suds

A 'theory' is formed from research and observable data. A 'hypothesis' is merely an assumption. Chan's theory suggests 'the pandemic most likely occurred because the virus escaped from a research lab in wuhan' (and backs it up with facts). While the hypothesis is that 'covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan market in Wuhan which is not supported by any strong evidence'. Relativity and evolution are both theories formed by research and observable data. Do you not believe in relativity or evolution?? If you do, are you not by your own definition a conspirator?

It wouldn't be the first time for a lab leak in China. You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes.

No they did not. And that has to change.

For someone who seems to care so much about the planet you seem to think making deadly pathogens far more deadly for humans is a good idea. Can't see anything going wrong there eh? What the hell are BSL4 labs doing in large population centres anyway? Some are in the middle of war zones in Ukraine. Yeah, let's find out what happened, hold people accountable, and make changes where changes should be made. The world has to come to some agreement on these things. What happens in China, or anywhere else doesn't stay there. We were just lucky this time it wasn't kids the virus went after.

Excellent deductions! The only proof of Sars-CoV-2 originating from a zoonotic spillover event is that all previous coronaviruses have been proven to originate from zoonotic spillover events, of which gain of function research never played a factor. Now gain of function research does play a factor as a distinct possibility because it was taking place at the the same time and the same geographical location as where the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak occurred. Until Sars-CoV-2 can be proven to have originated from a zoonotic spillover event (on its own merits), the probabilities are far greater of originating from gain of function research taking place at the Wuhan lab.

Most of us would have done the same thing if it avoided embarrassment for the family and a possible marriage breakup. I don't see it as such a big deal. The Hunter Biden laptop story was a big deal and they managed to kill that didn't they?

You're not exactly impressing me either bud.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton admitted defeat and then for the next four years complained bitterly the election was stolen from her and that Trump was an 'illegitimate President'. And the media gladly picked up on it. Google it. And as far as 'undermining' goes, that's what the impeachment process does to a Presidency. It undermines it by not allowing a President to operate freely. Even if the Democrats don't succeed with their two impeachments, they still win.

Yep, it doesn't get any worse than that. "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime" .....Laurentiy Beria (Soviet Secret Police Chief)

Trump has claimed in the past that the U.S. Justice system has become too politicized. Prominent Democrats claim the U.S. Supreme Court has become too politicized and have even issued threats against the Court itself. Both Democrats and Republicans have a habit of questioning the validity of elections but only if the other side wins. My opinion is that politics is what's behind everything that's tearing America apart today. A two party system makes it even all the more polarizing. Maybe in Trump's case (as the leading Republican candidate) a more neutral Judge and a more neutral location could have been selected. Combine all that with a highly politicized media. You're going a little overboard with the totalitarianism nonsense. Things are what they are in the States and hopefully they'll work things out.

I'm not claiming the system is 'rigged'. Only that Judges can be incompetent, can make mistakes when directing a trial, or can have conflicts of interest. That's why there's an appeals process. If you really want to know what a totalitarian justice system looks like, read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.

Hogan.... "respect the verdict and the legal process" Part of the legal process is the right to appeal. Trump is neither above the law or below the law and has the same rights as any American. Not respecting a verdict such as in this case (which can be appealed) is not being undemocratic.

Ok, you win. Everything was just handed to the Israelis. No blood spilt. No sacrifice. A piece of cake really. All partitions should go as smooth as this one.

No, you said it was given a country. Big difference.

Let's be clear about something. The British received a League of Nations mandate to administer the formerly held Ottoman territories that became known as Palestine and Transjordan until they were capable of governing themselves. Transjordan which was 3 1/2 times the size of Palestine was set aside entirely for the Arabs in 1921. Palestine was intended for Palestinian Arabs and for a Jewish national home due to their historical ties to the land. Transjordan became a country in 1946 when it was granted its independence. The British Mandate then runs its course and the U.N. partition plan for Palestine comes into effect with the Jews agreeing to the plan and the Arabs being against. Israel declares its independence and becomes a country by its own making. Then war breaks out. Israel fights its own wars and battles and wins. Sorry to say it, but whether you agree with the course of events or not, to say that Israel was just handed its own country is sort of dumb.

So you believe the plights that Jews have struggled through for the last 1500 years (including today), has been a product of their own making? I find it admirable that they're still around, never mind having their own country and being loyal to their beliefs. Maybe you could offer an explanation of how they brought this on themselves.

Xenophobia has always been a worldwide problem (anti-semitism flourished in a predominantly Christian Europe). Jews are often blamed for Christ's crucifiction (who also happened to be a Jew). The Nazis murdered millions of Jews (and others) in an insane attempt to reach racial purity. Muslim/Jewish hostilities date back to the early days of Mohammad when all attempts to get Jews to convert to Islam were rebuffed. What's changed today is the left sees the Israelis as 'colonizers' associating zionism with racism, and expects them to give up their rights to self-determination. Except they don't hold other forms of 'nationalism' or the policies of other nation states to the same high standards. They might have some good points but it's the hypocrisy that gets me. And then there's politics and this crazy idea that Jews somehow want to rule the world. There's something wrong if one can legitimately criticize Israel to your heart's content, but criticizing China (over their racist policies) is racist. But again, this gets back to politics.

That was some rabbit! 😉

Doesn't firing 5 rounds of bullets into a school sort of send a different type of message than someone spray painting or busting a few windows? It's a pretty dumb question if you ask me.

Consider that if Hamas really wanted to put international pressure on Israel all they'd have to do is release every last one of the hostages. That would be the smart thing to do. But a few are profiting greatly from all the humanitarian aid that's been flooding in and don't want it to end. The 2 state solution is dead because neither side wants it, nor is it something that can be legislated by the ICC.

Great. So we're stuck with an expensive mediocre healthcare system with a severe doctor shortage that's only going to get worse. And there's nothing we can do about it except throw more and more money at it.

Under France's plan everyone must pay compulsory health insurance which is 5.25% of earned income. It also includes dental. After paying a doctor or dentist's fee you get back a reimbursement from the government of 70% but it could be 100% for long term illnesses. For example, you pay for a root canal you get back 70%, but with long term cancer treatments you get back 100%. There's more to it than that but that's basically it. I like the idea that everything is not free and that it includes dental. I wonder how it would go over if we introduced a similar system here?

You, yourself, has stated that government does a poor job at running services. If that's the case, then why not let amazon (for example) take a crack at it? Can it be any worse?? So what's Trudeau's plan other than throwing another $200 billion into healthcare over the next 10 years?

If that's the case, why not just simply privatize the entire healthcare system, let capitalism work its magic, and then regulate the hell out of them like they do the telecoms?

I suppose, but one thing covid taught us is that they have to do some real serious money printing to make inflation a serious problem. On the other hand, if we were all forced to pay a percentage of the doctor's bill (depending on income) out of pocket as an extra, then that could be seen as a pay increase. No? Obviously, if we want to see more doctors get involved with family medicine then we have to pay them more, some way. some how. There's no other way around it.