Members banned from this thread: evince and Doc Dutch


Page 24 of 34 FirstFirst ... 14202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 509

Thread: America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

  1. #346 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,719
    Thanks
    702
    Thanked 303 Times in 272 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 22 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    That does sound better than anyone using a streaming service having to pay the BBC fee, but it seems that anyone watching live TV would automatically have to pay for it because of the BBC being incorporated in live TV broadcaster's lineup. In any case, my main issue with the BBC is not that it's inescapable to pay for it if one wants to legally watch live TV, but of the evidence that it's deeply involved in government propaganda.
    All live TV in Britain is produced by the BBC. If you watch BBC you need a license. You are arguing that some people should be able to steal their product without consequences.
    I argued no such thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    You haven't provided evidence of them being deeply involved in propaganda in the broadcasts in Britain.
    I disagree. I believe that the thegrayzone.com has provided compelling evidence tha the BBC is in fact deeply involved in government propaganda and I have provided articles from them where they present their evidence. An article that I've presented in this thread before (Post #332) from them is here:

    Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  2. #347 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I argued no such thing.



    I disagree. I believe that the thegrayzone.com has provided compelling evidence tha the BBC is in fact deeply involved in government propaganda and I have provided articles from them where they present their evidence. An article that I've presented in this thread before (Post #332) from them is here:

    Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com
    You also presented articles saying that viruses don't exist and then presented articles claiming that the Covid virus has existed in humans for years. Your ability to decide what is reality and what isn't seems to be challenged. What you think is evidence often seems to be fever dreams.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  3. #348 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,719
    Thanks
    702
    Thanked 303 Times in 272 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 22 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Gary Krasner wrote an article a little over 20 years ago that is still my go to article when it comes to the history of vaccines. While its title suggests that it focuses soley on the first vaccine, the one for smallpox, it in fact covers vaccines in general. I wish it had links to articles instead of just references to books and publications, but in fairness, it was written over 20 years ago. I'll quote the introduction to his article:

    **
    The public is now getting lot’s of medical propaganda about the eradication of smallpox through vaccination. But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).

    The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
    One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown’s seminal work, “The Modern Rise Of Populations” (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John & Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 per cent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, vol.2, “there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries.”

    Before health agencies and schools of public health were completely taken over by allopathic medicine, the great legacy of the sanitary reformers—Max von Penttenkofer, James T. Briggs, Dr. John Snow, Edwin Chadwick, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Southwood Smith—was that they were able to eradicate cholera, yellow fever, tuberculosis, typhus, typhoid, scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, measles and the bubonic plague long before vaccinations were developed or routinely used.

    Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lay the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England & Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 per cent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million—all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths—all revaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (Most notably in Munich-1880, Leicester-1878, Barcelona-1804, Alicante-1827, India-1906, etc.).

    **

    Full article:
    Smallpox – A Historical Perspective | vaccinechoicecanada.com

    Some books on vaccines that I thought were quite informative:
    How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication | amazon.com

    The Vaccine Illusion | amazon.com
    You do like to read a lot of conspiracy bullshit.
    Insulting my sources only provides evidence that you're a boor. I'll let it go this time, but the more of this you do, the less of your material I'll respond to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Let's look at your first source. It cites 3 papers and none of those papers support the theory that smallpox vaccines don't work. Instead they point out that many other diseases were controlled by improving hygiene. The author provides no source for his claims.
    I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

    **
    But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
    **

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    His arguments are ridiculous since it completely ignores how viruses spread.
    More insults, no evidence. Not a good start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    If the virus is not present in an area then there will be no deaths.
    Like a certain group of doctors, I don't even believe that viruses exist, so this is a non starter. For the audience, who might have missed the post that PRS is responding to, I presented him with the following paper that challenges the current dogma that viruses are contagious foreign bodies:
    The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com


    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I know a lot of people share your view, but as you say, Argumentum ad populum is not strong enough by itself to be a valid argument.
    I am not arguing I am right because many people share my view. I am arguing that actual science shows my view to be correct.
    Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I suggest reading the article I linked to above from Off Guardian. If you're like my father, you may point out that he's not a doctor- I'd counter that -because- he's not a doctor, he's easier to understand, following a path of discovery that anyone can make. However, there are certainly doctors that don't believe in the Covid virus (or any virus for that matter).

    A group of people, mainly doctors, outlined how the virus debate could be settled:
    The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com
    Complete bullshit that deserves to be called bullshit.
    Alright, 3 strikes (insults) and you're out. Get back to me when you can talk like a civilized individual. Or consider just opting out of this conversation altogether if that's too much for you to handle.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  4. #349 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post



    The issue is quantity, repetition and size of innacuracies. The western mainstream media's parroting of Russia's attack being "unprovoked" is so patently untrue that I generally stop reading any story that contains such a line.
    Since you are claiming Russia was provoked. Please provide us with your evidence of Ukraine attacking Russia. I can hardly wait to see what you think is a "provocation." My guess is you will parrot Russia's reason for saying they invaded.

    Russia was not attacked. Russia was not threatened in any way. Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation in order to expand their borders which they have proven by their illegal attempt to claim Ukrainian territory as now being part of Russia.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-07-2022)

  6. #350 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Insulting my sources only provides evidence that you're a boor. I'll let it go this time, but the more of this you do, the less of your material I'll respond to.



    I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

    **
    But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
    **



    More insults, no evidence. Not a good start.



    Like a certain group of doctors, I don't even believe that viruses exist, so this is a non starter. For the audience, who might have missed the post that PRS is responding to, I presented him with the following paper that challenges the current dogma that viruses are contagious foreign bodies:
    The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com




    Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.



    Alright, 3 strikes (insults) and you're out. Get back to me when you can talk like a civilized individual. Or consider just opting out of this conversation altogether if that's too much for you to handle.
    Tell us how viruses can not exist as your one link claims and yet the Covid virus can have existed in humans for years before 2019 as your other link claims. This is exactly why your sources are bullshit. And you don't even seem to understand that it is impossible for viruses to exist and not exist at the same time.
    You argue that viruses don't exist and yet you have posted the following links as supporting you which all say the viruses DO exist.
    https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/...-global-fraud/
    https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/spec...l-perspective/
    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022...-completely-2/
    https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Illus...p%2C171&sr=1-2


    Are there pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes? Yes or no.
    If you say no, then you are an idiot for denying reality. If you say yes, then you are an idiot for relying on a source that says viruses don't exist and there are no such pictures.
    https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/virus

    What conversation are we having? We aren't having one because you are simply posting conspiracy bullshit and then when I call it out as the bullshit it is you get snippy. You post things that contradict your claimed opinion. Your opinion is complete nonsense. It is in direct contradiction to reality. At this point you are proving you belong in an insane asylum because you don't live in reality.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  7. #351 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post




    Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.


    Prove that viruses don't exist. That means you have to prove that all these pictures of viruses are faked.
    https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/virus

    I look forward to your evidence.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  8. #352 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,719
    Thanks
    702
    Thanked 303 Times in 272 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 22 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I actually read a fair amount of articles to completion, especially if it's from an author that I already know and like. In this case, I didn't think it was worth the time to read the entire article. There are a lot of articles out there and only so much time in the day for reading them.
    Hint - don't present articles as evidence if you haven't read them.
    Reading an article is not necessarily a black and white affair. I always make sure to read at least -part- of an article before using it as a source of information. As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to read even part of an article to voice one's beliefs here. I don't believe I've ever started a thread here without referring to at least one article and I frequently refer to articles in responses to others, whether in my own thread or in others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    For starters, the article is not labelled an opinion piece. Secondly, it links to sources from mainstream news articles.
    I'll bet you can't find a single article from the NYTimes or BBC that is labelled "propaganda" by the author. And yet without that label you are able to come to the conclusion it is propaganda. Just because an article is not labelled as something doesn't mean it isn't. Use objective criteria that you can apply equally.
    I agree that we can label articles however we like. Your problem is in assuming that others will agree with your own assessments of what constitutes objective criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Now that you bring it up, I actually remember looking into the firing of this investigator in the past myself and I believe I came to the same conclusion you did on this one. So let's move on to the other claims in the excerpt from the New York Post article, namely Burisma using Hunter Biden's son to curry favour with Joe Biden. The excerpt, once more:
    OK. let's do that.
    **
    Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.
    **

    We both agree that the claim that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma.
    I didn't say that, though I can see how you could come to that conclusion. I did say that I believed I came to the same conclusion that you did on this one, but now that you mentioned a specific claim, I decided to double check to see if the evidence fit your claim. The article that the New York Post article links to in the quote above suggests that Biden was actually guilty of firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Quoting from the linked article:

    **
    Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma Holdings in 2014, soon after President Barack Obama placed his father in charge of managing U.S. relations with Ukraine.

    The younger Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was paid up to $166,000 a month, The Hill has reported — even though Hunter Biden had no experience in the fuel industry and no prior business dealings in the Ukraine.

    “Not one single outlet has given any credibility to [Trump’s] assertion” that Biden intervened for his son’s benefit, he said Friday. “Not one single one.”

    But in 2018, Biden himself talked about pushing the Ukraine to remove Shokin in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations — without disclosing his son’s ties to the Ukrainian company.

    In March 2016, Biden recalled, he told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the US government would cancel $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin, who was facing his own charges of corruption, was removed from office.

    “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden said in the videotaped speech. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

    “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden concluded. Shokin was formally ousted from his post by the Ukrainian Parliament that same month.

    Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.

    **

    Source:
    Biden accuses Trump of an ‘overwhelming abuse of power’ following Ukraine allegations | New York Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    **
    The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.
    **

    That is a loaded sentence. It doesn't just provide facts but instead includes things to paint a picture that may not be true. "Never-before-revealed" is a loaded phrase that would seem to imply the meeting was purposely hidden. Including Hunter's salary in the same sentence is also a loaded attempt to paint the payment as nefarious. The salary could be important but I can think of multiple ways to get all that information out in a non biased way. Pozharskyi doesn't appear to even work for Burisma in 2015 since they list him as an advisor to the board.
    You don't think that being an advisor to the board, which the New York Post describes as "reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec", suggests that he was working for Burisma?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    **
    “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.
    **

    The email is unclear whether the author spent time with Hunter or spent time with his father because the grammar is fractured. It is likely it was thanks for Hunter spending time with him and then introducing him to his father. The email certainly isn't evidence of any nefarious activity since Hunter and the author of the email are in business together. Was it an honor and a pleasure to meet Joe or an honor and a pleasure to spend time together? Unclear. Even if it was an honor and a pleasure to meet Joe it again isn't evidence of any nefarious activity. People often say it is an honor and a pleasure to meet someone when they only spoke briefly.
    It certainly suggests that that Pozharskyi was thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father, who just happened to be the Vice President of the U.S. at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    **
    An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
    **

    Is the only influence Hunter has his father? Or is Hunter a US lawyer with many contacts?
    Irrelevant. The point is that this is a clear signal that Pozharskyl, and by extension Burisma, was paying Hunter Biden his salary of up to $50,000 a month for the sole purpose of getting Hunter Biden to use his influence on his father. You'll note that the timing of Hunter being put on Burisma's payroll and Pozharskyl's question quoted above are pretty close. It would be nice to know just how close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    The vagueness of the statement is not evidence that the influence is his father.
    That sentence doesn't work gramatically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    This email is from almost a year earlier. What is there to tie it into the meeting almost a year later? Not really anything from an evidence standpoint.
    The fact that Hunter Biden was successful in getting Pozharskyl a meeting with Joe Biden after a year suggests that Burisma may have considered the money on Hunter well spent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    **
    The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
    **

    There is nothing blockbuster about the correspondence since there is no smoking gun.
    You don't need a smoking gun to realize that there's evidence that Hunter Biden used his influence to get his father to support Burisma in some way. Evidence is certainly not proof, but it's certainly gotten me curious if there is in fact more evidence that would in fact suggest that Joe Biden did help Burisma in some way. It would also explain why Joe Biden would want to shut down the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    All there is is an attempt to create something that isn't in the evidence. There is certainly no evidence in those 2 emails that Joe Biden talked business when he stopped by the table as his son was having lunch. The fact that the email thanking Hunter doesn't mention talking business would seem to point to it not happening.
    I remember a great line that my father once told me: "A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack". It applies here. And it gets me more curious to know why Biden was so keen on getting the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Finally, a good reporter and editor would not have made such allegations without asking for comment from the person they were alleging had done wrong. Then they would have included that response near the allegations in the story so that the reader would see both sides. The fact that this was not done points to this being bad journalism. No wonder the journalist that wrote most of this refused to put his name on it if what the NYTimes reported about this is true. The journalist knew it wasn't up to journalistic standards.
    Assuming that what the New York Times reported is true, the journalist didn't even want his name on the piece. Have you considered the possibility that the journalist who wrote this story was afraid that trying to get a comment from Biden would have put him in a very uncomfortable and perhaps even dangerous position?
    Last edited by Phoenyx; 12-07-2022 at 03:13 PM.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  9. #353 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

    **
    But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
    **

    .
    I have read that text and already pointed out that it says nothing about vaccines not working. The zymotic diseases are diseases that are spread through poor sanitation. By cleaning up the sanitation, those diseases can be controlled. No reasonable person has ever claimed that those diseases were eradicated because of vaccine. In fact we know they haven't been eradicated because they still exist. I challenge you to find popular claims that typhus and cholera were eradicated by vaccine alone.

    https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...em/2022-DON415

    Then your author cites a speech on the floor of Congress as his evidence of deaths in the Philippines. I did a little research. It seems the facts given to Congress were wrong. While the deaths in 1919 were over 40,000 the numbers given by Dr Hay were the number who contracted smallpox in 1918 not the deaths in 1919.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20422367
    Here are historically recorded deaths in the British medical journal. They also point out that prior to the start of the vaccination the number of deaths was typically over 40,000 per year. We see the deaths drop as the vaccination program is taken up, from the 40,000 per year under Spanish rule to less than 20,000 to less than 1,000 before there is a sudden increase in deaths in 1918-1919 and then it is less than 6,000 in 1920.

    Your author cherry picks one year to try to make it appear that vaccines don't work while ignoring the other 15 years that prove they do work.

    But you still need to explain why you even believe this article since you believe viruses don't exist. How can sanitation affect something that doesn't even exist? Do viruses exist or not? Explain that to us.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  10. #354 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    R


    I agree that we can label articles however we like. Your problem is in assuming that others will agree with your own assessments of what constitutes objective criteria.
    My problem is that you have no criteria at all. What criteria do you use to tell if something is an opinion vs a fact? Simply tell us what your criteria is and then we can see if you actually use that criteria or not.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  11. #355 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post


    I didn't say that, though I can see how you could come to that conclusion. I did say that I believed I came to the same conclusion that you did on this one, but now that you mentioned a specific claim, I decided to double check to see if the evidence fit your claim. The article that the New York Post article links to in the quote above suggests that Biden was actually guilty of firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Quoting from the linked article:

    **
    Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma Holdings in 2014, soon after President Barack Obama placed his father in charge of managing U.S. relations with Ukraine.

    The younger Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was paid up to $166,000 a month, The Hill has reported — even though Hunter Biden had no experience in the fuel industry and no prior business dealings in the Ukraine.

    “Not one single outlet has given any credibility to [Trump’s] assertion” that Biden intervened for his son’s benefit, he said Friday. “Not one single one.”

    But in 2018, Biden himself talked about pushing the Ukraine to remove Shokin in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations — without disclosing his son’s ties to the Ukrainian company.

    In March 2016, Biden recalled, he told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the US government would cancel $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin, who was facing his own charges of corruption, was removed from office.

    “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden said in the videotaped speech. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

    “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden concluded. Shokin was formally ousted from his post by the Ukrainian Parliament that same month.

    Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.

    **

    Source:
    Biden accuses Trump of an ‘overwhelming abuse of power’ following Ukraine allegations | New York Post
    ?
    Simply citing the same disputed claims doesn't suddenly make them true. It only shows you don't know how to construct an argument that is supported by facts.

    Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.
    This statement is factually untrue. There was no investigation of Burisma happening at the time. There was no investigation of Burisma that was dropped. You are guilty of simply repeating debunked claims without finding original sources.

    Burisma was under investigation from 2010-2012. Biden joined the board in 2014. The prosecutor in Ukraine was out in 2016. Can you explain how an investigation that ended in 2012 existed in 2016? The prosecutor was forced out because he was NOT investigating corruption but was enabling it.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1WC1LV

    https://nabu.gov.ua/sites/default/fi...report_eng.pdf
    This is the report from the Ukranian NABU whose job it is to find corruption. There are at least 3 instance of corruption in the Prosecutor's office mentioned. There is no mention of Burisma.

    I remember a great line that my father once told me: "A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack". It applies here. And it gets me more curious to know why Biden was so keen on getting the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired.
    What investigation? Find me the exact investigation that was being done of Burisma. It should be easy to find since you think it exists. The prosecutor was fired for corruption not to stop investigations. Lack of evidence is not proof of anything other than the gullibility of someone that thinks lack of evidence is proof.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  12. #356 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post

    It certainly suggests that that Pozharskyi was thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father, who just happened to be the Vice President of the U.S. at the time.
    Please present your proof that every time anyone meets someone else they always discuss business. Meeting someone is not proof they talked business. Only a fool would claim that was true. Are you a fool?


    Irrelevant. The point is that this is a clear signal that Pozharskyl, and by extension Burisma, was paying Hunter Biden his salary of up to $50,000 a month for the sole purpose of getting Hunter Biden to use his influence on his father. You'll note that the timing of Hunter being put on Burisma's payroll and Pozharskyl's question quoted above are pretty close. It would be nice to know just how close.
    How is it a clear signal? 2 emails a year apart are connected how? I am guessing you have never conducted business if you think 2 emails a year apart show a business plan.

    That sentence doesn't work gramatically.
    It works just fine. Is English not your first language?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  13. #357 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2022
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Dillon View Post
    Seth Rich leaked the dastardly things the DNC was doing (I.E. rigging the primary for Hillary among many other things) and got killed for it.
    No question about it but the FBI again kept it under wraps because the FBI is primarily a propaganda arm of the Democrats.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Paradoxical For This Post:

    Matt Dillon (12-07-2022)

  15. #358 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    32,827
    Thanks
    19,711
    Thanked 9,447 Times in 7,737 Posts
    Groans
    835
    Groaned 509 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    Why rely on the media when you can read the original?

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...Mueller-Report




    The Mueller report does not say they found no evidence of collusion. It says they looked for criminal liability and didn't find enough to charge a crime.

    Saying the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion is about as relevant as claiming the Mueller report found no evidence of Trump eating strawberry jam. Mueller didn't look for evidence of either.
    Russia Russia Russia!



    The only "Russian collusion" in 2016 was Zuckerberg allowing Russian troll ads on Facebook for rubles.

    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...-russia-report

    https://archive.ph/RcDBu

    That's right! All that time wasted by Mueller & friends in an efffort to get something, anything on Trump was wasted tax dollars.

    It's not right that tax dollars were used for partisan purposes like that, but Democrats do it all the time.

    Now is where you bring up Benghazi and Ken Starr.

    The Ken Starr BS could have been done without, but the Benghazi lying to the public because the midterms were right there thing, and lack of security for that ambassador should have been prosecuted.

    If Hillary had not assassinated Khadaffi for the world bankers, it never would have happened. She destabilized Libya and now 100s of thousands have died or been who knows what because of that.
    Last edited by Matt Dillon; 12-08-2022 at 06:30 AM.

  16. #359 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,719
    Thanks
    702
    Thanked 303 Times in 272 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 22 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradoxical View Post
    It is amazing to me to see the apologetics used for the Buirisma situation, where the lefty simply says "There's nothing to see HERE, folks" as buildings are burning in the background, cop cars are being blown up, planes crashing". Apologetics is the business of explaining things away and claiming that contradictions really aren't by using hypotheticals, maybes and "coulds". It amounts to people still believing that Trump colluded with Russia even though a two-year-long investigation found no evidence but did find that the high-powered attorney firm set it all up for Hillary Clinton. IOW, apologetics uses excuses that strain credulity. The left always wants "p[roof' when it is their guy and when it is Trump or a conservative, a mere wild claim is more than enough to convict.

    Someone with zero experience making $50-80K a month on the board of a company whose business he knew nothing about? For what exactly? His dad claiming he knew nothing about it in spite of evidence of meetings and photos of him with the heads of Burisma? A company that KNEW they were under investigation and the prosecutor was closing in. Lo and behold, Hunter's dad somehow is able to deny Ukraine a billion in aid all on his own without consulting Obama or Congress if Zelensky himself doesn't take care of the prosecutor? This amounts to a mafia "hit' on a rival to kill an investigation.
    Your post made me rethink what I thought I knew about Joe Biden on this, thanks.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  17. #360 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,719
    Thanks
    702
    Thanked 303 Times in 272 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 22 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Dillon View Post
    Seth Rich leaked the dastardly things the DNC was doing (I.E. rigging the primary for Hillary among many other things) and got killed for it.
    I hadn't heard of this. I quick internet search brought me to Wikileak's page on Rich's murder. It classifies his murder as a "conspiracy theory", but Wikileaks tends to follow the mainstream narrative so I wouldn't be surprised if they're mistaken. Here's what they said on the theory that the DNC was behind it:

    **
    Conspiracy theories

    Origins

    Beginnings on social media


    Political conspiracy theories and racially charged comments started to appear on social media the day after Rich's death.[66][67] Within days, right-wing conspiracy theories began circulating,[68][69][70] including false claims that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak of 2016[4] or the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation.[70][71]

    A post on Twitter before Rich's memorial service spread the idea that his killing was a political assassination.[68] Subsequently, the conspiracy theory was spread on the subreddit /r/The Donald, and on July 29, 2016, the website Heat Street reported on these Reddit posts.[71][72] Reddit users attempted to tie the homicide to prior "Clinton Body Count" conspiracy theories.[69] The conspiracy theory was later popularized by Donald Trump political adviser Roger Stone via his Twitter account.[68]

    According to British journalist Duncan Campbell, the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, tried to implicate Rich as the source of the stolen DNC emails in order to draw attention away from themselves as the real perpetrators of the theft.[73] Datestamps on the DNC files were altered to show the data had been obtained on July 5, 2016, five days before Rich's death, and the time zone was changed to Eastern Time, within which Washington, D.C., falls. Guccifer 2.0, the alleged GRU front that provided the emails to Wikileaks, then reported that Rich had been their source. Based partly on their acceptance of the false dates, some experts then concluded that the emails had been copied in the DNC offices, and had not been hacked from outside.[74]
    **

    Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...iracy_theories
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

Similar Threads

  1. the Ministry of Truth is fully in charge of the Fourth Estate
    By Celticguy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2022, 09:39 PM
  2. Ministry of Truth is dead- Jankowicz will resign
    By dukkha in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-19-2022, 03:34 PM
  3. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-06-2022, 06:11 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2022, 02:59 PM
  5. Meet The Head Of Biden's Ministry Of Truth: Nina Jankowicz
    By ziggy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-28-2022, 11:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •