Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Flapp_Jackson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 991
1
Usually during a mass shooting they talk non stop about the shooter or type of weapon used. 

This time there's no mention.  I wonder why
Not the narrative they want.  It won't be news for much longer

He was obviously a Right-Wing GOP-loving, Trump-MAGA-supporting, White Supremacist who worships racism, antisemitism and fascist politics.

His handgun was a High-Capacity Semi-Auto Glock Assault Weapon.

 :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
2
Political Discussion / Re: The Big Kill
« on: November 25, 2022, 07:42:27 PM »
I don’t really disagree with anything you said until the end…. “Lying” requires knowing what you’re saying is untrue.  IF they didn’t know all of the specifics of how the vaccine would work and whether/when you’d need boosters to keep up with a rapidly mutating virus, that’s not lying, it’s being mistaken.  In my experience, the scientists were pretty careful about using appropriate language… “Is likely to” or “will probably” or “may result in.”  Politicians and pundits weren’t so careful, and that’s what led to a lot of this back and forth and actual, real, misinformation taking root in people’s minds.  Did some people lie?  Probably, and that’s wrong, regardless of the motivation.  Is the vaccine part of some nefarious plot to kill off a significant portion of the world population (which seems to be the original point of this thread, as evidenced by the rumble movie linked above)?  I haven’t seen any real evidence of that.

I may not know if what i stated is true or false, however I do know I'm making a claim that I can't support with any facts. 

You don't have to knowingly make false claims to be lying.  You can make claims YOU HAVE NO IDEA as to their truthfulness, but you're presenting them as if they are true nonetheless.

Making claims you can't prove can, and do, lead to very serious consequences. 

"Take this.  It'll cure your cancer."
"What is it?"
"It's my secret formula.  Take this, and you don't need to pay for chemo."

Do I know it WON'T cure cancer?  How?  Probably never been a study -- kinda like the COVID vaccine when it was rolled out.
3
More information:


4
Political Discussion / Re: The Big Kill
« on: November 25, 2022, 04:48:14 PM »
Seatbelt point taken; a better way for me to have communicated the point would have been to say that if you compared the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts in 1970 to the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts today, today’s percentage would likely be higher.  But I don’t have those numbers, so can’t say for sure.

About the vaccine, did you watch the videos you posted?  The one from ABC7 didn’t say anything about the vaccinated population accounting for a growing proportion of COVID deaths; that’s just in the headline.  In the second video, the guy even makes the same point I’m making, and goes on to say “but they said it would be perfect, and it wasn’t perfect!” And shows some clips of Dr. Fauci saying something that I believe has borne out to be true… the vaccine has been extremely effective at preventing serious disease and death, if you kept up with boosters for the emerging variants.  I don’t recall anyone ever saying it would be 100% effective in preventing illness, transmission, or death.

Was there some political motivation?  Sure.  Was it “purely” political?  I don’t believe so; there was a new, dangerous disease circulating, and I believe a lot of public spirited folks were doing the best they could to get people to take steps to reduce the risk.  Some of them probably stretched the truth, which is inexcusable, but I believe the vast majority were doing the best they could with incomplete data and a politically divided population.  Was it a government-wide conspiracy to get nano-bots into your bloodstream so the 5G towers could transmit Bill Gates’s instructions?  No.

TDS caused the Science to take a back seat to politics.  Biden himself took his first COVID vaccine in December 2020, and then later claimed the vaccine wasn't available until after he became president -- trying to take credit when the facts prove he's lying.

So, yes -- politics.  I remember many in the media and entertainment saying they refused to subject their health to a vaccine that was "rushed to market" under President Trump.  Three months later, they were all on the "Get the Shot" bandwagon under Biden -- same vaccine, different frontman.

Then it became another game of "basket of deplorables," only this time with "vaccine deniers".  Anyone who questioned the safety of the vaccine was labeled a Right-wing nut job who's trying to kill other people.  Of course, they didn't stop to realize that if the vaccine worked as advertised, there was no need to fear unvaccinated people.   :crazy:

Then came the booster goat rope.  You need one in 6 months, maybe another in a year.  Then it was 2 in six months.  Then it was a booster every 3-6 months in perpetuity, because it doesn't create the same level of protection against infections.  It MAY (not will) help prevent COVID deaths in those most vulnerable (elderly, obese, chronically ill), but again, they ignored factors like natural immunity and the degree of harm the vaccine might be doing to otherwise healthy people.

I haven't had the vaccine or any boosters.  My younger daughter did, and she's had some pretty lousy side effects,  Three months after the vaccine, she contracted the virus and was out of commission for 2-3 weeks ... too sick to function.  She's 33 and a healthy weight.  No underlying medical issues.  She doesn't see how the vaccine helped her at all.

Anyway, the point is, the government lied to the nation -- and the world -- about the vaccine's efficacy, safety and how often boosters are needed.  Did they lie because they just didn't know (and knew they didn't know), or did they lie because they knew the truth and hid it?  Does that matter?  They lied either way.

Honesty would have been to say how much was uncertain and let the individual choose along with their doctor's advice.  That's not what happened.

This has been beaten to death in the COVID threads.

I'm done.
5
Political Discussion / Re: The Big Kill
« on: November 25, 2022, 03:02:37 PM »
So as they got more data on how the vaccine worked in the real world, they adjusted what they said about it to match the data they collected?  Sounds… responsible.

And still doesn’t change my point that it’s almost inevitable that as more people get vaccinated, the proportion of COVID-19 deaths in vaccinated people as a fraction of total COVID-19 deaths will increase.  I bet the majority of people who die in car accidents today were wearing a seatbelt; I also bet the same was not true in 1970… because far fewer people wore seatbelts back then.

First of all: "Nope."  You're just pulling that seatbelt "stat" out of your butt.

Quote
More than half (range: 51%-60%) of teens (13-19 years) and adults aged 20-44 years who died
in crashes in 2018 were not buckled up at the time of the crash.2
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbelts/facts.html

I guess you lost that bet, huh?

The point is, they made extraordinary claims BEFORE THE DATA WAS AVAILABLE.

That was not only dishonest, but unethical.

Saying they "didn't have all the data then" is making excuses for their obvious push to get everyone vaccinated -- and only afterwaard did they try to see if there are any negative effects.

I bet the majority of people who die in car accidents weren't told that seatbelts have a 94% efficacy rate like they told us about the vaccines, mainly because the 2018 stats above show it's more like 51%-60%.

Funny how the amount of lies they tell diminish when the amount of actual data available increases.  The rush to "sell" the public on the vaccine was based on incomplete data and a lack of ethics.  It was purely political with a heavy dose of fear-mongering.
6
Political Discussion / Re: The Big Kill
« on: November 25, 2022, 01:15:03 PM »
That’s absolutely to be expected.

COVID starts, nobody is vaccinated; therefore, 100% of COVID deaths are among the unvaccinated, and 0% are among the vaccinated.

Fast forward to when 80% of the population is vaccinated… Even if you are LESS likely to die from COVID than an unvaccinated person, it’s to be expected that a higher percentage of COVID deaths will come from the vaccinated population, because the overwhelming majority of people are vaccinated.

If you watch the videos I linked, you'll see where the promise was NOT that the vaccine made you less likely to die.  The promise was that it would PREVENT contracting, transmission and death from COVID.

What they marketed then and what the narrative is now are not the same.
7
You are misinformed.

You may want to learn how compilation of unclassified information/data may create a classified compilation.

Learn to read.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=47426.msg440513#msg440513

A compilation does not make the independent unclassified information portions classified when not compiled.

What would the portion markings be?

Go read what I already posted.  I can try to teach you, but I can't understand it for you.
8
Political Discussion / Re: The Big Kill
« on: November 24, 2022, 11:05:09 PM »
Growing proportion of COVID
deaths occur among vaccinated: analysis




WTF: Vaccinated Are Now The Majority of COVID Deaths


58% based on an August analysis
9
Political Discussion / Re: S#!t Biden Says
« on: November 24, 2022, 02:41:42 PM »
And .... the update!

Cambodia .... Columbia ....

Tomato ... Tomahtoe.   :crazy:





10
Political Discussion / Re: Jane Fonda has cancer
« on: November 24, 2022, 11:28:09 AM »
She's 85.

She's lived a life of luxury, fame and fortune.

Her cancer is treatable and has an 80% survival rate.

With her resources, I think her chances of squeezing a few more years out of her mortal eventuality (which we all face) are relatively good.

Think how much more enjoyable her life would have been without that moniker "Hanoi Jane" following her everywhere like a sick albatross!

She contributes nothing to my life.  When she's gone, I'll hardly take notice -- unlike the media.
11
Not strictly true.  It is possible for unclassified information, when combined with other unclassified information, to become classified.  For example, the timeframe of an exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, and the location of the exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, but if you combine the timeframe and the location in one document, it becomes classified.  It’s called “classification by compilation.”

In the example you gave, there would need to be a predetermined classification and protection level when the aggregated/compiled unclassified information is combined in the same document.

The example I found deals with reports -- specifically theater-wide operation failure reports.  A Security Classification Guide (SCG) could dictate that one such report alone is unclassified.  But, when 2 or more such reports are part of a compilation, the compiled document, not the individual reports, is classified SECRET.

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2c9bed1/Classification-by-Compilation-1-Definition-Sometimes-combining-two-or-more/

This clarifies what I was saying.  The unclassified information remains unclassified.  It's the compiled document containing more than one unclassified report that becomes classified.  You can still disseminate and discuss each report individually and the information remains unclassified -- as long as you avoid disseminating or discussing more than one theater-wide operation failure report when doing so.

It's a little like mixing drinks.  You can talk about a bottle of vodka, a jug of orange juice, and a bucket of ice with no issues.  But as soon as you mix them together, they become a Screwdriver.  You wouldn't then treat the vodka, OJ and ice individually as a mixed drink.  Only when combined would you be correct in that "classification".
12
General Discussion / Re: New CCW/ apps/ process is up on HPD site
« on: November 23, 2022, 09:29:21 PM »
I wonder what happens if you refuse to answer this?

Tell them you were given up for adoption at birth, so you have no idea who your biological parents are and no idea what "ethnic extraction/s" they may have been..

However, if they want, you can put down your adopted parents are aboriginal pygmies ...
13
General Discussion / Re: Revised Honolulu Proficiency Test
« on: November 23, 2022, 05:01:54 PM »
True, Hawaii was not a "gun culture" for 170 years.  But that's not the point.

Hawaii is a part of the United States of America.  Not only is there a US Constitution that contains protections for civil rights -- among them the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- but that right is also captured in the Hawaii State Constitution.

Trying to explain that Hawaii's "culture" somehow trumps civil rights of the people is indicative of an elitist attitude.

Was there a "democracy culture" 170 years ago in Hawaii?  Wasn't Hawaii under a Monarchy?  I say voting should be more strictly regulated and made difficult, to include tests, classroom instruction, issuance of permits that expire annually, registration fees, and only one polling place per county open to the public on election day.

How about them search and seizure rules, 5th amendment protections and discrimination rights?  Were those part of the Hawaii Culture 170 years ago?

The Constitution's Bill of Rights is not a list of what rights are granted, but a description of what limitations have been placed on government in order to protect the rights of hte people.  That's why you see wording like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed."  The rights already existed before the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights simply outlines how government is not allowed to cross the line when those rights are exercised.
14
Suicide rates typically increase during the holiday months.

He's been an employee of Walmart since 2010.. I highly doubt he was a disgruntled employee unless he was just fired.

Many, if not most, mass shootings are suicidal -- they just decided to take a few with them.
15
What are you talking about and what does this have to do with Trumps tax returns.

For the record they are not looking at taxes for improper deductions the tax returns may have evidence of connections and/or omissions.

We're talking about things that matter -- actual crimes with evidence versus fishing expeditions.

Hunter's laptop is an example of how the Democrats in power and the media that's a part of them ignore the obvious while continuously searching for that "smoking gun" against their #1 opponent.

So, far, they've tried unsuccessfully to impeach Trump more than once.  No crimes have been charged in any jurisdiction.

Either he's the most brilliant criminal mastermind in world history -- evading the law by leaving no evidence or witnesses -- or he's not done anything illegal.

Trump is the most-investigated public official ever in US politics.  If there was something to find, it would have been found by now.
16
Your wrong. Why do you choose to lie and spread misinformation?

[snip after OP accuses others of that which xhe is guilty]

information that while unclassified alone MAY become classified when combined.  Nothing is confirmed.
Information that is unclassified remains unclassified.  If it is combined with other unclassified information that becomes sensitive when viewed together, it's STILL UNCLASSIFIED.

The term for such aggregated information that may become sensitive is EEFI -- Essential Elements of Friendly Information.

17
Former laptop? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Property doesn't magically stop being yours unless you transfer ownership to someone else.  I don't think anyone in the FBI or DOJ want to be assigned that albatross! 

 :shake:

It was his when he left it at the repair shop.  He forgot to pick it up.  It will always be his laptop.

18
General Discussion / Re: KHSC closed starting today 9-16-22
« on: November 22, 2022, 08:59:54 PM »
I'm simply calling out the inconsistencies in the statements made regarding safety and why the improvements weren't "necessary" before now.

The timing is suspect -- given the overlap with the Bruen decision and Hawaii's "may issue" scheme being demolished.

This is what I was trying to say ... why hasn't anyone looked into this problem until now?

SCOTUS decision?  CCW licensing? Avalanche of unconstitutional gun laws about to fall?

Quote
HNN Investigates also uncovered documents that show the city has been aware of lead
contamination at the range for at least two decades, but did little to protect its workers
or educate them about the potential danger.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/11/23/doh-now-involved-probe-into-possible-lead-contamination-oahus-only-public-shooting-range/

No accountability ... no responsibility.  Just promises and SURPRISE when decades-old problems are "suddenly" identified as a health threat.
19
I’d like to see a court case determine whether or not the city should be responsible for paying the cost of satisfying whatever requirements they decide to impose. Seems as though periodic classes, mental health examinations, or other similar “hoops” might be considered like being guilty until proven innocent. And given that self defense is a right, not a privilege, the society that wants to feel safe by regulating it should bear the cost of doing so.

They will claim qualified immunity.  It applies to government officials just like it does for police.  The the gov't builds a homeless shelter and fails to keep the residents of the shelter, the workers or the neighboring homes and businesses safe from any violence, drug activity or theft resulting from it, you can't sue them.

There are fights going on on other states such as Tennessee, where current laws impose a weapons charge and a $500 fine + court costs if you are caught carrying in a Gun Free Zone. A new bill seeks to knock that penalty down to a simple trespassing charge if you refuse to leave or remove the firearm from the primacies.

If this is supposed to be about public safety, then the state, city and counties need to step up patrols in all gun free zones.  If the gov't won't allow us to protect ourselves there, then the government has the duty to actively ensure our safety.  Seems like common sense.

But, gov't is never held accountable no matter how many people die from gunshots in gun free zones.
20
Political Discussion / Re: Trump announces 2024 POTUS run
« on: November 22, 2022, 05:40:44 PM »
I am pretty sure a conviction under the espionage act is a disqualification.

You can drop the "pretty" part ...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 991