|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
For you, it is a fact when the verbiage, somehow, is "crose enough" to appear true. Your linked verbiage, to begin with, is structured around something Bannon supposedly said, but which (even by Snopes) is unproven. There is no proof that Bannon said he is a Leninist. But it is "crose enough" that somebody claims Bannon said it. Then the author of the verbiage spins a trail of unproven labels (such as Bannon being a " leading intellectual of the US alt-right"--he is not alt-right but is accused of being so--which is "crose enough") opinions, interpretations, and presumptions or possibilities, and conjectured attributions that could describe a whole lot of folks including those on the American political left--i.e. Democrats--and quotes not by Bannon, but all part of an overall bag of BS which somehow implies that Bannon is the grand contradiction-- an alt-right Leninist. At least "crose enough" to the possibility that it must be a fact. You do this "crose enough" kind of $hit a lot. |
Quote:
Of course you believe that, because it paints her actions favorably. WHat I believe, because it's true, is that Harvard did mention her by name to show the diversity of lhe law school faculty. From the Crimson Tide article below... "Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American." https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1...ing-at-hls-pa/ "The two people at Harvard who recommended her for the job said they had no idea she thought she was a Native American" You say they said. You also said they didn't mention her by name, so... "She didn't flip a single foreclosure Jim. " Yahoo, among others, says otherwise. I dare say you might want to re-think where you get your "news". https://news.yahoo.com/news/harsh-fo...ycsrp_catchall "I looked into this one, seems like it's based off some school meeting minutes that were months before she would have been visible pregnant. Certainly doesn't invalidate her story. " Which took place "months before she was visibly pregnant"? If she quit before she was visibly pregnant, how could they have fired her for being pregnant? Again, your sources of "news" are a tad askew. |
Quote:
You said last week you’d be glad if Congress defaulted on the debt. Just what do you think that would do to Americans Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
ETTD
In a profile in New York magazine published Tuesday, Stephanie Grisham expressed remorse over her stint in the White House: “I don’t think I can rebrand. I think this will follow me forever. I believe that I was part of something unusually evil, and I hope that it was a one-time lesson for our country and that I can be a part of making sure that at least that evil doesn’t come back now.” Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
We Americans are in a precarious position if we have to continuously depend on more and more spending by a bankrupt government in order to sustain our personal welfare. |
Quote:
Don't know everything that's in the book, but the articles about it and her interviews about it that I've seen don't point to any Russian collusions, or treasons, or impeachable offenses. If that is true, then maybe that's why she didn't seem to feel "unusually" evil during her tenure with Trump. Maybe just the usual, common evils of political lying and messy procedures and chaotic running of things and personal scandals and foibles that often, if not usually, accompany political campaigns. And if she helps to scuttle a Trump attempt to get the Republican nomination, that's OK by me. I'm hoping he doesn't run. But if he gets the nod and runs, I'll vote for him over any Democrat because, as I've said over and over, for me it's not about him, but about defeating Progressivism--though that's looking more and more unlikely. No doubt you'll be happy with the impending Brave New World of unimpeded government power. For sure, we won't have to be concerned about things like government spending our money that it doesn't have . . . money will be no object . . . government will always have our money . . . or may not even need money . . . just have the power to do, or make us do, whatever it deems necessary. We won't have to quibble about mandates or individual rights and freedoms. We will all dutifully do as government tells us to do, and be assured that it is all rightly so. And we won't have to be concerned about pandemics. Government will prevent them. Maybe just occasional outbursts of some disease or other which will be quickly quelled by good government control . . . of everything. |
Quote:
HEALTH AND SCIENCE ‘Zero Covid’ strategies are being abandoned as the highly infectious delta variant dominates PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 5 2021 New Zealand has been notoriously strict in its tackling of Covid; Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put the entire country under a strict lockdown in August after a single suspected case of Covid caused by the delta variant — at that time the country’s first coronavirus case in six months — was reported in Auckland. It’s the first time that New Zealand has publicly signaled a shift away from a zero Covid strategy, coming after its neighbor Australia also abandoned its zero tolerance, or “Covid zero” approach in early September, saying it had shifted to a position of “learning to live with” the virus. Similarly to in New Zealand, Australia’s decision to abandon the strategy came after a strict lockdown in Melbourne failed to quell an outbreak there. At the time, Victoria state’s Premier Daniel Andrews noted that “we have thrown everything at this, but it is now clear to us that we are not going to drive these numbers down, they are instead going to increase.” Experts are not surprised by the shift in strategy, noting that the spread of the delta variant makes such approaches futile. “It’s no surprise that New Zealand has abandoned its ‘zero covid’ strategy – the highly transmissible delta variant has changed the game and means that an elimination strategy is no longer viable,” Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, told CNBC Monday. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In Vermont, 100% of the COVID patients in the ICU are unvaccinated. Unlike some states, because of the high vaccination rate, Vermont’s medical system is not overloaded. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Pete F. We have largely eradicated Polio, tetanus, blah, blah, blah, rindersomething |
Quote:
1) We’ve got a lot of money. We’re the richest country on the face of the planet. 2) None of us think we’ve got a lot of money. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not because we left them uncontrolled because of “Freedum” New Zealand is not eliminating their vaccination program Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
If the Forbes 400 (net worth $4.5 trillion) vanished, it'd just be some extra paperwork for lawyers. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
this is bidenesque... Elizabeth Warren's Pow Wow Chow 'Cherokee' recipes were word for word COPIES of famous FRENCH chef's techniques By DAILY MAIL REPORTER PUBLISHED: 20:31 EDT, 18 May 2012 |
^^^ so much cultural appropriation going on there....
stole the french chef's recipe to make the mexican soup claiming she's native american....good grief |
Quote:
First, all the data I have seen, says pretty clearly that covid isn't spreading like crazy in schools, especially in elementary schools. I don't know why that is, you'd think that would be one of the hottest places for it to spread, but it's not. Second, young kids are not at high risk for getting really sick. This is one of the very items related to covid, on which there's sort of a consensus. Third, there has to be a psychological price for kids to pay, when we remove them from school, isolate them from their friends, eliminate all of their activities, and have them pend even less time connecting with people, and even more time online, which is the last thing they need. My wife plays tennis with a pediatric psychiatrist at Connecticut Childrens Medical Center. She told my wife they have never seen nearly this many cases of parents seeking behavioral healthcare for young children. The Hartford Courant ran an article today... https://www.courant.com/coronavirus/...6ya-story.html GS, kids need to have normal experiences to be functional. This is why they call childhood "the formative years". When I do a cost benefit analysis of taking normal experiences away from a generation of kids who are already not spending enough time connecting with people in a physical/intimate way thanks to the Internet, I see data that says there's not as much benefit to locking young kids down as there is to locking older people down. In addition, there may be a steep cost these kids have to pay. You can respond by saying "oh, so you're saying we should let kids ride in pickup beds on the highway and smoke cigarettes, blah blah blah". But what I'm actually saying, is pretty logical, and based on the science and data that I see. |
Now do “Ted” Cruz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid …no one saying they don’t have Covid . They just are not the reason for the spike .. so how did these migrants get to Idaho With their Covid issues Here are some headlines No evidence migrants at border significantly spreading virus This week, one Republican leader after another rushed to blame the spread of the virus, not on the unvaccinated but on immigrants. Some Republicans Blame Migrants For COVID-19 Surges. Doctors Say They're Scapegoating They're "allowing free pass into the United States of people with a high probability of COVID, and then spreading that COVID in our communities," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in an interview last month on Fox News. "I can tell you, whatever variants are around the world, they're coming across that southern border," Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a press conference last week. You really need to pay more attention to what these so call Republicans leaders are actually saying Just look at Covid funds All Republicans in Congress voted against the $1.9 trillion relief bill signed by President Joe Biden last month – but that hasn’t stopped several of them from publicly celebrating funding to their districts made possible by its passage. Alabama GOP governor signs bills to use Covid-19 relief funds to build prisons into law Gov. Brian Kemp announced $1,000 bonuses for first responders paid for with the relief money. In Wyoming, a Republican legislative leader suggested the money could be used to pay the federal fines of businesses that defy Biden's vaccine mandate. In Galveston County, Texas, Republican county commissioners approved a plan to spend $6.6 million of its total $27 million in coronavirus relief money for security roughly 350 miles (560 kilometers) away on the U.S.-Mexico border. They say the money will protect residents from COVID-19 and other dangers brought by people entering the United States Arizona to use COVID money for anti-mask grants, These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans But would rather pull stunts for their base saying look we’re owing the libs . What a bunch of intellectually dishonest people these Trump Republicans have become Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Because 200,000 of them were encountered on our side of the border, and one result showed that 1 in 5 had covid. That's 40,000 covid-positive migrants coming across in a month, and that's just the ones that BP encountered. Who knows how many more there are. I answered your question. Can you answer mine? Why do you think it' snot even worth mentioning, that our open borders are essentially importing as many as 40,000 covid-positive people in a month? Why are you so intent on sweeping that under the rug? "unless it’s to blame and deflect from actual happening.. in the US with Covid" We can't talk about two things at once? Maybe you can't, most of us can. I'm not deflecting anything. There are multiple facets to this, I go where the truth (not where CNN) takes me. "Only conservatives are trying to tie migrants to Covid" SO you deny that tens of thousands of covid-positive migrants are likely coming across the southern border? Wayne, when I brought this up, you immediately pivoted to the insignificantly low number of migrants who were granted asylum. You completely ignored the much, much larger number of illegal migrants. Then you claimed the illegals are never in the USA. So it appears to us that youre the one who is lying and deflecting. You say you want to address covid, but you won't admit any issue with 40,000 covid-positive people crossing in a single month, in addition to god-knows-how-many others that were never encountered by BPS. We all know they don't catch all of them. So one of two things is happening. Either you don't think that importing 40,000 sick people a month is worthy of discussing, or you refuse to discuss it because the underlying issue (open border) is a losing issue for your political agenda. I have seen just about every conservatives here, criticize conservatives a few times. None of the liberals here except Rockhound, are capable of it. Never. |
Quote:
You are pathologically obsessed with the existence of a small number of wealthy people, whose existence has no impact on you at all. You're foaming at the mouth here. |
Quote:
Spence brought up Warren, not me. It was OK with you when he brought her up, but a character flaw when I respond? How does that make sense? Again, your entire existence on this forum is democrat=good, republican= bad. we get it, you don't need to keep saying it in different ways. "These actions just show how Republicans are unable and unwilling to do anything for Americans" Here's a study in the New York Times (not known to be Republican-friendly) showing clearly, that conservatives give more money and time to charity, than liberals. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html If Republicans don't do anything for Americans, explain the Gallup poll that showed a record-number of Americans claimed to be better off after 4 years of Trump, than after 4 years of any president in the history of that poll? Yeah, John McCain, Dan Crenshaw, Tom Cotton, what have they ever done for anybody? |
Quote:
Quote:
The lowest 50% disappear, GDP goes to single digits, entire sectors disappear. Lose 400 billionaires, all their investments continue and their labor is negligible. You are obsessed with wealthy people and try to equate your rabid behavior with intelligence. I'm concerned with the redistribution of wealth in this country thru politics and control of the government. |
700,000 people have vanished in the US, & Americans are wondering where all the service staff went
|
Quote:
Here's another one from the same time. November 3, 2018; New York Times The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder. Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is. But the true picture is more complex, reflecting at best a real difference between the parties in the best way to approach the challenge of human need. Because the range of organizations and activities that are supported by tax deductible giving is very wide, it is not clear how these funds are actually used or what motives they reflect. Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear. One of the study’s authors, Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, told the New York Times that Republicans prefer to “provide for the collective good through private institutions. But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school. While red counties may be more philanthropic, tax rates are higher in blue counties, reflecting stronger support for collective action and for a social safety net of services and organizations. “The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.” Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported. Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. “The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.” Most concerning in this moment of high political strife is the finding that everyone pulls back in areas where political division is high: “When counties are split evenly between the political parties, both donations and the tax burden go down. Or in the study’s terms: Political competition decreases giving.” This does not bode well for organizations whose work is holding up a part of the social safety net, nor for the people they serve. As we see very graphically on a national level, split electorates and the split governments they elect have difficulty enacting polices and laws to support democratic approaches to collective action. The publicly funded portion of the safety net weakens. If Republicans, who may be more individually ready than their Democratic neighbors, do not make growing charitable donations for these same purposes, philanthropy will not provide the solution, either.—Marty Levine |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com