Pooter

I don't know why you're so hung up on this word submission. The point here is that you took an oath to a document. That document lays the foundation for how the military operates to include the authoritarian, hierarchical structure we call chain of command. That chain of command goes all the way up to POTUS and Congress to the extent that they make the rules in the UCMJ. This is why you can't just ignore an order and say it's because you swore allegiance to a document. It all falls under the document. And good luck with the comirnaty strategy. Reputable sources say they're chemically identical.. which you'd think would be a relief to the hold outs who are apparently so concerned with the nomenclature attached to FDA approval and pharmaceutical branding. Well, turns out they're the same. What a relief! Unless.. those hold outs are just political hacks and this is the latest poop they're throwing at the wall in the hopes it sticks. First it was "I'm waiting on full FDA approval," then it was religious opposition to stem cells from decades ago, now it's brand name issues. If I didn't know better I'd almost say you'll have problems with the vaccine no matter what!

Yes, the submission part is clear in the phrase "true faith and allegiance." The thing is that the constitution is a rather long and involved document and it has parts in it outlining exactly who has authority (read: authoritarian control) over the military. Article 2 section 2: makes the president the commander in chief of the military. Article 1 section 8: provides the basis for congress's establishment of the UCMJ. So it isn't quite as simple as swearing to support a piece of paper. Because that piece of paper says the president can tell you what to do, and so can congress through the UCMJ. The comirnaty/FDA semantics will get hashed out in court but the basis for the fed to make military members do something they don't necessarily agree with is absolutely there, and you voluntarily submitted to that control by taking the oath.

I really don't get this argument. The messaging changed over time and that's somehow a bad thing? Mountains of new information on the virus and treatments have come to light since spring of 2020 when "15 days to slow the spread" was basically the best way we knew to slow down a thing we knew almost nothing about. We have vaccines now. We have almost two years of global data on the transmission and effects of this disease. There are a host of new variants that didn't exist two years ago. Two years ago people were Lysol-ing their groceries. So why in the world would the messaging stay the same?

1) Glad you're okay. 2) Does your situation not qualify for a medical exemption? I would think a lung specialist specifically telling you it would be dangerous for you to get the shot would easily qualify. And again, I don't agree with mandates but I thought they do have provisions for extenuating medical circumstances.

Yeah dude.. it's called the paparazzi and it's the absolute dumpster basement of the journalism world. So maybe it should give you pause if you're trying to do serious political reporting and behaving like the paparazzi.

It is not surprising in the least that we deluded ourselves regarding the ANA's capabilities. The modern US military is driven by shoe clerks with slide shows and the most important thing in the world is that the slides are green. Generals' and Colonels' next promotions depend on slides being green, not honesty or lethality. We are just as delusional about our own capabilities, if not more so.

Ahh yes. Definitely no ambush. Because that's how normal people conduct interviews.. by sneaking up on someone walking with headphones on their own personal time. Yeah.. come to think of it that's where most tv interviews I see take place.. on quiet neighborhood sidewalks... As super interesting as it is to debate public/personal boundaries with you, turns out there's a difference between the limits of what is legal, and what is professionally acceptable. I'm not all that surprised you think this is okay because, again, it's a person you don't like being subjected to indecent behavior. Reference my above comment about partisan hackery. And the fact you think she's running away because "tHe pEoPle" are catching on and not because a crew of strange dudes with cameras are accosting her in her private life, is the icing on the stupid cake.

Wrong. We haven't all agreed to this. People still understand what standard of behavior is unacceptable. They just selectively apply that standard. A week ago republicans had a massive problem with protesters following Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom. At least that was at work. Now it's magically okay to invade someone's private life, and not only that! When she runs away after being rightfully startled by a camera crew of random dudes confronting her on a neighborhood street, it's supposed to be some kind of damning admission of guilt. This is actually turning out to be a pretty good litmus test. If you expect equal treatment of people and hold everyone to a baseline standard of decency, there's a good chance you're a person who holds principles in higher regard than political affiliation. If you selectively apply those standards and relish when they're violated against people you don't like, there's a good chance you're a partisan hack.

Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like. In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!

So If you disagree with someone enough, it's now okay to go to their house and fuck with them on their personal time? Is this not exactly the logic the left uses?

To track down someones home address and confront them by surprise while they're walking, and film them without permission? Yes, that is professionally inappropriate. It's wrong when protesters accost republicans in DC restaurants and this is wrong too. Respect for public and private life boundaries should exist for people you agree and disagree with. Here's a crazy idea. Go to the Pfizer offices and get a statement from the company. I'm sure they have an attentive and very well staffed PR department.

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

Right.. because everyone has behaved completely rationally for the last year and a half.

The decision to impose a mandate should be a very carefully considered one, and IMO you really only have grounds for a mandate if you can answer "yes" to the following questions: 1. Does the disease in question pose a grave threat? 2. Does the vaccine do an extremely good job of protecting people and preventing transmission? 3. Is the vaccine safe? So far those answers seem to be: 1. Only for very specific demographics 2. Yes and no 3. Probably These are very shaky grounds for a mandate especially considering the second widespread variant of this disease we encountered was able to take most of our vaccination assumptions and throw them in the dumpster. But as usual, Democrats want to jump to telling people what to do. It is their default state--using government coercion to solve perceived problems. But they always fail to take human nature into the equation. When you censor something it'll just make it more popular. When you say everyone has to do something, some people are going to not do it just because fuck you. And I love that. Do I still think it's a bad risk calculation not to get the vaccine? Yes. But we really really really need to figure out as a society a way to have the emotional maturity to hold two thoughts in our brains at the same time: -Getting the vaccine is a good idea -Trying to Force it on people is a very bad idea

Snips of headlines flashing by too quickly to read, and all of them completely without context. But the numbers counted down as classical music increased in tempo and volume. So that must mean something.

Considering his enormous viewership, self-described conservative media company, and the fact that his talking points are reliably echoed all over baseops 6-9 hours after they air, yes. I do. So when do we get to the part where you make an actual argument.. because so far all I'm seeing is you drawing things out of a hat at random to disagree about.

The counter argument to letting covid just do its thing has always been healthcare capacity. The peak of our last two spikes already overwhelmed hospitals in certain places and that was with all of the mitigation measures in place.

It's almost like a new strain happened right about that time, changing the situation and all of the underlying assumptions. No need for elites.. it's quite obvious what happened. People on the right got it wrong too. Ben Shapiro was harping for weeks about how the pandemic was effectively over.. right before cases went through the stratosphere again.

All perfectly 100% true. And as I've been saying on this thread for quite a while now, it has absolutely nothing to do with the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. It's been wild to watch people on the right take their frustration with Democrat covid policy and project it onto a vaccine that is literally a miracle of capitalism. Much in the same way, Democrats take their hatred of trump or joe rogan and protect that onto legitimate medical treatments like hydroxy and ivermectin. If only there were a third way where we looked at treatments based on empirical data, rather than judging them based on political baggage.

I just don't get the constant fascination with pinning this on China when in all likelihood our own NIH had a hand in funding the research that caused this too. And then they lied about it.

Needs more punisher logo

My favorite part about the no mask crowd I see at the grocery store is that the majority are obese, walking, talking sacks of comorbidities filling their carts with Cheetos and hamburger helper. Likewise, many of the anti vax Air Force people I know think of themselves as elite physical specimens except for the part where they can't run a mile and a half in under 14 minutes without a borderline medical emergency. It seems like the elderly have the sense to mask up and get vaccinated, but a lot of young unhealthy people fail to realize how severely obesity affects their odds.

Lengthy, over-dramatic Facebook rants about bringing the "whole system down" ..telltale sign of a very mentally stable and well-adjusted person

Weird, it's almost like policy decisions exist in gray areas with nuanced details that need to be considered to ensure the policy actually works. Plenty of jobs subject people to background checks, drug tests, and vaccination requirements. That's an employer's prerogative much like it's your prerogative to go work somewhere else if those conditions are too onerous for you. Alternatively.. GUBMENT BETTER NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO

Was he ever arguing in favor of mandates for the general public? Has anyone done that on this thread? Arguing that vaccines are safe and effective ≠ advocating for a mandate Vaccine mandate for active duty military ≠ mandate for the entire general public