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]

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?

Cliven Bundy

[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.

and?

You said: If you want to wade through case law, it's confusing.
I said: No, it isn't.
You said: Why did so many states stop?
I said: Retraction of the laws. Only two states lost the laws to court cases.

In other words, since you seem unable to extrapolate, the overwhelming likelihood is that the laws are Constitutional by both federal and state documents.

[barton]

Good lord but it reeks of sardines and beach balls in here.   

[LarryBnDC]

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

Not my problem you can’t bullshit your way to logic. Who do you think you are, Donald Trump?

[REDSTATEWARD]

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

Not my problem you can’t bullshit your way to logic. Who do you think you are, Donald Trump?

LOL!

[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?

You said: If you want to wade through case law, it's confusing.
I said: No, it isn't.
You said: Why did so many states stop?
I said: Retraction of the laws. Only two states lost the laws to court cases.

In other words, since you seem unable to extrapolate, the overwhelming likelihood is that the laws are Constitutional by both federal and state documents.

We once had 50 states mandating helmets for motorcycles.
Now we have how many?
And you say case law is not confusing.
Lol!

[kiidcarter8]

They may have been following the data.

[kiidcarter8]

65-year old teacher with diabetes "may have to sit it out for a while"

-  Trump

[kiidcarter8]

"I think we will have a vaccine by the end of the year.  I really think that.  The doctors will say, 'no, you cannot say that' - I will say what I think."

-  Middle Finger Trump

[Yankguy1]

Any mention of 73-year olds with dementia?

[kiidcarter8]

Where were you, Fauci?

"21 people in the room - I'm the only one who wanted to shut (the country) down (to China  flights)"

-  Defiant Trump

[kiidcarter8]

Could we make it mandatory that teachers of a certain age must retire - or are the unions (or the House) too strong?

[LarryBnDC]

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?

You said: If you want to wade through case law, it's confusing.
I said: No, it isn't.
You said: Why did so many states stop?
I said: Retraction of the laws. Only two states lost the laws to court cases.

In other words, since you seem unable to extrapolate, the overwhelming likelihood is that the laws are Constitutional by both federal and state documents.

We once had 50 states mandating helmets for motorcycles.
Now we have how many?
And you say case law is not confusing.
Lol!

Lobbying/bribing legislators to pass stupid laws for stupid people.

[LarryBnDC]

Could we make it mandatory that teachers of a certain age must retire - or are the unions (or the House) too strong?

Hell, why not just dump them on an ice floe?

[kiidcarter8]

His age, previous medical history, including chronic anemia and hypertension, and two intubations, put Bulauitan in danger. But because he met the qualifications for compassionate care as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control, he was able to get a cocktail of experimental medications, including hydroxychloroquine.





And it worked?   Imagine that.



https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus-new-york-surgeon-beats-covid19-doctor-sons-help-miracle