Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Seattle Husker, May 27, 2021.
Soros!!!! I love it. My man will win office in Missouri.
Since you're commenting on bystander's reply to me....
We disagree once again. My wife and I are 65, in excellent health. We both have low body fat %, my resting heart rate is 58. I work out, ride a spin bike regularly, work in my yard almost daily, teach classes 4 evenings a week.
I have little doubt my good health got me thru the covid infection. Same for my wife. So excuse me when I read your post above and LMAO at your inaccuracies as it pertains to me and my wife. If we weren't in good health we'd have taken precautions. But we chose a healthy lifestyle and decided to live our lives and not let covid dictate our social or professional schedule
As a doctor once told me, good health has its rewards. And here I read above about people who are obese and inactive. Too funny
Reread my post. I never said any of those other risk factors applied to you but rather the non-vaccinated risk factor is analogous to the others since its a socialized risk. If you get infected and have health problems others will be expected to carry the burden whether they be from you spreading the infection or your healthcare costs. What some are trying to tell you is that the decision doesn't only impact you just as the polio was a risk for everyone before the vaccine was mandated for all children. That mandate nearly wiped out the disease.
I can get on board with that too, but that's not the real reason most cities adopt sanctuary policies. It's what they cite as justification for it. If it was the real reason, then they would limit the terms of the policy accordingly. Most cities don't. True, they won't turn over a witness who testifies in court or calls 911. However, most also won't turn over the guys who get caught doing all kinds of bad stuff.
Bystander posted in reply to me. You added to the reply.
Every person is different. It's ridiculous to lump all into a stereotype just to make yourself feel relevant to a discussion. Feel free to carry on
My entire position on this is>>>> It's a choice individuals make. Most of us make good choices.
If you'd like to female dog about those who make bad choices, I suggest you turn your attention to border counties here. Look at the health issues down there amongst the population. Diabetes is sky high. Obesity is rampant. This isn't a stereotype, it's a personal observation backed up by statistics
But that's predominantly democrat territory. Please continue to ignore the "root causes"
So, Democrats are the type 2 diabetic class?
You typed the above, not me
If you'd like to female dog about those who make bad choices, I suggest you turn your attention to border counties here. Look at the health issues down there amongst the population. Diabetes is sky high. Obesity is rampant. This isn't a stereotype, it's a personal observation backed up by statistics”
it’s like Powell and wood trying to disavow the kraken.
That was the point of my analogy. Being an Anti-vaxxer is the equivalent of a smoker or heavy drinker. It's a personal choice that society is bearing a part of the risk. You have the right to make the choice but that doesn't leave you immune from criticism.
This was a deflection. Not sure how you want me to respond. Covid isn't a Democrat vs. Republican problem. It's an all of us problem. The solution is there...vaccines. It's a much easier solution than solving obesity, winning the drug war or cessation of smoking.
No it's not. Only in the mind of someone who equated anarchy and violence in a city with "summer of love" could come up with that
Maybe you should take a trip to the border counties to see what I'm talking about. Take Kamala with you while you're at it
(you'll see a LOT of obese adults and children)
It's pretty different from being a smoker. A smoker is at a 10-20 percent risk of getting lung cancer not to mention the compounded risks of heart attack, stroke, and a whole mess of other really bad health conditions that are major killers. Unless you're over 80 or have serious underlying conditions, Covid isn't anywhere near that dangerous. Furthermore, in general treatment for Covid isn't anywhere near as expensive as treatment for something like lung cancer. A smoker also isn't being asked to take a vaccine - just to quit smoking, which has pretty much no health downside.
Ultimately it's a risk assessment and analysis that everybody should make based on their own circumstances. Personally, I live in a rural area and am rarely in close contact with people. When I am around people I socially distance, and everyone is masked by law. I'm in my mid-40s and don't have an underlying health condition. (There's also a good chance that I've already had Covid.) So I'm pretty low risk of getting Covid and extremely low risk of dying from it. I just don't have a lot of fear of it.
Then I have to weigh the vaccine. Like all vaccines, it has side effects and some risks of pretty serious health problems far worse than Covid. Are the rates of these problems high? Doesn't look like it. But here's the problem. We can't possibly know. It's a brand new vaccine that's being distributed wildly faster than any previous vaccine. The bottom line is that there's just a lot more reason to be skeptical of this vaccine than (for example) MMR or one of the vaccines that have been around for decades and didn't have the regulatory barriers pushed aside for them.
Like I've mentioned before, it also doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the vaccine when the government under which I live will treat me as if I'm just as much of a Covid risk if I get the vaccine as if I don't and when the drugmakers' top priority is getting tort immunity (meaning I have no recourse if this thing goes wrong). If they don't trust it enough to let a vaccinated person avoid quarantine or getting 4 Covid tests when traveling, they why should I, particularly when I'm so low-risk?
I don't consider myself an anti-vaxxer because it's possible for my risk analysis to change based on facts and circumstances. As time passes and the side effects and risks become better known, I'll be less of a skeptic (unless of course the problems get worse). As I age and get into higher risk categories for Covid, that definitely will change my assessment. (For example, my parents are vaccinated, which I encouraged.) If I moved into a big city and had to be in close proximity with other people, that would change my assessment. And of course, if the UK government acted like it trusted the vaccine, that would certainly help as well.
Can people criticize my assessment? Sure they can, and I'll listen to them if it's in good faith. But no, I'm not like a smoker.
It seems to me that deals are made by law enforcement all the time. You squeeze somebody on a violation and get them to testify for a lessor charge or immunity. I don't know how easy this would be but I'm sure it happens in instances not involving illegal immigration.
A smoker creates second hand smoke. Someone with COVID can infect others. There are some similarities here; especially if those making the free choice want free health care to bail them out of their free choice.
Do you have any stats or evidence that illegals who reported crimes were deported?
I think its an apt comparison with the only difference being the scale of the risk. As @bystander pointed out, 2nd hand smoke is the equivalent of spreading the disease. My initial statement wasn't that an anti-vaxxer is as reckless as a smoker but merely that the decision to not accept the vaccine but still anticipate healthcare is a socialized risk. That has nothing to do with the choice to not get a vaccine but merely that those making that choice, for whatever reason, are putting additional risk on the healthcare system and those around them.
It is interesting to think how it is now expected that smokers quarantine themselves or colonize themselves when they light up. Society has forced compliance.
We are not there with COVID vaccines. Not sure we will ever be but there was a was a recent case where the courts ruled a private business (in this case a hospital in Houston) can force their employees to vaccinate or else be terminated.
Schools and some summer camps have required proof of vaccinations for participation. Heck, the Polio Vaccine was administered in schools in the 50's and 60's. I suspect even the most ardent anti-vaxxers will eventually come around but until that time they are slowing down our ability to slay this virus.
We're a lot more careful what we put in our bodies nowdays. Esp my generation.
Only way I'd take the jab is if I hadn't caught it yet and/ or was compromised health wise. Neither apply to me
Now analyze welfare recipients, Democrat judges not prosecuting Antifa morons, the border crisis, BLM commies, justifying crime as a street fair in Seattle, lies about reducing taxes hurting revenues, and overall government spending while staring at yourself in a mirror.
Republican who voted against a bi-partisan 1/6 commission complains the commission legislation that was passed isn't bi-partisan.
Further craziness on the Right. McCarthy has threatened to strip any R of their committee seats if they accept one of the D positions on the 1/6 Insurrection investigation. Pelosi has 8 spots to appoint, McCarthy has 5 positions. This morning Pelosi appointed Liz Cheney to the panel.
Keep in mind, the initial bill had a 50/50 split of D/R with D's getting the Chairman roll and R's having the Vice-Chairman. It was modelled after the 9/11 commission. All but 25-35 R's voted against that bill.
McCarthy had to know that opposing the commission on its own was a stupid move. However, it's pretty clear that any kind of cooperation on investigating the attack is going to be perceived by the base as disloyalty to Trump. There must be no room for any of that.
McCarthy doesn't have McConnell's job security. It's much easier to primary a Representative. As an outsider, this "disloyalty to Trump" ethos appears to be a huge abdication of leadership.
Few have McConnell's job security. However, I don't think McCarthy fears a primary challenge as much as he fears a leadership challenge. If he pisses off the Louis Gohmerts and Lauren Boeberts too much (which is easy to do on anything personally related to Trump), they can end his career in the leadership like they ended Liz Cheney's. If the GOP takes the House in '22, they can't put one of their own in the Speaker's chair, but they can deny him.
They can make him sweat on becoming the party's nominee for Speaker. Furthermore, they can vote Present or for someone other than McCarthy on the floor. If the GOP wins the House, it'll be a narrow majority like it is now, and he'll have very little wiggle room.
It is. I understand why he's afraid and frankly most politicians wouldn't have the balls to do a lot better. They prefer the way of least resistance in the immediate term. However, that's the difference between a leader and a slimy politician. A leader does what's right when it's not easy. A slimy politician doesn't.
McCarthy is afraid that Trump is going to run for Congress and unseat him as Speaker. Talk about what a shitshow of all shitshows that would be.
Some crazy right wing people apparently decided to follow Caitlyn Jenner around and badger her @CPAC. This is a speaker at CPAC.
Kudos to Tomi Lahren for calling out this disdainful behavior.
The pure bs coming out of the quitters is sick and hilarious.
The bimbo who showed her having to hand wash clothes is one of the funniest as is the one of the woman who was going to marry her live in woman friend but had to postpone.
Need a moment and kleenix
And now at least three of them have the sniffles...