WW3 Please SAY NO!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

What no Butter Battle Book?

" That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether they had one, or not, upon thars."

And it's sad to say, the new regime , s more like Sylvester McMonkey McBean

I'd forgotten all about this one. The satire went over my toddler head, but I loved Seuss books. Those and the little golden books were the first thing I recall reading

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I am very well aware. It is used for both. The media and the left billed it as morons advocating using horse dewormer, which is an intentional lie by omission as they pretended it was crazy to take this commonly used human medication by excising this information. We had multiple people in the Covid thread unaware this was, in fact, commonly prescribed to humans.

On a serious post. The stuff you get from a doctor isn't apple flavored and made FOR humans. There is a big difference.

The studies that showed it worked in the recovery of Covid was from 3rd world countries. What it did was kill the parasites in them so their own immune system could fight Covid better.

To be fair I have taken "things" intended for animals as it is higher quality than any vitamin/supplement you will find on ANY store shelf. Everything your dog takes for example that comes from a Vet is tested and has to be of a certain standard. The stuff you buy in a store could be anything and is not regulated.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Oddly enough, for the same things it is used to treat in horses and cattle

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Sure didn't see that coming.

Has the FDA approved bleach injections yet?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

On a serious post. The stuff you get from a doctor isn't apple flavored and made FOR humans. There is a big difference.

The studies that showed it worked in the recovery of Covid was from 3rd world countries. What it did was kill the parasites in them so their own immune system could fight Covid better.

To be fair I have taken "things" intended for animals as it is higher quality than any vitamin/supplement you will find on ANY store shelf. Everything your dog takes for example that comes from a Vet is tested and has to be of a certain standard. The stuff you buy in a store could be anything and is not regulated.

I am not and have never argued that Ivermectin treats Covid. I have no idea if it does, as I’ve said in the Covid thread. It was decided immediately, before any genuine testing, to deride it as horse wormer and dismiss it for humans. A good example of how the media will often lie by telling a small part of the story - the argument wasn’t “after serious and genuine study, we’ve found little connection between Ivermectin and positive Covid outcome rates”, it was “Idiots want you to drink horse dewormer”, which is, of course, a gross mischaracterization. It is horse dewormer, and it commonly prescribed to humans. It is not an animal medication, it is an animal and human medication. Labelled as only for animals and then smeared for this reason was the tactic.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Has the FDA approved bleach injections yet?

No, but they did finally admit, just like every other virus, Bleach can kill it. It isnt some novel virus which is so new and different it cant be killed with bleach, or soap and warm water. In that effect, Just like the common cold.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I am very well aware. It is used for both. The media and the left billed it as morons advocating using horse dewormer, which is an intentional lie by omission as they pretended it was crazy to take this commonly used human medication by excising this information. We had multiple people in the Covid thread unaware this was, in fact, commonly prescribed to humans.

Man, I hate to break it to you, but emanations from right wing noise machine notwithstanding, it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer. I couldn't find ivermectin paste for the longest time. And, even today, all dewormers, even those based on fenbendazole or pyrantel pamoate, are kept in a locked cabinet at my local farm store; a privilege previously only enjoyed by guns, ammo, and chainsaw chains.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

No, but they did finally admit, just like every other virus, Bleach can kill it. It isnt some novel virus which is so new and different it cant be killed with bleach, or soap and warm water. In that effect, Just like the common cold.

Nobody ever denied bleach could kill it, topically. The problem is you can't safely ingest bleach.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Man, I hate to break it to you, but emanations from right wing noise machine notwithstanding, it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer. I couldn't find ivermectin paste for the longest time. And, even today, all dewormers, even those based on fenbendazole or pyrantel pamoate, are kept in a locked cabinet at my local farm store; a privilege previously only enjoyed by guns, ammo, and chainsaw chains.

I am confident you are well aware the pretense that "horse dewormer" is an accurate description of Ivermectin, which is also for humans and very commonly prescribed to them is political crap.

I disagree with Irv that Ivermectin has been shown to help Covid. I know for a fact this "LOL morons want humans to take horse dewormer" narrative that works by not acknowledging or straight up denying (as some in the Covid thread humorously tried to do) it is a drug for humans is a complete fiction.

I am also aware that most people are just going to parrot whatever their tribe says, no matter how obviously false it is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are countless things in science where the data just isn't conclusive one way or the other, and depending on your point of view, or agenda, you can argue the case either way and cherry pick what supports you. I see this almost every time I research some product or drug claim. Bottom line, when someone offering something touts it as beng evidence-based, don't accept it at face value.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am confident you are well aware the pretense that "horse dewormer" is an accurate description of Ivermectin, which is also for humans and very commonly prescribed to them is political crap.

Yes, I am aware that it has uses beyond an anti-parasite for livestock. I actually posted where it's use is indicated upthread. I am also aware that very few doctors would actually prescribe it as a COVID treatment.

Which led to an army of mouth breathing dimwits to haul tail to their local Tractor Supply to clear the shelves of Duramectin and Sheep Drench because some conspiracist shock jock told them that the only reason they can't buy it from their local Walgreens is because all those pointy-headed scientists are just part of the New World Order, Agenda 21, Bilderberg financed cabal intent on emptying America of the plain folk of the land in order to turn it into a Marxist utopia where you are assigned an appellation via Random Drag Queen Name Generator and pronouns from a list of 57 options; so head on out to your local Farm and Fleet, save your family's lives and strike a blow for freedumb at the same time! And before you do, please check out our store where 50 pound tubs of Armageddon Rations are 20% for the first 100 buyers!



Some of the above may be hyperbole. Some.

More seriously, I know you want to blame it all on the media finding one random Cletus in Bug Tussle, Missouri eating ivermectin paste. I am a horse owner. As are most of my friends. It wasn't just MSNBC and CNN. It was all over the equestrian media also. And, get this. I was over at ValleyVet.com getting my spring vaccinations and, for giggles, looked at the page for ivermectin wormer. The following disclaimer was in bright red:

COVID-19 ALERT CONCERNING DURVET IVERMECTIN PRODUCTS: WARNING! A number of Durvet products including Duramectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Sheep Drench, Ivermectin Pour On, Ivermectin Injection and Ivermectin Plus Injection contain the anti-parasite ingredient Ivermectin. Despite media reports that Ivermectin could potentially be used to treat people with COVID-19, these products are not safe or approved for human use, which could cause severe personal injury or death.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody ever denied bleach could kill it, topically. The problem is you can't safely ingest bleach.

I don't know how safe it is but I can guarantee you can take it and not die. I have some interesting friends. I have watched more than one take a swig so they could pass a test that if they failed they would go back to getting free room and board.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Oddly enough, for the same things it is used to treat in horses and cattle

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.

Sure didn't see that coming.

Ivermectin from Tractor Supply kicked my wife's case of pneumonia in the ass last winter when the other 2 drugs prescribed by doctors from local immediate care centers did absolutely nothing. Knocked it down in less than a week. She was happy, and we still get emails from TSC asking how our horse us doing, lol.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Ivermectin from Tractor Supply kicked my wife's case of pneumonia in the ass last winter when the other 2 drugs prescribed by doctors from local immediate care centers did absolutely nothing. Knocked it down in less than a week. She was happy, and we still get emails from TSC asking how our horse us doing, lol.

Does she call you "Wilburrrrrrrr"?

Jokes aside.. dont believe what you know first hand to be true. Rely on people that say they have your best interest at heart.


We cant stop it, it's like fighting air. It can stay on surfaces for weeks, etc etc .

The US involvement has nothing to do with Burisma. That's conspiracy theory. P

[irv]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Ivermectin from Tractor Supply kicked my wife's case of pneumonia in the ass last winter when the other 2 drugs prescribed by doctors from local immediate care centers did absolutely nothing. Knocked it down in less than a week. She was happy, and we still get emails from TSC asking how our horse us doing, lol.

Oh, stop with the nonsense already. That was just a fluke, inconclusive despite Fauci being on record as saying he needs people to "solely" take the vaccines and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Does she call you "Wilburrrrrrrr"?

Jokes aside.. dont believe what you know first hand to be true. Rely on people that say they have your best interest at heart.


We cant stop it, it's like fighting air. It can stay on surfaces for weeks, etc etc .

The US involvement has nothing to do with Burisma. That's conspiracy theory. P

And another conspiracy theorist.
Ted, I thought you knew better?
https://youtu.be/azLKK0xTOFI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXvmLeIXoBA

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Yes, I am aware that it has uses beyond an anti-parasite for livestock. I actually posted where it's use is indicated upthread.

Yes, after a post highlighting that the characterization that ignores its frequent use for humans, and then followed by "it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer", yet again ignoring that it is not weird for humans to use Ivermectin. As I have said multiple times, I am not convinced that it works, but the mainstream narrative here likes to center around a fiction: that it is stupid for people to use this, completely ignoring it's long history of exactly that before it was decided this was political.

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Which led to an army of mouth breathing dimwits to haul tail to their local Tractor Supply to clear the shelves of Duramectin and Sheep Drench because some conspiracist shock jock told them that the only reason they can't buy it from their local Walgreens is because all those pointy-headed scientists are just part of the New World Order, Agenda 21, Bilderberg financed cabal intent on emptying America of the plain folk of the land in order to turn it into a Marxist utopia where you are assigned an appellation via Random Drag Queen Name Generator and pronouns from a list of 57 options; so head on out to your local Farm and Fleet, save your family's lives and strike a blow for freedumb at the same time! And before you do, please check out our store where 50 pound tubs of Armageddon Rations are 20% for the first 100 buyers!



Some of the above may be hyperbole. Some.

More seriously, I know you want to blame it all on the media finding one random Cletus in Bug Tussle, Missouri eating ivermectin paste. I am a horse owner. As are most of my friends. It wasn't just MSNBC and CNN. It was all over the equestrian media also. And, get this. I was over at ValleyVet.com getting my spring vaccinations and, for giggles, looked at the page for ivermectin wormer. The following disclaimer was in bright red:

COVID-19 ALERT CONCERNING DURVET IVERMECTIN PRODUCTS: WARNING! A number of Durvet products including Duramectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Equine Dewormer, Ivermectin Sheep Drench, Ivermectin Pour On, Ivermectin Injection and Ivermectin Plus Injection contain the anti-parasite ingredient Ivermectin. Despite media reports that Ivermectin could potentially be used to treat people with COVID-19, these products are not safe or approved for human use, which could cause severe personal injury or death.

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

Listen to a doctor you trust, especially if you don’t have a medical degree. Best advice anyone can give. Don’t listen to Twitter, Fox News or MSNBC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

There are very interesting pieces on what antidepressant trials show overall, when you include the ones that don't get submitted in support of an NDA because they were essentially failures.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

You mean you don't think a clinical trial of a drug or vaccine sponsored by the company that stands to make millions of dollars if it's successful is objective?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean you don't think a clinical trial of a drug or vaccine sponsored by the company that stands to make millions of dollars if it's successful is objective?

Sir, I would never suggest that a doctor who is paid by a company to conduct a study for them and stands to make a lot more money in future as a KOL for that company if the product being test is approved has a vested interest in finding that it works and should be approved.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Listen to a doctor you trust, especially if you don’t have a medical degree. Best advice anyone can give. Don’t listen to Twitter, Fox News or MSNBC.

For me it depends. If it's something well established in medicine, yes. If it's something novel, the reality is the average practitioner does not have the time to immerse themselves in the research and data and is most likely just going to follow the mainstream recommendation which is usually fairly predictable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sir, I would never suggest that a doctor who is paid by a company to conduct a study for them and stands to make a lot more money in future as a KOL for that company if the product being test is approved has a vested interest in finding that it works and should be approved.

As I learned when I read extensively about the statin trials and talked to some very qualified and knowledgeable people on the "skeptical" side, the same data can be presented in very different ways even if one assumes the integrity of the data.

And the story of the FDA's recent approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug should be a wakeup call for anyone who blindly trusts the FDA.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I learned when I read extensively about the statin trials and talked to some very qualified and knowledgeable people on the "skeptical" side, the same data can be presented in very different ways even if one assumes the integrity of the data.

And the story of the FDA's recent approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug should be a wakeup call for anyone who blindly trusts the FDA.

I've seen how things get FDA approval up close. It sure ain't honest examination.

People and organizations with a financial interest to determine X almost always determine that X is true. People seem to be cognizant of this but nonetheless, over half the population will just agree to any appeal to institutional authority, and vigorously deny anything else, regardless of actual evidence or actually following the scientific method to arrive at truth. Most of the rest, like Irv, will disagree with anything these institutions and organizations proclaim because they have been caught lying an astounding number of times. Those who disbelieve the proclamations of government institutions are probably correct more than those that just believe whatever the state says (well, whatever the state says when it suits the party and that part of the state is run by affiliates of the party), but neither is reasonable. A claim to fact is true or not true based on truth itself, not who said it, which everyone knows but seems to always forget.

The Ivermectin theory didn't originate from the right; it first came from doctors essentially experimenting and reporting positive results. Essentially anecdotal 'my patients took it and had good outcomes' isn't actual proof, but it is often what leads to testing of existing medications for something else. The establishment quickly attacked it (as they attacked or ignored every option for Covid until the vaccine, which, ironically, it was the left who were the truthers at first because Bad Orange Man was President and appeared to see the 'vaccine' as the quickest way out of the mess) before any actual testing was done to see if the hypothesis was true. Thus the right started to run with it. When your industry is heavily invested in a narrative, it is usually career suicide to challenge said narrative. Once the issue becomes politicized, any chance of an honest investigation is DOA. We will never get an honest testing of the Ivermectin hypothesis, or a host of other things that cannot be honestly examined without risking throwing the party and their funding into trouble, as well as killing the careers of those doing the legwork that are supposed to prove X and not Y.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Between financially driven agendas and politically driven agendas, it seems almost nobody gives a damn about the actual truth. What a world. On things I care about, I try to educate myself as best I can. I've probably ended up with a bit of an anti-drug bias, admittedly, but I got there because almost no doctors are willing or informed enough to have an honest discussion with you about many classes of drugs.

[egri]

Something I thought was interesting came from one of my coworkers, who is a F/A-18 pilot. I asked him about the feasibility of training Ukrainian MiG pilots on F-16s. He said it isn't so much the learning a different airframe that is difficult; they can do that in 6-12 months, it's that the F-16 was designed for US/NATO doctrine, which is different from the Soviet doctrine the MiG is built around and that the Ukrainians train to. Teaching a pilot who has been trained one way to learn the other is a bit of 'teaching an old dog new tricks'; it's more effective to either give the Ukrainians more MiGs (and there is a limited supply of those outside of Russia) or train a new pilot from scratch, which is more expensive and takes longer.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Our resident fount of all wisdom.

He is our most erudite wordsmith.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

In regards to the section I've put in bold, BS.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, after a post highlighting that the characterization that ignores its frequent use for humans, and then followed by "it was morons advocating the use of horse dewormer", yet again ignoring that it is not weird for humans to use Ivermectin. As I have said multiple times, I am not convinced that it works, but the mainstream narrative here likes to center around a fiction: that it is stupid for people to use this, completely ignoring it's long history of exactly that before it was decided this was political.

You know, it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. It is true that ivermectin is used as an anti-parasite in both humans and animals which I have acknowledged several times (is it too recursive to point out your repeated failure to acknowledge my acknowledgement?) It is also true that there were runs on the livestock versions, forcing retail channels for those products to put any inventory that actually remained under lock and key. Despite the fact that opinions of people who know what they are talking about (doctors and virologists) were overwhelming against the idea, at a minimum until there was at least some definitive proof derived through careful scientific study.

I find extremist caricatures of leftists by right wingers to always be absurd. So for extremist caricatures of right wingers by leftists. I am not in either camp so there is nothing to say with this; it's just incredibly biased attacks from angry people that are not based in reason. I have never read a reasonable argument that begins by saying anyone who disagrees is a mouth-breathing dimwit.

Sure. Just a caricature. Totally.

Since your preferred mode of arguing is to focus on the premise rather than the conclusion, then setting up a strawman which you deftly knock down, I will say this: Yes, one of the articles calls it horse medicine. The point here (read this closely) is that right wing media personalities with wide audiences were pushing ivermectin as a cure for COVID. And a large number of people acted on that, contrary to the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. If calling stupid people stupid offends you, what would an above-it-all, latter day Cicero such as yourself (note: this is also hyperbole) call them? This isn't the Roman Senate or even the Macneil-Lehrer NewsHour. This is a chat board for people who collect pictures of athletes printed on cardboard. We're supposed to be having fun here.

If I thought you were actually engaging in good faith, I'd tell you about my farrier (that is a person who trims hooves and shoes horses) who is the living embodiment of most of the stereotypes that offend you so. I see you using the same logical fallacies that you used over in the book banning thread. So, we are definitely in "shame on me" territory here. So, taking the advice I was given but ignored, the last word is yours.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've seen how things get FDA approval up close. It sure ain't honest examination.

People and organizations with a financial interest to determine X almost always determine that X is true. People seem to be cognizant of this but nonetheless, over half the population will just agree to any appeal to institutional authority, and vigorously deny anything else, regardless of actual evidence or actually following the scientific method to arrive at truth. Most of the rest, like Irv, will disagree with anything these institutions and organizations proclaim because they have been caught lying an astounding number of times. Those who disbelieve the proclamations of government institutions are probably correct more than those that just believe whatever the state says (well, whatever the state says when it suits the party and that part of the state is run by affiliates of the party), but neither is reasonable. A claim to fact is true or not true based on truth itself, not who said it, which everyone knows but seems to always forget.

The Ivermectin theory didn't originate from the right; it first came from doctors essentially experimenting and reporting positive results. Essentially anecdotal 'my patients took it and had good outcomes' isn't actual proof, but it is often what leads to testing of existing medications for something else. The establishment quickly attacked it (as they attacked or ignored every option for Covid until the vaccine, which, ironically, it was the left who were the truthers at first because Bad Orange Man was President and appeared to see the 'vaccine' as the quickest way out of the mess) before any actual testing was done to see if the hypothesis was true. Thus the right started to run with it. When your industry is heavily invested in a narrative, it is usually career suicide to challenge said narrative. Once the issue becomes politicized, any chance of an honest investigation is DOA. We will never get an honest testing of the Ivermectin hypothesis, or a host of other things that cannot be honestly examined without risking throwing the party and their funding into trouble, as well as killing the careers of those doing the legwork that are supposed to prove X and not Y.

Well, some might have me mislabeled, including you, but, tbh, prior to this, I pretty much followed along too.

To me, however, this one was a no brainer that something was up, something just wasn't right.
First and foremost, (but not in any particular order) and not to continually repeat myself, it was a first time ever used, rushed through, experimental drug, for EUA only. That was flag #1.
Secondly, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a vaccine/drug ever pushed on the people of the world like this one?
Event 201, Fauci stating Trump will experience a pandemic during his tenure, Dems stating they will not take the Trump vaccine then completely flipflopping then advocating them, pushing them as soon as Joe became President.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity....ises/event201/
I could go on and on here but I haven't the energy nor the gumption/time currently but for those interested (I highly doubt it) my thoughts are spread throughout those other threads.

Not once have I claimed to be an intelligent person in these threads (there are many I don't hold a candle too, imo) but to me, which I am still struggling with, is how many didn't see these things, or if they did, despite them, freely took them anyways?

I don't necessarily blame nor mock anyone who did take the vaccines as they were tricked, lied to "sold" on them, peddled to them, used to coerce them, etc, but regarding those that still push and advocate them today, that is where it ends.
In my opinion, as there are zero excuse anymore not to see the things that have now come to light, are right before their eyes, those that still do, are in denial or suffer some kind of mental ailment.

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by BobC

Many people thought the same thing during WW II when the U.S. took on a two front war with Germany and Japan. What is really interesting is that in that war, it was actually the U.S. that saved Russia and China. You can talk about how great Russia and their army was in defeating Hitler, but truth be known, were it not for the U.S. entering the fray and creating a second front for the Germans to have to fight on, I kind of think the German army, despite the issues and difficulties in dealing with Russian weather and the willingness of Russia's communist leaders to sacrifice the lives of their people to defend and protect themselves and their positions of power (sound familiar to events of today), would have eventually prevailed. And the Chinese were basically at the mercy of the Japanese, until again the U.S. became involved and eventually prevailed. And IIRC, after the end of the war, didn't Generals Patton and MacArthur both campaign to take their forces, fresh from defeating the Axis powers, and suggest being allowed to now turn their attention towards the Communist powers and dictatorships in both Russia and China, but in the interest of world peace, understanding, and cooperation, denied by the U.S. government? Funny how history has proven both of them to have been pretty much right on money.

Also, look at what happened to the main Axis powers that were defeated in WW II, and were then occupied by the victors (ie: the U.S). We eventually turned control back over to the Japanese and German people, helped them establish their more democratic forms of government, assisted in their reconstruction and growth, and then basically left them alone to let them become the countries they are today. The U.S. didn't stay in those countries, take control of their governments, coerce and manipulate their people with force, propaganda, militarized police, suppression of people's rights and freedoms, and deny them access and information from the rest of the world. Now look at China and Russia and how they operate in today's world, and how they claim territory in other countries and lands that are clearly not theirs, nor the people in those countries voluntarily wanting them to be in control. And then once they do gain some control, they use military force, covert operations, the denial of freedom of speech, the suppression of information from outside sources, and all kinds of "re-education" type of camps (ie: prisons) and other methods to retrain the populace to think only like powers in control want.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/world...itory-disputes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...20with%20Japan.

For all the BS some of these jackasses on here spew, just remember, you have the right and ability to argue with the rest of us who have to then listen to all your garbage, lies, and false crap. But at least we recognize and allow more than one side to speak their peace and say what they want here in our country. Are we perfect, HELL NO! But instead of complaining about us so much, why not take your crap over to one of these other countries you keep trying to defend, and live there if they are sooooo much better than us. Of course, God forbid that down the road someone in power in that other country does something you end up not agreeing with 100%. And then try to do/say the same kind of crap there that you can get away with here in this country, and I'd advise you to make sure the next time you take a trip anywhere else in that country that you refrain from asking for a penthouse or upper floor room to stay in. Would hate to see you take a walk out on a balcony and accidently slip and fall. Tsk tsk tsk!!!

Why shouldn't people criticize our government when it seems determined to get us into a war? I can't think of anything the US has done to deescalate the situation in Ukraine. Can you?

Did we learn nothing from the Neocons lying to us to get us into the wars in the Middle East?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

In regards to the section I've put in bold, BS.

I am, on this exact page, expressing an opinion that does not mesh with either factional narrative about the two issues being discussed, Ivermectin and the war. I forgot that you know me so well, rando stranger.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You know, it is possible that two things can be true at the same time. It is true that ivermectin is used as an anti-parasite in both humans and animals which I have acknowledged several times (is it too recursive to point out your repeated failure to acknowledge my acknowledgement?) It is also true that there were runs on the livestock versions, forcing retail channels for those products to put any inventory that actually remained under lock and key. Despite the fact that opinions of people who know what they are talking about (doctors and virologists) were overwhelming against the idea, at a minimum until there was at least some definitive proof derived through careful scientific study.



Sure. Just a caricature. Totally.

Since your preferred mode of arguing is to focus on the premise rather than the conclusion, then setting up a strawman which you deftly knock down, I will say this: Yes, one of the articles calls it horse medicine. The point here (read this closely) is that right wing media personalities with wide audiences were pushing ivermectin as a cure for COVID. And a large number of people acted on that, contrary to the best available scientific evidence and medical advice. If calling stupid people stupid offends you, what would an above-it-all, latter day Cicero such as yourself (note: this is also hyperbole) call them? This isn't the Roman Senate or even the Macneil-Lehrer NewsHour. This is a chat board for people who collect pictures of athletes printed on cardboard. We're supposed to be having fun here.

If I thought you were actually engaging in good faith, I'd tell you about my farrier (that is a person who trims hooves and shoes horses) who is the living embodiment of most of the stereotypes that offend you so. I see you using the same logical fallacies that you used over in the book banning thread. So, we are definitely in "shame on me" territory here. So, taking the advice I was given but ignored, the last word is yours.

Yes. A conclusion should be drawn from reasoned and true premises. This is exactly why we will never find common ground. I think conclusions should be rooted in premises, and you reject the root concept that form the logical method. I will, for the second time, leave the personal insults to you to make. We all have our ways of thinking.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

Well, some might have me mislabeled, including you, but, tbh, prior to this, I pretty much followed along too.

To me, however, this one was a no brainer that something was up, something just wasn't right.
First and foremost, (but not in any particular order) and not to continually repeat myself, it was a first time ever used, rushed through, experimental drug, for EUA only. That was flag #1.
Secondly, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a vaccine/drug ever pushed on the people of the world like this one?
Event 201, Fauci stating Trump will experience a pandemic during his tenure, Dems stating they will not take the Trump vaccine then completely flipflopping then advocating them, pushing them as soon as Joe became President.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity....ises/event201/
I could go on and on here but I haven't the energy nor the gumption/time currently but for those interested (I highly doubt it) my thoughts are spread throughout those other threads.

Not once have I claimed to be an intelligent person in these threads (there are many I don't hold a candle too, imo) but to me, which I am still struggling with, is how many didn't see these things, or if they did, despite them, freely took them anyways?

I don't necessarily blame nor mock anyone who did take the vaccines as they were tricked, lied to "sold" on them, peddled to them, used to coerce them, etc, but regarding those that still push and advocate them today, that is where it ends.
In my opinion, as there are zero excuse anymore not to see the things that have now come to light, are right before their eyes, those that still do, are in denial or suffer some kind of mental ailment.

Just to be clear, I was speaking of the Ivermectin issue, where we disagree. I don't mean to mislabel your position, but my understanding is that I have no clue if it is good or not for this as there has not been honest testing of the hypothesis, whereas you believe that it is directly good.

We also disagree on the vaccine, I think. I am lumped into your camp on it because I am against it being mandatory and can see the data that it has little impact on the majority of the population and it undeniably does not do what it was said to do at all. It isn't an actual vaccine. I do think the data suggests it does have a small help in outcomes for people in the at-risk groups. I don't think the vaccine was malevolent and I have not seen compelling evidence that it is generally bad for ones health, beyond the normal that a very small number of people may have side affects. I understand your position to be that it is both malevolent and that it is damaging to ones health. We did agree on lockdowns.

I think we've actually disagreed in as many threads of this nature as we've agreed (we're lumped into one side because our positions do not reflect the approved narrative, and that is all that matters to the ideologues - you agree or disagree with the tribe, that is the end of labels); my criteria is a testing of premises and hypotheses while yours, I gather, is to distrust a claim from institutions. I have always appreciated that we have politely disagreed on some things and agreed on others (like the gun issue, and lockdowns). They struggle to do anything but the ad hominem, which I have never once got from you, the only active person in all these threads I would describe as actually conservative. I do get some amusement from the tantrums you elicit from them by presenting a similar reasoning (rooted in who made a claim), but just the inverse view.

My claim is to stupidity and ignorance. Recognizing a contradiction or applying the Aristotelian is not a sign of intelligence beyond a most basic, daily functioning form. I would say an intelligent man is one who comes to original conclusion or knowledge that survive critical examination and are reasoned. I see no sign of one hereabouts

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am, on this exact page, expressing an opinion that does not mesh with either factional narrative about the two issues being discussed, Ivermectin and the war. I forgot that you know me so well, rando stranger.

I may not know you, but I can form a judgement about you based upon what you write and the views you espouse. In the Roberto Clemente thread, the Florida state law that makes it illegal for school children in Florida to be taught that blacks have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, is discussed. A few of my favorite quotes of yours from that thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law…

Originally Posted by G1911

In a perfect world we could all read everything; I completely understand people having opinions on 2,000 page budget bills they haven’t read because it’s so much work and designed to be confusing.

This one is short and direct. It takes 10 minutes at most to read. Those who have read it struggle to find anything specific to attack and still choose to follow op-ed claims instead that are demonstrably false, or to even go so far as to dismiss a reason based standard entirely because they cannot find what is unreasonable and actually in the bill. The only giveaway that this was written by Republicans instead of Democrats is the “any race”; only that there’s no carve out to not protect whites like every other race.

Originally Posted by G1911

… There is little excuse for the confusion, as it takes less than 10 minutes to read and the people outraged continue to be unable to actually find anything in the bill to object too. So much so, that a reason based standard itself has to be dismissed in order to toe the party line here. …

Even though this law clearly makes it illegal to discuss the fact that black people have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, you cannot find anything wrong with it. To support the view that there is nothing wrong with the law as written, you misrepresent what it actually says. Some more favorite quotes from the thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

It does not, in any way, “force schools and libraries to remove literature about people of color or with LGBTQ themes.” … this a complete lie, …
… Obviously, a book celebrating Roberto Clemente is not banned, unless it argues that Clemente was morally superior to others because of his skin color (what we would call racist if it was about a white male). It’s a smart move to do this though, people are by and large not going to read the actual bill or do any research whatsoever, they’ll just follow whatever articles that preach their views to them say without any inquiry. Announcing they’re pulling an unobjectionable book that obviously is not banned by this law is just optics politics. It’s rage bait for their base, regardless of how absurd it is on even cursory inspection. …

Originally Posted by G1911

This claim that these books were banned appears to be completely false. Furthermore, anyone who has read the short law would know that such books are not banned from school libraries whatsoever, and that the law very explicitly requires the achievements of and problems experienced by African Americans to be taught to children. This is just fake rage bait for people who are unable or unwilling to to put even 1 minute into checking if it’s true, or reading the law.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. …

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. … I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

Originally Posted by G1911

… the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's only because it bans teaching racism against ANY race that there is a public outcry and anger. …
If we are fine with all other (or most) such bills though - how is this one different and objectionable? Nobody can ever answer this question without using political statements and op-eds filled with falsehoods that have nothing to do with the actual law.

Originally Posted by G1911

I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. … I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

Originally Posted by G1911

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base…

When you write that there is nothing wrong with the simple, short bill, you are either misrepresenting the bill or are in agreement that school kids should not be taught about the discrimination blacks faced simply because of their skin color. If it’s the latter, then that definitely shows that you are in a certain camp. If it’s the former, then let me quote you again:

Originally Posted by G1911

… I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed. …

Since you are making false claims about the law in order to attack a certain camp, you must be in the other camp.

One last quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's the normal path of the ideologue, judgement before reading what is in question, then being unable to cite their claims in the document in question, the dismissal of reason and a reason standard itself because that doesn't find what they want to find, until the anger and ad hominem are all that's left.

Another path of the ideologue is to ignore what is actually contained within the document in question, make false claims about what the document says, and say anyone who has a problem with the document does so purely on unreasoned political grounds.

So yes, your words regarding the Florida law clearly puts you in one camp versus the other.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

And also all good responses. Well done.

[frankbmd]

If WW3 is really on the horizon, expect Beckett to blow SGC and PSA out of the water. The strength of their slabs will defend against any attacks on our dead ball players better than their competition. Living ball players will be saved as well and our collections will live forever.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didn’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didn’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

As we discussed, I think we basically agreed, with perhaps some nuance of difference about one or two clauses, that the text of the law read literally was fairly neutral. Where we differed was that I placed more emphasis on, and had more concern about, context and likely misapplication to practices I thought should be left alone.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As we discussed, I think we basically agreed, with perhaps some nuance of difference about one or two clauses, that the text of the law read literally was fairly neutral. Where we differed was that I placed more emphasis on, and had more concern about, context and likely misapplication to practices I thought should be left alone.

That we did. An example of a reasoned debate.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

That we did. An example of a reasoned debate.

The law was passed to promote support from the base of one party with a governor of that party having presidential aspirations. It has had its intended effect. Laws passed when a super majority controls all branches of a house are typically not intended to be neutral and I think the governor of Florida would not say otherwise.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tpeichel

Why shouldn't people criticize our government when it seems determined to get us into a war? I can't think of anything the US has done to deescalate the situation in Ukraine. Can you?

Did we learn nothing from the Neocons lying to us to get us into the wars in the Middle East?

Yes, go ahead and criticize all you want. But if you hate it here so much, why don't you move to Russia? Then you can complain about everything over there as freely as you do here.

As for de-escalating the war, I can think of a lot the U.S. has done. The sanctions for example are a non-aggressive way to try to peaceably coerce another country into stopping their horrific actions of invading a neighboring country, bombing them and killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children, destroying their infrastructure, and then declaring that areas they occupy are now annexed by them and part of Russia now. We've sent resolutions and messages asking Russia to stop the killing and fighting, and to leave the Ukrainian people alone, and to vacate the land they illegally took from them. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukranian people voted overwhelmingly to once again be separate and apart from Russia, and it was formally recognized by the rest of the world, and the U.N. Yet the Russian government refuses to believe that and declares that Ukraine is full of Nazis and is somehow setting its sights on attacking Russia. So, to defend themselves, Russia has to attack them first? I don't remember seeing, reading, or hearing anything, anywhere about Ukraine, or anyone else, talking about invading Russia for any reason at all. Also, if Ukraine was so full of and under the control of Nazis, as the Russians claim, how in the hell did a majority of them ever elect, or ever allow to be elected, a Jewish President? I'm still trying to figure that one out. The U.S. has also not formally entered the war (And it is a war, not that "special military operation" BS that Russia spews), nor has it ever threatened to send in troops, or even mentioned using nuclear weapons. Instead, the U.S. has asked Russia to stop the fighting and go back home and leave the Ukranian people alone. What else would you want them to do to de-escalate this war.........have the U.S. tell the rest of the world that Ukraine is now part of Russia and send U.S. troops to help Russia gain full control of the country as it wants? Or maybe quit sending ammunition and weapons to the Ukrainian people that they need to defend themselves so Russia can now quickly roll over them and take over the entire country, before moving on to the next eastern European country that was formerly illegally claimed by the Soviet Union to take them over as well, and then the next, and the next, and so on? And what makes you think Russia will ever stop? It has already been discovered that there are Russian plans to go and try taking over Moldova now, or is that all BS fake news as well? One of the funniest jokes on the planet, right up there with the Russian Foreign Minister getting laughed at by the G20 crowd just last week for daring to say that Russia was attacked first, is Russia declaring the Ukraine is full of Nazis so that Mother Russia has to de-Nazify it. What an effing joke! Russia's leaders should go looking in the mirror, as they are, and have been, doing exactly what Hitler did. Create a police/military force to control and punish anyone who disagreed with his policies, thinking, and aims. Declare sovereignty over areas of other countries, thereby giving Germany the right to invade and take them over, thereby liberating the German speaking people in those other countries. View and criminalize minorities and other marginalized groups as being harmful to the German people and way of thinking, using that to further solidify the people behind him and his actions. (Just thinking of how many times I've heard how many Russian people have derogatory racial terms they use and apply towards Ukranian people, look down on them, or how some have even talked about eliminating them and their children altogether.) My God, it's like someone gave the Russians a copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" after ripping the cover off and replacing it with a cover from Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto", and that is what they're now going by. Russia is literally following and using the exact same playbook that Hitler used, including accusing others of being and doing exactly what they are first, so as to further continue to lie and justify their own actions and negate other's ability to accuse them of being what they really are. Russia's government is by and far the biggest "projector" I can think of currently on the face of the planet.

Projection - One kid punches his brother for no apparent reason and then promptly yells out, "Mom, he hit me!" Guess which brother is Russia?

Meanwhile, a better question would be to ask you exactly what the Russians have done to de-escalate this "special military operation"? They fired the first shots, they entered a neighboring country without provocation and/or ever being attacked or fired upon, and have killed, raped, and maimed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians, including children. They have taken thousands and thousands of Ukrainian citizens back to Russia to special Russian "education" camps, to help them assimilate back into Russian life and thinking (wonder how that has been going for all of them). They attacked and took over a nuclear plant, that through their idiocy and ineptitude, they have risked a large part of Europe with the fallout of another nuclear disaster. They have hired mercenary forces that are literally criminals, rapists, and murderers to fight, pillage, and plunder Ukraine for their benefit and gain. They have claimed to be defending and freeing Russian speaking people that lived in Ukraine and are Ukrainian citizens (which actually gives Russia no right at all to declare anything about anybody) and thus give them more reason to invade a neighboring country. If these so-called Russian speaking people were so disgusted with being in the Ukraine, why didn't they just move back over across the border to be in Mother Russia?

Gee, wouldn't that be the same thing if say Mexico said that there are a lot of Spanish speaking people in the U.S., and that they were being harassed and abused by Americans, and therefore they had every right to invade and attack Arizona, Texas, and other U.S. border states to defend and protect those Spanish speaking people? And then once they got across the border, following their initial unexpected attack and invasion, now quickly declared those sections they occupied as annexed and now formally part of Mexico. Oh, and that if the U.S. dared to counterattack to try to take any of these now annexed areas back, they would consider that as formally invading their country, and therefore they would be justified in firing nuclear weapons, or anything else that they may have, at the rest of the U.S. to defend themselves from a U.S. invasion. Sound at all familiar? Yet, it is pretty much the exact same thing that is being spewed by Russia in regard to Ukraine and their people.

So, what exactly have the Russians done to de-escalate this BS war that they, and they alone, started? Russia could easily de-escalate it in a heartbeat by ordering their troops to cease fire, and retreat from the Ukraine territory back across the actual, original Russian border. I can't wait to hear your brilliant answers in response. This should be fun, as I'm going to enjoy responding directly to each and every point you are going to try and make as to how the Russians did anything to de-escalate this war, and ripping them all to pieces for their idiocy.

And another relevant question for you. if another part of Russia's concern and reasoning for attacking Ukraine was because of some perceived expansion on the part of NATO and the EU, it seems Russia and its leaders are even dumber than we thought. Now you have both Sweden and Finland going for NATO membership, and doesn't Finland actually share a longer border with Russia than Ukraine does? So, I guess we should expect another Russian "special military operation" to be taking place in Finland soon as well, huh? Oh wait, that's right, the Finns are actually putting up walls/fences along their Russian border as I type this. To keep out more Russians from creeping into their country, so Russia can't later declare the Finnish people are abusing their Russian speaking brethren in Finland, and thus use that as another reason (excuse) to invade and attack Finland as well then.

The problem for Russia's leaders though is that they were too stupid to realize the Ukrainian people didn't want Russian rule, and that their underling yes men cronies all lied to them. They thought Ukraine had already been infiltrated by enough of their designated covert people, and that they had created enough conflict and turned enough Ukrainian people into Russian sympathizers so that when Russian troops did invade, they thought they would be met by mostly all these open-armed Russian sympathizers, all the way to Kyiv. My guess is that the underlings didn't dare to honestly tell their superiors that they couldn't just take what they wanted. But I think the Russians know better when it comes to Finland. In fact, if Russia did try the same stunt with the Finns, I could not only see them quickly stopping Russia's advances, but then turning the tables and heading right to Moscow to go after the Russian leaders and all their cronies.

And as for the Neocon lying BS, are you referring to the Gulf War of the '90's? If so, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and a coalition of 34 nations went in to stop Iraq and free Kuwait. The U.S. wasn't acting alone. Also, the world oil supply was likely deemed at risk, and created a bit more heightened interest than otherwise. It is also a fact that the U.S. has had a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement in place to defend Saudi Arabia since 1951. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. involvement back then also had something to do with honoring their agreement with the Saudis, since Kuwait also bordered Saudi Arabia, as did Saudi Arabia also border Iraq. Gee, there's a novel idea. A country honoring and fulfilling an agreement they have with another country. Just like the Russians who of course honor and fulfill all the agreements they've made in the past with other countries, like agreeing to the Ukraine's sovereignty and borders in return for the Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal and basically disarming themselves. Who would have ever thought the Russians would later use that to their advantage to later invade the Ukraine, not once, but twice now, in 2014 and again in 2022. However, I know and agree, the BS excuses about the U.S. fighting for freedom and democracy in other parts of the world is often nothing but a lot of BS. They tell the American people that when the true reasoning has more to do with business and trade, and the money involved from the natural resources and such in the countries involved. If the U.S. really was so altruistic as is often claimed, why haven't we gone over to a country like Somalia, and gotten rid of all the corrupt war lords and other gang leaders, and helped the Somali people out to get on their feet and set up their own truly free and self-governing, democratic nation? Why, because they don't have anything we really need or want, or can't more easily get elsewhere, and no big U.S. corporate investments or presence there to speak of and protect. But what exactly does any of that Gulf War crap have to do with Russia and Ukraine? Or are you going to argue that the U.S. somehow coerced Iraq into invading Kuwait, so there's the relevance?

Russia and its leaders have had over a year now to declare a ceasefire and stop this nonsense. So, tell me again how the Russians have done anything to de-escalate this war? Other than continue fighting, killing, raping, and plundering, making threat after threat, hiring and employing criminal mercenaries, and finally threatening not just Ukraine or the U.S., but literally the entire world, with a nuclear response. And then I think about how stupid and inept the Russians actually appear again, when I think back to how apparently in response to Russia's decision to cease participation in the New START nuclear arms agreement with the U.S., and possibly also in response/anticipation to Biden's visit to Kyiv and Zelensky, the Russians apparently planned a test of one of their new and most powerful ICBM nuclear weapons, and it failed to launch. Couldn't happen to a nicer country IMO! LOL

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didnÂ’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

222 (4)(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of
223 race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to
224 subject any student or employee to training or instruction that
225 espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such
226 student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

.
.
.

233 3. A person's moral character or status as either
234 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
235 race, color, national origin, or sex.

.
.
.

258 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
259 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger
260 course of training or instruction, provided such training or
261 instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement
262 of the concepts.

Saying a person's status as oppressed is determined by his/her color is a concept as defined by the law. That concept cannot be endorsed. A book saying Roberto Clemente was discriminated against because he was black is endorsing a concept that is forbidden by the law.

Now, in regards to your other comment, it is true, I have not read "the part of the law that actually stipulates it [discrimination against black people] *must* be taught."

But that's only because there is nothing in the law that stipulates that discrimination against blacks must be taught. Talk about "False claims about the law indeed."

What does the law actually stipulate be taught? The history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society. I don't see anything in that that is the equivalent to discrimination against blacks must be taught. Unless of course you think discriminating against blacks is part of the contributions blacks made/make to society. Post slavery, the only thing that is stipulated to be taught about blacks is their contributions. If I missed something, please point it out because I do not see anything stipulating that the history of discrimination against blacks should be taught.

[tpeichel]

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, go ahead and criticize all you want. But if you hate it here so much, why don't you move to Russia? Then you can complain about everything over there as freely as you do here.

As for de-escalating the war, I can think of a lot the U.S. has done. The sanctions for example are a non-aggressive way to try to peaceably coerce another country into stopping their horrific actions of invading a neighboring country, bombing them and killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children, destroying their infrastructure, and then declaring that areas they occupy are now annexed by them and part of Russia now. We've sent resolutions and messages asking Russia to stop the killing and fighting, and to leave the Ukrainian people alone, and to vacate the land they illegally took from them. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukranian people voted overwhelmingly to once again be separate and apart from Russia, and it was formally recognized by the rest of the world, and the U.N. Yet the Russian government refuses to believe that and declares that Ukraine is full of Nazis and is somehow setting its sights on attacking Russia. So, to defend themselves, Russia has to attack them first? I don't remember seeing, reading, or hearing anything, anywhere about Ukraine, or anyone else, talking about invading Russia for any reason at all. Also, if Ukraine was so full of and under the control of Nazis, as the Russians claim, how in the hell did a majority of them ever elect, or ever allow to be elected, a Jewish President? I'm still trying to figure that one out. The U.S. has also not formally entered the war (And it is a war, not that "special military operation" BS that Russia spews), nor has it ever threatened to send in troops, or even mentioned using nuclear weapons. Instead, the U.S. has asked Russia to stop the fighting and go back home and leave the Ukranian people alone. What else would you want them to do to de-escalate this war.........have the U.S. tell the rest of the world that Ukraine is now part of Russia and send U.S. troops to help Russia gain full control of the country as it wants? Or maybe quit sending ammunition and weapons to the Ukrainian people that they need to defend themselves so Russia can now quickly roll over them and take over the entire country, before moving on to the next eastern European country that was formerly illegally claimed by the Soviet Union to take them over as well, and then the next, and the next, and so on? And what makes you think Russia will ever stop? It has already been discovered that there are Russian plans to go and try taking over Moldova now, or is that all BS fake news as well? One of the funniest jokes on the planet, right up there with the Russian Foreign Minister getting laughed at by the G20 crowd just last week for daring to say that Russia was attacked first, is Russia declaring the Ukraine is full of Nazis so that Mother Russia has to de-Nazify it. What an effing joke! Russia's leaders should go looking in the mirror, as they are, and have been, doing exactly what Hitler did. Create a police/military force to control and punish anyone who disagreed with his policies, thinking, and aims. Declare sovereignty over areas of other countries, thereby giving Germany the right to invade and take them over, thereby liberating the German speaking people in those other countries. View and criminalize minorities and other marginalized groups as being harmful to the German people and way of thinking, using that to further solidify the people behind him and his actions. (Just thinking of how many times I've heard how many Russian people have derogatory racial terms they use and apply towards Ukranian people, look down on them, or how some have even talked about eliminating them and their children altogether.) My God, it's like someone gave the Russians a copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" after ripping the cover off and replacing it with a cover from Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto", and that is what they're now going by. Russia is literally following and using the exact same playbook that Hitler used, including accusing others of being and doing exactly what they are first, so as to further continue to lie and justify their own actions and negate other's ability to accuse them of being what they really are. Russia's government is by and far the biggest "projector" I can think of currently on the face of the planet.

Projection - One kid punches his brother for no apparent reason and then promptly yells out, "Mom, he hit me!" Guess which brother is Russia?

Meanwhile, a better question would be to ask you exactly what the Russians have done to de-escalate this "special military operation"? They fired the first shots, they entered a neighboring country without provocation and/or ever being attacked or fired upon, and have killed, raped, and maimed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians, including children. They have taken thousands and thousands of Ukrainian citizens back to Russia to special Russian "education" camps, to help them assimilate back into Russian life and thinking (wonder how that has been going for all of them). They attacked and took over a nuclear plant, that through their idiocy and ineptitude, they have risked a large part of Europe with the fallout of another nuclear disaster. They have hired mercenary forces that are literally criminals, rapists, and murderers to fight, pillage, and plunder Ukraine for their benefit and gain. They have claimed to be defending and freeing Russian speaking people that lived in Ukraine and are Ukrainian citizens (which actually gives Russia no right at all to declare anything about anybody) and thus give them more reason to invade a neighboring country. If these so-called Russian speaking people were so disgusted with being in the Ukraine, why didn't they just move back over across the border to be in Mother Russia?

Gee, wouldn't that be the same thing if say Mexico said that there are a lot of Spanish speaking people in the U.S., and that they were being harassed and abused by Americans, and therefore they had every right to invade and attack Arizona, Texas, and other U.S. border states to defend and protect those Spanish speaking people? And then once they got across the border, following their initial unexpected attack and invasion, now quickly declared those sections they occupied as annexed and now formally part of Mexico. Oh, and that if the U.S. dared to counterattack to try to take any of these now annexed areas back, they would consider that as formally invading their country, and therefore they would be justified in firing nuclear weapons, or anything else that they may have, at the rest of the U.S. to defend themselves from a U.S. invasion. Sound at all familiar? Yet, it is pretty much the exact same thing that is being spewed by Russia in regard to Ukraine and their people.

So, what exactly have the Russians done to de-escalate this BS war that they, and they alone, started? Russia could easily de-escalate it in a heartbeat by ordering their troops to cease fire, and retreat from the Ukraine territory back across the actual, original Russian border. I can't wait to hear your brilliant answers in response. This should be fun, as I'm going to enjoy responding directly to each and every point you are going to try and make as to how the Russians did anything to de-escalate this war, and ripping them all to pieces for their idiocy.

And another relevant question for you. if another part of Russia's concern and reasoning for attacking Ukraine was because of some perceived expansion on the part of NATO and the EU, it seems Russia and its leaders are even dumber than we thought. Now you have both Sweden and Finland going for NATO membership, and doesn't Finland actually share a longer border with Russia than Ukraine does? So, I guess we should expect another Russian "special military operation" to be taking place in Finland soon as well, huh? Oh wait, that's right, the Finns are actually putting up walls/fences along their Russian border as I type this. To keep out more Russians from creeping into their country, so Russia can't later declare the Finnish people are abusing their Russian speaking brethren in Finland, and thus use that as another reason (excuse) to invade and attack Finland as well then.

The problem for Russia's leaders though is that they were too stupid to realize the Ukrainian people didn't want Russian rule, and that their underling yes men cronies all lied to them. They thought Ukraine had already been infiltrated by enough of their designated covert people, and that they had created enough conflict and turned enough Ukrainian people into Russian sympathizers so that when Russian troops did invade, they thought they would be met by mostly all these open-armed Russian sympathizers, all the way to Kyiv. My guess is that the underlings didn't dare to honestly tell their superiors that they couldn't just take what they wanted. But I think the Russians know better when it comes to Finland. In fact, if Russia did try the same stunt with the Finns, I could not only see them quickly stopping Russia's advances, but then turning the tables and heading right to Moscow to go after the Russian leaders and all their cronies.

And as for the Neocon lying BS, are you referring to the Gulf War of the '90's? If so, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and a coalition of 34 nations went in to stop Iraq and free Kuwait. The U.S. wasn't acting alone. Also, the world oil supply was likely deemed at risk, and created a bit more heightened interest than otherwise. It is also a fact that the U.S. has had a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement in place to defend Saudi Arabia since 1951. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. involvement back then also had something to do with honoring their agreement with the Saudis, since Kuwait also bordered Saudi Arabia, as did Saudi Arabia also border Iraq. Gee, there's a novel idea. A country honoring and fulfilling an agreement they have with another country. Just like the Russians who of course honor and fulfill all the agreements they've made in the past with other countries, like agreeing to the Ukraine's sovereignty and borders in return for the Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal and basically disarming themselves. Who would have ever thought the Russians would later use that to their advantage to later invade the Ukraine, not once, but twice now, in 2014 and again in 2022. However, I know and agree, the BS excuses about the U.S. fighting for freedom and democracy in other parts of the world is often nothing but a lot of BS. They tell the American people that when the true reasoning has more to do with business and trade, and the money involved from the natural resources and such in the countries involved. If the U.S. really was so altruistic as is often claimed, why haven't we gone over to a country like Somalia, and gotten rid of all the corrupt war lords and other gang leaders, and helped the Somali people out to get on their feet and set up their own truly free and self-governing, democratic nation? Why, because they don't have anything we really need or want, or can't more easily get elsewhere, and no big U.S. corporate investments or presence there to speak of and protect. But what exactly does any of that Gulf War crap have to do with Russia and Ukraine? Or are you going to argue that the U.S. somehow coerced Iraq into invading Kuwait, so there's the relevance?

Russia and its leaders have had over a year now to declare a ceasefire and stop this nonsense. So, tell me again how the Russians have done anything to de-escalate this war? Other than continue fighting, killing, raping, and plundering, making threat after threat, hiring and employing criminal mercenaries, and finally threatening not just Ukraine or the U.S., but literally the entire world, with a nuclear response. And then I think about how stupid and inept the Russians actually appear again, when I think back to how apparently in response to Russia's decision to cease participation in the New START nuclear arms agreement with the U.S., and possibly also in response/anticipation to Biden's visit to Kyiv and Zelensky, the Russians apparently planned a test of one of their new and most powerful ICBM nuclear weapons, and it failed to launch. Couldn't happen to a nicer country IMO! LOL

After reading that you consider sanctions deescalation, I stopped reading your essay. It’s not to the level of blowing up a pipeline, supplying billions in weapons or providing military logistic support, but sanctions are meant to punish an adversary economically not deescalate a conflict.

[G1911]

A guy with a username I don't even recognize raging over things I wrote (which, from the quoted portions, is mostly statements that one should read the bill text) weeks ago in another thread is one of the weirder Net54 interactions I've seen, but I'll bite.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

222 (4)(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of
223 race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to
224 subject any student or employee to training or instruction that
225 espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such
226 student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

.
.
.

233 3. A person's moral character or status as either
234 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
235 race, color, national origin, or sex.

.
.
.

258 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
259 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger
260 course of training or instruction, provided such training or
261 instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement
262 of the concepts.

Saying a person's status as oppressed is determined by his/her color is a concept as defined by the law. That concept cannot be endorsed. A book saying Roberto Clemente was discriminated against because he was black is endorsing a concept that is forbidden by the law.

Notes line 258-262 there. It is perfectly legal to teach blacks were discriminated against. The verbiage says that the teacher just cannot endorse the discrimination (which would, you know, be racist). Yes, it bans teachers from being racist and teaching that a persons status is because of their skin color. Note the present tense. I would think that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Now, in regards to your other comment, it is true, I have not read "the part of the law that actually stipulates it [discrimination against black people] *must* be taught."

But that's only because there is nothing in the law that stipulates that discrimination against blacks must be taught. Talk about "False claims about the law indeed."

What does the law actually stipulate be taught? The history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society. I don't see anything in that that is the equivalent to discrimination against blacks must be taught. Unless of course you think discriminating against blacks is part of the contributions blacks made/make to society. Post slavery, the only thing that is stipulated to be taught about blacks is their contributions. If I missed something, please point it out because I do not see anything stipulating that the history of discrimination against blacks should be taught.

I am such a nice guy, that I looked up the law by Googling for it and reading because it is not my memory but the text that is law. This took me a few minutes because I am slow and stupid fellow. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil.../?Tab=BillText.

(h)
360 The history of African Americans, including the
361 history of African peoples before the political conflicts that
362 led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the
363 enslavement experience, abolition, and the history and
364 contributions of African Americans of the African diaspora to
365 society. Students shall develop an understanding of the
366 ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on
367 individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a
368 responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of
369 encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and
370 for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.
371 Instruction shall include the roles and contributions of
372 individuals from all walks of life and their endeavors to learn
373 and thrive throughout history as artists, scientists, educators,
374 businesspeople, influential thinkers, members of the faith
375 community, and political and governmental leaders and the
376 courageous steps they took to fulfill the promise of democracy
377 and unite the nation. Instructional materials shall include the
378 vital contributions of African Americans to build and strengthen
379 American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of
380 African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult
381 circumstances. Instructional personnel may facilitate
382 discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate
383 manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been
384 infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
385 racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the
386 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial
387 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and
388 how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust
389 laws. However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be
390 used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point
391 of view inconsistent with the principles enumerated in
392 subsection (3) or the state academic standards. The department
393 shall prepare and offer standards and curriculum for the
394 instruction required by this paragraph and may seek input from
395 the Commissioner of Education's African American History Task
396 Force.

There you go. Now you have. Enjoy your evening.

[Republicaninmass]

Shouldnt be surprised, he ("austin"Mike) is (likely) one more strike away from being banned for political posts.

Must be tough being in Austin, TX I'd gather.

Kind of like me in Massachusetts, but in reverse. Then I moved to NYC. I'm a glutton for punishment!


For the record, I'm just fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


We are here to talk cards though...right?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Shouldnt be surprised, he ("austin"Mike) is (likely) one more strike away from being banned for political posts.

Must be tough being in Austin, TX I'd gather.

Kind of like me in Massachusetts, but in reverse. Then I moved to NYC. I'm a glutton for punishment!


For the record, I'm just fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


We are here to talk cards though...right?

You are aware that Austin Texas is one of the most liberal cities in the US, correct?
A liberal living in Austin is not the opposite of a Republican in MA or NYC.