Riiiiight. And we aren't to believe that your emotional outrage towards Trump and deciding that he definitively attempted to collude but he's just too stupid to get the job done, isn't just your feelings clouding your judgement to objectively make sound and reasonable decisions about that entire situation? 😳
Rolo to be compliant, per Seattle Times
- Thread starter M-I-Coug
- Start date
I don't like Trump either.. I liken his speeches/speaking to nails on a chalk board. His words, demeanor, facial expressions all bothered me something fierce. But it was either him or the walking clown show we have now. Its sad we have to choose between the lesser of two evils but until our system changes, it will be more of the same.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that I lack objectivity when it comes to Trump. I hate the man and have for a long time. My wife loved watching the Apprentice but my takeaway from the show was that Trump was a narcissistic idiot who made his decisions based on which one of his testicles was itchy rather than with any application of logic. I've hated Trump since a decade before he ran for office and it has nothing to do with politics.
All that said, it is objectively obvious that Trump and his cronies did attempt to collude with the Russians prior to the election. It has also become just as obvious that they didn't actually collude because they didn't have any information available that would have an impact on the election. I've also read that the Russians became frustrated with Trump's idiotic negotiation techniques and decided that he wasn't worth working with. That last sentence is obviously one that is based on hearsay more than facts....but I can believe it because the man is an idiot and a bully and I could see how the Russians hated his "style".
The Democrats were so desperate to pin collusion on Trump that they ignored the signs that, despite Trump's team having conversations that were sketchy, they were going to have no proof that he acted upon those conversations. It's important to note that if Hillary Clinton had done the things that Trump had done, the GOP would be losing it's collective mind and demanding her arrest.....but that's just how politics is. Nobody takes the time to imagine how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.
One could argue that we only have to choose between the lesser of two evils because we keep choosing between the lesser of two evils. Two major problems with our system are:
- the people who will only vote the party line, regardless of the obviously inadequacy of the part candidate;
- the people who don't vote at all
If those inactive voters would participate, the strict party-line voters would likely be severely outnumbered and essentially irrelevant. It would bring everything back toward the middle, and we'd see a proliferation of more moderate candidates, instead of the increasingly polarized ones we see now.
I slightly disagree with you. If there were term limits you would see some different results, making decisions that are right versus what will prolong a political career.
We've covered this.
People who were afraid to ever call publicly for Wulff's scalp (wig?), definitely weren't calling for Hillary's impeachment under any circumstances especially "immediately".
Yaki/FNULNU Sirius Radio channel 9-40....Wulff 24 hours a day. If Wulff did something shady or illegal at WSU please let me know and I will amend my decision to keep him back in 2011. Also, just ask Biggs, we talked about bringing Leach in back in 2010. If they fired Wulff in 2010 and had Leach as coach I would have been more than fine with it.
Maybe a little, but there are term limitations on POTUS and you see what that gets us. It’s all going to be political posturing for power until there’s a legitimate 3rd party that can actually provide checks and balances. Regardless of what you think of Trump his administration showed that the concept of checks and balances within our democracy was an illusion. If a POTUS wants absolute power bad enough (and is smart enough to pull it off) it’s completely within reach at this point. Sad times.
Agreed but if some Republicans were at the end of their term and didn't need Potus support and there was not the threat of being challenged in the primary.
It has become an illusion because Congress is full of sycophants that will subscribe to a personality cult.
Extending term limits to congress makes it much harder to maintain the cult. Not that that’s ever going to happen.
Fourth time- If the research paper stating that NIH provided funding doesn’t convince you, what will?
Answer the question. Don’t obfuscate.
If you think lobbyists have a stranglehold on the political system now, term limits would REALLY make that worse
Well if you're not hungry, then I'll say this as politely as I can: stop.
To quote Fauci: you simply don't know what you're talking about. Let's review:
Earlier you stated this:"...keep going. It will probably take that long if you’re expecting NIAID to admit funding gain of function."
Now you claim a research paper by the NIH did just that, saying repeatedly, "If the research paper stating that NIH provided funding doesn’t convince you, what will?" Which is it? Do they deny or admit? And are you saying they admit to funding that IN CHINA? You CANNOT produce a SINGLE citation or passage that shows this, in spite of being asked to do so 3 times.
The NIAID is child agency under the NIH. Now try to follow along...in a quote from a link YOU provided: in a May 19 statement, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said that “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
You disagree because you hate fauci and simply accept the opinion of Dr. Ebright. But even if there was proof and there was an admission by the NIH, shouldn't you want Collins fired and not fauci?
Further evidence that your judgement is being clouded by your disdain for fauci you said this snark comment in response to Fauci’s answer to Sen Paul and GOF research: "Thankfully, Fauci has already told us that Dr. Baric was not doing gain of function, but if he was he was doing it within the guidelines"
In fact Baric himself said in a link YOU provided in the WaPost article at length near the end of that article "the Baric laboratory has never investigated strategies to create super viruses...for potential of GAIN OF FUNCTION research and were deemed not to be gain of function" by the NIH and the UNC Biosafety Commiittee. And they "...never introduced mutations into the SHC014 (horeshoe bat coronovirus) spike to enhance growth in human cells" and that "these recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China" and that independent studies "carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2"
I can be convinced by evidence. You have provided none to support your position that fauci funded GOF in China. So again, why should fauci be fired for "funding the Wuhan lab and gain of function and trying to deny it."
Go ahead and continue not to answer. You may step down now. Taihtsat
A lot of words, still no answer to the question.
Let’s start with an easier question- Agree or disagree: NIH funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
You don't answer questions...what's the problem?
A more accurate question is whether they funded RESEARCH either directly or though subcontracts in their history and that answer is yes.
Yes, agree, the NIH has funded research, just exactly as i posted. But i appreciate yoy asking for clarity. Unlike you, I clarify, I don't dodge.
All you needed was one word to clarify, not 26. Clarification is supposed to clarify.
Second question- Agree or Disagree: Fauci said this "“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Although inarticulate, I believe this supposed to mean that NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research at WIV.
I’m sure you know this, but your first question was only asking about funding any research, while the above discussion, quote, and denial by NIH is more specific than any research. Perhaps you can get to your point quicker rather than posing your silly questions.
Wait, are you replying to yourself?
I agree that he said that. I also acknowledge that there is a dispute about what exactly and to what specifically that was referring to. Paul's question was inferring GOF related to Cov2. I've already pinpointed that simple GOF research HAS been given funding in the past.
Yes, I do consider Newsweek credible, at least last time I checked.
Last edited:
Welcome back. Your certainty seems to be waning, somewhat like the effectiveness of the vaccines. NIH approved another $3.7 million grant in 2019 that was terminated in April 2020 at your buddy Cult 45's direction.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars
Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.
www.newsweek.com
The relevant parts are pasted in below. You will note that review process was secret. Kinda sketchy.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.
...
The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.
A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment.
The project proposal states: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential."
...
Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began. The NIH established a framework for determining how the research would go forward: scientists have to get approval from a panel of experts, who would decide whether the risks were justified.
The reviews were indeed conducted—but in secret, for which the NIH has drawn criticism. In early 2019, after a reporter for Science magazine discovered that the NIH had approved two influenza research projects that used gain of function methods, scientists who oppose this kind of research excoriated the NIH in an editorial in the Washington Post.
"We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all," wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. "[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process."
I am not on here everyday especially with the end of summer and diminishing weekends on the horizon, so dont get too excited.Welcome back. Your certainty seems to be waning, somewhat like the effectiveness of the vaccines. NIH approved another $3.7 million grant in 2019 that was terminated in April 2020 at your buddy Cult 45's direction.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars
Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.
The relevant parts are pasted in below. You will note that review process was secret. Kinda sketchy.
But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.
...
The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.
A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment.
The project proposal states: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential."
...
Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began. The NIH established a framework for determining how the research would go forward: scientists have to get approval from a panel of experts, who would decide whether the risks were justified.
The reviews were indeed conducted—but in secret, for which the NIH has drawn criticism. In early 2019, after a reporter for Science magazine discovered that the NIH had approved two influenza research projects that used gain of function methods, scientists who oppose this kind of research excoriated the NIH in an editorial in the Washington Post.
"We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all," wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. "[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process."
Now, you are getting somewhere! What took you so long? Although the article is from over 1 year ago it does appear to support the claim that Fauci was not accurate in his response to Paul. I'm guessing his defense would be that he (fauci) was referring to specific corona and influenza and not SARS.
Nevertheless, it is still an open question as to the origins with a good chunk of credible folk in this field questioning a direct link to any of the kind of research being done anywhere and the genetic link to this CovidSars2.
I'm also with the belief of numerous experts that say it would almost be criminal or malpractice to NOT be exploring this kind of research. Better questions are was the NIH directly funding research IN wuhan ON coronavirus specifically FOR gain of function. That seems to be pure conjecture. But if they did, it should be able to be clearly shown. Not there yet. Taihtsat
Last edited:
No I'm not. You want Fauci fired for deliberately lying about GOF that led to the pandemic when no such thing has been established. Why not fire Collins too?
Which is what I said. The closest you can get is funding a sub-contract to EcoHealth that then gave funding to conduct research on bat coronaviruses in China through the lab in Wuhan.
Why aren't you calling for Collins head If you blame NIH? He's the director!
Why aren't you calling for Collins head If you blame NIH? He's the director!
Did Fauci? I'm still not clear on what he thought he was answering. But you wanted him fired for funding the cause of the pandemic even though ANY funding is at the direction of the director of the NIH (Collins) who denies ever approving funds for GOF.
It seems simple- fire Fauci, and then everyone who mistrusts Fauci will get vaxed. It seems like an easy solution. The guy has shown throughout his career to be a liar, untrustworthy, in the pockets of foreign interests.
I watched a Fox 12 Portland TV news story about Covid in Bend Oregon 2 weeks ago. At least 5 times the Bend Oregon Dr. said the hospital was overwhelmed by Covid cases. Then at the end of the interview he said the ICU beds were 30 percent full. Overwhelmed ? Hardly imo.
