Jump to content

SectionC3

Members
  • Content Count

    4,339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,675 Excellent

About SectionC3

Recent Profile Visitors

1,450 profile views
  1. You keep on conflating danger with efficacy. The drug is useless with respect to COVID. Everyone knows it. Most people accept it. But not you. Instead, when your dear leader touted it as a silver bullet approach to the pandemic, you doubled down. And then doubled down again. And then doubled down some more. So today we’re in a spot where you cling to junk science and deflect to conceal the fact that you were dead wrong in this issue. The scientific community doesn’t support you, boss. You can name call and belittle, but you can’t win on the science. Maybe on fake
  2. Good thing you quoted from paragraph 250. Did you bother to read the preceding 249 paragraphs?
  3. 1. You’ve conceded that HCQ has side effects. That’s a good start. 2. Let’s see this single study on which you — but not the relevant scientific community, I note — rely. 3. At bottom you advocate for taking a drug with known adverse effects but, in the COVID context, no demonstrable benefit — save, allegedly, for this single, isolated study to which you refer. That is, although there literally is no benefit to the ingestion of the drug in this context, and still a concomitant threat of risk, you say it should be taken for this purpose. It’s a ludicrous position
  4. And today, we know that the drug doesn’t improve COVID-19 outcomes but still carries side effects. It’s a loser in this context. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but the fact is that you (and others, to be sure) were blinded by fealty and continued to advocate for the use of that drug in this context for political, not medical or scientific, reasons.
  5. Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow. Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID.
  6. Maybe Doc is helping him write it. Should be good. Principal focus will be on including equal parts HCQ with fluoride in our water supply to combat such things as COVID, TDS, and cooties. Only the finest for Team Trump.
  7. Start on page 56. They say it better than I ever could. Enjoy your evening, Chef Jim Crow. https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Sixth-District-of-the-AME-Church-v.-Brian-Kemp.pdf Who wanted people to die? Probably the fools who believe that squirting Lysol on our lungs to stop COVID was such a good plan that they deferred to fealty and refused to speak against it. Seriously. And he better secure the Colorado/Mexico border ASAFP.
  8. You have a weird thing about calling people pedos. Very strange. Maybe you could come up with a new hoaxy insult. Chef Jim Crow with the mic drop. Hilarious. Better than choking on HCQ.
  9. No. More judges = likely more cert grants and definitely fewer opinions/judge. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with court packing (any more comments like the one yesterday from McConnell may change that view), but there's no dispute that more judges = obvious ability to increase volume.
  10. Says the “Doc” who spent months insisting upon the efficacy of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment. Have another gnaw on that giant block of HCQ, sir.
  11. More HCQ logic here. Some guy who is registered in the same political party as me did something reprehensible 20 years ago, and I had absolutely nothing to do with that misconduct. But because of that registration, I, as part of the “left,” have no moral high ground to say that anyone who is not a member of said political party has engaged in reprehensible behavior. If only that was the end of the stupid logic. Now, it is implied that the sitting president is a pedophile based on what I understand to be anecdotal illustrations in which he is a bit too touchy with people by pre
  12. I’ll give you the thumbnail sketch on the flat tax. Somebody who makes $50k/year in taxable income pays, say, 17% in tax on dollars 1 through 60,000. Right now, it’s a graduated scale (kicks in at about 10% on dollars about 10,000 through around 40,000, then rises to 12% on dollars 40,001 and 60,000. Or thereabouts. I don’t have the tax code in front of me.). I use the 17% figure because I believe that’s what Steve Forbes proposed years and years ago. Now, let’s examine what the person who makes $1m year would pay. Under the current structure, their tax hit would be the s
  13. So you’re absurdly rich then, too? Too much time hanging out with Steve Forbes if you believe in the flat tax theory. Who does that benefit the most? Rich folks. Really, really, really rich folks. To the detriment of most to the people who will read this message.
  14. Good point. Grab 'em by the . . . never mind. So, bottom line time. A Democrat did something reprehensible over 20 years ago, so Matt Gaetz and everyone else registered in a rival political party gets a free pass to do similarly reprehensible things. Makes. Perfect. Sense. There you go again with your HCQ logic.
×
×
  • Create New...