Infidel Dog
-
Posts
5,868 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Infidel Dog
-
-
7 minutes ago, eyeball said:
A defeatist attitude is what tyranny really thrives on most. You've given up before even trying.
"A defeatist attitude?" Is that what you call it? I call it paying attention to the lessons history tries to teach us.
-
Just now, eyeball said:
How are you ever going to keep an eye Him then?
The eye of Big Brother only goes one way. You don't watch it. It watches you.
-
8 minutes ago, Argus said:
South Korea's population, on the other hand, exceeds ours, and it is doing vastly better than us with 5 deaths per million vs our 96. And it has a mandatory tracking app.
It isn't one size fits all. South Korea took precautions after MERS. They were ready for the ChiComm. For example, I believe they shut the borders early and were quick with tests as they had the structure in place and ready.
If you're recommending that would be a model to follow for next time I won't argue with you. I don't want Big Brother in my webcam someday though.
-
1 minute ago, Argus said:
I want it to become mandatory. Hadn't you figured that out?
Clearly it won't be permanent. Why would it be? And what do you imagine the government doing with it anyway?
The immediate danger wouldn't be be that it ,specifically, becomes permanent - only that increased surveillance become circumstantially acceptable for the future. Modern Big Brother is incremental.
-
6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Rue, do we have another one?
Getting your gang together for a little cancel culture are you?
I used to call it the 'Kung flu,' but elsewhere you guys came at me with your bogus slur of 'racist' so rather than bicker I decided to put the blame more precisely where it deserved to be - on the Chinese Communists. You're not going to try to tell me Chinese Communists are a race are you?
-
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Then what is the point? It has to be mandatory one way or another. I'd like to see an app feature that indicates the number of paranoid anti-surveillance zombies in your vicinity who have phones but are not being traced. Phone companies should be able to tell us that much with identifying anyone. Then if can see there are 350 trace apps in my vicinity and only 4 zombies I can deal with that. If however I can see there are 75 zombies I might think twice before walking into a mall or something.
Are you trying to make the 'slippery slope' argument for us? That the problem with increasing surveillance is there are always people - often on the top - who want more.
-
Quote
Australia has had lower COVID19 deaths per capita than New Zealand.
There are problems with Quillette's endorsement of New Zealand as a model in general.
First of all, New Zealand claimed it would be relaxing restrictions this week. The recommendation seems to be increasing restrictions here based on New Zealand's fatality rate. In BC our curve is flattening pretty good too. The fatality rate was always low and is decreasing. Why would we want more Big Brother to increase restrictions at this point?
New Zealand has a low fatality rate. Is that necessarily a result of their tough restrictions? These tougher restrictions in New Zealand only began a month ago. New Zealand is a Southern island country coming out of seasonal summer with low population density. There are only 5 million people in a small country where tests are easier to acquire and administer. Because the ChiComm virus is often asymptomatic the more tests you can administer the lower your fatality rate might be.
But if Quillette wants to get hung up on fatality rates America has a better one than Canada. I'd recommend following their model but with the exception of the larger number of tests we're able to acquire per capita we already appear to be following America's model. Just a couple of weeks to a month behind is all.
-
Quote
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law...
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/
And "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion." She pretty much wagged her finger at the left-flavored 9th circuit and chastised them hard like a 90 year old dominatrix. That was odd...I think.
I wonder how this affects the idea of sanctuary cities. Having a law like this in Canada might be something to think about. Have to wait for the next administration though.
-
3
-
-
It is interesting though.
This thing being called "thread hijacking" here seems like a thing I've seen elsewhere under a different term. The 'strawman argument.'
What I've seen happen elsewhere goes something like this - one member appears to be winning an argument with superior reasoning and weight of evidence. The other beleaguered and blatantly beaten member who initiated the original argument deflects to a tangential topic he feels more comfortable with. He creates a strawman he feels he'll have better luck attacking. The other guy was most likely bored thumping the guy around the block on the original topic and it seems done anyway so he follows the guy over to his strawman argument and proceeds to thump him there too - at which point the thumpee accuses him of creating a strawman.
It always reminds of high school fights where a guy gets invited out after school to battle behind the bleachers, thumps the provoker but gets caught fighting and gets punished - it would seem - for being the winner. The loser walks.
Judging such things always seems arbitrary and often wrong to me. In fact...have I just hijacked this thread? If I have, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. I just thought my observation was interesting, is all. But if I get judged for it I will feel wronged.
-
I was watching Trey Gowdy be interviewed. He says Schiff can't be held accountable legally in any way. He has immunity. Would that include impeachment? Can a congressman be impeached? i don't know. Kind of sucks, if he can't be held accountable to anybody but the voters of Commiefornia, because everything he did pretty much adds up to treason. I mean, let's face it. That whole collusion delusion and everything connected to it adds up to an attempted coup.
-
1
-
-
Canada also lagged behind here:
QuoteImplementing public health screenings at airports for travellers coming from Wuhan:
January 17 – (US) The CDC implements public health screening at 3 major U.S. airports
January 22 – (Canada) Major airports are directed to implement health screenings in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver
Here:
QuoteCreating a coronavirus taskforce:
January 29 – (US) The White House announces the formation of a coronavirus taskforce to inform the president on the pandemic
March 4 – (Canada) Trudeau forms coronavirus cabinet committee
QuoteDeclaring a public health emergency:
January 31 – (US) Trump declares the coronavirus is a public health emergency
February 3 – (Canada) Health Minister Patty Hajdu says Canada does not need to call a public health emergency
And here:
QuoteAlso I'm curious what you mean specifically by Trudeau let the Scientists lead where Trump did not. The cases I can think of where that was the case weren't necessarily a mistake. Not necessarily taking the WHO and China's word for how serious the problem was in China for example.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
The main touted response being Trump's so-called travel ban that never happened. Thousands of planes and well over a million people poured into the US thru a screening process as lax as just about any other country around the planet including our's.
If you expect any respect for anything you put forth as evidence you need to stop putting something that never happened at the top of the pile.
Like I said figures lie and liars figure.
I can only speak for myself and the specific category I spoke of was titled "Implementing travel restrictions." A restriction is not necessarily an outright ban.
Restrictions most certainly did happen. Canada lagged behind the US on them and they were not the only response to the virus where that was the case.
As told to you 3 times now without being given any truthful, coherent or relevant reason to doubt the veracity of the specific information, there are more here:
I'll tell you what though, if you're having problems with that one let's try the Edmonton Journal:
They tell us that on March 13 Justin said this:
Quote“We will recall that a number of weeks ago in the beginnings there was discussion of whether or not we should entirely close our borders to China the way the United States did. We did not."
Then on March 16 this happened:
QuoteThe federal government changes direction abruptly, with Canada closing its doors to the world by severely restricting international flights. The federal government advises all returning Canadians entering home to voluntarily self-isolate for 14 days. Prime Minister Trudeau also says all international visitors to Canada will be turned around at the airport, with the exception of Americans, diplomats and flight crews.
So were there "travel restrictions?" Yes there were. Did Canada's lag behind America's? Yes they did.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, eyeball said:
You should have an idea, you're in here supporting the assumption and making it pretty clear ideology is a big reason why.
Nonsense. The thread title is not "Did Trudeau kill 4,000 people.
It asks if he failed his country regarding Covid-19.
Some want to compare Trudeau's response to Trump's. At the moment I'm considering that one.
If you would like specific claims on where Trudeau's response lagged behind Trump's I would direct you, once more, here:
-
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Precisely. So...aside from hatred, what supports the assumption Trudeau killed 4000 people?
I have no idea. I never made that assumption.
-
If you'd like the specifics it went like this:
QuoteImplementing travel restrictions:
January 29 – (Canada) Dr Theresa Tam says to follow the WHO and not implement travel bans
January 31 – (US) Trump announces travel restrictions on China
January 31 – (Canada) Border official says they don’t have a list of 24 countries where the virus has spread; only limiting identifying passengers who have been to Wuhan
February 2 – (Canada) Trudeau underlines the importance for Canada to combat racism
February 29 – (US) Trump announces travel advisory to Italy and South Korea and bans travel to Iran
March 4 – (Canada) Hajdu says the border is not relevant to the spread of coronavirus
March 5 – (Canada) Trudeau defends Canada’s open borders approach, denounces knee-jerk reaction
March 11 – (US) Trump announces travel restriction to Europe
March 12 – (Canada) Travellers arriving from Italy reporting that they are not being interviewed or screened
March 13 – (Canada) Hajdu says “border measures are highly ineffective” and could create harm
March 14 – (US) Trump extends travel restrictions to UK and Ireland
March 16 – (Canada) Trudeau finally restricts international flights except for diplomats and Americans
March 17 – (Canada, US) Both countries mutually agree to close their borders to non-essential travel
March 18 – (Canada) Foreign nationals from all countries except the US are banned from entering the country
-
1
-
-
Quote
1. Travel bans work
In January, President Trump took the bold step of banning travel from China back in January. The World Health Organization said it wouldn’t work. Joe Biden called it xenophobic. Others joined in on the criticism. But, a month later WHO experts conceded that it worked and it saved lives. While Trump was widely criticized for his travel bans, his critics have largely flip-flopped on the issue. Even Joe Biden has flip-flopped on this; he now supports the travel ban with China after previously calling it “xenophobic.” Other former critics of the ban would later claim the ban didn’t go far enough and should have been implemented earlier.
If Trump’s decision to close travel with China saved lives, then Obama’s decision not to close travel with Mexico during the H1N1 pandemic cost lives. Remember, the H1N1 pandemic resulted in 60.8 million infections. Imagine how much lower those numbers would have been had Obama been more like Trump.
In fact, Trudeau was one of those guys suggesting travel bans were "Racist," then later decided they were a good idea and adopted them.
-
1 minute ago, eyeball said:
This is just the thing, there are so many variables, hell we don't even know what all the variables are, yet everyone's running around with their numbers and their graphs certain in their knowledge they tell the story they think is most important. Which in your case like so many others is to ensure that ideology is the most important variable of all.
I would think the bigger problem would be people jumping to assumption without any kind of support.
For example: there are those I mentioned who believe they've proven a claim Trump has been doing a terrible job dealing with this ChiComm virus yet they only seem capable of supporting that claim by repeating it over and over again.
There are those like Democrat or just Never-Trumper governors who whine and whinge with claims of shortages of PPE or not enough tests - it's those I would ask to explain America's comparatively low fatality rate. Accident? Coincidence?
-
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:
Did you check the column that says deaths per million? It looks like America's doing twice as bad according to that list of numbers.
I'm thinking geography could explain that. When you have more concentrated areas you would expect more people to be infected.
The percentage of people who don't die once infected however one would expect to go to treatment.
-
25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
You're acting like we did ok here and that's just idiotic when we're on page 47 of this thread, and you've posted on almost every page. We have 30x as many covid deaths in our country as Tokyo has, and their population density is probably 30,000x what our country's is.
This is not to take sides in the debate you're having with eyeball - it's just an interesting little video I saw that offers explanation as to why Japan did better than most Western countries with protecting itself from the ChiComm virus. The proposal is, it's a cultural thing:
-
I watch these tongue-baths Justin gets from his bribed Canadian media versus the wild-eyed, hysterical squeals for a gotcha from what passes for American media and I wish either bunch would explain one statistic to me. Come to think of it the gullibles who seem to think they've proved something if they just keep repeating over and over how terrible America's reaction to the pandemic was versus the wonders of Justin's more China friendly reaction can feel free to explain this stat too.
It's on this page:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/
Check the column that says fatality rate. Fatality rate is the percentage of infected who die. The last time I looked America was about # 20 in that group of 30 fatality rates. Canada was about a full percentage point worse than America.
-
On 5/4/2020 at 6:32 PM, WestCanMan said:
If Comey and Strzok don't end up doing actual jailtime then the integrity FBI will be gone forever.
https://time.com/magazine/us/5264136/may-14th-2018-vol-191-no-18-u-s/
If I was King of America Strzok would already be doing life for criminal smugness from the last time he was in the public eye.
-
1
-
-
Interesting how Maduro wants to talk about the Bay of Pigs but not his fellow drug pushers like Noriega or El Chapo.
I'm thinking if America really wanted him he'd be sharing a cell in supermax with one of those guys.
-
2
-
-
True. The media was all over minimizing or outright denying the threat of the Coronavirus early and sometimes responding to Trump's reactions to it.
But it wasn't just the media. Democrat and Progressive Socialist politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Mayor De Blasio of New York were inviting their constituents to group out on the streets well into March.
Trump did react early but not without reserve to warnings. There was conflicting advice from experts and advisors. Ultimately the final decision was always his but he had to weigh conflicting advice.
-
On 4/9/2020 at 8:46 AM, AngusThermopyle said:
The utter stupidity of this vacuous twat just never ceases to amaze me.
I like the song:
Can you please explain-Thread Hijacking
in Support and Questions
Posted · Edited by Infidel Dog
i wouldn't know. I havent' a clue who's who at the zoo here, yet. Anybody could be either side of that as far as I know.
It's just something I've noticed that happens elsewhere and felt like sharing.