Preserve, protect and defend

[kazoolaw]

You're not providing "proof" of what you claim you are. This is not "proof" that "there are any number of people" who feel that there is "no part of a citizens life government cannot control by whatever means it feels appropriate."

I also don't think that you are summarizing Chuck's comments accurately. He is not saying that which you claim he is. You keep exaggerating what he states in order to have a strawman to argue against.

Just because I think that the feds have the power to regulate workplace safety does NOT mean that I believe that they have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. I DONT believe that, not do I believe that that is even legally accurate in reality.

Well, there are all those who propose/support the vaccine mandate. I suppose it took a number of people, including Robert Klain, Biden's chief of staff, who are in favor. [Note, be careful what you tweet.]

Chuck doesn't see how anyone's freedom is affected by the mandate: "No one has been able to explain how their freedoms are being restricted...but never they their freedoms are being restricted. " Post 101
The Fifth Circuit did:
"For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the
liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between
their job(s) and their jab(s)."

I doubt I misunderstood the import of Chuck saying "Desperate times require desperate measures." Post 106.

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion. I tried to hit some high points in what I cited. There's more:
"The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad." "At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive. " "It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here." [ another flip flop]


We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.

[TSherbs]

We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You're free to see it however you choose.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion.
[/SIZE]

This is just crankiness.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

[QUOTE=kazoolaw;343470]

We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

It has the both the responsibilty and power to protect US citizens.

[dneal]

Responsibility?

IMG_0137.JPG

[TSherbs]

Responsibility?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]SNIP [/ATTACH]

Yeah, that's what I said to the last cop who pulled me over: "Hey, it's the seatbelt's job to save the other guy, amiright?"

[dneal]

Seriously?

Seatbelt's job? Protect person wearing seatbelt. Vaccine's job? Protect person vaccinated.

Some time ago, I pointed out that:

You can contract COVID whether you are vaccinated or not.
You can transmit COVID whether you are vaccinated or not.

At best (but there's no real way to know since we can't have control groups when we're dealing with individuals), the vaccination reduces severe symptoms and potential hospitalization.

In the case of the OSHA mandate, if you're in a company with 99 employees or less; there's logically not enough workplace danger to mandate vaccinations. But once you trip that magic threshold of 100, it's dangerous enough to mandate vaccinations. Doesn't matter what you do, how many people you come in contact with during the course of your work day, etc...

And all of that ignores immunity status for those who recovered from COVID.

The insanity of the "rules" is why people call "shenanigans". It's not about prevention.

[TSherbs]

It's not about prevention.

Yes it is, regardless of what you or I post here.

And yes, I was serious about the seatbelt analogy and the excuse-making of a drunk driver (the irresponsible human behaving dangerously--and criminally--toward his fellow humans). The tweet you posted dismissed all human responsibility toward other members of the community by stating that an inanimate object (personified, in fact) bore the entire responsibility of protecting people. I consider that erroneous, and gave an example of how our legal system already holds humans responsible for dangerous or reckless behavior regardless of the safety measures that other people can take.

[kazoolaw]

I understand that no one wants to read a court opinion.
[/SIZE]

This is just crankiness.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Don't be cranky then, just read it. How many times have you ripped dneal for too long a video for you to watch?

[kazoolaw]

We agree that the government does not legally have the power to do whatever they want whenever they want. But, as shown by the attempted mandate, it's not for lack of trying.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You're free to see it however you choose.

And you're free to ignore the truth at your own peril.

[TSherbs]

I don't mean any disrespect with this, kazoo, but I don't come to FPG for "truth" except for some specifics about pens. There is not much "truth" on these back pages, just a lot of rhetoric and bluster and play (among the more facetious).

And I'll read parts of that court document when I feel like it, thanks. I am not much worried about governmental over-reach over aq vaccine mandate for companies over 100 employees. Certainly not the way you are. If you feel "imperiled," then perhaps you should build a bunker. I'll stay out here in the sun and golden leaves of Maine, thank you.

I tried to get my booster vax at work today, but they ran out between all the students (ages 5+) and the other adults getting their boosters before me. Damn! The vax is popular in my area, and I am glad.

[kazoolaw]

TS-
You are free to be dismissive and cozy in your cocoon. Read what's there to be seen or not: the world moves on whether you know or care. Enjoy your retirement.

[TSherbs]

It has the both the responsibilty and power to protect US citizens.

Yup, right in the preamble to the US Const.

[TSherbs]

TS-
... the world moves on....

Yes, it does. And we are approaching the solstice, and the sun is going down quite early here these days. It's important to get some sun while one can. The other day, when I had 4 visitors staying in my house from South Carolina, we lost power for four hours in a storm. Very dark! We have no heat, no water, no nothing when we lose power because we are off town water/sewer and I have no generator. These southerners got a little cold and scared (I live next to a cemetery with graves from the 1700s).

Yes, this too shall pass.

[dneal]

Yes it is, regardless of what you or I post here.

You're wrong, regardless of what you or I post here.

Hmmm, is that really the way to formulate a compelling argument?

And yes, I was serious about the seatbelt analogy and the excuse-making of a drunk driver (the irresponsible human behaving dangerously--and criminally--toward his fellow humans). The tweet you posted dismissed all human responsibility toward other members of the community by stating that an inanimate object (personified, in fact) bore the entire responsibility of protecting people. I consider that erroneous, and gave an example of how our legal system already holds humans responsible for dangerous or reckless behavior regardless of the safety measures that other people can take.

The seatbelt analogy is simply nonsensical. It would be more accurate if you were referring to a vaccinated person who is infected and transmitting to others. Also, you didn't introduce the "drunk driver" aspect until this explanation. Perhaps intended earlier, but not apparent.

So if we are going to talk about dismissing things, why do you dismiss the majority of my post, and pull one phrase out of context?

Is it not true that a vaccination is primarily intended to protect the person who receives the vaccine?
Is it not true that a vaccinated person can contract COVID?
Is it not true that a vaccinated person can transmit COVID?

Is there some reason you dismiss those questions (previously posted as assertions)? Can you explain the logic in a 99-employee company not needing vaccines mandated, but a 100+ employee company being subject to the requirement? Is there some reason you dismissed that?

COVID is with us, and it is not going away. It is in multiple animal reservoirs now. Gorillas in the Atlanta zoo. Tigers in Omaha (I would include the Snow Leopards there, but they all died). Deer in Iowa. Dogs and cats in people's households. Do you know what that means?

Vaccination will help protect an individual's chance of contracting (perhaps). The mandate, masking and lockdown theater won't - because "science" - but the charade continues. Consider Austria's recently enacted lockdown (and there's a certain Schadenfreude from the irony of the "papers, please" requirement). Unvaccinated aren't allowed outside their homes, except for when they are (to go get groceries and other essentials). It is simply insane, yet many ignore what simple common sense should be telling them, and follow along to demonstrate their gute Staatsbürgerschaft; and perhaps to scold others for their lack thereof, because finger-wagging is so satisfying.

Perhaps we should be focusing on the most effective treatment in order to reduce death rates - instead of mocking and censoring (quite literally) the doctors and scientists whose professional opinions don't contribute to the multi-billion dollar investment into wundershots and other magic pills. Is anyone profiting from that? I wonder.

--edit--

Let's revisit and consider again the C.S. Lewis quote on moral busybodies.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[Chuck Naill]

TS-
You are free to be dismissive and cozy in your cocoon. Read what's there to be seen or not: the world moves on whether you know or care. Enjoy your retirement.

He seems to post from a wide perspective and more balance than most. I wouldn't get to personal if I were you.

[TSherbs]

@dneal

I'm not interested in getting baited into disputation. So, sometimes, like this time, I don't even respond to a single line from your post (except your general question about my motivation). I try to be pretty clear about my motivations. This is just casual chat to me. Nothing is being proven or disproven, nothing won or lost, nothing solved. These threads tend to be mostly a negative energy reservoir that I have slipped into. I am more careful now around the edges.

You might see it differently. Have at it. I occasionally agree with you, occasionally disagree with you.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Whoever your responding toward, I agree. Same here.

[dneal]

@dneal

I'm not interested in getting baited into disputation. So, sometimes, like this time, I don't even respond to a single line from your post (except your general question about my motivation). I try to be pretty clear about my motivations. This is just casual chat to me. Nothing is being proven or disproven, nothing won or lost, nothing solved. These threads tend to be mostly a negative energy reservoir that I have slipped into. I am more careful now around the edges.

You might see it differently. Have at it. I occasionally agree with you, occasionally disagree with you.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Perhaps you might not be so disputative if you don't want to be "baited" into disputation. Your "casual chat" seems more like drive-by commenting with a superficial level of thought. When that's pointed out, you post this sort of thing about what you don't want. In military parlance, you "pop-smoke".


p.s.: I don't believe I addressed any motivation on your part. I merely asked questions.

[TSherbs]

p.s.: I don't believe I addressed any motivation on your part. I merely asked questions.

Your "why" questions are motivation questions. I answered them.

See here:

...why do you dismiss the majority of my post, and pull one phrase out of context?

....

Is there some reason you dismiss those questions (previously posted as assertions)?

So, like I said, I am merely answering your motivation questions...the ones that you directly asked me.