Meanwhile part time ski instructor and petty little authoritarian Trudeau gets all the shots . . and gets Covid and the Lancet publishes a study showing that getting the shots screws up the immune system of those who did such that months later those who didn't get them have better immune systems. Good for Arenado and Goldschmidt.

This is a baseball site, not facebook.

This shouldn't be a BFD, considering that it's a two-game series against a team in the other league.

But watch, at least a handful of woke sportswriters will deny Goldschmidt first-place votes for MVP solely because of his decision.

the Lancet publishes a study showing that getting the shots screws up the immune system of those who did such that months later those who didn't get them have better immune systems.

link, please.

link, please.

It is nonsense, just ignore it. No such thing, though there might be something a moron could willfully misinterpret.

Anyway, an absence from the field for a couple days, especially an absence that the team can easily plan around is not a big deal, even if the reason for the absence is kind of dumb.

link, please.

Link:

Abstract

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

So critically ill patients shouldn't get booster shots. That's interesting, and we'll see if the findings are duplicated. Now what's it got to do with Goldschmidt and Arenado?

I meant a link to the actual study. That "abstract" is comical.

It is nonsense, just ignore it. No such thing, though there might be something a moron could willfully misinterpret.

yeah but i'm bored so I just went for it.

HeRe Is ThE pRoOf!!1!

Further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections.

even if the reason for the absence is kind of dumb.

Whatever one thinks of the overall safety of the vaccine, and I've received three Pfizer jabs, the continued existence of the vaccine mandate is beyond dumb.

There is a difference between getting boosters and getting the initial vaccination. The study, even if taken at face value, is talking about boosters. To get into Canada what is needed is ...

Travel into Canada

To qualify as a fully vaccinated traveller to Canada, you must:
have received at least 2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine accepted for travel, a mix of 2 accepted vaccines
or at least 1 dose of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine

Quoting a study about boosters (or at least the conclusion quoted from the study referenced boosters), when boosters are not required for entry into Canada is really not addressing the topic at hand. Which, as I said before, is from a baseball perspective not that big a deal.

Which, as I said before, is from a baseball perspective not that big a deal.

Much like what I said in #3. The Bentinendi-to-the-Yankees issue was understandably a bit more challenging.

Come the playoffs, not being able to travel internationally could become a big deal, but in the regular season, meh.

Which is why I am now rooting for a TOR-STL WS.

But watch, at least a handful of woke sportswriters will deny Goldschmidt first-place votes for MVP solely because of his decision.

How valuable is a player who hurts his team by failing to regard his own or other's health?

A Toronto playoff run would be delicious. Oh man am I rooting for that..

#1 The land of freedom known as USA has the exact same requirement.

I meant a link to the actual study. That "abstract" is comical.

Haven’t searched for it but I’d guess going to the Lancet would get you to the actual study. But might be behind a paywall. That “comical” abstract is not coming from alexjones.com or something like that. It’s the NIH site, Dr. Fauci’s domain.

How valuable is a player who hurts his team by failing to regard his own or other's health?

Just as valuable as any other player who leads all NL position players in WAR but happens to miss a couple of games for whatever reason.

I wouldn't deny Goldschmidt the MVP because of his vaccine assclowining, but there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason. If some woke player deliberately sat out games in Texas or Florida because of their abortion laws, I'd feel the same way, even though those laws are totally abhorrent.

I wouldn't deny Goldschmidt the MVP because of his vaccine assclowining, but there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason. If some woke player deliberately sat out games in Texas or Florida because of their abortion laws, I'd feel the same way, even though those laws are totally abhorrent.

Even if we were to accept the analogy, Andy, the problem with dopey, wokey sportswriters is that they make these calls all or nothing, such as their HoF votes with regard to Bonds and Clemens over PEDs and Schilling over his online ideological combativeness.

there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason.

Do we know it political? On a wide scale this stuff seems to fall in political lines but individually there could be different reasons.

Both guys gave statements to the effect that have consulted and continue to consult with doctors and have found no reason to get one. Mozeliak intimated that Arenado is worried about impact on starting a family, but he's didn't say that

It doesn't really matter to healthy 30 year olds, but crossing borders brings the issue up.

Even if we were to accept the analogy, Andy, the problem with dopey, wokey sportswriters is that they make these calls all or nothing, such as their HoF votes with regard to Bonds and Clemens over PEDs and Schilling over his online ideological combativeness.

Goldschmidt isn't going to lose the MVP over this, although he may lose a vote or two to an attention-seeking writer. Getting riled up about MVP votes that haven't happened yet, and haven't even been whispered about yet, is even worse than the normal hand-wringing that goes on at this site.

Also, I don't think it was the wokesters who kept Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF.

I wouldn't deny Goldschmidt the MVP because of his vaccine assclowining, but there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason. If some woke player deliberately sat out games in Texas or Florida because of their abortion laws, I'd feel the same way, even though those laws are totally abhorrent.

If it's fundamentally different but you still wouldn't let it affect your MVP voting, then I don't think there's anything for us to argue about. Players miss a game here or there for a variety of reasons -- injury, bereavement, birth of a child (which some dopey-but-not-wokey radio host recently critized Jeff McNeil over), etc. I'm not going to get worked up over this one but if it means that Goldschmidt and Arenado (who currently rank 2-3 in the NL bWAR rankings) fall behind someone else and lose the award, I'm not going to shed any tears or spike proteins for them.

I wouldn't deny Goldschmidt the MVP because of his vaccine assclowining, but there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason. If some woke player deliberately sat out games in Texas or Florida because of their abortion laws, I'd feel the same way, even though those laws are totally abhorrent.

Even if we were to accept the analogy, Andy, the problem with dopey, wokey sportswriters is that they make these calls all or nothing, such as their HoF votes with regard to Bonds and Clemens over PEDs and Schilling over his online ideological combativeness.

I was expressing my personal views on the subject. I can't predict how sportswriters will react. My distinction has always been between actions that affect the play on the field (steroids, vaccine refusal) and those that don't (Schilling's Trump worship, etc.)

-----------------

there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason.

Do we know it political? On a wide scale this stuff seems to fall in political lines but individually there could be different reasons.

When all the evidence points to the harmlessness of the vaccine, and the effect of their refusal is to hurt their team, whatever motives you want to ascribe to their refusal all come down to engaging in a wholly unnecessary and gratuitous action. That's not the case with an injury, and the sincerity of their beliefs has nothing to do with its negative effect on their team.

I wouldn't deny Goldschmidt the MVP because of his vaccine assclowining, but there's a fundamental difference between missing games for an injury and missing games for some stupid political reason. If some woke player deliberately sat out games in Texas or Florida because of their abortion laws, I'd feel the same way, even though those laws are totally abhorrent.

If it's fundamentally different but you still wouldn't let it affect your MVP voting, then I don't think there's anything for us to argue about. Players miss a game here or there for a variety of reasons -- injury, bereavement, birth of a child (which some dopey-but-not-wokey radio host recently critized Jeff McNeil over), etc. I'm not going to get worked up over this one but if it means that Goldschmidt and Arenado (who currently rank 2-3 in the NL bWAR rankings) fall behind someone else and lose the award, I'm not going to shed any tears or spike proteins for them.

My sentiments exactly, compounded by my lack of rooting interest in either the Cardinals or individual honorary awards like MVP or CYA.

Now if Judge or Rizzo had been M.I.A. in Toronto, as a Yankees fan I would've been seriously pissed at them. But unlike Goldschmidt or Arenado, they put the interests of their team over whatever views they may have on vaccinations.

Also, I don't think it was the wokesters who kept Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF.

True, those who did were merely dopey.

Getting riled up about MVP votes that haven't happened yet, and haven't even been whispered about yet, is even worse than the normal hand-wringing that goes on at this site.

No one's getting riled up, merely forecasting.

When all the evidence points to the harmlessness of the vaccine...

The problem is that we have well-publicized "evidence" (with scare quotes) that suggests the vaccine is actually harmful. I'm not thrilled that Goldschmidt and Arenado apparently are influenced by the sources of this "evidence", but the players' actions are not necessarily political. I mean, isn't that kind of influence precisely the point of Rough Carrigan flooding the zone with this #### in every COVID-related thread?

Canada- “You must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to enter our country.”

Anti-vax Baseball Player-“There is no way I am taking a shot of anything that might do me any harm!”

Guy wearing trench coat-“Hey, a buddy of mine has an undetectable serum that will increase your power, stamina, make your penis two inches longer and you a lot better-looking. Of course, there is a 90% chance that ten years from now you will grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead.”

Anti-vax Baseball Player- “Sign me up!”

Goldschmidt isn't going to lose the MVP over this, although he may lose a vote or two to an attention-seeking writer. Getting riled up about MVP votes that haven't happened yet, and haven't even been whispered about yet, is even worse than the normal hand-wringing that goes on at this site.

This isn’t going to disqualify him, but it could easily flip a close race that he might have otherwise won.

When all the evidence points to the harmlessness of the vaccine...

The problem is that we have well-publicized "evidence" (with scare quotes) that suggests the vaccine is actually harmful. I'm not thrilled that Goldschmidt and Arenado apparently are influenced by the sources of this "evidence", but the players' actions are not necessarily political. I mean, isn't that kind of influence precisely the point of Rough Carrigan flooding the zone with this #### in every COVID-related thread?

Their motivations may not be consciously political, but the purveyors of the sort of misinformation they're obviously swallowing tend to be almost exclusively members of the Wacko Bird Right and the Wacko Bird Left. If they were getting their information from more reliable sources, they wouldn't be mouthing (and acting upon) this sort of BS.

That “comical” abstract is not coming from alexjones.com or something like that. It’s the NIH site, Dr. Fauci’s domain.

Just FYI, it's only on the NIH site because it's a PubMed listing, which is basically Google for scientific articles. It doesn't mean anything about the quality of the article beyond that the journal is indexed by PubMed.

ETA: the article is actually a letter to the editor based on the original Lancet article.

"Of course, there is a 90% chance that ten years from now you will grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead."

"And Goldsmith draws another walk! How does he do it, Tim...?"

I believe that This is probably the lancet article that was being referenced above.

Shockingly, neither the study itself or the authors conclusion were accurately described in the above “letter to the editor”.

It is kind of stunning that someone with an MD would make the bold and inaccurate claims quoted above.

#37 Thanks. Yeah. Assuming (as is reasonable) that this is the correct source article, you can read that as a call for more broadly effective vaccines but that's the boldest statement I'd make.

I was prepared to find a misunderstood probabilistic study but that's not the case here. This is a read A, report that it said B

I believe that This is probably the lancet article that was being referenced above.

While I can't find the Lancet article Rough Carrigan referenced at the top, your linked piece says pretty much nothing about the vaccine's effects on immune systems.

However, this Bloomberg piece from six months back does speak to the danger to the immune system from too-frequent boosters:

European Union regulators warned that frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.

Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said.

I assume this is the original article in question in #6's link (that a journal would publish even a letter that didn't provide the cite is egregious). The article says that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time (they looked out 9 months in the study, pre-Omicron I think). Note, the vaccines were still effective, better than not being vaxxed, for the entire period, just less effective. Effectiveness waned less with regard to severe covid (hosp or death within 30 days of diagnosis) -- i.e. effectiveness vs severe covid was more durable than effectiveness against infection.

The authors of that study: We found progressively waning vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but the rate of waning differed according to vaccine type. With respect to severe COVID-19, vaccine effectiveness seemed to be better maintained, although some waning became evident after 4 months. The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.

Is this the study in question? Well who the #### knows since the poster of #6 can't be bothered to try to find out. The study I've linked to was published 4 March 2022, the letter in the link in #6 was published 5 June 2022. Given the lag time, it's unlikely the letter references some more recent study. The description of the study in the letter is: "The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time." The article I've linked is published in the Lancet and is a study on the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity over time.

The letter's statement "The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals" appears to be based on the graph in Fig 2 which shows the model-estimated effectiveness AGAINST INFECTION plus uncertainty spread by month. The estimated line does dip below zero around month 8. To be clear, the authors do not present statistical tests/models on a month-by-month basis so it's not clear that finding is robust. However their results (for most of the vaccines tested) that effectivness is pretty minimal from 210+ days -- i.e. a small positive point estimate for effectiveness (one vaxx goes negative) but confidence intervals including or awfully darn close to zero. As the authors clearly state: "From thereon [EDIT: >60 days], the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 onwards there was no remaining detectable vaccine effectiveness (23% [–2 to 41]; p=0·07)."

At most this would mean "get a booster before month 7-8 at the latest." All of the governments I'm aware of have recommended 6 months.

If you want the findings on protection against severe Covid, you'll have to click through to the appendix which comes as a PDF download. Those results show estimated effectiveness around 90% through 120 days and 64% after that. Supplemental Fig 1 is the equivalent of main Fig 2 but for hospitilization/death but the confidence intervals become pretty useless around month 5-6 (sample size issues presumably).

The letter also mentions the European Medicines Agency with regard to "frequent boosters." What I've found so far is this Bloomberg news article which provides no link (it's the ####### 21st century journalists!) This Reuters article gives a bit more detail ... the possible effects are "hypothetical" and the statement was simply in the context of whether SECOND and subsequent boosters should be given widely every 4 months. They were saying that boosters every 4 months would probably not be necessary or possibly even counter-productive. I wouldn't be surprised if the 4-month booster idea came as a result of the (pre-pub) Lancet article finding effectivness starting to wane around 120 days.

That was the EMA in Jan 2022. Currently (as of two weeks ago), the EMA and the ECDC (the EU CDC equivalent I gather) recommend 2nd boosters only for those aged 60+ or otherwise at high risk of severe disease stating "there is no clear evidence to support" 2nd boosters in the younger cohort. Link. They express no concerns about any deleterious effects of boosters.

About all I can see that the anti-vaxxers can possibly get out of these articles (other than misusing them for propaganda purposes) is that the main Lancet study discussed here did not look at the effectiveness of the vaxxes vs "natural immunity." That said, from what I've seen (media reports of research, not the research itself), natural immunity isn't much good against Omicron either with reinfection times as short as 4 weeks. Here's NZ Health on the topic (30 June 2022).

Is this the study in question? Well who the #### knows since the poster of #6 can't be bothered to try to find out.

Thanks, Walt. Of course, if you had first bothered to read #40 or just observed that in #6 I merely posted what Rough Carrigan in #1 had referenced, you wouldn't come across like a jack***.

Which is why I am now rooting for a TOR-STL WS.

No Austin Romine for half the games! That's gonna hurt. I'm pretty sure MLB would leap into action, put him on some "ineligible" list, and let the Cards choose a backup catcher.

Much of the anti-vaccine rhetoric I've read is big on "natural immunity," which indeed sounds green and organic compared to bad artificial pharmaceuticals. However, unless you're Matt Damon in the movie, natural immunity means getting COVID at some point. Even if natural immunity were a little bit better than vaccination (which seems unclear), getting sick is a heck of a roll of the dice.

you wouldn't come across like a jack***

Heh.

JE how did the inside of the Capitol look on January 6?

46. Robbo Posted: July 26, 2022 at 09:23 AM (#6088277)
JE how did the inside of the Capitol look on January 6?

You can be sure he wasn't there. His biggest act of bravery is typing BS from behind a keyboard. Everything with him is cowardice and that's what thorough weakness reveals—sarcasm, whataboutism, ad hominims, etc.

#47 Which is weird. He was on my read list on usenet for a long time (I want to say going back to the 90s). Didn't always agree with him but so what? He wrote clearly, argued logically and gave ever sign of listening to arguments he didn't agree with.

Not sure what changed for him, but there's nothing in your characterization of him that I'd disagree with. And that makes me sad.

Once Trump became the nominee, JE abandoned his "Trump is a clown" act and went all in, because "her emails".

Obviously it was more than "her emails". It was all about Trump's support of Bibi.

edit...and so, in order to do his Dancing Monkey routine, he had to attack everything and everyone who criticized Trump, with endless obnoxious "whataboutisms".

Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said.

This is what I've been suggesting for a while now, although I think a rollout in advance of summer in the Sun Belt might also make sense.

You can be sure he wasn't there. His biggest act of bravery is typing BS from behind a keyboard. Everything with him is cowardice and that's what thorough weakness reveals—sarcasm, whataboutism, ad hominims, etc.

How amusing to hear comments like this coming from a smattering of hard-left sociopaths who, if they found themselves on any center-right or even centrist site, would have a melt down in 30 minutes or less.

hard-left sociopaths

Exactly how I'd describe Ron J, for sure.

Exactly how I'd describe Ron J, for sure.

I was referring to 46, 47, and 49, although there are certainly a few dozen who post here pretty regularly.

Funny. One of my sisters (who is in fact hard left) thinks of me as the family right winger.

I am going down to visit the NJ wing of the family in a bit. Which includes a generic Republican, a hard core (young) Trumpist, a hard core (old) Democrat and a suburban mom who doesn't follow politics much but leans Dem -- in no small part because she has no use for Trump.

I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to it.

I mean that seriously. The Republican is a great cook and a great host (I intend to introduce him to Laphroig -- he'll have a new tequila he'll want to share with me). The Trumpist is a nice kid (working for the Eagles now) who will try to get me to play Call of Duty with him. The aging Democrat is one of my favorite people. The mom is a good person trying to do her best.

Every hard right wing nut sees themself as "centrist". LOL!

53. cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Posted: July 26, 2022 at 01:33 PM (#6088316)
Exactly how I'd describe Ron J, for sure.
I was referring to 46, 47, and 49....

I made certain to not say anything about politics. You, apparently, can't resist. Your weakness guides you again.

#55 I have no problem calling myself left leaning. I mean I have voted NDP occasionally and that is an expressly left wing party.

But there are plenty of people well to the left of me and I generally don't vote NDP -- the NDP happened to run a very strong candidate federally.

But I've also voted conservative (though not for many years). For my mother's lawyer to be precise. A very good man.

The only "hard-left" person I've come across on BTF is Sam.

Pretty much everybody else is basically "let's be nice to each other and to our environment" and a few "eff all of you die-hard far left libruls!!"



BTF was the "thinking fans" site and pretty much everybody on it were well educated white people. The spread of thought for years wasn't too far apart.

#58 Well educated white males and Blastin (can't think of anybody else, though I'm sure I've forgotten somebody important. Apologies). And Lisa of course.

Sure. There was Eraser-X and I think Akrasian as well.

The only "hard-left" person I've come across on BTF is Sam.

And even Sam's more of a performance artist than an actual hardcore leftist. When it comes to electoral choices, he'll usually favor the Democrat most likely to win. He's over the top, but far from insane.

IMO what distinguishes "hardcore leftists" from various shades of liberals is that they spend more time complaining about people who agree with them 90% of the time than they do working to defeat candidates who would just as soon see them dead. They also love to cancel people for trivial and / or imaginary sins.**

** Or block them on Discord, for reasons never explained. But that's more snowflakeism than hardcore leftism.

[61] Precisely how many states would you like to eliminate?

It's freaking adorable witnessing leftists here swearing on the Bible Rules for Radicals that they're plain-Jane Democrats.

#58 Well educated white males and Blastin (can't think of anybody else, though I'm sure I've forgotten somebody important. Apologies). And Lisa of course.

tina

It's freaking adorable witnessing leftists here swearing on <s>the Bible</s> Rules for Radicals that they're plain-Jane Democrats.

Actually I'm a socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republican, but these days I guess that's just plain-Jane Democrat so /shrug

Pretty much everybody else is basically "let's be nice to each other and to our environment"

To quote Ray, "ROFL." Of course, you've always been neck-and-neck with Mouse for BBTF's most obtuse so it's hardly a surprise that this is your take.

Actually I'm a socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republican, but these days I guess that's just plain-Jane Democrat so /shrug

No. That's hardcore leftist. Plane Jane Democrat is someone slightly to the right of Liz Cheney.

So am I a hardcore leftist?

Does one need to be on the payroll of Erdogan to not be considered a hardcore leftist?

#68 Couldn't tell. I think you're a doctrinary Confusitarian.

[61] Precisely how many states would you like to eliminate?

Just apply the Barry Goldwater solution** to Florida and I'll leave the other 49 alone. If you give me a week I might think of something good to say about that state, but right now I'm drawing a blank.

** In 1963, Barry Goldwater told the Saturday Evening Post, “Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.”

No. That's hardcore leftist. Plane Jane Democrat is someone slightly to the right of Liz Cheney.

Just out of curiosity, Jason, who would you like to see win in that Wyoming GOP House primary? Cheney or one of the MAGA candidates? Since I'd be voting for Cheney, would that make me a hardcore leftist?

Sorry, I thought this thread had died like an unvaccinated HCA winner.

Their motivations may not be consciously political, but the purveyors of the sort of misinformation they're obviously swallowing tend to be almost exclusively members of the Wacko Bird Right and the Wacko Bird Left. If they were getting their information from more reliable sources, they wouldn't be mouthing (and acting upon) this sort of BS.

There really isn't such a thing as a non-Wacko Right source of information these days. So, yes, if you're the least bit conservative, as major league baseball players tend to be, you're going to get information from poopy sources.

As things stand, one reason I can't get too upset with these guys is that N95 masks are more effective against infection than the vaccines at this point. But I'll be on a flight on Sunday where literally 80% of the people will be mask-less. This seems pointlessly risky to me, considering we're crammed like sardines into a tube, and we have no idea where the people next to us on the flight have been. Yes, the ventilation is pretty good once the plane starts moving, but there's a lot of time sitting and standing around when the blowers aren't engaged. Presumably that's the reason the CDC still recommends wearing a mask, but you would never guess that from what you see at airports. So while they are not following CDC recommendations, I'm not prepared to say 80% of air travelers are wacko birds, as much as I disagree with these people.

Wow, this thread devolved badly.

Politics is so deeply divided these days over the stupidest things.

If there was almost any other issue involved that was on a choice basis that made baseball players miss games and not be there for their teammates, conservatives would be bemoaning the lack of work ethic among our overpaid athletes (especially if they were non-white).

When its anti-vaxxing, they raise them up as noble heroes like they're King Leonidas or something.

The left has its own set of flaws without a doubt. I'm so sick of the term "privileged" being used as a club to get centrists to vote for impending fascism instead of the alternative that I just wish it was out of the lexicon entirely. The left has plenty of other flaws as well....like the idea that education can actually happen with safe spaces in place. Sometimes you have to be exposed to uncomfortable ideas to actually think enough to formulate your own.

But, nothing on the left is like the unthinking following of whatever "do your own research" bullshit they're following at the moment, funded by the same corporations they're mad at for exploiting them....while happily voting to elect people who will lower their taxes yet again.

I've bought 303 acres on St. Helena for a reason. Its hard to get to even in the highly developed modern world. If everything falls apart my descendants can live there in relative peace.

I've bought 303 acres on St. Helena for a reason. Its hard to get to even in the highly developed modern world. If everything falls apart my descendants can live there in relative peace.

St. Helena? Seriously? I'd rather go down with the ship.

St. Helena? Seriously? I'd rather go down with the ship.

Yeah, its remote as hell and I actually have enough money after selling my wealth management business to fix things up a lot better than they are now.

For example....I have purchased a controlling interest in the electric/water utility for the island and am in the process of getting rid of the really really old diesel generators (at least some are from scuttled WWI German battleships).

I also have consultants coming from Peru to give advice on how to terrascape the portion of the island I've bought to capture more of the seasonal rains and increase the habitability of the whole island. I'm haggling with London to have this considered for the whole island as minor changes can massively increase the annual rain capture and thus habitability.

I'm not big enough fortune-wise to be more than a blip in mainland North America. But, on St. Helena I'm the biggest fish in the pond other than the subsidies from London. I'm good with that. Also, I'm not leaving to go there full-time anytime soon, so, its just a vacation spot at the moment....and has some splendid mountain biking terrain.

With some fixes and such, there is a non-zero chance that St. Helena becomes to the S. Atlantic what Bermuda is to the N. Atlantic and I've made my heirs absurdly rich instead of just comfortably rich for generations.

Just out of curiosity, Jason, who would you like to see win in that Wyoming GOP House primary? Cheney or one of the MAGA candidates?

ABC.

Since I'd be voting for Cheney, would that make me a hardcore leftist?

As I said previously, Andy, you're more of an old-school liberal Democrat occasionally at fault for trying in vain to placate the anti-1A Jacobins and really only an unbearable pain in the tuchus when PEDs get discussed.

and I've made my heirs absurdly rich instead of just comfortably rich for generations.

I've always found it funny that people care about many relatives they'll never meet, and might despise, rich.

Pretty much everybody else is basically "let's be nice to each other and to our environment"

To quote Ray, "ROFL." Of course, you've always been neck-and-neck with Mouse for BBTF's most obtuse so it's hardly a surprise that this is your take.

I don't usually wade into these waters, but that seems a pretty snarky response for what McCoy posted first. JE, you need to let go of some of that anger mate, it's going to put you in an early grave.

I suppose I must be obtuse also as I tend to agree with McCoys "everyone try to get along and don't f*ck up the environment" statement about the general crowd around here.

I'm sure most of you realise that the left side of politics in the USA(Biden and largely his support) is pretty centrist compared to other western democracies like Australia, France, Canada, NZ, etc. that have far more socialist leaning policies.

With some fixes and such, there is a non-zero chance that St. Helena becomes to the S. Atlantic what Bermuda is to the N. Atlantic and I've made my heirs absurdly rich instead of just comfortably rich for generations.

I assume the first such "fix" would have to be the tax code.

Not to take anything away from what you're doing; it sounds fascinating and if you can afford it, good for you!

I suppose I must be obtuse also as I tend to agree with McCoys "everyone try to get along

The amount of vitriol that's been witnessed over the years here leveled against those who stray from the party line, including Ray, Snapper, and SBB would make whoever's operating Keith Olbermann's Twitter account blush.

I'm sure most of you realise that the left side of politics in the USA(Biden and largely his support) is pretty centrist compared to other western democracies like Australia, France, Canada, NZ, etc. that have far more socialist leaning policies.

"Henny, how's your wife?"

"Compared to WHAT?"

I assume the first such "fix" would have to be the tax code.

Not to take anything away from what you're doing; it sounds fascinating and if you can afford it, good for you!

Between all the various taxes I paid or am due to pay selling my business, I will have paid 42% of its sale price by April 2023. I didn't dodge taxes even though I know how to, because I didn't need the amount I was offered to sell the business. The borough I live in PA about #### themselves when they got their 1% tax on it. They did actually call me to make sure it wasn't a mistake and they'd owe somebody the money.

I have advocated for a progressively steeper wealth tax applied to all humans and non-human entities which can own property for over a decade. It would act as a defacto soft-cap on fortune and corporate sizes that would encourage smaller organizations and fortunes and thus more competition. Strangely, the "pro-capitalist" folks seem to oppose this.....as sadly do the "pro-regular-people" folks in politics as well.

I did work my ass off on my one-man business in wealth management. But, I also lucked out that academia paid newer professors so poorly that I didn't linger around trying to do the tenure treadmill and that stuff. Who knew even econ professors were paid badly -- not just the art history ones, right? Then I pushed myself to go independent rather than working for UBS/Merrill/MorganStanley type places because my son has autism and likely will need multiple millions for his long-term care after I'm dead. So, I did that. Again, there is a lot of luck there. Anytime you get a big pile of money like I did, even if you worked your ass off, there is incredible luck involved too. I don't dismiss that which is why I didn't fight the taxes and do support taxation of wealth directly, rather than taxing higher incomes, which mainly just makes people hide/defer/whatever their income.

Precisely how many states would you like to eliminate?

I suggest one of the Dakotas since I never can remember which is which.

I've always found it funny that people care about many relatives they'll never meet, and might despise, rich.

Well, I started saving big money for my son who has autism (I estimated $7.2M as his lifetime needs after I wanted to be retired). Then at some point the whole thing spiraled and I had saved that much AND was still making enough to save that much and more going forward.....and then a big firm offered me stupid money to sell my business to them and consult for them 20 hours a week for a year (which I am doing now). I've been reminded why I didn't work for others for 12+ years doing that. But, otherwise I have no complaints.

If my long-down-the-line descendants are despicable people, that'll be someone else's problem. I can only control what I control. I hope for the best though of course. Maybe I should make a trust that forces "good behavior" or something by only making payments to heirs who do "good" things. But, I don't think enforcing my own ideas of ethics, which may become badly outdated at some point, upon my heirs multiple generations down the line.

But, I don't think enforcing my own ideas of ethics, which may become badly outdated at some point, upon my heirs multiple generations down the line.

What? You don’t want to use your wealth to force others to think and do as you want? John, you may know how to create and manage wealth, but you know little of how to be rich!” Signed, C. Montgomery Burns

I was referring to 46, 47, and 49,

And Ron agreed with everything that was written that you described as left-win sociopathy. This was in fact the point.

It's freaking adorable witnessing leftists here swearing on the Bible Rules for Radicals that they're plain-Jane Democrats.

And this.

But no. You're not out of touch, Skinner. It's absolutely everyone else who's been reading you far prior to 2016 who are wrong. And have become radical hard-left sociopaths.

"Henny, how's your wife?"
"Compared to WHAT?"

Complain some more about how other people are content-free compared to your reasoned responses to normal socio-economic points and international politics.

But no. You're not out of touch, Skinner. It's absolutely everyone else who's been reading you far prior to 2016 who are wrong. And become radical hard-left sociopaths.

Oh ok, it's incredibly remarkable that BBTF hardcore leftists and the run-of-the-mill ones share the same thoughts about those who didn't back Biden. Wow, you totally got me there, genius.

And yes, the leftists here were leftists prior to 2016 too.

WEIRDEST.THREAD.EVER.

Between Reynard's posts about his massive amounts of wealth(BTW, not sure what your definition of rich is but don't even talk to me unless you've got more then $100mil USD) and his desire to go hide on some remote island(which hey, if that's your thing, more power to you mate)

And the political stuff between JE and what he seems to think are commies hiding around every corner...

this has descended into a really odd thread.

My 2 cents(probably worth only 1 anyway), back to the chatter baby, games are starting...

My 2 cents(probably worth only 1 anyway), back to the chatter baby, games are starting...

Sounds about right

1 Australian Dollar equals

0.69 United States Dollar

0.69 United States Dollar

.Nice

Between Reynard's posts about his massive amounts of wealth(BTW, not sure what your definition of rich is but don't even talk to me unless you've got more then $100mil USD) and his desire to go hide on some remote island(which hey, if that's your thing, more power to you mate)

Pre-tax I was briefly worth $100M. As already cited, I paid over 40% in taxes and so I am not worth $100M right now.

The only time in my life I've actually felt rich was when I used my investment portfolio as collateral to make a bid on 0.75% of the Phillies that was on sale in 2021. I did not win the bid despite a generous offer of just short of $14M. I guess that $2.3B valuation forbes or someone had is accurate, my bid implied a lower valuation. It would have been sweet to be a minority owner in my childhood favorite team. Maybe next time? Probably not since the values keep going up and I'm not going to get a massive chunk of $$$ like that again though.

Having clients who are genuinely rich (a few genuine billionaires, a few paper billionaires, a bunch well over the $100M line) makes you set lines differently.

I am still driving a car I bought in the Clinton admin, so, I mean, I don't live rich with my day-to-day stuff. If a car runs and still gets 41/52 mpg, why get rid of it?

I'm somewhat sad that BBTF has the same political flame wars seen everywhere else on the internet. I wanted to come here to avoid that stuff. I guess I shouldn't have clicked on the potential COVID-war thread, eh?

The amount of vitriol that's been witnessed over the years here leveled against those who stray from the party line...

Like Liz Cheney?

...including Ray, Snapper, and SBB would make whoever's operating Keith Olbermann's Twitter account blush.

So your behavior is in defense of people who have never indicated they need or want help? Any chance I might believe that is ruined by the fact that...

As long as you brought up Twitter, do you also use your account there for Ray and Snapper and SBB? Because the only notable difference between your work here and there is this site doesn't let you include puerile GIFs and it has a much greater character limit. (You really shouldn't have shared your Twitter handle here--it removed any doubt about weakness as your defining character trait.)

I guess it's like you've often said on Twitter: "The hypocrisy is the point."

0.69 United States Dollar


.Nice

Yeah, wasn't too nice for that 2 weeks I just spent in NYC(which has always been and is still awesome to visit). I think the wife and I ending up dropping like $30K AUD easy as the conversion was unkind. But hey, it's a holiday, so who cares, I'll just work hard and earn the coin back.

I'm somewhat sad that BBTF has the same political flame wars seen everywhere else on the internet.

Eh, the covid stuff gets people riled up. I usually just ignore it and stick to the chatter, where these days, I can lambast and mock what has become of the Red Sox season.

Not to interrupt, but I'm watching the STL-TOR game now, and.... wow. This is an impotent Cards lineup without Arenado and Goldschmidt. Of course, it doesn't help that Pujols is hitting cleanup against a RHP. Nice, Ollie.

This lineup could really use a 23-year old Tier-One hitter.

Ray got picked on because he's Ray and it was happening long before 2016 and Ray's foray into talking politics.

Some people probably crossed the line (wasn't in the threads only heard about it) in regards to Snapper and how his religious beliefs shape his political views. But that wasn't everybody here doing that or even lots of hardcore leftists doing it. It was individuals being stupid all on their own.

SBB? Really? You're sticking up for SBB?

It's an enemy of my enemy sort of thing.

Ray got picked on because he's Ray and it was happening long before 2016 and Ray's foray into talking politics.

Some people probably crossed the line (wasn't in the threads only heard about it) in regards to Snapper and how his religious beliefs shape his political views.

Ray got teased a little bit about the "it's always been over" Red Sox swoon and the "it wasn't a great play, any SS could've made that play" declaration. Both those were really funny to discuss further and I don't think Ray was offended by it. As for his politics, I don't know anything about that.

I don't remember anyone hassling Snapper about his religion. Did this happen? If so, then that stinks and I'm sorry to hear it. The only thing I remember Snapper getting hassled about is his funny position about mobile phones and his aversion to some modern technology in general.

I'd respond to #91 were it not frothy gibberish.

I don't remember anyone hassling Snapper about his religion. Did this happen? If so, then that stinks and I'm sorry to hear it.

YR did, and it was pretty disgusting. I would give snapper grief not so much for his religious positions but because of other positions he took which I felt were the polar opposite of my idea of christian values, of which he claimed to be a paragon of.

Ray got teased a little bit about the "it's always been over" Red Sox swoon and the "it wasn't a great play, any SS could've made that play" declaration. Both those were really funny to discuss further and I don't think Ray was offended by it.

Catcher's throwing lane.

Never heard him