| There are 29 comments on this blog. |
|
|
What would a comment be if it did not contain moron, idiot, and such ?
That being said it would be necessary to live in a free country.
In communist and socialist countries there are no rights for the individual. Correction there seem to be a few.
|
|
|
* his or her body
|
|
|
@Barbie
Which is that?
A fetuses right?
A woman's right?
A man's right?
|
|
|
In relation to RIGHTS. I'm sure the question will be posed that a business has the RIGHT to fire an employee for failure to comply. Then the, it's not a RIGHT to be employed, go work elsewhere. Did the employer require said medical procedures upon hiring the employee? Ver doubtful.
|
|
|
@Barbie
Was that directed to me or in general? In either case, not sure how to take that?
|
|
|
I requested my comment be deleted for using an inappropriate word.
Rephrased
When a fetuses right is questioned, I think the usual response is "it's a womans body and it's her right"
If that's the case then shouldn't every human have the right to control his or body?
I guess that only works to win an argument for women in regards to abortion
|
|
|
The next time you have the opportunity to hold a beautiful
Newborn in your arms, ask yourself if it was a mother’s body and
Her right to Kill it up to one day before it’s birth.
|
|
|
Does anyone remember the HX "terms of service"?
|
|
|
Yup
I sent those to him
|
|
|
Change the subject. The other day, i was asked to show my vaccination card to enter, then they asked for my ID to prove it was me. So, I told them it's at home with my voter ID card. The look on their face was priceless.
|
|
|
I voted to have my comment removed. If the community thinks the entire blog needs to go away then it will I guess.
To the of topic.
Having a right to vote is a basis of being a US citizen. Trying to make that right secure and requiring an ID is very important. But some start losing their minds claiming their rights are being infringed on. Go figure
But why is it ok to trample on other rights? Because that's the cause you're supporting at the moment?
|
|
|
I call bullshit on the V-card requirement…. And even a bigger pile of steaming BS that you were asked to show ID.
|
|
|
jarhead....you are the idiot. You obviously have been living under a rock. Read and pay attention to what is happening in the world around you.
You cannot go on a cruise out of LA or Long Beach Harbor without showing proof of vaccination AND having a recent Covid test within 48 hours and showing passport or picture ID.
You cannot go to a major event in LA County if you don't show proof of vaccination or a test within 72 hours AND a picture ID to be able to cross check that the person vaccinated is the person coming to the event.
You also cannot go to a LA bar unless you present proof of vaccination or recent negative test.
See the link for the protocol for USC Football attendance at the Coliseum. Vaccinated OR proof of negative Covid test within 72 hours and a photo ID.
Here is what pops up if you go to purchase Kings hockey tickets.
By purchasing LA Kings tickets and clicking OK below, you agree to the AXS Purchase Agreement & Assumption of Risk, Waiver & Limitation of Liability and also agree to follow the current California Department of Public Health Guidelines for Indoor Mega Events detailed here.
Per the California Department of Public Health Beyond the Blueprint updated guidance for Indoor Mega Events and the CDPH Guidance for Face Coverings, the State requires that attendees be fully vaccinated (i.e. two weeks or more have passed since the attendee has received a single-dose vaccine or the second dose in a two-dose series) or obtain a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours prior to attending the event and that fully vaccinated and unvaccinated persons wear face coverings when attending crowded indoor events.
Please visit www.staplescenter.com/safe for the most up-to-date health and safety guidelines for STAPLES Center.
|
|
|
mostly just ill-informed peanut gallery comments...not sure have ever seen anything more than a one-line comment
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^
Usually when one does not have facts or literature to back up a stance, its going to be a one liner. Either for shock value or attention. But I guess those are really both the same thing.
|
|
|
The irony of all of this is actually sad yet funny because people fall for the rhetoric intended to inflame their passions.
When conservatives were asking for voter identification requirements; the progressives were claiming that underprivileged would not be able to produce any ID. However now the progressives are clearly indicating that everybody has this same ID and must go get even kore documents simply to go out for dinner.
The same irony is pointed out by the OP. For years progressives have been supporting my body my choice when it comes to a woman’s right to choose; while the conservative base was saying that right shouldn’t exist. But, come to the jab, and positions reverse. Conservatives are now claiming my body, my choice unless your pregnant….
At the end of all of this rhetoric is the goal to control us all by both groups….
|
|
|
Rainmaker.....I think the Conservatives are speaking out about the "my body" to point to the hypocrisy of the left. Likewise, now everyone has ID for vaccination purposes...again the hypocrisy of the left.
|
|
|
I'd start with John Stewart Mill who once proposed that the only limit to be put on a person's liberty, "for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
But there is wiggle room here, and different people for different situations are going to come up with different standards for how much a person's liberty should be limited as well as how much harm to others is permissible.
So, we're stuck at square one again. It's going to totally be some subjective view based on a person's beliefs and values.
Some believe we should prevent a woman from getting an abortion to protect the developing fetus.
Some believe we should put social pressure on people to vaccinate to minimize spread and therefore minimize harm to vulnerable people.
Some believe we should force people to wear seatbelts.
Some people believe we should limit the amount of guns in this country to reduce the chances of them getting into the hands of criminals.
And some people think that each one of these is too much of an infringement on people's liberties relative to the amount of harm that may be prevented.
|
|
|
You guys need to go talk to girls in real life 🤦🏻♂️
|
|
|
You are right.
|
|
|
Come to Sharkes in Newport Beach at 8pm. Entrance on me
|
|
|
or VR
|
|
|
As a dude, what are my rights............. if I get pregnant?
No snarky comments, please.
|
|
|
Democrats: “my body my rights” when it comes to abortion and plants.
Republicans: “my body my rights” when it comes to vaccines.
Libertarians: “my body my rights” at all times in all circumstances so long as the rights of another are not infringed.
Libertarians: love watching the hypocrisy of both R and D.
Libertarians: love watching the world burn.
Libertarians: hope we do better than 0.50% in the polls next time.
Libertarians: if you want less of something, legalize it. That includes abortion.
Republicans and Democrats: look at those idiots.
|
|
|
those fucking people...IT has to be a personal game to see how many people they can PUNK in believing any of that shit
if you think you're pregnant, might need to just take a big poop
|
|
|
"Social pressure"
I'd say that describes a scenario where restaurants or others businesses limits ones patronage based on a specific criteria.
I would not say that firing individuals fits under that brush stroke. Having an intervention for a loved one may be a social pressure. A strong suggestion, but not a totalitarian effort.
How about we all set aside the questions about whether it works or if its safe? How about just coming to some kind of common ground that the "mandatory" part is the issue with most if not all conversations in the current political blogs.
Since I don't have percentages for the vulnerable that have been given "protection", I'm going to guess that number is high though.
So what is their risk? Can we say 5 percent? If the rest don't not want be forced into receiving that "protection", what is their risk? Those who refuse are the ones taking the considerable risk, correct? I think most do accept that risk.
When talking about harm, shouldnt we also consider intent?
|
|
|
lib·er·ty
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
|
|
|
Fourteenth Amendment
.... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ....
Guess this is another RIGHT being overlooked, dismissed or trampled on.
|
|
|
Might want to include this one too......
"The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.
Very little is delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.
You think that's stopped them from grabbing everything that isn't nailed down?
To a Libertarian, the phrase "Rule of Law"
Is a sad pathetic fucking joke
We owe this one to the same cunt that literally threw American citizens into prison camps..........
POS FDR
SCOTUS gave it up without much of a fight......chickenshits.
The Supreme Court used the tenth amendment to strike down many acts of Congress that tried to implement progressive reforms on a national level. The disagreement reached crisis proportions during the Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, when the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional many of the important features of the New Deal. FDR was prepared to pack the court with new and pliable justices, but public opinion persuaded him to abandon the attempt. It became unnecessary when the court reversed course and gave approval in Roosevelt's second term in cases similar to ones they had struck down earlier.
|
| There are 29 comments on this blog. |
