 |
Personal freedom. How about wearing a seatbelt? How about lying to one's spouse? How about being a bully?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Vaxed people have gotten covid. People who don't trust the vax have gotten covid -- and died. We're all in this together.Quote:
Silly comment. If those "few people" don't want to get sick, they can get vaxed. It's all on them and not on the person who does not trust the vax.
I don't agree with forced seatbelt laws. Last time I checked, lying to your spouse does not make someone sick and dead. Being a bully infringes on the rights of someone else.Quote:
Personal freedom. How about wearing a seatbelt? How about lying to one's spouse? How about being a bully?
You did not comment on smoking, drinking alcohol, or sunbathing. Should those activities be taken away from personal choice? How about the flu vaccine? Should everyone be forced to take it? If not, then aren't you allowing someone's personal freedom to possibly cause someone else to get sick and die?
I really wish you would address those questions. If you won't, then I'm out. Not interested in a one-way discussion.
As to your second comment, you seem to be suggesting that people should be forced to take a vaccine that is so ineffective that they could transmit the disease to someone else who has taken the vaccine. Not with you on that one.
Protects you and the seatbelted driver you crash into. (I used to be a Bodily Injury Sec'y for State Farm.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course, it can!Quote:
Last time I checked, lying to your spouse does not make someone sick and dead.
And screws up the bully's life.Quote:
Being a bully infringes on the rights of someone else.
It's been tried.Quote:
You did not comment on smoking, drinking alcohol, or sunbathing. Should those activities be taken away from personal choice?
Hmm, are you? Many Christian Republicans refuse to be vaxed.Quote:
How about the flu vaccine? Should everyone be forced to take it? If not, then aren't you allowing someone's personal freedom to possibly cause someone else to get sick and die?
Oh well. You won't address my questions as I did yours. Saying, "It's been tried," does not answer this. "Should those activities be taken away from personal choice?" Nor would you answer, "How about the flu vaccine? Should everyone be forced to take it? If not, then aren't you allowing someone's personal freedom to possibly cause someone else to get sick and die?"
But it's alright. I wish you the best. Have a good night. Thankfully, Jesus is still faithful. I would just prefer you not answer someone else's questions.
I honestly don't know what you want in response.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
"It's been tried." You never learned about Prohibition? And smoking has been greatly discouraged by the AMA. You don't know that?
Oh you do. It's two simple questions you have refused to answer.
"Should those activities (smoking, drinking alcohol, sunbathing, and sexual behavior) be taken away from personal choice?"
"How about the flu vaccine? Should everyone be forced to take it? If not, then aren't you allowing someone's personal freedom to possibly cause someone else to get sick and die?"
My only comment is that seat belt laws comes with the PRIVILAGE (not a right)of driving a car. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow.
That's a good response, and perhaps on that basis the feds can mandate the wearing of seatbelts, but they could also mandate the wearing of a helmet and fire resistant shirt and pants on that same principle.
The rights issue is going to be a lead issue in the Jackson confirmation debate . Look for the 9th amendment to get a lot of discussion. That was Clueless' ace card in the rejection of Bork (besides the personal smear campaign led by the swimmer )
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
That amendment is word salad subject to the possible broadest of interpretation . Most of the original bill of rights amendments were negative rights restrictions about what the government shall not do. This one alone opens the possibilities of so called positive rights (what the government must provide ). What the people retain as a right is open to endless possibilities .
Also in the discussion will be the diabolical use of the 14th amendment's section 3 and the Dems attempt to use that as a tool to reverse the red wave coming in November .
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This was a section to prevent former Confederates who had served in Congress from again becoming members . Under an originalist interpretation the restrictions are void because there are no longer any remaining Confederates alive. But under broad interpretations it could be used in conjunction with finding members of Congress had engaged in" insurrection or rebellion " or had given aid and comfort to a rebellion .
Authoritarianism, sanctioned and justified in the name of public health and safety, is the enemy that the Canadian truckers were rebelling against .
Well said, Tom.
Authoritarianism??? And had they all (along with family and friends) gotten seriously ill and many died while the "authorities" could have put helpful safety restrictions on human activity, how would they have reacted???
yes authoritarianism “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” John Adams
The Russian protest crowds are getting bigger and louder as the war is not going as Putin expected .
Fog of war
Unconfirmed reports of Russian conscripts surrendering and abandoning equipment without a fight . Unconfirmed report of a Russian unit that mutinied before entering Ukraine . They were there for training when they were ordered to advance. Evidently they were never informed why they were there . Unconfirmed reports that Turkish drones are doing a number on Russian SAM and tanks . Russia did not establish air superiority yet .Unconfirmed reports Russia has moved mass casualty weapons into the outskirt of urban areas .
A mandate to wear masks isn't encroaching on Constitutional freedoms. Masks are to be worn for public safety so your infected droplets don't make someone else ill -- or theirs don't make you ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
masks don't work except N95 and everyone knows it .
And KN95. The authorities have made them easily available.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
KN95 is up to Chinese standards . That is my only commentary . No one who still foolishly thinks mask mandates are justified argue that only N95 or KN95 should be the only options . They are not inexpensive .A pack of 3M goes for a $1-$2 a mask .
BUT the real issue is that they are no longer ;nor have they been needed for most of the population. The mandates were always over reaction to the pandemic . It has followed a predictable course to endemic stage .
And you would have been one of the first screaming "The government wants us dead!" when no one was required to wear masks in public and people were dropping over like flies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There's no "predictable course" in a pandemic.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:47 PM. |