so you're answer is actually 'yes', as you know perfectly well the phrase 'climate change' refers to the overwhelmingly scientifically proven of man-made change to the climateOriginally Posted by Niall_Quinn
of course you and your Youtube nutter army no doubt know better as usual...
Climate change means just that. The fact it has been hijacked by warmists does not change the definition. You nutters were warning of an ice age not so long ago. Anything that advances the agenda. You could call it what it is, mass pollution, but that would upset the corporate gangs running the show.
Enjoy your vaccine.
Enjoy your carbon tax.
Enjoy your brave new world.
I'm not stopping you.
Für eure Sicherheit
Who do you think benefits from lying that humans are causing climate change?
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
as i've said on here before, i won't be using the vaccine unless it's certain it has no side effects - sorry to spoil your need to understand the world by putting people into nice convenient cliched boxes ...
That's a long list. The fraudsters promoting "green" energy that pollutes more than fossil fuels and doesn't even work. Hundreds of billions to be scammed there with the environment ruined in the process. The banks, with their carbon trading scams. The polluters who can simply buy their way out of the mess they make. The Chinese communists. The U.N. who will have a solid foothold into global governance. You'd have to sit down and give it some thought to build a complete list. None of it is about saving the environment, it's all about money and control as always. A thousand vested interests would be able to latch on, some we can't yet predict.
If this was a genuine effort to protect the environment it would be applied across the board and not selectively. It would distribute the cost fairly, make polluters pay instead of the public as usual. And it would have science behind it, rather than scaremongering projection. When you dig in, it's quite amazing how blatantly they rig the so-called science. Need a rise in ocean temperature? Easy, put a "virtual" monitor into the model and predict what it reads. Not kidding either.
I'm all for a clean and sustainable environment, but not if polluting and fraudster, anti-scientific, grant hungry hogs are responsible for ushering it in.
Für eure Sicherheit
Enjoy your vaccine.
Für eure Sicherheit
i won't be using the vaccine unless it's certain it has no side effects - sorry to spoil your need to understand the world by putting people into nice convenient cliched boxes ...
Even if it had no side effects, assuming you aren't 84 years old with 2.4 pre-existing conditions, why would you accept it under any circumstances? In return for your liberty?
Für eure Sicherheit
well i don't rule out there being some kind of state pressure in some way at some point, but more likely I suspect it might be something where there's a bit of peer pressure after a while, like if you're the only one in your family that hasn't had it, especially when you've older relatives - but as long as there's any doubts about it i will steer clear and will only have it at all if it's making life very difficult not to...
Yeah, same here. Except I'll steer away from it forever as I've done with all vaccines, since mine was the choice to make. I'll take a vaccine when the benefits outweigh the risks. Which is why I have zero problems with elderly people taking vaccines. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand why they do it. And if I was travelling to a malaria zone, I'd take a jab. Because the chances of getting bitten by an infected mozzie while overseas is probably greater than harm from the sub-standard safety regimes and zero liability handshakes the vaccine industry, for some unexplained reason, benefits from.
But Covid19? Why on earth would I ever take a vaccine for a flu that has a 0.01% chance of affecting me (let alone killing me), when the vaccine itself (if similar to other vaccines) will have a close on 7% chance of fucking me up in some way, minor or major? Will never happen. Maybe, will never happen. What if my daughter decided to get married overseas? Would I refuse to attend her wedding? I guess we'll all see how it goes. Hopefully the state will have been smashed by then and a new era of enlightenment has dawned. And that IS a tin foil hat speculation for sure.
I've already told my kids it's up to them if they want to get jabbed or not. Because I couldn't very well defend the notion of liberty and then impose my will on others - even when it is dangerous. Especially when it is dangerous. Non-dangerous decisions are no test at all. Whether busybody fascists have the same view is to be seen. Maybe they know better what is best for me and mine. I don't put that level of arrogance beyond them.
I care about freedom and choice, where choice is realistic. Sometimes it isn't. The smallpox vaccine, I understand that, and would have taken it. Even then, it wasn't mandatory and people weren't ostracised for refusing to take it. Mainly because it was common sense to take it. Even if it was dangerous - which it was. And is. Back then you were stepping over bodies in the road. The threat was real, instead of manufactured.
Since then, most vaccines are a symptom of tyranny, not the cause. I focus on the cause. And the people who push shit like this.
Anyone who places a synthetic, profitable alternative over an in-built, natural solution is a charlatan as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't matter how many letters the bastard has after his name.
Für eure Sicherheit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote