(09-10-2021 12:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2021 10:25 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm not remotely a lawyer... so I know nothing about any of this.

I understood the quoted clauses during a declared 'national emergency' to be essentially as described by Lad here.... That in the case of such an emergency, that all sorts of things that weren't normally allowed (like a draft or other such things) are allowed. Note though that even the draft these days allows 'contentious objectors', in addition to medical or religious. And that the left and ACLU were the ones that championed that.

The question for me has therefore become... is the situation 'compelling' enough to warrant the intrusion? Frankly, I really don't see that it is. This isn't Ebola. It's 'super-flu' (both in impact and transmutability). It is a virologists job to talk about preventing spread of disease, but it isn't nor should it be the job of the government to create a sterile nation where people are assured to not pass things to each other... suspending our liberties in order to accomplish it. YES, they should go to some lengths to educate and encourage... but to require? Even 'arms length'? If this were Ebola, spreading like this... I'd say yes. It's not. It's not remotely close.

I DO agree though Tanq... when Trump 'closed borders' to slow the spread, something he is specifically charged to manage, the left screamed. Now the left wants more open borders, but closed stores, schools and homes.... something they are NOT specifically charged to manage. It's CRAZY.

ETA... I also understand and appreciate the 'prove a negative' argument as being a poor one/deflection. I DO think that the person seeking change is responsible to demonstrate that the change is allowed... and its not up to the person seeking status quo to prove its not. The proof that most things that don't exist aren't allowed to exist is their lack of existence. All powers not granted to the government are reserved. If it used to exist or exists in a different form, that's POTENTIALLY evidence that it's allowed.

The left wants closed schools stores, and homes????? That isn’t even remotely close to the truth about what “the left” wants. At worst they want masks in schools. We aren’t back in May 2020 - when was the last time you saw a concerted effort to close down society in the US? On the other hand, you have conservative governors taking powers away from localities in regards to what sort of mandates they can enforce to keep things open. I hate these stupid broad brush comments - I guess “the right” wants to ban mask wearing…

I think you’re spot on about what the actual debate we should be having, which is whether or not COVID-19 is a severe enough issue to warrant these (for lack of a better term), emergency powers. Unfortunately, that often isn’t what happens.

You neglect the continuing stranglehold the left governors exercise in states like Oregon, Washington, and California.

So yes, the left still continues that fight for shutdown powers.

Quote:At worst they want masks in schools.

Given the above -- patently and abjectly false.

Can you point me to those who are fighting for shutdown powers?

Maybe it's my SE coast bias showing in NC, but I haven't heard of any major pushes for remote learning this year, or shutting down cities, etc.

edit: let's say that even three states are calling for these types of closures across the board - why do those three states mean that "the left" wants that? Are we The Borg???

Bad word choice on my part -- California still has numerous public mandates.

https://covid19.ca.gov/masks-and-ppe/ for a start.

Did you seriously send me to a website listing mask mandates when you refuted this statement of mine?

"At worst they want masks in schools."

Sorry, I should have extended that to "public places," but I didn't think I needed to be exhaustive. Does your "bad word choice," mean that it's bunk that "the left" wants society shut down still?

Quote:As to 'the left' -- it is states that are controlled by 'the left' that vestige mandates persist to this day. It is the 'left' that is getting a woody over vaccine mandates. So yes, 'the left' is appropriate.

Your statement that 'at worst they want masks in schools' is so patently false on som many levels I think you might notice it without a lot of effort.

I see a *lot* of the left not just 'wanting' more than masks in schools, they are demainding it. Criminy, your head poobah yesterday did a tad more than simply 'wanting' masks in schools as you assert in your post.

That statement is flatly, and patently false.

Bahahahaahahah - I actually laughed out loud.

You saying that is "patently false" because the perceived level of desire is greater is laughable considering you didn't say that "the left" wanting schools shut down was patently false.

Your hung up on how strong a word is, and missing the forest for the trees. You are right, many on the left (and I'd go with most, actually) are demanding mask mandates in schools. I don't know where "the left" falls on mandates outside of schools - probably varies state to state and city to city.

But I have not seen a concerted effort from even a sizable minority of "the left" trying shut down businesses, schools, homes, etc. And that is where we started - don't move the goal posts.