What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

You're Nothing But A Number To Them -- Boosters, Bureaucratic Tyranny, and COVID (1 Viewer)

rockaction

rockaction

Footballguy
Once again, the American people were held hostage by the centralized and politicized health authority branches, the FDA and the CDC, today. We were told, despite evidence to the contrary, that Americans above the age of twenty-nine that were seeking booster shots should not get them as a matter of policy when the science out of Israel reports modest increases in efficacy and safety for those who are above twenty-nine seeking the vaccine.

Once again the health agencies have shown why you -- yes, you -- ought to give them no heed and no truck. Instead of following the science, they have followed a politicized "follow the vaccine trail" whereby I am sure that their recommendation will come to oversee that our available vaccines are sent to Third World countries so that they may oversee a goal of a 10% vaccination rate, just like the World Health Organization, another body that should be blown up, had recommended just a month prior.

In case one couldn't have seen that coming, my friend Woodstock took out a thread a month ago in the PSF entitled WHO ARE YOU?, whereby the ultimate thrust was to predict how the recommendation would provide Democratic politicians cover to ship our vaccines abroad to achieve levels that do not increase the protection of the rest of the world's population against a variant, but instead seek to combat a world optics problem that centers around diversity.

You are nothing but a number to a politician

They're dealing in numbers and aggregates. Whether it is Republicans who seek economy and supply chains over your safety, or Democrats who sing the language of diversity and world inoculation rates, you, the individual, mean nothing anymore to these politicians. They will play with your health and your safety for political reasons, only the reasons will be different. Rest assured that if you are white, male, and over twenty-nine, you have been assigned an actuarial number by a governing body and it does not look good with respect to COVID, death rates, and prevention.

We need to tell politicians that we won't stand for this. The FDA and the CDC must immediately be told to cease operation and I recommend that they be re-staffed or disemboweled, never to be seen again. The "ethicists" that set foot in these organizations are nothing but utilitarians and monsters who DO NOT CARE if you, the individual, dies. Let me repeat: THEY DO NOT CARE IF YOU DIE. IF I COULD TYPE THIS WITH BLINK TAGS, I WOULD.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH REGARDING THE SCIENCE

This is what has been decided today. Modest increases in protection have been overridden by cost, political, and other concerns.

Get your shot before they ship them abroad. I pray for your safety.

Love,

Rock Action

THEY ARE PLAYING POLITICS WITH YOUR SAFETY, FOLKS. DO NOT LET THEM DO IT.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't the US buy up a bunch of shots that didn't get FDA approval but other countries have no problem using? Send those shots abroad stat.

 
Dezbelief said:
If you're over 8 months post vax, call around you will find someplace willing to give you a booster.
Click to expand...


Yeah, my time is the first of November or so. I'm wondering if they'll be gone by then. I predict they'll be tougher to come by. I think I'm just telling people to keep their heads up and on a swivel if they want the shot. It's my way of doing it, which has its flaws, but it's the God's honest truth the way I see it. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to allow for correction, but everything that I've seen coming down the pike has pointed to an international effort to redistribute the vaccines to other countries, which I can see under certain circumstances.

Not making the third shot available to America as part of policy is not the circumstance I was willing to abide. Especially not for the reasons the WHO is giving. They flat out said in the Times article that a life within our borders was worth a life outside. They didn't care. They're the WHO for goodness sakes, why would they care?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I must have missed it, but has anyone shown booster data for younger adults? Are we talking about the COVE trial, Israeli study or something else?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don’t have a problem with this, governments should treat people like numbers.  When they start doing special things for certain individuals that’s a problem.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right.  Public health policy is based on population and subgroup level effects, not on individuals. "Saving lives, millions at a time."

The 3rd shots that would be given to Americans might save a few thousand lives versus hundreds of thousands of lives saved abroad.  If the efficacy of a booster is marginal or the evidence is not clear, we as leaders on this planet should do the right thing for humanity and ship this doses to places where access to first and second shots are limited. 

Furthermore, there is a direct economic benefit to doing so as that will speed up economic recovery in the supply chains that fuel the world economy.  If plants in Vietnam cannot make the goods or bauxite in Guinea isn't mined due to stay at home orders, that means US demand is unfilled and money doesn't circulate in the world economy.  It is likely in our economic self interest in increase access to vaccines worldwide. 

It is also in our political self interest to generate good will worldwide by not hoarding doses of the vaccine while others suffer.  There's obviously a balance here that is a difficult calculation, but if the science is inconclusive then the balance is tipped.

 
You are nothing but a number to a politician

yep.  sadly realized that about 20 years ago.  In Lonesome Dove, Call asked a guy who it was getting hanged tomorrow, and finished his question with, so some politician?

 
rockaction said:
Yeah, my time is the first of November or so. I'm wondering if they'll be gone by then. I predict they'll be tougher to come by. I think I'm just telling people to keep their heads up and on a swivel if they want the shot. It's my way of doing it, which has its flaws, but it's the God's honest truth the way I see it. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to allow for correction, but everything that I've seen coming down the pike has pointed to an international effort to redistribute the vaccines to other countries, which I can see under certain circumstances.

Not making the third shot available to America as part of policy is not the circumstance I was willing to abide. Especially not for the reasons the WHO is giving. They flat out said in the Times article that a life within our borders was worth a life outside. They didn't care. They're the WHO for goodness sakes, why would they care?
Click to expand...
If you are worried, just go to CVS or Rite Aid and say you have an issue with your immune system and they will give you a third shot. When I got my 3rd, they didn't ask for any proof of all that I use Humira. 

 
rockaction said:
They flat out said in the Times article that a life within our borders was worth a life outside. They didn't care. They're the WHO for goodness sakes, why would they care?
Click to expand...
I assume that the WHO made this statement, and in their eyes it's true.  It's obviously not true for national policymakers around the world.  They are obliged to act otherwise.  But as I said, there's a balance in there somewhere.  We cannot have a policy that seeks to maximize every outcome for all Americans while the rest of the world burns.  We have a duty to humanity as a whole. Even if our national interests come first, we cannot ignore the rest of the world. 

 
The Z Machine said:
I assume that the WHO made this statement, and in their eyes it's true.  It's obviously not true for national policymakers around the world.  They are obliged to act otherwise.  But as I said, there's a balance in there somewhere.  We cannot have a policy that seeks to maximize every outcome for all Americans while the rest of the world burns.  We have a duty to humanity as a whole. Even if our national interests come first, we cannot ignore the rest of the world. 
Click to expand...
That's why I would support government spending to fast-track vaccine production, build up cold storage infrastructure in the developing world, assist with distribution, etc.  

I don't think it's a good justification for banning people from receiving medical care that would be readily available but for your meddling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
That's why I would support government spending to fast-track vaccine production, build up cold storage infrastructure in the developing world, assist with distribution, etc.  

I don't think it's a good justification for banning people from receiving medical care that would be readily available but for your meddling.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the CDC or NIH can ban taking the vaccine as a booster, but they can recommend against it.   Also possible that no providers will go against CDC or NIH recommendations. 

But I imagine that there's some number of physicians out there that would write a scrip for a booster dose and that pharmacists would fill said prescription, even if it went against CDC or NIH guidance. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
I don't think that the CDC or NIH can ban taking the vaccine as a booster, but they can recommend against it.   Also possible that no providers will go against CDC or NIH recommendations. 

But I imagine that there's some number of physicians out there that would write a scrip for a booster dose and that pharmacists would fill said prescription, even if it went against CDC or NIH guidance. 
Click to expand...
Maybe, but people shouldn't have to feel like they're venturing into a grey market to get a vaccine booster that is safe and modestly effective.  This should be like picking up a bottle of cough syrup, not doctor shopping for oxycontin.  

 
Ilov80s said:
If you are worried, just go to CVS or Rite Aid and say you have an issue with your immune system and they will give you a third shot. When I got my 3rd, they didn't ask for any proof of all that I use Humira. 
Click to expand...


My question would be in regards to dosing. If you ask for a third vaccine shot is that the same amount of vaccine as the booster?

I just saw a local doctor talk about how immunocompromised folks receive their vaccine in 3 shots that are 21 to 28 days apart and how that 3rd shot is different than the booster. Not sure if she meant dosage or timing but if you're immune system is subpar I could see them giving 3 smaller doses instead of 2.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe, but people shouldn't have to feel like they're venturing into a grey market to get a vaccine booster that is safe and modestly effective.  This should be like picking up a bottle of cough syrup, not doctor shopping for oxycontin.  
Click to expand...
The root of this is the question: At what point does our collective responsibility to our fellow man outweigh the liberty of the individual?

 
The Z Machine said:
The root of this is the question: At what point does our collective responsibility to our fellow man outweigh the liberty of the individual?
Click to expand...
It generally doesn't.  Individuals aren't cogs in somebody else's machine and shouldn't be treated as such.  Obviously this is an area where you and I just have very different worldviews. 

On a fundamental level, I reject the idea the state has any legitimate authority to tell me what drugs I put in my body.  That's the reason why I don't feel bad about smoking pot and I don't feel bad about getting a booster.  Those should both be my decisions to make.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don’t have a problem with this, governments should treat people like numbers.  When they start doing special things for certain individuals that’s a problem.
Click to expand...
This sounds intelligent until you wind up on the operating table because of utilitarian concerns and a politician deciding from actuarial tables and numbers how much a life is worth.

I'm sure you're the type of person that disavows individualism until his death bed like Christopher Hitchens disavowed religion on his (a right I respect), but your shaping of policy is now infringing on my right to exist, which is part of why I elect a representative to do the God-given function of representation at the state and federal level. I will fight this at every turn. I have a God-given right to available medication, and I will avail myself of that right.

 
rockaction said:
Sorry. I went back to bed. I had an argument with someone about this and actually awoke to a nightmare about it. I didn't take what you said sarcastically.
Click to expand...
Maybe it was the 4.3 earthquake. My daughter in LA said she just "survived" her 3rd earthquake. 

 
The Z Machine said:
This is exactly right.  Public health policy is based on population and subgroup level effects, not on individuals. "Saving lives, millions at a time."

The 3rd shots that would be given to Americans might save a few thousand lives versus hundreds of thousands of lives saved abroad.  If the efficacy of a booster is marginal or the evidence is not clear, we as leaders on this planet should do the right thing for humanity and ship this doses to places where access to first and second shots are limited. 

Furthermore, there is a direct economic benefit to doing so as that will speed up economic recovery in the supply chains that fuel the world economy.  If plants in Vietnam cannot make the goods or bauxite in Guinea isn't mined due to stay at home orders, that means US demand is unfilled and money doesn't circulate in the world economy.  It is likely in our economic self interest in increase access to vaccines worldwide. 

It is also in our political self interest to generate good will worldwide by not hoarding doses of the vaccine while others suffer.  There's obviously a balance here that is a difficult calculation, but if the science is inconclusive then the balance is tipped.
Click to expand...
The problem might be with "public health policy" writ large and as conceived, but that would never occur to most. Simple statements lionizing the aggregate seem to always suffice when discussing "public health," which by its very nature flies in the face of individual rights, properly understood.

The question is one of balance. In this case, the internationalists have gotten a hold of our watchdog agencies in a sort of "regulatory capture" from the left, whereby international concerns have overridden the concerns of the proper electorate that has provided the incentives, benefits, and borne the costs of creating an intellectual property framework conducive to reasearch and development of the vaccine, only to see that goodwill and investment now distributed to those who have invested nothing.

In the name of altruiusm and goodwill, of course.

 
The Z Machine said:
Your obsession is unbecoming. 
Click to expand...
Your pathetic cries to me to change the thread name back when it was falling apart because of nationalization of industries and politics while continuing to spew your Third World South and Latin American socialist nonsense was even more so.

 
rockaction said:
Your pathetic cries to me to change the thread name back when it was falling apart because of nationalization of industries and politics while continuing to spew your Third World South and Latin American socialist nonsense was even more so.
Click to expand...
You're better than this, rock.

 
Are you upset because a booster isn't being forced? I don't think there's anything stopping you from getting one if you feel it's necessary.

 
The Z Machine said:
You're better than this, rock.
Click to expand...
I am and I'm not. One would think that a moment of self-reflection would be at hand.

I've had to break with the American right because of Trump and the hold on the intellectual right he has. Don't think that for almost every moment I'm thinking about politics I'm not thinking about what went wrong and where my premises of what I thought I could align myself with could have been so wrong.

I am not even assured that a life within our borders is better than a life without. But I want people to be aware of decisions that are being made at the sub-scientific level in the name of "not enough data." We know policy is driving these decisions. That they're doing one thing and flat-out listing it as a reason is a reason to be on alert. Hence the thread.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Are you upset because a booster isn't being forced? I don't think there's anything stopping you from getting one if you feel it's necessary.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not upset because a booster isn't being forced. I'm upset that there are decisions being made by agencies in the name of "not enough data" when there are indications that the boosters will work.

Will they? I do not know. But I do know this. Vaccines and their numbers are finite. Where they go, and to what use they're put because of numbers and storage will determine whether or not consenting adults in America get the vaccine.

As the Z Machine has pointed out, this is time for reflection. What policy will we follow?

 
rockaction said:
No, I'm not upset because a booster isn't being forced. I'm upset that there are decisions being made by agencies in the name of "not enough data" when there are indications that the boosters will work.

Will they? I do not know. But I do know this. Vaccines and their numbers are finite. Where they go, and to what use they're put because of numbers and storage will determine whether or not consenting adults in America get the vaccine.

As the Z Machine has pointed out, this is time for reflection. What policy will we follow?
Click to expand...


Are you paying no mind to the alternative argument that 2 doses is enough for a vast number of low risk people and that the FDA is concerned about the as yet unknown long-term effects of a new vaccine? There is clear data that some of the side effects of the vaccine, albeit rare, are amplified on the second dose. And there's genuine concern with how much more that danger increases on subsequent doses. For many people in good health and young of age, the Covid risk is so low, especially after two doses of the vaccine, that the unknown of a 3rd dose of the vaccine starts to be more risky than Covid itself. Especially if the vaccine doesn't have the benefit of stopping transmission to others.

Which brings us right back to the fact that if you want the 3rd dose, you'll be able to get it. And if there comes a time I feel it's best to get my booster, I'll be able to as well. So why the outrage?

 
rockaction said:
You are nothing but a number to a politician

They're dealing in numbers and aggregates. Whether it is Republicans who seek economy and supply chains over your safety, or Democrats
Click to expand...
 Not political?

rockaction said:
This was absolutely not meant to be a political thread.

Why don't you start another Tik Tok thread about another Tik Tok band and have it on the front page.
Click to expand...


You're not being very kind, RA.

 
I’m torn on WHO and their recommendation. My initial instinct was ‘why should we favor global interests over protecting US citizens?” Then I considered that even a highly vaxed US population will be perpetually at risk of variants developing elsewhere. So maybe there should be a big picture approach. However, if the trade off is a 10% global vax target, that does not seem like it’s solving variants at all, so I come back full circle to my instinct. 

 
eoMMan said:
 Not political?

You're not being very kind, RA.
Click to expand...


My apologies. I wasn't being very kind to you or The Z Machine and Sabertooth this morning. I've had a long night. Best to apologize and call it a bit of a day and try to regroup. I'm sorry again.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Are you paying no mind to the alternative argument that 2 doses is enough for a vast number of low risk people and that the FDA is concerned about the as yet unknown long-term effects of a new vaccine? There is clear data that some of the side effects of the vaccine, albeit rare, are amplified on the second dose. And there's genuine concern with how much more that danger increases on subsequent doses. For many people in good health and young of age, the Covid risk is so low, especially after two doses of the vaccine, that the unknown of a 3rd dose of the vaccine starts to be more risky than Covid itself. Especially if the vaccine doesn't have the benefit of stopping transmission to others.

Which brings us right back to the fact that if you want the 3rd dose, you'll be able to get it. And if there comes a time I feel it's best to get my booster, I'll be able to as well. So why the outrage?
Click to expand...


The FDA specifically said it was concerned about people under twenty-nine, which is why it is included in the OP. It said nothing about people who were older than that, so I disagree with what you're saying. I also disagree with the "3rd does of the vaccine starts to be more risky than Covid itself." I did not see that in any literature.

The second thing is that if the FDA and CDC make policy decisions about the availability or desired availability of vaccines, the ability to obtain them will be more difficult than if they fast-tracked studies and allowed adults who believed in boosting to get them easily. We know that federal agencies dictate policy, and that their recommendations will hold sway with this administration.

This administration, as far as I can tell, can either level with us or simply declare the population over twenty-nine to be just as safe with two vaccines or three. I'll be watching to see which tactic they choose. The political calculus is worth watching here, but I started the thread to alert people to the coming and potential dwindling of the vaccines obtained through ethical and honest means.

Again, I'm not a COVID or study expert. All I can tell you is the constant conclusion statements in government reports that focus on both vaccinating the "underserved." vaccine equity, and international concerns, some of which are utilitarian (to prevent variants is the stated goal), some of which are utopian.

 
This level of self-interest is such an American trait, it's very sad to me. 

It's not even a consideration in Canada that we wouldn't send as many doses as possible to countries in need before getting the boosters going.

This song has become the covid anthem up here, seems appropriate here. 

It is such a drag
You're dressed in rags
Everybody waving these faded flags
Tongue tied a fire inside
Caught like a deer in the headlights
Mine, mine, it isn't a lot
So why try to take more than I got
More, more, we only want more
It's not what we came for, it's not what we paid for

We're all in this together
So keep moving don't stop
Keep moving don't stop

https://youtu.be/-RCHv93qI4A

 
BigJim® said:
I’m torn on WHO and their recommendation. My initial instinct was ‘why should we favor global interests over protecting US citizens?” 
Click to expand...
The answer of course is because we're all people and no one is more worthy of medicine because they happened to be born in a certain nation. 

 
rockaction said:
The FDA specifically said it was concerned about people under twenty-nine, which is why it is included in the OP. It said nothing about people who were older than that, so I disagree with what you're saying. I also disagree with the "3rd does of the vaccine starts to be more risky than Covid itself." I did not see that in any literature.

The second thing is that if the FDA and CDC make policy decisions about the availability or desired availability of vaccines, the ability to obtain them will be more difficult than if they fast-tracked studies and allowed adults who believed in boosting to get them easily. We know that federal agencies dictate policy, and that their recommendations will hold sway with this administration.

This administration, as far as I can tell, can either level with us or simply declare the population over twenty-nine to be just as safe with two vaccines or three. I'll be watching to see which tactic they choose. The political calculus is worth watching here, but I started the thread to alert people to the coming and potential dwindling of the vaccines obtained through ethical and honest means.

Again, I'm not a COVID or study expert. All I can tell you is the constant conclusion statements in government reports that focus on both vaccinating the "underserved." vaccine equity, and international concerns, some of which are utilitarian (to prevent variants is the stated goal), some of which are utopian.
Click to expand...


It certainly seems like you're going the "don't trust the government" route which got so many ridiculed on the other side of this whole debate. Rather than worry about which data you want to follow, I'll say for the 3rd time - be happy that if you want to get boosters, the drug companies will happily make them available to you and anyone else who wants them. I could see the outrage if the FDA had banned boosters yesterday but they didn't.

 
Northern Voice said:
This level of self-interest is such an American trait, it's very sad to me. 

It's not even a consideration in Canada that we wouldn't send as many doses as possible to countries in need before getting the boosters going.

This song has become the covid anthem up here, seems appropriate here.
Click to expand...


Mmm. It's hard to say that my complaint reaches such a "level of self-interest," presumably an undesirable one, when there is a fully acknowledged ethical and moral dilemma presented by its main progenitor, which is me. And I have admitted the conundrum full stop within the thread.

The question then, becomes one of the broader problem of nation-states and international distribution. I also admit that in here and in the PSF, especially.

I will say this: I do not begrudge Canada anything, nor do I begrudge its mission of looking out for other people, but a tacit reprimand about self-interest might lead one to look at intellectual property frameworks, research and development, and the problem of free riding on that research and development within health care systems before tut-tutting from the North, friend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Voice said:
The answer of course is because we're all people and no one is more worthy of medicine because they happened to be born in a certain nation. 
Click to expand...
So long as you realize that that is a very utopian vision of nation-states, borders, and responsibilities and problems that arise therefrom, then we're okay.

It is nice to be in Canada. That one's immigration policy and borders aren't quite as in-your-face is not necessarily an argument for what you're making. Applied on a large and broad scale, you'd lose a lot of your comforts.

 
rockaction said:
So long as you realize that that is a very utopian vision of nation-states, borders, and responsibilities and problems that arise therefrom, then we're okay.

It is nice to be in Canada. That one's immigration policy and borders aren't quite as in-your-face is not necessarily an argument for what you're making. Applied on a large and broad scale, you'd lose a lot of your comforts.
Click to expand...
It's not just Canada, it's most of the developed world, with the exception of the United States. 

And sure, call it a utopian vision, I call it wanting things to be better for as many people as possible, which yes, means I don't need my third shot before most of the world get its first. 

Anyway, we're not going to truly agree on this and I have a brewery to get to. 

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Are you upset because a booster isn't being forced? I don't think there's anything stopping you from getting one if you feel it's necessary.
Click to expand...
For the record, I would be 100% fine with boosters being entirely optional.  That's my ideal policy preference.

My objection is with people who want to ban boosters outright.  That's unethical IMO.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
For the record, I would be 100% fine with boosters being entirely optional.  That's my ideal policy preference.

My objection is with people who want to ban boosters outright.  That's unethical IMO.
Click to expand...


Yeah a ban would make zero sense. There are always going to be those among us who stand a better chance with a booster vs taking on Covid unprotected no matter how many small bumps in risk of other side effects the boosters present.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Are you paying no mind to the alternative argument that 2 doses is enough for a vast number of low risk people and that the FDA is concerned about the as yet unknown long-term effects of a new vaccine? There is clear data that some of the side effects of the vaccine, albeit rare, are amplified on the second dose. And there's genuine concern with how much more that danger increases on subsequent doses. For many people in good health and young of age, the Covid risk is so low, especially after two doses of the vaccine, that the unknown of a 3rd dose of the vaccine starts to be more risky than Covid itself. Especially if the vaccine doesn't have the benefit of stopping transmission to others.
Click to expand...
This is all fine.  If a person decides that they're happy with the protection afforded by the now-current two-dose mRNA regimen and they don't think the benefits of a third shot warrant the admittedly small risks, no problem.  All I ask is that you allow me to make that decision on my own, and also apply the same logic to masking and social distancing, both of which also have only modest value for people who followed the two-dose mRNA regimen.

What I don't like is:

1) People who decide that boosters aren't right for them, and therefore should be forbidden for everyone else, and 

2) People who are absolutely losing their #### over the delta variant who want everybody to mask up everywhere and shut down all the schools but who suddenly rediscover the existence of costs and benefits when it comes to boosters.  

Both of those groups of people really need to take a back seat here, but it feels as if those are the only two voices that get heard.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is all fine.  If a person decides that they're happy with the protection afforded by the now-current two-dose mRNA regimen and they don't think the benefits of a third shot warrant the admittedly small risks, no problem.  All I ask is that you allow me to make that decision on my own, and also apply the same logic to masking and social distancing, both of which also have only modest value for people who followed the two-dose mRNA regimen.

What I don't like is:

1) People who decide that boosters aren't right for them, and therefore should be forbidden for everyone else, and 

2) People who are absolutely losing their #### over the delta variant who want everybody to mask up everywhere and shut down all the schools but who suddenly rediscover the existence of costs and benefits when it comes to boosters.  

Both of those groups of people really need to take a back seat here, but it feels as if those are the only two voices that get heard.
Click to expand...


I'm right there with you gb, I see the extremes on both sides and want nothing to do with either one of them. I don't want to see booster banned and they certainly were not banned yesterday. Which is why I don't understand the angst from the OP. The FDA actually recommended the booster for those who likely need it most even if a subsequent dose carries higher side effect risk. That's far from even a hint of a ban.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
The Booster Shots And Bureaucrats -- They're Playing Untoward Politics With Your Safety
Replies
15
Views
387
Max Power
Max Power
LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
How To Know If You're The Problem With America...
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
3K
Maurile Tremblay
Maurile Tremblay

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top