Donald Trump running for president

thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Yeah, he really blew that one. And although at this point he helped crush the virus the consequences and outcomes of the man made crisis he created are yet to see its fruition. New York is an economic disaster.
there have been many mistakes made by many people, but sending infected people to nursing home ranks right up at the top---can't believe a smart guy could be that stupid!!!!

are the families of people at nursing home who died filing cases against cuomo?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
there have been many mistakes made by many people, but sending infected people to nursing home ranks right up at the top---can't believe a smart guy could be that stupid!!!!

are the families of people at nursing home who died filing cases against cuomo?
I dont really know to be honest havent looked deep into that one. It was a pretty dumb move.

Its amazing I remember some of the first things he did was un-regulated government from the hospitals so they can legally increase capacity. Of course, it was illegal for them to do so when the market was showing signs of demand. But he took it a step further, he made a law to enact as king, then with a stroke of a pen unregulated the hospitals and then with a stroke of a pen he gave the hospitals a timeline to double (or some other number) capacity and they must obey his orders.

His Majesty King Cumho is one freaking crazy power hungry monster. Not everything he does is bad but he is a menace to the Constitution for sure.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I dont really know to be honest havent looked deep into that one. It was a pretty dumb move.

Its amazing I remember some of the first things he did was un-regulated government from the hospitals so they can legally increase capacity. Of course, it was illegal for them to do so when the market was showing signs of demand. But he took it a step further, he made a law to enact as king, then with a stroke of a pen unregulated the hospitals and then with a stroke of a pen he gave the hospitals a timeline to double (or some other number) capacity and they must obey his orders.

His Majesty King Cumho is one freaking crazy power hungry monster. Not everything he does is bad but he is a menace to the Constitution for sure.
democrats love him!!!
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Did you see that Fauci video I posted? It’s total insanity. All the sudden he doesn’t have an opinion on a specific scenario.
i have never had any trust in fauci...when he said masks were unnecessary way back in march he lost me.
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
i have never had any trust in fauci...when he said masks were unnecessary way back in march he lost me.
I have no faith in him or the CDC. The CDC’s opinion for kids going back to school this fall was full of very unrealistic guidelines that were going to cost school systems a lot of cash. Then, on July 23rd, they said school aged children are not near as susceptible to COVID as adults, so the risk of them being in school was minimal. Today I read an article where 260 kids at a camp tested positive and now they say research is showing they are just as susceptible as adults. So they’re opinion changed in 8 days. If this one incident doesn’t make people realize there’s a lot of political and going on with COVID then I don’t know what will.
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
i have never had any trust in fauci...when he said masks were unnecessary way back in march he lost me.
I have no faith in him or the CDC. The CDC’s opinion for kids going back to school this fall was full of very unrealistic guidelines that were going to cost school systems a lot of cash. Then, on July 23rd, they said school aged children are not near as susceptible to COVID as adults, so the risk of them being in school was minimal. Today I read an article where 260 kids at a camp tested positive and now they say research is showing they are just as susceptible as adults. So they’re opinion changed in 8 days. If this one incident doesn’t make people realize there’s a lot of political and going on with COVID then I don’t know what will.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I have no faith in him or the CDC. The CDC’s opinion for kids going back to school this fall was full of very unrealistic guidelines that were going to cost school systems a lot of cash. Then, on July 23rd, they said school aged children are not near as susceptible to COVID as adults, so the risk of them being in school was minimal. Today I read an article where 260 kids at a camp tested positive and now they say research is showing they are just as susceptible as adults. So they’re opinion changed in 8 days. If this one incident doesn’t make people realize there’s a lot of political and going on with COVID then I don’t know what will.
What price is too much to keep school aged children & their communities safe? Im sure there are a good deal of level headed tax payers that would pay a higher tax if they knew it was going specifically to local schools in order to keep their kids and the remainder of the community safe. Unless they still think covid-19 was a complete hoax...which in that case they’re beyond helping at this point.

How does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changing their stance based on new scientific evidence equate to “a lot of political and going on”? An “opinion” (i use that term loosely because it is based upon the current body of evidence in this case, but still an opinion nonetheless) is bound to change at some point...whats the significance of it changing within an 8 day time frame?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What price is too much to keep school aged children & their communities safe? Im sure there are a good deal of level headed tax payers that would pay a higher tax if they knew it was going specifically to local schools in order to keep their kids and the remainder of the community safe. Unless they still think covid-19 was a complete hoax...which in that case they’re beyond helping at this point.

How does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changing their stance based on new scientific evidence equate to “a lot of political and going on”? An “opinion” (i use that term loosely because it is based upon the current body of evidence in this case, but still an opinion nonetheless) is bound to change at some point...whats the significance of it changing within an 8 day time frame?
We are in an economic crisis, 10s of millions just lost their pandemic insurance, 10s of millions are holding onto their homes seeing doom when eviction protections ends either now or some time down the road, 10s of millions either out of the job or cant work full time, many have permanently lost their businesses, millions lost their health insurance and everything is getting worse. When this is all over, its not going back to normal, jobs will go up but millions wont be there.

You really think level headed people are considering raising their tax rates right now? I think millions of level headed people want tax breaks.

Ill tell you this, Im not one of the "hard shutdown" people, but from the perspective of wanting to control the virus opening schools is the dumbest thing possible.

Even if kids dont get it like some claim, are they going to need to spray them with chemicals every time they step off the bus? Its not like their skin and clothes arent going to be contaminated and spreading it at homes. And I realistically dont see how you keep kids sanitary, its impossible.

On another say note, child abuse cases dropped 51%, if I was in some kids shoes Id be begging for schools to open again. Then of course, bullying must be down too, those kids dont ever want to go back. Sad.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
My son starts school next week. Can’t wait.

On a more serious note. The Boston marathon bomber got out of the death penalty. The court has sided with a known terrorist. I am out of words...
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
We are in an economic crisis, 10s of millions just lost their pandemic insurance, 10s of millions are holding onto their homes seeing doom when eviction protections ends either now or some time down the road, 10s of millions either out of the job or cant work full time, many have permanently lost their businesses, millions lost their health insurance and everything is getting worse. When this is all over, its not going back to normal, jobs will go up but millions wont be there.

You really think level headed people are considering raising their tax rates right now? I think millions of level headed people want tax breaks.

Ill tell you this, Im not one of the "hard shutdown" people, but from the perspective of wanting to control the virus opening schools is the dumbest thing possible.

Even if kids dont get it like some claim, are they going to need to spray them with chemicals every time they step off the bus? Its not like their skin and clothes arent going to be contaminated and spreading it at homes. And I realistically dont see how you keep kids sanitary, its impossible.
Yes, i do think that would be something people would be open to if the government would actually be open and honest as to where they were directing tax money to and actually follow through on it (schools in this case, specifically regarding safety measures). I also understand your point of view regarding the unemployment situation, so it’s definitely not an easy or straightforward decision.

If youd rather concede that its physically impossible to ensure both the child’s and the community’s safety with children going to school 5d/week, im happy to hear it because I agree with you. I was only offering an alternative to try to make it as feasible possible. Without redirecting some funding to allow school districts to enact some safety measures, it cant be done right now. Whether people want to believe it or not, children returning to school under normal conditions will lead to community spread. As we know - people will die, some will be sick for a bit and be fine once they recover, some will be sick for a bit and suffer lifelong sequelae, some wont even know they were sick and be fine, some wont even know they were sick and potentially suffer lifelong sequelae.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I predict 4% of the vote. 90% of those voters from the Conservative side. I am sure Biden loves her.
Most conservatives already in power, the banker/business elite, military industrial complex and monster government agencies all love the fact that if Groper Joe wins, they win since he is the continuation of the same single party duopoly system that hijacked the joint for decades and doesnt offer much change other than if men can visit women's toilets. There truly barely is any difference between the Demican and Republicrat party.

A vote for Groper Joe is a vote for Prezident Dump. A vote for Dump is a vote for Groper Joe.

Now Im not too worried about converting those caught in the rigged system as much as Im wanting to recruit those outside of the system.

196164
 
Last edited:
dixonk

dixonk

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Most conservatives already in power, the banker/business elite, military industrial complex and monster government agencies all love the fact that if Groper Joe wins, they win since he is the continuation of the same single party duopoly system that hijacked the joint for decades and doesnt offer much change other than if men can visit women's toilets. There truly barely is any difference between the Demican and Republicrat party.

A vote for Groper Joe is a vote for Prezident Dump. A vote for Dump is a vote for Groper Joe.

Now Im not too worried about converting those caught in the rigged system as much as Im wanting to recruit those outside of the system.

View attachment 196164
I admire your stance on it. I align with the libertarian party more than any. My only issue is I am very much anti leftist and as much as I want to pull the lever for the L party I can’t help but to think that is just a vote for D at the end of the day. Ross Perot comes to mind. I agree at the end of the day both parties are simply after power they just have a different message and approach for obtaining said power. The lefts message doesn’t align with my beliefs and I find them morally bankrupt to the point of outright disgust.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I admire your stance on it. I align with the libertarian party more than any. My only issue is I am very much anti leftist and as much as I want to pull the lever for the L party I can’t help but to think that is just a vote for D at the end of the day. Ross Perot comes to mind. I agree at the end of the day both parties are simply after power they just have a different message and approach for obtaining said power. The lefts message doesn’t align with my beliefs and I find them morally bankrupt to the point of outright disgust.
I was actually more of a Liberal Democrat (I was a independent though) up until 2009. The Bushy years made me get into politics, I was very anti-war (and still am,) then came the Patriot Act, NSA, etc....

I voted for Obobo who ran an anti-war campaign, ending intrusive government practices domestically, etc......then he (or she) became Prezident, and mister I would never take a penny from lobby was exposed for taking millions and he betrayed me on all his campaign promises only to expand everything.

Thats where they lost me, and the Libtards (not all) that attacked Bush on all those things especially the war now made excuses for what was to be seen as mostly Bushy's 3rd term.

War all the sudden became humanitarian.

The element that became different was that he was even better at dividing society than Bushy was, because now all the studden criticizing him meant you were a racist, and locking your doors in a parking lot if a black guy walk up to your car makes you a white supremacist.

Dick Cheney's cousin and CIA agent Obobo was absolutely terrific for the deep state and globalists that propped him up and financed him. He made alot of people money, especially big corporations and the insurance industry.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
I was actually more of a Liberal Democrat (I was a independent though) up until 2009. The Bushy years made me get into politics, I was very anti-war (and still am,) then came the Patriot Act, NSA, etc....

I voted for Obobo who ran an anti-war campaign, ending intrusive government practices domestically, etc......then he (or she) became Prezident, and mister I would never take a penny from lobby was exposed for taking millions and he betrayed me on all his campaign promises only to expand everything.

Thats where they lost me, and the Libtards (not all) that attacked Bush on all those things especially the war now made excuses for what was to be seen as mostly Bushy's 3rd term.

War all the sudden became humanitarian.

The element that became different was that he was even better at dividing society than Bushy was, because now all the studden criticizing him meant you were a racist, and locking your doors in a parking lot if a black guy walk up to your car makes you a white supremacist.

Dick Cheney's cousin and CIA agent Obobo was absolutely terrific for the deep state and globalists that propped him up and financed him. He made alot of people money, especially big corporations and the insurance industry.
in my honest opinion obama divided the nation when he decided to get involved with the trayvon martin incident---the 'if i had a son' thing, before all the facts were out. this was also where BLM got started, turned out tapes of the incident showed the trayvon was the aggresser but the damage had been done.

i know others will disagree, but that's ok, they are entitled to their opinion the same as i am.
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
IMG_7251.JPG


Got a chuckle out of this.
 
dixonk

dixonk

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I was actually more of a Liberal Democrat (I was a independent though) up until 2009. The Bushy years made me get into politics, I was very anti-war (and still am,) then came the Patriot Act, NSA, etc....

I voted for Obobo who ran an anti-war campaign, ending intrusive government practices domestically, etc......then he (or she) became Prezident, and mister I would never take a penny from lobby was exposed for taking millions and he betrayed me on all his campaign promises only to expand everything.

Thats where they lost me, and the Libtards (not all) that attacked Bush on all those things especially the war now made excuses for what was to be seen as mostly Bushy's 3rd term.

War all the sudden became humanitarian.

The element that became different was that he was even better at dividing society than Bushy was, because now all the studden criticizing him meant you were a racist, and locking your doors in a parking lot if a black guy walk up to your car makes you a white supremacist.

Dick Cheney's cousin and CIA agent Obobo was absolutely terrific for the deep state and globalists that propped him up and financed him. He made alot of people money, especially big corporations and the insurance industry.
The war thing is a big conflict for me. On one hand I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but on the other hand I have made a butt load of money over the years from it and it has shaped my life in many ways that I wouldn’t change for the world. I also get to see aspects from the other side that makes me more pro war than not. There are really some shitty human beings doing really shitty things that most don’t even know about.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The war thing is a big conflict for me. On one hand I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but on the other hand I have made a butt load of money over the years from it and it has shaped my life in many ways that I wouldn’t change for the world. I also get to see aspects from the other side that makes me more pro war than not. There are really some shitty human beings doing really shitty things that most don’t even know about.
saddam and his sons come to mind.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The war thing is a big conflict for me. On one hand I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but on the other hand I have made a butt load of money over the years from it and it has shaped my life in many ways that I wouldn’t change for the world. I also get to see aspects from the other side that makes me more pro war than not. There are really some shitty human beings doing really shitty things that most don’t even know about.
Im not anti "all" war, Im support having a powerful military, but there are reasons our Founding Fathers did not want an interventionist government and spread the power to enable a war from a few to many.

The thing is, although I am unsure of the specifics you know, neither I am going to ask because I know you have to keep some secrecy, when your in foreign countries meddling in their business and also killing and displacing millions and millions of people, recruiting people that want to harm us is easy.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
saddam and his sons come to mind.
The CIA put him in power.

Just like Al-Ciaeda, we also trained them, armed them, gave them intelligence, financed them, etc....

Or the current terrorists in Syria, Obobo armed and trained Lybians in Turkey only to fly them over there when Kaddafi was put out. Like Killery said, we came, he saw, he died, hahahhahaha

This is where its all total bullcrap, there is no evil on the planet right now on a mass level than China, and we do nothing but trade with them. China good, Iraq bad, its all nonesense. I dont even want to start with the Saudi Princess, LOL!
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.


By Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid | August 26, 2013, 2:40 AM

KARIM SAHIB/AFP/Getty Images

KARIM SAHIB/AFP/Getty Images


The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

All sources:
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
The CIA put him in power.

Just like Al-Ciaeda, we also trained them, armed them, gave them intelligence, financed them, etc....

Or the current terrorists in Syria, Obobo armed and trained Lybians in Turkey only to fly them over there when Kaddafi was put out. Like Killery said, we came, he saw, he died, hahahhahaha

This is where its all total bullcrap, there is no evil on the planet right now on a mass level than China, and we do nothing but trade with them. China good, Iraq bad, its all nonesense. I dont even want to start with the Saudi Princess, LOL!
there was a huge want to take out iran back in the hostages day....it was rumored among the airdales that carters aborted rescue mission was sabotoged by the military because they wanted carter out and reagan in. i know for a fact the military were not fans of carter even though he was a former naval officer.

the marine airdales on my second ship uss new orleans lph11 were certain 'forgetting' sand filters was intentional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
dixonk

dixonk

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I will have an opinion on this topic in about 5-10 years lol. It is fun to read all the conspiracy stories though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I will have an opinion on this topic in about 5-10 years lol. It is fun to read all the conspiracy stories though.
Ill be here, not going anywhere. Just give me advanced notice so I have 2 minutes to nuke my popcorn, LOL
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

All sources:
the cia had to know that taking out saddam would change the balance of power in middle east, iran truly benefited from this.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
the cia had to know that taking out saddam would change the balance of power in middle east, iran truly benefited from this.
It definitely changed the power structure of the entire middle east and it doesnt really look better either.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
It definitely changed the power structure of the entire middle east and it doesnt really look better either.
the cia and jcs and everyone else knew that iran and iraq were keeping each other in check.

with saddam out of the equation it left a power vacuum that iran gobbled up-U.S intelligence had to know this would happen...the only thing that comes to my mind is money---a whole damned lot of money.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
the cia and jcs and everyone else knew that iran and iraq were keeping each other in check.

with saddam out of the equation it left a power vacuum that iran gobbled up-U.S intelligence had to know this would happen...the only thing that comes to my mind is money---a whole damned lot of money.
Well Haliburton got the Iraq rebuild contracts before the war started and the first thing they took was the oil fields. That pretty much tells me everything.
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
Well Haliburton got the Iraq rebuild contracts before the war started and the first thing they took was the oil fields. That pretty much tells me everything.
dick cheney=halliburton. i 100%believe that cheney was pulling GW's strings.
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
What price is too much to keep school aged children & their communities safe? Im sure there are a good deal of level headed tax payers that would pay a higher tax if they knew it was going specifically to local schools in order to keep their kids and the remainder of the community safe. Unless they still think covid-19 was a complete hoax...which in that case they’re beyond helping at this point.

How does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changing their stance based on new scientific evidence equate to “a lot of political and going on”? An “opinion” (i use that term loosely because it is based upon the current body of evidence in this case, but still an opinion nonetheless) is bound to change at some point...whats the significance of it changing within an 8 day time frame?
Never once in my message did I say anything agreeing or disagreeing with either statements made by the CDC. An organization such as the CDC would be expected to thoroughly research something before releasing recommendations on how to bring kids back to school. But to change it after 8 days doesn’t sound ludicrous to you? You can’t possibly think that’s acceptable by any entity on the level of the CDC.

So where would the school systems get the money to pay to put in place the protections recommended? You mentioned more taxes. So is the school system going to go door to door before school starts to get this money? Municipalities are already severely strapped for funds as it is due to the severe decrease in sales tax revenue. Damn you missed the point and so tried to twist my words.
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
Screenshot_20200801-153959_Instagram.jpg
 
jswain34

jswain34

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
I have no faith in him or the CDC. The CDC’s opinion for kids going back to school this fall was full of very unrealistic guidelines that were going to cost school systems a lot of cash. Then, on July 23rd, they said school aged children are not near as susceptible to COVID as adults, so the risk of them being in school was minimal. Today I read an article where 260 kids at a camp tested positive and now they say research is showing they are just as susceptible as adults. So they’re opinion changed in 8 days. If this one incident doesn’t make people realize there’s a lot of political and going on with COVID then I don’t know what will.
Never once in my message did I say anything agreeing or disagreeing with either statements made by the CDC. An organization such as the CDC would be expected to thoroughly research something before releasing recommendations on how to bring kids back to school. But to change it after 8 days doesn’t sound ludicrous to you? You can’t possibly think that’s acceptable by any entity on the level of the CDC.

So where would the school systems get the money to pay to put in place the protections recommended? You mentioned more taxes. So is the school system going to go door to door before school starts to get this money? Municipalities are already severely strapped for funds as it is due to the severe decrease in sales tax revenue. Damn you missed the point and so tried to twist my words.
I didnt twist any words. Reread your first post and tell me it isn’t obvious that you didnt disagree with either their original statement or them updating their opinion. You didnt have to explicitly say it. You stated their change in opinion obviously showed “political bias” (or at least thats what I think you meant by “a lot of political going on”) and I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion.

No, it doesnt sound ludicrous. New evidence came to light and they changed their opinion statement accordingly. I think its entirely acceptable to change an opinion based on the appearance of new evidence, regardless of how recently you made a prior opinion when said evidence wasnt taken to account.

Does anyone go door to door to propose new taxes (not to collect, but to politely ask for tax $)? No. Did I say thats what could/should/would happen? No. I also never said thats what I WANT to see happen, as ive already stated to another member that I dont think its physically possible to keep kids from spreading “germs” - I also dont think we should keep them from spreading SOME germs). All I said was that im sure there are people who would pay tax specifically to have safety measures put in place for the community’s children vs whatever other bs the govt taxes us for. I stand by that statement.

Edit: your first sentence was “I have no faith in him OR THE CDC”. How the hell are you gonna sit here saying “Never once in my message did I say anything agreeing or disagreeing with either statements made by the CDC” after that being the literal first sentence you wrote?
 
Last edited:
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
20200802_085103.jpg
 
thebigt

thebigt

Legend
Awards
5
  • Best Answer
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
the youtube video...david gilmour - comfortably numb-live in pompeii 2016 is now over 75 million views...many have rated this the best guitar solo of all time...get this he is 70 years old playing this!!!

legend
 

sammpedd88

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I didnt twist any words. Reread your first post and tell me it isn’t obvious that you didnt disagree with either their original statement or them updating their opinion. You didnt have to explicitly say it. You stated their change in opinion obviously showed “political bias” (or at least thats what I think you meant by “a lot of political going on”) and I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion.

No, it doesnt sound ludicrous. New evidence came to light and they changed their opinion statement accordingly. I think its entirely acceptable to change an opinion based on the appearance of new evidence, regardless of how recently you made a prior opinion when said evidence wasnt taken to account.

Does anyone go door to door to propose new taxes (not to collect, but to politely ask for tax $)? No. Did I say thats what could/should/would happen? No. I also never said thats what I WANT to see happen, as ive already stated to another member that I dont think its physically possible to keep kids from spreading “germs” - I also dont think we should keep them from spreading SOME germs). All I said was that im sure there are people who would pay tax specifically to have safety measures put in place for the community’s children vs whatever other bs the govt taxes us for. I stand by that statement.

Edit: your first sentence was “I have no faith in him OR THE CDC”. How the hell are you gonna sit here saying “Never once in my message did I say anything agreeing or disagreeing with either statements made by the CDC” after that being the literal first sentence you wrote?
Let me ask you this....let’s say you went to the Dr for a medical issue and he told you what remedies you needed to take to fix your issue, but a few weeks later he calls you and says to change up what you’re doing to something totally opposite. Then about a week later tells you to go back to what you were doing in the beginning. During this time, he hasn’t given you any solid information on why he changed up your treatment. Would you still trust him? I know I would have issues if my dr flipped back and forth. That’s the point I’m making. Do I think there’s political motives mixed in there decisions. Yes I do. But I never said i agreed or disagreed with any of the recommendations made by the CDC. Do you have kids? I do. I have 5 but all of them are out of school now and almost out of college. If they were still public schools, would I have issues with them going back to school and what safety measures were in places? Of course I would. Any parent should. But do I have faith in the CDC....**** no! So what point are you trying to make?
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
Screenshot_20200802-140730_Instagram.jpg
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
"But sinks, toilets and showers. You don't get any water. They put restrictors on and now they made them permanent. People used to take them out. They put restrictors on. Try going and buying a new faucet. You turn it on, no water comes out. Right? We won't talk about toilets, but you know that's true. Ten, fifteen -- but we don't talk about that. Because I've said this three or four times, the only subject they ever talk about is toilet, so I don't mention it. But how about the shower? You go into a shower, and I have this beautiful head of hair. I need a lot of water. You go into the shower, right? You turn on the water. Drip, drip, drip. I call the guy, something wrong with this? No, sir. It's just the restrictor. So you're in there five times longer than you're supposed to be. You use probably more water. And it's a very unpleasant experience. Right? So we're getting rid of the restrictors, you're going to have full shower flow. You'll see. Did you ever go to the faucet, you turn on the faucet to wash your hands, and it turns on so easy. It's like this, you know, because there's zero pressure behind it, no water. You go like that the thing flips on and whoa. And then dunk, dunk. These people are crazy."

“Think of this, if we didn’t do testing, instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing we would have half the cases” Genius. Cases wouldn't exist without testing.

196203


"Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,"

-Trump. "I know words. I have the best words."
 
Last edited:
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
Screenshot_20200802-171048_Instagram.jpg
 
manifesto

manifesto

Well-known member
Awards
6
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
  • RockStar
"But sinks, toilets and showers. You don't get any water. They put restrictors on and now they made them permanent. People used to take them out. They put restrictors on. Try going and buying a new faucet. You turn it on, no water comes out. Right? We won't talk about toilets, but you know that's true. Ten, fifteen -- but we don't talk about that. Because I've said this three or four times, the only subject they ever talk about is toilet, so I don't mention it. But how about the shower? You go into a shower, and I have this beautiful head of hair. I need a lot of water. You go into the shower, right? You turn on the water. Drip, drip, drip. I call the guy, something wrong with this? No, sir. It's just the restrictor. So you're in there five times longer than you're supposed to be. You use probably more water. And it's a very unpleasant experience. Right? So we're getting rid of the restrictors, you're going to have full shower flow. You'll see. Did you ever go to the faucet, you turn on the faucet to wash your hands, and it turns on so easy. It's like this, you know, because there's zero pressure behind it, no water. You go like that the thing flips on and whoa. And then dunk, dunk. These people are crazy."

-Trump 2020. "I know words. I have the best words."
Trump would smoke Biden like a cheap cigarette in a debate....no doubt.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Trump would smoke Biden like a cheap cigarette in a debate....no doubt.
You can't compete with Trump logic.

"But if we did -- think of this, if we didn't do testing -- instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing we'd have half the cases. If we did another -- you cut that in half, we'd have yet again half of that."

How to solve homelessness: Stop counting homeless people. No counts, no homeless.
 
Last edited:

Top