Kind or ironic seeing you stand up for those guys......LOL

It's a hypothetical analogy using the same logic of the pro-freedom folks - allowing hospital corporations the "freedom" to pursue their own economic interests as their "right" in the same manner individuals cannot be compelled by government/public welfare to vaccinate themselves so that a deadly virus stops spreading.

I'm not an advocate of such a position whatsoever. Just pointing out what an extension of that logic would look like should a hospital decide to do what certain Republicans claim are the rights of individuals. Corporations are people too, correct?

A person showing up at the ED with respiratory distress and O2 in the 80s isn't going to be viewed through the same lens as an abortion.

Understood. Seeing as how this was hypothetical to begin with, my contention would be that the anti-covid-receiving hospital ED would then transfer that patient to another facility for ongoing treatment if they chose to maintain a covid-free ICU to take care of non-covid patients and to perform in-house surgeries/procedures - for profitability reasons - that have to cease when a hospital is jammed with covid infected patients.

And further, such a hospital would publicly broadcast "If you think that you have covid DO NOT COME to our ED. We do not inpatient covid cases and if you're infected, you will be transferred to another facility."

Suck fucks deny people health care. Period.

Do you understand that the inundation of non-vaccinated covid patients currently filling hospitals are denying others access to non-covid care that they need because these hospitals have to stop other services because of covid's virulence? Some people might die or suffer health complications because they can't get into an ER due to non-vaxxed covid-infected taking up all the space.

The argument is less about denying people access to healthcare, it's about making the non-vaxxed realize their own decisions are negatively affecting others outside of themselves with repercussions to others' rights and freedoms they have no right to compromise, yet here they are doing just that.

It's a person responsibility argument/discussion. There have to be consequences for bad decisions when it costs nothing but time to make the right one that protects everyone and likely causes no harm to do so.

You must have a huge plonk list.

#24 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Too lazy to check for yourself before sticking your gangrenous foot firmly down your gaping maw?

sitzkrieg, 5 plonks

tonyroma, 2 plonks

I disagree with JPW on any hospital's right to determine which services they offer to the public. It is not against the law to limit services, nor would it cost any physician his/her license. Case in point - Catholic hospitals do not offer abortions, period. A non-public hospital can decide which treatments they offer without any threat to their licenses. Deciding not to treat covid patients would seem to fall under the same category. (Again, I'm not advocating that any hospital do so, just arguing that hypothetically they should have the right to based on their own corporate personhood "freedom".)

The truth was democrats with slavery, Jim Crow, KKK and more.

And this matters, why? Don't you think everyone already knows this? Unlike siloed Republican lizard creatures like yourself, political affiliations mean nothing when the issues are ones of right versus wrong - justice versus injustice.

Grow up.

Hospitals don't give a fkcu about what party their patients belong to or which candidates they vote for. Does this really have to be explained to you?

For-profit hospitals only care about PROFITS, not politics which have no effect on their bottom lines and profitability.

Up yours Sitz. I'm making the point that such a DECISION by a for-profit hospital is NOT ABOUT POLITICS idiot.

The fact you can't discern this distinction says more about you than it does about me. What a moron.

#18-#19

This isn't about politics, it's about public health and the ability of for-profit healthcare providers to maximize their profitability as any business has the right to do.

Covid patients means less revenue from other lucrative practices/procedures that many hospitals prefer. Eliminate treatment for covid patients, maximize more profitable treatments and procedures. That equals FREEDOM, right?

I can understand this as personal FREEDOM is that last thing that lefties {i.e. Control FREAKS} believe in.

Yeah, because the base root of the word LIBERAL comes from LIBERTY which is FREEDOM itself.

You can't be more moronic than to argue that the political philosophy based on FREEDOM is in reality one about controlling the non-public actions of others.

A simple question: Just how much FREEDOM for the 616,000+ Americans (and counting) who have died from a wildly communicable disease - and the millions more now faced with lifelong health complications from having been infected - has been taken from them because others wouldn't take mitigation actions when venturing out into public that would have stopped the spreading of the disease?

And one more follow-up: Just how did our Founders think that the US Constitution would provide for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without exercising societal public safety practices making sure that one individual's freedoms would not unduly impinge upon someone else's?

Since the pandemic began, many conservatives have insisted that actions to limit the death toll - social distancing, wearing a mask and now getting vaccinated " should be matters of personal choice. Does that position make any sense?

Well, driving drunk is also a personal choice. But almost everyone understands that it's a personal choice that endangers others; 97 percent of the public considers driving while impaired by alcohol a serious problem. Why don't we have the same kind of unanimity on refusing to get vaccinated, a choice that helps perpetuate the pandemic and puts others at risk?

[I]f you go back to the roots of modern conservatism, you find people like Barry Goldwater defending the right of businesses to discriminate against Black Americans. In the name of freedom, of course. A lot, though not all, of the recent panic about "cancel culture" is about protecting the right of powerful men to mistreat women. And so on.

Why, for example, are conservatives so insistent on the right of businesses to make their own decisions, free from regulation - but quick to stop them from denying service to customers who refuse to wear masks or show proof of vaccination? Why is the autonomy of local school districts a fundamental principle - unless they want to require masks or teach America's racial history? It's all about whose privilege is being protected.

Every congressional Republican voted against the covid-19 rescue bill, which created the current child allowance by temporarily expanding the previously existing child tax credit to poorer and working-class families, making it much more like a universal program.

And every Republican will likely oppose extending the expanded child allowance. It's now set to expire next July, and Democrats hope to extend it until 2025 in the $3.5 trillion "human infrastructure" bill they want to pass through the Senate via reconciliation.

The new analysis from the Niskanen Center finds that the expanded child allowance - which has started delivering up to $300 per child per month to most U.S. households with children - will shower outsize benefits on residents of rural and less populous states and will deliver a disproportionately large relative boost to their local economies.

Niskanen finds that two of the three states that will get the most in funds are Texas and Florida (along with California) ... This gets even more interesting when you break the funding down per capita in each state. The study finds that the first nine states that will gain the most per capita from the expanded child allowance are all red states.

And, because red states tend to have lower economic output, they will receive a larger injection of funds as a share of their GDP as well ...

Though the Democrats aren't tooting their horns nearly enough to be heard over the plaintive wails of the GOP's incessant mendacity, poorer rural voters will be faced with a choice that will affect each of their lives and personal fortunes regardless - Should they vote for the party wanting to take away the money already given them by Democrats or will they for once vote in favor of their own self interests and place direct financial assistance above culture war politics and the cult worship embodied by a twice impeached ex-President and his scores of minions and enablers?

#15

Maybe certain hospitals should stop accepting non-vaccinated covid-infected patients by invoking their own business freedom to keep their other more lucrative services viable along with protecting front-line workers from the possibility of breakthrough infections from the non-vaxxed.

Vaccinated people should have the right to seek hospital treatment inside facilities free from covid- denying anti vaxxers, right? I'm sure GOP governors like DeSantis would have no problem with the vaccinated exercising their "freedom" to steer clear of the non-vaxxed, correct?

Giuliani is currently struggling under a mountain of legal fees as he attempts to fend off a major federal investigation and answer a $1.3 billion lawsuit. Trump, meanwhile, isn't pitching in a dime of the millions he has raised in his ongoing battle against a legitimate election ...

Giuliani's supporters are "aghast" that Trump isn't helping out, according to Haberman, given that many of his activities were carried out on Trump's behalf to push the former president's "Big Lie" of a rigged election.

You knew Trump was a scorpion when you let him jump on your back. Now you're stung and no one is shedding a single tear. It's called karma. Get used to its taste as you live out your remaining time on this blue marble swallowing back all the bile you vomited out yourself.

Many of my fellow white Southerners are deeply, dangerously wrong about matters of history that by now should be abundantly, self-evidently clear ... How is it even possible for a war story to be burnished to such a sheen that nothing remains of the filth and blood and deceptions, or the true reasons for that war?

Let's consider the matter of Confederate monuments. The men these statues represent - Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, among others - were traitors. They betrayed their own country because they wanted to live in a place where it was still legal for white people to own Black people.

But that isn't the history that monument supporters mean when they scream, "History, not hate." Their "history" is a myth, an imagined story of valor and honor and benevolence toward enslaved people. Ratified by friends and neighbors whose families taught them the same version of the past, the myth of the Lost Cause carries the whiff of ancient wisdom, never mind that it is wholly false.

For decades even public education here avoided the truth. More or less universally in the South of my youth, lessons about the Civil War focused on battles fought and won, not on the lives of the enslaved people over whom the country was fighting.

#11 TONYRAMA-You posted to the wrong comment.

Not at the time I posted it. RCade combined two threads which changed the post numbers. I was referring to the post directly above mine - which is now post #10.

#58

Actually, this time he is correct at least about the White House, but not from Biden's mouth himself. I went to your link and the first video says this:

#8

Both comments are septuagenarians talking about fighting another septuagenarian - ie. fully-grown, mature men reverting to adolescent boy talk.

Men should NEVER speak of unprovokedly striking an 81 year old woman under any circumstances, period. The fact that you try to claim that there is some equivalence in your exchange only underscores you too have no idea what you're talking about and completely ignore the accompanying misogyny McCarthy gave voice to - which is nowhere to be found in the other two statements.

I cannot help but recoil as if I've been slapped in the face when my ICU patient tells me they didn't get vaccinated because they "just didn't get around to it." Although such individuals do not consider themselves anti-vaxxers, their inaction itself is a decision - a decision to not protect themselves or their families, to fill a precious ICU bed, to let new variants flourish, and to endanger the health care workers and immunosuppressed people around them. Their inaction is a decision to let this pandemic continue to rage.

I have no way to comfort my rightfully outraged transplant patients who contracted COVID-19 after isolating for over a year and getting fully vaccinated as soon as they could. With angry tears, these patients tell me it's not fair that there are people who are choosing to endanger both themselves and the vulnerable people around them. They feel betrayed by their fellow citizens and they are bitter and angry. I cannot blame them.

I am at a loss to understand how anyone can look at these past months of the pandemic - more than 600,000 lives lost in the U.S. and more than 4 million worldwide - and not believe it's real or take it seriously. But the unhappy truth is that there are people who do not. They did not in the beginning and many are doubling down now.

I thought when this pandemic began that we were all in this fight together, engaged in a war against a common enemy. Now, I painfully realize: Perhaps we were never on the same side and we never had a common enemy. Perhaps the war has been among ourselves all along.

Nothing is more antithetical to personal liberty than the combo of mass debilitating sickness and death.

Sorry, in the context it was funny.

There is NO context where any threat against Nancy Pelosi is "funny".

During the Tennessee Republican Party's annual Statesman's Dinner fundraiser on Saturday evening, members of Tennessee's Republican congressional delegation handed McCarthy an oversized gavel with the words "Fire Pelosi" emblazoned on it.

After accepting the delegation's gift, McCarthy issued a quip about Pelosi by joking that it would be "hard not to hit her" with the gavel if he becomes House speaker.

"I want you to watch Nancy Pelosi hand me that gavel, it'll be hard not to hit her with it, but I will bang it down," McCarthy said.

Guess Pelosi's "He's such a moron" quip musta hit close enough to home that big bad Kevin felt compelled to say something idiotic to prove her right.

The first time she heard Houston's version of her song, she had to pull over to avoid crashing her car because she was so overwhelmed.

"I was shot so full of adrenaline and energy, I had to pull off, because I was afraid that I would wreck, so I pulled over quick as I could to listen to that whole song," Parton told Oprah Winfrey in a 2020 interview. "I could not believe how she did that. I mean, how beautiful it was that my little song had turned into that, so that was a major, major thing."

Parton purchased the 6,317-square-foot Mission-style complex in Nashville in February 1997, according to property records. David Ewing, a longtime Nashville historian, told The Washington Post that Parton's investment came when many recording artists did not look toward the Sevier Park neighborhood, now known as 12 South, to set up their businesses.

"We're just hearing now, because of the Black Lives Matter movement, how down for the cause Dolly has always been - even when others in the music industry weren't," Ewing said. "Dolly Parton could have built and bought any piece of property in Nashville. But you would have to have gone out of your way to buy in the 12 South neighborhood, because no Realtor would have shown Dolly that lot to buy."

At the time, the neighborhood was "African American funeral homes, businesses and churches," Ewing said. Now, 12 South is one of the hottest neighborhoods in Nashville, he said.

"But it really kind of all began to be put on the map when Dolly quietly invested in the area," Ewing said.

Evidently, the only thing bigger than your ...errr, talent, is your humongous loving heart.

I uploaded this yesterday.

You're welcome Tony.

I uploaded my thread yesterday around 1:30pm (check the time stamp on post #1), about 4 hours before you posted yours. When RCade moves a thread to the Front Page from the Back, THAT time starts the 48 hour Front Page clock - if a thread has enough traffic to keep from dropping off before then as newer stories are promoted to the Front Page.

My original thread was entitled "New Docs Show Trump Pushed DOJ to Say Election Corrupt" and today RCade joined yours and mine together under your title - which admittedly was better.

That's how it works around these parts. RCade always seeks to give credit to the first poster of any specific thread's information when he can, and sometimes you'll see multiple threads sharing the same base information but perhaps from different sources or with a later update.

Just an fyi, LA.

Another hot, frothy lather being whipped up.

Yeah, sedition and insurrection kinda does that to believers in US law and the Constitution.

According to the reporting, Trump spoke with the acting attorney general and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, on Dec. 27, pressing the officials on voter-fraud claims that the Justice Department already knew to be false. Donoghue reminded the then-president that the department could not help Trump change the election's outcome, but according to the lawyer's notes, the then-president said that wasn't what he was asking for.

"Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me" and to the White House's congressional allies, Donoghue wrote, summarizing Trump's response.

The then-president didn't specify which congressional allies he was referring to, but the Times' report added that during the same call, Trump referenced Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) -- who was recently rejected as a member of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack -- as well as Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

As the December discussion progressed, Trump's pitch to the Justice Department leaders grew more ridiculous. Told that federal law enforcement can only act in response to "actual evidence," Trump said "people" are blaming the Justice Department for failing to pursue far-right conspiracy theories.

Update: