Yea.
Well, the thing is, if you actually spend time around the “pro-life” movement, they DO give lip service to things like anti-war and anti-capital punishment and anti-homicide, in instances such as this.
But the only issue that they actually get actually outraged about, and march in the streets about, and take to the ballot box, and stack the courts to impose, is telling wimmin what to do with yall’s uteruses.
Would you be on the Jury?
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Last edited by ousdahl on Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Pdub’s anti-vax stance is so transparent
-
KUTradition
- Contributor
- Posts: 13889
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
you forgot restricting voting rights…ya know, so the totality of American citizens can actually vote and have the freedom to chooseousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:45 am Yea.
Well, the thing is, if you actually spend time around the “pro-life” movement, they DO give lip service to things like anti-war and anti-capital punishment and anti-homicide, in instances such as this.
But the only issue that they actually get actually outraged about, and march in the streets about, and take to the ballot box, and stack the courts to impose, is telling wimmin what to do with yall’s uteruses.
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
As soon as I asked does it not apply to all choices I thought, oh shit this is about to be about vaxxes again, ain’t it.
But it’s funny, cuz scotus just issued somewhat conflicting opinions on just that.
They ruled against vaccine mandates for large bidnesses, on the grounds that what huh let’s read the dissent; but then also upheld vaccine mandates for healthcare providers, on the grounds that the goal and purpose of healthcare providers is - wait for it - saving lives.
But it’s funny, cuz scotus just issued somewhat conflicting opinions on just that.
They ruled against vaccine mandates for large bidnesses, on the grounds that what huh let’s read the dissent; but then also upheld vaccine mandates for healthcare providers, on the grounds that the goal and purpose of healthcare providers is - wait for it - saving lives.
-
KUTradition
- Contributor
- Posts: 13889
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
not a scintilla of hypocrisy there…like, at all
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Getting back to the op, I think we should somehow generally make the burden greater if someone is killed in LEO custody, not lesser.
They’re supposed to protect and serve, not just be a bunch of state-sponsored bullies.
They’re supposed to protect and serve, not just be a bunch of state-sponsored bullies.
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Us?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=870&p=240656&hilit=trumpers#p240656
Yes.
But for reals, how long is this temper tantrum going to last?
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
I agree with the supreme court's ruling on that.
I think it should be mandated in places where people are more vulnerable - this would include, for me, health care establishments and public high schools on down.
That does not apply to most businesses.
But businesses should have the right to mandate it/enforce it how they choose.
The federal government should not step in here.
I think it should be mandated in places where people are more vulnerable - this would include, for me, health care establishments and public high schools on down.
That does not apply to most businesses.
But businesses should have the right to mandate it/enforce it how they choose.
The federal government should not step in here.
-
Deleted User 863
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
I think some 80 million Mericans were affected by the big bidness mandate, with another 10 million or so affected by the healthcare worker mandate.
And again, I’m surprised scotus even bothered with the healthcare worker mandate
They could have advanced some logic that the primary goal of healthcare is less about health and more about economic productivity too, and healthcare industry shareholders would rather maintain staffing, than avoid a buncha symptomatic nurses tending to patients.
Besides, how hard can nursing even be? So you brought some MFer a couple advil and took his temperature, even a high school kid could do that!
And again, I’m surprised scotus even bothered with the healthcare worker mandate
They could have advanced some logic that the primary goal of healthcare is less about health and more about economic productivity too, and healthcare industry shareholders would rather maintain staffing, than avoid a buncha symptomatic nurses tending to patients.
Besides, how hard can nursing even be? So you brought some MFer a couple advil and took his temperature, even a high school kid could do that!
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
If only we had some passionate and organized movement who might take it to the ballot box, eh?BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:57 amAgree.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Now if a state votes to make big businesses have a mandate, I'd likely be in support.
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
state’s rights lulz
-
Deleted User 863
Re: Would you be on the Jury?
Most of us aren't single issue voters.