Coreece

Members
  • Content

    9,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Coreece

  1. About as hypocritical as those who bitch about a two party system but keep voting for one of the two parties.
  2. Pile it on all you can if you feel so inclined. I mean if you really feel so shitty about it. . .
  3. About as hypocritical as those who bitch about a two party system but keep voting for one of the two parties.
  4. Awesome, I'm going to use that for my "happy halloween" texts later tonight.
  5. This may be a good place to start: https://2020election.procon.org/view.source.election.php?sourceID=015163 Or you can sort through various issues here: https://2020election.procon.org/ Here's a "cheat sheet" that quickly lists how they all stand on the issues: https://2020election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php
  6. Because I really don't disagree with it. I was just using what I said there to help illustrate my perspective on the issue.
  7. I guess I just consider Libertarians to be the most independent of the 3 parties and would be a better check on congress.
  8. Why would you be tasked with using the words ‘ending the Covid-19 pandemic” if your contention was that the WH weren’t trying to represent themselves as having ended the Covid 19 pandemic? Joe said that the author of the press release consciously chose to use the word "ending" to give it some wiggle room. So I asked him what words would he choose if he were tasked with editing that specific phrase. I don’t understand - you said the 65 page report doesn’t talk about ending the pandemic. I said that the report talks about what they did, what they're doing and what they're going to do to end the pandemic, which is why I think it was acceptable to highlight all that under the category of "ending the covid-19 pandemic" in the press release, even tho the report itself did not specifically use the phrase "ending the covid-19 pandemic." Here's my reply to Wendy that I feel best illustrates my perspective on the issue: "I understand what you are saying, but that's still only one of several items discussed in the report. They're not going to list all of them in the press release. If you were to summarize what the report says with regard to what they did, what they're doing and what they're going to do to end it, wouldn't it all fit nicely under the category of "ending the covid-19 pandemic?"
  9. Tho I think some Libertarian ideas may not be practical given how the country has scaled over the past 200 years, I don't find myself so bitterly opposed to their ideas/arguments as I am with those on the fringes of the democrat and republican parties. And given that we don't have a libertarian congress, I don't think we'd have to worry too much about those reservation becoming a serious concern any time soon if JoJorg or another libertarian were elected president. So in that light, wouldn't it be better to have a libertarian president checking a rep/dem congress rather than a rep/dem president checking a rep/dem congress, or even worse, a republican president checking a republican majority or democrat president checking a democrat majority? It might even encourage congress to work together more closely in the event that they had to override a veto if they really wanted to pass legislation. I'd also add that from my perspective, they seem to be more thoughtful/reasonable when it comes to balancing social programs with fiscal responsibility.
  10. Almost any other word. But when you consider that we lead the world in both infections and deaths, and we’re #3 in population, and significantly lower than that in density, I’m not sure I’d put that up high. Maybe “closed inputs to country in response to Covid” I understand what you are saying, but that's still only one of several items discussed in the report. They're not going to list all of them in the press release. If you were to summarize what the report says with regard to what they did, what they're doing and what they're going to do to end it, wouldn't it all fit nicely under the category of "ending the covid-19 pandemic?"
  11. What no more pictures of weasels? Not sure what you people have against weasels anyway. I once read that a weasel climbed into the anus of the Algonquian/Canadian wendigo and ate his heart from within.
  12. But you at least agree there IS wiggle room. Whether or not it's just a case of Hanlon's razor is another issue, as is with the veracity of claims found in the actual OSTP report. Ok, let's try this. Suppose you were charged with the task of having to edit the words "ending the covid-19 pandemic." You've read the 65 page OSTP and what they're doing with regard to ending the covid-19 pandemic. What words would you choose to highlight that topic in the press release?
  13. I can agree that it concisely reflects your perception of the press release's fragmented text by structuring it into one complete sentence that's not fluently expressed in the press release. We could dig into further, but I'm afraid we'd just be rehashing the same arguments that do nothing to reconcile the ambiguity of the text more that what we already have. If you can simply agree with Webs that there's at least some wiggle room there, then I'm good with that.
  14. You can? That's damn generous of you. I'd say the topic is officially dead ended. What about the politifact link I posted? Can you say that you agree with it, or are you afraid of being called a weasel?
  15. I can concede that it's not necessarily intellectually dishonest to hold the view that "ending" means "ended" on this particular issue. Can you guys agree with the politifact article I posted earlier or do you think they're weasling too? https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/28/did-white-house-say-pandemic-over/ As a point of grammar, "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" can be read two ways. It could mean that the pandemic is over, which it isn’t. But the phrase could also mean that the country is in the process of ending the pandemic. That’s different. The money spent on research and testing has provided more tools that hold some promise of beating back the virus. In that light, there have been gains. It’s reasonable to say that some White House staffer went beyond what the authors of the report wrote, and pushed the envelope in wordsmithing the press release. It’s not a slam-dunk to say that the White House was asserting "Mission Accomplished."
  16. Nobody was saying the OSTP report claimed that ending the pandemic among the accomplishments of the administration. Everybody was talking about the press release that did. Why are you setting up strawmen? Bill made a claim against the OSTP. As far as I know, the OSTP was only responsible for writing the actual report. The actual report doesn't say "ending the pandemic," that part was in the press release. So again, I thought Bill's attack against the OSTP was unwarranted. But he clarified that he thinks the OSTP also wrote the press release - I'm just not sure if they actually did or not. If they did, then fine - they're to blame for the poorly worded text. I think PolitiFact sums it all up nicely: As a point of grammar, "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" can be read two ways. It could mean that the pandemic is over, which it isn’t. But the phrase could also mean that the country is in the process of ending the pandemic. That’s different. The money spent on research and testing has provided more tools that hold some promise of beating back the virus. In that light, there have been gains. It’s reasonable to say that some White House staffer went beyond what the authors of the report wrote, and pushed the envelope in wordsmithing the press release. It’s not a slam-dunk to say that the White House was asserting "Mission Accomplished."
  17. You called it. Yep, you guys are trying to say that: - Ending means ended - Defeat means defeated - Highlights means accomplishments. And then you cling to that narrative despite the clarification. In my argument: - Ending still means ending - Defeat still means defeat - Highlights means highlights - as in highlighting points from the OSTP report that the press release is actually talking about.
  18. So you're not intellectually honest enough to answer the question I asked, about what the press release actually says. That's a shame. You're asking me to deliberately ignore the context along with the rest of the press release to solidify your point, a point that has already been clarified - it doesn't really get anymore dishonest than that. Right, but the news outlets do, or at least they should. They even asked for clarification and the WH said ya, it was poorly worded, but if you look at the rest of the text it's easy see that's not what the press release is actually referring to. It's referring to highlights of the OSTP report, one of which was how they are ending the pandemic. But despite the clarification, they still pushed the narrative that they claimed it was over, or has ended, or was defeated. They must really hate what's in that report.
  19. Buuuuuullshit. ”Trump administration releases Science and Technology accomplishments over first term... Highlights include ending the Covid-19 pandemic.” Now then C-dawg, you be intellectually honest and tell me if that’s saying the Trump admin ended the pandemic or not. I actually read past the word "pandemic" and skimmed the actual report that talks about how they're ending it, so it would be intellectually dishonest for me to claim they're saying it already ended when the context doesn't support that. If they used the words "ended" and "defeated" then there wouldn't be any room for interpretation, but they didn't. If one didn't read past the word "pandemic," then they're just uninformed and have to rely on headlines and/or their own bias to interpret the poorly worded text. . . .and that bias should be pretty easy to demonstrate. I mean would any of you have honestly read the other "highlights" listed in the press release as if they were past tense and that everything they said had already been accomplished?
  20. Just to be clear, I'm saying that the actual OSTP report does not say "ending the pandemic." It seemed like Bill was throwing them and their scientists under the bus for something they didn't say. But if the OSTP actually wrote that press release as well, then ya, obviously they'd be the ones to blame for the poorly worded text. I'm just not sure if that's how it actually works. For example, if the ambiguity was deliberate, then I could totally see that coming from somewhere else in the administration. See that's the point, nobody said "defeated." It was poorly written but not THAT poorly.
  21. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-6bc5-d2df-adff-6fdfff5c0000 Front page, bold type, all caps. You said that "Trump even got the White House Science Office [sic] (bit of an oxymoron there) to say that Trump was responsible for "ending the COVID-19 pandemic." What you posted is the press release, not the actual report from the OSTP - and neither say that it has ended like you suggested it did. The only way to come to that conclusion is if you're being intellectually dishonest or you just didn't read beyond your own confirmation bias and are being dragged by the nose by misleading headlines that impose on the text.
  22. The original was likely removed or changed, as WH communications director has admitted it was "poorly worded": https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/10/28/white-house-claim-that-trump-ended-the-pandemic-was-poorly-worded-spokesperson-says/ - they're not denying it You're confused. The original OSTP report was not modified. What she was referring to as "poorly worded" was the press release, which is what you actually posted in your previous reply. It reads: "ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Administration has taken decisive actions to engage scientists and health professionals in academia, industry, and government to understand, treat, and defeat the disease." I agree it could've been worded better, but you still have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to say that that they're claiming it has ended when they didn't, especially when the original OSTP report that it's referencing specifically talks about how it's a "generational problem" and can "only be addressed through a whole-of-society approach."
  23. White House science office takes credit for 'ending' pandemic as infections mount The White House’s science policy office on Tuesday ranked “ending the Covid-19 pandemic” atop the list of President Donald Trump’s top first-term accomplishments, even as the country registers record amounts of infections and hospitals fill up again. The list, included in a press release from the Office of Science and Technology Policy credits the administration for taking “decisive actions to engage scientists and health professionals in academia, industry, and government to understand, treat, and defeat the disease.” Where specifically does it say "ending the covid-19 pandemic" and suggest that it has ended? You say that it was in there, but now it has been removed. Where is the original? Even the first link in your google search in post #10 specifically says that "The 62-page document attached to the email did not say the administration “ended” the pandemic." What specifically do take exception with?
  24. I don't know what searches you tried because it was widely reported. Subsequently the WH reported that it was a mistake to have stated that. They may have amended that report to remove that statement. But obviously somebody included and/or approved it in the original report. What document said "ending the covid-19 pandemic," and where did it suggest that it has ended?
  25. That's different. That's white people fighting for their beliefs, over significant and important differences in their religions. In the past you've seemed to agree that "The Troubles" wasn't a religious conflict. What are the "significant and important differences in their religion" that you now believe they were fighting about?