Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

See?

This is why you're on ignore.

The FBI even came to the conclusion that the BSL4 lab is most likely the source of the leak, but even considering that as a possibility is impossible for you. The "St Fauci and the Bad, Bad Pangolin" narrative is indelibly seared into your memory and nothing can challenge that: it's your hill to die on because you saw it on CNN. 

You are the ultimate cultist sap. 

YOUR PROBLEM is I never said it's NOT POSSIBLE. Duh

Show us where Fauci said "it's not possible." "Most likely" is not even a definitive declaration. 

You KNOW NOTHING about my memory but keep making BULLSHIT claims about what I know or believe.

7 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Well, if Helen Mirren says so...

No one said that but you. You're free to disagree, but that will mean nothing sans your REASON.

Posted
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I know that the death of Trump might not change anything.

 

I don't know how society heals.  Me wasting my time in unproductive discussion won't do it.

You want to call what he's doing sanity, which is not what I would call it.  

Maybe at the end of this experiment (hope you don't mind the term) people will decide.

There's a good subject for debate.

Is what Trump is doing sane or not and why?

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Ignoring people like robo, EF, myata and eyeball isn't childish or cowardly. They're dime-a-dozen cultists who are incapable of critical thought.

Robo still thinks that cognitive dissonance means that you're not taking anything into consideration unless it meshes with your own biases ffs. There's no way that you can explain that to him, or what confirmation bias is. And the dictionary doesn't help.

When people reject the dictionary as heresy, it's time to move on. 

That's not to say that you can never punch down on them, it's just not healthy to roll in the muck with them every day. 

You become the average of the people you associate with the most, so it's actually important to shut people out if they're bringing your average down by that much. 

Ahhhhhhh . . . . no love for 'herbie'  ?

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I do recall creating a thread for some topic or other months ago. In good faith, maybe one of us missed it? 

If someone posted just pure garbage and didn't even respond to your posts, would you read them? If so I admire the amount of free time you have. I just get nothing out of it. 

 

I don't advise people to use ignore against those they disagree with, that would be crazy. 

 

The contradiction is what I pointed out... I have posted my reasons for this and they are ignored by people who don't use the actual ignore function. Explain that one to me. 🤔

Are you 'waldo' or 'Bubbermiley' ... ?

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No one said that but you.

If only I had known about this before, though, I might have put people on ignore.  I mean, I'd feel better about it if I knew Judi Dench or Meryl Streep agreed.

Edited by CouchPotato
  • Haha 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

If only I had known about this before, though, I might have put people on ignore.  I mean, I'd feel better about it if I knew Judi Dench or Meryl Streep agreed.

So you like to falsely pretend that what Mirren wrote makes no sense and the only reason it was posted was because she's a famous actress?

If you believe that, explain WHY what she wrote is wrong. You know, supply REASONS to justify your pretense.

Posted
1 minute ago, robosmith said:

So you like to falsely pretend that what Mirren wrote makes no sense and the only reason it was posted was because she's a famous actress?

If you believe that, explain WHY what she wrote is wrong. You know, supply REASONS to justify your pretense.

Hey, Mirren is smart enough to walk away when she's getting her ass kicked.

I say good for her, and good for you. ;) 

Posted
5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So you like to falsely pretend that what Mirren wrote makes no sense and the only reason it was posted was because she's a famous actress?

If you believe that, explain WHY what she wrote is wrong. You know, supply REASONS to justify your pretense.

Well she is a RED, (retired, extremely dangerous), Hides assault rifle's in the flower displays.

Better if you stayed away.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
21 hours ago, robosmith said:

As explained by Helen Mirren on FB.

the strongest thing you can do is walk away—not because you have nothing to say, but because you recognize that some people aren’t ready to listen.

LIARS are never ready to listen. They are just here to beat you over the head with their NONSENSE and INSULTS.

That is why I have 4 on ignore now.

You have people on ignore because you're a coward. You can convince yourself that cowardice is strength but that's obviously not true

  • Like 1

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
2 hours ago, robosmith said:

YOUR PROBLEM is I never said it's NOT POSSIBLE. Duh

Show us where Fauci said "it's not possible." "Most likely" is not even a definitive declaration. 

So maybe the problem is that you're just incredibly stupid then... Is that what you're driving at? 

See, acknowledging that the BSL4 lab is the most likely source of the virus means that Fauci, of all people, knew that it was the most likely source of the virus when he said "It came from over there." 

That means that Fauci was certainly engaging in deception. 

And now that we know he was engaging in deception on day 1, it stands to reason that all the other things he said, that seemed like BS at the time, and ended up being completely false, were known to be BS when he said them. 

  1. Fauci is as culpable as the day is long
  2. Fauci engaged in deceit and you know that for a fact
  3. Fauci made a litany of statements which were very unlikely when he said them, almost all of those statements turned out to be untrue, and the net effect of them was to make big pharma tens of BILLIONS of dollars in profits, while also negatively affecting a lot of people to the extent that they suffered serious injuries or death
  4. In all Fauci's days of doing that job he has definitely made acquaintance with people at the very peak of the big pharma industry  

Every single one of those things is a fact. 

If you're not 100% suspicious of Fauci, if you don't think that he was up to no good, you're a fool. 

CNN has you, robo. They own you.

  • Downvote 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It absolutely is not.

Making a judgement to ignore someone is not a judgement. Boolean's spinning in his grave.

  • Like 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

So maybe the problem is that you're just incredibly stupid then... Is that what you're driving at? 

See, acknowledging that the BSL4 lab is the most likely source of the virus means that Fauci, of all people, knew that it was the most likely source of the virus when he said "It came from over there." 

That means that Fauci was certainly engaging in deception. 

And now that we know he was engaging in deception on day 1, it stands to reason that all the other things he said, that seemed like BS at the time, and ended up being completely false, were known to be BS when he said them. 

  1. Fauci is as culpable as the day is long
  2. Fauci engaged in deceit and you know that for a fact
  3. Fauci made a litany of statements which were very unlikely when he said them, almost all of those statements turned out to be untrue, and the net effect of them was to make big pharma tens of BILLIONS of dollars in profits, while also negatively affecting a lot of people to the extent that they suffered serious injuries or death
  4. In all Fauci's days of doing that job he has definitely made acquaintance with people at the very peak of the big pharma industry  

Every single one of those things is a fact. 

If you're not 100% suspicious of Fauci, if you don't think that he was up to no good, you're a fool. 

CNN has you, robo. They own you.

"Most likely" is NOT definitive and therefore does NOT rule out ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY.

Are you really so dumb you don't know that? Or just hugely disingenuous.

Posted
2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"Most likely" is NOT definitive and therefore does NOT rule out ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY.

Are you really so dumb you don't know that? Or just hugely disingenuous.

Yelling with caps and calling people dumb. You are getting awfully close to being put on ignore, robo. Cissy Spacek would have probably done it already.

Posted
Just now, CouchPotato said:

Yelling with caps and calling people dumb. You are getting awfully close to being put on ignore, robo. Cissy Spacek would have probably done it already.

Go ahead you're treading mighty close as well. You obviously are lying about knowing what Spacek would probably do and that makes you an infantile TROLL.

 

Posted
13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Go ahead you're treading mighty close as well. You obviously are lying about knowing what Spacek would probably do and that makes you an infantile TROLL.

 

What? Did you say something? I can't hear you because I am too busy ignoring you and playing Scrabble with Sally Field.

Posted
1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

What? Did you say something? I can't hear you because I am too busy ignoring you and playing Scrabble with Sally Field.

^Troll lying again. 👋

Posted
7 hours ago, robosmith said:

YOUR PROBLEM is I never said it's NOT POSSIBLE. Duh

Show us where Fauci said "it's not possible." "Most likely" is not even a definitive declaration. 

You KNOW NOTHING about my memory but keep making BULLSHIT claims about what I know or believe.

No one said that but you. You're free to disagree, but that will mean nothing sans your REASON.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-what-dr-fauci-has-said-about-covids-origins-and-the-lab-leak-theory/



April 17, 2020 Rebuffing then-President Donald Trump, Fauci downplays the possibility of a lab leak, saying the virus’ “mutations” are “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

May 4, 2020 In his strongest statement yet against the theories of a genetically engineered virus, Fauci tells National Geographic in an interview he’s “very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated” and adds all signs indicate the virus “evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

----------------------------

That took 2 minutes to find and 3 minutes to format. Surely you could have done a modicum of research before you spouted off something so blatantly wrong.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-what-dr-fauci-has-said-about-covids-origins-and-the-lab-leak-theory/



April 17, 2020 Rebuffing then-President Donald Trump, Fauci downplays the possibility of a lab leak, saying the virus’ “mutations” are “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

May 4, 2020 In his strongest statement yet against the theories of a genetically engineered virus, Fauci tells National Geographic in an interview he’s “very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated” and adds all signs indicate the virus “evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

----------------------------

That took 2 minutes to find and 3 minutes to format. Surely you could have done a modicum of research before you spouted off something so blatantly wrong.

You get that you simply confirmed his point, right?

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Mirren was a vaxtard herself, so she's actually one of the people she was talking about. 

A broken clock is right twice a day. End of story. 

I think it's an incredibly juvenile term, but if anyone is a "vaxtard," it's the people who looked at a 5-7x reduction in hospitalization and a 5-7x reduction in death and said "Nah, I'll pass."

Edited by Hodad
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You get that you simply confirmed his point, right?

In no way, whatsoever, did I confirm his point. He said Fauci never said that covid didn't come from a lab. I proved that Fauci did in fact definitively say that COVID was natural. Unless you want to argue that "totally" has wiggle room. It wasn't until later that he started changing his tune. He was inconsistent.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
3 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Most likely" is NOT definitive and therefore does NOT rule out ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY.

Are you really so dumb you don't know that? Or just hugely disingenuous.

"Most likely" still means that Fauci pimped a less-likely option as the only real contender

It means that Fauci stood in front of the camera knowing that he was partly to blame for creating a bat coronavirus that was transmissible among humans in the BSL4 lab, and then he said "It was from the wetmarket".

It was entirely deceptive for him to choose not to disclose that there was a far more likely option, a bat coronavirus that was already transmissible H2H, right in that vicinity. 

Then social media giants started banning people for saying Wuhan BSL4 lab. 

 

The only reason that this isn't a slam dunk is that in the big picture, it's the US and Chinese gov'ts that are jointly responsible for this outbreak (maybe other countries as well, I don't know). 

If that virus came out of Iran, and there was a wetmarket close to a BSL4 lab there, do you think that the US and China would have let Iran get away with "It came from the wetmarket"? Would social media giants be banning people for saying "Tehran BSL4 lab"?

 

I'd say "Get your head out of your ass" but I know that's impossible for you, because your head and your large colon are Siamese twins. 

You'll still deny, deny, deny even if Fauci comes into your home and injects you with bat coronavirus himself. 

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
12 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

In no way, whatsoever, did I confirm his point. He said Fauci never said that covid didn't come from a lab. I proved that Fauci did in fact definitively say that COVID was natural. Unless you want to argue that "totally" has wiggle room. It wasn't until later that he started changing his tune. He was inconsistent.

Jesus, man. Get a grip. Read those quotes. 

Fauci, as in your quotes, NEVER said it was definitive or impossible. Rather, he said simply that it was highly improbable. And, with apologies to the conspiracy theorists, the scientific perspective is STILL, years later, that the origin was most likely natural. 

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I think it's an incredibly juvenile term, but if anyone is a "vaxtard," it's the people who looked at a 5-7x reduction in hospitalization and a 5-7x reduction in death and said "Nah, I'll pass."

If anyone's a vaxtard, it's the guy who said "The only reason that deaths are up 36% is because hospitalizations are up by way more than that. This is actually proof that the vaccine is working."

We vaxed 85% of Canadians in 2021, and look at how many hospitalizations we had in 2022...

Hospitalations2022.thumb.png.424dd12508ccb9d4409371ff6c0b802d.png

Is that your idea of "working"? 

Theoretically we had so many covid hospitalizations in 2020 that hospitals were overwhelmed, so we had to "lock down for two weeks to flatten the curve". (FYI that's Sciencese for "just the tip")

If hospitalizations were overwhelming in 2020, what were they in 2022? Octuple overwhelming? And when hospitalizations were "octuple overwhelming", why was the news doing 1/80th the amount of covid coverage? 

 

"Common sense dictates that the amount of pandemic coverage on TV is inversely proportional to the number of hospitalizations and deaths." - vaxtards

Edited by WestCanMan

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,904
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    LinkSoul60
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...