billsfan1959

Placing Covid patients back into nursing homes with healthy residents literally resulted in additional deaths. Your response is to say you acknowledge Cuomo might be lying and then go right back to spewing your nonsense with CNN as the foundation for your credibility. You are a one trick pony.

Well, if you don't believe him, then where is your outrage? Putting Covid patients in nursing homes literally killed people. You have been on a crusade of outrage - page after page of posts regarding Trump making positive statements about China in January, making a stupid comment about bleach, and other inconsquential things. And yet, you are strangely silent on this or, for that matter, anything for which you can't find a way to blame Trump. Hypocrisy, thy name is Kemp...

If it was Trump and that was his response, you would have already written post after post condemning him in your typical, mind numbing, stream of consciousness fashion...

It could be worse. while they were in NY, Cuomo could have made them stay in Nursing Homes where he liked to put Covid patients....

First time I looked in this thread. Hilarious. You started and continue a thread in which you pretty much post to yourself? I wasn't going to post anything; however, you looked so lonely and desperate all by yourself in a thread that, apparently, nobody cares about, that I thought I would participate so that you didn't feel like a complete loser. I'm kind like that

I have been a diehard fan since 1968 and that loss to the Giants is still the most disappointing to me. That was the only year, in all my time as a fan, that I believed the Bills were clearly the best team in the league and should have been SB Champions.

Please regale us all some more with your intellectually stunning analysis of the Spanish Flu. It had us all on the edge of our seats. No, really.... This from a guy who compared another poster to David Koresh (or Koresch, as you like to call him) based "on a few posts about corona virus." Kinda does shed a little light on the depth of who you are....

You are a walking cliché of left wing, self-annointed enlightenment springing from a delusional sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

Trump's focus on cancer shows he doesn't care about those dying from heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease...

Your hatred of Trump transcends any ability you might possess to engage in reasonable, rational, fact based discussions. Your ranting about Trump, or anyone else, either lying or not knowing if what he is saying is true is the absolute height of irony. You toss out half-truths, distorted truths, and outright false statements in post after post. When anyone takes the time to point out the actual facts to prove you wrong, you either double down on your ignorance, shift the goal posts, or completely ignore it like it didn't even happen.

You keep going on about positive statements Trump made about China in January. What has your panties in such a bunch? That the President would say China is cooperating and doing all they can regarding the virus when that is the exact stance the WHO had at that point - and was pretty much the conduit between China and the world? That the president would be saying positive things when as late as 23 January there were literally a small number of cases outside of China, no deaths - and the WHO reporting that the outbreak did not yet constitute a public emergency of international concern and there was "no evidence" of the virus spreading between humans outside of China? Once it started spreading world wide on a large scale and it became apparent that China and the WHO mislead the entire world, he no longer had anything positive to say about China. This is classic you: Latch onto some inconsequential point, twist it beyond anything recognizable as the truth, and spew it in post after post I completely agree, shoshin. However, none of these are points I was addressing - other than the issue of what would be reasonable to expect regarding the type of testing and magnitude of testing at any given point during this process. And, when it comes to that point, the extremity of one's position (not you) seems to be commensuratre with one's level of hate for Trump.

That wasn't the point I was responding to.

We are testing at higher per capita rate in our hotspots than any country in the world - and have been for awhile. We are testing exactly where the testing is needed the most - and increasing our testing in all other areas of the country every day. As a country, to have conducted testing at a higher per capita rate than any other country would mean we would have had to test 13-14 million people so far. I think that is a little unreasonable. We have conducted over 7 million tests. there is only one other country that has tested more than 2.5 million and that's Russia with 4.5 million

I already did.

No, that's a comment on left wing policies. A better reference would be you screaming about anyone that supports Trump must be stupid or evil

Well, the two that drank fish tank cleaner were lifelong Democrats, and, apparently, the only ones stupid enough to do so. Woman who said she drank fish-tank cleaner because of president's advice is not a Trump supporter https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-woman-fish-tank-cleaner-trump-democrat "The Arizona woman who said she and her husband drank fish-tank cleaner to ward off coronavirus has donated heavily to Democrats and acknowledges she's not a President Trump supporter" Of course, there are those that don't really believe this was some naive attempt to "follow the President's recommedations" Police Investigating Death of Arizona Man From Chloroquine Phosphate https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/police-investigating-death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-phosphate/ "Friends of Gary Lenius told the Free Beacon they were skeptical he would knowingly ingest fish tank treatment. Rather, they described Lenius as a levelheaded retired engineer and recounted a troubled marital relationship that included a previous domestic assault charge against his wife, of which she was ultimately found not guilty."

Yep, one of the biggest frauds ever - an absolute joke. If you kept every single fact the same and simply inserted Obama as the target, rather than Trump, there would be exposé after exposé from the MSM calling for heads to roll and there would have already been a complete dismantling of the FBI hierarchy. For no other reason than their hatred for Trump is so deep, a large percentage of the population, with the aid of the MSM, is absolutely fine with government abuses that should literally terrify every citizen.

There have been abuses in the Bureau since Hoover, mostly because of the absence of strong leadership. Most of the time, those abuses were specific and not systemic. The only decent Director was Louis Freeh and, interestingly enough, he was the only one that actually spent time as an Agent. He made great strides in trying to eliminate those specific abuses, downsizing management, placing more decision-making abilities at the field office level, streamlining the ability of street Agents to do their jobs, and more. The systemic abuses are a staple of the culture created under Mueller. He was the worst director ever appointed, and the level of corruption and incompetence currently in the management structure of the Bureau is a direct result of him. He dismantled everything Freeh did and created a bloated management structure filled with every ladder climbing, inexperienced, narcissistic POS that somehow managed to get a position as an Agent. Mandatory retirement for Agents is 57 and the minimum age is 50, if the the Agent has at least 20 years of service. Before Mueller, you rarely saw Agents retire before it was mandatory. The actual street Agents loved their jobs, were good at it, and were proud of their service. When Mueller took over, for the first time, you started hearing Agents wishing years of their life away. Phrases like, "I can't wait for the next five years to go by so that I can retire at fifty," which were almost unheard of before Mueller's appointement, became the norm under his leadership. He completely destroyed the morale of the Agents. Mueller made no secret that he did not like Agents, particularly experienced Agents that would question the direction he wanted to take the Bureau. That direction was to turn, arguably, the best investigative agency in the world into a domestic CIA, run by analysts and management hacks at the HQ level, and to be used in ways everyone is now seeing revealed in what transpired under Crossfire Hurricane.

Nice of you to make an attempt to answer his question in an intellectually honest, civil way. Others have as well. He'll just keep asking the same question as if it has never been answered.... He's like the little boy in the back seat on a trip: Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?......

The proverbial "inmates are running the asylum." More evidence of sock puppetry: What are the odds of that many people, in one thread, being off their medications at the same time?

I actually understand a bit about research and data, and the weight of data, and the generalization of data, etc. I have looked at enough data for me to feel comfortable in my stance. I stand by that. I made my statement based on what I have read. I think my initial wording was incorrect as I didn't mean to imply that the weight of the data supported my stance, only that much of the emerging data I have read - meaning most of the data I have read, not data that exists. If you want to say you disagree based on what you have read, fine. However, your response was to say, "The weight of the data is obvious." The fact is, you haven't read all of the data, so you have no idea what the weight of the data supports and all you are doing is the very thing you accused me of.

So, the weight of the data is pretty obvious; however, you haven't studied the issue of reopening enough to know whether the weight of the data supports it? Just an observation: If you don't know whether the weight of the data supports a position, then the weight of the data isn't that obvious. And if you haven't studied the issue of reopening enough to reach a conclusion, then maybe you should do so before calling out other people's opinions.

So, what is the wieight of the data regarding your position? 10%? 25%? 50%? Or more? Does the weight of the data (e.g., more than 50%) support your position?

I am not in a position of making policy and only offering my opinion. I am advocating reopening based on the data I have read. I would think it obvious in that statement that I feel there is enough data out there now for me to feel comfortable in my stance. So, tell me, how certain do you need to be about the data before you reopen?

Well said. I think we are at the point of diminishing returns on the lockdowns. Reopening is not a non-compassionate stance regarding vulnerable populations. Resources and behavior can still be focused on keeping them safe. It is a resonable approach based on much of the emerging data and needs to be done now.