Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I think the article is a lament rather than a call to action.  

Dave

Dave.

Thanks for pointing out the protection of fundamental liberties in Canada.  Glad to see it, and I assumed it was there.

We'll disagree on whether this piece is supposed to be a lament vs. a call to action, but I appreciate your viewpoint.  Good choice of words by the way.  Nice and concise.  I certainly understand reading it as a lament.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"that 99% figure sure seems like it must be an exaggeration."
It is and I've covered this before in conjunction with covid and comorbidities. It must be realized that covid is a PLUS-0NE event. That means those who succumb to it with co-morbidities do so because of it and not the co-morbidity itself which these individuals already have. In other words, if covid had not been contracted, the individuals would still be alive, albeit with their pre-existing conditions. The latter may have weakened their immune systems making them more vulnerable to the virus but it is the addition of the virus that kills them. Pre-existing organ damage from a co-morbidity does results in the same scenario.

Yes, in general I understand. 

Still, I personally know quite well a person who had a parent die from terminal illnesses while having Covid.  The deceased was in at-home hospice with the very end-game stages of cancer.  The family was prepared for him to die in days or hours.  A couple of days before he did die, the soon to be deceased and his wife got infected with Covid by a home hospice worker (this was in the alpha timeframe).  The wife developed symptoms in due course, after her husband died though.  When he died, the wife was at his bedside, but the rest of the family had to stay away because mom and dad were infected.  That sucked.  

Covid is listed as one of the causes of death on his CO death certificate.  Cancer is listed too.  My contact (his daughter and executor) has the death certificate in her possession.  In this case, listing Covid is somewhat ridiculous.  I'm willing to bet however, that extreme circumstances like this are offset by lots of cases where un-diagnosed Covid did actually contribute to death.  Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Go talk to Johns Hopkins.  Their spokesperson stated last month that perhaps less than 5 children who died from Covid, died without any other serious maladies that they had before they got Covid.  

You say its not a "Huge risk" to children?

Its almost non-existent.  

Are you link-shy now?  It's not like I have Johns Hopkins on speed dial.   In my view, there is nothing wrong with a link to a timely bit of evidence to back up an assertion. 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Here's a good read on it that I think you will find interesting:
https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/7/15/22578924/surgeon-general-vivek-murthy-misinformation-covid-vaccine-social-media-public-health-threat

Covid misinformation is a difficult nut to crack.  I have been thinking about it.  The linked article is helpful.  Here's an hypothetical example.  I someone posts on Social Media that drinking a quart of Drano will dissolve that stubborn belly fat, I would be A-OK with the social media platform deleting that, and I would be OK with the government asking the platform to censor that post.   This is the same as yelling fire in a theater.

Some of the Covid misinformation is like this.  A lot of it is political though.  Some of the things that were once accepted as gospel by the media are now proved to be false or incomplete.  There is a huge slippery slope here.  Trump can not even Tweet, is it because his content is deemed so unreliable or because his opinions are so repugnant to the powers at Twitter?  I know that the government did not mandate Trumps Twitter ban, and so it is not technically censorship, but I still think it is a bad idea.  Similarly, in general, I think warning labels are a bad idea, which gets us back to Dave's article.

I think the overall gist of the article is a call for quashing contrary, and specifically right-wing political opinion.  Maybe Dave is right and it is merely a lament.  Maybe I am over analyzing it.  I still think that I am not.  The truckers are expressing political opinions.  Coyne's opinion piece is a long way from warning labels on social media for misinformation that is clearly and indisputably dangerous to health.  Bottom line, I think your idea of warning labels should be used sparingly and never for political opinions.  I think actual censorship (or a possible call to action along the censorship lines) must always be resisted no matter whose side you are on.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Are you utterly in the dark about the risks to children from Covid....

You act as if you don't know what is going on....

Does That wake you up counselor or is JOHNS HOPKINS University made up of Right wing hacks??...

I hope maybe you get it now?   I seriously doubt it though....

Wow, you worked yourself up a lot!  Did you notice that I've been agreeing with you in this thread?  Re-read my posts.  Especially #14.  I merely questioned the 99% figure, it seemed off.  That was it.  Thanks for the links though.    

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Didn't work myself up at all.  

Because I put things in 5 times the size font so maybe those like you will read the pertinent stuff, isn't any indication at all that I'm worked up.  

I figured if I put it in Bold, italics and #5 font, you wouldn't miss it.  

Nothing more than that.

It's not the font Rich, it's the personal attacks that prove to everyone you were worked up.  See below.  No worries though, I expect personal attacks.  I might miss them if you ever changed.  What made this instance of your attack-dog style particularly funny is that I was on record as agreeing with you!  

"Are you utterly in the dark about the risks to children from Covid. 

You act as if you don't know what is going on.

Does That wake you up counselor or is JOHNS HOPKINS University made up of Right wing hacks?? 

I hope maybe you get it now?  I seriously doubt it though." 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Those are PERSONAL attacks?  Holy smokes, Such HIDEOUS Attacks that you endured there, eh?  I hope you can sleep tonight.  

Let's take those sentences and you can explain how those are PERSONAL attacks on you.  LOL  

"Are you utterly in the dark about the risks to children from Covid?

You act as if you don't know what is going on".

Go ahead and tell us how a question that I ask along with a statement is a PERSONAL attack upon you.

Are you THAT Touchy?  

Of course I'm not that touchy.  These are minor personal attacks, which is why I merely commented that "I got you worked up." 

Look, I know you'll lie and dodge to the point where we all get bored.  But each of the statements I quoted are certainly personal attacks (phrased as rhetorical questions).  Each phrase carries the implication that I am uninformed, and/or refuse to acknowledge the information out there.  This is hilarious because in this very thread I agreed that covid was not a big deal for children and that the damage, including but not limited to suicides and kids falling through the educational cracks might have outweighed any benefit of closing schools, especially in states like California where the schools were closed for a long time and may still be closed in some instances.  

Don't you get it?  You are the butt of the joke Rich.  I agreed with you and you attacked me anyway.  No worries, I enjoy it, and I think a lot of others enjoy watching it too.  It will also be fun to see you twist, spin, and dodge to make this into something that it never was, i.e. me thinking or saying that Covid was an enormous risk to children or that I am a hyper-sensitive snowflake. 

Knock yourself out.  Like I said it is pretty funny.

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Crickets from the peanut gallery.  

Hi Jim:

I have not read Trump's statements from credible sources, yet.  To the extent that Trump is supporting Putin in this unfounded attack, I denounce him, and hope this is the nail in his cult of popularity.

I do have to say, here and publicly (sorta, to the extent this is public), that I suspect the press is spinning Trump's comments or taking them out of context.  The press's hatred of Trump knows no bounds and causes the press to make mistakes and or intentionally spin against Trump in virtually every instance.   No need to post links, I promise to dig into this and let you know what I think after I read some stuff from diverse sources.

Jim 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Jim:

I have not read Trump's statements from credible sources, yet.  To the extent that Trump is supporting Putin in this unfounded attack, I denounce him, and hope this is the nail in his cult of popularity.

I do have to say, here and publicly (sorta, to the extent this is public), that I suspect the press is spinning Trump's comments or taking them out of context.  The press's hatred of Trump knows no bounds and causes the press to make mistakes and or intentionally spin against Trump in virtually every instance.   No need to post links, I promise to dig into this and let you know what I think after I read some stuff from diverse sources.

Jim 

I've done some reading.  I'm not seeing a lot of support for Trump in the right wing press.  Maybe I need to go further right?  Should I PM Rich for some links?  

The entire interview from two days ago is here:  https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar-a-lago/  Trump's comments are an epic word salad and hard to follow.  Trump clearly calls Putin a genius, but Trump also claims that he knew Putin wanted the Ukraine and that he, being super-Trump didn't let him have it and that this invasion never would have happened if he were in office today (As, of course, he claims he should be.)   

I think the overriding message is that Trump is praising Putin as an adversary way beyond Biden's capacity and that only super-Trump could have stopped this horror.  He never says what he thinks of the Ukrainian People or the stability of Europe though, so it is damn near impossible to figure out what he really thinks about the invasion as a matter of foreign policy. 

Here is the most relevant chunk, in context.  I emphasized the part that make me think that Trump's primary purpose here was to stroke his own ego at Biden's expense, although Trump's man-crush on Putin does come through loud and clear:

BUCK: Mr. President, in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.

So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.

By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.

My take from the above is that personally Trump is "glad" the invasion happened because it gives him a chance to stroke his own ego at the expense of Biden.  My guess is that he doesn't give a damn about the people of the Ukraine and the stability of Europe and the world.   I think he (and his reply) are reprehensible.  That said, if someone asked Trump if he thought Putin had the right to invade Ukraine, I think he would say "no."  It is freaking hard to tell.

Here is another germane portion of the interview:

BUCK: How worried are you that the Biden administration might get dragged into the actual military conflict in Ukraine if it escalates?


PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’d rather see them send soldiers to our southern border. I’d rather see them… In three weeks, you could finish it. They won’t even let Texas use our military, which is all bought, sitting there waiting to be put up. It could have been erected in less than three weeks. It could have been two and a half years to get started ’cause we had to win 11 lawsuits. I’d rather see our southern border protected. But I don’t like the idea he’s sending a small number of troops.

It’s a joke compared to what the other side does. You know, he sends 3,000 troops I heard this morning, 3,000 troops. What’s that gonna do except get in trouble? No, I would like to see our southern border protected and they are handling Ukraine so badly. Remember — I put something out this morning — Russia is becoming very rich because the oil price has been driven up so much and that’s their primary source of income.

So much that those army tanks you see going back and forth all over the place, that’s peanuts compared to the amount of money they’re making: $40 a barrel when I was there, $1.86 a gallon of gasoline and now you have some places where it’s over $7, and it’s going up a lot higher.

Trump does not answer the question.  He just riffs off of it to talk about how much better he would be on the Southern Border than Biden.
Finally a restatement of Trump's man-crush and his overall theme, "I'm so much better than Biden":  

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, even “Sleepy Eyes” Chuck Todd said this weekend during his show — I was watching it for a change and he said — (summarized), “How come there’s been no invasion during the period of time that the Trump administration was there but they did invade — very severely invade — with Obama and then they waited and then they invaded?”


This would never have happened if we were there. But he did. Chuck Todd asked that question. How come there was none of this happening during the Trump administration? I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He liked me. I liked him. I mean, you know, he’s a tough cookie, got a lot of the great charm and a lot of pride. But the way he — and he loves his country, you know? He loves his country. He’s acting a little differently I think now.

I think he sees this opportunity. I knew that he always wanted Ukraine. I used to talk to him about it. I said, “You can’t do it. You’re not gonna do it.” But I could see that he wanted it. I used to ask him. We used to talk about it at length. I think nobody probably knows him better in terms of the discussions that we have or that we’re having this morning. So, I knew him very well. I got to know him. I got to know President Xi. By the way, China is gonna be next. You know, China is gonna —

CLAY: You think they’re gonna go after Taiwan?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, absolutely. Not with me, they wouldn’t have.

CLAY: But you think with Biden they’ll try him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, yeah. They’re waiting ’til after the Olympics. Now the Olympics ended, and look at your stopwatch, right? No, he wants that just like… It’s almost like twin sisters right here because you have one that wants Taiwan, I think, equally badly. Somebody said, “Who wants it more?” I think probably equally badly. But, no, Putin would have never done it, and Xi would have never done it. And also, North Korea has not acted up for four years.
 
Here again, Trump really does not say anything other than he is the only man who can hold Putin and Xi at bay.  These tragic events are, for him, just an opportunity to stroke his ego at Biden's expense.  And in context, that is reprehensible.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, what it amounts to is this, you're adopting every trait of the liberal left including their incessant whining.

My suggestion to you is quit emoting hysterically like the rest of the leftists here do, grow a pair, and deal with the subjects at hand, instead of complaining like a little girl that you're enduring PERSONAL attacks from me, every time I challenge you with questions you can't answer. 

And every time I call on your maggot-like whining, you then engage in your usual self-pity party to engender sympathy from your leftist buddies, who invariably will try to come to your defense, and comfort you like they usually.  

God oh mighty, what a pathetic bunch you RINOs are.  You're as bad as the lefties here.  

Are you a man or are you a little girl with a skirt.  If you aren't, then grow up and act like a man.

Otherwise get out of my face, you pathetic wimp!   LOL  

As predicted you played your bogus snowflake card.  Funny!  You are so easy to predict.  Which question couldn't I answer tough guy?  Better yet, which question of yours did I not answer in advance in post 14?  You are such a fool.  Jim

p.s. Oops, I seem to be getting you worked up again.