Mark1

I would gladly defend religious freedom with my life while simultaneously acknowledging its absurdity and the fact that it is the single greatest source of evil in the history of humanity. The defense is of freedom, not religion. There's no dissonance there, and no grounds to feel like a fraud. Defending someone's right to make a choice for themselves that you wouldn't make for yourself is an amazing thing. Religion is contemptible. That doesn't extend to a believer as long as they aren't using their faith to justify causing harm. I'm aware of the awesome power of indoctrination. The doctrine/church/organization deserves contempt, but for the faithful it's pity.

Why would you seek accommodation to remain part of an organization that is actively sanctioning and promoting use of something that spits in the face of god? Even if they accommodate your individual objections, they are pushing it on the masses that don't share your enlightenment, and that is the work of the devil. Seeking individual religious accommodation does nothing to redeem the organization that you would continue to be a part of. Seems you're pursuing exemption for the sake of money/safety/comfort at the expense of your righteousness. Wouldn't the righteous thing be to resign rather than seek accommodation? I'm sad that I'll never live to see it, but it gives me great comfort to know that religious delusion is gradually losing out to the true enlightenment of reason, and though it will never disappear altogether, my great-great-great grandchildren will live in a world where it is so utterly insignificant as to be meaningless. Praise god.

That's great my man. Seems like you attibuted the entire universe to my very simple statement. I said nothing about COVID. I made zero assumptions as they were all made inside the declarative statement of yours that I responded to. I offered no agreement or disagrement to the assumptions and said only that the statement as made, is objectively false. A very small change (on a percentage basis) in the exponent of a population growth model, has massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread...the end. A sensible post. Congratulations. That's a rare breed in this thread. I agree on all (and it's not in conflict with my previous post).

You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.

SECDEFs Nov 30th memo made it clear that unvaccinated guardsmen would be barred from participating in drill, training, or other duty. The fact that they wouldn't be paid for services not rendered was included as a secondary remark. So lets not pretend that you're sticking it to the man.

Yep. The legal filings are totally in good faith, and not a litigious stall tactic that skirts the actual issue. And since they imply that even the plaintiffs agree the order is lawful in principle, as long as Comirnaty labeled doses are offered, I would pay large money to see the government show up to court with nurses ready to administer shots to the plaintiffs out of vials with that divine piece of paper stuck to them that makes all the difference. It'd be a sight to see that courtroom clear as if somebody fumbled a live grenade onto the floor. Mere seconds before nothing but the dignity of the plaintiffs was left behind. Outside of stating that I oppose public mandates, I've made no mention of the vaccine. This has nothing to do with a vaccine and everything to do with a group of people that has made clear they only follow orders when it serves them personally. That's a cancerous thing in military command structure, and if they don't have the integrity to self-eliminate from the service, then they should be forcibly removed. Interesting take given I'm in that group. Damn, I'm like a self-hating black man. Always wondered how that dissonance could develop and now I'm living it. You got me.

I don't have much faith that DoD will follow through without exception after injunctions are lifted and religious exemption requests are denied, but hopefully they do, and the U.S. military will be stronger for having purged those that self-identified as having joined under false pretense and having served their entire career only where doing so aligned with their own selfish desires. Then a decade from now we'll have to endure a few Timothy McVeigh Jr.'s, and after they've offed themselves over delusions of grandeur we can all get on with life.

I wouldn't expect you to have questions. I made it clear which group I belonged to in the first word of my first post. Is this Bizarro World? A lot of people disagree? Do any of them have CSAF appended to their name? I wasn't aware that mliitary command structure had shifted to anarchism where everybody just issues their own personal orders based on what they think is prudent. A person with the authority to determine military necessity has made that call. Opinions on the validity of that determination from subordinates are meaningless. I am not, and would not, call anyone a snowflake over a difference of opinion. Feel free to think whatever you'd like about the order. I actually hold a person in higher regard who disagrees with an order and carries it out faithfully in service to their duty anyway. It's when someone disobeys an order based on selfish motives because they think they're entitled to not experience psycological discomfort that they become a snowflake. I assume that you've told all the E-3s under your command that since you don't understand the nuance of their perspective on showing up to work on a daily basis, that if they personally disagree with the expectation of a 5 day work week, they can just work a few hours here or there as they see fit?

Concerned about their personal health? WTF. Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)? Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health. Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health. Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health. Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health. Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health. You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt? Shit, I must have missed that memo. The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good. As I said...snowflakes.

Agreed. And for those who joined the military voluntarily and have come to believe that they're entitled to resist orders based on personal opinion and desire; they can fuck right off on their high horse of self-righteousness too. Snowflakes.

This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. The "authoritarian aspect"? What did you think you were getting into when you joined the military? The whole concept is one of authoritarianism. Your commissioning oath literally contains a sentence dedicated to your voluntary submission to authoritarian control. Objection to vaccine mandates in all walks of life is a defensible position (one that I share). But there's one exception: the military. If it's a lawful order, which it is, your personal opinion on the matter is meaningless.

I don't have the patience to go through every problem with the point you think you're making with this, but just one thing... When you're trying to leverage something to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s. You know, because that was a time when if you got the sniffles a couple days after your diphtheria vaccination, you first had to be enough of a pussy to book an appointment with your medical provider over it, and then they had to give enough fucks to fill out the reporting documentation and submit it on your behalf after you left the office. Whereas today anybody can submit a report in two minutes while they're on the shitter.

It's more important that god help schools that produce graduates so devoid of critical thinking skills that they report and/or consume raw VAERS data (or any summary conclusions based on the same) as indicative of anything. Not to mention the summary conclusions drawn by the linked website, even if you incorrectly assume VAERS data to reflect cause-effect conditions, are an affront to the entire discipline that is mathematics. You don't see this being reported by actual news agencies because, despite the abysmally low bar in the industry right now, it would still be journalistic suicide to report such face value nonsense. Now lets all go to VAERS and self report that we died from the COVID-19 vaccine as a goof so that next week you show up in the esteemed vaersanalysis.info summary...because, yeah, you can submit a report to VAERS no questions asked.

Can I read? Debatable, but I'd like to think "yes". Can I read something authored by you specifically? Well again, debatable. But if yes, I have a hard limit of no more than two sentences as each word kills off enough brain cells that I'm not willing to compromise myself beyond than that. So let's examine the first two sentences of your post: Three claims made, three claims false. Batting 1000. No doubt lifted without thought from some cess-pool corner of the internet and regurgitated here. 1. Thalidomide was not FDA approved. 2. Thalidomide did not impact a LOOOOT (sorry my blood clot slipped a bit) of children in the U.S. thanks to the conservative FDA process. 3. Thalidomide was not removed due to skepticism. It didn't have to be thanks to the same conservative FDA approval process that blocked its approval then, and approved Pfizer's vaccine now. Elsewhere Thalidomide was being purchased over-the-counter like Aspirin without any skepticism whatsoever. A resounding success story that only lends credence to anything that has made it through the process.

Posting an image with text in it that directly refutes the information in a paragraph you just wrote is a new level of stupidity...and for you to reach new levels is not an easy feat. Kelsey was FDA "brass". The Thalidomide saga is a resounding success story for the organization and by extension all governmental health services in this country. The FDA is often derided for being too slow and conservative when deciding on approval of new technologies, but the benefit of their glacial pace is avoiding circumstances like the Thalidomide debacle, which they did. A LOOOOT of children were messed up by Thalidomide in Europe. The U.S. was largely spared because of the FDA. A small number of children were impacted in the U.S. by unregulated clinical trials of the drug, and following that, more restrictions were put on clinical testing to require FDA oversight so that it could be avoided in the future. Thalidomide was eventually approved by the FDA for treatment of serious ailments in adults that can consent to its use with full knowledge of its side effects. It was not approved when it caused widespread harm to unsuspecting mothers and their children. Your anecdote can only serve as evidence for why you should have great faith in something that has made it through the FDA approval process. The exact opposite of the point you thought you were making. Brilliantly stupid. To be clear: this occurs in every one of your posts. If you put half as much energy into a good-faith effort at educating yourself as you apparently do trawling the dark corners of the internet consuming nonsense conspiracy theories that a toddler would roll their eyes at, you'd have discovered the universal cure for cancer (which is likely to be mRNA based).

The possible ability for a vaccinated person to carry and transmit live virus has zero impact on being able to reach herd immunity (which doesn't mean the virus dies out completely, by the way). In fact, it would only "help" that cause by leading to more naturally aquired immunity through infection. Vaccinated people could be shedding massive amounts of virus into the ether, and if everybody around also has vaccine derived immunity, then nothing happens. The only question that matters is what the nature of both vaccine and infection based immunity is. How long does it last? How often will mutations occur, and will immunity extend to the new strains? Vaccine dervied antibody immunity probably dissipates over time. We don't know yet. However, lifetime cellular immunity will likely reduce duration and severity of future infections even if antibody protection goes away.

This is not in regard to this specific comment. It just reminds me to mention for all those suggestable people out there that are inclined to believe their gut, or buy into consipiracy theories: The plan is to innoculate billions of people. When you do anything with numbers that large, low probability events will occur. You could hand a party balloon to 3 billion people and a non-zero number of them would stroke out and die immediately after they took it from you. So prepare yourself to be skeptical of cause-and-effect claims for any side effects of the vaccine. There will be numerous cases of people who were 'destined' to die at 5pm on Wednesday, and just happened to have their vaccination at 4pm. There will be numerous cases of people 'destined' to develop ALS or Guillain-Barre syndrome in June that just happened to get vaccinated in late May. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this, but 'legitimate' media will focus on it as well because tradgedy sells. Unless the claims come with statistics that show significance, they're noise. Treat it as such.

You've made 8000 posts in this thread. At one point last week you were averaging one post every 18 seconds. Your position is well established. Everybody including yourself knows why you chose to present this specific story in a long line of similarly themed things you've pointed towards over the last few weeks. Feigning offense at the fact that I 'assumed' something because it wasn't explicitly contained within a paticular post won't get you anywhere with me. It's time to face reality. They said it couldn't be done, but George Soros and the New World Order organized the most complex conspiracy in the history of the world, infiltrated Dominion, and unleashed cutting edge CIA technology called Hammer and Scorecoard to surrupticiously steal the election without leaving a trace. An entity capable of pulling that off isn't going to have left enough untied loose ends (like 2600 uncounted ballots in 30+ counties) lying around to make a difference. It's over. They won this battle. Gotta reconstitute for the next one so you can win the war.

You suck at details dude. Almost like it's willfull ignorance...weird. It wasn't 2600 ballots with Trump votes, it was 2600 ballots. The third sentence in your own source says it's presumed to result in approximately +800 differential in favor of Trump. So you'd actually need 17 more counties with similar issues to make a difference, not 4. Except that Floyd County is among the largest counties in Georgia that leans heavily Republican. So in reality, you'd probably need similar issues in ~30 Republican counties to make a difference. This is all assuming that your audit finds 30 discrepancies that result in +Trump differential, and none that result in +Biden differential. 0% chance of that happening. What exactly is your issue? Georgia self-initiated a hand recount/audit to make sure they got things right. They found a discrepancy and they corrected it. What more could you ask for? When was the last time you sorted 5 million items into 2 categories and didn't make a single error? Not to mention that the audit is part of the counting process, so to call it an 'error' isn't correct. It's only an error if it's found after the vote count is certified. Not to mention even if Georgia flipped, which it won't, it changes nothing. Move on with your life.

Shouldn't even have to make the call. They should already be self-mobilizing. If doing everything possible to undermine faith in the democratic process (I'm not talking about lawsuits) isn't quite enough to classify you a "domestic enemy" of the Constitution, then refusing to abdicate would remove all doubt. Not that it would work this way in reality, but there should be 1.5 million members of the military moving on D.C. to honor their oath. I didn't vote for Biden and I'm no longer beholden to any oath, but I'd make the trip if it became necessary. The fact that the electorate put a person in power that would make these kinds of questions less than batshit crazy to entertain is an embarassment for the country. As Robert O'Neill said of Trump's desired military parade in D.C.: that's "3rd world bullshit". So is having to think about this. The international community has been watching 3rd world bullshit from the highest level of government in this country for 4 years. It does no favors to our status as the last standing superpower. China is surging economically but we have always had uncreachable high-ground over them (and others) from all other angles. We're a little less untouchable than we used to be and have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Let's hold off on this declaration until we're sure he's not going to saunter down from the presidential bedroom on January 20th and go to work on his 2nd term in the Oval Office as if nothing has happened.

A good arguement could be made that the sitting president is the greatest acute threat to the Constitution in the entire world right now. Is that preferable?

I don't have concern (if you read my posts, you'll see this). And since we're discussing flyovers and, from your perspective, there's no training involved in flyovers, I don't see how I could be lecturing on how you train. But thanks for the education on your financial circumstances. Must be senile in my 'old' age and have forgotten about that part from when I wasn't John Q. Public. Everybody here is pissed when they see tax dollars being wasted on Obamaphones and pork-barrel subsidies. But when it's them wasting tax dollars for personal benefit and they're called on it, they're just as self-righteous and indignant as the guy who gets told 5 Obamaphones is enough. It's no wonder we're approaching $30 trillion in debt. And for the slow learners: No, I'm not saying flyovers are a waste, and I don't want my $0.0003 back. Just that it's a pretty piss-poor attitude for somebody who does believe they're a waste, to also say, "Fuck it, who cares. They're fun and, let's be honest, it's all about me". Especially somebody who is, ostensibly, 'serving' the country.

I responded to someone who said flyovers were of no training value and insinuated that they only favor doing them because they're a morale boost and "America, Fuck Yeah!". I noted that IF that were true, they shouldn't be happening. I also noted that if this person wasn't learning from a flyover, they were doing it wrong [because there's plenty to learn from a flyover]. Further, I suggested that it appeared a good portion of people doing the flyovers actually needed the training [that you get from a flyover]. Which side of the arguement do you think I'm on? You can unbunch your panties now. The point was that if the person I was responding to was in the jet for no purpose (i.e. not training), then they're "joyriding" and defrauding the U.S. taxpayer.