Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, screaming people on television is the worst.

Well . . . except for Don West screaming about a Baseball Blowout Extravaganza, or a Million Dollar Rookie Giveaway!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by timzcardz

Well . . . except for Don West screaming about a Baseball Blowout Extravaganza, or a Million Dollar Rookie Giveaway!

True!

Will Ferrell did a good Don West: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DyDLyiyoT8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmQrmiqr7Fg

[KMayUSA6060]

So instead of commenting on the mathematical facts I shared, the discussion turns to how I comment and how it is perceived?

I have not ignored a single person in this thread, nor will I, despite being called a racist, cocksure AH, stupid, etc. If Pfizer comes out with a vaxx to prevent a condition called Candy Ass, I expect y'all to be first in line. What an absolutely pathetic excuse for a "discussion" thread. The group of people who subscribe to pro-COVID-fear beliefs are consistently the least tolerant, least accepting group of people in the world, and this thread proves that to yet again be true.

The basis of my viewpoint is cemented in individual rights as long as they don't physically or financially harm another individual.

The initial narrative with the vaxx was it would protect you from getting COVID. That has been proven to not be true.

Then the narrative became it would prevent you from going to the hospital. That has been proven to not be true.

Now it's get a jab every few months to "do your part", while there are no differentiating guidelines between vaxxed and unvaxxed, despite the number of deaths for 2022 being on pace to match or exceed the deaths in each of 2020 and 2021.

There are plenty of other COVID events that have been mentioned in this thread, and some that have not, that don't need to be brought up to take away from the point of this comment.

None of you care about my point of view, or those who share a similar point of view in this thread, proven by your attention going to how my comments are perceived tone wise instead of the actual content. Nothing that has been stated has been met with irrefutable evidence to the contrary that would cause me to subject myself to someone else making a personal health decision for me. You guys aren't ok with that, and that's quite scary.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The group of people who subscribe to pro-COVID-fear beliefs are consistently the least tolerant, least accepting group of people in the world, and this thread proves that to yet again be true.

You should check out what's actually going on around the world if you really believe this. Start with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Myanmar and go from there.

People who rail against public health initiatives as "violations of their rights" typically have no idea how good they have it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You should check out what's actually going on around the world if you really believe this. Start with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Myanmar and go from there.

People who rail against public health initiatives as "violations of their rights" typically have no idea how good they have it.

I’m not sure that being better than Islamic theocracies is really a defense of the policies and use of pressure and force for selected medical decisions. Certainly there was hyperbole in the original claim and Islamic fundamentalists are less tolerant than those advocating government force for selected medical decisions, but that’s not really a bar I would think anyone would be happy of clearing.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You should check out what's actually going on around the world if you really believe this. Start with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Myanmar and go from there.

People who rail against public health initiatives as "violations of their rights" typically have no idea how good they have it.

Explain the fundamental difference. Please.

In your examples, I see a group of people not accepting the personal choices of others and not allowing them to be part of society due to this fact. A common example of this is the LGBTQ+ community.

In the US, the pro-COVID-fear believers believe in forcing a needle into someone's arm or mask on their face to allow them to participate in society. Vaxxed only jobs, vaxxed only offices, vaxxed or masked only spaces, etc.

Fundamentally, there is no difference for me. I never said the pro-COVID-fear group is the most evil. I just said it's the least accepting/tolerant group of people.

Percent of US that identifies as LGBTQ+: ~7%
Percent of US that is unvaxxed: ~20-30%

I would imagine the percentage of LGBTQ+ members in the countries you mentioned is significantly lower than 7% as well. Of course there are other groups of individuals that those countries are intolerant/unaccepting of, but does that percentage of society for those groups make up the ~13-23% difference in society? If not, then by definition, in this example, that would make the pro-COVID-fear believers the most intolerant/unaccepting group. If not, then it's one of the least tolerant/accepting groups, and I apologize for putting you ahead of the Saudi/Afghani/etc. rulers which is a pathetic bar to measure yourself against in the first place. And again, that's getting into specifics. The fundamental beliefs are largely the same - "subject to my way of living or you can't participate in society." Where is the line drawn as far as individual rights otherwise?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Explain the fundamental difference. Please.

In your examples, I see a group of people not accepting the personal choices of others and not allowing them to be part of society due to this fact. A common example of this is the LGBTQ+ community.

In the US, the pro-COVID-fear believers believe in forcing a needle into someone's arm or mask on their face to allow them to participate in society. Vaxxed only jobs, vaxxed only offices, vaxxed or masked only spaces, etc.

Fundamentally, there is no difference for me. I never said the pro-COVID-fear group is the most evil. I just said it's the least accepting/tolerant group of people.

Percent of US that identifies as LGBTQ+: ~7%
Percent of US that is unvaxxed: ~20-30%

I would imagine the percentage of LGBTQ+ members in the countries you mentioned is significantly lower than 7% as well. Of course there are other groups of individuals that those countries are intolerant/unaccepting of, but does that percentage of society for those groups make up the ~13-23% difference in society? If not, then by definition, in this example, that would make the pro-COVID-fear believers the most intolerant/unaccepting group. If not, then it's one of the least tolerant/accepting groups, and I apologize for putting you ahead of the Saudi/Afghani/etc. rulers which is a pathetic bar to measure yourself against in the first place. And again, that's getting into specifics. The fundamental beliefs are largely the same - "subject to my way of living or you can't participate in society." Where is the line drawn as far as individual rights otherwise?

Americans who did not get the jab and/or refused to wear masks were not denied participation in society. I find that a gross exaggeration.

As far as LGBTQ+ rights, in some countries being identified as a member of one of these groups will get you killed; in America that's generally not the case.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Americans who did not get the jab and/or refused to wear masks were not denied participation in society. I find that a gross exaggeration.

As far as LGBTQ+ rights, in some countries being identified as a member of one of these groups will get you killed; in America that's generally not the case.

1. Tell that to people who lost their jobs, aren't allowed to apply for certain jobs, weren't allowed to attend events, fined for not wearing a mask, segregated at their jobs based on vaxxed status, etc.

2. So the fundamental difference for you is you don't believe the unvaxxed should be killed, just segregated in society? How "Civil Rights" of you. I'll go drink from my Unvaxxed Only Drinking Fountain now.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1. Tell that to people who lost their jobs, aren't allowed to apply for certain jobs, weren't allowed to attend events, fined for not wearing a mask, segregated at their jobs based on vaxxed status, etc.

2. So the fundamental difference for you is you don't believe the unvaxxed should be killed, just segregated in society? How "Civil Rights" of you. I'll go drink from my Unvaxxed Only Drinking Fountain now.

Obviously we disagree here, but I can't dismiss your first point entirely. It seems to me that we are no longer truly living in a single society in the US. Where I live (blue state), people typically got the vaccine and wore masks. That localized "society" accepted that these things were to be done. In other places, things played out differently.

To your second point, I don't think anyone should be killed for being who they are. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least...

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Obviously we disagree here, but I can't dismiss your first point entirely. It seems to me that we are no longer truly living in a single society in the US. Where I live (blue state), people typically got the vaccine and wore masks. That localized "society" accepted that these things were to be done. In other places, things played out differently.

To your second point, I don't think anyone should be killed for being who they are. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least...

Didnt the CDC say they were wrong on many things. ie. social distancing, kids in school, mask etc)..wouldnt that imply the red states were at least right on some things that main media would blast them on a daily basis saying they are killing people etc....

Its always easier arguing a position that if you are wrong you wont get fired versus a position when you are wrong you could get fired or sued or branded a criminal. which would be the underdog position versus the favorite

example not based on real facts but to show my point : If we keeps kids out of school they will all live, if not 10% will die, (the favorite) versus the position let them in school its all safe. (the underdog)

So if it turns out no kids died and school totally open, the favorite position can say 'woops my bad' They still keep their job etc....however if kids went to school at 10% died, the peerson with the underdog view gets fired, gets sued for endangerment to children and branded a pariah ec.


please keep in mind the favorite versus underdog position.........very easy to argue the favorite position, even if turns out right not as strong as when an underdog is right given so much more risk etc....

[G1911]

If the vaccine is effective, we would expect the death tolls to drop in 2022 and the second half of 2021. Even if one is under a belief that only the unvaccinated die; that that is now 30% of the population instead of 100% should produce a huge drop in total deaths.

The vaccine does not seem to be producing a real decline. I do think a preponderance of the evidence suggests it has some impact in reducing the likelihood of death or hospitalization, less than the political advocates preach and more than the political naysayers preach back. Enough that if I was 75 and obese, I might line up for recurring rounds of shots. The absolute risk reduction, for a person of young or middle age without lung problems who is not obese, is either non-existent or so small it is all but impossible to honestly measure.

The big problem here though, is that this is not how the vaccine was advertised. At the same time that I am told it is a conspiracy theory to in any way question Science, the narrative switches make it impossible to accept the current version without believing the previous version of "trust the science" was not exactly true. As I have said before, not every narrative switch is a contradiction; some things do change with new variants. The vaccine was advertised as preventing symptoms or infection, preventing transmission. It never did this, it never did this for the variant at the time, or the subsequent ones. And I do not mean "6 people had it happen, therefore it's a lie!"; with these sample sizes of course nothing is truly 100%, but this did not do at all what we were told when being pressured into taking the shot. It was also a conspiracy theory to even suggest you might end up being told to get a 3rd or a 4th; which is now the official narrative that we are to trust and not question because it is "science". That it does not do what everyone was told while they were being fired if they did not give in and take it does not, of course, mean that it does not have a positive impact at all, both can be true.

Science, actual science, follows the method, and is based on letting the evidence guide, not arranging a certain set of evidence to fit what one wants to find, and is based on constant questioning and re-examination. To actually question or to exam is, now, a "conspiracy theory" because we are to, as was screeched from every television set in America for over a year, "trust the science", as science was turned into a singular monolith of faith, an unquestionable institution.

Either 1) "Science" knew that the vaccine did not do much to prevent infection, transmission, or feeling symptoms as millions upon millions of vaccinated people have experienced, and lied because they thought the risk reduction to death or hospitalization was worth it, or 2) "Science" was honest and surprised to find out that it does not, in fact, actually do the things they said that it would do and did. Either is troubling for the obvious reasons, especially as it was forced onto people who did not want it and believed they should be able to make their own medical decisions instead of outsourcing those decisions to the State (a traditionally left position).

The flips on masks, several times over, on what the vaccine is for, on how many you need, on hosts and hosts of issues, makes the narrative untenable. To believe the current version, one must believe many of the previous versions are untrue. Why are we to trust, without questioning, the 27th version of the story is correct when 1-26 turned out false?

I'm sure the tolerant will manage to find a way to call this "subtle racism" as well.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Didnt the CDC say they were wrong on many things. ie. social distancing, kids in school, mask etc)..wouldnt that imply the red states were at least right on some things that main media would blast them on daily saying they are killing people etc....

Personally, I wouldn't try to generalize to the point of saying "blue states were right and red states were wrong" or vice versa...it is 100% true though that there were many inaccurate or misleading things put out there. The CDC director just recently came out and admitted that they did a bad job of dealing with the pandemic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Americans who did not get the jab and/or refused to wear masks were not denied participation in society. I find that a gross exaggeration.

As far as LGBTQ+ rights, in some countries being identified as a member of one of these groups will get you killed; in America that's generally not the case.

This is not true in blue states. For example, I was banned from all indoor public places for not wearing a mask for almost two years. It is an exaggeration in some areas, but it was very much the truth in others.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, screaming people on television is the worst. In fact screaming people in general are hard to be around.

Whenever someone quotes KMay everything he writes comes across as screaming to me.

Fortunately, with the ignore feature, I have been able to turn him off, just like I turn off Stephen A. Smith, or Sean Hannity, or Joy Behar, or Nancy Grace, or any other number of screamers.

i don think Joy Behar can be compared to Hannity.....hannity can be at least right 1 percent of the time ...Behar is always wrong

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Obviously we disagree here, but I can't dismiss your first point entirely. It seems to me that we are no longer truly living in a single society in the US. Where I live (blue state), people typically got the vaccine and wore masks. That localized "society" accepted that these things were to be done. In other places, things played out differently.

To your second point, I don't think anyone should be killed for being who they are. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least...

Correct. However, this extended to the Federal level, therefore ignoring local government and encompassing society as a whole. So whatever individual/local rights line existed, was crossed, which is the basis for my fear of the "slippery slope".

Of course we agree on that (barring the extreme examples when it comes to terrorism/mass murder and the death penalty for those individuals). I don't consider that to be a very proud accomplishment, though.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Personally, I wouldn't try to generalize to the point of saying "blue states were right and red states were wrong" or vice versa...it is 100% true though that there were many inaccurate or misleading things put out there. The CDC director just recently came out and admitted that they did a bad job of dealing with the pandemic.

please see the rest of the argument about underdog versus favorite in the post.....disagreeing with CDC in how the pandemic was handled was an underdog position and if CDC was right we would be asking for the heads of those red state governors right? I guess my point is didnt the red states cover the spread?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Personally, I wouldn't try to generalize to the point of saying "blue states were right and red states were wrong" or vice versa...it is 100% true though that there were many inaccurate or misleading things put out there. The CDC director just recently came out and admitted that they did a bad job of dealing with the pandemic.

So the people coming out saying they did a bad job with the pandemic (which will have long-term effects on millions of lives in a negative way) are the same people I'm supposed to blindly trust when it comes to what goes into my body/my health?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So the people coming out saying they did a bad job with the pandemic (which will have long-term effects on millions of lives in a negative way) are the same people I'm supposed to blindly trust when it comes to what goes into my body/my health?

I wouldn't say to blindly trust them. As I think we discussed earlier in this thread, I think some measure of skepticism of our government is healthy and necessary. However, I don't buy into the idea that there has been some big secret conspiracy to take people's freedom away via vaccines or masks (or some such characterization). I have multiple medical professionals in my extended family, and talking with them early on in the pandemic was more than enough for me to want to get the jab and accept that mask wearing was worth doing.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So the people coming out saying they did a bad job with the pandemic (which will have long-term effects on millions of lives in a negative way) are the same people I'm supposed to blindly trust when it comes to what goes into my body/my health?

This is one of many questions that cannot be seriously answered; and must be deflected by dismissing via reference to conspiracy theories. It, of course, does not take a giant conspiracy for the CDC to be wrong; but to acknowledge that they are wrong for any reason undermines the entire argument for the extreme measures that was built on an appeal to authority and expertise.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I wouldn't say to blindly trust them. As I think we discussed earlier in this thread, I think some measure of skepticism of our government is healthy and necessary. However, I don't buy into the idea that there has been some big secret conspiracy to take people's freedom away via vaccines or masks (or some such characterization). I have multiple medical professionals in my extended family, and talking with them early on in the pandemic was more than enough for me to want to get the jab and accept that mask wearing was worth doing.

So it's ok for said group to force/coerce/segregate society?

Because what you're saying in the latter part of your statement is 100% in line with my beliefs - do your own research and make your own personal health decisions. What's being argued and what has occurred, however, is vastly different from that.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So it's ok for said group to force/coerce/segregate society?

I guess it just depends how you look at it. There are many generally accepted things that could be viewed the same way. You are forced to obtain a license if you want to drive a motor vehicle. You are forced to give up your firearm if you want to enter an airport. You have to have completed your HS education to enlist in the military. And so on.

How do you feel about these things?

[irv]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I guess it just depends how you look at it. There are many generally accepted things that could be viewed the same way. You are forced to obtain a license if you want to drive a motor vehicle. You are forced to give up your firearm if you want to enter an airport. You have to have completed your HS education to enlist in the military. And so on.

How do you feel about these things?

VS having an experimental, first time ever used, for emergency use only, shot injected into your body.
Your comparisons aren't even close, Bobby, but nice try.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I guess it just depends how you look at it. There are many generally accepted things that could be viewed the same way. You are forced to obtain a license if you want to drive a motor vehicle. You are forced to give up your firearm if you want to enter an airport. You have to have completed your HS education to enlist in the military. And so on.

How do you feel about these things?

These are not similar issues.

1. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
2. If I don't want to give up my firearm, I can drive.
3. Enlisting in the military is a choice.

None of these involve injecting something into someone else's body.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

These are not similar issues.

1. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
2. If I don't want to give up my firearm, I will can drive.
3. Enlisting in the military is a choice.

None of these involve injecting something into someone else's body.

Also you cant sue if that injection ends up hurting you.... People would go nuts if cant sue if an abortion was done wrong

people always forget about legal ramfications and insurance

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

These are not similar issues.

1. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
2. If I don't want to give up my firearm, I will can drive.
3. Enlisting in the military is a choice.

None of these involve injecting something into someone else's body.

I agree with all three of your characterizations, in fact. To me, the vaccine/mask issue goes with #2– if your employer mandates that you get vaccinated, you have the choice to find another job. If your town or county mandates that you wear a mask in stores/restaurants, you have the choice to get delivery.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I agree with all three of your characterizations, in fact. To me, the vaccine/mask issue goes with #2– if your employer mandates that you get vaccinated, you have the choice to find another job. If your town or county mandates that you wear a mask in stores/restaurants, you have the choice to get delivery.

The former is segregation. The latter is a violation of private business rights.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I agree with all three of your characterizations, in fact. To me, the vaccine/mask issue goes with #2– if your employer mandates that you get vaccinated, you have the choice to find another job. If your town or county mandates that you wear a mask in stores/restaurants, you have the choice to get delivery.

so if you have 20 years into your job and have a few years left to get pension, thats fair to switch jobs and have to start at zero years and need 25 years to vest for pension..(plus moving costs, potential months to find similar job/pay).....really is a terrible argument to say 'choice to find another job' unless the government will pay you for what you lost...heck they pay for student loan forgiveness and i would say those debtors much more at fault for their situation than someone having to leave their job for the vaccine issues where CDC says they handled it wrong.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

so if you have 20 years into your job and have a few years left to get pension, thats fair to switch jobs and have to start at zero years and need 25 years to vest for pension..(plus moving costs, potential months to find similar job/pay).....really is a terrible argument to say 'choice to find another job' unless the government will pay you for what you lost...heck they pay for student loan forgiveness and i would say those debtors much more at fault for their situation than someone having to leave their job for the vaccine issues where CDC says they handled it wrong.

I'd rather not open a whole different can of worms with labor rights, but my point to Kyle about this "choice" is a fact, not an argument. Employers tell employees "do this or you're fired" all the time, and with the exception of those with unions/pensions/etc. workers can comply or "go find another job."

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The former is segregation. The latter is a violation of private business rights.

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

so if you have 20 years into your job and have a few years left to get pension, thats fair to switch jobs and have to start at zero years and need 25 years to vest for pension..(plus moving costs, potential months to find similar job/pay).....really is a terrible argument to say 'choice to find another job' unless the government will pay you for what you lost...heck they pay for student loan forgiveness and i would say those debtors much more at fault for their situation than someone having to leave their job for the vaccine issues where CDC says they handled it wrong.

When the pandemic was raging it was a civic duty to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. Put others before yourself sort of thing. Times were rather dire.

[G1911]

The difference is reasonability. It is reasonable for an employer to have educational or experience requirements for a certain job. It is not reasonable for an employer to demand an experimental vaccine that, apparently, those issuing it did not even understand what it would actually do be injected into you 4 times and counting without much impact on the death data.

If we believe an employer may require an employee to do anything it wishes whatsoever because that employee can “go find another job” even though most every major employer is forcing that thing, well that is far more corporatist right wing than I could ever agree with or find reasonable, just or commensurate with western values of personal freedom and liberty.

Sometimes I feel like we live in opposite land. The left now believes the power of the corporation should be expansive and almost unlimited in regards to employees and even their bodies, a belief necessary to use the clever workaround where it’s the employer and not the state effectively forcing injections. The right now believes in the old liberal value of the right of a person to make their own decisions regardless of their popularity and believes the individual will supersedes the desire of the state or corporate.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Employers tell employees "do this or you're fired" all the time, and with the exception of those with unions/pensions/etc. workers can comply or "go find another job."

Originally Posted by G1911

The difference is reasonability. It is reasonable for an employer to have educational or experience requirements for a certain job. It is not reasonable for an employer to demand an experimental vaccine that, apparently, those issuing it did not even understand what it would actually do be injected into you 4 times and counting without much impact on the death data.

Not to mention the component of the government coercing the employer to have said restrictions.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

When the pandemic was raging it was a civic duty to get vaccinated and wear a mask in public. Put others before yourself sort of thing. Times were rather dire.

Wear a mask even if disagree it couldnt harm you.


If Times were so dire why not allow the citizens to sue if the vaccine injured them, since the vaccine was so safe why not allow it (and only take money from the PROFITS from the vaccine company)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I'd rather not open a whole different can of worms with labor rights, but my point to Kyle about this "choice" is a fact, not an argument. Employers tell employees "do this or you're fired" all the time, and with the exception of those with unions/pensions/etc. workers can comply or "go find another job."

right and they wont be at that job for 20 years if problems with that emplowyer ...so now employees who were fine with all of the things the employer wanted and are close to getting their pension after 20 years etc are now forced to get another job and start all over again because of the government for something they cant even sue for if get injured

If employer makes you do something and you get hurt because of it, you at least can sue on that.

Its not apples to apples

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Wear a mask even if disagree it couldnt harm you.


If Times were so dire why not allow the citizens to sue if the vaccine injured them, since the vaccine was so safe why not allow it (and only take money from the PROFITS from the vaccine company)

Vaccine has turned out to be plenty safe and studies showed that at the time but there were no certainties in a new area. Government forces a lot of necessary things at various times in times of emergencies. It has sent good boys to die in foreign lands, etc. The government has been wrong in the past and you have every right to disagree but you also may want to realize that many more people will consider you a crazy conspiracy theorist than agree with you.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Vaccine has turned out to be plenty safe and studies showed that at the time but there were no certainties in a new area. Government forces a lot of necessary things at various times in times of emergencies. It has sent good boys to die in foreign lands, etc. The government has been wrong in the past and you have every right to disagree but you also may want to realize that many more people will consider you a crazy conspiracy theorist than agree with you.

Talk is cheap. Again saying 'Vaccine has turned out to be plenty safe' but not allowed to sue. Put your money where your mouth is Is what people would say to that. You even said government has been wrong before, thats pretty comforting when telling you that you cant sue but its safe, but we have been wrong before. Cant even sue the private companies, not the government from their PROFITS. If you cant do that, then you cant say its safe and people would consider you the conspiracy theorist.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Vaccine has turned out to be plenty safe and studies showed that at the time but there were no certainties in a new area. Government forces a lot of necessary things at various times in times of emergencies. It has sent good boys to die in foreign lands, etc. The government has been wrong in the past and you have every right to disagree but you also may want to realize that many more people will consider you a crazy conspiracy theorist than agree with you.

1A. So you admit it's experimental and you're the experiment?
1B. That's not true, actually. The number of myocarditis issues alone proves it isn't "plenty safe".

2. You consider me a crazy conspiracy theorist for taking history into consideration along with asking very valid questions in the present time. I consider you a totalitarian nut job, which is something you "may want to realize". I really don't give a damn what you or others think of me, which is also something you "may want to consider". I'm not a sheep.

[1952boyntoncollector]

There were reports of 15,000 deaths due to the vaccine on the CDC website, how many are actually actually caused who knows.

but who will sue on this and get discovery, oh thats right you not allowed to sue. Let those 15,000 families know that the vaccine was largely safe.

Also there are other problems that were not death but terrible sickness iike gullien bar syndrome or heart issues etc.. ..but who is really going to look in that when there is no money into it, maybe the drug companies can look into it with their billions in profits

Talcum Powder was largely safe from Johnson and Johnson...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Not to mention the component of the government coercing the employer to have said restrictions.

I simply cannot fathom how this belief that your employer has ultimate power over your medical decisions can possibly square with any other liberal, or even moderately conservative, beliefs about employees rights and the limit of corporate power.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I simply cannot fathom how this belief that your employer has ultimate power over your medical decisions can possibly square with any other liberal, or even moderately conservative, beliefs about employees rights and the limit of corporate power.

Private employers have control over your speech decisions too. Don’t say racist things or they have every right to fire you. Don’t come into work without a vaccine or mask because it harms others.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1A. So you admit it's experimental and you're the experiment?
1B. That's not true, actually. The number of myocarditis issues alone proves it isn't "plenty safe".

2. You consider me a crazy conspiracy theorist for taking history into consideration along with asking very valid questions in the present time. I consider you a totalitarian nut job, which is something you "may want to realize". I really don't give a damn what you or others think of me, which is also something you "may want to consider". I'm not a sheep.

Stop yelling at the television. I didn’t say I consider you to be crazy (I do). I said many others do. More than those that agree with you. The sheepish thing to in my opinion is to bow to the talking heads at FOX instead of listening to your doctor.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Private employers have control over your speech decisions too. Don’t say racist things or they have every right to fire you. Don’t come into work without a vaccine or mask because it harms others.

If you have your mask and vaxx, why are you worried about what I do?

The vaxx, as Jake stated, has a confirmed 15k kill count. Are you ok with those deaths?

Why do you always go to race? You're a real piece of work. Even if I were to say something racist, that wouldn't make me an accomplice in potential murder like forcing the vaxx does.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Stop yelling at the television. I didn’t say I consider you to be crazy (I do). I said many others do. More than those that agree with you. The sheepish thing to in my opinion is to bow to the talking heads at FOX instead of listening to your doctor.

My doctor is actually anti-vax, thank you very much. And I don't watch Fox News. Thank you for ASSuming.

I don't know what the point of your posts are. You don't add anything helpful/insightful, and constantly contradict yourself (I didn't say I consider you to be crazy - but I do).

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

My doctor is actually anti-vax, thank you very much. And I don't watch Fox News. Thank you for ASSuming.

I don't know what the point of your posts are. You don't add anything helpful/insightful, and constantly contradict yourself (I didn't say I consider you to be crazy - but I do).

Stop yelling. You’re not in your bunker.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Private employers have control over your speech decisions too. Don’t say racist things or they have every right to fire you. Don’t come into work without a vaccine or mask because it harms others.

If your vaccine works, my vaccine status doesn’t matter to you. You do believe your vaccine works, right? Even the staunchest advocates of the vaccine do not behave as if they actually believe it works.

Your race obsession is bizarre. Still waiting for you to show us what Kmay said that is racist.

I am surprised to find such staunch corporatist beliefs, where an employee must outsource their healthcare decisions to their employers whim, in a progressive.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

If your vaccine works, my vaccine status doesn’t matter to me. You do believe your vaccine works, right? Even the staunchest advocates of the vaccine do not behave as they actually believe it works.

Your race obsession is bizarre. Still waiting for you to to show us what Kmay said that is racist.

I am surprised to find such staunch corporatist beliefs, where an employee must outsource their healthcare decisions to their employers whim, in a progressive.

During the midst of the pandemic, those without a vaccine were being selfish and taking up valuable hospital space. Those without a mask were spreading germs.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

During the midst of the pandemic, those without a vaccine were being selfish and taking up valuable hospital space. Those without a mask were spreading germs.

So you think peoples vaccination status doesn’t affect you NOW, but it did in 2021, not because you can catch it but because some of them went to the hospital.

What about all the vaccinated people filling hospital beds, because the vaccination does not do what it was advertised to do? Are these people selfish?

What did Kmay say that was “subtle racism?”

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

So you think peoples vaccination status doesn’t affect you NOW, but it did in 2021, not because you can catch it but because some of them went to the hospital.

What about all the vaccinated people filling hospital beds, because the vaccination does not do what it was advertised to do? Are these people selfish?

What did Kmay say that was “subtle racism?”

Find the subtle racism post and quote it here since you have it handy and I’ll take a look.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

During the midst of the pandemic, those without a vaccine were being selfish and taking up valuable hospital space. Those without a mask were spreading germs.

Did you read my post with the number of COVID deaths each year?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Find the subtle racism post and quote it here since you have it handy and I’ll take a look.

That's what I thought. You can't answer to the contradictions, and you don't even know why you brought race into this to when knocking the people who don't believe the contradictory narrative. 270.