Quote:
Originally Posted by de captain
Monteroy,
I always find your posts interesting, if not always accurate, so I took a look.
Here's the quote pulled verbatim directly from your link:
Kind of looks like what was quoted here earlier:
Sure looks like the actual quote?
The actual mis-quote was given by that poster was not either of the ones you listed. It was
Trump: "There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally."
Quote:
Originally Posted by de captain
Yeah, looking back it is different from Rick's abbreviated quote to Bobby's transcript. It really doesn't change the meaning at all though since it just omits some additional rambling in the middle.
Well, Trump is always a verbal mess, but the mis-quote as presented as real does give a different message as well as it makes it seem much more forceful of how Trump "condemns" the white supremacists. He did that later in a second answer and it was amid a lot of Trump style waffling he does to say something but not overly mean it, so it is fair to say the mis-quote can be interpreted differently than how it was actually said. His latest one was when he got booed when saying the crowd should probably take the vaccine and then immediately stressed how much he respected and loved their freedom to choose. I guess I did not look at that whole package as a PSA for vaccination. Perhaps you did.
No idea why that one guy (who I think is pitching a different cure) is going so nuts or why you, the vitamin D kid and Joan Valdez cared so much about my post. I simply said it was a mis-quote (which it was) and posted a link to the actual transcript. I never really cared too much about this as a debate point because to me it was standard Trump behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
Those numbers are skewed because of higher infant mortality in the 1920s.
Life expectancy of 1 year olds is approaching 20 years higher today than it was then, and you would have to go back to the mid 1800s to see the life expectancy of 1 year olds to see the 60+ crowd in 1920. Seriously, the retirement age in 1920 was not 65.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
100 years from now we won't be seeing productive 90 year olds as we see productive 65 year olds today. Just won't happen biologically.
I know you are your biggest supporter of your theory, but your expertise seems to be based on a quick chat you had with a buddy once. Granted lots of people are popping medications these days based on similar input, but for now I do not put a massive amount of weight on it, though odds are we will not be able to see who is right in the end.
I see you still have not filled in the details of your theory by saying at which age a human, in your opinion, ceases to be of value to society, and what your suggestion would be with humans that reach that age. Why are you so afraid to provide the details behind this theory of yours that you share with such pride.
Last edited by Monteroy; 09-08-2021 at 10:14 PM.