daz28

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.

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?

Your mothers friend is basically a miracle. I believe the odds of coming off a vent are around 10%. Knowing that, it had to be a very scary situation for her. That's a stat I'd personally rather not even know. Absolutely! I appreciate you sharing

They tried to make this look like a scientific case study, but it's not. It 99% estimated probability based on models. One interesting stat was they felt the lockdown lowered transmission by 77%, but again totally taken with a grain of salt. However, if that is the case, then it's certainly not an indicator for re-opening with current infection rates.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

You could have Mr. Clean disinfect the plane as good as nature intended, but it's still a narrow tube of aircraft aluminum. I think when we get to talking about heads being literally 10" apart, that changes the discussion. To me they'd be a ship of fools. I know I'd feel like a real dummy if the ICU doctor started talking about intubating me, because I wanted to see the country a few weeks too early. Now for the second part of the discussion. CAN the industry withstand having only half full flights? As notoriously bad at planning as airlines are, they do have fuel prices in their favor. Thank God, but is that enough to keep them going for maybe a year or two of 1/2 full flights?? I wouldn't bet on it.

The shareholder does not know when the transaction will go through, so he's playing the street like everyone else. Top management could even BUY more shares before they DECIDE to execute the buy back to enhance their position in the company. None of this was even considered when they ram-rodded this tax cut through. It may have even been intentional, butt look there's Mike Flynn's squirrel. If a company is not in a position to re-invest, and stock buyback from tax cuts is the best option for the company, you better believe that will increase its price per share. Guaranteed no, but if the management is that inept, they wouldn't/shouldn't be where they are.

So this is what you want to take in front of the jury of your peers to show that I'm the one who injected partisanship in this discussion, and in this thread??? I think I pretty much took a poop all over the entire government, and the statesmen that inhabit it. I have no dog in the fight but me, you, and every other American. Our government belongs to us no matter what ANYONE says. They haven't pried the right to vote out anyone's cold dead hand either. Did I say I believe the govt is legit or serves us?? I think I said the opposite

If message boards had been around since 1960, we'd be on the 75,638,463,9264,907 page of the 'Washington slimes us again' thread in PPP. For all we know this has been going on since 1800, but they take short periodic breaks from sliming us.

If I had control all these dirty scumbags would fry, but they have a fraternity. That's why I don't really get upset about it.

I'm not gonna call Barr dirty, but he's been around the center of some partisan issues for a long time, and he is not afraid to be political. Certainly not my idea of an ideal AG

You're the one that insisted this be a partisan issue.

Try to better conceal our operatives? I'm not sure what you're going for here. When it comes to intel, yesterdays mistakes can't be todays excuses.

This is the problem. In these partisan times can we trust them with that responsibility? Can we trust the DOJ to not be partisan? The fact these are even questions is a testament to how bad things really are right now. I believe Trump, Barr, and Kavanaugh all believe that he can't. So are you disagreeing with them? If so, is there really any recourse other than impeachment and removal?

Are you asking me? All I said is we need to keep our guard up against China at all times.

I have no clue where you think I said China did anything. I'm saying that it's OUR responsibility to protect ourselves from them. Maybe they said screw off, because trump's been tariffing them? Who knows. In the end we're responsible for our own safety no matter what the case.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. if your company buys back shares, the price per share goes up. Top executives have their own personal shares as well. After the price goes up on the companies buyback, they then sell their personal shares for a neat GUARANTEED profit. Neither me nor you have ever benefitted from a GUARANTEED stock transaction like that.

I didn't say he committed a crime. I only asked if you thought he should be able to be charged with one if he did. I don't look at it from a Trump angle, because in 10 years it might be a Democrat or a Republican. Do you think that person should be able to be charged with a crime while acting as sitting president. You're making this WAYYY more difficult than it needs to be

It's not securities fraud, but it has the general feel of it. I mean you inflate your companies price with the money that you told Trump you'd use to invest in jobs, then sell a bunch of your own personal shares on the bump. It's greasy at best

A history of cooperation doesn't allow us to assume a future of cooperation. That assumption alone is poor intelligence by itself. If any nation were to try to infect us with germ warfare, it would be best done by the sneakiest means possible. When they rebuffed us is probably when we wished we had better intelligence, because good intelligence doesn't get surprised.