LINK Between Governor's PARTY, & COVID, Per Capita DEATH RATES

You're just trying to start something. What they should have done has long been well known.

 

You watch Fox? That's a shame.

 

EVERY single State had mitigation.

 

Oh, did I say that I watch Fox?

 

Didn't have to.

 

There is insufficient evidence in your post for me to claim that you are, "against science;" that is, btw, how true science works (by evidence, not assumption). That said, where is your evidence that this was a, "study with a predetermined bias?" because that is nowhere to be found in what you quoted from the article.

This was not a study by researchers hired & paid by, say, the fossil-fuel industry, on Global warming (or, in an earlier time, by the tobacco industry, on the health-effects of smoking). This is an independent university, not a political think-tank. They are, I assume you realize, a highly-lauded institution, w/ a reputation for academic excellence. And, their home is South Carolina.

If you are going to allege a bias, Mr. Science, I would think you would understand the prerequisite would be to offer, if not proof, at least some evidence that suggests, fairly strongly, that this could be the case. In lieu of that, while not proof that you are anti-science, your opinion seems to suggest that you are ill-acquainted with how one applies it.

 

No doubt; which is why I discounted them from the list of those with the lowest per capita death rates. Do you know if Papua New Guinea's numbers seem genuine. I was crediting them with the possibility of being a bit isolated.

 

Well that's a hell of an assumption. I don't even live in the country, let alone watch Fox!

 

Being rich and isolated has helped in some areas. Also, pretty much all of Oceana has remained widely unaffected by the pandemic. It is a magnum mysterium in some ways, because not all goverments in Oceana were as draconish in fighting the pandemic as New Zealands was (and is), at least to the best of my knowledge.

If I recall correctly, there are about 1,000 differing tribes of "papua" that live on the massive island. Even more strangely, the eastern half of the massive island (I think that's the best designation for it, frankly) is Papua New Guinea, but the eastern half is part of Indonesia, which has not been spared by the pandemic.

 

Blah blah blah if you cant understand why what i posted is relevant then run along and take the cheap shots elsewhere.

 

It's called the, "snap (not snatch)," to quarterback. I would have assumed this was an honest mistake, except your, "man-up," comment suggests more than simply a passion for historical accuracy, in your opinion (changing squads for offense & defense is meant, by bringing in more specialized forces, and fresh troops, besides, to keep the action going at full-tilt, with the play being more top-notch, for the spectators).

Nevertheless, with all the things you've cited for we, the rugby-ignorant, it is clear that this was the basis for football, which only refined the older game. And yes, it is called the line of scrimmage which, to me, still seems a major difference from the scrum. I guess I will have to trot off to wikipedia, to get a better idea of how this works. Without a line of scrimmage, there can be no concept of, "offsides." Also, if you are saying that the rugby equivalent of a quarterback, in this case, has to fight his way out through a circle of defenders-- much as a newly-hatched praying mantis, attempting to escape its gestational shelter, through an invading army of ants-- I would not analogize the two. The American version much more mimics the way two opposing military forces, "line-up," facing each other from their separate camps (which is probably why the Soviets used to study our Football to try to gain insight into the American military mindset, philosophy).

Speaking of ideas, I thought yours was a good one, to kick this conversation to a different forum (does rugby also have a kickoff?). So let us reset our battle-lines, there.

 

Again, explaining how supporting evidence for making an argument works, is not taking, "cheap shots," irrespective of how you care to interpret it. From your, "blah, blah, blah," response, I can see, though, that things like fact & truth are not your concern and so, that I am wasting my time trying to encourage you you bring supporting evidence for your theory, so that we would actually have the foundation for a discussion.

 

Well, it's the old if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck, you know the line.

 

Man, are you wasting your breath!

 

And yet you have, apparently, a very clear idea of what Rachel Maddow's program-- in fact, all our MainStream Media-- is like. How does that work-- you got a special satellite subscription, just so you could watch the U.S. News networks you DISlike, but not the one with which your opinions seem to most closely match?

You should at least have cut dgrichards a break: those sure seem like things a Fox-watcher might say, coincidentally.

 

And you even tied together this Covid thread, with the side discussion of ball-sports, which some might have mistaken for off-topic. Bravo!

 

Moderators tend to consider off topic discussions as derailing and not quite cricket.
I was banned for a week in a Canadian political forum for discussing hockey if you can believe it. My protestations to the fact that banning someone for talking hockey was as un-Canadian as it's possible to be fell on deaf ears.

 

Orrore, Orrore, Orrore!!



Horror, horror, horror!!

Actually, sometimes using a side-theme that trollish people made find off topic can be the best way to get a point across, a point that is actually very ON topic.

I personally think that people should be allowed to lean a little further out of the window with such discussion when at the end of the day it is quite obvious that their intentions are good, namely to actually reinforce the topic at hand. But that's just my feeling.

 

Asians in many places have a history of wearing masks whenever they perceive that they could transmit flu or whatever other type of communicable issue they are having.

In the US, we tend not to give a crap what we do to others.

Some even think it's "brave" to go to work sick and pass it along to those they work with!!

 

I don't watch either. I know about Maddow from conservative commentators I listen to, where clips of her have been used to highlight media bias.

 

That sounds like Fox - playing selective cuts out of context!

And, then never appologize or retract when you get sued for blatant lies.

So, THAT's what you want in the way of "reporting"?

 

So left wing networks like CNN and MSNBC, NEVER play selective cuts out of context?

 

Uh, business shutdowns KIND OF make businesses unable to operate. It's SLIGHTLY difficult to operate a business if it's illegal to do so.

 

Why would I want to make sure that you knew that?

 

And soccer.