frantick

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're flailing all over the place now.

Let's focus on Putin and Ukraine here as Putin is objectively behaving like Hitler.

Hitler didn't have nukes, and we're well prepared if Putin's action go beyond Ukraine. Well, as prepared as a woke fighting force is prepared to go.

27 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What a joke. Every country in Europe supports NATO. The big guy's kickbacks never existed.

I said support NATO involvement [in the war]. 

Remember this last line. We should know in a year or two who is spreading misinformation. 

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So the U.S. would be invading  Mexico and/or Canada, intentionally slaughtering civilians, and shelling cities to dust? Your analogy is garbage.

 

I think by now there is MAINSTREAM western support across most of the political spectrum to not sit back and watch the slaughter any longer.

 

Yes Ukraine accomplished a miracle in Kyiv, but now it's a new war and repeating that miracle in the east and coast doesn't seem particularly likely. 

 

Of course in the U.S. the FAR right (represented by many MAGAs such as the vile super troll Marjorie Taylor Greene) and the FAR left (represented by types like Glen Greenwald and Oliver Stone) will always be isolationist. 

 

Yes, escalating is a risk but now that the world can see what Putin is all about (as if we didn't already know) that needs to be weighed against the risk of not escalating. 

Yes the US would if they didn't back down. Ever heard of the Cuban missile crisis, or are you to young for that. 

Where were all the slaughtering-civilians tears when the "shock and awe" was occurring in Iraq? How quickly we forget. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I think there is majority popular support in the west now for NATO to get DIRECTLY involved in defending Ukraine against war criminal Putin IN Ukraine. 

Obviously NATO has held back because of the risk of poking the bear, but it's impossible to know the risk, and clearly it's immoral to just sit back and watch Putin undertake the mass slaughter of Ukrainians with an ideology meant to completely erase the Ukrainian nation with no limits of murdering it's people.

Ukraine in NATO or not, if the west doesn't stand up now, what will it take?

Do we really need to wait until Putin uses chemical weapons or nukes to get the message? 

I wonder how forum members feel about this (discounting the vocal minority of Putinistas or apologists posting here). 

Also NATO direct involvement in Ukraine could and probably should still be short of U.S. direct involvement in Ukraine. US could do support from Europe but adding the risk of direct nuclear power confrontation is probably not even necessary. NATO could easily beat Putin. Why doesn't it? Imagine the tragedy if Putin meets his goals. 

Only the left, war machine, and neo-cons are supporting NATO, ie US, involvement. How quickly they forget what the US did in Iraq. 

If China, or Russia, was in talks to defend Canada or Mexico, the US would be exactly where Russia is right now. Yes, I know there are already NATO countries bordering Russia, but access around those countries is still available.

And the US wants a pipeline there, and Hunter's and the Big Guy's kickbacks. So I'm sure we'll be at war soon enough unfortunately. 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Since forever. Gay is not limited to sexual. It also includes emotional. I recall such attraction as among my earliest school memories. 

 

Though I was never into fashion!

 

 

The boy in the clip is effeminate, not necessarily gay. Gay will be when he learns, probably at school, where he likes to rub his genitals. 

I say we just let the blue states do their thing, and the red states do theirs, and check back in a few years. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

How low will right wingers go to seize even more power? There really is no limit! Now they are mainstreaming totally insane QAnon conspiracy theories.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/31/grooming-repugnant-gop-attack-anti-gay-anti-trans/

 

Grooming’: Republicans’ vile new attack on any who criticize them

 

 

What’s the most repulsive accusation you could make about a person? It’s hard to think of anything worse than calling them a pedophile. Which is what conservatives are now doing to anyone who criticizes the anti-gay and anti-trans legislation they’re promoting in state after state.

Funny, I see no mention of promoting or excluding hetero sex. Does that make you anti-hetero?

That the left still thinks Qanon is a spokesman for most right-of-centers, shows just how brainwashed they've become. 

And to finish my point, I never look at the forum group of the posts; I respond to title subjects. The problem is that, now, the Identity Group is trying to force language, ie speech, through education and laws. I believe in free speech. You can call me a girl, a homophobe, the n word, or whatever, that's your right, and I, unlike you probably, do not see that as violence. I see it as one man's opinion. But please stop indoctrinating children and creating laws that affect my speech. 

I will try to pay more attention to the forum groups I am posting in and stay out of this one. Have a great day, I sincerely mean you no harm. 

To believe that the government, via a teacher, is better to guide a child in any grade, other than post K-12 through identity issues, vs a loving parent, is ludicrous. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but better to err on the side of the family vs the state. 

The fact that you brought up this issue in the Gay forum just reinforces the fact you were looking for ever more echoes of acceptance. 

You're all accepted, we don't care if Tchaikovsky or Lincoln were Gay, good for them. Now move along and be a productive member of a, still, mostly heterosexual society as did they. 

You do know that without the hetero family unit, there would be no younger generations to make your pension payments or take care of you in your old age. 

Here's where I mention that my lunch partner for 20 years was/is gay. But it rarely came up in conversation, and he never needed attention for the fact. 

1 hour ago, Essencess said:

@Olmate Do you recon that I am more dangerous than ASQ tourists, or are they also not allowed to travel anywhere in your humble opinion ? ????

I am still unvaccinated even I stay in Phuket, so whats the big diffrence beside me taking a 55 min plane ride. 

 

I thought vaccination was required for domestic flights, no? 

Fellow pureblood. 

9 hours ago, cdemundo said:

Delusional, "freedom fighters", pathetic adolescent fantasy of a grown man afraid of getting a shot.

Here is the pertinent quote responding to the claim that vaccines do not slow or stop transmission of the virus.

 

"The findings showed that both vaccines reduced transmission, but that the Pfizer vaccine was the most effective in doing so. The contacts of those who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine were 65 percent less likely to test positive for COVID-19 compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated. The contacts of those fully vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, meanwhile, were 36 percent less likely to test positive when compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated."

 

Sorry to cause coitus interruptus, as I am sure you and Rosy Palm were having a celebratory onanist episode,

but your brilliant observation is with respect to "those who had breakthrough infections".

 

And breakthrough infections are rare.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/risk-breakthrough-infections-remains-rare-3-studies-find-rcna1854

 "researchers looked at data collected on more than 1 million people from December 2020 through July 2021, a period that spanned both the alpha and delta variant waves in the U.K. Participants received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or AstraZeneca vaccine.

Overall, less than 0.2 percent of the participants reported a breakthrough infection"

 

Do you even read the quotes you insert?

You apparently read until triggered by a key word or familiar phrase and then misinterpret anything that requires the slightest bit of comprehension. 

Don't get that sticky stuff on your hands all over your "freedom fighter" leotard.

For 3 months... 

10 minutes ago, frantick said:

Do you even read what you post? 

Quote from the article: 

"The study also found that the protection the vaccines offer against transmission wanes over time.

Three months after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, those who had breakthrough infections were just as likely to spread the Delta variant as the unvaccinated."

 

So, unless you're getting jabs every three months, well, think for yourself if you can. 

 

But, in your defense, the study isn't peer-reviewed like all of you always demand of us freedom fighters, so it's fake news for now. 

 

Also new data coming out of the UK showing higher case counts per 100,000 vaccinated vs 100,000 unvaccinated. I don't have a link ATM. I have no argument about severity, as still higher in unvacinated. But infection trending in support of vaccine mandates being unnecessary. 

Missing link from above. Last two columns page 13. Actually indicates vaccinated more harmful to the unvaccinated. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

1 hour ago, cdemundo said:

This article was shared by Tony125, and indicates that vaccines reduce transmission, in contradiction to your pontificating.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/do-coronavirus-vaccines-prevent-transmission-of-the-virus/ar-AAPsEfu?li=BBnb7Kz

Do you even read what you post? 

Quote from the article: 

"The study also found that the protection the vaccines offer against transmission wanes over time.

Three months after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, those who had breakthrough infections were just as likely to spread the Delta variant as the unvaccinated."

So, unless you're getting jabs every three months, well, think for yourself if you can. 

But, in your defense, the study isn't peer-reviewed like all of you always demand of us freedom fighters, so it's fake news for now. 

Also new data coming out of the UK showing higher case counts per 100,000 vaccinated vs 100,000 unvaccinated. I don't have a link ATM. I have no argument about severity, as still higher in unvaccinated. But infection trending in support of vaccine mandates being unnecessary. 

Oh, good. We have the freedom deniers debating now. ????

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Whereas pfizer has been determined to be about 90% effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths.

Sorry, misread

So aspirin as good as 6 month old vaccine. Good to know. 

58 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Occasionally someone osts videos from those sites or links. Almost invariably, they are at odds with what scientific research actually show. Last night someone posted nonsense from someone who claimed that the mRNA vaccines actually damage the T cell system. He cited a study that only suggested as an outside possibility that vaccines might do this. The author of the study called this clown on his BS. A new study actually showed that the mRNA a vaccines primed the T cell system against covid. So, no, it's not the MSM where the real source of your problem is.. It's a thing called Science that's the real source of your difficulties.

Obviously you didn't check out my recommendation. They don't spew non-scientific diatribe. Don't attribute "someone posted" to what I posted. 

8 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

Get away from social media !!! Jeez. You guys really do fall for the lies.

OK, I get it now. You're old. Go back to your Rachelle Maddow and The View. 

There are many fine podcasts covering news and other topics these days, as well as sites with the written word. These are the reason MSM are losing viewership. 

For all you CNN/MSNBC lovers out there, try Breaking Points on YouTube. One anchor center left, one center right. Although they don't seem to be doing any investigative journalism, very few MSM outlets do anymore either. They at least can present a topic without all the Don Lemon, Rachelle Maddow hystrionics.

Arguing over an outdoor water trickle that has little possibility to remove those dingle berries from your swim-suited ass is quite hilarious. 

Misinformation: Let's go Brandon! 

17 minutes ago, Why Me said:

They are not exempt.

Change that to congress and illegal aliens exempt. Same same, but different. Proof it's not about health, it's about politics. And not the subject of this thread.