Ah yes. Suicide - a simple matter of weighing the costs against the benefits and making a rational decision based on that. — Tzeentch

You're the one who finds life's rules not to your liking.

Didn't I recall you posting something about caring for others a while back? — Tzeentch

You did. I don't find you the suicidal type. I see you as a disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, young tough guy who wants to suck down all the benefits of society without having to pay for them. People like that don't commit suicide. You just need a little tough love. Go out and wander the world on your own two feet, come back and tell us what you learned.

What you describe is failed parenting. Parents who resent their children for not growing up the way they envisioned. They fail to understand that the child never asked to be theirs, and that children shouldn't be had to fulfill the parents hopes and fantasies in the first place. It is their failure. — Tzeentch

It's failed parenting to raise kids who don't contribute or want to contribute. So yeah, we can agree on that. We've not only turned out kids who want to "opt out" but they want all the benefits too. And worse yet, they want a hand in the teaching of their siblings to hate their parents demand that they contribute.

They fail to understand that the child never asked to be theirs, and that children shouldn't be had to fulfill the parents hopes and fantasies in the first place — Tzeentch

You didn't ask to be ours, so get out if you don't like it. You don't want to help out, leave. But don't expect us to pay you for our having fucked up and brought you into this life, failing to learn simple lessons of playing ball. You can only blame your parents for so long. You can't be an entitled little twit all your life.

The idea that a parent can force existence upon their child, and then present them with a list of things they expect of them holds no moral weight. It's nonsense. — Tzeentch

That is why we leave you with an option to quit. Any time you don't like our house, our rules, leave. Life is tough. We don't regret bringing you into it. We love seeing you grow and learn life's lessons. It's part of growing up. You'll see when you mature. All you need is to be punched in the face, hard, at least once. Well, maybe more than once if your head is really hard, like mine.

A parent can always reach for the belt, and force compliance - additional confirmation of their failure. — Tzeentch

No one is reaching for the belt. Leave. We only reach for the belt if you continue sucking our tit without playing by our rules.

Yes, and this option is no more tenable than telling a child to run away from home if they don't like their parents. — Tzeentch

LOL! I can't tell you how many times I ran away from home before I ran away for good at 14. Worked, hard, paid taxes, availed myself of government benefits, like Job Corps and the Marine Corps, and the G.I. Bill, continuing to work hard and pay taxes all along, got schooled, advanced degree, made a shit ton of money and guess what? I paid taxes all along. I got punched in the mouth, many times. But I also learned that not everyone can do what I did and I don't begrudge their needing help. I don't decide to not help 500 just because there might be one fraudster in there milking the system. Nor do I begrudge people who were smarter than me and didn't have to learn the hard way but who were raised to play ball and help out.

You are right that we failed as families and government so long as we have entitled little shits blaming parents for bringing them into this world and then demanding an opt out free ride. But that's okay. Life will come home, hard. Unless, of course, you are a silver spoon little bitch like Trump who never once in his entire life got punched in the mouth, hard. But dealing with dishonorable cowards and liars is also part of life. He's just doing his part. Why anyone would fall in line behind him, I'll never know. Another example of societies failure I guess. But the failure is not on those who willingly come to the rules of the house, either cognitively or intuitively. If it's their fault, then it's only because they didn't punch the bully who needed to be punched.

Also, you seem to be getting awfully personal. — Tzeentch

Your analogy, the family. I thought it was awfully paternalistic and contrary to what I perceive as your bent. But I ran with it.

Let me assure you I enjoy my time within the state's boundaries just fine for now. — Tzeentch

I bet you do. Now pay up, and quit whining about what you perceive to be the immorality of having to pay.

Healthcare is not where we administer justice. — frank

Justice has nothing to do with it. As William Mony said before he shot Little Bill in the face, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." It's about winning the war. If you don't think we are in a war, or that you are on the front line of that war, fine. Make it harder on yourself and the rest of society.

Doing that would be a path to a horrendous ethical fuckup. — frank

You just described war: A "horrendous ethical fuckup." Now tell that to the enemy and those who aid and abet. This reminds me of M.A.S.H. I'm sure Hawkeye, et al, had empathy for the enemy. They may have even had an episode that discusses exactly what we are talking about here (not just treating the enemy, because I remember that one, but prioritization). Anyway, it's just a T.V. show but I always did respect those guys and I think the script came from real life experiences in Korea.

Oh well, it would not be self discipline if you were to help me exercise it. I must extricate myself from this debate with my own shear will power. Let's see how I do. :lol:

Oh, and P.S. When you pack your bags and leave, don't take any of our shit with you and pay your tax bill before you go. Otherwise we will claw back. (speaking to all the 1% ers who try to hide in tax free havens around the world after pulling yourself up with our bootstraps)

"If you don't like it here just kill yourself" holds even less merit. — Tzeentch

BS. The suicide rate is off the charts. People do it all the time because they don't want to pay the price of life.

A citizen, just like a child, is put under an inescapable authority involuntarily. — Tzeentch

And the parents get to choose which child needs help and for how long. When a child reaches majority and doesn't want to contribute, they can get the hell out of the house. We raised you up right, you can work and pay taxes. Get to it, or get out. This is a family here and if you don't want to be a part of it, if you don't want to help your little sister, or help pay for her education, leave.

Indeed it does. — Tzeentch

So leave. No one is stopping you. Sell your shit, pack your bags and leave. Ever heard of "ex-pats"? The world is full of them. "There's a race of men that don't fit in, A race that can't stay still; So they break the hearts of kith and kin, And they roam the world at will." R. Service.

Except that citizenship isn't simply relinquished, but even then, this would only make sense if states gave individuals an option to opt out - they don't. — Tzeentch

Citizenship can be simply relinquished. Do it. Get out. States DO give individuals an option to opt out. There's the door. But if you mean by "opt out" you get to avail without paying for it, or you get to decide how much and what for, then you are in the wrong house. What states don't do is give you the right to avail for nothing, unless we find you in need of help. The only help you need is 1. empathy; 2. personal responsibility; 3. a sense of civic duty; 4. love for your family that raised you up when you were weak, taught you, made you strong enough to care for your brothers and sisters like a real man does. But you want to bail? Fine, get out.

Life nor citizenship is something the individual voluntarily participates in — Tzeentch

Bull Shit. You can kill yourself or go to Somalia or swim to Cuba or whatever.

"If you don't like it go away" makes as little sense when said by a state as it does when said by a child's parents. — Tzeentch

So you are a child and the state is your parent? That flies in the face of your freedom we honor.

One key difference is that (good) parents will support their child in gaining indepence and eventually will relinquish their authority over it. — Tzeentch

Well, if you're going to use that analogy, then, by the time you can pay taxes, leave. We relinquish authority over you. That doesn't mean you get to run wild in the mall and take what you want without paying for it. There is a world out there beyond mommy and daddy that isn't charged with taking care of you unless it chooses to do so.

ou can frame it any way you like - — Tzeentch

Great: I will frame it as a capitalist, free-market, arm's-length, voluntary transaction that is apparently the only language that you speak: If you don't want to purchase what we are selling, quit using our product. Leave. If you don't want to buy, go live in Afghanistan or Somalia. But if you live here, you will be forced, under threat of violence, to pay for what you took. Otherwise, you are thief in the candy store, trying to steal what society is providing at price set by society. Don't like our price? Tough. Go shop elsewhere or don't buy.

Don't like that we charge you more than him? Tough. Our house, our rules. He doesn't order as much, or as extravagantly as you do and he doesn't take up the space. And no, we are not going to treat you like a king just for coming into our store and honoring us with your exalted presence and your tight-wad money. In America, we tell kings to go fuck themselves. Ask Georgie boy.

You are not forced under threat of violence to go to a restaurant. — Tzeentch

You're forced under threat of violence to stay out.

I know as much about climatology as I know about epidemiology. So, I do what I always do and roll with the experts, the vast majority of which (as I understand) think you are wrong. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you are right. That still doesn't address the fact that pumping countless metric shit-tons of man-made poison into the air is not a good thing. You know, like doing the same to a river. And no, Earth doesn't run around cleaning up our mess in any realistic time frame that will protect existing biodiversity baselines.

On the other hand, actual rocket scientists thought space was too big for us to have to worry about dumping our garbage in it (after all, it dwarfs, by huge orders of magnitude, the size of Earth's atmosphere, which in turn dwarfs, by huge orders of magnitude, Earths water which dwarfs, by huge orders of magnitude, Earth land surface). And we are spending how much money now, trying to dodge that nut and bolt that was left out there, as we try to thread the needle to space? Thanks, smart people.

I guess the lesson is this: If you have a question, ask the expert. In this case, that expert is the Earth. She says we suck. She say's we are not sustainable while honoring the rest of her organisms, diversity and janitors. If the experts agree with her, then I agree with the experts. They think you are wrong.

Two Rules:

1. Never treat non-state actors like a state;
2. Never treat a non-state actor like a soldier.

:up:

When Trump first tried to misappropriate the moniker of “War Time President” he said we were at war with an invisible enemy. He was right, but the misappropriation came in his failure to fulfill his role, Warp Speed notwithstanding. Anyway, the minute he said that, a cornucopia of analogy flooded my mind, from protesters and supporters in the rear, to front line troops, to generals, and armchair generals, to pundits, legislators and the President. You can use your own imagination.

Regardless, I do liken a pandemic to a war. While one might question who they are in this scenario, and whether they view Covid as an enemy, I was lately thinking about this discussion of the prioritization of risk. So, I asked my old Combat Corpsman what the principles were that they operated under. To paraphrase, this is what he said:

I don’t recall a prioritization, but in general a corpsman takes care of his Marines first.
We are obligated to provide care to wounded enemy prisoners as well.
In the DOD during combat operations, we are obligated to triage those patients which will ensure victory in battle first.
So, we’re fighting the battle, and I’m treating a Marine who’s hopeless and who will not help us win the battle. I should leave him alone.
If treating marine will give him back in the fight, he should be my highest priority.

It’s just an analogy. But you can consider it. Who is who in this pandemic? You’d think a virus and those who aid and abet it might get short shrift. To throw all the shit back in the Republican’s face from the spin up to Iraq: “You don’t support the troops?” “You question a President in a time of war?” “Don’t spit on the troops.”

Karma, bitches.

Despite your cherry-picked press clippings, the group you describe are not one homogeneous legion. Attempts to lump everyone who disagrees with the party line in with the tinfoil hat brigade are just political. There's a convenient bunch of loonies who can be called on to besmirch any view you don't like by association. Should we do the same with climate change? Environmental issues? I could definitely rustle up some seriously dodgy hippies who are all in for those sorts of causes. Shall we make the serious climate scientists look like fools by associating them with a few tree-hugging children of Gaia? — Isaac

While I agree with your sentiment about the extremes, I think cloaking them in moderation is no better. Once you pierce the veil of high-sounding rhetoric, appeals to outside minority peers who can speak the language, start blaming subordinate proximate causes, or failures to abide subordinate recommendations, you find the extreme that will not stand the light of expert analysis.

Anyway, I've shot my wad on this subject, I have to run to town, and I cede the floor to you, Isaac. I'm sorry you won't pitch in and help you people out. (Secretly I wonder if you might not be right, in that this might all be a way to thin the herd and the vax is getting in the way. In that case, I should take a seat. It's just the "Tomorrowland" in me that keeps trying.)

Adios.

Joe Biden was pretty sure that the Afghan government would not collapse. Events like in Saigon wouldn't happen. They happened. For starters. — ssu

He was wrong. Saying that "officially saying one thing and anticipating another" makes it sound like there was an intent to deceive. This was going to be a shit show no matter what. Pick a leader you think would do better and guess what? We'd still be there.

I assume then not going to Afghanistan would have been the best Presidential leadership decision. I agree. — ssu

:100:

Only thing you would have had then are furious Americans hell bent on getting rid of the chicken-livered weasel of the President who was such a weak dick that didn't bomb the goddam terrorists that killed 3000 Americans, but only negotiated with them. What injustice!!! — ssu

:100:

Within 45 minutes of watching the second plane go in the second tower, live, I knew what was going to happen (including Iraq). It did. I talked then, as did others. But to no avail. For the reasons you state. To do what I and others recommended would have taken real leadership. Not Dick and Donny and the MIC. I tried to dig up some of the analysis but I find it strangely lacking in open source. Hmmm. I'd wax on but I have to run to town. I assume if you care, you'll ask and I'll get to it.

Maybe we (all of humanity) should drop the term "refugee" and just call them what they are and will be: "Immigrant." What % are going back, want to go back, and, finally, will the reason they left ever ameliorate?

Immigrant is a dirty word (more so than refugee) for some folks. Better to rip off the scab now instead of letting them think these people are going back. Granted, they are going to scream and pull their hair anyway, but might as well give them the bad news now and get it over with.

The anti-abortionists are trying to take ground from which they'll latter stage an invasion. It's an invasion that couldn't happen without the complicity of the women of Texas.

Vote like an idiot, pay the price. — frank

:100:

:up:

:up:

I think he just wants to punish people for being unvaccinated. — frank

Asked and answered, at least by me.

:up:

So officially saying one thing and anticipating another. But that anticipation didn't go deep enough and hence the withdrawal was chaotic. It's telling that military people or retired military people have as independent citizens tried to arrange for the evacuation of Afghans that they worked with. So marvelously was this evacuation anticipated by the administration. — ssu

I don't know about the "officially saying one thing and anticipating another." If the Biden Administration had been officially telling Americans to pop smoke since when, March, May (? one of the M months?) then that is on those Americans who didn't leave. Those military men are trying to evac Afghans, not Americans. If they were trying to evac Americans, then they are Americans that didn't abide the official word.

As to Afghans, maybe those military folks new something the Administration didn't know: Like the fact that the contractors had not spun up a force that would stand. That's the danger of contracting military jobs. Just my uninformed opinion based on what I was told by some uniforms.

Regardless, the couple of weeks of getting out the way and when we did was the best Presidential leadership in Afghanistan in 20 years.

Yes, that too. :grin:

Yeah, if there was a way to throttle a poster, limiting the number of comments and topics per day to, say, 10 and 1, then he would've been ok. — SophistiCat

That's a good idea. There is a way. It's self-discipline. For instance, I never call upon the mods or admins to ban anyone. I just ban them myself. I have quite the list:

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check;
TheMadFool, check;
Counterpunch, check;
Prishon, check;
baker, check.

As you can see, I banned Prishon already, and that was some time ago. I don't know who, if any of these people are still around because I didn't wait for the site to ban them. I just ignore them. I know people ignore me. That's cool.

I really like your idea so I may try to limit the number of comments and topics per day, to 10 and 1. That might be difficult but it also may force me to spend more time thinking about what is important to me, and then articulate it better. The difficulty will especially arise when I am asked questions. I always feel compelled to answer. That feeling itself might be a failing that self-limitation would help with.

I will take this under advisement and seriously consider it. Thank you for sharing. If I don't respond to questions, I don't intend to be rude. I may just be practicing restraint. Likewise if I seem to "fall off the radar."

Anyway, I do appreciate the presence of mods and admins, whether I agree with any specific decision or not.

Yes, you have opinions about what belongs to who, and use those opinions to justify the use of violence. — Tzeentch

Yes. And? What planet have you been living on?

what makes men a more tolerable victim of The Taliban and Islamic State than women? — Bitter Crank

Nothing, other than they have a better capacity to fight back. In the U.S. we pride ourselves on having taken control of our own destiny and, while we have some sympathy for the victims of oppression, we also expect them to fight for their rights. We even go so far as to help them. Even nation building. Even spending countless dollars and the blood of our own. Sometimes this goes un-appreciated and those we try to help just cut and run.

I can understand that. As a boy I often thought that had I been around for the Civil War I would have cut out for the wide open spaces of the American West. I could not fathom the idea of walking into a wall of fire from men entrenched and defending a position. Today, when I see people leaving Syria and now Afghanistan, I understand that too. Why stay in a shit hole of violence? But in the final analysis, if you love the land itself, sometimes you have to fight for it. If you don't, then leave and start over.

I'm not saying women can't fight, either. In hindsight we should have spun up a couple of division of Afghan Amazons full of blood-lust for Taliban religious zealots. But that ship has sailed. Besides, in looking at what we had to work with, that might have been a big ask. (I always wondered what the Taliban, et al, thought about the fact some of them had been, and they might be killed by a female American service person. I never knew a Taliban that I could ask. Hmmm.)

In the final analysis though, men are expected to fight or run or take their place among the women and children. I'm sure the Taliban will treat them accordingly.

As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.

In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.

I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person. — Tzeentch

You make the mistaken assumption that it is "their wealth" which we force them to part with under the threat of violence. We could spend time tracing ill-gotten gains and the morality of the laws and actions that allowed for wealth accumulation in the first place, or we could just discuss the morality of making people contribute to the society which allowed them, by our good graces and forbearance, to obtain the wealth they have. Yeah, let's do that.

Side note: I hope NOS and everyone else understands that when we say "beds" we mean the room that the bed goes in and all the kit doc needs to treat, including staff.

Well, hopefully they'll put a sane government together soon. — frank

:pray: I worry about the boys, girls and women. But it's out of my control.

This is a fun group. — frank

"said Masoud Andarabi, who was the Interior Minister under former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, in a Twitter post."

I would not put it past the Taliban. Then again, there will be all kinds of "news" rolling out from the former gubmn't and various parties.

Keep up. Some known suspects include allergy, blood clotting, adverse reactions in some children. — jorndoe

True. I think I just read about two men in their thirties dying shortly after getting a shot.

Of course, science must be done to determine if it was the shot, and then, apparently, we get to subtract comorbidities that might have killed them. Because, you know, in that case the shot is absolved of all culpability. Like Covid is innocent if the person was overweight, had asthma or was weak.

Sarcasm aside, I do know of two people who suffered (according to them) greatly after the shot. The first person was good with the first shot but the second shot rolled her socks for 18 hours and she thought she was going to die. The other person got the first shot, felt bad and decided to not get the second shot.

My family got the J&J, one and done. I woke up that night with the chills in a hot room and felt that way for about 15 minutes and it went away. Sore arm, but same as the flue shot. The wife had more of a go of it, and so did my son. But it was all first day and not horrible.

Anyway, there are issues with the shots. I don't see any reason not to take them though. We were warned about the side affects that we experienced and decided to help out anyway.

:100: :up:

then on down to smaller sects. — Gnomon

A long time ago I read an intel paper written by Scott Ritter. It was about the complexities of the situation in Iraq, specifically, and the region, generally. It went so much deeper than the Shiite/Sunni divide that I was ashamed of our fourth estate and the way it was simplifying everything for (what it perceived as it's stupid?) audience consumption. I guess I should not have been surprised since I used to thrive on such analysis, and I remember the White Papers and what not, but I guess that when I left off of such things I assumed there was at least a third grader at the gate.

I don't know jack shit about Buddhism but in seeking an answer to the thread title, I would ask which one is more successful at getting it's adherents to live more wisely. If you are comfortable with your understanding of wisdom and living wisely, then there is your answer. Caveat: use of the word "more" could be problematic. I'm not so sure wisdom is a "more" or "less" thing. I think a singularity has the whole package in one and one is less than more. Maybe wisdom is like that.

My exposure to Christianity has me thinking it's a huge fail. But there may be a numbers difference and, like I said, I don't know about Buddhism. There is also my idea that spirituality is one thing and religion is a completely different thing. The latter is a drag on progress, but some folks seem to love it.

If one had to choose between denying people healthcare and procuring more beds, procuring more beds is the moral option. Absent that, give healthcare anyways, on the floor if necessary. That was my only point. — NOS4A2

Good point. But you would just do "first come, first serve." At least you're consistent on that. It's not unlike the money deal.

You’ve taught me nothing — NOS4A2

That's a self-own.

to enjoy the benefits of Trump’s Operation Warpspeed, or unscrupulous actors will deny people healthcare if they don’t. — NOS4A2

But if that is your lesson, then I've succeeded. Go VAX!

Slight digression to a previous post, you know, I hate to rain on the Red Cross or Henry Durant, but is it possible that he relieved the government of some of it's responsibility to look out for the general health and welfare? By doing so, did he free up government resources to do other things like, oh, I don't know, whatever? I know Switzerland is neutral, but the Red Cross takes a lot of burden off of waring nations.

He also might have taken the heat off of some rich folks who otherwise might have been called upon to, I dont' know, pay taxes? So yeah, when an individual tries to step up, be consistent, follow his conscience, he sometimes makes things worse. I'm sure the 1% love it when individuals go around taking the heat off of them.

Henry Dunant wasn't a doctor and he started the Red Cross. — NOS4A2

Asking the individual to do a group task without a group is to ask him to work against his interests. I taught you that with the gallon of gas example. It's the same with health care. You say the moral thing would be to procure more beds. The moral thing would have been to doubled down on what Trump threw in the trash can. Why don't you go string your own power lines and build your own www so we can debate on TPF.

You know not of what you speak. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not speaking out of school. I'm not telling people they don't need to vax. Or that other comorbidities should be looked at first. I'm not pretending to be a doctor, an immunologist or Fauci. I do know of what I do speak: It's my opinion.

Grab an education, some empathy to your fellow man and come on back when you gain some grace. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've got an education, I've got empathy for my fellow man (that's why I distance, mask, vax). I don't have grace because people like you talk shit without argument. Make a case and we can argue. Until then, all I see is trolling.

Why not yourself? — NOS4A2

Because I'm not a medical doctor.

A moral and compassionate act would be to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Delegating such moral and compassionate acts to a government monopoly reeks to me of immorality and heartlessness, in my mind. — NOS4A2

So you would delegate it to who? The private for profit health care industry? Who's going to pay? Who's going to provide?

P.S. Such delegation is exactly why we have government. DOH! Who does the delegating? The people. To who? The private sector? A lot of good that does. We are back to the pay to play thing I mentioned above. Health care is four-square in the center of why human beings have government in the first place. Like national defense.

Regarding faith in the medical system, you can't procure more beds even if you have the money, when those with the money are undermining your efforts to prepare:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/

There are many other reasons that Americans don't have much faith in the medical system. It's no wonder posers are throwing shade on the experts. They are doubly frustrated: 1. By an inadequate system; 2. By their own inability to understand science that is over their head.

Italy was well known for its universal healthcare system, yet the pandemic proved its flimsiness, with its hospitals unable to provide the basics. Most countries with such systems had to lock down society just to keep them afloat. — NOS4A2

I guess they didn't do the moral thing, as you suggested, and procure more beds.

Hey, I have an idea that is moral: Let's make it a pay to play system. You know, if you have money, you get treated. The more money, the better the treatment. If you don't have enough, we just shuttle you out into the street.

Of course, there is a down side. Who's going to do all the essential services for the remaining rich people? Will they have to pick their own fruit? Heaven forbid!

Beds? It seems to me a moral person would procure more beds before denying people healthcare. — NOS4A2

:100: :up: It seems to me a moral person would champion universal, single payor health care for 8 billion people and then calculate how much kit and how many health care workers would be required to respond to a pandemic that makes covid look like an inconvenient pimple. Then spin that up. But there are too many immoral people in the world that would object to that. They did not plan ahead for Covid, they trashed the contingency plans that were being worked on, and they throw shade on all the ideas of the moral people.

Why would you discriminate against the unvaccinated and vaccinated, when only the infected pose a risk? — NOS4A2

I would not discriminate against the vaccinated. As to the unvaccinated: beds.

Now it seems you are separating the state department and the Biden administration. — ssu

No, no, no, I agree they are part of the Biden Administration.

So, should we similarly thank the Taliban for the minimum casualties for overtaking the country? — ssu

I think we kind of did. We left them with a metric shit ton of kit.

In an ideal world, we tell them "Yeah, we went about this all wrong. But you have to admit you suffered WAY more than we did. But that was not our intent, either. We promise that if any non-state actors launch an assault on us from your borders in the future, we will not respond the way we did. As the shining example of state sovereignty that you are, we will just expect you to track them down and unconditionally turn them over to the U.N. Of course, if you don't want to do that, then you don't have to. And don't worry, we won't respond in the same way we responded last time. It will be different. Anyway, all the best in your future effort at adulting. Let us know if your kids won't mind. We'll give you some parenting tips. But please, try to keep them in your yard."

Do you believe hospitals should deny people healthcare because they are unvaccinated? — NOS4A2

It depends.

How many beds do I have and do I have room for a vaxxed person who might come in for some other reason, up to and including being too fat, having a heart attack, asthma, etc.

Why did you not get a vax? If you did not get a vax because it was not FDA-approved, do you want me to try and save your life with other drugs that are not FDA-approved?

Should I call Tucker Carlson or Isaac for their expert advice?

My answer to the original question could very well be "yes." And it's too early to determine whether or not that answer would put me on the wrong side of history. It does, however, seem that I am irrelevant. For now. I sincerely hope it stays that way.