Archy1221

He was also Obama’s DIA

Yet the article you reference doesn’t show any data on hospitalization and death rates for those two groups with Omicron? They do establish that neither of the three groups you mentioned provide complete immunity from Omicron, which, isn’t and hasn’t been the point of the vaccines What you continually miss about the conversations Dr. Paul has in regards to prior infection and vaccine cohorts is the mandates for vaccinations. You do this on purpose too for some strange reason. Dr. Paul is not and I don’t believe ever has said to not get vaccinated. He does say previous infection provides immunity to Covid. Hospitalization and death data prove this. You have some kind of infatuation with Dr. Paul, maybe it’s a Freudian thing, but it makes you sounds foolish to try so hard at making him say or mean things he didn’t say or mean. Just take the L and move on with this one. There is always a next time.

“Here ye, Here ye, PR forum far and wide, let it be declares that when @Scarlet is found to be wrong and shown so, it’s just him not being literal and others are guilty of some ‘ism”

If I were him I would get vaccinated out of precaution, but the data is the data. Hospitalizations and deaths are not much different between the two groups. Multiple studies have shown this. Especially if you fall under the age of 65. Sorry to burst your bubble

This is what you said…. So let's continue to question vaccines in favor of treatments that are proven to be ineffective against Omicron. He didn’t question vaccines in favor of treatments which is what your claiming. Your wrong and won’t admit it. You also just said this…. “Paul has said he wouldn't get vaxxed because he's immune. That's wrong. He's not immune.” People who get vaccinated are not immune from infection either so what’s your point. Both sets are very protected from hospitalization and death according to the science. Unless you are a science denier which you seem to be at this point.

Since we’re all in the mood for correcting posts, and complaining about plus 1’s on posts that were wrong, I think we are still waiting for this one to be corrected.

Looks like the funds set out for bridge repair didn’t go to other non-essential infrastructure and instead went to a totally separate funding base that has nothing to do with bridge repair. It’s my bad for not thoroughly vetting that tweeter message before posting and I own it. If I lived in PA, I would still be upset with the legislature for diverting those funds. The bridge collapse is the extension of what looks to be their financial incompetence. And before anyone thinks I’m trying to change the subject to dunk on some Dem, I believe R’s control the state legislature.

The other confusing part for me, and someone correct me if my English is off, but they/them refer to a plural and a single person is using it. That person is a single individual so why use a plural?

You mind letting us know where he “questioned” vaccines in that clip?

I'm not sure if this is even a serious question, but I'll play along. Age and gender identity are completely different things. Apples and oranges. Age is a number based on a date which you are born. It is a concrete data point. We all progress in age in a linear fashion every single day (unless you are Benjamin Button). Having said that, ageism is a very real thing, and people often make assumptions about someone else's age based on stereotypes that may or may not be true. There are legal protections against age discrimination for this reason. But, you can't factually say you are a different age than you actually are As you said, age is just a number that shows how long your body has been on this earth. It doesn’t show how mentally mature you are, or what age you identify with. There are laws based on arbitrary numbers that really mean nothing. That said…. Why can’t a mature teenager legally drink. An arbitrary age to drink alcohol is just that, an arbitrary number. It’s a number assigned based on the assumption that at 21. Our minds and bodies are developed enough to handle alcohol. I’m quite certain a certain percentage of the under 21 population is mentally and physically developed enough to handle alcohol or gamble or smoke or buy handguns etc…so why doesn’t the law allow this carve out for those mature beyond their years? 65 is just an arbitrary number for Medicare and SSI, so why can’t someone who feels like and identifies more with that age group, get those benefits? Why is there not a carve out for those who identify this way. There are people who’s bodies develop early or late or degrade early or late based on genetics but we treat them all the same based on a number of years they have been on this earth.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-transgender-menstrual-products-20191112-2rqexd75efezhp2r4oy7njdmju-story.html https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1006906

If what you are saying is correct, then why doesn’t this thought process carry over to age? You’ve definitely heard the expression that someone is wise beyond his/her age. So why can’t that person identify as someone older and get the benefits of being that age? A HS kid who is very mentally mature, why can’t they identify as a 21 yr old (who they are mentally like) and legally buy alcohol? My out of shape body feels like a 65 yr old and I identify with those aches and pains so why can’t I just say I’m 65 and get Medicare benefits and collect social security? I get what you are saying in that someone somewhere had those thoughts that being born a man a man or a woman a woman doesn’t make you that. But what makes that person right? Science sure doesn’t. Are we the only species this stuff applies too? I understand the romantic attraction and do believe that peoples minds can be shaped that way from a very early age. But when people start to tell me that men can have their period or give birth, I kinda draw the line there. If a guy wants to say he is a girl for whatever reason, fine, that doesn’t make him an actual girl though.

It’s easy and damned you for not understanding this. An easy example would be whenever you want to start collecting social security, just identify as a 65 yr old. If you say you come from the Metaverse, age and time are just a construct and no one can tell you otherwise or they are racist or bigoted, ageist, or some other ‘ist because they are ignorant of how you identify.

Maybe not but you can double check for us all. Funny you took that much time just to have a private chuckle. Super happy for you with that post though. Let’s say Asian race then so you don’t get too upset again.

Policy discussion wasn’t his point at that time. He had a different agenda to discuss. Lol.

Better late than never

If diversification was the goal, an Asian female would be the most logical choice. Would make the court 5-4 male/female and put the one nationality on the court that currently isn’t represented.

A black woman would be great, but to limit the selection criteria to only that seems pandering. If we are going strictly based on diversity, an Asian American would make much more sense as there has never been one.

That party that has faux racism and sexism outrage over darn near everything, makes a choice on a job paid for by the taxpayer based on sex and race!?!

Interesting take on Democrats using a tool they consider racist to help Russia

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-slammed-blocking-russia-sanctions-filibuster-racist.amp

Article reads that it’s a lone Republican who’s seems a little crazy who brought a bill forward that the article even says is getting no traction in a Republican controlled House

Who filibustered sanctions?