Why bother with the GOP if this is all it has to offer?

[JettaKnight]

With traditional vaccines, yes. With the transition to mnra shot, not so much.

Mmra tech was developed primarily to treat cancer, read the potential side effects; everything up to and including death.

What drug doesn't have a massive list of potential side effects? Heck, CA has pretty much declared everything in life a risk of cancer. People die at gun ranges, but I'm not going to stop training.


People are just plain terrible at risk assessment. That's why they'll happily drive, but would never get in one of those aluminum death tubes. You need to look not at the just the severity, but also the likelihood. Is there a risk of death? That sounds bad, but how likely are you to die?

What's the probability that get a complication from a polio vaccine versus getting a polio (which is a horribly debilitating disease)? If enough people make a choice to be afraid of the vaccine, then the likelihood of the latter becomes much, much greater.


There's a lot of drugs that were created for one purpose but found to be very beneficial for another, e.g. Viagra.

 

[Ingomike]

What's the probability that get a complication from a polio vaccine versus getting a polio

Now do mRNA…

 

[KLB]

What drug doesn't have a massive list of potential side effects? Heck, CA has pretty much declared everything in life a risk of cancer. People die at gun ranges, but I'm not going to stop training.


People are just plain terrible at risk assessment. That's why they'll happily drive, but would never get in one of those aluminum death tubes. You need to look not at the just the severity, but also the likelihood. Is there a risk of death? That sounds bad, but how likely are you to die?

What's the probability that get a complication from a polio vaccine versus getting a polio (which is a horribly debilitating disease)? If enough people make a choice to be afraid of the vaccine, then the likelihood of the latter becomes much, much greater.


There's a lot of drugs that were created for one purpose but found to be very beneficial for another, e.g. Viagra.

You're talking about injecting very small children with a large number of medicines when they are developing the most. Now, children could receive as many as 27 shots by 2 years of age and up to six shots in a single visit. I remember getting mine in grade school. They are even suggesting vaccines for pregnant women now. It used to be that a pregnant women was told not to take anything while pregnant because it might adversely affect the pregnancy.

Autism cases have skyrocketed since the 90s. In the US 1 in 68 kids is diagnosed with autism now. You don't find it alarming that as children are injected with more and more drugs, autism cases rise? And for what? Most of the vaccines are for things that are rare or by and large not deadly or long term harmful.

So yes, risk assessment is important. I just don't see it coming down on the same side you do for most of these.

 

[jamil]

I believe they are wanting to remake many old school vaccines to a mRNA base. I suspect this will give them a new lease on patent protection and stop generic treatment for some years…

Because mRNA has been so successful.

 

[Creedmoor]

With traditional vaccines, yes. With the transition to mnra shot, not so much.

Mmra tech was developed primarily to treat cancer, read the potential side effects; everything up to and including death.

I was just talking to my son that was stationed at 29 Palms. He's had his shot and three boosters now. His Battalion was about 500 Marines. He and his brother at Lejeune have no knowledge of any Marines having issues with the Moderna shot he and they were given.
I'm not saying there isn't problems, but my son's are around thousands of Marines that have had multiple shots and neither have seen or heard of any problems.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[indyblue]

My point is mainly that mnra’s potential benefits vs drawbacks for a terminal disease such as cancer outweigh the risks vs using it to treat what amounts to the flu.

For me (any many others), that equation doesn’t balance.

It’s pretty well established now that there are problems with this new technology that must be worked out before they go mainstream to treat less severe disease.

 

[foszoe]

View attachment 321962

That book is over 5000 pages!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sal has a point. We’re always told that we have to follow the process, “the court has made its decision”, etc. Meanwhile the left just does what it wants, takes whatever ground they can and takes hits from time-to-time (only to recover that lost ground later). And “our side” (whatever that is anymore) is always arguing the point based on the premises the left establishes. That’s why we always lose.

 

[jamil]

People are just plain terrible at risk assessment. That's why they'll happily drive, but would never get in one of those aluminum death tubes. You need to look not at the just the severity, but also the likelihood. Is there a risk of death? That sounds bad, but how likely are you to die?

What's the probability that get a complication from a polio vaccine versus getting a polio (which is a horribly debilitating disease)? If enough people make a choice to be afraid of the vaccine, then the likelihood of the latter becomes much, much greater.

Risk assessment. Yeah. Like forcing people, who have almost no risks associated with COVID, to be "fully vaccinated", which carries an elevated risk of heart problems. And, as it turns out, the shot wasn't even efficacious in preventing the contraction or spreading of COVID. A bureaucracy capable of recommending that is not trustworthy on anything.

How long has the government health bureaucracies cared more about making money for big pharma than protecting Americans' health? Well, there's the swine flu fiasco. Long story short, that mass vaccination campaign turned to ****. Took a media exposé to force them to halt the campaign after 25% had already been vaccinated. And government officials were implicated in covering up that they kinda knew about the neurological disorders before hand. So the answer to the question is, they've been untrustworthy since at least since 1976.

So, the problem with your risk assessment idea is that we don't actually know what the risks are with these diseases (swine flu risk turned out to be overstated. COVID risk turned out to be overstated). And we don't know what the actual risks are for the mRNA shots, just like we weren't told in 1976 about the swine flue shot.

At least there was a media that had an adversarial relationship with government in 1976. Not so now. Pharma is the largest advertiser on all major networks. So there's a natural conflict of interest when it comes to reporting on anything related to pharma.

 

[jamil]

Sal has a point. We’re always told that we have to follow the process, “the court has made its decision”, takes hits from time-to-time (only to recover that lost ground later), etc. Meanwhile the left just does what it wants, takes whatever ground they can. And “our side” (whatever that is anymore) is always arguing the point based on the premises the left establishes.

View attachment 321964

I think we should follow the process the founders laid out to an extent that it works. But when this kind of thing happens, yeah, it's time to make them live in the world they propose. Red states should show them the logical conclusion of clown-world.

Someone in Maine will sue the state. It'll go to court. Maybe a partisan court or two will rule in favor of ClownWorld™. Eventually if it has to go that far, SCOTUS will overturn it. If they refuse to capitulate, then Red states shouldn't either.

Only problem with that. Will the red states led by spineless CoC/neocon grifters participate? I can see a few states doing it. I don't think Indiana would. Too many Fudds in the state house and assembly. Only way to do it here is to convince the Fudd leaders that they'll lose their cushy jobs if they don't. And I think there are too many Fudd Hoosiers to do that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think we should follow the process the founders laid out to an extent that it works. But when this kind of thing happens, yeah, it's time to make them live in the world they propose. Red states should show them the logical conclusion of clown-world.

Someone in Maine will sue the state. It'll go to court. Maybe a partisan court or two will rule in favor of ClownWorld™. Eventually if it has to go that far, SCOTUS will overturn it. If they refuse to capitulate, then Red states shouldn't either.

Only problem with that. Will the red states led by spineless CoC/neocon grifters participate? I can see a few states doing it. I don't think Indiana would. Too many Fudds in the state house and assembly. Only way to do it here is to convince the Fudd leaders that they'll lose their cushy jobs if they don't. And I think there are too many Fudd Hoosiers to do that.

If we always argue the issues based their premises, we’re always going to lose.

 

[jamil]

If we always argue the issues based their premises, we’re always going to lose.

I think Red states doing Blue tactics is risky. They can get away with it because the corporate media will cover for them. "Oh, it's just a mostly peaceful protest," for example as fires rage in the background.

They call it mainstream media for a reason. Most people consume that kind of news. A visit with relatives this week makes that quite apparent. We mostly avoided politics but the few times we touched on issues, it's apparent they have no idea. I had a Aquafina bottle and one of the kids told me I'm destroying her Earth. They come from the land of paper straws.

Media creates these bubbles of prescribed information. So Red states would have to be very careful about messaging. And they'd have to take steps to make sure that information pokes through the bubbles.

But, I think that's how you turn people. Make them live in the world they propose. Not all will figure it out. Many will. And maybe many is enough to salvage society.

 

[Ingomike]

Someone in Maine will sue the state. It'll go to court. Maybe a partisan court or two will rule in favor of ClownWorld™. Eventually if it has to go that far, SCOTUS will overturn it. If they refuse to capitulate, then Red states shouldn't either.

In an unrelated point, this post shows just how reliant conservatives are on SCOTUS. Scary to think just how little margin of error there is.

Sal has a point. We’re always told that we have to follow the process, “the court has made its decision”, etc. Meanwhile the left just does what it wants, takes whatever ground they can and takes hits from time-to-time (only to recover that lost ground later). And “our side” (whatever that is anymore) is always arguing the point based on the premises the left establishes. That’s why we always lose.

To further make the point of just how little margin there is, the left has confidence the left wing of SCOTUS will rule their way no matter what clownwold cases get to them. On the other side are middle of the road jurists trying to stay true to the constitution making it a crapshoot on how they rule on conservative issues…

At the end of the day the courts are full of emotion based leftist judges and moderate traditional jurists. There is very little conservative balance to the leftists. Which is why conservatives always have to chew their nails on every case…

 

[printcraft]

I swear some here want to go back to blood-letting.

Funny, because we are here with the coof “vaccines”…

 

[jamil]

In an unrelated point, this post shows just how reliant conservatives are on SCOTUS. Scary to think just how little margin of error there is.

If we had a majority in Congress we'd rely on that. If we had the White House we'd rely on that. At least for the time being we have SCOTUS. SCOTUS has no enforcement arm. We just hope to hell that miscreants obey court decisions. What could SCOTUS do if Maine decided, "**** you?"

It just brings violent conflict closer. And I think that's what the left wing revolutionaries hope for. Then they can justify to the indoctrinated that they need to use the might of government power against the people who disagree with them.

To further make the point of just how little margin there is, the left has confidence the left wing of SCOTUS will rule their way no matter what clownwold cases get to them. On the other side are middle of the road jurists trying to stay true to the constitution making it a crapshoot on how they rule on conservative issues…

The only thing I'll disagree with here is that the middle of the road jurists (I'm assuming you're thinking about Roberts and his ilk) are concerned about staying true to the constitution. I think it's more like a snobby sort of court protectionist ethos.

At the end of the day the courts are full of emotion based leftist judges and moderate traditional jurists. There is very little conservative balance to the leftists. Which is why conservatives always have to chew their nails on every case…

Keep in mind that out of 7 democrats on the CO SC, 3 of those democrats got all the reasons right to dissent against the majority position. If you care more about what's the right decision than ideological whims, you're much more likely to make the right decision.

When it gets to SCOTUS, am I confident Brown and The Wise Latina will make the right decision on Colorado's nonsense? No. I think there's a good chance they might not be able to overcome their TDS for the obviously correct decision. Because ideology rules their thinking. So all bets are off, though I think the rest of the court might be able to talk sense into them. I dunno.

Anyway, point is, it's not just a left/right balance. If there's a faction among democrats it's liberals vs progressives. Liberals still believe in individual liberty and pretty much all the enlightenment principles of the West. that doesn't help in congress because the liberals typically go along with the progressives. Obviously on the bench, some liberals are capable of making just decisions.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At the end of the day the courts are full of emotion based leftist judges and moderate traditional jurists. There is very little conservative balance to the leftists. Which is why conservatives always have to chew their nails on every case…

This goes back to the problem. The republicans will almost always confirm any left wing whacko judge the left nominates. The republicans will almost always only nominate a judge they think they can get past the democrats. ”Our side” is always playing by their rules.

 

[jamil]

This goes back to the problem. The republicans will almost always confirm any left wing whacko judge the left nominates. The republicans will almost always only nominate a judge they think they can get past the democrats. ”Our side” is always playing by their rules.

We finally got rid of Dick Lugar and then sent his "son", Todd Young. But anyway there are plenty of Lugars in the Senate. Lindsey Graham comes to mind. Obviously Murkowski. Romney. Collins. The last 3 voted for Brown-Jackson's SCOTUS confirmation, for **** sake. Probably the most ideologically possessed justice since The Wise Latina™

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is why with the GOP we’ll never have nice things. They campaign one way and vote/act another.

 

[JettaKnight]

You're talking about injecting very small children with a large number of medicines when they are developing the most. Now, children could receive as many as 27 shots by 2 years of age and up to six shots in a single visit. I remember getting mine in grade school. They are even suggesting vaccines for pregnant women now. It used to be that a pregnant women was told not to take anything while pregnant because it might adversely affect the pregnancy.

Autism cases have skyrocketed since the 90s. In the US 1 in 68 kids is diagnosed with autism now. You don't find it alarming that as children are injected with more and more drugs, autism cases rise? And for what? Most of the vaccines are for things that are rare or by and large not deadly or long term harmful.

So yes, risk assessment is important. I just don't see it coming down on the same side you do for most of these.

We're done here.