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

[kidcarter8]

I'll play

Would the Michigan protest be getting more/less/the same coverage if some of them weren't armed/appearing to be "southern"?

Thanks

[kidcarter8]

Bank how are you going to die if I get a hair cut?   Take us through that.

If you don't grasp the concept of R number,  aka PtP spread, then about half of the science info posted here has been wasted on you.   Or you just don't read.   

You have been noticed.  Question stands.

[barton]

Just stick with gravedigger science,  in the 1600s.  Basically, if you keep a lit clay pipe in your mouth at all times, the plague won't hurt you.   Just don't catch pneumonia while stuffing a pheasant with snow!

[kidcarter8]

I get it - you can't explain.  Just leave it for someone else.

[josh]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

"Protest" is not threatening with a gun.

"Protest" is not threatening bodily harm.

Are you claiming otherwise?

You claimed they were terrorists.
They were not.

Yes, according to the definition of terrorism, they were.

Your refusal to accept a simple truth is telling.

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

It is unlawful to threaten with weapons or to threaten bodily harm. It was in pursuit of political aims.

Hence, terrorism.

The FBI's definition of Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Threatening is violent and criminal.

Deal.

[josh]

I'll play

Would the Michigan protest be getting more/less/the same coverage if some of them weren't armed/appearing to be "southern"?

Thanks

It would get different coverage if they were not racist bigots. Southern has nothing to do with it - plenty of northern bigots to go around, waving their Battle flags.

[LarryBnDC]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

You don’t see the stupidity in this analogy?

 You’re arguing you can’t tell a man to wear a helmet but you can tell a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Nigga, please...

[bankshot1]

Bank how are you going to die if I get a hair cut?   Take us through that.

Kid if you insist on playing the village idiot to the nth degree, I can't stop you.

I never argued that you getting a haircut would endanger me.

But stupid selfish people acting dangerously just might.

To answer your question, you singularly getting a haircut down at your local salon or barbershop will likely have no real measurable impact on me whatsoever.

So if you can find a stylist willing to do you, safely, go to it.

And give him/her a big fucking tip.

However a million of you getting a few inches off the top, or dining in at the local pizzeria for dine-in, or like Red, getting his toes done at his weekly day of beauty at his salon, may increase the risk of spread, and eventually getting to me.

And I don't give a fuck about Red's toes when it comes to the public's health.

I'm all in for an ounce of prevention is worth about $6 trillion and counting in cure.

Regulations sometimes pay for themselves.

and I'm all for opening busineses where there is minimal risk of spread, but in most of the northeast IMO we're not there yet. So I can wait another month before getting my haircut, because as offensive as my current look is, (think Lon Chaney in the Wolfman), my being a part of spreading the disease is far more offensive. 

YMMV

[Hairy Lime]

I get it - you can't explain.  Just leave it for someone else.

No, he.just sees no point in feeding the sealion.

Everyone here understands it.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

 You’re arguing you can’t tell a man to wear a helmet but you can tell a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

That’s not what I said.
That’s what you said in a complete distortion.

[LarryBnDC]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

If they’re waving guns and making threats real or implied that is political persuasion through intimidation and violence and that is terrorism.

Take a nap, Grandpa.

[kidcarter8]

Yup lets have months of hearings as people are dieing.

One side believes in facts and science and data

and one side believes that

pick one or several

1-this was a hoax
2-this will miraculously go away by itelf
3-drinking Clorox will kill the virus
4-their right to a haircut or a tatoo supercedes my right to live 

or the Govenors can act lawfully and following guidelines set out by the Federal Pandemic Task Force, to protect the citizens of their states as they best see fit.

Red got his tax cut now he wants his manicure and pedicure and if people have to die, that's capitalism at work.

Fuck him.

 

Excellent, Bank

So you will delete #4, I trust.

[LarryBnDC]

Helmets are for personal safety. Masks are for both personal safety and safety of others. Got a counter-parallel you would like to suggest?

I wear a face mask and, if I drove a motorcycle, I would wear a helmet.
But I also recognize that there are other views and people with those views have a right to protest.
You want to criticize the present day protestors as being terrorists when they are not.
A pro-choice advocate argues that a woman has a right to control her body. An anti/helmet motorcyclist argues he has the right to guard his own head.

Civil disobedience highlights the moral wrong of laws, not their unconstitutionality.  Which was what you were arguing, no matter how much you typically try to switch points. Requiring someone to wear a helmet  y law.poses the same Constitutional issue as masks. And have uniformly been upheld. Like.speedimits, seat belt laws and public nuisance laws.

Nice dance.
Helmet laws, speed limits,  Nuisancce laws etc are distractions for you.  But all of them were passed with full hearings in committees, law department review, debates, and votes from the legislative branches.
Not so with co-vid-19 regulations where all were declared by the executive branch of a municipality or state government. Despite good intentions the lockdowns are hurting a lot of people and the idea the cure can be worse than the disease is now very credible. Why anyone should be surprised that protests would ultimately rise up is beyond me. The protesters though are being demonized.
That’s too bad. But responsible governments have not missed their message

I amazed you can still talk at all with that mouth full of Koch...

[REDSTATEWARD]

Does my right to protest mean I have a constitutional  right to spit Hepatitis C laden spittle on you?

Physical threats of harm are not free speech,  they are terrorism.   Masks are mainly effective in containing your viruses.   They protect others, by capturing droplets from your coughs,  sneezes and exhalation.   They help promote public safety,  just as do laws that ban dumping raw sewage or used motor oil.   No Constitutional problem whatsoever.

LOL!
I have no problem with wearing a mask
People who do protest against being told by a government to wear them are not terrorists.

"Protest" is not threatening with a gun.

"Protest" is not threatening bodily harm.

Are you claiming otherwise?

You claimed they were terrorists.
They were not.

Yes, according to the definition of terrorism, they were.
[l
Your refusal to accept a simple truth is telling.

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

It is unlawful to threaten with weapons or to threaten bodily harm. It was in pursuit of political aims.

Hence, terrorism.

The FBI's definition of Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Threatening is violent and criminal.

Deal.

Keep trying. You have yet to find any definition of terrorism by the Michigan protesters
Except that you don’t agree with them.

[LarryBnDC]

Bank how are you going to die if I get a hair cut?   Take us through that.

You’re really a parent?