Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. No way. CNN medical expert saying pretty much exactly what I was saying. What a fucking farce. He admits readily that Wuhan was doing GOF research on bat coronaviruses and that they were successful. But since it was not the stated "intent" in the wording then Fauci was telling the truth. So a leading medical expert for CNN admits publicly that Wuhan was doing GOF research on bat coronaviruses and was successful at it. A worldwide pandemic ensues from a mutated bat virus with origins in Wuhan but we are to believe it probably came from natural occurrences. OK https://newsnetdaily.com/nih-funded-research-that-caused-virus-to-gain-a-function-but-faucis-testimony-is-true-because-that-was-not-the-intention/ Reiner said, “I think it’s important to understand the intent of the research and the effect of the research. So, the aim of the research was to understand whether certain advanced bat coronavirus proteins could infect human cells, and the way they experimented was, they took a well-known bat coronavirus. called WIV1 and they added to that another peak of bat coronavirus protein, and they gave it to mice modified to have the receptor, the ACE-2 receptor that humans have that the virus uses to enter. human cells. And what they found was, yes they could, these advanced proteins could get into human cells, but they also noticed that the enhanced virus was more virulent then. “ He continued, “So they proved that these spike proteins could get into human cells, but in doing so, they made the virus they were using more lethal, basically. The mice were sicker. So, yeah, the net effect was to gain depending for the virus they modified, but it does not appear, at least from the documents provided by the NIH, that this is the intention of the research. So to my Opinion, Dr Fauci and his colleagues answered honestly.It has to do with intention, then effect. I especially like this quote: "What if the NIH came out and – or Dr Fauci or Dr Collins, months ago, and in response to these attacks from Republican members of the Senate – especially Rand Paul – explained this difference between the intent of the research and the effect and really describes that kind of nuance, I think the public would understand, and it doesn’t look like the NIH has somehow withheld any information. But that becomes the effect of a lack of clarity at the start. So I think in the end Tony Fauci was truthful, not shrewd in his testimony. “ These guys do not even understand what they are saying. So according to this guy, Fauci should have given a nuanced answer and that the public would have understood but Fauci chose not to so he was actually truthful and not shrewd. Its total bullshit.
  2. This is really too fucking stupid for even you and some others here to post. That "last line" nonsense is just ridiculous. To Anastasia's point, these people are just covering their asses. Understand what they are saying. They are saying a combination of 2 things 1) the language in the grant said they were not doing GOF research in a manner that was possibly technically correct (however a rose by any other name would smell as sweet) and 2) their insistence that the actual research does not have the same particulars as Covid is based entirely, 100% on the samples provided to the scientific community by China and the Wuhan Lab and even the highly politicalized WHO has said publicly that China has refused any direct investigation into the lab. I'll go slow for you. Covid becomes a world pandemic. Wuhan is doing hundreds of different experiments on bats with viruses that are not transferable to humans without some sort of mutation. The leading figure at Wuhan and probably the leading figure in the world, Shi Zhengli, has boasted in medical journals for years about her research and the ability to take bat viruses and modify them to be susceptible to humans. Suddenly Covid breaks out and it is a world crisis. Then China, and only China, determine which samples were sent to the international community for inspection. China sends out samples that are analyzed by scientists and they say they are not related to Covid. But, of course, China is not going to send anything that would implicate them. These denials by NIH and WHO and all of these scientists are only relevant if they received every sample possible from Wuhan which the WHO has already said repeatedly that China will not provide. Further, it seems pretty settled at this point that the bat virus originated in Yunnan. Yunnan Is several thousand miles from Wuhan (think New Orleans to San Francisco). For the transmission to be from bat to some other animal to humans to be true then the bats in questions, which do not exist in Wuhan, an animal had to be infected in Yunnan and then travel thousands of miles without infecting anyone along the way until it just happens to get to Wuhan where there exists a lab that is the leading lab for bat coronaviruses being studied in the world, where the head of that agency, Shi Zhengli, has boasted of doing GOF research and published successful GOF research in medical journals, and we are to believe that is what happened. It is preposterous. Of course I do not think the scientists testing samples are lying or are stupid. But they have zero idea that they have received the actual samples that were being manipulated in Wuhan. I do not think, at all, that the Chinese specifically manipulated the virus or were in any way working on some new biological weapon. But they have admitted in public for years that they are working on GOF research in bat coronaviruses. Perhaps we will never know but the lab leak theory, imo, is absolutely the cause. Just a mistake. As to Fauci, there is no question he knew what was happening. He covered his tracks pretty well with the paperwork but he knew GOF research was being conducted at Wuhan. He is very precise when he talks about it by saying nothing that the US funded was to those GOF projects. When the outbreak occurred, imo, he knew there was likely going to be severe backlash against this type of research, GOF, so he tried to immediately turn the discussion away from it. I honestly think Fauci and his cohorts thought/think that GOF research is/was worth the risk. I think they felt the research could help prevent outbreaks in the future. As to the origins and their significance, those of you saying it doesn't matter or making ludicrous analogies are just showing yourselves to be the uber partisan hacks that you are. Of course the origins are important. They are important first and foremost so that the medical community tasked with controlling the outbreak no where to start. If the virus was modified, then it would absolutely be critical to know exactly how it was modified in order to know the best way to approach a vaccine or similar. There are also massive geopolitical implications. China is going to be a force the world has to recognize for the foreseeable future. Many of the sociological issues we are facing that almost all of you are worried about (climate change, human rights, pollution, war, spying, technology stealing etc) are going to be tied to China. If China was responsible for the outbreak, even if it was by accident, their covering up of their actions will give the world tremendous, almost unprecedented, geopolitical pressure to wield on China to get them to comply with world issues. The implications are massive.
  3. I have gone back and watched it in as slow a motion as I can and I do see partly what you see. But it certainly looks to me that the in the initial contact between the LB and the OU guy that the OU guy had his hands in the chest of the LB. He was driving him. The OU guys hand doesnt seem to get to the back shoulder of the LB until the LB tries to spin. It is maybe a grey area but I doubt that gets called holding even 2% of the times it occurs. Lets not forget it was the exact same fucking play they scored on previously and the LB still let himself get blocked out of the play. Zero anticipation or awareness. He doesn't even try to get outside of the block either time. Watch both plays. When the LB sees #9 heading for him exactly as he did before in the exact same formation, the LB has to get outside of the block to stop the runner or at least slow him down. But he just lets the blocker run right up to him. That is bad defense. There are crucial missed calls in every game but I dont think that was one of them. It was also a damn fine designed play that OU executed perfectly.
  4. The amount of forest in the US has pretty much remained the exact same since 1900.
  5. I have a good friend that is in the front office with the Diamondbacks. We were together a few weeks ago and he was showing me the technology for calling balls and strikes. He said it will most likely be implemented in MLB in 2 to 3 years. The biggest drawbacks right now are the accuracy issues first. It currently has about a 95% accurate rate. Which is probably better than the umpires. The other issue is getting the technology to adjust to strike zones. Altuve should not have the same strike zone as Aaron judge. Essentially, they are going to have to formally determine the strike zone, like from the knees to speak nipples. And then measure every single player so that their individual strike zone can be used for their individual at bat.
  6. I was curious about this so I checked. I started with OUs first 2 playoff appearances and then stopped because it appears you are dead wrong. In 2015 against Clemson OU had zero holding penalties. In 2018 against Georgia they had zero holding penalties. I’m sure it will be unpopular but if you watch the last TD where someone did a screen shot above, I actually do not think it was holding. The OU guy ran up to the Texas defender and the defender really did nothing to get away. He didn’t turn him or try to swing his arms to get free. He just allowed himself to be blocked out of the play. Just bad defense.
  7. I don't disagree, and this is way off topic but I still believe the vast amount of people are good. I dont think the percentage of people who "act without regard for others" is any bigger today than in 1941. We just live in a time where everyone has a platform. There have always been crazies on the fringes but for some reason we have chosen to respond to the crazies as if they are mainstream.
  8. Within hours of the attack people were blaming Roosevelt and spreading conspiracy stories about every little thing. Many politicians still did not want to engage in the war. The difference is they didn't have twitter or a Cloak Room. Human nature doesn't change. We are still the same.
  9. sheeeit

    Explain this

    Lots of non informed posts on this topic. It is a tough topic to truly get an understanding of. To the OP- Such a bullshit meme when the facts are known and typical of those that piled on before knowing any of the facts. The reality of many, if not most, of these types of claims (racial motivation in sentencing) is just not true based on the facts. https://www.jud12.flcourts.org/Portals/0/News/Documents/Final-Response-SHT-Article/Final_response_to_bias_on_the_bench.pdf#page=19&view=fit This is a decent read if anyone cares about the truth. The Sarasota Herald Tribune series of articles (which started all this) demonstrates a really big problem. The reporter's have a preconceived idea of what is happening and then actively look for the most egregious cases they can find to put in print. When the cases are actually fact checked the SHT reporters look like fools at best case and intentional race baiting liars at worst. They looked really hard to find examples of cases that proved their theory but could not actually find any. That is incredibly telling. It certainly suggests that the narrative is false. To the prison issue, there really are no great answers. Interestingly from the article above, the black defendant in one case did receive the kind of training/rehabilitation that some of you are saying doesn't exist. It does exist and not just for juveniles but the prisoner has to pro actively seek out the help. From the article: "Records indicate that, upon entry into the Youthful Offender and EDP programs, Sturgis accomplished significant achievements, including but not limited to: completing the Victim Impact Awareness Program, completing the Anger Management Program, earning his General Equivalency Diploma (GED), receiving a Certificate of Exceptional Achievement in the Toastmaster Communication Program; receiving a Certificate of Competency in Masonry Industrial Safety Standards; and achieving “Helper” level in a masonry vocational program which prepares inmates to find work in the construction industry." Those programs are needed, are just, are deserving etc. However, in this particular case, the defendant was rearrested two years later for robbery/grand larceny and will likely go back to prison for much longer. No one really knows what to do with people that make a mistake and then get the necessary help they need but wind up committing more crimes. Fatty may be right that long prison sentences for these folks (habitual offenders that have successfully completed rehabilitation programs) should happen. It is a tough call for sure. Recidivism rates are also a highly misrepresented stat. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/10/why-do-so-many-prisoners-end-up-back-in-prison-a-new-study-says-maybe-they-dont.html The reality is that approximately 67% of people that enter and leave prison never return. Virtually every prison has rehab programs. And, more importantly, after a minimum of time served in one prison, if the prisoner has been good, they have the option to transfer to a facility that has better rehab programs. No one would argue that prisons are very good at administering their rehab programs, they are not, but the programs exist. The war on drugs is difficult to blame for most incarcerations as some seem to think. I think the laws are misguided and think most drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized. That is another debate. But drug offenses (possession and trafficking) only account for 14% of prison populations. https://felonvoting.procon.org/incarcerated-felon-population-by-type-of-crime-committed/ Violent crimes (murder, assault, robbery, rape etc ) make up 55% of inmates and property crimes make up 17%. Total of 71%. Obviously, many of those crimes involve drugs in some capacity but it is simply untrue that drug users are filling up prisons. And there are essentially no people in prison for first time simple possession or use of any drugs (cocaine, meth, heroin etc.) It is 0.9%. https://www.hudson.org/research/11851-criminal-justice-reform-and-drugs-myths-and-facts The reality is that we are a huge country. There are around 180,000,000 million people between 15 and 60. There are about 1,200,000 people currently in a state or federal prison. 0.65%. I would argue most deserve to be there. Human nature would argue that we should have a larger number in prison.
  10. I also remembered this gems by my old buddy Frondren Road: FR "Cheesecake Factory prices are exactly the same in Austin and Seattle." I just did a little research (I checked current menu pricing for Austin's Cheesecake versus Seattle's on a Mojito, chicken taqueros, ceasar salad and classic burger) and Seattle's prices average 18% higher.
  11. Somehow I missed this little gem of a post and since one of my original posts was used in the OP I feel like responding. Anyone can go read the exact quotes but I expected the following: 1) There would not be an overall loss in employment in Seattle in most sectors because the white collar jobs influx was/is fantastic. Seattle could absorb the wage increase better than most communities. This is exactly what has happened. Employment numbers in Seattle are up double digits since 2014. 2) There would not be losses in employment in the fast food/hospitality industry because the minimum wage increase hit all of them the same but prices would increase significantly compared to neighboring areas. This is exactly what happened. Today an average FF meal in Seattle is $10.30 versus $9 in neighboring Bellevue. In almost every other category, Bellevue is more expensive than Seattle and has an overall higher cost of living than Seattle but not for Big Macs. 3) There would be a loss of manufacturing jobs, especially those manufacturers that sold their products outside of Seattle. The wage/cost increase to them but not their competitors would cause businesses to move or close. This is exactly what happened. Since 2014 employment totals in every single industry tracked by the BLS in Seattle (hospitality, energy, education, finance, professional services, health services, IT etc.) have had 3-5% year over year growth (exclusive of Covid but the percentages are the same). Over that same time period Manufacturing in Seattle had 3-5% year over year losses. FYI, overall manufacturing in Washington state as a whole is up 1-2% year over year since 2014. I am not opposed to minimum wage increases based on some dumb idea of "pulling yourself up" or "making better decisions etc". I am opposed to it because it doesn't help the people it is designed to help, those making low wages, but it does increase costs for everyone else. It is a fools effort that politicians love. All economists (conservative or liberal) agree that arbitrarily increasing wages will lead to inflation (obviously assumes no govt price caps or something similar). We would be much, much better off as a society and the people affected would be much, much better off if we would put more resources into training and education than arbitrarily raising min wages.
  12. Great topic and, mostly, great responses. Apologies in advance but this is going to be long. I will try very hard not to make this political but it certainly has to have some bearing on the discussion because any viable solution/mitigation will have to include a political aspect. I have thought about this a lot and I have an actual plan that would make this problem, the over abundance of kids in foster care, shrink dramatically but it is certainly controversial. And the same people who act all indignant about the situation and blame everyone else are almost universally the same people who contribute to the majority of the problem. The only true way to mitigate this problem is to come at it almost exclusively from the angle of what is best for the newborn versus what is best for the birth mother. If you look at the demographic make up of 90% or more of kids in foster care you find several recurring themes: 1) They are born into very poor situations 2) They are born into drug/alcohol addicted situations 3) They are born to single parent homes 4) They are born to people on some sort of government assistance The problem with our system is that we deem a family situation as "unfit" and remove the child long after all of the damage is done. Babies are extremely resilient and as long as they are held, fed, allowed to sleep and are provided with loving attention then their brains will almost always develop well. However, if any of those things are missing the resultant trauma is crushing and, in most cases, virtually impossible to recover from. It is devastating and the damage is done as early as the first few months of life. The sad and cruel reality is that most kids in foster care are beyond help psychologically. Of course with therapy and medication some will improve but it is rare. It is devastating and heartbreaking. My proposed solution is removing newborns from the situation at birth. I know that sounds hard and extreme but, as noted above, if you want a mentally healthy kid you have to provide for their basic needs immediately after birth. Not in 6 months or 3 years. Immediately. The problem becomes how do we objectively determine when a newborn should be taken from a birth mother. I would suggest the following: Any woman giving birth that has a combination of all of the following should not be able to keep a baby- 1) Already has 1 child in their care (we all make mistakes) and 2) Is already on some sort of govt assistance and 3) Is a single parent household. That is an objective set of circumstances that would make that person an unfit parent and the state would have the obligation to remove the child from the mother immediately. This is not some harsh criticism of mothers. Personally, I do not think we, as a collective society, do enough to help out people that are struggling. Many, many people have been dealt hard blows in life and deserve our support to help get back on their feet. However, we are talking about responsibilities. A mother in the current situation that I described above (having all 3 components simultaneously) has already demonstrated that they are in need of help and struggling and the absolute last thing they need and the absolute least responsible thing they can do (on some level for themselves but 100% for their unborn child) is to have another baby. Again, if you look at the make-up of kids in foster care (or do some research on the backgrounds of about 90% of people on death row), a large percentage fall into this category. There is just no sane reason, at all, for a baby to have to go live in that environment. The odds of that baby growing up physically and mentally healthy are about nil. It is weird that it is almost never talked about but the number of newborns that are currently in foster care is exactly ZERO. There are long, long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborns (and willing to pay for all of the costs associated with the pregnancy and birth). And, most importantly, there is a long list of studies that show, unequivocally, that babies adopted at birth have the exact same percentage of wellness as those who are raised by their birth mother. There is just a terrible myth that babies are better off with their birth mother. That may be true in cases where a baby/child has already bonded with their birth mother but it is not true, at all, with newborns. This already too long so I will stop here for now but am happy to discuss/debate this further. On a final note, some other things should be present also. Abortion- While I may not like abortion and am very much pro adoption I do not think we should outlaw abortion. I think the Texas law (and I admit that I do not know all of the nuances) seems way too restrictive. I think a sensible law would be that once a woman has been medically advised that they are pregnant and a heart beat is detected/present that they then have a 7 day window (or similar) to weigh their options and make a decision to have an abortion. But after that then I am fine with outlawing the procedure. Contraception- I think contraception should be basically free in most forms. I further think that any woman that wants an IUD (or similar) should be able to get one free. These types of contraception are mostly foolproof, require no immediate action (think no forgetting to take a pill or not having a condom or whatever) and are completely reversible if/when a woman decides she wants to get pregnant. Deadbeat Parents (Mostly dads)- I think it is a disgrace that we do not do more as a society to get these people to live up to their financial responsibilities. It is a hard number to get an accurate accounting of but most studies say there is about $100 Billion a year in unpaid child support. Being present is probably more important but doing the absolute minimum required by law from a financial standpoint seems like something we should be able to enforce more effectively.
  13. Good call. The best state so far in distribution is actually Texas. The worst are NY, Minnesota, South Carolina and Oregon.
  14. The problem with this Kabul stuff is that we really do not know what the final outcome will be. It is too early to call it a success or a failure. If, in the next few weeks/months, we have reports or video of either Americans or Afghan allies being harmed by the Taliban then the pull out is going to continue to hammer Biden. If, in the next few months/year there are terrorist attacks using US military weapons/machines etc that were left in Kabul then the pull out is going to hammer Biden. The whole admin is walking a really thin line by coming out the way they are now calling it a success. There is still a ton of things that can go wrong. If nothing bad happens then I would agree that the pull out was successful. Getting out of Afghanistan is a good thing. The biggest criticism I have is that the admin has been lying and hoping for a while now and that is just not a way to go about things. Certainly, this is not only Biden's admin but all of govt. It is the absolute worst of our political system which prioritizes political ramifications first and foremost, with nothing else really being a close second. The reason I say this is in regard to the newly released call between Biden and Ghani and the follow up with Sullivan and Milley. The call was on July 23. It was brutally obvious to everyone (including Biden, Ghani, Sullivan and Milley) that there was a zero percent chance the Afghan army was going to hold. Zero. Ghani told them plus we obviously have intelligence all over the country and can see with our own eyes how there was little to no resistance tot he Taliban. No one likes a monday morning QB which is why I never commented on this before but with the new information about the call, criticism is well deserved. Biden et al constantly told the US that the Afghan army was strong and up to the task. Constantly. Maybe on some level they actually believed that (I do not personally believe they believed that and I believe they were just using that as political coverage) at one point but after the call with Ghani there was zero doubt. Immediately after that call there absolutely should have been a change in our approach. It would take political courage but should have been done (I firmly believe both Bush and Clinton would have done it). We should have taken the approach that Afghanistan falling to the Taliban was inevitable and acted accordingly. We should have delayed the troop removal. We should have talked to all of our NATO allies and told them we were giving up and that the afghan army was useless. We should have publicly told the world (especially our citizens and allies) that the Taliban was taking over and that we were pulling out completely. We should have actually increased troops temporarily to get everyone out and, critically, to get all of our military equipment out. If it took an extra 6 months then so be it. Our govt would have been much more respected if we handled it that way. The equipment being left behind just mystifies me and angers me. I have heard the tripe that it was for the Afghan military. That is such complete and total bullshit. Even Biden agrees that Kabul was going to fall within a few months. Leaving all that stuff there is disgusting. Hell, it would have been better if we just blew it all up. But we had this arbitrary deadline and we weren't gong to deviate from it. They did the political calculus and just went with it.
  15. sheeeit

    High

    Bit of stream of consciousness here but I assume all can relate. Reason #100000000 why I love weed. Long day, not stressful too much but long. Came home, smoked a bit, and started the evening (7:30 or so). Chat with wife, glass of wine, tunes on while we cook...very solid evening. For background I put the golf on and it is the match play for the US amateur. If you never watch golf it won't make much sense but the commercials are frequent and long and almost make golf unwatchable. So, I am in and out of the room and every single time I turn to the golf it is on live. I'm stoned, so I start to try and have some fun with it. I leave the room and sneak back in (the dog realized I was high but the wife did not at first) and when I sneak back in...every single time the live golf is on. I am starting to think I am in a lucky new universe but then (again because I am stoned and have to figure this out) I turn on the volume and the announcers say "thanks again to Rolex for our uninterrupted golf coverage". At first I am pissed because the thought of a lucky new universe sounded pretty great and it turns out that wasn't the case but then I realized how much fun I had in the last 45 minutes and realized why I love getting high. Lots and lots and lots of great information here but I only come when I am high and I can't read past the first line of most of those posts and I can't remember anything. Zepol would be fun to get high with. I have been eating good steak and drinking good wine for 30 years but only in the last year or so did I really get it with combining the two when i have been high.
  16. This is just silly. The valedictorian at Pampa ISD at a minimum could get a full scholarship to UT. If that valedictorian then graduates in the top five of their class at UT and nails the LSAT they will be accepted to every law school including Stanford, Yale and Harvard, especially if they are a minority. If they distinguish themselves and graduate in the top few spots in their law school class they will have their pick of clerkships with federal judges or supreme court justices if they want them. You said a Pampa kid could never be a justice. Yet, we have current sitting Justices that grew up very poor with zero connections. Sotomayor’s parents barely spoke English and neither had any real formal education. She grew up in Govt housing. But she was super smart and super active and distinguished herself and now she is a Justice.
  17. This just isn’t true and the post and the responses to it are just typical drivel. Admittedly I didn’t do a super deep dive into this but of the first handful of justices I looked at these three certainly jumped out. Sotomayor- Born in NY to immigrant parents that barely spoke English. Lived in public housing for the majority of her early life. Thomas- Grew up brutally poor in rural Georgia. Alito- Son of school teachers. if you go back a little to Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist etc. it is actually pretty surprising how so many of the justices came from poor backgrounds. The one thing they all had in common was that they were really, really smart and graduated at or near the top of their classes at almost every stop. So I would say that that really, really smart kid from Pampa actually has just as much of a chance as becoming a supreme court justice as anyone else.
  18. Honestly, I purposefully did not ask too many questions about the citizenship. There are a few smaller law firms around (they do not really advertise) that specialize in nothing but green cards and citizenship. We used one of them (their primary customers are from the horse racing industry). The legal fees were about $6,000. He still had to take the test but he received citizenship which then automatically granted citizenship on his family.
  19. Appreciate all of the responses. I am not sure where she is teaching. I did not talk to her directly about it as I was just talking with the dad. However, I am going to pass on a note to the dad. An extra $1,000/month would be huge for them. Thanks
  20. I am not sure which laws/acts (DREAM/DACA etc) are actually in place anymore. We pulled some strings and the dad got his citizenship about 8 years ago.
  21. Ha! No. Started at a Community College and then went to a 4 year school. Not Aggy. Community College was tuition free and, based on his grades there, he had a scholarship to finish. Not trying to be coy but it is not my place to give out their personal info.
  22. Wasn't sure where to put this but I chose here because it really shouldn't be at all political. So much negative shit here I thought we could use a little positivity. I wanted to brag on a friend's son. I worked with the father for many years. He and his wife were both undocumented from Guatemala and came here 18 years ago when their son was 5. I watched the son grow up and provided the occasional guidance when asked- sometimes harsh and sometimes easy. I was at the son's wedding last weekend (he is now 23). He studied construction management in college, worked for various firms in the summers, graduated and was just hired starting at $60,000 (being bilingual certainly helped). His wife (also Hispanic) also just graduated with a teaching degree and starts in August at $37,000. Had some tequila with the dad and he commented that he did not think this would have been possible in any country but America. I am sure there are other countries this could happen in but probably not for a poor immigrant form Guatemala. 18 years ago his family was destitute and now his son and wife make nearly $100K combined. The tears were plentiful. So no politics but, in this particular case, proud of the people involved tremendously and proud of America too.
×
×
  • Create New...