Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[Mistwell]

Of course some people have no health insurance - it's covered for free even in that instance too and that's right there in the law.

Well its covered by raised taxes/debt. Its not really free. Its mandatory debt/taxes for something with not a great rate of detection.

Resources are not magic, and their mismanagement can get people killed as much as any virus (the impact is just harder to detect).

Can we just wait at this point to get something that works well enough a new quad-anual variant won't render it mostly useless? And then pay for that?

Yes I know it's paid by taxes, I said that when I first raised that issue and spoke about that part of this issue. Can we stop playing fucking games with people's context to pretend they mean something other than what they've actually said?

[Mistwell]

Of course some people have no health insurance - it's covered for free even in that instance too and that's right there in the law.

You're claiming they will change the law to comply with your world view of how it works. Which is complete nonsense. UNTIL the law is changed - and NOBODY so far has even mentioned the possibility of changing that law - your view of how it works was wrong. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you are personally attacking me and ranting nonsense about how they will magically change the law or break the law to match how you thought it already works but doesn't.

What does it take for you to admit you were wrong, other than an actual law showing you were wrong? I mean if that isn't enough, I am seriously asking what level of evidence it would take for you to admit you were mistaken?

Jen Pisaki is NOBODY?

I literally cited the president's spokesperson. You acknowledged that. You said she was wrong to say that. I also cited a clear pattern showing how the administration has constantly gone back on their word, and are continually moving the goalposts in the direction of coercion. And yet you're denying that, just like how one post back you were denying that some people lack healthcare insurance.

You're not just wrong, you're completely irrational. You're literally posting claims that completely contradict points you addressed and agreed to just a couple posts ago. You've turned into a creepy stalker obsessed with randomly insulting me, randomly making up shit about me, and above all proving me wrong, even if you have absolutely no grounds, and it's all because you flipped out when I called you out on your dishonest, bullshit tactics a few weeks ago.

Grow the the hell up.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Because if it's not, would you stop with the "I am going to bash the President as a liar when it's convenient for my belief system, and cite the President as a truth teller when it's convenient for my belief system, and ignore any evidence contrary to my belief system" nonsense?

She's lying or spinning or incorrect. WHICH IS A VERY COMMON THING FOR PRESS SECRETARIES. In any other thread about Biden's press secretary you'd agree with me she's not a reliable source of information. I've cited the law to you, you've failed to raise a single person on congress even advocating the possibility to hinting at changing the law, so where is your evidence the law will be changed aside from citing someone who in any other conversation you'd agree is unreliable as a source?

[Shrieking Banshee]

Yes I know it's paid by taxes, I said that when I first raised that issue and spoke about that part of this issue. Can we stop playing fucking games with people's context to pretend they mean something other than what they've actually said?

I could apply the same thing to your phrasing. Say 'subsidized' instead of 'free'.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Is your position that the Presidents secratary is a lying manipulator thats threatening people into forced vaccination (with a wobbly rate of effectiveness that doesn't stop sickness or transmission) by threat of extortion (instead of just the much nicer reality of putting them more in debt) for a mandetory verification system (also very unreliable), is somehow the GOOD reality?

"Threatening people is OK as long as you don't really mean it". And somehow its everybody elses fault for being antsy and on edge, and distrusting of the government and the medical establishment?

[Ghostmaker]

Yes I know it's paid by taxes, I said that when I first raised that issue and spoke about that part of this issue. Can we stop playing fucking games with people's context to pretend they mean something other than what they've actually said?

I could apply the same thing to your phrasing. Say 'subsidized' instead of 'free'.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Is your position that the Presidents secratary is a lying manipulator thats threatening people into forced vaccination (with a wobbly rate of effectiveness that doesn't stop sickness or transmission) by threat of extortion (instead of just the much nicer reality of putting them more in debt) for a mandetory verification system (also very unreliable), is somehow the GOOD reality?

"Threatening people is OK as long as you don't really mean it". And somehow its everybody elses fault for being antsy and on edge, and distrusting of the government and the medical establishment?

I'm almost tempted to unblock Misty so I don't have to get these hot takes second hand. This is downright deranged troll logic at its finest.

[Pat]

Of course some people have no health insurance - it's covered for free even in that instance too and that's right there in the law.

You're claiming they will change the law to comply with your world view of how it works. Which is complete nonsense. UNTIL the law is changed - and NOBODY so far has even mentioned the possibility of changing that law - your view of how it works was wrong. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you are personally attacking me and ranting nonsense about how they will magically change the law or break the law to match how you thought it already works but doesn't.

What does it take for you to admit you were wrong, other than an actual law showing you were wrong? I mean if that isn't enough, I am seriously asking what level of evidence it would take for you to admit you were mistaken?

Jen Pisaki is NOBODY?

I literally cited the president's spokesperson. You acknowledged that. You said she was wrong to say that. I also cited a clear pattern showing how the administration has constantly gone back on their word, and are continually moving the goalposts in the direction of coercion. And yet you're denying that, just like how one post back you were denying that some people lack healthcare insurance.

You're not just wrong, you're completely irrational. You're literally posting claims that completely contradict points you addressed and agreed to just a couple posts ago. You've turned into a creepy stalker obsessed with randomly insulting me, randomly making up shit about me, and above all proving me wrong, even if you have absolutely no grounds, and it's all because you flipped out when I called you out on your dishonest, bullshit tactics a few weeks ago.

Grow the the hell up.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Because if it's not, would you stop with the "I am going to bash the President as a liar when it's convenient for my belief system, and cite the President as a truth teller when it's convenient for my belief system, and ignore any evidence contrary to my belief system" nonsense?

She's lying or spinning or incorrect. WHICH IS A VERY COMMON THING FOR PRESS SECRETARIES. In any other thread about Biden's press secretary you'd agree with me she's not a reliable source of information. I've cited the law to you, you've failed to raise a single person on congress even advocating the possibility to hinting at changing the law, so where is your evidence the law will be changed aside from citing someone who in any other conversation you'd agree is unreliable as a source?

Let me see if I got this straight. The spokesperson for the administration said something...

... and you think it's completely unreasonable for anyone to be concerned about what she said, and that instead we should automatically dismiss it, even though what she said fits perfectly with with the administration's pattern of behavior.

Holy shit that's insane logic.

[Mistwell]

Yes I know it's paid by taxes, I said that when I first raised that issue and spoke about that part of this issue. Can we stop playing fucking games with people's context to pretend they mean something other than what they've actually said?

I could apply the same thing to your phrasing. Say 'subsidized' instead of 'free'.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Is your position that the Presidents secratary is a lying manipulator thats threatening people into forced vaccination (with a wobbly rate of effectiveness that doesn't stop sickness or transmission) by threat of extortion (instead of just the much nicer reality of putting them more in debt) for a mandetory verification system (also very unreliable), is somehow the GOOD reality?

"Threatening people is OK as long as you don't really mean it". And somehow its everybody elses fault for being antsy and on edge, and distrusting of the government and the medical establishment?

I DID say subsidized instead of free when we were discussing it earlier. Your lazy fucking ass didn't read the discussion you were jumping into and apparently didn't even see the context. Which I guess is better than intentionally misrepresenting it. I can at least identify with lazy.

Threatening people is not OK. Again, you're jumping into a conversation which you have not really read. I've responded to that aspect as well.

[Mistwell]

Of course some people have no health insurance - it's covered for free even in that instance too and that's right there in the law.

You're claiming they will change the law to comply with your world view of how it works. Which is complete nonsense. UNTIL the law is changed - and NOBODY so far has even mentioned the possibility of changing that law - your view of how it works was wrong. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you are personally attacking me and ranting nonsense about how they will magically change the law or break the law to match how you thought it already works but doesn't.

What does it take for you to admit you were wrong, other than an actual law showing you were wrong? I mean if that isn't enough, I am seriously asking what level of evidence it would take for you to admit you were mistaken?

Jen Pisaki is NOBODY?

I literally cited the president's spokesperson. You acknowledged that. You said she was wrong to say that. I also cited a clear pattern showing how the administration has constantly gone back on their word, and are continually moving the goalposts in the direction of coercion. And yet you're denying that, just like how one post back you were denying that some people lack healthcare insurance.

You're not just wrong, you're completely irrational. You're literally posting claims that completely contradict points you addressed and agreed to just a couple posts ago. You've turned into a creepy stalker obsessed with randomly insulting me, randomly making up shit about me, and above all proving me wrong, even if you have absolutely no grounds, and it's all because you flipped out when I called you out on your dishonest, bullshit tactics a few weeks ago.

Grow the the hell up.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Because if it's not, would you stop with the "I am going to bash the President as a liar when it's convenient for my belief system, and cite the President as a truth teller when it's convenient for my belief system, and ignore any evidence contrary to my belief system" nonsense?

She's lying or spinning or incorrect. WHICH IS A VERY COMMON THING FOR PRESS SECRETARIES. In any other thread about Biden's press secretary you'd agree with me she's not a reliable source of information. I've cited the law to you, you've failed to raise a single person on congress even advocating the possibility to hinting at changing the law, so where is your evidence the law will be changed aside from citing someone who in any other conversation you'd agree is unreliable as a source?

Let me see if I got this straight. The spokesperson for the administration said something...

... and you think it's completely unreasonable for anyone to be concerned about what she said, and that instead we should automatically dismiss it, even though what she said fits perfectly with with the administration's pattern of behavior.

Holy shit that's insane logic.

Oh you can "concern" all you want. But we're not addressing your personal concerns. Your concerns are fine. But it's not your concerns we were talking about, were we. If was your misstatement of fact which we were discussing. This is yet another attempt by you to weasel out of admitting you were deeply wrong on this topic, and now suddenly it's just your personal concerns you were expressing of a worry for the future? What nonsense. We can all read what you wrote earlier, and that isn't what you were saying.

[HappyDaze]

Of course some people have no health insurance - it's covered for free even in that instance too and that's right there in the law.

You're claiming they will change the law to comply with your world view of how it works. Which is complete nonsense. UNTIL the law is changed - and NOBODY so far has even mentioned the possibility of changing that law - your view of how it works was wrong. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you are personally attacking me and ranting nonsense about how they will magically change the law or break the law to match how you thought it already works but doesn't.

What does it take for you to admit you were wrong, other than an actual law showing you were wrong? I mean if that isn't enough, I am seriously asking what level of evidence it would take for you to admit you were mistaken?

Jen Pisaki is NOBODY?

I literally cited the president's spokesperson. You acknowledged that. You said she was wrong to say that. I also cited a clear pattern showing how the administration has constantly gone back on their word, and are continually moving the goalposts in the direction of coercion. And yet you're denying that, just like how one post back you were denying that some people lack healthcare insurance.

You're not just wrong, you're completely irrational. You're literally posting claims that completely contradict points you addressed and agreed to just a couple posts ago. You've turned into a creepy stalker obsessed with randomly insulting me, randomly making up shit about me, and above all proving me wrong, even if you have absolutely no grounds, and it's all because you flipped out when I called you out on your dishonest, bullshit tactics a few weeks ago.

Grow the the hell up.

Let me see if I have this straight. You think the President's press  secretary always tells the truth, never spins stuff, never lies, never leaves stuff out, and is a good source of information on the laws of our nation. Is that your position?

Because if it's not, would you stop with the "I am going to bash the President as a liar when it's convenient for my belief system, and cite the President as a truth teller when it's convenient for my belief system, and ignore any evidence contrary to my belief system" nonsense?

She's lying or spinning or incorrect. WHICH IS A VERY COMMON THING FOR PRESS SECRETARIES. In any other thread about Biden's press secretary you'd agree with me she's not a reliable source of information. I've cited the law to you, you've failed to raise a single person on congress even advocating the possibility to hinting at changing the law, so where is your evidence the law will be changed aside from citing someone who in any other conversation you'd agree is unreliable as a source?

Let me see if I got this straight. The spokesperson for the administration said something...

... and you think it's completely unreasonable for anyone to be concerned about what she said, and that instead we should automatically dismiss it, even though what she said fits perfectly with with the administration's pattern of behavior.

Holy shit that's insane logic.

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I DID say subsidized instead of free when we were discussing it earlier.

Then you changed your wording back to 'Free'. I just personally cannot stand anything being called free unless its actually free.

What I meant is that even if Pat is incorrect, him feeling threatened by the press secratary (as a reprasentative of the current establishment) I think is a pretty reasonable response. Even if the Policeman didn't end up actually breaking your legs, the fact that he keeps doing it points to a deeply untrustworthy system.

There is a massive demand for hoop jumping for rules the establishment doesn't enforce equally and are of questionable effectiveness, which gets more and more questionable with each variant and are still a massive resource sink. There is a massive amount of mixed information that points to allot of mixed factors. So people are very reasonable in not feeling confident in the proposed solutions (which have no promises to be effective for the future anyway).

I don't think the vaccine is causing COVID, but I think its by and large generally a very expensive placebo.

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

The difference is that he had a media establishment seething at his every breath to the point that what was idiotic, a genuine threat, and just made up lies or exagerations from the media became very difficult to tell for even a person that was meh on the man.

But yes, every side will play defense for their king, even if doing bad things out of fear of loosing the game.

[jhkim]

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

The difference is that he had a media establishment seething at his every breath to the point that what was idiotic, a genuine threat, and just made up lies or exagerations from the media became very difficult to tell for even a person that was meh on the man.

But yes, every side will play defense for their king, even if doing bad things out of fear of loosing the game.

While he was president, one could easily read Trump's Twitter feed directly, without any interpretation by the media. So I don't think it was difficult to distinguish media exaggerations from what he really said.

Speaking of which, does anyone have a link for the exact quote of what Jen Psaki said about people having to pay for covid tests? I tried to search for it briefly but didn't see anything that fit.

[Shasarak]

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

But what about Trump!

[Pat]

Oh you can "concern" all you want. But we're not addressing your personal concerns. Your concerns are fine. But it's not your concerns we were talking about, were we. If was your misstatement of fact which we were discussing. This is yet another attempt by you to weasel out of admitting you were deeply wrong on this topic, and now suddenly it's just your personal concerns you were expressing of a worry for the future? What nonsense. We can all read what you wrote earlier, and that isn't what you were saying.

That doesn't even make sense. Congratulations, your brain has left you for cuckooland.

Protip: If you're so desperate to prove me wrong, then find some place where I was wrong, and then point it out. Don't just put together a word salad of nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said, and then try to claim victory.

[Pat]

I DID say subsidized instead of free when we were discussing it earlier.

Then you changed your wording back to 'Free'. I just personally cannot stand anything being called free unless its actually free.

Imagine if there was truth in advertising, when it came to government agencies and bills. We'd have to drop a lot of words, like Affordable, Patriot, Care, Infrastructure, Intelligence, Welfare, and so on.

[Pat]

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

The difference is that he had a media establishment seething at his every breath to the point that what was idiotic, a genuine threat, and just made up lies or exagerations from the media became very difficult to tell for even a person that was meh on the man.

But yes, every side will play defense for their king, even if doing bad things out of fear of loosing the game.

While he was president, one could easily read Trump's Twitter feed directly, without any interpretation by the media. So I don't think it was difficult to distinguish media exaggerations from what he really said.

Speaking of which, does anyone have a link for the exact quote of what Jen Psaki said about people having to pay for covid tests? I tried to search for it briefly but didn't see anything that fit.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/melanie-arter/reporter-who-will-pay-mandatory-weekly-covid-tests-businesses

NBC news said a lot of businesses were concerned about the costs of the tests, because it was a "costly liability". Pisaki never explicitly addressed that, but instead kept replying that the vaccines were free, which is a tacit admission the tests have a cost. She then explicitly said it would "be more cost effective to require the vaccines", with the obvious implication that the tests wouldn't be free. She also answered a question about whether it would be up to the business to choose whether to "swallow those costs" with a firm "correct".

[HappyDaze]

People defending Trump often did the same when he said something idiotic and others tried to hold it against him.

The difference is that he had a media establishment seething at his every breath to the point that what was idiotic, a genuine threat, and just made up lies or exagerations from the media became very difficult to tell for even a person that was meh on the man.

But yes, every side will play defense for their king, even if doing bad things out of fear of loosing the game.

While he was president, one could easily read Trump's Twitter feed directly, without any interpretation by the media. So I don't think it was difficult to distinguish media exaggerations from what he really said.

Speaking of which, does anyone have a link for the exact quote of what Jen Psaki said about people having to pay for covid tests? I tried to search for it briefly but didn't see anything that fit.

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/melanie-arter/reporter-who-will-pay-mandatory-weekly-covid-tests-businesses

NBC news said a lot of businesses were concerned about the costs of the tests, because it was a "costly liability". Pisaki never explicitly addressed that, but instead kept replying that the vaccines were free, which is a tacit admission the tests have a cost. She then explicitly said it would "be more cost effective to require the vaccines", with the obvious implication that the tests wouldn't be free. She also answered a question about whether it would be up to the business to choose whether to "swallow those costs" with a firm "correct".

Consider that part of that cost effectiveness is going to be based on the non-clinical administrative costs. It's a lot easier (and cheaper) to mark in a proof of vaccination--even with boosters--than to schedule and record tests on a regular basis. The latter is also more likely to lead to lost work time (unless it must be done outside of normal work hours, but that can get ugly too).