Omicron now

[Citizen Koba]

Any assault on the constitution is a massive massive assault on our freedoms. You all laughed at me when I said the supreme court would STRIKE DOWN this grotesque abuse of power, but it turned out I was correct. Said as Europeans you knew more about our constitution than I do. Newsflash - Article II gives specific powers the president has, vaccine mandates are not one of them. Everyone laughed at me and said I was an idiot but turned out I was right.

I'm not 'you all' or 'Everyone' but have opinions which are unique to me believe it or not.

Did I laugh at you for suggesting it was possible the SC would make such a ruling? I think that's unlikely. Perhaps you could show me where I did that and if that's accurate I'll offer you an apology.

I seen a few of your posts and been meaning to discuss the the idea that the principles of democracy and constitutional **********ism are somehow mutually exclusive... a dangerous fallacy that's been pushed hard by the American Right but I kinda ran out of time last night and besides decided that it was that kinda sprawling coversation that would likely take up more time than I was willing to put into it.

I'll link you a coupla opinion pieces on it though just cos you might be interested. Point being 'democracy' does not imply a tyranny of the majority and never did. Contrary to what you seemed to think about other countries essentially there's nowhere that doesn't have a constitution or something similar to ensure the protection of the minority under ********ic systems. Democracy in and of itself simply means 'rule by the people' (the 'demos') as opposed to systems like monarchy ('single ruler'), oligarchy (rule of the few) or theocracy (rule of - or in the name of - God) or indeed anarchy (without rulers). There's absolutely nothing in the definition of 'Democrac'y that suggests how this 'rule by the people' is carried out or that it should be an absolute tyranny of the majority... it's just a general term for the way decisions are made that affect the whole of a community or society.

Anyways. It's probably a discussion for it's own thread but the two things need to go hand in hand. After all it was so many decades ago that it was considered 'constitutional' to treat African Americans as partial citizens for instance - social values do change over time and due to circumstance, and new situations arise which is why there is a need for interpretive bodies like this SC to exist. As to whether mandates vaccine mandates are unconstitutional per se it's not really been ruled that they ain't either... after all Federal employees and Healthcare staff can still be require to vaccinate or test, it's more that an order to enforce mandates on employees of private companies was Federal overreach.

I suspect however that if a strain emerged that killed 5% rather than 0.5% this decision would be reversed or circumvented so fast it's make your head spin.

Damn... can't help rambling on can I? Anyway. It's good to see you have faith in your National institutions, hope you bear that in mind when they do something that isn't in line with your beliefs.

Before we try to answer that question, let’s talk about how the American ********ic system actually works. The folks perpetuating these stories say that republics and democracies are incompatible things, and that the U.S. is a republic. Any civics expert will tell you that these two systems are not mutually exclusive.

The United States is a ********ic republic—both a democracy and a republic. Case closed. The conversation should end there, right? Wrong. Proponents of the idea that the U.S. is not meant to be ********ic like to talk a lot about the founders, so let’s talk a bit about the founders.

As it turns out, there are subtle, but important, differences between a democracy and a republic, and that the definitions aren't mutually exclusive. In other words, it's complicated. But don't worry! Knowing the differences between a republic vs a democracy is important for tons of AP exams, including both history tests (U.S. and world) and both government and politics tests (U.S. and comparative). That's why we've put this guide together for you.

We often hear a question debated in person and online by Americans who care deeply about making sure our government works for the people: is the United States a democracy or a republic?

Here’s the answer: The United States is both a democracy and a republic.

We promise we’re not dodging the question. It would be much easier if one word was absolutely correct and the other was not, but the terms are not mutually exclusive. The United States can be accurately defined as both a democracy and a republic.

Let’s break down why.

A worthwhile question I guess is why some parts of the US political spectrum seem so keen to distance the two things and push the idea that they are in some way contradictory or mutually exclusive. The answer seems obvious to me but I wouldn't want to push my beliefs on anyone else.

Like I say though a very interesting and potentially broad ranging topic but probably one which deserves it's own thread.

[Madison Boxing]

I'm not 'you all' or 'Everyone' but have opinions which are unique to me believe it or not.

Did I laugh at you for suggesting it was possible the SC would make such a ruling? I think that's unlikely. Perhaps you could show me where I did that and if that's accurate I'll offer you an apology.

I seen a few of your posts and been meaning to discuss the the idea that the principles of democracy and constitutional **********ism are somehow mutually exclusive... a dangerous fallacy that's been pushed hard by the American Right but I kinda ran out of time last night and besides decided that it was that kinda sprawling coversation that would likely take up more time than I was willing to put into it.

I'll link you a coupla opinion pieces on it though just cos you might be interested. Point being 'democracy' does not imply a tyranny of the majority and never did. Contrary to what you seemed to think about other countries essentially there's nowhere that doesn't have a constitution or something similar to ensure the protection of the minority under ********ic systems. Democracy in and of itself simply means 'rule by the people' (the 'demos') as opposed to systems like monarchy ('single ruler'), oligarchy (rule of the few) or theocracy (rule of - or in the name of - God) or indeed anarchy (without rulers). There's absolutely nothing in the definition of 'Democrac'y that suggests how this 'rule by the people' is carried out or that it should be an absolute tyranny of the majority... it's just a general term for the way decisions are made that affect the whole of a community or society.

Anyways. It's probably a discussion for it's own thread but the two things need to go hand in hand. After all it was so many decades ago that it was considered 'constitutional' to treat African Americans as partial citizens for instance - social values do change over time and due to circumstance, and new situations arise which is why there is a need for interpretive bodies like this SC to exist. As to whether mandates vaccine mandates are unconstitutional per se it's not really been ruled that they ain't either... after all Federal employees and Healthcare staff can still be require to vaccinate or test, it's more that an order to enforce mandates on employees of private companies was Federal overreach.

I suspect however that if a strain emerged that killed 5% rather than 0.5% this decision would be reversed or circumvented so fast it's make your head spin.

Damn... can't help rambling on can I? Anyway. It's good to see you have faith in your National institutions, hope you bear that in mind when they do something that isn't in line with your beliefs.















A worthwhile question I guess is why some parts of the US political spectrum seem so keen to distance the two things and push the idea that they are in some way contradictory or mutually exclusive. The answer seems obvious to me but I wouldn't want to push my beliefs on anyone else.

Like I say though a very interesting and potentially broad ranging topic but probably one which deserves it's own thread.

depends if the vaccine works properly or not. at 5 percent i'd still take my chances without one

[Citizen Koba]

you got to stop him having it man, kids cant always make the right decision, theres more side effects coming out regarding these jabs weekly, hepatitis, spinal chord inflammation in the last week alone.

You are a childless man who believes a bunch of demonstrably propagandised lunacy you found on social media... why on Earth would I take your opinion into account in how I choose to parent my son?

I was completely honest with him that the net individual benefits to his age group were very marginal and varied with vaccine type, I was completely clear that it was possible there might be unknown side effects in the future but also pointed out that the same could be said about COVID itself. In the end I provided him the most complete picture I could and gave him the respect and responsibility of making a decision that effects him personally. Kid's 14 years old and at some point you need to start fostering their autonomy allowing them some leeway in making the big decisions.

If there'd been a clear and unambiguous reason to choose one way or another I might have given him less leeway although I would still have taken his opinion into account.

And yeah. He had it about a month ago and is absolutely fine... or at least no less a pain in the ass than a teenage boy is meant to be..

[Robbie Barrett]

this is what happens when you say you dont want the jab, they investigate your personal life, colleagues calling him a fool, media saying odd and got his facts wrong, digging up his private earning, trying desperately to link him to the far right, putting details of his relationships etc.

He did get his facts wrong and admitted it, he also brought up the antivaxx group himself.

[Madison Boxing]

You are a childless man who believes a bunch of demonstrably propagandised lunacy you found on social media... why on Earth would I take your opinion into account in how I choose to parent my son?

I was completely honest with him that the net individual benefits to his age group were very marginal and varied with vaccine type, I was completely clear that it was possible there might be unknown side effects in the future but also pointed out that the same could be said about COVID itself. In the end I provided him the most complete picture I could and gave him the respect and responsibility of making a decision that effects him personally. Kid's 14 years old and at some point you need to start fostering their autonomy allowing them some leeway in making the big decisions.

no cause the problem is the school will be hammering them to get the jab, telling its the best thing ever, and theres peer pressure to get the jab now. when i was a teen it was peer pressure to smoke/drink, nowadays its pressure to get a jab but thats the way of the world. as i said youve got two serious side effects emerging in the space of one week, how many will we have by the end of the year? you cant trust teenagers to make rational decisions but thats just my opinion. i know you are pro jabs

[Madison Boxing]

He did get his facts wrong and admitted it, he also brought up the antivaxx group himself.

marginally wrong, they tripped him up on the amount of weeks of protections, it wasnt a major mistake but it was enough for bbc etc to make out he was a liar

[Robbie Barrett]

marginally wrong, they tripped him up on the amount of weeks of protections, it wasnt a major mistake but it was enough for bbc etc to make out he was a liar

Getting it wrong by at least 50% (astrazeneca 12 weeks other more) is minor? Would you want to be treated by a doctor that gets things wrong like that? You'd think he'd check hs facts before going on TV.

[mlac]

You are a childless man who believes a bunch of demonstrably propagandised lunacy you found on social media... why on Earth would I take your opinion into account in how I choose to parent my son?

I was completely honest with him that the net individual benefits to his age group were very marginal and varied with vaccine type, I was completely clear that it was possible there might be unknown side effects in the future but also pointed out that the same could be said about COVID itself. In the end I provided him the most complete picture I could and gave him the respect and responsibility of making a decision that effects him personally. Kid's 14 years old and at some point you need to start fostering their autonomy allowing them some leeway in making the big decisions.

If there'd been a clear and unambiguous reason to choose one way or another I might have given him less leeway although I would still have taken his opinion into account.

And yeah. He had it about a month ago and is absolutely fine... or at least no less a pain in the ass than a teenage boy is meant to be..

did you mention a 12 year old girl was paralysed during the pfizer trials and now has to live the rest of her life in a wheelchair with a feeding tube? which was recorded by phizer after she was removed, as 'stomach cramps'.

[Madison Boxing]

Getting it wrong by at least 50% (astrazeneca 12 weeks other more) is minor? Would you want to be treated by a doctor that gets things wrong like that? You'd think he'd check hs facts before going on TV.

you know he was probably too busy trying to save lives on the intensive care unit to remember the weeks of protection which seems to change daily. funny how 2 years being on the frontline saving lives seems to be worth less morally than having a vaccine for a condition hes already had. strange world we live in.

[Madison Boxing]

did you mention a 12 year old girl was paralysed during the pfizer trials and now has to live the rest of her life in a wheelchair with a feeding tube? which was recorded by phizer after she was removed, as 'stomach cramps'.

yep, lots of cases like that, i put them in here but too far back now to bump. people paralysed , 17 year old who died with cardiac arrest, healthy adults who died with blood clots (thats the most common one)