The correlation between guns and mass murders

I also mentioned the Pelosi story as another example where the MSM had a narrative. Another example is the Colorado shooter, once it was announced that the shooter was an alphabet person, the story has been dropped.
Reliability is very different from bias in what stories are covered and what stories are not. Do you have a news source in mind that is overall proven itself to be more reliable (i.e. truthful and accurate) than the MSM?
 
Reliability is very different from bias in what stories are covered and what stories are not. Do you have a news source in mind that is overall proven itself to be more reliable (i.e. truthful and accurate) than the MSM?
As judged by whom?
 
Again, it's not a question of belief it's a question of trust.

You can keep saying "you don't believe" till next semester, I still don't trust your source and I won't believe what I don't trust. Call it a personal problem I guess.

Crime by cities is a valid measurement of crime. Cities generate the great majority of crime. And that applies to every state, regardless of political colors, as if that even matters. Just a silly narrative.

I mean...what source DO you trust on this information then? Your own intuition? What link do you have that shows the opposite of the info I gave you?
 
USA Today is not evidence

Ok at least you're backing off your ridiculous and objectively false claim that I'm citing wikipedia for this info.

And USA Today is just reporting the data. Again, someone asked for a link with the data. I gave it. Now you guys are just saying you don't believe it.

SMH
 
Then who, exactly, is your go-to source? It's not helpful to just say, "Not source A, B, or C." Nobody is asking you who you DON'T trust, but who you DO trust.
I do not have one particular source. in the Paul Pelosi case, most news sources were correct when they reported that Pelosi was injured. But when the narrative was formed, and the reporter who was suspended when he went against the narrative, that sealed the deal that the MSM was not to be trusted in this case.
 
Yours is an example of fuzzy thinking.
I don't think so…
You assume that just because Pfizer did not explicitly test for person-to-person transmission during the clinical trials before emergency use authorization, that person-to-person transmission is still not known.
There is no basis in fact from which to make the assertion it prevents transmission. And Pfizer runs away from the whole idea that it has any effect on transmission of Covid at a breakneck speed.
That is false.
So you want us to believe the science, until the science didn't even consider a question, and then we're supposed to believe whatever it is that you say, instead of the science. Thanks for that spectacular example of Crystal clear thinking.
The clinical trials were primarily to prove safety and effectiveness against contracting symptomatic covid. Community spread can only be evaluated after the vaccine has been released to the community.
That is among the more stupid things that we will ever hear asserted on this thread I'm sure for the next 12 months. Scientists do in fact design tests for precisely this kind of thing. I'm rather well-informed in this area. I was a member of the underwriting syndicate for North American Vaccine. I've done a great deal of due diligence in this area at the level where it really counts dollars and cents.
Since the vaccine has been released, the data is now in, and it does in fact reduce the spread of the virus within a community.
If you think that the scientific method includes rolling and untested vaccine out into the community and seeing "what happens" you're out of your stark raving mind.
Learn more about your misinformation social media post here.
Please tell me that you were not such a blithering idiot that you get your information from a 28-year-old fact checker whose job it is to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to support a political agenda. For pity sake, tell me that you're not that stupid.

At the bottom of every one of these stupid fact checks is a restatement of the question which completely changes the question. Here's how they do it in this fact check:

"posts claiming that a Pfizer executive “admitted” the company did not test its COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent virus transmission before receiving marketing approval imply that the company had been required to do so or claimed to have done so,"​
The requirement to test transmissibility was no part of the argument and absolutely no part of the implication. This is the trick behind every single one of these deliberately misleading fact checks. They mistake the question so they can come up with the answer that they want regardless of the facts.
 
Last edited:
I do not have one particular source. in the Paul Pelosi case, most news sources were correct when they reported that Pelosi was injured. But when the narrative was formed, and the reporter who was suspended when he went against the narrative, that sealed the deal that the MSM was not to be trusted in this case.

Ok, so which sources (plural) do you tend to use, if not one "particular" source? Why are you all being so coy about this? Why won't you just say where you get your trusted information from?
 
Biden is by far the worst authoritarian to ever get elected so overthrowing that clown is a given. If the people decide to overthrow your liberal retards I'll just sit and watch.

The coming investigations will also show him and his family as a criminal enterprise.

That will be the proper way to remove your clown stain from the nation.

However, the right of the people to own guns will remain intact, even if you cry about it.
How exactly does Biden qualify as an authoritarian?

Seems like you don't accept the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The only clown stain we have is Trump. And yet I don't see you demanding charges against him, despite the mountains of evidence.

And yes, guns will continue to proliferate, as will mass murders and other gun violence, and your side will throw up its hands and blame mental illness, immigrants and video games, or whatever else sounds good enough to convince your side, even in the absence of evidence.
 
How exactly does Biden qualify as an authoritarian?

Seems like you don't accept the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The only clown stain we have is Trump. And yet I don't see you demanding charges against him, despite the mountains of evidence.

And yes, guns will continue to proliferate, as will mass murders and other gun violence, and your side will throw up its hands and blame mental illness, immigrants and video games, or whatever else sounds good enough to convince your side, even in the absence of evidence.
The irony of your second sentence is just so rich.
 
How exactly does Biden qualify as an authoritarian?

Seems like you don't accept the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The only clown stain we have is Trump. And yet I don't see you demanding charges against him, despite the mountains of evidence.

And yes, guns will continue to proliferate, as will mass murders and other gun violence, and your side will throw up its hands and blame mental illness, immigrants and video games, or whatever else sounds good enough to convince your side, even in the absence of evidence.
So according to Vibise guns can kill without any human involvement.
 
Ok, so which sources (plural) do you tend to use, if not one "particular" source? Why are you all being so coy about this? Why won't you just say where you get your trusted information from?
I only watch local news with any regulsrity. When it comes to national news, I just read whatever pops up on my internet feed.
 
How exactly does Biden qualify as an authoritarian?
He bailed out every blue state politician who shut down their local economies for Covid. For example here in Illinois the incumbent governor Pritzker ran ads bragging how he balance the Illinois budget. Nothing could be further from the truth! Joe Biden shipped boxcars of federal cash to Illinois which is a blue state in order to balance the budget the year of a gubernatorial election. Biden paid Pritzker to shut down the state of Illinois and he did. That is totalitarian, the people who were prevented from going to their jobs and earning a paycheck were prevented by force. That is totalitarian by definition.
 
I only watch local news with any regulsrity. When it comes to national news, I just read whatever pops up on my internet feed.
"whatever pops up" is a non-response.
You clearly don't want to name the sources you think are reliable.
 
I only watch local news with any regulsrity. When it comes to national news, I just read whatever pops up on my internet feed.

So what kind of things "pop up" on your internet feed? You know how those algorithms work, right? You read a conservative article, and the algorithm sends you more similar stuff, creating an echo chamber. It's literally how the social media algorithms work (same with articles with a liberal slant).

So what sources, exactly, tend to pop up? And if you don't actually know what they are, why do you trust them? What have they done to actually EARN your trust, other than present information to you consistent with your own worldview?
 
Back
Top