comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oooft! That's harsh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old saying. I just forgot the last bit.
Old age and excessive weed consumption will do that.
Before the usual d!ks mention it.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 7 seconds ago
You're meant to be giving English lessons and you don't understand words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can do.
Those who can't.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach English as a second language.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 7 seconds ago
You're meant to be giving English lessons and you don't understand words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can do.
Those who can't.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach English as a second language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. That's the bit I forgot.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 16 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every little helps I suppose but I can't see there being that many Russian visitors atm.
Aye I’ve probably served like 20 Russian license holders in the 3 years I’ve worked there
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 47 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Puts pressure on him. And that's the point of it I guess.
It’s not right, they’re beholden to a dictator and it’s not like it’s their fault either but like I said the whole world is trying to polarise these people and make them crack.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They'll get used to it.
I was refused a place on a Dutch Campervan site because I was English, also refused service at a Belgian bar for the same reason.
comment by Don't Shoot 🕊️ (U10408)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
It’s not right, they’re beholden to a dictator and it’s not like it’s their fault either but like I said the whole world is trying to polarise these people and make them crack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you have supported not serving Iraqis when Saddam invaded Kuwait? I guess not. I don't see this as any different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And I can’t stand my people at the best of times.
comment by 🇺🇦 Boris 'Inky' Gibson 🇺🇦 (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They'll get used to it.
I was refused a place on a Dutch Campervan site because I was English, also refused service at a Belgian bar for the same reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That on the other hand; entirely reasonable 😜
I jest of course, those situations in Netherlands and Belgium are not appropriate either and not a good look.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not taking it out of context, it’s the only part I take umbrage with for reasons I have set out.
Let’s assume that you are correct and I am incorrect, ok?
What if other people made the same mistake as me? What are those effects? She is eliding two things that shouldn’t be together.
We want to talk about full quotes and taking things out of context? Ok:
The question was that if a vaccine was approved by the trump administration before or after the election should Americans take it and would you take it?
Responsible answer: if it is approved by the doctors then yes
Irresponsible answer: first answer then linking the vaccine to trump
Which is what she was doing. It wasn’t by accident, she isn’t purely saying ‘I would only take it if doctors give approval’ it’s an absolutely stupid question to ask if someone would take it just because Trump or any random individual politician recommended it.
Approved is a key word in the question as is administration as that refers to an entire cabinet including Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Do you really think her answer was purely innocent and without effects?
To quote your good self - you’re better than that.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed that’s a disgrace
I will reiterate that it was a poor question for the same reasons, politicising a vaccine was a really sheeety road to go down and she went right down it
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not taking it out of context, it’s the only part I take umbrage with for reasons I have set out.
Let’s assume that you are correct and I am incorrect, ok?
What if other people made the same mistake as me? What are those effects? She is eliding two things that shouldn’t be together.
We want to talk about full quotes and taking things out of context? Ok:
The question was that if a vaccine was approved by the trump administration before or after the election should Americans take it and would you take it?
Responsible answer: if it is approved by the doctors then yes
Irresponsible answer: first answer then linking the vaccine to trump
Which is what she was doing. It wasn’t by accident, she isn’t purely saying ‘I would only take it if doctors give approval’ it’s an absolutely stupid question to ask if someone would take it just because Trump or any random individual politician recommended it.
Approved is a key word in the question as is administration as that refers to an entire cabinet including Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Do you really think her answer was purely innocent and without effects?
To quote your good self - you’re better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I'm confused now. Was this about Harris changing her position? As I think we’ve established she hasn’t?
Or is it shifted now to you thinking she was irresponsible?
Who approves vaccines in the US? Is it not the FDA? I was not aware that the cabinet approves vaccines in the US. That sounds incredibly dangerous. In the UK it is MHRA, who operate independently of politics.
What effects do you think her answer had? Her full answer?
If you think partially quoting her and taking her out of context is an issue, then I’d suggest the issue is with those partially quoting her and taking what she has said out of context for political reasons, as opposed to what she said in full.
Seedorf has converted to Islam, welcome to the family lad
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2530 of 5902
2531 | 2532 | 2533 | 2534 | 2535
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oooft! That's harsh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old saying. I just forgot the last bit.
Old age and excessive weed consumption will do that.
Before the usual d!ks mention it.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 7 seconds ago
You're meant to be giving English lessons and you don't understand words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can do.
Those who can't.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach English as a second language.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 7 seconds ago
You're meant to be giving English lessons and you don't understand words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can do.
Those who can't.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach English as a second language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. That's the bit I forgot.
posted on 4/3/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/3/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/3/22
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 16 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every little helps I suppose but I can't see there being that many Russian visitors atm.
posted on 4/3/22
Aye I’ve probably served like 20 Russian license holders in the 3 years I’ve worked there
posted on 4/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
posted on 4/3/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 47 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Puts pressure on him. And that's the point of it I guess.
posted on 4/3/22
It’s not right, they’re beholden to a dictator and it’s not like it’s their fault either but like I said the whole world is trying to polarise these people and make them crack.
posted on 4/3/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They'll get used to it.
I was refused a place on a Dutch Campervan site because I was English, also refused service at a Belgian bar for the same reason.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Don't Shoot 🕊️ (U10408)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
It’s not right, they’re beholden to a dictator and it’s not like it’s their fault either but like I said the whole world is trying to polarise these people and make them crack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you have supported not serving Iraqis when Saddam invaded Kuwait? I guess not. I don't see this as any different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And I can’t stand my people at the best of times.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by 🇺🇦 Boris 'Inky' Gibson 🇺🇦 (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They'll get used to it.
I was refused a place on a Dutch Campervan site because I was English, also refused service at a Belgian bar for the same reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That on the other hand; entirely reasonable 😜
posted on 4/3/22
I jest of course, those situations in Netherlands and Belgium are not appropriate either and not a good look.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not taking it out of context, it’s the only part I take umbrage with for reasons I have set out.
Let’s assume that you are correct and I am incorrect, ok?
What if other people made the same mistake as me? What are those effects? She is eliding two things that shouldn’t be together.
We want to talk about full quotes and taking things out of context? Ok:
The question was that if a vaccine was approved by the trump administration before or after the election should Americans take it and would you take it?
Responsible answer: if it is approved by the doctors then yes
Irresponsible answer: first answer then linking the vaccine to trump
Which is what she was doing. It wasn’t by accident, she isn’t purely saying ‘I would only take it if doctors give approval’ it’s an absolutely stupid question to ask if someone would take it just because Trump or any random individual politician recommended it.
Approved is a key word in the question as is administration as that refers to an entire cabinet including Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Do you really think her answer was purely innocent and without effects?
To quote your good self - you’re better than that.
posted on 4/3/22
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Harry Ambrose (U11781)
posted 58 minutes ago
So my airport manager at work is gonna push the managing director to basically ban my company from serving Russian customers next week. I personally think that’s an awful thing to do and it’s bordering on racism but I guess the thinking is that polarising the Russians is the only way they’ll crack and potentially try to force out Putin. What do you lot think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is grim. Entirely inappropriate. Unless someone is on the sanctions list, denying service on the basis of someone’s nationality really is not a good look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed that’s a disgrace
posted on 4/3/22
I will reiterate that it was a poor question for the same reasons, politicising a vaccine was a really sheeety road to go down and she went right down it
posted on 4/3/22
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
I’ll put ti this way - I couldn’t imagine Starmer saying that if Boris recommended AZ, he wouldn’t take it. He would have just said the first part. Don’t you agree?
Luckily we’re not as hyper-politicised as they are over there. It’s bloody awful for them, I feel for the public. It’s so extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you’re being selective. Imagine if Starmer said that if Boris recommended AZ in the absence of MHRA approval then he wouldn’t take it. I think that would be an eminently sensible position.
And I ask again; if Trump had recommended a vaccine, but doctors had not, would you take it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m being selective because part of what she said was irresponsible and quite deliberate. Your question is irrelevant plus you know the answer.
What do you think the effect is of what she said? If you think no effect then I think you need to look into US politics a bit more.
Here we are debating minutiae yet again when the main point was reversal of political stances.
Several examples were given yet here we are debating one of them when it’s clear as day that her saying that will have effects. Trump hatred was so bloody strong and mixing that up with a vaccine for a global pandemic is completely irresponsible. She wouldn’t have said it if it were Clinton or Biden but only trump. Mixing political affiliations with vaccines is poor and typical US politics. Hence why I don’t think we would have seen Starmer say it for example
Had it been reversed Trump would have said the same thing, probably worse but that doesn’t change that what she said was irresponsible and completely deliberate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is only a reversal of stance if you selectively quote to take the statement out of context.
The context being this;
- it was during a VP debate, a uniquely political activity
- she was clear before your partial quote that if doctors recommended, she would take it
- trump had had a history to that point of recommending things against the advise of medical professionals, to the extent said professionals had to come out and say the opposite,
I do know the answer to the question I asked; you’d have agreed with Harris, had exactly the same position as her.
That’s why I find it odd that you continue to push it. It was a poor example to call on. By all means criticise. But taking selective quotes and only providing them partially and taking them out of context is not engaging in good faith bud; you’re better than that 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not taking it out of context, it’s the only part I take umbrage with for reasons I have set out.
Let’s assume that you are correct and I am incorrect, ok?
What if other people made the same mistake as me? What are those effects? She is eliding two things that shouldn’t be together.
We want to talk about full quotes and taking things out of context? Ok:
The question was that if a vaccine was approved by the trump administration before or after the election should Americans take it and would you take it?
Responsible answer: if it is approved by the doctors then yes
Irresponsible answer: first answer then linking the vaccine to trump
Which is what she was doing. It wasn’t by accident, she isn’t purely saying ‘I would only take it if doctors give approval’ it’s an absolutely stupid question to ask if someone would take it just because Trump or any random individual politician recommended it.
Approved is a key word in the question as is administration as that refers to an entire cabinet including Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Do you really think her answer was purely innocent and without effects?
To quote your good self - you’re better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I'm confused now. Was this about Harris changing her position? As I think we’ve established she hasn’t?
Or is it shifted now to you thinking she was irresponsible?
Who approves vaccines in the US? Is it not the FDA? I was not aware that the cabinet approves vaccines in the US. That sounds incredibly dangerous. In the UK it is MHRA, who operate independently of politics.
What effects do you think her answer had? Her full answer?
If you think partially quoting her and taking her out of context is an issue, then I’d suggest the issue is with those partially quoting her and taking what she has said out of context for political reasons, as opposed to what she said in full.
posted on 4/3/22
Seedorf has converted to Islam, welcome to the family lad
posted on 4/3/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 2530 of 5902
2531 | 2532 | 2533 | 2534 | 2535