Emergency use authorization laws-Warning not grammatically correct

[Jeffjohns]

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The embedded quote(s) below are taken from your "other thread"... Please stop all the fear mongering posts you guys need to read the EUAlaw first the.

Just buy your explanation on the loan it shows people understand it and again if you don’t like it why is everyone posting just like you why did you post just move on I don’t post on every thread if I didn’t like someone or I didn’t like their comment so why are you?

As I told you before, we've dealt with such condescension in this section before. We get, sort of, what you're trying to say. The problem we're having is that you are acting as if none of us has EVER discussed this properly or in a way which makes sense. You outright dismiss any previous post, particularly prior to your join date, as irrelevant and that you're sure you can find errors in it or something else they posted.

Meanwhile, whatever the 'technology' you are using, for whatever reason, your own posts come across as nearly nonsensical to readers. As I've indicated, the parts we do get have already been, extensively, discussed in many/most cases and you continue to come across as though all such discussion was meaningless, trivial, uninformed, and flat out wrong because you have the answer despite providing absolutely no links, proof, or relevance to the points you are attempting to make other than more assertions on your part.

This is the Covid section I spoke about how the shift has changed for all this fake Covid crap and then everyone wants to talk about my grammar and the fact I’m using voice recognition so my point is again I thought this was the Covid section we discussed Covid fax not you tell me how I should live my life or what I should do isn’t that another section or topic?

Thus far, the 'shift' I think you're referencing has been addressed, ad nauseum; i.e., we get that there are laws, we get that they have been abused, we get that none of us is ever going to be able to do much about that shift except talk about it and talking about it is what a discussion board is all about.

We are not talking about how YOU should live YOUR life. The focus in relation to you is how badly your technology is working in the context of what you are attempting to say. We aren't talking about how your "topic title was a little too strong and it’s basically about the fear mongering in the sky." We're talking about the out-and-out... call it condescension or arrogance (depending on how you view the prism)... of you 'lecturing us' as if we've never spoken of this, are incapable of understanding it (despite repeated and numerous threads on these topics by individuals, including those in law, medicine, etc.), and how you are going to supposedly 'help us' understand it if we'd just get past the problematic use of your technology and the only supporting 'documentation' you provide is "read this and I'll help you understand it" as if we are all children.

Meanwhile... "I thought this was the Covid section we discussed Covid fax." Uh... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is a difference between what you are presenting and FACTS. What you are proffering are opinions, assertions, and 'interpretations' unsupported by documentation (links and quotes). As I suggested before, go back and spend some time actually reading the threads and you will find numerous posts which link to and explain things, typically from legal, professional, and informed sources.

As I tried to hint to you, we have discussed Emergency Use Authorization, how it is defined, how it is implemented, how it is used/abused, ad infinitum... extensively... for going on three years at this point. You are NOT proffering anything new or not discussed. Instead, you have put forth your perceptions, assertions, and ideas (none of which are synonymous with 'facts') and 'ridden the horse' that we don't seem to have been or be capable of understanding it without the undocumented and acontextual intervention of your wisdom/knowledge related to the subject. This, despite the fact that I tried to provide you the hint that you are NOT saying anything which has not already been discussed previous to your joining this site (and after).

You are, in fact, the one who has been demonstrating 'a need for some sort of arbitrator or judge' to defend what you have contributed and your 'right' to contribute as you have thus far. Yes. We have a lot of opinions being expressed in this section of the site. Some of them are more relevant and valid than others. However, in many cases, and particularly in the case of attempted explanations, in this section of the site, many, many links have been included to illustrate and elucidate on the points or contentions attempting to be made; none of which have you provided thus far. (Saying we should go to some unlinked to site and read this or that reminds most here of "Read Heller" in another section and if you don't understand that reference, let's say you're in for a treat and I'll drop you a clue, not only as to meaning, but how the moderators view such opaque 'documentation.')

In the event that YOU still don't get it, take your assertion... "all this fake Covid crap." What's the context? Much of what is discussed is the 'fake' or false or misleading or agenda-driven aspects of what has transpired. Some of this, however, is very real; both in the sense of personal perception and reality. While a few refuse to believe there is even a 'real disease,' when a relative or friend dies or those same individuals or oneself is directly impacted, in part or in whole, as a result of the pandemic (whether directly from the disease, the treatment or mistreatment associated with the disease, the misuse of power/authority utilizing the auspices of the disease, et al.), 'real disease' or not, it is hardly 'fake crap.'

Your entire OP for this thread is full of such assertions and perceptions. For example... I feel like it’s needed; It seems like some people don’t understand; So when piece of crap Biden; etc. The reality is that while such may be 'facts' to you, what they actually represent are some of the premises you are utilizing to justify your assertions. Premises are determined to be true or false based on the facts and... well... I'm not in the mood to get into a discussion of the rules of logic, argumentation, fallacies, etc. and I don't get the sense that you are in the mood to listen. Suffice to say that while some might simply accept your premises, others won't be so willing without substantiation rather than just assertion.

Again, it all boils down to you presenting (better in the case of this thread, though still not quite cogently) a point of view and opinion. The 'lack of understanding' you cite is not that or, to be fair, not just that due to the limitations of your tech. For those who are attempting to engage you by moving beyond such limitations, it's a discussion, where counter points to your assertions are being proffered and facts are being clarified as true or false. Thus, what is being presented is a different understanding than your own and, as I continue to point out to you, they are often understandings which have already been extensively discussed on this site. It's the reason, beyond the obvious shortcomings of the technology you are utilizing, that people keep asking... "What's your point?"

If you're looking to discuss things (as opposed to lecturing us on our intellectual inferiority and the superiority of your rather disjointed point of view), then here is an example from the other thread...

This is like saying don't worry about any new gun laws, just read the Second Amendment.

As for the Chicago case, they didn't actually lose, they settled. That's a big difference, in that it creates no court precedent of a judge's decision. No one can cite the example of the Chicago case in their own case because there was no final ruling. The hospital also didn't allow any religious exemptions, which is not what most companies were doing. Many companies are allowing exemptions for remote workers, but denying them for those who must come to the office, making the case for outright religious discrimination far more difficult.

The fact is we mostly live in the 9th circuit, and there's no court precedent in the 9th circuit of challenging a vaccine mandate based on an EUA argument and actually winning even though there's plenty of companies and government institutions with a vaccine mandate within the 9th circuit.

Take each of the assertions made and counter them, using documentation (links/quotes) to support your contentions. Either that or take the assertions made and demonstrate your agreement with them; perhaps helpfully providing documentation (links/quotes) for those who might not quite be up to speed, either on the specific point or the context. Likewise, stop being so dismissive of those who present opinions contrary to your own. For example...

I'm always wanting more information and to understand things more deeply. But I read the OP and I have no idea what he's talking about. The first post, and the long follow up, lack context. I get we're generally talking about covid vaccines, and the EUA. Ok, with you so far. There's a reference to a barely-relevant lawsuit. But what is the actual point he's trying to make? We should be able to sue the government and win? Nobody that posts on calguns has the money to do that. So why bring it up? You might as well tell us we should buy the Chargers so we can move them back to San Diego. Sounds great but not helpful.

Otherwise... "if you don’t like it... why did you post just move on I don’t post on every thread if I didn’t like someone or I didn’t like their comment so why are you?"... would seem to apply. That's the nature of a 'discussion' as opposed to a condescending 'lecture' using assertions.

I hope that helps. If not...

[bugsy714]

I follow your logic

Your presentation needs help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Libertarian777]

He doesn't understand the "you may beat the rap but not the ride".

Like the Jan 6 political prisoners. Most of them will be acquitted.
But does it even matter? They've already been in solitary for 2 years.

So sure we can win the lawsuit while our kids are forced out of school and we lose our jobs for 2 years, in a recession.

SCOTUS wouldn't even give a TRO or injunction against the jab for hospital workers.

And the FDA pushed full approval for comirnaty and moderna and novavax. U can argue they only dispense the EUA versions but we all know the approval has given them cover.
Also they federal government extended the COVID emergency another 90 days yet Brandon says it's over ...

We're still subject to the Patriot act 21 years after 9/11. So that gives u an idea of how long this EUA approval and COVID emergency can continue.

[Mauserguy]

Yeah, and on't forget that your chance for success all depends on the ruling of an Obama or Nuesome judge, who likely doesnt care about the law. The judge may be angry over January 6 and just want put you under a beauracat's thumb.
Mauserguy

[bugsy714]

What a bunch of defeatists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kurgan]

Ok OP. Money where your mouth is.

When are you filing your lawsuit.


Crickets.............

[toro1]

OP, your grammar/punctuation is so bad your message is lost in your incoherency. Go take a few English classes and come back when you can post something coherent.