Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,240 Excellent


About Tippaporn

  • Rank
    Super Duper Member
  • Birthday 02/25/1907

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Huai Khwang, Bangkok

Recent Profile Visitors

11,499 profile views
  1. The inexhaustible number of racist remarks Trump has made has numbed the public. I ain't getting involved in this thread other to comment that your reply to thaibeachlovers perfectly illustrates his point. You just gave him a BS cop out answer as to why you refuse to call Biden a racist when you would assuredly be calling Trump a racist, as thaibeacherlovers points out, if the roles were reversed. Your reply is liberal dishonesty and hypocrisy at it's finest. Thank you for exposing it once again.
  2. Well good for them. So what? How many people have died in Europe as of today from the Wuhan virus? How has the current treatment been working out? Why is no one conducting similar studies on these current failed treatments and banning them?
  3. If the MSM doesn't report it then it doesn't exist. Correct? But others, non-mainstream, will report it. Is that the "scouring of the Internet" that you're referring to? LOL You haven't read any of the recent posts here, I take it, or you've been so blue-pilled that you automatically ignore anything that doesn't agree with your views? I dunno. Just asking. Dr. Mike Ryan . . . who is he? If I don't look up his credentials or affiliations then I wouldn't know whether he's conflicted in his opinions or not. Is he a "trusted" source? Do you take him as a trusted source solely on his title and position within the WHO? To me he's another guy with his own opinion. Maybe his opinion is correct and maybe it's not. But I'm not going to take what anyone says sight unseen as gospel. Nod your head uncritically if you like but make your own choices, my friend.
  4. I'll have to quote you one more time on this, rabas. Here is the infamous video clip of Mika Brzezinski admitting on a national broadcast of Morning Joe that it is the media's job to control the people's thinking. I'm adding this as it is supportive of the contention that the media is purposely promoting a false narrative as to hydroxychloroquine with the express intention of having people believe it as the narrative is coming from "trusted" sources.
  5. Another Trump vindication coming soon? The Indian Express (India) - UK healthcare workers begin COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine trial British healthcare workers will on Thursday begin taking part in a University of Oxford-led international trial of two anti-malarial drugs to see if they can prevent COVID-19, including one US President Donald Trump says he has been taking. The ‘COPCOV’ study will involve more than 40,000 frontline healthcare workers from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America to determine if chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are effective in preventing the novel coronavirus. There's a video available on YT, which I'm not allowed to post, of a televised news report covering this news item. Part of the coverage contains filming of the pills' production facility. The color of the pill is red. LOL
  6. Wonderful post that hammers down the point better than all of my verbose ramblings. The power of belief is quite impressive and there are those who know this very, very well. Feed the masses bogus information from trusted sources and, voilà, you control their world view and hence, but more importantly, their actions while at the same time the masses give you their unwavering support. It's so simple and so very devious as well. Edit: BTW, thanks very much for that search tip. Didn't know of it. And your findings are indeed very enlightening. More than that, their implications are exceedingly profound. Thanks.
  7. Good that we agree for a change. I'm all for it. As far as I'm concerned there are only four things one needs to understand about science: Science should be pure. Science can be corrupted. Science is fallible. Science is limited. That's it. If I wanted to embellish those four points then I'd add: Purity of science would include freedom from goal seeking, freedom from any and all outside influences including the ego, freedom from expectation, adherence to the scientific method. Corruption would include any and all influence stemming from self-serving intentions and motivations. Fallibility would include the fact that science's current conclusions are based on all known evidence and data. As the unknown becomes known any new data has the potential to obsolete current conclusions, sometimes in dramatic fashion. Perhaps this is the most difficult point to expound on fully as it entails a great deal of thought. To put in into the most general of terms then whenever, wherever, and as long as science is operating under false assumptions then they will be severely hampered in attempting to discern true reality as their false assumptions will automatically lead them to seek for answers in directions directly opposite to where the real answers lie. Other than that, I personally refuse to accept willy-nilly and out of hand any scientific proclamations defining any aspect of reality. I do not put them on a pedestal to be bowed down to while granting them superiority over others. They're human just like me. So please do not confront me with scientific proclamations of any kind and expect me to be uncritically accepting at face value. Perhaps our disagreement at it's core is the view on the one hand that scientists know more than we do and we should thus always heed their advice and opinions and the view on the other hand that we are each capable of arriving at our own correct conclusions despite not being steeped in any formal scientific grounding. Each of those views would be based on any given individual's own current knowledge. And the knowledge that each of us possess can vary dramatically. You will know things that I do not know and I will know things that you do not know. That's the source of all disagreements, isn't it? Given all of that then, yes, Trump can know "better" than scientists, as I believe we all can. As to what to believe, to each their own.
  8. allegory [ al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee ] noun, plural al·le·go·ries. 1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. 2 a symbolical narrative 3 emblem I was using a literary device to illustrate that practically speaking science isn't necessarily one thing. As I said in my post, it should be. It isn't because scientific results and opinions can be driven by a variety of intentions. For instance, science driven by monetary considerations applies pressure to those scientists funded by, say the oil and gas industries, to produce results which are favourable to the oil and gas industries' arguments as to why their practices are not harmful to the environment as they seek permits to drill for oil in environmentally protected areas. Of course this is a corruption of science but no doubt it happens. The same can be said as to the science behind global warming. Is it pure science or is it science which is driven to goal seek results? The same can be said of the medical profession where scientists employed by pharmaceutical companies purposely downplay side effects of drugs in order to get them approved and profit from their sale. Think of Monsanto as it applies to agriculture. I used "types" to represent various intentions so no, there are no "types" of science. Pure, objective science does not goal seek and is free of expectation. It does exist in that state but unfortunately man tends to corrupt in many ways and science can be corrupted. Now apply the above to hydroxychloroquine. Ask yourself, what forces are applying their intentions to scientific results and opinions on this subject? Please do not be so naïve to reply, "None." I won't be sold on that answer.
  9. Sigh, you do recognize allegory when it's presented? Anyway, thanks for the helpful explanation.
  10. By God, for once I agree wholeheartedly with you, Chomper. Thank you.
  11. The AG has it all already. He's probably up to his neck in criminal cases committed by the corrupt cabal and this will just have to wait it's turn in line. BTW, you did click on the link of the black and white documentation I provided which proves her perjury? I don't know if that's asking too much of you.
  12. I suspect some day down the road the to-date hidden testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson will make it's way into the sunlight. Pray for Schiff when that happens. LOL
  13. Listen, I know where this is going to lead to . . . a bunch of quibbling which will just get deleted. I made my point, you made yours and neither of us will ever agree with each other. Fair enough? I'm sure there will be many more opportunities for us to share our thoughts together. Until then, cheers mate.
  14. You mean another Dem perjured themselves under oath? The lionized "hero" and lib darling Yovanovitch of the sham impeachment investigation no less? What's this world coming to??? Very important note: Before anyone gets their panties bunched too far up their crevices please note that this reporting is not speculation or opinion. New documentation has been released this May 13th, 2020 which proves she not only knew much, much more than she professed to know (under oath, as Chomper so rightly points out) but also had meetings with Burisma in her embassy. This Fox News Laura Ingraham segment replays some of her "I can't remember" testimony (again, under oath). More fallacies the libs here swallowed whole (her testimony) while staunchly defending her character against any detractors. Yeah, we're all conspiracy nutters, LOL. Now the question is: if she lied about Burisma what else did she lie about? Here's the link to the documentation hosted by Citizens United. Read it yourself.
  • Create New...