How Far Are The Pro-Vaxers Willing To Go?

[Two Wings]

I never said or intimated any such things. Deal with what I actually say. Don't put words in my mouth.

If he did that, he might have to admit he's like the rest of us rather than superior to us.

Perish the thought!

I'm sure this guy is probably a great dude w/ whom to hang ... have a meal ... stand a barn ... whatever.

But the online persona takes on the "long haired Harry" ... refusing to accept PMs is questionable.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I know what it is. We are not there yet, but both parties are working towards that direction in different ways.

In post #12 you said that we've been in a totalitarian state for a very long time. That's utter fiction. How in the world can you make up such nonsensical stuff Jon?

 

[JonC]

In post #12 you said that we've been in a totalitarian state for a very long time. That's utter fiction. How in the world can you make up such nonsensical stuff Jon?

We have, just not in the sense you define.

Totalitarian - "relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

I believe we meet this definition in terms of the federal government to states.

I am not sure how you came up with the definition of totalitarian to mean "No freedom of movement unless Big Brother says so. You can't go more than 3 or so miles from your home." I suppose you've been watching movies or reading fiction.

 

[Aaron]

Are there any limits that you have in mind in which you would view that the government is overstepping its bounds and I will not comply?

For instance, are you comfortable with checkpoints if you drive outside your county? The authorities would force you to show them your papers (or digitally). Your vax status would determine if you'd be forced to return home or not. The rules would make some of you to take a test to determine if you are positive or negative for any variant (although no test can actually do that.)

Take a look around the world. Do you know what's happening in Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand and Canada. Then try to process the notion that it could happen where you live. It is not a conspiracy theory. We are way past the fact that our own government (with an assist from MOSSAD) was responsible for 911. Your eyes should be open that a small number of super wealthy elites are running the world and they have plans. Big plans for us useless eaters.

Getting back to my topic and lead paragraph : At what point would you resist what the government tells you what to do? Hand over your children, we will take care of them. The unvaxxed are not allowed to shop for groceries. These are just some sample items that are taking place in our world and it could take place here --and soon. It was never about health, but minute control of every living human --and seeing to it that many will die.

I think I'll take issue with your acceptance of their labels. Those pushing the cv jabs as the sole mechanism toward herd immunity, and who are at the same time maligning and marginalizing other eminent and effective treatments are not "pro-vax." They are either part of the communist revolution here and tyrants, or their useful idiots.

Neither are those who opt out of the cv jabs on the basis of their own conscience or risk analyses, or who merely resist them to push back on the health tyranny "anti-vax."

The long and the short of it is, this vax rollout is not about health. It's about freedom or slavery.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The basic difference between a totalitarian state and a free state.

American arguing with Soviet:
I can stand in front of the White House and suffer no consequences for railing against the president of the United States.

Soviet counterargument:
So, what? I can stand in front of the Kremlin and suffer no consequences for railing against the President of the United States.

 

[JonC]

The basic difference between a totalitarian state and a free state.

American arguing with Soviet:
I can stand in front of the White House and suffer no consequences for railing against the president of the United States.

Soviet counterargument:
So, what? I can stand in front of the Kremlin and suffer no consequences for railing against the President of the United States.

No. These are things that happen in a totalitarian state vs a free state.

Definition of totalitarianism

1: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

 

[just-want-peace]

I never said or intimated any such things. Deal with what I actually say. Don't put words in my mouth.

Just spittin' in the wind, RR, just spittin in the wind!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No. These are things that happen in a totalitarian state vs a free state.

Definition of totalitarianism

1: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

Only those with sufficient discernment would be expected to understand the application. Clearly the joke indicates the difference in the way the two types of states operate.

 

[AustinC]

The better question is:
How far wil antivaxers go in disobedience to God, while still maintaining they are justified?

 

[JonC]

Only those with sufficient discernment would be expected to understand the application. Clearly the joke indicates the difference in the way the two types of states operate.

Ahhhh.....so you are shifting from definition to application.

Do you believe this an honest way of saying I do not know what totalitarianism means?

I don't believe it is at all. In fact, it appears to be a type of shell game.

The reason I say that is I certainly agree that totalitarianism may manifest itself in restricted travel. But to say it means travel restrictions, or government surveillance, is certainly wrong.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ahhhh.....so you are shifting from definition to application.

Do you believe this an honest way of saying I do not know what totalitarianism means?

I don't believe it is at all. In fact, it appears to be a type of shell game.

The reason I say that is I certainly agree that totalitarianism may manifest itself in restricted travel. But to say it means travel restrictions, or government surveillance, is certainly wrong.

Oh, "come on, man." My post shifted nothing. Nor did my wry comment, which would seem unwise to embrace as personally applicable.

The joke illustrates the basic difference. My post said nothing of definitions. It was all too obviously "application."

The suggestion of dishonesty could easily be considered a display of ignorance or dishonesty. Better to dispense with that nonsense altogether.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

We have, just not in the sense you define.

Totalitarian - "relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

I believe we meet this definition in terms of the federal government to states.
…

There is no doubt that the federal government exercises far more authority over the states than is constitutional, but "complete subservience" has not yet been reached even at that level. For now. For how much longer remains to be seen.

 

[kyredneck]

Are you going to barricade yourself in and then tell yourself you are following Christ?
Come on, brother, trust God and be a light rather than hiding your light under a bushel basket.

I never said or intimated any such things. Deal with what I actually say. Don't put words in my mouth.

That's his M.O. Rip, to dishonestly twist and misrepresent what you've said. I'm amazed he hasn't accused you yet of being a RC operative or peddling the council of Trent.

 

[JonC]

Oh, "come on, man." My post shifted nothing. Nor did my wry comment, which would seem unwise to embrace as personally applicable.

The joke illustrates the basic difference. My post said nothing of definitions. It was all too obviously "application."

The suggestion of dishonesty could easily be considered a display of ignorance or dishonesty. Better to dispense with that nonsense altogether.

I wasn't implying you were dishonest. I apologize if it appeared otherwise.

Insofar as application goes, do you not see any application of a totalitarian mentality among our nation's political parties?

 

[JonC]

Y'all living in fear. Honestly, as a Christian we have no fear. Death has no sting to the redeemed. Why are you so freaked out about puny men?

I think too many Christians live in fear of losing their "rights". So much so they forget the "rights" Christians had under the Roman government, without being hostile to that government.

God is in control, but too many believers want to grasp those reins.

 

[JonC]

Getting back to my topic and lead paragraph : At what point would you resist what the government tells you what to do?

This is kinda a different question (or perhaps the OP should be two questions).

The OP asks "are there any limits that you have in mind in which you would view that the government is overstepping its bounds and I will not comply?"

1. Are there any limits that you have in mind in which you would view that the government is overstepping its bounds?

Yes. When the government exceeds the limits imposed upon the government by the U.S. Constitution (in terms of the federal government) or the State Constitution (in terms of state governments).

2. Are there instances when I would not comply with the government?

Yes. When obedience to the secular authorities God has brought into power constitutes disobedience to God.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I wasn't implying you were dishonest. I apologize if it appeared otherwise.

Insofar as application goes, do you not see any application of a totalitarian mentality among our nation's political parties?

Understood. The posts were not an attempt to be dishonest, only to bring focus to full blown totalitarianism.

And yes, there is a definite tendency toward it. However, the mentality seems to show its ugly face among the Dem Progressive Left helped by RINOs, both of whom seriously outed themselves two basic ways:

First, by accusing Trump of being totalitarian because he is pro-America, and

Second, by pushing obvious measures to undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.​

 

[JonC]

Understood. The posts were not an attempt to be dishonest, only to bring focus to full blown totalitarianism.

And yes, there is a definite tendency toward it. However, the mentality seems to show its ugly face among the Dem Progressive Left helped by RINOs, both of whom seriously outed themselves two basic ways:

First, by accusing Trump of being totalitarian because he is pro-America, and

Second, by pushing obvious measures to undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.​

Ultimately both parties move towards totalitarian ideas in their desire to control people (essentially this is what totalitarianismis, deriving power through controlling other people). Both the GOP and DNC (and both Trump and Biden) are willing to lie to people in order to gain power. Each has a false narrative they demand the nation believe. That said, the DNC is more superficial with the agenda.

But in the end neither wants a truly totalitarian state (that would spell their doom). They are one political machine completely dependent on the other party to maintain power.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Ultimately both parties move towards totalitarian ideas in their desire to control people (essentially this is what totalitarianismis, deriving power through controlling other people). Both the GOP and DNC (and both Trump and Biden) are willing to lie to people in order to gain power. Each has a false narrative they demand the nation believe. That said, the DNC is more superficial with the agenda.

But in the end neither wants a truly totalitarian state (that would spell their doom). They are one political machine completely dependent on the other party to maintain power.

Not so. Totalitarianism would not spell doom for a party prepared to wield it. Not if enough rights have been eroded.

One of the most bizarre aspects of modern American politics is that one party not only survives but thrives on openly pushing for totally undermining COTUS and stripping Americans of their right to be "self-governed." This is coming solely from the Progressive Left--the Dem Progressive Left.

 

[JonC]

Not so. Totalitarianism would not spell doom for a party prepared to wield it. Not if enough rights have been eroded.

One of the most bizarre aspects of modern American politics is that one party not only survives but thrives on openly pushing for totally undermining COTUS and stripping Americans of their right to be "self-governed." This is coming solely from the Progressive Left--the Dem Progressive Left.

Neither party would go that far (it is not in their best interest) but both would go down that road.