Coronavirus

Mr. Deez said:
Ultimately, this angle shows how much of a ******** issue this really is. If you truly buy into the trans movement and ideology surrounding gender (which is essentially that subjective self-proclaimed gender trumps biological sex and that people and institutions should adapt to that), then why wouldn't you dig chicks with dicks if you're a straight guy or a lesbian? Or "dudes with boobs" (which admittedly doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "chicks with dicks") if you're a straight woman or gay man? There's an inherent inconsistency that people just pretend doesn't exist to avoid the obvious conclusion that this issue is stupid.
Click to expand...

1) Gender identity
2) Biological "junk"
3) Sexual preference

Apparently all three are fully independent of the others. There is no pattern. You can be a Trans woman (formerly a man) and still be sexually attracted to women only. I know someone like that.
 
bystander said:
In first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, judge sides with Houston hospital, dismissing claims from staff resisters

"The case involved Houston Methodist, which was the first hospital system in the country to require that all its employees get vaccinated. U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes ruled Saturday that federal law does not prevent employers from issuing that mandate.

After months of warnings, Houston Methodist had put more than 170 of its 26,000 employees on unpaid suspension Monday. They were told they would be fired it they weren't vaccinated by June 21.

The hospital had made it clear it meant what it said: It fired the director of corporate risk – Bob Nevens – and another manager in April when they did not meet the earlier deadline for bosses."

It appears this ruling means any private company can fire their employees if they do not vaccinate unless there is a state law in place giving the employees the right to refuse the vaccine. There are no federal prohibitions at this time for this requirement.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath. The state level exceptions to the employment at-will doctrine are few and extremely narrow. Furthermore, the Texas Supreme Court has the business community's balls deeply entrenched in its mouth. It's not going to recognize a cause of action for wrongful termination on its own. The legislature would have to pass a law, and they will construe it as narrowly as they possibly can.
 
bystander said:
That made me laugh... :bow:
Click to expand...

Well, they're almost all big firm lawyers who were in the sack with politicians (or former government lawyers who worked directly for politicians. Big business interests paid their legal bills. It's an easy transition from that to big business interests paying for their campaigns. Note - there are exceptions. Debra Lehrmann and John Devine do have minds of their own.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Well, they're almost all big firm lawyers who were in the sack with politicians (or former government lawyers who worked directly for politicians. Big business interests paid their legal bills. It's an easy transition from that to big business interests paying for their campaigns. Note - there are exceptions. Debra Lehrmann and John Devine do have minds of their own.
Click to expand...

Molly Ivins had a field day ridiculing our Legislature back in the day...

But back to the point. I believe the business community took a keen interest in this lawsuit and if the floodgates open to vaccinate or else, then I reckon the Feds will jump in and pass the law preventing it. Taking things to the logical extreme, a person could suffer catastrophic consequences if every viable employer for their skill-set adopted this stance.[/QUOTE]
 
bystander said:
Molly Ivins had a field day ridiculing our Legislature back in the day...

But back to the point. I believe the business community took a keen interest in this lawsuit and if the floodgates open to vaccinate or else, then I reckon the Feds will jump in and pass the law preventing it. Taking things to the logical extreme, a person could suffer catastrophic consequences if every viable employer for their skill-set adopted this stance.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I think it would be unconstitutional at the federal level. At the state level, I'd support passing a statute to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of Covid vaccination if I was a legislator. However, if I was a judge, I'd side with the business community as well. Even though people would generally call me "pro-plaintiff," if I sat on the Texas Supreme Court, I'd be reluctant to judicially recognize a new exception to the at-will doctrine. I'm not saying I'd never do it. State courts have common law authority that federal courts don't have. However, I'd be very deferential to the Legislature on something like that, and I'd have to see a very compelling case to do it judicially. The vaccine issue wouldn't be enough to get me there.
 
bystander said:
1) Gender identity
2) Biological "junk"
3) Sexual preference

Apparently all three are fully independent of the others. There is no pattern. You can be a Trans woman (formerly a man) and still be sexually attracted to women only. I know someone like that.
Click to expand...
No matter how much cosmetic surgery one undergoes or legal fictions one has signed off on by a court, a male will never be a female and, hence, will never be a lesbian. The male energy tends to remain strong with those who claim they are both M2F and lesbian...there are also other very significant differences, but I shall refrain from such discussions here out of my profound sense of decorum...
 
bystander said:
In first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, judge sides with Houston hospital, dismissing claims from staff resisters

"The case involved Houston Methodist, which was the first hospital system in the country to require that all its employees get vaccinated. U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes ruled Saturday that federal law does not prevent employers from issuing that mandate.

After months of warnings, Houston Methodist had put more than 170 of its 26,000 employees on unpaid suspension Monday. They were told they would be fired it they weren't vaccinated by June 21.

The hospital had made it clear it meant what it said: It fired the director of corporate risk – Bob Nevens – and another manager in April when they did not meet the earlier deadline for bosses."

It appears this ruling means any private company can fire their employees if they do not vaccinate unless there is a state law in place giving the employees the right to refuse the vaccine. There are no federal prohibitions at this time for this requirement.
Click to expand...

Abbott needs to put up a law before the state legislature banning companies from firing employees over vaccines. 14th amendment and the Nuremberg code support this. He had the guts to legally allow banks to custody Bitcoin. Ban vaccine passports. He can certainly put forth this law protecting employees.
 
AC said:
Abbott needs to put up a law before the state legislature banning companies from firing employees over vaccines. 14th amendment and the Nuremberg code support this. He had the guts to legally allow banks to custody Bitcoin. Ban vaccine passports. He can certainly put forth this law protecting employees.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath for Abbott.
 
AC said:
Abbott needs to put up a law before the state legislature banning companies from firing employees over vaccines. 14th amendment and the Nuremberg code support this. He had the guts to legally allow banks to custody Bitcoin. Ban vaccine passports. He can certainly put forth this law protecting employees.
Click to expand...
Unless it somehow winds up on the list for the Special Session, it won't be happening...at least not for this shot.
 
mb227 said:
Unless it somehow winds up on the list for the Special Session, it won't be happening...at least not for this shot.
Click to expand...

If it ended up on the call for the special session, Dick Weekley would have his hand up enough asses in the Capitol to keep it from passing.
 
The scientists are now coming out saying they knew Wuhan generated the virus, but refused to agree with Trump. Sick and why nobody with a brain trusts the science, CDC or WHO. People need to go to jail for their lies and cover ups.
 
theiioftx said:
The scientists are now coming out saying they knew Wuhan generated the virus, but refused to agree with Trump. Sick and why nobody with a brain trusts the science, CDC or WHO. People need to go to jail for their lies and cover ups.
Click to expand...

Yep. Even more disturbing was their personal jihad against hydroxychloroquine because of Trump. How many lives did that cost?
 
Garmel said:
Yep. Even more disturbing was their personal jihad against hydroxychloroquine because of Trump. How many lives did that cost?
Click to expand...
Did you know that vaccines won’t be approved if there is an approved drug against the disease?
 
OUBubba said:
Also, our docs tried with no real noticeable impact. Remdisivr and Bamlanivimab had positive results.
Click to expand...

Some studies have shown failure and most of those are due to where the medicine is taken extremely late ( (7 days+) instead of early. Sorta like Tamiflu where it has to be taken early.
 
Last edited:
Everybody I knew who took the vaccine get sick from it.

So... If the vaccine makes you sick, what's the point? The scientist who made mRNA technology also says the nanoparticles resulting from the vaccine accumulate in body tissue. So does LSD and Herpes, which means bad symptoms can come back. Who knows if they will, but this is another reason I won't touch the vaccine.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/
 
Monahorns said:
Everybody I knew who took the vaccine get sick from it.

So... If the vaccine makes you sick, what's the point? The scientist who made mRNA technology also says the nanoparticles resulting from the vaccine accumulate in body tissue. So does LSD and Herpes, which means bad symptoms can come back. Who knows if they will, but this is another reason I won't touch the vaccine.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ccine-lipid-nanoparticles-accumulate-ovaries/
Click to expand...
Being symptomatic for a day is not “getting sick”. That’s the immune system creating the antibody.
 
Many people who get sick with COVID are sick for a day or two or zero. What's the difference? Is it a good balance of risk to choose to get sick for a day versus avoiding sick for a couple of days?

My parents in their 70s were sick for about a week, but were fully functional the whole time. Their energy level was more or less normal with a slight fever occasionally. Then it was gone. Not much worse if any compared to the people I have heard who took the vaccine.
 
Same with my 85 year old aunt. Sick for a week. A stupid doctor gave her antibiotic for COVID. Once she quit taking that she beat COVD quickly.
 
I took the Pfizer vaccine and had absolutely no ill effects. I didn’t even have a sore arm. Everyone I know who took the vaccine experienced side effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top