Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Anthony

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
Spin Zone / Re: RGB is Dead
« on: September 20, 2020, 03:46:17 PM »
"If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.' " - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, July 2019, NPR

2
Spin Zone / Re: RGB is Dead
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:42:30 PM »
I thought you were joking since it was too absurd to believe, but I see by the news that you aren’t.
Interesting that National Review actually had an article back in August on the history of lame duck supreme court nominations:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/

It is a long and well-researched article worth reading (if you need to convince someone that history doesn’t support any other position.)
I too thought he was joking until I looked it up and found this:
Quote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday would not rule out impeachment as an option to stop President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court pick from being confirmed to the bench, saying Democrats will “use every arrow in our quiver” to block the eventual nominee.

In my mind, this opens up the Republicans to use every arrow in their quiver to get their pick approved asap.

3
Pilot Zone / Re: Commercial flights...
« on: September 20, 2020, 05:51:44 AM »
If Biden is elected, January 21st, 2021. If Trump is re-elected, never.

4
Spin Zone / Re: RGB is Dead
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:40:54 PM »
"That's their job.  There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year."

--Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

5
Spin Zone / Re: Joke Thread: Post 'em if ya got 'em
« on: September 18, 2020, 06:21:38 AM »

6
The Founders know all about the media, which included newspapers as the time.  The internet is nothing more than an extension of what they had at the time. I think had they known that the government could stop the spread of plagues they might have thought about things differently.  Personally, I think your much vaunted freedom ends where you can transmit a potentially lethal disease to me, and I suspect the founders might have thought likewise.  And YOU are the most clueless fellow I know.  While my spouse likes you, I suspect she'd agree.

There’s a legal concept where the government may take your rights for a compelling reason. On one end of the spectrum say there’s a disease with a 99.5% fatality rate. Most people here would agree that would justify forcibly limiting rights. The reason would be compelling. On the other end we have diseases with less than 0.5% fatality that no one, ever, has thought justifies taking away our rights. Not compelling enough. Until Covid?

This would be more rational if we were discussing something with a fatality somewhere between these extremes and that would be a good question: who gets to decide what number is the magic cutoff? Apparently now some think it should be zero. That opens the door to the government controlling every detail of all our lives. Drive yourself to the grocery store, you put other people on the road at risk. The government should control when and how often you drive somewhere.

7
No, I'm not.  I'm one of the younger guys at the airport which resembles the Home.    ;D

darn snot-nosed kids  (>-{


8
The Founders know all about the media, which included newspapers as the time.  The internet is nothing more than an extension of what they had at the time. I think had they known that the government could stop the spread of plagues they might have thought about things differently.  Personally, I think your much vaunted freedom ends where you can transmit a potentially lethal disease to me, and I suspect the founders might have thought likewise.  And YOU are the most clueless fellow I know.  While my spouse likes you, I suspect she'd agree.

 Your ignorance is astounding.  You can “suspect” all you want, but you’ve never once cracked a book open or even read one line of history when it comes to the constitution. 


9
The Founders didn’t know about the germ theory of disease, and didn't know what viruses were. Had they I suspect they’d have written things a bit differently.

Actually the founders were aware that some diseases were highly contagious and actually would sometimes quarantine people who were sick with them. Furthermore, George Washington performed mass inoculation of his troops against small pox. This despite the germ theory being not widely accepted yet. For those interested in how the founding fathers (Washington in particular) dealt with small pox that ravaged his army there is this article:
https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-george-washington-revolutionary-war

They knew of and used quarantines (and that they had their limitations) and the existence of vaccination even if they didn’t understand how it works.


10
Spin Zone / Re: What really is known about COVID19?
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:56:12 AM »
It only worked and is working due to Media and Democrat politician created panic.  No Media saying how horrible it is and oh, so many cases 24/7, and I mean 24/7, interspersed with Systemic Racism propaganda then there wouldn't be this panic among so many of the Sheeple.

 The progressive leftist, the CCP, the WHO, democrats, and big tech are all complicit.

11
Spin Zone / Re: What really is known about COVID19?
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:16:24 AM »
As a bioweapon Covid-19 sucks. It isn’t terribly lethal to healthy people, among other flaws.

When FDR said “We have nothing to fear but fear itself” was he not also treating the population as emotional children?
He was trying to convey a positive mental attitude, as was Trump. FDR even kept a lid on minor “secrets”. While in office FDR’s press secretary barred reporters from photographing FDR in a wheelchair (cameras were seized from photographers who disobeyed.) Nevermind that it was known that FDR was crippled - if there were no photographs to remind people of his handicap he would be less likely to be seen as a weak leader. So historically, beyond the FDR example, there have been many occasions where presidents and lower level leaders have misled or outright lied to people about possible dangers. It is pretty petty to hark on Trump because it involves special pleading.

Contrast with a public servant where I live: early on our governor warned that according to the experts thousands would die in our state and made preparations for additional ICU beds. She said that the disease would be a marathon, not a sprint. So public policy must be designed to handle an outbreak lasting well out to the fall. A shutdown could not be endured for that long - the correct answer was to treat the population of her state as adults and merely act as a conduit for expert advice and guidance. I.e. act as a servant to the public, not a master of the public.

12
Spin Zone / Re: What really is known about COVID19?
« on: September 17, 2020, 09:32:14 AM »
The POTUS has acknowledged that he downplayed the scope of what he was briefed about COVID19, treating all of us like emotional children.
We ARE all emotional children.  Individually we're (mostly) intelligent beings and can make good decisions.  However, as the great philosopher George Carlin said, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."  The president was trying to prevent the stupidity of large groups.  Unfortunately the Democrats actively encourage large groups of stupid people.

13
Sadly, I suspect the judge is correct.  Lockdown orders do violate freedom of assembly and a few other things.  If that means the government is powerless to fight the outbreak of disease I feel really badly for us as a nation.

You claim to be a smart guy... can't you think of anything the Government can do without a lockdown?


14
Sadly, I suspect the judge is correct.  Lockdown orders do violate freedom of assembly and a few other things.  If that means the government is powerless to fight the outbreak of disease I feel really badly for us as a nation.

Government is not powerless to fight an outbreak.  That's never been alleged.

However, government does not have the right to suspend the constitution at will.    The problem being experienced is the government has not applied the law in a fair and equatable manner.

 Examples:  In Las Vegas a casino (indoor operation) can have 50% occupancy, however churches are only allowed 10%.

 In Texas, bars are forbidden to open, but a restaurant that has a bar is permitted to serve.    Also in Texas, a water park is allowed to have guest, but the local river, the tubing operators are closed down.

 In California the government is allowed to open their gyms, but private owners are not.

 The list goes on and on.

 The other problem lies in the governors and mayors.  They are creating laws under the executive and bypassing the legislative process. This is forbidden in the US constitution and state constitutions.

15
The only flaw in your logic is if those high bar journals suffer from some kind of bias. Scientists aren’t supposed to allow bias but they’re only human. Would not be the first time the top experts in a scientific field couldn’t break out of a paradigm or a prejudice.
This is exactly right.  It's VERY hard to get published if your research results contradict the established "settled science."  Getting past the journal editor and into peer review is impossible if your research goes against what the editor thinks is right.  Then finding enough peers to properly objectively review your paper is extremely difficult.  Peers are usually drawn from people who have already published in a journal.  They subscribe to the journal's mindset.  Even if you have perfect, well documented, and well executed research, the paper can be rejected just because "it can't be right".  Then the peer review goes back to the editor who makes the final decision on accept / reject.  Once again, the editor has say over what gets published in his/her journal.

Some of the top, most influential papers in my field found a home in obscure journals because the editors of the top journals rejected them as not following the status quo.

I've tried for years to get my research into top journals in my field.  Nope... too technical, not managerial enough.  We don't accept design science research as legitimate. So I went and published in Computer Science journals.  Fortunately in my university an A journal in any discipline is an A journal in mine.   It's only in the last few years that the pendulum has swung over and technical papers are being accepted and encouraged in the top journals in my field.

So I encourage the Professor to clear his mind, read the research objectively, and treat the research as it should be.  Is there a fatal flaw?  Are the results able to be replicated? Is there a sufficient foundation for the conclusions?  You are an expert in your field.  Do a proper peer review on her research and let us know why that paper should be accepted or rejected (or revise and resubmit) in one of your top journals.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63