Activity – Robert Barricklow – The Giza Forum (Legacy)

Robert Barricklow posted an update 5 years, 1 month ago

https://rt.com/usa/517544-cdc-covid-vaccinated-guidelines-freedoms/

Apparently the U.S. Bill of Rights were abolished.
CDC to the rescue!; but only in granting certain Americans
very limited freedoms.
These are now “new federal guidelines”.
You’ll soon have to check your social credit scores
to see how “more equal” you are than “others”.
According to sources, this courageous CDC announcements will go down in history as “one of the great strides for freedom in American history”.

The Great Re-Set
needs to become
The Great Political Re-Set
by replacing ALL the political leaders!
- Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
  I know several folks who have had both shots and are now strutting around like a rooster in a hen yard. Off with the face diapers and walking side by side…nothing has changed except the holes in their arms and head.
  - FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
    Sounds like the desired effect: Use social pressure, rather than brute force, to get people to line up for injections. Make the unvaxxed into social pariahs–a new “untouchable” caste–and award social virtue points to those who take their jabs. The jabbed can then strut around, head held high, proud of being good, caring citizens. Ugh.
- FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
  I wonder how many people can possibly be taking these CDC guidelines seriously. (I’m waiting to hear it’s only safe for 2 households to mix if 1 person stands on his head and you’re within 3 days of a full moon!) I don’t socialize enough to know how many people pay attention to this stuff. Maybe I’m better off this way!
  - Scarmoge replied 5 years, 1 month ago
    … In addition to head position and relation to the new moon I also heard rumor that a great deal of funding has been earmarked to conduct research into determining if holding one’s little fingers and toes in certain positions makes the vaccine more efficacious. A few days ago while doing a bit of writing I needed to check to be sure I was using the word “efficacious” correctly in a particular context. A quick Google returned the following … Please notice the sentence given using the word.
    Hmmmmmmmm. As Bugs used to say “What a coincidinky.”
    As has been pointed out by those doing deep cartoon analysis. “Bugs is specifically a Karmic Trickster: harmless when left alone, but gleefully ready to dish out poetic justice whenever he perceives the need. There is an element of education in his revenge.” Who’d a thunk it? 🙂
    _________________________________________________
    ef·fi·ca·cious
    /ˌefəˈkāSHəs/.
    adjective: FORMAL
    adjective: efficacious
    (of something inanimate or abstract) successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective.
    “the vaccine has proved both efficacious and safe”
    
    Similar:
    effective, successful, effectual, productive, constructive, fruitful, potent, powerful
    worthwhile, helpful, of help, of assistance, beneficial, advantageous, valuable, useful, of use
    
    Opposite: inefficacious
    Origin:
    early 16th century: from Latin efficax, efficac- (from efficere ‘accomplish’: see effect) + -ious.
    Definitions from Oxford Languages. Feedback
    - Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      Often when looking up words on the internet. I encounter a site that will use the word drawn from a sentence recently used in the media.
    - FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      For pity’s sake… Now even lexicology has been turned to propaganda! Not to mention that the sample sentence is particularly ill chosen, since vaccine “efficacy” and “effectiveness” have specific, distinct meanings, none of which is captured in this definition of “efficacious.” Do yourself a favor and get a dictionary on CD from a few years back and install it on your laptop/PC. Thank God I had to get a copy of Webster’s 11th Collegiate several years ago in my book-editing days.
      
      In the land of the blind, Bugs Bunny is a sage.
      
      Joseph P. Farrell replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      I concur… I rely on an older version of the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster’s having been unreliable from the beginning.
      
      Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      If the definition or actually description of the word does not include the etymology I don’t bother to read it.
      
      Scarmoge replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      … I agree. I use the 1903 Century Dictionary and either the 1898, 1903, or 1911 edition of the Imperial Dictionary. I just needed a quick and dirty confirmation of my usage. Imagine my surprise (not really) that the sentence example read as it did.
      
      FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      I had to use Webster’s and The Chicago Manual of Style since they were what my clients (book publishers) required.
      
      Peter Ross replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      I use a 1972 edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in two volumes, which I correct when necessary by comparison with a 1937 edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage and a 1931 Edition of Fowler’s The King’s English. For French I use a 1948 Harrap, and for German, Italian and Spanish I use Cassell’s Dictionaries published in the 1960s.
      
      For all these languages, I own more recent dictionaries, but I don’t use them, because they’re useless. They’re useless because the idea of correctness has been abandoned.
      
      The good news is that old dictionaries can be bought cheap, because our wonderful schools, universities and public libraries are throwing them away.
  - acorn replied 5 years, 1 month ago
    Where I live in Northern Virginia, everyone I know is getting vaccinated, including family members. Even a pregnant woman I know (who had an illness her obstetrician identified as Covid1984) was considering it. Thank goodness her doc had some sense and told her to wait. Anyway, these people take the CDC guidelines seriously. I think it gives them a sense of confirmation that they’re doing the right thing and they can point to people like me and say I’m highly irresponsible and “not following the science.” Which they do.
    - Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      What is that mental condition called, “confirmation bias”? Seeking out information that confirms one’s opinion or belief?
      Once the buy in. No way out, obviously it works.
    - FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      A symptom of being too close to DC? Just kidding… I know there are frightened, gullible people all over. It just adds insult to injury when you have to deal with the uninformed but holier-than-thou. I suppose I’m blessed in that the few people close to me, though (to my great sadness) they’ve gotten or will get jabbed, respect my right to say no. As for the other people in my area, I’ve been practicing avoiding or ignoring them for years now.
      
      acorn replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      Fortunately, the closest to me respects my wishes. Don’t know though what’ll happen when the ‘privilege’ to visit family out of state comes down to being shot or not. That will create some additional pressure.
  - Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
    Down in south Texas where forcing one to wear a face mask is supposedly illegal starting tomorrow, the big chain corporate policy makers are taking and using the CDC guidelines seriously and ignoring state law and forcing employees and customers to comply with CDC mandates to wear masks and social distance or no service. Walgreens is on record they will provide service as a safety measure for employees to avoid possible physical confrontation. Soon I imagine they will be handing out free corona shots like they already do with flu shots. Anyone need a fascism example?
    - acorn replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      It’s hard not to view this is as the endgame with the noose closing in. I’m struggling for a contextual frame that allows me to remain positive, or at least happy to have woken up another day. Which is, I imagine, just the way they want me.
      
      FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      Being serious for a moment, I sincerely wish you luck in finding a contextual frame that helps. I, too, suspect a feeling of hopelessness is part of their strategy. For me, it helps to remember that. I don’t want to give them the satisfaction of one more person falling for their evil schemes.
    - FiatLux replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      Oh, I know the big corporations (the bulwark of fascism) will all be on board, whether it’s legally required or not. I just wonder whether the majority of their employees are on board too.
      
      Billy Bob replied 5 years, 1 month ago
      
      On board or not, if the boardroom says something, do it or find another position. “We have the bottom line to protect, not you.”
      I did have a conversation with my waiter last week ata family owned restaurant. He said they will be required to still wear a mask after tomorrow. He did not want to but since he’s worked there for several years, likes his job and has worked there as long as I’ve been frequenting the restaurant for the last several years, he will oblige the owners. (He could possibly be related to the owner.) Where I live is predominantly Hispanic and the fear of corona, the disease not the beer, is very high. Obesity and diabetes is rampant, many relatives have died within the year. (It’s a Mexican restaurant.)
      I guess it’s a business decision to make the customers, mostly Hispanic, feel safe.