Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

"could face Constitutional challenges"

Sure. Anybody can file suit for anything they want.

No news there.

But given the general trend has been in favor of the anti-mask laws, unless direct harrassment has been shown, mask laws for the health of the public are also likely to survive quite handily in most places. Not always in the first level courts, but in higher courts.

LOL!
Point is to challenge “government” laws requiring masks is not terrorism.

[josh]

[oilcan]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

[josh]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

"could face Constitutional challenges"

Sure. Anybody can file suit for anything they want.

No news there.

But given the general trend has been in favor of the anti-mask laws, unless direct harrassment has been shown, mask laws for the health of the public are also likely to survive quite handily in most places. Not always in the first level courts, but in higher courts.

LOL!
Point is to challenge “government” laws requiring masks is not terrorism.

Look! A nonsense response!

It's not "challenging" the laws that is at issue, Ward. You mentioned a Constitutional challenge, but that has nothing to do with what those jerks were doing. It's as if you either didn't read the piece or are ignoring it.

Threatening a clerk with a weapon is not "a Constitutional challenge." Neither are threatening phone calls.

Give it a fucking rest and try to use your intellect, not your gonads or your kneejerk reflex, for responding.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

There is no constitutional issue if the store requires masks to do business in its store.
It can be a constitutional issue if the government requires it.

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gallup-trump-approval-rating-up-6-points-in-two-weeks

Leave it to white people

[josh]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

There is no constitutional issue if the store requires masks to do business in its store.
It can be a constitutional issue if the government requires it.

OMG, Ward, really?

Oddly enough, that latter statement is what I already responded to.

Also, the jerks aren't mostly complaining about the constitution - if the store tried to enforce that ban, do you honestly believe the person yelling at the clerk and waving his gun about would say, "Oh, nevermind, then. My apologies," and walk away?!

[LarryBnDC]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

There is no constitutional issue if the store requires masks to do business in its store.
It can be a constitutional issue if the government requires it.

Does that go for the Post Office, too?

[josh]

https://www.covidanalytics.io/projections

These are analytics from a group at MIT looking ahead and predicting that between now and June 14, 59,000 more people will die in the US, for roughly 125k deaths, total.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

There is no constitutional issue if the store requires masks to do business in its store.
It can be a constitutional issue if the government requires it. Business

OMG, Ward, really?

Oddly enough, that latter statement is what I already responded to.

Also, the jerks aren't mostly complaining about the constitution - if the store tried to enforce that ban, do you honestly believe the person yelling at the clerk and waving his gun about would say, "Oh, nevermind, then. My apologies," and walk away?!

the. Either he would not get to buy anything or could face, say, trespassing charges.
 Point is the store has much more solid legal ground to establish conditions than the government.

[josh]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

People seem to understand it's not a constitutional issue when it's applied equally to everyone.   Stores all require shoes and shirts.   And for reasons of much less gravity than the reason for facemasks.  If someone were making physical threats over being asked to wear shoes,  we wouldn't be having any "constitutional" debate.

There is no constitutional issue if the store requires masks to do business in its store.
It can be a constitutional issue if the government requires it. Business

OMG, Ward, really?

Oddly enough, that latter statement is what I already responded to.

Also, the jerks aren't mostly complaining about the constitution - if the store tried to enforce that ban, do you honestly believe the person yelling at the clerk and waving his gun about would say, "Oh, nevermind, then. My apologies," and walk away?!

the. Either he would not get to buy anything or could face, say, trespassing charges.
 Point is the store has much more solid legal ground to establish conditions than the government.

Point is: the government is on pretty solid legal ground.

Next point is: the jerks in question largely don't give a damn about the constitutionality of it - they just want to do as they please, for the most part. If the store made and tried to keep the order, their employees would be harrassed and threatened. And if the government is unwilling to try to find them when they are themselves on the firing line, how eager would do you expect them to be up to the point at which somebody is actually assaulted rather than just threatened?

Until you can admit to that, you are hiding from the truth.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Point is: the government is on pretty solid legal ground.

But the store’s legal ground is much more solid.
None of the protestors were there to challenge the store.  They were protesting government action they did not like.
The mask is an easy issue after the store posts its policy.
But lots of other actions by Governors and Mayors  during the crisis have been much more onerous to civil liberties.

[Hairy Lime]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

Can the government mandate you cover your genitals? Or motorcycle helmet? And fine you if you do not?

[josh]

Terrorists.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3C2vKYe_SDhgfa-dLnl-5qvvCTUi6bIfxleH8w6EoMbCFnvwSb8MKA8H0

Deny it all you will, but threats of violence and other forms of intimidation to get the change you want is terrorism. Even when it doesn't work, let alone when it does.

Not true. 
Any government mandate for wearing a mask that results in a government citation, fine etc could face Constitutional challenges. The store owner can refuse to serve you if the mask order is the posted policy of the store.

Can the government mandate you cover your genitals? Or motorcycle helmet? And fine you if you do not?

What I don't get is why he's debating the point, which is that THREATS OF VIOLENCE and OTHER FORMS OF INTIMIDATION to get your way politically IS TERRORISM.

[kiidcarter8]

Winfrey and Tolle spoke for over 20 minutes and offered advice to those watching, "In this moment we have an opportunity to take a step forward as a collective consciousness," Winfrey said. She added, "I am hoping we all come out of this more united ... seeing each other as a part of the whole."



heh

the fucking loon


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/entertainment/oprah-winfrey-the-call-to-unite-trnd/index.html