Do not comply

There are zero examples in history of totalitarian states that were healthier than free ones.

Do not budge.

— Minds (@minds) August 7, 2021

Almost 2,000 people from 9/11 families tell Biden he's not invited to 20th anniversary ceremonies https://t.co/qvUJf7DW5z

— Katie Daviscourt🇺🇸 (@KatieDaviscourt) August 7, 2021

Yikes.

Really happy that Obama is not complying.

COVID does not spread at progressive gatherings. That’s science 101. Think back to the Noble BLM protests of peace. Not a single infection. https://t.co/ecmkD15Zba

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) August 8, 2021

Unit2Sucks said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

---

Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.

---

Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?

hanky1 said:

---

Really happy that Obama is not complying.

COVID does not spread at progressive gatherings. That’s science 101. Think back to the Noble BLM protests of peace. Not a single infection. https://t.co/ecmkD15Zba

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) August 8, 2021

---

There was no COVID at Obama’s birthday party because Chrissy Teigen simply told the virus to kill itself

— Ashley St. Clair 🇺🇸 (@stclairashley) August 8, 2021

Obama Birthday Party Guests Play Light-Hearted Game Of 'Pin The Drone On The Middle Eastern Country'https://t.co/v684aasPce

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 8, 2021

66% of black New Yorkers have NOT got their covid shots - Daily Mail 🤔

— NEWS MAKER (@NEWS_MAKER) August 4, 2021

Remember before the election when Democratic politicians publicly said they weren't going to take the vaccine?

Rand Paul has joined the resistance

Rand Paul Implores Americans To ‘Choose Freedom’ Over Potential Lockdowns: ‘Time For Us To Resist’ https://t.co/3hpUUantaR pic.twitter.com/GTMdaGSFJU

— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) August 9, 2021

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

---

Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.

---

Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?

---

Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?

---

But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.

Bravo 🇮🇹 I’m pro-vaccine but not pro-vaccine passports. We don’t need to create further division & a second class of citizens denied basic rights. https://t.co/2o7tr2Lcz9

— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) August 9, 2021

Solid data on why you shouldn't comply

Fully masked San Francisco, with one of the highest vaccination rates on earth, has now matched their highest case rate of the pandemic, so can we stop pretending yet that masks matter or that “intermingling” of vaccinated & unvaccinated people is the reason cases have increased? pic.twitter.com/1LK7CEQ1CA

— IM (@ianmSC) August 8, 2021

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

---

Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.

---

Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?

---

Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?

---

But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.

---

Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:

---

Solid data on why you shouldn't comply

Fully masked San Francisco, with one of the highest vaccination rates on earth, has now matched their highest case rate of the pandemic, so can we stop pretending yet that masks matter or that “intermingling” of vaccinated & unvaccinated people is the reason cases have increased? pic.twitter.com/1LK7CEQ1CA

— IM (@ianmSC) August 8, 2021

---

Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

---

Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.

---

Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?

---

Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?

---

But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.

---

Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:

---

Solid data on why you shouldn't comply

Fully masked San Francisco, with one of the highest vaccination rates on earth, has now matched their highest case rate of the pandemic, so can we stop pretending yet that masks matter or that “intermingling” of vaccinated & unvaccinated people is the reason cases have increased? pic.twitter.com/1LK7CEQ1CA

— IM (@ianmSC) August 8, 2021

---

Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.

---

Show me the data that proves mask do anything.

Go ahead. I dare you.

Keep looking. You can do it.

Search through all the journals.

Keep looking.

I'll be waiting.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

helltopay1 said:

---

The Constitution is QUITE CLEAR..The Government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to compel its citizens to take medicines ( Vaccines) under ANY circumstances.

If you want to change that part of the Constitution, well, fine..In that case, the Congress and the States need to change that part to read 'does have the power under the following circumstances.....

Case closed

BTW, whatever happened to the Pro-choice Democrats????You know...my body....my choice...

Moot points anyway...the variant is so infectious that herd immunity will be reached sooner than later.
There are NO anti-vaxxers...there are only pro-constitutionalists..This blog is living proof that very, very few bloggers contributors have ever read the Constitution or they simply do not have the energy to re-read it.

---

Still waiting for you to respond to the questions in this thread. If the constitution is quite clear, this should be an easy task for you. Why don't you pause on starting new rants until you can prove some of your old ones. For someone with your towering intellect and consummate constitutional knowledge, this should be easy.

---

Does the Constitution allow the govt to seize private property without compensation which is basically what the eviction moratorium is?

---

Our conservative Supreme Court says congress can do it.

That has no bearing on htp1's contention that the constitution clearly states that the government cannot mandate any vaccine. Do you agree with him? If so, why has SCOTUS been wrong for over 100 years and where does the constitution address this?

---

But Congress didn't do it. Your authoritarian President did it. That's the most dictator shieet any President has done in a while. Far more authoritarian than anything Trump did.

---

Thanks for confirming you don't even understand the question you asked.

hanky1 said:

---

Solid data on why you shouldn't comply

Fully masked San Francisco, with one of the highest vaccination rates on earth, has now matched their highest case rate of the pandemic, so can we stop pretending yet that masks matter or that “intermingling” of vaccinated & unvaccinated people is the reason cases have increased? pic.twitter.com/1LK7CEQ1CA

— IM (@ianmSC) August 8, 2021

---

Thanks for confirming you don't understand science. Show me what the data would look like without a mask mandate and then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I will give you credit though, you never seem to concern yourself with being proven wrong. Over and over again. COVID is your new Aaron Rodgers.

---

You support an anti-democratic dictator.

Heil Biden.

Lol such pathetic trolling. You used to be a decent troll but you are a shell of your former self. Maybe it's time to hang up the cleats or adopt a new persona. Maybe try a smart or interesting one for a change?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Lol such pathetic trolling. You used to be a decent troll but you are a shell of your former self. Maybe it's time to hang up the cleats or adopt a new persona. Maybe try a smart or interesting one for a change?

---

You probably once believed in freedom and democracy but the Orange Man Bad turned you into a loonie.

Resist.

Don't be a sheep.

I'm going so mask-less today ... I feel like I'm at Obama's birthday bash.

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) August 14, 2021

concordtom said:

---

What is it that separates the troglodyte from the Evolved Man?

---

Using Darwin in this context is pretty misguided, because he was very much a eugenicist and, like most of his contemporaries, thought that the European race and the British in particular was the apex of human evolution. Thus this framework was a logical justification for the British colonizing what the darwinian framework construes as lesser evolved races in Africa and Asia. Not only did Darwinism justify British colonialism, it made it their duty to spread civilization to the third world - White man's burden...

One major clue about this unpalatable aspect of Darwinism is the full title of his major work, which is " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life "

So British colonialism is just an emanation of the British being the "favoured race".

incidentally, even back in the 19th century, it was the leftists and socialists in Europe who pushed the hardest for colonization, while the right was more isolationist, not so much for humanitarian reasons but more for practical reasons, as they saw colonialism and the wars associated with it as a waste of national ressources. Empires generated huge wealth for the upper classes invested in the colonial entreprise at the expense of the working classes. That was very much the case for the Roman Empire, and is also the case today with the American Empire.

Wow. I never heard that last part of the book title. And I've never heard this framework as you present it.

Added fact: did you know Darwin married his cousin? Yep, I discovered this doing genealogy on my family where in mid 1800's I found a set of ggg grandparents who were first cousins. And their daughter married my gg grandfather, who was her second cousin once removed.

Seeking to understand if this was the root of all my problems, pun intended, I discovered how common the practice was back then/there. A huge percentage of unions were in families - including Darwin and Queen Victoria.

We now understand that such heavy concentration does not lead to survival of the species. Rather, laying one group's survived mutation into another's mutation can lead to even better adaptation.

For instance, two long separated Human species, Homo Neandertalis and Homo Sapiens, met up and interbred millions of times and produced a European and Asian Homo who would develop into successful races of homos.

Today, most Europeans and Asians carry ~12% Neanderthal DNA. Some of those genes are tied to immunity, skin adaptation, and even metabolism.

Similarly, Denisovans (another archaic human group) left a legacy in people of Oceania and Southeast Asia, particularly genes that help high-altitude survival in Tibetans.

Meanwhile,
Inbreeding increases the risk of harmful recessive traits showing up, because both parents might carry the same genetic mutation.
Outbreeding mixing with unrelated or distant populations increases genetic diversity, which often means better resilience, adaptability, and survival.

Bonus factoids:

Did you know that there is no greater genetic variation than on the continent of Africa? (No wonder they dominate in sports!)

In certain times and places, globally, cousin marriage rates were (and in some areas still are) 3050%. These are societies where cousin marriage isn't just tolerated but culturally preferred.

Anyways, I'll have to examine this aspect of Darwin I never knew about.

And speaking of eugenics…. This has also come into play in my family's history. My stepdad's first wife married a woman who was the product of an inmate at New Jersey's Vineland Training School for the Feebleminded, founded in 1888 in Vineland, New Jersey.
It began as a residential institution for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
It became internationally known in the early 1900s under psychologist Henry H. Goddard, who introduced the Binet intelligence test to the U.S. and did pioneering (though now deeply controversial) research on "feeblemindedness."
Goddard's work at Vineland fed into the eugenics movement, with the idea that society should prevent those deemed "unfit" from reproducing. His most infamous case study was The Kallikak Family (1912), which purported to trace hereditary feeblemindedness.
The institution later evolved into the Vineland Training School, and eventually focused on research and education for children with developmental disabilities.

The name "for the feebleminded" fell out of use as language and approaches shifted away from eugenics and custodial care toward education, inclusion, and rights.

Ya know, if people poke around into their pasts, you find a little bit of everything!!! It's why I say, it's not us vs them, it's "we". How are WE going to take care of ourselves, each other, the planet, and our animal kingdom cousins.

A Bible verse that has done more harm than any other?

Genesis 1:26