Biden pardons faucci? (And his other finals acts)

[pdub]

"but then, when evidence is given"

Well, here's the central issue with you and your cult.

[Shirley]

Is it worth revisiting the covid argument? Pdub giving me another "time out" for replying to other posters?

Zuckerberg has already come forward saying Facebook was pressured by the biden admin and government agencies to censor and remove truthful information related to covid, covid origins, and vaccine information. Zuckerberg said Facebook caved to the intimidation tactics and he wishes they hadn't. Musk reported the same thing going on at Twitter, which he didn't own yet, but the emails still existed when he bought it

There's been numerous books written and documentaries made detailing a lot of this.

Surely you remember the "safe and effective" campaign during the vaccine rollout?
Surely you remember the mandates and tactics used to coerce individuals and companies to vaccinate? It was GOOD that treatments were available to those that sought it, but most people didn't need them, because immune systems.

Surely you remember people losing their jobs for being skeptical of the vaccine and wanting to wait?
Surely you remember the massive settlements lots of people got for being wrongly terminated?

The vaccine had zero long term studies, and what surprises some people, no studies done (early phases) on whether it stopped transmission. The studies focused on if it would increase protection for infected individuals. But that isn't how it was marketed. I'm sure you remember all the biden and vaccine speeches

At one point if someone said you could have side effects from the vaccine, or you could be vaccinated and still get covid, it was flagged as misinformation and censored. Both of those things were factual.

Just like Psych repeatedly berating Harris for her lack of intelligence, and saying she had an IQ score below 100. When I asked him to show us the evidence, instead of proving it, he turned around and said that if I couldn't see it, he questioned my IQ.

You're both full of shit, and don't even care that it's proven here on a regular basis. Where's your self-respect?

You said your charge is "factual". That being the case, show us the "facts".

And that has nothing to do with the "gain of function" bullshit you're peddling to try and weasel out of proving the lie you were promoting yesterday, liar.

You are so disingenuous. You demand "evidence," but then, when evidence is given, it's not the "right" evidence or "reliable" evidence. As I said before, I don't know of any published IQ test scores for Giggles.

Most people would accept the impressions of a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience as at least plausible.

But not you. Why? Because you're eNrAGed and you need somebody to shake your fist at and call names.

Get. A. Grip.

I'll probably get another time out for this, but I'm sick of your bullshit, and I'm not going to let it go unchallenged.

Seriously? Seriously?

You think anyone here that has read the credulity-challenging conspiracies and hair-brained crap you believe gives you, "a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience" or not, the benefit of the doubt?

Psych, your lack of personal insight is below zero, i.e., negative, if you think that's true. You poor thing.

But, since you brought your credentials up, maybe you wouldn't mind settling a now decades-old argument, about whether or not your "doctorate" is an online degree, or not?

tia

[pdub]

"Most people would accept the impressions of a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience as at least plausible."

Certainly.
Before you started to communicate your thoughts.
After? Just makes me sad for the people you work with and teach.

[JKLivin]

Just like Psych repeatedly berating Harris for her lack of intelligence, and saying she had an IQ score below 100. When I asked him to show us the evidence, instead of proving it, he turned around and said that if I couldn't see it, he questioned my IQ.

You're both full of shit, and don't even care that it's proven here on a regular basis. Where's your self-respect?

You said your charge is "factual". That being the case, show us the "facts".

And that has nothing to do with the "gain of function" bullshit you're peddling to try and weasel out of proving the lie you were promoting yesterday, liar.

You are so disingenuous. You demand "evidence," but then, when evidence is given, it's not the "right" evidence or "reliable" evidence. As I said before, I don't know of any published IQ test scores for Giggles.

Most people would accept the impressions of a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience as at least plausible.

But not you. Why? Because you're eNrAGed and you need somebody to shake your fist at and call names.

Get. A. Grip.

I'll probably get another time out for this, but I'm sick of your bullshit, and I'm not going to let it go unchallenged.

Seriously? Seriously?

You think anyone here that has read the credulity-challenging conspiracies and hair-brained crap you believe gives you, "a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience" or not, the benefit of the doubt?

Psych, your lack of personal insight is below zero, i.e., negative, if you think that's true. You poor thing.

But, since you brought your credentials up, maybe you wouldn't mind settling a now decades-old argument, about whether or not your "doctorate" is an online degree, or not?

tia

No, it is not "an online degree." But, you all have been on a "now decades-old" doxxing expedition long enough to know that. Which is odd, because I honestly don't ever stop to wonder anything about your personal or professional lives. (Shrug)

[JKLivin]

"Most people would accept the impressions of a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience as at least plausible."

Certainly.
Before you started to communicate your thoughts.
After? Just makes me sad for the people you work with and teach.

You are entitled to that opinion.

I would argue that you (and the majority on these boreds) do not represent the majority in the real world.

[randylahey]

Is it worth revisiting the covid argument? Pdub giving me another "time out" for replying to other posters?

Zuckerberg has already come forward saying Facebook was pressured by the biden admin and government agencies to censor and remove truthful information related to covid, covid origins, and vaccine information. Zuckerberg said Facebook caved to the intimidation tactics and he wishes they hadn't. Musk reported the same thing going on at Twitter, which he didn't own yet, but the emails still existed when he bought it

There's been numerous books written and documentaries made detailing a lot of this.

Surely you remember the "safe and effective" campaign during the vaccine rollout?
Surely you remember the mandates and tactics used to coerce individuals and companies to vaccinate? It was GOOD that treatments were available to those that sought it, but most people didn't need them, because immune systems.

Surely you remember people losing their jobs for being skeptical of the vaccine and wanting to wait?
Surely you remember the massive settlements lots of people got for being wrongly terminated?

The vaccine had zero long term studies, and what surprises some people, no studies done (early phases) on whether it stopped transmission. The studies focused on if it would increase protection for infected individuals. But that isn't how it was marketed. I'm sure you remember all the biden and vaccine speeches

At one point if someone said you could have side effects from the vaccine, or you could be vaccinated and still get covid, it was flagged as misinformation and censored. Both of those things were factual.

Just like Psych repeatedly berating Harris for her lack of intelligence, and saying she had an IQ score below 100. When I asked him to show us the evidence, instead of proving it, he turned around and said that if I couldn't see it, he questioned my IQ.

You're both full of shit, and don't even care that it's proven here on a regular basis. Where's your self-respect?

You said your charge is "factual". That being the case, show us the "facts".

And that has nothing to do with the "gain of function" bullshit you're peddling to try and weasel out of proving the lie you were promoting yesterday, liar.

There's personal testimony from Mark Zuckerberg saying that happened at Facebook. Theres personal testimonies from scientists saying faucci went after them to discredit them and silence the.. And I've posted videos/full documentaries with senate hearings and paper trail and everything. Will you watch it? You'll waste 3 times the amount of time arguing with me instead of just watching it

[randylahey]

what is it you think you’re accomplishing here?

There is not 1 person accomplishing anything on the kansascrimson politics board. But some outside perspective is always good for people to consider

I wish we'd all try to find common ground a bit more. Instead of just attacking each other for differences. I know a few of you are willing

[pdub]

There is not 1 person accomplishing anything on the kansascrimson politics board.

Speak for yourself.
I successfully warned some posters defending nazi salutes just the other day and may ban them entirely in the future.

Accomplishment.

[randylahey]

So if that was a nazi salute (wasn't) then it surely won't be the last right? When are you predicting elon does it again

[twocoach]

So Biden commutes Leonard Peltier’s two life sentences. They say he murdered two FBI agents back in the 1970’s. Any thoughts?

Yes. His case seems to be one of many where prosecutorial misconduct may have led to an innocent person being put in prison for decades. There were a lot of issues with his case, some of which are highlighted here.

https://freeleonard.org/case/

I have a very hard time believing that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Anyone who reviews the investigation and court case should most definitely have reasonable doubt. The US prison system has sent countless people away for decades for crimes that they either did not commit or in cases where the defendant was not given a fair trial and a legitimate chance to prove their innocence because facts and evidence were withheld or not truthful.

[KUTradition]

it’s amazing how well google works sometimes

[dolomite]

So Biden commutes Leonard Peltier’s two life sentences. They say he murdered two FBI agents back in the 1970’s. Any thoughts?

Yes. His case seems to be one of many where prosecutorial misconduct may have led to an innocent person being put in prison for decades. There were a lot of issues with his case, some of which are highlighted here.

https://freeleonard.org/case/

I have a very hard time believing that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Anyone who reviews the investigation and court case should most definitely have reasonable doubt. The US prison system has sent countless people away for decades for crimes that they either did not commit or in cases where the defendant was not given a fair trial and a legitimate chance to prove their innocence because facts and evidence were withheld or not truthful.

I wonder sometimes about how much time
convicts should spend in prison. It’s not fair to some if they are convicted unfairly.
I guess it’s just an arbitrary decision
. Not sure if that female journalist that was murdered because she was breaking into the capitol was self defense.

[twocoach]

So Biden commutes Leonard Peltier’s two life sentences. They say he murdered two FBI agents back in the 1970’s. Any thoughts?

Yes. His case seems to be one of many where prosecutorial misconduct may have led to an innocent person being put in prison for decades. There were a lot of issues with his case, some of which are highlighted here.

https://freeleonard.org/case/

I have a very hard time believing that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Anyone who reviews the investigation and court case should most definitely have reasonable doubt. The US prison system has sent countless people away for decades for crimes that they either did not commit or in cases where the defendant was not given a fair trial and a legitimate chance to prove their innocence because facts and evidence were withheld or not truthful.

I wonder sometimes about how much time
convicts should spend in prison. It’s not fair to some if they are convicted unfairly.
I guess it’s just an arbitrary decision
. Not sure if that female journalist that was murdered because she was breaking into the capitol was self defense.

1) Ashlii Babbitt was not a journalist
2) She was shot and killed while climbing through a window into the Speaker's Lobby after ignoring statements by police not to do so, not murdered.

What's that famous MAGA saying? "If they would have complied with the police's orders, this wouldn't have happened".

[Overlander]

So Biden commutes Leonard Peltier’s two life sentences. They say he murdered two FBI agents back in the 1970’s. Any thoughts?

Yes. His case seems to be one of many where prosecutorial misconduct may have led to an innocent person being put in prison for decades. There were a lot of issues with his case, some of which are highlighted here.

https://freeleonard.org/case/

I have a very hard time believing that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Anyone who reviews the investigation and court case should most definitely have reasonable doubt. The US prison system has sent countless people away for decades for crimes that they either did not commit or in cases where the defendant was not given a fair trial and a legitimate chance to prove their innocence because facts and evidence were withheld or not truthful.

Not sure if that female journalist that was murdered because she was breaking into the capitol was self defense.

Do you mean the woman was was trying to forcibly enter a door that she was warned dozens of times by law enforcement to stop trying to enter?

The same woman who disregarded warning that if she continued to force her way in, that she could be shot?

The woman who may or may not have thought the men screaming these things at her might very well follow through?

The woman who posted this a few days prior? "Nothing will stop us ... they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours ... dark to light!"?

The woman who, in 2016, faced criminal charges of reckless endangerment?

The woman who spent six years in service as part of the "Capital Guardians" unit of the District of Columbia Air National Guard, whose mandate is to defend the Washington D.C. region and quell civil unrest. And who knew damn well what the repurcussions of her action could be?

Is THAT the woman you are referring to?
Because you said this woman was a "journalist", which she was not.

Just making sure we are talking about the same woman.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Yes. His case seems to be one of many where prosecutorial misconduct may have led to an innocent person being put in prison for decades. There were a lot of issues with his case, some of which are highlighted here.

https://freeleonard.org/case/

I have a very hard time believing that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Anyone who reviews the investigation and court case should most definitely have reasonable doubt. The US prison system has sent countless people away for decades for crimes that they either did not commit or in cases where the defendant was not given a fair trial and a legitimate chance to prove their innocence because facts and evidence were withheld or not truthful.

Not sure if that female journalist that was murdered because she was breaking into the capitol was self defense.

Do you mean the woman was was trying to forcibly enter a door that she was warned dozens of times by law enforcement to stop trying to enter?

The same woman who disregarded warning that if she continued to force her way in, that she could be shot?

The woman who may or may not have thought the men screaming these things at her might very well follow through?

The woman who posted this a few days prior? "Nothing will stop us ... they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours ... dark to light!"?

The woman who, in 2016, faced criminal charges of reckless endangerment?

The woman who spent six years in service as part of the "Capital Guardians" unit of the District of Columbia Air National Guard, whose mandate is to defend the Washington D.C. region and quell civil unrest. And who knew damn well what the repurcussions of her action could be?

Is THAT the woman you are referring to?
Because you said this woman was a "journalist", which she was not.

Just making sure we are talking about the same woman.

You beat me to it and responded in a much better way than I was going to.
I was going to ask - What female "journalist" are you referring to?
Then add, if you mean Ashli Babbitt, "self defense" or not, the person who shot her was employed to protect members of congress, and when other law enforcement officers were being reported as being attacked and "down", he RIGHTFULLY felt their (the Congressmen and Congresswomen) lives very well may be or were in danger, so he and others WARNED her to retreat and she ignored his and other's orders, so he shot the _________. Did she "deserve" to be shot and killed? I might or might not necessarily say that, but if it was a choice between her and ANY Congressperson (Dem or Pub) losing their life, I say kudos to the law enforcement officer and _________________ to her.

[Overlander]

She got a damn better opportunity to stand down than tens of thousands of US Citizens got.

Always a tragedy when someone dies needlessly.

A slightly lighter tragedy to consider this woman a martyr

[dolomite]

I would think that instead of shooting to kill they could’ve just winged her, unless of course she had a firearm pointed at them.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I would think that instead of shooting to kill they could’ve just winged her, unless of course she had a firearm pointed at them.

Shot her in the shoulder. Ok, maybe he was aiming for her heart/torso?
Yes, it's unfortunate someone was shot and killed but she fucked around and found out. Better than her fucking around and someone else finding out. At least to me.

[Shirley]

[japhy]

"Most people would accept the impressions of a doctoral-level clinician with 25 years of diagnostic experience as at least plausible."

Certainly.
Before you started to communicate your thoughts.
After? Just makes me sad for the people you work with and teach.

Wait, I thought we were just goofing around, outside the envelope of professional ethics; did I miss something?