There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

The only circle I'm going in is hoping you'll read the facts I'm giving you, and you won't

 

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Making your entire argument invalid from the start. 

 

You're just too dumb to understand that. Back to sleep with you, asshat.

[daz28]

5 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

What truth?

 

The only truth you spew is what's in your mind, nothing else.

 

You must be a real life Tony Montana...............

 

"I always tell the truth, even when I lie"....................... Tony Montana, Scarface.

So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege?   BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD

 

I should have known you clowns wouldn't even hold to your own ideals just to spite.  Should have known

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Making your entire argument invalid from the start. 

 

You're just too dumb to understand that. Back to sleep with you, asshat.

WHEN DID THAT TRANSITION HAPPEN?  DON'T BE A TARD.  The whole point is WHEN did they take that right away

Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28

[njbuff]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege?   BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD

 

 

 

 

What exactly were people "driving" in 1886? Only then was the automobile invented.

Edited May 13, 2020 by njbuff

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, daz28 said:

So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege?   BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD

 

The emergence of the automobile did not result in the government trying to curb our inalienable rights in any way whatsoever. 

 

The same cannot be said about Covid. 

 

You're making a poor comparison because you're either deeply stupid (check), or deeply dishonest. 

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

What exactly were people "driving" in 1886? Only then was the automobile invented.

The question is what were they driving until 1959, and why did we let them decide that it was a privilege for us to move about.  The model T came out in like 1902, so that's a few years, and many states didn't allow the bs until close to then

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The emergence of the automobile did not result in the government trying to curb our inalienable rights in any way whatsoever. 

 

The same cannot be said about Covid. 

 

You're making a poor comparison because you're either deeply stupid (check), or deeply dishonest. 

You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

 

You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard

 

I did. Hours ago. You were just too busy spewing crazy to stop and read. 

[daz28]

Anyways, on to the next example of why you, quote, " NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS":

 

• (b) A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556. Thus, the question here is whether such seizures are "reasonable." P. 450.

• (c) There is no dispute about the magnitude of, and the States' interest in eradicating, the drunken driving problem. The courts below accurately gauged the "objective" intrusion, measured by the seizure's duration and the investigation's intensity, as minimal. However, they [496 U.S. 444, 445]   misread this Court's cases concerning the degree of "subjective intrusion" and the potential for generating fear and surprise. The "fear and surprise" to be considered are not the natural fear of one who has been drinking over the prospect of being stopped at a checkpoint but, rather, the fear and surprise engendered in law-abiding motorists by the nature of the particular stop, such as one made by a roving patrol operating on a seldom-traveled road. Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to guidelines, and uniformed officers stop every vehicle. The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. Pp. 451-453.

 

 

 

Now from your fearful perspective of losing a right, what could be worse than giving up your right to seizure?    This was instituted over drunk driving, not a deadly disease that kills 80k in 2 months.  You are truly as disingenuous or outright stupid as you can be

 

Shall we move on to the Patriot Act or are we good.  I think I covered a bunch of over reaches that far exceed anything that Covid is really doing

[daz28]

At some point maybe you'll understand there's less reason to think they can pull an illegal seizure on every car on the highway, because one of them might be drunk, than there is to test one person who may be carrying a virus that might kill 2 in 100 people.  Keep in mind that one person who had this on Nov 17th in China has turned into 4.3 million people worldwide.  If the Supreme Court feels DWI is that big of a public threat, then I have no idea why you think the courts might shoot down the Coronavirus as too much of an intrusion on privacy.  I'd love to meet the lawyer who thinks he can argue that precedent.  Good luck

Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

Anyone who stops at a road check is being stopped for no reason

 

And what right is being violated with this stop?  You do know they post the checkpoints so you can avoid them right? 

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

The Supreme Courts rationale for roadblocks is that the threat to society from DWI is too great to sustain their right to have a reason to be stopped.  Ya'll might want to look it up

 

What does this mean? 

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

That's the 7th time you twisted that.  I said, and I repeat, I said we should be smart enough to know when to give them up, and strong enough to not let them take advantage in extreme circumstances

Say I got 10 DWI's isn't the roadblock the same rights you are arguing about right now??  Why should you lose your rights cuz I'm a drunk?

 

Again....what right am I losing to tip my hat and say "good evening officer"? 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

 

You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard

 

Says the guy who can't answer "what right are you giving up to be subjected to the horrors of a checkpoint?"

[Taro T]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

No, you're arguing for the subversion of the rule of law and the republic itself. You're just too dim to see it.

 

Skimming over pages 81-83, nearly skipped this entire section of this thread picking back up on the current page.  Glad that didn't happen.  This discussion is GOLD, Jerry; it's GOLD.

[daz28]

8 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Says the guy who can't answer "what right are you giving up to be subjected to the horrors of a checkpoint?"

For Christs sake man, they give you the answer.  A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint

 

That comes from the Supreme Court not me,  Those are their words, not mine,  They clearly admit that a stop is an illegal seizure.... BUTTTTTTT HILLARYYYYY(well actually DWI)

 

 

In real life they established that the illegal seizure WAS REASONABLE.          BUTTTTT MYYYY RIGGGHTTSSSSS.  NEVER EVER GIVE UP  A RIGHT CUZ SOME DAYZ A COVIDZ Obama MIGHT GET YOU.   Sorry but the theatrics are for Mr DR who you all hold in high esteem for being disingenuous.  He wouldn't know a TRUE RIGHT if both of them slapped him in the nose in the heat of passion. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by daz28

[daz28]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did. Hours ago. You were just too busy spewing crazy to stop and read. 

You actually never said which right you were afraid of losing, or why you think it would be permanent.  That was my initial question before you spun like literally 10 times.  Please answer the question:  which rights are you afraid that' Covid is going to permanently take from you???

[LB3]

10 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You say this, after an entire morning spent arguing that we the people should willingly give up our rights to the same government when they deem it's in the public good. 

 

I take it back. You're not stupid. You're not even bright enough to be considered stupid. You're a troll. Enjoy. 

? This guy is amazing. From the start his extreme hyperbole has been outstanding. Did you know he wears a mask 250,000 times more than the average Joe? ?

 

He could very easily be a troll, but he seems too emotionally invested in his terrible takes. Which to me begs the question...

 

[snafu]

 

Back onto the topic of reopening...

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down the Governor’s stay-at-Home orders (except school closure) effective immediately. 

 

https://apple.news/AitUR0WW4S_SMnJjLG7LaUQ

 

That’s gonna be interesting to see how many people decide to stay at home and how many people go for full contact. As well as the many variations in between. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, snafu said:

 

That’s gonna be interesting to see how many people decide to stay at home and how many people go for full contact. As well as the many variations in between. 

I’m a California based architect, and I’ve been on construction sites almost every day since the shutdowns began two months ago. The hard working construction crews never shut down. They’ve been out there every day, working in very close proximity to each other, touching everything in sight from tools to ladders, and yes often breathing hard. Masks have been warn by the vast majority. We’ve not had one reported incident on the DOZEN or so project sites that I oversee.

 

Not all of us have been locked down.

[shoshin]

Editorial in the NYT about reopening the economy.

 

In late February, as data on the coronavirus pandemic continued to unfold, I started making calls to friends and family to prepare them. I told them to get ready to hunker down for three months. For many then, it was hard to believe that a virus we couldn’t much see evidence of, less understand, would require us to shut down our economy.

 

I also spoke with C.E.O.s and governors, urging them to close nonessential businesses and enact stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of the virus. Other public health advocates called for the same — and fortunately government and business leaders responded. Their actions saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives and spared American hospitals the horrors of rationing care. Shutting down was the right policy at the time.

 

As circumstances have evolved, so has my thinking. We have survived the surge in hospitalized cases and suffered immense economic trauma. The full lockdown made sense weeks ago. But the situation is changing, and more data on the virus are now available to inform our next steps. The choice before us isn’t to fully lock down or to totally reopen. Many argue as though those are the only options.

 

[dubs]

1 hour ago, shoshin said:

Editorial in the NYT about reopening the economy.

 

In late February, as data on the coronavirus pandemic continued to unfold, I started making calls to friends and family to prepare them. I told them to get ready to hunker down for three months. For many then, it was hard to believe that a virus we couldn’t much see evidence of, less understand, would require us to shut down our economy.

 

I also spoke with C.E.O.s and governors, urging them to close nonessential businesses and enact stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of the virus. Other public health advocates called for the same — and fortunately government and business leaders responded. Their actions saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives and spared American hospitals the horrors of rationing care. Shutting down was the right policy at the time.

 

As circumstances have evolved, so has my thinking. We have survived the surge in hospitalized cases and suffered immense economic trauma. The full lockdown made sense weeks ago. But the situation is changing, and more data on the virus are now available to inform our next steps. The choice before us isn’t to fully lock down or to totally reopen. Many argue as though those are the only options.

 

 

This is the total ridiculousness of this "debate".  Here's what we know:

 

1) This virus has been in our society much longer than the February time period.

2) The death rate on this is very low

3) It's mostly fatal to a known population of people - elderly (over 55) and already with a medical condition

4) We take risks in our daily lives

5) Shutdowns have been arbitrary in terms of deciding who and what can stay open

6) People know how to reduce their chance of infection

 

In other words, this isn't a "choice" that the citizenry should be or is delegating to some higher authority.  It's up to individuals, families, businesses, churches, etc... to decide for themselves how to proceed.  I do agree that at first, it made sense to pause and see what was going on, but we are LONG past that point.  Open up, trust people to make the decisions that are best for themselves, provide support for the most at risk population, and minimize the role of the government in this.  That's the recipe for success.

 

 

[PelotonBillsFan]

4 minutes ago, dubs said:

 

This is the total ridiculousness of this "debate".  Here's what we know:

 

1) This virus has been in our society much longer than the February time period.

2) The death rate on this is very low

3) It's mostly fatal to a known population of people - elderly (over 55) and already with a medical condition

4) We take risks in our daily lives

5) Shutdowns have been arbitrary in terms of deciding who and what can stay open

6) People know how to reduce their chance of infection

 

In other words, this isn't a "choice" that the citizenry should be or is delegating to some higher authority.  It's up to individuals, families, businesses, churches, etc... to decide for themselves how to proceed.  I do agree that at first, it made sense to pause and see what was going on, but we are LONG past that point.  Open up, trust people to make the decisions that are best for themselves, provide support for the most at risk population, and minimize the role of the government in this.  That's the recipe for success.

 

 

It’s a conspiracy bro.

 

This global pandemic was designed by Hillary and Obama to take back the White House.

 

dontchyaknow?

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, PelotonBillsFan said:

It’s a conspiracy bro.

 

This global pandemic was designed by Hillary and Obama to take back the White House.

 

dontchyaknow?

 

 

So, whose sock puppet are you?