ADVERTISEMENT

The Economic Disaster of the Pandemic Response

Tin foil is believing our nation is controlled by elite shape-shifting reptilians.... but questioning and thinking there is more to the story than the Warren Commission's report or that the COVID pandemic was naturally occurring phenomena given the gain of function research that is being conducted in both China is far being a conspiracy junkie. One would have to be very naive (to put it mildly) not to question it.

Our very history since, at least the Second War, is replete with cover ups, lies, media distortions. Judging by your posts over the years, I'd put you in your mid to late 60s, if not a older. You certainly would be no stranger to the farce that brought on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the revelations of the Pentagon Papers.

And to be quite truthful, the first I thought of when Pelosi's husband was attacked, is how does that happen given the amount of security they have. I have a good friend, childhood friend, who worked for the State Department, I'd be afraid to type on here or any site, some of things he's experienced during his service. One thing is for certain: the information we receive from the major media networks (from MSNBC to Fox) contains very little truth.

IMHO, I see a future where questioning anything of substance that deserves rational investigation will be discounted and marginalized (if not criminalized) as wacko conspiracy theorists... therein lies the greatest of dangers.
"In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
Respectfully yours,
I have friends at State DSS types. Imagine what they don’t tell you. Everything is compartmentalized so even those in the know don’t really know it all. Gone are the days pre WW2 where everyone was indoced to a program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noletaire
I have friends at State DSS types. Imagine what they don’t tell you. Everything is compartmentalized so even those in the know don’t really know it all. Gone are the days pre WW2 where everyone was indoced to a program.
Cold war. Even those investigating certain phenomena were not taken as a team to investigate, they were taken individually, and had no idea if any of their team members had been taken to the site.
 
well-bye.gif
Yep, that was constructive. Which is why we have the Ignore button. Bye indeed.
 
Sadly that’s the way it should be. However crazy or outlandish that opinion is.
The arrogance of the Harvard crowd is perhaps best understood by people who actually employ them.

Some of them can solve Pi, but most of them have severe limitations on their ability to effectively interface with others. It’s actually pretty funny.
 
Sadly that’s the way it should be. However crazy or outlandish that opinion is.
We might have different understandings of the meaning of “valid” and of the ramifications of watering that down.

val·id
/ˈvaləd/
adjective
  1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
    "a valid criticism"
When you or your loved one’s life is at stake because you or they have been diagnosed with serious heart damage, and you’re considering treatment options, do you also consider everybody’s opinion to be equally sound and reasonable in its grounding and give them all equal weight?
The treatment opinions of the board-certified heart specialist, your excellent plumber who didn’t choose college and has no direct experience but did read a book about cardiologists on the take from big pharma, your anti-vax chiropractor with the great meme game and your wife’s fortune-teller…. all 4 of their opinions are equally valid too?
 
The arrogance of the Harvard crowd is perhaps best understood by people who actually employ them.

Some of them can solve Pi, but most of them have severe limitations on their ability to effectively interface with others. It’s actually pretty funny.
That you consider yourself such an exemplary arbiter of “ability to effectively interface with others” is also pretty funny, right?

That whole us-against-them-elitists, anti-higher-education populism on steroids thing surely plays well to the peanut gallery on sports message boards, and that approval can be seductive… it can even gin up the crowds and get folks elected.
But I’m not convinced it’s the smartest path to optimizing our global competitiveness, pandemic preparedness, life expectancies, ecological health and survival, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
To this day, I am still baffled by some things.

I grew up in Japan during the 60's. (AF brat) A few years ago a friend asked me if I knew when the Viet Nam war started.
I told him 1956, with the fall of Dien Bien Phu, and how it gradually escalated,

He started yelling at me that I didn't have a clue, that it started in 1965. I was dumbfounded, confused that he actually believed that.

I was like, well, then pray tell what we were doing in Japan in 1963 and before?

We lived near the flight line and we were well aware of the 105's taking off in formations of three or five. We were aware of those that did not return. The North Vietnamese did not report the prisoners they captured, but we found out because Japanese TV had film of prisoners being paraded down the streets of Hanoi, (one being a close family friend).

Even after explaining that, the guy still insisted it was 1965.

There were many things my dad would allude to over the years, but when I'd go back and ask him, he'd say, "I don't recall."
Very good post. You could easily argue we created the Viet Cong.... the OSS (pre-cursor to the CIA) was supplying the Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh to fight against Japan during its occupation of Indochina. And they were well prepared for the not so wise decision of the French to return to their pre-war colonies.

As for the MIAs, your well on point. There is an abundance of evidence that more than suggests the U.S. government left soldiers behind and it deserves far more investigation than has been addressed. But to say that will get you called a "tin foil head" or conspiracy theorist. That's the point I was trying to make; we're getting to a point where rational questioning of the gov't is seen as wacko because its being merged with some of the outlandish theories that has always been floating around; which IMO, is the goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribal_idiot
We might have different understandings of the meaning of “valid” and of the ramifications of watering that down.

val·id
/ˈvaləd/
adjective
  1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
    "a valid criticism"
When you or your loved one’s life is at stake because you or they have been diagnosed with serious heart damage, and you’re considering treatment options, do you also consider everybody’s opinion to be equally sound and reasonable in its grounding and give them all equal weight?
The treatment opinions of the board-certified heart specialist, your excellent plumber who didn’t choose college and has no direct experience but did read a book about cardiologists on the take from big pharma, your anti-vax chiropractor with the great meme game and your wife’s fortune-teller…. all 4 of their opinions are equally valid too?
It’s still an opinion. If it’s valid or should be followed is your call. Who decides what’s valid? Should those considered invalid be silenced? Things aren’t always as cut and dry as your extreme example.

It’s like flat earth theory. I think it’s crazy and outlandish but it’s still someone’s belief or opinion and they should be able to have it. And what about religion? How does that fit?
 
Every opinion should be heard but that in itself doesn't validate that opinion. Some are just stupid and uninformed.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not everyone is entitled to be right.
I remember when we kids would hear things from grownups and my parents would just say “Mr. or Miss So and So just have their own outlook” and sort of roll their eyes or shake their heads when we got home. They left it at that and we learned by their example that you don’t need to be rude or confrontational; you just nod your head and go on with life.
I readily admit that the current atmosphere has made me more “push back” especially on other boards with those who have a different POV and who feel a need to make personal attacks on me (and others) who don’t align with their views.
😈
 
It’s still an opinion. If it’s valid or should be followed is your call. Who decides what’s valid? Should those considered invalid be silenced? Things aren’t always as cut and dry as your extreme example.

It’s like flat earth theory. I think it’s crazy and outlandish but it’s still someone’s belief or opinion and they should be able to have it. And what about religion? How does that fit?
Where did I say anything about anybody being silenced?

It’s bizarre how frequently those who want fringe and otherwise less credible “opinions” to be given equal weight or amplification for some reason seem to think the pushback those less grounded views receive = “silencing” them.

Being challenged and called on one’s BS is not silencing or any freedom of speech issue. It sure seems to be what many would mock as a “snowflake” take for anyone to recoil at provocative takes provoking negative responses, especially when they can be refuted and debunked with better sourced and reasoned rationale.

And if the public safety stakes are sufficient, and/or the brand integrity of a private enterprise social network is at risk, then fact checker warning labels and the like make sense to me. Violations of terms and conditions that users agree to should also be enforced, even if that means removing prohibited content and/or the violator.

Seems like many don’t understand what “silencing” actually means, or perhaps its hyperbolic overuse by those who don’t like being called on BS has neutered its meaning.
 
That you consider yourself such an exemplary arbiter of “ability to effectively interface with others” is also pretty funny, right?

That whole us-against-them-elitists, anti-higher-education populism on steroids thing surely plays well to the peanut gallery on sports message boards, and that approval can be seductive… it can even gin up the crowds and get folks elected.
But I’m not convinced it’s the smartest path to optimizing our global competitiveness, pandemic preparedness, life expectancies, ecological health and survival, etc.
Harvard nerve hit, huh?? LOL.
 
Yep. LMAO. His last two posts are just classic. I marvel that people think that way; must be quite a insulated world he lives in. LOL his last two posts are proving the point you’re making.
^^^LMFAO. Pure comedy. (that’s how it’s done, right?)
Why not try refuting the actual post content, if that’s within your skill set, vs continuing to obsess over the poster for whom you have such a creepy Hannibal Lecter fixation?
 
To this day, I am still baffled by some things.

I grew up in Japan during the 60's. (AF brat) A few years ago a friend asked me if I knew when the Viet Nam war started.
I told him 1956, with the fall of Dien Bien Phu, and how it gradually escalated,

He started yelling at me that I didn't have a clue, that it started in 1965. I was dumbfounded, confused that he actually believed that.

I was like, well, then pray tell what we were doing in Japan in 1963 and before?

We lived near the flight line and we were well aware of the 105's taking off in formations of three or five. We were aware of those that did not return. The North Vietnamese did not report the prisoners they captured, but we found out because Japanese TV had film of prisoners being paraded down the streets of Hanoi, (one being a close family friend).

Even after explaining that, the guy still insisted it was 1965.

There were many things my dad would allude to over the years, but when I'd go back and ask him, he'd say, "I don't recall."
Father was in the Air Force. We were in Japan 1958-1961. He was an early advisor (1960-61) into Vietnam. They were planning logistics for airstrips and army bases back then. We had advisors in Vietnam doing war planning under Eisenhower too. He told me about this as far back as I can remember.
 
Where did I say anything about anybody being silenced?

It’s bizarre how frequently those who want fringe and otherwise less credible “opinions” to be given equal weight or amplification for some reason seem to think the pushback those less grounded views receive = “silencing” them.

Being challenged and called on one’s BS is not silencing or any freedom of speech issue. It sure seems to be what many would mock as a “snowflake” take for anyone to recoil at provocative takes provoking negative responses, especially when they can be refuted and debunked with better sourced and reasoned rationale.

And if the public safety stakes are sufficient, and/or the brand integrity of a private enterprise social network is at risk, then fact checker warning labels and the like make sense to me. Violations of terms and conditions that users agree to should also be enforced, even if that means removing prohibited content and/or the violator.

Seems like many don’t understand what “silencing” actually means, or perhaps its hyperbolic overuse by those who don’t like being called on BS has neutered its meaning.
🙄
 
Not sure how to interpret an emoticon response to a substantive conversation. Do you feel that when your or others' takes are challenged, you/they are being "silenced" or you are somehow being prevented from being heard?
That sure seems to be what you have suggested, but please let me know if that's not what you meant, and what your objection to being challenged/refuted actually is.
Thanks.
 
Not sure how to interpret an emoticon response to a substantive conversation. Do you feel that when your or others' takes are challenged, you/they are being "silenced" or you are somehow being prevented from being heard?
That sure seems to be what you have suggested, but please let me know if that's not what you meant, and what your objection to being challenged/refuted actually is.
Thanks.
Not at all. Challenged or disagreed with is good. Like I said all opinions have merit even yours. We can have those opinions because we live in a free society. When I say silence I mean it in general terms not exactly as it pertains to this conversation.

Anyway, we likely wont agree on this subject and that’s fine. I’m ok with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSince1961
Not at all. Challenged or disagreed with is good. Like I said all opinions have merit even yours. We can have those opinions because we live in a free society. When I say silence I mean it in general terms not exactly as it pertains to this conversation.

Anyway, we likely wont agree on this subject and that’s fine. I’m ok with it.
If I'm not mistaken, it seems we probably have a difference in interpretation of what that word "valid" means.

It appears that "equally valid" to you means all opinions merit being heard (and I don't disagree with being open to hearing all opinions, although I'm probably comfortable with more public safety and private TOS types of exceptions than you.)

But per most dictionary definitions I've seen, that "valid" word also pertains to how well grounded in fact and sound reasoning each opinion is, and for that reason, I do not believe that all opinions are indeed "equally valid".
If we are being honest, very few of us are genuinely that open to all views being "equally valid" when seeking professional counsel about things that significantly impact our own lives - we don't ask the cat lady next door, if she has never owned or serviced a vehicle, how we should fix our transmission.

All the challenges we face every day in determining which sources and alleged facts are truly more credible than others don't change the fact that some opinions should indeed carry more weight than others.

Might seem nitpicky, but since that disconnect in what "valid" entails causes so many proponents of outlier opinions to claim those views are being "silenced", it's a pretty big obstacle to productive conversations about anything important.
 
It’s still an opinion. If it’s valid or should be followed is your call. Who decides what’s valid? Should those considered invalid be silenced? Things aren’t always as cut and dry as your extreme example.

It’s like flat earth theory. I think it’s crazy and outlandish but it’s still someone’s belief or opinion and they should be able to have it. And what about religion? How does that fit?
Facts. Facts decide what is valid. Flat earth theory isn't valid because it's factually inaccurate. Anyone who believes in it should be treated like you would treat any other adult that believes in other make believe things like the easter bunny, santa claus, or that the election was stolen.
 
Talk about a lack of civility or maybe awareness. Probably both.
LMAO. As opposed to what? calling me Hannibal Lector, a fictional homicidal psychopath who is also a cannibal... or another poster in this thread inferring that my mother is a prostitute? (who happens to be dead, by the way).... and I'm the one lacking civility... Yeah, Okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tribal_idiot
LMAO. As opposed to what? calling me Hannibal Lector, a fictional homicidal psychopath who is also a cannibal... or another poster in this thread inferring that my mother is a prostitute? (who happens to be dead, by the way).... and I'm the one lacking civility... Yeah, Okay.
^^^^^LMFAO. Pure comedy.
You sure were the model of civility prior to that Hannibal Lecter reference, right?
Please seek help.
 
In before the lock. Remember when it was called the Wuhan Flu? Thoughts that a lab, that the US helped fund, created the virus? Those who worked in the lab were quickly dead and swept about by China government. Social Media censored any discussion. Lancelot is a source.

 
LMAO. As opposed to what? calling me Hannibal Lector, a fictional homicidal psychopath who is also a cannibal... or another poster in this thread inferring that my mother is a prostitute? (who happens to be dead, by the way).... and I'm the one lacking civility... Yeah, Okay.
I never suggested that she got paid for her work.
 
LMAO. As opposed to what? calling me Hannibal Lector, a fictional homicidal psychopath who is also a cannibal... or another poster in this thread inferring that my mother is a prostitute? (who happens to be dead, by the way).... and I'm the one lacking civility... Yeah, Okay.
You do know I have access to your warning history, right? Snowflake describes you to a tee.
 
Father was in the Air Force. We were in Japan 1958-1961. He was an early advisor (1960-61) into Vietnam. They were planning logistics for airstrips and army bases back then. We had advisors in Vietnam doing war planning under Eisenhower too. He told me about this as far back as I can remember.
Absolutely. The French begged for our help during their colonial war, and we jumped in, in order to prevent the spread of communism. That was our thinking back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsufool
Where did I say anything about anybody being silenced?

It’s bizarre how frequently those who want fringe and otherwise less credible “opinions” to be given equal weight or amplification for some reason seem to think the pushback those less grounded views receive = “silencing” them.

Being challenged and called on one’s BS is not silencing or any freedom of speech issue. It sure seems to be what many would mock as a “snowflake” take for anyone to recoil at provocative takes provoking negative responses, especially when they can be refuted and debunked with better sourced and reasoned rationale.

And if the public safety stakes are sufficient, and/or the brand integrity of a private enterprise social network is at risk, then fact checker warning labels and the like make sense to me. Violations of terms and conditions that users agree to should also be enforced, even if that means removing prohibited content and/or the violator.

Seems like many don’t understand what “silencing” actually means, or perhaps its hyperbolic overuse by those who don’t like being called on BS has neutered its meaning.
😂😂🤣🤣
 
ADVERTISEMENT