Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Woody

‘Squad’ Member Rashida Tlaib Admits Masks Are Political Theater, ‘Just Wearing It’ For Cameras

Recommended Posts

This cunt.  :niterider:

simon cowell facepalm GIF

 

DAD867BB-98C9-43FD-8C6C-04DB1E0AD543.jpe

 

Far-left Representative and member of AOC’s so-called ‘squad’, Rashida Tlaib was caught on camera admitting that she only wears a mask for political reasons. It marks just the latest time Tlaib has been caught violating her own COVID orders, a trend among many Democrats.

Holding an event in Detroit with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, Tlaib made the mask remark when speaking to a supporter who was initially unmasked himself before quickly throwing one on when he thought that Tlaib was upset with him for not wearing one.

“Oh, no, oh, not you!” Tlaib said to the man. “No, no, no!” she reassured him. “I’m just wearing it because I’ve got a Republican tracker here!”

 

 

Since the beginning of COVID-19, Tlaib and her fellow Democrats have been caught numerous times violating the masking requirements they’ve attempted to force onto the American people. Earlier this year, Tlaib herself was caught on a viral video dancing maskless at an Islamic wedding in Dearborn, Michigan. The area, at the time, was designated an “orange zone” by the CDC, meaning attendees were considered to be at “substantial” risk for contracting COVID-19.

Despite her maskless dance moves, Tlaib has enthusiastically backed continued nationwide COVID-19 restrictions and mask mandates for the American people, as well as Michigan Governor Gretchen Witmer’s highly controversial response to COVID, which has been considered one of the most authoritarian in the United States.

Almost immediately before she was caught dancing maskless in a large and close crowd, Tlaib had taken to Twitter in an attempt to blast Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is an actual medical doctor, on the issue of Kentucky COVID cases. Tlaib accused Paul of “throwing a tantrum” for not supporting draconian lockdowns and mask mandates, and claimed that his support for civil liberties was causing mass death from COVID-19.

 

LINK

 

 

  • Like 1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Woody said:

This cunt.  :niterider:

simon cowell facepalm GIF

DAD867BB-98C9-43FD-8C6C-04DB1E0AD543.jpe

Far-left Representative and member of AOC’s so-called ‘squad’, Rashida Tlaib was caught on camera admitting that she only wears a mask for political reasons. It marks just the latest time Tlaib has been caught violating her own COVID orders, a trend among many Democrats.

Holding an event in Detroit with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, Tlaib made the mask remark when speaking to a supporter who was initially unmasked himself before quickly throwing one on when he thought that Tlaib was upset with him for not wearing one.

“Oh, no, oh, not you!” Tlaib said to the man. “No, no, no!” she reassured him. “I’m just wearing it because I’ve got a Republican tracker here!”

Since the beginning of COVID-19, Tlaib and her fellow Democrats have been caught numerous times violating the masking requirements they’ve attempted to force onto the American people. Earlier this year, Tlaib herself was caught on a viral video dancing maskless at an Islamic wedding in Dearborn, Michigan. The area, at the time, was designated an “orange zone” by the CDC, meaning attendees were considered to be at “substantial” risk for contracting COVID-19.

Despite her maskless dance moves, Tlaib has enthusiastically backed continued nationwide COVID-19 restrictions and mask mandates for the American people, as well as Michigan Governor Gretchen Witmer’s highly controversial response to COVID, which has been considered one of the most authoritarian in the United States.

Almost immediately before she was caught dancing maskless in a large and close crowd, Tlaib had taken to Twitter in an attempt to blast Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is an actual medical doctor, on the issue of Kentucky COVID cases. Tlaib accused Paul of “throwing a tantrum” for not supporting draconian lockdowns and mask mandates, and claimed that his support for civil liberties was causing mass death from COVID-19.

LINK

It’s a shame she feels this way, really. Because she’s WAAAAAY better looking with the mask on. A burka would be even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jc856 said:

It’s a shame she feels this way, really. Because she’s WAAAAAY better looking with the mask on. A burka would be even better.

A Darth Vader shield/mask is MUCH better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck the masks.  False sense of security.  Count the number of dopes you see everyday not even wearing the fucking things properly.  It's a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's probably surrounded by people who are all vaccinated. 

  • Haha 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

She's probably surrounded by people who are all vaccinated. 

The vaccshine that doesn't work?

  • Thanks 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't fuck that ugly bitch even if I was promised 5 grand a week for the rest of my life. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

She's probably surrounded by people who are all vaccinated. 

The vaccine doesn't appear to be doing a lot of people much good.  No way that thing is/was 94% effective.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LIBills said:

I wouldn't fuck that ugly bitch even if I was promised 5 grand a week for the rest of my life. 

A week????  Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thebowflexbody said:

A week????  Hmmmm.

Even if it was 10 grand a week, I still wouldn't do her.

She is one ugly bitch, inside and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

The vaccshine that doesn't work?

What do you mean by "doesn't work"?


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

What do you mean by "doesn't work"?

It doesn't prevent the vaccinated from getting it or transmitting it therefore it's non-sterilizing which means it doesn't work.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LIBills said:

Even if it was 10 grand a week, I still wouldn't do her.

She is one ugly bitch, inside and out.

For $520,000 I'd take one for the team!  LOL

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

It doesn't prevent the vaccinated from getting it or transmitting it therefore it's non-sterilizing which means it doesn't work.

So you believe that vaccines only "work" when they give you sterilizing immunity?

 

 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say 711,000 people caught a virus that they had received a vaccine for. It resulted in 9,200 deaths. 

Did that vaccine work?

If your definition of "work" is sterilized immunity, then I guess you want to argue semantics. Because I would say a vaccine works if it prevented people from dying. Which in this scenario, it prevented over 700k people from dying, almost 99% survive.

So if the vaccine doesn't "work" will you at least concede that the vaccine was highly effective at preventing deaths from the virus in this scenario?

 

 


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Let's say 711,000 people caught a virus that they had received a vaccine for. It resulted in 9,200 deaths. 

Did that vaccine work?

If your definition of "work" is sterilized immunity, then I guess you want to argue semantics. Because I would say a vaccine works if it prevented people from dying. Which in this scenario, it prevented over 700k people from dying, almost 99% survive.

So if the vaccine doesn't "work" will you at least concede that the vaccine was highly effective at preventing deaths from the virus in this scenario?

You're just moving the goalposts like all of the "soy-entists" out there. It's already known that the vaccine doesn't prevent getting COVID or transmitting it so the next thing they move on to is that if you didn't get the jab it would have been much worse and resulted in hospitalization of which there is zero proof for. They can't even say that only the unvaccinated are dying now if you had read the recent threads I posted analyzing UK and Israel data. So in essence all you have is a therapeutic that may provide some benefit but the only proof of that is for the elderly and immuno compromised. Is this a hard concept to understand?

The insanity goes even further with Pfizer aiming to jab 5 to 11 year olds who are the least susceptible and have almost no deaths to speak of. What is the aim of this? More dinero as well as giving them a hoard of data showing no cases which they can merge with the existing not so good data to make it appear as if this therapeutic is more efficacious than it really is. This would be the same principle as giving everyone, healthy or not, a statin then measuring cholesterol and then saying that the drug is effective because the majority of people do not have off blood lipid levels completely ignoring that 3/4ths of the participants didn't even need a statin to begin with. These are not hard principles to understand.

My recommendation? Starting boosting your immune system with D3, zinc, and C, lose weight, get some sun, eat healthy, and forget the jab. Let mother nature help you because you can't inject health into your veins.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Let's say 711,000 people caught a virus that they had received a vaccine for. It resulted in 9,200 deaths. 

Did that vaccine work?

If your definition of "work" is sterilized immunity, then I guess you want to argue semantics. Because I would say a vaccine works if it prevented people from dying. Which in this scenario, it prevented over 700k people from dying, almost 99% survive.

So if the vaccine doesn't "work" will you at least concede that the vaccine was highly effective at preventing deaths from the virus in this scenario?

A vaccine's purpose is to keep you from contracting a disease/virus/whatever in the first place.  Your double talk is stupid.  Vaccines aren't something that make you "less sick" or maybe keep you from dying.  Not saying that's terrible, but that's not a vaccine.  Bottom line.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

You're just moving the goalposts like all of the "soy-entists" out there. It's already known that the vaccine doesn't prevent getting COVID or transmitting it so the next thing they move on to is that if you didn't get the jab it would have been much worse and resulted in hospitalization of which there is zero proof for. They can't even say that only the unvaccinated are dying now if you had read the recent threads I posted analyzing UK and Israel data. So in essence all you have is a therapeutic that may provide some benefit but the only proof of that is for the elderly and immuno compromised. Is this a hard concept to understand?

The insanity goes even further with Pfizer aiming to jab 5 to 11 year olds who are the least susceptible and have almost no deaths to speak of. What is the aim of this? More dinero as well as giving them a hoard of data showing no cases which they can merge with the existing not so good data to make it appear as if this therapeutic is more efficacious than it really is. This would be the same principle as giving everyone, healthy or not, a statin then measuring cholesterol and then saying that the drug is effective because the majority of people do not have off blood lipid levels completely ignoring that 3/4ths of the participants didn't even need a statin to begin with. These are not hard principles to understand.

My recommendation? Starting boosting your immune system with D3, zinc, and C, lose weight, get some sun, eat healthy, and forget the jab. Let mother nature help you because you can't inject health into your veins.

Good post.  Woketards and Biden apologists will HATE IT.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thebowflexbody said:

Good post.  Woketards and Biden apologists will HATE IT.  

And of course f8 goes silent. I remember them saying 90% effective but 100% effective against death. 

  • Like 1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Angry Byrds said:

And of course f8 goes silent. I remember them saying 90% effective but 100% effective against death. 

Anyone who said 100% of any claim is being disingenuous


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HipKat said:

Anyone who said 100% of any claim is being disingenuous

The word everywhere was 94-95% effective.  Just do a simple google search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 11:03 PM, Angry Byrds said:

And of course f8 goes silent. I remember them saying 90% effective but 100% effective against death. 

 

9e3mmb813ms71.jpg


81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...