

I'd like to see you actually consume and learn from trusted, verifiable and authoritative sources of information, so that you stop regurgitating politically motivated misinformation that has the side effect of killing people.

And, FWIW, I don't think you know how to STFU, or you would have a long time ago.

Quote

The President never told anyone to go into the capitol. The president told people to peacefully stroll, etc. When Trump was saying "stay peaceful", he was clearly not trying to incite a riot.

Epps told people that they needed to go in, on multiple occasions. Epps clearly was trying to get a riot started.

What we typically look for when we're deciding who's a criminal and who's not is - who's committing a crime and who's not committing crimes, not "who do I wish was guilty".

At what point did Epps repeat what Trump was saying? When did Epps ever say reman peaceful? Is "you need to go into the capitol buildings" the same as "stroll peacefully" to you?

Epps believed and repeated all of Trump's "big lie" nonsense. That whole crowd did. And yes, he's on video, linked here multiple times by your fellow conspiracy theorists claiming that they should enter the Capitol peacefully.

Quote

Yes, I have plenty of evidence, and it's not my job to get you to: Step 1 of this debate - find out how many different videos there are of Ray Epps telling people that they need to go into the capitol", or of "Ray Epps aiding in the assault on the front-line officers".

Your complete, willful ignorance speaks volumes about you.

No, you don't. You have wild speculation and a vivid imagination--and apparently an inability to ingest evidence that explicitly contradicts your conspiracy.

WestCanMan · November 1, 2022

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You don't know the definition of a vaccine. Full stop. That is why you, an inexpert layperson, continually contradict every medical authority on the planet in making this erroneous claim. Hell, you tried some weeks back to tell us that that the annual flu vaccine isn't a vaccine--citing supermarket ads as evidence (when even the supermarkets identify it as a vaccine). The reason that doctors, pharmacists, manufacturers, researchers, journals and every medical organization on the planet refer to the COVID vaccines as vaccines is because they are vaccines. The fact that you want to contradict them with whimsy and supermarket flyers if farking mind boggling. And whatever delusions of grandeur make you think that you are qualified to contradict an entire field of study and redefine vaccines for yourself is something you should probably work out with a therapist.

You need meds.

A "vaccine" doesn't boost your immunity by 4%.

Calling the jab a vax is like using the word sexual assault for a butt-grab and also for being gang-raped by a football team.

Quote

There is a pattern. It's your continued abuse and misuse of statistics. You are at least looking at a sort of rate now, but you're artificially timeboxing it to a set of conditions that will only reinforce your biases--whether you are aware of that or not. I have to think that Canadians are generally reasonable people, open to research, science and expertise, because the nation's vaccine response was rapid and very successful.

No, I'm comparing the number of deaths among the vaxed with the unvaxed. It's what people care about. No one cares how many people get headaches from covid.

Quote

Canada itself is overwhelmingly vaccinated, which provides significant protection to the unvaccinated free riders. But more importantly, your timebox of the whole population does not control for obvious variables-even ignoring age. To explain why that is problematic, in Canada during the time period you want to examine, nearly 99% of people aged 80+ are fully vaccinated, And the other 50-year+ age groups aren't far behind. So it's a scenario in which the most vulnerable people are also the vaccinated people. A vaccinated 70-year-old is more likely to be hospitalized or to die than an unvaccinated 20 year old.

1) I'd agree with your argument if the gov't was saying "people over 60 need the vax" but they're saying "people over 5 need the vax". If "everyone needs the vax" according to them, then why should they even care about age stats?

2) They also don't tell us how many people are elderly with serious underlying health issues and are vaxed/unvaxed, which is the only real covid death demographic.

FYI the number of unvaxed deaths is extremely small compared to our country's population. If even .05% of the people over 80 decided not to vax because they already have cancer, emphysema and mesothelioma, that would account for almost all of the unvaxed deaths. And there certainly are people like that, we just don't know how many.

And of course the elderly people who have a really good chance of surviving got the jab, because that makes a lot of sense for them, and most of them aren't at risk from covid either. It's only the elderly who already know they're close to dying who matter, because that's who "dies of covid". The avg age is over 75 and on avg 96% of them have co-morbidities from underlying health conditions.

3) Even if the pseudovax does work a little bit, and I'm ok saying that for the sake of argument, it doesn't perform like a "vaccine". It's help is so minor that it's very possible that things like ivermectin help just as much, but our medical professionals are dead against testing it on scale. The only place we ever learned anything about ivermectin was Uttar Pradesh, where astounding results occurred that have never been replicated anywhere else, but "for some reason which remains unsaid, we will never be allowed to know why Uttar Pradesh got so lucky."

Quote

You look at the raw numbers (or even your proportions) and incorrectly assess that the vaccines don't help, but you're doing it wrong. Apply some critical thinking. An unvaccinated 70-year-old is much more likely to be hospitalized and to die than a vaccinated 70-year-old. And the same is true for a 20-year-old. The total vaccinated population is disproportionately at higher risk, and the unvaccinated population is disproportionately at lower risk. To evaluate vaccine efficacy you'd want to compare like to like. -- And compounding your problem are the infection rates. Young people (at low default risk and making up the bulk of the unvaccinated) are infected at much higher rates--the case count goes up so they are overrepresented in a view of the whole population.

Now that's just extremely stupid. You were actually onto something when you mentioned the oldies, I even coached eyeball to do that so that he wouldn't look so stupid here, but in the population at large, death rates are the same. Same. Same. 86% "vaxed", 86% of our deaths are among the "vaxed". If you don't know what that means then you need to stfu, for real.

And fwiw, triple jabbed and quadruple jabbed people don't seem to do well at all. I'll check out their rates vs the unvaxed next time I run the numbers.

Quote

And I'm not going to hold it against you that you don't understand all of this on your own, but please have the humility to respect the authorities that do. Again, the authoritative source from which you get your numbers tells you this on the exact same page: From August 29, 2022 to September 25, 2022, compared to fully vaccinated cases, unvaccinated cases were times more likely to be hospitalized and times more likely to die as a result of their illness.

They are not confused. They are not lying to you. They are not part of some conspiracy. They simply know the data better than you do. For you to latch on to the numbers that you mistakenly think support your argument and then to casually dismiss the explanation and analysis of that data from the same exact source is something you should be talking over with a therapist.

Were they lying when they said it came from eating a bat?

Were they lying when they said that it was most likely spread by touching contaminated surfaces?

Were they lying when they said that there was probably no H2H transmission? How serious of a lie was that? Transmissibility is a hallmark of coronaviruses, and there was gain of function research done on this one to make it more transmissible among humans ffs. Why err on the side of danger when you're dealing with a pandemic?

Was it a lie to say that "making the virus more transmissible among humans" doesn't count as "gain of function research"?

Were they being lying fascists when they got their social media attack dogs to go after anyone that said "Wuhan Coronavirus Research Lab"?

Were they lying when they said in no uncertain terms that taking the vax meant that you wouldn't get infected, or spread the virus?

Were they lying when they said "It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated"?

Were they lying when they said that you wouldn't get hospitalized if you were vaxed? Go to ICU? Die?

Were they lying when they pretended that it was a huge success that the majority of vaxed deaths were among the elderly with underlying conditions, as if that was unique to the vaxed? We knew that was the case back in spring of 2020 when the vax was still 8 months away.

Dude, those were all lies. Not, "Maybe wrong - maybe lies". They were "100% known to be lies" lies. Fauci of all people knew exactly what was happening at the Wuhan lab years before you ever heard the word 'covid". Then there was an instantaneous knowledge that HCQ can't possibly work and it kills people, turns them blind, and it's just a scam to get Trump money!" FYI HCQ has been off-patent for about 50 years, it doesn't kill anyone (especially not by comparison to covid jabs) and in order to suffer eye damage yu=ou have to take it for over 5 years continuously. By that time you would have ingested more than a kilogram of the actual HCQ.

Why did people like Pelosi and DeBlasio encourage the worst possible pandemic behaviours imaginable when covid was first getting here, and yet be deemed to have complete credibility once we were under the gun? How did Cuomo skate after forcing infected people back into care homes, while fully preventing them from being tested beforehand, and then fudge the death stats to make it seem like all the care home deaths were actually hospital deaths? How were the butt-grabbing allegations against him, which weren't new, somehow worse than turning care homes into euthanasia factories? Why did NY never take advantage of the covid hospitals to treat the covid patients?

Anyways:

1) I would believe them if the death stats bore that out, but they don't.

2) Why didn't you put their FAKE numbers in there? They use numbers like 7 times and 5 times, which clearly MAKE NO SENSE.

If unvaxed are 5 (for the sake of argument) times as likely to be hospitalized and die, then where do all the other vaxed deaths come from? People who just randomly dropped dead from covid? Why don't we see something like "14% of us are unvaxed and yet 70% of our deaths are among the unvaxed"? Or even 45%? Or even 20%?

It's 14%. Are you kidding me? Where does the 5x or 7x number come into play in their description, exactly?

3) If everything else I said was over your head, at least understand this: if it truly is the "% of oldies vaxed" stat that's driving these numbers, and underlying health conditions aren't a big deal, and that's what's making it seem like the vax doesn't do much (if anything), then why force-vax the 5-50 crowd? Better yet, why IGNORE ALL OF THE VERY SERIOUS SIDE-EFFECTS and force-vax them? THEY ARE NOT DYING. THEY WERE NOT DYING IN 2020. WHY FORCE THEM????

I personally don't give a rip if the "vax" works a little bit or doesn't. I only care that people are FORCED to take it.

Seriously dude, if you showed even a glimpse of being able to think for your self, or even take stock of how many times their counter-intuitive brainwaves turned out to be brainfarts, then I'd take you seriously, but you're a guy who's only capable of learning by rote. They said it, you instantly turn around and chant it, end of story.

Edited November 1, 2022 by WestCanMan

Aristides · November 1, 2022

Quote

“Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor,” construction executive Tim Michels told supporters Monday at a campaign stop.

So did all the Americans who fought and died do it so the US could degenerate into a single party state like the Soviet Union? Is that what Republicans stand for?

WestCanMan · November 2, 2022

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So did all the Americans who fought and died do it so the US could degenerate into a single party state like the Soviet Union? Is that what Republicans stand for?

That's what NY and Cali are.

They just keep getting worse and worse and they keep electing the same people over and over.

In NYC they literally went from "Let's get rid of a bunch of police!" to "Hey, I know what's wrong: there aren't enough police ?"

Aristides · November 2, 2022

40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's what NY and Cali are.

They just keep getting worse and worse and they keep electing the same people over and over.

In NYC they literally went from "Let's get rid of a bunch of police!" to "Hey, I know what's wrong: there aren't enough police ?"

So that is what Republicans do stand for.