RFK 2024

[Cassandros]

If you read what I had posted (twice now), you would know the amendment does not spell out the necessary burden of proof.

Doesn't it?

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Shall not engage in or give aid or comfort. Welp, he did that. Next.

/sigh

Now, other than some activist judges basically interpreting that day as an insurrection (even though no one has been charged as such), prove it was an insurrection.

It wasn't fixed under the orange M&M because you blues worked night and day, and fought tooth and nail to not allow any solution to work. Worse, your team (and your media) actively distorted the actions. When trump has a detention center its called a concentration camp, when biden does it they are just 'holding facilities'.

Ironically, your team is now quietly implementing more of his ideas. For example:

The US and Mexico announced a new “border enforcement” policy on Thursday, January 5, 2023, which blocks Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans from accessing asylum by immediately expelling them to Mexico under the Trump-era Title 42 rule.

Your single party voterness is showing. Tell me you're a red M&M without telling me you're a red M&M when you blame everything on a blue and deliberately overlook the outright refusal to fix the problem from a red. You literally spell it out in your own words everything each side will do to sabotage the other, but if you were really not playing the team sport politics you claim to abhor, you wouldn't be identifying one side and excluding the other. You'd be harpooning both sides.

Well, that was easy.

I do harpoon both sides. Often.

The difference is, you are making incorrect statements about reality of how your party has behaved; ergo, I have to discuss the fallacies and lies of your side specifically when debating you.

This is really basic stuff here.

When covid first emerged the thought (narrative) was it traveled by droplets. I.e. carried on saliva and transmitted when someone sneezed. Droplet transmission can be mitigated by mask. Most masks do nothing against airborne viruses because the virus is way to small to catch. Its the equivalent of a chain-linked fence trying to keep out a mosquito.

Yeah, that's airborne.

And since you have finally caught up to the rest of the class and know most masks are useless against airborne viruses... why did you support mask mandates again?

Why should I wear a mask or take a shot when neither prevent spread or infection? I'm not protecting anyone when these measure DO NOT WORK.

Except a measure of protection is afforded to other people via those protections, and it's you that objects to all of it. Whether that's masking up, getting a shot, or standing apart from the next person, you absolutely rage about it because it's a mild inconvenience to you.

Oh, so you didn't catch up to the class after all... LOL!!

None of these measures actually do what you keep mindlessly repeating that they do.

If the government mandated everyone carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? Even though, obviously, its theatrical security and in no way helpful?

The mantra of sacrificing my liberty, and my health (taking an under tested and very new technology that, up until that point had an abysmal track record on all animal trials) is just about the dumbest thing anyone could possibly suggest. You are the selfish one to make such a demand. If you think the mask helps, wear one. If you feel "protected"from a shot, you do you. But under no circumstance shall you violate my Rights and my bodily autonomy because your pussy ass is scared of what is essentially a bad flu bug.

That killed millions. You're here proclaiming that you should be able to infect everyone you want because that's your f'n right. I can see I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt. Once again, the self-righteous indignation that you wear a piece of cloth, take a needle in the arm, or stand away from someone, those are severe violations in your red-addled brain. And yet in the sane world, you would be seen as the selfish asshole because you were told to do or not to do something minor to benefit your fellow man and you rage over that. You say all of this in the same world in which women are being told to kill themselves having a baby that won't live outside of them or suffer criminal charges.

Your virtual signaling is pathetic and your reasoning severely flawed.

Your shot doesn't protect you from getting sick or spreading the virus... explain exactly why I should get one too then?

And by assuming my stance on abortion (and really, anything), you once again show the world just how dumb single party voters are.

Like you? I mean, once again, you aren't here raging over the rights of women being taken away. No, you're here because you were told to wear a mask, Karen.

This thread/discussion isn't about abortion, dip shit.

The orange m&m did plenty wrong on covid. Remember, he was the OG on encouraging states to lockdown.

So, what's your point again? Other than trying to have a shotgun debate where you just shit all over everything hoping something sticks.

Red M&M. The point is you once again showed your single party voter mindset and ignored that he botched Covid from the word go, preferring to only blame a blue for what went down. People above team sport party politics that they claim to not play don't ignore what one side does to blame the other in all cases. But you can guess what single party voters would do, and thank you for perfectly exemplifying it.

Ummmm.... what?

I literally criticized trump as the OG on encouraging lockdowns, something I am absolutely against.

You've been debating in bad faith since the beginning, but this is top tier pathetic, even for you.

Be better.

Oh, is that why you could NOT go to church, or the hair salon, or a wedding; but you could stand should to shoulder and protest?

Wouldn't have caught me doing that with or without Covid, and I struggle to remember vast numbers of blues who would've. But I can tell you a bunch of reds hated the idea of not paying weekly lip service to their idol, and while I don't know the color M&Ms of the Maine wedding that got the press because of Covid, I can tell you it was rural and people died. But yeah, you're probably right, who cares about them whether they voted red or blue? It's about you, isn't it?

What's that got to with hypocrite Governors acting like they are doing a good for society by shutting down businesses, events, and churches --> but still allowing mass protests?

Nothing. You know I am right but too weak willed to admit it.

No chance of that. You can't "stop" the cold or flu, and that's really all covid is.

The selfish "leaders" are 100% to blame in that they not only withheld information to allow people to make informed choices for themselves; they straight up took away most peoples ability to make any choice at all.

That is unforgivable. And really, red and blue (and all in between) should be unitedly pissed over that.

We can agree that this country is full of selfish assholes, but we won't agree that Covid is just a cold or flu. I've had all 3, Covid is the worst of them and thankfully I only got it to my knowledge once. Moreover, I think given what went down in this country during Covid, you can see why the protective measures were taken. Too many people want to disobey for the sake of disobeying. If it was only yourself that it would impact, then I would say have at it. But Covid isn't about just yourself, and such reckless actions put other people in danger. I draw the line there, whether that's with tailgating or with a contagious virus. Blame everyone else but yourself if you have to.

To your knowledge, which means when you caught it and didn't know --> it was the best of them.

Disobeying mandates that do not actually mean or do anything is the best thing you can do. But, one has to be able to think for themselves to be able to do that. Seeing you wore a mask well after the time you had to shows you never once thought for yourself. Your a loyal NPC, and nothing more.

I have no idea who either of those people are.

Thanks for proving my point. Anyone screaming about bodily autonomy over a mask, but doesn't even know those two names in the last couple of months proves that bodily autonomy to you is just a buzzword.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to tell me how to think.

What makes these two people so magically special that I should know, or care, who they are?

What egregious things have the reds done that I have "remained silent" on?

Thanks for proving my point again. Oh, the irony. See above.

Not discussing your red herring?

That's dumb. Even for you.

Also, only a tyrant would impose a vaccine mandate.

According to who? You? Your opinion is hardly valid given your hyperbolic reaction over mild inconveniences. Nah, give me something real. Here, I got a real one for you. A tyrant is someone who will incite an insurrection, organize and execute a multistate coup to overthrow the government to install himself in power because he lost his election. An election he lost because the majority of the country voted against him. Give me something like that from the blue that will result in said blue being a tyrant.

A tyrant imposes his will on the people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you are unable, or unwilling to admit this very simple and basic truth... there is no hope for you.

You will remain "useful" to your party till the day you die.

A private entity that was firmly blue, and was happy to help a blue government.

The government wasn't blue when Trump got his ass bumped off a private entity's product by violating their terms of service egregiously. Nor was it blue when he executed his attempted coup. Keep playing your team sports though, I'm sure everyone totally believes it.

Its amusing you think the government is entirely red or blue at any given time.

And honestly, anytime a private business works with the government to subvert the Constitution because "technically it wasnt the government that did it" is the highest level of bullshit.

Getting Twitter to censor people is no different than using the 3rd party doctrine to avoid getting a proper warrant.

No one should be cool with it if they value their liberty and the Constitution.

To a degree, I agree. But even you have to admit there are limits on what your rights are under the Constitution. Moreover, Twitter is not the government, if they deem you to have violated their terms of service, then the argument lies with them and not the government.

I should not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, thereby risking the lives of those inside. I should be allowed to say anything I want otherwise, including offensive language and even hate speech if I want.

You defending Twitter for being non-government is no different than supporting the third party doctrine. And supporting either makes you the problem.

The way the left/right precedent window works, it makes perfect sense for the trump admin to try and skirt free speech first, so that biden could take it to the next level.

Let me know when Biden pressures Twitter to take down posts that hurt his feelings. Combating deliberate misinformation is a far cry from throwing a tantrum over a personal insult.

He did much, much worse. He conspired with social media to take down any debate and any criticism of the official covid narrative, including people who have long histories working in the very fields relevant to the pandemic. More egregious they would take down official CDC links that showed any negative light to the narrative.

You want to know why you can't get past the slogan of 'minor inconveniences to save others'? Its because there was never a debate, it was a script. And anyone who didn't follow lockstep got de-platformed and shadow-banned. They repeated the propaganda daily and its now it seems to be part of your identity. 8(

The irony here being, actual Science is always challenging itself. It is very, very rarely "settled". But the goal was never to get people to make well informed choices, it was about compliance and control.

The constituents of both sides should really clean house and not elect people who do these things. Instead, both sides just get mad at the other and after 2 election cycles of both sides being guilty of the same shit --> it just turns into a big whataboutism and nothing gets done, no one gets punished, and we the people lose once again.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Would it be better for the country to have more than the two options we always get stuck with? Yes. Should we actively vote for a nutball just because he's not one of those two options? No. After all, we saw the damage just four years of the last red did to this country. Some experiments aren't worth the chaos that will ensue.

Your choice is between a "nutball" and a dementia patient.

How anyone can vote for either of these two is beyond me.

(But, for the record, the blue m&ms are generally more likely to attempt to shut down free speech. College campuses routinely try to shut down invited speakers they don't like. Ironically calling the speaker a fascist while they themselves are actually acting like fascist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).

And yet, the controversial speakers routinely called fascist do end up sounding a lot like fascists. After all, they see how far the last one of theirs got in the highest office of the country. Grifters gonna grift. Either way, I'm sure you'll be cognizant of future generalizations where you proclaim blues are the ones who shut down free speech. Surely you won't ignore the facts that reds will gladly partake in censorship or stifling dissent.

You have never heard any of those speakers talk.

Therefore, you do not really know if that is true or not.

But, NPC is going to NPC.

(And if you would please read what I wrote for once, I have already acknowledged reds are guilty of it too... but the blues just do it way more often. In all these cases, censorship is wrong and it should NOT be tolerated in any society that calls itself "free").

[dot]

/sigh

Now, other than some activist judges basically interpreting that day as an insurrection (even though no one has been charged as such), prove it was an insurrection.

So textualists are activist judges now? That was easy.

I do harpoon both sides. Often.

The difference is, you are making incorrect statements about reality of how your party has behaved; ergo, I have to discuss the fallacies and lies of your side specifically when debating you.

This is really basic stuff here.

Yeah, you don't. Not here. You pop up to rage against a blue M&M, you don't make a peep for reds to the point you don't even notice what they do. I get that you have to put on your above it all front, though, you have a shtick. Fake as it is, it's your brand.

And since you have finally caught up to the rest of the class and know most masks are useless against airborne viruses... why did you support mask mandates again?

But by the time those shots became available we knew a lot more. Of which, we knew the elderly were the most vulnerable and, generally, the only young people who had negative outcomes had comorbidities (usually more than one); and we knew it was not airborne.

Airborne came up because you said we knew it was not airborne. I disputed that, I always treated it the same way. Now that being said, masks are not useless against airborne viruses, they afford a measure of protection. So does distancing, so do vaccines. Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

Oh, so you didn't catch up to the class after all... LOL!!

None of these measures actually do what you keep mindlessly repeating that they do.

If the government mandated everyone carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? Even though, obviously, its theatrical security and in no way helpful?

Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

Your virtual signaling is pathetic and your reasoning severely flawed.

Says the guy who rages against a piece of cloth, a needle, and standing apart from others.

Your shot doesn't protect you from getting sick or spreading the virus... explain exactly why I should get one too then?

To lessen the effects of the virus, the longer you take to get over it, the more risk you present to everyone else. Especially once medical personnel have to take care of your selfish ass. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

This thread/discussion isn't about abortion, dip shit.

Yeah, because it's about your hardon for an antivax Covid conspiracy theorist. That is what gets you animated. Because it's a threat to "freedom" & "bodily autonomy." And you say all this bs in the same world where those women are having their rights stripped away, and that doesn't get a peep from you. Even pointed out to you, you don't acquiesce and admit how miniscule your complaints are in comparison to actual threats to bodily autonomy. This thread isn't about abortion because reds like you won't dare touch the subject.

Ummmm.... what?

I literally criticized trump as the OG on encouraging lockdowns, something I am absolutely against.

You've been debating in bad faith since the beginning, but this is top tier pathetic, even for you.

Be better.

You gave a one line criticism after having it be pointed out to you repeatedly where the problem with Covid began in this country. And when you lied about the facts of why he got it wrong, you got corrected. Bad faith, top tier pathetic, do better indeed. Every accusation is a confession.

What's that got to with hypocrite Governors acting like they are doing a good for society by shutting down businesses, events, and churches --> but still allowing mass protests?

I wouldn't know, I'm not a hypocrite governor. I can only tell you I saw lots of reds defying advisories to not get out and potentially spread a deadly virus.

Nothing. You know I am right but too weak willed to admit it.

Tell you what, I'll concede the protest thing even though I have no knowledge of it at all. I'll take your untrustworthy word for it. All you gotta do is admit what the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 says.

To your knowledge, which means when you caught it and didn't know --> it was the best of them.

Incorrect. Because I do know what Covid felt like after getting it once. The severity outweighed the cold and flu. You would have to assume I caught it again, and didn't know it, and thus those reactions would pale in comparison to the cold or flu. For your hypothetical to hold any water, you have to make assumptions at every stage. It goes without saying the simplest answer is most likely the right one. But go ahead, spin me another wild tale. Make it entertaining.

Disobeying mandates that do not actually mean or do anything is the best thing you can do. But, one has to be able to think for themselves to be able to do that. Seeing you wore a mask well after the time you had to shows you never once thought for yourself. Your a loyal NPC, and nothing more.

Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to tell me how to think.

Then why are you parroting RFK? I mean, it'd be one thing if your views and opinions were unique. They're not. Hell, even your I don't play team political sports shtick is as unoriginal as it is fake.

What makes these two people so magically special that I should know, or care, who they are?

Google and figure it out.

Not discussing your red herring?

That's dumb. Even for you.

A tyrant imposes his will on the people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you are unable, or unwilling to admit this very simple and basic truth... there is no hope for you.

You will remain "useful" to your party till the day you die.

Dodge noted. If you can't come up with something the blue did that is indicative of tyrant to be, I guess your doom and gloom prediction is a little one-sided ain't it?

Its amusing you think the government is entirely red or blue at any given time.

It's amusing how your brain turns off the moment you're presented with facts. In fact, I'd love to hear the conspiracy theory for this particular thread. Regale us.

I should not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, thereby risking the lives of those inside.

And yet your rhetoric tells us you'd be the kinda guy to demand to do that.

I should be allowed to say anything I want otherwise, including offensive language and even hate speech if I want.

The Constitution says otherwise at the very least insofar as the government having a course of action against you.

You defending Twitter for being non-government is no different than supporting the third party doctrine. And supporting either makes you the problem.

So like textualists, it's now private entities that are your target for rage. I'm sure that'll take you far, in fact, you should go to every corporate producer and tell them their Terms of Service agreements for their products mean nothing and you'll do whatever you want with their products. Let us know how that goes for you. Personally, Idgaf about Twitter, but I recognize that they could operate their platform how they deem it back then just like they do now. No skin off my back if Musk wants to torpedo his investment.

He did much, much worse. He conspired with social media to take down any debate and any criticism of the official covid narrative, including people who have long histories working in the very fields relevant to the pandemic. More egregious they would take down official CDC links that showed any negative light to the narrative.

Combating deliberate misinformation is a far cry from throwing a tantrum over a personal insult.

Doesn't matter how much you hate it, it will never rise to the level of what you desperately want it to be. It's not your fault, you just backed the misinformation horse.

You want to know why you can't get past the slogan of 'minor inconveniences to save others'?

Want to know why you can't accept that very small act of humanity? Because it's not about other people, it's only about you. That's your identity.

Your choice is between a "nutball" and a dementia patient.

How anyone can vote for either of these two is beyond me.

If only you hadn't mentioned reading comprehension previously, this wouldn't need to be pointed out, numbers are hard I guess. Three options, the nutball is RFK. Dementia patient? That's the other two, with the red being way worse off due to a poor leaping off point.

You have never heard any of those speakers talk.

Therefore, you do not really know if that is true or not.

Not on campus, no. But online publishing? Yup, more often than not. But hey, believe what you want, none of us will clearly ever stop you from that.

(And if you would please read what I wrote for once, I have already acknowledged reds are guilty of it too... but the blues just do it way more often. In all these cases, censorship is wrong and it should NOT be tolerated in any society that calls itself "free").

It has to be pointed out and then dragged out of you. An above the fray political poster that you want to present yourself as, he wouldn't miss the opportunity to harpoon both sides from the word go. Feel free to tweak your persona when you tweak your generalizations.

[Animal]

Your shot doesn't protect you from getting sick or spreading the virus... explain exactly why I should get one too then?

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it, it increases your chance of a milder case (less chance of having to go to the hospital).


don't be scared. get the shot.

[Biker]

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it and increases your chance of a milder case.

There is no such study that proves that

[Animal]

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it and increases your chance of a milder case.

There is no such study that proves that

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... inated.pdf


^ There is just the first result of a quick google.

[Biker]

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it and increases your chance of a milder case.

There is no such study that proves that

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... inated.pdf


^ There is just the first result of a quick google.

Cool, now add in the vaccine injured

[Animal]

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it and increases your chance of a milder case.

There is no such study that proves that

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... inated.pdf


^ There is just the first result of a quick google.

Cool, now add in the vaccine injured

the what?

[Biker]

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

[Animal]

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

holy shit. Well, if you are worried about dying from the Covid shot, then that chance is 0.0000000% according to them. And the other side effects (like headaches) are around 5 in a million. So go ahead and add that to the data, Karen.

[Biker]

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

holy shit. Well, if you are worried about dying from the Covid shot, then that chance is 0.0000000% according to them. And the other side effects (like headaches) are around 5 in a million. So go ahead and add that to the data, Karen.

'Headaches'

Yeah, thats all that happens. No heart inflammation at all, right NPC?

[Animal]

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

holy shit. Well, if you are worried about dying from the Covid shot, then that chance is 0.0000000% according to them. And the other side effects (like headaches) are around 5 in a million. So go ahead and add that to the data, Karen.

'Headaches'

Yeah, thats all that happens. No heart inflammation at all, right NPC?

and no studies that prove the vaccine is a good thing, right? That study you posted even starts off with the disclaimer that says that the benefits far outweigh any side effects.

[Biker]

says that the benefits far outweigh any side effects.

Except thats not true for moderately healthy people under 50

[Animal]

says that the benefits far outweigh any side effects.

Except thats not true for moderately healthy people under 50

yes it is. get your facts right. you have been on a mission to derail the vaccine for 4 years now. its getting dumb at this point. Just admit you were wrong about it and move on. its that simple.

[Biker]

says that the benefits far outweigh any side effects.

Except thats not true for moderately healthy people under 50

yes it is. get your facts right. you have been on a mission to derail the vaccine for 4 years now. its getting dumb at this point. Just admit you were wrong about it and move on. its that simple.

Wrong. Read the actual science

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-study

[Cassandros]

/sigh

Now, other than some activist judges basically interpreting that day as an insurrection (even though no one has been charged as such), prove it was an insurrection.

So textualists are activist judges now? That was easy.

It's both amusing and sad that you think you provided an answer, or even proof.

Insurrection is a Crime, not a civil matter. Their rulings are civil. Bring charges and do it right.

If its "so obvious", why wasn't this done starting on January 7th, 2021? They waited till now, and have no criminal charges because its a political ruling.

I do harpoon both sides. Often.

The difference is, you are making incorrect statements about reality of how your party has behaved; ergo, I have to discuss the fallacies and lies of your side specifically when debating you.

This is really basic stuff here.

Yeah, you don't. Not here. You pop up to rage against a blue M&M, you don't make a peep for reds to the point you don't even notice what they do. I get that you have to put on your above it all front, though, you have a shtick. Fake as it is, it's your brand.

I've actually criticized the red's several times --> in this thread talking to you. Dumbass

And since you have finally caught up to the rest of the class and know most masks are useless against airborne viruses... why did you support mask mandates again?

But by the time those shots became available we knew a lot more. Of which, we knew the elderly were the most vulnerable and, generally, the only young people who had negative outcomes had comorbidities (usually more than one); and we knew it was not airborne.

Airborne came up because you said we knew it was not airborne. I disputed that, I always treated it the same way. Now that being said, masks are not useless against airborne viruses, they afford a measure of protection. So does distancing, so do vaccines. Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.

I said we didn't know at first that it was airborne. During which time I was fine with wearing a mask. BUT, the second it was announced (months after discovery) that it WAS airborne that changed.

Theatrical security benefits no one; and forcing mask mandates on people after its known that most masks don't work --> is the work of tyrants.

Oh, so you didn't catch up to the class after all... LOL!!

None of these measures actually do what you keep mindlessly repeating that they do.

If the government mandated everyone carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? Even though, obviously, its theatrical security and in no way helpful?

Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

You have proven to know 0 facts about covid.

You swallowed the narrative (read:lie) hook, line, and sinker.

Now, answer the question. if the government mandated everyone to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

Your shot doesn't protect you from getting sick or spreading the virus... explain exactly why I should get one too then?

To lessen the effects of the virus, the longer you take to get over it, the more risk you present to everyone else. Especially once medical personnel have to take care of your selfish ass. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

I hate to burst your smug little bubble, but you are using outdated info.

While true, back in 2021 the difference in time of illness was 5.5 days for vaxxed v 7.5 days for unvaxxed; this is no longer true with omicron. See below where I post the link.

Worse, this is a red herring --> people should stay home when sick, so how long you are sick is moot.

This thread/discussion isn't about abortion, dip shit.

Yeah, because it's about your hardon for an antivax Covid conspiracy theorist. That is what gets you animated. Because it's a threat to "freedom" & "bodily autonomy." And you say all this bs in the same world where those women are having their rights stripped away, and that doesn't get a peep from you. Even pointed out to you, you don't acquiesce and admit how miniscule your complaints are in comparison to actual threats to bodily autonomy. This thread isn't about abortion because reds like you won't dare touch the subject.

Abortion is a multi-faceted discussion. If you want to know my stance and reason, start a new thread and we can do down that road.

Regardless, you cannot be on the side of bodily autonomy and support mandates that strip it away. Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.

Ummmm.... what?

I literally criticized trump as the OG on encouraging lockdowns, something I am absolutely against.

You've been debating in bad faith since the beginning, but this is top tier pathetic, even for you.

Be better.

You gave a one line criticism after having it be pointed out to you repeatedly where the problem with Covid began in this country. And when you lied about the facts of why he got it wrong, you got corrected. Bad faith, top tier pathetic, do better indeed. Every accusation is a confession.

Cute back-peddle. The funny thing is, you support lockdowns, so you should be on team trump when he was championing the cause. I bet you were even on camp 'never vaxx' until biden got elected and you magically did a 180 because your team told you to.

The fact is the orange m&m has no shortage of bad shit about him; there is a reason I call him out as wanting to be a KING, not a President.

You're blinded by partisan kool-aid and your idiot echo chamber if you think I support that man. Again, be better.

What's that got to with hypocrite Governors acting like they are doing a good for society by shutting down businesses, events, and churches --> but still allowing mass protests?

I wouldn't know, I'm not a hypocrite governor. I can only tell you I saw lots of reds defying advisories to not get out and potentially spread a deadly virus.

Because it was a theater...

But hey, you support their actions, certainly you can give some kind of rational as to why such blatant hypocrisy is OK to you.

Nothing. You know I am right but too weak willed to admit it.

Tell you what, I'll concede the protest thing even though I have no knowledge of it at all. I'll take your untrustworthy word for it. All you gotta do is admit what the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 says.

Baby steps, but I'm too honest to just concede to a fabrication. The 14th is not as clear cut as you want it to be.

If your team was really about the rule of law, you would have started these court fights back in 2021, complete with investigations and criminal charges.

Why do you suppose they didn't?

To your knowledge, which means when you caught it and didn't know --> it was the best of them.

Incorrect. Because I do know what Covid felt like after getting it once. The severity outweighed the cold and flu. You would have to assume I caught it again, and didn't know it, and thus those reactions would pale in comparison to the cold or flu. For your hypothetical to hold any water, you have to make assumptions at every stage. It goes without saying the simplest answer is most likely the right one. But go ahead, spin me another wild tale. Make it entertaining.

One of covids 'shticks' is to be super mild to the point that you don't know you have it. Unless you are testing yourself every single day, you really don't know. Also, the strain matters. Alpha was actually more severe than the flu, Delta and beyond, much less --> and decreasing with every iteration.

Hopefully that stays true, and Geert is wrong about his fears.

Disobeying mandates that do not actually mean or do anything is the best thing you can do. But, one has to be able to think for themselves to be able to do that. Seeing you wore a mask well after the time you had to shows you never once thought for yourself. Your a loyal NPC, and nothing more.

Listen to a little less RFK and a little more science. But you again aren't going to accept facts regarding Covid, because it's about you not the people around you.

You misspelled $cience. Because that's what we got with covid.

Real science doesn't silence debate.

I'm not sure you have gotten a single thing right about covid; other then infection times from 2+ years ago which are no longer true.

The average duration from a close contact’s first exposure to subsequent testing for contacts exposed to a vaccinated and unvaccinated index case was both 6.2 days, and the mean duration of last eligible follow-up testing in close contacts occurred at day 10 after first exposure for unvaccinated index cases and 10.6 days for vaccinated index cases (Supplementary Fig. 7). The distribution of secondary cases from time since exposure was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases (6.7 days versus 5.7 days; Supplementary Fig. 8 ).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02138-x

And did you notice the last line?
Vaccinated 6.7 days
Unvaccinated 5.7 days

Oops!!

You were sold a pack of lies. None of this was for your health or humanity, its been about profits for big pharma.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to tell me how to think.

Then why are you parroting RFK? I mean, it'd be one thing if your views and opinions were unique. They're not. Hell, even your I don't play team political sports shtick is as unoriginal as it is fake.

I've looked at a lot of data on this topic. If my opinions match RFKs it just means we reached the same conclusion.

A tyrant imposes his will on the people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you are unable, or unwilling to admit this very simple and basic truth... there is no hope for you.

You will remain "useful" to your party till the day you die.

Dodge noted. If you can't come up with something the blue did that is indicative of tyrant to be, I guess your doom and gloom prediction is a little one-sided ain't it?

It's not a dodge when I give you a straight answer, kiddo.

Again --> only tyrants force mandates on people. Especially after studies show the mandates do not do what they say they do.

Its amusing you think the government is entirely red or blue at any given time.

It's amusing how your brain turns off the moment you're presented with facts. In fact, I'd love to hear the conspiracy theory for this particular thread. Regale us.

Its amusing you think you have present much in the way of facts.

So... You think the Twitter Files are a "conspiracy theory"? You think reds in the fbi worked in concert with Twitter to suppress that laptop?

/facepalm

I should not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, thereby risking the lives of those inside.

And yet your rhetoric tells us you'd be the kinda guy to demand to do that.

Well, that's dumb. Even for you.

I should be allowed to say anything I want otherwise, including offensive language and even hate speech if I want.

The Constitution says otherwise at the very least insofar as the government having a course of action against you.

No... The Constitution supports free speech. See the first Amendment for details.

You defending Twitter for being non-government is no different than supporting the third party doctrine. And supporting either makes you the problem.

So like textualists, it's now private entities that are your target for rage. I'm sure that'll take you far, in fact, you should go to every corporate producer and tell them their Terms of Service agreements for their products mean nothing and you'll do whatever you want with their products. Let us know how that goes for you. Personally, Idgaf about Twitter, but I recognize that they could operate their platform how they deem it back then just like they do now. No skin off my back if Musk wants to torpedo his investment.

You should be equally concerned about the government using private business to circumvent the Social Contract of America.

Though, it is highly amusing you pulling pages from the red playbook.

He did much, much worse. He conspired with social media to take down any debate and any criticism of the official covid narrative, including people who have long histories working in the very fields relevant to the pandemic. More egregious they would take down official CDC links that showed any negative light to the narrative.

Combating deliberate misinformation is a far cry from throwing a tantrum over a personal insult.

Doesn't matter how much you hate it, it will never rise to the level of what you desperately want it to be. It's not your fault, you just backed the misinformation horse.

Calling anything that goes against the official narrative "misinformation" doesn't make it so.

In fact, that is why debate is so important. Because as more and more data comes out, its becomes more and more clear that the misinformation was coming from official sources. Open debate is what keeps things honest; censorship is how your promulgate a lie.

You want to know why you can't get past the slogan of 'minor inconveniences to save others'?

Want to know why you can't accept that very small act of humanity? Because it's not about other people, it's only about you. That's your identity.

Except its not. Not even a little.

Again, I was fine with 'doing my part to help humanity' and wear a mask when it was unknown how the virus spread.

But as the data came in, and the narrative doubled down (quite literally with masking); sorry kiddo, to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety is a great way to lose your freedom forever.

Your choice is between a "nutball" and a dementia patient.

How anyone can vote for either of these two is beyond me.

If only you hadn't mentioned reading comprehension previously, this wouldn't need to be pointed out, numbers are hard I guess. Three options, the nutball is RFK. Dementia patient? That's the other two, with the red being way worse off due to a poor leaping off point.

If you actually took the time to really listen to what RFK says on vaccines, you would realize he is not a "nutjob".

It's no secret big pharma puts profits over people. They have been given immunity from lawsuits if their vaccines cause harm, which means they have no real incentive to make them as safe as possible. The vast majority of people who agree with RFK that we need safer vaccines are parents who watched their children get injured after their shots.

I would encourage you to actually read into this subject and not just take a multi-billion dollar industries word for it. Start with "Turtles all the way down" and "The real anthony fauci". Just realize, if you do so with honesty and intellectual integrity... you might start to regret some of your medical choices in life.

You have never heard any of those speakers talk.

Therefore, you do not really know if that is true or not.

Not on campus, no. But online publishing? Yup, more often than not. But hey, believe what you want, none of us will clearly ever stop you from that.

Citation needed.

You've read the opinions of others who have certainly cherry picked peoples words to paint a picture for their audience.

Radical idea, listen to some speeches and do your own thinking for a change.

[Cassandros]

Your shot doesn't protect you from getting sick or spreading the virus... explain exactly why I should get one too then?

Its a scientific fact that the shot lowers your chances of dying from the virus if you catch it, it increases your chance of a milder case (less chance of having to go to the hospital).


don't be scared. get the shot.

Well, at least you admit these shots only help the person getting it.

Ill take natural immunity that is dynamic and long lasting over a temporary immunity-boost that wanes to 0 (and possibly less) after 3 months.

It's not a fear thing --> its a common sense thing.

[dot]

It's both amusing and sad that you think you provided an answer, or even proof.

I did. The amendment, the section. The literal words. We're supposed to go by the text of the Constitution after all. So like I said, you are now saying that the textualists of the Constitution are now the activist judges. Thanks for that.

Insurrection is a Crime, not a civil matter. Their rulings are civil. Bring charges and do it right.

Where does the amendment say convicted? It says engaged in. Literal words.

If its "so obvious", why wasn't this done starting on January 7th, 2021? They waited till now, and have no criminal charges because its a political ruling.

They didn't wait until now. The legal process has been ongoing, which also works against your blue tyrant theory. A tyrant would've imprisoned his opponent without cause already.

That was easy.

I've actually criticized the red's several times --> in this thread talking to you. Dumbass

Then you literally have the delusion that your "criticism" of reds is of any worth. At most, you had an offhand remark about attacking the 4th and 5th amendment and identifying that Trump will absolutely try and enact his dictatorship aims. But that's kinda what proves the observation. You don't get animated about anything except what blues do. There's no rage from you unless a blue did something you find offensive. You're more than welcome to tweak your persona and start actually doing what you say you do. Until then, this is what you're seen doing.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.

I said we didn't know at first that it was airborne.

I quoted you. Your belief. I responded to that. Now if you wanna change it up and say you didn't know and now feel betrayed later, that's on you. I am still of the mindset that your hyperbolic rage over mild inconveniences is wildly unwarranted in the face of a deadly virus, but you've already established that it's about you, not those around you.

During which time I was fine with wearing a mask. BUT, the second it was announced (months after discovery) that it WAS airborne that changed.

Theatrical security benefits no one; and forcing mask mandates on people after its known that most masks don't work --> is the work of tyrants.

See, you keep saying they don't work, except they do. Maybe not to the point where you deem it worthwhile, but they still provide a level of protection as well as other measures that if adhered to might have kept a lot of people from dying. But you've already established that it's about you, not those around you.

You have proven to know 0 facts about covid.

You swallowed the narrative (read:lie) hook, line, and sinker.

Says the guy believing antivaxers as gospel.

Now, answer the question. if the government mandated everyone to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

Tell you what, find a reputable doctor that says that, and then maybe your wild hypothesis might warrant a response.

I hate to burst your smug little bubble, but you are using outdated info.

While true, back in 2021 the difference in time of illness was 5.5 days for vaxxed v 7.5 days for unvaxxed; this is no longer true with omicron. See below where I post the link.

Are you seriously going to try and pass off that it's better to be unvaccinated, get sick, spread it unknowingly, and be a bigger burden on an already extravagantly overpriced healthcare system? Because I'm talking about when it broke and got everyone sick and was killing people, the height of the problem. Overwhelmed hospitals, refrigerated trucks of bodies, a burgeoning anti-protection resistance in the population. Do you think of anyone other than yourself at any time?

Worse, this is a red herring --> people should stay home when sick, so how long you are sick is moot.

When people got too sick, they went to the hospital. When it first spread like it did, a lot of people went to the hospital to the point they had no room for more. A lot of people died at both home and hospital. Moot is not the word I'd choose.

Abortion is a multi-faceted discussion. If you want to know my stance and reason, start a new thread and we can do down that road.

Regardless, you cannot be on the side of bodily autonomy and support mandates that strip it away. Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.

I guess I'd have to, because you sure as hell didn't do it on your own. And you've had ample opportunities to be outraged on behalf of actual bodily autonomy. So I couldn't have picked a better description of yourself.

Cute back-peddle.

Backpedal? That's what happened. Follow the timeline of posts, but I guess you'd have to be honest about it. That seems to be an issue doesn't it?

The funny thing is, you support lockdowns, so you should be on team trump when he was championing the cause. I bet you were even on camp 'never vaxx' until biden got elected and you magically did a 180 because your team told you to.

You do know who gave the order to fast track the vaccines, right? Maybe if you weren't so blinded by your holier than thou pretentious façade, maybe you'd stop and think that in times of emergency, you gotta put aside your discomfort over being mildly inconvenienced to do something for your family, neighbor, fellow man. See, I think like that, I didn't think I'd be too much at risk if it was just me but I have elderly and young family that I wasn't willing to take a chance on. Oh, but that's right, you dgaf about other people. It's all about you. That's why wearing a mask or getting a shot is such a violation to you, but women being arrested for miscarriages isn't even a blip on your radar by comparison. Carrying a nonviable fetus that could kill her by order of state officials, not her doctor and damn sure not her own choice, that gets a shrug. So yeah, I am pro bodily autonomy. Why aren't you when it actually matters more than a piece of cloth on your face?

Do the slightest bit of critical thinking. I'm clearly arguing about the pandemic under Trump, he had pretty much a year of bungling, but I've been consistent on I'm pro-protective measures even when it was under his criminal era. I've been consistent and honest on my reasoning why, that didn't change because Biden was elected. Maybe, just maybe, playing the political team sports game is too ingrained in your thought processes to make good assumptions.

The fact is the orange m&m has no shortage of bad shit about him; there is a reason I call him out as wanting to be a KING, not a President.

You're blinded by partisan kool-aid and your idiot echo chamber if you think I support that man. Again, be better.

You first. Once again, we're here because I simply asked you to present how the blue would be a tyrant. We already know the red will be, he's openly admitting it. Good on you that you can as well, but you still have to satisfy the question as to how the blue will be as well. And no, your mask and vaccine grievances do not rise to that level. Once again, you pop up to rage about blue grievances. When's the last time you popped up in his criminal trial developments? If you want us to believe you're what you portray yourself to be, do better. Be better.

Because it was a theater...

But hey, you support their actions, certainly you can give some kind of rational as to why such blatant hypocrisy is OK to you.

Nah, I already said I don't know anything about what you're talking about and gave you a proposal.

Baby steps, but I'm too honest to just concede to a fabrication. The 14th is not as clear cut as you want it to be.

It is if you're a textualist. That's all the rage among conservatives. Until it isn't. You say you're too honest? Then tell us honestly how what he did in front of cameras and conspired to do out of view of cameras does not betray the oath he says he did not take in front of cameras. The first baby step is admitting what he did.

If your team was really about the rule of law, you would have started these court fights back in 2021, complete with investigations and criminal charges.

Why do you suppose they didn't?

The investigation has to come first. And yeah, considering the criminal first tried to rig the election in his favor via blackmailing Ukraine and got impeached for it, and then that he lost the election anyway despite his attempts at subverting democracy and got impeached again for it, the process has been ongoing for that long and has been obstructed the entire time. Unless you're advocating for the tyrant road and just steamrolling the legal process, then this is one of the weaker excuses I've seen you employ. Do better.

One of covids 'shticks' is to be super mild to the point that you don't know you have it. Unless you are testing yourself every single day, you really don't know. Also, the strain matters. Alpha was actually more severe than the flu, Delta and beyond, much less --> and decreasing with every iteration.

Hopefully that stays true, and Geert is wrong about his fears.

You still have to assume at every stage for your hypothetical, which is setting yourself up to fail.

You misspelled $cience. Because that's what we got with covid.

Real science doesn't silence debate.

I'm not sure you have gotten a single thing right about covid; other then infection times from 2+ years ago which are no longer true.

Debate is not the same as unverified dangerous disinformation. Remember horse dewormer? Bleach?

And did you notice the last line?
Vaccinated 6.7 days
Unvaccinated 5.7 days

Oops!!

You were sold a pack of lies. None of this was for your health or humanity, its been about profits for big pharma.

The big pharma angle was never in doubt, I mean they got gobs of money for speedrunning the vaccine. Someone's always gonna get paid, but you also can't discard that the virus was deadly and warranted protective measures. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to prove with this because it still comes down to protecting yourself so that you aren't a danger to others. Go back and read what I said, I'm not arguing it takes a finite amount of days to not be a danger to others. I said to lessen the impact to yourself and to others, because the more you have it, the more risk you present. It can be safely assumed that because I had a vaccine, I didn't end up in the hospital the one infection. It can also be safely assumed because I took measures to keep myself from infecting others that I reduced my risk to those around me. But you're the one arguing that you should not have to do that, that I shouldn't do that, and to hell with everyone because the only person that matters is yourself. Who thinks like that?

I've looked at a lot of data on this topic. If my opinions match RFKs it just means we reached the same conclusion.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to tell me how to think.

I couldn't have come up with a better ironic reply. Thanks.

It's not a dodge when I give you a straight answer, kiddo.

Again --> only tyrants force mandates on people. Especially after studies show the mandates do not do what they say they do.

You didn't. Your hyperbolic mask rage does not rise to tyranny. Sorry, try again with something more believable.

Its amusing you think you have present much in the way of facts.

So... You think the Twitter Files are a "conspiracy theory"? You think reds in the fbi worked in concert with Twitter to suppress that laptop?

/facepalm

Well, that conspiracy theory was a letdown. I thought I'd at least get some amusement out of it. Come on, if you're gonna argue the FBI was behind Twitter banning Trump for inciting an insurrection on the capitol because he lost his election that he spread lies about day after day, the sum total of which ended up violating a private entity's terms of service, you gotta give some pizazz for the story. Make it entertaining. Try again.

Well, that's dumb. Even for you.

You're the one saying you should be able to do anything at any time regardless of the danger to anyone else.

No... The Constitution supports free speech. See the first Amendment for details.

Sure, as soon as you acknowledge that the courts including SCOTUS have said there are limits to that amendment. You do know that those exist, right? That'd be embarrassing if you didn't.

You should be equally concerned about the government using private business to circumvent the Social Contract of America.

Though, it is highly amusing you pulling pages from the red playbook.

Just highlighting the hypocrisy that reds will employ to attack whatever they disagree with no matter what they previously adhered to. Hard to believe in small government when you believe in imposing government on every aspect of life, except taxes I guess. As for your conspiracy theory, like I said, spice it up a bit to make it more entertaining to read.

Calling anything that goes against the official narrative "misinformation" doesn't make it so.

And calling anything that goes against your personal whims tyranny doesn't make it so.

In fact, that is why debate is so important. Because as more and more data comes out, its becomes more and more clear that the misinformation was coming from official sources. Open debate is what keeps things honest; censorship is how your promulgate a lie.

Actual studies and data are one thing. Deliberate disinformation is another. You can't argue the deniers have not employed disinformation.

Except its not. Not even a little.

Again, I was fine with 'doing my part to help humanity' and wear a mask when it was unknown how the virus spread.

But as the data came in, and the narrative doubled down (quite literally with masking); sorry kiddo, to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety is a great way to lose your freedom forever.

Doesn't matter how many times you say illusion of safety, it will not make it so. I also point out that no one is wearing masks nowadays, seems that tyranny didn't happen despite your fears. Maybe, just maybe, it was to "help humanity." And in the end, all of this will always pale in comparison to the loss of actual bodily autonomy that you should be more angry about than a piece of cloth on your face, but you don't talk about that.

If you actually took the time to really listen to what RFK says on vaccines, you would realize he is not a "nutjob".

The same guy that said:

“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

Come on, man. Do better.

It's no secret big pharma puts profits over people.

And you'll never see me argue otherwise, I know full well how the healthcare system is lopsided here. But if you are going to promote RFK as being credible on the subjects despite the many refutations against him, I mean, say less for your own sake.

Citation needed.

You've read the opinions of others who have certainly cherry picked peoples words to paint a picture for their audience.

Radical idea, listen to some speeches and do your own thinking for a change.

What part of online publishing made you think I wasn't talking about the people we're talking about and their own words? Their own views? Radical idea, stop thinking you're right on every subject before you hit submit. And again, I couldn't have asked for a more ironic post asking someone else to think on their own for a change from someone that admitted they let a lot of people tell him what to think.

[Cassandros]

It's both amusing and sad that you think you provided an answer, or even proof.

I did. The amendment, the section. The literal words. We're supposed to go by the text of the Constitution after all. So like I said, you are now saying that the textualists of the Constitution are now the activist judges. Thanks for that.

Insurrection is a Crime, not a civil matter. Their rulings are civil. Bring charges and do it right.

Where does the amendment say convicted? It says engaged in. Literal words.

Read this again, slowly and with the intention of actually understanding the words within:

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person
engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription
on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by two-
thirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to
the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the
Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal
conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and
each of them contains a bar on holding office

Some courts have 'deemed an insurrection had occurred' but that where it ends. Until there is a criminal conviction, there is no concrete standing to bar him from running. Its like with OJ when he was on trial for murder back in the day, he was not found criminally liable, but was found civilly liable --> his punishment was a fine and not jail time (for that crime).

To "do it right" that criminal conviction is needed. Otherwise, this just looks like a 'witch hunt', which is the absolute worst image you want to convey.

If its "so obvious", why wasn't this done starting on January 7th, 2021? They waited till now, and have no criminal charges because its a political ruling.

They didn't wait until now. The legal process has been ongoing, which also works against your blue tyrant theory. A tyrant would've imprisoned his opponent without cause already.

That was easy.

When the January 6th committee felt he aided in an insurrection, why were no criminal charges brought then?

They made a declaration, not unlike the ruling made by some judges, and then did nothing. Pursued nothing. They had all the evidence from the beginning, but still there are no criminal charges. If this thing had real teeth, or if they really wanted to enforce this clause, they should have done it years ago. The orange m&m should already have his day in court years ago.

You seem hyper emotional about this, which seems to be clouding your judgement to reality.

I've actually criticized the red's several times --> in this thread talking to you. Dumbass

Then you literally have the delusion that your "criticism" of reds is of any worth. At most, you had an offhand remark about attacking the 4th and 5th amendment and identifying that Trump will absolutely try and enact his dictatorship aims. But that's kinda what proves the observation. You don't get animated about anything except what blues do. There's no rage from you unless a blue did something you find offensive. You're more than welcome to tweak your persona and start actually doing what you say you do. Until then, this is what you're seen doing.

That's a bold faced lie, kiddo. Go read my older posts, you will find plenty of anger at the red m&ms.

Politics should not ever be a team sport. Once you side with a party, and stop looking at the individuals running --> you become part of the problem.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal.

I said we didn't know at first that it was airborne.

I quoted you. Your belief. I responded to that. Now if you wanna change it up and say you didn't know and now feel betrayed later, that's on you. I am still of the mindset that your hyperbolic rage over mild inconveniences is wildly unwarranted in the face of a deadly virus, but you've already established that it's about you, not those around you.

Since you continually show a high level of ignorance about covid, my suspicion is you think droplet transmission = airborne. They are not the same thing, at all.

Just because you are not bright enough to know the difference and are easily confused, does NOT make you magically correct in your accusation.

Again, when we didn't know I was fine with masking. But once we did know; once it was (finally) revealed its an airborne transmission virus and most masks don't do shit to protect you --> I, like every other person capable of rational thought, dropped the theatrics and went back to living life.

You, however, seem to have allowed the fear to compromise your ability to reason... hence why you continued with the charade, probably wore two masks, and almost certainly was a shit head to others who didn't comply with the lie.

During which time I was fine with wearing a mask. BUT, the second it was announced (months after discovery) that it WAS airborne that changed.

Theatrical security benefits no one; and forcing mask mandates on people after its known that most masks don't work --> is the work of tyrants.

See, you keep saying they don't work, except they do. Maybe not to the point where you deem it worthwhile, but they still provide a level of protection as well as other measures that if adhered to might have kept a lot of people from dying. But you've already established that it's about you, not those around you.

The vast majority of masks do not work against airborne viruses. This was established science before the pandemic and there have been several studies that have confirmed this with covid.

Again, a chain-linked fence is not going to keep out a mosquito.

Nice projection at the end there. Forcing others to do things that don't actually work makes it all about YOU.

Now, answer the question. if the government mandated everyone to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

Tell you what, find a reputable doctor that says that, and then maybe your wild hypothesis might warrant a response.

OK, if fauci said to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

This is as much of a fairy tale as masking, double masking, and mRNA shots. "Credible experts" told you do all three things and you did without question or thought... be honest, you would carry that concrete block everywhere you went if fauci told you to.

I just want you to start being honest, both in this discussion and with yourself.

I hate to burst your smug little bubble, but you are using outdated info.

While true, back in 2021 the difference in time of illness was 5.5 days for vaxxed v 7.5 days for unvaxxed; this is no longer true with omicron. See below where I post the link.

Are you seriously going to try and pass off that it's better to be unvaccinated, get sick, spread it unknowingly, and be a bigger burden on an already extravagantly overpriced healthcare system? Because I'm talking about when it broke and got everyone sick and was killing people, the height of the problem. Overwhelmed hospitals, refrigerated trucks of bodies, a burgeoning anti-protection resistance in the population. Do you think of anyone other than yourself at any time?

Well, A) the numbers don't lie. Unvaccinated are clearing the virus faster than the vaxx now. And B) the whole asymptomatic spread was super hyped up. You are as likely to spread covid and not know it as much as you would the flu. (Also, if you are younger than 60, and do not have multiple comorbidities, yes, it would have been better to just catch covid, take early mitigation measures like Vit C and D, and get a robust immunity to it. This is self evident).

But, this quote is telling. It shows just how much fearporn you consumed back in the day... and explains why you still seem stuck in 2020 on this subject. Covid was brutal on our elders, the frail, and those with multiply health issues. Putting virus patients with seniors exacerbated the issue (sending more people to the hospital), and the mantra of for-profit medicine to keep your staff as tight as possible also compounded things.

Mix the media to stoke the fear, and here you are.

Worse, this is a red herring --> people should stay home when sick, so how long you are sick is moot.

When people got too sick, they went to the hospital. When it first spread like it did, a lot of people went to the hospital to the point they had no room for more. A lot of people died at both home and hospital. Moot is not the word I'd choose.

Be it at home or in the hospital, you are not walking around making other sick. Hence, still a red herring.

Abortion is a multi-faceted discussion. If you want to know my stance and reason, start a new thread and we can do down that road.

Regardless, you cannot be on the side of bodily autonomy and support mandates that strip it away. Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.

I guess I'd have to, because you sure as hell didn't do it on your own. And you've had ample opportunities to be outraged on behalf of actual bodily autonomy. So I couldn't have picked a better description of yourself.

I'll keep my eye out for it.

In 1984, when someone held two contradictory beliefs as true it was called "double think"; and you have it on full display.

Force shots 100% violate bodily autonomy.

The funny thing is, you support lockdowns, so you should be on team trump when he was championing the cause. I bet you were even on camp 'never vaxx' until biden got elected and you magically did a 180 because your team told you to.

You do know who gave the order to fast track the vaccines, right? Maybe if you weren't so blinded by your holier than thou pretentious façade, maybe you'd stop and think that in times of emergency, you gotta put aside your discomfort over being mildly inconvenienced to do something for your family, neighbor, fellow man. See, I think like that, I didn't think I'd be too much at risk if it was just me but I have elderly and young family that I wasn't willing to take a chance on. Oh, but that's right, you dgaf about other people. It's all about you. That's why wearing a mask or getting a shot is such a violation to you, but women being arrested for miscarriages isn't even a blip on your radar by comparison. Carrying a nonviable fetus that could kill her by order of state officials, not her doctor and damn sure not her own choice, that gets a shrug. So yeah, I am pro bodily autonomy. Why aren't you when it actually matters more than a piece of cloth on your face?

Oh, I'm aware. The fact that it was rushed is a major reason I didn't opt to be guinea pig.

I'm pro-science and anti-theatrical security.

Real science that encourages debate and actually looks at the data with a fine toothed comb, not some sheep who listens to someone declare "he is the science" and that "the science is settled". $cience like that can only do harm.

Do the slightest bit of critical thinking. I'm clearly arguing about the pandemic under Trump, he had pretty much a year of bungling, but I've been consistent on I'm pro-protective measures even when it was under his criminal era. I've been consistent and honest on my reasoning why, that didn't change because Biden was elected. Maybe, just maybe, playing the political team sports game is too ingrained in your thought processes to make good assumptions.

Based on your hate for trump I find that hard to believe you were all in for getting yourself shots while he was in office. In fact, I'd pay money to see a post from you on this board supporting the shot before biden took office.

More so, you really need to start looking at the lies and bungling that happened after trump too.

But, that means you have to be critical of how biden has lied and bungled this pandemic after trump.

The fact is the orange m&m has no shortage of bad shit about him; there is a reason I call him out as wanting to be a KING, not a President.

You're blinded by partisan kool-aid and your idiot echo chamber if you think I support that man. Again, be better.

You first. Once again, we're here because I simply asked you to present how the blue would be a tyrant. We already know the red will be, he's openly admitting it. Good on you that you can as well, but you still have to satisfy the question as to how the blue will be as well. And no, your mask and vaccine grievances do not rise to that level. Once again, you pop up to rage about blue grievances. When's the last time you popped up in his criminal trial developments? If you want us to believe you're what you portray yourself to be, do better. Be better.

Mandates (especially with no scientific basis) = tyrant.

Read it slowly, read it often. Your guy literal forced people to choose between their job (and the ability to provide for their family) and taking a rushed to market shot (that up until that point had a dark track record of killing trial subjects). Its very similar to harvey weinstein's 'play with my pole if you want the role' approach to aspiring actresses hoping for a career. I bet you agree harvey was a tyrant, but your double think prevents you from seeing biden is too.

***
(((The back and forth on trump and the 14 is at the top, no sense repeating ourselves again down here)))
***

One of covids 'shticks' is to be super mild to the point that you don't know you have it. Unless you are testing yourself every single day, you really don't know. Also, the strain matters. Alpha was actually more severe than the flu, Delta and beyond, much less --> and decreasing with every iteration.

Hopefully that stays true, and Geert is wrong about his fears.

You still have to assume at every stage for your hypothetical, which is setting yourself up to fail.

I don't have my decoder ring on. What are you trying to say here?

You misspelled $cience. Because that's what we got with covid.

Real science doesn't silence debate.

I'm not sure you have gotten a single thing right about covid; other then infection times from 2+ years ago which are no longer true.

Debate is not the same as unverified dangerous disinformation. Remember horse dewormer? Bleach?

This is a great example of hearing something from a bias source, taking it as true, and never fact checking it.

Actual debate was shut down. People like Geert Vanden Bossche, who are absolutely experts in this field, were silenced.

It also shows how easily you have been manipulated, because again, you sit in an echo chamber and don't challenge things. For example, ivermectin as an early therapy actually does have benefit against covid, it is not "horse paste" (though there is a veterinarian equivalent), and the study that was used to demonify it was really, really shady. Instead of finding test subjects who where in early stages of being ill and using proper dosage, they used patients that were already exceptionally sick and gave them way too much of it. Then, when it didn't help, they called it horse paste and got people to turn their backs on a cheap therapy and convinced them the new mRNA tech was the only thing to save them.

This should make you livid. But instead you are still blissfully unaware of just how many lies you swallowed and still believe today.

And did you notice the last line?
Vaccinated 6.7 days
Unvaccinated 5.7 days

Oops!!

You were sold a pack of lies. None of this was for your health or humanity, its been about profits for big pharma.

The big pharma angle was never in doubt, I mean they got gobs of money for speedrunning the vaccine. Someone's always gonna get paid, but you also can't discard that the virus was deadly and warranted protective measures. I genuinely don't know what you're trying to prove with this because it still comes down to protecting yourself so that you aren't a danger to others. Go back and read what I said, I'm not arguing it takes a finite amount of days to not be a danger to others. I said to lessen the impact to yourself and to others, because the more you have it, the more risk you present. It can be safely assumed that because I had a vaccine, I didn't end up in the hospital the one infection. It can also be safely assumed because I took measures to keep myself from infecting others that I reduced my risk to those around me. But you're the one arguing that you should not have to do that, that I shouldn't do that, and to hell with everyone because the only person that matters is yourself. Who thinks like that?

And that was old data that is no longer true.

Your assumption that your safety measure helped those around is completely and totally false. When your safety measure don't stop the spread or prevent the infection, they are no good to others. The best you can hope for is they help you. And the level of risk we take in our own lives is ours, and ours alone to make.

I've looked at a lot of data on this topic. If my opinions match RFKs it just means we reached the same conclusion.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to tell me how to think.

I couldn't have come up with a better ironic reply. Thanks.

Still no read good, eh?

Its amusing you think you have present much in the way of facts.

So... You think the Twitter Files are a "conspiracy theory"? You think reds in the fbi worked in concert with Twitter to suppress that laptop?

/facepalm

Well, that conspiracy theory was a letdown. I thought I'd at least get some amusement out of it. Come on, if you're gonna argue the FBI was behind Twitter banning Trump for inciting an insurrection on the capitol because he lost his election that he spread lies about day after day, the sum total of which ended up violating a private entity's terms of service, you gotta give some pizazz for the story. Make it entertaining. Try again.

Well, you have obviously never looked that the Twitter Files. Take some time to read it. The moves against trump are minor compared to the moves they made against free speech and open debate about covid, but its all relative and relevant to one another.

No... The Constitution supports free speech. See the first Amendment for details.

Sure, as soon as you acknowledge that the courts including SCOTUS have said there are limits to that amendment. You do know that those exist, right? That'd be embarrassing if you didn't.

Yeah, the limit is I can't yell fire in a theater to cause a panic.

You should be equally concerned about the government using private business to circumvent the Social Contract of America.

Though, it is highly amusing you pulling pages from the red playbook.

Just highlighting the hypocrisy that reds will employ to attack whatever they disagree with no matter what they previously adhered to. Hard to believe in small government when you believe in imposing government on every aspect of life, except taxes I guess. As for your conspiracy theory, like I said, spice it up a bit to make it more entertaining to read.

Reds and blues both have nice sounding mantras that are untrue in practice. "Smaller government" is always championed by the right, but the only republican that would have done it was Ron Paul. Red and blue are raging, raging hypocrites. Which is why single party voters are fucking morons. They enable the worst of both parties and systematically empower the most fringe and radical from within their ranks.

There is no conspiracy and this is not a theory. This is self evident to anyone that takes off their party goggles and starts holding their team fully accountable for their actions.

In fact, that is why debate is so important. Because as more and more data comes out, its becomes more and more clear that the misinformation was coming from official sources. Open debate is what keeps things honest; censorship is how your promulgate a lie.

Actual studies and data are one thing. Deliberate disinformation is another. You can't argue the deniers have not employed disinformation.

I can and will.

Social media on behest of government and big pharma silenced ALL debate. Including microbiologist, virologist, and the like.

Worse, they actively pushed false narratives like calling ivermectin "horse paste".

Real mis/disinformation fails in open honest debate. It becomes clear its bs when challenged.

(In fact, by silencing debate it empowered some of the most ridiculous claims for some people. 'They are silencing us because they are putting microchips in the vaccines' and other idiocies flourish under these conditions. And, sadly, controlled opposition is a thing).

Except its not. Not even a little.

Again, I was fine with 'doing my part to help humanity' and wear a mask when it was unknown how the virus spread.

But as the data came in, and the narrative doubled down (quite literally with masking); sorry kiddo, to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of safety is a great way to lose your freedom forever.

Doesn't matter how many times you say illusion of safety, it will not make it so. I also point out that no one is wearing masks nowadays, seems that tyranny didn't happen despite your fears. Maybe, just maybe, it was to "help humanity." And in the end, all of this will always pale in comparison to the loss of actual bodily autonomy that you should be more angry about than a piece of cloth on your face, but you don't talk about that.

Just because a tyrant let you have some power back, doesn't erase the tyranny.

Also, you can't un-vaxx yourself. Any damage those shots have done to people is likely permanent, and we still wont know the full scope of how bad for many, many years. Not all adverse effects happen immediately, and we are literally still seeing lots of non-covid excess deaths (usually heart related) around the world. Excess deaths that are not being reported on MSM, and are not being addressed in governments.

That should bother everyone. After a pandemic, when the old and frail are lost, excess deaths should be lower than average, not higher.

If you actually took the time to really listen to what RFK says on vaccines, you would realize he is not a "nutjob".

The same guy that said:

“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

Come on, man. Do better.

So you first claim hes a nutjob about vaccines, now side step to with a quote about covid?

Amusing and deceitful.

It's no secret big pharma puts profits over people.

And you'll never see me argue otherwise, I know full well how the healthcare system is lopsided here. But if you are going to promote RFK as being credible on the subjects despite the many refutations against him, I mean, say less for your own sake.

I said he has a point on the safety of vaccines. Which he does.

Citation needed.

You've read the opinions of others who have certainly cherry picked peoples words to paint a picture for their audience.

Radical idea, listen to some speeches and do your own thinking for a change.

What part of online publishing made you think I wasn't talking about the people we're talking about and their own words? Their own views? Radical idea, stop thinking you're right on every subject before you hit submit. And again, I couldn't have asked for a more ironic post asking someone else to think on their own for a change from someone that admitted they let a lot of people tell him what to think.

OK, prove it. What campus speakers (that students call fascist and try to shut down) have you read and share with the class their fascist words.

Then, explain why its magically OK to silence them; because even if hitler himself was asked to speak on campus, he should be allowed to. His ideas should be allowed to be expressed so they can be challenged and his hate exposed for the world.

Stopping debate has one purpose --> to prevent people from being able to make fully informed choices.

[dot]

Read this again, slowly and with the intention of actually understanding the words within:

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person
engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription
on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by two-
thirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to
the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the
Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal
conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and
each of them contains a bar on holding office

As I said before, is there some reason you won't cite the actual amendment and section? The literal words aren't on your side. Try again, with the cited amendment and section.

Some courts have 'deemed an insurrection had occurred' but that where it ends. Until there is a criminal conviction, there is no concrete standing to bar him from running. Its like with OJ when he was on trial for murder back in the day, he was not found criminally liable, but was found civilly liable --> his punishment was a fine and not jail time (for that crime).

Except conviction is not in the amendment. Engaged in is. And he did.

To "do it right" that criminal conviction is needed. Otherwise, this just looks like a 'witch hunt', which is the absolute worst image you want to convey.

Except when it's against a blue, then it's all systems go. Either way, he's going through the legal process, and this one broke against him and by the words of the Constitution that he swore to uphold and defend which he now says he never did.

When the January 6th committee felt he aided in an insurrection, why were no criminal charges brought then?

Congress doesn't make the charges. They made their findings and handed off to the Department of Justice, who then did their own investigation. And guess what happened, charges were brought in many jurisdictions where he broke the law and here we are. Why are you deliberately leaving out steps and facts in the timeline? Are they inconvenient?

They made a declaration, not unlike the ruling made by some judges, and then did nothing. Pursued nothing. They had all the evidence from the beginning, but still there are no criminal charges. If this thing had real teeth, or if they really wanted to enforce this clause, they should have done it years ago. The orange m&m should already have his day in court years ago.

You seem hyper emotional about this, which seems to be clouding your judgement to reality.

Am I? Cause I'm reciting the timeline of events for someone who doesn't want to acknowledge the timeline. But hey, if you wanna chalk up another confession masked as an accusation, feel free.

That's a bold faced lie, kiddo. Go read my older posts, you will find plenty of anger at the red m&ms.

Politics should not ever be a team sport. Once you side with a party, and stop looking at the individuals running --> you become part of the problem.

And yet, that's what you do while claiming you're not. I did browse your older posts as a refresher because it's not the first time we've had this go 'round, and guess where you pop up overwhemingly? Blue rage sessions, but not reds. That'll be touched on more later.

Since you continually show a high level of ignorance about covid, my suspicion is you think droplet transmission = airborne. They are not the same thing, at all.

Just because you are not bright enough to know the difference and are easily confused, does NOT make you magically correct in your accusation.

I must've missed where droplets are expelled into and where they end up getting received from. I'd love to hear that you want to have people believe it's taken in through osmosis or something else no one else would've ever thought.

Again, when we didn't know I was fine with masking. But once we did know; once it was (finally) revealed its an airborne transmission virus and most masks don't do shit to protect you --> I, like every other person capable of rational thought, dropped the theatrics and went back to living life.

You, however, seem to have allowed the fear to compromise your ability to reason... hence why you continued with the charade, probably wore two masks, and almost certainly was a shit head to others who didn't comply with the lie.

The theatrics is where you continue to push your narrative that masks do nothing. They afford a measure of protection, and that's all I've been saying, and people like you resist that and every other measure of protection because it's about you and not those around you. So once again, your hyperbolic rage once again forces you to assume which sets you up for failure. I did not go around telling people to mask. I did not wear double masks. I minded my business, I kept my distance, and when the directives allowed for relaxation, I watched and followed suit once things were safer. But you argue that we should have done none of that, f the world around us, it's only about numero uno. Who thinks like that?

The vast majority of masks do not work against airborne viruses. This was established science before the pandemic and there have been several studies that have confirmed this with covid.

And yet, they still afford a measure of protection, that's why they are still recommended to this day. Thankfully, it's not currently necessary as we are no longer in such a crisis as day one. But deniers like you would've had us reject everything that could protect people other than yourself, and so here we are with this f the world narrative.

Again, a chain-linked fence is not going to keep out a mosquito.

Nice projection at the end there. Forcing others to do things that don't actually work makes it all about YOU.

But it will keep out a larger rabid animal. If you're going to use that metaphor, you're gonna have to acknowledge all modes of transmission, not ignoring what works against your selfish argument. Which leads into forcing others to get harmed because of your refusal to protect yourself and others around you, that makes it all about you. There's a reason you can get charged for intentionally trying to infect people with a virus or illness, this included. There's way more that goes against your selfish way of thinking than there is for it. Now you're welcome to argue that everyone should be as ruthlessly selfish as you claim. I just don't think you're going to get much traction that way.

OK, if fauci said to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

Let me know when he does.

This is as much of a fairy tale as masking, double masking, and mRNA shots. "Credible experts" told you do all three things and you did without question or thought... be honest, you would carry that concrete block everywhere you went if fauci told you to.

I just want you to start being honest, both in this discussion and with yourself.

Such a fairy tale that only you are the one saying it, no one else. Your cinder block metaphor is akin to Ivermectin but dialed to eleven. So if you want honesty, start inward first. Then you'll see that I've been there the entire time.

Well, A) the numbers don't lie. Unvaccinated are clearing the virus faster than the vaxx now. And B) the whole asymptomatic spread was super hyped up. You are as likely to spread covid and not know it as much as you would the flu. (Also, if you are younger than 60, and do not have multiple comorbidities, yes, it would have been better to just catch covid, take early mitigation measures like Vit C and D, and get a robust immunity to it. This is self evident).

But, this quote is telling. It shows just how much fearporn you consumed back in the day... and explains why you still seem stuck in 2020 on this subject. Covid was brutal on our elders, the frail, and those with multiply health issues. Putting virus patients with seniors exacerbated the issue (sending more people to the hospital), and the mantra of for-profit medicine to keep your staff as tight as possible also compounded things.

Mix the media to stoke the fear, and here you are.

You know what other numbers don't lie? The fatalities number. I know you want to pretend 2020 didn't happen, but it did. A lot of people died. Clearly you weren't one of them, and thus here we are because you've established that only you matter, no one else. So once again, yes Covid was brutal on the elders, the compromised. So why is it you consistently act like we should have done absolutely nothing ourselves to ensure they were as protected as possible? I've already been up front that I was less worried about myself, and more worried about those around me. It wasn't something I wanted to get, but I was more worried that if I got it I'd spread it to someone less likely to survive than I did. So I took the recommended measures to protect them as best I could. According to you, I should not have. Who thinks like that?

Be it at home or in the hospital, you are not walking around making other sick. Hence, still a red herring.

You want to pretend that, but it's not. Like it or not, the hospitals were overwhelmed by this virus. People that needed care didn't get it because people had Covid and were hospitalized. So whether that's additional Covid patients or just any other random admission, the beds and staff were occupied to the point of full occupancy. Again, moot is not the word I'd have chosen.

I'll keep my eye out for it.

In 1984, when someone held two contradictory beliefs as true it was called "double think"; and you have it on full display.

Force shots 100% violate bodily autonomy.

And I fully remember the day the police came to force me to Walmart to get my shot at gunpoint. Oh yeah, they didn't. But I do know where the police arrested and charged a woman for having a miscarriage in a post Roe world. I know where non-medical state officials forbid and overrode both a woman's doctor and judge's ruling that permitted her to get a necessary abortion for a non-viable fetus that threatened herself in multiple ways if taken to term. I know where I'm putting my weight in the argument against bodily autonomy attacks. So when you can show me the same animation about that as you do for masking, at that point is when your rage will start being less contradictory.

Oh, I'm aware. The fact that it was rushed is a major reason I didn't opt to be guinea pig.

I'm pro-science and anti-theatrical security.

Real science that encourages debate and actually looks at the data with a fine toothed comb, not some sheep who listens to someone declare "he is the science" and that "the science is settled". $cience like that can only do harm.

Based on your hate for trump I find that hard to believe you were all in for getting yourself shots while he was in office. In fact, I'd pay money to see a post from you on this board supporting the shot before biden took office.

Well that's the thing, after the first forum cratered, I didn't keep up with or even find the replacement for quite a while. I dipped my toes in again in time for the Trump reelection, but I didn't move from mostly lurking til about middle of 2020. And I wasn't here engaging because of Covid. I guess you're just going to have to take me at my honesty, my first priority with Covid is the people around me. That includes when it was Trump and Operation Warp Speed.

More so, you really need to start looking at the lies and bungling that happened after trump too.

But, that means you have to be critical of how biden has lied and bungled this pandemic after trump.

Could it have been better after Trump? Nearly always can be something better with hindsight. Did Biden treat it like an actual crisis to be handled and not just a PR drain? Absolutely. Again, we're having to pick between two options, I went with the least bad one. The one that wasn't blatantly enriching himself off of our, yours and mine, tax dollars and funneling profits into his businesses around the world as part of government operations.

Mandates (especially with no scientific basis) = tyrant.

It still won't be equal or even close to what you proclaim. So try again. Give us something real.

Read it slowly, read it often. Your guy literal forced people to choose between their job (and the ability to provide for their family) and taking a rushed to market shot (that up until that point had a dark track record of killing trial subjects). Its very similar to harvey weinstein's 'play with my pole if you want the role' approach to aspiring actresses hoping for a career. I bet you agree harvey was a tyrant, but your double think prevents you from seeing biden is too.

You might have wiggle room to argue that makes him a tyrant if he'd done so out the gate. He didn't, he resisted it, his hand was forced by people who refused to protect themselves and by extension others. That's not what tyrants do. They don't grapple with what is right and wrong. They just do what they want. Please try and float your Weinstein comparison to more people and see how ridiculous you look. So try again. Give us something real.

(((The back and forth on trump and the 14 is at the top, no sense repeating ourselves again down here)))

He has so much more going on than Colorado, and you're kidding yourself if you think that's the be-all end-all for his crimes. It'd take willful ignorance to not put those data points together.

I don't have my decoder ring on. What are you trying to say here?

You were making the assumption that I personally got Covid many times and didn't know it. It was a pretty ridiculous point to argue, but you went there.

This is a great example of hearing something from a bias source, taking it as true, and never fact checking it.

Hearing Trump say it on television isn't enough? Come on, man.

Actual debate was shut down. People like Geert Vanden Bossche, who are absolutely experts in this field, were silenced.

Look, I'm not gonna pretend that I know who you're talking about personally, but even I can see from looking up the name that his opinions are not so cut and dried on reliability. But according to you, we should take him as speaking gospel. And what do we do with the people that disagree with his findings? What makes him more reputable than others? Just tell me how you square his opinions which are contrary to more than they are similar and why that should make him the authority. If his methods and findings are flawed as asserted, why do you not challenge that?

It also shows how easily you have been manipulated, because again, you sit in an echo chamber and don't challenge things. For example, ivermectin as an early therapy actually does have benefit against covid, it is not "horse paste" (though there is a veterinarian equivalent), and the study that was used to demonify it was really, really shady.

Is everything a conspiracy with you? It was being promoted as a wonder drug for the virus, and it wasn't the only one, I just chose the one I could spell easier. By and large, it did not affect anyone positively or negatively. In other words, it didn't do what the disinformation was alleging.

I trust I don't need to go into the bleach debacle.

Instead of finding test subjects who where in early stages of being ill and using proper dosage, they used patients that were already exceptionally sick and gave them way too much of it. Then, when it didn't help, they called it horse paste and got people to turn their backs on a cheap therapy and convinced them the new mRNA tech was the only thing to save them.

This should make you livid. But instead you are still blissfully unaware of just how many lies you swallowed and still believe today.

Do you just discard any studies that go against your predetermined conclusion? It was never the wonder drug it was proclaimed to be, multiple studies confirmed that. That would be reason to have it be labeled as disinformation. The same goes with the other more hard to spell drug being touted back then, and again, I trust I don't need to get into the bleach debate.

And that was old data that is no longer true.

Your assumption that your safety measure helped those around is completely and totally false. When your safety measure don't stop the spread or prevent the infection, they are no good to others. The best you can hope for is they help you. And the level of risk we take in our own lives is ours, and ours alone to make.

You continue to assert that any and all protective measures are worthless, thus not worth enacting. That is simply not the case. Moreover, people like you would have had us do absolutely nothing and let the chips fall where they may. That is literally what you are arguing. Thankfully, people like you weren't in charge. But it still begs the question, when you argue that a contagious virus should be allowed to spread, something that already was proving to be lethal, with no protective measures whatsoever all for the sake of the personal whim of any one individual, what kind of person thinks like that?

Still no read good, eh?

I'm not the one who said it, super chief.

Well, you have obviously never looked that the Twitter Files. Take some time to read it. The moves against trump are minor compared to the moves they made against free speech and open debate about covid, but its all relative and relevant to one another.

Lackluster. Come on, punch it up.

Yeah, the limit is I can't yell fire in a theater to cause a panic.

That's not the only one. Try again. Like I said, please tell me you know more than that. It'd be super embarrassing if you didn't.

Reds and blues both have nice sounding mantras that are untrue in practice. "Smaller government" is always championed by the right, but the only republican that would have done it was Ron Paul.

I actually agree about him. He likely would not have worked in the long run, but he generally practiced what he preached.

Red and blue are raging, raging hypocrites. Which is why single party voters are fucking morons. They enable the worst of both parties and systematically empower the most fringe and radical from within their ranks.

There is no conspiracy and this is not a theory. This is self evident to anyone that takes off their party goggles and starts holding their team fully accountable for their actions.

Still lackluster. Disappoint.

I can and will.

Then you have nothing worthwhile addressing because it's an outright denial of reality.

Just because a tyrant let you have some power back, doesn't erase the tyranny.

A tyrant doesn't give up power. That's why you have a former red asserting immunity which didn't exist from a job he already lost. Give me something real.

Also, you can't un-vaxx yourself. Any damage those shots have done to people is likely permanent, and we still wont know the full scope of how bad for many, many years. Not all adverse effects happen immediately, and we are literally still seeing lots of non-covid excess deaths (usually heart related) around the world. Excess deaths that are not being reported on MSM, and are not being addressed in governments.

That should bother everyone. After a pandemic, when the old and frail are lost, excess deaths should be lower than average, not higher.

Tell me you're antivax without telling me you're antivax.

So you first claim hes a nutjob about vaccines, now side step to with a quote about covid?

Amusing and deceitful.

And yet delightfully on point. Are you going to sit there and claim that his ridiculous position on who's immune and who's targeted by Covid does not inform on his thought processes which would in turn impact how he views other subjects?

I said he has a point on the safety of vaccines. Which he does.

I would argue he isn't reputable. That you do says more about you than it ever will about me.

OK, prove it. What campus speakers (that students call fascist and try to shut down) have you read and share with the class their fascist words.

Let's instead start with who you think is on the list. I don't spend a lot of time on controversial campus speakers, but my general observation process is see headline, see name, read associated article, look for core event if available. If it isn't available, I don't give it much thought afterwards without confirmation. Even afterwards, I don't tend to commit names to memory because I'm long out of the college campus era. Now if the words and views tend towards fascism, then I'll decide yup that was a fascist. If it's on the fence as a lot of the grifty types like to spend their time, I'll note that it's more likely the kind of person who just says what they can to monetize the hoopla. And if it's not fascism at all or like I said isn't available, I don't consider that a yup in absentia.

Then, explain why its magically OK to silence them; because even if hitler himself was asked to speak on campus, he should be allowed to.

See, I'd disagree. And I think Germany made a good case and set an example for the rest of the world for why that particular kind of case should not be allowed, but more to the point. College campuses are not bound by the first amendment unless public. From here it would need to be clarified because private institutions should be well within their rights to restrict what they want on their grounds. Public universities, the rules are different. And it should be noted, I came at it more that the students would be shouting down and pushing back against the would be fascists which also would be their right to do. Sorry, but the colleges would be the ones inviting them, the students have a right to disagree and make their voices heard. Unless it's okay to silence them, but you wouldn't argue that, would you?

His ideas should be allowed to be expressed so they can be challenged and his hate exposed for the world.

Because that worked so well post World War 1.

Stopping debate has one purpose --> to prevent people from being able to make fully informed choices.

Debating non volatile subjects, sure. Gaslighting your targeted intentionally diverse audience with views like “America belongs to white men” for profit, it gets murky doesn't it? After all, at some point, stoking the fires of a rebellious crowd with false rhetoric leads to some drastic consequences doesn't it?

[Cassandros]

Read this again, slowly and with the intention of actually understanding the words within:

Once an insurrection is deemed to have occurred, the question becomes whether a specific person
engaged in it. Section 3 does not establish a procedure for determining who is subject to the proscription
on holding office, instead providing only a process by which the disability may be removed (i.e., by two-
thirds vote in both houses). Congress has also not set forth a procedure for determining who is subject to
the disability imposed by Section 3. Although definitions of insurrection and rebellion for purposes of the
Fourteenth Amendment would not necessarily be confined by statute, it would appear that a criminal
conviction for insurrection or the “levying of war” prong of treason would provide sufficient proof, and
each of them contains a bar on holding office

As I said before, is there some reason you won't cite the actual amendment and section? The literal words aren't on your side. Try again, with the cited amendment and section.

Some courts have 'deemed an insurrection had occurred' but that where it ends. Until there is a criminal conviction, there is no concrete standing to bar him from running. Its like with OJ when he was on trial for murder back in the day, he was not found criminally liable, but was found civilly liable --> his punishment was a fine and not jail time (for that crime).

Except conviction is not in the amendment. Engaged in is. And he did.

To "do it right" that criminal conviction is needed. Otherwise, this just looks like a 'witch hunt', which is the absolute worst image you want to convey.

Except when it's against a blue, then it's all systems go. Either way, he's going through the legal process, and this one broke against him and by the words of the Constitution that he swore to uphold and defend which he now says he never did.

When the January 6th committee felt he aided in an insurrection, why were no criminal charges brought then?

Congress doesn't make the charges. They made their findings and handed off to the Department of Justice, who then did their own investigation. And guess what happened, charges were brought in many jurisdictions where he broke the law and here we are. Why are you deliberately leaving out steps and facts in the timeline? Are they inconvenient?

They made a declaration, not unlike the ruling made by some judges, and then did nothing. Pursued nothing. They had all the evidence from the beginning, but still there are no criminal charges. If this thing had real teeth, or if they really wanted to enforce this clause, they should have done it years ago. The orange m&m should already have his day in court years ago.

You seem hyper emotional about this, which seems to be clouding your judgement to reality.

Am I? Cause I'm reciting the timeline of events for someone who doesn't want to acknowledge the timeline. But hey, if you wanna chalk up another confession masked as an accusation, feel free.

That's a bold faced lie, kiddo. Go read my older posts, you will find plenty of anger at the red m&ms.

Politics should not ever be a team sport. Once you side with a party, and stop looking at the individuals running --> you become part of the problem.

And yet, that's what you do while claiming you're not. I did browse your older posts as a refresher because it's not the first time we've had this go 'round, and guess where you pop up overwhemingly? Blue rage sessions, but not reds. That'll be touched on more later.

Since you continually show a high level of ignorance about covid, my suspicion is you think droplet transmission = airborne. They are not the same thing, at all.

Just because you are not bright enough to know the difference and are easily confused, does NOT make you magically correct in your accusation.

I must've missed where droplets are expelled into and where they end up getting received from. I'd love to hear that you want to have people believe it's taken in through osmosis or something else no one else would've ever thought.

Again, when we didn't know I was fine with masking. But once we did know; once it was (finally) revealed its an airborne transmission virus and most masks don't do shit to protect you --> I, like every other person capable of rational thought, dropped the theatrics and went back to living life.

You, however, seem to have allowed the fear to compromise your ability to reason... hence why you continued with the charade, probably wore two masks, and almost certainly was a shit head to others who didn't comply with the lie.

The theatrics is where you continue to push your narrative that masks do nothing. They afford a measure of protection, and that's all I've been saying, and people like you resist that and every other measure of protection because it's about you and not those around you. So once again, your hyperbolic rage once again forces you to assume which sets you up for failure. I did not go around telling people to mask. I did not wear double masks. I minded my business, I kept my distance, and when the directives allowed for relaxation, I watched and followed suit once things were safer. But you argue that we should have done none of that, f the world around us, it's only about numero uno. Who thinks like that?

The vast majority of masks do not work against airborne viruses. This was established science before the pandemic and there have been several studies that have confirmed this with covid.

And yet, they still afford a measure of protection, that's why they are still recommended to this day. Thankfully, it's not currently necessary as we are no longer in such a crisis as day one. But deniers like you would've had us reject everything that could protect people other than yourself, and so here we are with this f the world narrative.

Again, a chain-linked fence is not going to keep out a mosquito.

Nice projection at the end there. Forcing others to do things that don't actually work makes it all about YOU.

But it will keep out a larger rabid animal. If you're going to use that metaphor, you're gonna have to acknowledge all modes of transmission, not ignoring what works against your selfish argument. Which leads into forcing others to get harmed because of your refusal to protect yourself and others around you, that makes it all about you. There's a reason you can get charged for intentionally trying to infect people with a virus or illness, this included. There's way more that goes against your selfish way of thinking than there is for it. Now you're welcome to argue that everyone should be as ruthlessly selfish as you claim. I just don't think you're going to get much traction that way.

OK, if fauci said to carry a 50lb concrete block on their shoulders to prevent long covid, would you do it? (Even though its obviously has no beneficial, and could actually cause some people harm).

Let me know when he does.

This is as much of a fairy tale as masking, double masking, and mRNA shots. "Credible experts" told you do all three things and you did without question or thought... be honest, you would carry that concrete block everywhere you went if fauci told you to.

I just want you to start being honest, both in this discussion and with yourself.

Such a fairy tale that only you are the one saying it, no one else. Your cinder block metaphor is akin to Ivermectin but dialed to eleven. So if you want honesty, start inward first. Then you'll see that I've been there the entire time.

Well, A) the numbers don't lie. Unvaccinated are clearing the virus faster than the vaxx now. And B) the whole asymptomatic spread was super hyped up. You are as likely to spread covid and not know it as much as you would the flu. (Also, if you are younger than 60, and do not have multiple comorbidities, yes, it would have been better to just catch covid, take early mitigation measures like Vit C and D, and get a robust immunity to it. This is self evident).

But, this quote is telling. It shows just how much fearporn you consumed back in the day... and explains why you still seem stuck in 2020 on this subject. Covid was brutal on our elders, the frail, and those with multiply health issues. Putting virus patients with seniors exacerbated the issue (sending more people to the hospital), and the mantra of for-profit medicine to keep your staff as tight as possible also compounded things.

Mix the media to stoke the fear, and here you are.

You know what other numbers don't lie? The fatalities number. I know you want to pretend 2020 didn't happen, but it did. A lot of people died. Clearly you weren't one of them, and thus here we are because you've established that only you matter, no one else. So once again, yes Covid was brutal on the elders, the compromised. So why is it you consistently act like we should have done absolutely nothing ourselves to ensure they were as protected as possible? I've already been up front that I was less worried about myself, and more worried about those around me. It wasn't something I wanted to get, but I was more worried that if I got it I'd spread it to someone less likely to survive than I did. So I took the recommended measures to protect them as best I could. According to you, I should not have. Who thinks like that?

Be it at home or in the hospital, you are not walking around making other sick. Hence, still a red herring.

You want to pretend that, but it's not. Like it or not, the hospitals were overwhelmed by this virus. People that needed care didn't get it because people had Covid and were hospitalized. So whether that's additional Covid patients or just any other random admission, the beds and staff were occupied to the point of full occupancy. Again, moot is not the word I'd have chosen.

I'll keep my eye out for it.

In 1984, when someone held two contradictory beliefs as true it was called "double think"; and you have it on full display.

Force shots 100% violate bodily autonomy.

And I fully remember the day the police came to force me to Walmart to get my shot at gunpoint. Oh yeah, they didn't. But I do know where the police arrested and charged a woman for having a miscarriage in a post Roe world. I know where non-medical state officials forbid and overrode both a woman's doctor and judge's ruling that permitted her to get a necessary abortion for a non-viable fetus that threatened herself in multiple ways if taken to term. I know where I'm putting my weight in the argument against bodily autonomy attacks. So when you can show me the same animation about that as you do for masking, at that point is when your rage will start being less contradictory.

Oh, I'm aware. The fact that it was rushed is a major reason I didn't opt to be guinea pig.

I'm pro-science and anti-theatrical security.

Real science that encourages debate and actually looks at the data with a fine toothed comb, not some sheep who listens to someone declare "he is the science" and that "the science is settled". $cience like that can only do harm.

Based on your hate for trump I find that hard to believe you were all in for getting yourself shots while he was in office. In fact, I'd pay money to see a post from you on this board supporting the shot before biden took office.

Well that's the thing, after the first forum cratered, I didn't keep up with or even find the replacement for quite a while. I dipped my toes in again in time for the Trump reelection, but I didn't move from mostly lurking til about middle of 2020. And I wasn't here engaging because of Covid. I guess you're just going to have to take me at my honesty, my first priority with Covid is the people around me. That includes when it was Trump and Operation Warp Speed.

More so, you really need to start looking at the lies and bungling that happened after trump too.

But, that means you have to be critical of how biden has lied and bungled this pandemic after trump.

Could it have been better after Trump? Nearly always can be something better with hindsight. Did Biden treat it like an actual crisis to be handled and not just a PR drain? Absolutely. Again, we're having to pick between two options, I went with the least bad one. The one that wasn't blatantly enriching himself off of our, yours and mine, tax dollars and funneling profits into his businesses around the world as part of government operations.

Mandates (especially with no scientific basis) = tyrant.

It still won't be equal or even close to what you proclaim. So try again. Give us something real.

Read it slowly, read it often. Your guy literal forced people to choose between their job (and the ability to provide for their family) and taking a rushed to market shot (that up until that point had a dark track record of killing trial subjects). Its very similar to harvey weinstein's 'play with my pole if you want the role' approach to aspiring actresses hoping for a career. I bet you agree harvey was a tyrant, but your double think prevents you from seeing biden is too.

You might have wiggle room to argue that makes him a tyrant if he'd done so out the gate. He didn't, he resisted it, his hand was forced by people who refused to protect themselves and by extension others. That's not what tyrants do. They don't grapple with what is right and wrong. They just do what they want. Please try and float your Weinstein comparison to more people and see how ridiculous you look. So try again. Give us something real.

(((The back and forth on trump and the 14 is at the top, no sense repeating ourselves again down here)))

He has so much more going on than Colorado, and you're kidding yourself if you think that's the be-all end-all for his crimes. It'd take willful ignorance to not put those data points together.

I don't have my decoder ring on. What are you trying to say here?

You were making the assumption that I personally got Covid many times and didn't know it. It was a pretty ridiculous point to argue, but you went there.

This is a great example of hearing something from a bias source, taking it as true, and never fact checking it.

Hearing Trump say it on television isn't enough? Come on, man.

Actual debate was shut down. People like Geert Vanden Bossche, who are absolutely experts in this field, were silenced.

Look, I'm not gonna pretend that I know who you're talking about personally, but even I can see from looking up the name that his opinions are not so cut and dried on reliability. But according to you, we should take him as speaking gospel. And what do we do with the people that disagree with his findings? What makes him more reputable than others? Just tell me how you square his opinions which are contrary to more than they are similar and why that should make him the authority. If his methods and findings are flawed as asserted, why do you not challenge that?

It also shows how easily you have been manipulated, because again, you sit in an echo chamber and don't challenge things. For example, ivermectin as an early therapy actually does have benefit against covid, it is not "horse paste" (though there is a veterinarian equivalent), and the study that was used to demonify it was really, really shady.

Is everything a conspiracy with you? It was being promoted as a wonder drug for the virus, and it wasn't the only one, I just chose the one I could spell easier. By and large, it did not affect anyone positively or negatively. In other words, it didn't do what the disinformation was alleging.

I trust I don't need to go into the bleach debacle.

Instead of finding test subjects who where in early stages of being ill and using proper dosage, they used patients that were already exceptionally sick and gave them way too much of it. Then, when it didn't help, they called it horse paste and got people to turn their backs on a cheap therapy and convinced them the new mRNA tech was the only thing to save them.

This should make you livid. But instead you are still blissfully unaware of just how many lies you swallowed and still believe today.

Do you just discard any studies that go against your predetermined conclusion? It was never the wonder drug it was proclaimed to be, multiple studies confirmed that. That would be reason to have it be labeled as disinformation. The same goes with the other more hard to spell drug being touted back then, and again, I trust I don't need to get into the bleach debate.

And that was old data that is no longer true.

Your assumption that your safety measure helped those around is completely and totally false. When your safety measure don't stop the spread or prevent the infection, they are no good to others. The best you can hope for is they help you. And the level of risk we take in our own lives is ours, and ours alone to make.

You continue to assert that any and all protective measures are worthless, thus not worth enacting. That is simply not the case. Moreover, people like you would have had us do absolutely nothing and let the chips fall where they may. That is literally what you are arguing. Thankfully, people like you weren't in charge. But it still begs the question, when you argue that a contagious virus should be allowed to spread, something that already was proving to be lethal, with no protective measures whatsoever all for the sake of the personal whim of any one individual, what kind of person thinks like that?

Still no read good, eh?

I'm not the one who said it, super chief.

Well, you have obviously never looked that the Twitter Files. Take some time to read it. The moves against trump are minor compared to the moves they made against free speech and open debate about covid, but its all relative and relevant to one another.

Lackluster. Come on, punch it up.

Yeah, the limit is I can't yell fire in a theater to cause a panic.

That's not the only one. Try again. Like I said, please tell me you know more than that. It'd be super embarrassing if you didn't.

Reds and blues both have nice sounding mantras that are untrue in practice. "Smaller government" is always championed by the right, but the only republican that would have done it was Ron Paul.

I actually agree about him. He likely would not have worked in the long run, but he generally practiced what he preached.

Red and blue are raging, raging hypocrites. Which is why single party voters are fucking morons. They enable the worst of both parties and systematically empower the most fringe and radical from within their ranks.

There is no conspiracy and this is not a theory. This is self evident to anyone that takes off their party goggles and starts holding their team fully accountable for their actions.

Still lackluster. Disappoint.

I can and will.

Then you have nothing worthwhile addressing because it's an outright denial of reality.

Just because a tyrant let you have some power back, doesn't erase the tyranny.

A tyrant doesn't give up power. That's why you have a former red asserting immunity which didn't exist from a job he already lost. Give me something real.

Also, you can't un-vaxx yourself. Any damage those shots have done to people is likely permanent, and we still wont know the full scope of how bad for many, many years. Not all adverse effects happen immediately, and we are literally still seeing lots of non-covid excess deaths (usually heart related) around the world. Excess deaths that are not being reported on MSM, and are not being addressed in governments.

That should bother everyone. After a pandemic, when the old and frail are lost, excess deaths should be lower than average, not higher.

Tell me you're antivax without telling me you're antivax.

So you first claim hes a nutjob about vaccines, now side step to with a quote about covid?

Amusing and deceitful.

And yet delightfully on point. Are you going to sit there and claim that his ridiculous position on who's immune and who's targeted by Covid does not inform on his thought processes which would in turn impact how he views other subjects?

I said he has a point on the safety of vaccines. Which he does.

I would argue he isn't reputable. That you do says more about you than it ever will about me.

OK, prove it. What campus speakers (that students call fascist and try to shut down) have you read and share with the class their fascist words.

Let's instead start with who you think is on the list. I don't spend a lot of time on controversial campus speakers, but my general observation process is see headline, see name, read associated article, look for core event if available. If it isn't available, I don't give it much thought afterwards without confirmation. Even afterwards, I don't tend to commit names to memory because I'm long out of the college campus era. Now if the words and views tend towards fascism, then I'll decide yup that was a fascist. If it's on the fence as a lot of the grifty types like to spend their time, I'll note that it's more likely the kind of person who just says what they can to monetize the hoopla. And if it's not fascism at all or like I said isn't available, I don't consider that a yup in absentia.

Then, explain why its magically OK to silence them; because even if hitler himself was asked to speak on campus, he should be allowed to.

See, I'd disagree. And I think Germany made a good case and set an example for the rest of the world for why that particular kind of case should not be allowed, but more to the point. College campuses are not bound by the first amendment unless public. From here it would need to be clarified because private institutions should be well within their rights to restrict what they want on their grounds. Public universities, the rules are different. And it should be noted, I came at it more that the students would be shouting down and pushing back against the would be fascists which also would be their right to do. Sorry, but the colleges would be the ones inviting them, the students have a right to disagree and make their voices heard. Unless it's okay to silence them, but you wouldn't argue that, would you?

His ideas should be allowed to be expressed so they can be challenged and his hate exposed for the world.

Because that worked so well post World War 1.

Stopping debate has one purpose --> to prevent people from being able to make fully informed choices.

Debating non volatile subjects, sure. Gaslighting your targeted intentionally diverse audience with views like “America belongs to white men” for profit, it gets murky doesn't it? After all, at some point, stoking the fires of a rebellious crowd with false rhetoric leads to some drastic consequences doesn't it?

This has been both fun and tedious. I won't be online for a while so instead of playing point by point I am going to try to summarize the four basic disagreements/impasses.

The first: J6 v 14th

Your contend the 14th Amendment says "insurrection" and because both the official government body investigating the event and a few judges have said 'he lead an insurrection' --> That's enough for the clause to be invoked.

My contention is "Insurrection" is a Criminal charge, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 specifically. Because of this, our legal requirement of 'innocent until proven guilty' and Due Process, it is NOT enough for governmental bodies and people in positions of authority to make the a final arbitration.

The second: covid mandates being tyrannical overreach.

You content that covid, being a "deadly disease" it was not overreach to force social distancing, closures, masks, or shots. That 'doing your part' was not only wise, but the patriotic thing to do. And if the action is patriotic, then the demand could not be tyrannical.

My contention is, in a Free Society where there are actual rules in place that disallow the government to exert its force upon us, even in crisis. Even if these measures worked and were valid, they should have been requests and recommendations from the government. And as we have learned, none of these demands on society actually did what they claimed to do, they did not protect grandma or our neighbors at all; in fact, they actually made things much worse in the long run --> making the mandates even more tyrannical.

Our half-assed nod to RFK in the RFK thread:

You contend he is a 'conspiracy theorist' based on a single gaffe when he basically called covid a bio-wepaon designed to target whites and blacks more than Chinese and Jews.

I believe a single poorly worded point has no bearing on future policy; that he is the most moderate of the people running. While, personally, I think his purpose running is really to be a spoiler (and ultimately help trump); if the race were fair and the peoples votes really mattered --> he is the guy we should put in the White House.

Lastly, free speech:

You seem to think there should be limits, that if you preach hate or mis/disinformation you should be silenced.

I could not disagree more with this thought process. Free speech is the most important tool in the shed of liberty. I want hate speech said, so those people can be identified and their message openly countered (as opposed to pushing it underground where it becomes an echo-chamber to the group and that hate can then fester into action).

The same is true for mis/disinformation.

If people got to hear Geert's fears, his reasoning for why you "cannot vaccinate out of a pandemic" and how you risk a short term benefit that can quickly turn into a longer term tragedy due to Antigenic Original Sin, people can make more informed choices for their, and their families health. More so, we have had several instances of government and officials lying to the public about major events. The Iraq war under W, and, as the data is showing, the narrative of covid are both examples of this. Open debate would have saved more lives in the long run.

***
I hope I have not misrepresented or diminished your stances. My time is short today and I kind of rushed this before starting my week.

Ultimately I know this discussion will not change your mind, no matter how thought out or logical, emotional charged stances can (almost) never be affected by an outside opinion. Its hard to see you might be wrong when you feel so right, after all.

Regardless, its been fun and I wish you well.

[dot]

This has been both fun and tedious. I won't be online for a while so instead of playing point by point I am going to try to summarize the four basic disagreements/impasses.

The first: J6 v 14th

Your contend the 14th Amendment says "insurrection" and because both the official government body investigating the event and a few judges have said 'he lead an insurrection' --> That's enough for the clause to be invoked.

My contention is "Insurrection" is a Criminal charge, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 specifically. Because of this, our legal requirement of 'innocent until proven guilty' and Due Process, it is NOT enough for governmental bodies and people in positions of authority to make the a final arbitration.

You might have an argument if the amendment said convicted. That's not what it says, and we are supposed to go by the text of the Constitution. You dodged before, and you unfortunately are preemptively dodging going forward, but you were asked to "tell us honestly how what he did in front of cameras and conspired to do out of view of cameras does not betray the oath he says he did not take in front of cameras. The first baby step is admitting what he did."

The second: covid mandates being tyrannical overreach.

You content that covid, being a "deadly disease" it was not overreach to force social distancing, closures, masks, or shots. That 'doing your part' was not only wise, but the patriotic thing to do. And if the action is patriotic, then the demand could not be tyrannical.

My contention is, in a Free Society where there are actual rules in place that disallow the government to exert its force upon us, even in crisis. Even if these measures worked and were valid, they should have been requests and recommendations from the government. And as we have learned, none of these demands on society actually did what they claimed to do, they did not protect grandma or our neighbors at all; in fact, they actually made things much worse in the long run --> making the mandates even more tyrannical.

Not patriotic, humane. The decent human thing to do. To some that might mean the same thing, and if it is, more power to them. To others, it is diametrically opposed. Therefore, I'm correcting you, because I said it was the right thing to do for your fellow man, not for the sake of the country. It was the right thing to do to be a decent human being, which goes beyond our borders, that's my mindset. Now, your mindset continues to be a big loud obnoxious no, it is not within your own personal interest to concede any minor or mild inconveniences for the sake of the public health. That because not one thing was a single all en-compassing fix or cure, none of it should be done. That is your contention. You can dress it up in your hyperbolic way that you have been, but no one was forced to get a shot or wear a mask at gunpoint by the government, you know, tyranny. Some things, when people's lives are at stake, have to temporarily give for the sake of your fellow man. It sucks that you don't get that or accept that, so that can be your hump to get over.

Our half-assed nod to RFK in the RFK thread:

You contend he is a 'conspiracy theorist' based on a single gaffe when he basically called covid a bio-wepaon designed to target whites and blacks more than Chinese and Jews.

To some, that would be more than enough to call into question his views if not mental faculties. And let's not forget what he said. To target specific races while immunizing others. I know you're not quite on Animal's level of conspiracy theories, but that's pretty far out there, wouldn't you admit? And let's also not pretend he's only made one "gaffe" as you put it. Comparing antivaxers (him) to Anne Frank in Germany? Mass shootings are caused by Prozac? The guy isn't famous for being moderate, he's famous for being a nutter butter from a famous political family.

I believe a single poorly worded point has no bearing on future policy; that he is the most moderate of the people running. While, personally, I think his purpose running is really to be a spoiler (and ultimately help trump); if the race were fair and the peoples votes really mattered --> he is the guy we should put in the White House.

When one side of the spectrum is authoritarianism, and the other is just this side of liberal centrist, and yes those are the only two sides (options), then no he's not the most moderate person running. Let's take your previous example of Ron Paul. Yeah, it might have been nice to get out of things all around the world, drastically cut the government's size down to a fraction, maybe even (gasp) keep the government out of your bedroom and doctors offices. But I genuinely think given the last decade's development, a neutral hands off to pro-dictatorship America leads to global instability. Now more to the point, the only real thing RFK is making news about is his antivax views. He's not coming off as knowledgeable, moderate, or unique in anything else that is required of the job. You rail against single-party voters, but single-issue voters should be right up there as well. The world is not a black and white place. Personally, I think a life of drugs and questionable choices amidst personal tragedy and getting clean and turning it around should be considered admirable to a degree. But I'm not voting for Hunter Biden based on it. Same goes for RFK.

Lastly, free speech:

You seem to think there should be limits, that if you preach hate or mis/disinformation you should be silenced.

From the government, not necessarily, unless it violates the established lines drawn. Of which, you can't seem to acknowledge existence. From and by the public? Absolutely, and that goes right along with what you say you want. If people are abhorrent hateful preachers and they get shouted down by those that hear them, that's just fine and exactly what you claim to want.

I could not disagree more with this thought process. Free speech is the most important tool in the shed of liberty. I want hate speech said, so those people can be identified and their message openly countered (as opposed to pushing it underground where it becomes an echo-chamber to the group and that hate can then fester into action).

There are two sides to it. Sure, in a perfect world, the correct backlash happens and these hateful people get shouted down and shamed into self-reflection. In reality, this world, we get Charlottesville. We get the flames fanned into an insurrection against our government because their chosen idol god king lost his election despite conspiring to seize power behind the scenes.

The same is true for mis/disinformation.

Then it calls to question what your tipping point is. Again, arguing to not take protective measures because they weren't complete and absolute to your standards, arguing that disinformation should be spread and taken in that won't just be argued against to disprove but will be put into practice in the meantime by people much less intelligent than you or I to realize how dangerous it is to drink bleach, etc etc etc, will result in many more deaths than what we got. It's dangerous enough when we have hate speech radicalizing anti-democracy militias, must we add crackpot debunked Covid cures that got people to ingest fish tank cleaner to keep from getting the virus?

If people got to hear Geert's fears, his reasoning for why you "cannot vaccinate out of a pandemic" and how you risk a short term benefit that can quickly turn into a longer term tragedy due to Antigenic Original Sin, people can make more informed choices for their, and their families health.

Again, I'm not gonna pretend I know everything he's said, but I can see by the pushback of papers and opinions against his findings that it's not as cut and dried as you'd have people believe at a first glance. If he's gonna put out findings based on debunked claims, then he shouldn't be taken at face value. Given I am not familiar with him at all, I'll leave it at we can agree to disagree specifically about him.

More so, we have had several instances of government and officials lying to the public about major events. The Iraq war under W, and, as the data is showing, the narrative of covid are both examples of this. Open debate would have saved more lives in the long run.

Still won't argue that, if the government and its reps were more honest, we wouldn't have a lot of the issues we have right now where people who can be trusted aren't, and those that aren't to be trusted are. But I also keep it in mind, the country at the very least is full of deliberately selfish assholes across all ideological spectrums who would not lift a finger no matter what was required of them to help their fellow man. Lying us into a war of choice was pretty low on the totem pole in terms of how dare thee, tempering words and recommendations to not cause a panic amongst a selfish population that cleared out retail stores of toilet paper over a respiratory virus doesn't quite meet the same how dare thee level. Agree to disagree, maybe some day soon this country won't be so full of the self-centered people that we seem to have to work around year after year, crisis after crisis.

I hope I have not misrepresented or diminished your stances. My time is short today and I kind of rushed this before starting my week.

Ultimately I know this discussion will not change your mind, no matter how thought out or logical, emotional charged stances can (almost) never be affected by an outside opinion. Its hard to see you might be wrong when you feel so right, after all.

Regardless, its been fun and I wish you well.

You did, corrected as detected. If we can keep things more civil next time, maybe it'll be more fun. Likewise, I know your mind won't be changed despite literally describing your own hyperbolic stances. Til next time, Both Sides™.

[Biker]

https://fb.watch/qbE-91jpu1/

[Antknot]

announces VP.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... i=13236879

[Animal]

[Biker]

Geez. That just tells me he's not serious about winning and it trying to split Silicon Valley donors