@KazetNagorra
You linked to an article on a white supremacist website.
Of course, if true, I had no knowledge. I got the link off of Drudge Report,
not the website itself.
But from what I have read so far, I would say they are rightist publication
and some people like to slur the opposition by unfairly calling them racist.
You'll really have to show me racist publications before I believe this.
I've learned. People lie about the "opposition" to stifle free speech.
I hope you don't believe these wrongful people.
08 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidHere is the link again, I suggest you read it carefully and consider what websites you wish to promote to others.
@KazetNagorra
You linked to an article on a white supremacist website.
Of course, if true, I had no knowledge. I got the link off of Drudge Report,
not the website itself.
But from what I have read so far, I would say they are rightist publication
and some people like to slur the opposition by unfairly calling them racist.
You'll really have to sho ...[text shortened]... lie about the "opposition" to stifle free speech.
I hope you don't believe these wrongful people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller#Ties_to_white_supremacists
You may also wish to reconsider frequenting websites that link to The Daily Caller without warning it is a pro-white supremacist website.
08 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidI didn't report your post as a personal affront to you, I reported it because it is (in my estimation) in violation of the updated rules against promoting hate speech, regardless of whether that hate speech was intended by you.
If you truly feel that I posted a link to a white supremist web site,
a proper response would be, "Did you know that you posted a link to
a white supremist web site?"
That is what a gentleman would do.
Need I explain it?
I have, on many occasions, called out contributors to these forums on spreading or condoning white nationalist propaganda and/or viewpoints, and it has always fallen on deaf ears.
08 Jul 20
@metal-brain saidWhere did you prove he lied?
I proved he lied. Defending a liar by lying as you are proves you have no class.
@kazetnagorra saidAs it should fall on deaf ears.
I didn't report your post as a personal affront to you, I reported it because it is (in my estimation) in violation of the updated rules against promoting hate speech, regardless of whether that hate speech was intended by you.
I have, on many occasions, called out contributors to these forums on spreading or condoning white nationalist propaganda and/or viewpoints, and it has always fallen on deaf ears.
I asked for an example of racist articles they published and you supply a like to
wiki saying they are a racist org...?
Show me the money! enough of the accusations.
Wiki can have the opinion of *anybody* that posts it.
09 Jul 20
@moonbus saidI read the politico article. It means nothing because it is solely reporting opinion of a few people. Many people in RFK jr's family support his views on vaccines. Those would be the open minded of the Kennedy clan. Why no reports about them?
Don't believe everything you see on youtube. Youtube is great if you want to find a clip of a Monty Python sketch or a bit from Dr. Strangelove, but it has no editorial credibility in matters of scientific fact because it has no editorial accountability.
RFK jr. is propagating misinformation on vaccinations.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-ke ...[text shortened]... ca.com/science/2019/11/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-the-single-leading-source-of-anti-vax-ads-on-facebook/
RFK jr's opinions about why his father and uncle being assassinated is reason alone for the corporate news media to go on a character assassination campaign against him.
This whole belief that conspiracies don't exist is ignorant and stupid. How many people stabbed Julius Caesar and why? Do you all need a series of history lessons? Wherever there is wealth and power conspiracies follow.
@moonbus saidThe second link you posted reffers to this link from the CDC.
Don't believe everything you see on youtube. Youtube is great if you want to find a clip of a Monty Python sketch or a bit from Dr. Strangelove, but it has no editorial credibility in matters of scientific fact because it has no editorial accountability.
RFK jr. is propagating misinformation on vaccinations.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/08/robert-ke ...[text shortened]... ca.com/science/2019/11/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-the-single-leading-source-of-anti-vax-ads-on-facebook/
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
It says this:
"Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in the earth’s crust, air, soil, and water."
Notice how they use the word "naturally". It means nothing since lead, arsenic, radium and other harmful elements are harmful. Why don't they call mercury what it is? It is a neurotoxin.
Then they go on to say this:
"However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure."
Oh, a precautionary measure just in case a well known neurotoxin might have bad health effects. What if I said lead in Flint's water was safe but I was trying to lower levels as a precautionary measure? Would you buy that?
Hey. How many other absurdities do you believe? Maybe you should put arsenic in your tea, then reduce the amount as a precautionary measure. Don't stop consuming arsenic though, it is natural.
Why should vaccine manufacturers continue to have immunity from lawsuits when they harm people? If they don't harm people why do they have that immunity from lawsuits? Why would they need it?
I don't see any confidence from the vaccine manufacturers that their vaccines are and will be safe in the future. They covet immunity from lawsuits for a reason. I don't hear them saying they don't need them because their vaccines are so safe they are not concerned.
You all take their vaccines. I'll wait for you to serve your roles as guinea pigs. Or.........you could call for liability again. What is the downside?
Seriously. What is the downside? Are you all sheeple? Did Monsanto admit they made harmful products? Why did they lie? Profits? That is all, right?
09 Jul 20
@metal-brain saidAll evidence, as I have posted before (with multiple links) proves that vaccinations save many more lives than they destroy and that there is no connection between vaccinations and autism.
The second link you posted reffers to this link from the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
It says this:
"Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in the earth’s crust, air, soil, and water."
Notice how they use the word "naturally". It means nothing since lead, arsenic, radium and other harmful elements are harmful. W ...[text shortened]... eeple? Did Monsanto admit they made harmful products? Why did they lie? Profits? That is all, right?
What you are basically posting here, besides your usual paranoid drivel, is actually dangerous. It is harmful; not only to individual’s lives, but to the herd immunity against various diseases. A danger to the whole of humanity.
You antivaxxers, or whatever you call yourselves these days, should be arrested, rounded up and forced to work in leprosy and measles colonies.
I seriously don’t understand why hate-speech is banned, but viewpoints such as yours, which are proven to spread online and proven to kill people are allowed to be posted.
09 Jul 20
@very-rusty saidThanks again, Captain Obvious.
You guys have to understand RUSS IS THE LAW always has the final say. You have to read the fine print. He can even let you go should he desire to do so.
-VR
09 Jul 20
@earl-of-trumps saidIf you think the information on Wikipedia is incorrect, you can remove it.
As it should fall on deaf ears.
I asked for an example of racist articles they published and you supply a like to
wiki saying they are a racist org...?
Show me the money! enough of the accusations.
Wiki can have the opinion of *anybody* that posts it.
As it happens, though, the way that it works is that Wikipedia editors provide external links so that you can check the claims, and any unsourced claim is subject to removal. Good luck!
09 Jul 20
@kazetnagorra saidI'm not going to go looking for it.
If you think the information on Wikipedia is incorrect, you can remove it.
As it happens, though, the way that it works is that Wikipedia editors provide external links so that you can check the claims, and any unsourced claim is subject to removal. Good luck!
There was nothing racist in the article I posted, quoting Farrakhan remarking on Fauci.
What the heck? Deal with the article on that level because in the end it matters
not whether the sourcers are racist or not, it only matters what Farrakhan said
in relation to Fauci.
I'm sure there is another source *somewhere* that quotes Farrakhan and then
you would have to address the issue, the real issue.