Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you can deny what I have posted but that doesn't invalidate it or support your position, there are clear connections between the english common law and American law but if you choose to not see it, I can't force you to.
If you'd like to prove all those links wrong feel free otherwise how can you deny the connection they prove?
once you answer that much I'll go further, but since that is the very beginning of our legal system you have to agree that it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
because if you read the history on the constitution and laws that's where much of it comes from, do you think they just pulled these ideas out of thin air?
how about you stop trying to be a smart ass and read up on these things so you don't look so ignorant?
Why You Can’t Understand the Constitution Without the Common Law
The main difference between English and U.S. safeguards is that English protections rest on statute or case law and may be changed by ordinary statute, whereas U.S. safeguards are constitutional and cannot be relaxed unless the Supreme Court later reverses its interpretation or the Constitution is amended.
if you can't see the link between English common law and the American legal system we really don't have anything else to discuss.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
oh I thought that arms were the things that hung by my side, connected to my shoulders dur-hur
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
oh they weren't just protecting guns which is why they used the term arms maybe lookup what that meant in that day and age, that might help you.
what part of precedence and common law is confusing you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
have you studied heller vs d.c.?
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courtsand legislators, from immediately after its ratification through thelate 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
I mean if you actually read it, it's a done deal.
a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Colombia, by a two to one vote, reversed the lower court's ruling (Parker v. District of Columbia (478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The appeals court held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms” and that the District's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense violated that right (Id., at 395, 399-401).
Operative Clause. In Scalia's view, the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment's text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).
Prefatory Clause. According to Scalia, the prefatory clause (“well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia as being necessary to deny Congress the power to abridge the individual right to keep and bear arms. And while the reason for codifying the prefatory clause “was to ensure the preservation of a
well-regulated militia, this does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the right to bear arms; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting” (Id., at 2801).The Court did not identify the specific standard it used to make its individual-right determination. But it rejected the rational basis standard. And it rejected Breyer's interest-balancing approach, which asks whether a law “burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out or proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests” (Id., at 2852). According to Scalia, the Second Amendment is the “product of an interest-balancing by the people . . . and it elevates above all other interests the right of law–abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (Heller at 2821). The enumeration of that right, Scalia reasons:
takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject of future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all (Id., at 2821).
While acknowledging the serious problem of handgun violence, Scalia asserts that the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” including an absolute ban on handguns in the home for self-defense (Id., at 2822).some similar cases which might be of interest
I believe I have posted, probably several time old writings, letters etc of people carrying weapons pre constitution and that it was part of the English common law
so that is what was going on pre constitution and post constitution, it has always been that way. When you understand that the constitution and bill of rights is a formal acknowledgement of inalienable rights, English common law was used for many of those rights which includes the 2a.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
then explain how individuals can purchase, own and carry firearms? You keep beating that dead horse don't ya, you need a new hobby.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
yet again scholars and legal minds have reached this conclusion along with evidence of practice, precedence and writings other than the constitution.
the right to life obviously means defense otherwise there would be no right to life if you can't defend it, I mean come on seriously?
we've been down this road so many times before, there's nothing new to discuss so why bother?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
did you watch the interview of the N.J. governor? he was asked about his orders violating the constitution and where he got the authority to do that (paraphrasing) His answer was that it was above his pay grade.
Let the lawsuits begin!!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Cuomo just said they had extra ventilators and is sending some to 2 different states, but maybe he's a liar too, dunno.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I just posted one article of which there are many that there aren't enough ventilators. You ignored it.
wow I have no idea how I could have possibly missed something like that, how many were they short? How many people didn't get ventilators that needed them? I didn't see any figures in your article but I may have missed it so help me out and point it out if you would be so kind, thanks.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
not at all, I looked up specifics and examples, you have not, best you can do is post that Trump said bad stuff with no tie to any direct outcome
do you deny there was and have been enough ventilators?
do you deny any of the links and quotes I have pulled from them?
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Pelosi Lunches in SF Chinatown, Lending Support to Businesses Amid Coronavirus Fears (Feb 24th)
Azar declared a public health emergency for the novel coronavirus on Jan. 31, and announced the travel restrictions to and from China, effective Feb. 2.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/
wait? what?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
ah you had to reach back to last year, gotcha, and that wasn't the responsibility of that state yup ok sure thing
Even, when Trump said that the virus would magically disappear by April was well beyond gross negligence, that should be impeachment material.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.
what he said was likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm? um you have some proof for that?
Trump Rejects New York’s Plea For Ventilators: ‘I Don’t Believe You Need’ That ManyI have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they’re going to be,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity
Cuomo wanted 30,000!!! ROFL how can it be gross negligence when he was right?!?!?!?! They got some, had some in stock and no one hasn't been without one so..... LOL wow you are off your rocker
that is why I dismiss, because it should and deserves to be
you are just blinded by hate.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I read it, there was nothing substantial that I read, bunch of opinions but nothing specific
can you give one, just one example of gross negligence, even in your own words is fine because I'm just not seeing it, actual actions or inactions, not Trump said this, said that, that's just nonsense. There is not one thing in post 177 that points to gross negligence by Trump that I can see, perhaps you can point it out?
it's a whole lot of opinion and the few facts do not point to any gross negligence by Trump.
I'm constantly asking you to point things out and for specifics yet you don't provide any, just opinion pieces, if you don't have any that's fine, let's move on then.
in my post #182 the response timing of the U.S. and other countries were compared and a conclusion was made, those are specific facts.
The stockpile of ventilators was depleted, who makes up the number needed for the stockpile? when was it depleted and why? again, not one person who needed a ventilator went without one. (specific facts)
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
what, specifically do you see as gross negligence?
what was unreasonable? "which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm"
if that's the standard then travel bans should(should have been) be permanent unless mandatory and comprehensive health screens are done prior to entry. the potential for some new virus or bacterial is always a possibility as is the spread of flu and other illnesses.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
sure as I said hindsight is 20/20 and mistakes or missteps will always happen, nothing I read in that post is gross negligence imo, I'm really only interested in actual outcomes not the stuff that Trump says which to this day still makes me cringe, I can't stand it, but that's a different topic.
“To be fair, the United States was one of the first Western countries to impose any kind of formal travel restriction against China,” Kiernan told us. “With the exceptions of the Czech Republic (suspended visas seven days after U.S. implemented restrictions) and Italy (suspended flights two days before U.S. implemented restrictions), the EU did not impose travel restrictions against China specifically. Australia imposed its entry ban on travelers from China, which was quite similar to the United States’, one day before the United States acted. New Zealand and Israel imposed their travel bans on the same day as the United States.”“Taking this all together, what this data shows is that the United States was neither behind nor ahead of the curve in terms of imposing travel restrictions against China,” Kiernan said.
that to me pretty much settles the issue of timing with the China travel ban.
the respirators is a non issue as no state ran out, not even close
the p.p.e. however is/was a legitimate concern and there's plenty of finger pointing to be had, but again not gross negligence. The resupply effort etc was very good.
anything else you can think of that I/we may have missed?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
fine you win, happy? you're dismissed, have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
you're right I did dismiss it without reading it and I shouldn't have done that, I'll go back and read it.
Trump reportedly delivered this statement to his own health and human services secretary, Alex Azar, after Azar tried to warn him that Covid-19 could escalate into a pandemic, the night before Trump issued the ban.The first reported instance of a Covid-19 case in the US was confirmed on January 21. On January 31, Trump announced a restriction on all incoming travel from China, effective on February 2.
Jan 21 - Feb 2 12 days, seems reasonable
Fauci stressed that a huge number of considerations, from economic to logistical concerns, hampered the efforts, none of which are under Trump’s direct control.
did I miss anything important?
what are reasonable expectations in such an unknown situation and what role and responsibility do the states have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
there were online colleges before all of this which probably gives that whole idea a huge boost. in theory that could reduce costs since the expenses of classrooms etc would be minimal. the antisocial behavior could also increase with decreased interaction I suppose.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
this was a drive by topic anyway as is the usual m.o. of the originator.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
does your condescending post add to the conversation or does it just make you feel superior?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I already showed you how the 1st amendment is not threatened by Biden but you refuse to listen? This is not on me.
I showed you his intent and what he has been and will try to do, but you refuse to listen? This is not on me.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why can't you also freely admit that your system causes some people to have more power in voting for president than other people?
you never asked that question, just like ImaBench pointed out, some states do have more power and it doesn't seem to be proportionate, but again I would defer to him as he knows much more than I do on the subject.
If it were up to me I would consider something like after a 2 term president the other party gets to chose the president, something more balanced, everything is so polarized it's getting down right scary, we need a better balance.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
the post to which you are referring was not directed at you, n8nrgmi understood what I was saying, if he needed or wanted clarification he would have asked, we've talked many times before.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
it was a vox link he used, so there's that, and the typical no named expert ghosts, but hey that's what passes as "facts" to some people.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
well he said it best and knows far more than I, so read it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’s been ghosting me cause we got him cornered. Either Fauci is lying or the media lying. Either way we win
I don't understand why he's so evasive if he's so confident in his beliefs, if there was something negative in relation to covid I would have like to discuss it but he won't or can't. It's a shame really that people can't emotionally detach themselves from the simplest of things to have a conversation about it. Suffering from tds must be hell, my thoughts and prayers.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Why is he a liar? Your video was from yesterday, not months ago when Trump was bungling. We need to listen to Fauci, not Trump.
what he says is inconsistent with your post, so did he ignore them or not, based on the video Fauci makes it clear when he and the other doc suggested something Trump acted immediately, so which is it?
A new investigation reveals Trump ignored experts on Covid-19 for months
I acknowledged several times that Trump says bad things, talks bad, grossly exaggerates blah blah blah you have not shown any connection between that and any adverse outcomes related to covid.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
see post #6
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't like you talking about the idea of equal? I don't give a fk what you talk about LOL wow you give yourself WAY too much credit.
will you freely admit that you think someone in north dakota should have more influence over who becomes president than someone in california?
I will freely admit that 2 states should not be able to elect the president when ever they chose to vote together.
it's funny this only ever became such a hot topic after Trump won, there is no limit to the spread of tds.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
He's starting to listen to them, but he didn't before when he was saying things like the virus will disappear on it's own in April like magic or when he wanted to open the country by Easter. That definitely isn't advice any sane health official would offer.A new investigation reveals Trump ignored experts on Covid-19 for months
lol so Fauci is a liar?
Why not educate yourself? Catch up on the last 4 months of current events and you'll see for yourself.
you made the accusation/claim the burden is yours not mine.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
equal in what way? that 1=1? ok, equal out come? obviously not as ImaBench clearly explained. Have you nothing better to do than this extremely lame attempt at a "gotcha"?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm not arguing that Trump doesn't talk a lot of shit but feel free to keep beating that dead horse.
how does that relate to the actual handling of covid?
I won't ask again because it appears you don't have any answers since you keep avoiding any semblance of an answer.
Created:
-->
@nonjudgmental
In other words you dont know what the truth is.
the truth to what question?
are you going to start talking in numbers and symbols because I do like it when you do that, it's funny.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I almost, almost applaud your failed attempt to be smug, problem is, that question was directed at you it wasn't rhetorical, can't even give you a "nice try" sorry, but that was a pretty awful attempt. You do not possess that skill yet, keep trying.
I'll restate my question to you, how do you consider it making all votes equal if 2 out of 50 states will choose who is president? 48 states, a majority of the land mass won't matter under mob rule.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
pretend you are only trying to make votes equal.
I never said any such thing at all, mob rule, majority rule has some very ugly past dealings, perhaps you should consider that.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
“empty shelf.”
hyperbole bs, and? I don't like it, but how does that relate to the actual handling of covid?
respirators I address already post #87
I heard you the many times before, Trump said this, Trump said that blah blah blah and the result of what he said was...............?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I believe there is no perfect system, but for everyone to have some representation the college is necessary, otherwise, as I said no election would be needed California and New York would tell the rest of us who the next president would be. How would that make all votes equal? 2 states making the choice for the other 48 and territories would make all votes equal?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the U.S. is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy, this has been discussed many times. There are reason the electoral college exists and why it should. If it were mob rules then California and New York would always pick the president and the rest of the states, their votes would be meaningless. This has already been figured out, the population of those 2 states and the fact they would vote the same makes the college necessary otherwise the other states would have no representation of any consequence with regards to electing presidents.
If the population was evenly distributed over the U.S. then perhaps a plain majority could work, but that's not possible, thus we have a Republic.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Trump really does live rent free in your head and you don't even realize it. What started out as a potential conversation about the handling of covid has turned into you saying Trump this, Trump that, the right blah blah blah, everything except covid lol you've really gone off the deep end, sadly you can't see how irrational you are coming across.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
no more proof that you have nothing other than biased opinion is required, you may move along.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
ok, I thought you might have something more than your opinion, which clearly no matter what Trump does or doesn't do will never be good, but that's common from left leaning people. As is the inability to articulate a position but rather the shotgun approach of links with no context, it's common.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm merely addressing what you quoted
Fact check: Did the Obama administration deplete the federal stockpile of N95 masks?
We rate this claim TRUE because it is supported by our research. There is no indication that the Obama administration took significant steps to replenish the supply of N95 masks in the Strategic National Stockpile after it was depleted from repeated crises. Calls for action came from experts at the time concerned for the country’s ability to respond to future serious pandemics. Such recommendations were, for whatever reason, not heeded.
now I did that because of the absolute words and style the writer of your quote used and because of that I dismiss it as biased and not fact based.
If, however they blamed the problems with the government, since it's been around long before the Trump presidency, then that would be accurate and fair. But they did not. I'm not interested in examining every claim they made since it was easy enough to debunk the one I put in above.
I could go into the whole ventilator issue, with Cuomo lying and fear mongering over them, when in fact no one has ever not gotten one that needed one and in fact they had more than enough, but I think my point is made.
Obviously things can alway be done better because we don't live in a perfect world and hindsight is 20/20. It's ever difficult to prepare for the unknown and things you haven't experienced and never thought you'd have to.
As I posted to G.P. about the swine flu, that came from Mexico, how well was that handled do you think? were the borders closed? No? why not? Because it wasn't Trump so that one gets a pass? Or maybe it was unexpected and it wasn't obvious to handle the unexpected etc? But we couldn't extent that same courtesy to anyone else, or maybe to everyone else except Trump?
please self reflect and ask yourself if you are holding every president to similar standards (to the best of your ability) that have had to deal with similar situations, or is your dislike for Trump so strong you aren't able to do that?
Hope: a feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.
want something to happen or be the case.
how the fk can you have 'false hope'? LOL do you see why I didn't take that link/quote seriously?
the phrase false hope is an oxymoron.” An oxymoron is combination of contradictory or incongruous words [
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic,
Among children in China, illness severity was lower with 94% having asymptomatic, mild or moderate disease,
it's a bit all over the place, one thing everyone should think about is the lack of tests, therefore you wouldn't test asymptomatic people because, why would you?
the stats are probably higher because of that reason.
Created:
-->
@nonjudgmental
the closest thing to truth
that is the key isn't it.
there are 2 sides to every story, somewhere in the middle is the truth
the question can't be answered really
Who here would you trust to give you the closest thing to truth
many believe what they say is the truth even if I don't think it is, so the "closest thing to truth" could be mere opinion based on evidence they believe to be true, imo it's similar to faith.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm not interested it talking about Trump supporters, perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you were going to give some examples and specifics as to why Trump has done/did a bad job on covid. I've asked several times and after many posts you have yet to do so. Red herrings aside if you can't give examples or even hypotheticals as to what you perceive is/has/was done poorly you are just tilting at windmills.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
so what would be the point of me copy pasting on this forum for you?
maybe I misread or missed whatever valid point you thought your links had?
do most people just take your word for things and not challenge you?
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
no, what speaks volumes is making claims and trying to pass it off as fact instead of a biased opinion because it's someone you don't like, I've asked numerous times for examples and facts, best you could do is toss up some links, the first batch I addressed which you had no counter to, so you tossed up 5 more. The problem as you put it, is with you and your line of thinking. Not once on this thread have a said Trump was doing a good job or really commented on it at all, but rather trying to get YOU to prove your assumptions, which you can't seem to do, you can't even articulate your "feelings" with any kind of specificity or examples.
The problem is staring back at you in the mirror, take a very good look.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I read the first batch you posted and commented on them, I found nothing of value in them, then you post 5 more with no quotes or pointing out any useful parts to your links and you expect people to do the work for you? good luck with that. If you had any kind of evidence unrelated to tds you haven't shown it yet.
Many claim he's done a terrible job with covid but can't explain what that means or give any examples that don't require hindsight.
if you just want to make empty claims, that's fine, however if you can point out where, at time period 1 because action x was/wasn't taken then y did/didn't happen which lead to z outcome then that would be useful and something to discuss. But I'm not going to find that for you in the links you post, that's your obligation, not mine.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Agreed, you provide links for others to wade through but demand others quote the relevant facts for you. How convenient.
I provided quotes and links if people wanted to verify and read more, unlike what you do, I follow the general format for posting like most everyone else, look at other posts and they look like mine, not yours.
if you can't quote pertinent information from your links there must not be anything of value that you would highlight and want someone to read, which is the point of following the format which I try to use.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The Biden amendment would need to curtail the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans “the freedom of speech.” In its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed that spending money on a political campaign is a constitutionally protected exercise of that right.
you quoted that, it speaks for itself along with his desire to remove the 230, how many examples do you need?
here's some irony
Former Vice President Joe Biden didn't hesitate to lecture liberals over their eroding support for free speech this week.
even he admits what the liberals are doing, mind you that was in 2017 and he's moved much further left since then.
again more eroding of rights, not just the 2a, but the 4th and the 5th
let's not forget he is going to let Beta O'Rourke run his gun policy.
hardly seems pro constitution.
Created: