RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

SARS Coronavirus 2 vaccine
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 9:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think where you guys are off (well, lol, the most fundamental place where you’re off) is in your acceptance and parroting of this very transparent mainstream media and Democratic Party driven narrative that it is the fault of these people who are refusing to get vaccinated or mask up that the pandemic isn’t behind us by now. This doesn’t even address the idea that yeah, your federal government can tell everyone to take a shot of a vaccine into their bodies or lose their livelihood in what has become a brutally unforgiving have and have nots economy in this country.

To even say this, that the pandemic would be over if these people would only have taken the vaccine, is making a statement that contains the unmistakable DNA of the news media or entertainment figures or the political party that you’re taking your information from, and that you’re accepting unquestioned as fact.

I know this is now a small group, so we can’t expect wide ranges of opinion here, but I haven’t seen anyone (other than maybe tfan) who is taking in information in a way that reflects his own curiosity and gathering up of pieces of news reports that actually show nuance and facets of what has been happening that paint a more complete and honest picture of where we are and why we might have gotten here.

There’s been so much stuff out there to look at and form better informed outlooks and conclusions from. They’re not comfortable or easily accepted or compiled narrative paths to go down. But we’re not children here and we’re literally going down the same path together with COVID whether some of us are doing so with a narrow blinkered perspective that has been sugar coated and spoon fed to you by whatever voices you’re listening to or not.

I’ll give you a hint, a specific string of DNA that reveals the family tree your information and opinions are sourced from. It is that you have been presented with fellow citizens to blame for where we are now, a vast swath that sounds conservative, red state, MAGA driven etc. That’s the DNA that your conclusions contain that reveal where you’re getting them from. And that you guys are actually sitting here reflecting anger at these people only shows how much and how hard you’ve swallowed what you’re being told to think right now.

This is a repeat of last year before the vaccines even existed when the mainstream media would show you video of parties in the Ozarks or someplace like that which riled up the same blame and hatred and scorn in you. And for whom? For people who the mainstream media and, as a direct result, YOU, most strongly identify with the opposing political ideology of your own. How easy this is for those who have the power to make and shape public opinion. And no one, no segment of the American population, has been more gullibly taken in over the last dozen or so years, than all of us on our side.

While we point to these red state morons and sneer, we’re completely unaware that it is WE who are the actual marks. Democratic and progressive leaning voters. We’re the targets of the distractions and false narratives and acceptance of being manipulated into hating the ‘other’ that we believe we’re morally and intellectually above falling for. But, incredibly, almost all of us on our side have fallen very very hard for all of it.

Do any of you ever apply your own critical thinking to any of this? Can you even utter something critical about what’s happened with this administration’s handling of the pandemic so far? Can you show that you are even aware of some of the things that have happened that indicate problems or inconsistencies with this administration’s response that have, as yet, not appeared on Rebkell’s and haven’t been a part of the discussion here? Because I sure as hell haven’t seen any of it. What I see are the words I hear on CNN and MSNBC and from Hollywood being parroted almost verbatim.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19791



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 9:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
I'm surprised so many people seem OK with the concept that the president alone can dictate what people can do with their own bodies. That's not a precedent that leads to anything good.


If the choice only impacted them, I wouldn’t have a problem.

But it doesn’t. It’s not about what people are doing with their own bodies, it’s about the harm that is being caused (which is significant), by what they are framing as an individual choice.



There is a huge difference.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67020
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 9:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
pilight wrote:
I'm surprised so many people seem OK with the concept that the president alone can dictate what people can do with their own bodies. That's not a precedent that leads to anything good.


If the choice only impacted them, I wouldn’t have a problem.

But it doesn’t. It’s not about what people are doing with their own bodies, it’s about the harm that is being caused (which is significant), by what they are framing as an individual choice.



There is a huge difference.


Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3518



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I think where you guys are off (well, lol, the most fundamental place where you’re off) is in your acceptance and parroting of this very transparent mainstream media and Democratic Party driven narrative that it is the fault of these people who are refusing to get vaccinated or mask up that the pandemic isn’t behind us by now. This doesn’t even address the idea that yeah, your federal government can tell everyone to take a shot of a vaccine into their bodies or lose their livelihood in what has become a brutally unforgiving have and have nots economy in this country.

To even say this, that the pandemic would be over if these people would only have taken the vaccine, is making a statement that contains the unmistakable DNA of the news media or entertainment figures or the political party that you’re taking your information from, and that you’re accepting unquestioned as fact.

I know this is now a small group, so we can’t expect wide ranges of opinion here, but I haven’t seen anyone (other than maybe tfan) who is taking in information in a way that reflects his own curiosity and gathering up of pieces of news reports that actually show nuance and facets of what has been happening that paint a more complete and honest picture of where we are and why we might have gotten here.

There’s been so much stuff out there to look at and form better informed outlooks and conclusions from. They’re not comfortable or easily accepted or compiled narrative paths to go down. But we’re not children here and we’re literally going down the same path together with COVID whether some of us are doing so with a narrow blinkered perspective that has been sugar coated and spoon fed to you by whatever voices you’re listening to or not.

I’ll give you a hint, a specific string of DNA that reveals the family tree your information and opinions are sourced from. It is that you have been presented with fellow citizens to blame for where we are now, a vast swath that sounds conservative, red state, MAGA driven etc. That’s the DNA that your conclusions contain that reveal where you’re getting them from. And that you guys are actually sitting here reflecting anger at these people only shows how much and how hard you’ve swallowed what you’re being told to think right now.

This is a repeat of last year before the vaccines even existed when the mainstream media would show you video of parties in the Ozarks or someplace like that which riled up the same blame and hatred and scorn in you. And for whom? For people who the mainstream media and, as a direct result, YOU, most strongly identify with the opposing political ideology of your own. How easy this is for those who have the power to make and shape public opinion. And no one, no segment of the American population, has been more gullibly taken in over the last dozen or so years, than all of us on our side.

While we point to these red state morons and sneer, we’re completely unaware that it is WE who are the actual marks. Democratic and progressive leaning voters. We’re the targets of the distractions and false narratives and acceptance of being manipulated into hating the ‘other’ that we believe we’re morally and intellectually above falling for. But, incredibly, almost all of us on our side have fallen very very hard for all of it.

Do any of you ever apply your own critical thinking to any of this? Can you even utter something critical about what’s happened with this administration’s handling of the pandemic so far? Can you show that you are even aware of some of the things that have happened that indicate problems or inconsistencies with this administration’s response that have, as yet, not appeared on Rebkell’s and haven’t been a part of the discussion here? Because I sure as hell haven’t seen any of it. What I see are the words I hear on CNN and MSNBC and from Hollywood being parroted almost verbatim.



I take issue with this whole sorry argument. Some of us are actually reading and watching things like the latest Hopkins statistics, vaccination rates, ICU censuses, evolution of variants, statements made by Fauci, Walensky, and ER doctors from around the country, and other things that are ON POINT for a pandemic, instead of turning the whole thing into another politicized diatribe which has been one of our biggest problems since the beginning.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones


Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.

Cuz I CAN think of legal precedents set for (what at the time, appeard to be) "good reasons", but were overturned in our democratic system.

That works both ways.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"


Last edited by Howee on 09/11/21 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Really, Frozen? Statements made by Fauci? I mean, I’d be laughing at that if any of this were funny. Your statement exemplifies what I’m referring to. And using Fauci is laden with subtext that would take hours just to type here.

So I put the burden on YOU. Criticize Fauci. What have you got? I’ve praised him here and even just the other day. But I also have criticisms. You’re touting him as a reliable good faith resource of information. But do you have any criticisms of him?

Or no?

Are you aware of what is being said about him by some fairly down the middle observers?



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones


Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.


So your posture here is that if pilight doesn’t waste his time, and it would be SUCH a waste of his time, digging up examples for you personally, as if you just popped out of your mother’s womb yesterday before falling off the turnip truck this all suggests you were born on, then legal precedents set for good reason have never been used for bad reasons? If pilight doesn’t show you then it never happens?

Old Russian proverb:

Eat bread and salt and speak the truth.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Look. Fauci himself has admitted this. He has admitted that in telling the American people that masks were not effective against COVID that he did that for a greater good reason and that was because those masks were in short supply and badly needed for front line medical workers.

That theme has been repeated over and over again in the information that has been presented to the public on COVID. Fauci himself provided the easiest up front most quickly verifiable and most easily understood example (ironically since he was in your list of what you apparently consider to be reliable sources of information) of information being curated, manipulated or even, as in this case, fabricated completely, for specific purposes before being presented to the American people as fact?

I ask YOU guys, what other examples can you give? Because if you can’t or won’t then it proves to me that you’re not approaching this conversation honestly or in good faith. This is the theme of the public information we have been given throughout this first eight months of the Biden administration. It should be very difficult for any thinking person to simply just accept what their government is telling them right now. But apparently it isn’t. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3518



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Really, Frozen? Statements made by Fauci? I mean, I’d be laughing at that if any of this were funny. Your statement exemplifies what I’m referring to. And using Fauci is laden with subtext that would take hours just to type here.

So I put the burden on YOU. Criticize Fauci. What have you got? I’ve praised him here and even just the other day. But I also have criticisms. You’re touting him as a reliable good faith resource of information. But do you have any criticisms of him?

Or no?

Are you aware of what is being said about him by some fairly down the middle observers?


I think you just proved my point, back to framing a pandemic as a political problem. My biggest criticism of Fauci is his caving repeatedly to Trump's megalomania last year, which is, I think, the reason he waffled on various things, which would be my second criticism. When he sticks to the actual pandemic, he's a good source of information and is usually proven right, although I disagree with his prediction that we'll have another 100,000 deaths in the last five months of this year...I think he's off by a factor of 2.

Obviously, the most recent controversy involves NIAID funding research grants for the study in Wuhan of coronaviruses in bats with Fauci being accused of promoting gain-of-function research in SARS-CoV-2 and lying to Congress about it. I haven't read the hundreds of pages of the grant proposals, but my understanding is that bat coronaviruses (MERS and SARS) were altered to study their infectivity in mice. Either way, I think involvement with Peter Daszak is a error in judgement.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Thank you! Fauci lied to Congress. And he has admitted to lying to the American people in telling them that masks which we now beat people up for not wearing and, more importantly, could have protected the American people from COVID and the spread of the pandemic, were not effective in protecting people.

And now we have him lying to Congress regarding the origins of a virus that has taken probably 20 million human lives. He should be removed from his position and face the appropriate legal consequences for lying to Congress. That is the truth.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones


Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.


So your posture here is that if pilight doesn’t waste his time, and it would be SUCH a waste of his time, digging up examples for you personally, as if you just popped out of your mother’s womb yesterday before falling off the turnip truck this all suggests you were born on, then legal precedents set for good reason have never been used for bad reasons? If pilight doesn’t show you then it never happens?


Yep. All I asked for is ONE (okay, maybe 3) examples of when/how this has happened in OUR GOVERNMENT. Please. ANYBODY show me.

And I'VE fallen off a "turnip truck" cuz I don't *see* what you *see*? I thought that thinking was the antithesis of Jammer-Law. Laughing Laughing Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So what we need across the board when it comes to all things COVID is accountability. I don’t see angry calls for accountability here on Rebkell’s. Accountability from all sectors and for all that has been done and said that was wrong or untrue by both administrations, many politicians, many nations, and a number of federally funded initiatives and private companies.

We are being called upon instead by our own president to turn on each other. Focus our attention now on the boogieman that stands on the other side of our political viewpoint. Who, as it happens, are simply Americans, some stupid and some crazy and many who are neither of those things, who have seen the inconsistencies and the guidelines that have been wrong or given disingenuously, and are, unlike people on our side, balking at the whole shit show. And we on our side are saying trust what our government tells us? Howee, don’t ever type the name Chris Hedges again. Wink

God, don’t you guys remember just last year when Nancy Pelosi and others, including our good standard resource for information, Hollywood celebrities, said THEY wouldn’t take the “Trump vaccine” i.e. Phizer, Moderna, because it was rushed into existence by the Trump administration? Don’t you remember that? Rolling Eyes Please don’t get me started.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3518



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 11:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Thank you! Fauci lied to Congress. And he has admitted to lying to the American people in telling them that masks which we now beat people up for not wearing and, more importantly, could have protected the American people from COVID and the spread of the pandemic, were not effective in protecting people.

And now we have him lying to Congress regarding the origins of a virus that has taken probably 20 million human lives. He should be removed from his position and face the appropriate legal consequences for lying to Congress. That is the truth.


I'm not sure that he lied. Gain-of-function in SARS-CoV-2 is not the same as testing altered SARS and MERS viruses in mice. I haven't had the time to read the text of both grant proposals and his response to Congress to see what was actually asked and answered.

Whether this pandemic was caused directly by bats or by a research lab, it's a safe bet there's another not-too-far down the road that will come directly from bats. Before that happens, we need to get our research out of China, to educate the public on why and how research needs to be done, and to disenfranchise the fake media from being relied on a news source.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Oh, so you say that the only people bringing any of this up should be ‘disenfranchised’ and we should be solely dependent on corporate controlled legacy mainstream media options as the public’s oniy source of information.

How would we accomplish such a crushing of free speech exactly?

What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3518



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 2:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Oh, so you say that the only people bringing any of this up should be ‘disenfranchised’ and we should be solely dependent on corporate controlled legacy mainstream media options as the public’s oniy source of information.

How would we accomplish such a crushing of free speech exactly?

What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee.


No, I'm saying that getting our pandemic news from music icons, TikTok, and Joseph Mercola goes beyond useless into harmful. I'm surprised you'd defend them as legit news media.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 9:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee..... Howee, don’t ever type the name Chris Hedges again.

How did you know I'm famous!?? Cool
HIGHLY unlikely that I'd do that....I'm not such a 'devotee' anymore, since I learned of his history with plagiarism. I didn't know about all of that when I discovered his later work, but I DO still respect his insights on governmental corruption.
jammerbirdi wrote:
If pilight doesn’t show you then it never happens?

Nope. It just means that if pilight wants to make such assertions, he really oughtta be able to illustrate his point, or provide a source, etc.

jammerbirdi wrote:
Thank you! Fauci lied to Congress.

DID he?? What are YOUR (or Frozen's) sources on this?
This from late August is refuted by this. How reliable are Factcheck.org or Newsweek? Take your pick. Is professor Ebright's 'interpretation' valid? (I'd swear on YOUR mother's grave that Rand Paul's is NOT) I mean, this shit goes on and ON.

jammerbirdi wrote:
And now we have him lying to Congress regarding the origins of a virus that has taken probably 20 million human lives. He should be removed from his position and face the appropriate legal consequences for lying to Congress. That is the truth.

Again: how is THIS more than just your *version* or opinion? I'd really enjoy knowing how you can so conclusively KNOW this. I'm NOT necessarily saying you're wrong, but I haven't read any source that convinces me it's true.

And that brings us full circle back to: What IS The Truth? WHO will provide it? If we wanna operate on the assertion that we CAN'T possibly know The Entire and Real Truth....okay. I'd say most citizens of this planet can only have very limited access to that. We Americans may have a bit more of that available to us than most, but still....there are limitations. Everywhere.

It really comes down to trust, doesn't it? And that's relative....I have FAR more trust in Biden than I did in 45, and much more in Fauci than Paul. You don't? Okay. But think about it....it's more comfortable to trust someone and something than to live in constant fear/doubt.

And no, I never watch MSNBC or CNN.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67020
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones


Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.


So your posture here is that if pilight doesn’t waste his time, and it would be SUCH a waste of his time, digging up examples for you personally, as if you just popped out of your mother’s womb yesterday before falling off the turnip truck this all suggests you were born on, then legal precedents set for good reason have never been used for bad reasons? If pilight doesn’t show you then it never happens?


Yep. All I asked for is ONE (okay, maybe 3) examples of when/how this has happened in OUR GOVERNMENT. Please. ANYBODY show me.

And I'VE fallen off a "turnip truck" cuz I don't *see* what you *see*? I thought that thinking was the antithesis of Jammer-Law. Laughing Laughing Laughing


I'll give you one. California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is enforced entirely through civil action. In addition to potential state action, it empowers any individual or organization “acting in the public interest” to sue a business for violations. If successful plaintiffs can claim 25% of any penalty assessed or more if it is settled. I'm sure jammer can provide more details about Prop 65 bounty hunters.

The State of Texas has recently used this civil enforcement concept in an anti-abortion law. Individuals or groups can sue abortion providers for violation of state law and keep a portion of any penalties assessed. This keeps the case out of federal court, where such a law would surely be voided.



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19791



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/11/21 10:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Oh, so you say that the only people bringing any of this up should be ‘disenfranchised’ and we should be solely dependent on corporate controlled legacy mainstream media options as the public’s oniy source of information.

How would we accomplish such a crushing of free speech exactly?

What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee.


Oh...wow.

No Jammer, facebook news isn't as accurate as Newsweek or peer review science journals...

But this explains a lot.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 2:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Oh, so you say that the only people bringing any of this up should be ‘disenfranchised’ and we should be solely dependent on corporate controlled legacy mainstream media options as the public’s oniy source of information.

How would we accomplish such a crushing of free speech exactly?

What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee.


Oh...wow.

No Jammer, facebook news isn't as accurate as Newsweek or peer review science journals...

But this explains a lot.


Oh puhleez with your ‘this explains a lot’ stuff. lol. You cannot possibly be defending the establishment controlled narratives coming from basically THE MAN as we used to call it. You believe the most powerful and richest human beings on earth. You trust them implicitly and just by a wave of your hand based on a difference of kind are suggesting that independent media that some of you seem to not even know exists should be DISENFRANCHISED.

And you seem to be implying I’m referring to Facebook. I don’t even know where to start.

First you should lose your categorical dismissals of categories that I haven’t suggested to you EXIST as definitive resources of factual information. You should also re-examine why you’re even motivated to engage on this subject if you haven’t even amassed any inconsistencies or falsehoods over the last year and a half that came from establishment news resources. As Howee said to me, what planet have you been living on?

I’m sitting here saying we should be demanding accountability from everyone who has fed us false information or misleading guidelines etc. And you guys seem to be saying it hasn’t happened, go away with your fake news sources.

Howee. Quit asking me to provide some sort of documentation for information that everyone knows about and that you could find in minutes online and SHOULD if you’re approaching this conversation in even a mildly good faith manner and should be as citizen who is ostensibly concerned enough to be arguing about this on a message board.

I feel like I’m talking to Big Tobacco. lol. Whose side are you guys on? Seriously. Because you’re supposed to be on YOUR OWN side and what is best for all of us. Your tactics for dealing with me are the same as you’d employ with a dumb fucking uncle that you have to put up with on Thanksgiving. You’re not taking me seriously. And I’ve learned over the years that I could lay it all out like Walter Cronkite here for the same three or four of you and you probably wouldn’t even read it. And that’s why I’m not doing it. If this were serious Rebkell’s people instead of YOU GUYS I would have dug it up and presented it here chapter and verse. But I know you, Howee and mercfan. It wouldn’t matter.

There are just some people like that and here you are.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 3:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones


Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.


So your posture here is that if pilight doesn’t waste his time, and it would be SUCH a waste of his time, digging up examples for you personally, as if you just popped out of your mother’s womb yesterday before falling off the turnip truck this all suggests you were born on, then legal precedents set for good reason have never been used for bad reasons? If pilight doesn’t show you then it never happens?


Yep. All I asked for is ONE (okay, maybe 3) examples of when/how this has happened in OUR GOVERNMENT. Please. ANYBODY show me.

And I'VE fallen off a "turnip truck" cuz I don't *see* what you *see*? I thought that thinking was the antithesis of Jammer-Law. Laughing Laughing Laughing


I'll give you one. California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is enforced entirely through civil action. In addition to potential state action, it empowers any individual or organization “acting in the public interest” to sue a business for violations. If successful plaintiffs can claim 25% of any penalty assessed or more if it is settled. I'm sure jammer can provide more details about Prop 65 bounty hunters.

The State of Texas has recently used this civil enforcement concept in an anti-abortion law. Individuals or groups can sue abortion providers for violation of state law and keep a portion of any penalties assessed. This keeps the case out of federal court, where such a law would surely be voided.


Howee's demand. Prove legal precedents established for the good have ever been then misused by lawyers for the bad. HE ASKED YOU TO PROVE THAT. He needs someone to prove that to him. Because at like 60 something we're to believe he's really never heard of such a thing.

I've said this so many times to myself about this message board, but there's better things to do with my short time on this earth than this shit.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 3:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Oh, so you say that the only people bringing any of this up should be ‘disenfranchised’ and we should be solely dependent on corporate controlled legacy mainstream media options as the public’s oniy source of information.

How would we accomplish such a crushing of free speech exactly?

What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee.


No, I'm saying that getting our pandemic news from music icons, TikTok, and Joseph Mercola goes beyond useless into harmful. I'm surprised you'd defend them as legit news media.


Can you show me. where. I. defended. (???) music icons. TikTok, and someone I've NEVER EVEN HEARD of as legit news media?

Can you do that please?

People are starting to scare me. I'm afraid to go to sleep like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I might wake up with that far away LOOK. lol. Like Show me evidence that legal precedents have ever been misused. We do not have such things on our planet. Shocked



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 3:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee..... Howee, don’t ever type the name Chris Hedges again.

How did you know I'm famous!?? Cool
HIGHLY unlikely that I'd do that....I'm not such a 'devotee' anymore, since I learned of his history with plagiarism. I didn't know about all of that when I discovered his later work, but I DO still respect his insights on governmental corruption.


Okay, so obviously you've had me throw Chris Hedges in your face one too many times as having expressed similar sentiments as me about the establishment press and the parties, etc. so now you're just going to throw Chris Hedges himself under the bus. Hilarity does ensue here on Rebkell's.

Okay. I don't need him. But answer my question maybe for once. Do you believe that we should be disenfranchising alternative media voices like Krystal Ball and Matt Taibbi and the kids on The Hill's Rising show? And CHRIS HEDGES? And let’s call it what it is, silencing dissent by de-platforming dissenters. CRUSHING their voices so that we only get what the New York Times decides is fit to print. Do you support that?

I'm actually done. But I just wanted to call you on the behavior of berating people for evidence while dodging questions about your own opinions.



_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 9:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Howee wrote:
pilight wrote:
Thatnk ghod legal precedents set for good reasons are never used later for bad ones

Care to illustrate (what you're facetiously proposing *never* happens, that is)? I'd love to know of some sturdy examples of this.

I'll give you one. California's Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is enforced entirely through civil action. In addition to potential state action, it empowers any individual or organization “acting in the public interest” to sue a business for violations. If successful plaintiffs can claim 25% of any penalty assessed or more if it is settled. I'm sure jammer can provide more details about Prop 65 bounty hunters.

The State of Texas has recently used this civil enforcement concept in an anti-abortion law. Individuals or groups can sue abortion providers for violation of state law and keep a portion of any penalties assessed. This keeps the case out of federal court, where such a law would surely be voided.

Thank you. I'd certainly rate that as a clear & sturdy example of your assertion. Pardon me for NOT knowing of Prop 65. I'm positive Jammer knows it backward and forward. Even though you present it as a positive tactic by CA legislators, your claim is that it has established a precedent for Texas' new & detrimental rulings. I also see that -- good or not -- prop 65 has been met with jucidial setback.
Quote:
In a landmark ruling with implications for the future of Proposition 65 enforcement, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California has preliminarily enjoined any person from filing or prosecuting lawsuits seeking cancer warnings for acrylamide on food and beverage products sold in California. The ruling stops hundreds of enforcement actions in their tracks, bodes well for the ultimate end of Proposition 65 acrylamide lawsuits, and has implications for other listed chemicals.

Probably a change fostered by Big Corporation to stop bleeding money, and now enforced by the judiciary branch. Is it corruption at its finest?

Then there's Texas. I s'pose we'd agree that it's a *bad* concept, modeled after a *good* one. Jammer implies that this happens every other Thursday.
And in a way, maybe it does: SO MANY THINGS are considered double-edged blades. Internet = Good AND Bad. Taxes = Unfair AND Necessary. Vaccine Mandates = Constitutional AND Unconstitutional. I'm sure the Good Christians who welcomed Civil Rights are mortified that its simple concept sets the foundation for gottdam Gay Marriage! (it's really all about perception, no?) Hmmm. Now, if a Good Precedent can be undone, can a Bad Precedent be undone? History shows that it can/does roll that way. Just check the history of the scotus.

In the context of this entire thread, THIS idea matters: if we wanna go all paranoid about our government's capacity for deception and propensity for corruption, we also need to remember that these *tests* of how a stable democracy can self-correct should restore a little bit of trust.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 9:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
What say you, Howee? Famous Chris Hedges devotee..... Howee, don’t ever type the name Chris Hedges again.

How did you know I'm famous!?? Cool
HIGHLY unlikely that I'd do that....I'm not such a 'devotee' anymore, since I learned of his history with plagiarism. I didn't know about all of that when I discovered his later work, but I DO still respect his insights on governmental corruption.


Okay, so obviously you've had me throw Chris Hedges in your face one too many times as having expressed similar sentiments as me about the establishment press and the parties, etc. so now you're just going to throw Chris Hedges himself under the bus. Hilarity does ensue here on Rebkell's.

You clearly missed my final comment above on him. No buses involved. Razz He is quite prophetic at times. But.... plagiarism, at his level, is serious shit.

jammerbirdi wrote:
Okay. I don't need him. But answer my question maybe for once. Do you believe that we should be disenfranchising alternative media voices like Krystal Ball and Matt Taibbi and the kids on The Hill's Rising show? And CHRIS HEDGES? And let’s call it what it is, silencing dissent by de-platforming dissenters. CRUSHING their voices so that we only get what the New York Times decides is fit to print. Do you support that?

No idea where you thought I was all for *crushing* dissent. And you've been quite clear here that Krystal and Matt, et. al., are your Vital Truth gurus. We all choose our 'prophets', don't we?

jammerbirdi wrote:
I'm actually done. But I just wanted to call you on the behavior of berating people for evidence while dodging questions about your own opinions.

Laughing I have NO clue as to when/where I "berated people for evidence". I asked pilight for illustration, which he provided.

Now.......on this?
Howee wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Thank you! Fauci lied to Congress.
DID he?? What are YOUR (or Frozen's) sources on this?
This from late August is refuted by this. How reliable are Factcheck.org or Newsweek? Take your pick. Is professor Ebright's 'interpretation' valid? (I'd swear on YOUR mother's grave that Rand Paul's is NOT) I mean, this shit goes on and ON.

I think I adequately provided reasons as to why I can justifiably disagree with you on Fauci's 'lying/perjury' case. You definitely judge him. I don't see enough evidence for that. No berating involved.

Now. Let's get back to the discussion of Covid vaccine. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67020
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/12/21 9:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Actually the "setback" has to do with acrylamide not being dangerous unless taken in megadoses. The court has had no problem with Prop 65's civil enforcement method.



_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 7 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin