Orlando Buffalo

I find it odd that a person who claims to be a lawyer does not realize that when someone admits they put a gun in your face you have the right to self defense. Why are some so invested in this kid going to jail?

You mean the fact that the prosecution has not proven his guilt? You are the one who insinuated he was guilty because he was charged, so why don't you explain what you feel has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt- the way our system works.

Yes like Covid started in a lab, that the vaccine wanted in under a year, that masks outside are not helpful, that Invermectin is a drug that won a Nobel prize for use on humans. All of these are debunked and only stupid right wingers believe them.

You literally must be the worst lawyer in the world if you need me to explain "innocent until proven guilty". It is the basis of our judicial system.

Nothing is funnier than being called anti vax when I have the Covid shot and just got my flu shot yesterday. I am all in on vaccines to protect people, just not forcing them. Anything else you got to throw or you ready to just drop trying to call me childish name?

So your argument is that since he is on trial he is guilty? Have you watched any of it? Or paid any attention? He was dumb but as you have proven time and again that is not a crime.

So to his crime is that he was Kenosha? Or because he was there with a gun? I assume you don't live were violent protests happen but if you did I bet you feel differently. If a violent protest started in my neighborhood the protest would end with first act of violence because the perpetrator would be dead from a whole lot of people shooting them. I think Kyle is stupid for being there but without being attacked nothing bad happens to him or the others. The actions of the others caused him to fire in self defense. He is not the "faultless" but in this instance he is not guilty of murder or anything of the sort.

So you are arguing that the Kyle is the problem here, not the violent rioters? Or did I miss a large portion of an argument and this is a tangent?

So your point is that in less than a minute I could look at the math and recognize something was not proper? It is not dismissing the vaccine it is simply recognizing the limitations and being honest. Also since I am vaccinated I am not antivax- you simply disagree with anyone who shows how bad you are at math.

And once again you cherry pick the data. If this data was as far reaching as you claim then the danger to be 12-15 year old is similar to that of a 60-90 year old and it is safest to be 90+. I am not stating this is fake data but it is not indicative for everything we know unless you believe that a 12 year old in Israel is in as much danger as a 80 year old and that 45 year olds are twice as likely to have a severe illness than a 90 year old. Something with this data is goofy.

Why are you so obsessed with me? And why do you keep using childish taunts? I realize now you literally have no concept of hazard rates or any understanding of the statistics you present. I have been right and the stats keep backing me up.

The fact that I misinterpreted the scope of the trials does not change the fact that EVERYTHING else I have said is correct. If I had simply contained my initial assessment of the data to high risk people I would have correct, because the data was only on high risk people. Your clinging to my one mistake because if sucks for you that you have tried to mock me relentlessly but i have been right. You posted the data that shows I am right and then tried to argue that a hazard rate of .42 is good. Seriously stick with calling me an anti vax apologist and stop pretending you understand the stats.

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. Just one more time that shows I was correct about high risk individuals. The math in August has not changed, I just understood it where you did not.

And you go back to lying about me, since the science has said since August that for high risk people at 6 months have lost most of the protection. Needing the booster at 6 months proved my point, the fact that I understood the math and you did not does mean I made a crazy prediction, it means I understand math. You are literally right now arguing that you should get boosted despite it working well, how dumb would that be?

This game was the worst because of the 8 most important plays 6 of them were all by the officials. The One interception and the one long pass are the only exception. I think those officials were simply in over their heads.

I did not understand the math in August but my point happened to spot on? Thank you also for admitting you were lying since early September about me. If you want to call me an anti-vaxx apologist go for it, I will defend adults rights to make their own decisions for them and their children. You somehow don't know about the damage government has done to people when they have been wrong about things ( I will point to ethanol as one that comes readily to mind) before.

The source of his disagreement is that he has been wrong the whole time. I misread one study as far as scope, he misinterpreted what it meant in totality. He even admitted I was correct and he has been lying a couple of post above here, pretending it is not what I was saying for months now.

Cherry picking would have been only discussing the .87 because it works for much less than half, but I pulled that from what you sent me so it must be valid. I do appreciate your continued lying about me, it makes you seem desperate. If you look at the data he references the drop from month 6-8 is precipitous. He is just attacking because I misunderstood a study that was focused on elderly and thought it was overall. Since then everything he has said has turned out be wrong so he still focused on my self admitted mistake back in August.

the article you linked to shows hazard rates starting at between .14 and .11 and at end of 6 months it is from .42 and .87- which by any standard is a huge change. I assume you understand that even the .42 is not a strong defense at 6 months.

Once again you lie because it is all you have- I have stated literally for months that I was referring to high risk people, you know that but have to continue the lie. What should expect from an admitted Pfizer employee besides this though?

Are you arguing there is a running back in the league that would have done well this week behind that line? Your point that we don't run is not an indictment of the RBs but an indication of our play calling. Mark Ingram is 4th in rushing right now for the whole league because running is not a focus for the majority of the league.

The backs are not great, the line was horrendous yesterday. They are not equal or similar problems. If the line is fixed the running game will be fine. The running backs can't fix the line.

I know they are not HOF type guys but the line is the problem. Barry Sanders could not make yards with line as it played yesterday

Nice job of not answering the question at hand. This is why no one here takes you seriously. I asked a direct question, and you then lie and don't answer it.

You actually think that we are boosting a vaccine that is fully effective? We boost all of the other shots when the effectiveness wanes but this one is being boosted just to extra special sure.