Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/24/2020 in all areas

  1. I completely agree with you. But I'm also aware of how this is different than any previous virus. People who say there is only a 0.27% mortality rate don't know what that means in terms of actual numbers if it spreads like it could. But I'm on the side of opening things up (slowly at first) and educating people on safety measures and letting them make decisions based on that information just like everything else we do both for us and others. The experts who need to know how this works and how it affects people know a lot more now than they did in February even if it isn't everything. Things have been done to improve the PPE and ventilator situations and we've proven we can built supplemental facilities quickly. If more permanent facilities need to be built then so be it. We have to move forward. If it continues to be a major issue there will be a huge focus on a vaccine. Staying home most of the time is no way to live. The first number (1800) is to compare what the current death numbers could have been assuming a 50% infection spread and the same current mortality rate. The 1675 number for comparison is for the FLU with half the people vaccinated and a lower mortality rate.
    1 point
  2. “My” logic? A statement is either logical or it isn’t. That one isn’t. My remark was not intended to comment on any political issue one way or another.
    1 point
  3. This is an argument that has no end.......both sides have valid points ......its true we all want to get back to normal.......the problem however, in my opinion, is that since March 13th here in Indiana , as well as the United States , there has been no clear cut plans. Everyone wants to make recommendations, but no details ever emerge. Until we have a clear plan, one people can stand by and our leaders be accountable for, the uncertainty of the times will remain.
    1 point
  4. That’s what everyone says: “I’m sure there are ... things we can do.” As I said, the devil is in the details. Protecting the vulnerable, while allowing the less vulnerable to resume normality, is not a plan. It’s a goal. Now it’s time to come up with a plan to achieve that goal. So far, all I’ve heard is a lot of people pounding the table to get back to “normal.” I want to hear how we get there. How we deal with the elderly living in facilities. How we deal with people in high rise building elevators, in doctor’s offices, hospitals, clinics, etc,, in government offices and courthouses, on airplanes, etc. We all want to get “back.” What we disagree on is what we need to do going forward.
    1 point
  5. You are assuming a vaccine ever comes and also assuming it is effective. Sorry I refuse to put all of my faith and hope in big pharma and the politicians whose pockets are being lined by them. These measures were extreme at the beginning but now that we know what we are up against, it’s time to open back up fully, without restrictions. We can protect take measures to protect the elderly. Everyone else is at such small risk including high schools student athletes who have basically at no risk of fatality, that these restrictions are extreme and overreaching.
    1 point
  6. Sounds like the intro to a @DT contraction argument.
    0 points
  7. Klobuchar was mocking Trump and claiming Hydroxychloroquine can lead to hallucinations yet she was fully aware her husband was treated with Hydroxychloroquine.
    -1 points
  8. Kolbuchar stated "They say" and makes no reference to "first hand knowledge". Typical Democrat politician.
    -1 points
  9. Based on updated data from the Indiana Department of Health, approximately 99.9997355% of Indiana residents have not died from the coronavirus. https://www.coronavirus.in.gov/2393.htm
    -1 points
  10. -1 points
  11. Michael Flynn's judge – 3 possible reasons he hired a defense attorney https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/michael-flynn-judge-3-possible-reasons-hired-lawyer-jenna-ellis Judge Emmet Sullivan is now a one-man circus as judge, prosecutor and defendant in the same case. After the D.C. Circuit Court last week ordered Judge Sullivan to provide his reasoning in writing for not granting the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss in the Michael Flynn prosecution, the judge has taken the highly unusual step by hiring a defense attorney to respond for him. Odd, given that judicial officers provide their rationale for rulings in writing routinely as part of their job, providing the legal authority they relied upon. This is done precisely so that the record is preserved for a higher court to review upon appeal. But Sullivan didn’t render a final judgment that is now being appealed in the regular course of proceedings. He’s been ordered to “show cause” — to explain his actions — which puts him in the awkward situation of defending himself before the appellate court. So why can’t Sullivan answer now for himself? Three possible reasons come to mind: First, he could be concerned that any response will be used against him in disciplinary action or some adverse consequence. Being in a defensive posture may require defense counsel. Article III judges are lifetime appointments, but still subject to some disciplinary measures under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides the ethical and judicial conduct federal judges must adhere to. There already appears to be sufficient evidence just in the public record of Sullivan’s actions in the Flynn case that he has violated several of the canons, including that judges should uphold integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and that a judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently. Sullivan could face private or public censure, or request for his voluntary retirement. One could also argue that he is engaging in unethical political activity by allowing amicus statements against the motion to dismiss when he previously denied amicus 24 times in this same case, citing the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. So why allow it now, against Flynn? I’m sure the appellate court wants to know. Second, perhaps Sullivan just doesn’t have a solid rationale. Hiring a high-profile defense attorney could help bolster his position and help him come up with a back-end explanation that perhaps he had planned to create after hearing “arguments" from his appointed amicus. Judge John Gleeson was ostensibly going to help with that, so now Sullivan is doubling down by engaging a defense attorney to help him. As I’ve previously written, there is not any genuine legal argument an amicus could provide that would justify a judge ordering the prosecutor to continue their case when they have moved to dismiss (even after a plea has entered), especially on the clear bases the government provided in their motion. The bizarre trajectory of this case began as political and is continuing to be political, rather than just. If Congress were doing their constitutionally vested oversight responsibility of the judicial branch rather than using it for purely political purposes, this is an example of a case meriting impeachment inquiry. Not because the House should side with any politically charged bias, but because Judge Sullivan certainly may not. Federal judges may be removed from office upon impeachment and trial in the Senate. Fifteen prior federal judges have been impeached and of those, eight resulted in convictions and removal. Third, Sullivan could be bribed, is threatened, or is fulfilling a political promise. There is no evidence that I’m aware of to lean toward this possibility over any others, but it’s one explanation for the bizarre behavior, especially from a judge who by all reports had a record that wasn’t particularly noteworthy for being so political and blatantly disregarding the law prior to the Flynn case. It’s also not unheard, and with everything else we already know about the setup, cover-up, and railroaded prosecution, it's possible. Also, with the onerously politically biased statements already on the record from Sullivan and now dragging this on further by appointing an amicus, he appears to have some vested interest in the outcome of this case beyond his constitutional judicial role. What is his end game here? I’m sure the appellate court is interested in knowing that, too. But whatever Judge Sullivan’s reasons, Michael Flynn deserves a speedy resolution and an impartial judge, like every person in our justice system. Further, the American public deserves to know, and the D.C. Circuit correctly ordered Sullivan to respond. The fact he apparently feels he needs to be represented by defense counsel in doing so just adds another eyebrow-raising factor into the story that doesn’t seem to make any sense.
    -1 points
  12. NY Times on Memorial Day Weekend: US Military celebrates white supremacism https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-memorial-day-weekend-us-military-celebrates-white-supremacism This travesty is obviously Mr. Trump's fault. He should have ordered this bases renamed the day he first took office.
    -1 points
  13. An coronavirus pandemic related story: John Kraskinski slammed as 'sellout' over 'Some Good News' deal with CBS https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/john-kraskinski-slammed-selling-some-good-new\ You create something, then you can sell it if you wish. It's called capitalism, the American Way.
    -1 points
This leaderboard is set to Indiana - Indianapolis/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...