Total posts: 1,080
-->
@DavidAZ
Look at the statistics (AKA: facts). The site even says, that only 5% of death certificates have COVID as the actual death. Every other "COVID related" death had on average, 4 OTHER CONDITIONS related to death. Look at some of the stats that state, diabetes, or heart failure or obesity or even "intentional or unintentional injury or poisoning". Really? Someone fell off a ladder and broke his neck but, dies of COVID?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this article when it comes to labelling causes of death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You know, you would have more success with this line of rhetoric if you toned down the hyperbole and took a more measured approach with arguments that are actually rooted in reality.
But it's hard to take posts like this seriously when you type utterly dumb fuck things like.
At this point how can you say the LGBTQ+ community is not a religion? They have more holidays than any other one.
Plus, they have the holy Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who are basically the priests of this community.
So, we celebrate pedophiles for almost half a year
And now in 2023, where the Drag Queens will force your kids to watch Drag Shows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So let me get this straight.The LGBTQ+ community refers to people who are strait, as cisgender. This is a brand-new term, not entirely agreed upon by all people.My question is why. Why does the LGBTQ+ community expect us to give in to all of their labels, definitions, and perceptions of reality, while they go out, and disrespect women, and people who don't want to be called cisgender.
I don't think this is correct. Let me get a couple of points out:
1. Fundamentally you probably shouldn't be painting a large group of people with the same brush, because a large group of people is unlikely to agree on any one issue.
2. The term cisgender does not seem to be synonymous with the term straight and it doesn't seem like you would use them in the same context. For example, a cisgender could either be gay, straight or bisexual. Cisgender is the opposite of transgender, in which you too could have a gay, straight or bisexual transgender person.
3. From 1 and 2, I don't think the LGBTQ+ in general insists on labelling straight people as cisgender, and I would challenge you for objective evidence of this.
4. The term is nearly 30 years old and exists in most? major dictionaries that I quickly googled online.
Their logic is, if a transgender woman, doesn't want to be called a man, we should respect that, but if a strait person doesn't want to be called cisgender, then that is a form of homophobia, or transphobia.
It probably depends on your motivations for not wanting to be called cisgender really. From my perspective it'd be equally as silly as being straight and not wanting to be called straight. The reality is that it's an objective descriptive term that seems to have been accepted into the English language. In which case where does your objection lie such that you reject such realities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh. You know from the title of this thread it seemed like there was going to be a substantive criminal accusation.
If the main point is that Hunter Bidens finances will be exposed there isn't really anything to discuss. In the U.S. there is the concept where everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Until then it's just a lot of weird speculation. And a lot of personal attacks against the Bidens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sure?
It seems by definition Hunter Biden is not a deadbeat father? He is and was paying his obligations ($20,000 a month) in child support which runs contrary to the definition of a deadbeat. Furthermore, the reality is that your circumstances in life change all the time, and the amount in child support you pay should correctly reflect this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
However, gun violence is not caused by legal gun ownership, but by criminals who use guns illegally.
I vaguely recall that the vast majority of gun violence is in gangs, so this is probably technically correct. From an optics viewpoint this technicality doesn't really work given that it seems to be that, for example in the case of mass shootings, most guns seem to be obtained legally.
The focus should be on addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty and mental illness, rather than on limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The focus should be on effective solutions to mitigate the issue. If this is poverty and mental illness, so be it. On the other-hand, there is nothing stopping this from being a multi-pronged approach such as gun control if it is identified to be an effective solution.
From my perspective, poverty and mental illness are difficult problems to tackle. Moreover they are universal problems that all countries have to deal with. However the sole reason why America's gun violence stands out among 1st world nations seems to be the general availability of firearms. Hence from my perspective, this is the aspect that needs to be tackled if the issue is to be mitigated effectively.
Created:
Posted in:
There are good arguments to be made for gun ownership. This isn't a particularly good one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Abortion is murder by definition.
Acts of murder are by definition unlawful. Therefore when done lawfully, abortion is not murder by definition.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It's less about lying about the true premise and more that the arguments for and against abortion/vaccine mandates via bodily autonomy are simply more nuanced than the simplistic syllogisms you presented.
For example, have you considered the moral considerations given to the unborn Vs those currently living in society and compared the degree in which they might be harmed?
Created:
Conspiracy once again becomes fact.
What a curious definition of fact
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Looks like nothing
I liked this bit though
Taibbi maintains that Twitter employees were not basing their censorship orders for the laptop story on demands from the government.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
What actually among your links disproves the assertion that "While the released Twitter messages have yet to reveal a smoking gun showing the government ordered a social media company to suppress a story"?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Probably true, but nationalizing the health industry would cost trillions of dollars per year. Here is my ideal health plan for the US:
US healthcare already costs trillions of dollars per year for worse outcomes than countries that spend comparatively less....
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But you are describing the cost for US vs European healthcare systems, not the cost for everything as a whole. Improving just the US healthcare system would not involve doubling the US taxation rate.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That's because positive claims are to be proven correct rather than proven wrong. If you don't provide the proof....
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Your claims which are asserted without evidence are equally dismissed without evidence. Both your original statements, and the claim that the original statements are common knowledge.
Should you actually want to reach an audience that will hear you, you need to bring that evidence, otherwise you are just speaking to an echo chamber.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But Americans are way less healthy than Sweeds which is why our health costs are higher. We have more obesity, we have less regulations on food than the Sweeds. This has made Sweeds live longer and have cheaper health bills, but it’s also led to Sweeds enjoying food less because less healthy food tends to taste better. It’s also why a tourist that comes to America is 16x as likely to want to become an immigrant to America than a European equivalent.
Sure.. but it's foolish to say Americans are less healthy than swedes and the health costs are higher...... therefore double the taxes?
What else does Europe spend more money on than the US. The only thing I can think of is free college, but that’s a small part of government spending.
It's not about what or whether Europe is spending more tax dollars than the US. It's about the spending relative to tax revenue
If Sweden allocates 10% of its tax revenue to healthcare and 90% of its tax revenue to something else, and the taxation rate is 40%, 4% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.
If the US allocates 5% of its tax revenue to healthcare and 95% of its tax revenue to something else, and the taxation rate is 20%, 1% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.
If your suggestion is to then bump up the US tax rate by 100% and increase it to 40% and entirely allocate this increase to healthcare, you are now allocating 52.5% of tax revenue to healthcare and the unchanged remainder for other things is at 47.5%. In which case 21% of a person's income is going towards healthcare.
In this example, you've doubled the US tax rate to match Sweden's tax rate, and yet you are now far outspending what Sweden would on healthcare as a percentage of tax dollars. You haven't gained parity with Sweden's healthcare at all. You've exceeded and overspent it by a large margin.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
With the EU model of UHC, taxes double.
You haven't demonstrated that taxes will double. Just because European taxes are double that of US taxes, does not mean that the US tax must necessarily double to implement UHC. Taxes are spent on multiple things, one of which is UHC.
As a very simplistic explanation and taking Sweden as a generic example of an implementation of UHC, the spending on healthcare in Sweden was 10.87% of their GDP, or $5,671 per person in 2019.
A naïve perspective would be that for the US to implement an equivalent healthcare system to Sweden, the US would need to spend at least the same amount.
In 2019, the US had already spent $11,582 person or 17.7% of it's GDP on healthcare.
Given this scenario, the US would need to pay less in healthcare to achieve UHC.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nope.Just because you’re not a part of the self-educated widely knowledgeable ones doesn’t negate the fact that it is widely available and easily verifiable.
Exactly. Widely available, not widely known. QED your claims demand evidence.
Conservatives and educated folk outnumber the leftist idiocracy. We just don’t get all militant and destructive like they do. Forcing tolerance while being intolerant themselves. Remarkably gullible and willingly walking up to the cart to buy the snake oily democrats sell them on a daily basis.
What an interesting tangent. The points you've made are still in dispute. QED your claims demand evidence.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Did you take into account that both European and US taxes are not solely spent on healthcare and that the intent of socialized medicine would be to replace what is already existing (including that spending on what is already existing)?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
When it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET & MSM, yeah, it meets the definition of widely know AND easily verifiable.
You've conflated widely available with widely known.
And of course, just because something is widely available does not necessarily make it easily verifiable.
And of course, just because something is widely available does not necessarily make it easily verifiable.
No, not really. The only ones disputing anything is the left. The fbi. The democrats. All those who would be ostracized for their illicit activities. Which is precisely why the FBI and democrats (like Schiff) kept espousing Russian disinformation, disputing the truth.The only thing in dispute is the truth, which the left, FBI, DOJ, Biden Inc and their cohorts have been disputing.
So it sounds like it is in fact in dispute by more than half of your country. I don't know why you're trying to so hard. You're the one who brought out this definition.
No single person or group is the sole arbiter of truth. If you wish to make a persuasive argument as to what is the truth in this matter, that's up to you. Though at that point, we would've gone full circle.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
to the educated who actually make an effort to stay abreast of world events
So not widely known.
the left's dispute is bunk
So it is in dispute
This is just lazy. If you want people to swallow your propaganda, do better.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”
1. You are citing the requirements for academic papers, not persuasive argument or fruitful discussion.
2. None of the assertions you've made are widely known, undisputed and easily verified.
The fact you seem to think the assertion that there is a Biden criminal organisation that disrupted Trumps presidency and probably rigged the 2020 is widely known, undisputed and easily verified is easily the most dumbest thing that I've ever encountered on this site.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think neither you nor I are versed well enough in UK law to make that determination. In any-case the situation that you have described seems to be judgement by society in which case the usage of hate speech in common parlance is probably more correct.
My sole reason for opposing socialized medicine is I don’t want my taxes doubled to pay for other people’s stuff.
How did you come to this conclusion that socialized medicine would require your taxes to be doubled?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
By definition none of it is hate speech.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
It is clear that the Biden’s and all their co-conspirators did as Grassley laid out. An FBI agent was caught conspiring with foreign agents that ties that FBI agent to Hunter and the Biden family.If the Biden Criminal Organization can disrupt a 4 year term of a sitting president with constant barrages of illicit and fallacious attacks, effectively setting that POTUS up for failure, it is more than plausible and more probable that they also conspired to rig the 2020 election (which is more or less self-evident at this point).
This seems like conspiratorial babble. In your own words, Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
The context of that video seems to be US shootings?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Usually sexual education takes place in biology class though. And there is nothing biological about having sex through the LGBTQ+ way.
Biology simply deals with the science of living organisms. Unless it's your contention that LGBTQ+ find themselves more often than not banging stiffs, it's fundamentally no different to two animals humping.
The reason they teach sexual education to kids is so that the future generation knows how to reproduce, and how to do it safely. They don't teach kids to have sex for pleasure. That is what the LGBTQ+ agenda teaches.
The whole of school is to is to equip young people with skills and knowledge that they can use in the future. While I'm sure they aren't specifically teaching kids to have sex for pleasure, it's ultimately a fact that nearly everyone will whether straight or LGBTQ+, therefore teaching people to engage in sexual behaviour responsibly is rather valuable.
Also, all sexual education classes will include a module on safe sex with contraceptives, which seems to run contrary to your claim that such classes are there to teach how to reproduce, and supports mine that they are there to teach responsible sexual behaviour.
Also, all sexual education classes will include a module on safe sex with contraceptives, which seems to run contrary to your claim that such classes are there to teach how to reproduce, and supports mine that they are there to teach responsible sexual behaviour.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sexual education isn't just about the mechanics of pregnancy. It's about safe sexual practices in general. Since people under the LGBTQ+ banner still have sex, presumably learning about safe sexual practices would also be beneficial to them.
Though admittedly such a topic would serve a more niche group, it's still nice to be inclusive of everybody.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Trump had documents, in his house yes. But he didn't deny that he did
The second is that, through it all, there’s plenty of evidence that Trump and his advisers have falsely claimed — and that Trump himself sought to have his lawyers falsely claim — that all such documents had been turned over:
- The most prominent example is a sworn statement signed by Trump lawyer Christina Bobb in June, when Trump’s legal team handed over some documents. It said that a “diligent search was conducted” and that “any and all responsive documents accompany this certification.”
- The Washington Post’s Jacqueline Alemany and Josh Dawsey also reported this week that Trump in early 2022 asked his lawyer Alex Cannon to tell the Archives that all materials sought by the agency had been returned. But Cannon refused. Trump later released a public statement that didn’t include the assertion that everything had been returned.
- Alemany, Dawsey and Helderman reported last month that former Trump deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin had provided a similar assurance to the Archives as far back as September 2021. Philbin said that former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows had told him none of the material Trump took was sensitive or classified, and that Trump only had 12 boxes of news clippings.
The only reason his lawyers took action, was because it was an unjust search for something that they had no evidence of.
The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek reported Thursday that the FBI’s raid on Mar-A-Lago came after a confidential source told investigators “there may be still more classified documents at the private club.”
They didn't even ask Trump if he did have those documents.
See above
I bet you if they asked him then he would have handed them over.
See above
Now, unlike the Trump case, the FBI knew about this, and didn't lay a finger on him.
The point isn't that both had classified documents in their possession. The point is the Trump was not compliant with requests to return the documents, and Biden was. That was the reason for the raid.
So, let's compare:No one had any evidence of there being classified documents in Trumps house, yet it was raided, and Trump was convicted.Everyone knows about Biden having classified documents in his house, yet no one has done a single thing about it.Again, this whole thing is about no one being above the law. That means that even the president is subject to the same penalties as Trump was.
So in summary,
- There *was* evidence of there being classified documents in Trump's house.
- The situations are not equivalent, which is the difference in disparity in how they are being treated. Why would the FBI raid someone who is already complying with all demands?
Apart from this
- Trump has not actually been convicted of anything.
- Merrick Garland has announced a special investigation into Biden's handling of the documents, so the assertion that nothing is being done is false.
- The current sitting president is NOT subject to the same penalties as a private citizen is. Trump has been caught with classified documents as a private citizen. Biden is currently the President. The remedy for Presidents is impeachment, removal and THEN subjection to penalties
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nothing was ignored. Trump was told to keep the documents locked in the area in which they were secured. They knew where they were. They didn’t have to raid the place. All they had to do was ask to come over.
And yet classified documents were found after a subpoena was issued for their return and after Trump had stated all such documents had been returned. What is that if not ignoring?
Regardless… your rebuttal is moot. The issue is the handling AND authority to even have the documents. Trump was POTUS, Biden was VP. Guess which one had unilateral declassification authority and which one had zero authority to even possess classified documents. THAT is the issue!!!!!!
This is nonsensical given that BOTH of them should not have retained the documents. The main point of comparison then is the handling of the documents once it was discovered that they should not of had them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok, in that case you'd have to demonstrate that Biden appointed such a person.
A warrant that empowers agents to collect documents with classified markings had nothing to do with a subpoena that ordered the handover of said documents with classified markings? Uh.. ok.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You'd first have to demonstrate that Biden ordered such a thing, and even then it'd still be missing the component where a subpoena was ignored
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I find it bizarre as to how you compare one scenario in which an FBI raid was required to retrieve classified documents after subpoenas were ignored, and another in which the documents are willingly handed over after self discovery, and yet you hold the self discovery situation somehow worse.
Like, this is actually unhinged territory
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I'm not seeing the issue here. Trump is currently under federal investigation. Unless it is the assertion that being a presidential candidate makes you immune to federal investigation, it seems that given it is an investigation into a presidential candidate, the investigation would have to proceed under the authority of a special counsel to avoid appearances of conflicts of interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Fentanyl by itself no. It seems to be the case that the amount of fentanyl found in his system was not enough to be typically considered a lethal dose by itself. It's quite possible that the other drugs in his system in combination with the fentanyl could've been lethal, however there's no definitive line here for drug combination lethality as everyone tolerates drugs differently.
On the other-hand, it's also quite possible that being held in a chokehold for too long results in death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
If this is the case you should advise the author of Just Facts to portray all relevant facts. The lack of disclosure on certain facts combined with the sensationalist titles does not befit the title "Just Facts"
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
The "pseudoscience" that The Epoch Times promotes is articles written by medical doctors and psychologists on meditation and other alternative and ancient Chinese treatments. I would know, since, until very recently, I was a regular reader of their website. Joseph Mercola is not a pseudoscientist. He is a medical doctor with an actual medical degree who actually cites studies in his articles. You don't have to agree with him. But calling a medical doctor who cites research and studies in every article a "pseudoscientist" is highly spurious behavior.One again, you don't have to agree with Dr. Joseph Mercola. But a medical doctor publishing summaries of research is certainly not "pseudoscience" simply because his positions disagree with yours. That is extremely lazy fact checking.
To be clear, anyone can be an advocate of pseudoscience by definition regardless of what degree you possess or what content you cite. It solely depends on the veracity of the content you cite, as well as how you portray it.
Created:
Posted in:
While that article does seem to paint a rosy picture against Biden, there just seems to be a lack of hard evidence that he actually did as his son bid. The kind of "evidence" outlined in the article would never fly in a court of law.
Moreover while the research is appreciated, it's hard to take such a source seriously when it
1. Uses excessively sensationalist titles that do not accurately represent that words that it contains
2. Claims to be "just facts" but ignores well documented facts that support a different narrative
In July 2015, shortly after his appointment, reformist minority member Yehor Soboliev advanced a motion to dismiss Shokin for corruption, gaining 127 of the required 150 signatures including several members of the ruling parties.[56] Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal,[2] as did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[3]
In March 2016 the Ukrainian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove Shokin, a decision which was welcomed by the EU.[57]
Created:
It's quite interesting in some aspects how Biden voters and Trump voters respond to some of the question groups.
Take the climate change question groups for example where it's the case most Biden voters would get either the question right or wrong, whereas Trump voters seem to be split right in the middle.
The first question asks whether sea levels have risen, while the second asks whether total land area has decreased. In the face of it, if the first is true, the second must also logically follow.
The third and fourth questions follow a similar format, in that the third question queries some sort of base climate change fact while the fourth seems to lead the responder to an unintuitively incorrect answer.
To me this would indicate that Biden voters are generally more informed than Trump supporters on this topic, as it's quite clear that Biden supporters are generally in agreement with basic climate change facts, while Trump supporters are not. Given the leading nature of the second and fourth questions, I do not think that it accurately represents Trump voters as being more informed on those questions, just that they treat climate change with some level of skepticism, and I think it actually portrays Biden supporters in a better light as it shows that even if they do not have the facts at hand, they are able to make logical conclusions even if that conclusion is wrong.
I think it would've been interesting to see a breakdown between those that believe in climate change vs those that do not to see to what extent the split Trump supporter response was influenced by plain climate change denialism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The FBI claims Trump had damaging documents in his possession for over 500 days.
Sure. They are saying now that Trump had damaging documents in his possession for over 500 days.
What did they know 500 days ago.
Who knew
What they do about it
Why
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure Trump didn't destroy any evidence. Are you claiming that he did?
All claims are made in plain English. I cannot be held accountable for any HDS you may or may not have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What was known 500 days ago?
Who knew of these things?
What actions were taken in response to these things?
Why these specific actions?
How can you possibly make a judgement if you don't have the full picture of what happened? A timeline is a part of that picture. It tells us of what was known, who knew, what was done and why.
If the course of action 500 days ago was negotiation with Trump, then something was obviously done and the relevant bodies were not negligent. You just simply disagree with the route of diplomacy over immediate action. That's fine as everyone has their own opinion, but keep in mind that you have the advantage of not bearing any responsibility for the fallout of actions taken against Trump.
An immediate raid against a former president without trying diplomatic channel first, likely without regard to established procedure? Trump supporters would be frothing at the mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is why establishing a timeline is rather important. If it was known 500 days ago that Trump possessed documents that he should not have, the more reasonable course of action to expect is that rather than the immediate raiding of a former President's home, negotiation would first occur.
Since we know that some level of negotiation did occur, the relevant date is not 500 days ago, but however many days since known non-compliance with the measures resulting from the negotiation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Presumably if Trump did in fact wield his powers to declassify the materials in established procedure, such materials would no longer bear markings of classification.
Though more frankly, while you are correct, this is simply the court of public opinion. We cannot judge his guilt/justification of the raid on the basis of those laws if we don't know the relevance of those documents with respect to those laws. What we can judge, however, is his handling of classified material, as he once did with Hillary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is a fair assertion if it can be shown that there was in fact a 500 day delay.
The issue here is that there was a 500 day delay is pure conjecture without an accurate timeline of events occurring.
For example, to me the most relevant point here would be when was the affidavit from the Trump insider actually submitted and how long it did it take to get processed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Greyparrot's quote, and your article concern specifically the Presidential Records Act, and while that is what some of the media is raising a debacle about, the actual laws cited in the warrant however are
So the questions to me are quite simple:
1. Did Trump have the power to declassify the materials he took?
2. Did he wield those powers to declassify the materials he took in established procedure before leaving the presidency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
i have ive reaD DOCTER kent hovinds videos and seminars, which essentially echo my point.
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester. He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement whose ministry focuses on denial of scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He is controversial within the Young Earth Creationist movement; and, Answers in Genesis openly criticized him for continued use of discredited arguments abandoned by others in the movement.
Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. His son Eric Hovind took over operation of CSE after Hovind began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions. In September 2021, Hovind was convicted of domestic violence against his estranged wife.
ಠ_ಠ
Created: