Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
Vaccine lawsuit
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,657
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-03-2021 11:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Ummm... you actually said, "Trumpista types are in there to a good deal"

I wouldnt take that as considerable overlap. You left that group out as the only main ones *you* could think of, surprise surprise. I think there are a lot more to be mentioned in addition to. Imagine that.

I said there was considerable overlap. I didn't say they were the only anti-vaxxer group. I didn't provide a list of all the anti-vaxxer groups that I could come up with and nobody asked me for an exhaustive list.

You just decided to leave it at your combination of 'considerable overlap' *and* abjectly not naming any other type of group. Got it.

So when I say that there is considerable overlap between two groups then I must list all other groups that may ALSO overlap or else the assumption is that I believe (one group) = (the other group)?

Seems ridiculous to me. Definitely not worth a late-night argument. Good night.

Common sense says that when a guy pants and flourishes about the *considerable overlap* between groups, he is indicating, well..... uhhh.... a considerable overlap. Meaning well, there are a whole bunch of people in group B that are also in group A.

Like in, wow, golly Wally, it sure seems that there a fkload of these types of people that make up this group. When you combine it with nary a mention of *any* other types that make up the group --- kind of indicates you are saying that not much more is in there except that 'considerable overlap' group. All? No, you didnt say all. You just indicate a very large percentage. Enough where a mention of anyone else is crowded out.

I guess you mean 'considerable overlap' in some insane way that means 'well some, but not a lot' in your view?

Seriously, you should really understand what 'considerable overlap' means if you want to flourish it. Here is a primer: considerably ---- notably large in size, amount, or extent. overlap -- group sharing dual roles in two different sets.

considerable overlap --- notably large extent of people who are anti-vaxxers are ignorant, anti-media, righties. Enough of an extent to both make a point of it, and that you dont have to mention anyone else, mind you. Trust me I got that in your comments at the get go.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 02:27 AM by tanqtonic.)
06-04-2021 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 02:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wouldnt take that as considerable overlap. You left that group out as the only main ones *you* could think of, surprise surprise. I think there are a lot more to be mentioned in addition to. Imagine that.

I said there was considerable overlap. I didn't say they were the only anti-vaxxer group. I didn't provide a list of all the anti-vaxxer groups that I could come up with and nobody asked me for an exhaustive list.

You just decided to leave it at your combination of 'considerable overlap' *and* abjectly not naming any other type of group. Got it.

So when I say that there is considerable overlap between two groups then I must list all other groups that may ALSO overlap or else the assumption is that I believe (one group) = (the other group)?

Seems ridiculous to me. Definitely not worth a late-night argument. Good night.

Common sense says that when a guy pants and flourishes about the *considerable overlap* between groups, he is indicating, well..... uhhh.... a considerable overlap. Meaning well, there are a whole bunch of people in group B that are also in group A.

Agree to the bolded. LOL to the italics. That's such a common technique that you employ. It's frankly ridiculous.

Quote:Like in, wow, golly Wally, it sure seems that there a fkload of these types of people that make up this group. When you combine it with nary a mention of *any* other types that make up the group --- kind of indicates you are saying that not much more is in there except that 'considerable overlap' group. All? No, you didnt say all. You just indicate a very large percentage. Enough where a mention of anyone else is crowded out.

Or it didn't seem necessary to make of list of everybody in Group B. Why would I?

Quote:I guess you mean 'considerable overlap' in some insane way that means 'well some, but not a lot' in your view?

LOL. My approach to this phrase is "insane". QED.

I took it to mean "a lot" (you know... "considerable overlap") but not "all" (as in "complete overlap").

To the bolded, do you think I am now arguing "considerable overlap" meant "not of lot of overlap"? Huh? I can't keep your accusations straight.

Quote:Seriously, you should really understand what 'considerable overlap' means if you want to flourish it. Here is a primer: considerably ---- notably large in size, amount, or extent. overlap -- group sharing dual roles in two different sets.

Yeah... that's how I used it.

Quote:considerable overlap --- notably large extent of people who are anti-vaxxers are ignorant, anti-media, righties. Enough of an extent to both make a point of it, and that you dont have to mention anyone else, mind you. Trust me I got that in your comments at the get go.

To the bolded... you just can't help yourself, can you? SMH.

Please continue to die on the hill of "considerable overlap" = "complete overlap" (or wait... maybe it's "not a lot of overlap"). It's pretty entertaining at this point.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 08:18 AM by Rice93.)
06-04-2021 08:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,552
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #23
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.

Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 10:26 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
06-04-2021 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.
Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.
That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Spot on! +3
06-04-2021 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.

Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote:That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post - although when I look back at it he probably meant what he typed).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 10:33 AM by Rice93.)
06-04-2021 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.
Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.
That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Spot on! +3

I think you should direct your concerns about that particular phrase to Ham.
06-04-2021 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,657
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 08:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 02:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 11:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I said there was considerable overlap. I didn't say they were the only anti-vaxxer group. I didn't provide a list of all the anti-vaxxer groups that I could come up with and nobody asked me for an exhaustive list.

You just decided to leave it at your combination of 'considerable overlap' *and* abjectly not naming any other type of group. Got it.

So when I say that there is considerable overlap between two groups then I must list all other groups that may ALSO overlap or else the assumption is that I believe (one group) = (the other group)?

Seems ridiculous to me. Definitely not worth a late-night argument. Good night.

Common sense says that when a guy pants and flourishes about the *considerable overlap* between groups, he is indicating, well..... uhhh.... a considerable overlap. Meaning well, there are a whole bunch of people in group B that are also in group A.

Agree to the bolded. LOL to the italics. That's such a common technique that you employ. It's frankly ridiculous.

Quote:Like in, wow, golly Wally, it sure seems that there a fkload of these types of people that make up this group. When you combine it with nary a mention of *any* other types that make up the group --- kind of indicates you are saying that not much more is in there except that 'considerable overlap' group. All? No, you didnt say all. You just indicate a very large percentage. Enough where a mention of anyone else is crowded out.

Or it didn't seem necessary to make of list of everybody in Group B. Why would I?

Quote:I guess you mean 'considerable overlap' in some insane way that means 'well some, but not a lot' in your view?

LOL. My approach to this phrase is "insane". QED.

I took it to mean "a lot" (you know... "considerable overlap") but not "all" (as in "complete overlap").

To the bolded, do you think I am now arguing "considerable overlap" meant "not of lot of overlap"? Huh? I can't keep your accusations straight.

Next time I'll be explicit with the sarcasm delimiters.

Quote:
Quote:Seriously, you should really understand what 'considerable overlap' means if you want to flourish it. Here is a primer: considerably ---- notably large in size, amount, or extent. overlap -- group sharing dual roles in two different sets.

Yeah... that's how I used it.

Quote:considerable overlap --- notably large extent of people who are anti-vaxxers are ignorant, anti-media, righties. Enough of an extent to both make a point of it, and that you dont have to mention anyone else, mind you. Trust me I got that in your comments at the get go.

To the bolded... you just can't help yourself, can you? SMH.

Please continue to die on the hill of "considerable overlap" = "complete overlap" (or wait... maybe it's "not a lot of overlap"). It's pretty entertaining at this point.

I never said 'complete overlap.' I am sorry *you* are reading that in. Figures. Good fing grief. Where have I said that? Jeezus fing Krist on cracker.

Here is a gd clue: "All? No, you didnt say all. " What else do you not read?

The point is *you* seemingly think the vast amount of non-vaxxers are ignorant, anti-media trump types. Vast enough that you are at a loss or dont bother to mention anyone else.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 11:00 AM by tanqtonic.)
06-04-2021 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 41,249
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1310
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #28
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
Haven't read much of the more recent conversations... so please don't add any later convos to my thoughts below... I am responding to solely what I quoted here...

(06-03-2021 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess I associate what you are saying with more of a libertarian approach than a Republican one.

But almost by definition, Trump supporters are not GOP members. The GOP came around to Trump, not the other way around. Whether they are libertarians or 'anti-government' types (drain the swamp) is often a distinction without a difference to liberals, but not to conservatives. Most often, I find libertarians described by the left as 'off-gridder, survivalist, all but NO government' types, as opposed to more of a local control, meet the market as opposed to trying to fix the world with one law types. MOST Republicans believe more in 'more specialized ad targeted' regulation, rather than 'no' regulation. It does result in LESS regulation, but that is mostly because 'one size fits all' regulation relies on a vast array of exceptions and definitions which creates loopholes to be exploited (from all directions).


Quote:Are the mandates of employment law applied differently for private hospital systems because they generate some of their revenue from federal programs such as Medicare? Are they held to a different standard WRT employment practices than other private companies?

What if healthcare companies don't accept government insurance? Private urgent care centers/surgery centers/free-standing hospitals, etc. Would they be able to demand that their employees receive the vaccine?

Generally speaking... insofar as what you can require an employee to do.... there is little difference between public and private systems. Not only because they are paid by the government, but because they are dealing with human lives. The biggest determinant of public vs private has to do with the economics of a community. If there is not enough population to support a hospital, it will tend to be public, OR incentives will be given by the government to make a non-economic situation 'work' for a private entity. The government has determined that (as an example) you can require healthcare employees to get a flu vaccine OR require that they wear a mask 24/7 at work... and while some small centers won't enforce it either because they don't like it or they are just lazy... I guarantee that is in their policy manual. You generally agree to be bound by CMS regulations when you enter healthcare.

This is an example of 'one size fits all' regulation. CMS requires that 'for the safety of patients', certain protocols are standard nationally, with no 'exception' for the local situation... so if CMS says 'no double occupancy rooms' (and sometimes they say that simply through paying more for it/incentives) because NYC and its 400 bed hospital is rampant with COVID, that will also apply to a tiny hospital in rural Texas where there may be NO cases of COVID... and so few beds that single occupancy limits them to 5 patients, which doesn't even support 1 FTE for a Hospitalist... or 2 FTEs for nurses etc.... which impacts patient safety.

(06-03-2021 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think the anti-vaxxers overlap CONSIDERABLY with the anti-media culture right. What group do you think the anti-vaxxers fall into?

I think there are connections between being against manipulation by media and being manipulated by government... people who 'don't care' what other people think but make their own decisions... but that doesn't mean they are exclusive. SOME people are anti-vaxxers because of religion, or because of skepticism about 'big pharma', or even 'healthy living' as opposed to 'better living through chemistry'.

Lots of off-gridders are extreme liberals/socialists.

Quote:I don't follow. Somebody on here suggested that he would be likely to eschew mask wear (even if he believed in it) if Trump had come out and supported the universal use of masks? I don't remember that.

It was Lad. He wasn't 'rabid' about it, but I suggested it as a possibility and he essentially said that although it may not make him actually change his mind, it would certainly be a negative association. I'm not trying to 'out' him or characterize him poorly... just saying he agreed with me.

Quote:Are you saying that if Trump had come out and said "Hey, it's super important to use masks all of the time. Let's make this happen" that almost none of his supporters would have gotten behind that idea? I don't agree if that's what you're saying.
Well, you've moved the bar somewhat to 'almost none'...

What I'm saying is that people who believe things find ways to justify any apparent discord... cognitive dissonance. I don't think there were NEARLY as many people who were idolizing and blindly following 'whatever' Trump said... as the left assumes.

Said simply... people who support Trump would have either ignored him when he said that... think LESS of him for 'bending a knee'... OR found some way to manage the dissonance. What they would be LEAST likely to do is 'blindly follow' a politician whom they primarily like because he doesn't 'blindly follow' politicians.

Quote:Again... not sure that I agree with that when it comes to masks.

Yeah, but you didn't like Trump... ONE of the reasons you didn't is because he didn't follow (and in fact often specifically defied) conventional political wisdom.

I think you're precisely demonstrating why 'the left' doesn't get Trump supporters, other than to claim that they are all racists, misogynists, liars etc, despite the fact that polls based on race and gender tended to disprove that opinion. I am not REMOTELY saying that you fit this bill... I am merely saying that this has been the overwhelming response to Trump and his supporters from the left.... that they are all HORRIBLE people.

(06-03-2021 10:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What proportion of medical doctors are "anti-covid-vax"? I'm sure that they exist however I've never met one or seen one on TV. I would guess that the % of "anti-covid-vax" medical doctors is well south of 5%.

That's a bit like asking what proportion of football players are 'anti-sports'. You don't become, and certainly not remain a doctor and then side against medical assistance for people.

And I am 100% certain that you could easily find and MD out there concerned about the vaccine. Dr Jane Orient was invited to speak to COngress about it. Her credentials??

Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Not necessarily large or mainstream groups... but certainly she fits the description you seek, and while you may understandably not know her or have heard of her, had the media you follow endorsed her ideas (or highly involved in vilifying her) or you been highly involved in the hearings on the vaccine, I'm sure you would have.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2021 10:46 AM by Hambone10.)
06-04-2021 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,657
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.
Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.
That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Spot on! +3

I think you should direct your concerns about that particular phrase to Ham.

Perhaps *you* shouldnt be so quick to singularly and exclusively broad brush *your* bugaboo (as you just did) at one particular group. Please feel free to blame someone else for you action in doing so.
06-04-2021 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,552
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #30
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.

Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote:That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?

The full context of Ham's words is:

It *was* negating your predisposition that most anti-vaxxers are ignorant anti-media culture right, as you seemingly imply.

He was using that phrase to describe you. I think all of us on the right get that impression from all of you on the left.

I've been vaccinated. I came to that decision on my own, not because some movie star or politician told me to. I still wear a mask in most social settings - my choice.

Would I have worn a mask more, or sooner, had trump worn one? Probably no and no. Would I have worn it more, or sooner, because the biased MSM made fun of Trump? The answer, using historical data, is no and no.
06-04-2021 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #31
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Haven't read much of the more recent conversations... so please don't add any later convos to my thoughts below... I am responding to solely what I quoted here...

(06-03-2021 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess I associate what you are saying with more of a libertarian approach than a Republican one.

But almost by definition, Trump supporters are not GOP members. The GOP came around to Trump, not the other way around. Whether they are libertarians or 'anti-government' types (drain the swamp) is often a distinction without a difference to liberals, but not to conservatives. Most often, I find libertarians described by the left as 'off-gridder, survivalist, all but NO government' types, as opposed to more of a local control, meet the market as opposed to trying to fix the world with one law types. MOST Republicans believe more in 'more specialized ad targeted' regulation, rather than 'no' regulation. It does result in LESS regulation, but that is mostly because 'one size fits all' regulation relies on a vast array of exceptions and definitions which creates loopholes to be exploited (from all directions).


Quote:Are the mandates of employment law applied differently for private hospital systems because they generate some of their revenue from federal programs such as Medicare? Are they held to a different standard WRT employment practices than other private companies?

What if healthcare companies don't accept government insurance? Private urgent care centers/surgery centers/free-standing hospitals, etc. Would they be able to demand that their employees receive the vaccine?

Generally speaking... insofar as what you can require an employee to do.... there is little difference between public and private systems. Not only because they are paid by the government, but because they are dealing with human lives. The biggest determinant of public vs private has to do with the economics of a community. If there is not enough population to support a hospital, it will tend to be public, OR incentives will be given by the government to make a non-economic situation 'work' for a private entity. The government has determined that (as an example) you can require healthcare employees to get a flu vaccine OR require that they wear a mask 24/7 at work... and while some small centers won't enforce it either because they don't like it or they are just lazy... I guarantee that is in their policy manual. You generally agree to be bound by CMS regulations when you enter healthcare.

This is an example of 'one size fits all' regulation. CMS requires that 'for the safety of patients', certain protocols are standard nationally, with no 'exception' for the local situation... so if CMS says 'no double occupancy rooms' (and sometimes they say that simply through paying more for it/incentives) because NYC and its 400 bed hospital is rampant with COVID, that will also apply to a tiny hospital in rural Texas where there may be NO cases of COVID... and so few beds that single occupancy limits them to 5 patients, which doesn't even support 1 FTE for a Hospitalist... or 2 FTEs for nurses etc.... which impacts patient safety.

(06-03-2021 02:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think the anti-vaxxers overlap CONSIDERABLY with the anti-media culture right. What group do you think the anti-vaxxers fall into?

I think there are connections between being against manipulation by media and being manipulated by government... people who 'don't care' what other people think but make their own decisions... but that doesn't mean they are exclusive. SOME people are anti-vaxxers because of religion, or because of skepticism about 'big pharma', or even 'healthy living' as opposed to 'better living through chemistry'.

Lots of off-gridders are extreme liberals/socialists.

Quote:I don't follow. Somebody on here suggested that he would be likely to eschew mask wear (even if he believed in it) if Trump had come out and supported the universal use of masks? I don't remember that.

It was Lad. He wasn't 'rabid' about it, but I suggested it as a possibility and he essentially said that although it may not make him actually change his mind, it would certainly be a negative association. I'm not trying to 'out' him or characterize him poorly... just saying he agreed with me.

Quote:Are you saying that if Trump had come out and said "Hey, it's super important to use masks all of the time. Let's make this happen" that almost none of his supporters would have gotten behind that idea? I don't agree if that's what you're saying.
Well, you've moved the bar somewhat to 'almost none'...

What I'm saying is that people who believe things find ways to justify any apparent discord... cognitive dissonance. I don't think there were NEARLY as many people who were idolizing and blindly following 'whatever' Trump said... as the left assumes.

Said simply... people who support Trump would have either ignored him when he said that... think LESS of him for 'bending a knee'... OR found some way to manage the dissonance. What they would be LEAST likely to do is 'blindly follow' a politician whom they primarily like because he doesn't 'blindly follow' politicians.

Quote:Again... not sure that I agree with that when it comes to masks.

Yeah, but you didn't like Trump... ONE of the reasons you didn't is because he didn't follow (and in fact often specifically defied) conventional political wisdom.

I think you're precisely demonstrating why 'the left' doesn't get Trump supporters, other than to claim that they are all racists, misogynists, liars etc, despite the fact that polls based on race and gender tended to disprove that opinion. I am not REMOTELY saying that you fit this bill... I am merely saying that this has been the overwhelming response to Trump and his supporters from the left.... that they are all HORRIBLE people.

(06-03-2021 10:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What proportion of medical doctors are "anti-covid-vax"? I'm sure that they exist however I've never met one or seen one on TV. I would guess that the % of "anti-covid-vax" medical doctors is well south of 5%.

That's a bit like asking what proportion of football players are 'anti-sports'. You don't become, and certainly not remain a doctor and then side against medical assistance for people.

And I am 100% certain that you could easily find and MD out there concerned about the vaccine. Dr Jane Orient was invited to speak to COngress about it. Her credentials??

Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Not necessarily large or mainstream groups... but certainly she fits the description you seek, and while you may understandably not know her or have heard of her, had the media you follow endorsed her ideas (or highly involved in vilifying her) or you been highly involved in the hearings on the vaccine, I'm sure you would have.

Yeah... for sure there are a few MDs. I have heard of her BTW. I can't imagine that there are many. It sounds like you are part of a large healthcare system. Are any of your MDs advocating against the vaccine?
06-04-2021 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #32
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.

Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote:That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?

The full context of Ham's words is:

It *was* negating your predisposition that most anti-vaxxers are ignorant anti-media culture right, as you seemingly imply.

He was using that phrase to describe you. I think all of us on the right get that impression from all of you on the left.

Ham's words or Tanq's words?
06-04-2021 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,552
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #33
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 10:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-03-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  anti-media cultural right.

Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote:That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?

The full context of Ham's words is:

It *was* negating your predisposition that most anti-vaxxers are ignorant anti-media culture right, as you seemingly imply.

He was using that phrase to describe you. I think all of us on the right get that impression from all of you on the left.

Ham's words or Tanq's words?

Tanq
06-04-2021 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Got to make a correction here. There is no such thing as "anti-media cultural right". I think you have that confused with the anti-BIASED media right. All conservatives I know support a free press that reports on facts rather than conjecture.

Agree. That's what I meant.

Quote:That you cannot discern between the two says volumes.

Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?

The full context of Ham's words is:

It *was* negating your predisposition that most anti-vaxxers are ignorant anti-media culture right, as you seemingly imply.

He was using that phrase to describe you. I think all of us on the right get that impression from all of you on the left.

Ham's words or Tanq's words?

Tanq

OK? He (and you apparently) is putting words in my mouth (which is something that you guys seem to find quite offensive).

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
06-04-2021 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,552
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #35
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:10 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 10:30 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Agree. That's what I meant.


Well I was responding directly to Ham's immediately previous post where he said:

"but generally speaking, this is not the religious right, the anti-media culture right or the conservative right."

So I just used his phrase to respond to it (I thought he meant to type cultural so I changed it in my post).

So it's not so much "not being able to discern between the two" but simply using the same phrase that Ham used in my response. Does that make sense?

The full context of Ham's words is:

It *was* negating your predisposition that most anti-vaxxers are ignorant anti-media culture right, as you seemingly imply.

He was using that phrase to describe you. I think all of us on the right get that impression from all of you on the left.

Ham's words or Tanq's words?

Tanq

OK? He (and you apparently) is putting words in my mouth (which is something that you guys seem to find quite offensive).

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

Figures.
06-04-2021 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.
06-04-2021 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #37
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.

Please list my ad homs in this discussion.
06-04-2021 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.

Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?
06-04-2021 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,424
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #39
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.

Please list my ad homs in this discussion.

You're kidding, right?

No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.
06-04-2021 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
RE: Vaccine lawsuit
(06-04-2021 11:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-04-2021 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I get the distinct impression that this thread has degenerated from a reasonable discussion of legitimate issues to a gotcha hair-splitting and parsing of comments in order to score ad hominem points against each other.
Please list my ad homs in this discussion.
You're kidding, right?
No... I am assuming that you are including me in your "ad hom" points comments and I honestly don't think that I've been doing that. Maybe not a list... but an example or two. Or you can ignore if you weren't including me in your comment.

I'd basically include the full body of work of your and Lad's comments to Tanq, on this thread and others, and vice versa, in the ad hom range. Pick any of those. You've been basically been parsing words to attack each other without providing much of anything in the way of substantive discussion.
06-04-2021 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.