• Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Torrents
    1. Home
    2. hubrys
    3. Posts
    H
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 1
    • Topics 49
    • Posts 498
    • Best 167
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Posts made by hubrys

    • RE: Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025

      @manhandler said in Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025:

      Lol, your statement says nothing. Why don't you have a problem with 78 people shot this weekend in Chicago? Because she's black and lesbian and that makes it A-OK. Anything a black lesbian does cannot be challenged. Because she's like God. Get a grip on yourself. You have no excuse, no answer for what the fuck is going on. 78 people shot this weekend and you have no complaints! Yea, because you're an idiot.

      No, I've shown why your bullshit above in this post was just that, bullshit. You clearly don't know jack or shit about vaccines, mRNA vaccines, or the science around such things. You're like a poor Xerox copy of Tucker Carlson's television show, which itself is full of half-truths at best. Then, you don't even understand what he's presenting anyway. You're like a moronic game of telephone.

      And to your non-sequitur above, I don't have an opinion of Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago (who I had to look up to even know who the fuck you were ranting about). I don't have an opinion of her because I don't live in Chicago, and I don't care or follow the goings-on in cities within which i don't live. I don't have a positive or negative opinion of her. To paraphrase Ayn Rand: What do I think about Lori Lightfoot? I don't. I don't think about her.

      Are you really a bot? I can't imagine a real person is as nonsensical as you. Are you really Raphjd's sock puppet account? Did he have to create an account to hold conversations with himself and support his own posts?

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025

      @manhandler

      If you mean "comprehensive" in the sense that I respond to nearly all of your asinine assertions and baseless claims and show why you don't know what you're talking about, then clearly I CAN "give a comprehensive response." And the fact that you've turned to a piss poor strawman with random CAPITALIZATIONS throughout makes me believe I've won here and you're done. Roll up the carpet, your show's over.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025

      @manhandler

      Every industry assigns a value to life when making a cost-benefit analysis if that industry's products are going to affect people's health and safety. Hell, Tylenol kills about 500 people a year and sends 50,000+ people to the hospital. It doesn't mean that we should ban Tylenol.

      I don't see you railing against the auto industry, and they've been caught making the same cost-benefit analysis malfeasances you're accusing the pharmaceutical industry of, e.g., the Pinto, GM's ignition failures, Firestone tires, Toyota's sudden acceleration recall, the Ford Bronco II's tipping over problem, etc. I mean, if you're going to be crazy like you are, then you should at least be consistent. If you think you are, then we can assume you don't use automobiles at all.

      Nearly every governmental agency in the US has an official value of human life that it uses to evaluate the effects of regulations. It's known as the VSL, or value of statistical life. If you're just now discovering the business and industry place values on life to make cost-benefit analyses, then I envy the sheltered and naïve bubble you grew up in.

      And, I assume the Johnson and Johnson case you're referencing is the talc powder $2 billion judgment. That wasn't for "drugging" Americans. It was for not warning them that baby powder may contain asbestos particles, which can migrate up inside a woman and give her cancer.

      Again, you say a lot of things, but you only seem to know or understand about 5% of the things you reference.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025

      @manhandler said in Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025:

      His name is Kary Mullis you asshole. He INVENTED the PCR test. Now here is where you stop responding because I destroy you. Kary Mullis said that his invention (the Polymerase Chain Reaction) will show that 100% of humans will test positive for EBOLA, or ANY molecule that exists on Earth. This is WHY the CDC finally admitted that over 90% of the PCR tests showing positive for Covid were FALSE. Because it's run by cycles (magnifications under a microscope by the trillions of magnifications). You simply take a sample of a cell and it shows other molecules (all of them when you magnify it high enough). It does not mean that you "HAVE" Covid, you moron. It simply is an example of the Buddhist philosophy that all is one, and all is contained within all. This is just for starters. The inventor of the PCR test, which is used by Fauci to claim all these people are positive and there is a Pandemic is bullshit. A PCR test will show that you have a molecule of Nickel, does that mean that there is a Nickel poisoning epidemic? No. You clearly don't like to actually listen to the scientists, because you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You just don't agree with science because Orange Man Bad.

      First, you don't understand what Kary Mullis was saying when he made the comments you are misconstruing. Kary Mullis was an HIV-denier, i.e., he did not believe that HIV caused AIDS. He was essentially answering the question: "If doctors are using PCR techniques and finding HIV in AIDS patients, then doesn't that mean that HIV is causing AIDS." He's answer, which you are incorrectly paraphrasing is basically, "Someone who has been promiscuous enough to get the retrovirus HIV in them (which is only within a very small subset of humans), then they have probably got a whole lot of other sexually transmitted diseased in them as well. Just because PCR can be used to replicate a lot of the HIV in the patient doesn't mean it isn't any one of the other viruses or bacteria also present in the AIDS patient. You can use PCR to replicate any DNA present in the AIDS patient."

      This is the link to the YouTube video of Mullis saying what has been misconstrued: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc0Kysti6Kc](link url)

      Here's the Irish press disproving manhandler's version of Mullis's quote: [https://www.thejournal.ie/kary-mullis-pcr-testing-factcheck-debunk-hse-5271830-Nov2020/](link url)

      Second, you clearly don't understand how PCR works. It isn't cycles of increasingly smaller and smaller magnifications or whatever bullshit you were saying. PCR works by heating up genetic material, which causes the double-helixes to denature and separate. DNA is proteins. Heat makes proteins denature. That's why when you crack an egg (full of protein) into your frying pan, the clear fluid quickly becomes white and opaque. That's the proteins in the egg denaturing.

      Then the material is cooled and chemicals are used to make the newly split two halves of the DNA (split apart by the heating step above) to couple with free nucleotides (the proteins making up DNA) in the solution. So, basically, you started with one strand of DNA. Split it apart so that it reformed into two identical DNA helixes. Then you heat it up again, which splits those two helixes apart. Cool down and now you have 4 helixes of DNA. Heat again, cool again....now you have 8 helixes of DNAs. Eventually, you will have enough DNA that the pile of it becomes observable to the lab technician (you see, DNA is VERY tiny, and most labs don't have electron microscopes to see things that small.)

      Basically, assume you want to see what color a single piece of hay is in the field across the street from you. The single strand of hay is too small laying somewhere out in that field for you to see. But imagine if you could make that strand of hay duplicate itself over and over again until it was the size of a bale of hay. Then you can see it from your window. That's PCR.

      Finally, in regard to your reliance upon statements of the "inventor of mRNA," you must be talking about Dr. R.W. Malone, the disputed discoverer of nanoparticals could transfect mRNA into cells. I find it funny that you anti-vax people will rail against "Big Pharma" and castigate its science because it is profit-driven, yet you readily hitch your wagon to Malone, who with his partner, run several research and pharmaceutical manufacturing ventures trying to sell generic drugs as treatments for COVID. Chiefly, they're trying to push Ivermectin (a ringworm medicine used mostly in horses) and Famotidine (a histamine-2 in Pepcid products) as COVID cures.....read: hydroxychloroquine: the sequel.

      The TL:DR of it all: Manhandler is full of shit and doesn't know what he's talking about.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025

      So, you guys are full-on anti-vax retarded, then?

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: FL Judge declares masks unconstitutional.

      I looked up the actual case cited by the linked article, Green v. Alachua Cty., 2021 Fla. App. LEXIS 8634, on LexisNexis.

      First, the original thread headline is misleading. The court did not find that mask mandates are unconstitutional based on the United States' Constitution. It was analyzing the law under Florida's Constitution, which has a very broad "Right of Privacy" provision, Fla. Const. Art. I, Section 23.

      Second, the case doesn't actual create the state of the law that the article assumes. The case was heard by a three panel appellate court. It had two justices agreeing to the result, but with different reasonings, and one dissenting justice. Of the two justices agreeing upon results, each agreed to the other's opinion as a concurrence. This means that the "opinion" of the court will (by the rules of stare decisis) mean the case will be interpreted based on whichever concurring opinion has the least effect on the already established law. Meaning, the crazy ass judge that wrote the portions quoted in the original article isn't going to be the opinion followed by the lower courts.

      Interestingly, if we are to accept the crazy judge's legal theory, then he would see all public decency laws struck down as violative of Florida's Constitution. Forcing people to wear clothing in public would violate his interpretation of Article I of Florida's Constitution. I fully expect that this case will either be appealed en banc (making all of the justices on the appellate court hear the case again, not just the three justice panel) or will go up to a higher court since it has already been certified up since it conflicts with other Florida appellate districts' interpretation of the law.

      I know that's a boring rundown, and most won't read it, so if you take nothing away, take away this: you anti-mask loonies still haven't scored a win here.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: US Supreme Court sides with the 2nd Amendment in 9-0 verdict

      @raphjd

      This case was not decided under the 2nd Amendment. Guns were only incidentally involved in the facts of the case.

      The legal issue in the case was the 4th Amendment's search and seizure clause. Both the liberal justices and the conservative justices are generally against warrantless searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, hence the 9-0 decision.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: National Debt Exceeds $123 Trillion, or Nearly $800,000 per Taxpayer

      I love when conservatives bitch about the debt, citing Medicare, but then conveniently forget that it was their boy, George W. Bush, that created the last, large entitlement program, Medicare Part D.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: National Debt Exceeds $123 Trillion, or Nearly $800,000 per Taxpayer

      @raphjd

      Can you imagine how stupid a President would have to be, with our soaring debt, to propose a $2 trillion infrastructure bill.....oops...

      [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/trump-calls-for-2-trillion-infrastructure-bill-to-create-jobs](link url)

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: WaPo finally admits they lied

      @raphjd

      "What the new recording does not do is present a substantively different picture of what Trump was up to on that call than the Post’s original story. Trump, though, is savvy about the fact that most people will only vaguely remember the details, will mix the Raffensperger and Watson calls up, and will see reports of a correction regarding Trump’s Georgia phone call. Those sympathetic to Trump or skeptical of the media will wonder if he got a bad rap regarding that larger story. He did not."

      https://www.vox.com/2021/3/16/22333805/washington-post-correction-trump-georgia

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Liberals hate critical thinking

      @raphjd said in Liberals hate critical thinking:

      Both articles say basically the same thing.
      They claim that everyone should not do their own research because there are so many lies on the internet. You should just trust what liberal MSM tells you and ignore everything else.

      So the answer is that you didn't read them. If you had, then you would know that the point each was making is that people thinking that they somehow have as much skill, education, and training to come to a correct conclusion as a professional expert (i.e., a scientist or specialist) is a potentially dangerous thing. It's why misinformation and hokum gets spread on the Internet.

      Basically, an ordinary person doesn't take a premise, objectively analyze every side of that premise, and then come to a conclusion based on all available evidence. What people do is form an opinion about the truth or falseness of a premise, and then collect evidence to support that opinion while discounting evidence that is contrary.

      And neither article instructs the reader to blindly believe the MSM.

      I will also point out that, for as much as you criticize people for blindly believing the MSM, you wasted no time blinding believing the MSM. I hate to break it to you, but Tucker Carlson is part of the MSM. So is the rest of FOX News.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Why saying “I don’t see race at all” just makes racism worse

      @raphjd
      As was indicated in the original article, those who lie to themselves by telling themselves that they "don't see color" then don't have any motivation or inclination to examine the unconscious or implicit biases that they actually do possess, despite their lie to themselves.

      In other words, someone who tells themselves they don't see color doesn't think they have any room for improvement. However, no one is free from all cognitive or social biases, no matter how hard they lie to themselves.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Why saying “I don’t see race at all” just makes racism worse

      There is a spectrum upon which we must find a balance toward the middle when it comes to analyzing race in America. On one side of the spectrum is the "I don't see color" un-critical ignorance referenced in the original post. On the other side is modern Critical Theory, which posits that everything...EVERYTHING...is the product of power differentials, and almost everything can be explained by racism.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Liberals hate critical thinking

      @raphjd
      I'm going to assume that you didn't read either of those articles. Either that, or you are being purposefully disingenuous.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Rush Limbaugh dies at 70 from lung cancer

      @tj16

      Unfortunately, gays are not immune to the toxic paradigm sold by people like Rush Limbaugh. Basically, you take anything in the world that's happening, reduce it to a gross oversimplification couched in emotive terms, and let the audience's outrage convince them of the rightness of your argument. Once you've got them agreeing or buying in on some portion of what you're selling, their innate cognitive dissonance will keep them doing the bulk of the work glossing over or ignoring the patent holes in your worldview.

      It's how conservative radio, QAnon, and even some groups on the Left work and perpetuate themselves.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Anyone can name this other monster then?

      @lalo4

      The person doing the windmill is Cole from Fratmen.com. He does webcam on Chaturbate now.

      posted in Horse Hung
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Rush Limbaugh dies at 70 from lung cancer

      @raphjd

      "All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one, they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction." -- Clarence Darrow.

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • RE: Rush Limbaugh dies at 70 from lung cancer

      Can we celebrate his death with as much glee and gusto as the AIDS updates he used to do on his show where he would celebrate gay men dying of AIDS, with horns, disco music, and cheers?

      posted in Politics & Debate
      H
      hubrys
    • 1
    • 2
    • 21
    • 22
    • 23
    • 24
    • 25
    • 25 / 25