- Oct 17, 2009
- 42,357
- 13,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
I'm glad you're abandoning your 2 previous assertions.What a glorious time it is to be “conservative”!
Think of all of the changes that these fine people will bring to our divided Nation!
The fact that I refuted both of them indicates otherwise.They’re fine right where they are, they don’t need me to prop them up.
Too bad, eh? Such a law would certainly be Constitutional. Can't have that! LOL!
Youtube smootude. Not interested. If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it.
And yes, I believe people like epidemiologists who spend their lives in that field are the best sources as how to handle a pandemic.
One more time: "If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it."I did. You won't watch it.
I'm sure you do. I'm sure you're not at all concerned with their numerous conflicts of interest, and I'm sure you only believe that the epidemiologists that regurgitate the approved narrative are the best sources.
One more time: "If you have information showing where government was ""conducting well-coordinated propaganda campaign" of disinformation" given covid, then show it."
Really? Prove that. Never seen a link that was such a nonsequitor to a claim.Let's look at just one example of a well-coordinated, government propaganda campaign that was blatant misinformation.
15 days to slow the spread.
The people that instated this policy KNEW that it would not work.
Interesting. Could you source the soundbite where any health official says "after 15 days at home, everything would be fine"? I don't recall hearing that in CAnada....They KNEW that they would need more than 15 days. But they decided to lie to the entire country and suggest that if we all just stayed home from 15 days, everything would be fine. They KNEW that was not true. They KNEW they were lying.
Interesting. So Brix believes the shut down would have been more successful it had been long but...your argument is that there shouldn't have been a shut down at all. They were priming people to stay longer because they needed them to.None of the self-anointed "fact-checkers" ever addressed this. Birx said directly that she knew that 15 days would never be enough, yet they got up in front of the nation and lied to everyone, knowing their proposal would never work, and that they were just priming people to stay home for much, much longer.
Wouldn't it be great if, after the pandemic, everyone realized the importance of people doing those jobs and would advocate HARD for those people to receive a living and appropriate wage.Sounds great, until you realize that this was just a nifty title to give to people who were made to face the pandemic head-on every day while the "experts" stayed "safer at home".
You are incorrect about that.It's surprising that many Americans value "free speech" but don't fully understand it or censorship. Facebook, as a private company, can moderate content, and government pressure on Facebook doesn't violate free speech. If social media platforms want to avoid government censorship, they could register as news media, which would prevent government interference under constitutional law. However, platforms like Facebook resist this because they would then be accountable for all published content.
If the Biden administration influenced what Facebook can or cannot post, it would not constitute censorship. Facebook does not have any legal protection from government regulation in this context. To obtain such protection, Facebook would need to register as a news media outlet.
Really? Prove that. Never seen a link that was such a nonsequitor to a claim.
Interesting. Could you source the soundbite where any health official says "after 15 days at home, everything would be fine"? I don't recall hearing that in CAnada....
Interesting. So Brix believes the shut down would have been more successful it had been long but...your argument is that there shouldn't have been a shut down at all. They were priming people to stay longer because they needed them to.
Wouldn't it be great if, after the pandemic, everyone realized the importance of people doing those jobs and would advocate HARD for those people to receive a living and appropriate wage.
Oops. You epovide some interesting things to consider but don't fall foe thr "they" trap.In a chapter titled “Turning Fifteen into Thirty,” she writes, “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it. Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” That’s revealing in two ways. First, she planned for a much longer lockdown. Second, she knew what she wanted to find and she looked for data to make her case.Birx wrote in her book "Silent Invasion" that she KNEW that 15 days to slow the spread would not work. Yet she stood in front of the nation and said it would "flatten the curve" if we all just stayed home. It was intentional disinformation. At no point in the announcement for 15 days to slow the spread was there even a hint that this would need to be extended to a much longer lockdown.
The ostensible goal of "15 days to slow the spread" was to "flatten the curve". The people behind this foolhardy policy knew it would do no such thing.
Except they didn't need them to stay home, and they knew that.
I've seen evidence that contradicts that and it isn't that hard to wear a mask so why not.Here is what the UK said in their pandemic preparedness plan prior to COVID:
View attachment 359763
Here is what the WHO said about home quarantine of exposed individuals.
View attachment 359764
Here is what they said about contact tracing.
View attachment 359765
This is what Johns Hopkins had to say about the lack of evidence of efficacy of NPIs.
View attachment 359766
This is what the UK said about masks.
View attachment 359767
I have more if you'd like to see them.
I'll guarantee that those people sitting at home ordering from amazon cared a LOT more than the people who ignored government restrictions and went out to restaurants. Hospitality was one of the hardest hit industries by covid.I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time believing that anyone that advocated for lockdowns gives a rat's behind about the importance of people doing those jobs. All they cared about was that their Amazon packages arrived on time and someone would bring them dinner each night. They apparently didn't stop to think how the pandemic would affect those people that had to go to work every day. No, they just kept up the virtue signaling of being "safer at home" while they expected those people doing those jobs to face the pandemic for them.
You are incorrect about that.
Freedom of speech from governmental suppression or coercion is a Constitutional right of all American citizens,, including both individuals and (for better or worse) corporations. Facebook, as you said, is a private company and thus fully enjoys the right of free speech. Free speech is not some special Constitutional gift to the news media.
Zuckerberg folded to the pressure of the Biden administration for his own political and commercial reasons. He could have stood up to the Biden Administration in the same way Musk did. Trump brings no legal right that Zuckerberg and the rest of us don't already have.
Oops. You epovide some interesting things to consider but don't fall foe thr "they" trap.
You can't bring UK reporting forward and say americna officials knew that if they were basing theiir decision on differwnt research.
also is there a cite for all these text boxes?
I've seen evidence that contradicts that and it isn't that hard to wear a mask so why not.
I'll guarantee that those people sitting at home ordering from amazon cared a LOT more than the people who ignored government restrictions and went out to restaurants.
The latest case is the one that counts. I would also point out that "commercial" does not mean what you apparently think it does.I disagree. Business entities do not have the same free speech rights as private citizens.
In Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declared that the First Amendment did not protect commercial speech. However, in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), SCOTUS had a different perspective, recognizing that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment but must not mislead the public. There are additional SCOTUS cases that indicate the uncertainty regarding whether businesses like Facebook should have full constitutional rights for free speech.
Over the last 70 years, there have been numerous cases before SCOTUS regarding commercial speech. Aside from the 1942 Valentine v. Chrestensen decision, which denied commercial speech constitutional protection, SCOTUS has generally taken a middle ground in other cases.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?