2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Shouldn't this have been taken care of prior to any planned roll-out?  Personally, I am not really sure what the benefits are to 5G, I hear the download speeds will be faster if there is no other technological bottlenecks, but the current speeds on 4G are pretty fast already. 

Probably, I am not sure what was missed or why the FAA is late to the table.

"In the missive, the former FCC members warn that the FAA's "position threatens to derail the reasoned conclusions reached by the FCC after years of technical analysis and study." The telecom regulator determined in 2020 that adequate protections were in place to prevent 5G devices operating on the C-band from interfering with the aforementioned systems. "

The faster data speeds are certainly what the consumer sees and the carriers brag about. The real impetus is all of the capabilities that get enabled for a variety of iot devices that depend on a robust network in more places think drones, public safety. Self driving cars.  Ziply is building a fiber network in my neighborhood where we already have Comcast and I have to ask "why?, in the future home internet and entertainment will be wireless. Proposals are already out for 6g and we need to swallow the 5g behemoth...the world moves faster all the time. 

I assume everyone who cares provided the  state department their feedback:

•  
•  
• Pursuant to EO 14012, and similar to USCIS's request for information, on September 16, 2021 the Department of State (DOS) published a request for public input on: " (1) Any existing barriers that impede access to, and fair, efficient adjudication of, immigrant visas, and (2) recommendations on actions the Department could take to improve access to adjudication of immigrant visa." Comments are due by October 18, 2021. This request for public input is limited to the immigrant visa process. To read the notice and to find comment instructions, see 86 FR 51643 (September 16, 2021).

T-Mobile/Sprint is unaffected because they are not using much c-band at this point. Att/Verizon are boxed in until this is worked out, which it will be.  The is no instance where this has been a problem, more research needs to be done before FAA can sign-off.

On 12/13/2021 at 10:17 PM, TBoneTX said:

Would like to hear anyone refute anything in here.

Thought TOS said weren't suppose to impeach sources we deemed unreliable.

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/investing/elon-musk-elizabeth-warren-taxes/index.html

..Little rocket man...

We don't need to pay for CNN Plus, just have @laylalex   share her CNN Plus  login details.

4 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Seriously?  The guy ask tough questions from his guests from both ditches. He gave Lindsay Graham a hard time yesterday and he also threw Bill de Blasio some heat as well.

 

I have several friends in the MDR who think he is strongly biased toward the MDL. He is a registered Democrat.  People in the depths of both ditches often precive MOR as extreme. 

Let me guess ? You think Rachel Maddow and Don 714 Lemmon are fair and balanced. 

I wasn't doubting your MOR assessment,  it is a meme from Cicely  Strongs SNL bit where she portrays Pirro

On 12/12/2021 at 10:35 PM, TBoneTX said:

Post is appreciated, but the referenced article's author explains the limitations and is careful to tread more than conservatively.

He feints a conservative story , And the goes on to concoct a made up extrapolated number that multiplies the reports by 36 due to "undereporting" and a "causality link" of 20% of the reports of death being caused by the vaccine. He doesn't know that either of those factors are close to accurate and is no more qualified to speak to the accuracy of these made up numbers than a high school statistics  student:

"Please keep in mind that the above is a very conservative estimate, which we have arrived at by assuming a 20 percent causality link in reported death entries in the VAERS database and the underreporting factor of 36. This, however, is likely a gross understatement of the actual situation."

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Given their track record of approving drugs that kill people that later have to be recalled and all the late night attorney tv ads for people who have been injured from said drugs my trust level for the FDA isn't very high. I would rather see the data myself instead of being told by known liars what it says.

 I don't put a lot of stock in what late night attorney ads (or any late night ads) are telling me, and you do.  

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Who knows what is hidden in the reams of data.  Has the FDA even reviewed all the data?  Do you have proof of that?  Now I do not have young children, but I would want to understand the possible long-term effects of an experimental (no Covid vaccine has been fully FDA approved for children under 16, even the Pfizer version) drug before injecting it in my child for something where the alternative is not as dire as the political Left would like to make us think it is.  

So I trust the FDA review and approval process, you do not.  

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Are you? No? Then why are you a member on a forum that discusses immigration laws and procedures? You obviously aren't qualified to even talk about such legal matters. Much less handle your own immigration case or advise others on how to do so. Guess visa journey should be shut down because 99% of people on this website are not attorneys and as such are not qualified to discuss the topics discussed here.

So I am guessing by this response, you are not a lawyer and I should probably look above to Maven's piece on the default judgement for a more accurate assessment . 

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Maybe long-term effects of this medicine.

So you are sure the long-term effects are hidden in these reams of data and that the FDA has hidden the known long term effects.  This is just more political hay to make.

• Chris Christie said this weekend that the events leading up to January 6 were "driven from the top."
• Christie pointed the finger at people he called "C-team players" around Donald Trump.
• He said Trump, unwilling to concede the election, was spurred by those saying what he hoped to hear.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-christie-trump-capitol-riot-was-driven-from-the-top-2021-12?amp

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

It is very interesting that Whitmer has been largely silent on the latest surge in MI.  There is no talk of shut-downs, masking mandates, etc.  The big Universities (MSU and UofM) just finished a standard college football season with largely full unmasked attendees (masks were required in the concourse areas).  The Whitmer apologist claim that she no longer has dictatorial powers since the MI Supreme Court, and then the People and Legislature struck down the 1945 law, but there are still laws on the books where she can issue emergency orders that simply have to be reviewed with the Legislature every thirty days or so.  The only explanation as to Whitmer's silence and absence during this latest surge is here upcoming re-election challenge coming up in November 2022. 

Or maybe she just figures that if someone is not smart enough to mask up, social distance,  vaccinate and test when appropriate after all of the data that is out there, no mandate is going to change those peoples behavior. 

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

Even if there is a legitimate reason (which I am highly skeptical of) to withhold the data for 75 years is it unreasonable for people to want to see the data before they can make an informed decision on whether or not to take the shot? Or are we supposed to just blindly trust what we are told and accept a mandated medical procedure that we can't even see the data for?

What data are you looking for? Specifically?

45 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's missing because it didn't happen. He literally sat for hours of depositions and turned over thousands of documents and records that weren't even relevant to the case and shouldn't have even been asked for. Even if he turned over nothing which is not at all the case the jury should have been allowed to render a verdict. The only time a default judgement is appropriate is if a defendant simply chooses not to respond to a lawsuit which was not at all the case in the two cases we are talking about here. Like I said I don't agree with Jones's views on this subject but everyone has a first amendment right and everyone has a right to a jury trial (with a few exceptions). This is left wing lawfare plain and simple.

Are you an attorney or paralegal?

31 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

From the article:

 

"Last month Jones, the host of Infowars, was found liable for damages in a defamation lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose victims included 20 young children. Jones claimed that the shooting was a “false flag” operation carried out by “crisis actors.” He mocked grieving parents, saying, “I’ve looked at it, and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were preplanning before it and rolled out with it.”"

 

Funny how they only tell part of the story here. I'm not a huge fan of Jones and don't agree with his viewpoint on Sandy Hook but the fact of the matter is he was railroaded in this trial. He gave the judge and plaintiffs everything they asked for and the judge issued a default judgement in a jury trial where the jury was supposed to render a verdict. This is almost unheard of and essentially denies Jones his right to a jury trial. If this article can't get that part right I have very little faith the rest of it is factual. Notice they say he was found "liable" and not found "guilty" because he was never in fact found guilty.

Alex Jones also lost his Texas case  with  default judgment , where he chose not to participate in his defense. The part about not putting up a defense is missing in your description. I see nothing wrong with the description and Jones's displayed disgusting behavior in attacking the families of these kids. The Civil cases just punctuated what most adults already knew about this pompous scumbag. 

Of course the term liable versus guilty is used, it's a civil trial.

Back to the original question why is Tucker Carlson embracing Alex Jones and his disturbing statements? Because, just like Jones' behavior itself, it gets eyeballs and sells ads. 

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

In 2020 the incident never conceded. 
 

Lacking a concession, no world leader shoukd have offered congratulations to Biden until Congress certified the results. Anything else is interference in American internal affairs. 

When did Trump  concede? 

Tucker Carlson Is Completing the Work That Trump Began

There was a time when someone like Alex Jones would have been too toxic to embrace.

By Peter Wehner

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/why-tucker-carlson-defending-alex-jones/620906/

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/fda-says-it-now-needs-75-years-to-fully-release-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-data_4145410.html

 

It was 55 years now its 75 years. Most of us will be dead and buried before the data comes out at this rate. They approved it in record time yet this is probably a record for the longest period of time to release the data. Nothing to see here. Just take your shot and don't question anything.

Behind a paywall.

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Unemployment rate still not down to Trump pre covid levels. Since Trumps economy was really Obamas economy, would it not be fair to say this is still Trumps economy, rebounding from shutting the country down? we shut our whole economy down and Trumps economy was so robust it did not crash the economy 

Feel free to make another thread:  "Even though good times look like they are here, it is really because of Trump" 

Weekly jobless claims fall to 184,000, the lowest level in more than 52 years

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/09/us-weekly-jobless-claims.html

10 hours ago, Boiler said:

 

Here is my problem with Peterson.

Resentment: either you are emotionally stunted ( and mostly focused on young men), get your stuff together, no argument there OR

You are feeling resentment because you are being subject to some injustice. and you need reassert yourself and reclaim what is yours, for your good and that of society and restore "the natural order". 

That is all well in good. But what if there is a third option: social constructs are invented and not natural.  Example from the 60s: Dad goes off to work, mom stays home and takes care of the kids and the meals and the...you get the picture. One day Mom has an epiphany: the kids are in school all day, what if I took a job on the side. had my own bank account, had my own car? There would be more not less for everyone including me.  

So Dad doesn't like it, but he goes along  figuring she will tire of this experiment.

Turns out: she thrives at work and loves it. She is finally putting that degree to work. We'll save the equal pay for equal work discussion for later, she is happy.

Naturally, things change at home. There is no June Cleaver with a cold martini waiting for Dad. Dinner is not from scratch but comes out of a freezer. The clothes aren't as pressed and lined up. He needs to take care of more things in the house and with the kids. "This is unfair, I never had to do any of those things before"  Dad wants this to stop and to return to the "natural order".  But the natural order is a myth, a construct invented for that society at that time. 

When a group people with the power have a set of rules that works for them, and the other party no longer wants to play by those rules, conflict ensues and inevitably the party that perceives they are loosing power think it is unjust. They invent all sorts of excuses about why things need to be restored, explain on behalf of the other party to "the deal" why that group is not interested in a seat at the table, a piece of the pie,  a vote, a living wage, good schools, clean water.  "Why should", the folks with power rationalize, " I give up my seat, my power, my money" for the other.  "They were perfectly happy before. Why can't these activists/intellectuals/carpetbaggers just go home and quit riling folks up"

The thing is, those feelings of resentment are rarely backed up by evidence and a whole industry of rewriting history is spun up to keep the status quo and ensure those with the power, feel comfortable keeping it. For my money Peterson is an extension of that industry. 

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

I said it was illegal. And the Courts do not seem to full of cases.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/12/3/20948425/equal-pay-lawsuits-pay-gap-glass-ceiling