16 page document produced today, right on schedule, almost like there is a plan!
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Letter-Re.-Feb-1-Emails-011122.pdf
Project Veritas produces bombshell documents from the Department of Defense on Jan 10 at 8pm.
Fraudci testifying to Congress today.
I would be curious to see how tired he will look, probably up all night with his lawyers on how to best spew verbiage to tiptoe and dodge.
Freedom!
That's the face of a man who knows he's fooked.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?517046-1/drs-walensky-fauci-testify-response-covid-19-variants
No, I see a serial liar who helped cause real world genocide.
>death threat
>marines
Nice try Fauci PR, your attempts to portray the marines as extrajudicial killers of civilians is terribly done.
Casey at the Bat.
He's warming up!
I think that the cabal KNEW that the 'Xi' variant (which was 'next' in the line of names) was a cure, so they called it 'Omicron'.
Xi = Omicron = Cure
Thank you Xi = Thank you Omicron = THANK YOU MILITARY
Prove the universe is the way you describe it, namely, what you claim it is, and not including God.
The burden of proof is on everyone regardless of view.
The trick and deception many atheists use is to FRAME any and all possible 'debates' as 'default is universe is what it is that makes God impossible, anyone who believes in God are the only people with a burden of proof'.
But by that "framing", the default could be the universe is what it is and God is included, and the burden of proof is on those who claim the universe is what it is that makes God impossible.
If you believe the universe is such that God is an impossible inclusion, where's your proof that it is such that God is impossible?
No atheist has ever proved this, and all along belief in God has continued…
>How am I describing the Universe?
You're describing it as being what you claim it is, that in the entire universe, that everything that exists, it is what you describe which makes God an impossibility.
>All I'm doing is rejecting part of your description of it.
But that's just it, you're doing MORE.
You're just so used to framing the thought in a way that absolves yourself of any burden of proof.
I could also 'frame' the debate by saying I believe the universe includes God, and I am 'just rejecting part of your description of it', that God is absent.
Where is your proof that the universe, that everything that exists, is what you claim it is such that God is an impossibility?
Let the meltdown begin
Nice try Fauci PR
>My only claim is that I don't believe in your claim about there being a God.
Which logically follows from your belief about what the universe 'really' is.
I too could say that 'My only claim is that I don't believe your claim about the universe being what it is that makes God impossible'.
>>that in the entire universe, that everything that exists, it is what you describe which makes God an impossibility.
>I never said God was an impossibility. I said I don't believe there is a God.
Which logically follows from your conception of what you believe DOES exist, the universe is what it is, and it is a logical necessity that your belief about what the universe is to be incompatible with any existence of God.
You keep referring to your argument as 'really' being 'just' a statement that you 'reject' or 'do not believe' or 'disagree with' my claim about what the universe is about.
You're just repeatedly using the same FRAMING to absolve yourself of proving your belief.
Your belief is that the universe has a definite particular nature, which just so happens to be incompatible with an existence of a God.
>>You're just so used to framing the thought in a way that absolves yourself of any burden of proof.
>I have no burden of proof
But you do. Your positive claim which you have communicated repeatedly is that you know or have a belief about the specific nature of the universe, that it is what you say it is and not what I say it is.
I too could absolve myself of the burden the same way you are, by saying:
"I am just rejecting your claim about what the universe is about, I just reject your description of it".
>when I'm not the one making a claim.
But you are. You are making a claim about what the universe is truly about.
>I don't claim God doesn't exist. I claim he's not proven to exist and that I don't believe he exists.
You're claiming what the universe is truly about, what it consists of.
I am 'only' rejecting your claim on what you believe the universe contains. My default is the universe is what I believe it is, and if you want to approach me with a claim that the universe is what you say it is, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe is the way you believe it is.
The study they are depending on for these numbers DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THEREASONFOR DEATH.
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status.aspx