(04-24-2020 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:16 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Instead what I'm HEARING (and others also are hearing) is people simply saying... it's my right and you can't tell me what to do, so despite the unnecessary risk to everyone else, I'm going to selfishly do whatever I want... perhaps even doing things I really don't care about, SIMPLY to flaunt my rebellion.... and if that is what is being intended.... that's crap.... you DON'T have the right to put others at risk just because you can... Such actions in my opinion only give power to those (unlike me) who actually DO want to take away your rights... permanently. You're the guy in Springfield, Mo who decides that he needs to go to WalMart carrying his rifle on his back and wearing a BPV... something no 'reasonable' person would generally do... only to become a poster child for the anti-gun people and a turn-off (people thinking that was stupid... not that you didn't have the right, just that it was a bad idea) some who might agree with you on your right to bear arms.

Well said.

Yes. Stay home. Obey. Comply.

I wont. Xxoo

The idiot who supports the party the supposedly wants "personal responsibility" takes absolutely zero personal responsibility of his own. Go figure. All hat, no cattle with this one.

(04-27-2020 10:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The first and foremost thing that I hope we learn is that the reason we were so badly unprepared is that we don't make being prepared in advance to deal with such situations a priority, even though we know they are going to happen.
My idea, and I've repeated many times......

edited for brevity
and not in any way conflicting with yours... my idea is that with the means of transmission of these diseases with pandemic potential being so similar, that having the population be more generally prepared for addressing the spread is similarly a way to get people to be prepared in advance

Agreed. Japan has had a relatively low rate of CV-19 (106 cases per million people, and 3 deaths per million, as of this morning) although per my son the have not introduced stringent mandatory measures. But you walk down the street in Tokyo, even in normal times, and it seems that 75% of the people are wearing masks. If doing that produces that kind of result, maybe that's where our focus should have been.

Quote:Having a stockpile of N95 masks and gloves and a team prepared to dispense them would be part of preparation, but so too should be teaching everyday people how to properly wear and use them. If all you do is wear gloves all day long, you aren't really protecting anyone... but you think you are so you likely aren't careful... which is actually worse than the guy who isn't wearing them but is careful.

Maybe if we had just all worn masks from day one, this would have been a tiny blip. Inspired by Tanq, I have purchased a supply of materials for making masks. Mine have cartoon figures of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse against red and blue backgrounds, but they work. 10 to a pack, size 3T. They're not N95, but I think they're good enough for Montgomery County.

Seriously, though, one thing about my proposal to have a standby response team trained and ready is that realistic training is the best way to identify holes in the preparedness. If you're doing a training evolution and you're having to simulate wearing masks because no masks are available, pretty soon you figure out that we're short of masks, and you get something done about it.

I know from personal experience. I was assigned for several years to a Naval Reserve unit whose mission was to coordinate shipping of military hardware from Texas ports, ostensibly to Europe in support of a NATO defense against Russian aggression. Instead of simply sitting around the reserve center, we began actively getting out into our mobilization sites and playing the game more realistically. We discovered a number of shortfalls--office space, communications, coordination with other agencies--that we were able to identify from training evolutions and work to find fixes for. When Desert Storm happened, a number of our people were activated to run military cargo shipments through the Port of Houston, and all that preparation meant that we hit the ground running from day one. It makes a huge, huge difference.

(04-27-2020 10:44 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:16 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Instead what I'm HEARING (and others also are hearing) is people simply saying... it's my right and you can't tell me what to do, so despite the unnecessary risk to everyone else, I'm going to selfishly do whatever I want... perhaps even doing things I really don't care about, SIMPLY to flaunt my rebellion.... and if that is what is being intended.... that's crap.... you DON'T have the right to put others at risk just because you can... Such actions in my opinion only give power to those (unlike me) who actually DO want to take away your rights... permanently. You're the guy in Springfield, Mo who decides that he needs to go to WalMart carrying his rifle on his back and wearing a BPV... something no 'reasonable' person would generally do... only to become a poster child for the anti-gun people and a turn-off (people thinking that was stupid... not that you didn't have the right, just that it was a bad idea) some who might agree with you on your right to bear arms.

Well said.

Yes. Stay home. Obey. Comply.

I wont. Xxoo

The idiot who supports the party the supposedly wants "personal responsibility" takes absolutely zero personal responsibility of his own. Go figure. All hat, no cattle with this one.

Some of us have a personal responsibility to work and earn a living. Some of us also have employers who tell us to be there and not at home. I kinda like my job (at least the paycheck and bonuses) so I go in when they tell me to be there. Believe it or not, there are those of us who want to keep the country running.

(04-27-2020 10:44 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:16 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Instead what I'm HEARING (and others also are hearing) is people simply saying... it's my right and you can't tell me what to do, so despite the unnecessary risk to everyone else, I'm going to selfishly do whatever I want... perhaps even doing things I really don't care about, SIMPLY to flaunt my rebellion.... and if that is what is being intended.... that's crap.... you DON'T have the right to put others at risk just because you can... Such actions in my opinion only give power to those (unlike me) who actually DO want to take away your rights... permanently. You're the guy in Springfield, Mo who decides that he needs to go to WalMart carrying his rifle on his back and wearing a BPV... something no 'reasonable' person would generally do... only to become a poster child for the anti-gun people and a turn-off (people thinking that was stupid... not that you didn't have the right, just that it was a bad idea) some who might agree with you on your right to bear arms.

Well said.

Yes. Stay home. Obey. Comply.

I wont. Xxoo

The idiot who supports the party the supposedly wants "personal responsibility" takes absolutely zero personal responsibility of his own. Go figure. All hat, no cattle with this one.

Personal means personal. If you are afraid stay home. Comply. Obey. Submit.

You lost this debate long ago. Still cant let it go can you. Poor thing.

Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

Still never got an answer on the following scenario following their logic:


The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry a higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

__________

The reason they cant answer is because they are intellectually dishonest prog filth control freaks that think they have the right to dictate exceptions to the constitution.

Well, they cant. Boo frickin hoo.

(04-27-2020 11:00 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 10:44 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:16 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Instead what I'm HEARING (and others also are hearing) is people simply saying... it's my right and you can't tell me what to do, so despite the unnecessary risk to everyone else, I'm going to selfishly do whatever I want... perhaps even doing things I really don't care about, SIMPLY to flaunt my rebellion.... and if that is what is being intended.... that's crap.... you DON'T have the right to put others at risk just because you can... Such actions in my opinion only give power to those (unlike me) who actually DO want to take away your rights... permanently. You're the guy in Springfield, Mo who decides that he needs to go to WalMart carrying his rifle on his back and wearing a BPV... something no 'reasonable' person would generally do... only to become a poster child for the anti-gun people and a turn-off (people thinking that was stupid... not that you didn't have the right, just that it was a bad idea) some who might agree with you on your right to bear arms.

Well said.

Yes. Stay home. Obey. Comply.

I wont. Xxoo

The idiot who supports the party the supposedly wants "personal responsibility" takes absolutely zero personal responsibility of his own. Go figure. All hat, no cattle with this one.

Some of us have a personal responsibility to work and earn a living. Some of us also have employers who tell us to be there and not at home. I kinda like my job (at least the paycheck and bonuses) so I go in when they tell me to be there. Believe it or not, there are those of us who want to keep the country running.

Some of us are working & earning a living from home, so spare me the attempt at sanctimony. I'm also getting out to get groceries and takeout from local restaurants, and *gasp* even hitting Lowe's or Home Depot to get some long-languishing projects around the house done.

We all know SK isn't talking about going to work if your employer expects you there - he's talking about the "freedom" to do more than is what currently considered smart by the experts in the medical community, who obviously have a little more time and knowledge invested in the situation than he does.

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

I'm about to head out for my second trip to Home Depot today, but don't let facts get in your way.

(04-27-2020 11:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

Still never got an answer on the following scenario following their logic:


The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry a higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

__________

The reason they cant answer is because they are intellectually dishonest prog filth control freaks that think they have the right to dictate exceptions to the constitution.

Well, they cant. Boo frickin hoo.

The reason you're not getting an answer to this is because it's an incredibtly weak attempt at trolling. If we all stick with the guidelines and don't consider yourself to be above it (like you apparently do), everyone, including the AA community, will be better off.

(04-27-2020 11:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

Still never got an answer on the following scenario following their logic:


The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry s higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

__________

The reason they cant answer is because they are intellectually dishonest prog filth control freaks that think they have the tight to dictate exceptions to the consistuition.

Well, they cant. Boo frickin hoo.

Another in a long line of quite honestly, insane posts on your part.... once again, having nothing to do with anything I've remotely ever said. So you might stop with the temper tantrums, I'll respond quite specifically. I didn't respond before because the premise is so flawed, I honestly didn't think it was worthy of a response.

Quote:The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry s higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

No they should not.... because I believe that the idea that it is their race that makes them more susceptible is demonstrably false... so restrictions dealing with race would make no logical sense whatsoever... they would be capricious, racist and scientifically ignorant... as a result, such an action would absolutely be a violation of their rights... and the general population would NOT be 'safer' because the solution does not address the problem.

I believe the impact on that community is much more more related to their over-representation in densely populated urban areas (which are also experiencing higher contagion) as well as their over-representation in 'poor' areas... often the result of leftists policies designed to keep them there... where there is a general lack of access to quality healthcare creating comorbidities and generally worse outcomes.... again, my area of current work.

As to 'dictating exceptions to the Constitution'...

This is getting old.

Exceptions clearly exist... some are actually very clearly written into the Constitution... If you don't agree with that very general statement, you're an idiot.

The current restrictions, I was asked whether I agree with them and I have said yes to some and no to others... mostly I've said, it depends on the situation. It's an awfully broad question... what makes sense one place is stupid in another... and what impacts one person may not impact me... like I see all these people saying 'lock the elderly up at home', but my professional experience is that we lack the manpower and systems to support these people at home. Maybe that's something that we could fix for the future. These are my personal opinions that I am undeniably entitled to under the Constitution, and you seem intent on thinking you can deny them to me by trolling. My opinions are quite far from the most restrictive...I would not be in the 75% of both parties who accepted all 8 restrictions in that poll.... but more importantly, it's dumb to argue opinions other than very generically.

The dumb thing about your characterizations of me is that I'm clearly not part of the 75% of Democrats in that poll who support restrictions almost under any circumstances... 'the state knows best in all cases' that you want to assign to me... Instead I'm part of that 75% of Republicans in that poll for whom a relatively minor shift in the circumstances make things i currently see as at least arguably reasonable, suddenly very clearly unreasonable.... I am 'low hanging fruit' for someone with your clearly overwhelmingly minority opinion... and I have suggestions that would push not only me, but many many others into your camp going forward. Rather than (at worst) ignore me, you've decided that your best efforts are spent alienating me.

There are a couple of reasons I find that foolish
1) for someone who claims to support individual rights, you sure have no problem trying to use whatever power you can muster to squelch dissent... so it seems that your concern isn't really that you think I'm 'bending a knee', but only that I'm not bending it to 'you'.
2) your ridiculous assaults only serve to make those people I disagree with on almost everything look less unreasonable. If this weren't part of my job and certainly if I weren't already fairly conservative, I could see myself knee-jerk distancing myself from you on every possible issue. Whatever people like you support, I would be against before even knowing what the issue was... because you're so rigid.
3) things like this ARE part of my job... I directly impact 'best practices' healthcare policy in this country. If you think my ideas are crazy, logically address the areas where you think I'm missing it so that you aren't having to deal with them in 5 years..... because right now I can tell you... the 'centerpoint' of the conversations being held are way to the left of me.... and people with attitudes like yours aren't being represented at all. You said yourself that the precedent has been set... but you seem intent on making sure that it becomes the rule rather than the exception.

I've said this 100 times though so why am I wasting my time... I'll go to my basement and you go to your Nazi/Klan rally. Each is equally accurate and constructive

(04-27-2020 01:06 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

I'm about to head out for my second trip to Home Depot today, but don't let facts get in your way.

The craziest part of their rants... so clearly not remotely reflecting reality. Makes me wonder if the sky is blue where they exist.

FTR, Green and I disagree a lot on policy... she (I'm pretty sure that's right, I apologize if its not) is pretty far left of me, but I haven't found her to be as big a jerk about it as some who are much more close to my political stances.... demonstrated exactly the point I was making about 'making them seem less crazy'.

Let me say something from my other post more clearly related to this...

If we enacted voluntarily as a culture my suggestions, plus owl's structural best practices (or even better ideas that would accomplish the same goals)... then if this exact same thing happened again, I'd be saying that the circumstances that are required to enact these exceptions don't exist so they are unconstitutional. Things like this may or may not persuade Green who is I believe fairly far to the left of me, but I suspect those poll numbers would go from 75% of both parties to <60% of Democrats and <30% of Republicans.... thus the only places even considering doing them would be Cali and NYC

(04-27-2020 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

Still never got an answer on the following scenario following their logic:


The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry s higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

__________

The reason they cant answer is because they are intellectually dishonest prog filth control freaks that think they have the tight to dictate exceptions to the consistuition.

Well, they cant. Boo frickin hoo.

Another in a long line of quite honestly, insane posts on your part.... once again, having nothing to do with anything I've remotely ever said. So you might stop with the temper tantrums, I'll respond quite specifically. I didn't respond before because the premise is so flawed, I honestly didn't think it was worthy of a response.

Quote:The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry s higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

No they should not.... because I believe that the idea that it is their race that makes them more susceptible is demonstrably false... so restrictions dealing with race would make no logical sense whatsoever... they would be capricious, racist and scientifically ignorant... as a result, such an action would absolutely be a violation of their rights... and the general population would NOT be 'safer' because the solution does not address the problem.

I believe the impact on that community is much more more related to their over-representation in densely populated urban areas (which are also experiencing higher contagion) as well as their over-representation in 'poor' areas... often the result of leftists policies designed to keep them there... where there is a general lack of access to quality healthcare creating comorbidities and generally worse outcomes.... again, my area of current work.

As to 'dictating exceptions to the Constitution'...

This is getting old.

Exceptions clearly exist... some are actually very clearly written into the Constitution... If you don't agree with that very general statement, you're an idiot.

The current restrictions, I was asked whether I agree with them and I have said yes to some and no to others... mostly I've said, it depends on the situation. It's an awfully broad question... what makes sense one place is stupid in another... and what impacts one person may not impact me... like I see all these people saying 'lock the elderly up at home', but my professional experience is that we lack the manpower and systems to support these people at home. Maybe that's something that we could fix for the future. These are my personal opinions that I am undeniably entitled to under the Constitution, and you seem intent on thinking you can deny them to me by trolling. My opinions are quite far from the most restrictive...I would not be in the 75% of both parties who accepted all 8 restrictions in that poll.... but more importantly, it's dumb to argue opinions other than very generically.

The dumb thing about your characterizations of me is that I'm clearly not part of the 75% of Democrats in that poll who support restrictions almost under any circumstances... 'the state knows best in all cases' that you want to assign to me... Instead I'm part of that 75% of Republicans in that poll for whom a relatively minor shift in the circumstances make things i currently see as at least arguably reasonable, suddenly very clearly unreasonable.... I am 'low hanging fruit' for someone with your clearly overwhelmingly minority opinion... and I have suggestions that would push not only me, but many many others into your camp going forward. Rather than (at worst) ignore me, you've decided that your best efforts are spent alienating me.

There are a couple of reasons I find that foolish
1) for someone who claims to support individual rights, you sure have no problem trying to use whatever power you can muster to squelch dissent... so it seems that your concern isn't really that you think I'm 'bending a knee', but only that I'm not bending it to 'you'.
2) your ridiculous assaults only serve to make those people I disagree with on almost everything look less unreasonable. If this weren't part of my job and certainly if I weren't already fairly conservative, I could see myself knee-jerk distancing myself from you on every possible issue. Whatever people like you support, I would be against before even knowing what the issue was... because you're so rigid.
3) things like this ARE part of my job... I directly impact 'best practices' healthcare policy in this country. If you think my ideas are crazy, logically address the areas where you think I'm missing it so that you aren't having to deal with them in 5 years..... because right now I can tell you... the 'centerpoint' of the conversations being held are way to the left of me.... and people with attitudes like yours aren't being represented at all. You said yourself that the precedent has been set... but you seem intent on making sure that it becomes the rule rather than the exception.

I've said this 100 times though so why am I wasting my time... I'll go to my basement and you go to your Nazi/Klan rally. Each is equally accurate and constructive

Good I knew you would comply. I still wont. Camps for at risk people are under construction. You will be informed when to report.

(04-27-2020 01:08 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:23 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Hambone and Tigergreen hiding in their blanket fort waiting on their government overlords to tell them it's safe to go back out into the scary world.

Still never got an answer on the following scenario following their logic:


The African American community has been more severely effected, it's well publicized. Should AA's be afforded less freedom. Maybe not allowed to stay at beach condos because they carry a higher risk. Maybe they need to stay home longer or go to different places. That wouldnt infringe on their rights would it. You would be safer. Is that ok.

__________

The reason they cant answer is because they are intellectually dishonest prog filth control freaks that think they have the right to dictate exceptions to the constitution.

Well, they cant. Boo frickin hoo.

The reason you're not getting an answer to this is because it's an incredibtly weak attempt at trolling. If we all stick with the guidelines and don't consider yourself to be above it (like you apparently do), everyone, including the AA community, will be better off.

If you are making your second trip to Home Depot today then you aren't sticking with the guidelines.

(04-27-2020 01:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Good I knew you would comply. I still wont. Camps for at risk people are under construction. You will be informed when to report.

Which as usual is non-responsive to anything I said.... and just as in this situation, 'freedom' includes to power to courteously say 'okay' when I feel like it, and quite obviously to choose not to when i don't. The only mistake I keep making is assuming your IQ is over 70

(04-27-2020 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are making your second trip to Home Depot today then you aren't sticking with the guidelines.

Well yeah... guidelines aren't laws which makes the complaints about them ignorant and the comments about 'staying in basements' ignorant. This is unfortunately what happens when you allow people like Shere to define what people have said or support and you believe them. An actual stay at home order would be highly egregious IMO.... a suggestion to limit your public activities is not

(04-27-2020 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Good I knew you would comply. I still wont. Camps for at risk people are under construction. You will be informed when to report.

Which as usual is non-responsive to anything I said.... and just as in this situation, 'freedom' includes to power to courteously say 'okay' when I feel like it, and quite obviously to choose not to when i don't. The only mistake I keep making is assuming your IQ is over 70

(04-27-2020 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are making your second trip to Home Depot today then you aren't sticking with the guidelines.

Well yeah... guidelines aren't laws which makes the complaints about them ignorant and the comments about 'staying in basements' ignorant. This is unfortunately what happens when you allow people like Shere to define what people have said or support and you believe them. An actual stay at home order would be highly egregious IMO.... a suggestion to limit your public activities is not

Two trips to Home Depot is an egregious violation.

You should report her to your government overlords, comrade.

(04-27-2020 02:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Good I knew you would comply. I still wont. Camps for at risk people are under construction. You will be informed when to report.

Which as usual is non-responsive to anything I said.... and just as in this situation, 'freedom' includes to power to courteously say 'okay' when I feel like it, and quite obviously to choose not to when i don't. The only mistake I keep making is assuming your IQ is over 70

(04-27-2020 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are making your second trip to Home Depot today then you aren't sticking with the guidelines.

Well yeah... guidelines aren't laws which makes the complaints about them ignorant and the comments about 'staying in basements' ignorant. This is unfortunately what happens when you allow people like Shere to define what people have said or support and you believe them. An actual stay at home order would be highly egregious IMO.... a suggestion to limit your public activities is not

Two trips to Home Depot is an egregious violation.

You should report her to your government overlords, comrade.

Selfish. Blatant disregard for public health. Reeducation is required.

(04-27-2020 02:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 01:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Good I knew you would comply. I still wont. Camps for at risk people are under construction. You will be informed when to report.

Which as usual is non-responsive to anything I said.... and just as in this situation, 'freedom' includes to power to courteously say 'okay' when I feel like it, and quite obviously to choose not to when i don't. The only mistake I keep making is assuming your IQ is over 70

(04-27-2020 01:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  If you are making your second trip to Home Depot today then you aren't sticking with the guidelines.

Well yeah... guidelines aren't laws which makes the complaints about them ignorant and the comments about 'staying in basements' ignorant. This is unfortunately what happens when you allow people like Shere to define what people have said or support and you believe them. An actual stay at home order would be highly egregious IMO.... a suggestion to limit your public activities is not

Dictates by local officials arent frickin laws either. Egregious. Lol. Try illegal and tryrannical.

Good god. Frick off bringing me up you simp. Do you enjoy abuse. Maybe so.

(04-27-2020 03:10 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Egregious. Lol. Try illegal and tryrannical.

Here are a few more words I could have used...

shocking
appalling
horrific
horrifying
horrible
terrible
awful
dreadful
grievous
gross
ghastly
hideous
horrendous
frightful
atrocious
abominable
abhorrent
outrageous
monstrous
nightmarish
heinous
harrowing
dire
unspeakable
shameful
flagrant
glaring
blatant
scandalous
unforgivable
unpardonable
intolerable

The specific choice of the word egregious was intentionally meant to imply obviously unreasonable under the circumstances.... because as I've already proven to you (even if you deny it) under the right circumstances, even vastly worse intrusions are considered under the Constitution to be perfectly legal and not at all arbitrary.... thus your words don't fit as well to my point, even if they aren't 100% wrong either.

Quote:Good god. Frick off bringing me up you simp. Do you enjoy abuse. Maybe so.

Given the pointless responses that you routinely deliver, I find this laughable. Maybe what I enjoy is watching you 'bend the knee' by responding, even when you quite literally have nothing to add to the conversation.

(04-27-2020 01:04 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 11:00 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 10:44 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-24-2020 02:16 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Well said.

Yes. Stay home. Obey. Comply.

I wont. Xxoo

The idiot who supports the party the supposedly wants "personal responsibility" takes absolutely zero personal responsibility of his own. Go figure. All hat, no cattle with this one.

Some of us have a personal responsibility to work and earn a living. Some of us also have employers who tell us to be there and not at home. I kinda like my job (at least the paycheck and bonuses) so I go in when they tell me to be there. Believe it or not, there are those of us who want to keep the country running.

Some of us are working & earning a living from home, so spare me the attempt at sanctimony. I'm also getting out to get groceries and takeout from local restaurants, and *gasp* even hitting Lowe's or Home Depot to get some long-languishing projects around the house done.

We all know SK isn't talking about going to work if your employer expects you there - he's talking about the "freedom" to do more than is what currently considered smart by the experts in the medical community, who obviously have a little more time and knowledge invested in the situation than he does.

Common sense told us that those experts didn't have complete knowledge of thie issue and that we were likely overreacting.

Recent studies in NoCal, SoCal, NY, Miami and Iceland are affirming those common sense ideas.


I'm not a doctor and I definitely don't play one on TV, but it was a pretty safe bet that the assumptions they made were extreme worst-case scenarios.


Heck, even the deaths and need for ventilators were tied to additional money from the fed.

(04-27-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-27-2020 03:10 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Egregious. Lol. Try illegal and tryrannical.

Here are a few more words I could have used...

shocking
appalling
horrific
horrifying
horrible
terrible
awful
dreadful
grievous
gross
ghastly
hideous
horrendous
frightful
atrocious
abominable
abhorrent
outrageous
monstrous
nightmarish
heinous
harrowing
dire
unspeakable
shameful
flagrant
glaring
blatant
scandalous
unforgivable
unpardonable
intolerable

The specific choice of the word egregious was intentionally meant to imply obviously unreasonable under the circumstances.... because as I've already proven to you (even if you deny it) under the right circumstances, even vastly worse intrusions are considered under the Constitution to be perfectly legal and not at all arbitrary.... thus your words don't fit as well to my point, even if they aren't 100% wrong either.

Quote:Good god. Frick off bringing me up you simp. Do you enjoy abuse. Maybe so.

Given the pointless responses that you routinely deliver, I find this laughable. Maybe what I enjoy is watching you 'bend the knee' by responding, even when you quite literally have nothing to add to the conversation.

Nah, the reverse troll doesnt work on me. Back to your bubble.



Get green to clean it she went to home depot.