Jump to content

Seeker

Admin
  • Posts

    7,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    196

Seeker last won the day on November 6 2020

Seeker had the most liked content!

Reputation

1,280 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere; (only the shadow knows)

Recent Profile Visitors

7,722 profile views
  1. Yeah, if you don't have 10K rounds for each caliber you own you're severely under-supplied.
  2. NIcely played. In my defence I will say that I never said I didn't think it to be true only that I didn't trust the source. The upside is that you have fallen into my trap - to get you to read right-leaning news sources.
  3. It depends who's reporting the smoke. Just in case it needs to be re-iterated; I think Trump was a poor choice for President - just marginally better than Clinton. Trump did a few things really well, a lot of things very poorly but was severely mistreated by the MSM in almost every case. I'm not defending Trump bad rather pointing out that every thing he did was characterized as evil, substandard and uncouth by the MSM so how can you trust them with any story about him?
  4. I don't trust Trump much, not very much at all but it's still more than I trust the Washington Post to report on Trump. The Washington Post is a left-leaning organization that has publically supported the last nine Democratic presidential candidates. Getting your news about Trump from the Washington Post is like getting a review of the new GMC Sierra from your local Ford dealer.
  5. The source is the reporting. Of course it's all "true" - carefully chosen timeframes, specific, narrow comparisons, omitting awkward facts, etc, etc. All the tricks being used - black is white, up is down.
  6. Really? Three left-leaning sources that call Harper "the worst PM - ever!" and this is supposed to carry some value? Even worse is that all three articles are from 2015 - before Trudeau. Why bother? I could post 147 articles from right-leaning sources calling Trudeau the "worst" PM ever! Would you be convinced to change your mind?
  7. 1.) I agree with 4 out of the 5. 2.) Who gets to decide what constitutes "hate speech?" 3.) Can you trust the government to do anything right?
  8. Wow! New respect for the French;
  9. Wow, talk about being out-of-touch. The loss of "even one job" in the journalism field is a tragedy while the loss of 10,000 jobs in retail, transportation or the oil field and nothing but crocadile tears.
  10. On a personal note; my wife escaped from a communist country. I played the Maher clip for her - no surprise, she rolled her eyes and said - "that's a bad idea!"
  11. Public funding for abortion clinics while having open borders "because the birth rate is too low and we need population growth." Isn't that like trying to get your truck pulled out of the ditch while having the park brake set?
  12. Nope, not enough stuttering, ummms and ahhhs. (also he never says; "from coast to coast to coast." or "we've got your back")
  13. From the first linked article: But some of her most notable findings have since drawn the heaviest scrutiny. In recent years, Dr Shi began experimenting on bat coronaviruses by genetically modifying them to see how they behave. In 2017, she and her colleagues at the Wuhan lab published a paper about an experiment in which they created new hybrid bat coronaviruses by mixing and matching parts of several existing ones — including at least one that was nearly transmissible to humans — in order to study their ability to infect and replicate in human cells. I'm no expert but that sure sounds like "gain of function" to me. also: The picture has been complicated by new questions about whether US government funding that went to Dr Shi’s work supported controversial gain-of-function research. The Wuhan institute received around $600,000 in grant money from the US government, through an American nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance. So, to review, she and the lab were doing experiments to modify and study how bat viruses could be made to infect and replicate in human cells but they didn't call it gain of function. The lab did receive $600,000 from the US government but it wasn't specifically earmarked for gain of function. Dr. Shi says that she, and the lab, did nothing wrong but the Chinese government refuses to allow an investigation (not that anything useful could be discovered a year after). Nothing proven but, personally, I know what I believe.
  14. Yeah, not going to provide links to peer-reviewed papers. I will tell you what I believe though; 1.) The virus came from the Wuhan lab. I'm an Occam's Razor, where-there's-smoke-there's-fire kinda guy. For a bat virus to show up 1000 miles away from the bat's habitat but on the doorstep of an Institute where they are actively studying bat viruses and it not be connected - come on. 2.) The lab was studying gain-of-function. It's obvious. 3.) The USA, through Fauci, funded the gain-of-function and he knew about it. 4.) Fauci is doing a "Clinton" when he says he didn't fund the gain-of-function. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Turns out Clinton had a different definition of "sexual relations". Fauci says; "I did not fund gain-of-function". I expect the end result will be that he has a "different" definition of "funding". He gave a grant to one organization who in turn gave a grant to Wuhan. Fauci will get away with it because he'll claim he knew nothing about the second grant. I think you'd have to pretty naive not to see that Fauci, knew about it, funded it and maybe even was the person who set it up in the first place. I find his fake outrage at being called out on this to be hilarious - well, it would be hilarious if it didn't kill millions of people. I'm not even against the idea of gain-of-function research. The idea of studying viruses to learn how they mutate and how to deal with them seems solid. In this case, however, someone caused or allowed to happen a leak and that's what we are dealing with. It could even be some lowly member of the cleaning staff who took a shortcut or tried to make a few bucks by selling something not knowing the risks. Who should get tagged with the error and/or how to divide the responsibility is beyond me.
×
×
  • Create New...