View Full Version : What Do Hydroxychloroquine, Regeneron, and Remdesivir Have in Common?
Athos
Oct 8, 2020, 04:24 PM
They have all been prominently touted by Trump from March to the present day.
What Trump HASN'T touted is that he has profited substantially from the three drugs. The Office of Government Ethics has reported that Trump gained $50,000 to $100,000 from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and $100,000 to $1,000,000 from Gilead Sciences. Both are makers of Remdesivir and Regeneron.
Also reported: Trump's family investments have a large ownership in Sanofi, a major producer of Hydroxychloroquine.
It is more evidence that Trump has far more concern for his financial status than he does for the American public, now passing 210,000 deaths. Predictions are that 400,000 deaths will be realized by year's end. Trump, even today, continues to minimize the threat from the killer virus because the facts threaten his re-election efforts.
paraclete
Oct 8, 2020, 04:46 PM
Interesting, Trump is an investor in big Pharma, it would be a smart investment in an era of pandemics, particularly if trump is a beneficiary in more ways than one
Wondergirl
Oct 9, 2020, 09:20 AM
"The antibody cocktail that President Trump received for his COVID-19 (https://www.cbsnews.com/coronavirus) infection and touted on Wednesday evening as a 'cure' for the deadly virus was developed using cells derived from aborted fetal tissue..."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/regeneron-trump-covid-aborted-fetal-tissue/
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 05:59 AM
From the article.
"That cell line was originally derived from the kidney tissue of a fetus aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s." The position of most pro-lifers that I know of is that there is no point is destroying these already existing cell lines used for research. It is the destruction of 900,000 human beings a year that we object to.
"There is no fetal tissue present in the final product."
The Pres seems fine and is returning to a normal schedule over the next few days. Looks like the doctors' earlier pronouncements were correct.
talaniman
Oct 10, 2020, 06:14 AM
If you take the narrow limited pronouncements at face value and ignore the unanswered questions like is the prez FULLY recovered, or just feeling better because he is really doped up, has he actually passed the tests as outline by the CDC, or can he infect people still? He didn't even answer Rush, or Hannity's questions in that regard and certainly his doctors are under constraint to not be fully forthcoming with data and information, and for some that's all good.
Does he even have enough uninfected staff to do his job, which has got to be more than running his mouth and tweeting.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 06:31 AM
Yep. Couldn't possibly be a pretty simple issue like the pres got sick, he received great med care, and then recovered fairly quickly. It has to be some sort of sinister conspiracy, doesn't it?
talaniman
Oct 10, 2020, 06:59 AM
Yep. Couldn't possibly be a pretty simple issue like the pres got sick, he received great med care, and then recovered fairly quickly. It has to be some sort of sinister conspiracy, doesn't it?
There doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just a lack of information and unanswered questions that don't verify his health status, or confirm he isn't a danger to others and he is indeed out of the woods, and not just feeling better.
"Trust but verify" /King Ronald Reagan.
It's that simple.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 08:08 AM
Or it could just be that the docs are simply telling the truth and the "anti-Trumpers" always, always want to trash anything positive that comes out about him.
Wondergirl
Oct 10, 2020, 09:18 AM
... just a lack of information and unanswered questions that don't verify his health status, or confirm he isn't a danger to others and he is indeed out of the woods, and not just feeling better.
Remember when we got daily reports from the WH that Trump had tested negative? Now, nobody's reporting nothin'.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 09:24 AM
Ooooohhhhhhh!
Wondergirl
Oct 10, 2020, 09:30 AM
Ooooohhhhhhh!
I sense you're in pain. Remember, I have a month's supply of prednisone that will help you feel magnanimous and jolly and confident.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 09:34 AM
Nah. I'll just pay no attention to your alarming report about..."nothing" being said. "Your honor, I'd like to introduce as evidence against Mr. Trump...'nothing'." How far do you think you'd get with that?
Just more TDS at work.
Wondergirl
Oct 10, 2020, 09:38 AM
Nah. I'll just pay no attention to your alarming report about..."nothing" being said. "Your honor, I'd like to introduce as evidence against Mr. Trump...'nothing'." How far do you think you'd get with that?
Just more TDS at work.
What's being said? Trump was videotaped while having trouble catching his breath and coughing while on the phone. Pence's pink eye and cold sore are immunity problems because of COVID?
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 09:48 AM
Nothing, according to you. You know, "nothing"? Kind of like what Harris and Biden are telling us about their view of packing the Supreme Court.
Just out today.
“Well, sir don’t the voters deserve to know…?” reporter Ross DiMattei asked.
“No they don’t.... I'm not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now,”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voters-deserve-packing-supreme-court
Harris and Biden will also not clear up their statements on doing away with Trump's tax cuts for the middle class. That is also "nothing".
Wondergirl
Oct 10, 2020, 09:53 AM
Nothing, according to you. You know, "nothing"? Kind of like what Harris and Biden are telling us about their view of packing the Supreme Court.
Trump et al. have even bragged about packing the SC so it will be conservative for decades to come.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 11:06 AM
Trump et al. have even bragged about packing the SCNo, he has not. Absolutely untrue unless, of course, you have no idea of what "packing the court means.
so it will be conservative for decades to come.It was liberal for decades. Did that bother you? I'd just like to see them stop making it up as they go along.
So I'm going to ask a question that I already know will not be answered in any credible fashion, but just for the fun of it, are you really OK with Biden saying you don't deserve to know his position on packing SCOTUS?
talaniman
Oct 10, 2020, 11:39 AM
Nothing, according to you. You know, "nothing"? Kind of like what Harris and Biden are telling us about their view of packing the Supreme Court.
Just out today.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voters-deserve-packing-supreme-court
Makes sense since neither has ever said they would, nor wish to give the rightwing loony machine any ammo on the subject, who are the ones making it a big deal after some lefty brought it up in response to the repubs packing the courts even after they said they wouldn't going back to denying Obama his pick...no hearings...no vote...no nothing.
Harris and Biden will also not clear up their statements on doing away with Trump's tax cuts for the middle class. That is also "nothing".
They both have clearly said they would repeal those permanent tax cuts for the rich and raise taxes for the over $400,000 crowd. You must have missed it watching and reading the right wing noise machine.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 12:01 PM
Makes sense since neither has ever said they would, nor wish to give the rightwing loony machine any ammo on the subject, who are the ones making it a big deal after some lefty brought it up in response to the repubs packing the courts even after they said they wouldn't The repubs have said no such thing. And if Harris/Biden don't intend to pack the court, wouldn't it be a simple matter to simply say so?
going back to denying Obama his pick...no hearings...no vote...no nothing.That's what happens when you have the WH but not the Senate. Stop complaining,
And as a guy who claims to despise lying (but only when done by Trump), I'm sure you are thoroughly offended by Harris' lie about what Lincoln said? Hmmm?
Athos
Oct 10, 2020, 12:10 PM
Harris and Biden will also not clear up their statements on doing away with Trump's tax cuts for the middle class. That is also "nothing".
MIDDLE CLASS
Biden's tax plan will not increase the middle class income up to $400,000.
Expand the child tax credit to $3,000 with a $600 bonus for children under 6 – this is a refundable credit.
Increase dependent tax credit up to $8,000 – refundable credit.
Create $5,000 tax credit for caring for older relatives.
WEALTHY
Increase tax rate over $400,000 income from 37% to 39.6%.
Increase payroll tax ceiling to incomes over $400,000.
Increase capital gains tax for income over $1,000,000 to 39.6% from 20%.
Roll back gift and estate taxes credit that doubled for wealthy to what it was.
Increase corporation tax to 28% from 21%.
Create a minimum tax for corporations with billions in profits who pay zero taxes.
A refundable credit is a credit that is received by the taxpayer even if there is no income for it to be charged against.
jlisenbe
Oct 10, 2020, 03:09 PM
Dramatic increases to taxes. Dramatic reductions in economic growth. Hello socialism.
talaniman
Oct 10, 2020, 03:15 PM
It's not like the economic growth is kicking butt now, except for the rich. Who got a tax cut and a virus bailout of 10 trillion bucks.
paraclete
Oct 10, 2020, 07:22 PM
well that is a good question, the case of the vanishing money
Athos
Oct 10, 2020, 11:23 PM
Hello socialism.
When tomder was asked to give specifics on what he didn't like about "socialistic" plans of the Democrats, he refused to answer.
How about you? What are your specifics on the approaching "socialism"?
paraclete
Oct 10, 2020, 11:26 PM
When tomder was asked to give specifics on what he didn't like about "socialistic" plans of the Democrats, he refused to answer.
How about you? What are your specifics on the approaching "socialism"?
why do you think he would be capable of approaching socialism? Perhaps he would like to try the Swedish approach, no, too radical for an american capitalist, it relies on actually caring, something beyond his brand of wasp
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 05:24 AM
It's not like the economic growth is kicking butt now,Prior to the Covid invasion, the economy was setting records in low unemployment. It is still doing remarkably well all things considered. Blaming our current woes on Trump would be about as dumb as blaming the 09 economy on Obama or the 33 economy on Roosevelt.
Who got a tax cut and a virus bailout of 10 trillion bucks.What 10 tril bailout are you talking about? There hasn't been one. You see why I say that Trump has really influenced you??? And for the five hundred and sixth time, when the top 20% of income earners are paying 87% of fed income taxes, then it is not really possible to give much of a tax break to the remaining 80%. But Trump did give many in the middle class some tax reduction. Harris' tax plan is just a continuation of the liberal mantra. "We care so much for poor people that we are willing to force other people to help them while we cook hamburgers on the backyard grill."
Socialism. We are not going to become purely socialistic anymore than the Europeans have, but we will move more in that direction if Harris is elected. The feds will extend their already growing control of health care and energy production, for instance. And when AOC's GND gets going, and it will in some form or fashion, fed regulation (and that is an element of socialism) will grow greatly leading to ever larger deficits. It will all come tumbling down at some point.
There is a part of me that thinks a Harris election will be good for the country in the long run. Lets the dems have it all. Let AOC become Speaker. Four years from now, perhaps we can pick up what's left over and renew a nation founded on the idea that, "...all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That would mean the blessing of individual freedom rather than federal control and provision. It will be extraordinarily painful, but perhaps it will help people understand that this "pie in the sky" politics is for children and not adults.
In the meantime, I will be preaching this morning on the topic of, "The Five Greatest Words in Life".
tomder55
Oct 11, 2020, 06:05 AM
"The antibody cocktail that President Trump received for his COVID-19 (https://www.cbsnews.com/coronavirus) infection and touted on Wednesday evening as a 'cure' for the deadly virus was developed using cells derived from aborted fetal tissue..."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/regener...-fetal-tissue/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/regeneron-trump-covid-aborted-fetal-tissue/)
Not quite . The cocktail was NOT derived fetal tissue cells . However it was tested from cells repeatedly reproduced from fetal tissue from 1970. I do not know if the fetal tissue was from an abortion but i guess we can assume so.
The use of aborted fetal tissue is immoral and leads to a slippery slope. I suspect that the testing of the cocktail could've been achieved by other means ,like adult stem cells or placenta stem cells . However it wasn't .
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 06:41 AM
Blaming our current woes on Trump would be about as dumb as blaming the 09 economy on Obama or the 33 economy on Roosevelt.
The difference is that Obama and Roosevelt did something to save the economy. Trump is not to be blamed for COVID, but he has done nothing to save the economy. His crisis mismanagement has worsened it.
when the top 20% of income earners are paying 87% of fed income taxes, then it is not really possible to give much of a tax break to the remaining 80%.
Of course there is. The tax break comes in the form of making sure the top 20% pay their fair share in taxes so that the money can be used in many ways to benefit all - infrastructure, various tax credits, ensuring health care is available to all, and many, many more uses.
But Trump did give many in the middle class some tax reduction.
The overwhelming benefit went to the wealthy who had no need of it. The actual cost of Trump's tax cut was over $1,000,000,000+ - that's one TRILLION!
Harris' tax plan is just a continuation of the liberal mantra. "We care so much for poor people that we are willing to force other people to help them while we cook hamburgers on the backyard grill."
No comment.
Socialism. We are not going to become purely socialistic
As I thought, you provided no specifics. You anti-socialists are big on platitudes, but not much on details.
The US is currently a capitalism system modified by socialism. It runs best with each providing its strengths, and would not be effective as a society if it were completely one or the other.
The feds will extend their already growing control of health care and energy production, for instance. And when AOC's GND gets going, and it will in some form or fashion, fed regulation (and that is an element of socialism)
I see that it is regulation that disturbs you about socialism. No society can survive without regulation. From laws forbidding murder to laws keeping water clean, regulations are critical. Do you oppose federal control of the military? No, I thought not.
(Socialism)will grow greatly leading to ever larger deficits. It will all come tumbling down at some point.
Not if it is managed correctly. But it's hard to be specific since you have provided none - just platitudes.
There is a part of me that thinks a Harris election will be good for the country in the long run. Lets the dems have it all. Let AOC become Speaker. Four years from now, perhaps we can pick up what's left over and renew a nation founded on the idea that, "...all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That would mean the blessing of individual freedom rather than federal control and provision. It will be extraordinarily painful, but perhaps it will help people understand that this "pie in the sky" politics is for children and not adults.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
In the meantime, I will be preaching this morning on the topic of, "The Five Greatest Words in Life".
I hope it's not. "person, woman, man, ummm, camera, tv."
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 07:23 AM
top 20% pay their fair share in taxesHuh? 87% is not fair? Go figure.
One trillion spread over 10 years. Be honest.
No comment.I don't blame you. If I was you I wouldn't comment either. It's true and you know it. On not a single occasion has a single lib on this board ever suggested that THEIR taxes be raised in order to help the poor. It is always, always, always someone else's taxes that will go up so the poor can be assisted. It is the great, sickening secret of liberal political philosophy. It's like the man who believed so much in the war that he was willing to send his brother to go fight it.
Not if it is managed correctlyDream on.
you provided no specifics
Energy and health sectors. GND. Pay attention!!
"He who believes in Me (Jesus)"
talaniman
Oct 11, 2020, 08:28 AM
JL you spin almost as well as your fellow conservative. I got no problem with you guys having your causes but it should be pretty clear too much of either of our crap will never work for the whole country and that's why we have elections every two years, because we NEED them.
Far as I'm concerned most minds are made up and all that's left is vote and count and see what we got.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 09:22 AM
Huh? 87% is not fair? Go figure.
Read what I wrote. Then go figure.
One trillion spread over 10 years.
True.
If I was you I wouldn't comment either.
My "no comment" was a response to your mean-spirited nasty comment of "back yard grilling".
On not a single occasion has a single lib on this board ever suggested that THEIR taxes be raised in order to help the poor.
Yes, they have, if they're included among the rich it goes for them, too.
It is always, always, always someone else's taxes that will go up so the poor can be assisted.
No, that's only your twisted take. As above, it's the rich - regardless of race, religion, creed or politics. Your bias is getting in the way of your thinking.
It is the great, sickening secret of liberal political philosophy.
There is no secret about helping the poor. Nor is the idea a sickening one. If you think it's sickening, throw away your Bible.
It's like the man who believed so much in the war that he was willing to send his brother to go fight it.
Not a bit like that. Poor analogy.
Dream on.
Dream on is the refuge for someone who no longer has anything coherent to say.
Energy and health sectors. GND. Pay attention!!
EXACTLY my point! Just a general complaint without a scintilla of specificity. You're hopeless and clueless when it comes to details, yet you love to throw around the trigger word "SOCIALISM"!!!!!
"He who believes in Me (Jesus)"
I'd ask you to explain this, but you would probably come up with some weird interpretation relating it to taxes.
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 12:03 PM
On not a single occasion has a single lib on this board ever suggested that THEIR taxes be raised in order to help the poor. My statement is absolutely true. Your reply to the effect that if they're wealthy then they called for their own taxes to be raised is silliness. If you want to have your taxes raised to help the poor, then say so. Otherwise, stop the evasive nonsense. The comparison to the man who wanted someone else to go to war is exactly on target. "I want to appear to be noble and charitable without it costing me anything." It's the moral game plan of liberal dems and it is utterly sickening. It has nothing to do with real charity. If you really believe in something, then stand up and be counted in paying the costs for it. If you're not willing to sacrifice for it, then you really don't care.
Lowering the age of Medicare is the health care side of it. GND is the energy side of it. Sorry. I thought you kept up with the news.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 01:18 PM
My statement is absolutely true. Your reply to the effect that if they're wealthy then they called for their own taxes to be raised is silliness.
As I tried to explain to you, the rich include everybody that's rich. That's not evasive. The words plainly mean what they mean.
The comparison to the man who wanted someone else to go to war is exactly on target. "I want to appear to be noble and charitable without it costing me anything.
Sorry, but you're not even in the ballpark with that. Your description of those you don't like is strange. I'm sure you have no idea what liberals or conservatives or anybody else does. You despise liberals - we all get that. The why of your attitude nobody gets. You truly come across as obsessed with the issue. And very angry.
It's the moral game plan of liberal dems and it is utterly sickening. It has nothing to do with real charity. If you really believe in something, then stand up and be counted in paying the costs for it. If you're not willing to sacrifice for it, then you really don't care.
I read this as a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I can't explain it but I suspect it is connected to your religion. You're back with your ad hominems. You've been warned about that.
Lowering the age of Medicare is the health care side of it.
By "the health care side of it", I presume you mean you're concerned about lowering the age of Medicare. Are you opposed to health plans for those who would be covered by lowering the age? I support that. So here we have a disagreement. Good. I think everybody, regardless of income, should have health insurance. If some want to have private insurance, and can afford it, I support them too.
GND is the energy side of it.
Again, you're not being very specific. I can't believe you are against a better, cleaner, safer environment. So what is it that you oppose?
Sorry. I thought you kept up with the news.
Now you're being snarky. I thought you wanted to stop that. Have you changed your mind?
Wondergirl
Oct 11, 2020, 01:46 PM
My statement is absolutely true. Your reply to the effect that if they're wealthy then they called for their own taxes to be raised is silliness.
What about Illinois governor Pritzker?
tomder55
Oct 11, 2020, 02:17 PM
lol the wealthy are covered . Quid's call for raising taxes on those over incomes of $400,000 impacts the upper "Middle Class" . The millionaires and billionaires work the system that Quid and everyone else leaves in place. More billionaires support Quid than Trump .(the caveat being that their accountants are working over time this year to take advantage of the current tax rates .
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/06/30/biden-now-up-to-106-billionaire-donors-trump-has-93/#5630428d2341
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-billionaire-supporters-vow-raise-taxes
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-wealthy-americans-are-prepping-their-finances-for-a-possible-joe-biden-presidency-this-is-all-going-up-and-you-may-never-see-it-as-good-as-it-is-now-2020-09-16
Wondergirl
Oct 11, 2020, 02:21 PM
Wealthy Pritzker wants Illinois to have a graduated tax, not a flat tax as it is now.
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 02:24 PM
The words plainly mean what they mean.Mine sure did.
I can't explain it but I suspect it is connected to your religionI agree that you can't explain it.
As I have said before, if you want your taxes raised to help the poor, then simply say so. You don't, and it's plain what that means.
Again, you're not being very specific. I can't believe you are against a better, cleaner, safer environment. So what is it that you oppose?You know what I was referring to, the increase of a socialist program of ever increasing government regulations. But you might want to note the utterly remarkable 15% decline in carbon emissions by the U.S. over the past twelve years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
WG, the reference was to people on this site, not to some governor.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 02:32 PM
The millionaires and billionaires work the system that Quid and everyone else leaves in place.
The only way the millionaires and billionaires can work the system is if the system allows it. The system can be structured to not allow it.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 02:39 PM
I was referring to the increase of a socialist program of ever increasing government regulations
Ok - it's the regulation by the government you are opposed to. Is that also the case with your health care comment? Government regulation? Am I right in assuming that other than government regulation you agree with health care for everybody and with a cleaner environment?
WG, the reference was to people on this site, not to some governor.
That's ok, WG. I didn't understand it, either.
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 03:07 PM
That's ok, WG. I didn't understand it, either.You didn't understand THIS??? "On not a single occasion has a single lib on this board ever suggested that THEIR taxes be raised in order to help the poor." Huh. I don't see how that could be not understood, especially considering that you both quoted AND responded to it, but OK.
Am I right in assuming that other than government regulation you agree with health care for everybody and with a cleaner environment?I don't think health care for all is a role of government. Cleaner environment, like the dramatic reduction in carbon emissions we are enjoying, in large part due to natural gas usage spurred on by fracking? Sure.
I will say this yet again. If you want it, then explain how to pay for it with no budget deficits. If you can't do that, then you don't have me on board.
Wondergirl
Oct 11, 2020, 03:23 PM
You didn't understand THIS??? "On not a single occasion has a single lib on this board ever suggested that THEIR taxes be raised in order to help the poor." Huh. I don't see how that could be not understood, especially considering that you both quoted AND responded to it, but OK. I don't think health care for all is a role of government. Cleaner environment, like the dramatic reduction in carbon emissions we are enjoying, in large part due to natural gas usage spurred on by fracking? Sure.
No. I had responded to this:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3859260#post3859260)
My statement is absolutely true. Your reply to the effect that if they're wealthy then they called for their own taxes to be raised is silliness.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 03:46 PM
No. I had responded to this:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3859260#post3859260)
My statement is absolutely true. Your reply to the effect that if they're wealthy then they called for their own taxes to be raised is silliness.
I
Me, too. I think he means that liberals on this website have not suggested that their own taxes be raised to help the poor. He seems very upset about that, but I don't know in what context among all the topics and threads discussed here that that issue ever came up. I might still be misunderstanding him. As an independent politically, if it did come up, I might have missed it.
Wondergirl
Oct 11, 2020, 03:53 PM
Me, too. I think he means that liberals on this website have not suggested that their own taxes be raised to help the poor.
Why would he think that? or even care? Plus, he has absolutely no idea if and how the "liberals" on this site help others, help the poor, help those struggling financially.
paraclete
Oct 11, 2020, 03:59 PM
Me, too. I think he means that liberals on this website have not suggested that their own taxes be raised to help the poor. He seems very upset about that, but I don't know in what context among all the topics and threads discussed here that that issue ever came up. I might still be misunderstanding him. As an independent politically, if it did come up, I might have missed it.
In what form would that help take? free health care? higher welfare payments? free housing? low paid government jobs? free education? just throwing it out there is meaningless
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 04:06 PM
In what form would that help take? free health care? higher welfare payments? free housing? low paid government jobs? free education? just throwing it out there is meaningless
I agree. Jlsinbe "threw it out there". You'd have to ask him.
Why would he think that? or even care? Plus, he has absolutely no idea if and how the "liberals" on this site help others, help the poor, help those struggling financially.
I don't know.
jlisenbe
Oct 11, 2020, 04:09 PM
Me, too. I think he means that liberals on this website have not suggested that their own taxes be raised to help the poor. Don't be stupid. There was no suggestion. I said it plainly. Perhaps you can "expound" on that since you said you like to "expound" so much? Hmmm?
No. I had responded to this:How many times must I tell you, grasshopper? You must keep up.
Athos
Oct 11, 2020, 04:18 PM
Don't be stupid. There was no suggestion. I said it plainly. Perhaps you can "expound" on that since you said you like to "expound" so much? Hmmm?
Look, A**HOLE, get with the program or get the eff out. You're trying the patience of everyone here.
paraclete
Oct 11, 2020, 05:05 PM
Don't be stupid. There was no suggestion. I said it plainly. Perhaps you can "expound" on that since you said you like to "expound" so much? Hmmm?
the only one who likes
to "expound" so much is you
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 04:31 AM
Look, A**HOLE, get with the program or get the eff out. You're trying the patience of everyone here.That's what your "expounding" looks like? Well, once again, nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to the name calling. Disappointing, but totally expected whenever you get your little feelings hurt.. You don't like it when someone points out your concept of "pain-free charity". Forcing others to support your charitable inclinations isn't much of an exercise in character.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 05:10 AM
That's what your "expounding" looks like? Well, once again, nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to the name calling. Disappointing, but totally expected whenever you get your little feelings hurt.
You reap what you sow, A-Man.
You don't like it when someone points out your concept of "pain-free charity".
Another manufacture from your fevered brain.
Forcing others to support your charitable inclinations isn't much of an exercise in character.
You're the last one to talk about character. Making up stuff to suit your belief is not character.
This is just another diversion from the issue. A tactic you employ whenever necessary. Since you have nothing to say, and have failed to respond to questions, it is time to put you back in your room and close the door.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 05:35 AM
Still waiting for you to "expound" on your idea of forcing others to do what you are absolutely not willing to do yourself, and then patting yourself on the back as though you have done something remarkable. I guess if I was in that position, I might try name calling as well. After all, you have nothing else to go with.
Another great comparison would be forcing your sister to enroll in a clinical trials study of a new drug, and then bragging about how much you support medical research.
"Pain-free charity". I like that. 100% accurate.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 05:43 AM
Still waiting for you to "expound" on your idea of forcing others to do what you are absolutely not willing to do yourself, and then patting yourself on the back as though you have done something remarkable. I guess if I was in that position, I might try name calling as well. After all, you have nothing else to go with.
I have no idea what you're trying to say - nobody else here does, either.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 05:52 AM
I have no idea what you're trying to sayYou know exactly what I'm saying. You just don't like it.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 05:52 AM
You know exactly what I'm saying. You just don't like it.
This is not an explanation of what you're trying to say. Do you even know?
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 05:55 AM
I understand it very well. So do you, but I guess I'll just have to wait until another day to see how you "expound" on topics.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 06:11 AM
I understand it very well.
If you understand it so well, so then ask it here right now and I will answer it.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 07:03 AM
If you understand it so well, so then ask it here right now and I will answer it.
Well, he's run away.
If anyone was watching this thread, please note that I called his bluff and he backed down unable or unwilling to respond. This is the little girl coming out in him – the little girl that he usually projects onto others.
I apologize for egging him on and taking up space here where serious issues are the norm. Sometimes, dealing with a pest, it is necessary to confront the pest to show him for what he is.
I should have just ignored him which I once did – successfully. But I thought I would give him another chance. That was my mistake.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 07:32 AM
I don't sit around all day eagerly anticipating your responses. Sometimes a few hours go by while I do other things.
You want a question? OK. Here it is again. Do you consider your morality to be superior simply because you want to legally force others to do (pay higher taxes) what you are absolutely, positively, and completely unwilling to do yourself?
This is the little girl coming out in him – the little girl that he usually projects onto others.Please try to have some original thoughts rather than just copying mine.
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 09:58 AM
Nobody is forcing anyone to do a darn thing. We who believe in the American way follow the laws and we work to change them through lawful processes as set forth in our constitution. Don't like taxes? Take your arse someplace else then, or work within the system to make changes.
You have a right to whine and say stupid stuff, and ask weird misleading rhetorical question, but don't expect everybody to buy into it, as obviously I don't. I mean I could ask you the question, Do you think you are morally superior because you give inadequate charity and can quote the words of ancient man?
We vote for our causes and express our opinions and push back against what we don't like because we can. Ain't cha glad about that? Voting Wednesday morning against you wingers and your crap. Win or lose. I honestly have taken a perverse sick pleasure expressing disgust at the current regime, but hope it gets voted out.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 10:19 AM
(fm Athos)This is the little girl coming out in him – the little girl that he usually projects onto others.
(reply fm Jl)Please try to have some original thoughts rather than just copying mine
It's too much fun giving you a taste of your own medicine. LOL.
-from Jilsenbe ----- Here it is again (the Question)Do you consider your morality to be superior simply because you want to legally force others to do (pay higher taxes) what you are absolutely, positively, and completely unwilling to do yourself?
In law, that's called a compound question and assumes what is not in evidence. However, here's a breakdown as my answer:
NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state. I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes. I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes.
Satisfied?
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 10:45 AM
It's too much fun giving you a taste of your own medicine. LOL.
In law, that's called a compound question and assumes what is not in evidence. However, here's a breakdown as my answer:
NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state. I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes. I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes.
Satisfied?
Yeah what he said. GREAT response. I would add give hard working poor people a raise, but then I would have to listen to all the excuses why they can't have one. Rich people pay all the taxes, but poor people do all the work.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 11:04 AM
Nobody is forcing anyone to do a darn thing.Thank for showing that you know nothing about tax law. Of course it's mandatory. What's wrong with you?
We vote for our causes and express our opinions and push back against what we don't like because we can. Ain't cha glad about that?Yes.
It's too much fun giving you a taste of your own medicine. LOL.Nah. You just can't come up with your own stuff, so you have to copy me. Too bad.
"Do you consider your morality to be superior simply because you want to legally force others to do (pay higher taxes) what you are absolutely, positively, and completely unwilling to do yourself?"
NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state. I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes. I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes.A little honesty would be nice. You listed what Biden is advocating for several posts back. Guess what was at the core of it. Higher taxes for the wealthy, so you are not being honest in saying that you do not want to "legally force others to pay higher taxes." To say you don't is ridiculous. As far as your taxes are concerned, you say you that are wiling now for them to be higher, but you have NEVER advocated for that before I made it an issue. But thankfully you are now on record as saying your position is not morally superior, so I no longer have to listen to your moralizing about higher taxes. That is a relief to have you on the record. And for the record, I do commend you for actually answering a question. That's a step forward to be sure.
Rich people pay all the taxes
Finally. An honest man.
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 12:28 PM
"Do you consider your morality to be superior simply because you want to legally force others to do (pay higher taxes) what you are absolutely, positively, and completely unwilling to do yourself?"
A little honesty would be nice.
A little intelligence would be even nicer!
You listed what Biden is advocating for several posts back. Guess what was at the core of it. Higher taxes for the wealthy, so you are not being honest in saying that you do not want to "legally force others to pay higher taxes.
I don't know how you get from one, "higher taxes", to the other, "I want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." If someone doesn't pay taxes, do you expect me to make a citizen's arrest? This is one of the nuttiest things you've ever come up with, and you have come up with some really nutty stuff!
Maybe you can cite the law that authorizes me to arrest non-tax-payers?
To say you don't is ridiculous.
The prize for ridiculous goes to you this week. Second place isn't even close.
As far your taxes are concerned, you say you are wiling now for them to be higher, but you have NEVER advocated for that before I made it an issue.
Of course I never advocated for that before, because, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU YOURSELF JUST MADE IT AN ISSUE! Jl, your frenzy is leading you down a dark path. I mean that seriously, not as a joke.
PS - I also never advocated here for drivers to possess a driver's license. Does that mean I want to illegally force drivers to possess a driver's license? Think before you leap Jl, or you're going to go off the deep end.
But thankfully I no longer have to listen to your moralizing about higher taxes.
Guess what? You NEVER had to listen. It was always totally your choice to make.
That is a relief to have you on the record.
I'm not sure what relief and/or what record. My answer described what was always my belief which should have been obvious to anyone reading what I wrote.
And for the record, I do commend you for actually answering a question.
For the record, you once demanded what my belief was re Hell. If I responded. you promised to tell your belief.
I told you my belief. You said it was not a belief because I said I didn't believe in hell. You said not believing was not a belief. That was an amazing piece of sophistry that even you should have been ashamed of.
To this day, I am waiting for the answer you promised, but you have yet to live up to that promise.
(Jl, this has been one of your worst replies - it was really dumb.)
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 12:53 PM
I don't know how you get from one, "higher taxes", to the other, "I want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." If someone doesn't pay taxes, do you expect me to make a citizen's arrest? This is one of the nuttiest things you've ever come up with, and you have come up with some really nutty stuff!
Maybe you can cite the law that authorizes me to arrest non-tax-payers?So you are seriously suggesting that you think we are talking about you personally enforcing tax laws? On what planet full of crazy people would that assumption be made? Still, I'm glad to know that you are now on record as saying, "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." Now why you are supporting the Harris ticket that DOES want to do that very thing is a mystery. Perhaps you can "expound" on that some.
Of course I never advocated for that before,More progress!!
That's about the only part of your comments that are worth replying to. It's just amazing how liberals, rather than simply answering a question, have to go to the place of needing a point by point analysis to answer a very simple question. But as I said, I do appreciate your profession that you do not want to legally (by law) force others to pay higher taxes, and that you don't consider your tax proposals, whatever they are, to have any morally superior basis. We have made much progress today! It just goes to show what I have long believed. If you can get a liberal to answer a few questions, then the truth becomes plain. Well, at least it becomes plainER.
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 01:08 PM
You're a NUT! At least be an honest one and quote me fully instead of cherry picking parts of it.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 03:57 PM
I quoted you exactly. Stop whining. If that's not what you meant to say, then man up and say it more accurately. Don't blame me for your problems.
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 04:07 PM
Yeah what he said. GREAT response. I would add give hard working poor people a raise, but then I would have to listen to all the excuses why they can't have one. Rich people pay all the taxes, but poor people do all the work.
That would be exactly what I said, and what I meant to say.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 04:14 PM
Rich people pay all the taxesHow does context change the meaning of your quote?
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 04:42 PM
Simple since the statement was incomplete in your version. I have pointed out to you many times about how you pick out stuff you agree with and dismiss the rest. You destroyed the context I set. Poor people do pay taxes by the way, even before they collect the money they earned. Ever see a rich guy mop a floor? Not even his own. You never answer the basic question, how rich is a guy that can AFFORD to pay 87% of the government budget and still be rich enough to not miss it?
But go ahead and keep whining about the taxes you are forced to pay! Blame it on those liberals, even though the elected conservatives do it too.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 05:45 PM
Poor people do pay taxes by the wayYou don't need to tell me that. You need to tell YOU that. You are the one who said that rich people pay all the taxes. If that's not what you meant, then why did you say it?
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 06:10 PM
I expected you and everyone else to understand exactly what I meant, or figure it out. My bad for forgetting you are a strictly literal reader.
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 06:17 PM
I see now! You actually meant that everyone should vote for Trump instead of the harris/Biden ticket. Gosh that’s so easy!! I really like that non-literal reading.
talaniman
Oct 12, 2020, 06:54 PM
You're a NUT!
jlisenbe
Oct 12, 2020, 07:45 PM
I'm just following the new rules of non-literal reading introduced by you. Remember how we're just supposed to "figure out" your meaning? In other words, don't read your words, but read your mind. And you think I'm the nut? Instead of calling names, why don't you do us all a favor and learn how to write more clearly.
paraclete
Oct 12, 2020, 09:04 PM
I'm just following the new rules of non-literal reading introduced by you. Remember how we're just supposed to "figure out" your meaning? In other words, don't read your words, but read your mind. And you think I'm the nut? Instead of calling names, why don't you do us all a favor and learn how to write more clearly.
take your own advice, better still refrain from giving advice since you really have no idea
Athos
Oct 12, 2020, 11:52 PM
So you are seriously suggesting that you think we are talking about you personally enforcing tax laws? On what planet full of crazy people would that assumption be made?
Still, I'm glad to know that you are now on record as saying, "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." Now why you are supporting the Harris ticket that DOES want to do that very thing is a mystery. Perhaps you can "expound" on that some.
More progress!!
That's about the only part of your comments that are worth replying to. It's just amazing how liberals, rather than simply answering a question, have to go to the place of needing a point by point analysis to answer a very simple question.
But as I said, I do appreciate your profession that you do not want to legally (by law) force others to pay higher taxes, and that you don't consider your tax proposals, whatever they are, to have any morally superior basis. We have made much progress today! It just goes to show what I have long believed. If you can get a liberal to answer a few questions, then the truth becomes plain. Well, at least it becomes plainER.
Tal said it best - YOU'RE NUTS!!
talaniman
Oct 13, 2020, 04:00 AM
Tal said it best - YOU'RE NUTS!!
Just pointing out the obvious.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 04:23 AM
Definition of "nut". "A person who raises questions for which you have no answers." Like I say, when you have nothing intelligent to say, then you get frustrated and resort to your junior high persona. I do feel like progress has definitely been made, however. We actually have Athos on record with some clear statements.
1. "NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state." (because you want to legally force others to {pay higher taxes})
2. "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes."
3. "I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes."
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/report.php?p=3859314
Now he is supporting the Harris ticket which supports legally forcing the wealthy to pay much higher tax rates while NOT raising his tax rates, so those seem to be hollow beliefs, but at least it provides a basis for further discussion. You cannot, I might add, resort to your usual, "JL misquoted me" complaint, a complaint for which you are never able to cite so much as a single example. I copied and pasted your quotes above.
I had Tal on record with a statement. "Rich people pay all the taxes". However, he then went on to admit he had misstated his position and acknowledged that poor people pay taxes, which raises the question of why he said that rich people pay "all" the taxes in the first place. Oh well. Then, quite naturally, he complained that I had taken his words "literally". As is usually the case with liberals, their mistakes are always someone else's fault. That must be a very pleasant world to live in.
paraclete
Oct 13, 2020, 05:43 AM
No you have been pointing out for months that rich people pay taxes, 80% of taxes and as I pointed out to you, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, that statistic will remain, because it is a statistic and statistics arn't facts they are just statistics
talaniman
Oct 13, 2020, 07:00 AM
Definition of "nut". "A person who raises questions for which you have no answers."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nut
6a: a o foolish, eccentric, or crazy person
I had Tal on record with a statement. "Rich people pay all the taxes". However, he then went on to admit he had misstated his position and acknowledged that poor people pay taxes, which raises the question of why he said that rich people pay "all" the taxes in the first place. Oh well. Then, quite naturally, he complained that I had taken his words "literally". As is usually the case with liberals, their mistakes are always someone else's fault. That must be a very pleasant world to live in.
You NUT! The full quote was copy and pasted and you ignored it all but what sounded good to you. I didn't misstate a darn thing, YOU DID! You do it all the time and expect people to go for it which is pure insanity.
You aren't even a good literalist because you edit out relevant parts for your own purpose.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 07:17 AM
I didn't misstate a darn thingWell OK then. You believe the rich pay all the taxes. That's what, according to you, you stated and not misstated. I'm fine with that. Just trying to get you fine with standing by your own words and not blaming it all on someone else. I edited out nothing. I quoted it exactly as you said it and the context changed nothing in its meaning. First you accuse me of being too literal, and then you claim you misstated nothing. I think you don't like being in a trap of your own making. I guess that's what gets you so excited and worked up all the time. You need learn how to become a little calmer and a lot more rational.
Athos
Oct 13, 2020, 09:12 AM
So you are seriously suggesting that you think we are talking about you personally enforcing tax laws? On what planet full of crazy people would that assumption be made?
The planet full of crazy people that you call home. Next.
Still, I'm glad to know that you are now on record as saying, "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes." Now why you are supporting the Harris ticket that DOES want to do that very thing is a mystery. Perhaps you can "expound" on that some.
I'll be glad to expound. Pay attention, if you can.
The only way to effect taxes is through the taxing authority of the government. The government gets that authority from the consent of the governed. To read that consent as "legally forcing" is to misconstrue the entire apparatus of an elected government. Are you the type that is ready to take up arms as part of a "militia" opposing that concept. I hope not.
That's the only part of your comments that are worth replying to.
You generally avoid replying to the comments that you can't defend. This time it was hell. Abortion and socialism still await a reply from you. A re-statement of what you have already said is NOT a defense.
It's just amazing how liberals, rather than simply answering a question, have to go to the place of needing a point by point analysis to answer a very simple question.
Pay attention, again.
That's how liberals, or anyone else, reply effectively to a claim - with a point by point analysis, especially to a simple question which, by definition, leaves so much out that is necessary. Since you can't do that, you throw it under the bus. Don't you realize how truly dopey you look with statements like that?
you do not want to legally (by law) force others to pay higher taxes
True.
and that you don't consider your tax proposals, whatever they are, to have any morally superior basis.
Very true!
If you can get a liberal to answer a few questions, then the truth becomes plain.
The truth was always plain - plain as the nose on your face. It's not the fault of others you can't see it.
Athos
Oct 13, 2020, 09:31 AM
We actually have Athos on record with some clear statements.
1. "NO, I do NOT consider myself morally superior for the reason you state." (because you want to legally force others to {pay higher taxes})
2. "I do NOT want to legally force others to pay higher taxes."
3. "I am absolutely, positively, and completely WILLING to pay higher taxes."
Thank you, jl. Athos, me, has a habit of making clear statements. It's easy enough to verify that - go back a few years and see what I've written. Unlike you, Jl, most members here make clear statements.
Now he is supporting the Harris ticket which supports legally forcing the wealthy to pay much higher tax rates while NOT raising his tax rates, so those seem to be hollow beliefs,
I'm not familiar with the "Harris ticket". I'm not even sure who he is. Although your rendition of his "ticket" seems good to me as far as it goes. I have no problem with my tax rates being raised as I've already said, and which you just quoted above. So why you say my beliefs are "hollow" is one more of your semantic mysteries. Honestly, jl, the ways of expressing English are clearly beyond your ken. Shocking for someone who claims to be a teacher.
You cannot, I might add, resort to your usual, "JL misquoted me" complaint, a complaint for which you are never able to cite so much as a single example.
My usual complaint about you is that you are so stupid and mean-spirited - not misquoting although you probably do that, also. I think you misquote the others here more than me.
I copied and pasted your quotes above.
Yes, you did. Thank you. I'm very proud of my quotes.
I had Tal on record with a statement. "Rich people pay all the taxes". However, he then went on to admit he had misstated his position and acknowledged that poor people pay taxes, which raises the question of why he said that rich people pay "all" the taxes in the first place. Oh well. Then, quite naturally, he complained that I had taken his words "literally". As is usually the case with liberals, their mistakes are always someone else's fault. That must be a very pleasant world to live in.
More evidence of your tendency to misunderstand what is being written.
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 09:46 AM
to JL: More evidence of your tendency to misunderstand what is being written.
Even I, a woman (a mere WOMAN!), understood what Tal had written.
Athos
Oct 13, 2020, 09:52 AM
Even I, a woman (a mere WOMAN!), understood what Tal had written.
HEY - isn't Wonder WOMAN your mom? Can you deflect bullets with your wrist like Mother? You're hardly MERE. You are - drum beat - WONDERGIRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 10:51 AM
HEY - isn't Wonder WOMAN your mom? Can you deflect bullets with your wrist like Mother? You're hardly MERE. You are - drum beat - WONDERGIRLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!
Some men don't think so. If only they'd meet with me in a public library at 302 or even 616.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 11:11 AM
The only way to effect taxes is through the taxing authority of the government. The government gets that authority from the consent of the governed. To read that consent as "legally forcing" is to misconstrue the entire apparatus of an elected government. Are you the type that is ready to take up arms as part of a "militia" opposing that concept. I hope not.Never thought someone would have such an issue with the very simple concept of what "legally forced" might mean. Of course taxation is legally forced, as in "legal enforcement". Do you think people do them voluntarily? If you don't think they are legally forced, try not paying your taxes. You will fairly soon have a new understanding of the concept.
This time it was hell. Abortion and socialism still await a reply from you. A re-statement of what you have already said is NOT a defense.I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again? There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered. But I will be more than happy to do this. I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you.
I have no problem with my tax rates being raised as I've already saidYou say it now. You never said it before I raised it as a question for you. So I will be happy to accept your thanks for helping you clarify your views.
I'm very happy you did not resort to the silly allegation, completely unsupported, that I misquoted you. You've tried that before to no avail, so it's nice it didn't happen here. I'm also very happy to have you on record so you can't change your views a few weeks from now. It does make it a somewhat more rational world.
As to Tal's views, I clearly understand, as do the two of you, what he said. In most places, saying that the rich pay all of the taxes means that...the rich pay all of the taxes. If either of you knows some way he can wriggle out of that, please post it. Now you can argue that he MEANT something else, but you cannot argue that he SAID something else.
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 12:46 PM
If either of you knows some way he can wriggle out of that, please post it. Now you can argue that he MEANT something else, but you cannot argue that he SAID something else.
You are truly a literalist and take no interest in context.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 12:49 PM
If you can explain how his context altered his meaning, then go for it. I've been hearing that rumor for three days now, but have seen no substance. This is your chance. Seize it, oh Wonderwoman...er, Wondergirl!
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 01:37 PM
BTW, I'm completely open to the idea that Tal meant something other than what he said. It would be fine to simply come back and say, "I was using hyperbole. I did not literally mean that the wealthy pay all of the taxes." OK. That's understandable. But instead, there has to be this hyper response such as the one, right on cue, below. As I've said, it is always, always someone else's fault.
talaniman
Oct 13, 2020, 01:37 PM
Give it up dude, quoting a part of the post is lying by omission you fruitcake. No wonder you're a loon you have spun yourself dizzy. Stop changing what I said and lying about what I meant. Twisting stuff around seems to bring you perverse pleasure so should we have pretzels instead of donuts? OOOOOH...Nice big soft warm pretzels. 8O
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 01:38 PM
If you can explain how his context altered his meaning, then go for it.
You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class. Ah, and no Shakespeare either? (Shakespeare's works are rife with metaphors and tropes.) "All the world's a stage" and "But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!" and "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! —Horatio, Hamlet"
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 01:40 PM
I posted this just seconds, evidently, before Tal posted his. I want to repost it. He did a splendid job of verifying what I was saying. "BTW, I'm completely open to the idea that Tal meant something other than what he said. It would be fine to simply come back and say, "I was using hyperbole. I did not literally mean that the wealthy pay all of the taxes." OK. That's understandable. But instead, there has to be this hyper response such as the one, right on cue, below (or now above)."
This was your first well reasoned, sensible, calm remark. "You're a NUT! At least be an honest one and quote me fully instead of cherry picking parts of it." Good grief. Stop the snowflake routine. As I've said, it is always, always someone else's fault.
So there can never be a well-reasoned response. It always has to be a blast of finger pointing, ignorance and name calling. And now you are being compared to Shakespeare? Hmmm.
You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class.Twice. I am very familiar with it. In what way was, "the rich pay all of the taxes" a metaphor? Probably more like hyperbole?
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 02:02 PM
Twice. I am very familiar with it. In what way was, "the rich pay all of the taxes" a metaphor? Probably more like hyperbole?
I said metaphorical language. I'd call the sentence you are quibbling about a trope: "...its major function is to give additional meaning to the text, and allow readers to think profoundly..."
Athos
Oct 13, 2020, 02:05 PM
Give it up dude, quoting a part of the post is lying by omission you fruitcake. No wonder you're a loon you have spun yourself dizzy. Stop changing what I said and lying about what I meant. Twisting stuff around seems to bring you perverse pleasure so should we have pretzels instead of donuts? OOOOOH...Nice big soft warm pretzels. 8O
Originally posted by Wondergirl
You must have not studied metaphorical language in a college English class. Ah, and no Shakespeare either? (Shakespeare's works are rife with metaphors and tropes.) "All the world's a stage" and "But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun!" and "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! —Horatio, Hamlet"
Two posts each renowned for their remarkable use of language expressed so elegantly. It is an honor to be residing in such a wonderfully literate home such as AMHD. I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.
“Lord Polonius: What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet: Words, words, words.
Lord Polonius: What is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet: Between who?
Lord Polonius: I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet
Read on, MacDuff.
(https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1885548)
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 02:17 PM
I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.
Thank you, dear Athos. Now if only JL had crudites to share with us.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 02:19 PM
I said metaphorical language. I'd call the sentence you are quibbling about a trope: "...its major function is to give additional meaning to the text, and allow readers to think profoundly..."I normally concede to you in matters of grammar, but I don't see here that it gave the text any additional meaning, unless you consider saying something that is untrue amounts to giving additional meaning. I think he was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole.
I am equally (almost) grateful to Jl who, with his crudities, allows such lights as you two to shine.Always nice to be appreciated. Also nice for you to give us a pretty extreme example of hyperbole. Wow.
Also nice to see how enthusiastically WG supports shaming and insults. Unless, of course, she thinks they are aimed at her. Hmmm. How do you define, "double standard"?
Do you plan on taking me up on this, oh thou elegant one, thou shining light named Athos? "But I will be more than happy to do this. I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you." Answers need to be relatively complete with no dodging or mud slinging.
A couple of other items you did not respond to. " If you don't think they are legally forced, try not paying your taxes. You will fairly soon have a new understanding of the concept." "I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again? There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered." Perhaps you simply overlooked them. It has been a busy day, and you have needed time to wax eloquent with your glowing compliments. I'm beginning to wonder about you two!! (For the humor impaired, that is a joke.)
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 02:31 PM
I don't see that it gave the text any additional meaning, unless you consider saying something that is untrue amounts to giving additional meaning. I think he was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole.
Nope.
Don't be a dope.
It's a trope.
Yes. I know you'll mope.
I definitely have hope
That, in time, you'll learn to cope
And please don't call the Pope!
I don't want to tie you up with rope!
(Maybe wash your mouth out with soap?)
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 02:37 PM
Why can't you answer a simple question? What additional meaning did it give?
Calling you and Tal "lights" that "shine"? Yeahhh, I'd say that was hyperbole seven days a week. Your poem above pretty much seals the deal and everything Tal writes REALLY seals the deal. I wouldn't suggest sending your poem to a publisher. Just sayin.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 02:44 PM
"The rich pay all the taxes." That supplied additional, true information? Really???
Hyperbole.
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 02:48 PM
I wouldn't suggest sending your poem to a publisher. Just sayin.
Naw, I write better stuff than that, have been traditionally published seven times. Now I write for fun and send my work to entertain my friends who are homebound and in nursing homes. (Our cats and my hematology team have given me lots of story ideas.) Although, I did recently send in a 100-word flash fiction to a magazine for a $1000 prize.
"The rich pay all the taxes." That supplied additional, true information? Really???
Hyperbole.
Nope. (Don't make me write another rap poem!) Quote the entire passage, not just a cherry-picked sentence.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 02:51 PM
Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!
"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.
Wondergirl
Oct 13, 2020, 02:55 PM
Alright, Ms. Dodger. That was the sentence in question, not the entire passage. Keep up!
"The rich pay all the taxes." Hyperbole.
Hope you don't fall out of the tree, Mr. Cherry Picker.
For that sentence by itself, I'll go with irony.
jlisenbe
Oct 13, 2020, 03:08 PM
Oh please. Irony? You just can't admit it, can you? If he had said, "The poor, after all, pay all the taxes," then that would be irony. What he said was an exaggeration of what is already largely true. Hyperbole.
paraclete
Oct 13, 2020, 03:30 PM
Hyperbole? you are the master of it
Athos
Oct 13, 2020, 07:53 PM
Never thought someone would have such an issue with the very simple concept of what "legally forced" might mean. Of course taxation is legally forced, as in "legal enforcement".
That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.
I will be happy to repost the 25 scriptures concerning hell I have posted three or four times before. Do you want to see them again?
I have seen them and answered some, not all because they are really different quotes on the same topic. Answer one and you've answered them all. However, if you want me to answer one by one, I'll be glad to do it. But, and this is a huge "but", before you post them, first say precisely what your position is on the subject. The original subject that I objected to was your belief that anybody who did not accept Jesus went to hell for eternal punishment. I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time. Be that as it may, state your position and I will reply.
There are no outstanding questions on socialism or abortion I have not already answered.
Yes, there are. Socialism - you left it with health care not being a function of government. But didn't answer how you would manage it without regulation - my previous question.
Abortion - the issue was about the zygote and how, if it was human life as you maintain, why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation. Then the thread got hijacked by discussions on menstruation, etc., etc. We never got back to the question. Not your fault - it just happened that way. I forgot about it myself.
I'll engage in the "ask a question, and then answer a question" system of dialogue with you. You can ask first if you'd like, but you must pledge to answer the question that will come back at you.
Here's the problem with that. I already answered that. It's at the bottom of my post #62 from yesterday. To say it again, you made the same offer and did not live up to it. Will you live up to it this time?
You say it now. You never said it before I raised it as a question for you. ( fm Athos - To prevent confusion, this was about taxes)
Another one I already answered, which your comment agrees with! Read my lips - I never said it before because IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?
So I will be happy to accept your thanks for helping you clarify your views.
Fat chance!
I'm also very happy to have you on record so you can't change your views a few weeks from now.
Here's a test question for you - reference the post(s) where I changed my views after a few weeks.
As to Tal's views
Tal can speak for himself. He sure as hell doesn't need me to speak for him. He does that quite nicely.
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 04:12 AM
You answered none of them other than your contention that aionios means something less than eternal, a view held by a remarkably small minority. I never changed my view. People are judged and go to hell for sin.
why are you and other anti-abortionists not lobbying for a way to prevent a zygote from being destroyed during menstruation.The loss of a zygote in that fashion is not criminal any more than a stillborn child is. It is one thing for nature to take its course as it will with all of us eventually. It is an entirely different issue for a med professional to purposely kill an unborn child. This can easily be compared to a person dying of old age versus that same person being shot and murdered.
IT NEVER CAME UP BEFORE! Why is that so hard to understand?
You never cease talking about raising the taxes of others and how the wealthy supposedly do not pay their fair share. It is mighty strange that you never bothered to include yourself in that group who should have their taxes raised until I raised the issue. Very strange indeed, but at least you are now on record with it. Of course you support the Harris/Biden ticket which supports raising taxes substantially on the wealthy but not on you, and yet you have never been critical of that position. Strange indeed.
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 04:18 AM
I read your reply on post 62 and you are correct that I missed seeing it. However, first you say I didn't answer a question on hell, and then you say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?
Athos
Oct 14, 2020, 10:02 AM
I read your reply on post 62 and you are correct that I missed seeing it.
I'm not going to reply to your post # 106 - it's all repetitive nonsense. There's no point in going down that road again.
You say, " I seem to recall you changed that slightly over time." How did I supposedly change it "slightly over time" without answering it to begin with? At any rate, since I have answered it again just now, are you prepared for my question?
This is how you changed it. In the beginning, I challenged you on your belief that those who did not accept Jesus would go to hell for eternal punishment. You supported that belief by saying "The Bible says so". Then the discussion went on with me asking you to put it in your own words. But you would never do that - always referring me to the Bible. Variations of this theme went on forever it seems until your failure to own up to your promise if I stated my belief. That's all noted in my post #62 which you have read, so I won't repeat it.
If your position NOW is "People are judged and go to hell for sin" - that is about as far as you can get from the original stated belief of yours. It makes no mention of accepting Jesus and is so wishy-washy as to have no real meaning at all.
You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?
Wondergirl
Oct 14, 2020, 11:01 AM
If your [JL's] position NOW is "People are judged and go to hell for sin"
ALL have sinned (Romans 3:23), so all are going to hell?
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 12:47 PM
I thought you knew your Bible better than that, WG. Read the next three verses for your answer.
Wondergirl
Oct 14, 2020, 12:50 PM
I thought you knew your Bible better than that, WG. Read the next three verses for your answer.
Oh, but I'm cherry-picking to emulate my hero cherry-picker.
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 12:56 PM
Athos I have not changed my belief or answer. Hell is the judgement for sin. Are you ready for a question?
Weak weak reply WG, but at least you have your answer.
Athos
Oct 14, 2020, 01:51 PM
Athos I have not changed my belief or answer. Hell is the judgement for sin. Are you ready for a question?
I've already described (more than once) what your belief was as originally stated. Are you denying that your belief then was that those who did not accept Jesus are going to hell for eternal punishment? It's OK if you are.
If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.
As I explained above, I'm always ready for any question from anybody. Here's what I wrote.
You ask "Are you prepared for my question?" If you stick to issues, any issues under the sun, and not personal details, I'm always prepared for your question. All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?
Have at it.
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 04:33 PM
If you have re-thought that position and changed it to "Hell is the judgement for sin" I have no problem with you changing it. Your latest definition avoids several key elements of your original - to wit: punishment, Jesus, and eternal. Actually, that's far better than the original.I haven't rethought or changed anything, but I do think I see the source of your confusion. You regard the two statements to be mutually exclusive. They are not. They are actually complimentary. It can be easily seen in the statement, posted repeatedly, of Jesus in John 16. "Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." Now what shall they die in? Their sins. And what is the solution for that? "Believe that I am He." So you can see that sin causes death, which is to say judgement and separation from God, and a belief in Christ leads to life and forgiveness. They are two sides of the same coin. The same concept can be easily seen in John 3:18 as well. "18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203&version=NASB#fen-NASB-26139f)]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." It can also be seen in Mt. 25. "46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Who goes into eternal judgment? Those who Jesus convicted of sin. Who goes into eternal life? The righteous. And how do we become righteous? Through faith in Christ.
All the members here are free to provide any personal details they want, but are not required to give them at the request of another. Fair enough?That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.
paraclete
Oct 14, 2020, 04:55 PM
relying of selective translation there Jl
Athos
Oct 14, 2020, 07:46 PM
I haven't rethought or changed anything,.......................................et c., etc., .................................................. .................etc ......................................... ve that I am He." So you can see that sin............................................... .............etc .......................................... .......................................etc........ .......? Through faith in Christ.
Nonsense. Do you want to see your original statements?
That bothers me. It seems that you are saying that you will answer a question, but you will not be required to do so. Well, I'm not interested in that. We must mutually agree to participate.
I knew you would find a reason to back out. We've been here before and you backed out then. Do you want to see that. too?
jlisenbe
Oct 14, 2020, 07:51 PM
There is another example of the complimentary nature of those two ideas that occurred to me tonight. From John 3 we read the account from Exodus of the deadly serpents. They were sent by God in judgement upon Israel for sin. He also had an image of the serpent put on a pole, and anyone who looked upon the serpent was spared from death. Now you can't really say they were dying because they failed to look at the serpent. They were dying because they had been bitten by a serpent. If they failed to avail themselves of God's means of rescue, and so died, it could not be said to be directly from that failure. Death came from the serpent, but the two ideas are certainly related. One, in fact, occurred in response to the other.
Jesus applied that lesson to Himself. When we look upon Him in faith, we are spared from judgement. Judgement concerning what? Judgement concerning sin.
Do you want to see your original statements?Sure.
I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?
NonsenseWow. What a well reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent response.
Athos
Oct 14, 2020, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Athos:
Nonsense
Wow. What a well reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent response.
It perfectly dovetails with your nonsense about serpents.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 04:17 AM
Just in case you failed to see it.
"I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?"
You can back out, of course, at any time you want simply by saying so.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 04:25 AM
That was not the issue. The issue was about your view that being forced to pay for the poor by taxation was something I agreed to. My answer then and now is YES. To leave out the main issue is to lose focus. No one denies that taxes are the law and the law must be obeyed.That's only half true. The issue concerned having your taxes raised. You have now agreed that you are willing for that to happen. I anticipate seeing those times when you advocate for that outside of a question from me. I suspect I'll be waiting a while, but time will tell.
"I am absolutely, positively, and completelyWILLING to pay higher taxes."
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 07:01 AM
Raising and lowering taxes in America is the job of elected officials and not individuals, so if you're entitled to your opinion, why isn't everybody else entitled to theirs? As a matter of fact when they raise your taxes, they raise mine too, but last I checked taxes were going down not up! So what's you're whole point on taxes dude? You did get your tax cut didn't you? The dufus got his too!
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 07:10 AM
so if you're entitled to your opinion, why isn't everybody else entitled to theirs?Never said otherwise, so I have no idea why you would say that.
So what's you're whole point on taxes dude?My point, which I have stated many times, is that it gets tiresome to have to listen to the endless sermonizing of liberals of how we must raise taxes on the wealthy, who are falsely claimed to not be paying their "fair share", a completely stupid allegation, in order to take care of the poor. The people making that call for higher taxes typically have no interest in having their OWN taxes raised, but want to appear moral and caring because they are willing to force others to help the poor. It's a sickening claim that I try to never allow to go by unchallenged.
Athos has at least allowed that he would be OK with his own taxes going up. He hasn't actually called for that to happen, but perhaps that will come next. How about you?
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 07:38 AM
I have consistently voted for elected official that make ministering to the least of us a much higher priority than the greatest of us. My time and efforts go into the unelected citizens who also do good works for the least of us.
I voted that way YESTERDAY. I have consistently expressed that every time you have asked. I balk when my taxes are going in the dufus pocket every time he visit one of his properties, but you're okay with that right?
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 07:48 AM
You balk when they might raise YOUR taxes to help the poor. Until it costs you something it’s just hollow moralizing.
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 07:54 AM
Putting my money where my mouth is with my VOTE, words, and actions are not a balk. You saying it is doesn't make it so either. You're entitled to your opinion, right or wrong.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 08:18 AM
When you call for your taxes to be raised then you will have something worth saying. Voting to raise someone else’s taxes is not the moral high ground.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 10:44 AM
We've been here before and you backed out then. Do you want to see that. too?You better believe I want to see it. What you are saying is flatly untrue. But you have your big chance now, if you can get yourself to take it.
"I'm backing out of nothing. If you are willing to obligate yourself, then I'm all in. Are you willing?"
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 11:27 AM
When you call for your taxes to be raised then you will have something worth saying. Voting to raise someone else’s taxes is not the moral high ground.
I thought it was worth saying, and raising taxes on those that have millions and billions AFTER taxes is the right thing to do. Just as right as giving them MOMONEY that they didn't need, and we didn't have it.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 11:33 AM
raising taxes on those that have millions and billions AFTER taxes is the right thing to doSure it is. After all, they are only paying 87% of fed income tax now. Of course you could also actually start doing some things to help those poor people you claim to care so much about.
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 12:48 PM
How do you know I don't? I just don't go around bragging about it.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 01:05 PM
I am hopefully wrong. I do know you want others to pay more in taxes, but not you.
talaniman
Oct 15, 2020, 01:36 PM
Asked and answered. Review post #128, and my previous posts.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 03:40 PM
My statement. "I do know you want others to pay more in taxes, but not you."
Post 128. "I thought it was worth saying, and raising taxes on those that have millions and billions AFTER taxes is the right thing to do. Just as right as giving them MOMONEY that they didn't need, and we didn't have it."
Thank you for affirming what I said about you.
Wondergirl
Oct 15, 2020, 05:01 PM
My statement. "I do know you want others to pay more in taxes, but not you."
Post 128. "I thought it was worth saying, and raising taxes on those that have millions and billions AFTER taxes is the right thing to do. Just as right as giving them MOMONEY that they didn't need, and we didn't have it."
Thank you for affirming what I said about you.
Even Jay Robert "J. B." Pritzker (born January 19, 1965), an American businessman, philanthropist, and politician serving as the 43rd Governor of Illinois, a private business owner based in Chicago and a managing partner and co-founder of the Pritzker Group, and a member of the Pritzker family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain (and who has an estimated personal net worth of $3.4 billion) agrees that those with wealth should pay more in taxes.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 05:19 PM
They already do...a LOT more.
Wondergirl
Oct 15, 2020, 05:21 PM
They already do...a LOT more.
You know this how?
Why would Governor Pritzker push a graduated state tax if Illinois millionaires and billionaires are already paying far more than the law demands?
paraclete
Oct 15, 2020, 05:29 PM
He doesn't know anything, he just presumes
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 06:22 PM
You know this how?Well, it's been stated here repeatedly that the top 20% of wage earners pay more than 85% of fed income taxes.
Why would Governor Pritzker push a graduated state tax if Illinois millionaires and billionaires are already paying far more than the law demands?Who said they were?
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 07:12 PM
Guys, wifey and I will be heading to Texas, probably tomorrow, as our daughter is giving birth at this moment. I'll be gonezo for a while. As you can imagine, we are excited.
Wondergirl
Oct 15, 2020, 07:16 PM
Who said they were?
You did.
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 08:00 PM
Illinois millionaires and billionaires are already paying far more than the law demands?Pretty sure I didn't.
Wondergirl
Oct 15, 2020, 08:05 PM
Pretty sure I didn't.
JL: "They already do...a LOT more."
jlisenbe
Oct 15, 2020, 08:12 PM
That's not saying they do more than the law demands. Come on. I was responding to this statement which says nothing about doing more than the law demands. " a member of the Pritzker family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain (and who has an estimated personal net worth of $3.4 billion) agrees that those with wealth should pay more in taxes." And I replied, "They already do...a LOT more." It is unarguably true.
At any rate, I'm in grandbaby mode now. You'll have to discuss this with someone else.
Athos
Oct 16, 2020, 02:13 AM
That's not saying they do more than the law demands. Come on. I was responding to this statement which says nothing about doing more than the law demands. " a member of the Pritzker family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain (and who has an estimated personal net worth of $3.4 billion) agrees that those with wealth should pay more in taxes."
You have a one-note obsession with the percentage of federal taxes paid by the rich. That is only part of the story. Over and over, the complete story has been pointed out to you. But you simply ignore that, and revert to your obsession.
paraclete
Oct 16, 2020, 05:11 AM
[/B][/B]You have a one-note obsession with the percentage of federal taxes paid by the rich. That is only part of the story. Over and over, the complete story has been pointed out to you. But you simply ignore that, and revert to your obsession.
He is a one pony race and he is flogging that dead horse to death
jlisenbe
Oct 16, 2020, 05:29 AM
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
talaniman
Oct 16, 2020, 05:42 AM
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
It's not the COMPLETE truth though, just a factor of the larger picture, and that's the difference.
Wish you and yours the very best during this joyful time.
paraclete
Oct 16, 2020, 07:09 AM
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
I keep explaining it to you and you don't get it, it doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the statistic will remain the same
Wondergirl
Oct 16, 2020, 08:48 AM
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
And those wealthy Illinoisans also use their wealth to benefit education, hospitals and the Boy Scouts (as my cousin did when he was alive), start-up businesses, et al.
jlisenbe
Oct 16, 2020, 12:35 PM
Thanks Tal. Might note you are the only to say it. This is our first so we are excited. You have grandkids?
your tax statement is a fair one.
Wondergirl
Oct 16, 2020, 01:58 PM
Thanks Tal. Might note you are the only to say it. This is our first so we are excited. You have grandkids?
I saw your grandchild announcement long after you had posted it, plus you mentioned you wouldn't be on AMHD, so I was saving my congrats until your return. Soooooo, Congratulations, Grampy!!!
talaniman
Oct 17, 2020, 09:14 AM
Thanks Tal. Might note you are the only to say it. This is our first so we are excited. You have grandkids?
your tax statement is a fair one.
7 GKids ranging in age from 24-3. Still excited to this day over them. Please keep us updated about yours.
I admit I'm excited for you.
jlisenbe
Oct 17, 2020, 10:51 AM
Will do. I’ll post a pic once I’m back home. Where in Texas do you live?
paraclete
Oct 19, 2020, 06:04 AM
Does Trump have stock in the vaccine company?
talaniman
Oct 19, 2020, 10:30 AM
Will do. I’ll post a pic once I’m back home. Where in Texas do you live?
I like being anonymous on public forums for personal security. Sent you a PM.
Does Trump have stock in the vaccine company?
It's been reported he does but not verified as far as I know, but no doubt he has buddies that are.
jlisenbe
Oct 20, 2020, 10:35 AM
It's been reported he does but not verified as far as I know, but no doubt he has buddies that are."Not verified" "but no doubt" "as far as I know" Do you work for CNN?
Athos
Oct 20, 2020, 01:07 PM
It's been reported he does (own stock in the vaccine company) but not verified as far as I know, but no doubt he has buddies that are.
It's been verified by the Office of Government Ethics.
He has profited substantially from the three drugs. The Office of Government Ethics has reported that Trump gained $50,000 to $100,000 from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and $100,000 to $1,000,000 from Gilead Sciences. Both are makers of Remdesivir and Regeneron.
Also reported: Trump's family investments have a large ownership in Sanofi, a major producer of Hydroxychloroquine.
Trump continues to promote Remdesivir and Regeneron.
jlisenbe
Oct 20, 2020, 02:11 PM
The Office of Government Ethics has reported that Trump gained $50,000 to $100,000 from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and $100,000 to $1,000,000 from Gilead Sciences. Both are makers of Remdesivir and Regeneron.
Do you have any documentation on that? I did a search and came up empty.
jlisenbe
Oct 20, 2020, 02:17 PM
Being aware of how much you guys despise lying, I figured you'd want to jump all over this ad by Biden. It's full of real whoppers. My favorite is for this guy to whine about his business doing poorly in democrat controlled Michigan where the gov completely overreacted and shut down (illegally, I might add) so much of the economy that the result was pretty predictable. But of course that somehow comes out to be Trump's fault.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW86jyTsYe4&feature=emb_logo)
“For 50 years, The Blind Pig has been open and crowded – but right now it’s an empty room,” he says in the one-minute ad, showing the empty venue. “This is the reality of Trump’s COVID response.”
The ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW86jyTsYe4&feature=emb_logo), which was posted to YouTube on Thursday and aired Sunday on CBS during NFL games, features Joe Malcoun, who is listed as the “co-owner” of The Blind Pig, a once-popular bar and music venue in Ann Arbor, Mich. Malcoun blamed his business’ economic downturn on President Trump’s COVID-19 response.
What the ad fails to mention is the man is actually a wealthy tech investor who made contributions to the former vice president’s campaign. He also supported Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/gretchen-whitmer)'s stay-at-home orders that kept businesses shuttered longer. The ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW86jyTsYe4&feature=emb_logo), which was posted to YouTube on Thursday and aired Sunday on CBS during NFL games, features Joe Malcoun, who is listed as the “co-owner” of The Blind Pig, a once-popular bar and music venue in Ann Arbor, Mich. Malcoun blamed his business’ economic downturn on President Trump’s COVID-19 response.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-ad-michigan-tech-ceo-struggling-bar-owner
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-under-fire-for-tv-ad-featuring-tech-investor-as-struggling-bar-owner/ar-BB1adSCi?ocid=uxbndlbing
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 06:46 AM
The Office of Government Ethics has reported that Trump gained $50,000 to $100,000 from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and $100,000 to $1,000,000 from Gilead Sciences. Both are makers of Remdesivir and Regeneron.
Do you have any documentation on that? I did a search and came up empty.Guess not.
Wondergirl
Oct 21, 2020, 08:32 AM
Guess not.
I found it, but will let Athos follow up.
What about the new grandchild?
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 09:58 AM
She is doing well. A little premature at 5.5 pounds, but healthy and greatly loved. Our daughter had a section so she is pretty sore.
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 10:11 AM
I found it. but will let Athos follow up.I'm rather skeptical of that, but we'll see.
talaniman
Oct 21, 2020, 10:16 AM
Guess not.
Change your search terms or keywords because there are a ton of links to Athos's assertions going back years.
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 10:23 AM
Strange how the two of you are assuring me that there are "tons of links", but neither one of you can come up with one. Like I said...skeptical.
talaniman
Oct 21, 2020, 10:30 AM
Congrats on the birth of Gchild#1
For whatever reason your data input capacity is severely limited, I suspect that only you can fix it.
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 10:31 AM
Here's how it's supposed to be done. Look and learn. Notice that no one had to ask me for documentation or links.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=847746&page=8&p=3859586#post3859586
Thanks for the congrats. It's a special day, as I know you are more aware of than I am. Six?
talaniman
Oct 21, 2020, 10:51 AM
I have 7. Gson 1,2,3 are grown. 4 will be next year and Gdaughter 1 just turned 16, while 2, and 3 are 6 and 3! You think you're a nut, just wait...it gets nuttier.
jlisenbe
Oct 21, 2020, 11:02 AM
Oh Lord!
talaniman
Oct 21, 2020, 04:04 PM
Prayers may help but get used to peanut butter sandwiches! Gma's tend to ignore mates while Gbabies are around.
jlisenbe
Oct 22, 2020, 05:16 AM
I actually rather like PB sandwiches. 8D
tomder55
Oct 22, 2020, 06:23 PM
Plagiarizing .Biden says Trump has no plan. Then when asked what he would do he describes exactly what the Trump administration has already done.
paraclete
Oct 22, 2020, 08:10 PM
Plagiarizing .Biden says Trump has no plan. Then when asked what he would do he describes exactly what the Trump administration has already done.
So not his plan then, typical government, more of the same
tomder55
Oct 24, 2020, 07:03 AM
worth reading .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epidemiologists-stray-from-the-covid-herd-11603477330
Most pertinently, the two men are the authors—with Sunetra Gupta, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford—of the Great Barrington Declaration. Published on Oct. 4, the declaration is a cri de coeur against lockdowns and other economic restrictions that have hobbled swaths of the world. It asked instead for “focused protection”—a policy of allowing “those at minimal risk of death” to resume their lives while societies concentrate on “better protecting those who are at highest risk.”
https://gbdeclaration.org/
talaniman
Oct 24, 2020, 08:37 AM
I'm not at all sure about herd immunity, like how many would die while we get there is my question, but if we had a rapid response protocol to identify and deal with spikes and outbreaks then we could be more selective in our shutdowns/quarantines/isolations in ways that wouldn't send a bunch of sick people to the local hospital all at once. As to who gets sick and who dies? Sure we can read the trends and data we have collected but that's no guarantee, nor can we predict the exceptions to the rules. A bit presumptive and assumptive at best given the early stages of learning about this virus and the longer term effects after recovery after infection and the time it takes for that recovery which we know can vary greatly.
I don't know where that balance is or sweet spot for response but doubt seriously if we are even there yet. Heck Tom, many don't even believe the virus exists or can be dangerous to some so here we are speculating about what works and what doesn't.
I do know though, there is a lot out here going on and I'll just keep looking out for me and mine and let everybody else do what they got to do. It's a crisis alright believe it or not, and no quick fixes, or great plans. Just trying not to be a statistic, and have regrets.
Stay safe everybody.
Athos
Oct 24, 2020, 11:02 AM
worth reading .
https://gbdeclaration.org/
I read this and there are glaring deficiencies in the plan.
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA.
Other deficiencies include the reliance on "herd immunity" - a strategy that has been denounced by every credible epidemiologist in the country.
Also, they minimize youth getting the virus because, they say, it is not as deadly as the older people being infected. This is simply not as true as it was once thought to be, and they completely ignore the FACT that youth can still transmit the disease to others.
Best to stick with Faucci and company to weather the storm.
jlisenbe
Oct 24, 2020, 01:34 PM
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA.I'm not so sure of that. Not many places with more centralized control and planning than Europe, and nearly every nation there, including Italy, France, and Germany, are having record setting spikes.
New coronavirus infections hit record highs in at least nine European countries Thursday — as some nations announced tougher restrictions to stop the disease from spreading, according to reports.
The nine hard-hit nations — including Italy, France and Germany — saw the highest daily increase in cases since the pandemic began, according to CNN (https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-10-22-20-intl/h_357fb6c816527ec429f10ad467d61460) and other outlets.
“The general situation has become very serious,” Lothar Wieler, the president of Germany’s RKI public health institute said at a press conference in Berlin. “We have to expect that the virus will continue to spread rapidly."
”https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/multiple-european-countries-hit-record-high-daily-covid-19-cases/
And that's not to mention New York state which is practically the model of centralized control and planning, and their cases are spiking as well.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Coronavirus%20trend%20in%20New%20York&qs=ds&form=QBRE (https://www.bing.com/search?q=world+wide+cases+of+Covid+graph&form=CHRDEF&sp=-1&pq=world+wide+cases+of+covid+graph&sc=0-31&qs=n&sk=&cvid=4DDA797796094AEFBB3A6D3157B595B0)
I can't get that aggravating link to simply point to NY, but you can select that state and see their stats.
Athos
Oct 24, 2020, 02:17 PM
I'm not so sure of that. Not many places with more centralized control and planning than Europe, and nearly every nation there, including Italy, France, and Germany, are having record setting spikes.
There is no centralized control in the United States. There are 50 states all competing with one another (and sometimes with the federal government!) for PPE causing shortages where needed and driving up prices. There is no clear centralized direction on the simple matter of wearing a mask - known to be a major factor in reducing infection.
Trump himself has caused mass confusion leading astray millions of people with his luke-warm, and often contradictory, "guidance" as he constantly undermines his own scientific government agencies and refuses to provide a central planning function.
Trump fires or ignores qualified epidemiologists and replaces them with quacks like Scott Atlas who is a radiologist not an epidemiologist and hasn't practiced medicine in ten years but he kowtows to Trump and disastrously preaches herd immunity so he's the authority.
Spikes elsewhere do not obviate the need for centralization here. In fact, that should support the idea.
jlisenbe
Oct 24, 2020, 02:49 PM
There is no centralized control in the United States. There are 50 states all competing with one another (and sometimes with the federal government!) for PPE causing shortages where needed and driving up prices. There is no clear centralized direction on the simple matter of wearing a mask - known to be a major factor in reducing infection.So we need to have some of that centralized control and planning that's working so well in Europe and New York? New York and California both have mandated masks and both are experiencing spikes. The same is true in many states including the one I live in. I don't think it's nearly as simple as you suggest. When centralized control/planning and wearing masks are plainly not working so well, then it's hard to get excited about it. At some point it becomes apparent that this is really all about bashing Trump.
Spikes elsewhere do not obviate the need for centralization here. In fact, that should support the idea.So spikes where they have been employing centralization supports the idea of centralization? Well..OK, I guess.
tomder55
Oct 24, 2020, 03:27 PM
The primary one is they omit any form of centralized control and planning. That's precisely the main problem today in the USA. NY needs are not the same as the states in the Midwest etc. The only logical response is regional ones . Everyone keeps denying the reality of herd immunity . It can come 2 ways .Enough people get infected through exposure ;or a vaccine . These are not fringe epidemiologists . Listen to the scientists !!! .
Athos
Oct 24, 2020, 04:20 PM
NY needs are not the same as the states in the Midwest etc. The only logical response is regional ones
Exactly. The response, centrally directed to move support where and as needed, can be as direct as county level. When we know that some hospitals nationwide are still experiencing shortages, the central distribution point is the most effective. Daily reports can be submitted to the central planning point and the necessary support can be immediately moved to where it's needed. At present, the needed support goes unresolved for days and weeks.
Just as importantly, a central response can once and for all provide a UNITED message to the country. At present, the messages are all over the place. There are still people who believe the virus is a hoax!
Everyone keeps denying the reality of herd immunity
Tom, no one is denying the reality of herd immunity. What is being denied is its effectiveness. Do you understand that letting the virus to spread on its own to achieve herd immunity will cost 70% of Americans to be infected with a death rate in the millions. Do the math. Even a vaccine will take time to achieve herd immunity. There is enough evidence to know that preventive measures are effective. Masks, hygiene, social distancing, etc. The data is available.
These are not fringe epidemiologists . Listen to the scientists !!! .
They ARE fringe epidemiologists!!! The scientists are saying the opposite of herd immunity as you describe. By all means, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.
paraclete
Oct 24, 2020, 05:07 PM
The scientists are saying the opposite of herd immunity as you describe. By all means, LISTEN TO THE SCIENTISTS.
Now why would you listen to scientists? they are not considered creditable on climate change, why should they be considered creditable on the pandemic? In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists. It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large. Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic, which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate and take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives. The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media
The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic
YEAR
DEATH RATE
GROWTH RATE
2020
7.612
0.440%
2019
7.579
0.440%
2018
7.546
-0.320%
2017
7.570
-0.320%
jlisenbe
Oct 24, 2020, 05:32 PM
The human race has survived many pandemics but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid mediaPretty good question.
Athos
Oct 24, 2020, 06:23 PM
Now why would you listen to scientists? they are not considered creditable on climate change, why should they be considered creditable on the pandemic?
Most people and most scientists consider science very credible on climate change. You're in a tiny minority if you think otherwise. As to COVID-19, they should be considered credible because they are epidemiologists and this is precisely their field of study and expertise.
In any case there are as many opinions as there are scientists.
Not true! There is near unanimous agreement on both climate change and COVID-19.
It should be remembered despite the many deaths that this thing has actually infected a small percentage of the population both in the US and in the world at large.
By that reasoning, medical science should do nothing about ANY disease or medical problem or, say, drunk driving or rape.
Distancing measures have proved effective in control but eradication is a long way off and maybe we should stop the scientific induced panic
Do you consider millions of deaths scientifically induced panic?
which is really led by doctors who are overwhelmed because medical facilities are inadequate
Should we just let people die in the street where they lie?
take reasonable precautions and get on with our lives.
That's what we're doing and trying our best to cope with the disaster.
but will it survive the psychosis induced by panic and a rabid media
The only psychosis I see is coming from the White House deniers and from people who claim it's all a hoax. The media has mainly told the truth about the pandemic. It's impossible not to tell the truth AND cover the news.
The world death rate is no worse than it was before the pandemic
The world death rate may be naturally declining as medicine and health in general improve. The pandemic has not yet hit full stride. The precautions against COVID may be responsible for a declining death rate. For example, lockdowns have drastically reduced the number of accidental deaths - the third leading cause of death. Auto deaths are down due to the virus. In other words, your stand-alone statistics could use a major interpretation.
In any case, is a declining death rate a reason to NOT react to a pandemic?
paraclete
Oct 24, 2020, 06:58 PM
Athos, you think you have refuted my arguments but my opinions are based on fact not hypothesis, the so called science on climate change is a hypothesis, a modern day religion, where the "priests" of this religion condemn non-believers but there are many reasons for heating of the planet and humans are not in charge of anything but observation. We once considered the idea of a spherical Earth nonsense yet this fact was known from ancient times, the flat earth is a hypothesis not born out by facts and I consider the climate change priests flat earthers and the panic merchants of the pandemic no different. Did I say we should not react, no we should take sensible precautions, personal isolation, social distancing, but shutdown, it is an over reaction. We are not in the times of the great plague though the media would have us believe we are. A certain percentage will be infected no matter what we do. As to the interpretation of statistics, I leave that to politicians who exploit them for their own ends and just say look at the bigger picture, humans are not in change of anything outside of their personal space.
I did not say the death rate was declining, only that it really is not significantly worse, which might be expected. Yes other reasons for death have taken a holiday, less auto accidents, less gun deaths, less crime all this reinforces my thoughts that you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long
Athos
Oct 24, 2020, 08:20 PM
Athos, you think you have refuted my arguments but my opinions are based on fact not hypothesis, the so called science on cli.............................................re ligion, where the "priests" of this religion condemn non-believers but there are many reasons for heating of the planet and humans are not in charge of anything but observation. We .............................arth nonsense yet this fact was known from ancient times, the flat earth is a hypothesis not born out by facts and I consider the climate change priests flat earthers and the panic merchants of the pandemic n........................................not in the times of the great plague though the media would have us believe we are. A certain percentage will be infecte.................... interpretation of statistics, I leave that to polit............................................. ...........s and just say look at the bigger picture, humans are not in change of anything outside of their personal space.
This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.
you are going to die when you are going to die, death is never cheated for long
That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.
paraclete
Oct 24, 2020, 09:40 PM
This is a borderline hysterical rant. There is no point in responding to it, but thanks for giving it to us. We have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now.
nothing hysterical about it and you only consider it a rant because it contravenes those "truths" you hold "self evident". I glad you know where I'm coming from but you don't know where I've been
That is true. It's not exactly news, but it is true.
classic quote "what is truth?" The truth is we all die, the only questions; how and when? the truth; no man knows the hour
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 01:13 AM
I don't know of very many people who argue that global temps have not risen marginally over the past fifty or sixty years, or that atmospheric CO2 levels have not risen substantially over the past century. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. People like AOC are going around shrieking that civilization will be over by 2030 if we don't adopt her Green New Deal. If anything has the potential to wipe out civilization by 2030, it's the GND with its impossible emissions standards and catastrophic budget requirements. And then JB wants to stop fracking which gave us the natural gas revolution with its resulting drop in CO2 over the past decade. So if the global warming alarmists want to be taken seriously, then they have to come up with a more serious and workable solution than the GND, abandoning natural gas, or the Paris Accords.
paraclete
Oct 25, 2020, 06:12 AM
I don't know of very many people who argue that global temps have not risen marginally over the past fifty or sixty years, or that atmospheric CO2 levels have not risen substantially over the past century. The question is what, if anything, to do about it. People like AOC are going around shrieking that civilization will be over by 2030 if we don't adopt her Green New Deal. If anything has the potential to wipe out civilization by 2030, it's the GND with its impossible emissions standards and catastrophic budget requirements. And then JB wants to stop fracking which gave us the natural gas revolution with its resulting drop in CO2 over the past decade. So if the global warming alarmists want to be taken seriously, then they have to come up with a more serious and workable solution than the GND, abandoning natural gas, or the Paris Accords.
The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective. is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas and although the particles are far apart any that earth comes in contact with must have an effect eventually? Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 06:18 AM
The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effectiveThe thinking amongst some is that going to renewables would cut CO2 emissions and reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would be prohibitively expensive, would have to be enforced globally, would wreak havoc on the economies of third world nations, and would result in, at best, an unstable and unreliable power grid. I'd say your question is a really, really good one.
Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable.I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.
talaniman
Oct 25, 2020, 04:08 PM
The question really is; is anything we think we can do about it likely to be effective. is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas and although the particles are far apart any that earth comes in contact with must have an effect eventually? Life as we know it is always under threat, from volcanos, from war, from pandemics, from meglomaniacs, from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable
I agree Clete but man CAN control what he does to contribute to climate change and he should even if its just a little. It can be built on.
The thinking amongst some is that going to renewables would cut CO2 emissions and reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that would be prohibitively expensive, would have to be enforced globally, would wreak havoc on the economies of third world nations, and would result in, at best, an unstable and unreliable power grid. I'd say your question is a really, really good one.
All good points JL, and you point to many obstacles but they can be mitigated and overcome in TIME. We don't have a perfect plan YET, but we can and should be developing one. Some are doing just that. Seems we have discussed that before.
I don't know that I would say all of those are inevitable, but they are certainly all constant. We can manage some of them, but not eliminate them all, so your statement is worth considering for sure.
See response to Clete above.
paraclete
Oct 25, 2020, 06:52 PM
I agree Clete but man CAN control what he does to contribute to climate change and he should even if its just a little. It can be built on.
It is not established that man contributes much to climate change, it is all the mystique of computer models and facts only measure outcomes not cause. Something triggered the big thaw 12,000 years ago and the climate has been warming ever since. There were not sufficient humans to trigger that
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 07:03 PM
but we can and should be developing one.Fine with me. Let us know when it's done, but I'm not going to pretend that the GND is it. It's a foolish disaster.
Athos
Oct 25, 2020, 08:07 PM
is it only me or have others ignored that we are passing through an extremely hot belt of nebula gas [causing global warming]?
It's only you. Hot nebula gas, tho', is catchy.
Life as we know it is always under threat.................... from climate change but we are insignificant, we cannot stop these things because they are inevitable
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.
Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.
paraclete
Oct 25, 2020, 08:35 PM
It's only you. Hot nebula gas, tho', is catchy
but it is a fact, but not one that can be modelled.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.
That is the theory, but it is only a theory
Greenhouse gases - CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide - create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. Instead of biodegrading, they bio-accumulate by forming tight bonds. These resulting compound molecules do not break down in the atmosphere. Instead, they build up in the air, The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the air stems from several activities, including deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. In addition to creating warmer temperatures, excess carbon dioxide lets stronger sun rays penetrate the atmosphere, which also causes rising temperatures.
Temperatures are not rising as significantly as predicted, there are many factors that are not included in the models such as the positioning of heat sinks near instruments. The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbon
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 08:52 PM
Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be a giant step in the right direction.That's somewhat like saying that inventing a giant CO2 eating machine would be a huge step in the right direction. Transitioning away from fossil fuels would be nice for sure, but it is completely unworkable both now and in the foreseeable future. Every renewable is too unreliable to be a primary source of electricity other than hydro and, in a few cases, geothermal, but they are largely maxed out and aren't available for expansion.
The problem is humans think that we are in control, that we can control our environment. If we were serious we would limit population and stop destruction of forests to grow crops such as soya, palm and corn. Forests are needed to sequestrate carbon. The oceans playa huge role in climate and sequestrating carbonNot sure what you mean there. You say that our problem is that we think we are in control of our environment, which seems to imply that we are not, but then you make all kinds of suggestions of how we can, indeed, control our environment. You are certainly correct, however, that the models have not proven to be accurate. Having loonies around like AOC and Thunberg making crazy suggestions doesn't help at all.
Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
paraclete
Oct 25, 2020, 09:56 PM
Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Water vapour on the atmosphere is a natural occurring aspect of the way our atmosphere operates, CO2 is not pollution, methane is pollution so shut down the oil industry and let's get back to the dark ages. Rising Population is the the biggest contributor to man man emissions and is the reason why all these reliance on renewables is so much pissing in the wind.
You can disagree with your politicians as much as you like but unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future. Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.
In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 10:13 PM
unless you are prepared to live in the dark ages forget transiting to a non carbon future. Bingo.
Electric cars are not an answer either, the battery producing industries are highly polluting.
Gasoline cars quite possibly will be on the way out in twenty more years.
In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailedFood production is presently not a major problem. Not sure how to control population.
talaniman
Oct 25, 2020, 10:13 PM
The article was from 2008 and hasn't been updated. More data has been collected at Nasa.gov though and...
https://www.greenandgrowing.org/is-water-vapor-a-greenhouse-gas/
If the Earth warms and man helps it that can't be good for humans or other life. If you're saying do NOTHING and keep polluting I think you're asking for trouble sooner rather than late.
jlisenbe
Oct 25, 2020, 10:17 PM
Therefore, they confirmed that the role of the gas is a critical component of climate change. Moreover, the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is so dangerous that it may double the warming events determined by high CO2 levels in the atmosphere.Did you read that from your article? In what possible way does that negate the absolute fact that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas?
Not suggesting we do nothing. We are already decreasing CO2 emissions and have been for several years thanks to natural gas production enabled by the very fracking that JB wants to stop. The GND is idiotic so we need some people with some brains to come up with some real world solutions.
Athos
Oct 26, 2020, 02:04 AM
but it is a fact, but not one that can be modelled.
Your "fact" is that global warming is caused by the earth passing through "hot nebula gasses". Please proved a link that proves this nebula theory.
Athos
Oct 26, 2020, 02:37 AM
Number one greenhouse gas by far is water vapor.
This is a perfect example of a half-truth that Trump and his supporters are so fond of.
Water vapor as a greenhouse gas is the RESULT of greenhouse gases. CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide WARM the surface thereby leading to greater evaporation into the atmosphere. By adding a high amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the result will consist in warmer temperatures (https://www.greenandgrowing.org/rising-temperatures-in-the-arctic/).
However, water vapor is not the cause of this warming. In this case, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. This rising average temperature increases evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Those, in turn, result in additional warming.
If concentrations of greenhouse gases are reduced, the planet will cool and the water vapor feedback will work the opposite way: lower temperatures lead to lower atmospheric water vapor concentrations, further cooling the Earth. Water vapor will always follow, not lead, changes in long-lived greenhouse gases.
Claims that water vapor is the “dominant” driver of recently observed climate change are spurious at best. For those who still don't understand, excessive water vapor is caused by CO2 and the further increase of water vapor is the result of a feedback loop.
In order to offer an real solutions to our supposed problems we have to radically change the way our societies operate. Unnecessary travel needs to be curtailed, population controlled, food production radically controlled, overconsumption curtailed
This reads like you DO believe in global warming, but disagree on how to confront it.
tomder55
Oct 26, 2020, 03:26 AM
The US, France, Germany, Italy, India, Russia, Brazil and the rest of the world can't stop C-19 , but Quid in a basement in Delaware has a plan!
paraclete
Oct 26, 2020, 05:22 AM
This reads like you DO believe in global warming, but disagree on how to confront it.
I believe the climate is changing has been for thousands of years. our life span is too short to see the long term so we focus on the short term but in reality it is not in our hands. Even if all carbon emissions stopped immediately it would not have the desired effect because other factors are in play. The Sun is hotter, the nebula exists and global warming is a religion
jlisenbe
Oct 26, 2020, 05:36 AM
This is a perfect example of a half-truth that Trump and his supporters are so fond of.It's amazing how everything for you comes down to hating Trump. Well, I don't think the NASA website is "Trump and his supporters". Yes, water vapor MARGINALLY is itself affected by global temps, but it is still the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere. That's not a political statement. It is simply beyond argument.
Athos
Oct 26, 2020, 06:02 AM
the nebula exists
Again, please provide proof and/or links that support your theory of the existence of a nebula whose hot gasses are responsible for climate change. If you won't, or cannot, your theory will simply be dismissed as the ravings of a (you fill in the blank)
jlisenbe
Oct 26, 2020, 06:04 AM
Please provide a rational plan for transitioning entirely away from fossil fuels at any time in the next thirty years. Also, please acknowledge the plain truth that the reduction in carbon emissions achieved in the U.S. in the past decade has been the result of more widespread use of natural gas, a fuel that is now in abundance thanks to the very fracking that the Harris/Biden ticket will do away with.
tomder55
Oct 26, 2020, 06:16 AM
I believe the climate is changing has been for thousands of years. exactly . I saw a bumper sticker that said " Climate Change Happens " The glaciers have been receding since the ice age.
The Sun is hotter, Not sure if we will see the cooling that will come with the Grand Solar Minimum we are entering . It was no coincidence that an increase in sunspot activity and an increase in global temperatures happened concurrently. The climate has seen great fluctuations within times recorded by humans which is in fact a very short time frame in world history. The Little Ice Age we are coming out of began about 1250 . Glaciers began to grow .Warm summers began to be undependable around 1300. Thames river would freeze over,the Brits would have river festivals .
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/9415/4348/9896/Thomas-Dekker-pamphlet.jpg
During the American Revolution the waters around NY became iced over . One could walk across from NJ to Staten Island to Manhattan on the ice .
https://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/icebridge1871.jpeg
Before that there was the period called the Medieval Warm period that lasted from around 950 to 1250. During that time there were vineyards in England . Vikings farmed in Greenland . Norse settlement thrived from Greenland to Iceland and probably to North America("Vinland" ). They disappeared by the 15th century during the Little Ice Age. People in Europe thrived in that climate.By contrast the Justinian plague pandemic swept through the Mediterranean between 541 and 543 AD, striking Constantinople and killing millions of people in the following centuries during the Little Ice Age . It was a period of plague ,pandemic ,and famine .
Athos
Oct 26, 2020, 06:24 AM
It was a period of plague ,pandemic ,and famine .
Therefore, we should ignore present-day problems? How much of the past warming was caused by CO2 and its offspring water vapor? Did they have cars and buses and machinery in 1250AD?
And what's your theory on nebula gas?
tomder55
Oct 26, 2020, 06:53 AM
I don't have a theory about nebula gas.
I have never said ignore emission issues . If we were serious about that we would be transitioning to electricity derived from nuclear. My view is that the energy that will allow us to transition to other future (so called )"clean" energy is natural gas . It really is the bridge until we come up with a means to use fusion , or perhaps the flux capacitor for all I know . It is my view that renewables are not really renewable because they need rare earth minerals to make them viable ;and because they are not dependable sources . Wind does not always turn turbines and there are cloudy days that impact solar generation . They will always be secondary sources that need reliable back up that for now depends on fossil fuel .
The US through the use of clean burning natural gas has greatly reduced our greenhouse emissions with natural gas emitting almost half the levels of C02 compared to coal. We have taken great strides to achieve goals established by the Paris Accords . But those accords were designed to punish the US and western Europe while giving a pass to huge polluters China and India . Trump was right to pull out of that farce .
Athos
Oct 26, 2020, 07:01 AM
I don't have a theory about nebula gas.
I have never said ignore emission issues . If we were serious about that we would be transitioning to electricity derived from nuclear. My view is that the energy that will allow us to transition to other future (so called )"clean" energy is natural gas . It really is the bridge until we come up with a means to use fusion , or perhaps the flux capacitor for all I know . It is my view that renewables are not really renewable because they need rare earth minerals to make them viable ;and because they are not dependable sources . Wind does not always turn turbines and there are cloudy days that impact solar generation . They will always be secondary sources that need reliable back up that for now depends on fossil fuel .
The US through the use of clean burning natural gas has greatly reduced our greenhouse emissions with natural gas emitting almost half the levels of C02 compared to coal. We have taken great strides to achieve goals established by the Paris Accords . But those accords were designed to punish the US and western Europe while giving a pass to huge polluters China and India . Trump was right to pull out of that farce .
I pretty much agree with most of what you've said. I disagree about the Paris Accord, and I'm glad you're without a theory on nebula gas.
jlisenbe
Oct 26, 2020, 07:01 AM
My view is that the energy that will allow us to transition to other future (so called )"clean" energy is natural gas . It really is the bridge...
Wind does not always turn turbines and there are cloudy days that impact solar generation . They will always be secondary sources that need reliable back up that for now depends on fossil fuel .
Trump was right to pull out of that farce .All true. Natural gas is the fuel we would be longing for if we didn't have it. Battery powered vehicles have potential if the battery situation can be improved upon. I don't expect nuclear to ever gain traction again since there is so much fear surrounding it.