Shaq Speaks Out Against Vaccine Mandates

What people dismiss as not credible is hilarious.

One of the smartest guys on the planet, iq in the 190's is a freakin bouncer at a bar.

Who's gonna listen to a stupid bouncer at a bar after all!)

First the vaccine does not stop anyone from being a carrier, it only prevents them from developing the infection, so you getting a vaccine does not protect me.

Ivermectin on the other hand actually kills it, so you do not pass it on, but the FDA purposely banned its use in the US.

Other countries used it as a prophylactic and have shorter recovery times, and far fewer deaths.

In merca we are dropping like flies thanks to the guv that outlaws drugs that work.

Same with masks, if they worked then only those that wanted to wear them needed to wear them, instead they were mandated and corporations and businesss became the guvs proxy to force you to comply and they have no police authorization what so ever.

Finally its your right to choose what goes into your body, try telling a vegan they have to eat meat, how about eating pork against your religion!

This whole debacle was nothing more than a power play to increase inflation and test how many people are stupid enough to give up their rights if they feared for their lives.

Well peeps Im old as dirt and no shot here, never wore a mask except when forced to, got covid 2wice, and my doc was shocked after testing me for antibodies that I was only sick for 3 days.

All deaths were covid deaths, none were influenza.

Its not important, its just another right flushed down the toilet, thank you Ho bitem.

Disease Burden of Flu | CDC
https://www.cdc.gov › flu › about › burden
CDC estimates that flu has resulted in 9 million – 41 million illnesses, 140,000 – 710,000 hospitalizations and 12,000 – 52,000 deaths annually between 2010 and ...

Covid was developed in a lab, so whos heads are going to roll, no ones because people are far too busy arguing over masks to be bothered with unimportant little things like rights and accountability.

 

The thing is that right wingers want that right to refuse service to gay people etc etc. They find it totally natural.
But when the shoe ends up on the other foot about the vaccine ... it ends up rather hypocritical.
Such a thing didn't occur to you? Weird.

 

Um, no. The Left seems to think the two are comparable, and doesn't see any difference when the government imposes something rather than private businesses.

A couple of businesses saying they won't do business with people who happen to have mustaches is different from all the businesses in that city being ordered by the government not to do business with any people who have mustaches.

You are just creating another exaggerated straw man. Should I waste the effort to fully address it, or can I trust that everyone else will just see right through it?
(No bakery has ever said to a gay person "You can't come into my store or buy anything". There's no way a bakery can even prevent you from buying a wedding cake if they wanted to. Do you think bakeries require proof that it will be for a heterosexual wedding before they sell you a generic wedding cake? You're just full of hot air)

 

It's still forced. You feeling it's justified does not change the fact that it's forced.

Also, it's not justified and it's dangerous to force a huge population to take a new drug without several years of testing. Everyone should have the option to choose their risk.

 

Of course it's comparable.... since in both cases it's according to the law.

 

Huh? You realize how disingenuous that is.

But maybe I am not getting something. Please explain it some more.

I don't want to be arrogant or automatically dismissive, but sometimes it seems like I am wasting my effort arguing with stupidity.

 

People went to court about being free to discriminate what type of customer could be discriminated. And the court ruled it's alright to refuse the service for the LGBTQ community. You right wing lot were ecstatic about it. And now when by law you get to discriminate on who is vaxxed and who is not... you lot got a problem with it. You lot just flip flop depending if you get to be the victim of your previous position. I'm calling you out on that stupidity.

 

If a female prostitute only has sex with men, is she discriminating against homesexual women?

Doesn't matter because the constitution only limits the power of government and prevents government from discriminating. It is to protect the rights of individuals not to force them to provide services they do not want to. That would be slavery.

 

If you as an employer have a business demanding that people have no homosexual service, and you lot are estetic because of it,
than I still see a total hypocritical stance of you lot that when a business demanding people are vaxxed to do service isn't allowed.

And yeah. You can complain all you want that a government isn't a "business", but it works the same exact way.
The government is also an employer and bound by the same constitution / the law just like any other company.

 

No it isn't. Do some reading on the constitution. I am tired of explaining it.

 

Right... the government doesn't employ anybody and are not bound by the law.... if that's your opinion.... then good for you.
I see a bright future ahead for you my friend.

 

The government is bound by the constitution. It's a Constitutional republic. Private individuals and businesses are not bound by the constitution.

 

sure... a private business / an individual is above the law. why not? lmao.

 

technically true, in reality however discrimination is SOP for them.

Im remembering the 250,000 fine for not baking a gay birthday cake, see kliens.

YOu got it we are all slaves to the US guv.

They are but since they change law at will and its childs play to hide and distort any event from public view they get away with anything they want, after all they control the vertical and the horizontal.

and you are a part of that gov, as citizen, therefore you are bound by the constitution as well.

Yes you have a bunch of crooks sitting at their round table voting for what they want 'for you'.

You most certainly are, now the bill of rights, in so far as your 'reserved rights' *technically* the guv has no legal authority to adjudicate as no authority was granted to them by said constitution to do so, so its not within their chartered jurisdiction, such as religious matters, arms, speech etc. However that has been hijacked by them and the only place a case can be heard is in their 'commercial' state court system because they refuse to recognize any other court, ie even if the pope said hey jerkwits xyz is a religious matter, they simply flip the pope off.

Well that not above the law, religion is 'technically' simpy not within their chartered jurisdiction to adjudicate. They should have set up a secondary to court system to adjudicate the 'rights of man', instead they only set up state based commercial courts for us, and assumed power not granted to them by the people, and since we accepted it, welcome to the desert of the real.

 

Uh... the public voted those people in to change the law for them if they get a majority for it.
We all agreed it must work like that.

What we got is... taking-it-backsees from some minority who only want their will to be pushed through.
We all agreed this is not how it works.