America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by HockeyDad. 82 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
As disgusting as it gets.
Speyside2 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,360
My bad, Omicron is 91% less deadly than Delta.
rfenst Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
Attacks like one in Colleyville about more than antisemitism

The Colleyville synagogue hostage-taking was a nightmare, a vicious, antisemitic attack on a vulnerable Jewish community. It is tempting to obsess on the antisemitism, to see it as the great, sole evil. But if we want change, we must recognize that Colleyville was about more.

Especially since the 2018 shooting that killed 11 people and injured more at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life, synagogues and other Jewish institutions have been ratcheting up their security. Guards, often armed, are commonplace, as are bulletproof glass, “buzz-in” entry systems and strategically placed panic buttons.

This is a consequence of a rise in antisemitism. We’re scared. A 2020 Pew Study found that most American Jews think there is more antisemitism today than there was five years ago. More than half of those surveyed say that, as a Jew, they personally feel less safe than they did five years ago.

Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and chief executive of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, spoke for many Jewish leaders when he said, “In face of a new wave of antisemitism, where Jews are threatened online, forced to prove themselves on campus and fear eating in restaurants, we must not let the fear our enemies want to instill in us define us.”
Farkas’ “new wave of antisemitism” is real, but its complexity must also be acknowledged.

Antisemitism can take many forms, including religious (Christ killers), economic (Jews control the banks), ethnic (smart Jews), racial (replacement theory) and national (Israel first). These types and others can occur in isolation or in combination. Battling antisemitism effectively requires serious research and analysis, as well as developing objective, useful tools that can help us approach a highly sensitive subject with a minimum of emotion.

And we must recognize that attacks like the one in Colleyville are not only about antisemitism. They are also about the laws and systems (or lack thereof) surrounding gun control and mental health.

Robert Bowers, the alleged shooter in the Tree of Life mass murders, brought an AR-15 assault rifle and three Glock .357 handguns to the synagogue that morning. An investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that Bowers owned 10 guns, all legally purchased.

“When you combine heated, divisive political rhetoric with easy access to lethal weaponry, the possibility of these kinds of incidents happening is even more troubling,” Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said at the time.

David Anderson, one of the shooters who murdered four people in 2019 at a Jersey City, New Jersey, kosher supermarket, was a convicted felon. Arrests for possession of an illegal weapon led to years in and out of New Jersey and Ohio jails. His record included multiple firearm convictions, and at the time of the shooting, he had numerous guns, plus a bomb the FBI said could kill or injure people up to 500 yards away.

Bowers and Anderson were antisemites intent on slaughter, but our lax gun laws aided and abetted the carnage they created.

Bowers’ neighbors saw nothing unusual about him; they saw him as an average guy. Online, however, he let loose his antisemitic rage. Shortly before entering the synagogue, he posted a message that read, “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

“I wish I had known what was going on in his head,” a neighbor said. “I wish there was some sort of warning sign.”
Anderson’s antisemitism was equally intense. His army service was tumultuous, he was arrested numerous times for domestic violence, and his antisemitism was connected to his interest in the Black Hebrew Israelites, a sect that considers Jews to be “imposters.”

“I do this because my creator makes me do this and I hate who he hates,” read a note found in Anderson’s van after the shooting.

It is hard to imagine either Bowers or Anderson being of sound mind. But even if found legally responsible for their actions, their massacres were likely facilitated by a society reluctant to confront the realities of mental illness.

The best definition of antisemitism I’ve ever heard is “opposition to Jews, as Jews,” which makes Malik Faisal Akram, the Colleyville hostage-taker, an antisemite who perpetrated a heinous antisemitic act. His rants on the synagogue audio can also cause one to question his mental state. His own brother said he had been suffering from “mental health issues.” And, while this has not been confirmed, officials believe Akram likely obtained the gun by purchasing it “on the street.”

Like Bowers and Anderson, Akram was responsible for his actions. And, like the others, he had a helping hand from weaknesses in the system.

Colleyville was about antisemitism, but it was equally about a country whose gun laws and mental health awareness are nowhere near what they should be. Confronting antisemitism is a sacred task, but to do so effectively, efforts must be made to change the systems that enable antisemites to perpetuate attacks like the one in Texas. We must fight to counter antisemitism, and we must fight for a safe, secure society for all.
___
(Clifford M. Kulwin is rabbi emeritus of Temple B’nai Abraham in Livingston, New Jersey.)
DrMaddVibe Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,394
Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???
rfenst Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???

No. And, I am not trying to make any point here.

Let's try it another way: Just assume, for the sake of discussion only, that the required vaccine is for hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria (or any other vaccine you would willingly take), but that the 1st eligible recipient won't take. That's all.

What are your thoughts?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,394
rfenst wrote:
No.


Neither does Ray
BuckyB93 Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,165
rfenst wrote:
I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?


DrMaddVibe wrote:
Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???


rfenst wrote:
No. And, I am not trying to make any point here.

Let's try it another way: Just assume, for the sake of discussion only, that the required vaccine is for hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria (or any other vaccine you would willingly take), but that the 1st eligible recipient won't take. That's all.

What are your thoughts?


So you make 3 points for argument's sake. None of them are true and you (admittedly) don't believe that any of them are true, and you (admittedly) are not trying to make any point. I don't understand.

Your examples of hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria have a well established history of being effective with minimal side effects to the overall population. Rona vaccine is not effective in what it was meant to do when it was approved.

It loses it's effectivity within months of being administered and needs a boost every 5 months or so (?) to keep it going (WTF?). It has led to the CDC to redefine what a vaccine is so it can include a Rona vaccine that doesn't work. Using your examples, how often to you need a hep booster once the full regiment is complete? Pneumonia?, tetanus-diptheria? polio? flu? They are not needed every 6 months. Maybe yearly (like the flu vax - which is a sham on it's own), maybe every 5-10 yrs (like tetanus), but only for those in very high risk situations but not for the general public and definitely not as a sweeping government mandatory.

The Rona vax is based on technology that has never... NEVER, been approved for use on man or beast even though the mRNA technology has been being played with in labs for decades. There is 0 (zero) history on any long term side effects.

But F it. Government dictates that everyone must get the Rona jab and be fully vaccinated (a definition that has yet to be defined), everyone must carry a passport. If not, you can be denied your ability to work or go about you daily business.

MACS Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,747
Pretty sure we've both made these points in the past. I can't understand how people can look at it objectively (the points you made are all facts) and come to the conclusion that everyone should get the shot and it should be mandated by the gov't.

As I have said... you want it for yourself, fine. If you have underlying conditions where it is prudent, fine. Help yourself, do what's best for YOU.

But don't piss on ME and tell me it's raining by mandating the bullsh*t.
HockeyDad Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
rfenst wrote:
I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?



Looks like it’s already been covered that your three assumptions are junk.

The issue is the hospital removed him from the transplant list because of the hospital’s policy. He doesn’t even exist to organ allocation. (My daughter does organ allocation.)

Would you believe we now transplant organs from Covid-19 positive donors? Yup, sure do.


DrMaddVibe Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,394
Bet they were vaxxed and masked thoughAngel
frankj1 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
lungs too?
rfenst Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
This has nothing to do with covid. I am not arguing with anyone that those assumed facts are true. I even said I don't believe them to be true. LOOK AT #54!!!

All I wonder is what people's opinion would be if a transplant candidate refused a vaccine we all assume is safe (any vaccine that you think is safe- it doesn't matter which one) and, as a result the hospital gave the organ to the next person on the list who had taken that vaccine.

What do you morally or ethically think should happen?

That's all, nothing more...
rfenst Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
,
rfenst Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
BuckyB93 wrote:
So you make 3 points for argument's sake. None of them are true and you (admittedly) don't believe that any of them are true, and you (admittedly) are not trying to make any point. I don't understand.

Your examples of hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria have a well established history of being effective with minimal side effects to the overall population. Rona vaccine is not effective in what it was meant to do when it was approved.

It loses it's effectivity within months of being administered and needs a boost every 5 months or so (?) to keep it going (WTF?). It has led to the CDC to redefine what a vaccine is so it can include a Rona vaccine that doesn't work. Using your examples, how often to you need a hep booster once the full regiment is complete? Pneumonia?, tetanus-diptheria? polio? flu? They are not needed every 6 months. Maybe yearly (like the flu vax - which is a sham on it's own), maybe every 5-10 yrs (like tetanus), but only for those in very high risk situations but not for the general public and definitely not as a sweeping government mandatory.

The Rona vax is based on technology that has never... NEVER, been approved for use on man or beast even though the mRNA technology has been being played with in labs for decades. There is 0 (zero) history on any long term side effects.

But F it. Government dictates that everyone must get the Rona jab and be fully vaccinated (a definition that has yet to be defined), everyone must carry a passport. If not, you can be denied your ability to work or go about you daily business.

You never cease to amaze me.
bgz Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Morally? Not my call...

Reality? I guess politics is more important to some people than a new heart.

At this point I just watch the chaos and talk about it with you guys.
rfenst Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
bgz wrote:
Morally? Not my call...

Reality? I guess politics is more important to some people than a new heart.

At this point I just watch the chaos and talk about it with you guys.

I know it's not your call, but what do you think should happen given that survivability is an important factor in deciding who gets an organ?
HockeyDad Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
rfenst wrote:
This has nothing to do with covid. I am not arguing with anyone that those assumed facts are true. I even said I don't believe them to be true. LOOK AT #54!!!

All I wonder is what people's opinion would be if a transplant candidate refused a vaccine we all assume is safe (any vaccine that you think is safe- it doesn't matter which one) and, as a result the hospital gave the organ to the next person on the list who had taken that vaccine.

What do you morally or ethically think should happen?

That's all, nothing more...


So why do you keep insisting those “facts” are true!?
HockeyDad Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
frankj1 wrote:
lungs too?


Covid lungs go in the incinerator. Those are a bio weapon.
HockeyDad Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
rfenst wrote:
This has nothing to do with covid. I am not arguing with anyone that those assumed facts are true. I even said I don't believe them to be true. LOOK AT #54!!!

All I wonder is what people's opinion would be if a transplant candidate refused a vaccine we all assume is safe (any vaccine that you think is safe- it doesn't matter which one) and, as a result the hospital gave the organ to the next person on the list who had taken that vaccine.

What do you morally or ethically think should happen?

That's all, nothing more...


The hospital didn’t give the organ to someone else. The hospital sentenced the person to death because of their Covid-19 vaccine policy. He was not put on the transplant list. The hospital didn’t give the organ to anyone. The organ was never at the hospital. Organ allocation sent it somewhere else and never even knew that the hospital killed this guy over Covid vaccine policies. Another tragic Covid-19 death.

Morally and ethically the hospital is bankrupt.
frankj1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,215
HockeyDad wrote:
Covid lungs go in the incinerator. Those are a bio weapon.

why not give the covid lungs to anti vaxxers on the waiting list...kill two birds with one stone?
They want new lungs, they don't want the jab...give 'em covid lungs.
Keeps the air clean too.
tailgater Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?


Wrong. Morally & ethically wrong. Period.
(I said period, but I'm a gonna type some more here)

If the jab is safe and 100% effective, then why the rush to get everybody jabbed?
In this rhetorical world, Karen Doe wouldn't NEED Jane Doe to get the jab in order to protect her gran-mama.

So the action of NOT performing the transplant does nothing except act as a form of punishment with no gain for society.
rfenst Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
HockeyDad wrote:
The hospital didn’t give the organ to someone else. The hospital sentenced the person to death because of their Covid-19 vaccine policy. He was not put on the transplant list. The hospital didn’t give the organ to anyone. The organ was never at the hospital. Organ allocation sent it somewhere else and never even knew that the hospital killed this guy over Covid vaccine policies. Another tragic Covid-19 death.

Morally and ethically the hospital is bankrupt.

My hypothetical, that I re-worded in #54, has absolutely nothing to do with the man who wouldn't get the jab for the heart. NOTHING.

And, it has absolutely nothing to do with covid in any way.

Look at the seven factors considered when determining who gets an organ that Spey posted in #48.

I am just trying to zero in on the importance of the "survivability" factor. Should it be a factor at all under any circumstances? Nothing else.

Just suspend your imagination away from that case, covid and what you know from your daughter's profession, for a moment, and think about who, in your own mind, should get the organ. The person who got the safe (non-covid) vaccine required by the transplant program or the person who didn't? That is, do you believe "survivability" in general is an important factor? Should the organs only go to recipients with the best chance for longevity after the transplant? Or, should transplant programs give the organ to the first person on the list or the second, regardless of "survivability"? Should it be "first come first serve" basis or not?








(last try, I promise)
BuckyB93 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,165
Sigh...

Do we not have enough evidence that the vax is completely BS as preventive maintenance and should only be administered to folks that are high risk or on a volunteer basis? Even the CEO's of the major drug companies that made the "fix" and who have nothing but monetary gain on the scam admit that it doesn't work unless you keep getting injected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/pfizer-ceo-says-two-covid-vaccine-doses-arent-enough-for-omicron.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-omicron-variant-vaccine-moderna/

It's like setting up another state mandated, big pharma sponsored methadone situation on a grand scale.

Putting that aside, vax or non vax... if I'm confronted with needing a lung, kidney, liver, heart... transplant that might extend my life for 10 yrs with a bunch of rehab vs some young buck that can use them for many more years... I'll step a side. Just give me 6 months to get my things in order.
rfenst Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
HockeyDad wrote:
The hospital didn’t give the organ to someone else. The hospital sentenced the person to death because of their Covid-19 vaccine policy. He was not put on the transplant list. The hospital didn’t give the organ to anyone. The organ was never at the hospital. Organ allocation sent it somewhere else and never even knew that the hospital killed this guy over Covid vaccine policies. Another tragic Covid-19 death.

Morally and ethically the hospital is bankrupt.

My hypothetical, that I re-worded in #54, has absolutely nothing to do with the man who wouldn't get the jab for the heart. NOTHING.

And, it has absolutely nothing to do with covid in any way.

Look at the seven factors considered when determining who gets an organ that Spey posted in #48.

I am just trying to zero in on the importance of the "survivability factor." Nothing else.

Just suspend your imagination away from covid for a moment and think about who, in your own mind, should get the organ. The person who got the safe non-covid vaccine required or the person who didn't?
rfenst Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
BuckyB93 wrote:
Sigh...

Do we not have enough evidence that the vax is completely BS as preventive maintenance and should only be administered to folks that are high risk or on a volunteer basis? Even the CEO's of the major drug companies that made the "fix" and who have nothing but monetary gain on the scam admit that it doesn't work unless you keep getting injected.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/pfizer-ceo-says-two-covid-vaccine-doses-arent-enough-for-omicron.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-omicron-variant-vaccine-moderna/

It's like setting up another state mandated, big pharma sponsored methadone situation on a grand scale.

Putting that aside, vax or non vax... if I'm confronted with needing a lung, kidney, liver, heart... transplant that might extend my life for 10 yrs with a bunch of rehab vs some young buck that can use them for many more years... I'll step a side. Just give me 6 months to get my things in order.


There. See how simple that was. That's all I waned to know: Longevity/survivability is an important issue in your mind. It is in my mind too to the extent that my wife knows I want my organs to be put to the best use, not necessarily the person who is first on the list. Thank you!
Mr. Jones Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,419
I beginning to think....

That the RONA VACCINE IS THE ..

"MARK OF THE BEAST"...

NO OTHER "vaccine" needs boosters in 6 months...
Hell tetniuis vaccine is every 5-6 yrs ...
The pneumonia jab is twice , a yr apart and done forever...
Those kids vaccines are once or twice and done...

MNRA is new and unknown...

I have seen many YouTube videos on people's whose lives are totally ruined because of it...I believe them...
All vaccines have a 1% or way less than that ...it totally Fu*ks a very small minority of peeps up for life...it is the nature of the odds of vaccines...
I got nueropathy from my two Pfizer vaccine shots...
I am due for the 6 month booster last week...
I said **** it...I'll wait and take my chances...

Screw TED Turner and his Georgia guide stones illuminati billionaire buddies...

Ted is in dementia LA LA LAND so he has become a has been to the Illuminati movement...

He has been kicked to the curb...but has the best care on earth at his Montana ranch...money can buy happiness...
Make no mistake about it...
HockeyDad Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
rfenst wrote:
There. See how simple that was. That's all I waned to know: Longevity/survivability is an important issue in your mind. It is in my mind too to the extent that my wife knows I want my organs to be put to the best use, not necessarily the person who is first on the list. Thank you!


The only way you get that choice is if you donate your organs to a specific person. That does happen.

Your organs will be put to the best use based on a computer calculation based on a few dozen factors that will determine who is first on the list for each specific organ. You will not be asked to rewrite the software or to approve any selections. Your role in the process is to die preferably brain dead on life support. More of you will be recycled that way when the harvest team arrives.

Covid-19 vaccination status is not one of the criteria.
RayR Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,881
Speaking of denying medical treatments to patients, look what Dr. Federal Government has been up to...

How evil do you have to be to suddenly pull treatment from ailing Florida COVID patients?

By Monica Showalter
January 27, 2022

Quote:
Is Joe Biden trying to top the vile, cruel record of blue-state governors such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, who seeded COVID patients into the nursing homes?

It sure looks like it, given his strange, sudden, and absolute shutdown of monoclonal antibody treatments on patients who are being successfully treated with the therapy in Florida. For vulnerable, sick people waiting in line for it, including those right up to the date of scheduled treatment, tough luck — go to the back of the line, and see if you can find some other treatment, and hope your COVID does not progress to the morgue.

That's what Joe Biden is offering Florida, a red state that voted against him in 2020, that maybe, just maybe, he'd like to punish a little, not just for not voting for him, but to erase its record of success on COVID. He seems to be out to punish Florida by ensuring that Florida's COVID death count ascends to those of his favored blue states. Whatever Joe's motive here, there are no honorable answers as we explore this.

More...

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/how_evil_do_you_have_to_be_to_suddenly_pull_treatment_from_florida_covid_patients.html
Speyside2 Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,360
On Omicron only the Smith Kline Galaxo monoclonal antibodies work. Those have not been pulled.
rfenst Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
Speyside2 wrote:
On Omicron only the Smith Kline Galaxo monoclonal antibodies work. Those have not been pulled.

You do know the real truth can upset people around here, right?
Stogie1020 Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 5,308
rfenst wrote:
You do know the real truth can upset people around here, right?


And yet people are still being told a cloth mask is better than nothing against Omicron even though they are virtually useless against omicron.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,649
Why should you avoid a restaurant on the moon?
It doesn't have any atmosphere
HockeyDad Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,119
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Why should you avoid a restaurant on the moon?
It doesn't have any atmosphere


And it has a mask and Covid passport requirement.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12