Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

This is exactly what you said, "YOU are VACCINATED, so YOU Don't get sick."

You are a liar, a fraud, and completely and totally intellectually dishonest. Just admit you were wrong.

Rich will never admit that he is wrong.  Even when he is so obviously and completely wrong.   It's in his DNA, or is it his RNA? *  Jim

* The DNA/RNA bit is a joke Rich, I recognize that your your  narcissism is probably a result of your life experiences and so on, with some biological component I suppose.  The rest of my post is easily demonstrated fact, based upon ten years of your postings here.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Of course, you are correct Dave, but don't expect the person with the poorest critical-thinking skills known to mankind to ever admit he's wrong.


https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/smallpox-two-boys

Smallpox in Two Boys

Unvaccinated and vaccinated boys with smallpox

Boy on left was not vaccinated and has severe smallpox while boy on right was vaccinated and has mild smallpox. This photograph is from a collection of lantern slides used by Philadelphia physicians to illustrate the risks of not vaccinating. Early 1900s.

The Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia

Hi James:

I was talking to my dad about the polio vaccine the other day.  He recalls that the states simply went in and vaccinated all of the school children at the time.  There was no opting out, there was not even any consultation with parents to speak of.  In his recollection the state took the steps necessary to protect the entire population from polio, without any noticeable pushback from any significant number of people.  Of course the parents were supportive and grateful because of the horrors of this childhood disease.

This suggests that the state and the polio vaccine were introduced to protect the entire population, by protecting each and every individual.  So I agree with Dave in post 7 above.  I'm not sure why Rich wants to draw a line and say that for a 100 years vaccines were meant to protect "only" the recipient (paraphrase of post 9).  A baby can see that protecting enough individuals is the same thing as protecting society.  The state is obviously interested in protecting society, by protecting individual members of society.  FWIW, my dad, a lifelong conservative supports this sort of state action to protect us all.  Same way he supports the military and things like the Interstate Highway system.  Jim  

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

From the article, "The critics also took issue with her companion’s footwear."                                                                                                                             

Richard, I wonder what this was about?     

Hi Darian:

Her boyfriend was wearing Birkenstocks with socks or something gross like that. 

You know I can be hard on Rich, most recently about 5 minutes ago. And he sends it back at me plenty.  But on this one, I agree with Rich 100%  AOC is a shameless hypocrite of the highest order.  She can get away with it because her district is overwhelmingly Democratic.  The optics of her maskless FL vacation might ruin a national politician.  It certainly undercuts (destroys?) the federal masking and social distancing messaging.  If I were in the CDC, or Joe Biden, I would want to have a serious conversation with her.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

titular speaker of the house AOC,  

being that she's the titular head of the Democrat party 

I agree that AOC is greatly lacking as a congresswoman...but "titular..." That word does not mean what you think it means.  Try de facto instead.  I would disagree that AOC is the de facto head of the Democrats, but at least your point would not be obscured.  This will be a good opportunity to simply admit that you made a mistake and move on.  A baby step.  Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

De Facto might be better for her title, but I think titular fits the bill.

tit·u·lar
/ˈtiCHələr/

adjective

    1. holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority: "the queen is titular head of the Church of England"

Only if you ignore your original post completely - "In essence, being that she's the titular head of the Democrat party who is directing their agenda and making them bow to her will." 

This opinion of yours is the precise opposite of "a purely formal position or title without any real authority."  On the contrary,  you were arguing that she is the de facto leader of the entire Democratic party, even though her actual elected authority only extends to a small portion of NYC.  

No worries though!  Jim

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

You have all lost sight of the real issue here.

What is your position on wearing socks with sandals?

Dave

Never permitted, in my view.  I don't care how cold it is!  

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

It doesn’t matter, they could be tried, convicted, and sentenced and Rich and Co. won’t believe it since they confuse their hero Tucker’s (isn’t that the name you give a little Scottish terrier) opinions as facts. These guys eat it up and don’t know the difference. It wasn’t a insurrection, it wasn’t sedition. Now that they’ve been indicted for sedition they’ll move the goalposts again and I’m sure they come up with more excuses why it wasn’t. Too bad Rich wasn’t on the Grand Jury so he could have set them straight. 

Hi Jim:

I have not read the articles or watched Fox news.  This forum is the first I heard of the conspiracy to commit sedition charges.  No doubt when I go to the news sites this will be trumpeted as a big victory by the lefty sites and a witch hunt designed to deflect from Biden's abysmal approval rating, Covid, and the economy.  That much I am sure of.

Rational adults must now wait for the trial or plea agreement to see if the government can get the conspiracy to commit sedition charges to stick.  It will be interesting to see who wins this one, and to see if anyone cares at that point in time.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Oath Keepers leader and 10 others charged with 'seditious conspiracy' related to US Capitol attack"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/oathkeeper-rhodes-arrested-doj/index.html

I still have not read the articles, but being charged with conspiracy to commit sedition and sedition are different things.  The burden of proof will be different.  Think in terms of conspiracy to commit murder and murder.  In one case you got a body, in the other you don't.

If I remember correctly a conspiracy charge requires at least one overt act, beyond talk.  Something like moving the weapons into place or maybe obtaining vehicles and the like.  As I mentioned to Jim,  This will be interesting from a legal and political perspective.  I'll go read the stories now.

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Which words did they use? I have seen, "We are taking it into our own hands. We have had enough."
Too vague?

Hi Mel:  The words are alone are probably not enough for prosecutions.  If the government can prove that these guys actually  amassed guns in a VA hotel room, organized quick strike forces and planned to take the Capital, then they are probably toast.  Until we have a trial, no one is going to really know the facts.  We should all beware of un-sourced comments published by Fox or CNN in the next several days.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

It seemed to me to be completely arbitrary.  For one, I read it and I thought to myself, if OSHA is concerned about workplace safety of the people working there, then why did they stop at 100 or more employees?  

Why not mandate it for workplaces of 50 people, 32 people, 80 people??

Here's my question, what is different in a workplace where 50 people work or where 18 people work that is different than a workplace where 100 people work?

Hi Rich:

There is a historical reason for including this sort of limitation in a Federal regulation.  The original authority for OSHA and similar laws was derived from the commerce clause.  We do not need to debate here whether that federal power grab from the states was appropriate back in the day, I could argue either side. 

The commerce clause expressly gives the Feds constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.  It is harder to argue that many self employed or small businesses are engaged in interstate commerce.  It is easier with larger companies since most larger companies are literally engaged in interstate commerce.  This is why when a bill like this is drafted it has an arbitrary size limitation.  IIRC Obamacare has the same sort of provision.