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

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-vice-president-selection-echoes-fdr-1944-victor-davis-hanson

The motherfucker IS in his late seventies...

Biden could pick a ficus tree as VP and if the tree became President it couldn’t do worse than Trump.

[bankshot1]

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.

Nope #4 stands, as does 1,2,3 which you seem to have no issue with as it regards protracted public hearings versus taking proactive steps to slow the spread of the virus. 

And as my edited post added, a million stupid selfish people only looking out only for their narrowly defined self-interest, works against the greater good and public safety.

I don't give a fuck about Red's gnarly toes when the public's health is in the balance.

you of course are free to don a mask and clip his toe nails if you wish

[LarryBnDC]

And as my edited post added, a million stupid selfish people only looking out only for their narrowly defined self-interest, works against the greater good and public safety.

Banks.

That in a nutshell is why the GOP moves heaven and earth to suppress votes those will definitely vote against them. They also purposely make politics a zero sum, kill your opponent exercise designed to disgust the populace who says “a pox on both your houses” into not voting.

[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’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.

It was your comparison.

[luee]

Oxford professor: Possible coronavirus vaccine could show efficacy by June

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/495865-oxford-professor-possible-coronavirus-vaccine-could-show-efficacy


Finally some decent and promising news.

[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.

It was your comparison.

No. Your rewrite was a complete distortion.

[bankshot1]

And as my edited post added, a million stupid selfish people only looking out only for their narrowly defined self-interest, works against the greater good and public safety.

Banks.

That in a nutshell is why the GOP moves heaven and earth to suppress votes those will definitely vote against them. They also purposely make politics a zero sum, kill your opponent exercise designed to disgust the populace who says “a pox on both your houses” into not voting.

For a party that distrusts government, hates to govern, is generally pretty bad at it, but loves the power and almost always abuses it, I'd wish the Repubs would just get the fuck out of the business and let some competent power-hungry dems who know what the fuck they are doing take over.

If there is a silver lining to this damn thing most Americans will realize how inept and corrupted Republicans have become and are bad for their health.

[Yankguy1]

Red got a tax cut. Kid got a new car.

[luee]

The safety difference between wearing and not wearing a helmet must be enormous.

[josh]

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.

They have the right to protest.

They do not have the right to protest by threatening people with guns or violence.

Why is this so hard for you to admit?

[josh]

Yet you provide neither specificity nor case law to support your position. Hand-waving, "It's unconstitutional!" doesn't actually make an argument. It has about as much weight as "But I said so!"
 

If you want to wade through case law on helmet laws be prepared to be confused.

I waded through the case law. It was not very confusing.

Only two states found the laws violated their own constitutions. No other states have found that. And only one state has had the challenge make it to SCOTUS.

[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.
[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.

I was working on the Oklahoma town. Do you agree that they were terrorists?

From Michigan:
"Directly above me, men with rifles yelling at us." Some of his colleagues were wearing bulletproof vests, because they felt threatened.

So, yea, the Michigan folks were likely terrorists, as previously indicated. But let's start with:

Can you admit that the Oklahoma people who threatened clerks were terrorists?

[josh]

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.

It was your comparison.

No. Your rewrite was a complete distortion.

We call them "logical extrapolations," but I can see why you want to pretend it is a distortion.

Besides - I note that you claim it is not what you said, but not that you don't actually believe it.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Yet you provide neither specificity nor case law to support your position. Hand-waving, "It's unconstitutional!" doesn't actually make an argument. It has about as much weight as "But I said so!"
 

If you want to wade through case law on helmet laws be prepared to be confused.

I waded through the case law. It was not very confusing.

Only two states found the laws violated their own constitutions. No other states have found that. And only one state has had the challenge make it to SCOTUS.

and?

[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.

It was your comparison.

No. Your rewrite was a complete distortion.

We call them "logical extrapolations," but I can see why you want to pretend it is a distortion.

Besides - I note that you claim it is not what you said, but not that you don't actually believe it.

You can call “them” whatever you want.
If you and Knicks can’t understand what I wrote you both have big problems.