(04-02-2020 01:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since you bring up red/blue, I would just like to point out the places with the worst numbers have Democratic mayors/governors.

I predict that other than NYC, this comment will not age well. NYC's high population density and high use of public transportation makes it more susceptible than many other big cities so it is hard to compare.

(04-01-2020 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  DeBlassio March 10

DeBlassio March 20

Interesting to see how he pivoted from "Nothing to see here" to "It's all Trump's fault" in only 10 days.

So where are the worst/first problems? NYC, NOLA, California. Washington State. All blue. Now, there are certain shared characteristics. One is population density. Another is political administration. Another might be lots of international travel from China. Lots of "smoke". We need an investigation to determine which smoke is the most important.

(04-02-2020 12:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Nightly graphs. I didn't read any comments today so if anyone is calling me out, calling me names, or calling for a response, I'm not trying to ignore anyone.

It's not all about you.

Since Big doesn't like my analogies, I will attempt to refine the one about sugar. (see what I did there, Big?)(humor)

It's like your (generic) wife used most of the sugar 11 years for a bake sale, without buying more since then. Now your supply is down to 2 50 pound bags, from your usual 8. Then your (generic) neighbor comes to you wanting to borrow 1/2 cup.

Here is where the analogy splits. Either:

A. you refuse them, saying it's mine and I may need it in the future, or...
B. You give it to them, and then your wife blames you when she doesn't have enough sugar for a bake sale. Now she only has enough for 999 pies, and she promised 1,000.

*math not guaranteed. Told you I was not a math expert. Just an analogy expert. (more humor)

And, for the humor-impaired...

Lignten up, Francis

From "Stripes"

(04-02-2020 06:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I get there are a lot of moving parts and issues that none of us are privy to, and those issues can and should inform overall opinions. But it’s not like there weren’t others in government or experts in the field of public health or epidemiology who were sounding the alarm as early as early February, when Trump and his administration were attempting to downplay the virus and not let a cruise ship dock, explicitly, to keep the numbers looking good.

Edits: and frankly, you get judged on what you do, not conversations in the background. So if there is a decrease in funding or a slow supply chain or whatever keeps people from getting the supplies they need, then the admin should explain those things and make it clear what actions the admin is actually taking to get through those issues.

Yes you do get judged on what you do. Trump lowered the hammer on someone who was very publicly not getting the job done.

And, in the public, the PPE providers are literally racing like lizards on crack to get their part done.

Those very public very important criterion are very adroitly overlooked on your oh-so-stunning race to chastise on the DPA. Amazing that. Color me shocked and surprised.

I find it very telling that here, you are saying in fairly certain terms, that you really do not care about the real issues of the DPA, only those issues that you can call out in coloring book level way. Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

Edited to add: And, by the way lad, the President on more than one occasion in the daily briefings has detailed some of the thought process noted above. He noted that the GM efforts had turned screwy and that was the main driver. He noted that the PPE manufacturers have gone Speedy Gonzalez speed with their efforts to provide PPE. And he even mentioned, at a time prior to the GM hammer, the reasons *why* he hadnt invoked it. He specifically mentioned the speed that the PPE was operating, *and* noted that the default position of having active and cooperating industries was not to 'quasi-nationalize', *and* rhetorically queried the question with 'if you have companies that are cooperating to their fullest, why would you invoke the DPA on them'? Funny that. Amazing that your now fallback position talking point doesnt mention those very public statements by OMB.

I am in awe of the vigor that these two are digging in to defend each of their specific criticisms of Trump in light of real world considerations.

Kind of evocative of the determination of Roarke's Drift.

I am especially in awe of lad's comment that distills, it doesnt matter what the underlying considerations are, and how dare you bring up those real world considerations in that context. How dare you make one actually consider the real numbers and impacts of the DPA. Kind of priceless.

We will see if the 3 analogies detailing what an amazing paltry relative amount a short tractor trailer load is in the scope of thing make any headway.

Don't Believe the COVID-19 Models

(04-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, experts can make mistakes, which is why not cowtowing to their opinions on internet message boards doesn’t mean someone isn’t listening...

Says the guy who dismissed mine because it didn't jive with the experts he's read, and has used articles with agendas somewhat misrepresenting what they DID say.

(04-01-2020 06:41 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 05:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Here is your ventilator lesson for the day:

Just a few things to kick around (that's for Hambone).

Thanks, ru. Very well explained.

I can see it being useful in a situation where all the conventional ventilators are in use and you’re up against the wall. Or in the OR in a closely monitored situation if all the anesthesia machines have been commandeered for the ICU. Maybe in 3rd world hospitals or field hospitals.

That would be my thought. These would be best used by patients with less need, saving the more involved machines for the more delicate patients in the US... or in the field where 'anything' is better.

(04-02-2020 01:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  We can just agree to disagree. Obama's response was proportional to the threat. Trump's response has not been proportional to the threat. The threats themselves are so vastly different that it makes comparing them tough. It would have been an insane overreaction for Obama to call for anything like what is happening in most of the country with the stay at home and extreme social distancing. And it would be likewise insane for Trump to not call for it.

To argue that Trump's response hasn't been an order of magnitude more than Obama's is just flat wrong.

(04-02-2020 01:54 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Well here is a significant difference between you and me. I have long thought that the threat of pandemic disease caused a far greater threat to american life and prosperity that anything else. By a long shot. More pandemics will come too and while this one is tough, it is easy to imagine something even worse (longer incubation, higher fatality rate, etc.). I have worried more about pandemic disease in the last decade than Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

Then why not even a PEEP from you over Obama 'ending' the 10yr research partnership with China specifically on pandemic diseases originating there? You guys list every POSSIBLE link between the 2018 budget and China, and you won't even acknowledge that ending a two-party partnership on that specific issue from that specific part of the world COULD have played a part? I'm not saying it specifically did... because I don't believe Trump's moves did either... but you can't reasonably say 'cutting budgets' DID impact them, but ending pandemic research programs in China DIDN'T.

Quote:1,833 people died from Hurricane Katrina. 2,977 people died from the 9/11 attacks. We are up to 5,137 for Covid-19 and obviously we are going to end up much, much, much higher than that despite the extreme mitigation measures many of us have been taking the last few weeks.

12,500 died from H1N1... a virus that killed 500,000 Americans (on a much smaller population) 100 years earlier.

You're calling Trump's response 'not proportional' (of course that's not even a definable number... is Covid twice as bad? 10 times? Is our response twice as much? 10X?) and of course it could easily and likely WILL surpass Swine's numbers.... but we have a long way to go before we've reached those numbers

(04-02-2020 02:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  For the people who keep bringing up H1N1, was their a single hospital in the USA overwhelmed by H1N1 patients that required critical care?

Of course there were. A number of them.
60mm people were symptomatically infected and 275,000 required hospitalization.
Being 'overwhelmed' now has as much to do with the disproportional response that you dismiss. Under H1N1, we would transfer someone perhaps hundreds of miles away via standard ambulance if a hospital didn't have beds. Now we're requiring only certain specially equipped and designated services and vehicles are allowed to transfer Covid patients (as would have been done under Ebola) and only if vitally necessary to avoid spreading a disease to somewhere where it 'isn't..... that's a proportional response to pandemic that can CAUSE a hospital to be overwhelmed.

If you're suggesting that we should have had tens of thousands more healthcare workers and more hospitals and more beds etc etc etc... I agree with this and have been saying so since 2008 when we put a number of hospitals out of business by increasing demand, holding supply steady (actually losing, imo but why argue) and decreasing reimbursements. No responsibility there though. that's snark... sorry

But what difference does THAT comparison make? You've already said that this is worse... and we're clearly doing more already and have all along. So of course, in a 'worse' pandemic, you're going to have overwhelmed services that weren't overwhelmed before even without the regulations related to a proportionally greater response.

The message from the left in 2016 was Climate change, not pandemic response.... so while you may have been 'all over this issue' (and I don't question that)... Lad was voting based on something completely different. I don't remember one question during any debate about pandemic response. Maybe you do. So despite the overwhelming majority of the nation being consumed elsewhere, you think Trump, even more than Obama should have seen this coming? I do agree that we need to change our culture to one that treats easily spread diseases more seriously, but that wasn't ANYWHERE in the conversation until just a few weeks ago.

Let's be realistic here.
This is a VERY easily transmitted disease. Tens of millions of Americans will likely become infected, just as before. It is also apparently more aggressive than H1N1 meaning that even if we have half the infections, we could have double the hospitalizations.... and 10 times the deaths.

That is a function of the disease, not any administration or any activity of any administration.

To this point... the point where you are saying we haven't had a proportional response... we are not nearly there.
What more EXACTLY do you think should be done TODAY.... and more importantly, show me which party is supporting such activities but can't get enough votes to enact it.

Don't talk about 'research dollars' or any of the other stuff you guys have been talking about... that you HOPE could have made a difference. (Why didn't Rice engineers think of this ventilator sooner?) Talk about things like barring interstate travel... enabling cell phone tracking on all persons without a warrant... more city cameras... you know, the things that those nations debatably doing 'better' than us do... things that would actually contain (or mitigate) a pandemic. If all you have is what should have been done over the past decade or more, then all you have is perception and opinion... and we can certainly agree to disagree on that.

(04-02-2020 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:44 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-01-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since you bring up red/blue, I would just like to point out the places with the worst numbers have Democratic mayors/governors.

I predict that other than NYC, this comment will not age well. NYC's high population density and high use of public transportation makes it more susceptible than many other big cities so it is hard to compare.

(04-01-2020 11:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  DeBlassio March 10

DeBlassio March 20

Interesting to see how he pivoted from "Nothing to see here" to "It's all Trump's fault" in only 10 days.

So where are the worst/first problems? NYC, NOLA, California. Washington State. All blue. Now, there are certain shared characteristics. One is population density. Another is political administration. Another might be lots of international travel from China. Lots of "smoke". We need an investigation to determine which smoke is the most important.

We've learned that this virus doesn't show its true face for a few weeks, and so we likely will not be able to tell how the majority of states have handled this issue until 3 or 4 weeks from now.

My guess is the states that were more proactive about closures and strong social distancing will do better than the ones that didn't. NYC was slow to enact strong restrictions. As were Florida, Texas, and other states. Kentucky, North Carolina, and the Bay Area were pretty quick at enacting these sort of changes.

Right now, it's like that these states are being hit hardest because they are the earliest in their life cycle. But they also had some cities (like SF) that were quick to act and appear to be having success.

One last point on the DPA -- the DPA is arguably, along with 5th Amendment takings issue, the *most* significant breach of a government into the concept of structured liberty as it pertains to concepts of individual rights.

Think about it: this is almost turning the ideas of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments completely on their head based on a time of crisis. It *is* turning the ideas of the 5th Amendment on its head during that same time.

Any invocation of it should be done deliberately, and with a full assessment of the the facts re: to individual entities' conduct *and* capabilities fully assessed. Aside from martial law and an invocation of the Insurrection Act thereof, I really cant see any government action *more* intrusive into the ideals of this nation.

I will assume that the progressive's views on the speed and impact on whether to invoke it are indicative of their tolerance of proto-fascism. But then again, I have made it very clear that, interestingly, it is progressives whom seem to be able to stomach the ideal of government diktat far easier than conservatives or libertarians.

From the discussions enjoined here of 'well its too hard to criticize it when you introduce the concept', and 'gee golly willikers if it is good in public perception' seem to underlie a strange chasm that exists in some regarding the absolute magnitude of the invocation of this. If you all want to minimize it to such a de rigueur decision, that is your fundamental right as an American to do so.

But all in all, when you peel back *exactly* what it is and the very significant issues it raises with very fundamental concepts of the order of law and individual liberties, it really should give you pause.

Somehow that hasnt happened.

(04-02-2020 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One last point on the DPA -- the DPA is arguably, along with 5th Amendment takings issue, the *most* significant breach of a government into the concept of structured liberty as it pertains to concepts of individual rights.

Think about it: this is almost turning the ideas of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments completely on their head based on a time of crisis. It *is* turning the ideas of the 5th Amendment on its head during that same time.

Any invocation of it should be done deliberately, and with a full assessment of the the facts re: to individual entities' conduct *and* capabilities fully assessed. Aside from martial law and an invocation of the Insurrection Act thereof, I really cant see any government *more* intrusive into the ideals of this nation.

I will assume that the progressive's views on the speed and impact on whether to invoke it are indicative of their tolerance of proto-fascism. But then again, I have made it very clear that, interestingly, it is progressives whom seem to be able to stomach the ideal of government diktat far easier than conservatives or libertarians.

From the discussions enjoined here of 'well its too hard to criticize it when you introduce the concept', and 'gee golly willikers if it is good in public perception' seem to underlie a strange chasm that exists in some regarding the absolute magnitude of the invocation of this. If you all want to minimize it to such a de rigueur decision, that is your fundamental right as an American to do so.

But all in all, when you peel back *exactly* what it is and the very significant issues it raises with very fundamental concepts of the order of law and individual liberties, it really should give you pause.

Somehow that hasnt happened.

Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

Yes, the DPA should be used judiciously, but it's a tool that is at our disposal, and the streamlining of distribution is where I see the DPA providing the most good.

I understand your comments and why you might not support the use of the DPA. Me not agreeing with them, or sharing the same concerns, means that I have a different perspective. You and the other conservatives should stop assuming that just because others don't agree with you or have another opinion does not mean they are not considering the same issues or not listening to you. It hasn't given me pause because there has not been discussion of an indefinite use of the DPA, nor a discussion of a widespread deployment outside of specific medical and PPE supplies. Plus, we have historical examples of its use, and we didn't see our country turn into a fascist government post-invocation.

One really obvious elephant in the room being ignored.

Outside of COVID, most ERs and Urgent Care (I don't know about PCPs) offices are ghost towns.

One would actually have to do an analysis to see exactly what it means, but a logical supposition is that there are at least a meaningful number of people who don't need medical care who would have otherwise been seeking it.

I'm not going to get too deep into this, but I can easily imagine a situation where our population has fewer providers because we need fewer providers, which would actually harm our ability to respond to pandemic needs. We talk about 'Military Reserves' and there are likely some Corpsmen or other affiliated healthcare workers who wouldn't already be working in healthcare in the private sector, but it's highly unlikely that Captain John Smith MD US Army Reserve is a stock broker in his civilian life.

Costs for hospitalizations should also be going up, because while general occupancies are down, the demand for isolation is WAY up... If we're going to actually be prepared for pandemics, we're going to need a significant increase in isolation capabilities that doesn't take an existing bed away from an otherwise sick patient.... but can remain completely unused for years at a time.

I suspect I'll be asked to figure THAT math out when this is all over

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

So let's assume this gets a lot worse... If the government decided to quite literally test every person in the nation... say once a week... and put every infected person into a 'quarantine camp' for the public good.... You okay with that? What if they tracked everyone's cell phones 24/7... requiring you to have one in fact, perhaps even implanting one in you to ensure we could track you and anyone you contacted (so that nobody could simply leave their phone in their car or switch phones with others)... What if you weren't ever again allowed to have a crowd more than 1,000 people, just to be safe? And of course, now that they know exactly where you are and whom you're with 24/7, what ELSE can they know (or imply) about you?

Let's go a step further... What if they decided that 'organic' farms, because they use animal manure and not 'pure, refined and monitored for safety' chemicals had to be closed down in order to avoid transmission through animal feces? No more Guano in cosmetics or even raw honey?

ALL of this 'serving the public interest'.

The point being, you've decided (either condescendingly or arrogantly) to define 'public good' as something you agree with right now. You ignore that throughout history, such a benevolent society has never existed for long without exploitation, often resulting in some form of genocide....

all under the auspices of 'the public good'.

I'd say this is quite literally the biggest difference between younger generations and older... between progressives and conservatives. Young progressives believe they can control government. Old conservatives have quite literally had to protect people from their governments. Young progressives focus on whether or not we should have been fighting with Iraq (which is fair to a point)... Older conservatives focus on what that regime was doing to their people. People inbetween vary a balance in between.

The strangest thing about progressives to me is that they don't seem to trust our government against bad regimes (blood for oil in Iraq) but they DO trust our government against us? That's the odd part to me. You'd think that progressives would either trust the government, or not.... and if there is a difference, that they'd be more concerned with trusting how they treat US than with how they treat a dictator thousands of miles away.

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One last point on the DPA -- the DPA is arguably, along with 5th Amendment takings issue, the *most* significant breach of a government into the concept of structured liberty as it pertains to concepts of individual rights.

Think about it: this is almost turning the ideas of the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments completely on their head based on a time of crisis. It *is* turning the ideas of the 5th Amendment on its head during that same time.

Any invocation of it should be done deliberately, and with a full assessment of the the facts re: to individual entities' conduct *and* capabilities fully assessed. Aside from martial law and an invocation of the Insurrection Act thereof, I really cant see any government *more* intrusive into the ideals of this nation.

I will assume that the progressive's views on the speed and impact on whether to invoke it are indicative of their tolerance of proto-fascism. But then again, I have made it very clear that, interestingly, it is progressives whom seem to be able to stomach the ideal of government diktat far easier than conservatives or libertarians.

From the discussions enjoined here of 'well its too hard to criticize it when you introduce the concept', and 'gee golly willikers if it is good in public perception' seem to underlie a strange chasm that exists in some regarding the absolute magnitude of the invocation of this. If you all want to minimize it to such a de rigueur decision, that is your fundamental right as an American to do so.

But all in all, when you peel back *exactly* what it is and the very significant issues it raises with very fundamental concepts of the order of law and individual liberties, it really should give you pause.

Somehow that hasnt happened.

Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

Yes, the DPA should be used judiciously, but it's a tool that is at our disposal, and the streamlining of distribution is where I see the DPA providing the most good.

I understand your comments and why you might not support the use of the DPA. Me not agreeing with them, or sharing the same concerns, means that I have a different perspective. You and the other conservatives should stop assuming that just because others don't agree with you or have another opinion does not mean they are not considering the same issues or not listening to you. It hasn't given me pause because there has not been discussion of an indefinite use of the DPA, nor a discussion of a widespread deployment outside of specific medical and PPE supplies. Plus, we have historical examples of its use, and we didn't see our country turn into a fascist government post-invocation.

I personally think you are speaking out of your ass in a rush to criticize, to be absolutely honest. You have just admitted to that in so many words when you whine that 'it is hard to criticize when one isnt aware of the underlying facts.'

Guess what lad, now you are. Yet you still dont give a flying fk about it. Good for you.

And equally notable is your apparent raw ignorance of the facts as have been noted, albeit not in their entirety, by Trump.

And your comment about the historical examples, again you are seemingly fundamentally ill-prepared. Perhaps you should actually read up on the perpetuation of the DPA practices, enacted in the Second World War, that continued unabated for close to 15 years following that. The pattern with the DPA is the continued use of it far after the crisis period. Of course that pattern is a apttern of one, but your 'historic' comment in light of that sole evidence is pretty much off the mark.

Yep, Roarke's Drift as a very appropriate analogy here.

(04-02-2020 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

So let's assume this gets a lot worse... If the government decided to quite literally test every person in the nation... say once a week... and put every infected person into a 'quarantine camp' for the public good.... You okay with that? What if they tracked everyone's cell phones 24/7... requiring you to have one in fact, perhaps even implanting one in you to ensure we could track you and anyone you contacted (so that nobody could simply leave their phone in their car or switch phones with others)... What if you weren't ever again allowed to have a crowd more than 1,000 people, just to be safe? And of course, now that they know exactly where you are and whom you're with 24/7, what ELSE can they know (or imply) about you?

Let's go a step further... What if they decided that 'organic' farms, because they use animal manure and not 'pure, refined and monitored for safety' chemicals had to be closed down in order to avoid transmission through animal feces? No more Guano in cosmetics or even raw honey?

ALL of this 'serving the public interest'.

The point being, you've decided (either condescendingly or arrogantly) to define 'public good' as something you agree with right now. You ignore that throughout history, such a benevolent society has never existed for long without exploitation, often resulting in some form of genocide....

all under the auspices of 'the public good'.

I'd say this is quite literally the biggest difference between younger generations and older... between progressives and conservatives. Young progressives believe they can control government. Old conservatives have quite literally had to protect people from their governments. Young progressives focus on whether or not we should have been fighting with Iraq (which is fair to a point)... Older conservatives focus on what that regime was doing to their people. People inbetween vary a balance in between.

The strangest thing about progressives to me is that they don't seem to trust our government against bad regimes (blood for oil in Iraq) but they DO trust our government against us? That's the odd part to me. You'd think that progressives would either trust the government, or not.... and if there is a difference, that they'd be more concerned with trusting how they treat US than with how they treat a dictator thousands of miles away.

The answer is that the progressive front fundamentally trusts a government that enacts their view of 'reasonable' or 'public good', and fundamentally distrusts a government that deviates from that potentially very subjective viewpoint.

The short answer here, is that lad doesnt give rats ass about what goes into a decision on whether to invoke such a massive use of power, apparently.

His main criticism is that to assess what goes in makes *his* criticism too hard to justify. Rich.

Not to mention he adroitly avoids any mention of public statements on or about the invocation thereof or the decision not to. Doubly rich.

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

Actually, leftists are more likely to support the expansion of government power and authority for any reason, and a claim to be acting in the benefit of the public good only rationalizes that expansion. Very, very seldom does any public good actually benefit. So, unfortunately, are so-called "conservatives" when the power grabs suit their purposes. Despite the fact that on the morning of 9/12, every major news outlet in the world had the names and photographs of the hijackers, even though nobody survived to identify them (meaning that we knew enough to have prevented it and did not need to trample individuals further to have protected us), we still went ahead with the patRIOT act, which was supposed to be temporary, but has now been extended 2-3 times past its original expiration date.

True liberals (classical liberals in the European sense) resist every government intrusion into our lives, except and unless they are justified by extreme national emergencies.

Quote:I understand your comments and why you might not support the use of the DPA. Me not agreeing with them, or sharing the same concerns, means that I have a different perspective.

I would argue that all the arguments about use of the DPA in this situation are grossly exaggerated, because the DPA has been used effectively. Nobody really wants to deal with DPA red tape--not private companies, and not government agencies who want to get to a solution rather than get bogged down doing paperwork. So the most effective use is exactly as Trump has wielded it--we need you to do this, if you do it fine, if you don't DPA. And so far that has worked in, IIRC, every case.

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, the DPA should be used judiciously, but it's a tool that is at our disposal, and the streamlining of distribution is where I see the DPA providing the most good.

That is idiotic. DPA's main thrust is the production of sufficient goods, not the distribution.

And it has zero to do with 'streamlining'. Again, the thrust of the DPA is the production of assets, no matter how the fk it happens.

I suggest you stop using the buzzwords you know from your limited experience in the business world.

What it is is a de facto nationalization of a specified industry, company, or manufacturing plant to do the governments bidding by the government's bidding. It should only be used when there is a logjam in the government getting specified materiel.

But the position you are forced to take in light of the legal and practical considerations is to assume that everything was logjammed at that point you complain about, and that there was little to no cooperation in the function of private organizations to suppy the government with what it needed/requested.

I am asking for that objective background, mind you. And, quite frankly, it is hard to show. Bummer. You are the one making the case, flapping your wings up and down about when it *should* have happened. So, in short, back it up.

If you cant, simply admit that you are flapping your wings with little to no objective proof, and advocating the implementation of probably the highest intrusion of governmental power into society with little or no objective backing. The choice seems rather simple to me.

I await your objective proof for the advocacy of that proposed action.

In light of the 'social good' comment and #s reply, let me highlight the issue here for lad using Gov Newsom's very recent words (when asked if the Wuhan virus give Newsom the ability to "see the potential as some others in the party do for a new progressive era"? ).

Answer: ""We see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern."

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1...9229822977
">

Hmmm.... where did I see an idea like that before..... let me think: The House Majority whip Rep. Clyburn "a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.".

I think there was a comment like that previously from progressive voices on the financial crisis of '08 and the idea of Obamacare: "never let a good crisis go to waste'"

(04-02-2020 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  .

Right now, it's like that these states are being hit hardest because they are the earliest in their life cycle. But they also had some cities (like SF) that were quick to act and appear to be having success.

Real question. How did SF handle all their homeless?

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You and the other conservatives should stop assuming that just because others don't agree with you or have another opinion does not mean they are not considering the same issues or not listening to you.

Lad, I am pleased to see how you have matured. Early in your tenure here on the Quad, you were adamant that those disagreeing with you on a particular issue were necessarily not considering the same issues and not listening. You further said that they might be deficient in critical thinking or in empathy.