|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 22, 2021 13:22:35 GMT -8
Thanks for posting this article. As much as I "hate" Barry Bolton, he articulates all the points I tried to make in my response to the beav angler. I think he's all right, but don't get me started on Michael Bolton.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jul 22, 2021 13:57:13 GMT -8
Actually, no I don’t remember Biden or Harris saying such things because I don’t take medical advice from politicians. If I did, I would’ve stocked up on bleach to drink. As for Fauci and his back and forth on the masks, that seems to reflect more on the past administration than Fauci. After all, it was Trump who controlled what Fauci could say. If you don’t take medical advice from politicians why do Republican lies bother you? Obviously because many Republicans do.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 22, 2021 14:23:12 GMT -8
I really think it is a personal decision. Many Young people do not need the Virus and the risk could be greater. So many of You leftists lack common sense prriod. I got the shot in March as did my Wife the Johnson ands Johnson shot. Our choice. I also tested positive for COVID and have symptoms. I have been careful but even so got exposed. So I have pause as to why? Seems arguments are not kind hearted and I can just shzje my head at some of you people. Not fun getting it and not fun isolating for up to 6 weeks. "In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: 'Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.'" Mind you Jacobson stands for the proposition that a city can fine someone $5.00, if they refuse a smallpox vaccine without reason. (Jacobson had a reason, but he unsuccessfully tried to prove that a $5.00 fine for not agreeing to be vaccinated was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive" in and of itself.) The Supreme Court determined that smallpox was "prevalent and increasing" in the City of Cambridge and that therefore the fine was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety." Jacobson is distinguishable at a minimum, because we are talking about coronavirus, rather than smallpox, and was limited to a one city, where a very deadly disease was "prevalent and increasing." Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) stands for the proposition that a City can deny a child the opportunity to attend school, when it was not proven to the school that she (Rosalyn Zucht) was already vaccinated from smallpox. The case is once again about smallpox, so it is potentially distinguishable. Be careful with Jacobson and Zucht, because their progeny led to a similar ruling for the State of Virginia on Harry H. Laughlin's national eugenic sterilization program laws in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Adolf Hitler based his July 14, 1933, Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring) on Laughlin's laws and the earlier Jacobson and Zucht rulings. And Buck was cited by Otto Hoffman (Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and, later, head of the SS for South-Western Germany) in his defense during the SS Race and Settlement Main Office Trial. Forced inoculation -> forced sterilization -> fascism. It's a slippery slope, but one that y'all have already taken us down before.........
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 22, 2021 14:28:09 GMT -8
If you don’t take medical advice from politicians why do Republican lies bother you? Obviously because many Republicans do. This is the same glib nonsense that I was faulting ATown for. Which politicians? Name names! Which politicians are out there lying? What are their lies? State with particularity! Also, as I have pointed out before, the large issue with vaccinations right now is that African-Americans and Hispanics are not being vaccinated as often as White, Non-Hispanics. Trying to politicize vaccinations is arguing margins. Also also, if you want to really become transfixed by vaccine hesitancy, look at Europe's vaccine hesitancy numbers (outside of the United Kingdom).
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Jul 22, 2021 14:30:23 GMT -8
My daughter spent four days in the hospital after getting the vaccine. That's the only data point that I really give a *** about.
Oh - there is one other data point. Despite her diagnosis being among the known possible side-effects of the vaccine, her case was NOT entered into the national database. It appears that in the same way that Covid deaths were over-reported before, now vaccine side-effects are being under-reported.
Call me any damn name you like, I'll wait for Novavaxx. An old-school vaccine, made from bits o'virus, coming in a matter of weeks. More effective in tests, fewer and less severe side effects, and not based on a new technology that was rushed to market despite reasonable safety concerns.
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Jul 22, 2021 14:36:35 GMT -8
"In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: 'Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.'" Mind you Jacobson stands for the proposition that a city can fine someone $5.00, if they refuse a smallpox vaccine without reason. (Jacobson had a reason, but he unsuccessfully tried to prove that a $5.00 fine for not agreeing to be vaccinated was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive" in and of itself.) The Supreme Court determined that smallpox was "prevalent and increasing" in the City of Cambridge and that therefore the fine was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety." Jacobson is distinguishable at a minimum, because we are talking about coronavirus, rather than smallpox, and was limited to a one city, where a very deadly disease was "prevalent and increasing." Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) stands for the proposition that a City can deny a child the opportunity to attend school, when it was not proven to the school that she (Rosalyn Zucht) was already vaccinated from smallpox. The case is once again about smallpox, so it is potentially distinguishable. Be careful with Jacobson and Zucht, because their progeny led to a similar ruling for the State of Virginia on Harry H. Laughlin's national eugenic sterilization program laws in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Adolf Hitler based his July 14, 1933, Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring) on Laughlin's laws and the earlier Jacobson and Zucht rulings. And Buck was cited by Otto Hoffman (Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and, later, head of the SS for South-Western Germany) in his defense during the SS Race and Settlement Main Office Trial. Forced inoculation -> forced sterilization -> fascism. It's a slippery slope, but one that y'all have already taken us down before......... It's precedent as is the district court case from Indiana. Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, mandatory vaccination is the law of the land. That said, the Indiana case speaks directly to the point that WSU has the legal authority to require vaccination of all students, staff and employees. Interesting fact, when my wife, daughter, and I registered to work to additional degrees, we were required to submit evidence that we were vaccinated against a bunch of viruses. No one really objected to these requires until Herr Trumpsky made it a political issue.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 22, 2021 15:15:13 GMT -8
"In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: 'Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.'" Mind you Jacobson stands for the proposition that a city can fine someone $5.00, if they refuse a smallpox vaccine without reason. (Jacobson had a reason, but he unsuccessfully tried to prove that a $5.00 fine for not agreeing to be vaccinated was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive" in and of itself.) The Supreme Court determined that smallpox was "prevalent and increasing" in the City of Cambridge and that therefore the fine was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety." Jacobson is distinguishable at a minimum, because we are talking about coronavirus, rather than smallpox, and was limited to a one city, where a very deadly disease was "prevalent and increasing." Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) stands for the proposition that a City can deny a child the opportunity to attend school, when it was not proven to the school that she (Rosalyn Zucht) was already vaccinated from smallpox. The case is once again about smallpox, so it is potentially distinguishable. Be careful with Jacobson and Zucht, because their progeny led to a similar ruling for the State of Virginia on Harry H. Laughlin's national eugenic sterilization program laws in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Adolf Hitler based his July 14, 1933, Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring) on Laughlin's laws and the earlier Jacobson and Zucht rulings. And Buck was cited by Otto Hoffman (Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and, later, head of the SS for South-Western Germany) in his defense during the SS Race and Settlement Main Office Trial. Forced inoculation -> forced sterilization -> fascism. It's a slippery slope, but one that y'all have already taken us down before......... With all due respect, I don't think Hitler really GAF about US legal precedent one way or another to justify his sterilization policies. They obviously would have happened regardless. By the way what are your feelings re: Traffic Lights -> fascism. (that ought to generate about a 800 word response)
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 22, 2021 15:34:35 GMT -8
With all due respect, I don't think Hitler really GAF about US legal precedent one way or another to justify his sterilization policies. They obviously would have happened regardless. By the way what are your feelings re: Traffic Lights -> fascism.(that ought to generate about a 800 word response) I was leading a public meeting / outreach session for access control and some associated signal timing for Hwy 62 and a side road in White City in about 2002 (as a consultant for ODOT and Jackson County). An older fellow wove into his question that I must support fascism also. You say it as a joke but some folks believe it.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 22, 2021 15:42:25 GMT -8
Mind you Jacobson stands for the proposition that a city can fine someone $5.00, if they refuse a smallpox vaccine without reason. (Jacobson had a reason, but he unsuccessfully tried to prove that a $5.00 fine for not agreeing to be vaccinated was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive" in and of itself.) The Supreme Court determined that smallpox was "prevalent and increasing" in the City of Cambridge and that therefore the fine was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety." Jacobson is distinguishable at a minimum, because we are talking about coronavirus, rather than smallpox, and was limited to a one city, where a very deadly disease was "prevalent and increasing." Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) stands for the proposition that a City can deny a child the opportunity to attend school, when it was not proven to the school that she (Rosalyn Zucht) was already vaccinated from smallpox. The case is once again about smallpox, so it is potentially distinguishable. Be careful with Jacobson and Zucht, because their progeny led to a similar ruling for the State of Virginia on Harry H. Laughlin's national eugenic sterilization program laws in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Adolf Hitler based his July 14, 1933, Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring) on Laughlin's laws and the earlier Jacobson and Zucht rulings. And Buck was cited by Otto Hoffman (Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and, later, head of the SS for South-Western Germany) in his defense during the SS Race and Settlement Main Office Trial. Forced inoculation -> forced sterilization -> fascism. It's a slippery slope, but one that y'all have already taken us down before......... With all due respect, I don't think Hitler really GAF about US legal precedent one way or another to justify his sterilization policies. They obviously would have happened regardless. By the way what are your feelings re: Traffic Lights -> fascism. (that ought to generate about a 800 word response) 800 words is a little light for the Wilkster. More like 1k+ I'm a fan of traffic circles btw.
|
|
|
Post by billthebeav on Jul 22, 2021 15:58:03 GMT -8
If you don’t take medical advice from politicians why do Republican lies bother you? Obviously because many Republicans do. So, Republicans believe misinformation but Democrats don’t?
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jul 22, 2021 16:00:47 GMT -8
With all due respect, I don't think Hitler really GAF about US legal precedent one way or another to justify his sterilization policies. They obviously would have happened regardless. By the way what are your feelings re: Traffic Lights -> fascism. (that ought to generate about a 800 word response) 800 words is a little light for the Wilkster. More like 1k+ I'm a fan of traffic circles btw. Now you've done it - the Vax/anti-vax thing, like water off a duck's back - but then you gotta bring up those loathsome, confusing and totalitarian traffic circles....I got ammo for 100 posts now!
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jul 22, 2021 16:13:19 GMT -8
My daughter spent four days in the hospital after getting the vaccine. That's the only data point that I really give a *** about. Oh - there is one other data point. Despite her diagnosis being among the known possible side-effects of the vaccine, her case was NOT entered into the national database. It appears that in the same way that Covid deaths were over-reported before, now vaccine side-effects are being under-reported. Call me any damn name you like, I'll wait for Novavaxx. An old-school vaccine, made from bits o'virus, coming in a matter of weeks. More effective in tests, fewer and less severe side effects, and not based on a new technology that was rushed to market despite reasonable safety concerns. Sorry about your daughter. Almost every reliable news/public health source believes Covid deaths have been significantly under-reported. Almost 600,000 more Americans died in 2020 than in 2019, and only about 350,000 of those are attributed to Covid. Almost every reputable source believes Covid was responsible for a large number of those other 250,000 deaths. Hope you stay healthy waiting for the other vaccination.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 22, 2021 16:13:53 GMT -8
If you don’t take medical advice from politicians why do Republican lies bother you? Obviously because many Republicans do.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jul 22, 2021 16:31:50 GMT -8
"In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court had called for just such deference in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the midst of a small-pox outbreak, local authorities could mandate vaccination on penalty of a fine for refusal: 'Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.'" Mind you Jacobson stands for the proposition that a city can fine someone $5.00, if they refuse a smallpox vaccine without reason. (Jacobson had a reason, but he unsuccessfully tried to prove that a $5.00 fine for not agreeing to be vaccinated was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive" in and of itself.) The Supreme Court determined that smallpox was "prevalent and increasing" in the City of Cambridge and that therefore the fine was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety." Jacobson is distinguishable at a minimum, because we are talking about coronavirus, rather than smallpox, and was limited to a one city, where a very deadly disease was "prevalent and increasing." Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) stands for the proposition that a City can deny a child the opportunity to attend school, when it was not proven to the school that she (Rosalyn Zucht) was already vaccinated from smallpox. The case is once again about smallpox, so it is potentially distinguishable. Be careful with Jacobson and Zucht, because their progeny led to a similar ruling for the State of Virginia on Harry H. Laughlin's national eugenic sterilization program laws in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Adolf Hitler based his July 14, 1933, Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring) on Laughlin's laws and the earlier Jacobson and Zucht rulings. And Buck was cited by Otto Hoffman (Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and, later, head of the SS for South-Western Germany) in his defense during the SS Race and Settlement Main Office Trial. Forced inoculation -> forced sterilization -> fascism. It's a slippery slope, but one that y'all have already taken us down before......... Wilky ... I'm sure you of all people are aware that forced inoculation was a critical component to this country winning the Revolutionary War, aka existing. Your logic sequence is about as ridiculous as subsequently saying: forced inoculation -> freedom from tyranny
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jul 22, 2021 16:33:36 GMT -8
800 words is a little light for the Wilkster. More like 1k+ I'm a fan of traffic circles btw. Now you've done it - the Vax/anti-vax thing, like water off a duck's back - but then you gotta bring up those loathsome, confusing and totalitarian traffic circles....I got ammo for 100 posts now! You left out "satanic".
|
|