TriGirl

13 hours ago, metalslug said:

On 9/13/2021 at 1:16 PM, TriGirl said:

You can choose not to hang out with people who are 10x more likely to carry, transmit, and mutate the virus, ..

Do you have a citation for that ?

It was a generalization, since I included all the increased risks.  Non-vaxx'd are more easily infected.  If you carry it, you can transmit it.  And as long as the virus is given the freedom to replicate and spread, it will continue to mutate.

Kallend gave much more specific (and higher estimates) of some of these risks, with a citation due to the specific nature of his statement.

13 hours ago, gowlerk said:

13 hours ago, metalslug said:

Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch .

Actually there is no plan to create a "two-tiered society", that is hyperbole. Instead there is a plan to put enough pressure on the unvaccinated to make it much easier for them to just give in and do the right thing. And it is beginning to work. Right now it is still a big issue. A year from now we (and most of them) will be wondering what all the fuss was about as we all get used to our yearly booster shots. 

And since when is admission to a private business a "right"?  At least here in the US, the majority of service-industry businesses proudly proclaim that they have the right to refuse service to anyone.  Intoxicated, abusive, shirtless/shoeless... and now those who could spread a deadly disease to the staff and other customers.

15 hours ago, kallend said:

Hospital workers who refuse vaccination SHOULD be fired.  They are ignoring best practice, setting a very poor example, and unethically putting patients and co-workers at risk.

They're also demonstrating that they don't have experience in infections, disease, general health care -- all skills I would think we would want at least from the medical providers (I do recognize you wrote "hospital workers," which include also non-medical providers).

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t expect him to stop it, because he is a befuddled geriatric.  But if we hold him to his own self-established metric of “70% vaccinated by the Fourth of July” he is a failure. 

Only if you count those he couldn't convince to get vaccinated has he failed.  The vaccines were in place and accessible.  It is the fault of those who refuse to take them that we aren't at that metric.

Again, how do you expect him to stop this?  Do you agree with vaccine mandates?  Perhaps in your opinion he should have instituted a mandate before the vaccines had full FDA approval.  Yeah, that would have gotten us to 70%.

On 9/10/2021 at 2:32 PM, Phil1111 said:

There are lawyers and trump knows how to play them like a Stradivarius. After he plays them he considers them used toilet paper and flushes them away. he also knows his base. So consider this:

Trump Raised $250 Million Since Election To Challenge Outcome(as at April 2021) $255 million raised-25% to GOP=$191 million net to trump. Less  $8.6 million in actual legal bills. For a net of $182 million for his personal PAC/slush fund. plus another $50 million this year already.

The election is a concert for trump. Out comes that violin again for another tune of fraud and the cash will flow again. Does anyone think his base will actually catch onto the scam? Surely he can get the robocalls, e-mails to pump another $20-$30 million into his little piggy bank.

 

 

 

And his fund is still saying donations are tax deductible, though it lost its 501(3)(c) status.  I'm thinking right around tax time, people who donated large amounts are going to be unhappy to note they won't get those deductions.

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

covid spreading,

How is that Biden's fault, exactly?  We have had fewer than 1,000 deaths from COVID since he took office, not for lack of trying by some large segments of the population who refuse to participate in the societal efforts encouraged and/or enacted by the administration (championed by the president) that are proven to slow and stop the spread of disease.  Do you expect him to wave some kind of magic wand to make it all go away?  If his predecessor couldn't do it (again, not for lack of wishful thinking and public promises), how do you figure Biden would be able to stop this?

Why my grandmother needed the kids to fetch her things instead of getting them herself: "I have a bone in my leg!"  By age 7 I was brave enough to tell her, "that's good, Grandma, you're supposed to have bones in your leg.  Which means you are able to stand and walk!"

2 minutes ago, Squeak said:

You've been in PNG for a long time  Longer than a normal rotation?

No, regular (2-year) rotation.  Tour ends in November.

I decide on a hiatus from actual jumping back in 2014 -- anxiety over whether I would get over anxiety to jump on the one day I was available before travel again... just wasn't worth it.  My rigger has my rig until I get back home and am ready to visit the sky again (I hear it will still be there when I'm ready to return). Unfortunately I've also had to suspend judging while I'm in this particular job (note my current location), due to many factors:  location, job stress, and finally COVID (too much effort to prepare for travel, then lack of flights means travel takes WAY too long).  

Bright side -- I'm almost finished with this tour and get to move back to Florida ("bright side" is I live near ZHills, not that I'm excited about Florida lately!).

On 9/11/2021 at 9:28 PM, airdvr said:

Bottom line is you'll never, ever convince him and his ilk to get the vax and trying to force them will make things worse.

Perhaps, but you have your own choices to make.  I won't have any guests at my home who have not been vaccinated.  If your friend chooses to remain a carrier, that's his decision.  You can choose not to hang out with people who are 10x more likely to carry, transmit, and mutate the virus, which ultimately would exponentially increase the risks to you and your family.  Your justifications should be given the same respect as you're giving to his.

On 8/31/2021 at 6:00 AM, Baksteen said:

Lastly, I'm pro-vaccinating third world regions (which seem to include some regions in practically every first- and second world country as well) before mandating extra boosters.

As someone currently living in one of those 3rd world countries, I am inclined to agree — except that most of them have not cleared the Pfizer of Moderna vaccines for use. They receive AstraZeneca, SinoPharm and J&J either from the COVAX facility (at least in my current country of residence provides doses predominantly funded by the US), or direct donation deliveries.  Though WHO has a longer list of vaccines it has approved, it’s taking a lot more effort to get them approved locally.

In a place like this, I would be perfectly happy to get my Pfizer booster at the 8-month mark as long as I’m swimming in this crowded sea of an unvaccinated and still untested population.

4 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

What amazes me is how brainwashed they (the original subject of the thread) can be with regard to religion. Their God can do no harm or anything wrong.

• The blood of Jesus will save us
• God is fighting this and fixing his lungs.
  • Not medical science is keeping him alive as best as they can.
• We are praying that he will be released in days not weeks
• Oh well, God wanted Jamie to be with him (& not his family) and called him home to heaven
• He is now an angel

And the last post in that FB thread by a supporter:  “I prey God that you put someone in their path to show them and tel, them…” It’s the parable of the man dying in the flood that comes back to me daily. “I sent you a radio broadcast, a boat and a helicopter. What are you doing here?”

15 hours ago, TriGirl said:

On 9/3/2021 at 10:16 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

Imagine the tactic of "deputizing" the general public applied to voting.  

Don

Actually, I thought they kind of did.

Update: there it was in my news feed this morning:https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/01/texas-voting-bill-greg-abbott/

From the article:

 

While SB 1 makes some changes that could expand access — namely increasing early voting hours in smaller, mostly Republican counties — the new law otherwise restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It specifically targets voting initiatives used by diverse, Democratic Harris County, the state’s most populous, by banning overnight early voting hours and drive-thru voting — both of which proved popular among voters of color last year.

The new law also will ratchet up voting-by-mail rules in a state where the option is already significantly limited, give partisan poll watchers increased autonomy inside polling places by granting them free movement, and set new rules — and criminal penalties — for voter assistance. It also makes it a state jail felony for local election officials to proactively distribute applications for mail-in ballots, even if they are providing them to voters who automatically qualify to vote by mail or groups helping get out the vote.

 

 

(bolding mine)

On 9/3/2021 at 10:16 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

Apart from the reprehensible impact of this law on women's ability to control their own lives, I am also concerned that it establishes a blueprint for all kinds of trouble.  Imagine the tactic of "deputizing" the general public applied to voting.  

Don

Actually, I thought they kind of did.  The law on the abortion restrictions was just one of the 666 (I'm not making that up) new pieces of legislation that went into effect this week if they were not in force upon signature.  One of the others has to do with an online tracking system for mail-in ballots and the application for such ballots.  I just did a search again and found https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/31/new-texas-laws-september-2021/, which at least covers some of them. 

Another allows for open carry without a license, one that mandates the national anthem at sporting events, one that calls for distribution of Texas patriotic history material at the DMV and another that forbids teachers' discussing current events and systemic racism in class (also taking away school credit for participating in civic engagement).  

On the good side, you have laws limiting pre-K class size to match caps in other grades, a medical marijuana expansion (not far enough, but making progress), simplifying access to SNAP, creation of an active shooter alert system, requiring police body cameras to remain on at all times, and a law prohibiting a fatal choke hold.  

I'm wondering about a possible legal defense: This is a so-called "heartbeat bill," and says a pregnancy cannot be terminated once a fetal heartbeat is detected.  However, what is commonly named "heartbeat" is not actually so, since the embryo does not have a heart.  IMHO, you need to get an expert on the stand that testifies that the movement you can see on an ultrasound is the electrical impulses generated by the growth of cells (I read that in a medical article, so I may have the vernacular incorrect).  Therefore, the pregnancy was not terminated after a heartbeat was detected, since fetuses don't have hearts that beat and pump blood until much later in gestation (20 weeks?).  

Discuss. 

As usual, John Oliver covered one aspect of this topic (redlining and other housing discrimination, wildly unchecked) pretty succinctly:

I just went back and read the entire thread now that it has been resurrected.  I was most struck by the strong convictions of Liberty University leadership and other right-wing religious leaders, disavowing Trump in the month before the election.

Would that they had stuck by those convictions.

On 7/22/2021 at 12:01 AM, RonD1120 said:

Can you begin to understand the boiling undercurrent of anger in our nation? Half of this country is willing to go to war against the other half. 

How long Lord, how long?

So, your side can only stand their own perceived "injustice" before they resort to violence and sedition for about three months.  Yet people of color who have suffered unwritten oppression for a few hundred years are expected to just "wait it out" because "times are changing," without engaging in wholly law-abiding peaceful demonstrations demanding equal rights.

Yeah, sounds about right.  But using your own question then:  how long should they wait?  

On 7/17/2021 at 9:52 PM, wmw999 said:

On 7/17/2021 at 4:41 PM, Westerly said:

LOL active duty servicemembers are government property and any so-called 'laws' dont apply when terms like 'national security' are involved. The military can order their troops to take the vaccine if they want. I understand why they havent yet, but the idea that 'they have no legal authorization' to mandate it is complete BS.

Silly woman! What do women know about the military! You know much better than she does!

Oh -- did you know that Trigirl is career military?

Wendy P.

To be fair, Westerly's assessment was what I was told my first few years of service (early 90s).  We have evolved in the intervening years.

edited to add:  note the recent legal opinions allowing servicemembers to sue military medical facilities for malpractice.

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

An interesting take on one US military base's position on the vax:  Because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use, and have not been fully approved, the military cannot legally mandate that all service members get the vaccine.

And:  Troops at an Alabama military base have been ordered to show proof that they've been vaccinated to be able to go without face masks on the premise.

Alabama military base orders troops to show vaccination proof amid increased COVID-19 cases (msn.com)

Jerry Baumchen

 

That's actually the DoD position.  Once the vaccines are given full authorization, they will be required by DoD.  But until then, the DoD (and DoS) rule is that only fully vaccinated personnel can go without masks.

However, the rule up to now has been a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" approach to people at work in government facilities -- at least on the State side. Vaccinated employees could drop the masks, but we couldn't ask anyone whether they had been vaccinated.  I had to deny entry to this country to military members who were not vaccinated, but had to approach it from another angle: our facilitation of DoD who wanted to come here was an exception, and would only be made for vaccinated personnel. I got some push-back ("it isn't our policy to pull someone from a team," or "we can't punish anyone who chooses not to take the vaccine"), but I countered with the fact that not being permitted to engage with a foreign force was not a punishment.  But refusing vaccination wasn't without consequences (not punishment). Luckily for my office, PNG is now only allowing vaccinated travelers to enter the country, so it's out of my hands!

Looks like this Alabama base is having an integrity issue.  Again, they're not saying everyone has to be vaccinated, but they are enforcing the "only vaccinated personnel can unmask" rule with more oversight.

On 7/10/2021 at 7:52 PM, Westerly said:

also I’d add that medical conditions are not new. The flu is a leading cause of death amongs the elderly. Yet where was all the ‘think about others’ prior to COVID?

1) influenza has a lower death rate once infected (even amongst the elderly)

2) influenza does not spread as readily/easily as COVID

3) and in response to your final question -- we are all offered (and many of us take) flu vaccines every year, in order to mitigate the spread of influenza. Scientists agonize every year trying to predict which variant will be most prevalent, and do their best to develop the vaccine in time to protect the most people to the maximum extent. 

Your claim that "no one cared" prior to COVID is absurd.

13 hours ago, jakee said:

On 7/14/2021 at 8:33 AM, Phil1111 said:

Obviously its not but they can hardly admit that they knew their submission was false or misleading. Evidently the affidavit contained a statement from a polling station worker. Who stated that they saw votes being switched. The judge asked the lawyers if they interviewed that witness. They stated that they didn't know who directly talked to that "witness". But it was none of them. So they swore that hearsay statements were true.

I cannot imagine that this is the way it works. It makes sense that a lawyer should not submit statements that they definitively know are not true, but demanding that they can only submit sworn witness statements that they definitively know are true is an impossible standard. 

Except that the judge didn't ask if they knew it was true or false (the claim by the poll worker that was submitted as evidence).  The question was whether any of the sponsoring lawyers had also interviewed that witness.  You can certainly leave it to the source's own statement to stand for itself, but the judge's disbelief was in the validity of that statement if just the statement was passed to a lawyer who then submitted it as part of the claim.  How does that lawyer, who is supposed to affirm that everything they submit is at least valid, support a claim that an actual poll worker actually believed that is what they saw -- and not just a "statement" made up and slipped in by another party?  They never talked to the witness.  One step further, no one could verify even who collected that statement and entered it as evidence.  And yet, as the group of lawyers collectively filing the complaint, they want the court to accept that the whole package is valid evidence?  Nope, the court isn't buying it.

Agreed.

However, the article I read this morning just said the athletes could receive additional "education" benefits.  I would like to see a decision where they actually could be compensated for the use of their images in video games and merchandizing.  Perhaps they should be eligible for funds to go into some kind of trust, to be received after they have used up all eligibility for amateur status.  IDK. It just seems everyone else is making a ton of money off of these student athletes.  If you treat them like pros, then pay them like pros.

On 6/18/2021 at 10:18 AM, Phil1111 said:

As if campaigning for a a senate seat already “I’d do it again,” he said from the courthouse steps in downtown St. Louis. “Any time the mob approaches me, I’ll do what I can to put them in imminent threat of physical injury because that’s what kept them from destroying my house and my family.”

Yeah, that was a "mob."  And they weren't approaching him, they were passing him by.  Sad thing is that his potential voters will accept this statement.

On 6/9/2021 at 7:56 AM, jakee said:

The tactics don't make either speech good or bad, the speech itself does.

Imagine a private school or university run by religious nutters who give their full approval to a valedictorian speech about how Jesus will cast the transgender abominations into the fiery pit of hell - would that speech be a good speech because it was given without subterfuge? Would it be qualitatively any different to the same speech given in a different school without the teacher's knowledge?

Agreed.  Again, I'm not saying it was a bad speech -- in fact, I think it was brilliant, informed, and impassioned.

The speech example you give is one that would have been approved by the institution (which is the same reason the public schools ask to review/approve remarks intended as well).  I have no problem with what she said, or even the platform from which she said it. I simply disagree that it's a good idea to employ this tactic to deliver that message.

Her original/approved speech topic (which of course I have not read, though the talent she exhibited in her second speech text implies it would also have been brilliant), as far as I could tell from the article, was not something she was told to settle for ("we don't like your chosen topic, but you're welcome to consider something from this approved list").  I get that she felt she had a new issue for which she felt even stronger than the original issue.  I get that it came up after she had written and received clearance for her original speech.  The timing sucked.  But perhaps if she felt the school would have approved her alternate topic (which they seemed to have done), maybe she could have given someone a heads up?