Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Espnthree]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

[Hairy Lime]

The origins of COVID have been and are continuing to be researched.  Do you think that unsupported (oh yeah, he's got information from "unassailable" sources) statements from a red-baiting political hack actually contribute to that research?

[Yankguy1]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

[Espnthree]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

I have no knowledge to add to the debate of the origins of Covid.
Ratcliffe is testifying under oath today in Congress about what he knows.

[Yankguy1]

Good.

[Hairy Lime]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

I have no knowledge to add to the debate of the origins of Covid.

You could have stopped after the ninth word. Or sixth. Or for that matter, fourth.

Ratcliffe is testifying under oath today in Congress about what he knows.

I do not doubt the importance of determining the cause of COVID. Just the relevance of one opinion based on "Unassailable" undisclosed sources. Especially when the opinion uses a phrase like "only explanation and plausible assessment."

[Espnthree]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

I have no knowledge to add to the debate of the origins of Covid.

You could have stopped after the ninth word. Or sixth. Or for that matter, fourth.

Ratcliffe is testifying under oath today in Congress about what he knows.

I do not doubt the importance of determining the cause of COVID. Just the relevance of one opinion based on "Unassailable" undisclosed sources. Especially when the opinion uses a phrase like "only explanation and plausible assessment."

One opinion?

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC

[Hairy Lime]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

I have no knowledge to add to the debate of the origins of Covid.

You could have stopped after the ninth word. Or sixth. Or for that matter, fourth.

Ratcliffe is testifying under oath today in Congress about what he knows.

I do not doubt the importance of determining the cause of COVID. Just the relevance of one opinion based on "Unassailable" undisclosed sources. Especially when the opinion uses a phrase like "only explanation and plausible assessment."

One opinion?

That is what you provided in the post I responded to, yes.

[facilitatorn]

Some one please remind Red that once Covid got here he spread it and we have the receipts. Along with the rest of his mind-fucked nihilist fringe he is responsible for all the morgue trucks and killing grandma, acts for which Red will never find any forgiveness.

[Espnthree]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He led the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is privy to a lot of information.
And most of the more recent opinions tend to support similar conclusions that were repressed  by Big Tech during the Covid years.

.  Oh.  So you're fine with him having the "final say".  Make up your mind.

I have no knowledge to add to the debate of the origins of Covid.

You could have stopped after the ninth word. Or sixth. Or for that matter, fourth.

Ratcliffe is testifying under oath today in Congress about what he knows.

I do not doubt the importance of determining the cause of COVID. Just the relevance of one opinion based on "Unassailable" undisclosed sources. Especially when the opinion uses a phrase like "only explanation and plausible assessment."

One opinion?

That is what you provided in the post I responded to, yes.

Man.  You must not read or watch news
Weeks ago I posted the FBI and Department of Energy findings.
The House Oversight Committee Hearing was only a week ago.

[Oil Filter]

I have no problem with continued research.  Apparently, Radcliffe does.  He's the one asserting: "the only explanation and plausible assessment for the COVID 19 global pandemic is a leak from a Chinese Communist Party-controlled lab."

I don't understand why Ratliff's PhD in virology is such a closely guarded secret. 

The amount of time he spends with E. Coli samples should be a dead giveaway.

[Oil Filter]

One opinion?

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC

The testifying parties, like Redfield, seem to be Trump stooges.  And by stooge I mean someone willing to view the full range of evidence with a partisan bias favorable to that former administration's Red Menace agendas.

[Espnthree]

One opinion?

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC

The testifying parties, like Redfield, seem to be Trump stooges.  And by stooge I mean someone willing to view the full range of evidence with a partisan bias favorable to that former administration's Red Menace agendas.

Why would they be Trump stooges?
Their credentials are solid. What, exactly, would be their reason to be biased?

[facilitatorn]

I have no problem with continued research.  Apparently, Radcliffe does.  He's the one asserting: "the only explanation and plausible assessment for the COVID 19 global pandemic is a leak from a Chinese Communist Party-controlled lab."

I don't understand why Ratliff's PhD in virology is such a closely guarded secret. 

The amount of time he spends with E. Coli samples should be a dead giveaway.

That he collects with his nose from trumps ass.

[facilitatorn]

He seems to think so.

What is wrong with that?
He lied to the Intelligence Agency so he certainly is a privy.

FIFY

You are welcome.