All_Pro_Bills

The core issue with the mandates has nothing to do with science. It's politicians and bureaucrats that are co-opting science and medicine and selectively using it (while ignoring science that doesn't support their positions) as a pretext for issuing all kinds of draconian edicts and imposing multi-tiered social restrictions and increasing levels of authoritarian rule. And instituting some "collective" social doctrine that just doesn't exist in our system of laws and constitutional protections of the individual. Does anyone believe these restrictions are going to go away with the COVID pandemic ending? And in the process they have done great damage to the credibility and effectiveness of science and the medical community. The result is a large percentage of the population, some that were already distrustful, don't believe much of what is passed off as science. Especially when so much effort is made to suppress and silence ideas and experts that express views and insights that contradict the prevailing narrative. "Vaccines are safe and effective". So shut up and stop bringing up any other facts or ideas. Just do what we say or else. Under that context why trust the science? Look at how they totally trashed Ivermectin. What's the motivation for that? Its not science I can say for sure. Does it work for COVID? Personally I can't say but there is little doubt from officials in India that it was the "cure" that suppressed their Delta outbreak. But in the US its "horse de-wormer". Never mind its an approved FDA drug for several serious indications in humans. The suspicion this all creates is anything that's cheap, plentiful, and effective is a threat to the vaccine mandate and the people running policy. So the science gets trashed. The problem isn't the vaxed or the unvaxed, its the politicians ruining science and medicine for their own objectives and their suspension of the free thinking process of discovery through the scientific method. That's our common enemy - ignorance generated by politicians.

You preaching to an empty Church here. Nobody is defending Trump or his fiscal spending. And Biden's turning out to be no different. So what's the point? Neither party is fiscally responsible with the exception of when the other party is in power. My position is the Federal budget should be cut 50% and there should be a minimum tax rate of 12% on incomes over $400K, 15% on incomes over $1M, and capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as labor. Would either party support that?

Reality is nobody is making threats to school boards. If they were they'd be arrested by local law enforcement. This is just an exercise of democracy and free speech that school boards and the DOJ want to shut down. Parents are simply demanding accountability from school boards. Employees of the public school system. Parents are challenging their agenda and frankly these Marxists are just not used to being challenged when it comes to indoctrinating children. They're a lot easier to push around and bully than adults as these sensitive weak-kneed school board members are discovering. So the boards are crying "no fair". So now Comrade Garland is threatening to send in the Gestapo in an attempt to impose their authoritarian rule. Just remember the government is very good at committing acts of violence both internationally and domestically.

Or after 50 to 60 years controlling the federal government for the majority of the time along with control of blue state and city governments have spent trillions on programs that have led to incrementally small improvements in the lives of the inner city communities they claim to champion. They accept no blame for the lack of progress but rather assign it to systemic racism committed by people that have no power or control over anything. People that are themselves victim of the elite and powerful the left represents. Apparently they've learned well that keeping people down and dependent keeps them voting blue. And that's the real game here.

The solution to a problem creates a new problem. The hoax isn't that we need to lower carbon emissions by eliminating oil and gas consumption. The hoax is these green energy alternatives, solar and wind, will never ever replace the energy output, efficiency, reliability, and cost of oil and gas sources of energy. So either you need to develop another more efficient and cost effective alternatives, like zero point energy, commercial nuclear fusion, or something like harnessing the power of the Earth's magnetic field, or reach some breakthrough level in green energy source efficiency. If you don't then you need to resign yourself to the reality that life will be re-scaled smaller based on a lower level of energy availability. That's the hoax. Its not your carbon footprint that is going to be reduced, its your lifestyle and existence that is going to be reduced.

I suspect if the murder rate for activist journalists and intellectual Marxists started going up significantly they'd start to care.

Heavy rain and wind with temperatures in the 40's has been a mood killer in previous years too.

The irony here is that some posters claim other posters are members of some alt-right "cult" following that provides them with all their insights and ideas yet they have no self-awareness as it is they themselves that post the views of others and have no original ideas or thoughts of their own to share. Truth..

Agree. Bluntly the people running the operation are politically motivated liars that invoke "the science" when it suits their objective and ignore it when it doesn't. The only people not figuring this out by now are the 12 guys still watching CNN all day long. A few examples: The CDC advisory committee votes 18-2 on the scope of the booster shot and the CDC director overrules them and expands the scope. What does she know that they don't after a debate among 20 knowledgeable individual scientists and doctors performing what I expect was a detailed due diligence through a predictable and functional process they've used before? Nothing that's what she knows. Political BS Fauci gets asked questions about natural immunity and the vaccine mandate. He says its a good question that he hasn't really thought about. Big fat liar. Of course he's thought about it but the answer conflicts with his vaccine mandate push and scope so he chooses to ignore it. More political BS. Biden says the un-vaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated. The mantra is vaccines are safe and effective so how is that possible? So why are un-vaccinated people a threat if they work so well? I'm still waiting for that answer. The answer is they aren't as effective as they claim. More political BS. I suspect over time research will show the real truth is the vaccinated are a bigger threat to the un-vaccinated than the other way around.

If you believe that you should enter concussion protocol. This is by far the worst administration in the history of the country. There's not one thing they haven't FUBAR'd.

I'm not going to argue the perceived or actual benefits of the vaccines. I'm familiar with the clinical trial process and commercial pharma business and as it happens a couple of the vaccine manufacturers are contracted clients of my organization. Other parts of the organization generate daily stats and forecasts on COVID. So I know the data pretty well and much of what the CDC distributes is provided by us too. So I'm not arguing numbers or probabilities but i also have additional insights I'm hesitant to discuss for several reasons. And while the vaccines don't prevent you from getting sick, they don't prevent transmission, and the don't prevent the virus from replicating I'm not blaming the vaccines or their sponsors for that either. Its more about the complex nature of treatment, the coronavirus and the respiratory system. I should add one of the members of our team is a vaccine and immune system "expert" with 25 years experience in the field. I wish I could share her explanation of COVID and the immune system. Frankly it was the best explanation I've ever heard on the topic. Much better and detailed than anything out of the CDC, FDA, NIH, or anywhere else. And I didn't say all kids should be not be be vaccinated. I said the decision should be based on the specific circumstances and the individual child's personal health profile and condition. And a one-size-fits all approach is not the most effective approach. My objection to mandates boils down to one simple question. A question of accountability. If somebody dies or develops some life-threatening condition because of government or corporate vaccine mandates that apply force and coercion to obtain compliance to their authority are they going to be held accountable personally, professionally, financially, legally, or in any other way for adverse consequences? Because from where I sit if somebody is forcing me to do something they should also be accountable for the outcome. My guess is that's not how it works here.

I expect details of the language in the bill will provide members of the executive and legislative branches and wealthy large political donors an exemption from the account snooping..

OK. But I still think the one-size-fits all shot policy ignores the fact that "risk" is not evenly distributed in the under 18 population or for that matter in the population as a whole? So if the policy claims to be based on some sort of risk assessment it fails to account for a lot of specifics. Common fact is risk of death is heavily skewed towards anyone with specific co-morbidites and pre-existing conditions. My nephew for example, got COVID in the Spring of 2020, and had a tough go with it. But he has asthma. He's a prime candidate for additional protection from the vaccine at this time. But other kids without that or any other high risk condition are not. So the benefit of the vaccine and the mandate is of little to no good to them. And the risk from the vaccines some known and unknown both short and long are partially but not completely quantifiable. So if some kid has immeasurably close to zero chance of getting moderately, severely, or critically sick, and even less chance of hospitalization, and even less chance of death what's the benefit? Let's not ignore the fact the testing cycle here was extremely short and whether anybody wants to admit it or not its likely a lot of steps in the process got cut short or cut out completely. If the people in charge don't think the risk of longer term health problems from the vaccine are possible then why insist on liability waivers? Because you can site all the statistics you want until you're blue in the face but you still can't guarantee anything so don't insist on making decisions that risk other people's lives that are totally risk-free for you personally.

What I don't understand about these injuries that get revealed 2 or 3 weeks after the fact is how that applies to the reporting requirements for and violations of the weekly injury report. Aren't teams obligated by the rules to report all injuries? And shouldn't the Browns have reported that partially torn Librium on the injury report prior to the week 3 games?

Your entire argument for DC statehood, pursuit of democracy, is misleading. The objective is to produce two additional Democratic party affiliated Senators to provide a voting advantage in the upper house of Congress. Providing residents of the district with representation is of little concern and just a byproduct of the primary objective. If there was potential for the district's representatives to be affiliated with another political party you'd be raging against the idea. it makes no sense for advocates of the idea to be dishonest about the objective when everyone in the room knows what it is. To pad the Senate with politically allied Senators.

Your position here is based on a political fallacy. That fallacy being that Republicans solidly support the wealthy and Democrats oppose the wealthy in support of the middle and working class "little people". But if you look at a list of the largest political donors the list is split pretty evenly between the two parties. So the truth is both parties are beholden to the wealthy millionaire and billionaire campaign and party donor class. And neither is likely to present and enact any tax proposals that do meaningful harm to their largest donors. No biting the hand that feeds you is allowed in the world of big campaign donors. This perceived difference in the party candidates is one of the illusions created by the 1% and the political class. it provides the voters a false option that there is some fundamental difference between candidates. Rarely is this true. The other truth is they continue to fool most voters of both parties the fight between each other 100% of the time on a 5% difference between the core interests the major political parties. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2020&view=fc

So where do you draw the line on arbitrary withholding of care, medical ethics, acts of malpractice, and coercing patients into specific treatment options? It seems like a mean-spirited approach that says "if I hurt you enough I can get you to do anything I want you to do." And isn't that the basic weapon in the toolbox of mandate advocates? Sounds consistent to torture tactics to me.

But its perfectly okay for you to do the flip-flop pointing out the fiscal excesses of the previous administration but now be wildly in support of trillions in wasteful spending because the other party is currently in charge now? If so perhaps you refuse to see it but you are guilty of the same ideological inconsistencies as the people you soundly criticize. Or am I reading you wrong and you're against all these trillions in new spending and fiscal excesses regardless of which party is in control? If you do indeed oppose both I apologize.

Maybe if they spent less time thinking up ways to "game" the political system and more time in actual governance our country would be in better shape? Other than the Bills 3-1 start, everywhere you look is a raging dumpster fire..

The District of Columbia is a district. By definition it is not a State. It is the seat of the Federal government. While it has a local government structure it was established in this form consistent with the concept and understanding of the need for political considerations. It was set up as such for that specific reason and to provide certain limitations and powers. These reasons still exist. Everyone that lives in the district or moves there knows this. To the best of my knowledge being a resident of the District of Columbia is completely voluntary. If anyone feels so strongly about needing Congressional representation they can move to Virginia or Maryland or one of the other 48 State jurisdictions of the Republic and vote for the Senate or House candidate of their choice.

Until Dr. Fauci is no longer useful to the administration I expect he will stay put. This relationship seems similar to the consultancy model companies use when they go through periodic reorganization and force reduction activities. Management needs to make changes so they contract out to "experts" to assess and provide recommendations. "Sorry we had to eliminate your job or your organization but credentialed experts studied the situation and we need to act on their expert recommendations". Fauci provides similar cover as a credentialed medical expect. Sorry we had to lock you in your basement for 6 months but the experts told us that would be best and we need to follow the science. Plausible deniability. So they can say I'm not imposing draconian lock downs on you, its the science, as defined by experts. In truth what they are following is the subjective opinions of specific experts, while ignoring other experts and non-confirming facts that might differ, and not really science or medical facts.

I think it boils down to most people making a rational risk assessment of the situation and concluding the lock downs, restrictions, and political edicts are a bigger threat and risk to their social and economic well-being and safety than the virus.

I assume you are aware of this but the PCR test can also be inaccurate for identifying an active and transmittable case of COVID virus either. The result depends on the sample amplification rate or "cycle threshold" that is used in the test. A higher amplification level can produce more false positives. So when getting data on the number of positive PCR tests and new cases knowing the amplification level is necessary to interpret the data correctly but I understand most States don't require that information.

Perhaps the problem is simply a complete lack of self-awareness? Or is the administration discreetly being run behind the scenes by the previously employed GM's of the Houston Texans and the Buffalo Sabres?

The Deep State Establishment and the perpetual bureaucracy would insist you were a Russian asset, turn law enforcement and intelligence assets inside the government against you, plant false stories in the media which their agents in the press would run with 24/7, and hold hearings to uncover your misdeeds and the threat you posed to America.