aquascoot wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 10:29am:


Other than your support of horse racing and many of the things you say on betting forums all over the Internet.

I've clearly hit a nerve, what's the saying your ilk love, "I must be over the target"?

Point is, this hate on Fauci is childish at best. 

It's hate first, looking for justifications second.  Just like opinions on the vaccine and COVID and how you and those like you pick and chose what facts are real based on what you believe, basically shaping a reality where you're already right and nothing can change your mind, rather than basing your opinions on what is real.

This normalisation of alternative facts and personal truths and realities was once something you parodies when making fun of the more liberal members of these forums but you've been faking it so long it's become a part of you, in fact it seems the defining part of you now.

How you've fallen.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 7:40am:

Would you be prepared to let your young child die, by refusing life-saving medication, because you believe it was developed using animal experimentation? Would your wife be prepared to take that stand?

Also, as you're still alive, it stands to reason you have never had to make that decision for yourself.

You conflate the Chinese cartel with the Chinese people. That is the cartel strategy: the people is the cartel; the state is the cartel. The cartel is the state and the people.

The Chinese cartel attempted to cripple the Australian economy via its infantile 'wolf wanker' diplomacy. Shouldn't that be cause enough to consider the Chinese cartel as an enemy of or hostile to the Australian state and its people?

However, a valid argument can be made that Australia should free itself from its dependence on China under the Chinese cartel you refer to above, and seek trade with other nations that at least accede to democracy and the rule of law.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 9:19am:


i cant see any circumstances where i would want research to be done on beagle puppies to make humans more 'safe".

life is a risk.

youre probably (and i know this is a shock to many people) are going to die someday.

when my horses or my kelpies get old and cant hold their weight and look miserable, i will pay the vet to give them the "green dream".
i could just let them "linger" but i am happy to cough up the $300 because i love them.

when i am old and cant hold my weight and am miserable, the thought that some politician would lock me in a nursing home with no contact from relatives, to be tended to by nurses in PPE, so that they dont have to announce
"the catastrophic death of a 90 yo"

you have got to be kidding
tell me people dont actually want that sort of meaningless existance
tell me that we are willing to treat old humans with the same dignity and love that we treat old horses and old dogs.

maybe we need to get the RSPCA  (RSPCHumans) to supervise old people and dish out fines to those who refuse to take steps to stop useless futile prolinged suffering

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 12:30pm:


i would be interested in a survey of old residents kept in nursinghomes as to whether they would prefer

1   to be kept safe but not allowed to see their kids or grandkids either locally or from interstate.

2  to be exposed to risk but allowed to have more human interaction.

has such a survey been done or have we just asked our chief health officers who are in a dick measuring competition as to who can have the lowest number of "catastrophic deaths"

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 12:48pm:



you didnt answer the question.

85 yo in nursing home with poor health

options to be presented to him.

1   we are going to lockdown this nursing home and you will be confined to your room because we know that you value your life.

2   we are going to allow young people and your grandchildren from sydney to come visit whenever they want because we know your days are numbered and we know you are willing to accept the small risk of death from such visits.


were old people given these 2 options?

no.


and yet if a young person wants to sky dive or scuba dive or climb Mt Everest we are fine with that despite the risk.

so , i ask again.

what right do chief health officers have to determine what risk an elderly citizen can accept , when they have no right to patronise another age group with their life choices.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 1:14pm:

Health workers are not arrogating to themselves the rights of the aged. They're discharging their duty of care and responsibility to protect those in their care.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 1:56pm:

Cynicism comes easy to the ignorant.

You would know that, given farmers, the world over, are often the butt of jokes about their being barefoot-ignorant fools.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 9^th, 2021 at 3:17pm:

OK, Fair enough. I guess nana and pop can check out of the home, given they're not incarcerated.

Mark McGowan? Post me his number and I'll ask him. Short of that, I'd suggest that he can probably hold more than one ideal in his head at one time... Being: he can care about the mental and physical health of his citizens and care about the bad optics of overcrowded casualty departments