What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Starving People Into Getting the Jab

OhPleaseJustQuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
9,547
Points
2,118
Waaaa I'm being treated just like Jew in Nazi Germany.

yup that about captures it.
So you like making jokes about the Holocaust.
 

OhPleaseJustQuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
9,547
Points
2,118

Yeah, me, too.

I would imagine that if it has been isolated/purified/identified, believers would have verified it by now. But . . .
No one can or will give up the very important data!

Oh, yeah, I love the ones who say, "Look it up yourself, you lazy bum!"
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
No one can or will give up the very important data!

Oh, yeah, I love the ones who say, "Look it up yourself, you lazy bum!"
If we start at the beginning, we find that the virus had not been identified, and that the PCR-test did not distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens, and that even if it did, they knowingly set it too high. Despite that revelation, pro-experimental injection folks are still trying to justify their hysterics by directing your attention to the virus and the case numbers from the PCR-test.
 

OhPleaseJustQuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
9,547
Points
2,118
If we start at the beginning, we find that the virus had not been identified, and that the PCR-test did not distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens, and that even if it did, they knowingly set it too high. Despite that revelation, pro-experimental injection folks are still trying to justify their hysterics by directing your attention to the virus and the case numbers from the PCR-test.
Cycle threshold goes up or down, depending on how much panic they wish to generate.

And the public must get all of their information from a cable that plugs them directly into the TV while they have fingers stuck in ears and yell
"LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA".

I am so glad I live in a place where the morons are minimal in their number.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
Basically, an employer can demand that their workers get vaccinated.
And of course, to be consistent, the employer must reciprocate by providing safe working conditions for the employee. So, does the employer assume responsibility for damages caused by its own mandate? The drug company isn't liable. Who will be liable for damages?
 

OhPleaseJustQuit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
9,547
Points
2,118
And of course, to be consistent, the employer must reciprocate by providing safe working conditions for the employee. So, does the employer assume responsibility for damages caused by its own mandate? The drug company isn't liable. Who will be liable for damages?
Alex, I'll take "Why Nobody's Putting A Fucking Needle In My Arm" for $1000.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
Alex, I'll take "Why Nobody's Putting A Fucking Needle In My Arm" for $1000.
And the answer is: In 2020, he, as well as other professionals, are thought to have suffered from a rare neurological condition preventing him from remembering his own condemnation of a test used to determine the spread of a virus.
 
Last edited:

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
5,232
Reaction score
791
Points
140
And of course, to be consistent, the employer must reciprocate by providing safe working conditions for the employee. So, does the employer assume responsibility for damages caused by its own mandate? The drug company isn't liable. Who will be liable for damages?
That is a good question. The employer won't be liable in this case, either. You have a choice. You can agree and work or refuse and quit. An employee can't force an employer to accept their services.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
19,379
Reaction score
11,171
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
That is a good question. The employer won't be liable in this case, either. You have a choice. You can agree and work or refuse and quit. An employee can't force an employer to accept their services.

What if an employer demands that I quit my current religion, and join a church more in line with his beliefs?

It's illegal, of course, for an employer to make any such demand, or to discriminately against me on matters of religion.

As it happens, there are laws, passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Presidents, that protect my rights, as a worker, to privacy regarding my medical matters, and my rights to determine what medical treatments I will accept. It is illegal for an employer to demand that I disclose my private medical information thereto, or to make any demands regarding my medical care, or to discriminate me on any basis connected thereto.

That is the law. That is what employers are required to obey, and are subject to adverse legal consequences if they do not.

An illegal order, issued by a corrupt President that has no authority to issue any such order, does not override actual law.

And an employer that chooses to obey such an order, and in so doing, to disobey the actual law, is still fully culpable for the consequences thereof. That's the Fourth Nuremberg Principle, right there. “I was just following orders” is not an excuse for violating the law.
 

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
5,232
Reaction score
791
Points
140
What if an employer demands that I quit my current religion, and join a church more in line with his beliefs?

It's illegal, of course, for an employer to make any such demand, or to discriminately against me on matters of religion.

As it happens, there are laws, passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Presidents, that protect my rights, as a worker, to privacy regarding my medical matters, and my rights to determine what medical treatments I will accept. It is illegal for an employer to demand that I disclose my private medical information thereto, or to make any demands regarding my medical care, or to discriminate me on any basis connected thereto.

That is the law. That is what employers are required to obey, and are subject to adverse legal consequences if they do not.

An illegal order, issued by a corrupt President that has no authority to issue any such order, does not override actual law.

And an employer that chooses to obey such an order, and in so doing, to disobey the actual law, is still fully culpable for the consequences thereof. That's the Fourth Nuremberg Principle, right there. “I was just following orders” is not an excuse for violating the law.
Well, your point has a good reasoning. But there is one thing. Yes, there is a private medical information, but I think there are some limits to the point when a person can withhold it. Something like, if a person has some chronic lung disease, they can hardly pretend on the job of a professional diver.

I know that some companies working in certain parts around the world demand that their employees be vaccinated from certain diseases. Maybe the current situation is not fully in line with my example. But basically, they have much in common.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
That is a good question. The employer won't be liable in this case, either. You have a choice. You can agree and work or refuse and quit. An employee can't force an employer to accept their services.
Considering that the experimental injection does not confer immunity or prevent transmission, and it wears off in short order, let's call it a treatment. And let's agree that it would be silly of me to take a treatment for something I don't have. So tell me how an employer is protecting employees by mandating a treatment that doesn't prevent transmission or infection, and then not accepting responsibility for any damage.
 
Last edited:

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
5,232
Reaction score
791
Points
140
Considering that the experimental injection does not confer immunity or prevent transmission, and it wears off in short order, let's call it a treatment. And let's agree that it would be silly of me to take a treatment for something I don't have. So tell me how an employer is protecting employees by mandating a treatment that doesn't prevent transmission or infection, and then not accepting responsibility for any damage.
It doesn't mean how you or me would call it. Yes, basically it is an experimental vaccine. But it is approved for emergency use by government agencies who have the legal right to decide on this matter. You can't just stand up and say 'I am the law'. You are not.

Yes, the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine still remains in question. And that is why I oppose mandated vaccination in this case. Leave it to people to decide. Including employers who will decide what is better for their business.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
But it is approved for emergency use by government agencies who have the legal right to decide on this matter.
Approved by the same people who approved an unapproved test to determine the extent of the spread. Those "people" allowed for the use of a test that did not distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens. Even if you give these "people" the benefit of the doubt and conclude that the test does indeed give meaningful results, why do you think they played dumb when it came to setting the damn thing too high. It can't be because they didn't know; tony is on record stating as much.

So, what's with this worship of fraud and the people perpetrating it against you?
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
53,676
Reaction score
20,839
Points
2,250

ESay

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
5,232
Reaction score
791
Points
140
Approved by the same people who approved an unapproved test to determine the extent of the spread. Those "people" allowed for the use of a test that did not distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens. Even if you give these "people" the benefit of the doubt and conclude that the test does indeed give meaningful results, why do you think they played dumb when it came to setting the damn thing too high. It can't be because they didn't know; tony is on record stating as much.

So, what's with this worship of fraud and the people perpetrating it against you?
Man, is there the court's decision which overturns these regulations on the federal level? No? Then they are still in the place.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
478
Reaction score
239
Points
158
Man, is there the court's decision which overturns these regulations on the federal level? No? Then they are still in the place.
I'm not talking about regulations. I'm talking about fraud. And now you're saying that, despite the fact that designated "experts" opted to use a fraudulent test in order to determine the extent of the spread, we're all legally obligated to believe what they say next and do what they say anyway. How interesting.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top