Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:

And it's not mRNA if you're concerned about "gene therapy".

I think the Janssen is still a genetic therapy drug because it uses (including, but not limited to) DNA instead of mRNA. Something like that. Still horrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got the notice from the company. Shot or fired. Not sure what I’m going to do yet. Leaning towards the J&J if I go that route. Don’t recall anyone here mentioning that they got the J&J.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Barely noticeable side effects the day after for me. Might have been what I ate that day as far as I know. In addition to being only one shot, some studies have shown it’s the most effective for people who already had COVID, but there are so many conflicting studies that who knows anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also got a lengthy e-mail today from my employer about the vaccine requirement, including the 8 Dec deadline.  @arg, maybe we work for the same place.  Lots of mealy-mouthed language, including this fun bit (emphasis mine):

Quote

"Currently, third shots or so-called booster shots are not considered part of the federal mandate, although that could change over time."

Really begs the question (again), of "where does this all stop?"

  • Two weeks to "slow the spread."
  • It's just a mask
  • It's just two shots
  • etc.

Edit to add: Maybe that's the point.  There is no end.  Make your choice for getting the vax now, and plan on continuing to get shots/pills/etc. as Uncle Sam dictates.  Or, say no, and plan to be ostracized from participating in a large portion of corporate America.

Edited by Blue
Further ruminating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to remember if the pushback was this bad when they mandated the Anthrax vaccine a minute or two ago.  I got 9 rounds of that burning hotness and never heard a peep about how experimental is was or not.  Did guys quit the military over that thing too?  I was too focused on flying and deploying to really care at the time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Blue said:

Also got a lengthy e-mail today from my employer about the vaccine requirement, including the 8 Dec deadline.  @arg, maybe we work for the same place.  Lots of mealy-mouthed language, including this fun bit (emphasis mine):

Really begs the question (again), of "where does this all stop?"

Two weeks to "slow the spread."

It's just a mask

It's just two shots

etc.

Congratulations on unplugging the Matrix. Welcome. We have work to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

I'm trying to remember if the pushback was this bad when they mandated the Anthrax vaccine a minute or two ago.  I got 9 rounds of that burning hotness and never heard a peep about how experimental is was or not.  Did guys quit the military over that thing too?  I was too focused on flying and deploying to really care at the time.

There were several law suits in the late 90s and dudes were kicked out. Some dudes actually won their lawsuits and the anthrax vaccine went away for a bit until it got some new labeling/certification. Came back in early 2000s after the anthrax mail attacks, which ironically, were sent by the dude who invented the vaccine because he was angry the military stopped mandating the vaccine. (No shit look it up). We didn't know that at the time though and his identity wasn't known until a decade later, at which point he committed suicide before he ever faced justice. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

I'm trying to remember if the pushback was this bad when they mandated the Anthrax vaccine a minute or two ago.  I got 9 rounds of that burning hotness and never heard a peep about how experimental is was or not.  Did guys quit the military over that thing too?  I was too focused on flying and deploying to really care at the time.

Quick two bits:

1. Trust was much higher in the institutions back then.

2. It wasn’t a genetic editing drug.

Yes some quit the military. I wish I could focus only on flying, but that pesky oath of office thing and our Constitution keeps ringing in my ears for some reason. Almost as if a million dead service-members are crying out for us to not surrender our liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There were several law suits in the late 90s and dudes were kicked out. Some dudes actually won their lawsuits and the anthrax vaccine went away for a bit until it got some new labeling/certification. Came back in early 2000s after the anthrax mail attacks, which ironically, were sent by the dude who invented the vaccine because he was angry the military stopped mandating the vaccine. (No shit look it up). We didn't know that at the time though and his identity wasn't known until a decade later, at which point he committed suicide before he ever faced justice. 

No, that’s a far right conspiracy theory. You’re Q-tarded. Literally impossible. A credentialed scientist wouldn’t do that. Hey did you watch the big Sportsball game ™️ last weekend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

From what I’ve read the transplants from California to Texas are voting overwhelming “red” more than they are “blue”. Thank God.

I might need to find me an F-35 job in Texas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pawnman said:

I wonder how all the folks cheering Abbott would feel if California banned companies from drug testing employees.  

I have zero issues with private companies requiring the vaccine or mandating or forgoing* drug testing.  I have every issue with government overreach and mandates. 

Edited by dream big
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I saw a video where the president said, "You know who has vaccine mandates? Fox News." Then he proceeded to smirk as if it were a joke. 

Making light of the fact that he is forcing individuals to either maintain their body autonomy for a vaccine, that isn't actually functioning as a vaccine and won't finish clinical trials for another year, or being able to provide for their family is probably one of the shadiest things I've seen of any of our leaders in recent times. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

So I saw a video where the president said, "You know who has vaccine mandates? Fox News." Then he proceeded to smirk as if it were a joke. 

Making light of the fact that he is forcing individuals to either maintain their body autonomy for a vaccine, that isn't actually functioning as a vaccine and won't finish clinical trials for another year, or being able to provide for their family is probably one of the shadiest things I've seen of any of our leaders in recent times. 

 

Gross. Even grosser quote “my job as president is to protect the citizens”. No it’s f***ing not dumb s***t, it’s to protect our rights. Read the Dec. of Ind. for Christ’s sake. “…that to secure these rights….” Someone has their hand so far up Biden’s a** I’m surprised we don’t see their fingers when he opens his mouth. Honestly, Declaration of Independence 2.0 is in order.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

Gross. Even grosser quote “my job as president is to protect the citizens”. No it’s f***ing not dumb s***t, it’s to protect our rights. Read the Dec. of Ind. for Christ’s sake. “…that to secure these rights….” Someone has their hand so far up Biden’s a** I’m surprised we don’t see their fingers when he opens his mouth. Honestly, Declaration of Independence 2.0 is in order.

We’re gonna run out of rope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

Gross. Even grosser quote “my job as president is to protect the citizens”. No it’s f***ing not dumb s***t, it’s to protect our rights. Read the Dec. of Ind. for Christ’s sake. “…that to secure these rights….” Someone has their hand so far up Biden’s a** I’m surprised we don’t see their fingers when he opens his mouth. Honestly, Declaration of Independence 2.0 is in order.

A 3rd grader could see he isn’t running the country, someone else is.  I don’t think it’s Kamala either which is even scarier. When he “resigns”, and he will sooner than most expect, she won’t either.  That’s why they hated Trump, no one could control him.  That’s what this country needs to not be on a warpath towards speaking Mandarin, maybe someone a little classier, eloquent and unifying. 
 

Biden doesn’t believe half this crap, he’s just doing what he’s told by his handlers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://files.milarch.org/archbishop/abp-statement-on-covid19-vaccines-and-conscience-12oct2021.pdf

Quote

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were tested using an abortionderived cell line. That type of a link has been for centuries considered remote material cooperation with evil and is never sinful. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed, tested, and is produced, with abortion-derived cell lines. That vaccine is, therefore, more problematic. If it were the only vaccine available, it would be morally permissible, but the faithful Catholic is to make known his or her preference for a more morally acceptable treatment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Sounds pretty similar to the vatican’s position, not a lot of countermanding happening.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

“Thanks to God’s grace and to the work of many, we now have vaccines to protect us from Covid-19,” he said in the video released on Wednesday.

He added that vaccines “bring hope to end the pandemic, but only if they are available to all and if we collaborate with one another.”

Weird...I don't see anything in here about trying to opt out of the vaccine.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pawnman said:

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

“Thanks to God’s grace and to the work of many, we now have vaccines to protect us from Covid-19,” he said in the video released on Wednesday.

He added that vaccines “bring hope to end the pandemic, but only if they are available to all and if we collaborate with one another.”

Weird...I don't see anything in here about trying to opt out of the vaccine.

 

Bro I'm going to trust an arch bishop who went to seminary school 8 years and rose to influential levels of the Catholic church on moral interpretations before I trust some joe off the internet. Trust the experts man. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Bro I'm going to trust an arch bishop who went to seminary school 8 years and rose to influential levels of the Catholic church on moral interpretations before I trust some joe off the internet. Trust the experts man. 

Like the Pope?

Seriously... find me a quote from the Pope that matches what the archbishop is saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

Weird...I don't see anything in here about trying to opt out of the vaccine.
 

Well that’s because you’re only looking for what fits your narrative, and not for the Holy See’s position on the morality of vaccines and a vaccine mandate. Literally the second result on the Vatican website when you search the word vaccine:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

“5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.”

Which is in fact pretty close to Broglio’s:
“Notwithstanding the moral permissibility of these vaccines, the Church treasures her teaching on the sanctity of conscience…Accordingly, no one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it would
violate the sanctity of his or her conscience.
Individuals possess the “civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their consciences.”6 Even if an individual’s decision seems erroneous or inconsistent to others, conscience does not lose its dignity. This belief permeates Catholic moral theology as well as First Amendment jurisprudence. As stated by the United States
Supreme Court, “[R]
eligious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”7
The denial of religious accommodations, or punitive or adverse personnel actions
taken against those who raise earnest, conscience-based objections, would be contrary
to federal law and morally reprehensible.
Those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine must continue to act in charity for their
neighbors and for the common good by undertaking means to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through wearing face coverings, social distancing “
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Pope?
Seriously... find me a quote from the Pope that matches what the archbishop is saying. 

Maybe don’t cherry pick one quote from someone that doesn’t actually address the same topic as the original. In yours, the Pope doesn’t address the morality of mandates at all.

The topic the Archbishop was addressing was is it moral to force someone to get vaccinated, which the Vatican has the same stated view on in the article entitled “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

It’s written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is what the Archbishop literally quotes in his statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:


Maybe don’t cherry pick one quote from someone that doesn’t actually address the same topic as the original. In yours, the Pope doesn’t address the morality of mandates at all.

The topic the Archbishop was addressing was is it moral to force someone to get vaccinated, which the Vatican has the same stated view on in the article entitled “Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html

It’s written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is what the Archbishop literally quotes in his statement.

You are arguing with a nihilist…

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...