What is everyone's thoughts on the "vaccine" mandate? (Page 10/18)
randye NOV 21, 02:21 AM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:
Fats NOV 21, 04:51 AM
Well things took a turn here I guess.

My manager put her notice in, she's taking vacation, back one day on the 29th, and then off to greener pastures.

(Edit to add) My manager has had the shots as well. Her daughter was in the hospital this year, and they told her she could only stay with her if she got the vaccine.
#MichiganLife
Then about half the drivers, including me, put in our notice as well.
I take my vacation at the end of December, and come back to get my car and drive it home.

I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion, but people are talking like I'm against people getting the "vaccine".
I'm not.
My family discussed it, and I went to get the shot (s) first so if I had any adverse reactions they could make a more informed decision. Most of my family have now had the shots. My wife hasn't because her doctor advised against it since her heart isn't the greatest after the coma last year, and (according to him) one of the reactions is heart issues.
I didn't get the shot for attention, at the time I thought it may have been helpful and it would help protect me and my family. I no longer think it works on any level except to show compliance. I'm not getting any boosters.

My issue isn't getting the shot, it's the mandate and forcing people to choose between not having a job, or doing whatever it is the Government wants you to do.

I'm not telling work that I got the shot, it's none of their business as far as I'm concerned. I've not told anyone at work, and I don't anticipate any reason to tell them. I'm probably wrong, but it's the hill I've chose to die on I guess.

[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 11-21-2021).]

randye NOV 21, 07:01 PM
blackrams NOV 22, 05:22 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:





I would think just about everyone would agree with this.
I read somewhere recently that the Western Media (specifically the US) was the least trusted of 46 countries.
I don't have to wonder why.
I'd also argue that our current government is toward the bottom of most folks lists.

Rams
rinselberg NOV 22, 01:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
I read somewhere recently that the Western Media (specifically the US) was the least trusted of 46 countries.


Did you read that online at the New York Times?

I think not. Likely, you read that somewhere else. But thinking back to whenever and wherever you read that, can you say that it wasn't a smaller and more localized media venue that republished a report from the New York Times, or paraphrased a report from the New York Times? That could have been disclosed, but only in the "fine print" at the top or bottom of the article that you read.

If not from the New York Times, could it have been from NBC News, or something that was reported by the local NBC-affiliated TV channel? You could have read this online, or read this from a viewgraph that was presented during a TV broadcast, or maybe you listened to someone saying this during a TV broadcast. The New York Times, NBC News, UPI, Reuters or any other originator of this report--the original originator--maybe that was part of "the Western media" as you define it?

The question being, if you read that "the Western media" is generally and very widely not trusted across as many as 46 different countries, but you read it in the Western media . . . where does that leave you? Are you making a Western media "carveout" for yourself, and allowing yourself to trust this particular report?

Was this some graffiti that you read? Did you read this in a book? A recent book? Did you read it online at the Pew Research Center's website? Or did you read it in RT...? Or in some media venue that copied it from RT...? Would you trust a report of that (RT) kind, which I think would be outside of what you consider to be "the Western media"..?

When the very first human or early human ancestor to have the experience of seeing their own face reflected from the surface of a small, sunlit marshland pond--very likely the way it would have happened--did they instantly realize that it was their own face? Or did it take them considerably longer to figure that out?

Not just "blackrams", but anyone who might be thinking along similar lines.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-23-2021).]

randye NOV 22, 09:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


Not just "blackrams", but anyone who might be thinking along similar lines.





THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE WORDS.....

...just to say what any normal person says in 5: "Where did you read that?"


garrulous nonsense.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-22-2021).]

Fats NOV 23, 02:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:



THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE WORDS.....

...just to say what any normal person says in 5: "Where did you read that?"


garrulous nonsense.




It's the typical attack from the left. Say a lot of nothing, accuse the other side of something that has little to no importance to the subject at hand, demand proof of something irrelevant, call someone a name or place them into some identifying box that only matters to the left. Then prance around in the fecal matter they spewed out and declare victory.

Oh, and if you do anything that they do, you are racist, sexist or some other word they made up or changed the meaning of.

Can anyone tell I'm getting sick of these people yet?
rinselberg NOV 23, 03:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:
It's the typical attack from the left. . . .


Parenthetically, I would go with "Left" in this context. Capitalized. That (I think) would be preferable. Not that "left" is wrong. I looked at an online style guide. Just a sidebar.

I guess there is something that could be added to my previous remarks. "Where did blackrams read that?" The most straightforward of responses. Why didn't I just go with "Where did you read that?" and not another word more?

Because my remarks were conditioned by previous discussions, where blackrams was a participant.

I find no fault in that.

Wouldn't it be amazing if my previous remarks, garrulousTM as they may be, jog blackram's memory so that he remembers where he read it and puts that on record here? I think it would be amazing. I also think it's very unlikely. But, as I think about it again, blackrams said "46 countries." That's very specific. I'm not going to do this right now, but I wonder what would happen if I used "46 countries" as an online search target for Google or DuckDuckGo. Maybe "46 countries" and "Western media" and "least trusted"..? Per blackram's wording of it.

"blackrams remembers" . . . the memoir, not yet published, and perhaps not even partially drafted. Where it's sure to be revealed.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-23-2021).]

Fats NOV 23, 05:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Wouldn't it be amazing if my previous remarks, garrulousTM as they may be, jog blackram's memory so that he remembers where he read it and puts that on record here? I think it would be amazing. I also think it's very unlikely. But, as I think about it again, blackrams said "46 countries." That's very specific. I'm not going to do this right now, but I wonder what would happen if I used "46 countries" as an online search target for Google or DuckDuckGo. Maybe "46 countries" and "Western media" and "least trusted"..? Per blackram's wording of it.



I think it would be amazing if you could go a day without crapping all over other people's threads. I don't personally have a problem with you, but you certainly tend to Troll a bit, and it does tire a feller out. I've quit clicking on your threads over time because they just tend to be you jerking yourself off and you refuse to allow anyone to have even a glimmer of a different viewpoint. To the point where even in cases where I would agree with you (extremely rare instance btw), I don't say a word because I don't want to enforce any of the insanity you seem to wallow in with the rest of your stuff. You seem to have a few people you follow around and poke at constantly. Perhaps try changing things up a bit?

I would like to suggest you attempt to limit your post length on replies, just go with a quick couple of sentences and see what happens. Interaction would very likely go up, and anger at your book length posts would probably go down.

Perhaps be the bigger man and walk away from some of your feuds for a couple of days. We're all in this together, and really there is no set in stone reason to have this much bile in your posts. I get that other people also have issues, but let them have their issues, and work on yours.

I don't know why you like to go out of your way to use twenty dollar words on five cent posts, just say things and stop being pretentious / ostentatious / pompous / sophomoric. (Fancy words added so you can understand what I'm saying.)

I would like to reiterate, I have nothing against you personally. I don't agree with many of your views, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with you. Just, knock it off.

As a Rodney King once said. "Can't we all just get along?"


olejoedad NOV 23, 08:49 AM
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Actually, I wouldn't have even bothered, but you said it so well that I just had to respond.

A tip of the hat to Mr. Fats!