Vaccine

Bruddah IZ said:
Fear not D4. Nobody stacks shit higher than you.
Click to expand...
He has more piles of poo poo then anyone on here. I had a plumber pal of mine tell me a gross story. He was called out to a house in Irvine that had 10 people living in a 2 bedroom condo. Well, the toilets back up and they all pooped on the same stack because toilet not flush. By the time my pal came, it was a mountain of human waste. The worse part besides the smell was the leader of the house trying to cut a deal to remove all the shit that had piled up over the last few days. He offered my pay $100 bill to fix the issue and clean up, as if that would make it worth while. He said no way and you need to call the county health department and CPS asap. Back to D4 and his crew. Not only are these clowns dumb dumbs, their cowards of the county. Their piles of doo doo have now become stacks of shit that we all can smell a mile a way. It's not too late to capitulate you guys and get your asses wiped for once. The truth will always win Bruddad IZ. Hold the line and dont give up man, were dealing with some serious assholes WHO are so full of shit. My wife just told me about a 13 year old boy who wanted to end his life because of what these monsters have been doing to kids. The cops found him and he told them he wants to die because he over heard his mom saying she wanted to die because of how hard it's been on their family. I'm not making this up at all.
 
espola said:
If you are going to comment on everything I ever posted perhaps you should have read it all first.

I registered as a Democrat when I first came to California, but I never really voted Democrat. Soon after I changed to a non-partisan registration. I vote for the best candidate or the one who seems to best represent my interests. As an example, in the recent recall election, I voted No and Falconer.
Click to expand...
Non partisan registration?

I would lay money you have voted for about everything that makes CA so expensive. Those policies usually come from one side of the aisle.

On every issue on this forum you go with the more gov angle. I suspect strongly that is how you vote in CA.

I find it fascinating that the party that claims to be for the little guy consistently implements policies in CA that makes everyday living far more expensive than it should.
 
espola said:
If you are going to comment on everything I ever posted perhaps you should have read it all first.

I registered as a Democrat when I first came to California, but I never really voted Democrat. Soon after I changed to a non-partisan registration. I vote for the best candidate or the one who seems to best represent my interests. As an example, in the recent recall election, I voted No and Falconer.
Click to expand...
My bad. I thought when you said "I was a Republican until Nixon" meant you were "a Republican until Nixon".
 
Desert Hound said:
Non partisan registration?

I would lay money you have voted for about everything that makes CA so expensive. Those policies usually come from one side of the aisle.

On every issue on this forum you go with the more gov angle. I suspect strongly that is how you vote in CA.

I find it fascinating that the party that claims to be for the little guy consistently implements policies in CA that makes everyday living far more expensive than it should.
Click to expand...
I’m in Tallahassee Florida now and it’s cheap as hell here. California ain’t for everybody; you’ve gotta get in where you fit in.
 
MacDre said:
I’m in Tallahassee Florida now and it’s cheap as hell here. California ain’t for everybody; you’ve gotta get in where you fit in.
Click to expand...
I got a chuckle when I came across this today...

"Democrats and economics have a very casual relationship in which the former is quite abusive."
 
Desert Hound said:
Non partisan registration?

I would lay money you have voted for about everything that makes CA so expensive. Those policies usually come from one side of the aisle.

On every issue on this forum you go with the more gov angle. I suspect strongly that is how you vote in CA.

I find it fascinating that the party that claims to be for the little guy consistently implements policies in CA that makes everyday living far more expensive than it should.
Click to expand...

You would lose.
 
espola said:
When cornered, she attacks with ad hominems.

But I repeat myself.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious when he was the one who dropped the intentionally misleading line, and then when I conceded slopiness, he goes off on it again...see you are up to your usual jokes espola
 
Speaking of bad ideas. Unbelievable actually. Who knew that illegally entering a country could be so lucrative. I wonder if these payments go through how that will affect the flow of people wanting to come in illegally? That of course is a trick question for most. Espola?

"This is no Babylon Bee spoof; this is ripped from the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Though it’s tempting to shake your head in disbelief, read on. Oh, and make sure you shut your slack jaw because things are about to get worse and we don’t want any dribbling.

The Biden Administration is “in talks” with the lawfare crowd at the ACLU to pay illegal aliens about a half a million dollars apiece — $450,000 or $1 million per family — on “behalf of parents and children who say the [U.S.] government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma” during family separation."
 
dad4 said:
You repeatedly mix your own personal opinion in, as though it came from the actual scientists. It's either amazingly sloppy writing, or a deliberate attempt to pretend that your opinion has more support than it really does.
Click to expand...

Just my 2 cents. From my POV, the remarkable burst of research productivity in virology and epidemiology during the pandemic has provided unprecedented, and to some extent near real time and unfiltered, access to scientific work product for decision makers and the public at large. If the public accesses that information and comes to their own opinion, that has to be considered a good thing. And sure, much of that is just going to be using it as a bullet point supporting some pre-existing position in argumentative debate. Maybe that's frustrating, but It's a sport and the goal is to win. The same tactics and tells are baked into scientific writing itself; the authors have to present some sort of narrative surrounding their data. There is career pressure to avoid, well, this data could potentially mean a lot of things. So, at some point you get "these data show", "it logically follows" etc. with a clause supporting one of several positions laid out at the beginning of the work. When really what they should say in many cases is "one reasonable interpretation, among a number of other reasonable interpretations that we cannot exclude, is that...." Logically consistent versus logically forcing. Logically consistent can be used to do a lot of heavy lifting that maybe it shouldn't be doing. But if it is all just a game in the public sphere, well play or don't play.

But as we've also seen there are increasingly well developed mechanisms for purposefully distorting and misappropriating scientific information, some of which the scientific community is playing right into in a remarkably pathetic kind of way. These cyclic disinformation campaigns are only just getting started and are really going to kick us to the curb at some point. It's the difference between lying and bullshitting, intent really matters. What we do here is basicially just bullshitting, although there is also some ant lioning going on. It's all good really. But the whole "let quantitative information mean whatever you want it to mean" is just start getting started.

 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Just my 2 cents. From my POV, the remarkable burst of research productivity in virology and epidemiology during the pandemic has provided unprecedented, and to some extent near real time and unfiltered, access to scientific work product for decision makers and the public at large. If the public accesses that information and comes to their own opinion, that has to be considered a good thing. And sure, much of that is just going to be using it as a bullet point supporting some pre-existing position in argumentative debate. Maybe that's frustrating, but It's a sport and the goal is to win. The same tactics and tells are baked into scientific writing itself; the authors have to present some sort of narrative surrounding their data. There is career pressure to avoid, well, this data could potentially mean a lot of things. So, at some point you get "these data show", "it logically follows" etc. with a clause supporting one of several positions laid out at the beginning of the work. When really what they should say in many cases is "one reasonable interpretation, among a number of other reasonable interpretations that we cannot exclude, is that...." Logically consistent versus logically forcing. Logically consistent can be used to do a lot of heavy lifting that maybe it shouldn't be doing. But if it is all just a game in the public sphere, well play or don't play.

But as we've also seen there are increasingly well developed mechanisms for purposefully distorting and misappropriating scientific information, some of which the scientific community is playing right into in a remarkably pathetic kind of way. These cyclic disinformation campaigns are only just getting started and are really going to kick us to the curb at some point. It's the difference between lying and bullshitting, intent really matters. What we do here is basicially just bullshitting, although there is also some ant lioning going on. It's all good really. But the whole "let quantitative information mean whatever you want it to mean" is just start getting started.

Click to expand...

It's a good point. A good illustration of this is the Bangladesh mask study and each respective camps takes on it.
 
Desert Hound said:
I find it fascinating that the party that claims to be for the little guy consistently implements policies in CA that makes everyday living far more expensive than it should.
Click to expand...
Not just CA. Blue states and cities across the country have a nasty habit of making it near impossible to build housing. Then they express surprise at the cost of living, completely oblivious to their own role in creating the problem.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Just my 2 cents. From my POV, the remarkable burst of research productivity in virology and epidemiology during the pandemic has provided unprecedented, and to some extent near real time and unfiltered, access to scientific work product for decision makers and the public at large. If the public accesses that information and comes to their own opinion, that has to be considered a good thing. And sure, much of that is just going to be using it as a bullet point supporting some pre-existing position in argumentative debate. Maybe that's frustrating, but It's a sport and the goal is to win. The same tactics and tells are baked into scientific writing itself; the authors have to present some sort of narrative surrounding their data. There is career pressure to avoid, well, this data could potentially mean a lot of things. So, at some point you get "these data show", "it logically follows" etc. with a clause supporting one of several positions laid out at the beginning of the work. When really what they should say in many cases is "one reasonable interpretation, among a number of other reasonable interpretations that we cannot exclude, is that...." Logically consistent versus logically forcing. Logically consistent can be used to do a lot of heavy lifting that maybe it shouldn't be doing. But if it is all just a game in the public sphere, well play or don't play.

But as we've also seen there are increasingly well developed mechanisms for purposefully distorting and misappropriating scientific information, some of which the scientific community is playing right into in a remarkably pathetic kind of way. These cyclic disinformation campaigns are only just getting started and are really going to kick us to the curb at some point. It's the difference between lying and bullshitting, intent really matters. What we do here is basicially just bullshitting, although there is also some ant lioning going on. It's all good really. But the whole "let quantitative information mean whatever you want it to mean" is just start getting started.

Click to expand...
I would just add that besides the BS and the misinformation, there is a whole of a lot of gaslighting going on which IMO is a significantly different animal.
 
Desert Hound said:
Speaking of bad ideas. Unbelievable actually. Who knew that illegally entering a country could be so lucrative. I wonder if these payments go through how that will affect the flow of people wanting to come in illegally? That of course is a trick question for most. Espola?

"This is no Babylon Bee spoof; this is ripped from the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Though it’s tempting to shake your head in disbelief, read on. Oh, and make sure you shut your slack jaw because things are about to get worse and we don’t want any dribbling.

The Biden Administration is “in talks” with the lawfare crowd at the ACLU to pay illegal aliens about a half a million dollars apiece — $450,000 or $1 million per family — on “behalf of parents and children who say the [U.S.] government subjected them to lasting psychological trauma” during family separation."
Click to expand...
What do you think the courts would award when the lawsuit got to a jury?

Half a million sounds a little low, to be honest. Maybe @MacDre has a read on it, but I can easily imagine a jury awarding a lot more.
 
watfly said:
A mile from my house:
View attachment 11982
Click to expand...
I make it a point to gas up the the AZ/CA border as I head in. On the way out I put in just enough gas to get back to the border where prices are substantially lower.

Compare items you buy in a grocery store in CA vs AZ. Pick the same brands and note the difference in cost.

The DD does team travel a lot to CA. So sometimes they have the girls pick off the menu of some restaurant of what they want. Last time it was Olive Garden. Most entrees are 1-2 bucks more.

All the buck hear, buck there adds up pretty quickly and to be honest hurts those that can least afford it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top