Fine Figure of a Man
Well-known member
You are confident of that do to Biden's 50 year track record of doing what?And yes, of course Biden would have done it as well.
You are confident of that do to Biden's 50 year track record of doing what?And yes, of course Biden would have done it as well.
Well, he just agreements for a major infrastructure bill. With a hostile opposition party.You are confident of that do to Biden's 50 year track record of doing what?
That's what they are calling it.a major infrastructure bill
That's what they are calling it.
Is that good or bad and was it actually an infrastructure bill?Well, I don't recall Trump's infrastructure bill moving through Congress. Despite the promises.
Is that good or bad and was it actually an infrastructure bill?
I actually think that calling Fauci a liar in front of the whole country is a provocative thing for Paul to have done. He doesn't get a pass for that, so Fauci was well within his rights to call Paul out. Rand Paul needs that, frankly - he is the one who has showed extreme arrogance, in my judgement.Regardless of Fauci's or Paul's medical credentials wrt to virology, Mike Huckabee made a valid point which I here paraphrase and summarize in my own words: Fauci is a government employee; we the people are the government; we elect certain people to represent us in the operation of governing; of which one task is to oversee the employees we hire to do that; if Fauci was my employee and he took that disrespectful tone and contentious approach toward me, his employer, he'd find himself with a pink slip in his inbox. He forgets who he works for. Arrogant SOB.
Well, my interpretation is that he's looking out for himself.....and my interpretation is that he is looking out for the people rather than the politicians. ...
Well, he is human, so I expect he doesn't like being called a liar. I would have pushed back against Rand Paul, too. Huckabee is wrong about that (among other things).Well, my interpretation is that he's looking out for himself.
That's one of the reasons we have politicians ... to oversee our ("we the people") best interests and proper governance, which includes requiring accountability from those hired to do the work, and if the account given doesn't make sense or ring true, some second-guessing may be in order. No doubt some overseers pursue that task with too much vigor and/or with their own one-sided self-interests foremost (see Elizabeth Warren as a rather egregious example). Yet, IF the "boss" is wrong and IF the "employee" is correct, then the way the good employee goes about convincing his or her boss to the correct point of view is most certainly not the method utilized by Dr. Fauci, and if he hasn't learned how to relate to his supervisors and his superiors by now, it's high time for him to either be fired or to retire....
But does he resent having politicians second guess him? I am sure he does ...
That's one of the reasons we have politicians ... to oversee our ("we the people") best interests and proper governance, which includes requiring accountability from those hired to do the work, and if the account given doesn't make sense or ring true, some second-guessing may be in order. No doubt some overseers pursue that task with too much vigor and/or with their own one-sided self-interests foremost (see Elizabeth Warren as a rather egregious example). Yet, IF the "boss" is wrong and IF the "employee" is correct, then the way the good employee goes about convincing his or her boss to the correct point of view is most certainly not the method utilized by Dr. Fauci, and if he hasn't learned how to relate to his supervisors and his superiors by now, it's high time for him to either be fired or to retire.
I personally began second-guessing Fauci almost a year ago already, when he was still serving on Trump's coronavirus task force. It was clear to me that he was jockeying to come out as the hero no matter which direction the pandemic might take OR which direction the elections might take.
At this point it's his whole attitude and approach that I find objectionable and I'm not really sure I care all that much anymore about whether he's right.
Of course he answers to Congress. Any person called to testify before a Congress committee is obligated to answer to Congress. Of course, they could decline the invitation .... unless and until they're subpeoned, but if they testify, subpeona or not, they are obligated to answer, and to answer truthfully. Which branch of government they belong to isn't relevant to their obligations, with one exception: "Executive Privilege" may be exercised by the President to prevent their appearance, but that wasn't operative in Fauci's case.He doesn't answer directly to Congress ...
Well, you're begging the question, too, logically speaking. The research conducted in Wuhan meets the definition of gain of function per the NIH definition. The U.S. funded virology research in Wuhan, funding approved and granted by Fauci's agency, that's a matter of public record. Fauci, as head of the agency is responsible for its activities. The logical chain is: Fauci is responsible for enabling Chinese gain of function research. If Fauci wants to dance around the issue by saying he didn't authorize and fund gain of function research then he's very carefully parsing his semantics in order to avoid blame. Funding was granted. What the funding was used for is a matter of accounting. Funds go in one big pot and come out of the same pot. Who can tell what funds were used for what. The CCP certainly didn't need the money so funding them for anything at all was a mistake and whether or not the exact funds granted for research were used for gain of function can't be proved or disproved, but the grant certainly did make funds available for whatever the CCP chose to use the funds.Anyway, what you are doing is called 'begging the question', logically speaking. That is, you assume the answer in your argument. We have no evidence that he in any way funded helped the Chinese do anything untoward. That is still some right-wing speculation that is largely petering out. So he really has nothing to apologize for. If a smoking gun comes out, history will judge him harshly. But, barring that, he is the man who stood up to the president who suggested putting bleach and UV lights in human bodies.
Oh, fer cryin out loud, you're really stretching, aren't you?!?! Nobody, and I mean nobody took that comment seriously, except maybe if Fauci did, it just goes to highlight his poor judgment, and perhaps his antipathy toward a man who probably had him pretty well scoped out.....But, barring that, he is the man who stood up to the president who suggested putting bleach and UV lights in human bodies.
I am pretty sure Fauci knew not to take him seriously (in terms of understanding the science of the virus) from the outset, but it highlights the way the two men approached the virus. Fauci offered reasoned short-term solutions (social distancing, masking, etc.), while the vaccine was developed. All pretty reasonable suggestions, and pretty much standard protocols established for this kind of outbreak.Oh, fer cryin out loud, you're really stretching, aren't you?!?! Nobody, and I mean nobody took that comment seriously, except maybe if Fauci did, it just goes to highlight his poor judgment, and perhaps his antipathy toward a man who probably had him pretty well scoped out.
Well, you're begging the question, too, logically speaking. The research conducted in Wuhan meets the definition of gain of function per the NIH definition. The U.S. funded virology research in Wuhan, funding approved and granted by Fauci's agency, that's a matter of public record. Fauci, as head of the agency is responsible for its activities. The logical chain is: Fauci is responsible for enabling Chinese gain of function research. If Fauci wants to dance around the issue by saying he didn't authorize and fund gain of function research then he's very carefully parsing his semantics in order to avoid blame. Funding was granted. What the funding was used for is a matter of accounting. Funds go in one big pot and come out of the same pot. Who can tell what funds were used for what. The CCP certainly didn't need the money so funding them for anything at all was a mistake and whether or not the exact funds granted for research were used for gain of function can't be proved or disproved, but the grant certainly did make funds available for whatever the CCP chose to use the funds.
Unless the viruses were coming from that area in China and we wanted access to the early appearances of these viruses. That's why we (used to) send people to Congo and other places with zoonotic viruses. Then Trump cancelled that (USAID's PREDICT program). He also eliminated the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. He literally took down our guard at the worst possible time.Quote from your linked article: "The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan" That is the correct and responsible reaction, and it should have come from Fauci.
What we need to do is stay calm, anticipate that third parties will register and post seditious material to justify shutting this site down, and REPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY.
Again, I know it feels like the Republic is lost. It may be. But for now, on this site, please for the love of God stay calm, speak rationally, and hope for .... better judgement from our leaders in the future.
The coming days and weeks (likely after the 20th) will be easier, but for now we need to be on the best possible behavior. Please. :)