792 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

 

Flu vaccines are anual, you gonna complain about that now aswell?

Why would I complain about something I have never had injected into me? Something you don't know... my mother worked in a hospital for 30 years and had that damn flu shot every year. She died at 61... of the flu.

.

You cut off the rest of that line, the part that actual matters as speaking about a NEW virus with no (found) natural immunity against.

 

Your personal story also notes that vaccines aren't hail mary's. So stop making this one as like one. Again, thats all politician nonesence, which I might add to that the politicians in power during vaccine development and implementation were Republican... (Trump still sways between touting HIS accomplishment or deriding it for being made to control all)
.

 

The fellow is 81. And seeing as his work will only be further impeded by science illiterates, it is a shame he feels like that.

His work has been making virus more infectious and dangerous to humans. This means his work needs to be impeded by any means possible. Would not be surprised if the definition of "Mad Scientist" in a few years, features a color photo of Fauci.

.

And we are back to the "gain-of-function" malarky. Stop bleating about science you neither understand nor wish to read up upon.

[Lysistrata]

So, thank you for endorsing the fact that the cell therapy does not prevent infection. Covid is dead... not because of lockdowns, masks, and shots, but because of herd immunity. It is no longer a "dangerous" virus.

 

"Gain of Function" is making an innocuous virus more infectious. That has been Fauci's work his entire career.

His complete list of colleagues, partners, and investors belong in prison, if not execution, for mass murder.

[Lysistrata]

Howard Stern distraught over end of mask mandates, blames Republicans: 'The wackos are winning' | Fox News

 

I guess I'm a very proud wacko. Stern may wish to romance the floundering leadership over at CNN. They need his help.

[Lysistrata]

Democrats just don't want to let it go. Pennsylvania dropped their state of emergency in June 2021. They continued to require masks on children in school. Parents said, "You can't do that". They were ignored. In December, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declared that mask mandates are unconstitutional. They continued to ignore it and mandates remained in place.

 

Now they no longer have any power whatsoever in Pennsylvania. Please... keep pushing it Dems, it's working just fine for you.

Pennsylvania judge boots 5 Dems from school board over mask mandate | Fox News

[Lysistrata]

Russell lays out a brilliant explanation of the origin of Covid, the cover-up, and auditions for voice work, all at the same time.

Great work Russell.

It All Makes Sense Now - YouTube

[Lysistrata]

The Mask Nazi's just lost their last pair of jackboots. Now they have to suck it up and allow people to breathe.

Florida judge overturns federal mask mandate for transportation (washingtonexaminer.com)

[Lysistrata]

I can't stop laughing... this woman is actually an elected state rep in New Hampshire.

 

"Today a federal judge called it overreach for US health officials to require masks on airplanes & other public transit, and no matter how you feel about masks, you should be really, really concerned that the Courts are effectively taking away power from the federal government."

 

That's the purpose of the Federal Judiciary, but Democrats have some problems with brain function.

Lindsay Sabadosa on Twitter: "Today a federal judge called it overreach for US health officials to require masks on airplanes & other public transit, and no matter how you feel about masks, you should be really, really concerned that the Courts are effectively taking away power from the federal government." / Twitter

[onbekende]

It was a long month of silence, but I r back baby!

 

 

The Mask Nazi's just lost their last pair of jackboots. Now they have to suck it up and allow people to breathe.

Florida judge overturns federal mask mandate for transportation (washingtonexaminer.com)

 

Trump judge proclaims all what CDC is stating it correct and will help in combatting the pandemic. Then if I read the relevant parts right (around p13) I find that the judge proclaims masks to not be a sanitation measure (and thus throwing them out of CDC ability to make the rule itself).

 

We got another "opinion" giver here it seems... Someone go strip hopsital (especially surgery) folk of these pesky masks, clearly they do nothing to stop infection of a person.

 

 

That's the purpose of the Federal Judiciary, but Democrats have some problems with brain function.

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

[Lysistrata]

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

[MWilson]

 

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

 

I strongly doubt you know much about the law at all. A judge doesn't "create new laws out of thin air". Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling. Also define what you think the role of the judiciary is.

[Lysistrata]

Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling.

I am not advocating a position... I'm giving you examples of activism.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans abortion in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly abortion is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans gay marriage in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly gay marriage is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

An "Activist Judge" is a judge that creates new law out of thin air.

[onbekende]

 

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

Coupled with your 2 examples, it seems you don't know your Constitution at all. Both examples of 14th amendment infringements by "activist judges" allowing to stand unconstitutional laws made by states.

 

But hey, we know why you might not like the 14th, we can also gauge why by looking at where it mostly gets contested, in the old Confederacy...

 

You just don't like Americans actually excisting, you solely want people being governed by their respective state (or in your extreme case, their lone Libertarian island).

[Lysistrata]

Progressive Playbook 101

1. Call them stupid

2. Call them a racist

3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

 

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

[MWilson]

 

Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling.

I am not advocating a position... I'm giving you examples of activism.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans abortion in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly abortion is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans gay marriage in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly gay marriage is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

An "Activist Judge" is a judge that creates new law out of thin air.

 

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Progressive Playbook 101

1. Call them stupid

2. Call them a racist

3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

 

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

Your side lost the civil war, the Constitution applies to you guys just the same. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Saudi Arabia hates gays and women, maybe you'd be more at home there.

[MWilson]

 

 

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

 

I strongly doubt you know much about the law at all. A judge doesn't "create new laws out of thin air". Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling. Also define what you think the role of the judiciary is.

 

You also missed part 2, "What is the role of the Judicial Branch in America?"

[Lysistrata]

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Marriage is a tough subject. Where it all went wrong was the part that tied marriage to the law. Marriage is a religious ritual tied to churches and beliefs, and really never should have been part of law... because law is different. If you really want inclusive, then there should be no difference. They are all considered Civil Unions. People get hitched anyway they want, but if you want it legal, then you have to go to the courthouse to get a Civil Union. Sever "Marriage" from the law, and everyone should be cool with it.

 

Marriage is not the business of the Federal Government.

 

Like I said before... abortion should be rendered obsolete. We are too advanced to be using a drastic medical procedure to end life. Abortion should only be used as a means of saving life... as in, if she doesn't get this baby out of her, she will die. It should be agreed on by all states, and ratified in the Constitution, a precise time when a human life is entitled to Constitutional protection. Without that provision, there can only be continued argument over abortion. But then again, Democrats never want to solve problems, because if the problem is solved, they won't have the issue anymore to gaslight the next election.

 

Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... but life is.

[onbekende]

Progressive Playbook 101
1. Call them stupid
2. Call them a racist
3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

.
I neither did 1 or 2, I called you a seperatist.

 

And I am stating by fact, supported by a myriad of cases brought before your Supreme Court, that those 2 listed examples fall under the 14th amendment of your very Constitution you so wish to be uphold.
.

 

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

.
2nd paragraph of Article 6 of the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

By ^^ and with support from SCOTUS, your way aint the way.
.

 

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Marriage is a tough subject. Where it all went wrong was the part that tied marriage to the law. Marriage is a religious ritual tied to churches and beliefs, and really never should have been part of law... because law is different. If you really want inclusive, then there should be no difference. They are all considered Civil Unions. People get hitched anyway they want, but if you want it legal, then you have to go to the courthouse to get a Civil Union. Sever "Marriage" from the law, and everyone should be cool with it.

.
ooo I am all for decoupling "marriage by faith" from "marriage by law". It is however to late to seperate "marriage" from the proceedings it stands for and try to stick the "Civil Union" term on it, that boat sailed long ago. Purely on a terminology way it shouldn't lose that moniker imo.
.

Marriage is not the business of the Federal Government.

.
It became so when taxes and benefits were invented

 

Strip any and all dealings a couple receive by goverment by the mere notion of marriage and we can talk about decoupling it.
.

Like I said before... abortion should be rendered obsolete. We are too advanced to be using a drastic medical procedure to end life. Abortion should only be used as a means of saving life... as in, if she doesn't get this baby out of her, she will die. It should be agreed on by all states, and ratified in the Constitution, a precise time when a human life is entitled to Constitutional protection. Without that provision, there can only be continued argument over abortion. But then again, Democrats never want to solve problems, because if the problem is solved, they won't have the issue anymore to gaslight the next election.

Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... but life is.

.

Then stop trying to mess with Planned Parenthood. Also give actual sexual eduction together with easier access to birthcontrol means to all.

 

A world without abortions is what nearly all strife to have, the less intervention after the deed is always prefered, prevent > cure.

 

And thinking you will get an amendment stating when life begins, good luck >_>

[Lysistrata]

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

 

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

[MWilson]

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

 

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

[Lysistrata]

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

I'm not in the position to solve anything. I can only tell you what I believe would be the most acceptable path to a solution. It's entirely up to many more people that are all above my pay grade, and I'll support those that I feel will get us there. None of them are Socialists.

 

Progressives are not interested in solutions. They are only interested in change... their change. When they can't change it, they will break it. No matter what the cost, and no matter who is harmed by it. Everything going on right now is the result of Progressive policies designed to break everything... the economy, immigration, energy, education, crime, inflation, elections... and the only two things left we have to stop it is the first two Constitutional Amendments that they have been trying to break for years, but that's not happening.

 

Democrats are gonna lose so bad in November... and they deserve it. They have about 6 months to go... what will they do next?