how does this have anything to do with the topic of the post?

I mean it's in the title brah. 

The vaccine's can be contested the same.   Xos are used by both and fought in the courts.  The immigration and trade war and many others was the same with Trump.  Both sides play the same.  It's part of the process in my mind.  That's why we have 3 parts of this government they all keep each other in check and balance.

Everything can be contested to include the 2nd Amendment.  The Constitution as a whole can be contested if someone was willing to pay for a, most likely, losing fight.  However, we do have process and procedures that govern how laws are to be created and a unilateral mandate should not be one of them.  Mandates coming from one person in government is called a Dictatorship.

The 3 parts of government is held together by a piece of paper called the Constitution.  However, guess which branch has physical power to enforce their will on the American people?  Yup, the Executive branch, in which the President is the head of that branch.  If the Executive branch decides that the Judicial branch is wrong, what physical power does the Judicial branch have to force the Executive branch to "bend the knee"?  People will say that the Military and Policing Agency will not allow that to happen but are you sure about that?  The ATF is trying to take away guns, NSA has a history of spying on American Civilians, the FBI is known to cover up for Politically powerful people, and the Military has lost it's moral compass by leaving American citizens in enemy territory. The Legislative branch, as divided as it is now, will never impeach and even if they did impeach and find the President guilty, once again by what force do they have?  Also if mandates become the norm for legislating laws, there would be no need for a Legislative branch, breaking the check and balance.  Luckily we have a good balance right now in the Legislative and Judicial branch, with a slight lean to the left or right depending on the branch.  However, imagine if there was no balance and all three was leaning far left or right.  Just because all three branches agree to the mandate doesn't make it right.  Also there wouldn't need to be a mandate because they would just vote along party line.  i.e As the President says.

This brings us back to the 2nd Amendment and why we have it. (It is also the reason for the 1st Amendment. The ability to inform the citizenry about the Tranny and to move the citizens into action.)  The Founding Fathers and people in general are not stupid enough to believe that people in power will easily give up their power. That is why all nine (conservative and liberal) Justices ruled that people have the right to bear arms (DC vs Heller), in which Justice Scalia said "when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny".

I mean it's in the title brah.

NOT ONE of your posts in this thread say anything about the second amendment brah

I have no party lines.  I don't belong to either and don't like either quite frankly.   My morals are based on science.   I value freedoms that don't affect others.   You don't have the right to harm others.

You need to explain how "My morals are based on science" equates to "I value freedoms that don't affect others".  Morals is doing what you believe is good or bad for you and not society.  Ethics is how people in the same society should act regardless of their morals.  Many times Morals and Ethics collide.  For example, my morals would say abortion for any reason is wrong but ethically it is not wrong to have an abortion.  So the way I understand you statement is: I will do whatever someone tells me because I value your freedom over my own.

BTW, out of curiosity, what freedoms do you value that doesn't affect others.  It sounds like an oxymoron.

You need to explain how "My morals are based on science" equates to "I value freedoms that don't affect others".  Morals is doing what you believe is good or bad for you and not society.  Ethics is how people in the same society should act regardless of their morals.  Many times Morals and Ethics collide.  For example, my morals would say abortion for any reason is wrong but ethically it is not wrong to have an abortion.  So the way I understand you statement is: I will do whatever someone tells me because I value your freedom over my own.

BTW, out of curiosity, what freedoms do you value that doesn't affect others.  It sounds like an oxymoron OmniMoron.

FIFY

FIFY

Or "my morals are based on incorrect science that i found online".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You need to explain how "My morals are based on science" equates to "I value freedoms that don't affect others".  Morals is doing what you believe is good or bad for you and not society.  Ethics is how people in the same society should act regardless of their morals.  Many times Morals and Ethics collide.  For example, my morals would say abortion for any reason is wrong but ethically it is not wrong to have an abortion.  So the way I understand you statement is: I will do whatever someone tells me because I value your freedom over my own.

BTW, out of curiosity, what freedoms do you value that doesn't affect others.  It sounds like an oxymoron.

In my option true personal freedom should be unlimited:  For example abortion, suicide, organ selling, drugs (not hard), guns.  All things that do not affect anyone but you.
Things that affect others should/can be restricted: For example drunk driving, murder, rape,  viruses,  smoking indoors.  AKA anything that will rob someone else of their freedoms without their consent.

Morals derived from science as in proved that it either harms or doesn't harm others.  What can and can't be a personal freedom. 

Covid is able to be spread and a person can not guarantee they will not harm another person,  thus they need to take precautions to protect others freedoms.  Similar if someone has an STD they should be legally required to notify partners. 

For an example if I exercise my 2a rights,  there is an almost zero chance of harm to others if I am lawful.
Another example,  if someone does an abortion.  There is zero chance of harm to others.

These should be allowed because of freedom.

Smoking indoors while is a "personal freedom" as its your body, the smoke produced can negatively effect others who do not wish to be affected. (cancer etc)

Things like these should be regulated.

In my option true personal freedom should be unlimited:  For example abortion, suicide, organ selling, drugs (not hard), guns.  All things that do not effect anyone but you.
Things that effect others should/can be restricted: For example drunk driving, murder, rape,  viruses,  smoking indoors.  AKA anything that will rob someone else of their freedoms without their consent.

Morals derived from science as in proved that it either harms or doesn't harm others.  What can and can't be a personal freedom. 

Covid is able to be spread and a person can not guarantee they will not harm another person,  thus they need to take precautions to protect others freedoms.  Similar if someone has an STD they should be legally required to notify partners. 

For an example if I exercise my 2a rights,  there is an almost zero chance of harm to others if I am lawful.
Another example,  if someone does an abortion.  There is zero chance of harm to others.

These should be allowed because of freedom.

Smoking indoors while is a "personal freedom" as its your body, the smoke produced can negatively effect others who do not wish to be effected. (cancer etc)

Things like these should be regulated.

one of the few times he/she/it has ever stated this, and cannot even spell it correctly
and he/she/it was doing so well lately on the affect/effect thing, but then he reverts back to the norm...

Everything can be contested to include the 2nd Amendment.  The Constitution as a whole can be contested if someone was willing to pay for a, most likely, losing fight.  However, we do have process and procedures that govern how laws are to be created and a unilateral mandate should not be one of them.  Mandates coming from one person in government is called a Dictatorship.

The 3 parts of government is held together by a piece of paper called the Constitution.  However, guess which branch has physical power to enforce their will on the American people?  Yup, the Executive branch, in which the President is the head of that branch.  If the Executive branch decides that the Judicial branch is wrong, what physical power does the Judicial branch have to force the Executive branch to "bend the knee"?  People will say that the Military and Policing Agency will not allow that to happen but are you sure about that?  The ATF is trying to take away guns, NSA has a history of spying on American Civilians, the FBI is known to cover up for Politically powerful people, and the Military has lost it's moral compass by leaving American citizens in enemy territory. The Legislative branch, as divided as it is now, will never impeach and even if they did impeach and find the President guilty, once again by what force do they have?  Also if mandates become the norm for legislating laws, there would be no need for a Legislative branch, breaking the check and balance.  Luckily we have a good balance right now in the Legislative and Judicial branch, with a slight lean to the left or right depending on the branch.  However, imagine if there was no balance and all three was leaning far left or right.  Just because all three branches agree to the mandate doesn't make it right.  Also there wouldn't need to be a mandate because they would just vote along party line.  i.e As the President says.

This brings us back to the 2nd Amendment and why we have it. (It is also the reason for the 1st Amendment. The ability to inform the citizenry about the Tranny and to move the citizens into action.)  The Founding Fathers and people in general are not stupid enough to believe that people in power will easily give up their power. That is why all nine (conservative and liberal) Justices ruled that people have the right to bear arms (DC vs Heller), in which Justice Scalia said "when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny".

We have a mixture of government which is absolutely the best,  no part should control everything.  Trump did many things the democrats called "unfair" and painted in a similar light to things Biden is doing now.  Just because the coin has flipped doesn't mean you can ignore the past.  Without XO's the president is fairly useless.   His powers help balance out the legislative branch.  In the time of Trump he used that to try and fix immigration.  The democrats cried and cried about the wall but he used his XO power to make it happen.  They said the same things that many of you are saying now.  How unfair and illegal it was, abuse of powers etc etc etc.

No government is perfect but I think ours is functioning fairly well.  We are only human.  In the legislative right now the house and senate balance each other out.  The judiciary and the executive are also currently balanced out.  The government is doing great. 

The 2a exists to make sure everything remains fair.  There are no dictators.  2a is not and should not be used politically for "power".  Its a safety measure.  A last chance if I might surmise.

We have a mixture of government which is absolutely the best,  no part should control everything.  Trump did many things the democrats called "unfair" and painted in a similar light to things Biden is doing now.  Just because the coin has flipped doesn't mean you can ignore the past.  Without XO's the president is fairly useless.   His powers help balance out the leg.  In the time of Trump he used that to try and fix immigration.  The democrats cried and cried about the wall but he used his XO power to make it happen. 

No government is perfect but I think ours is functioning fairly well.  We are only human. In the leg right now the house and senate balance each other out.  The judiciary and the executive are also currently balanced out.  The government is doing great. 

The 2a exists to make sure everything remains fair.  There are no dictators.  2a is not and should not be used politically for "power".  Its a safety measure.  A last chance if I might surmise.

first of all, it is not "the leg"
B, i fail to see how a D majority in the House and a 50/50 split in the Senate (with the D VP having the tie breaking vote) "balance each other out"

but hey, i only wen publik skool

first of all, it is not "the leg"
B, i fail to see how a D majority in the House and a 50/50 split in the Senate (with the D VP having the tie breaking vote) "balance each other out"

but hey, i only wen publik skool

Filibuster...The fact that a couple of the democrats and republicans function more like independents than democrats.  You need 60 votes to pass most meaningful laws.  But then again I don't have doctorate like you. 

I think he was good to mandate to the fed jobs.  Maybe the 100+ employee companies went a bit too far.   I am sure it will be challenged in court.  Then again the republicans can't say shit when they cheered the overreach by the republicans on the abortion issue.

At the very least this should be done through the passing of a law. Why should we give the president such powers to mandate any vaccine? This isn't an emergency that would even need to be rushed, congress could pass the law. I believe the vaccine works but a president should never have that much power.

first of all, it is not "the leg"
B, i fail to see how a D majority in the House and a 50/50 split in the Senate (with the D VP having the tie breaking vote) "balance each other out"

but hey, i only wen publik skool

and we circle back to him not understanding how voting for bills work.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

one of the few times he/she/it has ever stated this, and cannot even spell it correctly
and he/she/it was doing so well lately on the affect/effect thing, but then he reverts back to the norm...

He still wont give up his guns because there is a 0.00001% chance it could harm someone else. But yet wants to force vaxx on others cause it offers a chance to help. And a chance thats not 0% is all thats needed for his justification.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

He still wont give up his guns because there is a 0.00001% chance it could harm someone else. But yet wants to force vaxx on others cause it offers a chance to help. And a chance thats not 0% is all thats needed for his justification.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

A crime has to occur for my guns to be harmful.  The spread of covid does not.  Is that hard to understand? 

Prove I am spreading COVID you Midwit

Prove I am spreading COVID you Midwit

He doesnt feel proof.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

A crime has to occur for my guns to be harmful.  The spread of covid does not.  Is that hard to understand?

a car can be harmful without committing a crime
is that hard to understand?

We have a mixture of government which is absolutely the best,  no part should control everything.  Trump did many things the democrats called "unfair" and painted in a similar light to things Biden is doing now.  Just because the coin has flipped doesn't mean you can ignore the past.  Without XO's the president is fairly useless.   His powers help balance out the legislative branch.  In the time of Trump he used that to try and fix immigration.  The democrats cried and cried about the wall but he used his XO power to make it happen.  They said the same things that many of you are saying now.  How unfair and illegal it was, abuse of powers etc etc etc.

No government is perfect but I think ours is functioning fairly well.  We are only human.  In the legislative right now the house and senate balance each other out.  The judiciary and the executive are also currently balanced out.  The government is doing great. 

The 2a exists to make sure everything remains fair.  There are no dictators.  2a is not and should not be used politically for "power".  Its a safety measure.  A last chance if I might surmise.

hey
3.7 boy/girl/whatever
it's not "the legislature" either
try "Congress" bruh
FOCUS

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk