All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Maxp

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    495
    Reaction score
    848
    Offline
    I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?
     
    I did read a report a while ago that Fox requires anyone coming back to the office or studio to be vaccinated and show proof. So Tucker is definitely vaxxed himself, even though he is encouraging doubt about the vaccines. Weasel.
     
    My cousin posted this. Did you know the Rothchilds patented a Covid 19 test in 2015?
    We all thought Covid was something a Chinese lab let out, but it was the Rothchilds!
    The dumbness keeps getting dumber... Even tough they patented a test in 2015, in Sept 2020 they revised it to include covid 19. In the original patent, covid wasn't listed. How many of the conspiracy heads actually looked into it? I'm going with Zero.
    You would think as a global conspiracy as massive of an undertaking it is to pull off covid19, you would think they would have been smart enough to remove this web link...lol. Hell even the RNC was smart enough to remove Trumps position on pulling troops from Afghanistan from their website.. lol
    1629373121466.png
     
    The federal government has teenager highschool drama over passing yearly budget, but they're somehow apart of some elaborate covid-19 scheme that has synchronized perfectly with the global elite class.
     
    Maybe it‘s just the image, but that looks fake. The phone number doesn’t pull anything up related to Fox (I’m not about to dial it though)
    The number is legit. It states that it is the EAP for Fox corporation.
     
    It's not really a death threat.
    It's awfully close. It's certainly a veiled threat to tell the pharmacist that he could be executed. It certainly was intended to scare the pharmacist. It's not like he's saying that god will punish him. The man is stating that the pharmacist may actually be put to death, and that should violate some law. Would this at least violate a civil intimidation statute?
     
    butt crevasses, every single one of them, led by the lead butt crevasse, the attorney general...

    I'd love to see Cantrell and the council hold a meeting and vote to withhold any state taxes collected within the city. I hope that the Saints file suit against the state as a result of this if there is any breach of contract. This is unmitigated bullshirt.
     
    I'd love to see Cantrell and the council hold a meeting and vote to withhold any state taxes collected within the city. I hope that the Saints file suit against the state as a result of this if there is any breach of contract. This is unmitigated bullshirt.
    Exactly, especially since the true governing body, the state legislature, has already approved the money for these projects.
     
    well... she's not wrong in what she said


    President of the American Federation of Teachers-Utah Brad Asay said he cringed when he saw the video and worries parents might think such dialogue is the norm.
     
    It's awfully close. It's certainly a veiled threat to tell the pharmacist that he could be executed. It certainly was intended to scare the pharmacist. It's not like he's saying that god will punish him. The man is stating that the pharmacist may actually be put to death, and that should violate some law. Would this at least violate a civil intimidation statute?

    No, it's First Amended protected speech. The business has a right to remove him but there's no criminality to it.

    The standard is basically that the threatening speech has to be a "true threat" versus some kind of political or social expression. In a case involving alleged threats against abortion doctors the 9th Circuit summarized it this way:

    A true threat is "a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person. It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”

    This guy is saying that if the clinic gives a vaccine injection it is a violation of the Nuremberg Code (it isn't actually and that isn't a source of law anyway) and "very possible" (not actually) that the person could be hanged or executed (by whom?).

    I think it's clearly political/social speech and doesn't really convey a true threat. Even though his purpose may be to try to intimidate, his statements are neither reasonable nor factual, nor does he convey direct intent that he will harm the clinician. Just because he may intend to intimidate (does he really though? Or is this performative) it doesn't mean it isn't protected speech - intention to intimidate is just one part of the analysis.


     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom