Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Action80

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 40  Next >
21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 10, 2021, 01:18:18 PM »
The 5th circuit is known for having an activist bent and I’ve seen a few lawyers comment that the rationale for the decision wasn’t very rational. It seems like it could go either way on appeal.
Pro-fascist lawyers labeling things as "... activist tendencies of courts," when things don't go their way is unsurprising.

Further, the 5th circuit merely cited officials at OSHA in justifying the reason for the decision.

OSHA admitted it cannot justify the mandate based on the science.

22
They got exactly what they had coming to them.

Well of course. They live in America. That sorry episode is evidence of what the country is devolving to

Sucks to live in America right now. Once the greatest nation now no better than the lawless jungles of Central America or Africa. Fantastic

If only we could get a President to make America great again. Oh well
Actually, more people are still clamoring to make America their home than any other place on the flat earth plane, especially that current prison colony out in the ocean you call home.

What happened in Kenosha is a prime example of what happens to people who think and act like idiot Australians and try to propagate that shit line of thinking here in the US.

23
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
The two dead shitbags, one was going for Rittenhouse's rifle,  the other actively trying to kill him with the skateboard.

They got exactly what they had coming to them.

24
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened.  Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.

So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
I encourage you to come back and participate.

Please.
Of course.
I'm white so I can kill as many conservative traitors as I want and claim self defense. :)
I mean 'it was a mob!  I was afraid for my life while wanting to defend our nation's capital as a private citizen.  I had no choice but to fire all 100 rounds I had with me.
Fantastic! Pleased to see such a high level of commitment in writing. Maybe I'll see you there!

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 10, 2021, 07:41:16 AM »
So, you finally understand mandates are not law.

Good.

I never said mandates and laws are the same thing. I exhaustively explained and showed how they have the same impact and are both enforceable. One is temporary and one is permanent (until repealed), but they both carry the same weight. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

What's even more hilarious is your argument that "and police chiefs and sheriffs wouldn't issue statements about how the mandates will not be enforced." Laughably, perhaps blissfully, ignorant.

And yes, no one has ever credited you or cited your writing as you are not a prestigious doctor or even a run of the mill lawyer.

And yep, understood - You never had a prestigious doctor to point to even though you said you did. Good work on completely making things up.
The federal court judge knows better.

I know you are terribly distressed over this, but too bad.

26
I think we can all agree the takeaway is this: pretend cops and real cops can kill anyone so long as they feel threatened.  Especially when that threat comes from antagonizing people who are already angry as hell at something.

So basically: next time a Jan 6 type protest happens, grab your gun and head down, its open season.
First, perhaps if "we," refers to the mouse you have in your pocket, you might be correct, but granting the mouse some aspect of intelligence, I'll go with the idea you're wrong as usual.

You see, Rittenhouse had justification for his feelings. You don't.

I encourage you to come back and participate.

Please.

27
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.

Apparently, you are wrong again regarding a minor possessing a specific type of firearm in Wisconsin:

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped
According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.


Not to mention it's a misdemeanor charge, so whatever.
Apparently, the word rifle escapes you. Apparently,  you don't know the barrel length of an AR-15.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 09, 2021, 10:41:28 PM »
So, you finally understand mandates are not law.

Good.

And yes, no one has ever credited you or cited your writing as you are not a prestigious doctor or even a run of the mill lawyer.

29
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

When did I say that? All I'm saying is that the self defense bit is really about the two dead guys at this point. It seems pretty clear that self defense could probably prevail with the guy shot in the arm - That guy had a gun drawn. Then there's the first death, self defense or not? I said I think self defense could prevail because of the first shot fired from behind. As for the second death, the skate board wielding guy, I don't know.

But as Rama said, Rittenhouse will probably walk with just some charges for illegally possessing a weapon. I can see that happening.
There will be no charges for illegal possession of a firearm because the law in Wisconsin states he can have one.

30
So that's regarding the guy who got shot in the arm. The other two who are dead, that's what the self-defense bit is really about. Rittenhouse may get off with self defense on the first death. I'm guessing since someone unknown fired a shot in the air from behind Rittenhouse and directly behind the kid that was chasing him, Rittenhouse could have believed the shot came from the guy chasing him.
For the second death, I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how this nets out.
Evidently you believe you can't die when someone is striking you with a skateboard

31
Yes, the lying pos liberal scumbag admits he was shot because he had pointed a gun at Rittenhouse:

32
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: November 09, 2021, 11:35:09 AM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59177527

Cancelled. We've no idea if he actually made a racist comment, but a brown person accused him so kiss goodbye to your radio show.

It says in the article, "After more than a year - and having been asked to do so by MPs - Yorkshire released the findings of an independent report in September, which upheld seven of the 43 allegations made by Rafiq."

Doesn't that mean they have some idea?
The only idea they could have got was:
    No kosher food - was rectified
    Over 20 years ago, some racist language was used - rectified or not reoccurring
    Over 10 years ago, a former coach used some racist language - corrected
    People do not like religious jokes Failed to address a prior complaint
    Somebody said that Muslims should feel more welcome.


33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 09, 2021, 11:19:42 AM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

"Mandate are quickly implemented to face a specific situation, limited in time. A law is a long-term rule, voted by the elected representatives, and that often take more time to be created. Both are enforceable by the police, but they respond to different situations."

"A mandate is defined as “the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country” (Cambridge Dictionary)...While they might not be laws, a mandate is still legally enforceable. In fact, they will often have the same effect as bills that have passed into law...Additionally, mandates can be as widespread."
https://alldifferences.com/difference-between-mandate-and-law/

Seems that mandates and laws are interchangeable and are differentiated more in terms of effect duration, temporary versus permanent.
A piece of trash source written by some hipster doofus isn't going to carry any water here.

Mandates and laws are not interchangeable in the least.

And the Supreme Court passed its ruling based on a state law, not a mandate.

A law and a mandate have the same power to be enforced. The only difference is how it came to be.
A law is passed by the senate and the house of representatives and signed by the governor. A mandate is made by the governor, with the power given to them by the legislature in a state of emergency.

And who was that prestigious doctor you were referring to?
If they did, then the legislative part would be skipped and the mandate would be enacted as law, and police chiefs and sheriffs wouldn't issue statements about how the mandates will not be enforced.

Stop blubbering about crap you have no clue about.

The prestigious doctor certainly isn't you.

34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 08, 2021, 11:23:23 AM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

"Mandate are quickly implemented to face a specific situation, limited in time. A law is a long-term rule, voted by the elected representatives, and that often take more time to be created. Both are enforceable by the police, but they respond to different situations."

"A mandate is defined as “the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country” (Cambridge Dictionary)...While they might not be laws, a mandate is still legally enforceable. In fact, they will often have the same effect as bills that have passed into law...Additionally, mandates can be as widespread."
https://alldifferences.com/difference-between-mandate-and-law/

Seems that mandates and laws are interchangeable and are differentiated more in terms of effect duration, temporary versus permanent.
A piece of trash source written by some hipster doofus isn't going to carry any water here.

Mandates and laws are not interchangeable in the least.

And the Supreme Court passed its ruling based on a state law, not a mandate.

35
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 09:14:47 PM »
Dr. John Torres flat out lies concerning children.:


36
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 07:54:11 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.

You are incorrect. From the article itself:

"In August this year, after the full approval of Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA published a summary of its inspections of the company’s pivotal trial. Nine of the trial’s 153 sites were inspected. Ventavia’s sites were not listed among the nine, and no inspections of sites where adults were recruited took place in the eight months after the December 2020 emergency authorisation. The FDA’s inspection officer noted: “The data integrity and verification portion of the BIMO [bioresearch monitoring] inspections were limited because the study was ongoing, and the data required for verification and comparison were not yet available to the IND [investigational new drug]."

Nowhere does it say "1/3 of it had issues". What it says is that 9 sites were inspected (out of 153). The 3 Ventavia sites, the ones in question, were not among those 9. What I'm trying to find is where that 9 sites and the above quote from the FDA came from. I can't find it and the author of the article doesn't list it in his references. 

I think it would hold more weight if someone could actually produce that document. Otherwise, I'm a little skeptical.

And btw, it's an article, not a study.
The only reason you're skeptical is a prestigious doctor isn't.

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 07:40:43 PM »


Where did you get 12 from? I can't find that anywhere. I'm not saying that's not true, I just don't see it mentioned.
The video mentions 9 checked and you stated 3 more were checked. 9+3=12.

The 3 mentioned in the quote I referenced was merely that Ventavia was responsible for 3 out of the 153 sites used in the trial. The 9 "checked" mentioned in the video is from the original paper. And the paper states that info was from a letter from the FDA in August. But I can't find that letter reference anywhere. It doesn't seem to be listed in the paper's references and I can't find it anywhere else. So where's this FDA letter saying 9 sites were "checked"?
The study in the New England Journal was based off data from 9 sites, 1/3 of that has issues according to the BMJ.

Your joke of a fact check site does nothing to refute the BMJ report.

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 07:11:16 PM »
This, naturally, extends to the federal government

It definitely does not naturally extend to the federal government and they will have to make a much more convincing argument on why it should.

Why not?
It is the duty of the federal government to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not invalidated.  And if a state has the power to ensure that the public is protected and healthy from a disease, then the federal government, which must manage trade and travel between states, can ensure the same as all states have interstate travel and trade.
This is how they are doing it with OSHA.  Essentially stating that a business of 100 people will have interstate commerce and thus must provide a safe workspace that will ensure that any disease is not transferred to other states.


I mean, Biden could just ban interstate travel if vaccines aren't a thing.  But... This seems like a better choice.
A state has that power because of legislation passed by representatives of the people, not by dictatorial mandates.

39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 07:09:28 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

From the judge.
Quote
...in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

And since the Law was  mandate, I'm not sure what your point is.
So, you got nothing.

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: November 07, 2021, 03:05:17 PM »
Victory in court!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59194421

As a temporary injunction by a  judge who apparently didn't see that this has already been settled over 100 years ago.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled that a state can mandate a vaccine for the benefit of public health even if it interfered with individual rights. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905))
This, naturally, extends to the federal government, whose job it is to ensure "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Guess what vaccines fall under?
As usual, you have no clue concerning this issue.

At question in front of the Supreme Court was the issue of state law, not a mandate.

This decision doesn't extend to unlawful mandates.

Try again.

Neither do you, it seems.
The conclusion was that the state can impose mandates for public safety even if they infringe on individual rights.
Jesus...The conclusion was that STATE LAWS, not MANDATES, could be enforced.

"Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law..." did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Kindly point out in the decision anything referencing mandates, if you're so cocksure.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 40  Next >