A Declaration of War?

[Colin norris]

Biden Orders VA To Withhold Health Benefits From Unvaccinated Veterans – Delaware Ohio News

President Joe Biden has ordered the Department of Veterans Affairs to withhold healthcare benefits from unvaccinated veterans as part of an aggressive new initiative to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning November 1, any veteran seeking medical care at a VA facility must have had at least...

www.delawareohionews.com

Illegal action by an alleged President/

I told you guys he would get tougher. He has a presidential duty to care for those who have been jabbed from idiots that oppose it because he's advising it and thinking God will take care.

It won't be long before he will link it to your drivers licence, no jab, no drive.

 

[beautress]

I know how your schizophrenic addled minds work. YOu think 1+1= "It's a conspiracy".

Project much?

 

[john doe 101]

Project much?

Not really. Just take a look at these nut jobs on here constantly babbling on and on about how trump won the election. OMG give it a rest already. Not only that but what is probably worse is how these illogical idiots come to their illogical conclusions. It's actually pretty frightening that people like this actually exist in the world.

I'll give you an example: "Nobody attended Bidens rallies and Trump had a packed house at each and every one of his rallies. Therefore, there is no way trump lost the election". There is something missing in peoples brains that think like this. I guess its that they lack critical thinking ability.

 

[beautress]

Not really. Just take a look at these nut jobs on here constantly babbling on and on about how trump won the election. OMG give it a rest already. Not only that but what is probably worse is how these illogical idiots come to their illogical conclusions. It's actually pretty frightening that people like this actually exist in the world.

I'll give you an example: "Nobody attended Bidens rallies and Trump had a packed house at each and every one of his rallies. Therefore, there is no way trump lost the election". There is something missing in peoples brains that think like this. I guess its that they lack critical thinking ability.

FYI your gullibility is mmm interesting. There is less naivity in a church infant nursery than your post. Contact me some day when you grow up.

 

[john doe 101]

FYI your gullibility is mmm interesting. There is less naivity in a church infant nursery than your post. Contact me some day when you grow up.

So you think the statement "Nobody attended Bidens rallies and Trump had a packed house at each and every one of his rallies. Therefore, there is no way trump lost the election" makes sense? If so, why do you think it makes sense?

 

[9thIDdoc]

THE QUESTION​

Can the federal government require private companies to vaccinate their employees?

WHAT WE FOUND​

Gostin and Peck both said yes, the federal government can legally require private company employees to get the COVID vaccine, and there's legal precedent in the Supreme Court.
Peck cited the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, when a man fought to be exempt from a state-mandated smallpox vaccine. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld that he could be required to get vaccinated during the ongoing epidemic.
"[The court said] this was an exercise of the state's authority to address the public health, and it was fully within their power to do so," Peck explained. "He claimed that there were religious reasons, there were just general liberty reasons, they rejected them all."
Peck and Gostin both also cited the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) Act of 1970 as a legal standard for enacting these requirements. The act allows the Department of Labor to put in place standards for workplace health and safety that companies operating in the U.S. must follow.
Meanwhile, Burrus disagreed, saying the president doesn’t have the constitutional power to force a business to require vaccines, and called creating an OSHA rule to mandate vaccines "a stretch."
"[If] you have black mold in your office, OSHA might have jurisdiction over that," Burrus said. "Can they make you get a needle stuck into your arm? Those are the kind of lines that we draw on constitutional law, and I think a lot of judges will draw that line."
So without a consensus among experts, we can’t verify an answer on this right now. Both Peck and Burrus agreed that we're likely to see this one fought out in the courts.

VERIFY: Are President Biden's vaccine executive orders legal?

Millions of American workers will be required to get COVID-19 vaccines under President Biden's new executive orders.

www.wusa9.com

Bullshit. Illegal. Unconstitutional. And idiotic.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I told you guys he would get tougher. He has a presidential duty to care for those who have been jabbed from idiots that oppose it because he's advising it and thinking God will take care.

It won't be long before he will link it to your drivers licence, no jab, no drive.

He's going to have to get waaay tougher for this bullshit to have a chance to fly. Hence the title of this thread.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm thinking of posting an article from a satire website just so you'll argue again that it's real. That was hilarious.

Drop dead, dewdrop.

 

[toobfreak]

You must be a slow learner. For the 3rd time, I can't prove something doesnt exist.

HEY ASSHOLE: GET IT THROUGH YOUR BIG FAT DUMB HEAD:

I never asked you at all to prove that something or anything at all doesn't exist. Assuming your IQ is above 90, you maybe better learn how to read! I am asking you to just SHOW ME what you and all your ilk on the Left have been stating TEN THOUSAND TIMES, on the radio, television, newspaper and web since last election-- -- -- that all the election fraud claims were all BOGUS, totally BASELESS and have all been DEBUNKED as utter nonsense.

Do you think that pea-sized brain of yours can process that now?

All I ever asked is for you to show me that these things, pedaled shamelessly now by the leftist media and every lefty here for eleven months now as the totally unquestioned, undisputed OFFICIAL STORY, actually exist! Because if you and no one else can even direct me to where the official record and documentation is to where, when and how all the election fraud allegations were allegedly all conclusively debunked, then the next question is:

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT ANYTHING WAS EVER DEBUNKED AT ALL?

HOW DO YOU KNOW AND ARE SO SURE IF YOU'VE SEEN NO ACTUAL PROOF?

But apparently NO ONE CAN. We are all just supposed to swallow the story and believe that somehow in a million to one shot that Biden just stumbled onto a stage somewhere, mumbled that he was running for office and won. And history shows that when people tell you a story they cannot back up that it should be looked at very, very close.

 

[john doe 101]

that all the election fraud claims were all BOGUS, totally BASELESS and have all been DEBUNKED as utter nonsense.

You're asking me to show you proof that something didnt happen. That is impossible. See, in the real world there was no fraud. For the 4th time, it is impossible for me to disprove something that didnt happen.

But apparently NO ONE CAN

Hmmmm, are you starting to finally get it that nobody can give you what you want? You finally gonna stop beating your head against the wall and realize nobody can show you proof that the voter fraud doesnt exist? I think your problem here is that since people cant show you something doesnt exist, you therefore automatically think it exists. Which is illogical.

 

[john doe 101]

when and how all the election fraud allegations were allegedly all conclusively debunked,

In numerous courts of law, nobody showed evidence that there was voter fraud. Numerous recounts (sometimes multiple recounts in the same state) were done showing the counts were done accurately. Not sure what else can be done. I'm sure none of that is good enough for you because you'll just come up with some excuse like it was a bunch of communists doing the recount or some such nonsense.

 

[toobfreak]

You're asking me to show you proof that something didnt happen.

So you're saying that the election fraud charges brought forth last Fall never really were debunked despite our media telling us that over and over again!

That means that for all we know, Trump really is still the legitimate president and that our elections really ARE a sham.

Thank you. That took courage to admit that.

 

[toobfreak]

In numerous courts of law, nobody showed evidence that there was voter fraud.

UTTER BULLSHIT. In some of the courts, Trump was told that he was too late already, that he should have filed before the election even happened. In other courts he was told that the POTUS didn't have legal standing to contest the election! In still others, he was dismissed for filing errors because things had to be rushed so fast. And when it went before the Supreme Court, Roberts refused to even let the court hear the case.

 

[john doe 101]

So you're saying that the election fraud charges brought forth last Fall never really were debunked despite our media telling us that over and over again!

That means that for all we know, Trump really is still the legitimate president and that our elections really ARE a sham.

Thank you. That took courage to admit that.

No what I'm saying is that those that were putting forth the case for voter fraud (in their minds something that happened) never showed proof in a court of law that it happened. Now of course you'll come back with any numerous excuses as to why that didnt happen. But that is where issues like this are decided. Not in the media and not on a message board.

That means that for all we know, Trump really is still the legitimate president and that our elections really ARE a sham.

There you go again. "hey nobody showed me this didnt happen (nor can they), so far all we know it DID happen".

You will forever believe there is voter fraud because of how you think illogically. I feel sorry for you that you can't overcome whatever is in your mind preventing you from using this logical fallacy.

 

[john doe 101]

UTTER BULLSHIT. In some of the courts, Trump was told that he was too late already, that he should have filed before the election even happened. In other courts he was told that the POTUS didn't have legal standing to contest the election! In still others, he was dismissed for filing errors because things had to be rushed so fast. And when it went before the Supreme Court, Roberts refused to even let the court hear the case.

Exactly as I predicted.

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly as I predicted.

Still waiting on where I go to see the proof that all the fraud was debunked. I mean, the US government must have some pretty dicey experts who are in charge of sorting out election facts, truth and fiction, right?

Where is the official account?

 

[john doe 101]

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

The Burden of Proof

 

[john doe 101]

dicey experts who are in charge of sorting out election facts, truth and fiction, right

It's called a recount dumbass.

 

[john doe 101]

Proof of a Negative Claim

So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.

"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at Richard Carrier Theory – Internet Infidels
It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven. For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer.
In this regard Irving Marmer Copiwrites:

“

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Introduction to Logic, Copi, 1953, Page 95

You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk. You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer.
You can also prove specific negative claims when they involve known impossibilities. For example is someone were to claim that the one and only moon that normally orbits the planet earth was in the top desk drawer. You claim that the moon is not in the desk drawer. There would be no need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would be far greater than the desk could support were the desk made of ordinary earth substances.
You can also prove specific negative claims that can be rephrased as a positive claim. If someone claims that the lights are not on in room 442 that claim can be rephrased as claiming that the lights are off in room 442.
The claim that you can not prove a negative claim is itself a negative claim and would be a self defeating statement or a retortion were it not generally understood to be a limited claim. What is usually meant by the assertion that "One can not prove a negative claim" is that it is not logical to insist on proof of claims or statements of the sort: " There is no such thing as X that exists anywhere at all and at any time at all."
Negative claims in the context of religion are very commonly of this form:

• "You can not prove that there is no deity"
• "You can not prove that there are no miracles"

These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena. They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles. For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns. The theists appears to think that the critic of theism is claiming that there are no deities and that such a claim can be proven or has been proven. What is actually being claimed by most critics of the claims that there are deities or miracles is that "There is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a deity or a miracle." or that "It has not been proven that there are deities or miracles." The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim that an entity X does exist. The critic of the person making the positive claim that an entity X does exist is asking for evidence in support of that claim and that the evidence be relevant and sufficient to warrant or support the claim.

 

[j-mac]

Still waiting on where I go to see the proof that all the fraud was debunked. I mean, the US government must have some pretty dicey experts who are in charge of sorting out election facts, truth and fiction, right?

Where is the official account?

He's never going to honestly answer that question, because he knows it would expose him as a fraud...