WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

1.5K

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

It is a choice made to keep staff, patients and their families safer.

I want to see that evidence.

The idea never should’ve been introduced. Whether or not the vaccines are safe is IRRELEVANT. The point is that no one should be forced to take any therapy. Ever. At any time. For any reason. No one should ever be forced to take any medicine, any injection, any flu shot, any vaccine, Tylenol, no one should be forced to take cod liver oil or even WATER.

No one should be forced to take anything. That’s the fucking point. Tying your case to vaccine efficacy or safety sunk them and it was unnecessary to tie the two together. What they were doing in effect was challenging the judge in such a way that if he believes the vaccines are safe he’s going to rule against you because you tied the argument directly to the lack of safety of the vaccines. And unfortunately, the vast vast majority of the world thinks vaccines are perfectly safe even if they aren’t. It honestly looks like someone throwing a fight. What a horrible way to approach a judge what a terrible way to approach a case, what a dumb way to try your argument.

Unnecessarily stupid.

This is why liberals dominate, they are just smarter than the right. It’s proven every day that the right is filled with morons. Who the fuck approaches a case this way? And then he likened COVID-19 vaccines to Nazi concentration camps.

What makes you think, as a lawyer, that that’s a good fucking idea you fucking idiot?

It’s seriously looks like this was purposefully blown. This is either the dumbest lawyer I’ve ever seen or this was a thrown fight.

[–] 0 pt

I totally agree with your premise. My response, really is to hear the rhetoric they use to justify even that tyrannical stance. They argue you need the spike protein to keep you safe on one hand and paradoxically argue you still need to wear a mask and social distance on the other.

Liberals aren't smarter. They're parrots and repeat talking points. They appear to be able to stay on message no matter what. They wear their opponents down. The smarts come from the people who brainwash the dolts parroting the talking points.

Even a lawyer can't successfully argue circular arguments. A false premise is presented, using false arguments. Choices are presented that are not acceptable. Acceptable choices are not allowed.

We are at war. Our enemy has powerful weapons. We need counter weapons. First, we need to realize we're at war.

[–] 2 pts

Patriot, appears the ruling violates the Nuremberg Rules, this will come back to bite.

[–] 1 pt

Trying to get your enemies to comply with the laws they write for you is a losing battle.

[–] 0 pt

Patriot, they never thought those laws would be used against them, But Then they also thought she would win.

[–] 0 pt

When in 30 years when it's all irrelevant and everybody's insalved i should righ now as in he gets fucking destroyed

[–] 1 pt

Using this judge's logic; an employer would be within their rights to mandate: forced contraception, forced abortions, forced sterilization, diet requirements (ban on meat) ..... If you don't like the rules find another place of employment.

[–] 1 pt

What? A company can require employees to put something into their bodies? Remove that judge from the bench!

Reminds me of Justice Roberts changing the legislation about Obummercare. Outrageous!

they should do what the bolsheviks have been doing for 60 years. judge shop. fuck that judge. didn't he mess with the clintons at some point?

[–] [deleted] 0 pt (edited )

Of course it was dismissed.

Two prongs of their argument were completely laughable. They practically begged for the case to be dismissed by the way they approached the argument.

They tied their lawsuit to the idea that the vaccines are unsafe. They are, but that shouldn’t be the angle. Whether they are safe or not is irrelevant. No one should be forced to take even a safe treatment of anything. That’s the issue, is that they were being forced.

Unfortunately 90% of the population believes they are safe and can’t be convinced otherwise, they never should’ve taken that approach. Were they trying to get the case thrown out?

The lawyer likened vaccine mandates to Nazi concentration camps. How the fuck did they think that was going to be received? What a horrible way to make your argument. Was he trying to get it thrown out? That’s a serious question. That’s how fucking dumb that legal team is.

It’s absolute incompetence, shockingly incompetent. Just like trumps legal team and all of his allied lawyers. I swear to God the right gets stupider every day.

Well, I can't completely disagree with you. The same hospital allowed something like 285 people to claim religious reasons and another large group to claim medical reasons. In all, right at about 800 people out of the 2500 employees did not take it and they are choosing to fire this group of 177 or so that claim it is unsafe. And of course they are correct but they can't allow people to claim it is unsafe without being punished for it. That would set a bad example. How many now will sacrifice themselves now and take it cause they got families food and shelter completely dependent on their income?

What was all that talk about the Nuremberg code? Seems like that would be an effective deterrent but I haven't really understood it or how it could be used.

[–] 0 pt

"The same hospital allowed something like 285 people to claim religious reasons and another large group to claim medical reasons."

I watched the interview of the nurse leading this lawsuit and she said 75% of the people who applied for medical and religious exemptions were DENIED by the Methodist hospital. There's 'something very wrong here.