Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Desert Nomad's avatar

Most people would not be able to find a job without a jab requirement that would pay nearly as much as they are currently making. Having to choose between the jab and watching your children starve is not a choice. They may have "willfully" submitted, but it wasn't a choice. It was a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Expand full comment
Granny62's avatar

We’re talking about coercion, which is not the same as physically pinning someone down and jabbing them against their will, but STILL. ILLEGAL.

It’s a language game. We must use and demand precise use of language and refuse to tolerate anything otherwise.

Mr Rucker, it is intellectually disingenuous to say people ultimately had a “choice.” No lifesaving operations unless you’re jabbed isn’t a choice. Providing care and oversight to institutionalized elderly relatives only if you’re jabbed is no choice. Withholding scholarships to poor college football players unless they’re jabbed is no choice.

Again, COERCION. IS. ILLEGAL.

Expand full comment
212 more comments...

No posts