0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.
So I have a question here ....Is there a medical relationship between Parkinson's Disease & Vascular Dementia ?
I'm not sure aspiration pneumonia (actually a pneumonitis, caused by inhaling (aspirating) vomit) is a bad call. It isn't the same as "regular" pneumonia at all really, but since lay people don't know the difference, it's a way to make it sound like a fairly minor problem (bacterial pneumonia) with a definitive treatment. Meaning Hillary would be well in a couple of weeks (nothing to see here, move along). That isn't the case with aspirating stomach acid, which would be a continuing problem, and potentially fatal if she has a bad episode.I have followed all the anti-Hillary stories about her coughing fits and momentary lapses of coherence while speaking, and I think there is SOMETHING going on, something that's definitely being soft-pedaled. I'm guessing whatever medical records are released will be massaged to make the situation seem more minor than it is. I don't think she'll be off the ballot unless she drops dead.
Quote from: agelbert on September 12, 2016, 03:47:45 pmBut as to the "Pneumonia" diagnosis, it is TOTAL bullshit. Pneumonia has SLOW acting symptomology. It is breathtakingly arrogant for the propaganda liars to claim Hillary passed out from pneumonia. ANY brief study of the symptoms of this disease will show that Hillary, if she had pneumonia on the day she passed out, would have had BREATHING and COUGHING and FEVER symptoms prior to the 9/11 photo op. Her team would have given her some powerful medication. It is possible that she had a reaction to the DRUGS in her system, which induced a syncope, but in either case, it points at RAPID LOSS of OXYGENATION. Pneumonia doesn't DO ANYTHING RAPIDLY, PERIOD. I don't think her having pneumonia is totally implausible. Let me tell you I have had a heart attack AND pneumonia in my life-time and I say that my bouts of pneumonia gave me a greater degree of breathlessness than the heart attack. The first time I caught pneumonia it actually caused me to collapse on the ground after pushing myself physically. The fall was similar to Hilary had she no aides to catch her so I think it is possible to fall like it especially if one pushes themselves to the limit. Let us not forget she is a 67 year old woman so quite likely the symptoms could be worse on that front. As for coughing, breathing and fever she could have been given some medication to reduce those symptoms. In any case though it is all speculation and it is possible she has something other than pneumonia however I would not discount the idea she has it. Time will tell what she has. If this is a one off episode then it lends credence to the idea it is just a bout of ill health but if she has continued episodes especially in the coming months then something more sinister is at foot.
But as to the "Pneumonia" diagnosis, it is TOTAL bullshit. Pneumonia has SLOW acting symptomology. It is breathtakingly arrogant for the propaganda liars to claim Hillary passed out from pneumonia. ANY brief study of the symptoms of this disease will show that Hillary, if she had pneumonia on the day she passed out, would have had BREATHING and COUGHING and FEVER symptoms prior to the 9/11 photo op. Her team would have given her some powerful medication. It is possible that she had a reaction to the DRUGS in her system, which induced a syncope, but in either case, it points at RAPID LOSS of OXYGENATION. Pneumonia doesn't DO ANYTHING RAPIDLY, PERIOD.
agb, degraded DNA aside are you saying horses shouldn't be ridden, sheep shouldn't be sheared, and dogs shouldn't be used to round them up or find fugitives or lost hikers or drugs or lead blind people or just keep their owner physically and psychologically healthy by taking them for a walk and warning them the House is on fire or greeting them when they get home?
All scientific work is incomplete — whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.Appears in 62 books from 1950-2008
You may have heard that George Orwell's book, "1984" is once again, for the first time since 1948, the top selling book in the United States, in the wake of Kellyanne Conway making her iconic "alternative facts" quip. In Orwell’s “1984” and Trump’s America Adam Gopnik, also of the New Yorker, unabashedly compares Trump's bullying and lying to Orwell's antagonist, Big Brother:
There is nothing subtle about Trump’s behavior. He lies, he repeats the lie, and his listeners either cower in fear, stammer in disbelief, or try to see how they can turn the lie to their own benefit. Every continental wiseguy, from Žižek to Baudrillard, insisted that when they pulled the full totalitarian wool over our eyes next time, we wouldn’t even know it was happening. Not a bit of it. Trump’s lies, and his urge to tell them, are pure Big Brother crude, however oafish their articulation. They are not postmodern traps and temptations; they are primitive schoolyard taunts and threats.The blind, blatant disregard for truth is offered without even the sugar-façade of sweetness of temper or equableness or entertainment—offered not with a sheen of condescending consensus but in an ancient tone of rage, vanity, and vengeance. Trump is pure raging authoritarian id.And so, rereading Orwell, one is reminded of what Orwell got right about this kind of brute authoritarianism—and that was essentially that it rests on lies told so often, and so repeatedly, that fighting the lie becomes not simply more dangerous but more exhausting than repeating it. Orwell saw, to his credit, that the act of falsifying reality is only secondarily a way of changing perceptions. It is, above all, a way of asserting power.When Trump repeats the ridiculous story about the three million illegal voters—a story that no one who knows, that not a single White House “staffer,” not a single Republican congressman actually believes to be true—he does not really care if anyone believes it, even if, at some crazy level, he does, sort of. People aren’t meant to believe it; they’re meant to be intimidated by it. The lie is not a claim about specific facts; the lunacy is a deliberate challenge to the whole larger idea of sanity. Once a lie that big is in circulation, trying to reel the conversation back into the territory of rational argument becomes impossible.
You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and Trump is cracking eggs. Family first, then friends, then everyone else. There is nothing wrong with that mantra. Recent American political leaders inverted this fundamental equation of human existence considering themselves not to be Americans but elite citizens of the world and they have treated the American people horribly as they prospered their own class with stratospheric riches by their seizure and transfer overseas of American treasure. They expanded their empire and ruined the domestic economy. Trump is standing the existing order on its head. Overpopulation is leading to collapse and if the number of immigrants who dilute my citizenship one at a time is cut to zero let it be so. When America has no poor and we are taking care of all our own and every American has a decent job at a decent wage let us ask if there is room for anyone else but until then a pox on those arrogant enough to think they have the right be bestow citizenship on anyone they please. Right now America has too many resource hogs and we don't need any more.You may not like Trump. You may hate Trump and you may disagree with his attitudes but Trump is the first politician we have had who has had anything but a childish inkling about how the world works for a long time. Trump understands the world will not run on magic. Trump may still be wrong about how he thinks the world works in almost every way but the path America has been on so far has been going at a hundred straight for a cliff. Just about anything else is an improvement, for the path we have been on was certain ruin. Trump in his bumblings is forcing change and a badly needed examination of the national character.
"I've heard this before, and, just to be clear, there's no social science to support your position on that," Carlson said. "There are no actual studies that show a sanctuary city is safer. Sorry."Alex did not let that comment go unchallenged."I disagree with you, Tucker," Alex responded.Tucker tried to have the last word."There's no disagreement -- there haven't been studies done on that that show it," Tucker said.Alex did not cower as he responded. More importantly, in addition to pointing out the increased safety of these cities, he included some economic realities."Let me just correct you there," Alex said. "I can talk about it right now. The most comprehensive study to date is the University of California study done by Ted Wong. It basically looked at sanctuary cities across the country, and it said that there are 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 in sanctuary cities than non-sanctuary cities. It also said it's even better in smaller municipalities. And, importantly, sanctuary cities have stronger economies, lower poverty rates, lower uninsured rates --"Tucker had no comeback, so he had to resort to the connection, causation, and speculation argument. Of course, Republicans usually depend on much less as corroboration of their ill-advised policies.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. :icon_sunny: REhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/bill-oreilly-is-officially-out-at-fox-news/2017/04/19/74ebdc94-2476-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.42b9305ab48cBill OReilly is officially out at Fox NewsBill O'Reilly let go from Fox News Channel amid sexual harassment claimsBill O'Reilly, longtime host of Fox News's top-rated show, The O'Reilly Factor, will not return to the network. His departure comes after six women alleged he sexually harassed them. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)By Paul Farhi April 19 at 2:41 PMFox News has ended its association with Bill OReilly, the combative TV host and commentator who has ruled cable-news ratings for nearly two decades and was the signature figure in the networks rise as a powerful political player.The conservative-leaning hosts downfall was swift and steep, set in motion less than three weeks ago by revelations of a string of harassment complaints against him. The questions about his conduct represented yet another black eye to Fox, which had dealt with a sexual harassment scandal involving its co-founder and then-chairman Roger Ailes, just last summer.[The fall of Roger Ailes: He made Fox News his locker room ]After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill OReilly have agreed that Bill OReilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel, 21st Century Fox, the news channels parent company, said in a statement Wednesday.After Ailess departure, Fox and 21st Century Fox both controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his family had vowed then to clean up an apparent culture of harassment at the news network. Instead, the allegations kept coming against Ailes, OReilly and some of the remaining senior executives that Ailes had hired.Bill OReilly is out at Fox News. (Richard Drew/AP)Fox has also lost popular hosts Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly since the turmoil began last summer. The network, however, continued to roll in record ratings, driven in part by viewer interest in Donald Trump, a longtime friend of Ailes, Murdoch and OReilly and a frequent interview guest for years.The loss of OReilly, however, is of a different magnitude: His program, The OReilly Factor, has been the networks flagship show for nearly 20 years, and in many ways has embodied its conservative-oriented spirit.[How much turmoil can Fox News handle?]It was just last month that Fox re-signed OReilly to a multimillion dollar, three-year contract, fully aware of the long history of complaints against him.He still seemed to be at the peak of his popularity and prestige only three weeks ago. His 8 p.m. program, which mixes discussion segments with OReillys pugnacious commentary, drew an average of 4 million viewers each night during the first three months of the year, the most ever for a cable-news program. His popularity, in turn, helped drive Fox News to record ratings and profits. OReilly was also the co-author of two books that were at the top of the bestseller lists in April.But the fuse was lit for his career detonation when the New York Times disclosed that OReilly and Fox had settled a series of harassment complaints lodged against him by women hed worked with at Fox over the years.The newspaper found that OReilly and Fox had settled five such allegations since 2002, paying out some $13 million in exchange for the womens silence. Two of the settlements, including one for $9 million in 2004, were widely reported. But the others had been kept secret by OReilly, Fox and the women involved.In addition, a sixth woman, a former OReilly Factor guest named Wendy Walsh, alleged that OReilly had harassed her in 2013. Although Walsh never sued or sought compensation, she spoke against him in public, drawing more negative attention to Fox and OReilly over the past few weeks. A seventh, still anonymous woman filed a complaint with the company on Tuesday, alleging that he had made disparaging racial and sexual remarks to her while she was employed at Fox in 2008.OReilly has never acknowledged that he harassed anyone. In his only public statement about the matter in early April, he said his fame made him a target of lawsuits and that he settled the harassment claims against him to spare his children negative publicity.After the revelations, Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, were forced to decide whether the economic and reputational fallout from the OReilly scandal were irreversible.OReilly had previously survived several controversies during his 21 years at Fox, including a lurid sexual harassment case in 2004 that was fodder for New Yorks tabloid newspapers. He also beat back a wave of headlines in 2015, when reporters examined his claims about his days as a young reporter and found them to be dubious. All the while, OReillys audience not only stuck with him, but continued to grow.But this time, the intense media coverage surrounding OReilly led to a stampede of advertisers away from OReillys program, leaving it almost without sponsorship over the past two weeks. Various organizations, including the National Organization for Women, called for OReillys firing, and intermittent protests began outside Fox News headquarters in New York. Morale among employees at the network reportedly was suffering, too.The Murdochs also had more than just OReillys TV career to consider: The OReilly controversy was casting a shadow over 21st Centurys $14 billion bid to win the British governments approval to buy Sky TV, the British satellite service. Leaving OReilly in place would likely have been a public-relations nightmare for James and Lachlan Murdoch, the sons who head 21st Century Fox, Fox News parent.The Murdoch family abandoned a 2011 offer for Sky amid another scandal, the phone-hacking conspiracy perpetrated by employees of the Murdoch-owned News of the World tabloid in London. A parliamentary panel later declared Rupert and James Murdoch to be unfit to run a public company a description they hoped would not be revived by regulators with the OReilly matter hanging over them.In the wake of the Ailes scandal last summer, the Murdoch brothers vowed to clean up a workplace environment that women at Fox had described as hostile under Ailes. In one of their few public statements on the matter, they said at the time, We continue our commitment to maintaining a work environment based on trust and respect.But those efforts have seemed unavailing, and at times have even seemed hypocritical. Since the Ailes scandal, the company has continued to employ almost all of the senior managers who were in charge when Ailes was allegedly harassing employees, including Bill Shine, currently Foxs co-president. Shine was accused of enabling Ailes retaliatory efforts against an accuser, Fox contributor Julie Roginsky, in a sexual-harrassment lawsuit Roginsky filed earlier this month.The external and internal pressure left the Murdochs with a dilemma: Keep the networks most valuable asset and hope to ride out the storm around him, or cut him loose and end the drama.In the end, even an endorsement from President Trump couldnt save OReilly: In an interview with Times reporters on April 5, Trump called OReilly a good person and said he shouldnt have settled the complaints made against him. I dont think Bill did anything wrong, Trump said.Fox said that Tucker Carlson, host of a discussion-program now airing at 9 p.m., will take over OReillys 8 p.m. timeslot. Tucker Carlson Tonight, in turn, will be replaced at 9 p.m. by Foxs 5 p.m. show, The Five, starting on Monday. The OReilly Factor will continue for the remainder of the week, with guest hosts Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. Martha MacCallum and Sean Hannity will remain in their current spots at 7 p.m and 10 p.m,, respectively, and the 5 p.m. hour will be occupied by a new show, hosted by Eric Bolling, starting May 1.
F u c k ing prick. Like Ailes, he's so rich he won't miss the job. Fox will just find some other right-wing A-hole to be head cheerleader for austerity and military interventionism.
Started by AGelbert
« 1 2 ... 9 10 »
Fossil Fuel Folly
Started by AGelbert
« 1 2 3 »