Massive Die Off/ Extinction of Conservativism immanent..

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Awww, poor little Hodad is still butthurt because he was proven to be wrong lol. 

Like I told you 100 times: covid deaths were up by 24% in 2022, 86% of covid deaths in this country were among the multi-vaxed, and that means that more "multi-vaxed" people died in 2022 than the total number of covid deaths in any prior year. (.86 x 19,000 = 16,340 m-vaxed deaths. The highest number of covid deaths before 2022 was less than 16K).

Those are just stats for you to deal with and I'm just the messenger - those aren't my opinions. 

After we gave out the polio/TB/smallpox vaccines, did deaths go up by 24%? No, because those are actual vaccines. 

Did more vaccinated people die of polio/TB/smallpox in the years after the vaccines were rolled out than the number of unvaxed from prior years? No, because those are actual vaccines. 

You're using the word vaccine wrong, dumbass, and I'm not nearly as obsessed with the topic of covid as all of you covidi0ts were, I don't spend 24 hrs a day worrying about it, waving the pom-poms for vax-fascism, and I don't tell other people what to do.

Go ahead and take the jab if you want, whiner. I don't give a rat's arse what you do. Just don't bring your low-IQ drivel here in favour of the jab because I'll just keep dummying you. 

You STILL don't understand that vaccines which target viruses work differently than those that target bacterial diseases; not because they're "not vaccines" but because the TARGETS have DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS.

^This is just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of your Dunning-Kruger INCOMPLETE "expertise." AKA, not understanding diseases.

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Guess you MISSED that it was MAJORITIES in several states that VOTED on the ISSUE SO FAR....

Sigh - states don't vote on supreme court decisions.  I have no idea what made you think that they do.

The supreme court was ruling on the constitution, which was federal. The states don't get a say in that, they just have to live with the ruling.

Why am i ALWAYS having to explain how the law works to you?!?!

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You understand NOTHING about climate science.

Dude - you don't understand ANY science and haven't been able to present any climate science at all.

Not sure you're in a position to be throwing stones there, Mr glass house

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

You understand NOTHING about climate science. 

You just put your hands over your eyes and CRY NO PROOF, NO PROOF. LMAO

No one here is going to TEACH you enough for you to understand the issue.

Read Scientific American IF you really care enough to understand.

We KNOW you are too lazy, too stupid, or BOTH. Duh

 

"Otto says she has at times been faulted for being too political. “But there isn't such a thing as a neutral scientist,” she says. “The questions we ask are always influenced by our values, by who is funding us, by where we live. Making it transparent is what makes good science—not pretending it's not happening.”"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-disaster-strikes-is-climate-change-to-blame/

oh my. This woman just admitted what has been a bone of contention for a while now. Scientists DO produce results slanted in favor of the source of their funding. Gee...that means very little of your vaunted and lauded science...is simply bought and paid for junk.

7 hours ago, robosmith said:

Yes there is, and your inability to understand it does not invalidate it.

So present it Howdy-Doody.

Present your proof.

[myata]

It saddens me to say it because a binary political system can no better function without a decent opposition to the power than clapping with one hand, but it appears that GOP is entering an irreversible downward spiral into the ground by listening to, following and giving in to an authoritarian populist mob with zero integrity, responsibility and attachment to the democracy.

The time is high to renew the democracy to avoid a real and serious risk of decay. If it wouldn't be realistic to modernize the political system to widen the range and spectrum of representation, a renewal of conservatism on the principles of responsibility and democracy can be the only option. I hope that conscientious Republicans are thinking about this. These questions cannot be muted or avoided.

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Interesting how as always you dodge that you made an accusation, could not back it up, and when called on the carpet... dodge. Own up to this and we can proceed. This shows that you have some character.. which you show little of. What is the accusation that I speak of well then look below.. Your zealousness stops you from being even a pi$$ poor researcher/analyst. 

Like Hodad, you've chosen to believe in the pseudovax no matter what evidence is presented to you, you're part of the credulous horde I've been talking about. 

It's checkmate io: you lost a long time ago.

1) Covid deaths went up by 24% after we "vaccinated" 85% of the country, and 86% of covid deaths are among the vaxed.

2) 16,000+ "vaccinated" Canadians died of covid in 2022 (19,000 Canadians total). 

That is not a vaccine, period. Game over.

The reason why you're making childish accusations instead of talking about the number of covid deaths here is because you're utterly devoted to disinformation. 

[robosmith]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, CdnFox said:

Sigh - states don't vote on supreme court decisions.  I have no idea what made you think that they do.

I said the states voted on THE ISSUE, lDIOT.  I have no idea what made you think that they don't.

On 9/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, CdnFox said:

The supreme court was ruling on the constitution, which was federal. The states don't get a say in that, they just have to live with the ruling.

Wrong. The SCOTUS decision was to LEAVE IT TO THE STATES. 

On 9/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, CdnFox said:

Why am i ALWAYS having to explain how the law works to you?!?!

Because you are so arrogant and so WRONG, AGAIN.

On 9/29/2023 at 10:41 PM, CdnFox said:

Dude - you don't understand ANY science and haven't been able to present any climate science at all.

Not sure you're in a position to be throwing stones there, Mr glass house

I posted EVIDENCE and ALL YOU have is ^this DRIVEL.

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

"Otto says she has at times been faulted for being too political. “But there isn't such a thing as a neutral scientist,” she says. “The questions we ask are always influenced by our values, by who is funding us, by where we live. Making it transparent is what makes good science—not pretending it's not happening.”"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-disaster-strikes-is-climate-change-to-blame/

oh my. This woman just admitted what has been a bone of contention for a while now. Scientists DO produce results slanted in favor of the source of their funding. Gee...that means very little of your vaunted and lauded science...is simply bought and paid for junk.

Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of scientist AGREE that climate change is caused by man and it is GETTING WORSE.

Again you understand NOTHING about the principles and just stick your head in the sand.

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

So present it Howdy-Doody.

Present your proof.

You cherry picked one article from SA. Now go back and read ALL THE REST.

You'll need a Phd to understand it, which will be very difficult for a college dropout.

But that won't stop you from coming to an erroneous conclusion and sticking to it tenaciously.

You know what the vast majority of climatologists have concluded, so YOU NEED REASONS they are wrong.

And NOT just one which admits bias but does not say what you're saying: "is simply bought and paid for junk."

Otto didn't say that. Duh

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

I said the states voted on THE ISSUE, lDIOT.  

Sigh ,First off, no, you didn't.      But i'm glad you realized you were wrong, that's the first step.

Second - whcih states have held a referendum on the issue of whether abortion is included in the constitution? That's the issue we were discussing -  That's a weird  thing for them to do.

 

Quote

Wrong. The SCOTUS decision was to LEAVE IT TO THE STATES. 

Double sigh.

No.  It was not. The decision was that abortion is not constitutionally protected.  That's it.  They don't "Decide' to leave it to the states.

Beacuse it's not a consitutional  issue it naturaly falls to the states, but the court doesn't decide that.  God - its like you need your hand held through the entire thing.

 

Quote

Because you are so arrogant and so WRONG, AGAIN.

I"m actually right.  But- as always you blame ME for you being wrong and have a hissy fit.

Quote

I posted EVIDENCE and ALL YOU have is ^this DRIVEL.

You posted no evidence. Just your opinion. Which is pretty much all you post.

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of scientist AGREE that climate change is caused by man and it is GETTING WORSE.

Your opinion is useless.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You cherry picked one article from SA.

You didn't provide any evidence at all. So his is still better than yours.

Is that because you know credible evidence doesn't exist? Are you having trouble finding it because it turns out that it's not true?

This "Evidence'...  is it in the room with you right now?

[robosmith]

On 10/1/2023 at 1:25 AM, CdnFox said:

Your opinion is useless.

I cited EXPERTS in Scientific American a-hole.

On 10/1/2023 at 1:25 AM, CdnFox said:

You didn't provide any evidence at all. So his is still better than yours.

Wrong again.

On 10/1/2023 at 1:25 AM, CdnFox said:

Is that because you know credible evidence doesn't exist? Are you having trouble finding it because it turns out that it's not true?

This "Evidence'...  is it in the room with you right now?

Can you even read? LMAO

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I cited EXPERTS in Scientific American a-hole.

No you didn't.

Quote

Wrong again.

Your lying about it doesn't make it true.

Quote

Can you even read? LMAO

Better than you apperently

Honestly if you had a frontal lobotomy it would be months before anyone noticed.

[impartialobserver]

Back to the topic,

It is unlikely that a statistically significant (greater than 5%) of Conservatives is going to pass away due to Covid this time around. Also, even if it did occur.. there are always going to be a subset of any population that are relatively Conservative. Nothing all that revelatory about that. I find it comical when one side of the aisle claims that the other party is going to die, meet their demise, and blah, blah, blah...