It’s time to fight for our Freedom, I’m scared...

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
Places that do have stricter restrictions also have more protections for things like foreclosures.


This situation is not able to be understood with sweeping generalizations.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509

Feeding America Study Projects Local Food Insecurity Rates Amid Pandemic Could Reach Up To 1 in 3 Adults and 1 in 2 Children
52 million Americans are will be food insecure , and half of those are because of the medical tyranny response to the cold
Yeah keep laughing rainerann you psycho
In response to the nbc article that says.

“Nationally, an analysis from Feeding Americaprojected that food insecurity will hit 52 million people due to COVID-19, which is an increase of 17 million people from pre-pandemic times.”

I cared about the prepandemic food insecurity levels that is over 50% of that total number.

increasing food insecurity isn’t good. Recognizing an increase is important, but you were supposed to be trying to prove how the pandemic itself is causing depression era poverty like your comments suggests.

an increase of 17 million is not demonstrative of creating depression era levels. Any comparison to depression era levels is dependent on the reality of pre pandemic levels for emphasis. The point I was making was that you were exaggerating, not that people weren’t experience some increased level of hardship.

I also support another stimulus For this situation. i would usually argue that the vagueness of the federal tax is the same as stealing and I support private property because it creates freedom and opportunity. The only exception to this would be in a situation like a pandemic, because no one enjoys freedom when people are getting sick and dying around them. I support funding a method of prevention as a community.

this would be a specific use of something like a tax rather than the usual taking of our money and not really ever telling us how it is spent.

you are exaggerating my positions on this subject from every angle because your mind is fixed on supporting an agenda produced my alt media right now.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
The nurses in North Dakota are not even required to quarantine when they test positive.


How are covid restrictions in North Dakota creating depression era poverty again? More than likely, it is the actual pandemic itself that would be responsible for this. Open your eyes.
Nope, its clearly the tyrannical response by governing bodies and parroted by people like you that is causing it. How could a sickness that usually doesnt even have symptoms cause unemployment. Your brain on arrogance
In response to the nbc article that says.

“Nationally, an analysis from Feeding Americaprojected that food insecurity will hit 52 million people due to COVID-19, which is an increase of 17 million people from pre-pandemic times.”

I cared about the prepandemic food insecurity levels that is over 50% of that total number.

increasing food insecurity isn’t good. Recognizing an increase is important, but you were supposed to be trying to prove how the pandemic itself is causing depression era poverty like your comments suggests.

an increase of 17 million is not demonstrative if creating depression era levels. Any comparison to depression era levels is dependent on the reality of pre pandemic levels for emphasis. The point I was making was that you were exaggerating, not that people weren’t experience some increased level of hardship.

I also support another stimulus For this situation. i would usually argue that the vagueness of the federal tax is the same as stealing and I support private property because it creates freedom and opportunity. The only exception to this would be in a situation like a pandemic, because no one enjoys freedom when people are getting sick and dying around them. I support funding a method of prevention as a community.

this would be a specific use of something like a tax rather than the usual taking of our money and not really ever telling us how it is spent.

you are exaggerating my positions on this subject from every angle because your mind is fixed on supporting an agenda produced my alt media right now.
And those were the numbers I used, hence I didnt exaggerate. Anyways Im not reading any more of your brain leakage, feel free to respond with all the arrogant grandstanding you like though
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,094
I think the economy would have tanked because of the pandemic whether we shut down or not personally. Countries that didn’t shut down still saw their economies tank. States that didn’t shut down still saw their economies tank. It’s a shitty situation. Made a million times worse by the choices we are making in how to deal with it... half ass measures just prolong the pain. That goes for anything.

if we were really going to shut Down - across the board, possibly even globally. No interstate on international travel at all. Almost like completely frozen in place for the length of the incubation and recovery period...AND provide direct 100% income replacement to everyone making less than a certain amount of money and who isn’t able to continue working from home... then maybe. In the absence of a plan like that or similar I can’t support shut downs again because we are just prolonging and increasing our pain with any half measures at this point.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
Nope, its clearly the tyrannical response by governing bodies and parroted by people like you that is causing it. How could a sickness that usually doesnt even have symptoms cause unemployment. Your brain on arrogance

And those were the numbers I used, hence I didnt exaggerate. Anyways Im not reading any more of your brain leakage, feel free to respond with all the arrogant grandstanding you like though
yes it is very tyrannical to tell nurses they still have to work with covid considering it is contagious.

No you never used those numbers.

you said, “You are demanding tens of millions become unemployed, starve in food lines, destroy our health through your psychotic demands on our lifestyle”

by making a list, every part of this list is depending on the word become. You said tens of millions would become stuck in food lines because they were hungry As a result of the pandemic. That is an exaggeration.


You then repeated this in a second post where you said. “Tens of millions are lining up in food lines because they cant afford food.”

you are implying that tens of millions of new people are lining up at food banks because of the pandemic. You understand that tens of millions is as least 20 million and your source is saying there is an increase of 17 million from prepandemic times right?


Then I asked for a source to prove this depression era poverty that you are describing. It looks like you went looking for a source at this point and went with the first one you found. Then, you conveniently forgot what you had actually said that I said was an exaggeration, which you have proved again.

all I said was that you were exaggerating and the effect of the pandemic has not caused depression era poverty. You are still not able to prove that it has.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
I think the economy would have tanked because of the pandemic whether we shut down or not personally. Countries that didn’t shut down still saw their economies tank. States that didn’t shut down still saw their economies tank. It’s a shitty situation. Made a million times worse by the choices we are making in how to deal with it... half ass measures just prolong the pain. That goes for anything.

if we were really going to shut Down - across the board, possibly even globally. No interstate on international travel at all. Almost like completely frozen in place for the length of the incubation and recovery period...AND provide direct 100% income replacement to everyone making less than a certain amount of money and who isn’t able to continue working from home... then maybe. In the absence of a plan like that or similar I can’t support shut downs again because we are just prolonging and increasing our pain with any half measures at this point.
I still support air filters or some other new and improved way of improving standards of sanitation over and above any type of quarantine outside of what might be required temporarily to implement a new sanitation standard of some kind. Clean air, clean surfaces, etc. these arguments over how to respond to covid are becoming a waste of time really. We could really have made a lot more progress by now.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,094
I still support air filters or some other new and improved way of improving standards of sanitation over and above any type of quarantine outside of what might be required temporarily to implement a new sanitation standard of some kind. Clean air, clean surfaces, etc. these arguments over how to respond to covid are becoming a waste of time really. We could really have made a lot more progress by now.
I agree... all the money we spent bailing out billionaires could have been funneled into retrofitting buildings with HEPA air filtration systems to ensure there wasn’t another surge when we went back inside when the weather got cold (Added bonus: create gainful employment). We have been dealing with this for eight months and there were plenty of opportunities to move past these same ridiculous arguments... to actual solutions.


On a positive note I haven’t caught my yearly upper respiratory that I usually catch by November like clockwork.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
yes it is very tyrannical to tell nurses they still have to work with covid considering it is contagious.

No you never used those numbers.

you said, “You are demanding tens of millions become unemployed, starve in food lines, destroy our health through your psychotic demands on our lifestyle”

by making a list, every part of this list is depending on the word become. You said tens of millions would become stuck in food lines because they were hungry As a result of the pandemic. That is an exaggeration.


You then repeated this in a second post where you said. “Tens of millions are lining up in food lines because they cant afford food.”

you are implying that tens of millions of new people are lining up at food banks because of the pandemic. You understand that tens of millions is as least 20 million and your source is saying there is an increase of 17 million from prepandemic times right?


Then I asked for a source to prove this depression era poverty that you are describing. It looks like you went looking for a source at this point and went with the first one you found. Then, you conveniently forgot what you had actually said that I said was an exaggeration, which you have proved again.

all I said was that you were exaggerating and the effect of the pandemic has not caused depression era poverty. You are still not able to prove that it has.
"Its not tens of millions of people, its only 17 million additional people"..... facepalm, yeah behold the medical neo liberal tyrant of our day. yeah you belong in a museum, that is all
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
"Its not tens of millions of people, its only 17 million additional people"..... facepalm, yeah behold the medical neo liberal tyrant of our day. yeah you belong in a museum, that is all
you’re supposed to stop talking to me remember? But you are grossly exaggerating what I said again. I said there is a difference between tens of millions of people and 17 million people. tens of millions describes depression era poverty.

an increase of 17 million when the prepandemic level is over 50% of the total statistic, is not depression era poverty.

I requested a source that supported your claim of tens of millions of people. You were not able to provide one, which means that you just made that number up to look more alarming.

you picked a number out of a hat without looking up a source first, and that number was an exaggeration of the actual situation.

the number was intended to emphasize that I was promoting destruction by saying that volume is a legitimate concern for a hospital system. However, since you can’t find a source to support this exaggeration, you will continue to complain about talking to me, feign that you are going to stop, and then continue talking to me anyway, because it is more important to you that someone else see me a certain way so they don’t listen to me, then for you to try to find credible information to support an actual argument.

your posts to me are personal in nature and have little to do with the actual subject demonstrated by the fact that will make things up along the way to try to make a point about me rather than an actual point, and end up trying to source them after the fact.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
i just keep responding because it’s easy fodder, and you’re wrong so it doesn’t take much time. I cited that 54 million Americans are food insecure, 60% increase.



and if that’s acceptable to you then yeah you’re a psycho and I don’t enjoy talking to you
 






Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
i just keep responding because it’s easy fodder, and you’re wrong so it doesn’t take much time. I cited that 54 million Americans are food insecure, 60% increase.



and if that’s acceptable to you then yeah you’re a psycho and I don’t enjoy talking to you
lol you’re using the same statistic again like it is going to say something new. From this article.

Feeding America, the nation's largest hunger-relief organization, says more than 54 million people in the country could soon face food insecurity. That is 17 million more than before the coronavirus outbreak. The non-profit has seen a 60 percent increase in food assistance needs since March.”

my gosh you are dense. 54 million is the combined total with the prepandemic number. 17 million isn’t even referring to the 60% increase. The 60% increase is unknown number that is what they are using to base their prediction of an eventual 54 million. 17 million represents the predicted total level of increase that has not actually become a reality yet, but will be if the need continues to increase at the current rate of 60%.

so technically 54 million people are not food insecure right now according to this article. It is just possible that they will be And 54 million is not a 60% increase. 17 million is the total predicted increase.

However, this total predicted number Still show prepandemic cases representing well over 50% of the total number.

you were exaggerating to make something seem more alarming, but this might be a severe reading comprehension issue.

this article still doesn’t suggest depression level poverty like your comment about tens of millions of people becoming dependent on food banks as a result of the pandemic suggests. It doesn’t even say what you are saying it suggests.

my comments remain the same. You are manipulating what I said. I never said there was no hardship created. I said there was no depression era levels of hardship that have been created. You made that up Out of thin air and still cannot support it.

you are the one that is easy fodder sir. I truly can’t even understand why you chose to respond just to reiterate that you don’t know what you are talking about. You literally slapped another article on a post as though it were groundbreaking without even reading it to try and see where someone could counter what you were saying. That’s arrogance frankly. Being so sure of yourself, you don’t even have to critically think about the article you are using to pretend you have a point.

slow down, read your articles for other angles before you post them.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
Yeah I love how humorous and joyful this is for you, and I’m glad you have deemed the millions of people without food because of the policies you advocate for to be nessessary casualties. I never used the word “depression era” either, that’s just something you made up to nitpick against. anyways thank for your display of coldness and arrogance that you believe is compassion, it is a good case study of liberal psychology. Evil always comes with a mask on, talking about the good.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
Yeah I love how humorous and joyful this is for you, and I’m glad you have deemed the millions of people without food because of the policies you advocate for to be nessessary casualties. I never used the word “depression era” either, that’s just something you made up to nitpick against. anyways thank for your display of coldness and arrogance that you believe is compassion, it is a good case study of liberal psychology. Evil always comes with a mask on, talking about the good.
You said tens of millions which you still can’t support. Tens of millions would represent something that would be depression era levels of poverty. I’m not nitpicking anything.

you made it up to make something seem more alarming. Then, when you tried to support it, you misread the statistics concerning the potential for increased needs to say that 54 million people were food insecure, when the article was saying this was a possibility. Then you clipped this glaring error out of your response here.

You are exaggerating the effects of the pandemic in order to promote the notion that we shouldn’t be concerned over whether more people will require intervention as a result of covid.

again, if there are more people who require intervention than there are people who are able to intervene. People could die from all causes in greater numbers. So you either accept that as a reality, or you accept and try to assist people wherever possible who struggle or experience hardship as a result of this situation.

your way is no less cold quite frankly Because you are saying that it is better to take our chances on how many people could die when the number of people needing intervention exceeds the number of people who are able to provide it simply because there is the potential that someone might have to go to a food bank for a short period of time.

going to the food bank or potentially dying of some unknown cause including stroke, cancer, etc. which position demonstrates the most compassion?

I like people to have a chance to live quite frankly. Food won’t matter when you’re dead.

but this is just another one of your exaggerations because you don’t really know what you’re talking about and this situation has only increased the level of paranoia rather than your knowledge.

Never in my life would I ever refer to someone as a necessary casualty. Never at any point. This is a shit situation overall and people like you are not helping in any way with your paranoia and exaggerations. People like yourself have wasted so much time already with your delusions rather than working to find solutions and potentially even finding a way to insulate our world from being vulnerable to a future of new diseases that we are not prepared to treat.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
I never said just in America either, I know you Americans think the whole world revolves around you.
In the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in the report, the number of people considered food insecure in 2020 was estimated at almost 761 million people or 19.8 percent of the total population. The shock to GDP from COVID-19 is projected to increase the number of food-insecure people by 83.5 million people in 2020 to 844.5 million and increase the share of the population that is food insecure to 22 percent.

The COVID-19 health emergency has led to a sharp economic slowdown, with soaring unemployment and spikes in need as illustrated by news reports of miles-long lines at food pantries. In this report,1 we estimate current rates of food insecurity and the extent to which food insecurity rates have increased in national data and by state using the Census’s Household Pulse Survey (CHHPS). We find that food insecurity has doubled overall, and tripled among households with children. Food insecurity is elevated across all states, with some states experiencing extremely high rates and/or increases in food insecurity. Across the nation, 7% of households reported receiving free food during the prior week.

anyways I just glanced at your post because I don’t want to read about you saying millions of people without food isn’t enough for you to care because of your 30% asymtomatic cold with a 99.98% survival rate for anyone not about to die. Keep advocating for the great evil of our time if it pleases you.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
I never said just in America either, I know you Americans think the whole world revolves around you.
In the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in the report, the number of people considered food insecure in 2020 was estimated at almost 761 million people or 19.8 percent of the total population. The shock to GDP from COVID-19 is projected to increase the number of food-insecure people by 83.5 million people in 2020 to 844.5 million and increase the share of the population that is food insecure to 22 percent.

The COVID-19 health emergency has led to a sharp economic slowdown, with soaring unemployment and spikes in need as illustrated by news reports of miles-long lines at food pantries. In this report,1 we estimate current rates of food insecurity and the extent to which food insecurity rates have increased in national data and by state using the Census’s Household Pulse Survey (CHHPS). We find that food insecurity has doubled overall, and tripled among households with children. Food insecurity is elevated across all states, with some states experiencing extremely high rates and/or increases in food insecurity. Across the nation, 7% of households reported receiving free food during the prior week.

anyways I just glanced at your post because I don’t want to read about you saying millions of people without food isn’t enough for you to care because of your 30% asymtomatic cold with a 99.98% survival rate for anyone not about to die. Keep advocating for the great evil of our time if it pleases you.
nice of you to come down from the tens of millions claim to a more practical claim of millions. All I ever said was that you were exaggerating. I never said there wasn’t an increase Or that it didn’t matter.

however, these are still just projections, which is the same as saying this is something that is preventable. They are not actual numbers. And even if the projection turned into reality worldwide, this would still not represent even a 25% increase of the prepandemic levels, which means we have had some major problems for a while. I am being generous with 25% because I don’t have time to calculate it too. I actually think it is probably lower than this but I am erring on the high side for now.

it is even more important to not waste time with exaggerations as a result of this potential. You do no one any favors by being an alarmist
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
83 million is tens of millions. How are you not either autistic or a literal psychopath fixating on this like this
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
83 million is tens of millions. How are you not either autistic or a literal psychopath fixating on this like this
83 million is a 2.2% increase overall when we look at this subject worldwide. You understand that 83 million is relevant to the total world population.

“In the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in the report, the number of people considered food insecure in 2020 was estimated at almost 761 million people or 19.8 percent of the total population. The shock to GDP from COVID-19 is projected to increase the number of food-insecure people by 83.5 million people in 2020 to 844.5 million and increase the share of the population that is food insecure to 22 percent.”

originally I was looking at the increase and trying to estimate this in my head using 83 million and the total number of increase which would be 844 million, to gain a greater perspective of the impact since you are continuing to imply that this is something apocalyptic.

then, I remembered your quote gives a total percent of the world population from prepandemic levels to the projected levels and that I can just subtract the two to find the difference.


I knew my 25% estimate was too high and sure enough 22 minus 19.8 equals a 2.2% difference. This quote is saying there is a 2.2% projected increase of food insecure resulting from covid precautions worldwide.

so what you are really saying when you are using any of these articles is that we were already living in somewhat apocalyptic conditions prior to covid if you consider 83 million to be the beginning of the end. I’m not being sarcastic towards the presence of any increase of food insecurity. I’m being sarcastic to your terribly ability to interpret data and present it in a useful and rational way.

you understand the difference between 83 million worldwide and the current reality of 761 million right. That is a difference of hundreds of millions. 761 million is the current reality.


correcting a situation like this requires a whole lot more than protests over masks or anything covid related. Anything and everything that you suggest we should do or not do because of covid, will only scratch the surface of something that reopening Disneyland will not solve.


if we reopen every Disneyland and venue for large events, there will still be 761 million people considered food insecure. Do you understand how severe this is already?

But your priority is solely about creating the impression of something more alarming resulting because of covid rather than truly highlighting the tragedy of worldwide food insecurity.

it is absurd to me that you think you are using these sources in an intelligent way.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
83 million is a 2.2% increase overall when we look at this subject worldwide. You understand that 83 million is relevant to the total world population.

“In the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in the report, the number of people considered food insecure in 2020 was estimated at almost 761 million people or 19.8 percent of the total population. The shock to GDP from COVID-19 is projected to increase the number of food-insecure people by 83.5 million people in 2020 to 844.5 million and increase the share of the population that is food insecure to 22 percent.”

originally I was looking at the increase and trying to estimate this in my head using 83 million and the total number of increase which would be 844 million, to gain a greater perspective of the impact since you are continuing to imply that this is something apocalyptic.

then, I remembered your quote gives a total percent of the world population from prepandemic levels to the projected levels and that I can just subtract the two to find the difference.


I knew my 25% estimate was too high and sure enough 22 minus 19.8 equals a 2.2% difference. This quote is saying there is a 2.2% projected increase of food insecure resulting from covid precautions worldwide.

so what you are really saying when you are using any of these articles is that we were already living in somewhat apocalyptic conditions prior to covid if you consider 83 million to be the beginning of the end.

you understand the difference between 83 million worldwide and the current reality of 761 million right. That is a difference of hundreds of millions. 761 million is the current reality.


correcting a situation like this requires a whole lot more than protests over masks or anything covid related. Anything and everything that you suggest we should do or not do because of covid, will only scratch the surface of something that reopening Disneyland will not solve.


if we reopen every Disneyland and venue for large events, there will still be 761 million people considered food insecure. Do you understand this?

But your priority is solely about creating the impression of something more alarming resulting because of covid rather than truly highlighting the tragedy of worldwide food insecurity.

it is absurd to me that you think you are using these sources in an intelligent way.
“I’m ok with government tyranny” the post
also you read the study entirely wrong, that was a sample of 76 countries, not worldwide.
and 83 million is a massive increase being due to the policies you advocate for, and is also tens of millions like I said in one part of my original paragraph that you’ve fixated on for pages like a psychopath to their prove that its not tens of millions (it is), or that it doesn’t matter (it does).
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,509
“I’m ok with government tyranny” the post
also you read the study entirely wrong, that was a sample of 76 countries, not worldwide.
and 83 million is a massive increase being due to the policies you advocate for, and is also tens of millions like I said in one part of my original paragraph that you’ve fixated on for pages like a psychopath to their prove that its not tens of millions (it is), or that it doesn’t matter (it does).
fine 761 million is the current level of food insecurity for 76 countries.

83 million is still a 2.2% increase from this level. Opening Disneyland is not going to fix the problem, but keep trying To use it for your own agenda.

unlike you, I don’t think your sensationalism of data makes you a psycho. I don’t feel the need to continue making childish comments like you seem to. I think it means you’re not so good with numbers.

these numbers in the quote basically create a map That tells a larger story. The problem is that when I try to show this story extends beyond the agenda that you are trying to promote that is based on the position you took early on, you continue needing to feed into the presumption that you were right about your initial assumptions, so you keep responding with badly presented statistics.

Its selfish motivations like this that make the reality of food insecurity a problem that continues to exist and creates risk of increase when a hardship like a new virus is introduced.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,930
This is such a classic waste of time argument with a liberal
i make a statement
you say SOURCE SOURCE FOR THAT
i provide sources proving that one small aspect of my point
you fixate on it for pages by over analyzing it and find nothing of value that disproves what I meant
and instead of talking what inwas talking about you try to prove that either the data is wrong in that source or that it doesn’t matter

there is such a strange psychology behind the disease of leftism.
 






Top