|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2020 14:15:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Nov 24, 2020 15:16:40 GMT -5
** Yes, I enjoy the second one better. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Nov 24, 2020 16:48:25 GMT -5
Well he didn't help himself here.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 24, 2020 17:01:32 GMT -5
No, I'm just not gullible enough to believe that a man who spent most of his time in his basement and hardly campaigned still managed to get more votes than anyone in history, even more popular than Obama.
When an 800,000 vote lead for Trump in Pennsylvania gradually disappears 5 days after an election, it makes me a little suspicious, especially when no one but democrats were allowed to count, authenticate, or observe those votes.
The Kool-Aid drinkers are those who don't even raise an eyebrow over that.
Imagine the opposite, an 800k lead for Biden vanishes in Philadelphia after Trump supporters tabulate the votes and exclude all democrat over-sight. I suspect you'd be screaming "Fowl play"
Lets take one at a time.
Biden, -the candidate who didn't campaign a lot did so because of his concern for the people if he would have had large crowd events which could spread Covid-19.
I think most people understood this an appreciated it.
Also one of the reasons that Biden got so many votes was that more people voted this year than since 1876. Why was that, do you suppose?
As to your suspicions about Philadelphia, state law in Pennsylvania stated mail-in ballots can't be counted ahead of election ay before 7 a.m.
Considering how Trump fought against "mail-in ballots," -most people voting in person at the polls were for Trump, -while the number that voted for Biden were mail-in ballots and it takes much longer to count mail-in ballots.
It still takes longer to open envelopes and count mail-in ballots despite the state of PA spending $1 million on new equipment to open envelopes and count mail-in ballots.
That would easily account for Trump leading at the beginning but losing later when those mail-in ballots began to pile up.
As for the "over-sight" being rigged against Trump, -that simply was proved not true over & over again in all parts of the country!
Both Republicans & Democrats are allowed equal access to being able to watch elections.
What Trump REALLY wanted was for his goons to be allowed to unannounced/independently attend the elections, and for security reasons that it now allowed. Can you imagine what the reaction would be to army-fatigues-clad, gun-toting, "well regulated" militia men snooping around the polling stations? Trump fooled the sycophants on that one too!!!
|
|
|
Post by speak on Nov 24, 2020 17:55:54 GMT -5
Are you for real? Your second amendment has been the death of a huge amount of people. I think if your forefathers could see it now they would horrified.
I think I'm for real, well maybe a little phony .. Our forefathers wrote the 2nd amendment in 1791, so I doubt they'd be horrified. I imagine a lot of people are alive too, thanks to the second amendment. Your accusation won't merit an investigation if you can't first provide relevant evidence. It's not up to the judges to do the investigation. So far Trump's supporters haven't presented anything to the courts buy accusations -- that's why they've embarrassed themselves every time they've gone to court.
Its probably tough to gather evidence when you were barred from observing the vote count, ballots, etc. The republicans were stupid not to have had people in place. A recount does no good if your unable to authenticate the ballots.
Yes they did wright it but I recon it has far exceeded the intention it was written for. I believe it was written for to repel enemies of the state not people within the state.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 24, 2020 18:31:02 GMT -5
I think I'm for real, well maybe a little phony .. Our forefathers wrote the 2nd amendment in 1791, so I doubt they'd be horrified. I imagine a lot of people are alive too, thanks to the second amendment. Its probably tough to gather evidence when you were barred from observing the vote count, ballots, etc. The republicans were stupid not to have had people in place. A recount does no good if your unable to authenticate the ballots.
Yes they did wright it but I recon it has far exceeded the intention it was written for. I believe it was written for to repel enemies of the state not people within the state. You are exactly right on that point. In colonial times, the colonies weren't allowed to have their own "military", and the provision for it wasn't included in the original Constitution. So it was amended to guarantee the "people" (in congress) to build a "well regulated" military (legal militia) for their own defense. It was NEVER intended to counter the will of the "government by the PEOPLE". In law, "people" refers to the state (government by the people). the word "persons" refers to individual citizens, as in civil rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 18:43:41 GMT -5
Yes they did wright it but I recon it has far exceeded the intention it was written for. I believe it was written for to repel enemies of the state not people within the state. In law, "people" refers to the state (government by the people). the word "persons" refers to individual citizens, as in civil rights. then you are gonna have problems with the first amendment that uses people instead of persons....your point quickly falls apart...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 24, 2020 19:00:28 GMT -5
In law, "people" refers to the state (government by the people). the word "persons" refers to individual citizens, as in civil rights. then you are gonna have problems with the first amendment that uses people instead of persons....your point quickly falls apart... Who said I don't?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2020 19:33:08 GMT -5
Well he didn't help himself here. Dr Fauci did just fine in that interrogation. The constitution talks of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The three must be kept in balance: Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are sacrificed for Life. Life and the pursuit of Happiness are sacrificed for Liberty. Life and liberty are sacrificed for the pursuit of Happiness. Allowing mass protest that will cost lives in a pandemic is stupid. Here in New Zealand, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were sacrificed for lives. We had strict rules and military reserves were on standby to enforce the rules if necessary. They weren't needed. Most of us were happy to follow the rules for the greater good.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 24, 2020 19:50:32 GMT -5
Well he didn't help himself here. What could you expect when someone is asked such stupid questions by ignorant people?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2020 21:36:24 GMT -5
Well he didn't help himself here. What could you expect when someone is asked such stupid questions by ignorant people?Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 21:46:45 GMT -5
What could you expect when someone is asked such stupid questions by ignorant people? Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives. ummmm this "lethal" disease has about a 97% survival rate for most age groups and a 85% survival rate for those about 70 and older or someone with underlying conditions....
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 24, 2020 22:06:17 GMT -5
Give up your guns and buy grenades. I don't think there is any tax on them.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 24, 2020 22:16:01 GMT -5
Give up your guns and buy grenades. I don't think there is any tax on them. From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 24, 2020 22:18:22 GMT -5
Give up your guns and buy grenades. I don't think there is any tax on them. From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
You should know my comment was in jest. But thanks anyway for the wiki report.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 24, 2020 22:19:23 GMT -5
Give up your guns and buy grenades. I don't think there is any tax on them. From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
FYI: You can legally buy a flare gun (and 37mm casings)to "roll your own" weapon of mass destruction. @wally can probably help you. :-)
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 24, 2020 22:20:21 GMT -5
From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
You should know my comment was in jest. But thanks anyway for the wiki report. I know. I edited my comment in jest too, but you were too fast.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 24, 2020 22:22:28 GMT -5
From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
FYI: You can legally buy a flare gun (and 37mm casings)to "roll your own" weapon of mass destruction. @wally can probably help you. :-)
My hands are to shaky. I would be the first fatality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 22:22:56 GMT -5
From wiki " Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.)"
FYI: You can legally buy a flare gun (and 37mm casings)to "roll your own" weapon of mass destruction. @wally can probably help you. :-)
i know nothing of flare guns or grenade launchers all i learned in the Navy was 45's and shotguns...maybe vanilla gorilla knows of such things...
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 24, 2020 22:29:08 GMT -5
What could you expect when someone is asked such stupid questions by ignorant people? Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives. There seems to be people in the USA who believe they have rights but do not want to know about responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 24, 2020 22:32:42 GMT -5
Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives. ummmm this "lethal" disease has about a 97% survival rate for most age groups and a 85% survival rate for those about 70 and older or someone with underlying conditions.... We don't know yet how many of those who "survive" will have sequela, -conditions which can be severe, -sometimes permanent as the the consequence of Covid19.
Long-term damage to lungs or heart are just a few.
Wally is that not important to you as well as how many are also dying?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 22:36:21 GMT -5
ummmm this "lethal" disease has about a 97% survival rate for most age groups and a 85% survival rate for those about 70 and older or someone with underlying conditions.... We don't know yet how many of those who "survive" will have sequela, -conditions which can be severe, -sometimes permanent as the the consequence of Covid19.
Long-term damage to lungs or heart are just a few.
Wally is that not important to you as well as how many are also dying? you should ask fixit...hes the one that pointed out that this virus is "lethal"...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 24, 2020 22:37:24 GMT -5
Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives. ummmm this "lethal" disease has about a 97% survival rate for most age groups and a 85% survival rate for those about 70 and older or someone with underlying conditions.... That would hardly be comforting for the 3% and 15% who die. Why don't you care about them? Would you care if terrorists only killed 3% of those they came into contact with? Would you mobilise the nation to defeat them? Covid-19 is a lethal enemy, even though it's an enemy you can't see. It's easily defeated if you deny it the opportunity to jump to uninfected people. Which is why it's so stupid for people to congregate in order to "protest".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 22:42:07 GMT -5
ummmm this "lethal" disease has about a 97% survival rate for most age groups and a 85% survival rate for those about 70 and older or someone with underlying conditions.... That would hardly be comforting for the 3% and 15% who die. Why don't you care about them? Would you care if terrorists only killed 3% of those they came into contact with? Would you mobilise the nation to defeat them? Covid-19 is a lethal enemy, even though it's an enemy you can't see. It's easily defeated if you deny it the opportunity to jump to uninfected people. Which is why it's so stupid for people to congregate in order to "protest". do you carry on for those who die from the flu? that has about a 99% survival rate but about 1% die anyways maybe you should mobilize for them or don't you care?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 24, 2020 22:57:42 GMT -5
We don't know yet how many of those who "survive" will have sequela, -conditions which can be severe, -sometimes permanent as the the consequence of Covid19.
Long-term damage to lungs or heart are just a few.
Wally is that not important to you as well as how many are also dying? you should ask fixit...hes the one that pointed out that this virus is "lethal"... Wally, don't you consider Covid-19 to be a "lethal?" Definition of 'lethal'
1. Causing or capable of causing death:
2. Extremely harmful; devastating: I was asking you, wally, - isn't important as to how many die or are left maimed for life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2020 23:00:40 GMT -5
you should ask fixit...hes the one that pointed out that this virus is "lethal"... Wally, don't you consider Covid-19 to be a "lethal?" Definition of 'lethal'
1. Causing or capable of causing death:
2. Extremely harmful; devastating: I was asking you, wally, - isn't important as to how many die or are left maimed for life?
like i said ask fixit....he's the one that pointed out how "lethal" the virus is and said nothing about any collateral damage...
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Nov 24, 2020 23:12:29 GMT -5
That would hardly be comforting for the 3% and 15% who die. Why don't you care about them? Would you care if terrorists only killed 3% of those they came into contact with? Would you mobilise the nation to defeat them? Covid-19 is a lethal enemy, even though it's an enemy you can't see. It's easily defeated if you deny it the opportunity to jump to uninfected people. Which is why it's so stupid for people to congregate in order to "protest". do you carry on for those who die from the flu? that has about a 99% survival rate but about 1% die anyways maybe you should mobilize for them or don't you care? Our government cares about the people, and vaccines are available every year covering new strains. Many people, and most elderly are flu-vaccinated.
Covid-19 is lethal, especially to the immune-compromised. We do not know the long term effects on those who only had mild symptoms. A personal friend was one of the few people in NZ who was a positive case. While her symptoms were only like that of a long lasting cold, it is now months after and she still gets short of breath and her sense of taste and smell isn't what it was. She was a very fit Mountain Biker, and contracted Covid overseas.
Of course, you only have to ask Boris Johnson what he thinks now, having gone to a pretty low place with it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 24, 2020 23:21:07 GMT -5
What could you expect when someone is asked such stupid questions by ignorant people? Yes, that guy in the video was being an idiot. It's interesting that people obsess over their constitutional rights at the expense of human life. It's like..."don't you dare take away our constitutional right to infect people with a lethal disease". Saving lives is more important than the right to protest the inconvenience of saving lives. They have the same idea of freedom of religion -- how dare you interrupt my attempts to make you be a good Christian, exactly how I think that should be.
|
|