Forced vaccinations

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Guru
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 966 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Forced vaccinations

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Scholar
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #21

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:52 am I never speak about right and wrong in an objective sense. This matter is subjective or even relative, given the goals. If the goal is to prevent covid-19 transmission and deaths, then getting vaccinated is obviously the best option. While I'm not against the government requiring people to do things, esp. when it's to avoid harm, but I am against harsh consequences. Making people lose their livelihoods will create its own problem because then the unemployed won't have the income to cover for food and a place to stay. Sure, they can go get a minimum wage job, but that might not always be feasible if their standard of living revolved around the job previously held.

I'd only be for vaccine mandates if we consider the consequences. You don't want the unvaccinated population increasing the spread of the virus, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that we should let that population starve either.
That's a reasonable position. Does the health and safety of everyone else override one's personal freedom? The answer is complicated, because it's a balance. If one tests frequently, stays away from public gatherings, or otherwise assures that one will not be a threat to anyone, it seems perverse to insist that person be vaccinated against her will.

It would be like a guy who drinks himself into an intoxicated state in his own house, and never bothers anyone. Seems to me that so long as he behaves himself and doesn't drive on the public roads in that condition, it's his own business.

And I suppose that there are people who want everyone vaccinated, only because they want the power to force them, just as there are people who want to be unvaccinated, so that they can flaunt their freedom by endangering everyone else. There's a rational way through this, but rational people don't get most of the air time, most of the time.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 17815
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 798 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #22

Post by JoeyKnothead »

What I find most disturbing about this whole deal, is there's talk of "forced" vaccinations.

Get the dang shot y'all!

If forced vaccinations're wrong, what about forced infecting of others?

In all this fussing, in all them youtubes and twitters, and all them blogs, and all them talking heads, I ain't seen nor heard me not the first one of em upset cause they didn't get the opportunity to enjoy em the measles, the mumps, nor the rubella.

It's all just political stunts and a pride in ignorance. Had Trump not feared damage to his fragile ego / image, we wouldn't be ahaving this conversation. Instead, he thought it'd make him look bad, lessening his chance at a second term, and now here we are. Hundreds of thousands dead because of politics and ignorance.

The turnip don't fall far from the patch. Only here, that turnip can infect the whole danged farm.
Some theists want to define your beliefs for you.

Not unlike the Taliban, or ISIS, who seek to control your beliefs as well.

A- non
Theist- belief in the existence of a god or gods

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #23

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:52 am That's what it does. In fact, it shows that such mandates are constitutional and override state rules. Notice that airlines and cruise lines have informed Gov. Ron in Florida that his decree against them has no legal basis. And he shut up about banning vaccine mandates for them.
The 10th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

With this in view, we should ask firstly: Does the power to issue a nationwide vaccine mandate which applies to all U.S. citizens rest with the federal government? To answer this, we look to judicial precedent. When we do so, we find that there is no historical example of the federal government issuing a nationwide vaccine mandate which applies to the general population broadly. Instead, we see that in every case where a vaccine mandate has been applied (to the general public specifically), such mandates are imposed exclusively at the state level.

Since the constitutions does not prohibit states from issuing a vaccine mandate (as historical precedent clearly shows) and since the constitution does not specifically delegate this power to the U.S. federal government, it follows that (per the 10th amendment) such power is reserved to the states respectively, or the people.
So in the case of our current mandate, we can say, quite reasonably, that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds by exercising power which is, and ought to be, reserved to the states/people. This remains true irrespective of whether air lines and cruise lines (whose profits conveniently depend, in no small part, upon compliance with foreign vaccine regulations) would agree.

It also bears mentioning that several lawsuits have been filed against the Biden administration which directly challenge the legality/constitutionality of our present mandate. If the airlines and cruise lines were so obviously correct, we really shouldn't expect to see these lawsuits...but we do see them. Hence, the legality of the mandate is still very much an open question.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:54 pm
In any case, constitutional permissibility does not, in itself, demonstrate that a given law is de facto moral
All that's necessary is that they are legal.
I presume you don’t actually believe this. Otherwise you would also need to maintain that Jim Crow laws were appropriate in their time merely on the grounds that they were legal.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Actually, many vaccines are mandated, and have been for many years. Perfectly legal. It's probably true that if politically-obsessed people didn't make such an issue of endangering others by refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, there wouldn't be so much effort to issue mandates.
None that were federally issued, which apply to all U.S. citizens, and which necessitate discriminatory job loss/adverse employment conditions as punishment for non-compliance.

In any case, the question of legality is largely a red herring. The true question at hand is whether it is morally right for the federal government to strong arm private businesses into holding the American people’s ability to provide for themselves and their children hostage so as to coerce Americans into sharing privileged medical information with those who are not entitled to it, and undergo a medical procedure they would not otherwise consent to?

As an ancillary question, it's worth asking: Do we really want to live in a country where (in the name of “public safety”) the federal government can sidestep state authority and weaponize private business in order enforce policy? Do we truly wish to reside in a nation, where the federal government and corporate entities are made the supreme arbiters of medical ethics? Do we wish to solidify a precedent which allows for the government to take whatever steps it deems appropriate (up to severely undermining, if not eliminating, one’s capacity to earn a sufficient living) all in the name of “Health and safety”? One need only look to Australia and its draconian COVID measures in order to see where such precedent can lead. I assure you, this not a road we should willingly traverse as a nation of purportedly free peoples. We can, and really must, find a better way to manage the current crisis.

That said, even if one finds the standard appeals to liberty uncompelling, the havoc this mandate will enact upon the nation, in purely pragmatic terms, should be enough to give any of us pause. Our supply chain, for example, is already reeling from a variety of adverse factors. If a sizeable portion of supply chain workforce refuses to comply with the mandate (as many in the trucking community have assured will happen) then the down stream effects could be devastating for us all. In fact, the government has been advised by several lobbyists this week to delay the mandate until after the new year for precisely this reason. Couple this with sizeable losses in the fields of healthcare, law enforcement, construction, and transit and a dire picture begins to come into focus. As I say, we need to find a better path forward. Even if we can agree that vaccination is generally a good thing (which is a position I myself hold), the mandate as it exists today will invariably produce more harm than good and should therefore be rejected on these grounds specifically.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
"Ergo, if you're worried about being killed by a drunk driver, just wear your seat belt. In doing so, you can expect a reasonable degree of protection irrespective of whether your neighbor has selected to drive while drunk."
I’ll repeat again, your analogy is flawed:

1. Unlike drunk drivers, unvaccinated individuals do not possess an equal capacity to pose harm (i.e. many among the unvaccinated have acquired some level of immunity due to prior exposure). Even if a drunk driver happens to never collide with another driver, this would be the product largely of fortuitous circumstance. We could never say with any real degree of confidence that our lucky drunk driver possessed an innately reduced risk of collision (simply because they never happened to collide with anyone). However, in the case of the unvaccinated individual with natural immunity, we have a clear and (in principle) measurable mechanism which inherently reduces their risk to pose harm (i.e. immunity). It should be obvious, therefore that the lucky drunk driver, is not analogous to the unvaccinated individual with immunity. The former’s capacity to pose harm is the product of vague and largely unmeasurable factors relating to chance and circumstance. The latter’s capacity to pose harm is directly curtailed by a known biological mechanism which is clearly measurable.

2. Unlike drunk drivers, the unvaccinated do not pose an analogous risk of collateral damage to personal/public property.

3. Unlike seatbelts, vaccines are considerably more intrusive as they do carry inherent risk of adverse side effects. In other words, one who is coerced to comply with a COVID vaccine mandate assumes at least some level of personal (non-negligible) risk which simply is not present in the case of a seatbelt mandate.

4. Unlike seatbelts, vaccines can, in principle, be traced back to developmental practices which form legitimate ethical concerns for those of particular religious persuasions (e.g. the use of aborted fetal cell lines).

5. Unlike seatbelt mandates, our present vaccine mandate (as it is currently written and implemented) poses a sizable risk to our nation’s supply chain, healthcare, law enforcement, transit, and civil engineering infrastructures.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
Not necessarily. For example, a recent study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology suggest that across 68 countries, and 2947 counties in the United States, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases…Thus suggesting that the “concept” is not, perhaps, as cut and dry as you’ve suggested.

Source: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 0808-7.pdf

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Which, I suppose, is why the flu vaccine is not mandated, while more effective vaccines like COVID-19 or diptheria are mandated.
I’m not aware of a nationwide, federally imposed and employer driven, mandate which requires vaccination of diptheria (or any other disease) as a condition for general employment.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Scholar
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #24

Post by The Barbarian »

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:41 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:52 am That's what it does. In fact, it shows that such mandates are constitutional and override state rules. Notice that airlines and cruise lines have informed Gov. Ron in Florida that his decree against them has no legal basis. And he shut up about banning vaccine mandates for them.
The 10th amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
You're missing something here...

Powers of the Federal Government:
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

With this in view, we should ask firstly: Does the power to issue a nationwide vaccine mandate which applies to all U.S. citizens rest with the federal government?
Yes, on federal property, federal employees or military personnel, and anything involved in interstate commerce. So the courts have ruled. Hence, states could have or not have vaccine mandates, as they chose, subject only to those constitutional restrictions. Which is why the airlines and cruise lines got away with telling Gov. Ron to stuff it.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:54 pm
In any case, constitutional permissibility does not, in itself, demonstrate that a given law is de facto moral
All that's necessary is that they are legal.
I presume you don’t actually believe this. Otherwise you would also need to maintain that Jim Crow laws were appropriate in their time merely on the grounds that they were legal.
Turns out, they weren't legal. "Separate but equal"violates the Constitution. That's why a federal court was able to overturn it; violated the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
In any case, the question of legality is largely a red herring.
Not as far as the law is concerned. The standard is the law, not someone's morality.

"Ergo, if you're worried about being killed by a drunk driver, just wear your seat belt. In doing so, you can expect a reasonable degree of protection irrespective of whether your neighbor has selected to drive while drunk."
I’ll repeat again, your analogy is flawed:
1. Unlike drunk drivers, unvaccinated individuals do not possess an equal capacity to pose harm (i.e. many among the unvaccinated have acquired some level of immunity due to prior exposure).
"Like unvaccinated individuals, drunk drivers do not possess an equal capacity to pose harm (i.e. they may be more skillful at drunk driving, other drivers may be more alert for dangerous behavior of other drivers, and not everyone travels much by auto)."
Even if a drunk driver happens to never collide with another driver, this would be the product largely of fortuitous circumstance.

"Even if an unvaccinated person happens to never infect another person, this would be the product largely of fortuitous circumstance."



We could never say with any real degree of confidence that our lucky drunk driver possessed an innately reduced risk of collision (simply because they never happened to collide with anyone).

"We could never say with any real degree of confidence that our lucky unvaccinated person possessed an innately reduced risk of infection (simply because they never happened to infect anyone."
However, in the case of the unvaccinated individual with natural immunity, we have a clear and (in principle) measurable mechanism which inherently reduces their risk to pose harm (i.e. immunity).
"However, in the case of the skillful drunk driver, we have a clear and (in principle) measurable mechanism which inherently reduces their risk to pose harm (i.e. measurably better driving performance). It should be obvious, therefore that the lucky unvaccinated person, is analogous to the skillful drunk driver."
The former’s capacity to pose harm is the product of vague and largely unmeasurable factors relating to chance and circumstance. The latter’s capacity to pose harm is directly curtailed by a known biological mechanism which is clearly measurable.
"The former’s capacity to pose harm is the product of vague and largely unmeasurable factors relating to chance and circumstance. The latter’s capacity to pose harm is directly curtailed by a known physical abilities and known behaviors which are clearly measurable."
2. Unlike drunk drivers, the unvaccinated do not pose an analogous risk of collateral damage to personal/public property.

"Since drunk driving is not contagious, unlike unvaccinated persons, drunk drivers do not present a hazard to people with whom they do not come in contact."

3. Unlike seatbelts, vaccines are considerably more intrusive as they do carry inherent risk of adverse side effects.


"Unlike vaccines, seat belts can cause injuries in accidents that would not otherwise happen. And they can trap people in cars, in some circumstances."

In other words, one who is coerced to comply with a COVID vaccine mandate assumes at least some level of personal (non-negligible) risk which simply is not present in the case of a seatbelt mandate.
"in other words, one who is coerced to comply with a seat belt mandate assumes at least some level of personal (non-negligible) risk which simply is not present in the case of a vaccine mandate."
4. Unlike seatbelts, vaccines can, in principle, be traced back to developmental practices which form legitimate ethical concerns for those of particular religious persuasions (e.g. the use of aborted fetal cell lines).
"4. Unlike vaccines, seatbelts can, in principle, be traced back to developmental practices which form legitimate ethical concerns for those of particular religious persuasions (e.g. the use of cadavers in crash testing). "

5. Unlike seatbelt mandates, our present vaccine mandate (as it is currently written and implemented) poses a sizable risk to our nation’s supply chain, healthcare, law enforcement, transit, and civil engineering infrastructures.
"5. Unlike vaccine mandates, our present seatbelt mandate (as it is currently written and implemented) poses a sizable risk to our nation’s supply chain, healthcare, law enforcement, transit, and civil engineering infrastructures."
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
Not necessarily.
Absolutely so. Vaccinated people are much, much less likely to even harbor the virus than unvaccinated people. That being so, the likelihood of passing on the virus is intrinsically lower for vaccinated people than for unvaccinated people.
For example, a recent study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology suggest that across 68 countries, and 2947 counties in the United States, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases
This doesn't measure what you'd like it to measure. For example, rural counties were initially not much affected by the virus. Later on, it got to these counties, and even though vaccination rates rose, so did infections. For the obvious reasons. Nevertheless, it remains true that someone who does not harbor the virus will not spread it to others. The “concept” is not as cut and dry as you’ve suggested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8305789/

(note that COVID-19 vaccines are much more effective than influenza vaccines)

Which, I suppose, is why the flu vaccine is not mandated, while more effective vaccines like COVID-19 or diptheria are mandated.
I’m not aware of a nationwide, federally imposed and employer driven, mandate which requires vaccination of diptheria (or any other disease) as a condition for general employment.
Other than the instances I pointed out, there isn't such a mandate at this time. Anything in interstate commerce, or involving federal agencies or properties would be covered in such a mandate.

The SCOTUS has not ruled on a general federal mandate.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 450 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:41 pmUnlike drunk drivers, the unvaccinated do not pose an analogous risk of collateral damage to personal/public property.
Not nearly analogous, no. But I do wonder if, once we've established the principle that this risks me, therefore you cannot do it, we then have to imply it to all risks, no matter how slight.

One thing that makes this qualitatively and not just quantitatively different is that there is no arguable risk to the individual from asking him to drive sober. However, people are being asked to assume some risk to themselves (a very, very tiny one) simply to prevent them risking others (they say, by a larger amount, but this is debatable).

I want to say people have a right to be selfish here, because the alternative is that, if we go by this principle, if we apply it fairly, bubble boys can force everyone else into bubbles so they can walk free. They're vulnerable, but the obligation is on me not to risk them.

However, people who all want to be unselfish and do the right thing certainly have a right to isolate and live in communities where people without vaccines aren't allowed.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #26

Post by William »

As I read things, lockdowns were the first step, in order to try an contain. Some regarded this as infringing upon freedom, but exactly what is meant by 'freedom' is unclear although it seems to be the freedom to continue having the freedom one has always had.

The idea behind lockdowns is to try to contain the spread of the virus.

The spread of the virus threatens the economy, which is essentially where the freedom is gained - healthy economy - semblance of freedom, so keep the economy healthy.

However, a healthy economy means people are out and about working and shopping [moving] and so lockdowns [stationary] only provide a temporary device in order to try and contain a virus.

If lockdowns to not contain and help eradicate virus, then vaccinations are prioritized.

Therefore, those who refuse vaccinations are acting against the health of the economy and thus are a threat to the relative freedom a healthy economy grants 'the people'.

Those who try to resist end up either dying of the virus or are shown to be against a healthy economy - the very thing which gave them the freedom they insist on wanting in the first place, so either way they are not helping themselves or anyone else by resisting.

If the vaccinations work, then the economy can begin to regain the health it once had and restore the freedoms associated with that.

However...

...there is also the issue of Climate Change which is still ongoing even that it is not so much in the spotlight while the virus has center stage as the immediate threat to the economy.

Whoever is left standing once the virus is under control, will be better positioned to go along with the conditions which will be put into place as efforts to bring the climate under control are made, because - like the virus, the climate is also threatening the economy and therefore people will have to accept that their freedom of movement will be restricted and more lockdowns etc enforced.

As the saying goes - "all is fair in love and war" and whatever threatens the health of the economy is 'the enemy' whether it is a virus, terrorists, or climate change...because all of these things threaten freedom of movement...

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 17815
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 798 times
Been thanked: 593 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #27

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:59 pm As I read things, lockdowns were the first step, in order to try an contain. Some regarded this as infringing upon freedom, but exactly what is meant by 'freedom' is unclear although it seems to be the freedom to continue having the freedom one has always had.

The idea behind lockdowns is to try to contain the spread of the virus.

The spread of the virus threatens the economy, which is essentially where the freedom is gained - healthy economy - semblance of freedom, so keep the economy healthy.

However, a healthy economy means people are out and about working and shopping [moving] and so lockdowns [stationary] only provide a temporary device in order to try and contain a virus.

If lockdowns to not contain and help eradicate virus, then vaccinations are prioritized.

Therefore, those who refuse vaccinations are acting against the health of the economy and thus are a threat to the relative freedom a healthy economy grants 'the people'.

Those who try to resist end up either dying of the virus or are shown to be against a healthy economy - the very thing which gave them the freedom they insist on wanting in the first place, so either way they are not helping themselves or anyone else by resisting.

If the vaccinations work, then the economy can begin to regain the health it once had and restore the freedoms associated with that.

However...

...there is also the issue of Climate Change which is still ongoing even that it is not so much in the spotlight while the virus has center stage as the immediate threat to the economy.

Whoever is left standing once the virus is under control, will be better positioned to go along with the conditions which will be put into place as efforts to bring the climate under control are made, because - like the virus, the climate is also threatening the economy and therefore people will have to accept that their freedom of movement will be restricted and more lockdowns etc enforced.

As the saying goes - "all is fair in love and war" and whatever threatens the health of the economy is 'the enemy' whether it is a virus, terrorists, or climate change...because all of these things threaten freedom of movement...
Very well said.

I note the close association of them that deny climate change, them that deny covid's a problem, and that whole "masks ain't freedom" bunch.
Some theists want to define your beliefs for you.

Not unlike the Taliban, or ISIS, who seek to control your beliefs as well.

A- non
Theist- belief in the existence of a god or gods

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #28

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:11 am
William wrote: Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:59 pm As I read things, lockdowns were the first step, in order to try an contain. Some regarded this as infringing upon freedom, but exactly what is meant by 'freedom' is unclear although it seems to be the freedom to continue having the freedom one has always had.

The idea behind lockdowns is to try to contain the spread of the virus.

The spread of the virus threatens the economy, which is essentially where the freedom is gained - healthy economy - semblance of freedom, so keep the economy healthy.

However, a healthy economy means people are out and about working and shopping [moving] and so lockdowns [stationary] only provide a temporary device in order to try and contain a virus.

If lockdowns to not contain and help eradicate virus, then vaccinations are prioritized.

Therefore, those who refuse vaccinations are acting against the health of the economy and thus are a threat to the relative freedom a healthy economy grants 'the people'.

Those who try to resist end up either dying of the virus or are shown to be against a healthy economy - the very thing which gave them the freedom they insist on wanting in the first place, so either way they are not helping themselves or anyone else by resisting.

If the vaccinations work, then the economy can begin to regain the health it once had and restore the freedoms associated with that.

However...

...there is also the issue of Climate Change which is still ongoing even that it is not so much in the spotlight while the virus has center stage as the immediate threat to the economy.

Whoever is left standing once the virus is under control, will be better positioned to go along with the conditions which will be put into place as efforts to bring the climate under control are made, because - like the virus, the climate is also threatening the economy and therefore people will have to accept that their freedom of movement will be restricted and more lockdowns etc enforced.

As the saying goes - "all is fair in love and war" and whatever threatens the health of the economy is 'the enemy' whether it is a virus, terrorists, or climate change...because all of these things threaten freedom of movement...
Very well said.

I note the close association of them that deny climate change, them that deny covid's a problem, and that whole "masks ain't freedom" bunch.
I think it is Darwinism at work - or as BJ said it "sorting the wheat from the stupid".

Image

I think Christians thnk Climate Change won't affect them, because Jesus is coming back to take them away [ha ha] from having to suffer the up-and-coming effects of the Solar oven being turned up...no amount of healthy economy will fix that problem. Anyone who thinks otherwise, go stand with "Stupud"...

Which is to say, if folk don't start seeing that the economy is the problem not the solution, stupid is as stupid does.

At that rate, for us intelligent folk, it becomes something of a tragic comedy. Tragic because we too will suffer with stoopid, comedy because it is funny re 'The Grand Scheme of Things"....

Sort of like we are the species who couldn't forgive itself and would rather put our heads into a hot oven than do so.

Post Reply