Government document instructs vaccine “strike force” teams how to...

[Cnut237]

everyone who's got foriegn genes designed in pharma labs WILL be ruled as at least partially the property of the patent holders.

I can see what you're aiming for, but this is quite a leap of logic, and doesn't merit the absolute certainty of an all-caps 'WILL'. And, given the impossibility of an mRNA vaccine altering someone's genes, it has no bearing on the CV19 vaccine discussion.

Up to your old tricks again;  snipping out context to make it appear that someone said something that they did not.  Namely me.

It's simply more efficient and more readable to take the relevant part of the post rather than quote the whole thing every time. There's no intention here to divest your statement of context... but it stands by itself, surely? I don't see the problem here.

The operative context which you edited out was "I doubt that...".  This is very far from 'an absolute certainty'.

I only bother to mention it here for the benefit of others who might not have notice that you are very nearly a one-trick-pony, and editing other peoples words in order to take things out of context is your one main trick.  Various related and equally deceitful tricks compose most of the rest.  Science, inference, logic, etc are notably AWOL.  But, 'when all you have is a hammer...'

I'm surprised you're wanting to argue this, given that your full post is available above, for everyone to read.
Nevertheless, here's your full post, again (my bold):

The genetic modifications are making the participants 'Round-Up Ready' one might say (or argue in court...closed court for national security reasons.)

Someone is welcome to show where the courts reversed the interpretation that engineer genes are NOT patent-able in the case of GMO technology inserted into human beings.  I doubt that they can.  Beyond that, when it is adjudicated I doubt that the courts will reverse the previous rulings.  In other words, everyone who's got foriegn genes designed in pharma labs WILL be ruled as at least partially the property of the patent holders.  If one has been turned into a GMO against their will it becomes more complicated.  Monsanto (now Bayer...formerly IG Farben of nazi fame) dropped the suite claiming ownership of a crop that had been genetically contaminated against the farmer's will/wishes because they didn't want to lose and have it become case law.  That was a while ago, however, and you can take it to the bank that the lobbyists who write U.S. law have inserted a ton of Easter-eggs since that time.

To which 'I doubt that' are you referring? The first instance, where you doubt that anyone can show where the courts reversed their decision? Or the second instance, where you doubt that, when it is adjudicated, courts will reverse the previous rulings?

You are of course perfectly entitled to backtrack and to change your opinion, and to say that you didn't mean what you said... but please don't try to dress it up as someone willfully misinterpreting you.

[tvbcof]

I'm surprised you're wanting to argue this, given that your full post is available above, for everyone to read.
Nevertheless, here's your full post, again (my bold):

The genetic modifications are making the participants 'Round-Up Ready' one might say (or argue in court...closed court for national security reasons.)

Someone is welcome to show where the courts reversed the interpretation that engineer genes are NOT patent-able in the case of GMO technology inserted into human beings.  I doubt that they can.  Beyond that, when it is adjudicated I doubt that the courts will reverse the previous rulings.  In other words, everyone who's got foriegn genes designed in pharma labs WILL be ruled as at least partially the property of the patent holders.  If one has been turned into a GMO against their will it becomes more complicated.  Monsanto (now Bayer...formerly IG Farben of nazi fame) dropped the suite claiming ownership of a crop that had been genetically contaminated against the farmer's will/wishes because they didn't want to lose and have it become case law.  That was a while ago, however, and you can take it to the bank that the lobbyists who write U.S. law have inserted a ton of Easter-eggs since that time.

To which 'I doubt that' are you referring? The first instance, where you doubt that anyone can show where the courts reversed their decision? Or the second instance, where you doubt that, when it is adjudicated, courts will reverse the previous rulings?

You are of course perfectly entitled to backtrack and to change your opinion, and to say that you didn't mean what you said... but please don't try to dress it up as someone willfully misinterpreting you.

Let me break it down for you:

 - The courts say that organisms running on patented genes are in at least property of the patent holder of those genes.

 - Will the courts reverse this ruling when the organism happens to be a human being?

 - I doubt it.

 - In other words, the courts WILL rule that it doesn't matter that the GMO is (or was) a human being.  Patent laws applies as 'normal'.

The 'in other words' clause shows that I was explaining more clearly a prediction of mine.

This is pretty basic English.  I don't know if English is a second language for you or what.  If it is, that is extra reason to be careful about editing other people's writing and taking it out of context.  Likewise if you are simply not very literate.

---

It's worth note that in some religions, and certain interpretations of some religions, there is nothing objectionable whatsoever about one tribe of people owning other human beings.  God chose certain people to rule over other people.  Only a certain tribe received 'the spark'.  Historically these people have been slave traders, human traffickers, etc.  Lately organ traffic has become more of a thing because there is good money in it (the medical/industrial complex and medical expenses being what they are.)

Some of you Christians might be having a bit of cognitive dissonance over the idea that patent holders might own trans-humans.  Just note that to others the concept would be as natural as a tree.  ...'and thems that own the gold makes the rules' according to the 'golden rule.'

[Cnut237]

The 'in other words' clause shows that I was explaining more clearly a prediction of mine.

Well, I prefer debating intention and inference to debating the absolute nonsense that started this thread, so I suppose we've achieved something.

I don't know if English is a second language for you or what

Hey, I'm not the one whose posts are filled with amateurish spelling and punctuation blunders.

Some of you Christians

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Christian? That's hilarious!
God is a fiction and an anachronism, a mechanism of social control and for building tribal cohesion, an invisible policeman to ensure good behaviour.

[suchmoon]

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Christian? That's hilarious!

On the intertubes everyone is a white Christian male by default. Learned that the hard way in the 1990s.

Back on topic. I can't wait for the strike force to show up at my door. I have cookies and cold lemonade and thinking of setting up USB charge ports.

But the sad part is that BADeckers bullshit, even the parts that are really cool and exciting, is still bullshit and never comes true.

Welp, more cookies for me.

[tvbcof]

Some of you Christians

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Christian? That's hilarious!
...

I didn't.  It's pretty obvious that you are not.

What you are is not abundantly clear, but to be sure your values seem quite out-of-band with 'Christian values' (e.g., being truthful, ethical, negative about genocide, etc.)  Seems that Christ was not big into bloodlines, genocide, etc, and it cost him his life at the hands other Abrahamics where were more cool with that sort of thing...and making some good cash with their money-changing games.

Just FYI, the dashed line indicated a different subject and a different audience.  The content apparently didn't tip you off.

[Zedpastin]

^^^ If f1 knows anything at all, it's how to provide so very few links to most of what he says. Why? Because he knows that people are too busy to look up what he says, themselves. And when they don't, they will never find out how deceptive he is, even if they don't believe him.

Providing links that are inaccurate is no more accurate than not providing a link. You have linked natural news which are known for their peer reviewed studies and credible news stories. I have never seen you link a credible study or article its always from second fiddle websites claiming to be news sites.

[BADecker]

^^^ If f1 knows anything at all, it's how to provide so very few links to most of what he says. Why? Because he knows that people are too busy to look up what he says, themselves. And when they don't, they will never find out how deceptive he is, even if they don't believe him.

Providing links that are inaccurate is no more accurate than not providing a link. You have linked natural news which are known for their peer reviewed studies and credible news stories. I have never seen you link a credible study or article its always from second fiddle websites claiming to be news sites.

Credible news stories? Credible studies? Peer reviewed?

It took Big Pharma and the medical leaders decades to train their twisted schemes into average doctors and medical personnel. Average doctors often can't even think regarding what makes sense.

For example. Isolating a virus used to be like the word says, isolating it... from the rest of the junk that is around it. Now they think they have isolated a virus by sticking pieces together until they have built something that they call the virus.

Then they think they have it, without even testing to see if it can make anyone sick.

Find something credible. It isn't to be found in the medical.

[hornetsnest]

....meanwhile in France and Ireland "papers please"




Vaccine and lockdown regime collaborators are responsible for the loss of your liberty and give power to tyrants. Blue lodge macaroni would have faced ze guillotine back in the good old days  












 “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

~President Ronald Reagan