Constitutional Right To Peacefully Assemble Latest 'Victim' of Govt COVID-19 Crackdown

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And...freedom. What I am hearing is SOME people’s freedom is more important than other people’s. So that SOME people can freely exercise their freedom...people who are more vulnerable, should restrict theirs. Kind of hypocritical.

People who are more vulnerable may CHOOSE to restrict their own freedom.

Surely, you see the difference, right?

I thought you and I had common beliefs. I thought you were a real liberal.

.

 

[Coyote]

See the presumption that 20 people gatheting will sure fire spread it to 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more has never been proven and never even been looked Into it is Great Fodder for overreactive hysteria and freedom snatching.
Just as probable to offer is that it is incredibly infectious but incredibly benign ecrept for the old and sick. It’s slreAdy blue. They most every one if ya with a 0.1% death rate but “we dont know” so let’s overreact and default to the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario get 80% of frightened America to buy in and ultimately assure we will Never relate to ea h other as we used to.
We are now infectious agents,not decent human beings, and we must be locked down and lectured over the virtues of being treated like vermin.

Well quarentine is nothing new. My mother remembers the polio quarentines but she does not remember this degree of whining. People buckled down, then it was over and normal life resumed.

I lived thru the polio era and there was no quarantine. There were special hospitals for them. There was no whining because there was no widespread public quarantine a nd your story is bogus.

Not bogus at all.

For those who survived polio, coronavirus is eerily familiar. But ultimately, 'science won.'

Before a vaccine arrived in the 1950s, polio had the US scared and quarantined. Now, those who lived through it face a similar terror: Coronavirus.

www.usatoday.com

We were not quarantined. I lived it so will have to go with that over a MSM type looking backward inaccurately to a time they were probably not even alive for and are crafting a story replete with other “quarantines” to help the story work.

I’ve talked with my mother, who lived and remembers it. Her memories are quite similar to the article. Most likely, as with covid, how it is handled depends on where you are. It is up to individual states an municipalities.

 

[freyasman]

Anyone who attends the gathering does so at their own risk

Why can't we just LEAVE IT AT THAT and not give even MORE power to an already overpowered government?

.

Because this rationale completely ignores the fact that attendees who acquire it at the gathering will spread it to others who did not attend this gathering.

When it comes to infectious disease, there are some pretty well established guidelines to follow to limit the spread. That is basically what is going on.

You might fairly argue it is too extreme...but what I am hearing is people saying is that ANY restriction is too extreme.

So...my questions are:

Given that asymptomatic people can spread this...what do you propose to limit the spread?

And...freedom. What I am hearing is SOME people’s freedom is more important than other people’s. So that SOME people can freely exercise their freedom...people who are more vulnerable, should restrict theirs. Kind of hypocritical.

You're hearing whatever you want to hear, apparently.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Anyone who attends the gathering does so at their own risk

Why can't we just LEAVE IT AT THAT and not give even MORE power to an already overpowered government?

.

Because this rationale completely ignores the fact that attendees who acquire it at the gathering will spread it to others who did not attend this gathering.

When it comes to infectious disease, there are some pretty well established guidelines to follow to limit the spread. That is basically what is going on.

You might fairly argue it is too extreme...but what I am hearing is people saying is that ANY restriction is too extreme.

So...my questions are:

Given that asymptomatic people can spread this...what do you propose to limit the spread?

And...freedom. What I am hearing is SOME people’s freedom is more important than other people’s. So that SOME people can freely exercise their freedom...people who are more vulnerable, should restrict theirs. Kind of hypocritical.

Infectious diseases are out and about all the time and we never do this. The mystery of the Chinavirus has been crafted and conjoured almost like yet another witch hunt.

This one has been pretty bad. Worldwide.

Only if you believe everything the controlled media is telling you. It has already been established that the numbers are completely unreliable, inflated. There has been all sorts of of false reporting exposed, which you seem to be completely unaware of. Evidently you're spending too much time glued to the idiot box, listening to the very people who are lying to you, rather than numerous other sources and real people who have proven that we're being fed BS.

Read my sig, to try to understand what is happening. Fear is their best tool. It works every time. The sooner you realize that, the better, because you are cheerleading for authoritarians who don't give a rat's @ss about our lives, they care about their agendas, and total control.

I almost never watch TV. I get my news from a variety of sources rather than inhabiting echo chambers That regurgitate fake news and conspiracy theories.

What is your excuse?

Uhmm, I watched a killer like wayy later days version of the "Mannon" Gunsmoke episode last night? It was all good in the end.

 

[Coyote]

And...freedom. What I am hearing is SOME people’s freedom is more important than other people’s. So that SOME people can freely exercise their freedom...people who are more vulnerable, should restrict theirs. Kind of hypocritical.

People who are more vulnerable may CHOOSE to restrict their own freedom.

Surely, you see the difference, right?

I thought you and I had common beliefs. I thought you were a real liberal.

.

No.

They have no choice if they want to live. Their freedom means less to you than yours.

 

[Marion Morrison]

1. Do my constitutional rights give me the right to put other people in danger?

I think the courts have consistently said...no.

Whether or not your rights put others "in danger" is irrelevant. There must be an injury/harm, not the risk of harm.

.

In that case Typhoid Mary had every right to continue working in the food industry.

In this case, all working people in America are Typhoid Mary and must stay home and get evicted and lose their jobs...
Because why? I don't get it. Why?

Perhaps if we had mandated paid sick leave that wouldn’t be necessary...

I am not the one claiming to have answers. How do you balance public safety and individual rights?

Not intentionally fucking over every working person in America is a good start.
Guess who I will support when the shit hits the fan?

Not the ones denying hard working Americans their jobs, that's for damn sure.

It is a hard call. And if you are arguing jobs and livelihoods I have a lot more sympathy than than I do for those whining about a temporary loss of total freedom. After all, we can still go out, we can still buy necessities. The impact on jobs is much tougher.

The impact on jobs and everybody working is much larger, derp!

You don't care about that waitress that can't make her rent, and is going to get thrown out into the street, or what?

I just agreed with you derp.

"Thank You"

 

[WEATHER53]

See the presumption that 20 people gatheting will sure fire spread it to 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more has never been proven and never even been looked Into it is Great Fodder for overreactive hysteria and freedom snatching.
Just as probable to offer is that it is incredibly infectious but incredibly benign ecrept for the old and sick. It’s slreAdy blue. They most every one if ya with a 0.1% death rate but “we dont know” so let’s overreact and default to the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario get 80% of frightened America to buy in and ultimately assure we will Never relate to ea h other as we used to.
We are now infectious agents,not decent human beings, and we must be locked down and lectured over the virtues of being treated like vermin.

Well quarentine is nothing new. My mother remembers the polio quarentines but she does not remember this degree of whining. People buckled down, then it was over and normal life resumed.

I lived thru the polio era and there was no quarantine. There were special hospitals for them. There was no whining because there was no widespread public quarantine a nd your story is bogus.

Not bogus at all.

For those who survived polio, coronavirus is eerily familiar. But ultimately, 'science won.'

Before a vaccine arrived in the 1950s, polio had the US scared and quarantined. Now, those who lived through it face a similar terror: Coronavirus.

www.usatoday.com

We were not quarantined. I lived it so will have to go with that over a MSM type looking backward inaccurately to a time they were probably not even alive for and are crafting a story replete with other “quarantines” to help the story work.

I’ve talked with my mother, who lived and remembers it. Her memories are quite similar to the article. Most likely, as with covid, how it is handled depends on where you are. It is up to individual states an municipalities.

2nd hand versus lived it

 

[Coyote]

1. Do my constitutional rights give me the right to put other people in danger?

I think the courts have consistently said...no.

Whether or not your rights put others "in danger" is irrelevant. There must be an injury/harm, not the risk of harm.

.

In that case Typhoid Mary had every right to continue working in the food industry.

In this case, all working people in America are Typhoid Mary and must stay home and get evicted and lose their jobs...
Because why? I don't get it. Why?

Perhaps if we had mandated paid sick leave that wouldn’t be necessary...

I am not the one claiming to have answers. How do you balance public safety and individual rights?

Not intentionally fucking over every working person in America is a good start.
Guess who I will support when the shit hits the fan?

Not the ones denying hard working Americans their jobs, that's for damn sure.

It is a hard call. And if you are arguing jobs and livelihoods I have a lot more sympathy than than I do for those whining about a temporary loss of total freedom. After all, we can still go out, we can still buy necessities. The impact on jobs is much tougher.

The impact on jobs and everybody working is much larger, derp!

You don't care about that waitress that can't make her rent, and is going to get thrown out into the street, or what?

I just agreed with you derp.

"Thank You"

You know I love you anyway right? Even though you are politically misguided.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No.

They have no choice if they want to live. Their freedom means less to you than yours.

They have no choice?

Somebody is forcing them to get out in public and expose themselves to contamination?

.

 

[Coyote]

See the presumption that 20 people gatheting will sure fire spread it to 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more....then 20 more has never been proven and never even been looked Into it is Great Fodder for overreactive hysteria and freedom snatching.
Just as probable to offer is that it is incredibly infectious but incredibly benign ecrept for the old and sick. It’s slreAdy blue. They most every one if ya with a 0.1% death rate but “we dont know” so let’s overreact and default to the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario get 80% of frightened America to buy in and ultimately assure we will Never relate to ea h other as we used to.
We are now infectious agents,not decent human beings, and we must be locked down and lectured over the virtues of being treated like vermin.

Well quarentine is nothing new. My mother remembers the polio quarentines but she does not remember this degree of whining. People buckled down, then it was over and normal life resumed.

I lived thru the polio era and there was no quarantine. There were special hospitals for them. There was no whining because there was no widespread public quarantine a nd your story is bogus.

Not bogus at all.

For those who survived polio, coronavirus is eerily familiar. But ultimately, 'science won.'

Before a vaccine arrived in the 1950s, polio had the US scared and quarantined. Now, those who lived through it face a similar terror: Coronavirus.

www.usatoday.com

We were not quarantined. I lived it so will have to go with that over a MSM type looking backward inaccurately to a time they were probably not even alive for and are crafting a story replete with other “quarantines” to help the story work.

I’ve talked with my mother, who lived and remembers it. Her memories are quite similar to the article. Most likely, as with covid, how it is handled depends on where you are. It is up to individual states an municipalities.

2nd hand versus lived it

No difference in credibility. I know my mother. I don’t know you.

 

[freyasman]

And...freedom. What I am hearing is SOME people’s freedom is more important than other people’s. So that SOME people can freely exercise their freedom...people who are more vulnerable, should restrict theirs. Kind of hypocritical.

People who are more vulnerable may CHOOSE to restrict their own freedom.

Surely, you see the difference, right?

I thought you and I had common beliefs. I thought you were a real liberal.

.

No.

They have no choice if they want to live. Their freedom means less to you than yours.

If you can't swim, don't go in the water..... but you don't get to demand that I stay out of it.

 

[Coyote]

No.

They have no choice if they want to live. Their freedom means less to you than yours.

They have no choice?

Somebody is forcing them to get out in public and expose themselves to contamination?

.

Oh right. Because contaminated people have more right to freedom than vulnerable people, vulnerable people must curtail their freedom If they want to live. You made my argument.

SOME have greater rights to freedom. It is an inherently selfish mindset. The opposite would be a willingness for me (not vulnerable) to accept some temporary curtailment of my freedom in order to protect the more vulnerable among us Who still need to venture out to get groceries.

 

[Marion Morrison]

1. Do my constitutional rights give me the right to put other people in danger?

I think the courts have consistently said...no.

Whether or not your rights put others "in danger" is irrelevant. There must be an injury/harm, not the risk of harm.

.

In that case Typhoid Mary had every right to continue working in the food industry.

In this case, all working people in America are Typhoid Mary and must stay home and get evicted and lose their jobs...
Because why? I don't get it. Why?

Perhaps if we had mandated paid sick leave that wouldn’t be necessary...

I am not the one claiming to have answers. How do you balance public safety and individual rights?

Not intentionally fucking over every working person in America is a good start.
Guess who I will support when the shit hits the fan?

Not the ones denying hard working Americans their jobs, that's for damn sure.

It is a hard call. And if you are arguing jobs and livelihoods I have a lot more sympathy than than I do for those whining about a temporary loss of total freedom. After all, we can still go out, we can still buy necessities. The impact on jobs is much tougher.

The impact on jobs and everybody working is much larger, derp!

You don't care about that waitress that can't make her rent, and is going to get thrown out into the street, or what?

I just agreed with you derp.

"Thank You"

You know I love you anyway right? Even though you are politically misguided.

I love you too, but we may disagree at times.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is anyone getting tired of this rightwing whine fest about "shut downs" and "constitutional rights"?

The shut down sucks, but the whining (and I'm not talking about job loss, a valid complaint) but the whining about not being able to get together in large groups is pretty shallow.

Quarantine is nothing new. Restricting large gatherings is during an epidemic is nothing new. But this level of whining is.

Anyone over 70 probably remembers quarantine during the polio outbreaks...

“But absolutely, when coronavirus hit, the first thing I thought of were those summers in the 1940s, how you couldn’t go to pools, you couldn’t go to the movies, you just stayed home,” says Gray, who as a child lived in Kansas City. “When I was in high school, a wonderful young man got polio. It was just so terrifying for us.”

maybe. maybe people are pretty shallow. but if people have legitimate questions about what we're being told vs. seeing, calling them shallow for asking is simply another form of shaming. you don't believe it, i will call you names.

and while a quarantine may be nothing new, i certainly have never seen an entire city do it; much less most of the world. to think people will sit and behave for an indefinite undefined period of time and not question why is simply unreasonable.

I think a certain amount of angst is understandable, and I think a LOT of angst about jobs, economy etc is very understandable. But I also think about how people underwent the privations, rationing and inconveniences brought on by WW2, with a sense of community and patriotism. But what I'm seeing is essentially people bitching about inconvenience (and, no, I don't like this either). And I guess the irony is, the people whining are the same people who bitch about others' "lack of patriotism" for not supporting certain policies or making choices based on "convenience.

It's going to end. This temporary suspension of large gatherings is exactly that - temporary. So...I guess my thought is suck it up and make it work knowing it is temporary. I'm more worried about jobs for so many people than I am about not being able to go to a physical church or congregate in crowds. My rights are not being infringed upon if it means temporary measures that preserve lives.

You mean temporary like TSA screenings at airports? When you're trying to exercise your right to travel freely?

That kind of temporary?

Where is that in the Bill of Rights? I must have missed it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don’t have a huge issue with that. Why do you? (Show us on your anatomically correct doll where TSA prevented you from traveling).

That's a shitty argument in favor of allowing TSA to grab my scrotum.

What are the consequences if I refuse to be frisked and molested?

That same type of bullshit argument was used to prevent gay marriage. There was nothing stopping gay people from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so their right to be married was not violated, RIGHT????

.

I like how they claim our right to travel isn't being violated, as long as we waive our rights to refuse a search first.

There are private aircraft, buses, and trains for that sort of thing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh right. Because contaminated people have more right to freedom than vulnerable people, vulnerable people must curtail their freedom If they want to live. You made my argument.

We don't even know who is contaminate. Contaminated people could show no symptoms. So, FUCK FREEDOM RIGHT UP THE ASS, because I have an at-best 1 in 300 chance of carrying a disease.

Again. Never ever ever ever ever EVER he-------YEVER...call yourself a liberal.

 

[Coyote]

Oh right. Because contaminated people have more right to freedom than vulnerable people, vulnerable people must curtail their freedom If they want to live. You made my argument.

We don't even know who is contaminate. Contaminated people could show no symptoms. So, FUCK FREEDOM RIGHT UP THE ASS, because I have an at-best 1 in 300 chance of carrying a disease.

Again. Never ever ever ever ever EVER he-------YEVER...call yourself a liberal.

so you can’t even accept a temporary measure until this under control?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Where is that in the Bill of Rights? I must have missed it.

Re-read the 9th Amendment.

.

 

[freyasman]

I don’t have a huge issue with that. Why do you? (Show us on your anatomically correct doll where TSA prevented you from traveling).

That's a shitty argument in favor of allowing TSA to grab my scrotum.

What are the consequences if I refuse to be frisked and molested?

That same type of bullshit argument was used to prevent gay marriage. There was nothing stopping gay people from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so their right to be married was not violated, RIGHT????

.

I like how they claim our right to travel isn't being violated, as long as we waive our rights to refuse a search first.

There are private aircraft, buses, and trains for that sort of thing.

Really????
Gee, I didn't already know that.


(Did the sarcasm come through clearly? Because I wouldn't want anyone to miss it.)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

so you can’t even accept a temporary measure until this under control?

Voluntarily, I will. What's the penalty for not adhering to this "temporary" violation of my right?

.