All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (15 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[SystemShock]

The WHO reported that on January 14th.

WHO haunted by January tweet saying China found no human transmission of coronavirus

In a January tweet, the World Health Organization (WHO) cited Chinese health officials who claimed there had been no human transmissions of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) within the country yet.

www.foxnews.com

Trump cut the CDC as well.

CDC confirms first human-to-human transmission of coronavirus ...
www.cnbc.com/2020/01/30/cdc-confirms-first-human...
Jan 30, 2020 · The transmission makes the U.S. at least the fifth country where the infection is now spreading through human-to-human contact, including China. ... increase in cases and the evidence of human-to ...

It was a joke, Won't be Fooled Again, the song by The Who.

 

[surada]

Prostitutes, both male and female, don't sell themselves because they are stupid. They do it for the money.

Of course.. You're correct.. KellyAnne is knocking down $375,000 a year.

 

[surada]

Hi Dragon.

Yes, I remember we discussed the foreign bribery issue at some length. I believe I even posted a chart showing which countries customarily required bribes to do business at all!

But, the notion of the UN becoming a puppet of terrorist states like Libya and a mouthpiece for terrorist organizations like Hamas has been an on-going concern for at least the past 30 years, to my recollection.

Having them become a mouthpiece for Chinese propaganda is merely a more recent turn of events on the same road.

Bush opened Libya up in 2003. Cheney had been lobbying his government relationships since 1998 to lift sanctions against Libya, Iraq and the Stans.

LIBYA TO GIVE UP ARMS PROGRAMS, BUSH ANNOUNCES (Published 2003)

Pres Bush and British Prime Min Tony Blair say Col Muammar el-Qaddafi has admitted that Libya was trying to develop arsenal of unconventional weapons; say he has promised to dismantle them and submit to international inspections; Bush links agreement with Qaddafi directly to war in Iraq; Blair...

www.nytimes.com

 

[V Chip]

No, I remember. Although I am not sure why it matters - I am guessing you remember as well or you would dispute the fact instead of making this stupid comment.

Just playing to the intended audience, eh?

No I didn't remember. I had to look it up. The signs were just a symbol that marked the projects as ARRA related, did NOT bear Obama's name in any way, and were intended as a way to show those projects that were a result of the ARRA (quoted as saying it was so people would know where the money was being spent, although the signs didn't say the amount that was being spent on that project). Not any different than many, many other signs throughout the country such as my own red state of Georgia having these signs:

Not a huge reach at all unless you are brainwashed with a ridiculous the-sky-is-falling-mindset on every single thing Trump does or says.

No, it is a huge reach and a horrible analogy. One is for tracking the use of the money as a way to show what things are being accomplished with public funds. The other is purely for ego stroking and vanity of a narcissist.

 

[JimEverett]

Many Executive branch departments crafted signage with a specific emblem - the emblem was "a symbol of President Obama’s commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work."

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/recovery/Recovery_emblem_guide_v1.pdf

The emblem and what it represents makes it different from a run of the mill sign as you suggest. Again, would be clear to those not believing every single thing Trump does or says is unprecedented, OMG the end of democracy, etc. . . .

 

[V Chip]

Many Executive branch departments crafted signage with a specific emblem - the emblem was "a symbol of President Obama’s commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work."

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/recovery/Recovery_emblem_guide_v1.pdf

The emblem and what it represents makes it different from a run of the mill sign as you suggest. Again, would be clear to those not believing every single thing Trump does or says is unprecedented, OMG the end of democracy, etc. . . .

No, it's not. It's just that you're so blinded by the Orange glow that you can't see the obvious. That text is nowhere on the signs and was only used in a PDF to explain what the signs were for. You know and everyone else knows that if the signs actually had that text or were forced to have Obama's signature on them only after the process to make them had been created and been in place that all the conservatives would have been apoplectic.

These are examples of the emblems.

Yep, those are entirely comparable to having to change an existing process just to have the President's signature put onto checks.

 

[surada]

Just playing to the intended audience, eh?

No I didn't remember. I had to look it up. The signs were just a symbol that marked the projects as ARRA related, did NOT bear Obama's name in any way, and were intended as a way to show those projects that were a result of the ARRA (quoted as saying it was so people would know where the money was being spent, although the signs didn't say the amount that was being spent on that project). Not any different than many, many other signs throughout the country such as my own red state of Georgia having these signs:

No, it is a huge reach and a horrible analogy. One is for tracking the use of the money as a way to show what things are being accomplished with public funds. The other is purely for ego stroking and vanity of a narcissist.

Trump desn't care about anybody but Trump. His ego is all that matters.

 

[JimEverett]

No, it's not. It's just that you're so blinded by the Orange glow that you can't see the obvious. That text is nowhere on the signs and was only used in a PDF to explain what the signs were for. You know and everyone else knows that if the signs actually had that text or were forced to have Obama's signature on them only after the process to make them had been created and been in place that all the conservatives would have been apoplectic.

These are examples of the emblems.

Yep, those are entirely comparable to having to change an existing process just to have the President's signature put onto checks.

The purpose of the design is clear. And Republicans did object - again, I remember. Your lack-of-memory appears to be as strong as your chicken-little approach to everything Trump.

 

[V Chip]

The purpose of the design is clear. And Republicans did object - again, I remember. Your lack-of-memory appears to be as strong as your chicken-little approach to everything Trump.

No I read that *some* Republicans objected to the signs. Not very many -- in fact the story I found (from the always reliable cnsnews) quoted only one Republican who objected to the signs, and there is a reference to Daniel Issa objecting in another story I found. One quoted Mike Pence, who said in a very ironic quote "The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this [Obama] administration" yet apparently has had a change of heart since.

 

[RobF]

The purpose of the design is clear. And Republicans did object - again, I remember. Your lack-of-memory appears to be as strong as your chicken-little approach to everything Trump.

@V Chip is correct. Signs saying "Project funded by the American Recovery and Investment Act" are in no way comparable to a narcissistic individual demanding their name be put on the cheques.

Fundamentally, the former is a typical act that does something: it shows where funding for the project has come from. The latter adds nothing: it's not like people would have been getting the cheques and thinking, "Gosh, where has this come from? I just don't know!" without a memo with Trump's name on it.

Presumably that's why, at this point, you're evidently unable to defend it on its own terms and are instead, in response to well thought out and backed up criticisms, having to resort to repeatedly throwing out wild accusations of irrational prejudice.

Again.

 

[JimEverett]

@V Chip is correct. Signs saying "Project funded by the American Recovery and Investment Act" are in no way comparable to a narcissistic individual demanding their name be put on the cheques.

Fundamentally, the former is a typical act that does something: it shows where funding for the project has come from. The latter adds nothing: it's not like people would have been getting the cheques and thinking, "Gosh, where has this come from? I just don't know!" without a memo with Trump's name on it.

Presumably that's why, at this point, you're evidently unable to defend it on its own terms and are instead, in response to well thought out and backed up criticisms, having to resort to repeatedly throwing out wild accusations of irrational prejudice.

Again.

You conveniently ignore the stated purpose of the signs, again. Here is the purpose as used by Executive branch agencies: "a symbol of President Obama’s commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work."

Not only that, the cost of those signs promoting Obama's commitment were at a minimum $10 million, if not substantially more. In that sense, what strikes you as more narcissistic?

It is also telling that you focus on my responses as throwing out wild accusations of irritation prejudice when the first response I responded to called me aa "Trump apologist" making some sort of ridiculous comparison. I guess your moral indignation is clouded by partisanship.

 

[V Chip]

One quoted Mike Pence, who said in a very ironic quote "The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this [Obama] administration" yet apparently has had a change of heart since.

Even more interesting is that he had no objections whatsoever to the "INDOT Drives Indiana" signs that were announced in his home state in 2016 while he was still governor -- signs that Indiana erects marking their DOT construction projects.

 

[Dragon]

Hi Dragon.

Yes, I remember we discussed the foreign bribery issue at some length. I believe I even posted a chart showing which countries customarily required bribes to do business at all!

But, the notion of the UN becoming a puppet of terrorist states like Libya and a mouthpiece for terrorist organizations like Hamas has been an on-going concern for at least the past 30 years, to my recollection.

Having them become a mouthpiece for Chinese propaganda is merely a more recent turn of events on the same road.

Nothing is black and white in the middle east. Most people forget that in the history of that area even Israel and its first government were born in blood.

Here is a very good article on this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c811fe-b938-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

The majority of the palestinian people have lived as refugees for 70 years now - many still in powerty in camps and yes the UN provides schools and medical services to those. Two wrongs never make a right and the way the Israel government have looked the other way while "settlers" occupied land outside the state of Israel and later in the name of the security of those same lawbreaking settlers have, annexated the occupated territories. And yes - the UN member states have been very critical towards Israels behaviour and only US vetos have prevented sanctions against that country.

Being critical against a country which breaks international law is NOT the same as being a mouthpiece for a terrorist organisation.

 

[surada]

Hi Dragon.

Yes, I remember we discussed the foreign bribery issue at some length. I believe I even posted a chart showing which countries customarily required bribes to do business at all!

But, the notion of the UN becoming a puppet of terrorist states like Libya and a mouthpiece for terrorist organizations like Hamas has been an on-going concern for at least the past 30 years, to my recollection.

Having them become a mouthpiece for Chinese propaganda is merely a more recent turn of events on the same road.

Oh please. Israel helped found HAMAS. Most Palestinians opposed it and lobbied aggressively against its founding.. But, they recruited in the meanest and most impoverished camps. The Israelis wanted a foil to oppose the PLO.

Have you ever been to Palestine or visited any of the refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan?

 

[The moose]

Nothing is black and white in the middle east. Most people forget that in the history of that area even Israel and its first government were born in blood.

Here is a very good article on this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c811fe-b938-11e4-9423-f3d0a1ec335c_story.html

The majority of the palestinian people have lived as refugees for 70 years now - many still in powerty in camps and yes the UN provides schools and medical services to those. Two wrongs never make a right and the way the Israel government have looked the other way while "settlers" occupied land outside the state of Israel and later in the name of the security of those same lawbreaking settlers have, annexated the occupated territories. And yes - the UN member states have been very critical towards Israels behaviour and only US vetos have prevented sanctions against that country.

Being critical against a country which breaks international law is NOT the same as being a mouthpiece for a terrorist organisation.

Dude all governments in the history of man were born in forking blood.

Rarely will anyone ever be taken over without a fight.

With the French in WW2 I can't tell you about a take over that people did not spill blood and die.

Yep and before you go there India did lots of bleeding just on one side.

So what is your point with that?

 

[surada]

Dude all governments in the history of man were born in forking blood.

Rarely will anyone ever be taken over without a fight.

With the French in WW2 I can't tell you about a take over that people did not spill blood and die.

Yep and before you go there India did lots of bleeding just on one side.

So what is your point with that?

Muslims were a minority in India.. but they were always a majority in Palestine for at least 1300 years.

 

[The moose]

Muslims were a minority in India.. but they were always a majority in Palestine for at least 1300 years.

Yep I got that.

Was just point out that DD and his comments of how even Israel and its first government were born in blood was just plan silly.

The point I was making with India even when dealing with the British empire and using nonviolent resistance plenty of blood spilled.

So I was pointing out the silly.

On a side note I have wanted to go to India for years and have been planning a trip for next year. Was gonna do the rent a motorcycle thing and takes three weeks to really see it if I did not die in a traffic wreck. Lord knows when I will be able to make that now considering the vacation fund has been almost drained and the idea of global travel doesn't sound great right now.

 

[Lapaz]

Hi Lapz.

You do know there are already bills in Congress to de-fund the UN for its graft and corruption right?
Those bills are still in play. They just haven't been enacted.

H.R.249 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Defunding United Nations Act of 2017

Summary of H.R.249 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Defunding United Nations Act of 2017

www.congress.gov

There are probably also bills in congress to play tiddlywinks, but that doesn't mean that they will nor should pass. Trump and many Republicans want to retreat inside our borders, but the world has become linked, and it is dangerous to disengage. The WHO is very important at this point in time, and it is stupid to halt its funding. Tell me, do you think that is a wise move?