Yep. AFTER a certain someone made this a Nazi conversation. Have I ever used it in other threads before? I havent to my knowledge.
Again you have advanced no examples of lies. You advanced one which I quite clearly and unequivocally proved you wrong. As to South Africa, here is the pfizer press release https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-r...biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious It says 91.3% effective against infection and 100% against severe disease - in a trial in April 2021. I guess Boura incorrectly tweeted 100% against infection, instead of 91.3%. So this is your justification for a grand jury? A tweet where his number was 8.7% off? This is all you got? You keep embarrassing yourself. Admit you’re wrong and move on. I’d respect that more than what you are doing, but it is entertaining watching you squirm.
Would you prefer I tag you from my primacy pony? I could also do it from my small horse of superiority.
They may have. I’ve never denied it. I recall the phrase “follow the science”. I don’t recall it’s specific uses, and until I see the usage and context I can’t say whether it’s usage was appropriate or not.
I think I'm better off without your respect to be honest. Also, thanks for your admission that he was off. That's a start. Here's the Florida law: "dissemination of false or misleading advertisements of a drug and the use of any representation or suggestion in any advertisement relating to a drug that an application of a drug is effective when it is not." Whether you think it's small or not a big deal is irrelevant. The question is whether the effectiveness of the drug was mischaracterized. You just admitted that it was by 8.7% so maybe you should admit that you were wrong. APOLOGIZE NOW. This is about as pathetic as little brother FSU storming the field after beating the Gators.
Dory's back. I just showed you a Wall Street Journal op ed that clearly states that this was the "battlecry of lockdown supporters." Yet, you're still dodging. Accept it, then maybe we can have an honest discussion.
OK I read the WSJ OP Ed. I don’t think it exactly linked the usage of follow the science to lockdowns, but that’s a largely irrelevant point anyway. The guy makes some interesting points. He is from an organization that is considered a “libertarian think tank”. That doesn’t mean he is wrong, and I don’t doubt what he is saying is true, although he is likely cherry picking quotes to prove a point. What is true is that the “experts” were all over the place in the beginning. Don’t wear a mask. Wear a mask. Don’t shut down. Shut down. Perhaps you can think it is a big politically motivated conspiracy, or as an alternative I’d say until you experience something you just don’t know (Mike Tyson: everybody has a plan until the get punched in the mouth). It’s one thing to say based on studies lockdowns don’t work. It’s another thing to take that position when thousands are dying everyday, you have no hospital beds, and you have to rent refrigeration trailers to store all the bodies because the morgue is full. I’d disagree that lockdown don’t work. NYC was a disaster, then they locked down, and they were better than most cities through the rest of the pandemic. Those cities that had greater restrictions tended to fare better than less restricted in terms of case loads and deaths. But obviously there was a cost, an economic cost and human cost in terms of education, mental health etc. So what was the best balance? There isn’t a right or wrong answer to that. They are opinions.
Alright, so you accept that "follow the science" was the battlecry of lockdown supporters. Great. Now, do you accept that Fauci said, "I am the science?"
Breaking news: I never refer to it as murder. Murder requires intent. And I only used "exterminate millions" to counter the silly Nazi terminology.
The linked official statement to the tweet was correct. His tweet was wrong - he likely got infection and severe disease mixed up. So now marginally erroneous tweet content is officially binding language that can be legally used to call for grand juries? So Desantis is going to spend probably millions to investigate a partially erroneous tweet? Meh. stick to Hunter Biden, at least there are some dirty pictures for entertainment purposes.
"Who are you mad at?" "What did they say that got you mad?" "What they said is true though." "Okay, it wasn't true, but it's not a big deal." Apologize.
I will accept that the term was used. I Don’t recall who used it or exactly why, and frankly I don’t care. Again - this stuff is the justification for a grand jury?
You are correct it isn’t murder, because murder is a legal construct and abortion is not considered murder. But the question is, do you think it should be murder?
You don't recall Fauci saying, "I am the science?" Anthony Fauci: I Am the Science | National Review Opinion | Dr. Fauci Used Science Like a Politician
Just so I’m clear, your basis for an FL grand jury is - Statements made by the pharma company, all of which were demonstrably correct, except for a tweet where an executive said 100% when he should have said 91.3%, and linked an official statement that was correct - A president who made an incorrect statement - phrases uttered by media like “follow the science” and by Fauci saying “I am the science” - Governors in other states who advocated for vaccine mandates, a couple of cases prior to full FDA approval? That’s the basis for your grand jury?
I don't answer questions to people who don't answer mine and clowns who backtrack almost 180 degrees over the course of 24 hours while insisting they were always right.
I do not. I dont think a scared woman is a murderer in the sense of the word we use it as. I also think that a society that has convinced us all that it is a medical norm should not suddenly resort to murder punishments even if it is criminalized. My approach would be punitive damages for any medical practice offering them outside of the legal parameters set. License revocation works for me.
I think I’ve answered any questions you’ve ask. You may not like the answer. If you have anything more substantive I’ll address it. As to your battle induced self puffery, knock yourself out.
That's just bizarre. So your criteria for using 'extermination' is based on whether someone says 'gestapo' earlier in the thread. Whatever justification helps you feel better, I guess. I actually have more respect for abortion hardliners who don't want to allow any exceptions. At least they are consistent. You want it both ways -- to outlaw abortion but at the same time seem 'compassionate' about it. But there is actually only one compassionate position on abortion, and that is to let the woman decide for herself rather than you deciding for her.
