The old woollyal site used to call them "talibanfans"
| LIFE CV-19: Effects on life, work, and sports
- Thread starter BAMANEWSBOT
- Start date
Oops. There ya go again.
I've asked you a ton of questions of the last few months. So here's another. Have I ever really taken a side on an issue? Or, is it more about questioning your position on different subjects?
It's my opinion you've been quick to label; pigeon hole in a sense.
You’ve repeatedly stated that you’re libertarian.
You could put it as questioning my position on different subjects, but believe it or not I’m pretty intelligent and purely based on your questioning anybody could surmise that you’re not independent nor close to left of center and also purely based on your questioning my position and your comments to all the posters other than Josh and I one could surmise that you’re of the right side of the political spectrum. I’m not pigeon holing anybody nor quick to judge, but if my belief that you’re conservative, right wing, etc then my apologies, but I don’t believe my opinion of where you stand politically is wrong
An antiautonym. "Pigeon holing" and "making blanket statements." In the Brittney Griner conversation I believe it was @rocknthefreeworld who used the latter. Funny, one throwing a large covering over a group and the other in a small hole; yet they mean the same thing.
Conservative is a word I find outdated: useless, to be frank—right wing is the same. It's too "all-encompassing" leaving out individualism.
Circling back to Dr. Malone I see the need for these questions to be asked; these theories he has had to be considered. It doesn't make me a fan but I believe he has the right to speak on what he believes—everyone has the right to be heard. This is a core belief of a liberal; equal rights for all. Here we have a personal responsibility (health) issue where I'm struggling to see "conservative," or "right wing."
Circling back to our conversation about the protests outside of the residence: SCOTUS. I saw that as "breaking the law, a choice, and they should face the consequences." Is that right wing, a conservative view? I see things like marijuana as a personal responsibility issue, one where the law is being broken and if caught the consequences are fair. That's a choice made. Is that conservative? Consciously breaking the law? I look at the law, and its intent to protect everyone in an idealistic equal society, and realize that decision comes at an expense; personally and financially. That also echoes a liberal stance on personal responsibility.
In retrospect, this is a little funny. We're back to individualism which is what we were dancing around in the Elon Musk thread. I mentioned he was breaking up the status quo: essentially, shredding the blanket covering so many.
If you find the word conservative outdated then I’d suggest talking with that side about changing what they call themselves because people on this site, Boebert, Trump, MTG, and every other person on the right call themselves “conservative“, so what would you have me call them? If they themselves call each other and themselves “conservative“ should I invent another word for them? But, you’ve got no issue grouping all of us on the left as liberal, woke (whatever the hell that means), leftist, communist, etc, a bit hypocritical don’t you think?
As for Malone, I’m not sure why you felt the need to add “he has the right” and “it’s a core belief of liberals; equal rights for all” when nowhere did I say he doesn’t have the right, other than so you could add your little “equal rights” thing. Sure he has the right and nobody is or has done anything about that right, but every question you stated in a previous comment has been answered at nauseam by some of the world’s leading experts, but you guys refuse to accept that and just keep repeating the same things over and over and over and over. You can say you struggle to see “conservative“ or “right wing”, but it’s only that side that doesn’t accept the overwhelming proof to those questions.
As for your breaking the law and whether that’s conservative or not, here’s where you and I have a drastically different idea or opinion on this, standing on a public sidewalk (keyword being public) protesting isn’t against the law, standing on his or her private yard or private sidewalk is against the law and there should consequences for that, but here’s the difference in my side and your side, my side believes that the people that rioted (keyword: rioted) during the George Floyd protests should be held responsible, people on your side don’t believe the rioters of Jan 6th should be held responsible, so the right (guess I shouldn’t say your side) is either hypocritical, racis, ignorant, or all of the above, you can decide which is it. Again you and you’re throwing liberal stance into things. See, I’m for equal justice for everybody and the same type of justice for everybody.
Here's your blanket.
What should I call this statement other than calling it exactly what it is: a blatant lie. You won't, because you can't, find a single example where I've said such a thing. In fact, you'll find the exact opposite when I've pointed to, and then questioned, your innate and incessant need to label anyone who happens to believe differently.
Let me double down here. If anything, you'll find where I've consistently referred to individualism which is the direct opposite of "grouping." I've criticized that—specifically.
"I don't want to hear Malone." What's that other than your desire to "mute" what he's said?
My little "equal rights" thing? My, MY little equal rights? Are you serious? The constitutionally protected rights for each and every American? Based on what you're saying I'm left wondering if you know what "equal rights" actually means.
The world's leading experts who have been correct on what, exactly? Are we talking about the same people who chose to redefine the word vaccine because it wasn't a vaccine?
Alright, Linus: leave the blanket at home.
Have I ever suggested those involved in the January protests shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? No. I haven't. You won't find where I've suggested, or even hinted at this. You can't. Because it didn't happen.
I'll tell you what I have questioned—this being labeled as an insurrection while we haven't seen anyone convicted of insurrection. It's akin to charging someone with armed robbery when they weren't armed.
While we're at this, let's circle back to these "people on the sidewalk." What was their purpose, their goal? To influence a decision by SCOTUS through intimidation: a violation of the law.
What am I left with here? According to what you're saying, I'm a hypocrite, a racist, ignorant, or all of the above. What are we left with here? Your attempt to label, throw a large blanket over what I'd said, with nothing to support your stance.
This is the quintessential example of identity politics.
One last note: here's something I fear. To quote Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain.
"It's a lot easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they've been fooled." I'm afraid that pill is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for some to swallow. Without questioning what you've been fed, how will you know if you have been fooled?
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." And I see what can only be described as an unwillingness to seek out the truth; through questioning what's being told.
Not for a second did I link what happened with Hamlin (Buffalo Bills player with cardiac event) with the shot...until.
Fauci says it’s unacceptable to ask whether Damar Hamlin’s injury might be connected in any way to the covid shot.
No matter the issue, when someone says you can't ask or talk about it everyone should be skeptical, immediately, and start questioning the person and motive. Refusing to entertain questions, or any discussions, isn't "following the science."
It's propaganda—arguably censorship.
Fauci says it’s unacceptable to ask whether Damar Hamlin’s injury might be connected in any way to the covid shot.
No matter the issue, when someone says you can't ask or talk about it everyone should be skeptical, immediately, and start questioning the person and motive. Refusing to entertain questions, or any discussions, isn't "following the science."
It's propaganda—arguably censorship.
Ok, you’re for individualism- you’re against grouping…..noted.Here's your blanket.
What should I call this statement other than calling it exactly what it is: a blatant lie. You won't, because you can't, find a single example where I've said such a thing. In fact, you'll find the exact opposite when I've pointed to, and then questioned, your innate and incessant need to label anyone who happens to believe differently.
Let me double down here. If anything, you'll find where I've consistently referred to individualism which is the direct opposite of "grouping." I've criticized that—specifically.
"I don't want to hear Malone." What's that other than your desire to "mute" what he's said?
My little "equal rights" thing? My, MY little equal rights? Are you serious? The constitutionally protected rights for each and every American? Based on what you're saying I'm left wondering if you know what "equal rights" actually means.
The world's leading experts who have been correct on what, exactly? Are we talking about the same people who chose to redefine the word vaccine because it wasn't a vaccine?
Alright, Linus: leave the blanket at home.
Have I ever suggested those involved in the January protests shouldn't be held responsible for their actions? No. I haven't. You won't find where I've suggested, or even hinted at this. You can't. Because it didn't happen.
I'll tell you what I have questioned—this being labeled as an insurrection while we haven't seen anyone convicted of insurrection. It's akin to charging someone with armed robbery when they weren't armed.
While we're at this, let's circle back to these "people on the sidewalk." What was their purpose, their goal? To influence a decision by SCOTUS through intimidation: a violation of the law.
What am I left with here? According to what you're saying, I'm a hypocrite, a racist, ignorant, or all of the above. What are we left with here? Your attempt to label, throw a large blanket over what I'd said, with nothing to support your stance.
This is the quintessential example of identity politics.
One last note: here's something I fear. To quote Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain.
"It's a lot easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone they've been fooled." I'm afraid that pill is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for some to swallow. Without questioning what you've been fed, how will you know if you have been fooled?
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." And I see what can only be described as an unwillingness to seek out the truth; through questioning what's being told.
The original post that I was quoting was a meme that said “words I don’t want to hear again”, to which I added Robert Malone, no mention of “muting” him or taking away his right(s), I’ve stated this a couple of times I don’t understand the confusion.
You’re right, I don’t know what “equal rights” means, 14 years of education and I don’t know what that means. Read what I said again “As for Malone, I’m not sure why you felt the need to add “he has the right” and “it’s a core belief of liberals; equal rights for all”when nowhere did I say he doesn’t have the right, other than so you could add your little “equal rights” thing”, again I can’t figure out what’s so confusing about this, your entire quote is YOUR equal rights thing. So, based on what you’re saying I’m left wondering if you’re choosing to ignore what I’m saying so you can insult my intelligence, to be condescending, or both.
The world’s leading experts- here’s an issue in this country, people have been led to believe that they’re just as smart on a subject as experts who have spent their entire professional careers on any given subject simply because they choose to believe they are. The arrogance of people to think they’re smarter on this subject than the world’s leading immunologist, virologist, etc is astonishing. They’re far smarter on the subject than you and I are.
Ok, so you don’t think it was an insurrectio, is coup better? Or what would you like it to be called?
What was the purpose of the people on the sidewalk? To protest a decision the court made. It was a protest protected by the constitution. It wasn’t intimidation, it’s not like they were chanting “hang kavanaugh” or “hang alito“, although I’m sure some might’ve been.
I didn’t call you racist, ignorant, or the such. I said the people on the right that believe the BLM rioters should be held responsible and not the Jan 6 rioters are either racist, ignorant, or all of the above and according to your own words you’re not a right winger nor have you ever said the Jan 6 rioters shouldn’t be held responsible
As for your one last note: 14 of my 45 years have been spent in academia being educated in science, my brain is molded to question everything until facts and evidence prove it, so questioning what I’m told is an absolute core belief of mine and it makes up my brain DNA, but the difference is when the facts, evidence, proof prove something I say “ok” and except that and I listen to people that are experts on a particular subject, where the other side is not and continue to look until they find something or someone that shares their belief.
“When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent.”- Issac Asimov
First reaction, four minutes in, is this is horribly produced (passing envelopes.) He's trying to convey a message while distracting the audience from said message.
...returning to video.
@footballer Synopsis: History repeats itself in what, at times, comes across as a 'word salad.' No matter the actions taken today—even with altruistic goals—the truth will finally rear its head.
It's an interesting piece. I can see people looking at gender dysphoria through these lenses—especially with the younger generation—and thinking if we make life easier today it'll lead to these same people living a life that's easier in the future. However, it's still not addressing the core issue, as defined by the word dysphoria—people dissatisfied with their lives.
The manipulation/changes of definitions fall into this rabbit hole. It really doesn't matter what changes are made, the outcome remains the same.
I'll tell ya one thing. When you start dipping your toes in the pool that's the "Guardians of the Looking Glass" you best do it with an open mind—otherwise, you'll miss their message.
It's an interesting piece. I can see people looking at gender dysphoria through these lenses—especially with the younger generation—and thinking if we make life easier today it'll lead to these same people living a life that's easier in the future. However, it's still not addressing the core issue, as defined by the word dysphoria—people dissatisfied with their lives.
The manipulation/changes of definitions fall into this rabbit hole. It really doesn't matter what changes are made, the outcome remains the same.
I'll tell ya one thing. When you start dipping your toes in the pool that's the "Guardians of the Looking Glass" you best do it with an open mind—otherwise, you'll miss their message.
Coup? Not even close. It wasn't sudden—people on Capitol Hill knew it was coming. It wasn't violent—sans the case of Ashley Babbit being killed. This fella is going to seize power from the government?
It certainly wasn't peaceful—protest seldom are. It most definitely wasn't an insurrection or a coup—by the very definitions of both words.
It was trespassing just as we've seen the convictions reflect.
Where are all of these people that say those involved shouldn't be held responsible? Is this not like those who repeat the line "white supremacy is an existential threat to democracy" but when you ask "where and whom" there's no clear answer? And I don't mean exercise.
14 years in academia and you seem lost on the definition of intimidation. The law, as it reads, doesn't say "except for the sidewalk." But allow me to circle back here. What was the purpose, the goal, of those protesters outside of his personal residence? Through their protest they were attempting to influence the upcoming decision from the SCOTUS. Are we going to call a group yelling during all hours of the night an act that wasn't intended to influence a decision? We had leaders in Congress encouraging people to not give them a minute of rest. That's not intimidation? As defined, it's an action meant to compel a behavior. Their actions were what? To compel a SC member to vote a certain way.
Or is this just another case of redefining words like we've seen with recession and vaccine?
People believe they are just as smart as these leading experts. Okay. When you see someone labeled as an expert, but continually wrong in their expertise, are they supposed to believe in their expertise? Or question what's being "force fed?"
Mask, don't mask, double mask and in the end it's "mask don't work unless it's a properly fitted N-95 type mask." That's expertise?
You won't catch the virus or spread it if you're vaccinated. Now you need a booster, then another, then another—now they're up to what, six? Where's the expertise? Hell, Walensky testified before the Senate stating fully vaccinated individuals can’t pass Covid-19 to other people.
You must socially distance yourself by 6 ft. Then we find out it was arbitrary (from Dr. Birx's own admission.) Where's the expertise here?
The CDC comes out with one set of guidelines only to be changed to reflect others opinions (like the teachers association.) Where does the expertise lie here? Walensky or Weingarten?
It's quite ironic that Fauci told a group back in 2019 that we won't know the efficacy or side effects of drugs until three phases of trials had been completed. But now, there aren't side effects without trial phases. This is expertise?
We're told children need to have the shot. Based on what? We're told there are no ill effects from children getting the shot. We're told they spread the virus. Based on what?
After seeing these "experts" proven wrong in so many instances people who question, or don't believe, what they're being told are somehow "experts" as well? No, they're exercising common sense.
Now, let's add the attempts and laws that made these shots mandatory. I won't ask where the expertise is, but I will ask where's the logic? If they are truly experts here, why the need to censor those who questioned their actions? Are we not encroaching on propaganda again?
This entire pandemic has been HELL for those of us on the front lines trying our best to help people in need. Everyone has become exponentially more rude, verbally and physically aggressive towards those of us in the ED. Its a daily occurrence and it's driving good people out of the profession. There is no sense of safety or security. I stand 6'4 245 lbs, thus only a few ever try to approach me physically, but I answer to call of my staff routinely from those that try to verbally and physically harm them. And the hospital administrative team is strictly focused on profits and are completely disconnected from reality of daily medicine. We don't have the staff, supplies or additional resources needed to do our job safely anymore. We can't send trauma patients to the trauma center because the lack of staffing has them on diversion a far amount of the time. I treat the vast majority of my patients in the triage area near the waiting room. All of this is a product of the pandemic. Honestly, I'm tired of the struggle. I'm currently in the process of starting up my own business just to get away from it all. If this is the way of medicine, then I'm out. No big loss right? There's another doctor waiting to fill my spot.
Last edited:
If you changed your username to BamaTeacher this would still ring true.
If I may ask, doing what?
Yeah, I definitely sympathize with our educators. I'm opening up care homes for the elderly and intellectually disabled.
First paragraph- Speaking of blatant lie, if you and I are to have a convo/debate on this subject you have to be honest and your very first paragraph is dishonest as hell.
Babbit wasn’t the only case of violence, you, I, and everybody including Ray Charles knows that and saw that.
There were more convictions other than trespassing, it was either an insurrection or a coup attempt, it wasn’t close to a protest anymore than the BLM riots were protest.
Where are all these people that don’t believe they should be held responsible? You’re not serious are you? Let’s start with the prior President and his “they’re patriots and shouldn’t be charged” then go down the line to his followers. Again we can’t have a convo/debate if you’re not going to be honest.
Again with the insult, I’ve tried to be respectful to you (one of the reasons is I have to be or get kicked from the site since you’re one of the owners, but besides that we can debate without insult), but this repeated insulting my intelligence is about tiring. I know what intimidation damn well means, in this context you believe something is intimidation when it isn’t, if you believe Jan 6 was a protest then this was nothing. You can not intimidate to compel a decision to be made a certain way when said decision was already made. You honestly think they were there to attempt to change the vote of a right wing, religious justice? Surely you don’t believe that.
People believe they know more than experts because idiots like Tucker make them think they are and the right has no value for education, so the public people on the right have made their followers think they’re just as smart and a lot of times smarter.
Of a billion scientists (give or take) you think those few are the only experts? Birx was/is a kiss ass and a Trump puppet, she did everything in her power to undermine the scientists at the CDC (that’s been widely reported by science and medical journals), Welensky isn’t an expert, she just happens to be in charge of the CDC, I’m not debating Fauci with you and whether or not he’s an expert, that’s not even debatable.
I thought how the information was being given by the CDC, Welensky, Birx, Fauci, or anybody else on the Trump CRT was terrible and you won’t find a time of me defending them in that manner.
People that have neither the experience or education to be experts in a field will never be experts nor more knowledgeable than those with said experience and education. Even more than that these people questioning experts are some of the same people that protested our research facility over Covid and the vaccine…..we’re a cancer research facility, so you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take those people serious when they question experts
I’ve said this many times and recently on here I was and am for body autonomy, but that wasn’t experts that was government and employers making it mandatory, but again I’m for body autonomy.
Your last part about censoring this who question, those that have honest questions will ask those that know more than them not push misinformation. I had an inbox of 113 emails from those same people ”questioning” the vaccine and such that sent death threats to me, my kids, and other family members, so again I’ll say if somebody has honest questions they’ll ask
The new Republican House is releasing 14,000 hours of tape from 1/6 that was kept hidden by the Democrats during their investigation.
I wonder what these surveillance tapes will reveal and why they weren't released by the Democrat investigation?
I wonder what these surveillance tapes will reveal and why they weren't released by the Democrat investigation?
Similar threads
- SEC Sports
- Around the 'Net
- Article
- Question