Tucker: Totalitarianism doesn't shock us any more

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
Totalitarianism is the eventual result of atrocities such as legalized murder of pre-born human beings as Saint Pope John Paul II the Great has told us.

.
FoxNews #Tucker

Tucker: Totalitarianism doesn’t shock us any more​

135,866 views

Published on May 1, 2020

Never in American history have politicians been more powerful than they are now. #FoxNews #Tucker
Click to expand...

Tucker: Totalitarianism doesn't shock us any more | On Air Videos | Fox News

 
Some examples of Governors’ totalitarianism:


Meanwhile, Gov. Ralph Northam, a pro-abortion Democrat who defended infanticide last year, is allowing abortion facilities to continue killing unborn babies in elective abortions unhindered.


But that’s disingenuous as Beshear has done nothing to stop abortion centers from killing unborn children and he refuses to follow the lead of other states that have protected unborn children from abortion and all people from the coronavirus by shutting down abortion clinics because abortions are not medically essential.


We’re going to lose this country if we’re not careful. Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela… totalitarian governments don’t work too well for the average citizens.
 
These were the same guys in some cases who a month ago was telling everyone they need to let criminals out of jail.

Now (some of them) want to jail Christians.

All in the name of “health”.
 
Mr Tucker is a classic revisionist (hopefully not a deliberate liar) where he dramatically claims that ‘never in US history’ has government had so much power.

Dramatic demographic shifts in the past century have made containing a pandemic increasingly hard. The rise of globalization, urbanization, and larger, more densely populated cities can facilitate a virus’ spread across a continent in a few hours—while the tools available to respond have remained nearly the same. Now as then, public health interventions are the first line of defense against an epidemic in the absence of a vaccine. These measures include closing schools, shops, and restaurants; placing restrictions on transportation; mandating social distancing, and banning public gatherings. (This is how small groups can save lives during a pandemic)

Of course, getting citizens to comply with such orders is another story: In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people when one refused to wear a mandatory face mask. In Arizona, police handed out $10 fines for those caught without the protective gear. But eventually, the most drastic and sweeping measures paid off. After implementing a multitude of strict closures and controls on public gatherings, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Kansas City responded fastest and most effectively: Interventions there were credited with cutting transmission rates by 30 to 50 percent. New York City, which reacted earliest to the crisis with mandatory quarantines and staggered business hours, experienced the lowest death rate on the Eastern seaboard.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/

Too many uneducated commentators out there giving their unlearned opinions as if it’s got any merit.
 
Cathoholic said:
The curve has been “flattened”.
Click to expand...
The curve is flattened and the goal is now a downturn. This is the result of stringent lockdown.

But as someone who has rejected lockdown from the start you aren’t suggesting that this is the sum of your argument are you? Flattening the curve is just incidental to your fundamental reasons for rejecting lockdown.
 
I’m suggesting just what I said.

The curve has been flattened. Time to move on with life.

If you or others think they need to remain indoors feel free to do so.

Emeraldlady . . .
In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people when one refused to wear a mandatory face mask.
Click to expand...
What do you think about that in your post Emeraldlady?

Do you think that should be the standard?
Or are you against it?

And do you think this was “the law” then in 1918 (shooting three people when one refuses to wear a mask) or something that “happened”?
 
Last edited:
If you or others think they need to remain indoors feel free to do so.
Click to expand...
People can’t just choose to stay indoors if they are sent back to work. How are you not getting this? It isn’t a choice for most people!

Workers are already striking in the US over inadequate PPE and information in the workplace, as well as inadequate general health conditions. How much worse will it be if lockdown is ended entirely?
 
Last edited:
This idea that the coronavirus will spread at a crowded bar but not a crowded church service is …interesting.
 
Trying to keep their states from dying is the new enemy.
Everyone rage against the possibility of saving ourself.
Let’s indulge our freedom and seal our fate. ( Can you believe there is a cheering section for this)
 
Cathoholic said:
If you or others think they need to remain indoors feel free to do so.
Click to expand...
I’m nearly 62 and diabetic. I’m in no hurry to de-confine.
Cathoholic said:
And do you think this was “the law” then in 1918 (shooting three people when one refuses to wear a mask) or something that “happened”?
Click to expand...
US history is full of rough justice, from lynchings without due process in the Wild West to lynchings and extreme racism for simply being black, in my lifetime.

What is relevant is not how justice was meted out in 1918, it’s how justice is meted out in 2020 presumably, one hopes, with due process and punishment that befits the crime or infraction. So your point is rather moot.
 
Read The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt and then tell me we’re living under a totalitarian system.
 
Cathoholic . . .
If you or others think they need to remain indoors feel free to do so.
Click to expand...
Regular_Atheist (assuming someone else needs to make decisions “are sent” for them) . . .
People can’t just choose to stay indoors if they are sent back to work. How are you not getting this? It isn’t a choice for most people!
Click to expand...
People can’t just choose to stay indoors if they are NOT sent back to work too. How are you not getting this? It isn’t a choice for most people!

Well Regular_Atheist. Just have them switch jobs to a job where they get paid for staying home doing nothing.

Objection: You don’t understand Cathoholic.
NOBODY is going to hire someone to sit home and do nothing!

Right.

And NOBODY is going to KEEP a hired someone to sit home and do nothing either!

They LOSE their livelihood.

Objection: Well they might get a viral infection out there.

That’s right.

And if the economy tanks, and no free “checks” are sent to them, and if employers are not going to pay them for doing nothing because now THEIR businesses are destroyed too, these people will still have to go outside and eat.

And when they do, flu virus will still be there. And RSV virus will still be there too. And corona virus will still be there as well.

Any of which can kill anybody.

But life still has to go on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top