Posted on 03/15/2020 5:16:46 PM PDT by RArtfulogerDodger
I haven’t even looked, but I guarantee the lancet probably supports human caused global warming, and has an article about the health consequences of it. The lancet probably has articles extolling the virtues of chopping your penis off. But yes, let’s all destroy the Economy because of the opinion of the Lancet
You assume the goal was to use it on another country, what if they meant to fine tune it to take out only their own none producers but it got out before they perfected it?
It's a "mixed blessing" for China, and too many convenient pluses in elder-care expenses. Their population won't notice. It's payback against US tariffs. Europe's NATO is harmed. Probably many-more "benefits" out there...
It’s quite obvious we are going form 11 Wu Flu deaths today to 11,000,000. Probably by next week. Why can’t you see that? Normalcy bias much?
5 % kill rate . So where did they bury the 20,000,000 Chinese ? Or are they immune . I mean they must be . They’ve had it since November and only 4,000 dead. A country that ignored it for 2 months before acknowledging it. Which begs the question why would it not have gotten here earlier? Since we have things called airplanes.
What I think is that the press is so desperate to "get Trump" that they're trying to blow it out of all proportion. The part I disagree with, is that this is fake.
I think it REALLY is that dangerous (not death rate, but hospitalization) and the Press is so stupid they don't get it yet.
How much did Obama pay you to ignore it when swine flu was killing 1800 children out of flu season? I
Exactly . I don’t think these pearl clutchers know it’s a lot more dangerous to crash society then to get commie cough.
All these convenient videos on Instagram of people dying from commie cough. Why havent they shown any pictures of the mile long pits they’d need In China for all the dead ?
If the press doesn’t get there, and social distancing is effective, then perhaps the idiocy in the media can work for us.
All hands on deck - slow the transmission rate, and slow the serious case rate (which we also do not know).
We seem to be in violent agreement, on most things.
Thank you for posting this.
Love Loyd Marcus. Met him many years ago at a TEA party rally. He was a speaker and also mingled in the crowd. Very inspiring man.
China has a surplus of military age males due to the decades of the one-child policy.
His friend is in the virus Biz. Go ask him about it.
That assumes away the law of libel, which the Warren Court thoroughly subverted in its 1964 NYT v. Sullivan decision. That decision, written by Wm. Brennan and passed unanimously with enthusiastic concurrences, asserted that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”There is one minor problem with that assertion: prior to 1964 no court had ever held that the First Amendment touched libel law. At all.This can be understood by reference to the well-known fact that the Federalists took for granted that the Constitution had no effect on the rights of the people, and the Antifederalists demanded a bill of rights - which the Federalists agreed to add by amendment.
The Federalists needed that Bill of Rights, and they needed to avoid controversy over the way they structured it. Accordingly,
Amendment 9
covers all rights, whether or not they affected an enumerated right (and the enumerated rights were only those rights which tyrants had historically denied). The First Amendment does not enumerate the right not to be libeled, but that right existed in 1788 just as surely as “the” freedom of the press existed then. “The” freedom of the press was limited by libel and pornograhy laws, and the First Amendment did not erase those laws.
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In pointing that out, Antonin Scalia mentioned that you could make an argument that perhaps officials and judges should not have been able to sue for libel - but in fact they were not prohibited from doing so. And that is what matters. In an “originalist” understanding.
But the reality is that the Sullivan decision has promoted a tyranny by “the media,” and Republican politicians should sue for libel in defiance of Sullivan. 9-0 decision or no. Because the Warren Court no longer sits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.