@boltvolts said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@raphjd Beautiful. Masks diminish oxygen intake by 20%. This is significant.

This would be significant, if it were true - but it is not.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/COVID-19/Pages/Mask-Mythbusters.aspx

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/verify/verify-masks-do-not-reduce-oxygen-intake-for-kids-local/77-edfed0c7-7514-4890-910a-ea148b23e6b4

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201103/dont-believe-the-myth-face-masks-dont-lower-oxygen-levels#1

https://www.uhhospitals.org/Healthy-at-UH/articles/2021/03/does-wearing-a-face-mask-limit-your-oxygen-intake

(for @raphjd, who thinks that YouTube is a news source)
Youtube Video

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/another-air-quality-monitor-demonstration-fails-to-show-masks-reduce-oxygen-to-children/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776928

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014099/

https://abc7news.com/jama-masks-children-and-co2-pediatrics-face-mask-study/10866564/

I'm going to stop there... after all, I am quite certain that I WILL NOT CONVINCE YOU (@raphjd or @boltvolts), as this anti-mask thing has become a religion for you - and no amount of facts will convince you that you (or your cherry-picked) sources are wrong...

But for any reader who IS NOT a "true believer" in the anti-mask camp, or who may be interested in facts - there ya go!

Oxygen is critical not only for brain activity, but furnishes the fuel for the lymphatic system to produce leucocytes (white blood cells) that fight all infection, including virus, retrovirus, and yes, Covid.

This statement is true (well, I can't attest to the validity of the claim that reduced oxygen levels reduces leurocytres, or the effects on the immune system in general...), but its importance tracks back to the false assumption at the beginning, so its validity is actually immaterial.

It is criminal to require masks that according to the vast majority of medical professionals serve nothing to limit, prevent or curtail acquisition of a retrovirus or other virus.

This is laughable - I could list another 40 links to medical journals, medical societies, and medical school who all identify exactly HOW the masks stop the spread of COVID-19.

And where did the idea of a "retrovirus" come from? Are you conflating HIV (a retrovirus) and COVID-19 (a non-retrovirus)?

For the reader (since I'm certain @Boltvolts will assert my information is wrong on some level): a retrovirus is one that spreads within the body by inserting a DNA copy of itself into other cells (host cells) in order to replicate. While not unique to HIV, that is the most common retrovirus we've found (so far), and it is a rare form of viral replication.

Science Magazine has published studies where scientists have traced how and where COVID-19 spreads in the body and found traces of RNA and DNA in human chromosomes, BUT found that they were insufficient to cause illness - in their own words: "a biological dead-end."

Surgical masks are worn by surgeons to prevent not viral but bacterial infection in patients with opened tissues which are highly susceptible to bacterial sepsis.

ROFL - nothing like MIXING fact and fiction to make your fiction sound better. Surgical masks are worn by surgeons - along with other forms of PPE (like gloves and gowns) to protect both themselves AND their patients from any number of "elements" - the most common of which is blood splatter.

In the early days of HIV discovery, doctors "gowned up" (which included masks and face shields) because they believed those things would protect them from the HIV virus (yes, Virginia, they knew it was a virus by that time).

Doctors routinely wear (and wore) surgical masks when seeing patients during cold and flu season... not because those are bacterial infections!

Doctors and nurses routinely wear face masks today - look in the hospitals, and you'll find cloth ones, surgical ones, N95 ones, KN95 ones... these are medical professionals! You think they're wearing them because "they're in on the joke?"

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers add insult to injury, as they absorb directly into the bloodstream, and this is not your grandfather's moonshine stash alcohol, but a form toxic to the human organism.

Sigh - alcohol-based hand sanitizers (which is most of them) use the disinfectant nature of alcohol to kill virus and bacteria on the skin (and on surfaces)... BUT, because the alcohol content is well known, they generally use either denatured ethyl alcohol (which is the same kind of alcohol you find in drinks, but in a much higher concentration - BUT it also means there are additives that make it unpleasant to drink, sometimes lethally so) or isopropyl alcohol - which is also (purposefully) poisonous to drink.

https://sciencenotes.org/can-you-drink-hand-sanitizer/

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS? The answers are 2-fold:

• Some additives assist in the effectiveness of the antiseptic action
• Some additives assist in offsetting the strong smell of the antiseptic chemicals
• Some additives assist in offsetting the drying effects of the alcohol (the alcohol binds with the water and other oils on the skin of your hands, and then quickly evaporates - so it's NOT your imagination - your hands ARE "dryer" after using hand sanitizer)
• Some additives are designed to make you very sick very quickly if digested - this is to prevent alcoholics from ingesting it for a "fix" (with the quick-action additives there to make them sick before they ingest ENOUGH to make the other additives LETHAL).

In the short run, alcohol based sanitizers dehydrate the blood, increasing blood pressure to force blood and circulate the already diminished white blood cells.

Again, a nice mix of truth and utter hogwash! Yes, as discussed above, hand sanitizers dehydrate your hands - and not just of water, but also other natural oils necessary to keep your skin healthy. (For the record: so does regular hand soap!)

The Internet is RIFE with new products designed to help offset this dryness... but dermatologists say that, in general, using a good moisturizer helps, and specialized formulations are not necessary. Further, most are "snake oil" - they don't do anything special, except drain your bank balance. However, moisturizer lotions do not "bring along" sufficient water to truly help re-moisturize your hands alone - so you should wet your hands (dampen them, anyway) for the moisturizer to have its best effect.

BUT - why are we talking about hand sanitizers in an article about masks?

• While we thought - in early 2020 - that COVID-19 was spread largely (even effectively) by surface contact, we now know that is untrue - it is a largely-respiratory, and mostly transmitted by aspiration, not shared contacts.
• There hasn't been a lot of "walk back" of "use hand sanitizer often" because .... why? Have Doctors recommend you keep your hands dirty? Improving the general hygiene of the general populace reduced the severity of cold & flu season last year, and if we keep it up, maybe this year too! (Dentists only DREAM of a similar motivation to "brushing and flossing regularly!" LOL)

Our immune systems are stimulated by physical proximity to other human beings, and diminish in isolation, making us more susceptible to disease and Covid also.

I'm skeptical of this statement. I searched Google for anything substantiating that claim, and found nothing - but in fairness, the results were overwhelmed by Google interpreting my query as "how does the immune system work"... I'd love to see some corroborating (scientific) article supporting this statement....

Don't believe the propaganda in circulation. There is an enormous economic motive in closure of small businesses, and that is massive giant finanacial interest control with the goal of a global economic system. Forget currency, it's over with. A system of work-based credits measured by body movements is patented by Bill Gates and signed off by 96 major economic force countries. We are on the brink of a global technocracy with utter control of every move we make. Don't believe it? Fine... put your head back in the sand and go to sleep again. You'll soon awaken to a nightmare you were not prepared for. Do what you want in life today. Tomorrow is already too late.

Conspiracy theory to me, religious-like belief to you...
"End of the world" and "Jesus and the Anti-Christ have already arrived" believers will also tell you the same: you'll be surprised when it turns out to be true!

So far, I'm batting a 1.000 for believing the apocalypse is not upon us... but you only have to miss ONE!

One final comment: What's with the long-single-line posting style? Did the Enter key on your keyboard fail?

@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

Parler was taken down by AWS a subsiduary of Amazon because they didn't like what Parler contributors where allowed to say.

You're a moron. Parler.com is alive and well. Click the link and see for yourself. They were kicked off AWS (who was their hosting company) for being in violation of the Terms of Agreement - contracts they signed with Amazon.

Once they stopped whining about it, they were back up (even restored from backups) less than 6 hours after choosing a new hosting company! (AWS isn't magic - it's one of DOZENS of cloud hosting companies... the biggest, true, but just one)

They are editing content. That makes them publishers and should be able to be sued for the content they allow. You can censor speech and then claim to be not liable for what you allow.

Again, you're showing your complete lack of understanding of the legal concepts.

A "publisher" edits content PRIOR to making it available to others. (I invite YOU to consider the manpower necessary for ANY social media company to do that, much less the largest - Meta/Facebook!)

Removing content AFTER it has been published - without "prior restraint" allows them to be immune from prosecution for the posts' contents. THAT is the "Section 230" you Trumpites love to complain about - but it has nothing to do with what the DO NOT allow on their site! It has everything to do with not holding them liable for WHAT IS on their website.

Talk radio is governed but the FCC and have rules of conduct that the government imposes on them to protect speech. The reason it is dominated by conservatives is that is what people want to hear. Liberal talk news has failed to have and audience.

Agreed... and Conservative Cable TV has ratings that are HUGELY higher than Liberal Cable TV! I have no qualms about that!

The issue is that a medium is used considerably more effectively by one viewpoint than another... Conservatives have RULED talk radio (and Cable TV) for decades.... we can't really complain THAT loudly when Liberals finally find a voice somewhere!

@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth

Your beliefs are clear and your constantly spew them here.

People don't have rights, but businesses and governments do.

Your Russian propaganda news-feed must be offline... you're off topic...

@geobear40 said in UK Supreme Court rules on passport sex:

@bi4smooth
There are only two genders male or female. This covers transsexuals' because once they transition they legally change their gender.

All of these other terms that people refer themselves as are not to be confused with gender. These are how they see themselves and how they want the world to categorize them. It is more about who they want to have sex with and have nothing to do with their gender.

Follow the science

Actually, there is Male, and Female - true - and, as I said, for over 98% of us, that question - AT BIRTH - is an easy one!

BUT there are also biological "mistakes" - about 1.7% of live births - where the male/female issue isn't so easy to discern.

I'm NOT talking about trans adults (and I thought I had made that clear) - I AM talking about inter-sex babies and children.

Google it - it's real. SCIENCE!

@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth
I agree with your points but when the corporation is a way for the government to control your speech there is a problem.

Corporate MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party
Social media who is the enforcement arm of said propaganda.

The political parties are not the Government. Fox News, as an admitted partner of the Republican Party, is well within its rights to broadcast stories - even false ones, like Tucker's latest rantings on the 2020 Election (well, latest may not be accurate - I don't watch Fox News on cable, as I don't have cable-tv! But, when it aired isn't the point!)

Parler is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Trump's taxes (leaked information), just as Facebook is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Covid-19! In another thread, we're discussing FB being on trial - not for taking down a post, but for supposedly libeling the author! (NOTE: If the plaintiff wins here, the only thing FB will do is stop explaining WHY they removed a post - they won't stop removing them!)

To be clear: they have no obligation to explain why they take down these posts: its their platform, they can "edit" it in any way they like! If YOU don't like it, use another platform!

This really isn't that much different (except that the shoe is on the other foot) than looking at talk-radio in the 80's and 90's - which was (and remains so) completely dominated by conservatives.

Look, if you want to compare "in league with" cable news, do you REALLY think MSNBC holds a candle to FOX? Ratings? Production quality? No way... but how about a different statistic: percent of the time MSM references a story LED by either cable network... you ALMOST NEVER hear CBS reference an MSNBC story, but they often reference a FOX one! (Not daily, mind you, but not that rare, either!)

This is "democracy in action" and this is also our society trying to figure out what's acceptable and what is not about a new communications technology (namely, the Internet).

It's messy... but we'll figure it out!

But the Government taking it over is NOT the best answer (it seldom, if EVER, is), and limiting people's freedoms isn't either!

Look: there has NEVER BEEN - in the history of human-kind - a lower "barrier to entry" in the ability to reach masses of people. Facebook - as a website - isn't even 20 years old yet! Same for Twitter (which turned 15 this year)! Do you not remember "GeoCities"? or "MySpace"? SnapChat just celebrated 10 years in business, and it looks as-if its "time in the Internet sunshine" has passed... who can predict the future?

I will reiterate here: I don't agree with how FB is handling itself - but that's a different thing from believing that they should be treated (limited) as-if they were a Governmental Body.

@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth

You believe that businesses have rights and people don't unless businesses (sometimes the government too) allow them to.

Thank you, once again @raphjd for that lucid and coherent explanation of what other people think... your clairvoyant abilities continue to astound us (or is that, confound us?)

What ever would I do in life, were it not for your clarifying my own thoughts for me!

Here's an idea: the next time you want to start a sentence with the words "you think" or "you believe" - think again! Erase that part and start over...

@raphjd said in UK Supreme Court rules on passport sex:

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that UK passports MUST include sex.

According to the ruling, there is no human right, under common law or statute, to NOT have your sex listed. This also includes there being no right to have one of the countless made up genders on your passport.

I don't know if the ruling also includes "other official documents" (see next paragraph), but from the articles and videos I have seen, seems to say that it will be due to the previous ruling on the topic.

This has nothing to do with transgenderism since they already ruled on that saying that trans people have the right to change their sex on their passports and other official documents. This was settled decades ago. I believe it was in the 1970s.

Just trying to clarify here, but according to this ruling:

• You can be listed as Male, Female, or maybe even something different (maybe T for trans? I don't know - that's not my point)
• BUT, you cannot leave the "sex" (which should be gender, but that's another topic entirely) BLANK

There is a very small section of society - specifically, the intersex community - that will object to this...

But essentially, they're saying you MUST CHOOSE when creating your passport - "none" is not an option!

Honestly, this is such an easy question for over 98% of us, but such a HARD one for that remaining nearly 2%... my question is: why do we (the 98%) fear and loath the 2%? Why can't we be more tolerant?

I mean we, as homosexuals, claim "it's not a choice! It's the way God made me, and I'm beautiful just the way He made me! Accept me for who I am and how I was created!" But, along comes an intersex person - who has an even MORE compelling argument for "God made me this way", and we (the Gay Community) are like: no, you have to be like one of us... choose: Gay or Straight!

Please, however, do not conflate intersex (who are born gender-ambiguous) with trans (who may or may not also be inter-sex at birth)...

Interestingly, Google states that the percentage of intersex people in the population is about the same as the percentage with red hair! Statistics!

@raphjd said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!

And you want us to believe that you don't believe that businesses have more "human rights" than people.

Dude, you've continuously suggested that businesses should be treated like governments - and when I say otherwise, you (as is your most common tactic) jump to this absurd statement that businesses have more rights than people... and this all ties back to your being butt-hurt because Facebook edited (or even censored - did your facebook get banned?) you, which you claim is a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights!

Again: NO - as has been discussed recently: the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with individuals, groups, businesses, or corporations limiting your speech... it SOLELY protects you from the Government limiting your speech... and Facebook IS NOT the Government!

Every time you say something about businesses, I just envision every dystopian movie/book/video game.

Yes, I agree - you are myopic when it comes to a business (like Facebook or Twitter) limiting your speech... but, as I've noted on here before:

• YOU are the Administrator here! Have you not EVER taken action against someone here because of something that they have posted?
• You represent the business of GT.ru, and when you take "editorial" action - whether in the Forum, or with regard to a torrent - you are doing so with the exact same rights as Facebook is when they alter or remove your posts (or Twitter, for that matter)!
• That you and Facebook and Twitter have different "trigger points" as to what you find objectionable on your platform is immaterial!

Just be honest, you believe that businesses should own us like chattel slavery. You're the modern-day Anthony Johnson.

Get hyperbolic much? I'm guessing this absurd jump is tied to my assertion that businesses DO have the right to require things like vaccinations or masks for their employees.

You CONTINUALLY suggest that YOUR FREEDOMS supersede the freedoms of others! But dude, it's a balance - and that's been a HUGE MAJORITY of what our COURTS have been asked to decide since the beginning!

• it is unreasonable for you to brandish a weapon (gun or otherwise) when my dog wanders into your yard to relieve itself?
• What if I led the don onto your property - knowing we (me and the dog) were unwanted?
• What if there were signs warning of dire consequences?
• What if...???
  And that's JUST the animal control courts!

But what makes US (Western Democracies) different is that we believe the Governments rule by consent of the governed... and we have put CONSTRAINTS on what the Government can and cannot do!

There are, of course, constraints on what PEOPLE (individuals, groups, businesses, etc) can do as well - but those are DIFFERENT! People have MORE RIGHTS than the Government!

If you don't like that, you can try living somewhere like N Korea - where the Government has no limits, and the leader is revered and considered infallible!

NOTE 1: Anthony Johnson was the black former indentured servant who refused to let one of his indentured servants go and the resulting court case gave the US (pre US actually) chattel slavery. At the time of the court case, Johnson had 4 white indentured servants and 1 black indentured servant. Casor became the first chattel slave in what was to become the US.

NOTE 2: John Punch was the 1st lifetime slave, as ordered by the court because he fled his IS master. His case is different because he illegally tried to break his IS contract. Also, in the court case, only he was a lifetime slave. Any spouse or offspring he may have had or later gotten would not be slaves, as well, as opposed to the Casor case. Punch's legal status was that of a lifetime IS, as opposed to Casor who was legal property. Punch retained some of his rights, Casor did not.

Thanks for the history lesson, but slavery pre-dates the discovery of America - by thousands of years (even the discovery by "native" tribes, much less by Whites) - and is mentioned (even "accepted") by the Jewish Torah, Christian Bible, and Islam's Koran... the idea that "slavery" is a "moral abomination" is relatively NEW in human history, and runs counter to religious dogma that was in place for millennia before...

NO! That is not a pro-slavery argument! That is a recognition that we HUMANS are constantly trying to improve ourselves... sometimes we make "progress", and sometimes not so much... but from that societal perspective, would we believe the same if the South had won the US Civil War and there was still a Confederacy?

@raphjd said in NYC Dem councilwoman is racist against latinos:

@bi4smooth

But, you voted for Biden and support every CCP/DNC policy.

You are NOT a Reagan Repub. You are the complete opposite.

The only Repubs you like are Pelosi's whores.

@raphjd the mind reader strikes again... oops, forgot a word in there...

@raphjd the mind reader strikes out again...

I actually campaigned for Reagan in 1980 and 1984! Someplace in my garage, I still have much of that campaign stiuff: buttons, stickers, a scarf, maybe a hat...

I supported Bush in 88, but didn't campaign for him - I was too busy working!

But of course, @raphjd knows that better than me! he's had me under surveillance since 1980!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

@raphjd said in UK liberal media reporting on health issues:

I don't know - "too much freedom" can be daunting. In the 1970's and 1980's there were a number of Soviet dissidents that made it to the US as political refugees.... they were unable to function in a simple grocery store. How do you choose between 50 different kinds of toilet paper, when you've only known ONE? Or breakfast cereals?

The point here isn't that freedom is bad - only that it can be overwhelming... and stressful!

I have seen this in some of my own children when they first move away from home. They thought they were prepared, but then they have to remember to pay the rent, the power, the water, the insurance, the garbage, the cable, the Internet, the credit cards... ALL THOSE BILLS! Then you also have to make your own Dr & dentist appointments, AND schedule the time off from work, AND convince your boss you're not "playing hookie" AND deal with / plan for the reduction of income because you're not working all of your regular shifts... and and and!

It's overwhelming at first... but you adjust (I refer to it as "Adulting 101")

But adding stress DOES often result in cardiac issues... but that doesn't mean all stress is bad!

Suicide rates SKYROCKET around the holidays... but that doesn't mean we cancel Christmas!

@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth
Being straight or gay is not a "lifestyle" and if you think that you are still pretending to be something and not being yourself.

Your vocabulary is insufficient here... perhaps you're confusing "lifestyle" with "orientation" or "desire"??? I don't know - but:

A "lifestyle" is how you choose to live... and that means it's a way of BEHAVING. I am trying to live a more active lifestyle as part of my "healthy living" initiative... that means I choose to do more active things: like walking and riding my new bicycle!

When I have been in relationships (including a 15-year marriage to one) with women, I have chosen to only have sex with them! That's a monogamous, straight, lifestyle! Straight in that I only had sex with women, or more grammatically correct: a woman! THAT woman! It does NOT mean I lost my attraction to men - or other women, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in a relationship!

Likewise, when I have been (as I am currently) in a relationship with a man, I chose (and currently choose) to only have sex with him! That's a monogamous, gay, lifestyle! Gay in that I only had (have) sex with men (him)! It doesn't mean I have lost my attraction to women - or to other men, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in this relationship!

There have been other times in my life that I've chosen to be monogamous... as well as times I have chosen NOT to be... But never - since the age of 12, and I first came to terms with the fact that I was neither gay nor straight - have I deluded myself into thinking my attraction to other people could be controlled or changed. This is the way "my wiring" works, and I'm fine with it.

My sexual desires (fantasies) do not change when I'm in a relationship - only my chosen behavior does! If you behave the same in a relationship as you did before the relationship, then that's you - and you should be you. But I'm glad I AM NOT dating you!

Or, perhaps you are of the misguided belief that my ex-wife didn't know I was pan-sexual? Before we even dated, much less had sex, got married, had kids, adopted more kids, and later got divorced!

Or, perhaps you thought I somehow hid my NINE CHILDREN and their mother from my former fiance? Or even my current boyfriend?

Or, maybe you, as so many others - ESPECIALLY GAY MEN, in my personal experience - want to force my sexual orientation into one of your neat & tidy little labels.

Mind you - I'm not saying I can (or do) choose to be straight or gay... it's not a "binary" equation!

I AM pansexual: my physical attraction goes either way, and my emotional attraction to someone does not depend on their sexual equipment! I have no difficulty being satisfied - sexually and emotionally - by a woman (as evidenced by a 15-year faithful marriage to one!); nor do I have any difficulty doing the same with a man (as evidenced by the 5-year relationship with a man - one that ended in tragedy, not divorce).

But more importantly, I am describing ME, and ONLY ME!

I do not have the HUBRIS (or gall!) to tell others what THEY should do! While I may be perfectly fine spending 15 years with a woman, and forsaking all others - including (especially?) men - while I was in that marriage; that doesn't mean YOU would (or should) be!
I might be equally fine trading in a wife for a husband... but that doesn't mean YOU should (or could) be!
I might be fine living monogamously when I'm in a relationship! But, that doesn't mean YOU should (or have to) be!

Maybe that is why you think of the government as your parent telling you how you should live your life.

You've got the wrong straw-man, my friend... I am no friend of big-government! As I've stated in another thread, I'm just as much against the NY Governor mandating masks in her State as I am against the FL Governor prohibiting mask requirements in his State! The pandemic's effects are not evenly distributed - and the best place to make decisions like that is in the LOCAL governments!

If NYC (or Jackonville, FL) is having a COVID-19 outbreak, they should be allowed to enact a local mask mandate, and to lift it when the danger passes. But the folks in Lake Placid (or Lake Panasoffkee) shouldn't have to mask up because there is an outbreak hundreds of miles away!

Now, if your stance is that we shouldn't have any kind of public-health response to COVID-19 - just let people do what they want to do - well, that's just anarchy... and I'm not an anarchist. We DO need SOME rules, otherwise society breaks down.

Again, my personally: I'd rather local mask mandates on an as-needed basis than a national (or state) wide vaccine mandate! But the vaccine question takes us back to the "your private employer is not the same as the government" argument.

The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!

Want simpler answers? Go back to 2nd Grade! This is real-world stuff... this shit gets complicated FAST!

To hear some folks on this forum describe things, elections workers are some of the dumbest, most east to fool people on the planet!

Why, just steal a bunch of ballots, or print your own, stick them in the mail, and Bob's Your Uncle, you've swayed the election!

Truth be told, these folks are a lot smarter than you think... to wit:

• 3 nit-wits in Florida have been arrested in recent weeks for vote fraud (source)
• One of them voted in Fla and also in NY; another in Fla and in MI (news flash: even though they're independent, the elections offices in the different states share voter info!) - SLAM! Felony! (2020 will be the LAST election they vote in for a while: in Fla, felons cannot vote!)
• One of them voted in person AND by absentee ballot (news flash: the ballots are coded! When you vote in person, the ballot they give you is recorded. When they mail you a ballot, the ballot they give you is recorded! They get two from you, and - SLAM! Felony!

All 3 appear to have been Trump supporters (2 are registered Republicans, the 3rd is registered with no party affiliation)

The problem here is, when you have the President of the US telling you HOW EASY it is to commit vote fraud, you get folks like these who hear that crap and believe it (i.e. don't see it as political posturing, but as reality!) Then - of course, since it's so easy - they decide to help out their candidate as best they can! By doing that easy thing: voting multiple times.

Except those claims that vote fraud is easy are LIES!

The people who run our elections are professionals who don't just do this once every 4 years! They run elections (state and local offices - my area even votes for who gets to run the volunteer fire department!) multiple times, in multiple jurisdictions, every year! The Presidential ones just have more press (and more people who participate!)

These 3 people are NOT a statistical anomaly - there is some level of attempted fraud every election! The point is, our professional Supervisors of Elections have policies and procedures in place that CATCH them! EVEN when multiple States are involved!

And because they get caught so often, the numbers of people ATTEMPTING to defraud the system gets lower and lower most elections...

Long story short: our elections are run by seasoned professionals, and the results are accurate. Trump really did lose - legitimately!

Oh! And one more thing: vote fraud is non-partisan! Just as many fraudulent attempts to vote happen in support of Dem candidates as Republican ones! So you liberal nannies (ninnies) out there who want to "make hay" about the fact that these 3 happened to support Trump? Be careful throwing stones! There are Democrats who are this DUMB too!

@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth
No not at all. Does Bi 4 smooth mean you are a married man who like boys?

I used the name bi4smooth because:

• throughout my life, I have been self-described as bisexual, omnisexual, and pansexual... in 2008, when I created this account, I guess I was in a "bi" phase...
• The reality of my sexual proclivities... is none of your damned business?!?!
• I have been married once (to a woman) and engaged one other time (to a man)... in a cruel twist of fate, my ex-wife survives to this day, while my ex-fiance was taken from me before our marriage (by a medical mis-diagnosis)...

Since you are so intensely interested in my sex life, let me add:

• when I was married (to a woman), I led a "straight" lifestyle... as-in, I did not cheat on my wife (except in my fantasies)
• when I was engaged (to a man) I led a "gay" lifestyle.... as-in, I did not cheat on my man (except in my fantasies)
• 2 years ago, as I was single, I was open to dating men or women
• as-of a little over a year ago, I've been dating a man. Even though we're not "committed", I am currently monogamous with him (except in my fantasies)

@eobox91103 said in USA! USA! #1 USA!:

@bi4smooth I do indeed get the joke...but it would have been just the same if the caption had read "chemistry team" instead of "math team." This makes one wonder why someone would put on an erroneous caption, when the real one would work just fine. It reminds us to check the veracity of graffiti on the electronic superhighway.

Maybe - just maybe - they didn't know where the pic came from originally? I mean, if you have the idea for the "meme", you generally just look thru pics to find the right one! Or, it works the other way - you see the pic and the meme/caption just comes to you!

Still over-thinking this!!

Talk about over-cooking the soup!

The original post was supposed to be a joke - an attempt to create an Internet Meme!

The validity of the picture or the caption isn't at issue... it's supposed to be funny that America beat the Chinese, but "had to use Chinese immigrants" to do it!

HARDY HAR HAR HAR!

OK, so the racist humor was lost on you... but at least recognize that it was never intended to be more than a joke?

@geobear40 said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

@bi4smooth
Well then Lord Bi4smooth has spoken. Science is settled until his Royal highness Fauci who is science changes again.

Thanks for the title, but I must refuse... the US doesn't recognize peerage, except when traveling to foreign countries where it is practiced.

(Sarcasm alert!)

If the ability to apply critical thinking to random posts that clearly are false and/or misleading is threatening to you, well I'm sorry...

@geobear40 said in NYC Dem councilwoman is racist against latinos:

@bi4smooth
You have drink the Kool-Aid.

I bet you are a RINO.

Yeah, I've been faking being a registered Republican since 1980, when I first voted for Reagan... been faking it in every election (presidential or otherwise), voting Republican probably 80-90% of the time? since then...

That sure sounds like a RINO to me!

(Sarcasm alert!)

@boltvolts said in Racism of Low Expectations:

I lived in Oregon for 20 years before coming to Italy. The mentality of Oregonians is interesting. Hyper-right-wing groups exist in most of the geography of the state, but population centers in Eugene, Salem, and Portland along with some low-population coastal centers swing politics hard left.

Eugene was the destination of Haight-Ashbury hippie culture, ported there by the Green Tortoise bus line from Lowell, just outside Eugene. I had a home in Lowell overlooking the lake and the old Green Tortoise bus depot.

San Francisco pressured hippies out, and there was a steady stream of buses going from SF to Eugene. The Grateful Dead and abundant marijuana culture, tie-dye, and the rest came along for the ride. Funny... those hippies are now the white-collar group, and advancing "norms" that take one back to the 60's in the need to fight the "establishment".

Along comes our lesbian friend and governor, but since her governership took hold in Oregon, both sides of the fence are universally lamenting the extent of absence of presence in decision making from Salem ever since. Nothing much there makes sense.

Oregon is not that different, then, than - for example - Florida: if you're within 20-30 miles of the coast, you're most-likely a centrist or democrat. However, once you get into the interior, the Republicans rule with an iron-fist!

There are some exceptions: Miami-Dade is relatively even, thanks to the Cuban-Americans who favor Republican politics in general.

@boltvolts said in NYC Dem councilwoman is racist against latinos:

@bi4smooth Again, your utter disrespect with a hair trigger is worse than absurd, but self revealing, and knows no bounds. The Latin legal concept of "is repsa loquitor" has never been more appropriate.

The term conspiracy theory is excessively utilized, becoming not only cliché but annoying. One can easily dismiss any sort of opposing viewpoint as conspiracy theory, straight out of propagandist's playbooks.

Had the labor revolution where worker rights became protected by unions needed at the time were attempted today, mistreatment of workers would be conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry, but the idea that some secret cabal is secretly monopolizing and controlling the world from behind-the-scenes because they're obscenely rich is, to my mind, a text-book case of a conspiracy theory!

I understand your point... if you don't accept the premise of an underlying argument, almost any opposing viewpoint can be considered a conspiracy theory... but I didn't use that term "loosely"....

For example, I don't consider the "Trump lost because of vote fraud" to be a "conspiracy theory" - it's just a lie! They proposed an idea and suggested that they had proof... and that proof never materialized! Some (like Pillow-Man) continue to claim that they have NEW information that confirms "the Big Steal" - but it never materializes, and it's not a conspiracy - because they're not proposing that "it's secret" and "there's nothing you can DO about it" - they're using it to advertise their "traveling show" of ultra-right-wing propaganda tours... it's a LIE not a conspiracy theory!

@subhypnopup said in Can't seed anymore! uTorrent says offline timed out for each torrent I was seeding!:

I'm not seeing an offline/timeout, but I recently joined and downloaded two torrents, and neither of them appear to be seeding at all. There are peers connected but nothing is being uploaded even though I am trying to seed and have a better ratio. Am able to see the backend linked above, so that does not appear to be part of the problem. Help?

So there are multiple connections going on here:

• your client has to successfully register to the tracker (that's the connection I think you're seeing)
• the tracker then has to provide your information to leechers (your IP address and port - where you TOLD the tracker you were...)
• some leecher has to actually GET that info from the tracker
• some leecher then has to connect to you!

It is a common misconception that all connections go through the tracker... they do not.

It is a common misconception that the ability to register with the tracker = the ability to seed content... it does not!

If I have read your statement correctly, you can register your seeding torrent with the tracker, but no one is ever leeching from you... in which case, I would check your connectivity... you have to be reachable (by others) at the IP address and port number you provided to the tracker...

In the "old days" that always meant getting/setting the port number in the client, opening the firewall on your system for that port, and then configuring a port forward in your router to "static nat" port-forward that port on your router to your system.

Modern routers and modern torrent clients have a way to manage that automagically - and if you use a VPN (like NordVPN), the VPN client can often do that too...