7
rollo51 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not saying that this is not serious for people with pre-existing conditions, but every hospital? I was just in the emergency room yesterday (unrelated to China virus) for over 2 hours and there were plenty of rooms available. No one was busting their ass either. There are hot spots, but this isn't everywhere.

1
rollo51 1 point ago +2 / -1

"Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little TEMPORARY safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin

8
rollo51 8 points ago +8 / -0

Mr. Hand knew this guy was a loser 38 years ago.

-1
rollo51 -1 points ago +2 / -3

I was thinking the same thing. A few days ago we were told that 98% of the people who contract this disease will recover. Now we're being told that there are existing drugs that will save 90%. This just doesn't add up for me.

1
rollo51 1 point ago +1 / -0

So now that the Chinese have seen how easy it is to crash our economy, do you think we've seen the last of this? Not a chance.

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

In addition to the things you mentioned, in my neck of the woods the store was out of yogurt. YOGURT! WTF?!

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think she's full of shit.

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

you're right, and you're assuming people would be satisfied with testing only once. I would think most of these people would want to test every couple of weeks. Mass testing is not viable indeed.

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

So black Friday must now be a bad thing. Who would have thought?

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agreed. Demanding that something be called "normal" does not make it so. "Normal" is, well, the norm, i.e. what is most common or most expected (in this case well over 99% of the time). "Normal" is men being men and women being women, and anything else is abnormal.

17
rollo51 17 points ago +18 / -1

The sad part is you don't even have to be "good" at math. All you need is a fucking calculator, and about 15 seconds.

2
rollo51 2 points ago +2 / -0

I heard that about 25% of attendees at Trump rallies are Democrats. So there's that.

1
rollo51 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just curious, is what you object to just the process? Would you eat meat if you hunted it yourself?

1
rollo51 1 point ago +1 / -0

For once I'm in agreement with the left. Whoda thunk it!

6
rollo51 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm embarrassed to have to admit that Ryan is from my home state. I'm even more embarrassed to admit that I had a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker on my car for years. (Facepalm)

7
rollo51 7 points ago +7 / -0

Their constant efforts to cancel us, segregate us, marginalize us will only speed up the need for secession and/or civil war. Those that claim to want to "coexist" really don't want to. They need to be careful what they wish for because there are more of us than they realize.

5
rollo51 5 points ago +5 / -0

If he's not your president, how did you impeach him?

3
rollo51 3 points ago +3 / -0

So it seems to me that at some point in the earth's history, pre vegetation, all of the CO2 that is currently stored in living and rotting vegetation and also in oil and natural gas was in the atmosphere. Yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect. How come? I'm not a climate scientist so I'd like someone to explain that to me. If we burn some of that oil and natural gas and put some of that CO2 back into the atmosphere why should we expect a runaway greenhouse effect now? In fact, I've never read about anyone being able to replicate a runaway greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting. What I do know is that trying to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a dangerous "game". The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million (ppm). If the CO2 concentration drops below 185ppm all the plants die for lack of "food", and therefore the earth as we know it dies, so we had better be careful about reducing CO2. Tinkering with something we know so little about could end very badly. Am I wrong?

1
rollo51 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gee what an eye opener this article is! Successful people tend to accumulate greater wealth than unsuccessful people - who woulda thought? What all these analyses about income inequality fail to mention is that those who accumulate considerable wealth don't necessarily require your slice of the pie to become smaller in order to do so. That would only happen if the size of the entire pie failed to grow - but it does grow, possibly leaving you a smaller percentage of the whole but not less actual wealth. I.e., you don't necessarily suffer financially when someone else becomes wealthier than you. If the pie never got larger we would have the same money supply now that was available in 1776, and we all know that isn't true.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›