Welcome to tyranny.

[bripat9643]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The lock down will end within a month. Only the terminally insane believe this can continue any longer than that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

 

[JoeB131]

If we destroy our economy, then it's not just the wealthy who will suffer. A hundred times more non-wealthy people will suffer even more than the wealthy.

If our economy is going to be destroyed because you couldn't go to Applebees for a couple of weeks, then the economy was never all that.

Let's look at that: You want more people coming into our country, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay scales, but then want more unions to bring wages back up???? Talk about not being able to have it both ways.

Sure we can. How do you think Unions happened to start with? Those immigrants back in the day joined them. More people come into the country, they take jobs, but they also create jobs through consumerism.

How about this: Keep immigrants out of our country, then wages will naturally increase with no unions, and both of our concerns will be addressed.

Naw, the rich will always find new ways to screw the working class. They are doing it now.

Oh, so you have no black people living where you live? Why not Joe? You are a self-hating white. You should be living in an area where less than 20% are of your own kind if you pray what you preach. Those places are really not that hard to find.

Lived in a predominantly minority town for 13 years, thanks for asking. But go back to the point- if you get murdered, it's usually someone you know who had access to a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed, the wealthy are in a much better place to prepare to weather any economic disaster. They can easily afford to do, and would do if they are wise, to stockpile food and fuel and other essentials, so that they can survive an extended time no matter what the economy does. Not so easy for those farther down the economic scale, who are struggling as it is just to meet their daily needs, with little left over to store for the future.

Okay, Mormon Bob, what does that say, that even a minor shutdown for a few weeks wipes people out. The problem is, the wealthy are already looking for ways to use this recession to screw people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If our economy is going to be destroyed because you couldn't go to Applebees for a couple of weeks, then the economy was never all that.

Small businesses (our largest employer) can only survive so long without production. You still have bills to pay even in an epidemic like this one.

Sure we can. How do you think Unions happened to start with? Those immigrants back in the day joined them. More people come into the country, they take jobs, but they also create jobs through consumerism.

We do that just fine without them. Plus the fact we are the only country that allows a million foreigners to join our country every single year.

Lived in a predominantly minority town for 13 years, thanks for asking. But go back to the point- if you get murdered, it's usually someone you know who had access to a gun.

That was not the point. The point being discussed is how much higher crime and violent crime is by blacks in our country compared to any other group of people.

 

[Seawytch]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The lock down will end within a month. Only the terminally insane believe this can continue any longer than that.

You're the same guy who said this virus isn't deadly to anyone under 70 aren't you? Yeah, I'll stick with heath professionals opinions over yours, thanks.

 

[Seawytch]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

Local governments are, Trump is more concerned that he can still enjoy a steak.

 

[bripat9643]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The lock down will end within a month. Only the terminally insane believe this can continue any longer than that.

You're the same guy who said this virus isn't deadly to anyone under 70 aren't you? Yeah, I'll stick with heath professionals opinions over yours, thanks.

It isn't deadly to anyone under 65. That is the opinion of health professionals, moron. You are eager to act on your ignorance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

Local governments are, Trump is more concerned that he can still enjoy a steak.

Which is pure BS because the federal government has more pull than local governments. If the federal government can't get them, neither can local governments.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I personally believe in voluntarism and not compulsory mandates when it comes to achieving a common goal. I understand the reasoning behind the stay at home orders and the mandates that governments across the country are doing but I don't think making it as compulsory, especially in such seemingly harsh ways in certain parts of the country, is the most dependable and reliable method. The virus has been so politicized by people that even how to stay at home during the stay at home order is looked at as being a left or right version of that act.

The arguments made by people in power and by experts was to stay at home in order to relieve the burden on hospitals and flatten the curve, not necessarily to wait till we had a vaccine or for the infection rate to go down to near or at zero. The goal posts for ending the orders have been moved over the past weeks and mandates continue in most of the country which is only causing more of a divide in my opinion and a lack of trust in their leadership on all levels. It seemed that every two weeks the goal got extended another two weeks, but what was the extension supposed to accomplish in most areas of the country that wasn't already accomplished based on the initial goal? Now their is bitterness, protests, snitching, politicization, economic depression, confusion, anger, fear, paranoia, and uncertainty all because of strict, seemingly never ending or unnecessary, and in some cases draconian, mandates in my opinion.

I personally believe that if you asked most Americans to voluntarily self quarantine and for businesses to voluntarily temporarily halt operations for a specific amount of time and then be able to reopen at the end of that short and reasonable timeframe to see if it could help ease the burden on hospitals then most would probably have done it without government mandates and police presence to ensure that compulsion. Being able to voluntarily quarantine and then reactivate on their own timeframe based on their circumstances you'd have a more reliable buy in and you would have trust maintained for a longer period of time than being forced to sacrifice. Forced sacrifice never has the same level of achievement in my opinion as voluntary sacrifice does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I personally believe in voluntarism and not compulsory mandates when it comes to achieving a common goal. I understand the reasoning behind the stay at home orders and the mandates that governments across the country are doing but I don't think making it as compulsory, especially in such seemingly harsh ways in certain parts of the country, is the most dependable and reliable method. The virus has been so politicized by people that even how to stay at home during the stay at home order is looked at as being a left or right version of that act.

The arguments made by people in power and by experts was to stay at home in order to relieve the burden on hospitals and flatten the curve, not necessarily to wait till we had a vaccine or for the infection rate to go down to near or at zero. The goal posts for ending the orders have been moved over the past weeks and mandates continue in most of the country which is only causing more of a divide in my opinion and a lack of trust in their leadership on all levels. It seemed that every two weeks the goal got extended another two weeks, but what was the extension supposed to accomplish in most areas of the country that wasn't already accomplished based on the initial goal? Now their is bitterness, protests, snitching, politicization, economic depression, confusion, anger, fear, paranoia, and uncertainty all because of strict, seemingly never ending or unnecessary, and in some cases draconian, mandates in my opinion.

I personally believe that if you asked most Americans to voluntarily self quarantine and for businesses to voluntarily temporarily halt operations for a specific amount of time and then be able to reopen at the end of that short and reasonable timeframe to see if it could help ease the burden on hospitals then most would probably have done it without government mandates and police presence to ensure that compulsion. Being able to voluntarily quarantine and then reactivate on their own timeframe based on their circumstances you'd have a more reliable buy in and you would have trust maintained for a longer period of time than being forced to sacrifice. Forced sacrifice never has the same level of achievement in my opinion as voluntary sacrifice does.

Here is the problem with all this: Federal or local governments open the economy back up. People with high risk conditions are now compelled to return to work. At least in my state, you cannot collect unemployment compensation if you refuse work offered to you, either by your employer or another employer.

So this person in a high risk situation has a decision to make: return to work and earn a living as dangerous as it may be, or stay at home, receive no compensation because work was offered to you.

If government(s) continue the shutdown, those high risk people are covered, but people who are not high risk suffer.

The simple solution is allow people to make that choice. If you believe your health and age presents no threat if you catch this virus, return to work, normal social activity and so on. If you believe the opposite, government should provide financial support while continuing partial isolation from society.

 

[JoeB131]

Small businesses (our largest employer) can only survive so long without production. You still have bills to pay even in an epidemic like this one.

Boo-hoo... Small businesses are dying in Trump's recession (which was already coming before this hit.). Considering most of them helped inflict Trump on us, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THEM GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.

We do that just fine without them. Plus the fact we are the only country that allows a million foreigners to join our country every single year.

No, we really don't. The decline of the middle class has mirrored the decline of unions.

That was not the point. The point being discussed is how much higher crime and violent crime is by blacks in our country compared to any other group of people.

Tell us again how not racist you are, Ray. That shit never gets old.

 

[Supposn]

If you're afraid of getting sick, stay home. But you can't tell me what to do.
Life is a risk. Freedom means you get to choose.

Diver Diva, transcribed from the Economics forum.
The article’s author, Peter Grier, is referring to the great number of governments’ public services that directly and/or indirectly protect, and/or improve are economic and social well-being.
The concepts of limiting government officials, or the politically well connected, or the wealthy or otherwise powerful and/or influential is necessary in order to sustain a government’s democratic character. Those limiting concepts “check” but are not meant to prevent USA’s federal or states or their local governments from fore filling their constitutional purposes.
Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from:

How coronavirus will change the US, from where we live to the way we connect

Coronavirus is transforming everything from how we work to our love of big cities to our sense of patriotism.

www.csmonitor.com

”... The ideas for the big government programs that became the New Deal had been bouncing around U.S. politics for years before Franklin Roosevelt became president, says Margaret O’Mara, a professor of history at the University of Washington in Seattle. It took the shock of the 1929 stock market crash and the onset of the Great Depression to make them law. …
… Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall. …”.
Author: Peter Grier - CSMonitor.com

 

[Bleipriester]

If you're afraid of getting sick, stay home. But you can't tell me what to do.

Life is a risk. Freedom means you get to choose.

Don´t confuse freedom with idiocy.

Don't confuse ignorant cowardice with morality, hon.

It is not about morality but responsibility.

My responsibility to stay at home so your grandma can avoid the risk of getting COVID-19 is zero.

My government has no legitimate authority to tell me I can't work or go to the movies, period.

Yes, they have. They do have laws.

Note that I said "legitimate." Where does the Constitution give government the authority to tell me I can't go to work?

Where does it say you can´t drive on the sidewalk?

I won't get into that because it's a complicated issue. Government owns the roads, so government has to make the rules about how they are used. If government didn't own then roads, then some private owner would make the rules.

However, government doesn't own your job. It doesn't own you.

Still, they "own" the responsibility to take care of the people. And whether a road is privately owned or not, all laws apply.

States’ stay-home orders carry the force of law

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who issued some of the earliest social-distancing orders of any governor to combat the sprea

www.politifact.com

That doesn't mean anything, moron. The question here is "who makes the laws," not whether they "apply," whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

Apparently it is those you elected, blitz bulb.

I didn't elect any of them, moron.

You are compromising the democratic process

 

[Seawytch]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The lock down will end within a month. Only the terminally insane believe this can continue any longer than that.

You're the same guy who said this virus isn't deadly to anyone under 70 aren't you? Yeah, I'll stick with heath professionals opinions over yours, thanks.

It isn't deadly to anyone under 65. That is the opinion of health professionals, moron. You are eager to act on your ignorance.

It is potentially deadly to anyone who gets it. 20% of the deaths in the United States are people under 65. You are eager to display your ignorance.

20% of US COVID-19 Deaths Were Aged 20-64

A study from the CDC on cases between February 12 and March 16 also showed that patients aged 20 to 44 appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission.

www.medscape.com

 

[Seawytch]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

Local governments are, Trump is more concerned that he can still enjoy a steak.

Which is pure BS because the federal government has more pull than local governments. If the federal government can't get them, neither can local governments.

Yes, they do. That's why they should be doing more. Instead of using the power of the executive to keep meat packing plants open, he should be using the power of the federal government to ramp up testing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Boo-hoo... Small businesses are dying in Trump's recession (which was already coming before this hit.). Considering most of them helped inflict Trump on us, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THEM GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.

I'm sure you are. That's the true American spirit.

Parroting the lie that a worldwide pandemic is the fault of a Republican President only makes you look like a complete fool and totally uninformed. However it's up to you if you want to continue looking that way.

No, we really don't. The decline of the middle class has mirrored the decline of unions.

Unions only chased jobs overseas. Only a liberal would believe the entity that caused the problem would be the solution to it.

Tell us again how not racist you are, Ray. That shit never gets old.

The "racist" allegations do get old, and America is sick of it. When you take cold hard statistics, and make them into a racial issue, it's the Boy that Cried Wolf. You leftists have weakened the word so badly nobody even pays attention anymore.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

Local governments are, Trump is more concerned that he can still enjoy a steak.

Which is pure BS because the federal government has more pull than local governments. If the federal government can't get them, neither can local governments.

Yes, they do. That's why they should be doing more. Instead of using the power of the executive to keep meat packing plants open, he should be using the power of the federal government to ramp up testing.

He must have been reading your mind:

Trump says he will use Defense Production Act to increase swabs for testing

President Trump announced Sunday that he will use the Defense Production Act to direct a company to increase production of badly-needed swabs for coronavirus testing.Trump said at a White House new…

thehill.com

 

[Seawytch]

I merely place a vastly higher value on human life than I do on the solvency of a given company.

False dichotomy.

You're assuming that a company, that the economy as a whole, is something that can be sacrificed to save human lives, and ignorantly disregarding the impact that economic conditions have on human lives.

To sacrifice the economy, you are not saving human lives, you are sacrificing human lives. For what purpose?

Incorrect.

If, by sacrificing the solvency of a non-essential company, we save human lives, through lessened exposure, then it's well-worth the sacrifice.

That is unless you work for the company or have your IRA investments in it.

Yep... sux to be them... but if we can save your loved one's life by keeping that business (and similar others) closed, then the financial loss and hardship are well worth it.

The idea is to salvage both. There is no right or wrong call here because nobody has a crystal ball. I say open up the economy after we have the ability to protect ourselves from the virus like with N-95 masks for everybody, blood donations from those who recovered from it, reliable antibody tests and an ample supply to test anybody and everybody.

Agreed.

But until we reach that optimum state, I hold that human life takes priority over corporate solvency or even the financial well-being of a given company's employees.

I hold that you're a douchebag who probably has a gauranteed source of income. You're free to hold whatever priorities you wish. However, that doesn't give you the right to impose them on us. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if your grandma dies because she refused to isolate herself. That's her problem, not mine. I need to work, and my job takes precedence over your grandma. End of story.

You should be pressuring the Federal government to produce more tests then. It's the only way you're going to safely return to work.

The government is doing everything humanly possible to get those tests.

Local governments are, Trump is more concerned that he can still enjoy a steak.

Which is pure BS because the federal government has more pull than local governments. If the federal government can't get them, neither can local governments.

Yes, they do. That's why they should be doing more. Instead of using the power of the executive to keep meat packing plants open, he should be using the power of the federal government to ramp up testing.

He must have been reading your mind:

Trump says he will use Defense Production Act to increase swabs for testing

President Trump announced Sunday that he will use the Defense Production Act to direct a company to increase production of badly-needed swabs for coronavirus testing.Trump said at a White House new…

thehill.com

Or listening to the pleadings of health professionals. It's a start, but if Doddering Don wants people back to work, they have to do better. We need to be testing 5 million or more people a day.

 

[bripat9643]

Small businesses (our largest employer) can only survive so long without production. You still have bills to pay even in an epidemic like this one.

Boo-hoo... Small businesses are dying in Trump's recession (which was already coming before this hit.). Considering most of them helped inflict Trump on us, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THEM GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.

We do that just fine without them. Plus the fact we are the only country that allows a million foreigners to join our country every single year.

No, we really don't. The decline of the middle class has mirrored the decline of unions.

That was not the point. The point being discussed is how much higher crime and violent crime is by blacks in our country compared to any other group of people.

Tell us again how not racist you are, Ray. That shit never gets old.

You seem intent on proving that you're an asshole.