Jump to content

Origin of Covid-19


statsman

Recommended Posts

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Maybe if an incoming president and his cronies hadn’t promised retribution and reprisals this wouldn’t have happened. 

Yeah until and unless Trump and Trumpism pass into faded memory, this is what we've got.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

When has that ever happened?

 

Been asleep since Watergate? Every president has blamed the outgoing president for everything bad and then things like Clinton impeachment hearings, Bush impeachment hearings (Wexler and Kucinich - 2008), Trump impeachment hearings... Retaliation has been the name of the game for well over 50 years. There is only a pause when the same party holds the presidency and the legislative branch.

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Been asleep since Watergate? Every president has blamed the outgoing president for everything bad and then things like Clinton impeachment hearings, Bush impeachment hearings (Wexler and Kucinich - 2008), Trump impeachment hearings...

Point me to any time any of those incoming administrations promised retribution against the prior officers etc.?

 

ETA - Clinton and Trump were impeached while in office. For conduct—during their term in office. 

 

 

IMG_9282.gif

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

 

Been asleep since Watergate? Every president has blamed the outgoing president for everything bad and then things like Clinton impeachment hearings, Bush impeachment hearings (Wexler and Kucinich - 2008), Trump impeachment hearings...

No president has ever threatened to prosecute his enemies from a past administration.  Impeachment is a different deal altogether; it's not criminal, it happens during the administration; it's inherently political.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I’m going  to regret asking this. 
 

How does statutory immunity for vaccine makers have anything to do with this reference?

my OP said this: "...it's just a spectrum of the agency problem I guess. I mean, I disagree and don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it or care more than just notate it on a messageboard."

and then the guy responded thinking I was talking about the federal agency, so I responded back that I was actually referencing a well known business issue and linked it above if he wanted to read up on it.

Now, delving into my personal opinion which is what I think you were asking: I think that providing a quasi-mandate (and full mandate in other areas like aforementioned armed services and healthcare) by putting a biologic into your body and NOT allowing for legal remedy to the manufacturer's or enforcement is on the spectrum of the problem.

Quote

The principal–agent problem refers to the conflict in interests and priorities that arises when one person or entity (the "agent") takes actions on behalf of another person or entity (the "principal").[1] The problem worsens when there is a greater discrepancy of interests and information between the principal and agent, as well as when the principal lacks the means to punish the agent

Is the definition and if you interpret that the agent is the organization enforcing vaccinations (and as an extension the manufacturer of vaccinations) and the princpal (those who do not want the vaccination), you see there is a problem when there is a lack of means to punish the agent for any ill consequences.

You can argue that it was (and is) a necessary mandate and that a utilitarnianism philosophy should reign supreme here, but I think there is reasonable arguements to be made in the realm of ethiical egoism, bodily autonomy, libertarianism, etc.

I'm not taking a stance really here except to just say as I did in the OP: "Wow, those service members just got back pay and reinstatement for sticking to their guns, the odds and gamble they took to get here was like if the gamblers you hear about hitting a parlay" to paraphrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

my OP said this: "...it's just a spectrum of the agency problem I guess. I mean, I disagree and don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it or care more than just notate it on a messageboard."

and then the guy responded thinking I was talking about the federal agency, so I responded back that I was actually referencing a well known business issue and linked it above if he wanted to read up on it.

Now, delving into my personal opinion which is what I think you were asking: I think that providing a quasi-mandate (and full mandate in other areas like aforementioned armed services and healthcare) by putting a biologic into your body and NOT allowing for legal remedy to the manufacturer's or enforcement is on the spectrum of the problem.

Is the definition and if you interpret that the agent is the organization enforcing vaccinations (and as an extension the manufacturer of vaccinations) and the princpal (those who do not want the vaccination), you see there is a problem when there is a lack of means to punish the agent for any ill consequences.

You can argue that it was (and is) a necessary mandate and that a utilitarnianism philosophy should reign supreme here, but I think there is reasonable arguements to be made in the realm of ethiical egoism, bodily autonomy, libertarianism, etc.

I'm not taking a stance really here except to just say as I did in the OP: "Wow, those service members just got back pay and reinstatement for sticking to their guns, the odds and gamble they took to get here was like if the gamblers you hear about hitting a parlay" to paraphrase.

I guess I don’t understand you referring to the service member as the principal. In that scenario I understood the principal to be Congress and the agency to be the agent following its directive. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

my OP said this: "...it's just a spectrum of the agency problem I guess. I mean, I disagree and don't like it, but I'm not going to do anything about it or care more than just notate it on a messageboard."

and then the guy responded thinking I was talking about the federal agency, so I responded back that I was actually referencing a well known business issue and linked it above if he wanted to read up on it.

Now, delving into my personal opinion which is what I think you were asking: I think that providing a quasi-mandate (and full mandate in other areas like aforementioned armed services and healthcare) by putting a biologic into your body and NOT allowing for legal remedy to the manufacturer's or enforcement is on the spectrum of the problem.

Is the definition and if you interpret that the agent is the organization enforcing vaccinations (and as an extension the manufacturer of vaccinations) and the princpal (those who do not want the vaccination), you see there is a problem when there is a lack of means to punish the agent for any ill consequences.

You can argue that it was (and is) a necessary mandate and that a utilitarnianism philosophy should reign supreme here, but I think there is reasonable arguements to be made in the realm of ethiical egoism, bodily autonomy, libertarianism, etc.

I'm not taking a stance really here except to just say as I did in the OP: "Wow, those service members just got back pay and reinstatement for sticking to their guns, the odds and gamble they took to get here was like if the gamblers you hear about hitting a parlay" to paraphrase.

You've conflated a liability system designed to address disputes regarding responsibility for injuries with agency. They are not one and the same. The manufacturer isn't an agent and isn't acting under principles of agency. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Be more specific. A bullet pointed list. 

"Let me be clear – there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him" from holding office again, Schumer said Tuesday. "The next several months will be very, very busy and a very consequential period for the United States Senate. Let us begin our work in earnest."

April 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani/index.html

 

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I guess I don’t understand you referring to the service member as the principal. In that scenario I understood the principal to be Congress and the agency to be the agent following its directive. 

nah. The principal being the government/employer and the agent being the worker/armyman who has to capitulate via a mandate in opposition of their personal desires and beliefs or suffer a consequence (and further not having any legal remedy while also being at an information disparity and disadvantage).

But I get it, it was an emergency and in times of war and emergency, you do things you otherwise wouldn't (the poster before me mentioend habeas corpus), so resonable people can debate the different angles of it all when taking everything into context, IMO. There is rarely a clearly defined right answer and someone somewhere will be hurt or aggrieved no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You've conflated a liability system designed to address disputes regarding responsibility for injuries with agency. They are not one and the same. The manufacturer isn't an agent and isn't acting under principles of agency. 

Right, I mentioned that the manufacturers, by virtue of being subsidized and profiting from the mandates and being immune from any legal remedy, was an extension of the agency (and which is why I said the issue was on the spectrum of the agency-principle problem).

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

nah. The principal being the government/employer and the agent being the worker/armyman who has to capitulate via a mandate in opposition of their personal desires and beliefs or suffer a consequence (and further not having any legal remedy while also being at an information disparity and disadvantage).

That doesn’t make any sense either (in the context of the principal-agent problem). 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

Right, I mentioned that the manufacturer's, by virtue of being subsidized and profiting from the mandates and being immune from any legal remedy, was an extension of the agency (and which is why I said the issue was on the spectrum of the agency-principle problem).

I knew I’d regret asking the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You've conflated a liability system designed to address disputes regarding responsibility for injuries with agency. They are not one and the same. The manufacturer isn't an agent and isn't acting under principles of agency. The government is the agent and the citizens are the principal(s). 

Yeah, the only applicability I see is that principals often try to create incentives that backfire on them.

Congress in 1988 (maybe beforehand too, but the current statute is 1988) immunized vaccine manufacturers from civil suits except via vaccine injury panels.

So maybe that's an unnecessary incentive.  But mandatory vaccines aren't new either.  All sorts of state actors require you to be vaccinated for multiple diseases.

Good luck getting a manufacturer to fast-track a vaccine during a pandemic without immunity from suit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

nah. The principal being the government/employer and the agent being the worker/armyman who has to capitulate via a mandate in opposition of their personal desires and beliefs or suffer a consequence (and further not having any legal remedy while also being at an information disparity and disadvantage).

But I get it, it was an emergency and in times of war and emergency, you do things you otherwise wouldn't (the poster before me mentioend habeas corpus), so resonable people can debate the different angles of it all when taking everything into context, IMO. There is rarely a clearly defined right answer and someone somewhere will be hurt or aggrieved no matter what.

What does the liability of a third party (the manufacturer) have to do with this supposed agent-principal relationship? 

More importantly, your concern here in this scenario as you've defined it is about the ability of the agent to punish a principal? Normally, the problem is the principal's inability to punish an agent, not vice versa. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I knew I’d regret asking the question. 

Like I said, I'm not dying on that hill and I would never quit my job or the service because I'm not anti-vax in any shape or form, but I can see where if you were, you'd be annoyed.

Also, like I said, I think the gamble (as much as those service people cared or really thought they would be made whole one day) was such a crazy one that the odds to me were like someone hitting a 10 team parlay. But those guys and gals just hit it though based on what Trump said an hour ago, so what do I know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Samson's Wig said:

Agreed.  It's the bozos on those podcasts and AM radio programs constantly belittling education and experts that have caused Joe T. Dumbass to lose trust in the hard sciences.  I think evangelicalism plays an outsized role as well, but all of these kind of go hand in hand in terms of their target audience. 

brought to you by oil and tobacco companies. they've been poisoning not just the air you breathe but the media you consume for decades. back in 50s and 60s it was that smoking was good for you, by the 70s and 80s it was questioning (we're just asking questions!) whether the science behind tobacco causing cancer and the experts saying it did could be trusted, and that the lame steam media wasn't giving a fair shake to those who denied it. by the 90s and 2000s its whether fossil carbon was causing global warming using the same playbook. now they've bred generations of americans who think that anyone with any education is just out to get them and steal their freedom.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

"Let me be clear – there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him" from holding office again, Schumer said Tuesday. "The next several months will be very, very busy and a very consequential period for the United States Senate. Let us begin our work in earnest."

April 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani/index.html

 

image.gif.3d6f89c0ee0cbf3fe275a2858926a283.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

"Let me be clear – there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him" from holding office again, Schumer said Tuesday. "The next several months will be very, very busy and a very consequential period for the United States Senate. Let us begin our work in earnest."

April 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani/index.html

 

a) that quote isn't in that link

b) do you understand the difference between impeachment and criminal prosecution?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

a) that quote isn't in that link

b) do you understand the difference between impeachment and criminal prosecution?

The quote is from January 20 2021 about completing a trial for an impeachment that happened—duringTrump’s term in office—for conduct during that term. 
 

Bevo is about to go on ignore. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No president has ever threatened to prosecute his enemies from a past administration.  Impeachment is a different deal altogether; it's not criminal, it happens during the administration; it's inherently political.

 

24 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Tell me about 2021.

 

15 minutes ago, Bevo said:

"Let me be clear – there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him" from holding office again, Schumer said Tuesday. "The next several months will be very, very busy and a very consequential period for the United States Senate. Let us begin our work in earnest."

April 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani/index.html

 

When was Schumer president?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

The quote is from January 20 2021 about completing a trial for an impeachment that happened—duringTrump’s term in office—for conduct during that term. 
 

Bevo is about to go on ignore. 

You think these idiots are cognizant enough to understand the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We're not talking about impeachment or congressmen talking about impeachment, we're talking about the nominal head of the US DOJ threatening to weaponize the Department of Justice against his enemies.  Not political retribution.  Criminal.  Prosecution.

Yes, political retribution is common.  Criminal prosecution as political retribution is not.

You're not going to find a citation for that because it's never happened

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

The weaponization of the Department of Justice has happened but because it is inherently political people will disagree based on their political leanings. And congressmen have absolutely threatened criminal prosecution of their political enemies. Shit, right now Chuck Schumer announced that he and other Senate Democrats will work to advance legislation to strip former President Trump of the immunity he was granted under a recent Supreme Court ruling protecting a president’s official acts from criminal prosecution. And Congressman Bennie Thompson filed a federal suit against Trump. And six Democratic members of Congress sued Bush maintaining that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. And Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton over defamation. And those were actual lawsuits, not just threats.

This is how I know you have no idea what you’re talking about. 
 

Better to be…than …and remove all doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

"Let me be clear – there will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him" from holding office again, Schumer said Tuesday. "The next several months will be very, very busy and a very consequential period for the United States Senate. Let us begin our work in earnest."

April 2021

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/joe-biden-rudy-giuliani/index.html

 

Did you recently get hit on the head and forgot that president trump committed all kinds of actual criminal acts?

Or were you hit on the head as a child, in which case you have, my sympathy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Did you recently get hit on the head and forgot that president trump committed all kinds of actual criminal acts?

Or were you hit on the head as a child, in which case you have, my sympathy.

 

History says that the Justice Department has been weaponized previously and that Congressmen have sued presidents and friends and relatives of presidents for a long time. And I am saying this because @TwiceHorn challenged the idea after I stated: That's the crux of it isn't it? What would things look like today if a bunch of preemptive pardons were made by Trump when he left office the first time? What will things look like in the future when every president uses preemptive pardons and they become mainstream? I'm actually surprised @TwiceHorn is so cavalier and shortsighted in his thinking on the issue. And just for clarity on my opinion, I like Fauci.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

History says that the Justice Department has been weaponized previously and that Congressmen have sued presidents and friends and relatives of presidents for a long time. And I am saying this because @TwiceHorn challenged the idea after I stated: That's the crux of it isn't it? What would things look like today if a bunch of preemptive pardons were made by Trump when he left office the first time? What will things look like in the future when every president uses preemptive pardons and they become mainstream? I'm actually surprised @TwiceHorn is so cavalier and shortsighted in his thinking on the issue. And just for clarity on my opinion, I like Fauci.

How are private lawsuits and the weaponization of justice department related? You understand those are completely different things, right? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

History says that the Justice Department has been weaponized previously and that Congressmen have sued presidents and friends and relatives of presidents for a long time. And I am saying this because @TwiceHorn challenged the idea after I stated: That's the crux of it isn't it? What would things look like today if a bunch of preemptive pardons were made by Trump when he left office the first time? What will things look like in the future when every president uses preemptive pardons and they become mainstream? I'm actually surprised @TwiceHorn is so cavalier and shortsighted in his thinking on the issue. And just for clarity on my opinion, I like Fauci.

Sigh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How are private lawsuits and the weaponization of justice department related? You understand those are completely different things, right? 

The point is that targeting political enemies predates even Hoover. Andrew Jackson targeted his political enemies. And John Adams targeted political enemies through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It is not new and neither is a weaponized justice department, FBI, or any other federal agency. And private lawsuits filed by congressmen aren't made in a vacuum. And all of this is only tangentially related to the point that preemptive pardons set a bad precedent and will become the norm. If anyone wants to make a bet, I'll put $100 down that Trump will make preemptive pardons within 4 years. And I'll make another bet that someone on here will post that it is a travesty after Trump does it or even when the press indicates that Trump may do it.

 

Obama's Weaponized Justice Department

Cato Institute
https://www.cato.org
Oct 30, 2015 — In the last presidential debate, Governor Chris Christie asserted that the Obama administration was running a “political Justice Department,” basing its


Democrats' weaponization of the DOJ
Republican National Committee
https://gop.com
Aug 28, 2011 — Joe Biden and the Democrats are weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack commonsense election integrity laws.

Obama's Weaponization of Government
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › Opinion
Jan 31, 2014 — I scarcely think he cares at this point. A tired, graying Barack Obama stood before Congress this week as a political figure, party leader, and progressive ...

Courthouse News
https://www.courthousenews.com
The Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration took off the blindfold and aimed the sites of prosecution on Democratic officials, a panel of ...

 

 

 

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rename thread- The Politics of Covid.

Origins. Well it is simple. The Rand Corporation, and Space Nazis got together at Faucci's house one night. Damn Reverse Vampires brought some out of date cream cheese dip. They were all going to watch the Finale of Glee. The rest is history.

season 6 episode 10 GIF

We are all waiting on the upcoming documentary from Mr. X. Not Elon. He is one of the developers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This new preemptive pardon landscape is like no other in history.  No President has ever preemptively pardoned anyone.

Oh, wait, some have?  Including Gerald Ford's preemptive pardon of Richard Fucking Nixon?

Never mind. #gilda

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bevo said:

The point is that targeting political enemies predates even Hoover. Andrew Jackson targeted his political enemies. And John Adams targeted political enemies through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It is not new and neither is a weaponized justice department, FBI, or any other federal agency. And private lawsuits filed by congressmen aren't made in a vacuum. And all of this is only tangentially related to the point that preemptive pardons set a bad precedent and will become the norm. If anyone wants to make a bet, I'll put $100 down that Trump will make preemptive pardons within 4 years. And I'll make another bet that someone on here will post that it is a travesty after Trump does it or even when the press indicates that Trump may do it.

 

Obama's Weaponized Justice Department

Cato Institute
https://www.cato.org
Oct 30, 2015 — In the last presidential debate, Governor Chris Christie asserted that the Obama administration was running a “political Justice Department,” basing its


Democrats' weaponization of the DOJ
Republican National Committee
https://gop.com
Aug 28, 2011 — Joe Biden and the Democrats are weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack commonsense election integrity laws.

Obama's Weaponization of Government
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com › Opinion
Jan 31, 2014 — I scarcely think he cares at this point. A tired, graying Barack Obama stood before Congress this week as a political figure, party leader, and progressive ...

Courthouse News
https://www.courthousenews.com
The Department of Justice under the George W. Bush administration took off the blindfold and aimed the sites of prosecution on Democratic officials, a panel of ...

 

 

 

I see. You can conflate of bunch of things that are conceptually different, confuse opinions with facts, have no idea how to link something, and have a very loose understanding of history. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...