Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 


people equating government restrictions to not restricting protests is really obnoxious and uninformed.  
 

did they restrict the conservative protests?

 

 

Posted
On 7/27/2020 at 1:01 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:



 


Bad math by this guy again. He projects 439 deaths for the remainder of the year for people under 34. 
 

We’ve had 95 in the last two weeks. 
 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-W/vsak-wrfu
 

I agree with his premise that the mental and physical toll from Covid lockdowns  is worse than the disease but Berenson is consistently a propagandist. You need to always check his “work.” He’s been exposed multiple times, so I’d skip him as incredibly biased. 

Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, shoshin said:


Bad math by this guy again. He projects 439 deaths for the remainder of the year for people under 34. 
 

We’ve had 95 in the last two weeks. 
 

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-W/vsak-wrfu
 

I agree with his premise that the mental and physical toll from Covid lockdowns  is worse than the disease but Berenson is consistently a propagandist. You need to always check his “work.” He’s been exposed multiple times, so I’d skip him as incredibly biased. 

You’d skip him as biased because he has the capacity to critically think for himself whereas you don’t.  You gulp down mainstream news and analysis like a Slurpee.

 
  •  
Edited by Magox
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

You’d skip him as biased because he has the capacity to critically think for himself whereas you don’t.  You gulp down mainstream news and analysis like a Slurpee.

 
  •  


You attack me personally but ignore his error and a discussion about the data. Kind of a pattern you have with my fact based criticisms. 

I’ve pointed out big chasm errors in his numbers before. He’s dumb or biased. Since agree with a lot of his numbers, I choose biased. 

 

You just have to check his work. He’s confidently sloppy. 
 

 

Edited by shoshin
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, shoshin said:


You attack me personally but ignore his error and a discussion about the data. Kind of a pattern you have with my fact based criticisms. 

I’ve pointed out big chasm errors in his numbers before. He’s dumb or biased. Since agree with a lot of his numbers, I choose biased. 

 

You just have to check his work. He’s confidently sloppy. 
 

 

 

Ad hominem attacks on posters who counter their claims with facts are the Trumplet's stock in trade since most of them lack critical thinking skills,

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You must be real fun at gang bangs.

That's crossing the line. Best thing you can do is to delete this post. 

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's crossing the line. Best thing you can do is to delete this post. 

As compared to the original content? I call a push, at best.

I'll do it, though, because I know you hypocrites are soft. 

Edited by BullBuchanan
Posted
2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

As compared to the original content? I call a push, at best.

I'll do it, though, because I know you hypocrites are soft. 

You'll do it because you either agree with me or you're afraid of the consequences. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...