Maybe a little bit mean.. Ohh,but, it's PFUNNY.



https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHokwCTYmYgv0NHwmL...

Eegore wrote on 10/28/22 at 05:24:28:


And the 'proof' of, Herman Cain, dying FROM, not WITH is ?

"... before eventually dying of the disease on July 30 ..."

"And the 'proof' of, Herman Cain, dying FROM, not WITH is ?"

 It is sitting with the "proof" that the guy on the first post died from the vaccine.  The pendulum of proof swings both ways.

 Obviously the community that started the Herman Caine award required no proof.

Whatcha got There is a Non sequitur. An Attempt at a defense. Instead of addressing what I said Today, which is absolutely correct, you want to try to destroy my credibility to say it because I posted stuff, when? That you Said had living people who were supposedly dead,
As far ivermectin and hydroxy, the jury is still out,IMO. I don't trust the media to report That truthfully after the lies they Told and kept telling after it was OBVIOUS the jab doesn't keep you from getting it.

Eegore wrote on 10/28/22 at 08:13:12:


OK Got it !

"If you were in a casino and you bet on the words of the politician you would have a bigger chance of losing than going with unverified statements that disagree with him."

 Sure, but I also wouldn't continue to reference the unverified statements as factual and continually provide them as evidence to prove my point.  You know, because they are unverified, and I never even bothered to look up anything about them.  

 When a website uses lies as proof, I don't say "BFD" about it, I prefer instead to not appreciate the lying liars.

 The difference here is I don't use the words of politicians as evidence of anything other than those being words of that politician.

"You sure seem invested in your need to harp on This, as long as it distracts from something you don't want to look at."

 Except I do look at it.  I typically read your information for you, then you tell me I am wrong.  It's Your information.  How am I wrong if I tell you what your information says?


"You can use the same lying sources that told us of the wonders of the jab."

 I don't.  When I posted the mortality rates of kids in CO, what "lying sources" did I use?  All those parents lied, every school district, medical center, coroner office, social media post in CO conspired together?  I cross referenced 5 sources of information to indicate millions of kids have not died, you used a single Facebook post to indicate millions did.

 But since politicians lie that Facebook post is somehow is true?


"What do you make of the claims of embalmers who are saying they are finding strange clots, clots that must be cut out to embalm?"

 It's the volume of clots that is the issue.  And it was Richard Hirschman, not multiple embalmers.  He made the claim, but shouldn't there be multiple morticians in every state seeing this?  He stated he “suspected” they were caused by vaccines, and the National President of the National Funeral Directors & Morticians Association, of which Hirschman is part of indicated, accurately, that vaccination status is not on a death certificate.

 So it not multiple embalmers stating this, it is one that claims multiple see it, and he "suspects" vaccines.  I have tons of lab information on this, but historically I will be told it is not correct, knowing this somehow without even looking at it.


 "How can anyone decide what to believe right now?"

 Clinical evidence, not "suspected" information.  Claiming clots in bodies are caused by the vaccine from bodies that aren't even verified to be vaccinated means what exactly?

  Billions have been vaccinated with zero side effects.  If the vaccine cause DVT in .0001% of humans there would be millions of clotted blood vessels.  Morticians should be seeing them daily all over the place.  Where are these morticians?

 It seems that if you think a politician is lying about a medication, then any information that challenges this you consider to be true.  It seems that way, I'm not saying it absolutely is that way.