COVID Vaccine Inrease Risk of Heart Inflammation?

21,223 Views | 474 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Married A Horn said:

It doesnt matter - if no one trusts the government then no one trusts the government.


Of course it matters. If someone looks at the data and makes data-driven decisions, they will be healthier and more protected from what is, based on data, a real threat to their personal health. Besides, if "no one trusts the government," why have about 70 percent of Americans decided to "trust the government" and get vaccinated? People need to be smarter than to just come up with a blanket statement of "I don't trust the government so I am not going to believe any information that comes from the government."
Being coerced into submitting to a medical procedure is not the same thing as trusting the government or trusting the data. The government has set a horrible precedent by using people's employers and jobs and freedom of movement as a way to implement the permanent beaurocracy's preferred policies.


The vast majority of people who have chosen to be vaccinated were not coerced into anything. They were vaccinated before this "mandate" foolishness. I agree that the executive branch's attempt to mandate vaccines like this is bad, and I am hopeful that courts will strike it down.
So? Don't act like everyone who has been given the shot made that decision freely and voluntarily or trust the government or "the data.'. This is a sick episode in our country's history.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Married A Horn said:

It doesnt matter - if no one trusts the government then no one trusts the government.


Of course it matters. If someone looks at the data and makes data-driven decisions, they will be healthier and more protected from what is, based on data, a real threat to their personal health. Besides, if "no one trusts the government," why have about 70 percent of Americans decided to "trust the government" and get vaccinated? People need to be smarter than to just come up with a blanket statement of "I don't trust the government so I am not going to believe any information that comes from the government."
Being coerced into submitting to a medical procedure is not the same thing as trusting the government or trusting the data. The government has set a horrible precedent by using people's employers and jobs and freedom of movement as a way to implement the permanent beaurocracy's preferred policies.


The vast majority of people who have chosen to be vaccinated were not coerced into anything. They were vaccinated before this "mandate" foolishness. I agree that the executive branch's attempt to mandate vaccines like this is bad, and I am hopeful that courts will strike it down.
So? Don't act like everyone who has been given the shot made that decision freely and voluntarily or trust the government or "the data.'. This is a sick episode in our country's history.


Don't act like looking at the data and making a decision freely wouldn't lead a solid majority of people to get vaccinated without regard for government overreach.

And I neither said nor implied that everyone who got vaccinated did so without coercion.
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The data? You think all the data is available? That's cute.

Between not possible to know certain 'data' yet and them hiding other data...
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Married A Horn said:

It doesnt matter - if no one trusts the government then no one trusts the government.


Of course it matters. If someone looks at the data and makes data-driven decisions, they will be healthier and more protected from what is, based on data, a real threat to their personal health. Besides, if "no one trusts the government," why have about 70 percent of Americans decided to "trust the government" and get vaccinated? People need to be smarter than to just come up with a blanket statement of "I don't trust the government so I am not going to believe any information that comes from the government."
Being coerced into submitting to a medical procedure is not the same thing as trusting the government or trusting the data. The government has set a horrible precedent by using people's employers and jobs and freedom of movement as a way to implement the permanent beaurocracy's preferred policies.


The vast majority of people who have chosen to be vaccinated were not coerced into anything. They were vaccinated before this "mandate" foolishness. I agree that the executive branch's attempt to mandate vaccines like this is bad, and I am hopeful that courts will strike it down.
So? Don't act like everyone who has been given the shot made that decision freely and voluntarily or trust the government or "the data.'. This is a sick episode in our country's history.


Don't act like looking at the data and making a decision freely wouldn't lead a solid majority of people to get vaccinated without regard for government overreach.

And I neither said nor implied that everyone who got vaccinated did so without coercion.
Good for the "majority." I don't begrudge anyone their decision either way. Stop telling others what they need to do and telling them they are not considering the data. Those of us who don't want the shot and don't want to mask are a little sick of your condescension.
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or how about this data - ivermectin is for horses. You're not a horse stop taking it. You may die.

What about that data that it won a nobel prize for use in humans in 2016?

You go ahead with your data and i'll go with mine.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Married A Horn said:

It doesnt matter - if no one trusts the government then no one trusts the government.


Of course it matters. If someone looks at the data and makes data-driven decisions, they will be healthier and more protected from what is, based on data, a real threat to their personal health. Besides, if "no one trusts the government," why have about 70 percent of Americans decided to "trust the government" and get vaccinated? People need to be smarter than to just come up with a blanket statement of "I don't trust the government so I am not going to believe any information that comes from the government."
Being coerced into submitting to a medical procedure is not the same thing as trusting the government or trusting the data. The government has set a horrible precedent by using people's employers and jobs and freedom of movement as a way to implement the permanent beaurocracy's preferred policies.
It's funny, I am pretty conservative. Voted Republican in every election since Ford. Worked in Government for financial sustainability for 30 year. Pro-life. But, in the last 4 years I have found myself on the opposing side of more issues with conservatives than I can believe, mostly on common sense issues. Been a pretty eye-opening experience.

I am not sure where this view that the Government can't require inoculations. The US has been requiring inoculations since small pox in the Revolutionary War and ever since, Since 1902 States have been requiring inoculations and the Supreme Court ruled that it was allowed. Almost every school requires a variety of shots and has for generations.

Based on the Jacobson Supreme Court case that has withstood numerous challenges from religion, philosophy to individual rights.

"U.S. Supreme Court again acknowledged the viability of the Jacobson holding, leading to the conclusion that, as long as the public health need for widespread vaccination exists, the courts will not recognize a privacy right to refuse state-mandated vaccination and will uphold the police power of states to mandate vaccination."

If the State mandates a vaccination/inoculation (whatever you want to call it), it is allowed to do so. Unless there is an exemption in State law, they can restrict your access. The Feds DO NOT have that power at the State level. I don't get the uproar, it is rather clear cut and settled.

When did being conservative come to mean that no one can tell me what to do or I have the right to ignore law???
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

D. C. Bear said:

Married A Horn said:

It doesnt matter - if no one trusts the government then no one trusts the government.


Of course it matters. If someone looks at the data and makes data-driven decisions, they will be healthier and more protected from what is, based on data, a real threat to their personal health. Besides, if "no one trusts the government," why have about 70 percent of Americans decided to "trust the government" and get vaccinated? People need to be smarter than to just come up with a blanket statement of "I don't trust the government so I am not going to believe any information that comes from the government."
Being coerced into submitting to a medical procedure is not the same thing as trusting the government or trusting the data. The government has set a horrible precedent by using people's employers and jobs and freedom of movement as a way to implement the permanent beaurocracy's preferred policies.


I am not sure where this view that the Government can't require inoculations.

Health, safety, and police powers are the domain of state governments not the fed.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A liberal taught me one time about civil disobedience.

Consent to be governed. A few british kings lost it and things ended badly for them.

This is more of what oldbear83 is talking about and less of 'running a red light.'
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
If you join the military you forefeit your right to not take that shot. I'm a citizen and do not want to be made to take an annual or bi annual experimental shot with no long term data for an illness that has a 99.95% survival rate. I also do not want my child to be forced to take the experimental shot when she is not in the risk group. There is enough data saying there is a risk of myocarditis to children and younger adults so until they get that cleared up the answer to a vax for my child is HELL NO. Also, I know that most parents feel the same way that I do bc I saw a graphic on my local news that said only 8.5% of parents in South Carolina have opted to vaccinate their 5-11 year old child.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."


I am not sure you understand the role that court cases and elections play in freeing those who are oppressed by "unjust laws." We don't need to overthrow the government every time they do something stupid. It would be a full time job.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."


I am not sure you understand the role that court cases and elections play in freeing those who are oppressed by "unjust laws." We don't need to overthrow the government every time they do something stupid. It would be a full time job.
As long as we have free and fair elections, I agree with you. If not, all bets are off.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."


I am not sure you understand the role that court cases and elections play in freeing those who are oppressed by "unjust laws." We don't need to overthrow the government every time they do something stupid. It would be a full time job.
This is not even responsive to what I said. Do better.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star


Protest to your hearts delight. Peacefully demonstrate. Dont take the shot, all your right. No argument.

The Courts have said for over 100 years that the State Govt has the right to require inoculations. You have a right not to take it in Texas, dont.

But becayse you choose to not follow the requirements doesn't mean the consequences go away. Practice and celebrate your rights, but don't ***** if there are consequences. That is the other side of the equation. If the Courts or Legislature rule otherwise or change the. Law, the situation changes. That is how this is supposed to work.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star


Protest to your hearts delight. Peacefully demonstrate. Dont take the shot, all your right. No argument.

The Courts have said for over 100 years that the State Govt has the right to require inoculations. You have a right not to take it in Texas, dont.

But becayse you choose to not follow the requirements doesn't mean the consequences go away. Practice and celebrate your rights, but don't ***** if there are consequences. That is the other side of the equation. If the Courts or Legislature rule otherwise or change the. Law, the situation changes. That is how this is supposed to work.
Good post
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star


Protest to your hearts delight. Peacefully demonstrate. Dont take the shot, all your right. No argument.

The Courts have said for over 100 years that the State Govt has the right to require inoculations. You have a right not to take it in Texas, dont.

But becayse you choose to not follow the requirements doesn't mean the consequences go away. Practice and celebrate your rights, but don't ***** if there are consequences. That is the other side of the equation. If the Courts or Legislature rule otherwise or change the. Law, the situation changes. That is how this is supposed to work.


Why are you talking? You use a lot of words to say nothing. I knew Calvin Coolidge. Calvin Coolidge was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Calvin Coolidge. Just submit.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."
AMAL: "Don't condescend to me. I know science and statistics as well as anyone."

Also AMAL: "Vaccines are bad because the Bible tells me so."
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."
AMAL: "Don't condescend to me. I know science and statistics as well as anyone."

Also AMAL: "Vaccines are bad because the Bible tells me so."


Civid vaccines are bad for me, Troll. If you want it, then you can get stuck.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."
AMAL: "Don't condescend to me. I know science and statistics as well as anyone."

Also AMAL: "Vaccines are bad because the Bible tells me so."


Civid vaccines are bad for me, Troll. If you want it, then you can get stuck.
CONDESCENDING
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blocked.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star


Protest to your hearts delight. Peacefully demonstrate. Dont take the shot, all your right. No argument.

The Courts have said for over 100 years that the State Govt has the right to require inoculations. You have a right not to take it in Texas, dont.

But becayse you choose to not follow the requirements doesn't mean the consequences go away. Practice and celebrate your rights, but don't ***** if there are consequences. That is the other side of the equation. If the Courts or Legislature rule otherwise or change the. Law, the situation changes. That is how this is supposed to work.


Why are you talking? You use a lot of words to say nothing. I knew Calvin Coolidge. Calvin Coolidge was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Calvin Coolidge. Just submit.


I'll be succinct. Maybe if you listen and read you will learn something.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

Blocked.
OH NO
What am I gonna do?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

In America, we have the right to protest unjust laws.

Keep in mind that the British had plenty of laws in place in 1775, to which our Founders took strong exception.

Our exception to unjust laws is why we exist as the United States and not just a British Colony.
See how easy it is. Good post
Blue star


Protest to your hearts delight. Peacefully demonstrate. Dont take the shot, all your right. No argument.

The Courts have said for over 100 years that the State Govt has the right to require inoculations. You have a right not to take it in Texas, dont.

But becayse you choose to not follow the requirements doesn't mean the consequences go away. Practice and celebrate your rights, but don't ***** if there are consequences. That is the other side of the equation. If the Courts or Legislature rule otherwise or change the. Law, the situation changes. That is how this is supposed to work.


Why are you talking? You use a lot of words to say nothing. I knew Calvin Coolidge. Calvin Coolidge was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Calvin Coolidge. Just submit.


I'll be succinct. Maybe if you listen and read you will learn something.


Not from you.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
King George III used threats of "consequences" too.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

King George III used threats of "consequences" too.


Libertarian Sam Troll would have supported the Crown. And kneeled before it.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

RMF5630 said:

Married A Horn said:

The difference is this 'innoculation' is an experiment that makes the people up top trillions of $ - yeah no reason to be skeptical of that.
You can be skeptical all you want, but if Texas requires the "inoculation" than you have to do comply or not get access. Period. Where I live the State doesn't require it, but the local governments require a mask. Theaters required we wear a mask to see a play (went to Cats, don't get me going on that! Never again.) No one has enforced or checked, but that does not undo your responsibility to comply.

I was skeptical of the anthrax shot I got before deploying to Saudi in 1991, still had to get it. That is part of living in a Country, you agree to follow the laws. I do not get this "right" to pick and choose what requirements are valid and which aren't. Why aren't they valid? Someone is making what you deem to much money???? I am sorry, just do not get it.
You clearly do not understand the role that civil disobedience has played in freeing those who were and are oppressed by unjust laws. Enjoy your submission to unjust government authority. This is just the beginning.

"So that no man may buy or sell...."
AMAL: "Don't condescend to me. I know science and statistics as well as anyone."

Also AMAL: "Vaccines are bad because the Bible tells me so."


Civid vaccines are bad for me, Troll. If you want it, then you can get stuck.
It's a tough call, what with it being the mark of the beast and everything. That devil sure is a tricky one. Who knew that pledging allegiance to the Antichrist would involve...nothing remotely to do with pledging allegiance to the Antichrist?
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam, I don't know what you said. But, you would have bowed to the Crown. Because the data. And the Science. Both of which were and are controlled by the Crown.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam, I don't know what you said. But, you would have bowed to the Crown. Because the data. And the Science. Both of which were and are controlled by the Crown.
Does it bother you that almost every fact claim from the anti-vaxxers is demonstrably false? Does this pattern suggest anything about the validity of their opinions?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam, I don't know what you said. But, you would have bowed to the Crown. Because the data. And the Science. Both of which were and are controlled by the Crown.
Does it bother you that almost every fact claim from the anti-vaxxers is demonstrably false? Does this pattern suggest anything about the validity of their opinions?
Dude. You should really stop. In my opinion, this is not going to end well for you.

You got the vaccine. Good for you. Let's take some time and see how things work out. I am hoping for a positive outcome for you.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam, I don't know what you said. But, you would have bowed to the Crown. Because the data. And the Science. Both of which were and are controlled by the Crown.
Does it bother you that almost every fact claim from the anti-vaxxers is demonstrably false? Does this pattern suggest anything about the validity of their opinions?
Dismissing people with legitimate worries about side effects from the COVID vaccines and people worried about government overreach from lockdowns and denial of medical privacy and alternatives to forced vaccination, along with refusal to consider natural immunity or the value of therapeutics as "anti-vaxxers" is grossly arrogant and hypocritical.

The pattern of parroting the offensive screeds from Fauci, who was neither elected nor consistent between his words and actions, is itself something a reasonable man would challenge.

Or does it bother you at all, Sam, that Fauci is on record saying things like

"you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society"

https://washingtonnewsdaily.com/dr-fauci-declares-americans-should-give-up-individual-freedom-for-the-greater-good-of-society/

It should outrage everyone that a man never elected to office would make such statements as if he could deny people their rights simply because he wants to do so. Why are you silent about that, Sam?

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

Sam, I don't know what you said. But, you would have bowed to the Crown. Because the data. And the Science. Both of which were and are controlled by the Crown.
Does it bother you that almost every fact claim from the anti-vaxxers is demonstrably false? Does this pattern suggest anything about the validity of their opinions?
Dude. You should really stop. In my opinion, this is not going to end well for you.

You got the vaccine. Good for you. Let's take some time and see how things work out. I am hoping for a positive outcome for you.
Thank you.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.