Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[bodiddley]

As COVID Testing Soars, Wait Times For Results Jump To A Week — Or More

Kind of defeats the purpose of testing ...

[barton]

This is long, but it works through all the arguments about re-opening schools....

Well thought out.   This observation was one I made in a post yesterday:

  “Hardly any kids get COVID.”

(Deep sigh) Yes, that is statistically true as of this writing. But it is a cherry-picked argument because you’re leaving out an important piece.

One can reasonably argue that, due to the school closures in March, children have had the least EXPOSURE to COVID. In other words, closing schools was the one pandemic mitigation action we took that worked. There can be no discussion of the rate of diagnosis within children without also acknowledging they were among our fastest and most quarantined people. Put another way, you cannot cite the effect without acknowledging the cause.   

Have tried to make this point,  and similar ones about the misuse of stats,  enough times here that I finally gave up.   If you stupid fucks (and you know who you are,  the three stooges of Elba) want to pretend that your partisan talking points pass for wisdom,  or that your massively Dunning Krueger bloated sense of scientific competence is anything more than picking through your bowel movements for corn kernels, then blather on!   

[Hamilton Samuels]

[quote author=LarryBnDC link=topic=55.msg134271#msg134271 date=1594605What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

We haven't said it IN THIS set of stupid exchanges. We've been talking about it since before you decided to grace us with your presence again and during that time, as well.

But since you seldom answer anybody else's questions much of the time, wtf is your problem?

You are pedantic, petulant, and supercilious.

But in this case, you've not answered a simple question.

Guess your fragile ego can't take another hit.

[Hamilton Samuels]

   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 

 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.

As I’ve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.

If YOU don’t like that because it offends your sensibilities you can sue for redress.

Dig?

As I told you in the beginning of this bullshit the difference between art and vandalism is permission.

You want a Confederate flag in the crosswalk? Petition the local ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Good luck with that in 2020.

When did I say I wanted a Confederate flag in the crosswalk?
No, but that's what some of you folks like to do in here, infer what was never implied.

And the question remains unanswered. Well, let me rephrase, you've given an answer, but you have not explained satisfactorily. WHY DO The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES get to promote a political message on the public streets?
 What are the guidelines that permit a political message to be displayed on a public road? What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

Just finish jerking off and come already...

And thee you go, again, Larry.

Every time you are pressed in this board you return to your 13 year old inner child.

Grow up.

[Hamilton Samuels]

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

You were asked.

You declined to answer.

Josh. You're childishness is on display

[Hamilton Samuels]

   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 

 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.

As I’ve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.

If YOU don’t like that because it offends your sensibilities you can sue for redress.

Dig?

As I told you in the beginning of this bullshit the difference between art and vandalism is permission.

You want a Confederate flag in the crosswalk? Petition the local ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Good luck with that in 2020.

When did I say I wanted a Confederate flag in the crosswalk?
No, but that's what some of you folks like to do in here, infer what was never implied.

And the question remains unanswered. Well, let me rephrase, you've given an answer, but you have not explained satisfactorily. WHY DO The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES get to promote a political message on the public streets?
 What are the guidelines that permit a political message to be displayed on a public road? What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

Curious what the legality of painting BLM on public streets really is? I know that when they painted that thin blue line on streets inmany towns in NJ it was declared illegal by the feds.

It is a political statement. Should it be painted on a public roadway?  And is legal to do so?

I'm not quibbling about the message. Just curious about whether it's legal to deliver it in this manner.

After all, I am guessing that if I took blue and white paint and wrote Support Israel on the street, their would be a legal consequence.

So what is the legal stature of this political message delivery system? Anyone?

I taught Art courses at a private school in Potomac and a bunch of the boys were targgers who kept getting into rich kid trouble. I told the brats the difference between graffiti art and vandalism was permission.

When the mayors of these towns approve or in the case of DC commission the work I would think legality is not a huge problem.

So...to extend this, if the mayor, town council, etc, approve, it's not a problem?

Wouldn't that apply to all symbols and/or expressions of political pov,, too?

Case by case and you know that.

So, if a town and its mayor and council approved painting the Confederate flag in a crosswalk, that political statement  would be lagal, based on your statements.

And, as you've just highlighted, that is not the same as saying that I want to paint the Confederate flag on a sidewalk.

Thanks for proving my point.

Back to school, son.

Your hypersensitive nature got you this time.

[Yankguy1]

This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

[Hamilton Samuels]

This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

It wasn't a debate. It was people so entrenched in the idealogue they wouldn't answer a question without they're fear of being wrong get in the way.

[Yankguy1]

You spelled "ideology" incorrectly.

[barton]

This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

I hope this isn't embarrassing,  but I'm a bit in awe of how you will counter a string of long-winded posts with one sentence that goes right to the heart of the matter while neatly puncturing a giant balloon of verbiage.   

I looked up the GSD.  Thanks,  very illuminating.  Uno has his answer,  if he cares to look it up.   And,  as Bo pointed out,  if the government speech isn't suggesting something illegal, or violating the establishment clause,  then what is not expressly forbidden is allowed.   

[Yankguy1]

Thanks.  It's actually a pretty close case, I think.  But the Government Speech Doctrine likely provides some cover.

I'm sure Red can tell us more.

[Hamilton Samuels]

This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

I hope this isn't embarrassing,  but I'm a bit in awe of how you will counter a string of long-winded posts with one sentence that goes right to the heart of the matter while neatly puncturing a giant balloon of verbiage.   

I looked up the GSD.  Thanks,  very illuminating.  Uno has his answer,  if he cares to look it up.   And,  as Bo pointed out,  if the government speech isn't suggesting something illegal, or violating the establishment clause,  then what is not expressly forbidden is allowed.

FINALLY!!!AN answer. And one without snark attached.

Thank you.

Can't wait to see which state creates the first BLM license plate.

[Hamilton Samuels]

You spelled "ideology" incorrectly.

Yes, I did.

[NeedsAdjustments]

One of the constant complaints about lockdown has been that more people would die of the lockdown than of the disease.

There's been no evidence to support the claim, but it's damned hard to prove it can't be true, either.

Somehow the Rightists don't whip out their favorite No Data argument when it comes to arguing lockdowns are worse for people's health.

I don't think its hard to prove that it can't be true.  Excess deaths (how many more people are we seeing die now than during equivalent periods previous years) have been used to track the true toll of COVID, usually to argue that the official death toll is being under-counted.  I've seen different estimates on how far those under-counts go, but most I believe put it more or less at 15-20% excess deaths unaccounted for.

Now even if you were to argue that every one of those excess deaths was due to lockdown and not related to physical response to COVID itself (very, very unlikely, but even so) you would not get a number that is higher than confirmed COVID deaths, but a number that is 15-20% of confirmed COVID deaths.   Then factor in that we know there would be even more confirmed COVID deaths if there wasn't a lockdown, and the gap between COVID deaths without lockdown and "lockdown deaths" would be even greater. 

135,000 confirmed COVID deaths over the last four months.  If lockdowns have made a greater contribution to that death total than COVID itself we would be seeing greater than 135,000 unaccounted for excess deaths over that period.  Of course, we haven't.

I don't dismiss that there are some deaths of despair and depression that have come from the lockdown.  I, peronally, do not believe they are statistically significant compared to what we have seen from the sickness itself.  But I don't think there is any way to argue in good faith that the lockdown has done more harm than good. 

[LarryBnDC]

This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

I hope this isn't embarrassing,  but I'm a bit in awe of how you will counter a string of long-winded posts with one sentence that goes right to the heart of the matter while neatly puncturing a giant balloon of verbiage.   

I looked up the GSD.  Thanks,  very illuminating.  Uno has his answer,  if he cares to look it up.   And,  as Bo pointed out,  if the government speech isn't suggesting something illegal, or violating the establishment clause,  then what is not expressly forbidden is allowed.

FINALLY!!!AN answer. And one without snark attached.

Thank you.

Can't wait to see which state creates the first BLM license plate.

And there it is.