I'm thinking of starting a pool of when Trump goes to prison. Nearest to the date wins. I'll call it the 'Irony Sweepstake'. But that's another thread.
A good question. Upon induction, recruits submit to the rules though. these are the rules, according to: DOD INSTRUCTION 6205.02 DOD IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM Summation of the rules above is that Higher Higher dictates, with the help of the CDC, who gets vaccinated and when and, as it happens, recruits have signed off on it before induction. It must be hard for soldiers who do not trust the government's decision which is based on CDC guidance to then be asked to fight for their government and country. So per my reading of DC900's link, they are being given a general discharge. So, in a way, they are being given a choice. Not forced to take it. But they are pressured to honor the paper they signed upon induction else get turned away. And per the link, even some batallion commanders have been given a general discharge. I personally do not understand why so many people distrust the entirety our government so much. There are definitely too many representatives that are self serving with little interest in our country's welfare. And they lie to our face. Over and over again. However, people in the CDC and civil services are typically like you and me: dedicated to their jobs, honest people, educated, working toward the goals of the enterprise.
"Recruits." So they're enlisting in the military. Not the populace at large. Joining the military is not a right. There's also a significant amount of proactive decent coming from especially JSOC, who just happen to be the proven more intelligent ones in the ranks A g a I n… some of us have chosen read a bit of history. ...We also pay attention.
No, read more carefully: I consider the mandate to be possibly legal, based on the 10th Amendment states rights. I also state clearly that it seems like a grey area. I make zero judgement on 'viability'. You put words in my mouth then assign to me some inferrior quality ulterior motive based on what you falsely claim I said. Please continue and explain how and where you disagree with my interpretation of the constitution. My interpretation is that it could be that each state can litigate about the idea of forced innoculation. Case in point: We have a Judicial, a legislative, and an Executive branch of goverrnment at both the state and local levels. In most states, laws have been passed that dictate innoculations for school age children. So, perhaps that is a more clear explanation for you. Existing similar laws have been constitutionally enacted on a state by state basis. Therefore I put forth the proposition that for this particular vaccine, it seems like a grey area. Do you think it is a grey area? You have not at all clearly explained why not. Well, I do believe, for all its faults, we have the finest government in the world. Evidently you scorn me for that. Then you make the false claim that I haven't read any history on their track record? Why? I agree that I restate my opinions in different ways, over and over again, to get them thru your thick Galgotha, I mean your thick skull. Yet, no matter how I restate, you engage in diversion, false claims, and ad hominum attacks insstead of responding directily to the proposition at hand. Attack attack attack. Why? I am not going in circles. The circles here are that I say something, do my best to try to explain why I think that, then you just say I am wrong in deprecating terms without providing any sound logic to defend your claim that I am wrong. You consistantly 'beg the question' and go in the resulting circle. When you finally pop your hollow empty skull up from the whirling vortex where you live and struggle, I try politely to throw you a life line but you seem to prefer to be tossed around like a pingpong ball in the muddy water of your unsound propositions. I'm not a pretend intellectual, I ask you questions and put forth an idea and you attack. Next conversation with you, I will try to remember 'you doan unnerstan' them big wurds. maybe that will help you to form a well stated opinion. .
So we’ll measured and eloquently put. My post of the day, I think. I certainly recognise all your points with the aforementioned. I stopped bothering a while ago.
So the name caller and belittler continues to play the victim card claiming he's the one being attacked. The guy going on and on with clear emotional investment here accuses me of being the emotional one. This after the guy who brings up government straight out of the gate accuses me of being the one bringing up politics. No surprises here. More assumption, condescension, and some of the ongoing weakest attempts at reverse psychology I've seen in a long time.. Again… you're a broken record. There's that word again.
That is another story. The US military generally enforces vaccinations on service members and getting an exemption for any vaccine is hard to to. But this one is a bit different, it has not been through a full testing cycle, and there is not a FDA approved COVID vaccine currently available. The MSM likes to say that the Pfizer BioNtech is approved but in fact it is not, only the Pfizer Comirnaty is approved and it is not on the market yet. Until the either the Comirnaty is released or the BioNtech testing phase is complete and the vaccine gets full FDA approval service members have a case for an exemption but once it is FDA approved they will rarely get an exemption.
A bunch of SEALs pushed back on that shit a couple moths ago with eventual success. I can pretty much guarantee you other units are following suit, especially on the SOF side of the house. But like I said, JSOC tends to produce a better product.
Sorry, it’s a different story to what? I was wondering if the US government will back-pedal like the U.K. government did? Are you saying they will continue, or there is a challenge that will turn it around?
AGAIN you make a false claim, I am not playing victim to you. AGAIN you accuse me of being emotional in my arguments when they are all based on logic as I explain it - then you say I am a phoney intellectual???. AGAIN I must explain to you that recalling the history of what the government does is not in and of itself political - it is history and fact. AGAIN you have dodged your responsibility to explain yourself logically. You expect people to read what you write (ok, that is presumptuous) then be persuaded to you point of view (ok, that too is presumptuous) but you 100% fail to support ANYTHING you say with any semblance of sound logic. In other words, you are like the drunk uncle at the end of the bar. So, in order to help you with improving your writing, in an efffort to understand your point of view, I will give you an explanation of what is meant by Ad Hominum attack and WHY it is a logical fallacy and why use of them convinces no one of your point of view due to data. Study carefully. At the very end, there is a list of the 17 logical fallacies we all should avoid. They are used by propagandists and other people to fool and dupe us into a wrongheaded point of view. Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. Examples: Student: Hey, Professor Moore, we shouldn't have to read this book by Freud. Everyone knows he used cocaine. Socrates' arguments about human excellence are rubbish. What could a man as ugly as he know about human excellence. Yeah, I think everyone's opinion counts on moral matters like that, but that Lila sleeps around with anything. I know of at least one marriage she's broken up, so why should her opinion count on anything, much less morality? Of course Marx' theories about the ideal society are bunk. The guy spent all his time in the library. We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos. There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation. I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite. No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses. Anyone who read this far, whether you want the vaccine or not... I think it is worthwhile to mentally articulate your reasons then, use this list to 'double check' your opinion. Or not. These fallacies are definitely used very effectively over and over by Fox and Far lefties and all propagandists. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/
Chapeau, sir! An excellent description that I never managed to articulate as well. If there were a 'raucous applause' icon available I would click it immediately.
The funny part about that if you really look at it is that everyone that got it up until now has been a test subject. I don't want to be a lab rat.
It is a different story for the military because refusing the vax is, or can be, considered disobeying an order. Some, like the SEALS have fought back and won but for most of the military this will not be the case. When you join you basically waive your right to refuse a vaccine. What they are doing now is not forcing the vax but denying re-enlistment to anyone that is not vaccinated.
I am done with all vaccines regardless of what it is for. I made that choice before COVID was ever a thing.
When you're likely to find yourself on the front lines being shot at you'd think a simple vaccination would be the least of your worries.
https://www.fda.gov/media/155675/download This is the part that scares me., 5.2 Myocarditis and Pericarditis Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 18 through 24 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae. The CDC has published considerations related to myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, including for vaccination of individuals with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html).
Like many things in life, you have to objectively weigh one risk against another. The data is out there.
