more great political AD material for the GOP
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
more great political AD material for the GOP
I love Shaq. Thanks for the back up brother. I loved you as a Laker and I love you even more today 
Shaq talk with Shaq. Listen to Shaq at least fellas.
Shaquille O’Neal Says COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Forced
Shaq: Look, I encourage everybody to be safe and take care of your family, I do.
Crush: I agree with you Shaq. Each family shall have the freedom to choose the best health care for each individual families needs. Each family is different and eat differently, so lets respect that. We don;t eat meat in our house foe example.
Shaq: However, "there’s still some people that don’t wanna take it."
Crush: Take what Shaq?
Shaq: The Jab bro
Crush: Like me or my dd or wife or son?
Shaq: Yes, crush.
Crush: No one should be forced to inject that "JAB" or else lose their ability to earn a buck. What say you Shaq?
Shaq: You shouldn’t have to be forced to take something you don’t want.”
Crush: I agree, but should you get fired?
Turner interrupts us: I don't think people are being forced to take.....
Crush & Shaq: Are you sure?
Turner: Well, there are some....There are, I mean, listed we have a mandate at CBS. CBS, has a vaccine mandate among workers.
Shaq: That's forced.
Crush: That's forced.
Turner: We have a mandate at CBS, but my, but my point...
Shaq: That's forced
Turner: Where I whole heartedly......
Shaq: That's forced.....
Turner: No, it's not forced
Shaq: It is forced. Because if the man don;t take it, the man gonna get fired.....
Crush: Fired, lose small business, can't go to ball game, can;t go the Rams game, can't go see a show or some music. Can't fly. You can;t go play college soccer unless jabbed as of today. If you obey, you can have access to it all. That is forced folks and it's not right. I pray for peace. I have compassion on those who have lied and cheated through all this. I forgive you, I do. I am not perfect either and will not throw the first stone at you. I just ask that you give up peacefully and let it go and then go away.
Shaq talk with Shaq. Listen to Shaq at least fellas.
Shaquille O’Neal Says COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Forced
Shaq: Look, I encourage everybody to be safe and take care of your family, I do.
Crush: I agree with you Shaq. Each family shall have the freedom to choose the best health care for each individual families needs. Each family is different and eat differently, so lets respect that. We don;t eat meat in our house foe example.
Shaq: However, "there’s still some people that don’t wanna take it."
Crush: Take what Shaq?
Shaq: The Jab bro
Crush: Like me or my dd or wife or son?
Shaq: Yes, crush.
Crush: No one should be forced to inject that "JAB" or else lose their ability to earn a buck. What say you Shaq?
Shaq: You shouldn’t have to be forced to take something you don’t want.”
Crush: I agree, but should you get fired?
Turner interrupts us: I don't think people are being forced to take.....
Crush & Shaq: Are you sure?
Turner: Well, there are some....There are, I mean, listed we have a mandate at CBS. CBS, has a vaccine mandate among workers.
Shaq: That's forced.
Crush: That's forced.
Turner: We have a mandate at CBS, but my, but my point...
Shaq: That's forced
Turner: Where I whole heartedly......
Shaq: That's forced.....
Turner: No, it's not forced
Shaq: It is forced. Because if the man don;t take it, the man gonna get fired.....
Crush: Fired, lose small business, can't go to ball game, can;t go the Rams game, can't go see a show or some music. Can't fly. You can;t go play college soccer unless jabbed as of today. If you obey, you can have access to it all. That is forced folks and it's not right. I pray for peace. I have compassion on those who have lied and cheated through all this. I forgive you, I do. I am not perfect either and will not throw the first stone at you. I just ask that you give up peacefully and let it go and then go away.
Then where's the study the says restrictions and lockdowns worked? It's easy to criticize but hard to create. Wouldn't you think if they had that evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops to support their continued policies? Sometimes its what you don't hear that's more important than what you do hear. You've been around long enough to understand that.Looks like the reason they passed on the story might be that they did better fact-checking than FN did.
The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.www.snopes.com
And to use some of your own medicine.
Snopes Media Bias Rating
Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Snopes. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.
www.allsides.com
Then where's the study the says restrictions and lockdowns worked? It's easy to criticize but hard to create. Wouldn't you think if they had that evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops to support their continued policies? Sometimes its what you don't hear that's more important than what you do hear. You've been around long enough to understand that.
And to use some of your own medicine.
Snopes Media Bias Rating
Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Snopes. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.
Link inside the Snopes article --
Lockdowns saved many lives and easing them is risky, say scientists
Lockdowns imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 have saved millions of lives and easing them now carries high risks, according to two international studies published on Monday.
www.reuters.com
‘The case for masks became hugely stronger’: scientists admit their Covid mistakes
Being proved wrong lies at the heart of scientific progress. Here, experts reveal what they got wrong during the pandemic
www.theguardian.com
Interesting article , not from some ring wing site.
Science changes people , how many stories of eggs being good for you then not. You gather info put out the best info you have.
What i don't agree is relience on one person who is God like to some people. Keeping info out of public sphere to follow a agenda. Believing everyone is stupid and i will save you attitude..
From the beginning of this pandemic I have traveled never afraid , would go to unmasked states. In fact went to Grand Canyon had the park to ourselves .
I seriously can’t understand the people who are angry at Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for defying Senate masking protocols, or Youngkin for going without a mask into a mask optional supermarket, but are ok with this. Hopefully it is a very small group.
I can't support a headline with the word "lockdown", because that word itself is too imprecise.Agree - definitely anecdotal.
Are you good with this headline?
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective
A new study concluding lockdowns 'should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' was ignored by the vast majority of the liberal media.www.foxnews.com
I think of lockdown as the original "stay at home" orders. The right uses it as shorthand for all restrictions intended to limit covid-19.
The result of the ambiguity is a headline that means one thing to you and a different thing to me. ( Philosophy majors can make the obvious Wittgenstein reference here, but they are wrong. )
The general concept that NYT refuses to cover certain news? Sure. I agree completely.
But Fox is in no place to raise the accusation. It is the pot calling the kettle black.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
No argument with the first point. As to your second point above, I’m not sure the “place” to raise the accusation still exists. The best we can do is one partisan publication calling out another partisan publication.
Desert Hound
DA
Understanding data/risk.
Myself and others have said look at the data and use that.
It is worth repeating.
Some here don't understand risk, cost/benefit, etc.
Those odds can be gauged from a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, published by the Centers for Disease Control. They tracked more than 1 million vaccinated adults in America over most of last year, including the period when the Delta variant was surging, and classified victims of Covid according to risk factors such as being over 65, being immunosuppressed, or suffering from diabetes or chronic diseases of the heart, kidney, lungs, liver or brain.
The researchers report that none of the healthy people under 65 had a severe case of Covid that required treatment in an intensive-care unit. Not a single one of these nearly 700,000 people died, and the risk was miniscule for most older people, too. Among vaccinated people over 65 without an underlying medical condition, only one person died. In all, there were 36 deaths, mostly among a small minority of older people with a multitude of comorbidities: the 3 percent of the sample that had at least four risk factors. Among everyone else, a group that included elderly people with one or two chronic conditions, there were just eight deaths among more than 1.2 million people, so their risk of dying was about 1 in 150,000.
--
Those are roughly the same odds that in the course of a year you will die in a fire, or that you’ll perish by falling down stairs. Going anywhere near automobiles is a bigger risk: you’re three times more likely during a given year to be killed while riding in a car, and also three times more likely to be a pedestrian casualty. The 150,000-to-1 odds of a Covid death are even longer than the odds over your lifetime of dying in an earthquake or being killed by lightning.
--
Of course, the threat of Covid is greater for unvaccinated adults, but why should their personal decision to take that risk arouse so much angst among those who are safely vaccinated? The original argument for vaccine mandates—that they were necessary to stop the spread—is obsolete, now that it’s clear that vaccination doesn’t prevent reinfection and transmission.
--
www.city-journal.org
Myself and others have said look at the data and use that.
It is worth repeating.
Some here don't understand risk, cost/benefit, etc.
Those odds can be gauged from a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, published by the Centers for Disease Control. They tracked more than 1 million vaccinated adults in America over most of last year, including the period when the Delta variant was surging, and classified victims of Covid according to risk factors such as being over 65, being immunosuppressed, or suffering from diabetes or chronic diseases of the heart, kidney, lungs, liver or brain.
The researchers report that none of the healthy people under 65 had a severe case of Covid that required treatment in an intensive-care unit. Not a single one of these nearly 700,000 people died, and the risk was miniscule for most older people, too. Among vaccinated people over 65 without an underlying medical condition, only one person died. In all, there were 36 deaths, mostly among a small minority of older people with a multitude of comorbidities: the 3 percent of the sample that had at least four risk factors. Among everyone else, a group that included elderly people with one or two chronic conditions, there were just eight deaths among more than 1.2 million people, so their risk of dying was about 1 in 150,000.
--
Those are roughly the same odds that in the course of a year you will die in a fire, or that you’ll perish by falling down stairs. Going anywhere near automobiles is a bigger risk: you’re three times more likely during a given year to be killed while riding in a car, and also three times more likely to be a pedestrian casualty. The 150,000-to-1 odds of a Covid death are even longer than the odds over your lifetime of dying in an earthquake or being killed by lightning.
--
Of course, the threat of Covid is greater for unvaccinated adults, but why should their personal decision to take that risk arouse so much angst among those who are safely vaccinated? The original argument for vaccine mandates—that they were necessary to stop the spread—is obsolete, now that it’s clear that vaccination doesn’t prevent reinfection and transmission.
--
Understanding the Covid Odds
If you’ve been vaccinated and still feel mortally threatened by the virus, please read this.
www.city-journal.org
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
Looks like the reason they passed on the story might be that they did better fact-checking than FN did.
The viral “Johns Hopkins study” about lockdowns was not the work of Johns Hopkins University, it was not peer-reviewed, and it was not written by epidemiologists. A number of researchers have also taken issue with the methods used in this study.
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
John Hopkins does have info for you.
Hemorrhoids | Johns Hopkins Medicine
There are decent information sources on the right. Fox just isn’t one of them. The Economist could easily run a credible story on media blindspots like the one you mentioned.
I find the Fox hosts’ links to Trump even more damning than the CNN links to Cuomo. You had hosts sending private messages to Trump asking him to knock it off, at the same time they were publicly blaming it all on antifa. That’s not just a blindspot. That’s deliberately lying to your viewers.
This is Exhibit A for the left's misguided belief that children should be protecting adults. Crazy how we're living in an upside down world.
Are you staying the CNN hasn’t also deliberately lied to its Viewers?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Yes, that sucks - as do the lies CNN promoted about theories that COVID originated in a lab being debunked. They have also been running cover for Fauci's lies about gain-of-function. There have been numerous omissions of context in their reporting. That is what advocates do - not journalists. Context has been lacking from the beginning and with more data coming out it is becoming increasingly obvious that the practice of journalism is pretty much dead in real-time "reporting". CNN has consistently run cover for the lies and hypocrisies of our current leadership while endorsing the suppression of legitimate questions. Fox is on the other side of this but, like it or not, it is the only chance we have of understanding what the "other side" is thinking.
So, who gets their daily news from The Economist?
Can't prove a negative, so maybe you could provide some examples?
The Economist used to be a Bushian right leaning rag heavy on monetary policy. They've tilted pretty left recently, and leaned very heavily into globalism and elitism. I used to be a subscriber and it would be my mag of choice on airplane flights. It's become pretty unreadable now.
The same people who fly Emirates or go off on holiday to the Maldives.
The Economist is right down the middle and highly reliable (but maybe not from your viewpoint).
Interactive Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media
The Interactive Media Bias Chart offers the ability to search from among the thousands of rated web/print, TV and podcast sources.
adfontesmedia.com