American Politics

[JustTK]

The problem with your "science" is that the research provided by your "source" is invalid. Lew Rockwell dot com is only slightly more credible than Marjorie Taylor Greene.

On what way is the science invalid? The BM posted an article that referred to research and widely reported events. You can even watch those same events on line. There is no dispute. Attack the message, not the messenger.

[JustTK]

Your aversion to COVID vaccines is undermined by the fact that billions of doses have been administered with the only drawback being a somewhat "return to normal

Another one that has drunk the KoolAid. Legitimate concerns about the adequcy of testing does nlot equate to an "aversion to COVID vaccines". And if you think that there was only one drawback, you are deluded. The policies enacted by Western and many other governments destroyed millions of lives and livelihoods. And the issue is that those policies were based faulty research.

[Xpartan]

Quoting Breitbart? Do you have any facts, or just Fox news and Breitbart propaganda?

That's preposterous! He also quotes RT and Sputnik.

[MiamiSammy]

February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a "vaccine. " In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don't prevent infection or spread. In reality, they're experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1.

"The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were 'a medical fraud' and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.

Instead, the article claimed, the shots 'alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. ' Its assertions were easily disprovable.".

Pfizer Moved 'at the Speed of Science'.

Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer's president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.

As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:

"No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market. And we had to do everything at risk. "2.

This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking even criminal. Rob Roos, MEP.

In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph. The. , reviews this growing scandal. He points out that you. K. Government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we're told that was not the case after all.

The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they "had to move at the speed of science. " But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are "just words without meaning. " It's complete nonsense.

Moreover, what does it mean to "do everything at risk"? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don't either, but were I to venture a guess, I'the guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.

So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you'll save the lives of others if you take it. . .

As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don't. Hence, they've also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.

As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and / or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN'T follow the science.

Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they're in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Viral Diseases team. . .

In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi's paper:13.

"Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1. 43.

The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.".

Full article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/...est-nightmare/.

The problem with your "science" is that the research provided by your "source" is invalid. Lew Rockwell dot com is only slightly more credible than Marjorie Taylor Greene.

[MiamiSammy]

February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a "vaccine. " In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don't prevent infection or spread. In reality, they're experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1.

"The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were 'a medical fraud' and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.

Instead, the article claimed, the shots 'alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. ' Its assertions were easily disprovable.".

Pfizer Moved 'at the Speed of Science'.

Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer's president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.

As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:

"No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market. And we had to do everything at risk. "2.

This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking even criminal. Rob Roos, MEP.

In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph. The. , reviews this growing scandal. He points out that you. K. Government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we're told that was not the case after all.

The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they "had to move at the speed of science. " But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are "just words without meaning. " It's complete nonsense.

Moreover, what does it mean to "do everything at risk"? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don't either, but were I to venture a guess, I'the guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.

So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you'll save the lives of others if you take it. . .

As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don't. Hence, they've also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.

As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and / or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN'T follow the science.

Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they're in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Viral Diseases team. . .

In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi's paper:13.

"Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1. 43.

The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.".

Full article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/...est-nightmare/.

mRNA vaccines for corona-type viruses had been in the pipeline for a number of years. Your aversion to COVID vaccines is undermined by the fact that billions of doses have been administered with the only drawback being a somewhat "return to normal" due to the reduction of infections and the growth of an underworld of vermin who not only doesn't trust science, but doesn't have the intellectual gravitas to understand it.

[MiamiSammy]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022...-middle-class/

Quoting Breitbart? Do you have any facts, or just Fox news and Breitbart propaganda?

[JustTK]

Full article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/...est-nightmare/.

That's an excellent article. Thanks for posting. Also a very funny thumbnail. Hehe.

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022...-middle-class/

[Tiny 12]

It is reported as 45 billion pounds in tax cuts,

Excellent example of how the biased, left leaning main stream media programs people. The cost of the component of the tax plan to cut the maximum rate from 45% to 40% was 2 billion as I clearly said. The left leaning mainstream media in most instances conveniently failed to mention that cuts in stamp duties, a health care levy, going back on a plan to raise the corporate tax rate, and a small middle class tax cut were also included in the 45 billion in reduced collections.

Great catch on the websites. That was a real gotcha moment. I guess you think that the networks on air coverage is to the right of the videos and other content they publish on their web sites. And the newspapers paper versions are far different from their web content.

And sorry. I've resolved not to argue with Democrats, Trumpsters and cult members. This was bugging me though.

[Travv]

February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a "vaccine. " In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don't prevent infection or spread. In reality, they're experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1.

"The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were 'a medical fraud' and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.

Instead, the article claimed, the shots 'alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. ' Its assertions were easily disprovable.".

Pfizer Moved 'at the Speed of Science'.

Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer's president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.

As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:

"No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market. And we had to do everything at risk. "2.

This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated. I find this shocking — even criminal. Rob Roos, MEP.

In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph. The. , reviews this growing scandal. He points out that you. K. Government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we're told that was not the case after all.

The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they "had to move at the speed of science. " But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are "just words without meaning. " It's complete nonsense.

Moreover, what does it mean to "do everything at risk"? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don't either, but were I to venture a guess, I'the guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.

So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you'll save the lives of others if you take it. . .

As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don't. Hence, they've also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.

As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and / or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN'T follow the science.

Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they're in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Viral Diseases team. . .

In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi's paper:13.

"Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1. 43.

The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients.".

Full article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/10/...est-nightmare/.

"The science was on our side, You must get vaxd to prevent transmission, you do it not for yourself but for others, we will impose a vaccine to stop transmission.".

All lies! It was always so fuckn obvious. Pfizer never even tested their vax on preventing transmission prior to its launch. But yet this was the foundation to the vax mandates and the global campaign against anti-vaxxers.

Now, how can you EVER, EVER, trust these people again? JD is so correct they are criminal liars, supported by our leaders and sychophantic media. "The 'Ruling Class' in every country are the enemy of the human race".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyHfwCshPk

[JustTK]

"The science was on our side, You must get vaxd to prevent transmission, you do it not for yourself but for others, we will impose a vaccine to stop transmission.".

All lies! It was always so fuckn obvious. Pfizer never even tested their vax on preventing transmission prior to its launch. But yet this was the foundation to the vax mandates and the global campaign against anti-vaxxers.

Now, how can you EVER, EVER, trust these people again? JD is so correct – they are criminal liars, supported by our leaders and sychophantic media. "The 'Ruling Class' in every country are the enemy of the human race".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeyHfwCshPk

[Spidy]

Tooms, Your wish is my command! Here is reason and evidence.

Network News:

ABC News, Lean Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source...ews-media-bias
CBS News, Lean Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source...ews-media-bias
NBC News, Lean Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source...ews-media-bias

....

Nice try buckeroo! Tiny 12, try reading the fine print on the Allsides website. ONLY online coverage applies.

AllSides Media Bias RatingsTM are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

ABC News, Lean Left: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias

et al. allsides.com references

You, always fail to address the 1,500+ right-wing radio stations and the 200+ right-wing Spanish radio stations.

According to Mr. Hartmann that you listen to:

Why Is Talk Radio So Right-Wing? (And How Can The Left Compete?)
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/...-left-compete/

[EihTooms]

My theory? It's not a theory, it's a fact.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...eed-know-facts

Of course, the FCC fine quashed their insatiable appetites somewhat, but they're still teaching 40% of USA households the virtues of Trumpism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/b...-fine-fcc.html

First, I have no idea why you were inclined to link Orange Fruitcake's statements in this rebuttal.

So why?

Second, I linked the article that clearly states that out of 15 radio shows in this country 12 are conservative. Surely (insert your Airplane joke here), you won't insist that they're broadcasting into the vacuum. So whatever you think or I think or anyone else thinks is anecdotal at best. It's all about the numbers.

Mainstream Media will unavoidably appear to be "left leaning" for much of the time simply because they are forced by legal and ethical circumstances to accurately report Dem achievements and positive results and Repub nothingness or crap results.

However, as I apparently must repeat in order to hope a tiny trickle seeps in to some winger heads someday, come election time it is a MSM Pro Repub Spin Fest!

They LOVE those Here's Another Repub Disaster Result headlines and see very little market or financial value in featuring boring, positive Dem results headlines.

At the very least MSM is hell bent to make the horse race as neck in neck close and exciting as any Dem-denigrating and Repub-elevating Bothsiderism spin can make it. Which, also as I have pointed out previously, in a world where MSM produces election outcomes on a knife's edge margin, all too often the crap results Repubs will win even if only by accident.

Either way, that is MSM helping Repubs win elections even if their initial intention was only to tighten the horse race for the sake of attention grabbing excitement.

Seriously, folks. There is no way a Repub should ever have won the White House again after Reagan's first term, a Repub should have ever been Speaker of the House again after double government closure, total obstructionist and only Clinton dick-sniffing failure Gingrich or a Repub Senate Leader again after what we have all witnessed in Moscow Mitch.

Yet, since those Repub disasters first plopped in our laps we have seen even loonier and worse Repub stewardship and results while at the same time the horse races got tighter!

That could never have happened without Herculean pro Repub spinning efforts by MSM to make it so come every election time.

[Spidy]

As I understand it, loss to revenues from cutting the maximum tax rate from 45% to 40% would have been about 2 billion pounds, out of a total 100 billion per year for the total program of tax cuts and energy subsidies. That had nothing to do with the markets' reaction. And the energy subsidies are not Libertarian by any means. They could just as well be straight out of the Progressive's playbook. Your gloating is misplaced.

It is reported as 45 billion pounds in tax cuts, hardly the 2 billion you quote. Her hair-brained "trickle-down" tax cuts for the rich, had everything to do with sending the pound to historic lows and sparked market turmoil. When she "ditched" the tax plan and after she "cut-bait" and quit, markets corrected to the news.

UK PM Liz Truss admits mistakes on controversial tax cuts plan...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/02/u...gbr/index.html

BTW, just the facts, no gloating necessary, in this case.

[Xpartan]

Xpartan's theory that a company owning Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MyNetworkTV, and CW outlets is engaged in a conspiracy to sway Americans to vote for evil Republicans:

Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Center: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/sbg

My theory? It's not a theory, it's a fact.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...eed-know-facts

Of course, the FCC fine quashed their insatiable appetites somewhat, but they're still teaching 40% of USA households the virtues of Trumpism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/b...-fine-fcc.html

Social Media:

Facebook: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/st...ica-05.05.21-2
Twitter: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/st...ica-05.05.21-2
Google: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/st...ica-05.05.21-2

Xpartan, as to your claims about talk radio, I don't think I buy them. Rush Limbaugh is dead. I've never heard of Michael Savage. The only one I listen to is Thom Hartman, and he's to the left of JustTK.

First, I have no idea why you were inclined to link Orange Fruitcake's statements in this rebuttal.

So why?

Second, I linked the article that clearly states that out of 15 radio shows in this country 12 are conservative. Surely (insert your Airplane joke here), you won't insist that they're broadcasting into the vacuum. So whatever you think or I think or anyone else thinks is anecdotal at best. It's all about the numbers.