The Curse of Covid and a political vigil

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  218 comments

The Curse of Covid and a political vigil
"The former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election," Biden said, breaking with his recent practice of declining comment on Trump. "He's done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interests as more important than his country's interests and America's interests, and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our Constitution."

It got democrats everything they wanted and yes it was "God's gift to the left, ' but it has turned out to be a double edged sword. Joe Biden made a promise to shut down covid and he may be the only man in America that doesn't know that we may just have to live with it. As he doubles down on his vaccine mandate, the number of Americans hospitalized with covid-19 reached more than 126,000 this week — the highest level in a year. Hospital staffs are stretched more than ever, with nearly 1 in 4 medical centers reporting this week they have a “critical” staffing shortage, the highest proportion of the pandemic. Three hundred thousand Chicago school children will be staying home for the third straight day. The Chicago Teacher's Union got $1.8 Billion from the American Rescue Plan to prepare classrooms for in person learning and they are stiffing the working parents of Chicago and their students once again. The Teacher's Union is putting democrats on the spot and it will be interesting to see how Biden and his handlers deal with it. On another front, Biden's vaccine mandate, involving about 100 Million workers, goes to the Supreme Court today.


The Week:


Insurrection theatre:

Yesterday was the democrats first (and most likely last) commemoration of "Insurrection Day." The most cringeworthy point came when Nancy Pelosi had Lin-Manuel Miranda perform songs on a zoom call. Joe Biden, the "uniter,"   denounced his predecessor, as a threat to the constitutional order at home and the democratic project abroad , using the occasion as part of Pelosi's grand strategy to prevent another Trump candidacy. Democrats spent their day recounting  the tremendous terror they felt last year. Meanwhile hundreds languish in what was constructed as a sort of political prison, some since January of 2021. The trial for many won't be until April or May of this year. Talk about a threat to democracy?


Liz Cheney's Lie:

Last night Liz Cheney was interviewed by Bret Baier. It was a very interesting interview with Cheney not only bashing Trump but also trashing the people of Wyoming. One thing that needed to be noted was her false claim that she was the ranking member on the Jan 6th Committee. Ranking members are selected by the minority leader. Cheney was appointed by Nancy Pelosi.


And then there's this:

"The American Medical Association slammed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's new COVID-19 isolation guidelines  in a new statement , saying the new rules could "put our patients at risk." 

The CDC  changed it's guidelines last week , shortening the isolation period for people who test positive for COVID-19 to five days for asymptomatic cases.  

But, according to the AMA, the new guidelines "are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus."

"Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system," the statement said."

https://www.businessinsider.com/ama-criticized-cdc-covid-19-quarantine-guidance-2022-1

That was long overdue. The CDC has been nothing but confusing, contradictory and political.

Here is CDC Director Rochelle Walensky running away from valid questions:




Cartoon of the week:

cartoon-01.jpg?ve=1&tl=1


Honorable mention:

Tucker Carlson for taking on Sen Ted Cruz

 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

In the last few months, thousands of health care workers across the nation have been terminated over refusing to comply with vaccine mandates, leaving health care providers in the lurch with staffing shortages while bracing for more patients and the beat goes on!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

If doctors and health care workers are refusing the vaccine, I think a good question to ask is 'why'?  What information do they have that we don't? 

And what is it about the vaccines that had the government protect the manufacture from legal actions and why is the CDC not wanting to release all the data for 75 years?

I've gotten the two dose vaccine and the booster shot and have not suffered any side effects  (thought I was growing horns after the second shot, turned out to just be bed head..)  but then again it's only been a year since I got the first shot.   I do encourage people to get the vaccine but it would sure be nice to know what the long-term effects are and why there are people who refuse to take it. I personally do not agree with the religious reason of fetal tissue being used in the development, as I understand it that was something like 9th generation fetal tissue.  And for religious reasons, I much prefer the lesson of the Good Samaritan. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    2 weeks ago

The vast majority of US doctors have been vaccinated.

.

The healthcare workers who are refusing the vaccine are, for the most part, support staff, such as receptionists, orderlies, housekeeping staff, etc.  They are not in any position to know any more about the vaccine than the rest of us.  The ones who are - doctors - are getting the vaccine.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
The healthcare workers who are refusing the vaccine are, for the most part, support staff, such as receptionists, orderlies, housekeeping staff, etc. 

If this was true then why are nurses being terminated for vaccine reasons?  It's all over the news.  And just because the majority of health care workers (including doctors, nurses, lab techs, receptionists, orderlies, housekeeping staff, etc) are vaccinated, it still doesn't answer my question as to why they are refusing the vaccine and why is the CDC working to withhold information about the vaccines? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Good question, do you really expect an answer?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

LOL...   that's funny.   I can easily count the number of people on this board who will answer questions but the vast majority of members won't bother.  Some of those may toss out the odd insult or taunt, but most of them just never reply unless it's to cherry-pick a couple of words and try their argument again.  Tiring..  And sad, I came to this site initially in the hopes of having conversations with people of like and different mind-sets so that I could learn..  All I've learned so far is that a lot of people on this board don't want to bother if it puts them outside of their pre-conceived ideas.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
If this was true then why are nurses being terminated for vaccine reasons?

Doctors know more about vaccines than nurses, too.  That's just how it is.  At the risk of sounding elitist, I'll take my cues regarding vaccines from doctors and medical researchers, who are in the position to be the most informed, and who are vaccinated at much higher rates than other healthcare workers.

As to why a hospital receptionist or housekeeper might refuse the vaccine - well, again, they're not in the position to know any more about the vaccine than anybody else, and there are some people who aren't as wise as others, even among hospital support staff.  That's not exactly new information.

What information do you accuse the CDC of trying to withhold?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Doctors know more about vaccines than nurses, too. 

Are you trying to say that doctors are NOT refusing to be vaccinated?  Once again,  there are medical professionals in all walks who are refusing to get the vaccine.  The majority of them have taken the shots but there are some who refuse.  Doesn't it make sense to find out why these educated professionals are refusing to take the vaccine?

As for the CDC withholding information...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
Are you trying to say that doctors are NOT refusing to be vaccinated?

Not many are refusing to be vaccinated.  That's kinda what a 96% vaccination rate means.

Yes, there are some who refuse.  Why would you think they know more than the ones who vaccinate?  They may believe there's a valid reason not to vaccinate, but science hasn't borne them out.  Unsupported belief isn't a good reason in my book, but some equate it with fact, and some of those who do so work in healthcare.

As far as the FDA (not CDC), well, the answer is within your link.

The group asked the FDA to satisfy their request by no later than March 3, 2022, giving the agency the same 108 days "from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure on May 07, 2021, to when the product was licensed on August 23, 2021."

To meet that deadline, the FDA would need to process some 80,000 pages a month. That simply isn't feasible, the DOJ lawyers argued. 

...

The branch that would be in charge of processing the plaintiffs' FOIA request only has 10 employees and is already saddled with about 400 outstanding bids for information, lawyers for the defense said. 

Instead, the FDA has proposed to release 500 pages per month. "By processing and making interim responses based on 500-page increments, FDA will be able to provide more pages to more requesters, thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources," the agency's defense said. 
 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

C'mon man.

There have always been and always will be anti-vaxxers, period.

Probably many, many more since the proliferation of the internet.

They have a litany of excuses, autism, side effects, fetal tissue, religious beliefs

and politics.

Navy Seals suing the Pentagon over vaccine mandates?  100% political.

Every Seal I ever knew was pretty much a shamelessly fearless ass

and was politically vocal, almost always Republican. Just my experiences.

Since the 2nd Bush Administration, again in concert with the expansion of the internet and watching 

military operations live on tv, the public in general is just becoming more and more polarized

and less capable of keeping it private.

From a healthcare POV, it makes no sense at all for me to use any provider who isn't looking 

to uphold their oath to do no harm.

If I have to provide proof of vaccination to get into any medical facility

I except the same from those providing the service.

Period.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.9  squiggy  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    2 weeks ago

I got one in all three shoulders, too but most of the holdouts I know, who are doing their own research, are stuck between hamster and pornhub.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
1.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.7    one week ago
Yes, there are some who refuse.  Why would you think they know more than the ones who vaccinate?  They may believe there's a valid reason not to vaccinate, but science hasn't borne them out.  Unsupported belief isn't a good reason in my book, but some equate it with fact, and some of those who do so work in healthcare.

As I said right at the beginning,  we don't know why they are refusing the vaccine because we're not asking why.  Are they anti-vaxxers?  To be so they must have refused ALL other vaccines then also.  I would submit that the science is far from settled in this.  The vaccines have been given to many millions of people have been vaccinated?  Almost 4 billion people around the globe are listed as fully vaccinated. But so far science only knows the short-term effects of the vaccine.  These people who are refusing the vaccine may easily be wrong in their decision but rather than just hound them out wouldn't it be better to actually find out why?

Why the fuck do the two sides have to be so argumentative?  Why do both sides say that things have to go their way only?  There's little discussion, only mandates and threats of job termination for failure to follow the mandates. Neither side is clean in this and I submit that both sides are being short-sighted here. They only seem to care about the immediate issue rather than work to find a compromise.

The branch that would be in charge of processing the plaintiffs' FOIA request only has 10 employees and is already saddled with about 400 outstanding bids for information, lawyers for the defense said. 

This is a government agency. That wouldn't be by design would it?  

When Trump first started this push for a vaccine and promised that he would deliver a vaccine within a year there were a lot of people and groups that pushed back saying it takes years to develop and test a vaccine. And it's true, to study long-term issues you do need years. The pandemic didn't allow for that luxury as infections and deaths were escalating and the need for the vaccine was very high. So in essence we the public are the long-term test study for the vaccine. We are seeing some long-term issues in some people that perhaps could have been caught and resolved in other ways if the time to do long-term testing was available. But it wasn't and we need to live with the consequences. But to just blame those who refuse to vaccinate as ignorant hicks who deserve to be fired, aren't we in essence cutting our own throat?  Kind of reminiscent of the poem by Martin Niemoller.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
1.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.10    one week ago

Some  have  refused other vaccines.  I know nurses who refused to get flu vaccines, until their hospitals mandated them.  Their reasons?  "I'm healthy; I don't need it."  "It only works part of the time."  "I always get sick when I get the flu shot."

And they were told they'd have to wear masks the entire time they were on duty, and resented that.

And then their hospitals got overwhelmed in bad flu seasons, and they were told to get their flu shots or stay home.

So they got their flu shots.

The FDA is a government agency with a lot of irons in the fire.  The sheer volume of the information requested is a problem affecting the speed with which FOIA requests can be fulfilled.  Surely you can see that.

The research into mRNA vaccines had already been initiated years ago.  They started work on a Covid vaccine with a base of knowledge in place.  That's something a lot of people didn't know at the time.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
1.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  Snuffy @1.1    one week ago
If doctors and health care workers are refusing the vaccine, I think a good question to ask is 'why'?  What information do they have that we don't? 

I haven't seen any real data; Google hasn't been friendly.  But the issues I have found are about previous infections and natural immunity.  There are concerns that the side effects of vaccination are more severe for some who have had a previous infection.  CDC has issued reports on statistical analysis of the population but I haven't found any sort of information on clinical trials concerning vaccinating those who have had previous infections.

I haven't found information about reinfection and the severity symptoms for those with natural immunity, either.  Health care workers reluctance to be vaccinated may be due to a lack of information rather than having information.

At present, CDC is reporting 246 million have received one dose and 207 million have received two doses.  The CDC is also reporting almost 60 million infections over the duration of the pandemic.  The large number of people who have been infected suggests that the concerns over vaccination aren't trivial.  And I am not aware of studies being performed to address those concerns.  The available information is anecdotal.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Kathleen  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.10    one week ago

I agree that it is very important to find out 'why' they are refusing to get the vaccine. I am thinking some think the vaccine was rushed through and we don't know if there will be long term problems with it. I can understand that, but the long term problems with covid could be worse. Something I always remember, we take new medications that we don't know what it will do years down the road too. Everything we put in our bodies have some sort of risk for us. So it is just a matter of trusting what the medical experts say and hoping that we don't have any problems. Some people may not trust the medical experts.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.14  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.3    one week ago

I wouldn’t! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
It got democrats everything they wanted

not if we have to continuously read bullshit like this...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2    2 weeks ago
not if we have to continuously read bullshit like this...

Fortunately, Newstalkers still allows free speech and unedited news.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

... laced with trump misinformation and unamerican propaganda.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one week ago

To a limiting extent.  [removed][.]  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    one week ago

Trump info is true.  As to unAmerican propaganda, the nation’s secular progressive left has a monopoly on that 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    one week ago

And certain posters refusing to provide links because it would debunk their bs.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Tucker was direct in saying “I just don’t believe you” when Cruz spun around w nonsense about his “terror attack” label for J6.

Bravo!

th?id=OIP.3m2mqJ7idnkiQs1IJY8hGQHaDK&pid=Api&P=0&w=388&h=166

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago

I did see that least part of the show last night. I knew it was going to be contentious. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1    2 weeks ago

Carlson had already targeted Cruz the day before for equating the Jan 6th riot with an act of terrorism. A US Senator and possible Presidential candidate should be careful with his words.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2  squiggy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one week ago

Ted Vacation Cruz? Has it already been a year since he last pulled his foot out of his ass?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one week ago

Thank you Tucker Carlson!  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3  Jasper2529    2 weeks ago
Insurrection theatre
  • Have any of the arrested/incarcerated without bail/indicted been officially charged with "insurrection"?
  • Does anyone know what happened to the people who were put on America's Most Wanted list but were mysteriously removed from the list and are free?
  • Whatever happened to Raymond Epps and his cronies who were inciting violence at The Capitol long before Trump's speech was over? They easily convinced the police to open the Capitol's doors.
  • Who, exactly, are Epps and cronies? Why did police so easily believe them? Did they have connections to Capitol Police/Pelosi/FBI/Intel agencies?

Maybe Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, the FBI, and Intel know the answers.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    2 weeks ago

It's political theater in spades... none of them have been charges with "Insurrection"... Trespassing, and bad behavior, destruction of public property and the like.... The sentences being handed out are abusive to the point of being criminal themselves, the procedures they are using are abusive and a mis-carraige of justice...

Not to mention all this going on while our cities are burning while innocent people are beaten near to death all over the nation by "Peaceful" protestors....

Political charades... eventually someone is going to have to wake up and smell the coffee... they couldn't keep the Russia collusion façade secret, they won't be able to for this either...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1    2 weeks ago

I find it astonishing that they were charged with trespassing but have been imprisoned for a year in solitary confinement and no bail options.

And why did Pelosi and Bowser refuse Trump's offer to deploy thousands of National Guard members prior to Jan. 6?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
3.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
I find it astonishing that they were charged with trespassing but have been imprisoned for a year in solitary confinement and no bail options.

Actually the majority have been released awaiting their court dates. The below article talks about it.  As to your second question, I'm willing to bet we never get the answer to that. The same issue around the majority of video that they are refusing to release despite the FOIA requests filed by news agencies. They are keeping a lot of info hidden under the guise of national security.

Roughly 85 percent of the defendants who were charged in district court have won some kind of pretrial release , and only 15 percent have had to await trial in jail .

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Participates
3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    2 weeks ago

I said this in another seed.  I believe that the Democrats realized that they are in a lot of trouble with the '22 elections and need to keep Jan 6th a political issue for as long as they can. They realize they don't have a lot to crow about leading up to the election. So a lot of this is really red meat for their party and their donors cuz you gotta keep the voters enraged and the donors wallets open.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Snuffy @3.2    2 weeks ago
So a lot of this is really red meat for their party and their donors cuz you gotta keep the voters enraged and the donors wallets open.

Yep political theatre.... Dog and pony show... 

They are still operating on the Trump,Trump,Trump mountain of trash campaign ideal, everything is Trumps fault and everyone who disagrees with them in any way is a trump supporter, a disgusting deplorable... It will probably will be this way until it no longer works..... They are already alienating many of their peripheral constituencies with it, lets not do anything to get them to stop.... It's good for us long term...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    2 weeks ago

Also:

Why is the head of the Capitol Police saying that he asked for extra help 6 times and the Sergeant-at-Arms, who answers to Pelosi saying he never did?

Why can't we get the text & e-mail records of the Sergeant-at-Arms?

Why didn't Pelosi & Muriel Bowser sign off on Trump's request for the National Guard?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    2 weeks ago
Why didn't Pelosi & Muriel Bowser sign off on Trump's request for the National Guard?

Cause they wanted it to become a riot... I mean look at all the free favorable press they have gotten over it... Look at all the propaganda value they have created from it...

If they had signed off and the NG took over within minutes, a few heads would have been cracked and Trump would have looked the hero...

They couldn't possibly have that...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

They didn't want the troops simply because Trump did. They may not have thought it would happen, but we can now see how glad they are that it did. They are going to use it right up until those midterm elections, which they are going to lose. Thereafter it will be the rest of us who will remember that day as "Ashli Babbitt day."

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Well there are actually democrats equating it with the Pearl Harbor or 911 attacks... Yeah really..

Kamala Harris of course, the queen of hyperbolic nonsense...

The day the government killed a little unarmed woman.... cause they feared her....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.3    2 weeks ago
The day the government killed a little unarmed woman.... cause they feared her....

I'm certain that is how that day will be remembered. The dems will abandon it after they get booted next year. 

For posterity it will be: Rosa Parks move over!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.4    one week ago

Wow.  Replacing a woman who fought for racial equality with one who fought to disenfranchise voters.  What is it that makes you think the violent white criminal more deserving than the black woman, Vic?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.6  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.5    one week ago

false equivalency is the justification for all unamerican activities of the trump GOP.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3.3.7  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.5    one week ago
the violent white criminal

How, exactly, was Ashli Babbitt "the violent white criminal"? She was unarmed and didn't threaten or harm anyone.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.7    one week ago

One need not be armed to be violent.  She was participating in breaking and entering as part of a violent mob.

Also, she likes to ram occupied vehicles with her SUV.

Not exactly an angel.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3.3.9  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.8    one week ago
She was participating in breaking and entering

From your link:

Ashli Babbitt was  fatally shot  by police on January 6 as she climbed through a window

I see. Climbing through an open window was immediate justification for a cop to murder her in cold blood. I wonder if the mystery cop gave her a warning before pulling the trigger.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.9    one week ago

Deflection.  You asked how she was a violent criminal.  I told you how.  You don't like it.  Sorry, not sorry.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
3.3.11  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.9    one week ago
I see. Climbing through an open window was immediate justification for a cop to murder her in cold blood. I wonder if the mystery cop gave her a warning before pulling the trigger.

Crap on a cracker, Jasper!  He said, "Stop or I will shoot!" three times.  In addition, her palls were yelling (as they ran like cowards) "Gun!  Gun!  Gun!  He has a gun!"  

But most importantly, the makeshift barricade on the other side of the doors was clear and obvious to even a casual observer.  Those who were breaking the glass (of which Ashli Babbitt was one) in an effort to breach the chamber, would have known that their entry was prohibited.

Defend her if you must, but murder?  Nope.  Cold blooded murder?  Ridiculous.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3.3.12  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.10    one week ago
Deflection

I didn't deflect at all. In fact, I directly quoted from the link you posted in comment 3.3.8 about the January 6, 2021 events, which, after all, is one of this article's topics. 

Ashli Babbitt's life prior to January 6, 2021 is irrelevant and off-topic. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.3.11    one week ago

The lengths to which some will go to defend a criminal are mindboggling.

As is the wish to honor that criminal rather than a civil rights heroine.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.12    one week ago

Of course you did.  You asked a question.  I answered it.  Rather than acknowledge that answer, you deflected to the actions of others.

Why are you defending the criminal by questioning her criminality and deflecting to the consequences of that criminality?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.9    one week ago
Climbing through an open window was immediate justification for a cop to murder her in cold blood. I wonder if the mystery cop gave her a warning before pulling the trigger.

There is no justification to murder any civilian.   But to be murder (colloquially) requires that this killing be premeditated and unlawful .   Until that has been determined, it is flat out wrong to deem this a murder .   And to be murder (legally) requires adjudication by a court of law.   That has not happened either.

murder The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Surely you can agree that being part of an armed insurrection that broke and entered the capitol of our nation is putting oneself in a situation where one might be shot.

Babbitt was part of a violent, armed uprising against our government which broke and entered our capitol;  she was killed after unlawfully entering the building.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
3.3.16  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.3    one week ago
Well there are actually democrats equating it with the Pearl Harbor or 911 attacks... Yeah really..

All three events were attacks on our democracy.  Jan. 6, 2021 was worse because our democracy was attacked by American citizens on American soil.  Those same Americans and their like-minded non-participants, want to look me in the face and say, "You will live by Donald Trump's rules.  Support him or reap the death and destruction headed your way."  Some of those like-minded non-participants of Jan. 6th are on this very site, and have delivered that very message over and over and over.  

What has happened to you over the last 18 months?  You have changed in ways that have been difficult for me to comprehend. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.17  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.3.16    one week ago
What has happened to you over the last 18 months?  You have changed in ways that have been difficult for me to comprehend. 

I haven't changed one Iota sis, still the same person I was last year... What's amazing to me is how polarized the board has become with pretty much every liberal taking an absolutist approach to everything... people I called friends attacking me cause I will not just buckle under to their absolutism...

Make a sound logical argument without disparagement and the same will be returned...

Very few have even made a smidgen of an attempt... You and I believe one other... Everyone else has been dishing the party line, the moment it comes out of a media talking heads mouth or Biden's mouth the automatic repeater's here are broadcasting it as the veritable truth from god on high...

I'm nobody's [DELETED,] play fair and I will do the same... And most should know that I can throw the trash just as well as they can and better than most...

I don't wanna throw trash but I'm not going to sit here and take it either...

The board has gone a LOOONG way from the balance it used to have... Almost to the point of speak your mind being just a slogan...

And it pains me to see it...

Thank you for at least asking sis, at least someone around here still cares...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
3.3.18  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.4    one week ago
I'm certain that is how that day will be remembered. 

I remember you fearing a little unarmed woman.  Her name was Hillary Clinton.  When she lost the election, she congratulated her opponent immediately.  She then asked that people give him a chance to settle into the role as President.  That you and others prefer the Minions of Donald Trump Insurrection Method of remaining in office after losing an election fairly and legally is, well...expected.  That is how that day will be remembered.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
3.3.19  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.17    one week ago

Please delete that word while you still can and before a visitor has the chance to see it.  And don't you dare ask me, "What word?"

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.20  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.3.19    one week ago

Fair enough sis, I asterisked it out just because you asked... but I HAVE seen it used by members in arguments against me here and allowed to stand as ok... (they actually said it wasn't an issue anymore)

I can be reasonable... when others are as well...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.20    one week ago
... I HAVE seen it used by members ...

Even if true, that is irrelevant.    There is no reason to use such inflammatory and bigoted words.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.22  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.21    one week ago
There is no reason to use such inflammatory and bigoted words.

Really?

Tell your compatriots.... I would name them but that used to be a CoC and ToS violation...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.23  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.22    one week ago

Yes, really, nobody should be using that word as you did.   

It does not matter who did likewise, so don’t whine:  ‘but they did it first’.

If you see it happen, flag it and the mods will certainly deal with it.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.24  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.23    one week ago

Really? I'm not the one whining.. {chuckle}

I already know it, I'm using it for a valid point, seems to me that many on the site have forgotten it...

Just pointing out that your side should take the log out of their own eyes before you attempt to take the splinter out of mine...

That's not whining, it's making a valid point, and always has been...

Your characterization of it as whining and what-aboutism is also a rejection of the valid point... What does that say about you? It says your part of the problem, excusing your side to level accusations at my side... What's fair and balanced about that TiG?

You used to be fair and balanced, back when we were friends, what happened to you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.25  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.24    one week ago

You actually are trying to talk your way out of this??  

Don't use offensive bigoted language ... especially uber-emotive words like you used.

Instead of a pathetic attempt to make this personal, just accept the fact that the use of uber-emotive language as you did (especially in public) is wrong.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
3.3.26  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.14    one week ago
Why are you defending the criminal

Accuse me of whatever you wish, but you'd be absolutely wrong in saying that I'd ever defend a criminal. /SMH

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.26    one week ago

So, in questioning whether the criminal actually was a criminal, and criticizing the people defending themselves and Congress from her criminal behavior, you didn't actually mean to defend the criminal?

Ok.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.28  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3    one week ago
Why didn't Pelosi & Muriel Bowser sign off on Trump's request for the National Guard?

Because it never happened?

Just because The Donald said this on FOX is no proof.

"We said to the Department of Defense, the top person, days before we had the rally … I requested … I definitely gave the number of 10,000 National Guardsmen, I think you should have 10,000 of the National Guard ready. They took that number. From what I understand, they gave it to the people at the Capitol, which is controlled by Pelosi. And I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good. So, you know, that was a big mistake."

What a lack of clarity.

I requested...     

I definitely gave the number

I think

From what I understand

And I heard

All I see is the continued lack of leadership and deflection from responsibility we have come to expect from Mr. Trump.

In   testimony   at a Senate hearing on Feb. 23, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said he met on Jan. 4 with former House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving, who reported to Pelosi, and former Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger, and that Sund requested that National Guard troops be deployed on Jan. 6. (All three men resigned after the attack.)

Irving testified that he did not take the discussion as a request. He said that Sund had said only that he had received an offer from the National Guard. Irving said all three men agreed that, based on intelligence reports, there was no need for troops.

Irving said he had no discussion about the matter with any congressional leaders until Jan. 6.

PolitiFact | No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it
 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.29  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.1    one week ago
Cause they wanted it to become a riot... I mean look at all the free favorable press they have gotten over it... Look at all the propaganda value they have created from it...

This sort of statement is why you have lost your "fair and balanced' card.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.30  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.17    one week ago
The board has gone a LOOONG way from the balance it used to have... Almost to the point of speak your mind being just a slogan...

Your'e right, sort of.

At the moment there are the usual 9 conservative echo chambers

4 of which are the same two people every day spewing slanted half truths and propaganda

"balanced' by 4 anti Trump articles by the same liberal seeder y'all love to hate on. ( and 1 seed about a tragic fire)

The rest of the board is quizzes, art and the RA's daily news story which is rarely political.

While JR was out sick

the site was at risk of becoming a conservative toilet.

It did not go unnoticed on Twitter and FB where the liberal Viners landed after leaving here in droves

over the last few years.

Balance went out the window circa 2015.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
3.3.31  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.21    one week ago

Ahhhh, the old but but but others did it too.  That is the argument of a child.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.32  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.25    one week ago
You actually are trying to talk your way out of this??  

Don't use offensive bigoted language ... especially uber-emotive words like you used.

Instead of a pathetic attempt to make this personal, just accept the fact that the use of uber-emotive language as you did (especially in public) is wrong.

Not trying to talk my way out of anything, in fact I'm trying to talk my way INTO something...

This is exactly what I figured, can't handle the truth so you deflect... I didn't make it personal, you [did...][]][[][removed]

[willing] to recognize that it's people on your side are the ones that say it is OK to use such language...  And please ask me to prove it... I WANT you to ask me to prove it...

So take the sanctimonius bull and apply it to them... it doesn't wash here...

[removed]

Remember, you dropped the friendship claiming that your categorizing me as hostile cause I called you on your sanctimonious elitist bull....

I know democrat liberals on this board turn this into a toilet to use your expression... 

You live with it...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.33  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.9    one week ago

He’s not a mystery cop any more.  He’s the guy who got in trouble but not fired for leaving his loaded firearm in a public bathroom.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.34  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.3.11    one week ago

It was indeed cold blooded murder.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.35  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @3.3.19    one week ago
Please delete that word while you still can and before a visitor has the chance to see it.

I'm sorry sis, he jumped in and tried some more of his crap... I'm sorry, I complied with your reasonable request, but it served it's purpose...

He wants to describe the place as a toilet because conservatives were here, unfortunately it has swung to the other side, and is now a liberal toilet... his words not mine...

I still love ya... sorry we couldn't finish the conversation....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.36  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.3.12    one week ago

You are exactly right and the one you are conversing with flat out wrong.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.37  Nowhere Man  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.3.31    one week ago
Ahhhh, the old but but but others did it too.  That is the argument of a child.

and the response of a child... what else is new...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.38  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.13    one week ago

The cop who murdered her is the criminal in this case and protected by the deep state.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.38    one week ago

How so?

What law did he break?

Are law enforcement not permitted to use force against a violent mob in the performance of their duties?

Don't you back the blue?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.40  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.15    one week ago

Armed.  Not one firearm was brought by any civilian into the capitol.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.41  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.3    one week ago
The day the government killed a little unarmed woman.... cause they feared her....

What nonsense.  You have lost all credibility. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.42  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.17    one week ago

You are so right on.  Every single word that you wrote.  The left here is so very polarized and seem unwilling to accept that people can for honestly held and legitimate reasons disagree with them

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.43  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.40    one week ago

Firearms are a special kind of arms.   You do understand that armed means that they had weapons?  Right?

armed Equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons.

Are you going to now try to claim that the insurrectionists had no weapons?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.44  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.25    one week ago

Nowhere man was actually right about what he said.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.40    one week ago

"Armed" is not limited to firearms.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.46  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.29    one week ago

It was a true statement 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.47  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.32    one week ago

Bravo!     👏🥳

well said and right on.   👍jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.48  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.39    one week ago

She was never a threat to anyone there.  There were other cops 👮‍♂️  👮🏾‍♀️ there near him and none of the others used their gun.  By then the House floor had already been evacuated so that canard won’t fly here either

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.49  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.41    one week ago

No, his credibility is sound and intact.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.50  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.48    one week ago

She was breaking and entering as part of a violent mob.  A violent mob is a threat, armed or not.  And some were armed.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.51  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.43    one week ago

Well there were no “insurrectionists” present in the first place. It’s been a year and not one single person has been charged with insurrection 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.52  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.45    one week ago

They did enter with both of their two arms attached to them…

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.52    one week ago

Deliberate obtuseness.

If they were carrying any weapons, they were armed.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.54  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.32    one week ago
This is exactly what I figured, can't handle the truth so you deflect... I didn't make it personal, you did...which is what is pathetic...

I have to say you are prolific at burning bridges with people you used to like.

First TiG, then Buzz ? You can't even get along on a movie quiz?

I was on NV daily since 2007 and here since 2011, daily since 2106.

IMHO they haven't changed.

That only leaves you sir.

Take a breath and go back to the football game.

or maybe not, the Seahawks are 65% Democrats.

Who could possibly root for Democrats ? /s

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.55  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.50    one week ago

What happened to her should have happened to each and every single person who was part of a mob breaking  and entering anywhere in the country late spring to early fall 2020 across our big cities and they all should have met her fate armed or not.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.56  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.51    one week ago
Well there were no “insurrectionists” present in the first place. It’s been a year and not one single person has been charged with insurrection 

Nobody has to be charged to meet the colloquial definition of ' insurrection '.   The situation simply has to meet the criteria of the word as defined:

insurrection A violent uprising against an authority or government.

It is easy enough to learn the colloquial usages of common words.   What is it with some members who seem to struggle with basic English words that can be looked up?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.55    one week ago

Why to them, and not to her, xx?  Why are you declaring it a crime when the person shot was in favor of overthrowing the election your guy lost bigly, and then turning right around and saying that same crime should be committed elsewhere?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.58  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.54    one week ago

Nowhere man is the one in the right on this thread 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.59  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.56    one week ago

It was a mostly peaceful protest.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.60  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.57    one week ago

I didn’t say and not to her.  I said her fate and theirs should have been the same.  As it happened she should by all rights be every bit as alive as they all are right now.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.61  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.59    one week ago
It was a mostly peaceful protest.

Yeah, why am I not surprised that this is your fantasy?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.60    one week ago

You called the cop who shot her a criminal who committed murder.  If you called it that, it seems to me that you thought it shouldn't be done to her.  Unless you're endorsing murder.

Are you endorsing murder, xx?

Or have you just painted yourself into a corner?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.61    one week ago

Just peaceful tourists,

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.64  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.63    one week ago

Fascinating how partisan bias can so distort perceived reality.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.65  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.32    one week ago
This is exactly what I figured, can't handle the truth so you deflect... I didn't make it personal, you did...which is what is pathetic...

You fail to see that you started it.

Unwilling to recognize that it's people on your side are the ones that say it is OK to use such language...  And please ask me to prove it... I WANT you to ask me to prove it...

You don't need anyone's permission to dredge up old shit, you do it anyway.  What would it prove? 

That we are a small site with volunteer Mods who don't catch much that isn't flagged?

So take the sanctimonius bull and apply it to them... it doesn't wash here...

Mirror, mirror who's exhibiting the most sanctimonious bull here today?

Your a huge part of the problem with this site...

Right back at you

I know democrat liberals on this board turn this into a toilet to use your expression... 

First of all at the risk of questioning your attention to details, TiG never said anything about a toilet

Go back and read what I wrote

You live with it...

Get over yourself.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.66  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.65    one week ago

[ removed ]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.66    one week ago

That was speaking of someone else's use of the word as an insult.

Above, you used it as an insult.

Context matters.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.68  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @3.3.54    one week ago
the Seahawks are 65% Democrats. Who could possibly root for Democrats ? /s

I'm not rooting for them politically, and none of them will subject me to the abuse that some seem to think I need to endure here...

As far as opinions on who's changed... yours is probably about as accurate as mine is, to me they burned the bridges not me... I don't demand anyone accept my reasoning or politics to be friends... but all of those you mentioned seem to think I must....

Such is a two way street... I'm not an absolutist and never have been and I don't accept it from anyone else...

So I'll sit where I'm at, accept all who want decent conversation and give as I receive... that's all I can do... If people can't handle that it's not my problem...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.3.69  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.67    one week ago
That was speaking of someone else's use of the word as an insult.

Above, you used it as an insult.

Context matters.

[removed as meta, (rest stays because it was replied to explaining things)] I say it it's an absolute hideous insult, someone from your side uses it it isn't... I guess it just doesn't mean the same thing when your side uses it...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
3.3.70  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.41    one week ago

That was enough bs to fertilize a field.  As far a credibility goes, you can't lose what you never had.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.3.71  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.69    one week ago

You know, I'm pretty sure you know the difference, and just don't want to acknowledge it, because you know you made a racist comment.  You used it as a racist epithet.  The comment to which you linked called out someone else for using it as a racist epithet.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.72  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.69    one week ago

Normally I would have deleted your comment for meta, but I want to be clear about this. That word, totally spelled out and used in the manner in which you used it, has never been allowed on this site, ever. 

Any further discussion on this topic will be removed and points assigned. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.3.73  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.3.69    one week ago

A     Your example was used as an example of someone else's known use of the word.

B     You used it in your reply in a similar way and were NOT ticketed

C     In fact your meta commentary about the moderation was allowed to stand for a month

and here you are again and again bitching about the moderation as being unfair in your eyes.

Now I am going to lock this seed for that very reason.

if you want to continue your crusade, take it to Metafied where it belongs 

or HD.

Have a good evening

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.74  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.72    one week ago

At the request of the seeder, I am reopening the article but locking this thread. Any further discussion on this topic will be removed and points assigned. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
4  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

Joe Biden made a promise to shut down covid and he may be the only man in America that doesn't know that we may just have to live with it.

Because he understandably did not anticipate that antivaxers would line up, so eager to cut off their nose to spite their face.  Early on in the pandemic it seemed universal that a vaccine for this scourge was the holy grail that was more than likely out of reach any time soon.  Then mRNA made it a reality in a timeframe that shocked everyone.  Anyone with half a brain looked at the circumstances like a miracle cure to the worst problem facing humanity in this age.  The only thing more shocking than this miracle of modern science falling in our laps is the number of idiots willing to deny it for political and conspiracy driven purposes.  Any advanced alien civilization that were to witness this would indeed conclude that there’s no intelligent life down here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    2 weeks ago

I guess the moral to that story may be: don't tell people not to trust a vaccine because it has Trump's name on it.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 weeks ago

Funny, last I saw Joe Biden actually gave the Trump administration credit for their part in bringing these vaccines to fruition.  I suppose you’d rather ignore that and desperately try to pin the antivax idiocy on Biden, while Trump continues to play both sides of the issue to pander to anyone left listening to him.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.1    one week ago
I suppose you’d rather ignore that and desperately try to pin the antivax idiocy on Biden,

Actually, we both pointed that out several weeks ago right on this board and were roundly thumped for it by the liberals here...

Hi Hal, good to see you again... :-)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.2    one week ago
Actually, we both pointed that out several weeks ago right on this board and were roundly thumped for it by the liberals here...

Actually the reason you were both thumped is because you were both desperate to pretend that it was the first time Biden said it, despite the FACT that Biden said as much in JANUARY 2021. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    one week ago

Had nothing to do with Biden, had everything to do with the liberals on this board...

Now after thumping us for talking the truth about it your talking about it like your the first ones to do such... 

Quite contrare....

WE also like to point out the hypocrisy of it as well, thank you for the opportunity...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.4    one week ago

Had nothing to do with Biden, had everything to do with the liberals on this board...

Your reply to Hal WAS about Biden. Why sling bullshit? 

Now after thumping us for talking the truth about it your talking about it like your the first ones to do such... 

You didn't tell the truth and THAT is the reason you were deservedly thumped. 

Quite contrare....

Quite obtuse. 

WE also like to point out the hypocrisy of it as well, thank you for the opportunity...

Yet y'all FAILED then and you are FAILING now.
Carry on jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif ...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @4.1.5    one week ago
Your reply to Hal WAS about Biden. Why sling bullshit? 

Actually this was my response to Hal my dear....

Actually, we both pointed that out several weeks ago right on this board and were roundly thumped for it by the liberals here... Hi Hal, good to see you again...

Please point out where I mentioned Biden?.. Think I'll be waiting a long time....

The rest of your comments are patently false cause I didn't mention Biden at all, therefore, your the one who is completely wrong in your conclusions...

I also said...

WE also like to point out the hypocrisy of it as well, thank you for the opportunity...

Thank you for another perfect opportunity... 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.6    one week ago
Actually this was my response to Hal my dear....

Which is what I replied to NWM. Follow the thread. 

BTW, use my screen name when you address me. 

Actually, we both pointed that out several weeks ago right on this board and were roundly thumped for it by the liberals here...

You replied that you and Vic pointed out that 'Joe Biden actually gave the Trump administration credit for their part in bringing these vaccines to fruition.'

Please point out where I mentioned Biden?.. Think I'll be waiting a long time.... The rest of your comments are patently false cause I didn't mention Biden at all, therefore, your the one who is completely wrong in your conclusions...

I have no intention of following your down your rabbit hole of 'alternate facts' NWM. 

Thank you for another perfect opportunity... 

Delusional. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @4.1.7    one week ago
You replied that you and Vic pointed out that 'Joe Biden actually gave the Trump administration credit for their part in bringing these vaccines to fruition.'

Now your trying to impute your ideas of what I said instead of dealing with what I actually said... (of course you haven't asked what was said so you have no clue)

Why don't you first ask what me and Vic posted instead of trying to put words into our mouths that appear NOWHERE in what we actually wrote?

I mean it gets embarrassing when you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven't a clue about what you apparently are attacking me for...

I will wait until you actually get a clue for however long it takes... We never said a word about Joe Biden... That is purely your own mental construct in an effort to embarrass us, but it's failing, cause we never said what you claim we did... I even quoted my posted statement for you to peruse again, yet you still insist I said something I didn't...

This is getting funny as heck... Must be embarrassing for you as well, I'm sincerely sorry for that....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.8    one week ago
Now your trying to impute your ideas of what I said instead of dealing with what I actually said... (of course you haven't asked what was said so you have no clue) Why don't you first ask what me and Vic posted instead of trying to put words into our mouths that appear NOWHERE in what we actually wrote?

I don't need to ask what was said, I was one of those liberals who gave you and Vic a thumping.

Oh and BTW, I remember that in that seed you claimed that you admit when you are wrong. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to prove that false too.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.10  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    one week ago
I don't need to ask what was said, I was one of those liberals who gave you and Vic a thumping.

Then post a link to it?

You want me to admit something post a link, since you claim to be one of the thumpers, it will be in your comments section of your profile...

Post it up.... Please post it up... {chuckle}

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to prove that false too.

You haven't proven shit yet.... not even close..

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.1.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.10    one week ago

I'll be back when football is over...I wouldn't miss it for the world...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.10    one week ago

Watch out for the word games, Nowhere. [deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.13  bugsy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.1    one week ago
last I saw Joe Biden actually gave the Trump administration credit for their part in bringing these vaccines to fruition

Only took him over a year to do it, after saying publicly that they do not trust the vaccine because....Truuuuuuuuuump

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.14  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one week ago
I guess the moral to that story may be: don't tell people not to trust a vaccine because it has Trump's name on it.

That is the bottom line here, isn’t it…

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.1.2    one week ago

Not to mention how many long months went by before that happened, or that Brandon went right back on the personal attack on 1-6 against Trump.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
4.1.16  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  bugsy @4.1.13    one week ago

Only took him over a year to do it, after saying publicly that they do not trust the vaccine because....Truuuuuuuuuump

Lol.  If Donald Trump personally promised you something in which he didn’t stand to gain something personally from the transaction, would you believe him?  Nobody with a functioning brain trusts Donald Trump, ever, for countless reasons.  Not even his own family, and certainly not anyone who has ever had a working relationship with him.  He is as untrustworthy a human as has ever existed - and if you don’t believe that maybe you should just read one of his books that he has published.  He is so proud of this characteristic that he boasts of it in writing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.17  bugsy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.16    one week ago

But Truuuuuuuump...

My God, man....

Get the man off your brain. Living with it 24/7 can't be good.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
4.1.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one week ago

Only magats put his name on it and most won't even take it and even boo'd Trump when he said he was inoculated and boosted.  The rest of us give the credit to the doctors and scientists who worked non stop to get it out there.  The first vaccine came with no monetary assistance (OWS) what so ever.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.18    one week ago
Only magats put his name on it and most won't even take it and even boo'd Trump when he said he was inoculated and boosted.

Then don't blame anyone else for the distrust your side spread.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.18    one week ago

That distrust that was spread didn't come from our 'side'. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.20    one week ago

Candidate Harris: " But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it.”




There's another link for ya!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    one week ago

She was talking about the credibility of Trump.   She said she would take the vaccine if recommended by a credible medical authority:

Harris was asked if Americans should take the vaccine and if she would. Harris says that if doctors “tells us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it , absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”  

Why not just work with the truth?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    one week ago

We know what she said. Fuck the country if Trump wants you to take it, but if we win, you better damn well take it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    one week ago
Why not just work with the truth?

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.23    one week ago
We know what she said. Fuck the country if Trump wants you to take it, but if we win, you better damn well take it!

This is a perfect illustration of confirmation bias and some hefty partisan spin.  

That is NOT what she said.   It is right there in front of your face.   She said she would be first in line to take a vaccine if doctors okay it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.26  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.25    one week ago
That is NOT what she said. 

It is the meaning of what she said and you damn well know it!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.26    one week ago

No, I do not know that.   I know what she said and this is the only place where she ever said it.   You, et. al. keep going back to this answer during the debate so the only context you have is the debate.

It is pure bullshit to extrapolate wild meaning (basically reading her mind) from words without a shred of supporting evidence.

As I noted it is partisan-driven confirmation bias. at play.   A great way to NOT get things right. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.28  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.27    one week ago

Debates have consequences too!  It is from them that doubts were raised about the vaccine and the CDC became so political that it lied to us and it was from there that people around the third world thought they could walk into the US as soon as Biden became president.


It is pure bullshit to extrapolate wild meaning (basically reading her mind) from words without a shred of supporting evidence.

It is simply politics that backfired. They didn't want Trump to be successful with the vaccine, but little did they seem to know that one day, they would have to sell that very same vaccine.


As I noted it is partisan-driven confirmation bias. at play. 

You can call me what you want. By now you should have learned your lesson.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.28    one week ago
Debates have consequences too!

Now you are changing the subject.   We were not talking about how responsible Harris was with her wording (it was childish).   We were talking about what she actually said.  

Harris explicitly stated that she would take the vaccine if recommended by doctors, not by Trump.   I think that is common sense.   If Trump recommends a vaccine but the medical professionals do not, what would YOU do?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.29    one week ago
If Trump recommends a vaccine but the medical professionals do not, what would YOU do?

That never happened. So was Harris talking about a hypothetical?   

I don't think so. She was talking about the same vaccine that Biden pushed....The same one Trump pushed, but didn't yet have.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.30    one week ago

Good grief Vic.   You are dead wrong and are now deflecting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.31    one week ago

And "holy cow!"

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.26    one week ago
It is the meaning of what she said and you damn well know it!

It's what YOU want her to have meant.  You're putting words in her mouth so you can then feign outrage at YOUR OWN WORDS.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5  Dulay    one week ago
Meanwhile hundreds languish in what was constructed as a sort of political prison, some since January of 2021. The trial for many won't be until April or May of this year. Talk about a threat to democracy?

That is a lie Vic. 

Over 725 people have been arrested since 1/6/21.

Of those 725+, 39 are still in detention. 

Of those 39, 13 were arrested in Jan. 2021. 

Of those 13, EVERY ONE OF THEM is charged with violence, assault of an officer, conspiracy or possession of a weapon. Some are charged with more than one of those crimes. 

The FACT is that THOUSANDS of people all over this country have been held in pre-trial detention for YEARS.

So that begs the question; other than trying to demand 'special snowflake status' for these specific defendants, why is it that you and yours SUDDENLY think that such detention is a 'threat to democracy'? 

Oh and BTFW, your hyperbolic bullshit about the DC jail being 'constructed as a sort of political prison' is utterly ridiculous. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
6  sandy-2021492    one week ago

I'm locking this discussion until a moderator who has not participated is present to moderate.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
6.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    one week ago

Unlocked

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

According to the CDC 25 percent of people died *from* COVID. The remaining 75 percent died *with* COVID and at least four other comorbidities.

fvo8CQvS?format=jpg&name=small


Are we allowed to break down the 25 percent data by age?

Or is that too much science?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Justice Gorsuch's statement was falsely reported as “The flu kills, I believe, hundreds of thousands of people every year.”..

Why did they go after Gorsuch?

Because the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court were themselves nailed for misleading and false statements about covid 19.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

MSNBC announced on Monday that former press secretary Symone Sanders is joining the network. GOOD BYE JOY REID!!

journalist-joy-reid-speaks-during-the-apple-store-soho-presents-apple-picture-id463105310?k=20&m=463105310&s=612x612&w=0&h=J-QUStBUyE9MS2gTelAbWp4JMNVSqo72C-hdU9mCbWg=
The race lady

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Ten months & counting.

Somebody hold the door for her:

xp5ke3Aa?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Dr Fauci and the CDC Director are now back on the hot seat!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    one week ago

FI08xjpXEAMpfZS?format=jpg&name=large

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12  Tessylo    one week ago

Dr. Fauci isn't the one who is lying.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @12    one week ago

Sen Paul is working him over pretty good right now!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
12.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @12    one week ago

Are you referring to his multiple claims that he took no part in gain of function research?  New reports state otherwise.

But then again.  We knew he was lying from the start.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2    one week ago

You trust Project Veritas?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

So the liars believe the liars.

Got it!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
12.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.1    one week ago

Feel free to debunk it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.2    one week ago

It has been over and over again.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
12.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.3    one week ago

If that's the case then you'll have no problem getting the links.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.4    one week ago
Dr. Anthony Fauci and Republican Sen. Rand Paul got in a heated discussion on Tuesday during the senate health committee's hearing on the government's response to the pandemic. Fauci accused the Kentucky lawmaker of spreading incorrect information about him.
"In usual fashion, senator, you are distorting everything about me," Fauci said. "We are here at a committee to look at a virus now that has killed almost 900,000 people...and you keep coming back to personal attacks on me that have absolutely no relevance to reality."
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
12.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.5    one week ago

What is that?  I challenged you to debunk the links in 12.2 give opinion.  You gave me this?  What does this prove?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.2.4    one week ago

It's been debunked over and over again.  Plus I don't answer to you.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
12.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @12.2.7    one week ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Oh, Fauci claims he had death threats. Doesn't he know that Sen Paul was viciously assaulted by a leftist?

Dr Fauci's  called himself "the science" thus he must face the consequences.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @13    one week ago

Dr Fauci's  called himself "the science" thus he must face the consequences.

 Again, Vic, you distort and misrepresent.  Why do this??:
Anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this. So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there. There's a face, there's a voice you can recognize, you see him on television. So it's easy to criticize, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science. That's dangerous. To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I'm not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that's what I worry about.    

He said he represents science.  Which is exactly what his job calls for him to do.   He did not claim to be 'the science'.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @13.1    one week ago

It wasn't the first time Fauci presented himself that way. Back in June, he told Chuck Todd  “A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about, consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science.” Just to drive the point home, he reiterated: “People want to fire me or put me in jail for what I’ve done - namely, follow the science.” On another occasion when asked about his contradictions on masks he said “It is essential as a scientist that you evolve your opinion and your recommendations based on the data as it evolves. And that’s the reason why I say people who then criticize me about that are actually criticizing science.”

I'm not distorting anything. He chose to hide behind "the science." (which has been anything but)

The question is why are you always defending this guy?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.1    one week ago

Again, he is talking about his role as representing science and following science ... not that he IS science.    How can you possibly not see this??  Just read your own quote with even basic objectivity.

I'm not distorting anything.

You are kidding yourself!   The distortion is blatant.

The question is why are you always defending this guy?

My defenses of Fauci are always in response to over-the-top, bullshit attacks on the guy.    So why are you always attacking him ... and with spin even?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.2    one week ago
My defenses of Fauci are always in response to over-the-top, bullshit attacks on the guy. 

Lol. He's called all the shots on the pandemic and he was a big supporter of funding the gain-of-function research that the US did fund in Wuhan!

You are on the wrong side of history, TiG.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.3    one week ago

Based on your collective history of comments on Fauci, your over-the-top bias is quite clear.   

When someone (like you) continually posts attacks (based mostly on fabrication and spin) about Fauci or anyone else, do not be surprised if I challenge your bullshit.

After all, right here in this thread, I have shown your bullshit to be dead wrong and you deny this while staring at Fauci's words.   Incredible.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.4    one week ago

You haven't shown anything but blind support for a flawed & failed bureaucrat.

Don't be surprised when I hand you your head, twice in the same article.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
13.1.6  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @13.1    one week ago
Again, Vic, you distort and misrepresent.  Why do this??:

It's all he's got. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
13.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.5    one week ago
You haven't shown anything but blind support for a flawed & failed bureaucrat

Dr. Faucci is a scientist, dear, with the degrees and years of experience and publications to prove it.

Also, if this was meant for TiG:  

Don't be surprised when I hand you your head, twice in the same article.

...what a laughable comment.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
13.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @13.1.7    one week ago
...what a laughable comment.  

Delusions of grandeur.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @13.1.7    one week ago
Dr. Faucci is a scientist, 

So were Dr. Mengle and Dr. Kavorkian.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.9    one week ago

Quite a stretch to compare Fauci with Mengele.    When one must go to such extremes to make a point, one should seriously question one's position.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.10    one week ago
When one must go to such ex

It's not a stretch at all.  Mengle, Kavorkian, Fauci all used science for their experiments and with some of the same results.  Just because YOU don't want' to acknowledge it doesn't make it my problem.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @13.1.7    one week ago
[deleted]

Why is he trying to sandbag three distinguished epidemiologists who started the Great Barrington Declaration from Stanford, Oxford and Harvard?

He was called out for it by Sen Rand Paul:

"Collins and Fauci called them fringe," Paul said. "They orchestrated a takedown campaign in the lay media, not in the scientific journals on the merits, but in the lay media. And so he didn't want to answer my question, so he accuses me of fomenting violence. But it's a misdirection because he doesn't want to accept that basically, he's become a political animal and that everything he does every day is to further his political agenda, not the science."


Why did he lie about gain of function research?

Why has he gotten cozy with the radical left?



 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @13.1.7    one week ago
"You haven't shown anything but blind support for a flawed & failed bureaucrat"

"Dr. Faucci is a scientist, dear, with the degrees and years of experience and publications to prove it.

Also, if this was meant for TiG:  

Don't be surprised when I hand you your head, twice in the same article.

...what a laughable comment. "

271568065_310279691203612_9006841836047053260_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=TLaGEur6Z5kAX_C8VD7&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8ZBss7FM9gWI846BNygmWsD02igc1WRmUdbAYSAWB7DA&oe=61E371A2

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.13    one week ago

His name is Fauci.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.12    one week ago
Why did he lie about gain of function research?

$

Why has he gotten cozy with the radical left?

Because they are gullible enough to believe him.  And they did / still do.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.15    one week ago
$

Because he was deeply involved. That would make him somewhat responsible for all the deaths that came from it, but then again, he did once say that the research was worth it!

Because they are gullible enough to believe him.  And they did / still do.

Or maybe he knew who controls the Washington DC establishment and they would protect him.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.16    one week ago
Because he was deeply involved. 

He's been involved from the start.  The email traffic that was released (and what was read so far in the latest hearing) all show that.  But like you said - 

Or maybe he knew who controls the Washington DC establishment and they would protect him.

And that's exactly what they are doing.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.11    one week ago

Yeah, Jeremy, how unreasonable of me to reject your comparing Dr. Fauci to Josef Mengele.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.17    one week ago

You heard them on the committee yesterday, as well as some of our members right here

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.18    one week ago

Has anything I said been factually wrong?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.20    one week ago

EVERYTHING.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.19    one week ago

Oh, yeah.  They're falling all over themselves trying to cover for him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.20    one week ago
Has anything I said been factually wrong?

Jeremy, good grief man, I can compare you to Hitler.   You are both men (albeit he is now dead) with strong convictions.   There you go.   Is there anything factually wrong in what I just wrote?

You do the rest of the math.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.22    one week ago
They're falling all over themselves trying to cover for him.

What continues to amaze (and disgust) me is this constant and irrational attacks on Fauci.  

The only reason I defend Fauci is because of the truly ridiculous level of attacks which are a truly excellent illustration of confirmation bias.

He is being held to a standard that no human being has ever achieved.

If not for these over-the-top attacks I would not have anything much to say about Fauci.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.24    one week ago

It's plain disgusting and deplorable.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.26  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.23    one week ago

So no.  Despite your Biden like attempt at making a comparison, nothing I said was factually wrong.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.24    one week ago
What continues to amaze (and disgust) me is this constant and irrational attacks on Fauci

It has been proven that he took part in the gain of function research he vehemently denied.

It has been proven that he has lied several times during congressional hearings.  Something that would have resulted in perjury hearings.  But since he's a leftist partisan hack, won't happen.

He has tried to take down anybody who questions him.  

You should really pay closer attention to what's going on instead of what the talking heads are telling you.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.26    one week ago
Despite your Biden like attempt at making a comparison, nothing I said was factually wrong.  

Why pretend to not comprehend something so simple?   What, ultimately, do you think that accomplishes?   Seriously, how stupid do you think people reading our comments are?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.28    one week ago
Seriously, how stupid do you think people reading our comments are?

Have you read some of the comments by those "readers"?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.27    one week ago
You should really pay closer attention to what's going on instead of what the talking heads are telling you.  

Given you are running with hyperbole touted by talking heads your comment is both laughable and ridiculous.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.30    one week ago

The only one's I'm hearing are those like yourself that claim up and down that something or somebody is wrong and not providing anything to back up the claims.  

When I see something in the media, I don't take it at face value.  The media lost all credibility in 2016.  I do research.  Have you read Fauci's emails?  Have you paid attention to the questions ask of Fauci the last few days and watched as he struggled for answers and a few times just resorted to insults?  

That doesn't make you question his motives?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1.31    one week ago

Oh hell Jeremy, I and others on this forum have debated this crap for months now and have provided tons of links.   It does no good.    I find myself dealing with people who will stare a plain English quote in the face and read something entirely different.   There is no reasoning with such overt bias.

You, et.al. are on a partisan witch hunt and you clearly do not care to objectively reason through the facts.   What amazes me is how some will forgo critical thinking and even intellectual honesty to pursue their own partisan causes on a social media forum.

That doesn't make you question his motives?

If Fauci had knowingly authorized a check to Wuhan for the purposes of experimenting with gain-of-function (a term that is itself under debate) research that resulted in COVID-19 then I would be all over it.   Third party (EcoHealth Alliance) transfers of $600,000 of funding for research: " Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence " with no established tie to the production of COVID-19 is simply fodder for a partisan witch hunt.   Some of you will take any rumor, any hint and turn it into a full blown fucking conspiracy theory.  It is pathetic.

A project with this objective:

This project seeks to understand what factors allow animal Coronaviruses to evolve and jump into the human population by studying virus diversity in a critical group of animals (bats), a sites of high risk for emergence (wildlife markets) in an emerging disease hotspot (China). 

Is not something that would or should cause alarm.    If ( and this is likely to never happen this late in the game ) it turns out that we can determine this project produced the COVID-19 virus then here is the reality.

  • The Wuhan lab fucked up
  • The Wuhan lab violated the NIH guidelines for research (no gain-of-function)
  • EcoHealth contributed to the funding out of money granted to them by the NIH.   Third party.   NIH did not directly fund this.

We do not have anything even remotely close to this level of clarity yet you, et. al. behave as though Fauci knowingly funded gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Masters Participates
13.1.33  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.32    one week ago
You, et.al. are on a partisan witch hunt

There's no partisan witch hunt into Fauci.  Follow the facts (some of which you linked and stated above) and apply critical thinking.  Look at what he's been saying vs. what he's done.  Put the drone of the minions aside and actually put it together.  

You have the information.  There is nothing I can do for you to grasp the severity of what he's subjected the world to.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14  Tessylo    one week ago

The death threats against Dr. Fauci and his family are true.  

WTF does Paul's assault by a neighbor have to do with ANYTHING?

Senator Paul wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in his stupid ass.  

Paul is a liar and I trust Dr. Fauci, not Paul.  

Paul doesn't have the ability to 'work anyone over'.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
14.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @14    one week ago
The death threats against Dr. Fauci and his family are true.

At least one can be proven. Why do you suppose he brought all that death threat info with him today?


WTF does Paul's assault by a neighbor have to do with ANYTHING?

Gee, I thought you might understand. It means that Paul gets threats too and one of those threats actually came to fruition.

The difference is Paul didn't use his threats as a defense the way Fauci did. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
14.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @14.1    one week ago
At least one can be proven.

Man with TikTok 'hit list' including Biden, Fauci arrested (nypost.com)

Why do you suppose he brought all that death threat info with him today?

Right, because after Paul's attacks on Fauci in every hearing, it was impossible to predict that Paul would do so again. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
14.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @14    one week ago
The death threats against Dr. Fauci and his family are true.  

How do you know this? Because Fauci said so? Remember, he also said that we needed 15 days to stop the spread, that masks were useless, that the Covid-19 virus started in a wet market, and that he and Collins didn't fund using US taxpayer money toward gain of function research in Wuhan ... until he was proven to be a liar.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.2    one week ago

Dr. Fauci is no liar.  That would be those who are accusing him of being one.  

All those things you stated are lies

Also, Dr. Fauci never used the death threats against him as a defense - he stated that (my words) ignorance and lies from Paul have decreased the amounts of death threats against him and his family.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
14.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.1    one week ago
All those things you stated are lies

Really? Let's see ...

106853939-1615817297698-gettyimages-1213740623-awra4571_2020032013217631.jpeg?v=1615817344&w=929&h=523

Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci holds up the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” instruction as U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a news briefing on the latest development of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. at the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House March 20, 2020 in Washington, DC.
Alex Wong | Getty Images
"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading [an] infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Fauci wrote to who is believed to be Obama-era Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell in February 2020.

Fauci, also the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, added: “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out [the] virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in [keeping] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.”

The country’s leading infectious disease expert ultimately did not recommend she wear a face mask.

“I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a [very] low-risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”

D r. Anthony Fauci pushed the hypothesis that COVID-19 likely  originated  in a Wuhan wet market rather than a Chinese government lab, despite doubts cast on the market possibility by scientists, Republican lawmakers, and the Chinese CDC director.

Many scientists have concluded the Huanan Seafood Market may have been a super spreader event in late 2019 but that it's not where COVID-19 began.

Brennan told him that “Beijing acknowledges now that they don’t think it originated in that market,” but Fauci disagreed.

Knowledge is power. Hope this helps, Tessy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @14.2.2    one week ago

More lies.  Why do you waste my time?

Let me know when you have some actual knowledge to pass along.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
14.2.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.3    one week ago
Let me know when you have some actual knowledge to pass along.  

I provided you with Fauci's own words. But, it seems you don't even want to believe what he said.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
14.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.3    one week ago
Let me know when you have some actual knowledge to pass along. 

It's painfully obvious, by your poo pooing the comment you are responding to, that doing so would be a waste of his time as you would just blow it off in your usual manner as you just did. Sad.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
14.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.1    one week ago
ignorance and lies from Paul have decreased the amounts of death threats against him and his family

Well then Dr. Fauci should thank him if the threats have decreased.

jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.1    one week ago

"Also, Dr. Fauci never used the death threats against him as a defense - he stated that (my words) ignorance and lies from Paul have decreased the amounts of death threats against him and his family." 

Meant to say increased - not decreased - but of course I can admit I made a mistake - unlike others - who double down.  Or blame someone else for their mistake.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
14.2.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tessylo @14.2.7    one week ago
Also, Dr. Fauci never used the death threats against him as a defense

Question Tessy...

Who made this statement?

“The police asked him where he was going and he was going to Washington, D.C., to kill Dr. Fauci,” he said. “They found in his car, an AR-15 and multiple magazines of ammunition because he thinks that maybe I’m killing people.”

Where was it made?

 A US Senate Hearing...

Why was it made?

In defense against a Senators questioning...

So who was it?

(it was broadcast today in one of the CBS hourly news updates on the radio)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @14.2.8    one week ago

WTF are you talking about?  Not that I give a shit.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
14.2.10  Jasper2529  replied to  Nowhere Man @14.2.8    one week ago
So who was it?

Fragile Fauci conveniently forgot to mention that loony Kuachua Brillion Xiong 's hit list also included Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jeff Zuckerberg, and Joe Biden. 

Why have I called Xiong a loon? Here's why ...

In an interview at the  Cass County Sheriff’s Office   in Plattsmouth, Cass County that day, he told USSS special agents  Justin Larson  and   Scott Nelson   that he believes he is the only person remaining who can free the U.S. of evil and it is necessary for him to kill those in positions of power. He revealed to Larson and Nelson that he used   TikTok  to make a hit list, which included  Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, Dr Anthony Fauci  and  Mark Zuckerberg ,   and said he would kill  Joe Biden  unless that 46th U.S. president promised to comply to his demands.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15  Tessylo    one week ago

"Don't be surprised when I hand you your head, twice in the same article."

Never happened, never will.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
15.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15    one week ago

Go take a look. The first time it wasn't me. That's when all of NT was called in!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16  Tessylo    one week ago

How does one understand something that doesn't make any sense???????????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17  author  Vic Eldred    one week ago

House begins 1-hour debate on #HR5746 , a NASA bill that has been substituted with voting rights legislation and is now named the Freedom To Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
18  author  Vic Eldred    6 days ago

Biden just emerged from his midday nap and says that as long as he has a breath in him, he will fight to stop state legislatures from making election laws!

Then he asked: Is this my mic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19  author  Vic Eldred    6 days ago

Joe went on to say:  "I hope we can get this done. The honest to God answer is, I don't know if we can get this done."

KM02bB7e?format=jpg&name=small


The math says you can't Joe.

You remember math, right Joe?

 
 

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
GregTx
Nowhere Man
Mark in Wyoming
bccrane
Steve Ott


40 visitors