You then proceed to cite articles that contradict your claimed beliefs. You don't have beliefs. You are trolling with idiotic claims. There can be no other explanation for your posts.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
You then proceed to cite articles that contradict your claimed beliefs. You don't have beliefs. You are trolling with idiotic claims. There can be no other explanation for your posts.
Once again proving you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions. Not only that you didn't listen to your father.
If the CIA says they can't release or confirm or deny that they have evidence that Osama Bin Laden released that tape how does that prove Osama is not on the tape?
ROFLMAO. So the US made Russia attack Ukraine and made Saddam attack Kuwait. Yeah. You must be a logical thinking mouse.
so your argument is Russia could promise to protect Texas from the US government and then invade the US and it would be OK under international law? Frankly, you are only proving you are either a Russian troll or a complete idiot.
Since you can't tell us what it is, then it is a virus. I say it's a virus. Scientists say it's a virus. Doctors say it's a virus. You can't say what it is so the prevailing consensus is it's a virus with no one providing evidence of it being anything else.
How do you think the human body defends itself from viruses and bacteria?
Until you at least accept that the human immune system exists we can't have any discussion on this.
Do you think you run a fever because some little caveman in your gut built a fire?
No, you are more trusting of Russian media sources.
It's already been proven since you didn't read the Mueller report.
The truth is a defense in any civil suit. If the claim was true why wouldn't Fox use the truth to get the suit thrown out? It would take only one court filing.
Paradoxical
New member
I have had a similar discussion on another site. For some odd reason, it seems that primarily liberals have difficulty with beliefs and opinions and call them lies. The main example is that with group talk, almost all of them assert that Trump was LYING about election fraud. You will rarely get a photo of the murderer with the gun. Almost all cases that are heard in court are based on circumstantial evidence. There are mounds of it in the 2020 election and we recently found proof through Musk that Twitter was coordinating with the FBI to keep the Hunter laptop story from the public. How is that the job of the FBI anyway, even if the laptop was fake? That isn't in their job description. I have tons of circumstantial evidence and no one wants to listen, which is the same reaction to the horror of the FBI and DNC colluding with Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, and Google as to what to release to the pubic.
Thus, it is not a LIE but a belief that the election was stolen.
Not so fast. I took a look at the journal article you linked to previously, written by Doctor John McVail. Quoting the relevant portion of his article:
**
It is stated, on responsible authority, "that during the Spanish regime and for some years after the American occupation more than 40,000 deaths from small-pox occurred annually in the Phillipines."
**
The first thing to pay attention to is who this "responsible authority" was. It turns out, it was one Viktor G. Heiser, who just happened to be the medical "consultant" in health to the Governor General in the Phillipines. Have you considered that there just -might- be a conflict of interest in said consultant trying to distort the truth with comforting lies?
If you hadn't, you might start considering it now, especially in light of what Doctor McVail writes almost immediately afterwards:
**
It will be seen that the figures for the years 1915-20 have a general resemblance to those given by Sir Alfred Mond, but are not identical with them. While the disease is obviously endemic, the figures suggest that for a number of years prior to the epidemic of 1918-20[,] many provinces or islands may have had no small-pox, and in no year save 1919 is any approach made to the mortality of 40,000 said to have occurred during spanish rule.
**
I think there's ample evidence here to strongly suspect that Viktor G. Heiser painted an extremely distorted picture of the actual yearly spread of small-pox deaths in order to obfuscate the fact that the most small-pox deaths occurred close to the end of the vaccination period, when the Phillipines had been under American occupation for some time. Incidentally, the charts that McVail came up with don't even have any recorded numbers for small-pox deaths prior to the American occupation of the Phillipines, which gets me to wonder as to where Dr. Heiser was getting his numbers from prior to said occupation.
Dr. McVail's article has 2 charts of deaths per year, and it's clear they don't exactly agree with each other, though they -do- agree that 1919 was by far the worst year with 44,000+ small-pox deaths, and the only year where small-pox deaths passed 19,000 deaths. Strange, don't you think, that the highest number of deaths was the year prior to ending vaccinations, after 9 years of forced vaccinations. One might be led to believe that far from helping the Phillipinos with small pox, it was actually contributing to their death counts from the disease.
Incidentally, I did the math using the second chart regarding the deaths via smallpox for the 10 years of the forced vaccination regime, and it comes close to Gary Krasner's number of 75,000 deaths- it's a little under 69,000. I suspect Gary may have used some of the numbers from the other chart or perhaps yet another chart that isn't mentioned in Dr. McVail's article.
There is also another huge elephant in the room here. What were the -living- conditions of the Phillipinos during all these years? I know that the medical establishment likes to dismiss such concerns, but I believe you have agreed that things such as sanitation and good nutrition are rather important in such matters.
Last edited:
If you have any evidence suggesting that the group of doctors and other proffessionals statement is difficient in some way, but all means present it. Simply insulting said statement does nothing to further progress of the discussion.
Now Guil, be nice
. I certainly didn't appreciate Hawkeye's comment, but I explained why in a way that didn't use any base insults.No, because we don't disagree on that.
I can agree with that, but I believe that the vast majority of people are being led astray with the current belief that pictures of various microbes are contagious viruses. Considering the alleged global pandemic we have been going through, I think that this is a pretty important issue.
While I certainly don't believe that the issue of whether viruses exist or not is anywhere near as clear cut as Hawkeye believes, I haven't seen any evidence that Hawkeye is trying to deceive anyone. He's just repeating the mainstream view on this one.
Last edited:
You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. There's ample evidence that Burisma hired Hunter Biden not for his experience in energy companies, of which he had none, but to leverage his ability to influence others. It's hardly much of a leap that the person they most wanted him to influence was his father. While I certainly haven't seen any proof that Pozharskyi talked about Burisma during his meeting with Joe Biden and his son, I believe it's the most likely possibility, especially in light of evidence that Hunter Biden frequently relied on his father to help him out with his business deals.
I made no such claim. On the other hand, the New York Post article -does- provide evidence that Hunter Biden referrred to his father as "the big guy".
Bobulinksi's statement to media outlets that “Big Guy” was a reference to then-presidential candidate Joe Biden is evidence in and of itself.
AD HOMINEM attack.
Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that he has 'no beliefs'?
Or do you often type, libelous posts?
Last edited:
Agreed, and yes, he has done this a fair amount of times- I've called him on it multiple times as well. However, he has also provided a fair amount of evidence/reasons for his beliefs, and I do appreciate that, as it gives me a chance to counter his evidence/reasons with my own. I think that's the basis of any productive discussion where 2 sides disagree on something, essentially explaining our reasoning and evidence to others and them doing the same with us.
I don't mind when people disagree.
But you - from what few posts i have seen on this subject - have remained civil.
He has not.
He could keep it civil.
He chose not to.
You are debating (apparently).
He is now trolling.
You frequently see things in a way that is far too black and white, when this world is filled with colour. Reading part of an article is not the same thing as not reading an article at all. Similarly, one can agree with some points of an article without agreeing with others.
As McRocket rightly pointed out in post #414, the above is a clear ad hominem attack, something which you've done a fair amount of times. You've provided no evidence that I have no beliefs. I tolerate these ad hominems from you because you -also- provide a fair amount of evidence and reasoning for your beliefs, which is the life's blood of any good discussion where 2 sides disagree on a given subject. As you know, I have even come to find some of your reasoning to be sound, for instance on your point that a logical argument doesn't necessarily mean it's true- it all depends on the premise(s).
True
.Agreed. He has done this a fair amount, but his saving grace is his putting out his reasoning and/or evidence for his own beliefs. If he didn't do this, I'd have stopped responding to him long ago.
He actually does both, which is why I keep on debating with him. I tend to stop responding to a given post of his if he starts doing too much of the ad hominem attacks, and I let him know in the hopes that he'll do less of it in subsequent posts. I think it may have worked to some extent.
True
Agreed. He has done this a fair amount, but his saving grace is his putting out his reasoning and/or evidence for his own beliefs. If he didn't do this, I'd have stopped responding to him long ago.
He actually does both, which is why I keep on debating with him. I tend to stop responding to a given post of his if he starts doing too much of the ad hominem attacks, and I let him know in the hopes that he'll do less of it in subsequent posts. I think it may have worked to some extent.
My experience is once people start trolling in a thread?
They (usually) only ramp it up.
We shall see.
I have actually seen some evidence that he has ramped it down a bit. We'll see if that trend continues or at least if he keeps it at current levels
.