@no1marauder saidI see. But you also see that the issue emanated from librals who actually want to comtrol our bosies???? Are you for real, with all uour parsing? Jesus.
The case was brought to court by conservatives seeking to overturn the mandate.
What in the hell were we conservatives left to do but to step in and stop this madness. Which, you will note, we did. Everyone can thank us later.
@averagejoe1 saidThe people who die of COVID because of this ruling will not be around to "thank you later".
I see. But you also see that the issue emanated from librals who actually want to comtrol our bosies???? Are you for real, with all uour parsing? Jesus.
What in the hell were we conservatives left to do but to step in and stop this madness. Which, you will note, we did. Everyone can thank us later.
@AverageJoe1
And we never did get an answer from you fellers on this one……
Is it hypocritical for you to say that you should control the bodies of the unvaxed,, But not control the bodies of pregnant women?
@no1marauder saidWhat kind of a didge is this??? And more hypocrisy right in my face, you are worried about them not being around, but don’t seem to give a damn about unborn babies not ever being able to be around. Jesus Christ.
The people who die of COVID because of this ruling will not be around to "thank you later".
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidHow many times does this have to be explained to you?
@AverageJoe1
And we never did get an answer from you fellers on this one……
Is it hypocritical for you to say that you should control the bodies of the unvaxed,, But not control the bodies of pregnant women?
You have a right to bodily sovereignty but you do not have a right to expose others to dangers through your (in)actions. "The right to swing your fist ends at the next man's nose".
There is no "right" to spread a deadly, contagious disease to other people.
@averagejoe1 saidLibs brought a case to SCOTUS to overturn vaccine mandates?
SCOTUS must really tire of the requests by libs to hear these weenie cases.
You make it too easy to ridicule you.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@mghrn55 saidThe only evidence of fraud
So let's take this one step further.......
You don't want to say Trump won for fear of embarrassing yourself.
But you want to say there were enough irregularities to justify the wave of state legislation to reduce "voter fraud".
Because in the 2020 election, mail-in ballots raised red flags all over the place, correct ?
The question I put to you is.......
Were the red fl ...[text shortened]... t system but .......
Banning bringing water to voters standing in line ???? Really ?? Really ?? 😆
was imagined by a TWICE IMPEACHED,
DRAFT DODGING, TAX CHEAT, with 30,000
DOCUMENTED LIES to his credit........
Everyone falls in line.......
@vivify saidLook deeper. The Libs constantly waste the time of the court who have better things to do. They bring this issue up and we have to go into court to get them to, as I like to say, leave us the hell alone.. we won turkey. You lost. Note by the way, that Biden is losing everything. Have you seen the news lately?
Libs brought a case to SCOTUS to overturn vaccine mandates?
You make it too easy to ridicule you.
@no1marauder saidUhhhh, looks like SCOTUS has overriden Your emotional stance.
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
You have a right to bodily sovereignty but you do not have a right to expose others to dangers through your (in)actions. "The right to swing your fist ends at the next man's nose".
There is no "right" to spread a deadly, contagious disease to other people.
So instead of arguing this with you, may I refer you to the Scotus decision as being my argument as well. Therefore my argument is backed by SCOTUS….. Who backs your argument?
@jimm619 saidis the scotus required to do this or is it of their own free will?
Well, even the less intelligent
understand that these precautions,
taken by THE COURT, are meant to
protect THE JUSTICES from the virus.
In their decision they annulled worker's
exact same protection........Geez.....
..........hello?...........anyone home?
@no1marauder saidwhat about the people who die(d) because of bidens failure to provide/allow therapeutics?
The people who die of COVID because of this ruling will not be around to "thank you later".
@no1marauder saidSo you set the conditions by which a person may enter your house, but you may not set the conditions for how others meet and interact.
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
You have a right to bodily sovereignty but you do not have a right to expose others to dangers through your (in)actions. "The right to swing your fist ends at the next man's nose".
There is no "right" to spread a deadly, contagious disease to other people.
@averagejoe1 saidMafruader may be saying it is an OSHA decision, as it well is. Thus saying that there still needs to be a SCOTUS ruling on requiring people to vax, period. I think they would rule the same way. You see, at least 5 of the justices are not into monarchy. That is why people left England in the early 1600's but I digress.
Uhhhh, looks like SCOTUS has overriden Your emotional stance.
So instead of arguing this with you, may I refer you to the Scotus decision as being my argument as well. Therefore my argument is backed by SCOTUS….. Who backs your argument?
The other justices are into monarchy. No digression there!!!
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@mott-the-hoople saidMore like a hung jury..........
you do realize Trump was found innocent in both impeachments dont you?
You know he's guilty,
I know he's guilty,
and, it seems, most everyone does too.
Even McCarthy.........LOOK...READ
https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-mccarthy-reportedly-told-republicans-173453969.html