Just a flu bro...literally

[El OchoCinco]

This discussion isn't about what we should do. It is about what we are doing. The poster "newwurldmn" does not believe people are being refused the "right" to be employed - that's what he said and what he has further supported in subsequent posts. He also doesn't believe that this is a right at all (I agree Constitutionally and have said this, disagree when it is applied to our way of life). Regardless, there are real rights that are being denied.

Before we can get into the argument of what we should do, we first have to have an honest discussion on what we are doing. That seems to be problematic lately with a number of posters.

The "right" or whatever is the proper way to call it to work or employment can be recitified easily. Close your restaurant for 2 months and get government assistance. I think the Fed and states could have worked together on this. Add the payroll protection loans for the employees and the goal is to put people whole as if the business was open although you canno account for type of profits but at least costs covered.

I don't mind going in debt if it is for a good reason to support people because a solid 60 days at most if done from the beginning was all that was needed as evidenced by Asia. Would have been cheaper too if done at the start.

I am ready to go out if it is safe but I don't trust other people who are blowing this off. But I am ok if it is on me to wear masks and gloves, wash my hands and not touch my face when out and stick to take out delivery to support restaurants. I detailed in another thread how Malls can start opening. all gardening and landscaping business should never have closed and any Governor who did that is an asshole.

So many business are working remote right now pretty well, they can keep that up and simply bring in mor essential people who need to be in the office or do a shared work schedule (4 days home, 1 day in rotating). I am talking about offices not retail/consumer.

department stores can open as well with the same guidleines as groceries and my idea for malls. No mask no service. Gloves I think are personal choice because you can hand sani yourself after leaving the store and just don't touch your face.

One of the great things about COVID is the way to catch it is pretty clear and limited and easy to avoid even without social distancing if humans stop being pigs.

There is a cost for businesses to have hand sani stations outside of their businesses and inside and to buy PPE for employees but THAT can be fixed with a tax deduction or other means to assist their income/cash flow for the expense. Handing otu blank checks is random and useless, but long term reform to reward/inventive opening under strict CDC guidelines is worth it.

Again, U.S. should lower its sometimes racist view and study what Japan, Korea and Taiwan and Malaysia do. I can only speak about Japan and Malaysia that I visit frequently and during Flu issues and the number of people with masks or using hand sani is very prevelant, not to mention culturally induced social distancing we can adopt a little.

Unfortunately my ideas are too common sense to be adopted by politicians who only want to win points.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The "right" or whatever is the proper way to call it to work or employment can be recitified easily. Close your restaurant for 2 months and get government assistance. I think the Fed and states could have worked together on this. Add the payroll protection loans for the employees and the goal is to put people whole as if the business was open although you canno account for type of profits but at least costs covered.

And what if this government assistance is too difficult to get? Many small businesses haven't been able to get the SBA loan they needed. Many who used to have a job got assistance, but it was a paltry substitute for what they were making and can't even cover the basic essentials. Please don't assume your situation is at all in line with the general public's.

I don't mind going in debt if it is for a good reason to support people because a solid 60 days at most if done from the beginning was all that was needed as evidenced by Asia. Would have been cheaper too if done at the start.

I am ready to go out if it is safe but I don't trust other people who are blowing this off. But I am ok if it is on me to wear masks and gloves, wash my hands and not touch my face when out and stick to take out delivery to support restaurants. I detailed in another thread how Malls can start opening. all gardening and landscaping business should never have closed and any Governor who did that is an asshole.

So many business are working remote right now pretty well, they can keep that up and simply bring in mor essential people who need to be in the office or do a shared work schedule (4 days home, 1 day in rotating). I am talking about offices not retail/consumer.

department stores can open as well with the same guidleines as groceries and my idea for malls. No mask no service. Gloves I think are personal choice because you can hand sani yourself after leaving the store and just don't touch your face.

One of the great things about COVID is the way to catch it is pretty clear and limited and easy to avoid even without social distancing if humans stop being pigs.

There is a cost for businesses to have hand sani stations outside of their businesses and inside and to buy PPE for employees but THAT can be fixed with a tax deduction or other means to assist their income/cash flow for the expense. Handing otu blank checks is random and useless, but long term reform to reward/inventive opening under strict CDC guidelines is worth it.

Again, U.S. should lower its sometimes racist view and study what Japan, Korea and Taiwan and Malaysia do. I can only speak about Japan and Malaysia that I visit frequently and during Flu issues and the number of people with masks or using hand sani is very prevelant, not to mention culturally induced social distancing we can adopt a little.

Unfortunately my ideas are too common sense to be adopted by politicians who only want to win points.

I agree with some of this - actually most. But it still does not first address that the rights of people to obtain employment has been snuffed out. The Constitutional right to assemble is suspended (illegally, if you want to get technical). The ability to exercise freedom of religion (which, in many religions requires a church or mosque, etc) is suspended. Again, illegally.

We can talk about the why it was "necessary", but we first have to agree it happened. If we do not, then we are walking a dangerous path where we can dismiss - at will - rights afforded to us in the Constitution of the United States. We worked so very hard for these. Should we surrender them without discussion?

 

[El OchoCinco]

And what if this government assistance is too difficult to get? Many small businesses haven't been able to get the SBA loan they needed. Many who used to have a job got assistance, but it was a paltry substitute for what they were making and can't even cover the basic essentials. Please don't assume your situation is at all in line with the general public's.



I agree with some of this - actually most. But it still does not first address that the rights of people to obtain employment has been snuffed out. The Constitutional right to assemble is suspended (illegally, if you want to get technical). The ability to exercise freedom of religion (which, in many religions requires a church or mosque, etc) is suspended. Again, illegally.

We can talk about the why it was "necessary", but we first have to agree it happened. If we do not, then we are walking a dangerous path where we can dismiss - at will - rights afforded to us in the Constitution of the United States. We worked so very hard for these. Should we surrender them without discussion?

No one disagrees it is happening, just that it was illegal. Plenty of Supreme Court and Appellate court decisions upholding limitations on assembly and religion under Constitutional law so to say it was illegal is ignoring the court's authority and precedent. You cannot call it illegal because it is not against the law to limit 1st Amendment rights when there is a rationale that is not arbitrary or capricious or without reaonsableness as the SC and Appellate courts have established.

Inconvenience is not enough of a reason to claim your constitutional rights are being violated. Government said don't go to the church temporarily but nothing stopping you from being a Christian, watching a mass online, praying with your bible in the house, calling your religious figure for the time being.

 

[Bugenhagen]

You left wingers have zero facts. Just bullshit appeals to emotion. Like nnwwwmmnfylnn. He's got two hollow anecdotal "proofs" the economy isn't closed. One is a dinner party next month that was just canceled.

Ur above pic is bullshit. The first guy is a criminal most likely being arrested. The second group are illegal aliens caught in the commission of a crime. So being detained. The third are law abiding Americans using their 1st amendment freedom to protest having their right to free employment and free travel and free association and free assembly taken away.

Let me recap for the left wing buttigeige lover. The first two groups are criminals. The last group are law abiding Americans. Clear dipshit ?

Here, this will help you brainiac.
Dying of coronavirus to own the libs group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1078341655862893/

Talking to a trader acquaintance in N Dakota (a trumpeter normally) who says they have commander in should be put against a fucking wall for sedition, directed protests at the capitol today even though the only restrictions he knows of are "things like hair salons."

Well done.

Edit here is your Iron Snowflake.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No one disagrees it is happening, just that it was illegal. Plenty of Supreme Court and Appellate court decisions upholding limitations on assembly and religion under Constitutional law so to say it was illegal is ignoring the court's authority and precedent. You cannot call it illegal because it is not against the law to limit 1st Amendment rights when there is a rationale that is not arbitrary or capricious or without reaonsableness as the SC and Appellate courts have established.

Inconvenience is not enough of a reason to claim your constitutional rights are being violated. Government said don't go to the church temporarily but nothing stopping you from being a Christian, watching a mass online, praying with your bible in the house, calling your religious figure for the time being.

I think its pretty damned obvious of a violation of Constitutional Rights if you're being told you cannot assemble and you cannot go to church. You can argue whether it is worth it (I might concede many of these points), but the Constitution is pretty clear on this.

 

[gwb-trading]

I think its pretty damned obvious of a violation of Constitutional Rights if you're being told you cannot assemble and you cannot go to church. You can argue whether it is worth it (I might concede many of these points), but the Constitution is pretty clear on this.

If there is a question about the constitutionally of "stay at home" orders in a public health emergency then I imagine someone would take the issue to court (if they had a case). No court cases yet AFAIK.

Seeing that "stay at home" orders during the 1918 flu pandemic and 1940s polio epidemic were found to be perfectly legal (according to my understanding) then I don't think anyone will win in court challenging stay at home orders in 2020.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I think its pretty damned obvious of a violation of Constitutional Rights if you're being told you cannot assemble and you cannot go to church. You can argue whether it is worth it, but the Constitution is pretty clear on these points.

The Constitutional rights are not absolute, they just cannot be taken away with out due process. It is the law that gives you those rights and the same law can take them away as upheld by the Supreme Court. You cannot waive the Bill of Rights and ignore the Supreme Court.

That is too black or white because Courts have ruled it is NOT a violation if just cause or reasonableness is found. You want to argue whether it is worth it which is not a legal argument but an emotional opinion.

You are a gun owner and go into a store and shoot two people and get arrested. The government arrests you and takes away your gun, are your rights violated?

You gather with 100 of your buddies to march down 5th Avenue in New York to protest a new tax law. Police show up and remove your from the street and arrest you. Are you rights to assembly violated?

You are a Mormon and state that to practice your religion you must marry more than one woman. The State says no and you are breaking the law. Are your rights violated?

Supreme Court said NO because the rights are not absolute and can be taken from you by the Government under certain conditions.

If you don't believe that then you are simple arguing opinion/emotion versus law.

 

[El OchoCinco]

The problem with many of you is you are arguing convenient emotions for your specific case and not general well accepted precedent of Consitutional Law.

I don't feel like someone who rarely goes to church suddenly wants to go on Easter and is told NO all of a sudden has their freedom of religion stripped from them and are violated. It is a bullshit argument since Church, Temple, Mosque etc. are buildings and all of them have made accomodations.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The Constitutional rights are not absolute, they just cannot be taken away with out due process. It is the law that gives you those rights and the same law can take them away as upheld by the Supreme Court. You cannot waive the Bill of Rights and ignore the Supreme Court.

I never said otherwise. Where was the due process?

That is too black or white because Courts have ruled it is NOT a violation if just cause or reasonableness is found. You want to argue whether it is worth it which is not a legal argument but an emotional opinion.

You are a gun owner and go into a store and shoot two people and get arrested. The government arrests you and takes away your gun, are your rights violated?

You gather with 100 of your buddies to march down 5th Avenue in New York to protest a new tax law. Police show up and remove your from the street and arrest you. Are you rights to assembly violated?

You are a Mormon and state that to practice your religion you must marry more than one woman. The State says no and you are breaking the law. Are your rights violated?

Supreme Court said NO because the rights are not absolute and can be taken from you by the Government under certain conditions.

If you don't believe that then you are simple arguing opinion/emotion versus law.

Agree with all of this. Where was the due process to confine many millions to their houses?

 

[Tsing Tao]

The problem with many of you is you are arguing convenient emotions for your specific case and not general well accepted precedent of Consitutional Law.

I don't feel like someone who rarely goes to church suddenly wants to go on Easter and is told NO all of a sudden has their freedom of religion stripped from them and are violated. It is a bullshit argument since Church, Temple, Mosque etc. are buildings and all of them have made accomodations.

If this is to me, it is ridiculous. I am not making any emotional argument whatsoever. In fact, I'm being nothing but technical and direct.