Chicago's lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, launched a police raid on Sunday on a predominately black church for holding services in defiance of her coronavirus shutdown orders • /s/BiblicalSubmission

submitted by calmbluejay from saidit.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (16 children)

Rights are not absolute things like magical incantations.

Yes they are. They are inherent and inalienable.

Criminal courts have interfered and attempted to sabotage there's rights.

Making laws does not change the inalienable nature of human rights.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

You are factually wrong.

"States may also take more drastic measures, such as requiring citizens to be tested or vaccinated, even against their will. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”"

In any event, rights are things granted by people. They do not exist in a vacuum. What rights one ought to have is a matter for debate, not some law in nature. You don't have the right to get other people sick, nor the right to ignore constitutionally valid emergencies.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

You are factually wrong.

He was never vaccinated.

He payed a $5 fine. Checkmate.

It would seem obvious to me that you're true purpose is to come here to shill for big pharma.

Even so. The courts were criminal in forcing him to pay a fine.

The US is obligated to follow the Geneva convention treaty.

Forced vaccinations are considered human experimentation.

Forced vaccinations are illegal under the Geneva convention and international law.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

....???? And there are fines and possible jail time for violating emergency orders.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

And they are still unconstitutional, and illegal.

Emergency orders are not laws.

There are many criminals in positions of power in the US.
Lori Lightfoot is a treasonous criminal.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not an argument.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

I accept your surrender.

It would appear you have finally run out of scripted pharma rebuttals.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Finish Him!

[–]72ndGender 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Fucking wrecked him. Almost feel bad for the little liar.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Don't feel bad. He's just reading his lines.

[–]Dragonerne 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

In any event, rights are things granted by people.

ROFL. How old are you?
You have positive and negative rights. Positive rights are granted while negative rights can only be taken from you. Positive right is "universal healthcare" or "public education". Negative rights are free speech, freedom of assembly etc. You're born with negative rights and you do not infringe on anyone, while positive rights are granted to you and upheld by forcing others to deliver a service to you that they may or may not want to give you.
Negative rights are not up for debate. You're born with them. Society can decide to strip you of your negative rights but it can only do so if it has the power to do so by force.
If the citizens are willing and able to cause heavy damage to protect their rights, then it's too expensive for society to strip its citizens of their born rights.

The only response to tyrannical abuse of power is to take away the power from those abusing it or cause as much damage as possible to society.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If they're "not up for debate" please point me to the apparent holy tome you base this claim on. If society can choose not to recognize these, where do they begin to be recognized in the first place? It's almost as if you have to argue they exist and, by argument, also find caveats in where the so-called "negative" rights infringe on someone else. You are free to speak, you're just not free to speak in such a manner that transmits a pandemic.

[–]Dragonerne 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are free to speak, you're just not free to speak in such a manner that transmits a pandemic.

I am free to speak. I was born free to speak.
If you want to infringe on my right, then be prepared that I defend myself.
To "You're not allowed to speak"
I can only answer: Ask my gun.

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Look, you want to give away your rights, you do that soy boy. You lie down and let corporations decide everything for you. Its your right to do that. Just understand, that like the ground under my feet, you are beneath me.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The threat of force is the only authority GovCorp has.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Great response. +3

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.