Mandatory mask poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgaw1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To be clear, there still a gross under supply of protective equipment for healthcare providers. Who are still using and reusing Masks over and over again.
 
I’m a federalist and an old school conservative. I believe that federal taxes should be minimal and used only for what I believe are the proper roles of the federal government, which includes only a few things, like the military. The rest should be taken care of by the states, counties, and towns. So things like libraries and banks mentioned by another poster would be managed at those levels. Centralizing everything, including health care, banking, and all of our alphabetic agencies was never intended by our founding fathers.

This great American experience is and can only be successful if people are to govern themselves. We can only be free when we are free of the massive overreach of our federal system. I understand the gut reaction to this is generally then “don’t call 911” and “I hope you breathe polluted air” and “die from tainted food and medicine”, but my core belief, which courses through every cell of my being, is that evil and deception and foul play can never be stopped, no matter how much the federal government gets involved. This means that people are going to die no matter what. It is part of life.

My belief, and yes, this is truly what I believe, is that these agencies like the FDA have only served to reduce our freedom. If people were able to organize at the state and local levels, because they choose to do it themselves, rather than letting federal government agencies run everything with a “one-sized brush fits all” approach, people who choose to deceive and run foul medicines would be run out of town. I know, I’m in the minority on this.

So to really address your question, yes, I believe hospitals should be run locally and privately. Heck the Church has over 5,000 she runs and is the biggest private institution of hospitals in the world. I’m for locally supported police and fire fighters and 911. Let each state, county and town work out what is best for them and let my local and state taxes drive those things, so when my state, county or town does something I don’t like, I am free to move to another state to find another method. This is what our founders believed.

When the federal government runs nearly everything, federalism is dead and there is no escaping. You cannot go to another state and find something that may work better for you.
 
JoeFreedom said:
So to really address your question, yes, I believe hospitals should be run locally and privately.
Click to expand...
Yes - I agree. My question though was more about capacity in those privately run hospitals. The idea behind a health mandate is that without one, the private hospitals would be overrun. It’s the basic concept of “leadership”. It’s all well and good to talk about “old school conservatism”, but in any community there needs to be leadership, no?

Also - whenever you grant someone a right, you take away a right from somebody else. I have a right to a bed in an ICU at a (privately run) hospital. When a leader takes away your right to go maskless, he or she grants me the right to a bed in the hospital (maybe).
 
I know I may anger some, but in 2018, there was a huge flu epidemic that went virtually unnoticed. Hospitals were being overrun and beds and PPE were scarce. But amazingly, the hospitals did what was needed (e.g.: transferring patients and so forth) and managed. No lockdowns, no abridging of religious freedom, no mandates to wear masks…

Yes, leadership should be incorporated at all levels, otherwise we would be run by non-leaders.

Let me be clear, rights are not given nor granted by our government, but inherent from our Creator and protected by our government. So rights cannot be taken away. So the statement “granting rights to one takes rights away from another” is a flawed statement. Privileges can be given and taken away, but even still, if a privilege is lost, it is not gained by someone else, nor if a privilege is given, it is not lost by another.

There is no right which guarantees anyone a bed at a hospital. Healthcare is not a right, which so many people believe. This is a touchy and emotional subject, but our constitutional right to life does not give me a right to take a bed or be provided a bed.
 
Just hope everyone who said yes will stay consistent and keep that mask on permanently. There are plenty of deaths due to other viruses we spread and you don’t want to be a murderer for spreading colds to the wrong person.
 
JoeFreedom said:
So rights cannot be taken away.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking legislative terms. For example - up until 1865, the right to freedom was taken away (by a government) from an entire race of people. When their right to freedom was granted (by government), economic rights were taken from plantation owners (the “right” to free labor).

Closer to home - your right to drive at any speed you want is taken away from you in the form of a speed limit. You gave that right up to the general public who were granted the right to drive more safely. Every time a right is granted, one is taken away.
 
TULIPed said:
For example - up until 1865, the right to freedom was taken away (by a government) from an entire race of people. When their right to freedom was granted (by government), economic rights were taken from plantation owners (the “right” to free labor).
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s make a distinction. Certainly a government can legislatively remove the ability to exercise their right to vote but that right is never truly taken. It still exists, just as our human dignity exists, which can never be taken away. The government never really took it, they just prevented people from using it. See the subtle distinction?
 
Last edited:
That is more pedantic than substantial. “Taken away”, “abridged”, “allowed to exercise.” pfft. However it is worded the reality of limitations of rights for the rights of another remains as much a guiding principle as the Golden Rule. I see your distinction, but it is a distinction with no substantial difference outside of rhetoric.
 
I take one-sided news stories with a grain of salt. The old saw about everyone in prison says they are innocent is not quite true, but there is a tendency for one to see their own side of a confrontation. If a news reporter, or whatever this writer styles himself, wants a one-sided story, asking one side will give the desired result. Do you notice everything is from Linscott’s point of view?
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
Oh, because the report came from evil Fox, right?
Click to expand...
No. I am a native English speaker capable of reading. That story told one side only. That is a matter of fact. It is a matter of opinion, one I hold, that one person telling the one side of a conflict is not reliable.

In the CNN report, there is mention that this is not just about not signing a document, but that she kept going out in public, with the active COVID virus, after being told to stay at home, and still would not agree to quarantine herself. This type of order is not new. There are several laws from when people with AIDS were infecting others making it a criminal offense to knowingly put others in danger of infection like this.
 
Last edited:
The same story is told in each of those news reports, but you have already made up your mind that it’s some vast right-wing conspiracy made up by Trump and the nasty Fox News. So CNN and MSN must also be lying to you.

Per the last article:
" D.L. is not the only Louisville resident ordered to wear ankle monitors to contain the spread of the coronavirus. According to WDRB, there are three other known cases so far. Two other people who live in the same home — one who has tested positive, and the other who has not — were ordered to remain in their home last week after both refused to stay isolated.

And another man was put under house arrest after he went out shopping despite having tested positive for the coronavirus, according to WDRB."

So you’re wrong, there is an effort to put ankle bracelets on people who defy our totalitarian leaders oppression.
 
Last edited:
JoeFreedom said:
So you’re wrong, there is an effort to put ankle bracelets on people who defy our totalitarian leaders oppression.
Click to expand...
Wrong? Again, for someone who wanted precision in English you are quick to abandon it. No one is “wrong” for not agreeing with you, as you do not represent any sort of absolute standard of what is truth.

Furthermore, you stated earlier you stated, " If people were able to organize at the state and local levels, because they choose to do it themselves,…" This action was the exact type you advocated for earlier - a local court deciding to limit a threat in the local community.
 
I don’t need to hear the other side to see that this is government overreach. Refusing to sign a document that asks you to agree with something that you don’t agree with, should not result in a house arrest and ankle monitoring. She already demonstrated willingness to be in compliance with the law by getting tested before traveling. She could have just gotten in her car and driven to her mother’s house out-of-state without testing. She was self-quarantining and had not refused to do so. It was a few days after refusing to sign the documents that they showed up at her door. If she was going to travel despite testing positive, she would most likely have gone already.

Considering the rioting and looting that is being done while officials look the other way, it’s ridiculous for this couple and their small daughter to be on house arrest without actually violating anything. Even if the other side of the story would happen to be that she did in fact say she was refusing to self-quarantine, I think house arrest would not be necessary unless there was actual proof of a violation.
 
It’s like @Elizabeth3 said, this is oppression. This is totalitarianism. This is tyranny. If you want it, go take it elsewhere. Her constitutional and God-given rights have been egregiously violated, all because some believe if she leaves the house she will be a mass murderer.

These conversations clearly test my patience and my charity because all the things you are pushing for will eventually lead us down this path, and when it comes for you I will have no sympathy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top