Riiight

[Svensson]

Finally, on vaccines, Celee, there is a blog post from University of Missouri on the intentional misinformation around Covid and in particular via the VAERS db:

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/scary-reports-deaths-following-covid-19-vaccination-arent-what-they-seem

you cant say that I'm not trying to back up my opinion with sources, ey?

Cheers.

[Svensson]

And I hate to break it to you, sugar, but the United States of America enacted enforced sterilization decades before the Nazis did. We did it first. And we did it longer, up until the 70s. Once again, nothing to do with socialized medicine.

Sorry Ally, I hate to break it to you but it has been adjudicated that you have to provide a source for this.....

[Svensson]

Forced sterilization Hitler's Germany. The forced sterilizations began in January 1934, and altogether an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilized under the law. A diagnosis of "feeblemindedness" provided the grounds in the majority of cases, followed by schizophrenia and epilepsy. Most of the persons targeted by the law were patients in mental hospitals and other institutions. The majority of those sterilized were between the ages of twenty and forty,

Forced sterilization in Germany was the forerunner of the systematic killing of the mentally ill and handicapped. In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a "mercy death" to "patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." The intent of the so-called "euthanasia" program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: its aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, and elderly thus "cleansing" the "Aryan" race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society. In all, between 200,000 and 250,000 mentally and physically handicapped persons were murdered from 1939 to 1945 under the T-4 and other "euthanasia" programs.

The disgusting thing is I am sure some people will approve of Nazi Eugenics.

This has nothing to do with Health Care. You complained about "Socialized medicine". it is worth noting that Bismarck first brought in a health care system of some kind (nowhere as sophisticated as what the western world, bar the USA, has these days). Hitler then used the existing infrastructure to implement his medical terrorism.

It's like saying that Autobahns are fascist because they were used to carry weapons, armies, slave labour and ship people to death camps in Nazi Germany.

[Svensson]

Svenn, I would love to hear why you feel the Tuckster is lying to his viewers.

For example:

1. "Tucker Carlson admits he lies on his show: ‘I really try not to... [but] I certainly do’"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dave-rubin-b1919738.html

2. Scott D. Pierce: Fox lawyers admit Tucker Carlson doesn’t always tell the truth

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2020/06/21/scott-d-pierce-fox/

3. Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?r=US&IR=T

4. Reasonable Viewers Don’t Look to Tucker Carlson for Facts, Fox Asserts

https://www.courthousenews.com/fighting-slander-suit-over-tucker-carlson-fox-calls-host-hyperbolic/

5. Fox News Argues in Court That Tucker Carlson Doesn’t Have an Obligation to Tell the Truth

https://www.themarysue.com/fox-news-defending-tucker-carlsons-bs/

I think that should do for now.

[Ally]

Sigh. Forced sterilization wasn't a product of socialized medicine anymore than concentration camps were a product of socialized medicine. In order for it to be considered a product of socialized medicine or a bad out come of socialized medicine, then the sterilizations would have had to be been a product of a cost-saving measure aimed at the cost of maintaining "defective" people. That was not the reasoning behind the sterilizations or the arguments for it. The arguments for it and the "reasoning" behind it was to selectively breed a "pure race". This had nothing to do with socialized medicine. It had to do with being fascists.

And I hate to break it to you, sugar, but the United States of America enacted enforced sterilization decades before the Nazis did. We did it first. And we did it longer, up until the 70s. Once again, nothing to do with socialized medicine.

[celee]

What in particular do you not agree with in German health care between 1933 and 1945?

Forced sterilization Hitler's Germany. The forced sterilizations began in January 1934, and altogether an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilized under the law. A diagnosis of "feeblemindedness" provided the grounds in the majority of cases, followed by schizophrenia and epilepsy. Most of the persons targeted by the law were patients in mental hospitals and other institutions. The majority of those sterilized were between the ages of twenty and forty,

Forced sterilization in Germany was the forerunner of the systematic killing of the mentally ill and handicapped. In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a "mercy death" to "patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." The intent of the so-called "euthanasia" program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: its aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, and elderly thus "cleansing" the "Aryan" race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society. In all, between 200,000 and 250,000 mentally and physically handicapped persons were murdered from 1939 to 1945 under the T-4 and other "euthanasia" programs.

The disgusting thing is I am sure some people will approve of Nazi Eugenics.

[Ally]

What shocks me is your patronising attutide toward fellow posters , i think one thing your certainly really capable of is behaving on public forum like a petulant schoolgirl. You can research all you want on the internet but unless you live right now where i do and you see whats happening with your own eyes then you dont know the facts of the situation . So my advice is try being a little nicer for a change where others are concerned .

No. I am done being nice to ignorant fools who are quite literally destroying my country with their stupidity. I have no interest in coddling imbeciles any more and I genuinely don't give a **** for how it comes off. If the best I can hope for is for dumbasses to shut up and go elsewhere to spout nonsense, that's a win too.

[FISHY1118]

No, but this may shock you, I am capable of sourcing news from all over the world via this handy tool called the internet. Your data is as available for an American as it is for you. So, you know, what's your point?

Oh, you have none. As per usual, no valid argument, just deflection because you can't argue the facts on their merits.

What shocks me is your patronising attutide toward fellow posters , i think one thing your certainly really capable of is behaving on a public forum like a petulant child . You can research all you want on the internet but unless you live right now where i do and you see whats happening with your own eyes then you dont know the facts of the situation . So my advice is try being a little nicer for a change where others are concerned . Im back to the jtr thread .

[Ally]

FOX news never said do not believe anything Tucker said. FOX told their viewers that their nighttime lineup was opinion shows and their host should not be held to the same standard as their news anchors, who do not offer opinions.

Wrong. Again. Fox news literally went to court and fought a lawsuit and their entire case and argument was that Tucker Carlson was not reputable for news and nobody reasonable would believe anything he said as fact. Their entire argument was that no one should take anything Tucker said on his show as being factual. When your own Network argues in court, that you aren't a believable source, and you don't hang your head in shame, that tells you something about your credibility and your character. When you continue to believe this person, that says something about yours.

What is Tucker's end game?

Money.

The only thing that makes sense to me, if this conspiracy theory is true, and Tucker is deliberately misleading his viewers, Tucker is a diabolical super villain working with a network of conservative masterminds to depopulate the world by creating vaccine FEAR.

No, honey. His endgame is money. He feeds the pap to the masses that they want to consume, and it keeps the gravy train rolling. Do you think he gives a **** if millions of you die? He's going to get paid either way. He gets his ass kissed by sycophants regardless. Just like a "prosperity preacher". There doesn't have to be a grand plan. You just have to be raking it in, feeding people what they want to hear. Money. That's all there is. Those who have it, and the dumbasses they exploit to get it. And yes, *ALL* corporations are guilty of this to one degree or another, and I have huge issues with how MSNBC conducts business as well, but the difference is MSNBC isn't actively promoting ideology that kills millions.

I would love to hear why you feel the Tuckster is lying to his viewers.

I don't feel Tucker is lying to his viewers, I know he is. Because unlike you, I actually fact check things, and I could point to many many many things he's said that are bullshit and lies. I do it for ALL media sources that claim X thing, not just Tucker Carlson. He just happens to be one of the worst. All news agencies will get it wrong once in a while, it's inevitable, what matters, much like with the Chinese spy thing we discussed is how do you handle it when you find out you're wrong? Do you retract? Do you clear up your mess? What do you do?

But for him, I don't even have to check his sources, or verify his data, because once again. Fox News themselves put it in black and white in a legal argument that no reasonable person would believe anything Tucker Carlson says and that he doesn't state facts. And they won. I mean.... good god, what more do you need.

But let's look at this as the main problem you don't seem to get. Let's look at how you are attempting to use Tucker Carlson in this debate. You are attempting to use him as a SOURCE. We ask you to support your positions and the conclusions you are making on this thread and you point to Tucker. You are attempting to use him as a source of information. When even you just admitted that he is nothing more than an opinion purveyor. When his NETWORK admits he doesn't deal in facts.

Using one person's OPINION to bolster your own OPINION is not reasoned argument. It doesn't bolster your claim. You are being asked to provide sources and FACTS, and all you can provide are opinions, that support your opinions. That's the overall problem with relying on Fox News and Tucker Carlson. You can't support your opinion with nothing but other opinions. It's a house of cards, built on shifting sand. It's worthless.

A: I'm the greatest SINGER in AMERICA! B: Prove it. A: My mom says so, but you won't believe me because you'd just say she's biased.
That's essentially the argument you are making. Two opinions don't make a fact.

[Svensson]

Nazi Germany is the best example of how things can go off the rails with socialized medicine.

What in particular do you not agree with in German health care between 1933 and 1945?

[celee]

I sometimes wonder why people think reporters are lying? Tucker, is not a news reporter. He offers his opinions on world events. Just like Maddow, Cuomo, Lemon, and the others. Tucker did a real could story on the VAERS database why would anyone think he is lying? He explained how Vares worked and reported the numbers. Why would he lie? FOX news never said do not believe anything Tucker said. FOX told their viewers that their nighttime lineup was opinion shows and their host should not be held to the same standard as their news anchors, who do not offer opinions. A statement the liberal media should have made about their nighttime shows.

Now that I have the attention of such beautiful minds let's go down the rabbit hole. I do not know how to think like a conspiracy theorist. What is Tucker's end game? He must not want people to be vaccinated, right? He must want people to die, right? WHY. else would he be lying? The only thing that makes sense to me, if this conspiracy theory is true, and Tucker is deliberately misleading his viewers, Tucker is a diabolical super villain working with a network of conservative masterminds to depopulate the world by creating vaccine FEAR. Where is Batman when you need him? Svenn, I would love to hear why you feel the Tuckster is lying to his viewers.

[Ally]

Do you read my post Svenn? I clearly posted why some people object to VAERS. If you do not even bother reading my post do not respond to them. Harvard did a study on VAERS claiming only 1% of the cases of adverse reaction to the vaccines are reported. So, I would bet more people have died than 20,000 but even 11,000 is a hell of a number. How much death is acceptable. Tucker Carlson did a really good story on VARES, OH I forgot Tucker is part of an evil network of white male Republican that wishes to mislead the people to their DOOM BLAH BLAH BLAH scary stuff.

Let's deconstruct Celee's argument. He claims: "I clearly posted why some people object to Vaers". No he didn't. What he posted was that people object because there's no way to verify the numbers and Harvard thinks the numbers are higher and people aren't reporting enough. He puts a statement, followed by a conclusion that leads to a biased opinion he wants you to draw. Flawed argument.

Then he asks: "How much death is acceptable?" Apparently when you're talking about medicine, and curing a disease, zero deaths, but for the actual disease itself, the sky's the limit and no number is too high. Once again he completely ignores that Covid kills tens of thousands more by percentage than a vaccine ever could hope to.

He then puts up Tucker carlson and dismisses criticisms against him as being biased as if the criticisms of Tucker Carlson are because he's an evil white male Republican and not because he's a blatant liar who wildly manipulates the public and blatantly lies and distorts the fact to the point that HIS OWN NETWORK disavowed people believing his stories and said that given who Tucker Carlson was only an idiot would take anything he said as fact.

FOX NEWS said NOT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING TUCKER CARLSON SAYS. But yeah, he's a totally credible source that Celee looks to for "news".

Y'all. I can't with the stupid.

[celee]

Celee, yhe VERS database us a REPORTING database. You can report whatever you want. Nothing in there is vetted. The 20,000 Deaths reported in there are GUARANTEED not 20,000 deaths due to covide.

Please don't tell me you didn't know that. Or did you and just didn't care?

Besides you are due around 20 requests for sources for your outlandish claims. Where are they?

Do you read my post Svenn? I clearly posted why some people object to VAERS. If you do not even bother reading my post do not respond to them. Harvard did a study on VAERS claiming only 1% of the cases of adverse reaction to the vaccines are reported. So, I would bet more people have died than 20,000 but even 11,000 is a hell of a number. How much death is acceptable. Tucker Carlson did a really good story on VARES, OH I forgot Tucker is part of an evil network of white male Republican that wishes to mislead the people to their DOOM BLAH BLAH BLAH scary stuff. Conspiracy theorist. LOL

[celee]

Hate is perhaps a strong word but don’t you think that when a huge consensus of respected scientists from all over the world tells us that vaccination is the best way to protect ourselves and our families and to reduce the likelihood of illness as well as the seriousness that we should be annoyed when a percentage of people chose to ignore this putting us all at greater risk. And they do this, not because they have medical/scientific knowledge themselves but because they prefer the opinion of people who, very clearly from background, are isolated figures. And it’s compounded if, as you claim, many of them just feel that’s it’s ineffective. Why take the chance? It’s just selfishness. And yes I’m convinced that a large percentage of them have been influenced by Conspiracy talk.

I understand your argument Herlock and I do not think you are a hateful person most people are not. I feel that if the vaccines actually prevent the spread of the virus more people would be willing to take the shot for the greater good but the vaccine has potentially serious side effects for some people. Johnson and Johnson, for example, have serious side effects causing death. People minimize death. However, I think people are scared of the vaccine. I do not think people are being selfish in any way. I could post a lot of articles from a lot of respected Doctors and scientists even the guy who invented the mRNA therapy who call for caution. You guys would dismiss every article. I posted to you earlier I do not like discussing vaccines because I do not know the answer. I can only do my research and make my decision. I got the jab, Johnson, and Johnson only to find out it is dangerous from the same agency that told me it was safe. I will not be getting another shot. I respect your decision so go for it. Be safe.

[Ally]

Celee, yhe VERS database us a REPORTING database. You can report whatever you want. Nothing in there is vetted. The 20,000 Deaths reported in there are GUARANTEED not 20,000 deaths due to covide.

Please don't tell me you didn't know that. Or did you and just didn't care?

This is also factual (except it's 11000). I actually almost submitted a Covid reaction because I was testing the process. Anyone can submit. Thank you for pointing that out. I was more caught up in his complete inability to report an accurate number and missed the overall glaring issue with the reporting database. Like missing the forest for the trees.