SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> So….. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1677501979 Message started by WebsterMark on 02/27/23 at 04:46:19

Title: So….. Post by WebsterMark on 02/27/23 at 04:46:19 So……we were told no way Wuhan came from the lab, that it was a natural event from bats, or monkeys etc….. Those of us who doubted that were trashed as conspiracy theorists. So……we were told Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian ploy and those emails implicating Joe were fake and anyone suggesting otherwise was playing right into Russia’s hands. So….. we’re told the 2020 election was legit and Biden really did win and anyone suggesting otherwise is an election denier. Well?

Title: Re: So….. Post by WebsterMark on 02/27/23 at 04:55:07 Oh, I forgot. So….we were told natural immunity faded quickly and regular boosters were needed. Anyone who suggested otherwise, regardless of their professional qualifications, should be ignored.

Title: Re: So….. Post by pg on 02/27/23 at 06:59:15 I'm not surprised a bit, are you?? Best regards,

Title: Re: So….. Post by Serowbot on 02/27/23 at 07:32:56 ...and don't forget birds aren't real

Title: Re: So….. Post by pg on 02/27/23 at 10:16:09 Birds are real, bat-soup..................... :-X Best regards,

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/27/23 at 12:22:45 2F392E332B3E33285C0 wrote: ...and don't forget birds aren't real What is that supposed to mean? And yeah, all of us saying it was made in a lab were laughed at. Natural immunity, according to E,was fleeting and wimpy. And because his sources are so good We were supposed to believe what has not been the usual, is now the way it is. Nope.. As per USUAL a laboratory was involved. And getting it and getting over it provides better and longer lasting immunity. Since the jabs offer, apparently next to No protection, and if early treatment is provided, it's incredibly survivable. I'm seeing more and more positive things about ivermectin.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/27/23 at 16:37:13 "Natural immunity, according to E,was fleeting and wimpy."   Natural immunity means you are "immune" to contracting the virus.  Are you saying some humans are now immune to getting Covid19?  They can not get it?

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/27/23 at 16:42:54 You catch right on. Like the mumps. Get it,safe,,for YEARS,, Remember how things were before Science agreed with tranny theory? Like that... If the Died Suddenly folks were Unjabbed, it would be on a loop on tv. The jabbed get it again and again. The jabbed ARE the Died Suddenly. If you're going to play with Immune,, You can do that. But I don't care. I see what is going on. The unjabbed who got over covid are not the ones dying.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/27/23 at 17:10:34  But people aren't "safe" from Covid for YEARS by getting it.  Millions of humans have contracted Covid twice in under 365 days that are not vaccinated.  Millions of humans.  That's not "immunity" in any way, it's not even close to Mumps.   "Remember how things were before Science agreed with tranny theory?"  I've not seen any "science" that agrees. "But I don't care. I see what is going on. The unjabbed who got over covid are not the ones dying."  This makes sense when you ignore how base-rate works.  There is a possibility that vaccinations should not be used on a certain portion of the population, specifically the ones I mentioned here that you won't read, but ignoring how math works won't help have a discussion about this issue.

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/28/23 at 00:12:52 You argued that natural immunity is not lasting. You argued that the jabs offer more protection, in as little as six months after recovering from covid. You were wrong. Well, everyone has sources. Believing the people who are trying to make people get the jab is not a good thing.

Title: Re: So….. Post by WebsterMark on 02/28/23 at 04:10:50 The point is you have to discern every news story because bias either purposely or subliminally clouds the view of the presenter when the tell the story. You have to have multiple sources. Now, as a conservative, that’s easy, because I have my preferred new sources, but I get naturally inundated with the ambient news stories that float around me from popular culture. It’s easy for me to see both sides of the coin. It’s very difficult for a leftist liberal who refuses to see or watch anything other than CNN or MSNBC. You’re completely blind to the other side of the coin. A perfect example is our former friend from Chicago, who used to hide behind our fair and balanced moderator’s skirts. I don’t think I’ve seen more of a one-sided idiot. So conservatives have a natural advantage, but that also means we need a plan of discernment when we hear stories from our preferred sources. I like Tucker Carlson but I’m very well aware he’s very one-sided. I think he’s generally on to something but he also goes off in these tangents that just aren’t real. I hated Bill O’Reilly with a passion, and I refused to watch Sean Hannity. I don’t think they offer anything of value. I don’t watch Laura Ingram either. It seemed very logical that Wuhan came from a lab leak, and it seems ridiculous to say we couldn’t talk about it because we were being racist towards Chinese. As soon as I heard that I knew there was something to the story. When a couple of hundred national security advisor signed letter that said Hunter, Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, I knew it was real. And I know there’s no way Biden won that election fairly. Everyone knows that. Apply discernment to every new story you hear and try to purposely force out your own biases and arrive a little bit closer to what the truth is. We may never know the exact truth but you can get closer. Which is why I never went all in on Trump to the way our fair and balanced moderator for example goes all in on grandpa Biden. I know Trump is a liar and a cheat. I’m very well aware of that. I’m also very well aware he was better for me as president than anyone else. So no, I wouldn’t want Donald Trump as a neighbor and I wouldn’t mind Barack Obama as a neighbor. That’s what I mean about separating biased from reality.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/28/23 at 06:29:33 You argued that natural immunity is not lasting. You argued that the jabs offer more protection, in as little as six months after recovering from covid.  That's because hundreds of thousands of medical records show real living humans contracted Covid 19 multiple times in 6 months.  This is supported with millions of social media posts, from those humans.  At the time, the majority of those returning were not vaccinated.  This is supported by their medical records, and their own statements.  I have never said that you should take the jab.  I am just using math, and verifiable numbers from sources I read, or read for you, and coming to a conclusion.    There will be more vaccinated in hospitals as more humans get vaccinated, that's what math dictates.  Why you want to keep dodging this fact I don't know but maybe it's similar to the reason you won't use two numbers to create a percentage.  You want us to accept that X-number of young athletes died from vaccinations, but you do not want to acknowledge the overall number of vaccinated humans in that age group.  Why would anyone ever agree to that? "Well, everyone has sources."  Which is good, except when the information is "lies" if they come from one source, but if the exact same word-for-word, number-for-number information comes from a source you like, then it's suddenly true.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/28/23 at 06:43:44 "It’s easy for me to see both sides of the coin. It’s very difficult for a leftist liberal who refuses to see or watch anything other than CNN or MSNBC. You’re completely blind to the other side of the coin."  This same logic applies to anyone that uses the internet to only search specifically for information they want to hear, exclusively on websites they like.  It creates an echo chamber, and those are extremely profitable to those websites and media platforms.   "Which is why I never went all in on Trump to the way our fair and balanced moderator for example goes all in on grandpa Biden. I know Trump is a liar and a cheat. I’m very well aware of that. I’m also very well aware he was better for me as president than anyone else. So no, I wouldn’t want Donald Trump as a neighbor and I wouldn’t mind Barack Obama as a neighbor. That’s what I mean about separating biased from reality."  But it's easier to just talk trash about the "other side".

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/28/23 at 07:31:12 E, You argued against what is and has been historically true, and you Were Wrong. Just be Wrong. It's okay. You can do it. The unjabbed were the smart ones. Even Dilbert figured that out.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/28/23 at 07:46:10 E, You argued against what is and has been historically true, and you Were Wrong. Just be Wrong. It's okay. You can do it.  I provided reference for all my numbers, that you won't read.  How are you coming to the conclusion that vaccinated humans are getting Covid more than unvaccinated?    You are ignoring base-rate.  You won't even acknowledge how many people you think are vaccinated because you "don't want to be played" so by your math 100% of vaccines are lethal.  Why would anyone agree to that?

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/28/23 at 08:28:37 math 100% of vaccines are lethal. You expose yourself as being dishonest.. Protect your ego, you argued against what is now accepted. You argued that covid didn't have any signs of being made in a lab, incorrectly. You can QUOTE whatever. But when Your Sources are ProJab,they are not dependable.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/28/23 at 11:00:03 "You expose yourself as being dishonest.. Protect your ego, you argued against what is now accepted. You argued that covid didn't have any signs of being made in a lab, incorrectly."  I presented the material that indicated it was not laboratory made.  You won't read it, but somehow you know what it says.  I still have seen no evidence of physical components to prove this strain is synthetically created, however, I have said it is completely plausible that it did come from the lab.  I have said multiple times it may have come from not one, but two laboratories.    It may not have been synthetically produced though.  Your inability to accept the difference is not my inaccurate assessment.   "You can QUOTE whatever. But when Your Sources are ProJab,they are not dependable."  Unless that exact same, word for word, number for number document comes from a source You like.  Then you say it's true, and expect us to now think its dependable after you called it "lies" earlier.    Is it "lies" or is it truth?  Why continually debate people that read it for you?  You won't even look at it and you sit here with completely fabricated arguments like "they changed it".  No, it's the exact-same-information.  You would know that if you would actually read it.  You are ignoring base-rate.  You won't even acknowledge how many people you think are vaccinated because you "don't want to be played" so by your math 100% of vaccines are lethal.  Why would anyone agree with that?  Why do you continue to dodge the question?

Title: Re: So….. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/28/23 at 13:10:55 What you used to support your position Was BullShitt. You know, like the stuff I posted. Difference is My support documents may have been faulty, but the claims are real. The jabs are bad,some lots worse, some may have been saline,  the people who believed the government, media ,,all that crap, Got PLAYED. The unjabbed are the smart ones.

Title: Re: So….. Post by Eegore on 02/28/23 at 19:23:20 "What you used to support your position Was BullShitt."  Except for the information you sent back to me that is an exact copy and claimed when You used it it is true.  That information is somehow "lies" if I use it, and also truth when You do.  Interesting you know so much about information I read for you.    If your information is correct, why are you selectively ignoring base-rate?  A mathematical absolute.  Why ignore the second number when claiming a percentage?  Why dodge that question?  How can anyone take your numbers seriously when you won't let us use two numbers to come up with a percentage?  Where are you getting information that unvaccinated humans are "immune" to Covid?  I've never heard this from anywhere beyond a random FB post, or youTube.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.