Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. 12 minutes ago, Blotto said:

    Well when I replied, I had no idea what I was looking at as there was no context other than "3 month percent change", which doesnt imply "They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline". Now you have a link, but it doesnt work. so I still dont know what it shows. but I suspect you're still full of shit, because this chart, also from the BLS would not mesh with your claims.

    image.png.06fc2709c5c4c216699b37f4860af474.png

    Jesus.  I don't know how to do a link any different.  Try this https://data.bls.gov/search/query/results?cx=013738036195919377644%3A6ih0hfrgl50&q=laundry+equipment

    Then click on laundry.  Your chart above does not show what you think it does in relation to what we are talking about.  The BLS CPI clearly shows that the consumer price for laundry equipment was much lower one year after the tariffs were put in place and well before we had ever heard of Covid.  It further shows that as of today 11/2/2021 the average consumer price for laundry equipment is LESS than it was the day the tariffs were enacted.

    • Fuck You 1
  2. 14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    You're cherrypicking your data to pick out a local minima that is an outlier in the dataset. I am suggesting that the lumber tarrifs imposed materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic

    LOL. Based on what?  This is becoming bizzaro world.  The tariffs were imposed around May or so of 2017 at a rate of 20%-24% and the price of lumber at the time was about 385.  There was a spike in 2018 (not related to the tariffs) but from late 2018 up until the time that Canadian lumber mills cut production due to Covid which was March 2020 the price of lumber was fairly constant and under the price of 385 for more of the time than above.  You make statements that have no basis in reality.  How can you make a statement that tariffs imposed in May of 2017 "materially increased lumber prices up until the pandemic" when there were 18 months between that time from September 2018 until March 2020 where the average prices were actually lower than May of 2017.

    And a funny thing happened in 2018 when prices spiked due to increased demand.  The 4 biggest lumber companies in the US all opened new mills and spent half a billion dollars doing it.  Again, just like I said above, lots of things happen as a result of tariffs.  

    • Fuck You 2
  3. 1 minute ago, Blotto said:

    speaking of cherry picked data, your chart (with no citation) does not even show price, just rate of change of price. So if an item starts at $100, experiences a price change of 18% it is now $118. If the price then falls 5%, the price is now $112. When the spikes are larger on the increase side, prices go up. i shouldn't have to explain that, but I'm not sure you even understand what that graph illustrates.  God I hope you're not an econ grad with logic like that.

    Meanwhile I provided  a much more detailed look at actual prices, with an explanation of the mechanics behind those price movements which you fail to address. If you're going to claim that prices went down, provide data which verifies that (your chart does not). 

     

    How do you consider this a much more detailed look at pricing?  Your quoted says prices went up, initially, as a result of tariffs.  No one disputed that.  But then they went down.

    I added a link to my post.  I posted directly from the BLS CPI for laundry equipment.  Do you know how the CPI works?  It is not at all what you posted above.  They use a baseline price and then track the percentage that prices are higher or lower than the baseline.  Look at the graph.  Even accounting for Covid the consumer price index, as of today, is lower than it was before the tariffs were imposed.  The tariffs are still on and the price, even after massive surges due to covid shutdowns and supply chain issues is already below the price from pre tariff days. 

  4. 15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

    Is this for real?

    How about you point out what is incorrect?

     

    8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    sheeeeeit is cherrypicking and misrepresenting stats like a motherfucker (or at least mindlessly repeating whatever fox told him). Here's the actual raw data and not a trend tracker that obfuscated the data

    image.png.2fcf1d5f074f81f5a6aa3bd6c97b53c1.png

    Go figure! A lack of intellectual curiousity combined with repeating intellectually dishonest talking points.

    Cloak Room in a nutshell.  I have tried to be civil but you are just too fucking stupid to even know what you are showing.  This is what I posted:

    "We imposed 20% tariffs on Canadian lumber in April of 2017.  The spot price for lumber in April 2017 was 399.  In April of 2020 it was 282."

    Your graph shows EXACTLY that.  3 years after we imposed tariffs on lumber the price of lumber was much lower.  Shocking that in a global pandemic where production was shut down that prices increased.  Are you suggesting that lumber tariffs imposed in 2017 are responsible for large price spikes as a result of a global pandemic?

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 16 hours ago, immamac said:

    This is a strong post. You absolutely should pay taxes on any leverage against unrealized gains (even margin). If it just stays purely unrealized then it should not be taxed.

    Maybe you need to clarify this.  Are you saying that if someone takes out a loan against an asset, that the loan proceeds should be taxed as if they were income or that the asset used to collateralize the loan should be taxed at that point?  

  6. 14 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

    ?!?!?!??!?!?

    No offense, but you seem to have never taken an economics class.

    Huh?  You seem to be under the impression that tariffs are always paid by the country imposing them and always result in higher prices.  That is not true at all.  I mentioned a few up thread.  Look at Laundry Equipment.  We hit China hard on tariffs for washing machines in 2018.  The CPI for laundry equipment was down over 12% from the time of the tariff to pre covid in April of 2020.

    In most cases, small tariffs are absorbed by the importing company and price increases are not realized by consumers.

  7. 14 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

    How the fuck are the “poor” people going to get their refund if you’re taxing everything? They saving every receipt for every purchase o which they paid a sales tax and submitting that shit to the IRS to get their max refund? Seems super realistic. 

    No.  The tax refund is set based on income.  No receipts needed.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    This.  Asking the simple question of "who, ultimately, will pay for them?" tells you that.

    Import tax?  Cool.  The ultimate consumer (Joe and Jane America) pay that.  Property tax?  Everyone who resides in a property -- rent or own - ultimately pay that.   Sales tax?  Everyone pays that, and even with the "exempt the first $50k of income" approach, it falls heaviest on people who need to/typically spend most of their annual available cash on consumer spending (that is, most people who make under $500k or something like that).  Person makes $500k, spends $400k, they get "sales taxed" on $350k, so 70% of their income.  Guy with $100 million in assets uses the assets to give him $2 million in liquidity, but only spends $800k on consumption (the rest is spent on acquisitions of more assets, like real property and stock), gets taxed on $750k of his income -- 37.5% of his income.  We can keep going, but the bottom line is that pretty much everything listed is a regressive tax.

    Import Tax- You need to study this much more closely as tariffs do not automatically equal higher prices.  There have been lots and lots of studies on this.  The affect of demand is much more important as is the possible shift to domestic production.

    Look at one of the big ones people griped about- steel.  We put 25% tariffs on imported steel in mid 2018.  The tariffs went into effect immediately.  According to everyone here the cost of steel had to go up.  But it didnt.  It went down.  The spot price of steel in June 2018 was 4578 and in April of 2020 (right before covid hit hard) the spot price was 3300.  

    Solar panels had a huge tariff imposed in 2018 and we were importing 80% of them.  Prices were lower pre covid in 2020.

    We put pretty large tariffs on China and we import more machinery and equipment from China than anywhere else by a long shot.  The price of machinery and equipment had no spike in prices from 2018 to 2020.  In fact, the rate of price escalation (these items have gone up every year since the 60s) was lower in that period.

    We imposed 20% tariffs on Canadian lumber in April of 2017.  The spot price for lumber in April 2017 was 399.  In April of 2020 it was 282.

    IMO, a small 2% accross the board import tax would actually lower consumer prices over time.  Just like it did in the examples above.

    On the sales tax, everyone keeps ignoring all of the transactions that currently pay no sales tax.  You are a lawyer.  When you bill your clients there is no sales tax.  Why?  Insurance companies and large corporations pay the vast amount of legal bills in the US.  Why shouldn't they pay a sales tax on those transactions?  TMobile acquired Sprint for $26B.  No sales tax.  The lawyers and financial advisors and accountants made hundreds of millions in fees and none of them paid any sales tax.  Why?  You are so focused on nominal direct consumer spending that you miss the ocean.

    Property Tax- I have no issue if you want to make this tax more progressive.  Exempt the first $200K.  1/4% up to $500K.  1/2% up to $1M.  3/4% over that.  

     

     

  9. 6 minutes ago, landman said:

    So everyone's property taxes go up (or their rent if they lease), everyone pays more at the gas station, and everyone pays a federal sales tax.  And everyone pays more for consumer goods because prices will go up due to the import tax.

    Sounds like a plan.

     

     

     

    7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    whenever a wealthy person takes out a loan against assets with unrealized gains to extract value without paying taxes... they should pay taxes on that. This buy-borrow-die loop is only possible when you have enough capital to buy a huge asset like a business. They they borrow against the value of that company and get great rates because the underlying company is valuable - so rather than drawing a salary from the business, they "work for free" but still pull down huge liquidity. And then eventually they die, and use all the punch-outs in the estate tax code that trump made to pass those assets onto the next generation with no strings attached.

    Nice 2 minute explainer video in the spoiler if you'd care to watch it

      Hide contents

     

    Since you took the time to write something up, it'd be rude not to reply to each point

    1) a sales tax is an inherently regressive tax, and should NOT be used as a primary revenue generating source. It will adversely impact the poor and consume an even larger percentage of their wealth comparative to the ultra-wealthy.

    2) More tariffs always work out great. They worked out great the last time we tried them right? Since trade wars are so easy to win and all.

    3) Agree on the fuel tax increase, it hasn't changed in decades

    4) We should increase taxes on investment real estate, not homesteads. If you're the owner and it's your primary residence, such a tax would again only serve to benefit the large non-residential entities that are already fucking the real estate market for individual owners.

    5) Agree on a global corporate taxation structure. It's asinine to let corporations HQ'd in the US run roughshod over our government just because they can open an office in ireland or another tax haven nation.

     

    Spending is different for nation states that it is for individuals. The government's role in spending is to stimulate the economy and to increase monetary supply. It's necessary for a healthy economy, and helps to keep the balance of power in favor of we the people, rather than they the shareholders. 

    You should really consider the macro effects of the policies you prefer, since they'll only contribute to keeping the poor poor, and the wealthy wealthy.

    On the buy, borrow, die stuff you are talking about a tiny group of people but it really is just a tax delay and not an avoidance.  Eventually those loans are going to come due.  The loans don't magically disappear when they die.  At some point assets will have to be sold and, as a result, income generated to pay back the loans and that income will be fully taxed.  But this is just an example of how the super rich are always going to be smarter than the tax laws designed to target them.  

    1) Sales Tax- I think you missed the big picture and missed/ignored the part of the proposal where the lower income folks get a tax refund equal to or greater than the amount they paid.  Define poor wherever you want.  $50K?  $75K?  People under that threshold pay ZERO under this plan.  

    But the bigger picture is the trillions of dollars spent currently by corporate entities.  If XYZ Corp racks up $5M in legal fees a year, those fees are currently deducted from XYZ's earnings which lowers their tax burden.  However, under this plan that $5M in fees actually generates $100K in tax revenue.  That is not, at all, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Magnify this on every financial transaction.

    2) Imports- This is not a "trade war".  This is a cost to do business in the US and it applies equally to every single country that does business here.  Like I said, if other countries do the same thing to us then so be it.  We currently have big trade deficits so this is a win for the country.  It's only 2%.  Perhaps it will bring some businesses back to the US.  

    3)OK

    4) Real Estate- I'm actually not sure what you mean by "such a tax would again only serve to benefit the large non-residential entities that are already fucking the real estate market for individual owners."  If you could explain I will respond.  But homesteads have to be included.  Maybe exempt the first $150K.  In that scenario a home worth $300K would pay a whopping $375/year.  

    5) OK

    I really disagree with your last statement.  It is a much more complex issue and will never be adequately debated on here.  The Fed has many ways to stimulate the economy other than buying treasuries.  Many economists agree that in the long term, the effect of those purchases are negative. 

  10. Lots and lots of tax discussions and tax rates and Billionaires etc.

    I am opposed to a billionaire tax scheme because history and human nature has told us that the billionaires and their tax/money support people are much, much, much smarter than congress.  Once the legislation is enacted, they will simply figure out ways to avoid it.  As is typical (see ACA- Obama and Dems said the exact same thing about the cost for the program being "paid" for and now even they admit the program cost trillions) we are going to pass legislation and then spend the money but the revenue is never going to be as much as predicted.  As a result, the super wealthy won't actually pay for it, the rest of us will.

    However, I do agree that the wealthy could/should pay more in taxes but it has to be enacted in a way that they can not evade it.  You absolutely have to consider how any new taxes are actually going to be collected.  Congress does not care.  They pick an entity (in this case the super wealthy) who are a tiny fraction of the population and who the vast majority of the population don't feel sorry for at all (meaning they can pick on the super wealthy and not have any political blowback- its too fucking easy) and claim that group is going to pay for the new spending (it is "paid" for) when they absolutely know in their hearts that it won't work.

    I would keep the current tax rates where they are.  For certain the corporate rate and possibly raise the top rate to 40% on income over $2M.

    My solution is really simple and really easy to implement.  

    1) National Sales Tax with Tax Rebates- I would enact a 2% federal sales tax with zero exemptions.  Hard to get exact figures but our GDP is around $20T so 2% would raise about $400B.  The arguments that this would be a regressive tax have some validity so you can easily set an income level of say $50K and every filer at that limit or under gets a direct tax refund on their taxes of 2% of their income.  This would affect about 75 million tax payers.  If we assume an average refund for all 75 million of $700 (I used $35,000 as the average amount spent annually and 2% of $35,000 is $700) which is about $50B so the net is about $350B.

    Lots of hand wringing about the extremely rare group of people that borrow against their portfolios and the Bezos and Musks etc.  They can not avoid this.  Those people spend a lot.  

    2) Import Tax of 2%- Our imports total about $2.5T annually.  This raises another $50B.  There should be a cost to importers to access our free marketplace.  If countries put a 2% import tax on us then so be it.  

    3) Fuel Tax- The US uses around 170B gallons of fuel (gas, diesel, aviation etc) annually.  A $.50 fuel tax would raise $85B.  It would also have the effect of weaning the country off of gas.

    4) Real Estate- The combined value of US real estate (residential and commercial) is around $50T.  A federal 1/4% tax would raise $125B.

    5) Foreign Corporate Tax- I would leave the corporate rate exactly where it is right now at 21%.  Our tax rate for our businesses has to be competitive with the market in a global economy.  I would enact a plan where US multinational companies can realize and repatriate all of their profits back to the US for the exact same rate they are legally paying in whatever country they happen to be doing business in.  If Microsoft earns $100M in Ireland and Ireland's tax rate is 12% then Microsoft can bring those profits back to the US for 12%.  It is estimated US companies pay about $400B in foreign taxes annually.  

    The infrastructure to collect these taxes already exists and is in use.

    The total from these 5 items is a little over $1T annually.  

    Lastly, the only way this makes sense in the long run is if spending is kept in check.  Currently our taxes are approximately 32% or so of our GDP.  I would freeze these taxes at current rates.  I would then mandate that total government spending can not exceed 35% of GDP.  If you want/need more money then you have to grow the economy to get it.  So there is a % deficit on existing tax revenue.  With a $20T GDP that means a shortfall of $600B.  My plan raises an extra $1T so there would be a surplus of $400B which should be used to pay down the debt.  Even a modest $400B pay down would have a massive impact on the value of the dollar globally.

    If we get into a war or have a Covid issue or a bank collapse, then the govt would have to raise the percentages on the 5 items above to pay for it.  

  11. 26 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

    it was not your quote, it was from some article but in the body of your post.  just thought it was a little counterproductive that an "expert" brought in to share his opinion would confuse something pretty important to the situation.

    Understood and agreed.  Although in the case against AB, I don't think it matters if he was technically a producer or executive producer as he was, obviously, very involved and on the set.

  12. 15 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

    Top tax rate in the golden era of the 1950s was 95%. Pay your tax. 

    This is not specifically responding to you, Willfully Horn, but all of the people clamoring over the super high tax rates of the 50s and 60s.  This will never go over well here but what Reagan did was lower the high end tax rates while simultaneously getting rid of lots of tax deductions available only to the wealthy.  

    https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-taxes-eisenhower-1950s/

    The reality is that the top 1% of earners in the 1950s, where the top federal income tax rate never went below 70%) paid an effective tax rate of 16.9%.  Much lower than we have today.

    I think I'll start a new thread on a way to increase revenue for the govt.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  13. 21 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

    I think the McCloskeys violated everyone of these and got a speaking spot at the NRA's favorite political party's convention because of it. 

    Capture+_2021-10-31-15-06-08-1.png

    Well nobody died and they both plead guilty to lesser charges.  The fact that they became famous is amusing I suppose.  I think they are whackos.  

    • Haha 1
  14. On 10/28/2021 at 8:47 PM, henrygandorf said:

    producer, not exec producer.  an executive producer would likely never step foot on set and most likely would have zero knowledge of anything happening on the set.

     

    On 10/28/2021 at 11:30 PM, DDD Dad said:


    Forget it. He’s rolling.

    Perhaps but it was not my quote.  I was quoting an attorney specializing in entertainment defense law that was interviewed by Time magazine.  

  15. 4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Lovely. Typical. The above quote from you is what you bring up about criminal charges.

    Reconcile the bolded statements or call me a schoolmarm. Whichever is your intellectual speed.

    Umm...I made a prediction?  Making predications about whether the sun will rise are not really any fun.  Making predictions about things that most people realize, and even I think, are unlikely but I  just have a feeling might happen are more fun.

    And I stand by it.  How about a wager?  If AB is either charged with or pleads to a criminal charge in this case in the next 6 months you agree to a 30 day moratorium on posting on Surly.  If not, I will.

    The reason for my prediction is I think there is going to be tremendous pressure on the DA in this case, especially as more news comes to light.  There will be tremendous pressure from the victim's family.  There will be political pressure from those opposed to AB's views.  There will be tremendous pressure from film safety advocacy groups to make an example out of AB for running a loose set and ignoring standard/required safety guidelines.  I think at the end of the day the DA will be faced with the following:

    I think it will be clearly established that AB was an executive producer, co-writer, investor, leading actor and generally the one on set who was making all of the decisions.  It was supposedly his "passion" project and I think in depositions that virtually everyone on set will say that AB was in charge. Assuming that, there are just a lot of questions he is going to have to answer for.   

    1) As the one in charge, did you cut corners in your armorer/prop team? There is already a guy who has publicly stated he turned down the role of the armorer for the project because they were cutting too many safety corners and trying to rely on a scaled down team, especially for a "western" that involved a lot of guns. That is not going to help.

    2) Do you agree that live ammo should never be on a movie set?  Were you aware that people were using the prop guns for target practice with live ammo?  What action did you take to remove the live ammo from the set and what type of reprimands did you hand out to those that were shooting live ammo?  There are multiple reports of people using the prop guns for target practice.  The armorer has stated in an affidavit that no live ammo was allowed on the set.  The police have seized lots and lots of ammo.

    3) Were you aware that your stuntman had possibly 2 instances of a "cold gun" firing accidentally on set days before the fatal accident?  What did you do to address those issues going forward?  Did you fire anyone?  Did you institute stricter rules for the guns?  Did you mandate any safety meetings about gun safety after the mishaps?

    4) At the time of the actual shooting, knowing about all of the previous issues we addressed above (reports of target shooting and accidental discharges by your stuntman) did you put in place any additional safety protocols?  Why did you ignore industry safety and SAG rules about using live guns in a rehearsal?  Why didn't you personally check the gun in question yourself considering the problems that had already occurred?  Why did you point the gun directly at a human which is against every industry regulation? 

    The more I think about this the more I think he will be charged with something.  Of course much of this is entirely speculation.  But, just for fun, how about we stipulate that what I wrote above is all true.  If so, do you still think he won't be charged and do you think he should be?

    • Hook 'Em 2
  16. 2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.

    Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd. 

    Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.

    Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.

    This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.

    I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.

     

    2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

    You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?

    Lovely.  Typical.  Somehow my comment of a realistic chance at civil liability and a "it is possible, he has some criminal liability." gets turned into:

      "The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd."  Never did I even suggest that criminal charges were likely.  This is especially comical and unwittingly ironic coming from the guy that seems to think he is the self appointed schoolmarm of the board and negs anyone he thinks is lying or stretching the truth.  

    So I did a 5 minute google search and found 5 "legal experts" that are saying the exact same thing I am saying.  I suppose they might not have passed criminal law either (I certainly did not as I am not an attorney).

    I fully admit I have no idea who these people are except that they appear to be fairly well known lawyers, including a former US Attorney.  They, exactly like me, say AB would very likely not get prosecuted criminally for the actual act of the shooting (although they say it is possible) but much more likely in his role as producer on a set where, again if the stories are found to be true, there was intentional cutting of safety corners and disregard for safety procedures.  As I did more research, there are stories that AB's stuntman accidentally discharged a gun twice in the days leading up to the deadly shooting and that members of the crew sent notices about it to production folks, including Baldwin (and the notion that AB's stuntman could have accidentally discharged a supposed "cold gun" and AB not know about it is preposterous.)

    Neama Rahmani, from the personal injury firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, told USA Today that charges could be filed against Baldwin.

    “Let’s say it was loaded with a blank, but Baldwin himself was criminally negligent and shot it from close range, even though it wasn’t a live round. Then he could be held liable,” Rahmani said.

    “Assuming it was just incompetence or a colossal mistake, that rises to the level of criminal negligence, which would be sufficient for a manslaughter prosecution.”

    Rachel Fiset, managing partner of Los Angeles firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman, said the issue goes beyond Baldwin.

    “Proper compliance with safety issues on the set will be a large, general question that will be asked that may have a huge impact on any potential legal matters that may come from this case,” she said.

    “And then on the worst side of the scale, you could have potential criminal issues that would range from criminal negligence to intentional acts that may have caused this tragedy.”

    "There's certainly a chance that the authorities say this was such a dangerous operation that whoever's in charge, including the producer, are somehow criminally liable," Ring says, although he adds, "That's a much more difficult case to prove. We're talking about intent."

    Albuquerque criminal-defense attorney Erlinda Johnson tells PEOPLE involuntary manslaughter charges could potentially be brought — including against Baldwin. "Whoever handles the firearm has a duty to check it for any live rounds," says Johnson. Beyond criminal liability, she adds, "there's a lot of civil liability here. It's going to be a nightmare for [people involved with the movie]."

    US attorney Joseph Costa suggested this week that Baldwin himself could be charged because of his producer role in the film.

    ‘As an executive producer, you are in a position of control and you can get prosecuted criminally,’ he said.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
      Reveal hidden contents

     

    It appears that some "gain of function" type research occurred in China, once removed from Wuhan, through a grant once (or more) removed from NIH via EHA, and that research was discovered likely after its occurrence by several years (we KNOW it was reported this year, there's an allegation that it was reported earlier and the allegation is self-serving).

    Anastasis is correct that the oversight is lacking and that needs correction.  And I have questioned the use of third-party grant administrators like EHA from the get-go.  And they need to be either eliminated or overseen more carefully. But it is far from proven that "Fauci lied."

    Also, that CNN stuff is bizarre.  The CNN doc says that GOF research wasn't "intended."  That's a weird way to put it.  A more blunt way to put is is the NIH didn't fund GOF research, but some people downstream went off the reservation and did it anyway.  Maybe there was some kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge going from one research entity to another to EHA back up the chain to Fauci.  That's probably never going to be proven, so we can speculate about that until we're blue in the face.  Seems more straightforward to assume that Chinese researchers, half a world away, were gonna do whatever the fuck they wanted with whatever money they got from whomever, and were confident that PRC would cover them.

    The whole Fauci thing is just another, more plausible, fucking conspiracy theory.  I'm so goddamn sick of conspiracy theories.

    I won't take the time to correct your inaccuracies in the above but I will certainly respond to this being a conspiracy.  It is not a conspiracy at all with regards to Fauci.  Read his sworn testimony.  He was adamant and indignant that anyone would suggest that any money from NIH went towards GOF.  But he knew some money was going to the Wuhan lab and he knew that they were doing GOF research in that lab.  As mentioned previously, the head researcher at Wuhan (the "bat lady") has not only talked about it and admitted it in the past but she published her findings.  No one was even hiding it.  They were proud of it.  Fauci is certainly not dumb.  Of course he knew that type of research was being done in Wuhan.  When the pandemic broke he was in complete and total damage control as to the origins.

    What Fauci should have said if he was truly an apolitical medical guy is that "the NIH did not intentionally make any specific grants that went directly to GOF function research but money did go indirectly to a lab in Wuhan that was actively conducting GOF research and perhaps that was a mistake and the fact that a global pandemic involving bat coronaviruses appears to have started in the same town where the world's most active research on bat coronaviruses and GOF research is located that it should be fully investigated".  

    • Like 1
  18. 13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    So wait, you're opposed to vaccine mandates in some way, but if we are going to do them, they need to be everywhere?

    You do realize that the federal government probably lacks the jurisdiction to mandate vaccines everywhere for everyone?  The "labor" mandate through OSHA is about as broad as it can get.

    Yes I am aware of that.  My guess is that even the OSHA related mandate will not stand when challenged legally.  But why do it in the first place?  If it truly is about safety and trying to stop/slow the spread (and I believe that is a big part of it but that politics is also at play) then why not mandate vaccine shots for Afghan refugees or tens of thousands of illegal immigrants at the southern border?  The hypocrisy and ineptness are staggering.  The OSHA angle was just some half baked attempt at doing something that dems can use to campaign on and repubs can campaign against.  It hasn't really moved the vaccination rates at all but is has certainly further angered the country.

    Further, every single state has an equivalent for OSHA for smaller businesses.  Why no pressure on them from Biden?  Biden can apply tremendous pressure via the Fed purse.  If they really wanted a nationwide mandate they could get there.  Virtually every person in the US either uses federal services or benefits from federal services in some way.  Threaten to cut those off for the unvaccinated.  That is if they are really serious about this

    It is just another example of having no real clue of what to do.  Always reactionary.  Always something super easy.  It just doesn't seem that anyone in the admin really wants to actually work or actually solve a problem.

    • Fuck You 1
  19. Really tragic situation.  Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident.

    I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.

    Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets.  Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules.  However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety. 

    Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not.

    From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film.  If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace.  If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc.  There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including:

    1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie)

    2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie)

    3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint)

    4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors.

    5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using.

    6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire.

    From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy.  The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed.  I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis.  Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability.  However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability.

    From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

    I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
  20. Also, concerning vaccines, I and my entire extended family and friend group are vaccinated and I think the people not getting vaccinated (obviously unless a doc tells them it is dangerous due to some condition) are misguided.

    On the mandates, I suppose I am generally against a medical mandate but I certainly understand the argument and dont feel too strongly about it.  At the very least, in this case, the government isnt asking anyone to do something that they haven't already done to themselves.  However, the Biden mandate is just so typical of government ridiculousness.  Almost a text book example.  Mandating some people without mandating all people is just useless.  

    And I can not believe that with all of the virtue signaling and bad mouthing and hatred and everything else that the majority of this board has directed at those americans who refuse to get a shot, not one of you, that I can find, has even commented on the fact that the Biden Admin is releasing tens of thousands of immigrants into US cities every single day that are Covid positive and they are NOT mandating vaccination.  It truly boggles my brain.  The whole way this admin has handled immigration is reprehensible but you would think that when we are firing teachers, cops, nurses, firemen etc that at a fucking bare minimum we would vaccinate illegal immigrants before we release them into the country.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
  21. 48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    brietbart, eh? The publication whose owner is currently facing criminal contempt of congress for refusing to testify in relation to his hand in planning and executing the January 6th insurrection?

    GIF by FOX International Channels

     

    39 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Breitbart also tried to pay the attorney for one of Roy Moore's victims $10,000 to drop her as a client and publicly denounce her accusations as a lie. They're as trustworthy as Baba is intelligent.

    Typical from you two bozos.  The link provides the actual video of the Tapper interview.  Even you two mensa candidates arent going to suggest that the video is altered are you?  

    Just another reason this place is declining.  On a politics board and a topic about Fauci and Covid I link to a Jake Tapper interview on CNN with one of their Covid medical specialists (specifically because anything from a medical expert on a network you guys don't like is disregarded) and it is alternately called spam and untrustworthy simply because the first link that showed up in a google search was from Breitbart.  Hacks.

    https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cg/date/2021-10-25/segment/01

    You didn't bother to watch the video so I doubt you will read the transcript but here it is.  Direct from CNN.  

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  22. 58 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

    Newsnetdaily.com, huh?  I'm with DDD Dad here ...

    tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg

     

    Lulz.  I think you guys should be nicknamed ostriches.  This is from an interview with Jake Tapper of CNN and one of their go to Doctors on Covid.

    Here is a link with the actual interview.https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/10/25/cnns-reiner-nih-funded-research-that-caused-virus-to-gain-function-but-faucis-testimony-is-true-because-that-wasnt-the-intent/

     

×
×
  • Create New...