bullets13

Seeing as they’re America’s team, it would sure be nice if they didn’t get screwed by the refs every week.

Heck of a program to go to these days

That and plenty of politics

Legitimately, I think that’s a great question as well.

This absolutely nailed it. There are tons of people on both sides who lack the self-awareness to realize just how ridiculous they're being.

millions on the right have refused to take the vaccine, many for the sole reason that the government is trying to make them. Now the right is losing their mind because the government is possibly going stop them from getting the monoclonal infusion treatment. It's hilarious to me, to be honest. The right has been over the top outspoken (and to be fair, I don't think they're completely wrong) about the government mandating a "non FDA-approved, artificially created, side-effects unknown vaccine shot" on them for over a year. but now there's no way in hell the government is going to stop them from getting the other, almost identical, non FDA-approved, artificially created, side-effects unknown infusion shot.

I get that you don't trust the media and the government. I have no trust in the media and very little trust in the government, and I think both sides are just about as crooked as the other, one just happens to align with more of my views. That said, I am simply pointing out that the idea that a recall election in California would be publicly fixed for a democratic candidate just doesn't hold water. It would be like risking getting caught doctoring the presidential election numbers in Texas during the Bush election. He's already winning by a huge margin, why would you risk getting caught committing voter fraud?

I agree with you. Without a doubt there are individuals who commit fraud in every national election, but most of the accusations of widespread fraud are beyond implausible. that having been said, I would love for a better system to be put in place that is more trackable and makes it much tougher to commit fraud of any kind. Whether or not there is major fraud being committed, the system should have enough integrity and transparency that American voters can trust that when they vote, they're voting in a fair election. There is certainly enough murkiness and inconsistency in the current process to make many voters feel that fraud is possible, or even likely. In state elections in swing states decided by a few thousand votes, the actions of a couple of fraudulent poll workers could literally be enough to swing an entire election. That's terrifying.

And I'm glad you're not like these people. People Laugh as Students Talks About Grandmother’s COVID-19 Death – NBC Chicago

pretty thin, if you ask me. he was up 2.3M votes. so they "erased" 351,000 votes to put him up 2.6M? It really makes zero sense for them to do that, and the explanation makes a lot more sense than publicly cheating in a recall that was never going to be close to begin with.

Like i was saying. I respect your right to get vaccinated or not, but for you it is clearly a political issue. Trump is the one that rushed vaccines through, not Biden. Both sides are playing the political angle on this, and neither side gives much consideration to the other.

One of the biggest shames in this ordeal is how the political angle of vaccinations (from both sides) has become more important than the prevention and treatment of covid.

ten years ago I would've agreed. she's gone off the deep end. of course, this is only my opinion.

1. Magnolia West 2. Magnolia 3. Atascocita 4. West Brook 5. CE King 6. Vidor 7. Hamshire-Fannett 8. Huffman 9. Liberty 10. Jasper 11. Silsbee 12. Livingston 13. Bridge City 14. Lumberton 15. Orangefield 16. Newton 17. Coldspring 18. Elkhart 19. Deweyville 20. Kountze 21. Hull-Daisetta 22. Cushing 23. Beckville 24. Shelbyville 25. West Rusk

1000% agree. I'm not shooting someone at night that is stealing from me just because the law says I can. But like you said, if I feel my family is in danger, I'm shooting and not hesitating to do so.

I’m that way with the flu. I’ve taught for 15 years, and until last year (when students were masked up and socially distanced, amongst MANY other precautions) there’s never been a school year when at least half of my class didn’t get the flu at one time or another. I haven’t had it in 13 or 14 years, although I’m exposed to it constantly. I personally opted for the Covid shot because I had no immunities to it, but I get the point you’re making. I’ve also heard (and cannot substantiate this with any type of research) that people in professions where they deal with people all the time tend to handle Covid better because of the work that their immune system constantly puts in. It seems plausible.

It seems like a very valid concern. You’re just literally the first person I can remember mentioning it. Although reduction in efficacy after time is not an indicator of causing more harm, IMO.

I think it was reckless and criminal, but will likely be no-billed by the grand jury. And if it was one of my daughters, I would probably look at it differently.

Gotcha. But the article still shows that, even though more people there are vaccinated than not, there’s still a significantly larger number of unvaccinated patients than vaccinated. It also doesn’t show anything that supports that they’re more susceptible or in more danger than unvaccinated. The numbers are showing the contrary.

Lots of variables. Two examples, neither of which would legally justify murder, but I feel differently about them. example one: a guy cuts between two houses to get to the next street over, a woman sees him outside her window and thinks he’s a peeping Tom, shoots him through the wall. Maybe he even heard her talking and glances in as he walks by. example two: a guy is staring through a window at a woman in an effort to see her changing, and she notices him and shoots him through the wall. do we know which example, if either, applies to this guy who got shot? Would you feel differently about a guy shooting a teenager who was in his backyard at night? Maybe the teenager was stealing something, maybe he was confused and thought it was his buddy’s yard, maybe he was just crossing through. There’s a reason that the law only allows for self defense under certain criteria.

I’ve never heard that argument against the vaccine from any of them, so I don’t think that’s their rationale. But I understand your response, especially the first half, and I’m sure that’s part of it, if not most of it.

I know many people who are against the vaccine because it uses artificial mRNA virus to create an immune response, rather than a weakened version of the natural virus. Many of these same people also made a big deal about the vaccine not being FDA approved, and then when it was approved, made a big deal about them rushing it through. While I don’t feel the same way, I feel those are valid concerns, but… many of these same people are getting monoclonal antibody infusions when they get sick, and none of them are questioning the methodology or effectiveness of the infusions or trying to convince people not to take them. I’m having a hard time understanding this. Monoclonal infusions load the body with antibodies that are similar to the ones your body would naturally make in response to infection. However, monoclonal antibodies are mass-produced in a laboratory and are designed to recognize a specific component of this virus — the spike protein on its outer shell. Sounds a lot like the vaccine, doesn’t it? On top of this, monoclonal infusions are not FDA approved. any thoughts? Any of you anti-vaxxers care to admit you’ve got the infusion? I know several folks that have. Some of them are still against the vaccine. I really don’t understand the rationale.

DEATH; This spontaneous report received from a consumer via a company representative through social media, concerned a patient of unspecified age, sex, race and ethnicity. The patient's weight, height, and medical history were not reported. The patient received covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s (suspension for injection, route of administration was not reported, batch number: unknown and expiry date: unknown) dose, start therapy date were not reported, 1 total, administered for prophylactic vaccination. The batch number was not reported. Per procedure, no follow-up will be requested for this case. No concomitant medications were reported. On an unspecified date, following vaccination, the patient died. The cause of death was unknown. It was unknown if an autopsy was performed. The action taken with covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s was not applicable. The outcome of event death was fatal. This report was serious (Death).; Sender's Comments: V0-20210902668-covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s-Death. This event(s) is considered unassessable. The event(s) has a compatible/suggestive temporal relationship, is unlabeled, and has unknown scientific plausibility. There is no information on any other factors potentially associated with the event(s).; Reported Cause(s) of Death: UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH If I used a site that posted something like this as “evidence” that you obviously needed to take the vaccine, would you consider it valid evidence? Keep in mind this is literally the most recent death reported on VAERS. I didn’t have to scroll through to find a questionable death report. It was the first one I found. to recap the report: an unknown person reported this death through social media. The death occurred in a person of unknown identity, age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Medical history is unknown. Height and weight, unknown. Type of Vaccine, unknown. Date of vaccination, unknown. Date of death, unknown. Cause of death, unknown. Autopsy performed, unknown. The event is considered unassessable by the site. The scientific plausibility of this death relating to the vaccine is listed as unknown. There are no other factors potentially associated to the death that are known. to sum that report up even further, somebody on Facebook said they knew a person who got a vaccine and died, providing zero evidence or information of the supposed death. AND VAERS ACCEPTED THE REPORT AND LISTED IT AS A VACCINE INJURY RESULTING IN DEATH. And the gateway dumbit is representing this, and every other death report on VAERS, as “deaths due to the Covid vaccine”, and you’re drinking their koolaid.

Of course I did. It’s the Republican version of Occupy Democrats. I also explicitly showed what the VAERS site said versus how the the gateway pundit was intentionally misrepresenting the information.

That post got long quick. I want to elaborate on exactly how sketchy the numbers on VAERS are... there is no verification process. anyone can report anything and they'll list it. You can read through every report made on the site. This is literally the most recent death report "related to Covid" on the site: DEATH; This spontaneous report received from a consumer via a company representative through social media, concerned a patient of unspecified age, sex, race and ethnicity. The patient's weight, height, and medical history were not reported. The patient received covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s (suspension for injection, route of administration was not reported, batch number: unknown and expiry date: unknown) dose, start therapy date were not reported, 1 total, administered for prophylactic vaccination. The batch number was not reported. Per procedure, no follow-up will be requested for this case. No concomitant medications were reported. On an unspecified date, following vaccination, the patient died. The cause of death was unknown. It was unknown if an autopsy was performed. The action taken with covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s was not applicable. The outcome of event death was fatal. This report was serious (Death).; Sender's Comments: V0-20210902668-covid-19 vaccine ad26.cov2.s-Death. This event(s) is considered unassessable. The event(s) has a compatible/suggestive temporal relationship, is unlabeled, and has unknown scientific plausibility. There is no information on any other factors potentially associated with the event(s).; Reported Cause(s) of Death: UNKNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH I mean, I'm convinced, aren't you? Over 40% of the deaths reported on VAERS do not have an age associated with them. It's a pretty safe assumption that many of those reports look like this. Of the deaths where details are more available, around 75% of the deaths occurred in patients over 65 years old. around 85% occurred in patients 55 and over. Remember when I mentioned coincidental deaths? Is it a shock that out of several million senior citizens who've been vaccinated, an extremely small percentage died sometime after getting the vaccine? It's also worth noting that you can report a death up to 28 days after vaccination. So if your 92-year-old grandma died of a stroke 26 days after vaccination, it qualifies for VAERS.