2024 Election

[tinselwolverine]

That's a lot of Fox "News" talking points in one post. :clap:

Is that the Fox News talking point?

I don?t know, I don?t watch cable news, generally I get my info from LA local KTLA 5, a news source that according to Media Bias Fact Check, which is associated with the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, is about as credible and unbiased as it gets.

In post #257, I linked to a KTLA article that covers a number of issues that you claim Fox News expresses an opinion on. I challenge you to find bias, either to the right or left.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a lot of Fox "News" talking points in one post. :clap:

Lol, you don?t even know when you?re being mocked for posting a bunch of anti-science CNN talking points. I figured this would be about the best you could do. It?s actually a lot of truth which is why you?re trying to dismiss it offhand. And i don?t watch Fox News, never have but good try.

 

[Johnny68]

Lol, you don?t even know when you?re being mocked for posting a bunch of anti-science CNN talking points. I figured this would be about the best you could do. It?s actually a lot of truth which is why you?re trying to dismiss it offhand. And i don?t watch Fox News, never have but good try.

Ah yes, the right wing tactic of "No, you!". Everything you post is anti-science and yet you have the gall to try to frame me as being the person rejecting science because I don't buy into your wacky conspiracy theories about literally everything.

 

[byco42]

What are the by laws of someone posting with an alias (meaning with two accounts) on this forum?

 

[tinselwolverine]

What are the by laws of someone posting with an alias on this forum?

I don?t know, maybe that person would have to be Jennifer Garner?

Maybe the handle would have to be MasterCardBonusGirl, I don?t know.

 

[Spartanmack]

Ah yes, the right wing tactic of "No, you!". Everything you post is anti-science and yet you have the gall to try to frame me as being the person rejecting science because I don't buy into your wacky conspiracy theories about literally everything.

You don?t even know what science is and you can?t name a single conspiracy theory I?ve pushed here. And we?re still waiting for some facts from you - perhaps some day?

 

[Spartanmack]

Isn?t everyone posting with an alias on this forum?

 

[byco42]

Isn?t everyone posting with an alias on this forum?

I mean someone with two accounts.

 

[Johnny68]

You don?t even know what science is and you can?t name a single conspiracy theory I?ve pushed here. And we?re still waiting for some facts from you - perhaps some day?

You're the guy that thinks you know more than Dr Fauci, a doctor with over 40 years experience with infectious disease. That's how off your rocker you are. But please, tell us why vaccines are fake and how you just know that Ivermectin cures Covid based on your months of research reading Twitter and Facebook posts.

Maybe when we're done with Covid, we can talk about how you've analyzed the data from the crackhead pillow dude and come to the conclusion that Trump won the 2020 election.

 

[Spartanmack]

I mean someone with two accounts.

I have no idea why he does that. Maybe it's to protect the credibility he's worked so hard to build. Probably not the best choice of aliases to do that though.

 

[Spartanmack]

You're the guy that thinks you know more than Dr Fauci, a doctor with over 40 years experience with infectious disease. That's how off your rocker you are. But please, tell us why vaccines are fake and how you just know that Ivermectin cures Covid based on your months of research reading Twitter and Facebook posts.

Maybe when we're done with Covid, we can talk about how you've analyzed the data from the crackhead pillow dude and come to the conclusion that Trump won the 2020 election.

Wrong again. First, I'm not on Twitter and I don't get news from Facebook. I'm not the guy who thinks he knows more than Fauci, I'm the guy who thinks scientists like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone and other epidemiologists and infectious disease experts from Johns Hopkins, Stanford and elsewhere know more than Dr. Fauci. Try reading their stuff - they're not shy about sharing the research and data and explaining it in terms even you could understand. Then ask yourself why they do that but your savior isn't the least bit transparent, demanding your blind fealty that you so willingly give to him.

There's a reason DOCTORS and policy makers in other countries have reversed course on the vaccines - it's because they follow the science and aren't in the pockets of big pharma, like Fauci who you worship like a god. He's your messiah, you think all you have to do is say "Fauci" and the argument is over. That's a religion - one of many your are a devotee too. Science doesn't work like that.

And I'm only vaguely aware of the pillow guy and I've never said a word about any of the voting machine conspiracies other than to say I didn't follow them or know anything about them.

 

[Johnny68]

I'm the guy who thinks scientists like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone and other epidemiologists and infectious disease experts from Johns Hopkins, Stanford and elsewhere know more than Dr. Fauci.

This Dr. McCullough?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936

This Dr. Malone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html

Your kind is so easy to spot. You dismiss 99% of the evidence that you just refuse to accept and latch onto the 1% that validates your fact free opinions. It's called confirmation bias and you have a bad case of it. Who knows, maybe Ivermectin can cure that too. :nuts:

 

[Spartanmack]

This Dr. McCullough?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936

This Dr. Malone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html

Your kind is so easy to spot. You dismiss 99% of the evidence that you just refuse to accept and latch onto the 1% that validates your fact free opinions. It's called confirmation bias and you have a bad case of it. Who knows, maybe Ivermectin can cure that too. :nuts:

Yes those two. I can't read the NYT hit piece or the "medpagetoday.com" piece because I'm not a subscriber but oh no, Dr. McCullough used an old credential, that means he's pushing fake science. I'm sure the NYT piece is just as toothless as this "gotcha" on McCullough.

You probably don't have to worry about confirmation bias because that requires you to actually look at something to confirm the propaganda you so happily consume. Your problem is you're a sheep.

 

[Johnny68]

Yes those two. I can't read the NYT hit piece or the "medpagetoday.com" piece because I'm not a subscriber but oh no, Dr. McCullough used an old credential, that means he pushing fake science. I'm sure the NYT piece is just as toothless as this "gotcha" on McCullough.

You probably don't have to worry about confirmation bias because that requires you to actually look at something to confirm the propaganda you so happily consume. Your problem is you're a sheep.

When I'm citing sources like NASA and the NIH to back up my opinions and you call those propaganda, there's just nothing else to say. You are irrevocably broken. You seek out people spewing the same conspiracies that you want to believe and then pass them off as fact without a single piece of evidence to back them up.

Now, lets talk about all that fraud in the 2020 election. Sure would love to hear your enlightened theories on that.

 

[Spartanmack]

When I'm citing sources like NASA and the NIH to back up my opinions and you call those propaganda, there's just nothing else to say. You are irrevocably broken. You seek out people spewing the same conspiracies that you want to believe and then pass them off as fact without a single piece of evidence to back them up.

Now, lets talk about all that fraud in the 2020 election. Sure would love to hear your enlightened theories on that.

Which one, NYT.com or medpagetoday.com is NASA and which one is the NIH? You're not citing those sources, you're posting links that no one can read without a subscription that have comically absurd headlines. Your "sources" don't seem to say anything that discredits these men in any way.

Serious question: What's worse, McCullough making a clerical error or Fauci refusing to disclose how much the drug companies are paying him?

Serious question 2: What's worse, Malone taking credit for his work on the MRNA vaccine or Fauci paying for gain of function research then lying to congress about it?

 

[Johnny68]

You're citing sources that don't say anything or discredit these men in any way. Your posting links that no one can read without a subscription that have comically absurd headlines.

Serious question: What's worse, McCullough making a clerical error or Fauci refusing to disclose how much the drug companies are paying him?

Serious question 2: What's worse, Malone taking credit for his work on the MRNA vaccine or Fauci paying for gain of function research then lying to congress about it?

Perfect example of how you latch on to a little tidbit of information and twist it into some conspiracy theory with no solid evidence to back it up.

Many people with the NIH receive royalty payments and while some keep them, Dr Fauci is on record saying that he donates his.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/s...omit-that-fauci-said-he-donates-his-payments/

See how you leave out that important context because it doesn't help push your BS conspiracy theory?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I mean someone with two accounts.

I guess if a person had two e-mails, a person could.

A person could argue with themself.

Back in the ESPN days, I did that.

I started two Notre Dame handles, Patrick FitzWilliam and William FitzPatrick, and they would argue on the Notre Dame board about how funny - or not funny - TinselWolverine on/from
the Michigan board was or wasn?t.

 

[Spartanmack]

Perfect example of how you latch on to a little tidbit of information and twist it into some conspiracy theory with no solid evidence to back it up.

Many people with the NIH receive royalty payments and while some keep them, Dr Fauci is on record saying that he donates his.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/s...omit-that-fauci-said-he-donates-his-payments/

See how you leave out that important context because it doesn't help push your BS conspiracy theory?

You know what important context is missing? All the royalty records from 2018 to present - literally every dime anyone received from Moderna, Pfizer, J&J, etc for any COVID related royalties. And Fauci hasn't disclosed any or shown any proof how much he's received or what he's done with his royalty payments.

But Fauci said in the past he gave all his royalty checks to charity. Fauci also said, and still says to this day despite irrefutable proof to the contrary that his group didn't fund gain of function research.

 

[Johnny68]

You know what important context is missing? All the royalty records from 2018 to present. And Fauci hasn't disclosed any or shown any proof how much he's received or what he's done with his royalty payments. Fauci also said, and still says to this day despite irrefutable proof to the contrary that his group didn't fund gain of function research.

You're certainly willing to instantly believe every bit of Republican spin, aren't you?

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/s...-about-coronavirus-gain-of-function-research/

It's also funny how something you didn't even know existed a few years ago is suddenly one of the most important things in your life. Right Wingers are mad because they had to wear a mask so now they're on a mission to try and discredit and attack a scientist who has served the country for 40 years.

Stay classy!

 

[Spartanmack]

You're certainly willing to instantly believe every bit of Republican spin, aren't you?

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/s...-about-coronavirus-gain-of-function-research/

It's also funny how something you didn't even know existed a few years ago is suddenly one of the most important things in your life. Right Wingers are mad because they had to wear a mask so now they're on a mission to try and discredit and attack a scientist who has served the country for 40 years.

Stay classy!

whoa, another factcheck.org piece. Weird that so many actual scientists disagree with factcheck.org

Hey, how come you didn't mention in the first factcheck.org piece you posted they only cover royalty payments to NIH people from 2009 through 2014 and they misleadingly try to make it look like the coverage goes through 2021 when they don't even have that data?