USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
COVID-19 - Part 2
- Thread starter Chuck Murray
- Start date
- Status
net presence
Active member
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Chuck, tough to claim how great you are when you never actually enter the fray. You're a classic 5 foot nothing forward who puts his stick where it doesn't belong and never stops running his mouth. Then, when play stops and somebody more than 3 inches taller and 20 pounds bigger actually gets close, you go and hide behind the biggest teammate you can find or wait for the linesman to show up and then you start yapping even more...
When do we get to see the so-called "A" team, guys?
So far, all there's been is a bunch of minor league has-beens and Not Ready for Prime Timers.
Plus one totally certifiable "never was" (rufus) whose "house" has a busted rod and two flat tires.
Muhammad Ali didn't have to waste his time with a bunch of Chuck Wepners. So … you peons got your chances, the results were predictable … just enjoy your brush with greatness, and tell the kids and grandkids "once upon a time, your (grand)dad got in the ring with The Greatest, and got smacked down". Even if you folks don't appreciate greatness, your kids and grandkids will.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g7lR3YDzKCA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Chuck, tough to claim how great you are when you never actually enter the fray. You're a classic 5 foot nothing forward who puts his stick where it doesn't belong and never stops running his mouth. Then, when play stops and somebody more than 3 inches taller and 20 pounds bigger actually gets close, you go and hide behind the biggest teammate you can find or wait for the linesman to show up and then you start yapping even more...
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
So...LaVar Ball?
So...LaVar Ball?
Hey, Hillary did win Maine and New Hampshire (although he did snag one electoral vote from Maine). That’s better than some other college hockey states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. Trump got less than 25% of the vote in my town.
You lost any street cred you might have had when you admitted that you didn't know about HRC's "deplorables" comment. Heck, even dufus, as dumb as he is, probably knew about it. Do try to be better informed netpresence. Democracy requires an informed electorate.
Happy Easter everyone!
Last edited:
Seems like HRC was right. Ever see the people at a Trump rally?
A trillion here, a trillion there. Pretty soon adds up to real money sagard!
rufus
rock and roller
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Who just spent $2 trillion to bail out a country whose economy they wrecked, because instead of preparing for an oncoming pandemic, they sat on their azzes for two months and did nothing but pretend it didn't exist, and hoped it would go away?
Who just spent $2 trillion to bail out a country whose economy they wrecked, because instead of preparing for an oncoming pandemic, they sat on their azzes for two months and did nothing but pretend it didn't exist, and hoped it would go away?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Problem = solution.
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVOQx9zUYAEszEC?format=jpg&name=small" height=300 >
Problem = solution.
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVOQx9zUYAEszEC?format=jpg&name=small" height=300 >
net presence
Active member
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
e.cat, first of all, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing about Hillary's "deplorables" comment". I was very aware of the fact she used the word "deplorables". If you were paying any attention to the upcoming election at that time, it was pretty much impossible not to know about the fact she called a big part of Trump's base "deplorables". However, I was not aware of the fact that she specifically used the words racist and sexist in describing what she meant by deplorable in the same speech. Quite frankly, I'm confident there's a significant portion of the population that isn't aware she also used the words racist and sexist to expand on what she meant by "deplorables". So again, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing".
To be clear, I'm quite confident I'm FAR more well read and informed about the issues of the day than you. In fact, my guess is, I'm probably in the top 10% of people informed about the various issues our country is dealing with. Over the last 10 days since I chose to become more involved in the discussion on this thread and others, both myself and Chuck have brought up a number of points/issues with each other that have been discussed by many since Trump became president. Obviously, because of the fact most of my posts have been directed at Chuck as it was his posts that got my initial attention, outside of Chuck, I haven't really attempted to engage directly with anyone other than "dontstayathome" and yourself to a lesser degree. Still, it doesn't mean that, just because I haven't directly challenged you to do so, if you really felt you had a strong contrarian opinion to something I said that you couldn't have responded/pushed back on some of the points of debate/discussion which I had directly addressed to Chuck. Funny though, you haven't responded to any of those points in any type of detailed way. In fact, "dontstayathome" hasn't responded to any of the points I made directly to him in the lengthy post I wrote about 4 or 5 days ago.
Kind of weird that, outside of the "deplorables" debate -- the one point Chuck obviously knew he was right about -- neither he or any of the other conservatives/Trump supporters on here
have responded to literally any other point in any sort of detailed manner. Nope, not a single one. It's pretty obvious why none of you are really willing to discuss/debate the nuances of these issues/points...deep down inside you guys all know you can't logically do so. You simply don't have the facts on your side. So instead, you guys/gals are like the 4th liners who rarely touch the ice. You sit at the end of the bench and lob poorly thought out and ineffective trash talk that everyone involved -- even your own teammates -- are sitting there thinking, "really, that's the best he could come up with?".
e.cat, first of all, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing about Hillary's "deplorables" comment". I was very aware of the fact she used the word "deplorables". If you were paying any attention to the upcoming election at that time, it was pretty much impossible not to know about the fact she called a big part of Trump's base "deplorables". However, I was not aware of the fact that she specifically used the words racist and sexist in describing what she meant by deplorable in the same speech. Quite frankly, I'm confident there's a significant portion of the population that isn't aware she also used the words racist and sexist to expand on what she meant by "deplorables". So again, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing".
To be clear, I'm quite confident I'm FAR more well read and informed about the issues of the day than you. In fact, my guess is, I'm probably in the top 10% of people informed about the various issues our country is dealing with. Over the last 10 days since I chose to become more involved in the discussion on this thread and others, both myself and Chuck have brought up a number of points/issues with each other that have been discussed by many since Trump became president. Obviously, because of the fact most of my posts have been directed at Chuck as it was his posts that got my initial attention, outside of Chuck, I haven't really attempted to engage directly with anyone other than "dontstayathome" and yourself to a lesser degree. Still, it doesn't mean that, just because I haven't directly challenged you to do so, if you really felt you had a strong contrarian opinion to something I said that you couldn't have responded/pushed back on some of the points of debate/discussion which I had directly addressed to Chuck. Funny though, you haven't responded to any of those points in any type of detailed way. In fact, "dontstayathome" hasn't responded to any of the points I made directly to him in the lengthy post I wrote about 4 or 5 days ago.
Kind of weird that, outside of the "deplorables" debate -- the one point Chuck obviously knew he was right about -- neither he or any of the other conservatives/Trump supporters on here
have responded to literally any other point in any sort of detailed manner. Nope, not a single one. It's pretty obvious why none of you are really willing to discuss/debate the nuances of these issues/points...deep down inside you guys all know you can't logically do so. You simply don't have the facts on your side. So instead, you guys/gals are like the 4th liners who rarely touch the ice. You sit at the end of the bench and lob poorly thought out and ineffective trash talk that everyone involved -- even your own teammates -- are sitting there thinking, "really, that's the best he could come up with?". Okay. Thanks for clarifying netpresence. So you knew about the "deplorables" comment but not the part characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views. You missed the most important part of her comments wouldn't you say?e.cat, first of all, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing about Hillary's "deplorables" comment". I was very aware of the fact she used the word "deplorables". If you were paying any attention to the upcoming election at that time, it was pretty much impossible not to know about the fact she called a big part of Trump's base "deplorables". However, I was not aware of the fact that she specifically used the words racist and sexist in describing what she meant by deplorable in the same speech. Quite frankly, I'm confident there's a significant portion of the population that isn't aware she also used the words racist and sexist to expand on what she meant by "deplorables". So again, I guess it depends on how you define "not knowing".
To be clear, I'm quite confident I'm FAR more well read and informed about the issues of the day than you. In fact, my guess is, I'm probably in the top 10% of people informed about the various issues our country is dealing with. Over the last 10 days since I chose to become more involved in the discussion on this thread and others, both myself and Chuck have brought up a number of points/issues with each other that have been discussed by many since Trump became president. Obviously, because of the fact most of my posts have been directed at Chuck as it was his posts that got my initial attention, outside of Chuck, I haven't really attempted to engage directly with anyone other than "dontstayathome" and yourself to a lesser degree. Still, it doesn't mean that, just because I haven't directly challenged you to do so, if you really felt you had a strong contrarian opinion to something I said that you couldn't have responded/pushed back on some of the points of debate/discussion which I had directly addressed to Chuck. Funny though, you haven't responded to any of those points in any type of detailed way. In fact, "dontstayathome" hasn't responded to any of the points I made directly to him in the lengthy post I wrote about 4 or 5 days ago.
Kind of weird that, outside of the "deplorables" debate -- the one point Chuck obviously knew he was right about -- neither he or any of the other conservatives/Trump supporters on here
Honestly netpresence, your posts are too filled with fluff and nonsense to rifle through so I haven't. Hence the NO COMMENT on my part.
Let's keep it simple (KISS), name me ONE or TWO issues you disagree with Republicans or Trump on if you want to and I promise to respond. Keep it concise please. Chew on it overnight if you need to.
Don't be like that Squirt or Pee Wee first line center who thinks he's God's gift. The one with all the answers and needs to be on the ice every shift at the expense of his teammates whose parents pay to play the same amount as his parents do.
net presence
Active member
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
e.cat., in all seriousness, that's a great response. I especially enjoyed the part about the Pee Wee 1st line center. Very funny!
And yes, I knew she had used the word "deplorables" -- if anyone was paying even just the least bit of attention it was impossible not to have heard she had used that word -- but, I honestly had never heard the actual sound bite prior to Chuck providing it. Let me do as you suggested and I'll get back to you tomorrow with one or two points we can discuss. About to start grilling steaks and shrimp for Easter dinner so, will wait until late tonight or tomorrow to respond. Happy Easter to you and your family e.cat and stay safe.
e.cat., in all seriousness, that's a great response. I especially enjoyed the part about the Pee Wee 1st line center. Very funny!
And yes, I knew she had used the word "deplorables" -- if anyone was paying even just the least bit of attention it was impossible not to have heard she had used that word -- but, I honestly had never heard the actual sound bite prior to Chuck providing it. Let me do as you suggested and I'll get back to you tomorrow with one or two points we can discuss. About to start grilling steaks and shrimp for Easter dinner so, will wait until late tonight or tomorrow to respond. Happy Easter to you and your family e.cat and stay safe.
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Solid points. With the "overnight" part you threw in there, my buddy Nostradamus has set the over-under on his response at 5.5 paragraphs, and mentions of "Chuck" at 3.5 (not creepy at all, nah). He's laying 3-to-1 on net running beyond one full message. Beyond that … I was getting a distinct Rupert Pupkin vibe, right from the outset. So, do proceed with caution. Godspeed, e.cat.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Poe4ElJzfCU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Elsewhere … it would appear the "A" team is either still AWOL, pretending not to notice, OR simply non-existent, given that we've been reduced to trolling the lowly <s>faculty lounge</s> Café against our will. Again, I'll give props to the Alaskan ponies dude, who shows more creativity and imagination in a single post than the tedious mediocrity his cohorts churn out regularly. Guessing he'd probably be a good foil to have beers with, while debating the issues, and leaving it at the door on good terms until the next time … y'know, like normal folks used to do all the time. Kudos.
Solid points. With the "overnight" part you threw in there, my buddy Nostradamus has set the over-under on his response at 5.5 paragraphs, and mentions of "Chuck" at 3.5 (not creepy at all, nah). He's laying 3-to-1 on net running beyond one full message. Beyond that … I was getting a distinct Rupert Pupkin vibe, right from the outset. So, do proceed with caution. Godspeed, e.cat.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Poe4ElJzfCU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Elsewhere … it would appear the "A" team is either still AWOL, pretending not to notice, OR simply non-existent, given that we've been reduced to trolling the lowly <s>faculty lounge</s> Café against our will. Again, I'll give props to the Alaskan ponies dude, who shows more creativity and imagination in a single post than the tedious mediocrity his cohorts churn out regularly. Guessing he'd probably be a good foil to have beers with, while debating the issues, and leaving it at the door on good terms until the next time … y'know, like normal folks used to do all the time. Kudos.
net presence
Active member
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
You are truly a beauty... In your last sentence, you lament the loss of people you could sit at a bar with and have a quality discussion/disagreement about political topics and yet, it would stay "in the bar" when you left. Funny, that's EXACTLY how I committed to handling any future back and forth with you after my first post in response to something you posted. Yet, you have refused to engage with me since then. Make up my mind big guy. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Next, you're also asking where the "A team" is in reference to who's engaging you. Maybe, just maybe, the other's from the "left" are seeing my responses and deciding they wouldn't be challenging you any differently than I have. Meaning, I AM on the "A Team".
Finally, as you can see Chuck, my post immediately following e.cat's request to limit my response to a couple of discussion points was only a single paragraph. And, as even you noted a couple of posts back, my last 4 or 5 posts have been 3 paragraphs or less. To be clear, I think if we looked back at all of each of our posts since my first post in this thread, I'm willing to bet that the number of 5 plus paragraph posts is pretty close to even. Obviously, all of the questions I've posed to you previously still stand and I await your detailed responses. I hope you and your family had an enjoyable Easter!
You are truly a beauty... In your last sentence, you lament the loss of people you could sit at a bar with and have a quality discussion/disagreement about political topics and yet, it would stay "in the bar" when you left. Funny, that's EXACTLY how I committed to handling any future back and forth with you after my first post in response to something you posted. Yet, you have refused to engage with me since then. Make up my mind big guy. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Next, you're also asking where the "A team" is in reference to who's engaging you. Maybe, just maybe, the other's from the "left" are seeing my responses and deciding they wouldn't be challenging you any differently than I have. Meaning, I AM on the "A Team".
Finally, as you can see Chuck, my post immediately following e.cat's request to limit my response to a couple of discussion points was only a single paragraph. And, as even you noted a couple of posts back, my last 4 or 5 posts have been 3 paragraphs or less. To be clear, I think if we looked back at all of each of our posts since my first post in this thread, I'm willing to bet that the number of 5 plus paragraph posts is pretty close to even. Obviously, all of the questions I've posed to you previously still stand and I await your detailed responses. I hope you and your family had an enjoyable Easter!
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Last edited:
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Do you mean George Bush? Barack Obama?
60 Minutes' 2005 report on pandemic preparedness
https://youtu.be/wP001Dum-Ps
Bill Gates TED Talk TED2015 | March 2015
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_the_next_outbreak_we_re_not_ready?language=en
Do you mean George Bush? Barack Obama?
60 Minutes' 2005 report on pandemic preparedness
https://youtu.be/wP001Dum-Ps
Bill Gates TED Talk TED2015 | March 2015
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_the_next_outbreak_we_re_not_ready?language=en
Last edited:
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Contact Rates during a Simulated Influenza Pandemic
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/4/06-0828_article
The Science behind what we are doing .....
Abstract
Measures to decrease contact between persons during an influenza pandemic have been included in pandemic response plans. We used stochastic simulation models to explore the effects of school closings, voluntary confinements of ill persons and their household contacts, and reductions in contacts among long-term care facility (LTCF) residents on pandemic-related illness and deaths. Our findings suggest that school closings would not have a substantial effect on pandemic-related outcomes in the absence of measures to reduce out-of-school contacts. However, if persons with influenza-like symptoms and their household contacts were encouraged to stay home, then rates of illness and death might be reduced by ≈50%. By preventing ill LTCF residents from making contact with other residents, illness and deaths in this vulnerable population might be reduced by ≈60%. Restricting the activities of infected persons early in a pandemic could decrease negative health impact.
Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Contact Rates during a Simulated Influenza Pandemic
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/4/06-0828_article
The Science behind what we are doing .....
Abstract
Measures to decrease contact between persons during an influenza pandemic have been included in pandemic response plans. We used stochastic simulation models to explore the effects of school closings, voluntary confinements of ill persons and their household contacts, and reductions in contacts among long-term care facility (LTCF) residents on pandemic-related illness and deaths. Our findings suggest that school closings would not have a substantial effect on pandemic-related outcomes in the absence of measures to reduce out-of-school contacts. However, if persons with influenza-like symptoms and their household contacts were encouraged to stay home, then rates of illness and death might be reduced by ≈50%. By preventing ill LTCF residents from making contact with other residents, illness and deaths in this vulnerable population might be reduced by ≈60%. Restricting the activities of infected persons early in a pandemic could decrease negative health impact.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
rufus
rock and roller
Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
No, something and someone a little more recent.
Remember this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGenVcak5nI
If things were so bad, if the national stockpiles were "so depleted" as he claims, if he was stuck with testing kits that "were obsolete and didn't work" why didn't he do something about it? He's been in office three years.
Why didn't he "fix it'? After all, he is the only one who can. All by hisself.
Instead, he knew this was coming in January, and spent two months telling the country it was under control, no big deal, was gonna just disappear. Instead of doing something. Anything.
No, something and someone a little more recent.
Remember this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGenVcak5nI
If things were so bad, if the national stockpiles were "so depleted" as he claims, if he was stuck with testing kits that "were obsolete and didn't work" why didn't he do something about it? He's been in office three years.
Why didn't he "fix it'? After all, he is the only one who can. All by hisself.
Instead, he knew this was coming in January, and spent two months telling the country it was under control, no big deal, was gonna just disappear. Instead of doing something. Anything.
Weak attempt at deflection.
Obama administration ran a pandemic simulation with Trump’s team in 2016 (most of the Trump people that participated have probably been fired by now though). They also left a NSC pandemic playbook, which was ignored.
Trump was in office 3 years when Covid-19 hit. The slow response and lack of preparation falls on him.
- Status