- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: American Academy of Pediatrics Hit With Federal RICO Lawsuit for Vaccine Safety Fraud
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Lol Children's Health Defense. Yeah this isn't going to lead to anything.
1
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s spot on the money and not an “also“. Your flippant remark is irrelevant.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:20 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Lol Children's Health Defense.
Yeah, because this shite is so damn funny.
What a piece of shite you are.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:20 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
It’s spot on the money
Not at all. Not for me. Maybe a version of me made up in your head
quote:
and not an “also“.
The civil suit clarification is necessary b/c people are seeing "RICO" and thinking it's something else. Anyone can file a RICO suit against anyone else.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:22 am to AlterEd
Yeah, they are a retarded organization and represent absolutely retarded positions. I can see why you would speak up for them, though.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:28 am to Django Unchained
quote:
100% agree Tide… and this should be made public so the pharmaceutical executives understand the implications of future decisions.
I think we're mostly aligned but make no mistake who I really want held accountable.
Pharma takes the hit because they make the profits, but the people who did this weren't pharma. Pharma alone could've never pulled this off without guidance and air cover from DC.
The people who put these vaccine testing and protocols in place were demons in lab coats working in conjunction with regulators in DC.
Those are the policy makers. Those are the people driving our horrific health outcomes.
The BEST case scenario at this point would be that this was just a convoluted scheme by pharma to maximize profits, but I no longer believe profit motive alone explains the actions of the government and AMA over the last few generations. This seems to be far beyond that to the point of having to ask if this was an attempt at population control.
Given that the people running the WEF and wielding power globally were openly calling for population control during this period I don't see that as at all an extremist question or theory to pose to explain the actions of the FDA and AMA during that era.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:30 am to Azkiger
quote:
And just like that, SFP claims Lawfare now exists.
Swing and a miss
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Swing and a miss
What's the motive here?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:34 am to Azkiger
quote:
What's the motive here?
For what, exactly?
The dumb lawsuit? Publicity and funding, I imagine.
Your silly and erroneous post? You have to answer that.
Me laughing at either/both? Should be obvious
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Speaking of making things up in your own head, nobody was commenting on that. You just projected.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Publicity and funding, I imagine
Using the legal system for political means isn't lawfare?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:42 am to Azkiger
Exactly. He just contradicted himself in the span of like one minute while still acting like he views himself as the smartest guy in the room.
You would be hard pressed to find a bigger narcissist anywhere than this frickin guy.
You would be hard pressed to find a bigger narcissist anywhere than this frickin guy.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:46 am to Azkiger
quote:
Using the legal system for political means isn't lawfare?
I don't know what lawfare means. If you want to expand the definition further than it's incredibly wide/malleable current form, then feel free. It's just proving my point about the term, ultimately.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:47 am to AlterEd
quote:
He just contradicted himself
...how?
I didn't use the L-word
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't know what lawfare means.
You at least understand the shape of it. Either that or you're an idiot.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:54 am to Azkiger
quote:
You at least understand the shape of it.
At this point it means "legal cases that don't fit into my in-group talking points and I don't like it", as best I can tell.
And I never made any such commentary, and I certainly didn't use the L-word.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:55 am to Azkiger
quote:
I don't know what lawfare means. You at least understand the shape of it. Either that or you're an idiot.
Being a leftist means you have to pretend not to know things.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
as best I can tell.
Thats the best you can tell after I asked you if using our legal system for political gain was the intent behind our legal system?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:57 am to Azkiger
quote:
after I asked you if using our legal system for political gain was the intent behind our legal system?
That's specifically NOT what you asked. I'll quote you:
quote:
Using the legal system for political means isn't lawfare?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how?
How fricking stupid are you, man? Jesus. Here, I'll explain it like you're a child.
Someone says, "suddenly SFP believes in lawfare" (paraphrase).
SFP says, "nuh uh".
And then one minute later SFP says the suit is lawfare because it's seeking money and popularity.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News