People Will Overlook

subllibrm said:
Justin Amash
Click to expand...
And this is exactly my point. One.

Would you agree that if any politician takes money from any lobbyists group, super pac, personal large donations that they will naturally lean to push their agenda and pass laws that these people push for?
 
Bruh said:
Ok I believe I’m beginning to understand you and others better. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Something like Epstein and the way he died. The FBI told us that he committed suicide and because of this that is what their documentation reveals.

Therefore, we have the truth?
Click to expand...
What?


Are you implying Epstein was deliberately killed because “the government” wanted him dead so he couldn’t reveal who it was “in the government” that was involved with his sex ring?
 
ALAYMAN said:
What?


Are you implying Epstein was deliberately killed because “the government” wanted him dead so he couldn’t reveal who it was “in the government” that was involved with his sex ring?
Click to expand...
No I’m asking, since the FBI said their investigation said he committed suicide that’s what you believe? In other words, whatever government department does an investigation into whatever they are investigating whatever it yields you believe it?

If so, like I said, I’m understanding the thought process.

For example, the Covid shot. The government said, they believed we needed the shot and because the government said by their investigation you took the shot?

The government told us, it was a pandemic by their highly qualified scientists and as far as I know they have documentation to prove this by their investigation.

If this is your thought process? That’s fine.

I’m asking for future conversations and how to approach it.

Another example, when they shut schools down because of their investigation it was warranted, correct?
 
Last edited:
Bruh said:
No I’m asking, since the FBI said their investigation said he committed suicide that’s what you believe? In other words, whatever government department does an investigation into whatever they are investigating whatever it yields you believe it?
Click to expand...
No, the type of thinking (and argument) you’re referring to with that question is called an “appeal to authority” and is fallacious. Keeping it short, I am a “trust but verify” sorta guy.
 
ALAYMAN said:
No, the type of thinking (and argument) you’re referring to with that question is called an “appeal to authority” and is fallacious. Keeping it short, I am a “trust but verify” sorta guy.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing since you didn’t say anything about my Covid question that you came to a different conclusion than Anthony Fauci?

If you did what did they miss that you found?
 
Bruh said:
I’m guessing since you didn’t say anything about my Covid question that you came to a different conclusion than Anthony Fauci?

If you did what did they miss that you found?
Click to expand...
I did not agree with Faucci, not from the very early breaking moments of the pandemic when he lied about the ineffectiveness of N95 masks so that the supply would not be depleted and the front line workers would be ensured access to them and the general public would not. Simply because a government official is not to be trusted doesn’t mean the whole government is not to be trusted.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I did not agree with Faucci, not from the very early breaking moments of the pandemic when he lied about the ineffectiveness of N95 masks so that the supply would not be depleted and the front line workers would be ensured access to them and the general public would not. Simply because a government official is not to be trusted doesn’t mean the whole government is not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing that’s the disagreement and or disconnect for me and someone with your view about the government.

Our politicians take money from lobbyists and pass laws based on that, the money. In my opinion at that point how can the American people trust those that take money? No matter the government agency.

So again for example, it’s legal for the doctor to work for Purdue Pharma a year or so later after leaving the FDA. Because this is allowed and I’m sure other things are allowed to give incentive to bring things to market in this specific agency and other agencies.
 
Bruh said:
I’m guessing that’s the disagreement and or disconnect for me and someone with your view about the government.

Our politicians take money from lobbyists and pass laws based on that, the money. In my opinion at that point how can the American people trust those that take money? No matter the government agency.

So again for example, it’s legal for the doctor to work for Purdue Pharma a year or so later after leaving the FDA. Because this is allowed and I’m sure other things are allowed to give incentive to bring things to market in this specific agency and other agencies.
Click to expand...
You still want to take your example and paint the entire government with it. You have legitimate reasons for concern on several issues. What you don't have is proof of a conspiracy that involves the whole of our government. Words matter. I suggest that you be more careful about how you use them.
 
subllibrm said:
You still want to take your example and paint the entire government with it. You have legitimate reasons for concern on several issues. What you don't have is proof of a conspiracy that involves the whole of our government. Words matter. I suggest that you be more careful about how you use them.
Click to expand...
Please, give me the name of a government agency that doesn’t take money from lobbyists or isn’t allowed to get hired from the company that they passed laws for or large personal donations from people.
 
Bruh said:
Please, give me the name of a government agency that doesn’t take money from lobbyists or isn’t allowed to get hired from the company that they passed laws for or large personal donations from people.
Click to expand...

Why is the onus on him to prove the oppoosite of what you are asserting, when you are incapable of proving your own point? It's not up to the smart people to prove your claims for you. :ROFLMAO: Do your own homework.
 
Ransom said:
Why is the onus on him to prove the oppoosite of what you are asserting, when you are incapable of proving your own point? It's not up to the smart people to prove your claims for you. :ROFLMAO: Do your own homework.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if any government agency that doesn’t take money. What some on here are saying is that you cannot lump the entire federal government in the same basket as I do. As far as I can tell our government is bought and paid for by lobbyists and other outside money. I am proving my point.

The implication is, that there are agencies that do not receive some kind of money from lobbyists and the like, to sway their vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top