[johnforbes]

As Birx admitted, people who die WITH virus are being classified as having died BECAUSE of it.

As some states cure these flaws, both Colorado and PA have lowered by several hundred their covid death counts.

[sillydaddy]

It's about the money of course...
The pandemic may be classified as a disaster in every state.
thus qualifying for FEMA assistance which includes funeral expense assistance...
So everyone is looking for their cut of the pie..!

[elklindo69]

You mean states like Kentucky...Silly?

So how long has the federal government been bailing out Kentucky?

[sillydaddy]

Elk...What are you whining about now..?
You still haven't received your Trump stimulus check?

[johnforbes]

Elkin should know Kentucky is a commonwealth, but he flunked civics too.

[RealJustme]

The inflated COVID-19 death numbers were obviously inflated, right from the get go. I suspect 70% or more of New York's deaths weren't caused by COVID-19. The office of vital statistics is showing that there has been no increases in overall deaths this time of year over 2019 or 2018. I suspect Obama and new world order are behind this attempt to reform the world to their agenda.

[Clownkicker]

"The office of vital statistics is showing that there has been no increases in overall deaths this time of year over 2019 or 2018."-RealStupid

Sadly, RealTool is making up stupid shit again.

"Over the 31 days ending April 4, more than twice the typical number of New Yorkers died.

That total for the city includes deaths directly linked to the novel coronavirus as well as those from other causes, like heart attacks and cancer. Even this is only a partial count; we expect this number to rise as more deaths are counted.

These numbers contradict the notion that many people who are dying from the new virus would have died shortly anyway. And they suggest that the current coronavirus death figures understate the real toll of the virus, either because of undercounting of coronavirus deaths, increases in deaths that are normally preventable, or both."-New York Times

"The recent numbers are most likely an undercount. Even in normal times, death certificates take time to be processed and collected, and complete death tallies can take weeks to become final. This is especially true for cases involving coronavirus. “Covid deaths all have to be manually coded,” said Bob Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics, adding that death counts from New York City typically lag actual deaths by 10 or 11 days.

But even if the current count is perfect, roughly 9,780 people have died of all causes over the past month in New York City, about 5,000 more than is typical.

The numbers for the last two weeks of the period are even more stark: nearly 7,000 dead, more than three times as many deaths as would normally be expected this time of year."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -city.html

Take a look at the charts included in that article, Tool. Even YOU should be able to see the radical increase in deaths in the form of a towering red line.

Now don't you feel stupid?

[johnforbes]

Joe Biden must feel stupid for criticizing Trump when he closed down travel from China in late January.

NY would have been far, far worse had Trump not made that decision, and he was the sole person in the meeting who wanted to close off China that way.

[sillydaddy]

The media couldn't wait to report that Texas
had the one day highest jump in Covid19 cases the day after they began to open up the state...
Well, it turns out the " powers that be" just happened to release, on that same day..
the number of positive cases they were holding from an old batch of 30K tests....

It seems fraud has been occurring in the filing of unemployment claims..
the fake claims are being filed by organized criminals using hacked SSNs from people that never filed...
The FBI has been working on this for weeks but the mainstream media has been ignoring it...
That tells me, the actual unemployment numbers are lower than the media loves to report...!

[Clownkicker]

"Joe Biden must feel stupid for criticizing Trump when he closed down travel from China in late January.
NY would have been far, far worse had Trump not made that decision, and he was the sole person in the meeting who wanted to close off China that way."-johnfibs

johnny, the China restrictions had little effect on New York one way or the other. There aren't nearly as many flights from China into New York as there are from Europe.

New York got hit so hard because Trump didn't do anything about restrictions on Europe until a month later--way too late to curb the damage, despite the fact that he had been warned about it. His racism made him react (though still too late) to the threat from China, while he ignored Europe because they were largely white people.

Donald Trump must feel stupid because his policies were so ineffective largely because of his racism.

But it did give him and his toady followers (like johnforbes) their sole 'positive' talking point as a droning response to Trump's many other failures.

[johnforbes]

When Trump did close off from China at the end of January, the media dolts did indeed call him xenophobic and racist.

But it was Biden, and his sycophants such as Clown, who were wrong.

[Clownkicker]

So you actually think Trump was absolutely right to close off the west coast from the virus but at the same time he was right to leave the east coast wide open to the virus from hard-hit Europe for another month?

That's just idiotic, johnny. "Trump idiotic"

[johnforbes]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm reading The Spendid and the Vile this month. Interesting book.

By the way, my staffers are assembling a collection of my posts and Clowns's -- The Splendid and the Bile.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you support all Trump's moves without criticism. Not once have you criticized him but you have been a constant and vocal supporter.

Thus, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm simply saying what you lack the balls to say, being your typical Trump-supporting castrato.

[johnforbes]

Per contra, on a recent thread I noted that Trump had gotten off to a slow start on coronavirus, just as Obama did on his outbreak, and just as Fauci and the WHO and the Surgeon General did.

Fauci said Feb 17 that the risk was small.

On Feb 24, Pelois strolled Chinatown and urged others to visit.

At the end of March, both the WHO and the Surgeon General said masks were not needed.

[sillydaddy]

johnny, you support all Trump's moves without criticism. Not once have you criticized him but you have been a constant and vocal supporter.

Clown..the same thing could be said about you and the jug-eared Muslim with his tranny wife..!

[Clownkicker]

No, dummy, the same thing COULDN'T be said about me.

One of the first things Obama did was sign an even worse version of the PATRIOT Act than Bush shoved up our asses. I immediately told all you idiots that that was a terrible thing to do to America.

Then, when Obama knuckled under and signed a Republican/insurance industry health care bill instead of holding out for a single payer system, I also told you that it was a terrible thing for America. Those were two of Obama's earliest signature acts and I told you many times they were bad for America. I'm not a partisan hack the way you and RealTool are.

The trouble with imbeciles like you and johnforbes is you are so partisan you can't criticize your own party or your own guy when he does something really stupid and bad for America. I do.

When you finally understand that Trump doesn't give a fuck about America or you (and his every word and action proves it) maybe you will get a clue and realize he is systematically destroying America ON PURPOSE. His attorney Michael Cohen told you that Trump ran for office "to make his brand great, not to make America great." "Mr. Trump would often say "This campaign was going to be the greatest infomercial in political history.""

Well, at least he told the truth that time.

Trump is using you for his own aims, sillydummy. And your handlers are using you because they know you can be counted on to be a reactionary partisan drone. But they are not your friends. Wake up, fer cripes sake.

[johnforbes]

The great thing about this is that both Barry and Clown are jug-eared.

On a positive note, Clownslacker can use his ears as sails on a windy day and conserve energy.

[elklindo69]

Johnnie....it's stupid people like yourself and the people who you vote for have to ruin it for everybody.

[johnforbes]

Elkin, please don't humiliate yourself.

I could give away 60 IQ points to a passing stranger and still beat you on Jeopardy like a red-headed stepchild.

[Clownkicker]

Once again johnforbes demonstrates his stupidity by confusing IQ with being smart.

If johnforbes had ever been to college he would understand that some of the stupidest people one could ever encounter have IQs over 130.



(Now we will all witness johnforbes return here once more and prove to us that what I just said is true.)

[sillydaddy]

IQ and smarts, eh..!
Clown gets by on his gook looks....I meant good looks..!

[Clownkicker]

Yeah, makes you wonder how sillydummy gets by without good looks or IQ.

Oh yeah, he lives off government largess; social security, medicare, and veterans benefits.

Without all that socialism he would be destitute.

[johnforbes]

Social Security, the title II part, requires quarters of coverage.

Ditto Medicare.

Veterans benefits require a person to serve.

These are not examples of socialism.

If you delimit the discussion to title XVI, then you would be able to argue the point.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, they are both programs owned and run by the government.

That makes them socialist programs by definition. Payments or other qualifying requirements into a particular system does not stop them from being socialist, dimwit.

You're arguing with the DICTIONARY fer cripes sake.

Go look it up, read the definition, then come back and apologize.

You're welcome, by the way. You may learn something here yet after a lifetime of wilful ignorance.

[johnforbes]

No, there are plenty of examples of socialist programs.

You are correct about that, for sure.

For example, if you said title 16 of SS (federalized welfare), that would be right.

But not the ones you need quarters of coverage for, like RIB or DIB, and vet benefits go to vets -- not just anybody.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, there is no requirement that benefits go to everyone equally for it to be socialist.

If the program is owned and run by the government, it is socialist.

That covers the entirety of Social Security payouts and the entirety of veterans benefits.

[sillydaddy]

In another post snakeoil was bitching about the government not giving the military the benefits they're due.
and here is Clown calling veterans socialists because they take the benefits...

As for SS..it starts out as a deduction from a worker's pay. matched by a "deduction" from his employer's profits.

[Clownkicker]

"...and here is Clown calling veterans socialists because they take the benefits... "-sillydummy

Exactly, that's what I am saying. You are a socialist. It's how you survive. As a capitalist, you would be dead by now.
(By the way, your shit-eating grin was not a rebuttal of my point, was it.)

It's very rare that anything factual gets through the thick skull of a Republican drone like sillydummy, but I lived to see the day.


"As for SS..it starts out as a deduction from a worker's pay. matched by a "deduction" from his employer's profits."-sillydummy

Those "deductions" (taxes) pay for current recipients, not for your future benefits, silly. They are a tax on employers and employees to fund a government program.

No one has a personal account with their contributions in it. And if they did, then the retirement payments would stop when the money ran out. But they don't stop because someone else is paying for your benefits, which most often add up to many times what the contributor paid in as taxes while working.

Regardless of how clueless conservatives are about social security and veterans benefits, they are still programs that are owned and run by the government and are paid for through taxes. That makes them socialist programs, by definition.

[johnforbes]

No, they are contributory programs, which makes them entitlement programs v eligibility ones like welfare.

[elklindo69]

Those entitlement programs (social security) which are contributory are socialist in nature because it is MANDATORY.

This is not like some kind of retirement program which you can voluntarily participate in....the government makes you do it. They take money from you and use it to pay someone else. (PAYGO). That's socialism.

Conservatives don't like calling social security a socialist program because they like to portray themselves as capitalists. Now conservatives support social security just like liberals, but conservatives just go out and find any excuse to claim that it's not a socialist program.

[johnforbes]

Yes, under certain circumstances, it is mandatory, but it is a contributory entitlement program.

What that means is that, if you have the requisite quarters of coverage (see 20 CFR 404.101 et seq.), and meet other requirements, you have a right to benefits and can pursue them in federal court if need be.

For example, historically many teachers were not covered by SS, and that was also the case under the old CSRS for federal employees (but not the current FERS).

There are many examples of socialism, but the title II part of SS is not one.

You don't get vet benefits just as an American citizen; you have to meet conditions of service.

The federalization of welfare which commenced Jan 1, 1974 is the sort of example Clown should be adducing.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, your repeatedly admitting that those "entitlement programs" are owned and run by the government does not help your ignorant argument that they are not socialist programs, does it.

But in fact johnforbes knows that they are indeed socialist programs because I made him look up the work in a dictionary.

Now, in a desperate attempt to sound like he was right and I was wrong, he starts shoveling irrelevant bullshit onto the board about socialist "entitlement" programs, as if socialist programs that are "entitlements" are magically not socialist.

Sorry, dimwit, but they are. They're socialist programs whether you paid into them or didn't pay into them.

You just can't wriggle out of that truth with more irrelevant bullshit.

[johnforbes]

Kidding aside, I know a great deal about these programs, and the distinction between entitlement and eligibility, though lost on the audience here, is a crucial one.

Clown is wrong, but it is no big deal because there are plenty of socialist programs.

SS and VA don't happen to be them.

Clown is the Eddie Haskell of this forum.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, who owns and runs the VA?

Who owns and runs SS?

You may know the differences between one socialist program and another socialist program, but just because one is "contributory" or "entitlement" or "eligibility" doesn't change the fact that they are all owned and run by the government (and paid for by taxes.)

I don't understand why you keep yammering on when you fail to address that one fundamental and insurmountable fact.

They are socialist programs. Period.

Anything else you say is just because you like hearing yourself babble irrelevant nonsense.

[elklindo69]

A core principle of socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Any government program which redistributes wealth is socialistic. For social security, it is not a voluntary program. You don't have your own interest bearing personal account where you make deposits and withdraw at a later date with an account balance that is predicated based upon investment returns and deposits.

With social security they take your money and give it to someone else. That is the redistribution of wealth, socialism.

No matter how you try to redefine it or repackage it to meet your own pet theory. Any government program which is redistributing wealth is socialism.

[johnforbes]

You are right in regard to the title XVI part of the SS law.

And there are plenty of examples of socialism if a person wants to argue that case.

But the argument doesn't apply to title II, or to the VA.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, "the argument" you are referring to has nothing to do with MY argument.

My argument is that ALL of SS and ALL of the VA are socialist programs by definition.

Your continuing irrelevant bullshit that you keep trying to distract us with doesn't change that fact.

Even your $200,000 handout for your 'farm' that you have nothing to do with is socialist. You are a proud, loudmouthed American hypocrite.

I hope you choke on it.

[johnforbes]

Clown, I wasn't trying to be rude.

Your assertion was just wrong (as noted).

[Clownkicker]

Only it isn't wrong, is it. You couldn't refute a thing I said.

You can look it up in the dictionary if you ever cared enough to improve yourself. But you don't, and you won't.

[johnforbes]

No, I gave you enough info for you to correct your conceptual errors.

On the other hand, it isn't surprising that you don't have the technical expertise to understand fully why your assessment of those programs was wrong.

But you are correct that there are plenty of examples of socialism -- just not those.