There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[MILFHUNTER#518]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Did you even read it, or watch the video?  It's if you test positive.  Also, please don't throw numbers around about something you really don't understand.  

He is talking about contact tracing.  It is not right to say comply with the government or starve.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[daz28]

16 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

He is talking about contact tracing.  It is not right to say comply with the government or starve.

It depends on what the reasoning for it is.  Is it right to send lepers off to an island to live with other lepers to keep everyone else from getting leprosy?  People are tracked all the time by their employers, and that's only to ensure they are getting the proper labor for what they are paying the employee.  This is literally a matter of life or death.  Also, it didn't say what happens if you don't comply.  I'm using logic here to assume that starving isn't in any realm of possibility.  If you don't comply, then that means you're leaving, and going about your business.  No where does it say they will surround your home, and allow no supplies in like it were a castle siege.  Comply or starve is simply the term you're using as red meat to rile people up.  100% sensationalism.  I suppose worst case scenario is you get fed in jail.

Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28

[IDBillzFan]

32 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Interesting: 'comply or starve'.

 

They also plan to have you sign in your personal information if you go to any restaurant.

 

I'm 20 minutes from Washington state and it's like being in a completely different country compared to those nuts. 

[Chef Jim]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

A case like that probably would be very tough to prove absent a cluster and a very diligent plaintiff who otherwise could establish that he/she took stringent precautions outside the area in question. 

I was talking with a lawyer years ago who defended restaurants in food poisoning cases. She said she always asks “did the plaintiff give a stool sample within 24 hours of eating at the restaurant in question?”  The answer is usually no. So, according to her, there is no proof the illness came from that restaurant.  Case dismissed!  Easy money. 

[MILFHUNTER#518]

6 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It depends on what the reasoning for it is.  Is it right to send lepers off to an island to live with other lepers to keep everyone else from getting leprosy?  People are tracked all the time by their employers, and that's only to ensure they are getting the proper labor for what they are paying the employee.  This is literally a matter of life or death.

The employee consents to their employer tracking them. 

 

The Governor is walking barefoot on glass with this order. There is no way I can see a moderate court saying it is ok for the state to be allowed to knock on your door and say you and your family must obey and submit to an invasive medical procedure or be locked in your home under guard by the state police for 14 days.

 

There is a reason AG Barr designated a task force to monitor the states and their lockdown orders, he had the foresight to see how they would evolve into draconian measures.

[Uncle Joe]

Saw this interview yesterday, Alright, alright, alright I am not the biggest Matthew McConaughy fan (and it was on Fox) but I like what he said about "the pandemic being hijacked by partisan politics"

 

[daz28]

17 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

The employee consents to their employer tracking them. 

 

The Governor is walking barefoot on glass with this order. There is no way I can see a moderate court saying it is ok for the state to be allowed to knock on your door and say you and your family must obey and submit to an invasive medical procedure or be locked in your home under guard by the state police for 14 days.

 

There is a reason AG Barr designated a task force to monitor the states and their lockdown orders, he had the foresight to see how they would evolve into draconian measures.

Does the employee WANT to consent, or do they feel compelled to?  Here's another way to phrase it: "would you be willing to submit to this for the good of yourself, your family, and your community?"  Has a court determined that DWI is of grave enough concern that citizens may be stopped, and inspected at any time for the good of society?  Stop trying to make it sound so draconian.  Does AG Barr have a better plan to stop the spread of the virus?  Also, is that the same Bill Barr that said the Patriot Act which wasn't even debated didn't go far enough?  I don't see a terrorist act being much worse than this is.

Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28

[Deranged Rhino]

32 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It depends on what the reasoning for it is. 

It only does if your understanding of your innate rights and the constitution is as shallow as a dried puddle. 

[Boatdrinks]

53 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I watched it, and he didn't say that, but why wouldn't anyone comply??  Could anything be stupider than running around KNOWING your ill, and could infect/harm/possibly kill other people?  I mean when I'm drunk I'm not allowed to drive, because I could hurt other people.  Why is this different than that?  It is also very misleading to leave out that he gave assurances that they will be checked in on daily, and they will receive the groceries and medicine they need if they had no outside sources.

If you’ve not been tested , nobody knows that you are ill. You may be fine. Invasion of privacy 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It only does if your understanding of your innate rights and the constitution is as shallow as a dried puddle. 

If you understand it so well, then where's the outrage for roadblocks and drawing your blood?  The Patriot Act basically took away a ridiculous amount of your rights over 3k deaths, and the president said if you don't vote for it the next attack is on you.  Neither I, nor probably anyone likes this idea, but it may be what's necessary.  They also really have no grounds to continue the measures when the threat is over.

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

If you’ve not been tested , nobody knows that you are ill. You may be fine. Invasion of privacy 

It doesn't say anything about mandatory testing.  It literally says, "Those who test positive will need to isolate for 14 days"

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If you understand it so well, then where's the outrage for roadblocks and drawing your blood?  The Patriot Act basically took away a ridiculous amount of your rights over 3k deaths, and the president said if you don't vote for it the next attack is on you.  Neither I, nor probably anyone likes this idea, but it may be what's necessary.  They also really have no grounds to continue the measures when the threat is over.

That is the rub. There is little incentive to end the "threat" given the trillions of 0% money being distributed. We are in a sense hostages being held for ransom at this point. Just my opinion of course.

[daz28]

Just now, Reality Check said:

That is the rub. There is little incentive to end the "threat" given the trillions of 0% money being distributed. We are in a sense hostages being held for ransom at this point. Just my opinion of course.

Does this make much sense?  The measures are being done to reduce cases, so how could they be also simultaneously be working to make it perpetual?  The only thing that might do that is no testing, no tracing, no social distancing, and open everything up with no measures, which is the opposite of what they are doing.  

[Reality Check]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Does this make much sense?  The measures are being done to reduce cases, so how could they be also simultaneously be working to make it perpetual?  The only thing that might do that is no testing, no tracing, no social distancing, and open everything up with no measures, which is the opposite of what they are doing.  

The sales pitch and the real world result are never the same thing when politics and business are involved.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[dubs]

I am fully in the open up camp.  This shutdown is destroying lives among other issues (loss of rights, irreparable damage to the economy, crushing debts).  We all take risks in our lives and this is no different.  Open up, take precautions, let the private sector sort out their own choices, and let's go.  

[Tiberius]

On 3/24/2020 at 3:36 PM, Magox said:

 

 

The economic cost of a protracted downturn is mind bending, but there is a human health component to it as well. The 2008 downturn according to studies caused over 12,000 suicides and Tens of thousands of indirect deaths due to added stress which lowers people's immune systems that makes those with heart and cancer afflictions specially at risk.  This DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BINARY CHOICE! - It does NOT HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER. There is a responsible way to decide when we can begin this and how it would look like. For those of you that are interested in seeing this Harvard study on the impacts of protracted unemployment to people's health you can read that here.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the costs are really terrible. Republicans not even considering a bailout of state and local governments that the Dems proposed.Think of all the extra deaths that will happen if the states have to lay off workers! Why compound that? 

 

That's different though, right? 

 

 

Don't be a hypocrite now 

[Deranged Rhino]

36 minutes ago, daz28 said:

If you understand it so well, then where's the outrage for roadblocks and drawing your blood?  The Patriot Act basically took away a ridiculous amount of your rights over 3k deaths, and the president said if you don't vote for it the next attack is on you.  Neither I, nor probably anyone likes this idea, but it may be what's necessary.  They also really have no grounds to continue the measures when the threat is over.

 

 

You're a fool. 

 

You NEVER get the rights back you give up willingly. Ever. You didn't in 9/11 per your own example, and the Patriot Act did nothing to keep us safe. Nothing. 

[daz28]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're a fool. 

 

You NEVER get the rights back you give up willingly. Ever. You didn't in 9/11 per your own example, and the Patriot Act did nothing to keep us safe. Nothing. 

I'm not agreeing with the Patriot Act, but there still is global terrorism, and I'm not looking to debate that.  The thing is they can at least make that claim.  Which rights do you think you permanently lose , and what justification do you think they will use to continue them after the Covid infections subside?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

I'm not agreeing with the Patriot Act, but there still is global terrorism, and I'm not looking to debate that.  The thing is they can at least make that claim.  Which rights do you think you permanently lose , and what justification do you think they will use to continue them after the Covid infections subside?

 

We lost the fourth amendment to the Patriot Act, and still haven't gotten it back. All you need to do is look at the REAL story with ObamaGate to see how. 

 

Your fear does not give the state the right to take away my rights. Sorry. That's not how it works unless you have the spine of a jellyfish. 

[shoshin]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're a fool. 

 

You NEVER get the rights back you give up willingly. Ever. 

 

We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. 

[Boatdrinks]

34 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Does this make much sense?  The measures are being done to reduce cases, so how could they be also simultaneously be working to make it perpetual?  The only thing that might do that is no testing, no tracing, no social distancing, and open everything up with no measures, which is the opposite of what they are doing.  

The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people  and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people  and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. 

I agree with all of that, but I think you do have to quarantine people who do have it.  I also think we need some measures to remain in place, and open in phases.  

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

The measures appear to no longer have the goal of reducing cases, but of reducing them to zero. That’s not reasonable or even possible. The vast majority of people will either be asymptomatic to this or will recover from mostly mild symptoms. Locking down millions of people  and forcing them from their jobs cannot be looked at as accomplishing a “ greater good”. 

It is similar to the climate whatever people who agree with Bill Gates that the goal is to get CO2 emissions to zero.

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. 

 

Look above.

[shoshin]

36 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

GA has been level and we are early into the cycle. If things look level in a few more weeks after the virus re-establishes itself with the population that had been locked down and we avoid another exponential growth starting from a bigger pool than the first go around,  that will be great. 

 

[daz28]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

We lost the fourth amendment to the Patriot Act, and still haven't gotten it back. All you need to do is look at the REAL story with ObamaGate to see how. 

 

Your fear does not give the state the right to take away my rights. Sorry. That's not how it works unless you have the spine of a jellyfish. 

I don't have any fear, but you didn't answer either question.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

I don't have any fear, but you didn't answer either question.

 

I did answer them both. The government cannot force you to give up your rights based on fear, you have to do so willingly. As they did with the Patriot Act -- which was not designed to fight terrorism or stop it, but to extend the control of the state over the people. Full stop. 

 

FEAR is how they sell bad ideas like the one you're pushing. If you're not afraid, prove it and wise up.

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did answer them both. The government cannot force you to give up your rights based on fear, you have to do so willingly. As they did with the Patriot Act -- which was not designed to fight terrorism or stop it, but to extend the control of the state over the people. Full stop. 

 

FEAR is how they sell bad ideas like the one you're pushing. If you're not afraid, prove it and wise up.

No, specifically which rights do you feel you will permanently lose, because of Covid?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, daz28 said:

No, specifically which rights do you feel you will permanently lose, because of Covid?

 

None so far, because people haven't given in. 

[Boatdrinks]

12 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I agree with all of that, but I think you do have to quarantine people who do have it.  I also think we need some measures to remain in place, and open in phases.  

That is a sensible approach imo. Voluntary self quarantine, but if someone refuses after testing positive that must be dealt with. At that point intent could be established, so they are a social threat. A phased re-opening with some precautionary measures in place is probably required. 

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

That is a sensible approach imo. Voluntary self quarantine, but if someone refuses after testing positive that must be dealt with. At that point intent could be established, so they are a social threat. A phased re-opening with some precautionary measures in place is probably required. 

Right.  We have to be somewhat sensible about this.  We're lucky enough to be later in the chain, so we have examples how to move forward. 

[dubs]

50 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

We are already getting the right to assemble back, and that's just with the current example we are all living through. I've given other examples when you bring this up. 

** when the government says we can assemble

 

in other words, if the citizenry needs approval from the government to exercise their rights under the constitution, then are they really unalienable or conditional?

Edited May 13, 2020 by dubs

[shoshin]

32 minutes ago, dubs said:

** when the government says we can assemble

 

in other words, if the citizenry needs approval from the government to exercise their rights under the constitution, then are they really unalienable or conditional?

 

When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. 

 

Our rights don't exist because the state says so. 

They exist independent of the state itself. Thus, they cannot take them based on fear or current events. They must be given to them willingly. And that is done by manipulating the public into being too afraid to think beyond the moment. It's the oldest trick in the book, and it's on full display in our present crisis.

 

Gotta be more brave than that.

[dubs]

9 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. 

 

It's been beaten to death because people don't understand what unalienable means.  Going about our lives does not infringe on anyone's rights.  

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

17 minutes ago, dubs said:

 

It's been beaten to death because people don't understand what unalienable means.  Going about our lives does not infringe on anyone's rights.  

 

 

Yep. Tired tropes about yelling fire in a theater or regulating the privilege of driving are a distraction from the actual issue. Peacefully going about one’s business is no more a threat now than it ever was with infectious diseases, viruses in the past. It’s being  used to stoke fear so the stripping away of freedoms comes ( mostly) without argument. The topic is well worn now, but no less applicable until and if it stops. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Boatdrinks

[Reality Check]

33 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

When rights conflict with other rights, sometimes one loses. This topic has been beaten to death--not a shot at you--I just don't feel like listing all the examples again. Sufficed to say, not all the rights under the Constitution always peaceably coexist in normal times (can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater despite your right to free speech) and in war/pandemic times, there can be even more conflicts. 

That is actually not true. It is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre if there is a fire. 

[dubs]

4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yep. Tired tropes about yelling fire in a theater or regulating the privilege of driving are a distraction from the actual issue. Peacefully going about one’s business is no more a threat now than it ever was with infectious diseases, viruses in the past. It’s being  used to stoke fear so the stripping away of freedoms comes ( mostly) without argument. The topic is well worn now, but no less applicable until and if it stops. 

 

Exactly.  People are so frightened into paralysis that there is actually a group of citizens advocating for this state of lockdown until there is a vaccine.  It's mind blowing.  

 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, dubs said:

 

Exactly.  People are so frightened into paralysis that there is actually a group of citizens advocating for this state of lockdown until there is a vaccine.  It's mind blowing.  

 

People are unfortunately thinking the same way their own pets do.