Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by mrpg on Friday May 28 2021, @11:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong dept.

Ohio lawmakers want to abolish vaccine requirements:

[...] Lawmakers are working on legislation to call off the lottery immediately. They're also trying to head off any plans for "vaccine passports." And last month, they introduced a sweeping antivaccination bill that would essentially demolish public health and vaccination requirements in the state—and not just requirements for COVID-19 vaccines, requirements for any vaccine.

[...] State Rep. Beth Liston (D-Dublin) blasted the bill, telling The Columbus Dispatch, "Not only would it prevent schools, businesses and communities from putting safety measures in pace related to COVID, it will impact the health of our children... This bill applies to all vaccines—polio, measles, meningitis, etc. If it becomes law we will see worsening measles outbreaks, meningitis in the dorms, and children once again suffering from polio."

[...] "At its core, this proposal would destroy our current public health framework that prevents outbreaks of potentially lethal diseases, threatens the stability of our economy as it recovers from a devastating pandemic and jeopardizes the way we live, learn, work and celebrate life," the letter said.

[...] "HB 248 would put all Ohioans at risk while increasing the cost of health care for families, individuals and businesses," spokesperson Dan Williamson said. "This proposal applies to all immunizations, including childhood vaccines. If passed, this legislation could reverse decades of immunity from life-threatening, but vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, mumps, hepatitis, meningitis and tuberculosis."

Also: Ohio GOP lawmakers, citing 'need to protect' from vaccines, seek to expand exemptions, nix COVID passports


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31 2021, @12:37AM (14 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @12:37AM (#1140389) Journal

    If the insurrectionists at the Capitol had been more competent the damage would have been far, far worse than it ended up being.

    Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol. There does seem to be a dearth of them.

    A dead Nancy and Mike would have brought the number dead up to the arbitrary threshold you think is needed for an investigation.

    Which didn't happen, let us note.

  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31 2021, @03:23AM (13 children)

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @03:23AM (#1140415)

    Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol.

    Amply proven yonks ago.

    Which didn't happen, let us note.

    incompetence. T'was still attempted.

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31 2021, @05:08AM (12 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @05:08AM (#1140439) Journal

      Or if there had actually been said insurrectionists at the Capitol.

      Amply proven yonks ago.

      Here's my best take [soylentnews.org] on that. The money quote:

      I think the fundamental problem here is that you're working from a really bad premise - GIGO. If there was an intent to kidnap or kill Pence or other politicians, then someone would have brought a lot more firepower to the conflict than baseball bats and pepper spray. As I noted, only one person was caught in the Capitol building with a firearm - which they never used. That's telling.

      Let us also recall that your argument was so weak that a big part of your arugment was wearing "civil war two" t-shirts was evidence of insurrection.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31 2021, @07:27AM (11 children)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @07:27AM (#1140454)

        My argument was that they stated their intent. Your counter-argument danced between a change in scope and an .. hehe.. argument I made while satirizing your position. Their ultimate lack of success does not exonerate them, nor does pushing the goalpost into the middle of the smoke.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 31 2021, @08:46PM (10 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @08:46PM (#1140567) Journal

          My argument was that they stated their intent.

          I see you already undermined the importance of "stated" with your subsequent comment about satire. A statement isn't enough without understanding all the ways that it can be deliberately distorted, such as by satire and exaggeration, both which I think played a role here in the protest chanting and merchandising.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 31 2021, @09:32PM (9 children)

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 31 2021, @09:32PM (#1140581)
            It's worth pointing out that the merchandise needed time to be designed (heh) and produced, this happened before satire and exaggeration could mutate it into something it's not like you're trying to suggest, here. That's one of the reasons why they tried desperately blaming 'BLM in disguise', they know (and regret) how they looked on camera.
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01 2021, @12:11AM (8 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @12:11AM (#1140606) Journal

              It's worth pointing out that the merchandise needed time to be designed (heh) and produced, this happened before satire and exaggeration could mutate it into something it's not like you're trying to suggest, here.

              There's always plenty of time for satire and exaggeration. It's not hard to anticipate either.

              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01 2021, @02:05AM (7 children)

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @02:05AM (#1140635)
                So there's no reason for them to make choices that risk them being misunderstood. Thanks for the support!
                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01 2021, @02:32AM (6 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @02:32AM (#1140636) Journal
                  No reason? Just like there was no reason for you to make satirical posts that could be misunderstood?
                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01 2021, @06:20AM (5 children)

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @06:20AM (#1140689)

                    There plenty of reason to criticize. Even in the eyes of their peers. Voting against the investigation was an act of self defense. 🙄

                    --
                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01 2021, @04:28PM (4 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @04:28PM (#1140776) Journal

                      There plenty of reason to criticize. Even in the eyes of their peers.

                      Of course, there was. Such as the sudden claims (apparently as the riot was ongoing) that Antifa and such were staging the riot.

                      Voting against the investigation was an act of self defense. 🙄

                      Such as the previous two House investigations of Trump? Voting against wasting one's time is a justifiable act of self-defense. Trump is a private citizen now. If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01 2021, @04:41PM (3 children)

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @04:41PM (#1140781)

                        If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                        Followed by sycophantic supporters going "nuh uh, bias! Biasss!!!!!!" Basically the insurrectionists did enough damage, with zero evidence to back their motivation, that the GOP is trying to figure out how to tiptoe around the minefield sustaining as little damage as possible. Perhaps they knew ahead of time that people would come out of the woodwork trying to minimize what they should instead have been condemning.

                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 01 2021, @05:48PM (2 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @05:48PM (#1140800) Journal

                          If there really is some criminal act of insurrection, coup, treason, whatever, he won't be protected by the office of the President.

                          Followed by sycophantic supporters going "nuh uh, bias! Biasss!!!!!!"

                          The problem here is that in the real world, convictions for crimes require evidence. You need that first.

                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 01 2021, @05:51PM (1 child)

                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 01 2021, @05:51PM (#1140801)
                            Right now there are a buncha people who dressed up and misbehaved on camera, they're currently biting their nails. So far none of them have gotten off because someone else made fun of their wardrobe.
                            --
                            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 06 2021, @05:27AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 06 2021, @05:27AM (#1142265) Journal
                              Sorry for my lateness.

                              Right now there are a buncha people who dressed up and misbehaved on camera

                              Which isn't insurrection. I've made it clear from the beginning that I agree that there were a bunch of people who dressed up and misbehaved, criminally on camera. That's not insurrection. Hyperbolic speech whether chanted or merchandised is not insurrection either.

                              I've also noted that these people will be investigated quite thoroughly. If there is evidence for insurrection, I think it likely that it'll turn up. That it hasn't already been found and spread about in the media doesn't look good for your argument.