On 2/27/2021 8:58 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:28:19 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>
> Ahhh, not only an idiot, but an insurrectionist one, too.
>
> Stupid ****.
>

Well , you just had to go there . This has been a civil discourse up
to this [point , but you just had to go there and start calling names .
The constitution is being trampled by the Democrats in their quest
for total control of our country . I do not consider resisting their
unconstitutional edicts to be insurrection ...
Or , to paraphrase something your hero Obiden said , "Only a dictator
rules by Executive Orders" . So far he has issued more than any
president in history , averaging about 2 per day so far . Sounds a lot
like a dictator to me .
--
Snag
In 1775, the British demanded we give them our guns.
We shot them

On 2021-02-27 9:28 a.m., Snag wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 7:54 AM, Janet wrote:

>> Â*Â*Â* Growing your own veg and chickens is very nice but it's not a get-
>> out-of-jail-free card, and won't even excuse you from paying taxes.
>>
>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Janet UK
>>
>
> Â* Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .

Executive orders?? I believe they are quite constitutional. They have
been using them from the beginning of your country, especially during
times of war.

On 2021-02-27 9:41 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>> In a free society, nobody addresses their peers as "Sir".
>
> You're wrong. My husband often says "Thank you, sir" to someone--
> even a sales drone--when he is pleased with them.
>
> It's courtesy, not servility.


As to I. I was usually called sir on the job, often by superiors.

On 2/27/2021 9:26 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 9:28 a.m., Snag wrote:
>> On 2/27/2021 7:54 AM, Janet wrote:
>
>>> Â*Â*Â* Growing your own veg and chickens is very nice but it's not a get-
>>> out-of-jail-free card, and won't even excuse you from paying taxes.
>>>
>>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Janet UK
>>>
>>
>> Â*Â* Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>
> Executive orders?? I believe they are quite constitutional. They have
> been using them from the beginning of your country, especially during
> times of war.
>

Obiden has issued more EO's than any president in history . Yes ,
they have their place , but some of the stuff he's doing should by law
be done by congress .
--
Snag
In 1775, the British demanded we give them our guns.
We shot them

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 10:29:44 AM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 9:26 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2021-02-27 9:28 a.m., Snag wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2021 7:54 AM, Janet wrote:
> >
> >>> Growing your own veg and chickens is very nice but it's not a get-
> >>> out-of-jail-free card, and won't even excuse you from paying taxes.
> >>>
> >>> Janet UK
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
> >> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
> >> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
> >
> > Executive orders?? I believe they are quite constitutional. They have
> > been using them from the beginning of your country, especially during
> > times of war.
> >
> Obiden has issued more EO's than any president in history . Yes ,
> they have their place , but some of the stuff he's doing should by law
> be done by congress .

Congress has been loath to do its job for some time now. The
Senate is where bills go to die.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>
>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>> lately ? No ?
>>
>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>
>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>> space.
>>
>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>> Church is not required.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>
> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new car.

It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private.

Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
have their reward.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:19:22 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > In article >, says...
> > >
> > > On 2/26/2021 8:20 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2021-02-26 8:57 p.m., Snag wrote:
> > > >> On 2/26/2021 4:54 PM, US Janet wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:43:02 -0600, Snag > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> snip
> > > >>>> And ya know , a fella with a few tools can come up with all kinds of
> > > >>>> interesting stuff. Did you know you can fabricate a shotgun from
> > > >>>> plumbing parts ? Might not be pretty or very accurate , but it'll work
> > > >>>> well enough to get yourself a modern battle rifle .
> > > >>>
> > > >>> would you tell me what the liberal left is doing to citizens that
> > > >>> makes you want to shoot them?
> > > >>> Janet US
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh I don't want to shoot all of them . Just the ones that are
> > > >> shooting at me ... and the ones trying to take my rights away ,
> > > >> particularly the 1st and 2nd Amendments . Freedom of assembly ,
> > > >> religion , and speech are all being assaulted . The 2nd protects the
> > > >> 1st ...
> > > >
> > > > So.... you are willing to fight to protect your rights but the only
> > > > right you really care about it the right to bear arms. That is a lot
> > > > like the argument about how the civil war was not about keeping slavery,
> > > > it was about protecting rights, but the only state rights they cared
> > > > about was their right to have slavery.
> > >
> > > No Sir ,
> >
> > "No Sir"?????
> >
> > In a free society, nobody addresses their peers as "Sir".
> You're wrong. My husband often says "Thank you, sir" to someone--
> even a sales drone--when he is pleased with them.
>
> It's courtesy, not servility.


I've routinely addressed my students and clients as "Sir" for years...also many others...and I use "Ma'am" quite often, too...

--
Best
Greg

On 2021-02-27 10:29 a.m., Snag wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 9:26 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-27 9:28 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2021 7:54 AM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>>> Â*Â*Â* Growing your own veg and chickens is very nice but it's not a get-
>>>> out-of-jail-free card, and won't even excuse you from paying taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Â*Â*Â*Â* Janet UK
>>>>
>>>
>>> Â*Â* Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>
>> Executive orders?? I believe they are quite constitutional. They have
>> been using them from the beginning of your country, especially during
>> times of war.
>>
>
> Â* Obiden has issued more EO's than any president in history . Yes ,
> they have their place , but some of the stuff he's doing should by law
> be done by congress .

Sorry but I hop that you don't really believe that because it is
complete and utter bullshit. Biden has issued 34 executive orders.
Trump issued 220, 26 of them after he lost the election. FDR issued more
than 3200.

And you say that Biden's 34 is more than any president in history?????

FFS give your head a shake.

On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>>> lately ? No ?
>>>
>>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>>
>>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>>> space.
>>>
>>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>>> Church is not required.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
>> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new car.
>
> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private.
>
> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
> have their reward.
>


It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
religiously. This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
"Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship". It is not about going
into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
you will live your life.

Gary wrote:
> On 2/26/2021 7:02 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:46:29 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/26/2021 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:42:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/26/2021 3:37 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:31:53 -0500, Dave Smith
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2021-02-26 6:20 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/26/2021 4:13 PM, Graham wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But you'll have NO option to the boot on your neck . No thanks
> >>>>>>>>> Cindy , I was born a free man and I'll die a free man .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You won't be if the religious nutters have their way and turn the US
> >>>>>>>> into a theocracy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Least of my worries. They'd have to change the Constitution first..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not if they stage a coup.... a successful one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Look at what happened last month. The morons stormed the capital. A lot
> >>>>>> of people whined that if it had been a black crowd they would have
> >>>>>> opened fire.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not whining. That might well be true. White cops are very
> >>>>> scared of black men.
> >>>>>
> >>>> A lot of black men are scared of black men.
> >>>
> >>> No doubt, but that's only relevant if many of the cops were black.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is relevant no matter what.
> >
> > Back to the original point before we disappear into the sunset: do you
> > think the police would have opened fire if the crowd had been black?
> Probably not. Police didn't open fire in all the "black lives matter"
> protests that turned into riots.
>
> Saw a statistic on the news the other day. Highest rate of gun deaths is
> among young blacks under age 30. DUH! It's been that way for years.
>
> The few 'death by police' incidents were mostly all criminals that
> didn't yield to the cops. Very stupid of the suspects and very unfair
> to the police for defending themselves.
>
> Police lives matter too.


"As of the June 22 update, the Washington Posts database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019..."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3235072001/

There is no epidemic of fatal police shootings against unarmed Black Americans
Ideally officers would never need to take anyone's life. But the data on police killings doesn't support reducing or abolishing law enforcement.

Heather Mac Donald Opinion contributor

"Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.

For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Posts database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019. The database does not include those killed by other means, like George Floyd.

This year, on Sunday, May 31, Chicago had its deadliest day in 60 years. Over the course of that weekend, 25 people were killed and another 85 shot. The reason: An overmatched police force was overwhelmed by the rampant looting and upheavals and had little deterrent presence on the ground. €œTheres suddenly this vacuum that opens up,€� said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at a local crime lab, and €œyou see an absurd amount of carnage.€�

Bad cops of all races must be removed. But the overwhelming majority of officers are in their jobs because of people like that Mount Hope resident who looks out her window hoping to see the police nearby. It is these vulnerable residents who will be most hurt if the €œdefund police€� activists have their way..."

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe."

On 2021-02-27 7:42 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>
>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>
> When were you appointed to the Supreme Court?
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
The SC has just stupidly allowed California churches to host spreading
events.

On 2/27/2021 7:52 AM, GM wrote:
> Gary wrote:
>> On 2/26/2021 7:02 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:46:29 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/26/2021 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:42:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/26/2021 3:37 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:31:53 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-02-26 6:20 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2021 4:13 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you'll have NO option to the boot on your neck . No thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Cindy , I was born a free man and I'll die a free man .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You won't be if the religious nutters have their way and turn the US
>>>>>>>>>> into a theocracy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Least of my worries. They'd have to change the Constitution first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not if they stage a coup.... a successful one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look at what happened last month. The morons stormed the capital. A lot
>>>>>>>> of people whined that if it had been a black crowd they would have
>>>>>>>> opened fire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not whining. That might well be true. White cops are very
>>>>>>> scared of black men.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of black men are scared of black men.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt, but that's only relevant if many of the cops were black.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is relevant no matter what.
>>>
>>> Back to the original point before we disappear into the sunset: do you
>>> think the police would have opened fire if the crowd had been black?
>> Probably not. Police didn't open fire in all the "black lives matter"
>> protests that turned into riots.
>>
>> Saw a statistic on the news the other day. Highest rate of gun deaths is
>> among young blacks under age 30. DUH! It's been that way for years.
>>
>> The few 'death by police' incidents were mostly all criminals that
>> didn't yield to the cops. Very stupid of the suspects and very unfair
>> to the police for defending themselves.
>>
>> Police lives matter too.
>
>
> "As of the June 22 update, the Washington Posts database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019..."
>
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3235072001/
>
> There is no epidemic of fatal police shootings against unarmed Black Americans
> Ideally officers would never need to take anyone's life. But the data on police killings doesn't support reducing or abolishing law enforcement.
>
> Heather Mac Donald Opinion contributor
>
> "Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department.
>
> For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.
>
> As of the June 22 update, the Washington Posts database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019. The database does not include those killed by other means, like George Floyd.
>
> This year, on Sunday, May 31, Chicago had its deadliest day in 60 years. Over the course of that weekend, 25 people were killed and another 85 shot. The reason: An overmatched police force was overwhelmed by the rampant looting and upheavals and had little deterrent presence on the ground. €œTheres suddenly this vacuum that opens up,€� said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at a local crime lab, and €œyou see an absurd amount of carnage.€�
>
> Bad cops of all races must be removed. But the overwhelming majority of officers are in their jobs because of people like that Mount Hope resident who looks out her window hoping to see the police nearby. It is these vulnerable residents who will be most hurt if the €œdefund police€� activists have their way..."
>
> Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of "The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe."
>
>
>
>

Yes, of course. See also (links to the studies can be found in the
article):


A 2016 Harvard researcher's study found that Black people are no more
likely to be killed by police officers than are white people. A 2019
study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found
€œno evidence of anti-Black ... disparities across" fatal shootings by
police. Both white and Black people are far more likely to be murdered
by an acquaintance of their own race than they are to be shot dead by
the police.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...es/3274391001/

On 2/27/2021 7:55 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 7:42 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>
>>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>
>> When were you appointed to the Supreme Court?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
> The SC has just stupidly allowed California churches to host spreading
> events.
>


interesting and quite bogus take on the ruling.

On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Â*Â* So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>
>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>
>
> Â* I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
> liberal media .

Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.

I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
> canceled for not spouting the party line .Â* You really should consider
> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .

Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
FFS, take your head out of your arse!

On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â*Â* So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>
>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>
>>
>> Â* I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>> liberal media .
>
> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>
> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>> canceled for not spouting the party line .Â* You really should consider
>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>
> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>

"In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
population is warranted."

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w

On 2021-02-27 10:49 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>>>> lately ? No ?
>>>>
>>>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>>>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>>>
>>>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>>>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>>>> Church is not required.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
>>> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new
>>> car.
>>
>> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
>> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private.
>>
>> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
>> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
>> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
>> have their reward.
>>
>
>
> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
> religiously.Â* This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship".Â* It is not about going
> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
> you will live your life.
>



There is a popular mythology that the US was founded by people looking
for religious freedom. The poor old Puritans just wanted to live their
religion. That is a bit of a crock. The Puritans were rather radical
Protestants who were extremely anti Catholic, and they wanted to set up
a religious colony where everyone was expected to live and worship by
their rules.

Contemporary Christians whine about not having their religion pushed in
schools, not having the Lord's Prayer in the morning, not having
prayers at the beginning of meetings, games etc. That is not practicing
their religion. It is an attempt to indoctrinate people with their
religious mumbo jumbo

On 2021-02-27 10:55 a.m., Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 7:42 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:28:22 AM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>
>>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>
>> When were you appointed to the Supreme Court?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
> The SC has just stupidly allowed California churches to host spreading
> events.

I really wish that the incubation period of this virus would be only an
our or two so that the dimwits who insist on getting together would know
within that short time that their stupidity led to them getting sick.

On 2/27/2021 8:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 10:49 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>>>>> lately ? No ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>>>>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>>>>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>>>>> space.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>>>>> Church is not required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
>>>> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new
>>>> car.
>>>
>>> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
>>> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private.
>>>
>>> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
>>> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
>>> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
>>> have their reward.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
>> religiously.Â* This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
>> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship".Â* It is not about going
>> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
>> you will live your life.
>>
>
>
>
> There is a popular mythology that the US was founded by people looking
> for religious freedom. The poor old Puritans just wanted to live their
> religion. That is a bit of a crock. The Puritans were rather radical
> Protestants who were extremely anti Catholic, and they wanted to set up
> a religious colony where everyone was expected to live and worship by
> their rules.
>
> Contemporary Christians whine about not having their religion pushed in
> schools, not having the Lord's Prayer in the morning, not having
> prayers at the beginning of meetings, games etc. That is not practicing
> their religion. It is an attempt to indoctrinate people with their
> religious mumbo jumbo
>


There are some that do that, but that is hardly the majority. Most want
to live their lives according to their beliefs, helping others as they
do so, and be allowed to do so as they have in the past.

On 2021-02-27 6:24 a.m., Gary wrote:
> On 2/26/2021 9:20 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> So.... you are willing to fight to protect your rights but the only
>> right you really care about it the right to bear arms.Â*Â* That is a lot
>> like the argument about how the civil war was not about keeping slavery,
>> it was about protecting rights, but the only state rights they cared
>> about was their right to have slavery.
>
> Not true. Go take a history class.
> Slavery was not the issue that started the Civil War.
> It was unfair economic policies between the Northern states and the
> Southern states.
>
And the economy in the South was based on what?

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:18:00 -0600, Snag > wrote:

>On 2/27/2021 8:58 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:28:19 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>
>> Ahhh, not only an idiot, but an insurrectionist one, too.
>>
>> Stupid ****.
>>
>
> Well , you just had to go there . This has been a civil discourse up
>to this [point , but you just had to go there and start calling names .

No, shithead- it has not been civil. Bullshit about your rightwing
personal interpretation of the US Constitution is uncivil.


> The constitution is being trampled by the Democrats in their quest
>for total control of our country . I do not consider resisting their
>unconstitutional edicts to be insurrection ...

Who mentioned Democrats?

> Or , to paraphrase something your hero Obiden said , "Only a dictator
>rules by Executive Orders" . So far he has issued more than any
>president in history , averaging about 2 per day so far . Sounds a lot
>like a dictator to me .


Who is Obiden, you dumb****?

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:57:33 -0500, Sheldon Martin wrote:

> I like Romas better

Did you ever try a 'Kumato'? They are very dark, almost purple, but with
green highlights. Everyone at my place prefers them.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:06:37 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
>> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>>
>>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>>
>>>
>>> * I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>>> liberal media .
>>
>> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>>
>> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>>> canceled for not spouting the party line .* You really should consider
>>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>>
>> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
>> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>>
>
>"In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>population is warranted."
>
>https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w

Open access published - for a fee. Try again.

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 10:49:11 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
> >>>> lately ? No ?
> >>>
> >>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
> >>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
> >>>
> >>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
> >>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
> >>> space.
> >>>
> >>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
> >>> Church is not required.
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't be silly. Of course you have to go to church. They pass the
> >> collection plate and you don't want to miss that. Pastor wants a new car.
> >
> > It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
> > right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private..
> >
> > Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
> > For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
> > the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
> > have their reward.
> >
> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
> religiously. This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship". It is not about going
> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
> you will live your life.

The Amish manage to cope with that. Perhaps the Christians of whom
you speak are too worldly.

In any event the government doesn't dictate how they are to live their
lives. I hope you're not talking about *** wedding cakes.

Cindy Hamilton

Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 6:24 a.m., Gary wrote:
> > On 2/26/2021 9:20 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> So.... you are willing to fight to protect your rights but the only
> >> right you really care about it the right to bear arms. That is a lot
> >> like the argument about how the civil war was not about keeping slavery,
> >> it was about protecting rights, but the only state rights they cared
> >> about was their right to have slavery.
> >
> > Not true. Go take a history class.
> > Slavery was not the issue that started the Civil War.
> > It was unfair economic policies between the Northern states and the
> > Southern states.
> >
> And the economy in the South was based on what?


The UK's need for cheap cotton...!!!

;-D

--
Best
Greg

On 2/27/2021 8:20 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:06:37 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â*Â* So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â* I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>>>> liberal media .
>>>
>>> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>>>
>>> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>>>> canceled for not spouting the party line .Â* You really should consider
>>>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>>>
>>> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
>>> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>>>
>>
>> "In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>> non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>> with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>> exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>> population is warranted."
>>
>> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w
>
> Open access published - for a fee. Try again.
>

no fee for me.

On 2021-02-27 9:14 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 8:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-27 10:49 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>>>>>> lately ? No ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>>>>>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>>>>>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>>>>>> Church is not required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
>>>>> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new
>>>>> car.
>>>>
>>>> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
>>>> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in
>>>> private.
>>>>
>>>> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
>>>> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
>>>> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you,
>>>> they
>>>> have their reward.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
>>> religiously.Â* This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
>>> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship".Â* It is not about going
>>> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
>>> you will live your life.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a popular mythology that the US was founded by people looking
>> for religious freedom. The poor old Puritans just wanted to live their
>> religion. That is a bit of a crock. The Puritans were rather radical
>> Protestants who were extremely anti Catholic, and they wanted to set up
>> a religious colony where everyone was expected to live and worship by
>> their rules.
>>
>> Contemporary Christians whine about not having their religion pushed in
>> schools, not having the Lord's Prayer in the morning,Â* not having
>> prayers at the beginning of meetings, games etc.Â* That is not practicing
>> their religion. It is an attempt to indoctrinate people with their
>> religious mumbo jumbo
>>
>
>
> There are some that do that, but that is hardly the majority.Â* Most want
> to live their lives according to their beliefs, helping others as they
> do so, and be allowed to do so as they have in the past.
>
Unfortunately it is those big-mouthed, obscenely wealthy, megachurch
scamvangelists who have the ears of many and have an outsize influence.

Graham wrote:

> I suppose Canadians are seen as "sheeple" by Snag et al. We listen to
> our public health experts and there is no way that our Supreme Court
> wouldn't take heed of scientific evidence when 2-bit pastors take the
> government to court to open their churches. We have a couple of those in
> Alberta. One pastor is being held in clink for refusing to limit the
> size of his Sunday morning services. The majority want those churches
> closed and the pastors locked up.


Just what the communists did to Believers...!!!

--
Best
Greg

On 2/27/2021 8:34 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/27/2021 8:20 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:06:37 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Â*Â* So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>>>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>>>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Â* I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>>>>> liberal media .
>>>>
>>>> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>>>>
>>>> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>>>>> canceled for not spouting the party line .Â* You really should consider
>>>>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>>>>
>>>> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
>>>> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>>>>
>>>
>>> "In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>>> non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>>> with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>>> exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>>> population is warranted."
>>>
>>> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w
>>
>> Open access published - for a fee. Try again.
>>
>
> no fee for me.
>


Our findings in the outpatient setting are in conflict with prior
observational studies conducted among hospitalized patients potentially
highlighting differences in effect based on the severity of disease
[27]. Following an initial infection by SARS-CoV-2 resulting in attack
of alveolar epithelial cells patients may develop a hyper-inflammatory
state characterized by activation of the innate immune system and
release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Patients who
experience this "cytokine storm progress rapidly to respiratory failure
and multi-organ failure [28,29,30,31]. In these hospitalized patients
the weak anti-inflammatory effects of hydroxychloroquine may be
insufficient to block the cytokine cascade, whereas more potent
immunosuppressive agents such as dexamethasone and tocilizumab have been
associated with beneficial effects [21, 32, 33].

By contrast, hydroxychloroquine has anti-viral effects, decreasing
SARS-CoV-2 viral load, and thus may be more suited in preventing the
significant tissue damage needed to incite the hyper-inflammatory state
[5, 34]. This would position hydroxychloroquine earlier in the clinical
course, at the time of early infection, prior to hospitalization need [35].

On 2/27/2021 8:34 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-27 9:14 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/27/2021 8:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-27 10:49 a.m., Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2021 7:34 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-02-27 10:11 a.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/27/2021 4:52 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:23:33 PM UTC-5, Snag wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you disagree that our rights are being attacked ? Been to church
>>>>>>>> lately ? No ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering I haven't been to church (not to worship, anyway) since I
>>>>>>> outgrew religion when I was about 13, no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume you're talking about the temporary measures to prevent
>>>>>>> the spread of covid by packing 1000 people into a poorly ventilated
>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do know that God can hear you pray wherever you are, don't you?
>>>>>>> Church is not required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't be silly.Â* Of course you have to go to church.Â* They pass the
>>>>>> collection plate and you don't want to miss that.Â* Pastor wants a new
>>>>>> car.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
>>>>> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in
>>>>> private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
>>>>> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
>>>>> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you,
>>>>> they
>>>>> have their reward.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
>>>> religiously.Â* This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
>>>> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship".Â* It is not about going
>>>> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
>>>> you will live your life.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a popular mythology that the US was founded by people looking
>>> for religious freedom. The poor old Puritans just wanted to live their
>>> religion. That is a bit of a crock. The Puritans were rather radical
>>> Protestants who were extremely anti Catholic, and they wanted to set up
>>> a religious colony where everyone was expected to live and worship by
>>> their rules.
>>>
>>> Contemporary Christians whine about not having their religion pushed in
>>> schools, not having the Lord's Prayer in the morning,Â* not having
>>> prayers at the beginning of meetings, games etc.Â* That is not practicing
>>> their religion. It is an attempt to indoctrinate people with their
>>> religious mumbo jumbo
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are some that do that, but that is hardly the majority.Â* Most want
>> to live their lives according to their beliefs, helping others as they
>> do so, and be allowed to do so as they have in the past.
>>
> Unfortunately it is those big-mouthed, obscenely wealthy, megachurch
> scamvangelists who have the ears of many and have an outsize influence.
>

That seems to be always the case, no matter the issue or leaning.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:13:11 -0700, Graham > wrote:

>On 2021-02-27 6:51 a.m., Boron Elgar wrote:

>It doesn't help that that the quality of science journalism is appalling
>at best and non-existent in the tabloids. It seems that even educated
>people lack critical thinking abilities. It's not quite so bad on this
>side of the border but it's still there.
>I suppose Canadians are seen as "sheeple" by Snag et al. We listen to
>our public health experts and there is no way that our Supreme Court
>wouldn't take heed of scientific evidence when 2-bit pastors take the
>government to court to open their churches. We have a couple of those in
>Alberta. One pastor is being held in clink for refusing to limit the
>size of his Sunday morning services. The majority want those churches
>closed and the pastors locked up.

Quarantining for illness and restricting people who can spread
infection is certainly not new to the US. Measles cases used to get
slapped with quarantine and Typhoid Mary each come to mind.

I do not see why idiots in this country scream about trying to contain
the spread of illness.

On 2021-02-27 9:20 a.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:06:37 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
>>> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Â*Â* So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â* I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>>>> liberal media .
>>>
>>> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>>>
>>> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>>>> canceled for not spouting the party line .Â* You really should consider
>>>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>>>
>>> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
>>> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>>>
>>
>> "In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>> non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>> with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>> exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>> population is warranted."
>>
>> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w
>
> Open access published - for a fee. Try again.
>
Having published in 2020, I now receive numerous invitations to
contribute to journals that I have never knew existed.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:34:04 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 2/27/2021 8:20 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:06:37 -0800, Taxed and Spent
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/2021 8:00 AM, Graham wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-27 6:04 a.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/2021 11:03 PM, Graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-02-26 9:45 p.m., Snag wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** So "it's for my own good" makes it OK . I wouldn't find it so
>>>>>>> annoying if this were truly the killer pandemic they claimed . Yes ,
>>>>>>> those with compromised health were hardest hit . But the fact remains
>>>>>>> that this thing has a fatality rate of .03-.05% , down in the weeds
>>>>>>> with the common cold and seasonal flu . Another factor that screams
>>>>>>> fraud and conspiracy is that hydroxychloroquine all at once is a
>>>>>>> viable treatment - after hundreds of thousands that could have been
>>>>>>> treated died while "they" were screaming no no no it'll kill you .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! So you know more than all those research scientists that did
>>>>>> careful studies and proved that what you write is a load of codswallop!
>>>>>> I'm surprised that Fauci hasn't contacted you with a job offer!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I know that other trials has great results , and were quashed by the
>>>>> liberal media .
>>>>
>>>> Oh! Of course it's ALWAYS the liberal media.
>>>>
>>>> I know that there were doctors and researchers that were
>>>>> canceled for not spouting the party line .* You really should consider
>>>>> watching/reading something other than mainstream media .
>>>>
>>>> Liek FuxNews and QAnon?
>>>> FFS, take your head out of your arse!
>>>>
>>>
>>> "In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>>> non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>>> with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>>> exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>>> population is warranted."
>>>
>>> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w
>>
>> Open access published - for a fee. Try again.
>>
>
>no fee for me.

Oh, Jesus....they charge a fee for PUBLISHING.

On 2/27/2021 8:39 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:13:11 -0700, Graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2021-02-27 6:51 a.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> It doesn't help that that the quality of science journalism is appalling
>> at best and non-existent in the tabloids. It seems that even educated
>> people lack critical thinking abilities. It's not quite so bad on this
>> side of the border but it's still there.
>> I suppose Canadians are seen as "sheeple" by Snag et al. We listen to
>> our public health experts and there is no way that our Supreme Court
>> wouldn't take heed of scientific evidence when 2-bit pastors take the
>> government to court to open their churches. We have a couple of those in
>> Alberta. One pastor is being held in clink for refusing to limit the
>> size of his Sunday morning services. The majority want those churches
>> closed and the pastors locked up.
>
> Quarantining for illness and restricting people who can spread
> infection is certainly not new to the US. Measles cases used to get
> slapped with quarantine and Typhoid Mary each come to mind.
>
> I do not see why idiots in this country scream about trying to contain
> the spread of illness.
>


It doesn't help when so many of our politicians and health care gurus
violate their own rules.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:49:32 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 2/27/2021 8:39 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:13:11 -0700, Graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-02-27 6:51 a.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't help that that the quality of science journalism is appalling
>>> at best and non-existent in the tabloids. It seems that even educated
>>> people lack critical thinking abilities. It's not quite so bad on this
>>> side of the border but it's still there.
>>> I suppose Canadians are seen as "sheeple" by Snag et al. We listen to
>>> our public health experts and there is no way that our Supreme Court
>>> wouldn't take heed of scientific evidence when 2-bit pastors take the
>>> government to court to open their churches. We have a couple of those in
>>> Alberta. One pastor is being held in clink for refusing to limit the
>>> size of his Sunday morning services. The majority want those churches
>>> closed and the pastors locked up.
>>
>> Quarantining for illness and restricting people who can spread
>> infection is certainly not new to the US. Measles cases used to get
>> slapped with quarantine and Typhoid Mary each come to mind.
>>
>> I do not see why idiots in this country scream about trying to contain
>> the spread of illness.
>>
>
>
>It doesn't help when so many of our politicians and health care gurus
>violate their own rules.

Politicians come in all stripes...sometimes even winding up wearing
them or bright orange. They are not healthcare professionals.

Your use the term "guru," as it is commonly used today to imply a
charlatan, rather than " spiritual leader." Why?

Health care advice given by experienced and trusted professionals, who
heed science and value evolving research and findings, are worth
listening to.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:37:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 2/27/2021 8:34 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:

>>>>
>>>> "In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected
>>>> non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated
>>>> with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional
>>>> exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient
>>>> population is warranted."
>>>>
>>>> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.c...79-021-05773-w
>>>
>>> Open access published - for a fee. Try again.
>>>
>>
>> no fee for me.
>>
>
>
>Our findings in the outpatient setting are in conflict with prior
>observational studies conducted among hospitalized patients potentially
>highlighting differences in effect based on the severity of disease
>[27]. Following an initial infection by SARS-CoV-2 resulting in attack
>of alveolar epithelial cells patients may develop a hyper-inflammatory
>state characterized by activation of the innate immune system and
>release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Patients who
>experience this ‘cytokine storm’ progress rapidly to respiratory failure
>and multi-organ failure [28,29,30,31]. In these hospitalized patients
>the weak anti-inflammatory effects of hydroxychloroquine may be
>insufficient to block the cytokine cascade, whereas more potent
>immunosuppressive agents such as dexamethasone and tocilizumab have been
>associated with beneficial effects [21, 32, 33].
>
>By contrast, hydroxychloroquine has anti-viral effects, decreasing
>SARS-CoV-2 viral load, and thus may be more suited in preventing the
>significant tissue damage needed to incite the hyper-inflammatory state
>[5, 34]. This would position hydroxychloroquine earlier in the clinical
>course, at the time of early infection, prior to hospitalization need [35].


Let's apply a bit of logic here.....can you provide a pointer to any
Covid 19 medication protocol that includes hydroxychloroquine? We have
over 500,000 people dead in this country. We have had over 29 million
with positive tests. Do you really think there is some reason that
hydroxychloroquine is not part of best practices treatment of Covid
patients?

Were this an effective medication for it, it would gladly be used, not
laughed at.

On 2/27/2021 10:49 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:

>>
>> It's funny that so many who call themselves Christian insist on the
>> right to pray in public when their man man told them to pray in private.
>>
>> Matthew 6:5-6 €œAnd when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.
>> For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of
>> the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they
>> have their reward.
>>
>
>
> It is not the praying so much, as being able to live their entire lives
> religiously.Â* This is why Hillary and others have tried to change
> "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom to Worship".Â* It is not about going
> into your church and praying, and then having the government dictate how
> you will live your life.
>

You say this like is is something new and negative

https://www.au.org/church-state/sept...of-worship-and

Talk about nit-picking! Historically, the two terms have been used
interchangeably in the United States. In fact, other presidents have
used the term €œfreedom of worship,€� some quite eloquently.

Remember President Franklin D. Roosevelts famous 1941 €œFour Freedoms€�
speech? The second was €œfreedom of every person to worship God in his
own way €“ everywhere in the world.€�

On 2/27/2021 10:29 AM, Snag wrote:

> Â* Obiden has issued more EO's than any president in history . Yes ,
> they have their place , but some of the stuff he's doing should by law
> be done by congress .

No, he hasn't

On 2/27/2021 9:58 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:28:19 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>
> Ahhh, not only an idiot, but an insurrectionist one, too.
>
> Stupid ****.
>
Boron, what the **** is wrong with you? Why the **** do
you feel the need to swear so ****ing much, asshole?

Jill

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:25:47 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

Hmmmm, Interesting attempt at a nymshift. Not Jill, of course.

>On 2/27/2021 9:58 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:28:19 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>
>> Ahhh, not only an idiot, but an insurrectionist one, too.
>>
>> Stupid ****.
>>
>Boron, what the **** is wrong with you? Why the **** do
>you feel the need to swear so ****ing much, asshole?
>
>Jill

You should hear me speak French!

On 2/27/2021 10:16 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 09:18:00 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/2021 8:58 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:28:19 -0600, Snag > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unconstitutional edicts do not have the force of law and I am not
>>>> obligated to obey them . Nor is any citizen of the USA . You can go
>>>> ahead and be a good little sheeple if you choose ... I choose not to .
>>>
>>> Ahhh, not only an idiot, but an insurrectionist one, too.
>>>
>>> Stupid ****.
>>>
>>
>> Well , you just had to go there . This has been a civil discourse up
>> to this [point , but you just had to go there and start calling names .
>
> No, shithead- it has not been civil. Bullshit about your rightwing
> personal interpretation of the US Constitution is uncivil.
>
>
>> The constitution is being trampled by the Democrats in their quest
>> for total control of our country . I do not consider resisting their
>> unconstitutional edicts to be insurrection ...
>
> Who mentioned Democrats?
>
>> Or , to paraphrase something your hero Obiden said , "Only a dictator
>> rules by Executive Orders" . So far he has issued more than any
>> president in history , averaging about 2 per day so far . Sounds a lot
>> like a dictator to me .
>
>
> Who is Obiden, you dumb****?
>
>

Look guys , boring edgar is so ****ed he's incoherent !
--
Snag
In 1775, the British demanded we give them our guns.
We shot them