Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One thought on J&J clots is the needle injecting into a vein or artery rather than in muscle.  

 

This can be avoided by the injection technique: drawing back the needle after sticking it in.  If blood is seen then it is in a larger vessel so do not inject there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike said:

What I am really worried about is using an experimental drug and having side effects.  I'm not so sure my insurance company covers health conditions caused by experimental/unapproved vaccines. 

Yeah, health conditions and side effects. Side effects like death.

I agree there is a threat to our health from this bug, and we must do whatever it takes to beat it.

But I'm not willing to be a guinea pig for the greater good.

 

Color me, "at the end of the line, and wearing a mask."

Masks don't have side effects.

Edited by Racer X
Wear your mask everyone!
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 240260280 said:

This can be avoided by the injection technique: drawing back the needle after sticking it in.  If blood is seen then it is in a larger vessel so do not inject there!

That just sounds like torture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Racer X said:

That just sounds like torture.

I know some folks that would argue quiet the opposite. LOL

In fact they say "touchdown Alabama" when they pull back that blood. ROFL

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's horrible I know but that's life. You're lucky if you get to say that before popping the big wheelie. Oh that's bad! I'll burn in hell for sure.

The sorry arse senators sit back and do nothing but talk. We know who they are to.

Edited by siteunseen
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, siteunseen said:

That's news to me.

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:

 

media bias 7.0.jpg

 

If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,

Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.

Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.

There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.

Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum.  LOL

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Captain Obvious said:

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:

 

media bias 7.0.jpg

 

If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,

Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.

Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.

There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.

Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum.  LOL

Hmmm . . . . Would have figured FOX to be lower and further to the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:
 
2087161021_mediabias7.0.jpg.a0061518b9de26e1c4d44d6956c65eb8.jpg
 
If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,
Problem is, once you're mired into either of those two ends, part of the conspiracy and paranoia is designed to to keep you there. And that's probably what everyone mired down into either of the two ends would say about that media bias chart. They probably think the chart itself is unreliable. Kinda like the mental patient who is paranoid and thinks the doctors are trying to get him  so he hides his meds instead of taking them.
Maybe I'm just sheeple, but I want to stick towards the top tier of reliability. You can tend towards one side or the other within that top tier to find your own personal political leaning, but once you start to wander too far out of that top tier, the information, even if "technically accurate", is interpreted and presented in an incredibly misleading way.
There's a reason entities like the WSJ, Reuters, CBS, New York Times have been around for so long and have a reputation for being reliable.
Down at the bottom of the chart, you;d be better off getting your news from The National Enquirer. It's fake news, but at least it appears to be pretty close to the middle of the political spectrum.  default_laugh.png


Interestingly when Norm Chomsky was asked about what outlet is best for accuracy he stated that they all have their limits but he liked AP, WSJ, NYT and AlJazeera for accurate reporting.

Again not many are aware that Al Jazeera was originally set up by disgruntled BBC journalists who wanted to accurately report without the constraints laid upon them by the beeb. But now they are constrained by the Qatar government so even their reporting has certain no go zones!


Hmmm . . . . Would have figured FOX to be lower and further to the right.



Me too, but are we also blurring the boundaries between Fox & Friends and Fox News? I don’t really watch them but I figured Fox News is a little less biased. Didn’t Fox acknowledge that Fox & Friends wasn’t real news and was supposed to be classified more as entertainment?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AK260 said:

 

Me too, but are we also blurring the boundaries between Fox & Friends and Fox News? I don’t really watch them but I figured Fox News is a little less biased. Didn’t Fox acknowledge that Fox & Friends wasn’t real news and was supposed to be classified more as entertainment?

 

In the US Fox News is about as far right as it can get. It is biased so far, and disseminates such inaccurate drivel that I refuse to watch it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 The problem with the real news is the "Official Story" the Gov. doles out to our trusted news sources. Most of it is probably true, as far as it goes, but it's what they're not sharing with us that is the real news. The "Powers That Be" (pick your favorites) do control the news, real and fake and as history has shown, the real and fake news often came from the same sources. A lie by omission, is still a lie. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
 The problem with the real news is the "Official Story" the Gov. doles out to our trusted news sources. Most of it is probably true, as far as it goes, but it's what they're not sharing with us that is the real news. The "Powers That Be" (pick your favorites) do control the news, real and fake and as history has shown, the real and fake news often came from the same sources. A lie by omission, is still a lie. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
 


Spot on! In some respects journalists have become lazy in checking the veracity of the official blurb as distinct from the usual regurgitation.

The first casualty of war is the truth! cant recall who said that now but I believe it was an American politician.

What I’ve learned to do is to stop myself being outraged at the stupidity of news and stop looking at what is being said as opposed to “why” it’s being said.

If The Donald taught us anything, it was that by filling the mainstream media’s time with reporting outrageous things, they aren’t looking at what else is happening in the background that should have merited their scrutiny!

Case in point, his outrageous tweets about the murder of Jamal Kashoggi was a distraction to keep journalists busy and their eyes away from looking into / focusing Ivanka sending messages and conducting government business on here private email. He even admitted as much later on.


What is it he used to say? Lock her ....



  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just avoid the mainstream and extreme news. I don't Facebook, another fountain of misinformation, a waste of time.

I find it better to immerse myself in my passions, my work, my home, Mrs. Racer, my cars, places like this community.

Makes it easier to sleep at night when one isn't stressed out about the idiocracy that is in charge.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good news sources out there.  I sample from CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, the Denver Post and the local paper.  I often refer to stories in the NY Times and other major papers. 

Our Fox affiliate in Denver is OK on their local news coverage. Their national coverage is tilted a bit but that's hardly surprising.  It's the Fox commentary and feature shows that are from right of the Genghis Khan.

One thing that people have problems with is an authority like Fauci who changes his wording or interpretation over time. But if you're a scientist and responding to new and changing information, you have to change your story sometimes. Science is NOT one position that doesn't change; it's a best interpretation of observable conditions, and as you gain more information and observe conditions over a longer period of time, it's almost inevitable that your interpretation and recommendations will change. I've been talking with faculty at three major universities about controversial topics in science for more than 40 years, and I also have a PhD.  As long as scientists give me a clue as to why their position has evolved or changed, I'm usually comfortable with those changes. I'm very comfortable with the arc of comments and directions from Tony Fauci.  

A fixed position that never changes relative to something like a pandemic is probably either a political stance, sheer stubbornness, or someone with a commercial or personal interest in not changing.  Science changes its story over time; sometimes in very subtle ways, sometimes in substantial ones.  

I think this will be my last post in this thread. There's a rather surprising level of distrust and denial in some of it.  

Edited by Pilgrim
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 "News" programs are TV shows, funded by commercial interests, designed to get people to buy things.  Whatever keeps the consumer amped up and buying is what the producers want.  

CO's post was a good one, but, of course, you have to ask who put the plot together.  Another group selling news.  Question everything.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 7:41 AM, Captain Obvious said:

Pretty much everything these days depends on where you get your news. Here's my guide:

 

media bias 7.0.jpg

 

If you think your reliable news comes from something down in the lower left like "Occupy Democrats", then I think you're off in the weeds of unreliable and untrustworthy. And same thing, if your news comes from something untrustworthy way down in the lower right like "Epoch Times", then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your news sources,

 

Someone sent me this chart.  I think it's perfect.

Good Morning.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 6:03 PM, Racer X said:

Masks don't have side effects.

Other than breathing in carbon dioxide all day, what could go wrong?  😛 

I also find it funny when people drive their cars, by themselves, while wearing a mask.  I mean, c'mon people.  There are times when it's good to wear a mask, I agree.  But sometimes I just shake my head.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike said:

Other than breathing in carbon dioxide all day, what could go wrong?  😛 

How is it I'm breathing in CO2 wearing a cloth mask? The air we breathe in and out passes quite freely. Any exhaled CO2 that might linger in the fabric will be very small compared to the volume we respirate with each breath.  Shouldn't be any different than wearing a respirator all day like a painter.

I have to wear a mask at all times at The Big Shed, 8, 9, 10 hours a day, since last March year. Haven't noticed any ill effects.

The only issue I have noticed is the wearing of a face covering all day is annoying.

Quote

I also find it funny when people drive their cars, by themselves, while wearing a mask.  I mean, c'mon people.  There are times when it's good to wear a mask, I agree.  But sometimes I just shake my head.

Makes me shake my head. Windows rolled up. All alone. Who are they protecting?

In my personal space I never mask up. Car, home, outside away from people. The car is my refuge each day at end of shift.

 

I prefer a cloth mask, and it must be clean each day, so I have quite q few now. It started with a few off of eBay, 7 or 8, now I have about 30.

All wash 'n' wear. Once a month I toss them all in the sink with warm soapy water, wash them up, and lay them out to dry.

Hot tip: Don't use fabric softener or scented detergent. You won't like that "spring fresh scent" after about, um, 5 minutes.

 

 

Edited by Racer X
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Washington state is seeing an increase in cases.  The restaurants are allowed 50% capacity indoors.  I met some relatives over the weekend and made us all leave to find outdoor seating.  I think that "capacity" is set by the fire marshal and means how many people can you pack in to a space.  A lot.  50% is still a lot.  It felt crowded and everybody takes their mask off as soon as they sit down.  I felt dumb as soon as I walked in.

There's a certain county that might be contributing more to the state numbers.  Lots of flags there.

 

image.png

image.png

Edited by Zed Head
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one of those horizontal spinner machines and find that I can just throw about 20 masks in and wash on gentle cycle.  The spin gets them pretty dry, then hang them up.  Got some hypoallergenic non-scented detergent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada is having problems.  It's weird how the US media just ignores what's happening up there.  I only became aware because I came across a Canadian radio station while driving.

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

 It felt crowded and everybody takes their mask off as soon as they sit down.  I felt dumb as soon as I walked in.

 

 

 

 

We drove the grandson's car to North Carolina and flew back recently. All the way down every place we went in to eat it was like that. Of course we only dined in at two places, breakfast at Big Springs, Nebraska, Saturday morning, and dinner at Fawcett, Missouri. 

It felt dumb.

At Fayetteville we ate out 3 times, once at a Sushi place, then lunch and dinner at a Caribbean place next to the hotel. All 3 times the places weren't very busy, and we pretty much had the place to ourselves. The owner of the Caribbean place talked our ear off both times, none of us wearing masks.

Again, a dumb feeling.

On the flights back everyone has to have masks, or face federal penalties, so everyone was masked up all the time. When we changed planes at Dallas/Fort Worth, had time to eat and it was lunchtime. We had a burger and a beer at TGI Fridays. As soon as people sat down most immediately unmasked. This place was packed. None of that pesky 50% stuff, and no threat of time at Leavenworth if you didn't have it on.

That felt even more dumb. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.