@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

I read it, nowhere did it give an estimate of what those protests cost, and it indicated there were multiple other routes for the oil to travel so didn’t even disrupt oil transportation completely, much less ALL commerce.
And it was about pipelines crossing their (or protected) land it seems, a far cry from the truckers. Yes, the validity and severity of your cause matters, just like the damage you do and to whom.

Billions worth of goods stuck temporarily…but no actual estimated cost for their delay, this cost billions in lost production and salaries that won’t be recovered.

That protest was targeted against the offending entity, not the populace. I have no issue with natives blockading their own land and preserves that feed those reservations against permanent destruction for some private profits. That’s a far cry from the truckers blockading the main border crossing for industry and tourism because they’re afraid to get a poke.

The numbers I saw were special. Hundreds of millions-billions lost (your billions in goods delayed doesn’t have a price tag). That was before the bridge was reopened. These protesters weren’t satisfied with that damage and continued to close your capitol with ever shifting demands. Since regular measures had failed, I support emergency measures, seizure, even forfeiture after trial, of any funds or tools used.

Perhaps they became only as localized (but certainly not as targeted, and localized in a city not the unpopulated country), but they had already done exponentially more damage and showed no sign of end or even demands.

Let’s ignore someone personally supporting a grass roots movement outside their country and control, please. I find it a red herring totally unconnected to how he governs.

Yes, some Floyd protests were more violent than the truckers, some weren’t, remember how they were all violently smashed, tear gassed, rubber bullets galore, run through with police trucks, unmarked vans pulling up and grabbing people crossing the streets, unmarked vans driving through towns full of police shooting tear gas at any moving body, etc? Don’t pretend the response is similar.
Also, the Floyd protests lasted a weekend in most cases (occupy Portland really wasn’t about Floyd) and went elsewhere the next march. They weren’t closing down one area for weeks intent on staying. Most lasted hours and were peaceful until police became violent, despite right wing media’s fear-mongering.

I think you’re stretching, putting on blinders, and doing insane mental gymnastics to pretend you believe that. From the actual damage caused, the idiotic reasoning behind it (quickly abandoned), the extremely uncanadianness of the self centered far right rally masquerading as protest, the international damage, the foreign involvement from planning to funding, these are unique “protests” in numerous ways.

Their idiotic beliefs are only one of many distinctions I’ve pointed out, and as I mentioned only color public opinion and the amount of patience they’re given by the public, not how the government treats them. It’s not at all honest for you to pretend that’s the entirety of my position…it’s very Bob of you, and has lost some of my respect.

Pipelines crossing sovereign territory or preserves = bad so blockading those areas to force pipeline movement = good….oil companies didn’t truck the oil out, they increased shipments from other areas by rail. Read the article you linked.

Native cultures and governments are different. Pretending an elected board for a reservation works for the people is naive in the extreme. Read about politics on reservations, who funds the people that get elected in most cases, what happens to opposing candidates…saying the board signed off while so many showed up to fight against it seems a bit at odds, no? Like maybe the board members were bribed, had ties with the oil industry, or other conflicts….just maybe?

And again, those protests didn’t cost a fraction what the truckers did from my research. Delaying delivery of a billion in goods isn’t the same as costing a billion in losses. Neither is delaying or cancelling a billion dollar project. Be adult please….don’t make such specious arguments ….please. They don’t slip by, and they make me think you are being disingenuous.

Economic disruption of the blockades was similar to the Mohawk blockade of railways about 2 years ago:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-rejects-police-intervention-to-put-an-end-to-blockades/

Similarly, mass lay offs and multi-billions of dollars of goods stuck sitting around waiting to get to the industries needing them.

Since at least 2012 the attempted expansion of an existing pipeline(Trans Mountain) was targeted continuously by blockades. Opposition and resulting delays leading to cost overruns so large that company ultimately halted the multi-billion dollar project.

In terms of dollars being lost, the convoy protest wasn't special. More over, the blockade of the border in Ontario that was causing the real economic damage was dismantled and removed before the 'emergency measures' were enacted. Which is to state, the emergency measures were primarily intended to clear out downtown Ottawa. In downtown Ottawa though, the damages were at minimum as localized as any of the lumber or pipeline blockades mentioned.


Prime Minister Trudeau couldn't be more unequivocal when he was expressing his support for the farmer protests in India and the Floyd protests in the US. Clip if you'd like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EaSF6Y0eE

The protests in India absolutely did immensely more harm to India's economy than the convoy here did in Canada. The protests in support of Floyd were again unequivocally more violent than the convoy in Canada.

There really is no basis by which to point to the convoy's actions and find them in any way unique or distinct from multiple other protests within Canada, or ones abroad that have been either given more latitude, or outright embraced and supported.

The distinction as even you can't resist going after, is that their beliefs they are protesting for are stupid and wrong, so no right to protest for them. That isn't how the right to protest within a democracy should be allowed to work.

I also have to point out the 'ethical' argument isn't as cut and dry as you want to make it out either.
-Pipelines bad so blockading is good ignores the fact the same oil gets pumped regardless, it just gets loaded into trucks that burn even more oil to haul it and have a fair greater risk of accidents and spills.
-Defending the rights and lands of Aboriginal peoples(like at Coastal Gas Link site violently attacked with millions in damages while the convoy was being vilified for 'incitement') is anything but obvious. The Wet'suwet'en hereditary leaders made claim to parts of the pipeline route and demanded it be shut down. However, the same Wet'suwet'en people's multiple elected Band Councils signed on with their wishes to proceed with the project. In fact, ALL elected representatives of ALL the Bands with land along the route had ALL signed onto the project and wanting it to proceed. It is in no way obvious that ignoring the will of those other bands to favour the conflicting claims of the hereditary leaders is clearly the most respectful of the people's wishes.

Duly noted.

Sift animosity aside, given and taken. I truly desire all to succeed.

Your statements about the economy as a whole applies to all, whether they diversify or solely own just 3 stocks or less.


I don't fear a crash of 87 or 2008. But your are right the ground beneath us is shaking. Having belief in our leaders and FED to do the the right thing is a is half harted. Even if they choose a proper corrective path it will be a bumpy ride.



You are right I am forward thinking and willing to take a few hard bumps over the next 10 years. I believe the upside is worth this risk.


I don't want a japan crash that took 25+ years to recover, or a 1929 crash which took 10 years and war to recover.

Every hard crash recovers, eventually.

If things go bad I will exit. Granted no one has perfect timing and neither do I. Will I loose 20 30% probably.

I do watch markets daily.


I'm 60 with 2 years left on the house mortgage. I will have a GE pension and hopefully some SS. Granted inflation can eat that 4K/month away but it will still help. Also I would continue to work.

And if that's not enough at least the house will be paid for and I will eat PB and J. or rice and beans.

The issue is the wrong guy, a dishonest blowhard trying to cover his own failures, claimed this early on with absolutely zero evidence. It was a clear dodge, his normal MO. Refusing any responsibility for ending the international pandemic response team that would have been able to actually say when and where the outbreak started, and likely be able to keep it relegated to one small area in China. By blaming it on a Chinese lab, actually saying it was intentional, he deflects from his abject failure to protect America from a clear, obvious, incontrovertibly deadly threat on the horizon….or any time after it’s discovery.
Were the Chinese studying Covid, yes, so were we. That’s not an indication of where it came from. There’s no evidence it came from any lab, only supposition at best.

Edit:Even if the guess that it came from a Chinese lab is correct, it doesn’t excuse one second of Trump’s (lack of) response and outright denials for months-years. The origin has nothing to do with the danger level, in fact, if it WERE enhanced/created in a lab as he claimed, that’s more reason to consider it MORE dangerous, not reason to claim it’s just a cold or mild flu and will disappear like magic in a few weeks. Granted, it was fun to see him (only after his trade deal fell apart) blame this deadly virus on the Chinese as an unforgivable deliberate act of germ warfare and accuse them of minimizing the danger and hiding the size and severity of the outbreak and in the same breath claim it’s nothing to worry about, not dangerous, probably not deadly, not worth any action to protect against, and just a minimal annoyance soon to disappear….but also disappointing to see how easily so many Americans glossed over the two faced hypocritical responsibility shirking stance he took.

This guy claims most, nearly all viruses can’t both infect people and be transmitted….what utter nonsense. If that were true, there would have never been epidemics, pandemics, not even outbreaks. Credibility destroyed.

I guess he didn’t hear about swine flu, or bird flu, or flu, or colds, or any transmittable virus. 🤦‍♂️
I guess they haven’t heard new mutations are far less deadly (but more transmittable) than earlier versions, so they are getting less dangerous, contrary to his claim.

Not transmitting well outdoors means it’s not natural?! Bullshit, animals nest together. Many natural viruses require close contact to transmit.

DNA testing proved early on that this is not a man made virus. Is it possible a Chinese lab made a natural virus more dangerous, then a lab mistake released it? Yes, but there’s no evidence that’s the case, even these people who’s livelihood relies on people accepting “the lab hypothesis” (hypothesis=guess) admit it’s all conjecture, there’s no evidence, certainly no proof. It’s not the lab theory because it’s unproven.

Duh.

BTW, this couple are married, anti vaxers, Ivermectin proponents, and were thrown out of Evergreen College, and are now both now discredited and disgraced. Their main source of income is now their anti vax, pro Ivermectin, Covid isn’t dangerous podcasts loved by morons like Joe Rogan, and a source of much of his misinformation that’s getting him removed from his platform.
“Bret Weinstein is one of the foremost purveyors of COVID-19 disinformation out there,” says Dr. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and professor at Wayne State University who also debunks quack remedies as managing editor at a website called Science-Based Medicine. “Weinstein can be ‘credited’ with playing a large role in popularizing the belief that ivermectin is a miracle cure or preventative for COVID-19, that the vaccines are dangerous, and that the disease itself is not. Why are Rogan and Maher attracted to his messages? Contrarians and conspiracy theorists tend to be attracted to each other.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/09/16/bret-weinstein-and-heather-heying-go-unvaccinated-take-ivermectin/

Downvote discredited shills who profit from misinformation. No surprise at all, considering who posted this dishonest propaganda from discredited propagandists.

Just incase you're afraid of- you know- facing reality

========================================


IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the United States

Eugenics, a set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior,[39][40][41] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States during the Progressive Era, from the late 19th century until US involvement in World War II.[42][43]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of the British Scientist Sir Francis Galton. In 1883, Galton first used the word eugenics to describe the biological improvement of human genes and the concept of being "well-born".[44][45] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[46]

Goddard was a eugenicist. In 1908, he published his own version, The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity, and cordially promoted the test. He quickly extended the use of the scale to the public schools (1913), to immigration (Ellis Island, 1914) and to a court of law (1914).[47]

Unlike Galton, who promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits, Goddard went with the US eugenics movement to eliminate "undesirable" traits.[48] Goddard used the term "feeble-minded" to refer to people who did not perform well on the test. He argued that "feeble-mindedness" was caused by heredity, and thus feeble-minded people should be prevented from giving birth, either by institutional isolation or sterilization surgeries.[47] At first, sterilization targeted the disabled, but was later extended to poor people. Goddard's intelligence test was endorsed by the eugenicists to push for laws for forced sterilization. Different states adopted the sterilization laws at different paces. These laws, whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1927 ruling Buck v. Bell, forced over 60,000 people to go through sterilization in the United States.[49]

California's sterilization program was so effective that the Nazis turned to the government for advice on how to prevent the birth of the "unfit".[50] While the US eugenics movement lost much of its momentum in the 1940s in view of the horrors of Nazi Germany, advocates of eugenics (including Nazi geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer) continued to work and promote their ideas in the United States.[50] In later decades, some eugenic principles have made a resurgence as a voluntary means of selective reproduction, with some calling them "new eugenics".[51] As it becomes possible to test for and correlate genes with IQ (and its proxies),[52] ethicists and embryonic genetic testing companies are attempting to understand the ways in which the technology can be ethically deployed.[53]

Have to agree with newt here. He puts out a lot of fires set by bob who still likes to recklessly play with matches without realizing the consequences it could have on him.

I have to admit that I've been impressed with newt's ability and dedication to bring the facts into play and douse the flames early before they spread. bob never seems to be able to accept he's been boondoggled because he also carries the same beliefs of those around him.

Anyway, without newt I'm not sure this site would be the kind of place I'd like to be a part of.

If people who see it daily call it a heart beat, then clearly reading a book is better, because you can't get a heart beat without a heart, and a valveless, chamberless tube that doesn't pump isn't a heart. If you look at a straw day in and day out and you start to see it as a heart, actually seeing it is worse. If you go to school and say you see the heart at 6 weeks, you fail.

Jebus. Double negative and heart best? Are you drunk?

I do think +-90% of them know, 10% believe they hear a heart beat because they can now detect a faint nerve signal, but no heart. That 10% are fooling themselves to avoid contradicting their beliefs with medical fact.

What bubble? Did I say they didn't? That doesn't make them doctors. Lab techs do the same...mri techs, even x-Ray techs in some places. Would you let a tech determine your treatment plan, or even diagnose you without a real doctor involved? They aren't even nurses, they know how to run the machine and spot certain results for further investigation/treatment. The doctors review and often edit the reports. If a report of a 6 week pregnancy talked about the heart, that tech would be let go for incompetence. There is no heart.

Dumb fuck, you asked me how many I've talked to. I answered, with an explanation of why I’ve met many. Now you act like I brought it up to say I know some, so I am one?! Are you on meth?

Mom worked at Texas Children's hospital and Methodist hospital in Houston, so yes, those specialists and many many many more, and being curious I asked them lots of questions.

Because my mom worked at a childrens hospital means I knew sonographers and ultrasound techs, there's a difference, which was your question. Jesus, you're like Ritalin kid from smoking aces....to yourself you're fighting this amazing fight with spinning kicks and flips so amazing it gets you hard, but to everyone else you're flailing wildly and are just annoying, not a dangerous opponent to be feared or respected.

Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

Um, no. Leaving if you're unhappy you lost a political fight or election is absolutely not how democracies work. If it was, why aren't Republicans all moving right now?

No, they didn't. Being Christian doesn't equate to wanting to outlaw abortion. Most Americans are Christian, and a vast majority say they want abortion to be legal when asked. You're logic fails to recognize that some Christians don't believe in forcing their beliefs on others, and many only kind of believe, only when it's convenient, and limiting their options could feasibly hurt them.

No contraception is perfect, lack of sex ed in Texas means many don't even know how pregnancy works before being sexually active. Also I haven't heard of exceptions for rape or incest. These people have no option to use contraception, which fails far too often.
Also, I believe no person should be forced to be an unwilling biological life support system for another, certainly not for just a potential human, absolutely not children under any circumstances.


No, Shit Sherlock, it is not how it works in most of the world, certainly not in the developed world, are you under the impression that abortions only happen in America? Do you think people will accept sex only to procreate?
Access to multiple methods of terminating unwanted pregnancy are how it works across the world, because abstinence is insanely unrealistic and there's no even near perfect birth control without terminations when the main methods fail, which happens between .1% for the implant (the best, but with restrictions, and side effects and problems with having it implanted for 3 years) and >27% for the contraceptive sponge in women who've had a child ...typical methods like the pill fails 7%, condoms 13%, diaphragms 17%, many others in the >20% range. None of those numbers are acceptable when you're talking about an unwanted child without a secondary method with a 100% success rate.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

If women around the world didn't rely on secondary methods when primary ones fail, which they often do, they would only have sex for procreation and everyone would be exponentially more frustrated and angry. Not a reasonable or feasible solution.

Texas still has "blue laws" restricting the sale of not just alcohol but other non necessities on Sundays. Enacted in 1961 and largely repealed in the 80's, you still cannot buy liquor at a store on Sundays, and car dealerships must close one weekend day. This was their way of forcing the Southern Baptist religious beliefs of the ruling class on everyone.

Edit: I grew up there in the 70’s when you could only buy food or medicine on Sundays, and some groceries and pharmacies closed.

Texas has a LONG history of legislating religious "morality", from it's inception through today. They love to talk about their freedoms, but you really only have the freedom to follow their narrow definition of morality. These morality laws always effect the poor far more than the wealthy, often completely exempting the well off....for example, you can buy an expensive mixed drink to go from a bar, restaurant, or hotel...they even have drive through bars...on Sunday morning in Texas, but you cannot buy a cheap bottle in a liquor store to pour your own. This is typical.

yes, that is all too true. can be very successful yet be oblivious to the realities around them.

- remember an interview w/Ted Turner, while he was on top in the cable world (CNN was king). when speaking about business matters; very insightful. But when the questions about current affairs came around; he gave his opinion then changed it or said IDK anytime the interview offered a counterpoint.

- in an interview w/Colin Powell, as Sec of State, when the interviewer tried to corner him on how, looking at his GPA in HS and college, he ever made it to a 4-star general? all Colin would do was smile and say (something like) "It's good to be American. It offers many great opportunities to many people." That line of questioning ending in both parties smiling and chuckling.

- had to show our valedictorian how to put air into a tire. watching them struggle was hilarious but made one empathic.

also the belief anyone can become the president of the U.S.A. is both inspiring and terrifying. (as we all know now)

****

seeing this video, and the truth of the above sentence is a reason why education should become one of the top three, if not top, priorities, and quests of this nation. paired w/a universal form of national service* should provide all citizens will the skills to perceive wtf is actually going on.

*a former military serviceman, back from Iraq, noticed that Congress has far fewer former service members in their ranks since the early '80s. he noted in the military there are many ilks of service personnel, but they all work toward one goal. they have to - or they fail. reading this, have to believe - like Bush, Sr and Clinton both agreed on - that all Americans should put in some form of national service . since it'd foster a better understanding of other Americans: how they lived, how they were raised, their beliefs, the challenges they must face...i.e. see more than what's outside your 'bubble'.

this idea and a couple of other GREAT bipartisan ideas have waned since 9/11 but it'd be a hell of a fix.

* * * * realizing have wandered off the trail * * * *

or more concisely; to your point...

a body might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but any tool can become useful.

I know a fair number of smart people who have bad skills in epistemology, who have very odd anti-tax beliefs.

But whose IQ in their area of expertise is high. Some, not too oddly, are frankly on the spectrum.

Others have been quite successful and intelligent in a narrow area and then--sort of ail outside it. A bit, I suppose, like a lot of us. Only on this matter, it matters.

They are waiting for the FDA to certify as something other than Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")--Although they don't HAVE to wait for that; they could.

One thought? If you push the anti-vaxxer folks out of law enforcement--and this is just conjecture--I wonder if you would also be pushing out a certain proportion of folks with particular political and behavioral beliefs...