HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Censorship doesn't work.....

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 02:12 PM

Censorship doesn't work...

I was out in the truck and foolishly switched to the RWNJ station for about 2 minutes. Dan Bondino (sp?) - Rush's replacement - was ranting on about how Covid is just an excuse for control by the liberals. He said the Covid fatality rate is .008, and all kinds of other crazy shit. Free-dumb!!

I know that all that "free speech" stuff is important, but .... JHC.... the man is killing people with his lies!

DU lawyers:... Can that asshole be sued? Class action? Something?

18 replies, 827 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to albacore (Original post)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 02:33 PM

1. Replace Rushbo? Believe it or not, they'll need an even bigger asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Original post)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 02:41 PM

2. I resist the temptation to go see what new outrage they have today.

At least he is killing mostly pukes now. The unvaccinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Original post)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 02:45 PM

3. He might not be that far off on fatality rate

Covid fatality rate is .0179 at most

Deaths/Total case = Fatality rate
620,685/34,563,091 = 0.0179580292746387

But that does not include asymptomatic infected that were never tested.

Dr. Fauci has said roughly 40-45 percent of Americans with COVID-19 are asymptomatic

A study says it might be 50%

If it is 50% the fatality rate is 0.0089

620,685/69,126,182 = 0.0089790146373193

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 03:06 PM

4. Math was never my strong suit... I taught history.

But those numbers might make mathematical sense, but...

This country has turned itself inside out about 3,000 deaths on 9/11. What would the numbers be on that one? Nobody screamed on the radio about how the loss of a "mere" 3,000 people was not great enough to cause policy changes.

And we didn't have people pointing out that roughly 3 million Americans served in Vietnam and that "only" 56,000 died there.

And our casualties in combat during WWII were a minuscule percent of the population of the country, too. 140 million Americans... and we "only" lost 291,000.

Covid has killed TWICE what we lost in WWII... and in less than 2 years...and assholes like Bondino can still pump their bullshit out on the public airwaves.

It ain't right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 03:17 PM

5. I see that we lost 418,000 plus in WWII.

Link: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+many+u.s.+soldiers+died+in+ww2

Yeah, we've still lost more to Covid, but without bothering to do the math, our country's population is more than twice what it was in 1945.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 04:24 PM

9. I specified combat deaths... 291,557 Covid has killed twice that number. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 05:11 PM

13. Ummm, I still get over 400,000 combat deaths.

Link: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=u.s.+combat+deaths+in+ww2

And again, the percentage of population is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 05:42 PM

15. That's total casualties. Combat is 291,000. Vietnam ... 58,200 total... combat is 47,424

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 06:54 PM

16. Thank you for that link.

I'm astonished that over 100,000 soldiers died not in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 04:34 PM

10. I think 291,000 is .2 of the population in 1945... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Original post)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 03:35 PM

6. Another Question for Lawyers

Not sure if this is the best analogy or example, but here goes:

There is only one cable company in my area, I know I can turn the channel and not watch Faux News, but why do I have to pay for it? Why am I required to pay for racist, homophobic, discriminatory content - does this not violate my civil and religious rights.

If the Catholic church does not have to let LBGTQ people foster children because it violates their beliefs, than why am I forced to pay for Faux News against my will?

Does someone else have a better example?

Please don't respond "cut the cord"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mary in S. Carolina (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 03:45 PM

7. I worked in tech support for a cable provider.

Generally channels are lumped into blocks based on similar content/programming or just because they're the "regular" channels. Cable news channels tend to fall under the latter heading. It's just the way cable providers do things. I don't think you could make an argument that it violates your civil and/or religious rights.

You can always call them and ask that they block it on your box, so it'll just show a "not authorized" message if you go to that channel. You're still paying for it as part of that channel block, but at least it'll be impossible for it to be watched in your house. Unfortunately, the only way not to pay for it is to cut the cord.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jedi Guy (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 04:37 PM

11. Thanks Jedi Guy

After I learn how to cut the cord, I am going to call the local community college continuing education department and attend various events to teach others on how to cut the cord. We need to "Defund Faux" News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mary in S. Carolina (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 04:49 PM

12. You're welcome, though I'm sorry I didn't have better news for you, no pun intended.

I agree that the approach most likely to succeed is to starve the beast. Alas, I suspect Fox News will always have a loyal audience ready to swallow their bullshit. The size of the audience may wax and wane over time, but it'll always be there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mary in S. Carolina (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 06:58 PM

17. You are hardly being forced to watch Fox News against your will.

Yes, I know you said "forced to pay" but I'm going to guess there are other channels in your cable package you don't watch.

It's actually quite possible to live without cable. I haven't had it or a regular TV since 2008. I do have Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime and watch all sorts of things streaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Original post)


Response to Midnight Writer (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 07:16 PM

18. I am pretty sure that's not true.

Looking back at my SS records, a bit under $30k was paid to SS, between me and my employers. I realize that I entered the workforce in 1965, and so an inflation calculator for those early years would make it somewhat more, but I've already collected more than that in the three years since I turned 70 and started collecting on my own account.

The problem with people opting out is that few of them would actually set aside that money, and if they did they'd probably not invest well and end up far, far worse off than on Social Security.

I spent some 25 years out of the workforce raising children, although I just counted and do have 32 years of recorded earnings. About ten of those years I was only working part time and earned very little.

I also have a small pension, two annuities, and other investments I draw from. My social security amount is about one third of my income, which is what it should be. The real problem is that too many people rely on SS for their entire income in old age. Those are precisely the people who would be much worse off if they were told they had to start saving that 7.5% themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Original post)

Fri Jul 2, 2021, 05:12 PM

14. Answer: no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread