Jump to content

Fauci Pardon Idiot Discussion


No Mames Guey

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Responsibility for the Covid pandemic?  Really?  Really Rand?

You cunt.  You pube-headed cunt.

If anyone wonders why rationals balk at anything put forth by conservatives on this issue, this pretty much explains it in a nutshell.

Calm down twice. This is a horrendous pardon. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Responsibility for the Covid pandemic?  Really?  Really Rand?

You cunt.  You pube-headed cunt.

If anyone wonders why rationals balk at anything put forth by conservatives on this issue, this pretty much explains it in a nutshell.

 

I think he is talking about the coverup of responsibility. Rand Paul has repeatedly said that it came from the lab in Wuhan, which it did.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-makes-case-for-lab-leak-at-first-full-senate-committee-hearing-on-covid-19-origins/

 

    Tuesday, June 18, 2024    

Dr. Paul Makes Case for Lab Leak at First Full Senate Committee Hearing on COVID-19 Origins

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, at the first full Senate committee hearing on the origins of COVID-19, which he helped secure, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, examined and made the case for a lab leak. The bipartisan hearing, entitled “Origins of COVID-19: An Examination of Available Evidence,” featured scientists who presented evidence based on their professional expertise, marking a crucial step toward uncovering the truth about COVID-19’s origins. This hearing is the first of a series as part of the Committee’s joint investigation into threats posed by high-risk biological research and technology in the U.S. and abroad.

During the hearing, Dr. Paul presented key pieces of evidence supporting the likelihood that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Dr. Paul referenced the recent assessments by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which emphasize the risky nature of coronavirus research at the WIV and suggest that the pandemic most likely resulted from a lab leak. He also noted that three WIV scientists reportedly fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, further supporting the lab leak theory. Dr. Steven Quay, a witness at the hearing, highlighted the longstanding history of safety issues at WIV, which resides in close proximity to the epicenter of COVID-19. Dr. Quay also pointed out that over 400 animals from the wet market were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and zero were infected.

Throughout the hearing, Dr. Paul showcased the concerning conduct of the inner circle of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). For instance, Dr. Robert Garry, a witness in the hearing and one of the authors of the infamous Proximal Origin paper, made contradicting statements by privately agreeing with the lab leak theory while publicly promoting the natural origins narrative. Another witness, Dr. Richard Ebright, criticized the Proximal Origin paper for downplaying the lab leak theory, arguing that it was an opinion piece lacking proper research to substantiate its conclusions.

Dr. Paul remains steadfast in his initiative to uncover the truth, implement necessary safeguards, and ultimately learn from COVID-19 in order to prevent future pandemics.

View the Ranking Member’s opening statement here, part one of his questioning here and part two here.

Opening remarks as delivered below:

Today, we are here to examine one of the most critical and debated questions of our time: Did COVID-19 originate in a lab? To answer this question, let’s revisit the early days of the pandemic and examine what some of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s inner circle said privately about the origins of the virus, discussions that were only revealed through FOIA litigation.

Kristian Andersen wrote, “the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

Ian Lipkin stressed the “nightmare of circumstantial evidence to assess” regarding the possibility of inadvertent release given the scale of bat coronavirus research pursued in Wuhan.

Bob Garry said, “ really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario when you get from the bat virus, or one very similar to it, COVID–19 where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides, and all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function. I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.’’ According to Garry, “it’s not crackpot to suggest this could have happened, given the gain of function research we know was happening in Wuhan.”

Even Ralph Baric, world-famous gain-of-function researcher and collaborator with Wuhan’s Dr. Shi, admitted, “So they [the Wuhan Institute of Virology] have a very large collection of viruses in their laboratory. And so it’s—you know—proximity is a problem. It’s a problem.”

Federal court orders reveal that even Dr. Fauci himself privately acknowledged concerns about gain-of-function research in Wuhan and “mutations in the virus that suggest it might have been engineered” just days before he commissioned the Proximal Origin paper.

Despite these private doubts, publicly, these so-called experts and their allies were dismissing the lab leak theory as a conspiracy. Within days, Anderson, Lipkin, and Garry were putting the final touches on what will be remembered as one of the most remarkable reversals in modern history.

In their Proximal Origin paper, these scientists concluded “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” Privately they were saying one thing, publicly they were saying another. Media pundits parroted this narrative, while social media platforms censored discussion about the lab leak, labeling it as misinformation and stifling open discourse about the virus’s origins.

The cover-up went beyond public statements. Federal agencies and key officials withheld and continue to conceal crucial information from both Congress and the public.

For instance, Dr. David Morens of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) deleted emails that could have contained valuable insights into early discussions. When he deleted them, he made the comment, “I think we’re safe now.” He deleted emails. He said the early emails, “I’ve deleted to Peter Daszak at EcoHealth. I think we’re safe now.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) failed to comply with a law passed by Congress unanimously. One of the senators on this committee got it passed. We were going to declassify all of this and reveal it and the administration has refused.

HHS and NIH have not produced documents related to gain of function research that the Chairman and I requested nearly a year ago. I’ve been asking for two or three years as an individual member with some other Republican members and have not gotten these records. I’ve now asked with the Democrat Chairman and they’re still resisting.

They say it’s not gain-of-function. Well, let’s hear the debate. Did they debate at NIH whether it was gain-of-function in Wuhan? If there’s a debate, let’s hear the scientific arguments on both sides. They will not give us that information.

This has been a deliberate, prolonged effort to deceive the committee about certain gain-of-function research experiments that the agencies have been withholding. What we have found as we’ve gone through this is at every step there’s been resistance.

So the hearing today is to try and find out whether or not we can get to the truth. Do we know for certain it came from the lab? No, but there’s a preponderance of evidence indicating that it may have come from the lab. Do we know viruses have come from animals in the past? Yes, they’ve come from animals in the past.

But this time, there’s no animal reservoir. There’s no animal handlers with antibiotics. There’s a lot of reasons why there are indications that this could have come from the lab.

This is the discussion we’ll have today. This is a discussion that’s long in coming. It’s been over three years that we’ve been asking for this. But this is great. This is good. We’ll have scientists on both sides of this issue, and I hope we have a spirited debate. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Wouldn’t have been necessary if the incoming guy wasn’t a vengeful, ignorant piece of shit.

Fauci perjured himself. Other high ranking officials have before, and haven’t been prosecuted. It’d be a shame to have some govt accountability.  
 

Then there’s the elephant in the room. What did he know about long term effects of vaccine and when? Did he suppress that? These are big public health questions. 
 

And before you whiners complain here’s a serious MD, Biden/Clinton backer. 
 

 

From interview with Mark Halperin. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fauci perjured himself. Other high ranking officials have before, and haven’t been prosecuted. It’d be a shame to have some govt accountability.  
 
Then there’s the elephant in the room. What did he know about long term effects of vaccine and when? Did he suppress that? These are big public health questions. 
 
And before you whiners complain here’s a serious MD, Biden/Clinton backer. 
 
 
From interview with Mark Halperin. 

There it is….TURBO CANCER! TREAT IT WITH IVERMECTIN!!!!
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I checked his CV. He owns a newspaper, which means he’s part of the globalist MSM propaganda machine. And you and other sheeple are falling for their elitist lies hook, line, and sinker. 

And he's also been gobbling Trump crank for a year or more.  And he's South African.  And a grifter deluxe.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/patrick-soon-shiong-taxes-nanthealth-foundation-236728

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No it isn't.  What's horrendous is the demands for prosecution for a government official, who has official immunity, incidentally, and an apparent willingness of the president-elect to prosecute.

The pardon is a symptom, not the disease.

And Rand Paul is a full-time cunt about everything, always.  Ask his neighbor.

I'm sick of these fuckers.

I'm more appalled that moderna/pfizer, etc. got legal immunity for something that was quasi-mandated to put in your body more than the preemptive pardons. I think the pardons was smart and good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Right, I get it. I was commenting how I don't like it.

Although it is a form of corporate welfare, I can't say that I really disagree with it.  It's a policy that applies to all vaccine developers and manufacturers, and, although Pfizer and Moderna made out financially, I'm not sure that's true for all vaccines and I think the landscape would be considerably different without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Guess how long such immunity has been around?  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

The point is that vaccines serve a greater public good, even if they are not perfect and even if some people are injured by them.

Guess whatever it takes to support a position you want to support.

Notorious librul rag questioning the calls for Fauci's prosecution https://reason.com/2022/12/16/what-do-republicans-want-to-prosecute-fauci-for-exactly/

And, no one sane is calling for Fauci to be prosecuted, it's only performative assholes like Rand, Ted Cruz, MTG, Biggs and the rest of the fuckwad squad.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say not all is known or public knowledge surrounding the vax rollout. By the same token, 

IMG-4131.jpg

 

But thanks for sharing a Reason piece from over two years ago that says they could potentially prosecute Fauci for perjury but it would be difficult. There’s also been a trickle of revelations since then.  

  • Fuck You 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Although it is a form of corporate welfare, I can't say that I really disagree with it.  It's a policy that applies to all vaccine developers and manufacturers, and, although Pfizer and Moderna made out financially, I'm not sure that's true for all vaccines and I think the landscape would be considerably different without it.

Like anything, 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, No Mames Guey said:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say not all is known or public knowledge surrounding the vax rollout. By the same token, 

IMG-4131.jpg

 

But thanks for sharing a Reason piece from over two years ago that says they could potentially prosecute Fauci for perjury but it would be difficult. There’s also been a trickle of revelations since then.  

Wait, you mean the rollout of Trump's vaccine?  Operation what was it?

You never prosecute for perjury unless you can prove the absolute untruth of what was said.

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

On 9/25/2024 at 11:09 PM, Blotto said:

At this point in our idiocracy, I'd be surprised if even 5% of the US population has read a single article in its entirety from any scientific journal in the last year. We're much  more comfortable building our opinions by listening to our favorite comedian's podcast (or AM talk radio for the olds). I'm not arguing the dysfunction of the industry, I just dont think it matters as it relates to public trust. 

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. 

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

1 hour ago, No Mames Guey said:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say not all is known or public knowledge surrounding the vax rollout. By the same token, 

IMG-4131.jpg

 

But thanks for sharing a Reason piece from over two years ago that says they could potentially prosecute Fauci for perjury but it would be difficult. There’s also been a trickle of revelations since then.  

Are you gonna post this again when the orange shit stain pardons the J6 guys? Nah….  

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

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Are you gonna post this again when the orange shit stain pardons the J6 guys? Nah….  

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.

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

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

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.

Well shit is uber fucked now, so get used to the new world order. Nothing will ever again be as it was. 

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

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Like anything, 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. 

That's not an agency rule.  It's a statute passed by Congress nearly 40 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

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.

What would things have looked like if an incoming president and his cronies hadn’t promised retribution and reprisals?

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DDD Dad said:

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

Fucking this. Fuck this country. The majority is too stupid to live. Covid proved it unequivocally.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 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
  • Fuck You 1
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 6
  • 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
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...