Florida State Seminoles

[innocentbystander]

DS,

It's no wonder you're still a virgin

And if you are unlucky, someday you will be as old as rat and you will still be ignoring common sense. But you will take whatever opportunity there is to try and tease other people that you are jealous of to make up for the fact that you seem to have far less in life than you feel you are deserving. And really all that is, is misery craving company, the same company that rat is craving now.

[Jungle Rat]

The only thing I'm craving is you getting hit by a bus.

[eCat]

a twitter post dedicated to the decline of Venice Beach

[hedge]

I was there just before covid and I don't recall seeing any of those tents along the beach, at least not in Venice (we did see a couple of tent cities, but they were where you would expect, i.e., under the interstate bridges and whatnot). Also the boardwalk (or I guess you'd call it the concrete walk) was packed with pedestrians...

[innocentbystander]

I agree that those two useless guards were not fired for sleeping/ignoring Epstein because if they were fired, they would have lawyered up (these two people will never get an affirmative action job as good as this one) and their lawyers would have demanded a full investigation of everything that went wrong. No way the government wants this investigated and to wind up in court. If it goes to court, it goes public. If its public, then there are more people being investigated. And then everyone's jobs are in jeopardy.

[eCat]

In a 9-0 decision Tuesday the Supreme Court rebuked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circ District Court Judges for overruling Immigration Courts who had excluded dangerous aliens from entering the U.S.



so I'm reading up on the Supreme Court reversals and of the small number of court cases SCOTUS hears, they reverse or vacate about 83% of them from all the circuits courts on average.

So it appears that SCOTUS cherry picks cases it intended to hear, and most likely will overturn them when they do.

[hedge]

That's true, but they only choose to hear a tiny fraction of lower court rulings that have been appealed up to them. Some people seem to enjoy pointing out how "much" the Supreme Court overturns "liberal" lower courts, but the fact is that they effectively agree with the lower courts 99% of the time. More than 99%, actually...

[hedge]

Actually, that's probably not true, as I don't know how many cases get appealed up to the Supreme Court. But I would assume that the majority of the cases that don't get appealed up to the Supreme Court are not done so b/c the plaintiffs understand that the great likelihood is that they will not be heard, which effectively means they know that the lower court ruling will be allowed to stand...

[innocentbystander]

That's true, but they only choose to hear a tiny fraction of lower court rulings that have been appealed up to them. Some people seem to enjoy pointing out how "much" the Supreme Court overturns "liberal" lower courts, but the fact is that they effectively agree with the lower courts 99% of the time. More than 99%, actually...

The thing is hedge, most of the cases that the 9th circuit rules on aren't necessarily "political." It may just be a matter of law and order, not politics. And in those cases, the Supreme Court need not overturn the decision because they would agree with the ruling.

Immigration is PURELY political (at least it is at this point.) And the 9th circuit (based on nothing other than politics) is forbidden from ever preventing anyone from entering this country from another country. That is a non-starter for liberalism in the United States.

ALL ARE WELCOME. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. This type of thinking is more important than abortion on demand, for liberal US citizens.

So if you operate from that fundamental principle in your thinking, you can see where the divide is in this country, and we are not going to come together on it. No way.

[DooKSucks]

In a 9-0 decision Tuesday the Supreme Court rebuked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and 9th Circ District Court Judges for overruling Immigration Courts who had excluded dangerous aliens from entering the U.S.



so I'm reading up on the Supreme Court reversals and of the small number of court cases SCOTUS hears, they reverse or vacate about 83% of them from all the circuits courts on average.

So it appears that SCOTUS cherry picks cases it intended to hear, and most likely will overturn them when they do.

Bingo

SCOTUS' workload has dropped precipitously over the past fifty years.

[Jungle Rat]

What's wrong with abortion on demand? Provided it's within the first 3 months.

[innocentbystander]

What's wrong with abortion on demand? Provided it's within the first 3 months.

If abortion on demand is okay within the first 3 months then why wouldn't abortion on demand be okay at 8 and half months in gestation? Its either a person or it isn't. And if its a person, why isn't it a person at conception?

Abortion is a deceptive issue. When people argue a mother's right to abort the fetus in her womb, the "science" around what is happening is entirely irrelevant. Instead, this is matter of RIGHTS! Its a right that she has because it is her womb. Whether or not its a baby at 3 months, or 8 months, or 3 seconds after the sperm hits the egg is irrelevant.

[sardis]

You listen to the scientists...because they are pure and nonpolitical....

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06 ... 9s-origins

[eCat]

In February, a research paper coauthored by two Chinese scientists, based at separate Wuhan universities, appeared online as a preprint. It tackled a fundamental question: How did a novel bat coronavirus get to a major metropolis of 11 million people in central China, in the dead of winter when most bats were hibernating, and turn a market where bats weren’t sold into the epicenter of an outbreak?

The paper offered an answer: “We screened the area around the seafood market and identified two laboratories conducting research on bat coronavirus.” The first was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which sat just 280 meters from the Huanan market and had been known to collect hundreds of bat samples. The second, the researchers wrote, was the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

After reading that article, I don't know how you can't believe its not a lab leak

[Jungle Rat]

Abortion is none of your business IB. 8 months is ridiculous. 3 months is the standard.

[sardis]

Wish abortion was your mother's business.

[Jungle Rat]

She didn't have the choice

[eCat]

in light of the Fauci emails, an article in support of Rand
------------------------------

Rand Vs. Fauci - Schools

Last summer, Rand Paul outraged the left by simply stating that classrooms should remain open to public school students.

“There’s a great deal of evidence that’s actually good—good evidence—that kids aren’t transmitting this—it’s rare—and that kids are staying healthy, and that yes we can open our schools,” he said in a committee hearing.

Fauci vehemently disagreed, alleging that children could spread the disease as easily as adults and advocating federal regulations around reopening schools.

But a mere six months later, Fauci was singing Rand’s tune—walking back his earlier comments.

“If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not very big at all,” Fauci stated. “Not like one would have suspected.”

Well, Rand Paul suspected.

To be clear, the science didn’t change over those six months. The politics did. Data always showed it was relatively safe to send kids to school.

Rand Vs. Fauci - Masking

In March, the two doctors duked it out again, this time over the question of whether or not Americans should continue to wear masks post-vaccination.

"You're telling everyone to wear a mask," Paul said. "If we're not spreading the infection, isn't it just theater? You have the vaccine and you're wearing two masks, isn't that theater?"

"Here we go again with the theater," Fauci responded.

Loading video

Yet the official narrative on masking post-vaccines changed only a couple days later as politicians realized their security theater was discouraging Americans from taking the vaccine.



Rand vs Fauci - Origins

Dr. Fauci, we don't know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally, but we should want to know," Paul said. "Three million people have died from this pandemic, and that should cause us to explore all possibilities.”

“To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus's ability to infect humans," he continued. Paul went on to point out a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where Fauci works, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

"Sen. Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect," Fauci responded. He denied the “gain of function” research funding in question as well.

But following the dispute, the official story on the origins began to be backtracked. Media outlets softened their position, and some outright edited their previous articles condemning the story.

[aTm]

You have to understand epidemiology and disease control to understand Fauci and his actions.

Epidemiology in a practical sense has nothing to do with applying science. What an epidemiologist does when fighting an outbreak or pandemic is to change human behavior. It is a war fought with propaganda not a war fought with science. Thats why a paper pusher immunologist like Fauci rises to that position in the first place.

You dont fight HIV/AIDS with research and developing medicine, you can learn how to treat it, extend the lives of those who have it, but you're only able to limit its spread so much. You win a war on HIV/AIDS through education and propaganda. By whatever means necessary you get people to stop behaving in ways that expose themselves and other to the disease. You educate them some, you extoll the virtues of abstinence, and monogamy, you prop up do marketing for the mighty condom, and you also do things like try to scare the fuck out of people, even lie and mislead them if it helps make them stop behaving in ways that spread the disease.

Every disease is the same way. The biggest tool the epidemiologist has is propaganda. Make people do what you want them to do through targeted factoids whether those be information or misinformation. The science may show that kids and college kids and young adults are at very little risk and should be able to go about their lives without interruptions, but the propagandist/epidemiologist knows that if young adults are allowed to fill the bars and beaches, then old people will say “fuck this I aint staying home while everyone else parties!” so they dont let that factoid out, instead they make it seem and let people believe that young people and kids are in danger. The more people who are afraid, the more people who will behave like you want them to and that is literally the only lever or button that the epidemiologist can push that might impact the spread of the disease. Fauci’s job is not science. His job is to lie to you for your own good.

[innocentbystander]

You have to understand epidemiology and disease control to understand Fauci and his actions.

Epidemiology in a practical sense has nothing to do with applying science. What an epidemiologist does when fighting an outbreak or pandemic is to change human behavior. It is a war fought with propaganda not a war fought with science. Thats why a paper pusher immunologist like Fauci rises to that position in the first place.

You dont fight HIV/AIDS with research and developing medicine, you can learn how to treat it and maybe limit its spread somewhat, but you win a war on HIV/AIDS through education and propaganda. By whatever means necessary you get people to stop behaving in ways that expose themselves and other to the disease. You educate them some, you extoll the virtues of abstinence, and monogamy, you prop up do marketing for the mighty condom, and you also do things like try to scare the fuck out of people, even lie and mislead them if it helps make them stop behaving in ways that spread the disease.

Preach brother, preach! I was there. I remember the mid to late 1980s. I remember health department officials (or should I say, epidemiologists) telling everyone that ANYONE can get AIDS and if you fuck the wrong person, just one wrong person, you catch HIV, it turns into AIDS, and you die. I remember.

While technically true (although it would be extremely hard for a man to catch it from a woman unless she is having her period and he has all sorts of open sores on his penis), in reality the above line from the CDC and health department officials is all bullshit. Anyone could get it, but everyone was NOT getting it. It was:

• gay men
• IV drug users
• hemophiliacs

They were getting it. It was spread blood to blood (and semen to blood.) So why gay men? Why them so much? Well, because gay men are highly promiscuous. When you go to the bath houses to fuck other random men, you dramatically increase your chances of getting HIV. It was cultural among gay men to randomly swap up on partners. Patient zero fucked 150 different men in one year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

He was an international flight attendant. He spread the disease all over the earth. The various centers of disease control knew about him but they remined silent about him because the CDC didn't want to offend gay men by calling their promiscuous lifestyle into question. This being so hush-hush was briefly discussed in this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On

So epidemiologists were more concerned about shifting the narrative on AIDS by saying that ANYONE can get it instead of screaming at gay men, STOP swapping up on partners! But the CDC didn't do that because of politics. It wasn't a nice thing to do to the gay community. It would be seen as calling their whole cultural behavior into question. It is much easier and politically correct for the CDC to tell everyone to stop fucking, altogether.

Same may be true here with China and coronavirus. Propoganda.

Every disease is the same way. The biggest tool the epidemiologist has is propaganda. Make people do what you want them to do through targeted factoids whether those be information or misinformation. The science may show that kids and college kids and young adults are at very little risk and should be able to go about their lives without interruptions, but the propagandist/epidemiologist knows that if young adults are allowed to fill the bars and beaches, then old people will say “fuck this I aint staying home while everyone else parties!” so they dont let that factoid out, instead they make it seem and let people believe that young people and kids are in danger. The more people who are afraid, the more people who will behave like you want them to and that is literally the only lever or button that the epidemiologist can push that might impact the spread of the disease. Fauci’s job is not science. His job is to lie to you for your own good.

Yup.