The Goat Pen

we supported policies that will lead to another 9/11 attack because we didn't have a military force occupying a middle eastern country?

what do you think led to the 9/11 attack in the first place?

The only reason for the US military to get involved with anything in the Middle East would be if Israel were in serious trouble, and I don't see anything there the IDF can't deal with themselves. Those Muslims countries, fuck 'em. Let them kill each other to their hearts content. We don't need their oil. The whole damn Middle East isn't worth a single American life.

Anybody see the new hate crime stats?

https://www.google.com/search?q=hate+cr ... 5245361328

"what do you think led to the 9/11 attack in the first place?"

Crazy ass religious terrorists...

eCat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 9:42 am we supported policies that will lead to another 9/11 attack because we didn't have a military force occupying a middle eastern country?

what do you think led to the 9/11 attack in the first place?

I thought the government let it happen in order to distract from the illegitimacy of the previous election...

hedge wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:46 am "what do you think led to the 9/11 attack in the first place?"

Crazy ass religious terrorists...

crazy about infidels occupying their land

Exterminate the brutes...

hedge wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:46 am "what do you think led to the 9/11 attack in the first place?"

Crazy ass religious terrorists...

Any word on the hatred and crime that I'd like to bring down on your ass?

Two words, actually. The first one begins with "F"...

Jungle Rat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:15 am Anybody see the new hate crime stats?

https://www.google.com/search?q=hate+cr ... 5245361328

Any word on the hatred and crime that I'd like to bring down on your ass?

at what point does this become insane?

Masks are now required indoors wherever people from different households are gathered — even if they are physically distant, the Pennsylvania state health secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine, said Tuesday. The order applies to every indoor facility, including in private homes, but Levine acknowledged that officials are relying on voluntary compliance rather than on enforcement.

Smart

Damn, well coordinated, but when your goal is to brainwash, I guess it's best to have a consistent message...

eCat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:29 am

Those stations are owned by Sinclair, which is as right wing and Trumpist as you will find in the corporate world.

Sinclair is notorious about having its stations run the same story.

DooKSucks wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:35 pm

eCat wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:29 am

Those stations are owned by Sinclair, which is as right wing and Trumpist as you will find in the corporate world.

I was aware of that but that doesn't make them unique

I assumed you were all in on the "the media is pushing a left wing agenda."

oh I am

but left or right, the media is out of control in this country

Fox is in free fall since their coverage on election night,

Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.

Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per cent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2 per cent of this group were also infected.

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.