We have had it with official lies

You should have added anyone that thinks someone is trying to kill them because they refuse to believe all the lies is an idiot and should remain on lock down until death naturally rescues them.

Is it just me or does the soldier look like young Harrison Ford??

Now that you mention it, yes

I am not the one commenting, even I didn't think that meme would take off. The reality is both sides are right. People in hard hit ares should stay in, people in other areas can go back to work safely. The other truth is they will never agree and both groups claim the right to decide for the other.

Well that's a deceptively rational-sounding and fair-sounding response. But you're saying that its ok for everyone to do what they want to. So you're essentially giving yourself permission to kill people. See? That's not good, LaForge.

I'd be much more impressed if you said something like "buddy, I need to eat and pay rent. I'm going back to work and I'll try very hard to minimise personal interactions and be conscious of my surroundings." Then I could think, hey! What the he'll happened to Forge??

Last year we had the ability to do as we pleased as long as we were prepared to pay for it. Nothing has changed except people in suits granted themselves the ability to predict the future and decide how each of us should think, act and live.

I refuse to play, I have been around my social circle throughout this and I do not know anyone that knows anyone that has had covid. Odds are based on spread ratios I never will. My body my choice, based on my social circle I was low risk and even lower to others. I did avoid large crowds, the elderly and anyone that I thought was at risk. Common sense works, risky behavior doesn't

Throughout this mess mail, food, fuel and a thousand other products and good kept moving. Tens of thousands possibly millions went out daily, the virus spread at the same rate as Sweden which never locked down. In places it might have been needed and could still be but their is little reason to expect rural America to hide from a big city problem.

it's not just a 'big city problem'. the virus can spread anywhere people congregate. just because it hasn't percolated thru the country as quickly as in the cities doesn't mean it won't eventually. people have have hastened and exacerbated the pervasiveness of the epidemic by making excuses as you are doing now. that part of the problem is self-perpetuating because of the actions you and your brethren have chosen and continue to choose.

But it's ok for all of us to kill others EVERY flu season just because its not as sorta, probably, who knows, a bit more deadly (maybe) and we don't want the inconvenience anyway.

You and I and everyone else participated in killing over 60,000! Americans, hospitalizing over 800,000!, in the 2017-18 flu season (a whopping TWO short years ago). You have been a participant year after year in killing 12,000-60,000 people. But COVID 19! More potent but doesn't spread as quickly as the flu, so the over all effect evens out to a typical bad flu season, which we get every few years but no one gives a shit about.

And next flu season we will do the same, pretending like this didn't happen, participate in the deaths of tens of thousands of people again while we go about our daily lives. And it's a good bet it will be worse next season because COVID-19 has yet to run its natural course, AND IT WILL, but we will not be able to afford another nation wide shut down.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-response-sweden-avoids-isolation-economic-ruin/

(I include this for a good laugh :)) https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20200405132046AAIGems

This response is not about COVID-19 or "saving" people, because we don't give shit year after year otherwise. Think of the MILLIONS! of lives the world could've saved just in the last ten years alone. The effing hypocrisy is sickening.

if you were saying we could and should do more to protect each other every year, that would be awesome. but you seem to be saying that since we don't protect people from flu as well as we could, we shouldn't protect them from this virus either. you're quite the righteous humanitarian, Marzie.

I'm a realist. Unlike the virtual signaling hypocrites that won't take responsibility year after year, and then pretending they're above it all when its put in front of them, knowing they'll ignore it again, like they always have, down the road.

Like the schmucks that put their loved ones in the care homes cause its too much bother for them to make the sacrifice in their lives, then have the nerve to get upset that the under paid staff don't give them the utmost love and attention...reality is harsh, you stick your mom in a mediocre facility and guess what she gets, mediocre care, cause you didn't want to be bothered otherwise.

oh Marzie. my mom was never in a care home or any such thing. she passed away long ago, free and on her own terms. are you trying to work thru your own issues here, or are you that $17 an hour mediocre care taker?

oh. well since your mom wasn't no one's mom must be...I guess there aren't 1.3 million people in care homes...Thanks for clearing that up...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/nursing-home-care.htm

https://www.propublica.org/article/nursing-homes-violated-basic-health-standards-allowing-the-coronavirus-to-explode

well. i'll just let you alone with your thoughts then.

My actions or mankinds? Not much changed around me except for the levels of fear. All pandemics end, when this one does is anyones guess. I am an essential worker, it might be news to you but the world is ok, I haven't seen any differences except for everything is closed. I think it ok to end the lock down and some medical experts agree and some do not. You do what you want to do because the experts really are just guessing anyway. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I know that I am doing what I have always done and I do not need someone in a suit to get in my way. Eventually even you circle of friends will leave your safe areas. If me and my circle are gone by then I guess you can pat yourself on your back. I am betting on being right here welcoming you outdoors.

you aren't good at complex ideas and that's ok. no one is worried about you. it's the seniors and at-risk people that you're putting in danger. when you wear a mask, it's not to protect you. it's to protect others from what you might be carrying. you may not care what others do because you don't feel at risk. but when you do as you please, you're endangering other people. and when you and tens of millions of Americans do the same, endangerment becomes guaranteed death for thousands or more. haven't seen any differences? look up covid-19 death toll. that's 50,000 plus higher than it used to be. maybe you don't worry about things that you can't see. well that's why we have the CDC and WHO. Trump thinks the same way. he's not qualified to make decisions for the country and after three years, he still doesn't realize it. you want four more years of him?

If people don't work you don't eat, people like me are saving you cowards not putting you at risk.

i suppose this is guilt from electing idiots who let this all snowball? i'll ignore your insult for now, but you should stop imagining that your perspective is the only one.

The insult was not well written, it was meant for people like you not at you personally, although after reading it a second time I can see why you wold think so. No personal insult was meant. There are two main groups making all this into more drama than necessary: the first group wants to play it safe and wait this out, low risk, high reward. The second group has a broad view, more damage is certain if we do not open the world and let people return to normal or close to it. I am in that second group. Higher risk, greater reward. Crushing the global economy on the WHO direction is madness unless you can show a pattern of success and trust.

There are experts telling each group what to do, so far both camps have proven to be using more educated guesses than evidence. Some of that you can blame on fake evidence, the famous we are running out of ventilators in New York and Trump fired the experts (both myths pushed by media both busted) before this all started come to mind. The lies for political gain are why no one trusts anyone for anything. Americans are guilty (both parties) for electing self surviving jerks.

Since the experts can not be trusted and there are front line doctors pushing for an end to this and you have other groups proven to work for themselves (like the WHO) saying the opposite, I picked a side, not really hard since I am still working while others hide from a virus they can't see even when they don't know anyone that has it. With as many people as I have been around if the threat was as bad as some think I would be dead, dying or at least not typing this. I have not met anyone that has met a single covid infected American, although they seem to be everywhere on what serves as media. I put them into another group, the ones that want this to last because they are getting richer.

Stay locked down, stay safe, I wish you and yours no harm but I am done with the lock down.

Like, seriously. Give names.

Well gee. They’re all Democrats.

Any comment on the many Republican governors that have imposed lockdowns in their state? Not tyrants? Or just not worth singling out in your book because, you know, the narrative.

You damn hyperpartisan hack.

Politicizing a public health crisis: all in a day’s work.

The OP meme's about "tyrants" in re: *lockdowns*, buddy, and so was akeller's question.

Naturally, you jumped on it as yet another chance to hijack the thread to label Democrats "tyrants." And thus, you've deftly projected your own preoccupations into this debate, despite the fact Republican governors and, frankly, our President himself, are taking the same kinds of actions in response to Covid-19 that have been recommended by medical experts.

You may or may not even be conscious of what you're doing.

All in a day's work for a hyperpartisan troll.

Yeah, this one got you pretty upset yesterday.

Not that I really make upsetting you my goal. I just wanted to know what you meant by this. But since you whiffed, here it is again.

(Don't worry, my man, this quote one won't go in the cringe stream, as it calls you out by name: It will just haunt you wherever you go.)

You said it in a thread from long ago that I can't be troubled to look up right now. Perhaps I will, since you've now gone the predictable route of denying you've ever said it. Maybe you'll get to it first and delete it. It's not terribly important.

I'm curious though: if "the essence of the quote is completely true," as you opine below: then why not just admit you said it?

Oh yeah, because purposeful contrariness is your MO.

Color me even more surprised

Sure, the meme protests that it's *not* about lockdowns. But it doesn't take a genius to read the subtext.

This meme is about lockdowns. And the recent protests they've inspired, specifically. It's the most pressing issue of the day. And that's how most commenters here have interpreted this meme. Including the OP memer himself! Well, his comments appear to be about 50/50 lockdown/abortion related. So he has a problem with abortion, but there's no indication on the face of the OP meme that it is about abortion.

I'm not convinced by the distinction you are attempting to draw between "lockdown" and "the tyranny that comes with it." Can you clarify?

You still haven’t defined “tyranny” or how Democrats engage in it as I requested below, so I’ll wait until you do.

Then I am afraid I have no choice but to continue to treat your screeds as rhetorical nonsense

Show me a protest happening now that isn’t about lockdowns.

States under stay-at-home orders from Republican governors:

Idaho
Arizona
Missouri
Alabama
Florida
Indiana
Ohio
West Virginia
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont

Protesting any of them?

Well first: the things that spread the pathogen are people. Specifically, it's spread by people being in close proximity to other people. So restricting the ability of people to be within close proximity to each other, in all the forms it can take, has bearing to stopping the spread of the pathogen. That includes closing non-essential businesses, keeping people from physically going to church, etc.

There's certainly a cost/benefit analysis that should be run before making specific restrictions and how to enforce them (if at all), and that's absolutely open for discussion and debate. What's not up for debate is whether restrictions should exist in the first place. I think we agree on this, at least; you appear to be more of the "people can be trusted to take personal responsibility for the collective good" school of thought than I am, but we agree that precautions need to be taken, yes?

Would you label Mr. Parris a Leftist?

See, there I go again, trying to find common ground to build from and being reminded that it's in increasingly short supply. And where there is common ground, there's always something about it to apply hyperbolic statements to in an effort to demolish the hope of moving on from it.

You have about as much faith in government's ability to look out for the common good as I have in business' willingness to do so. Business only counts gain and loss in terms of cash, and the only costs and benefits they are interested in are their own. Which is fine in business, but isn't applicable to government. There's more at stake than money in public policy, and even money is more complicated because there are important stakeholders on opposing financial sides that must be weighed. If you view the United States (or really any nation with democratic aspects) as a business, it's the most incoherent, inefficient, counter-intuitive hodgepodge of a corporation imaginable, and can never be anything else without violating its most basic laws. Trying to apply the way business weighs cost/benefit to government decision-making is like trying to fix a computer with woodworking tools. You can get some stuff fixed, but your use of the wrong tools is inefficient and the sawdust you leave behind ends up causing even worse damage when you start it up.

I get the sense that you'd label Mr. Parris a Leftist, which isn't at all in line with him as a policymaker. You seem to be equating "Leftist" with your definition of "tyrant" without exception, as though it's impossible for someone on the Right to be tyrannical. Either that, or your definition of Leftist has nothing at all to do with the Left-to-Right spectrum of political ideology. If the former, that's idiotic. If the latter, you should choose a different word in political discussions - it makes it very difficult for you to be taken seriously.

Those all sound like lockdown measures to me. You can disagree with them all you like, and protest them all you like, but you’re not protesting leftists. You’re protesting lockdown measures that are being implemented by Democrats and Republicans alike.

So...who does (or did) government correctly? Where's the blueprint for success, in your view?

There is common ground. We both agree that the virus is real, and measures should be taken to avoid it and slow its spread. I think we also agree that the measures taken at present should be greater than the measures we would take in a normal flu season. We certainly disagree on the severity of those measures, and on whose responsibility it is to enact and enforce those measures (for the record, I believe the responsibility lies both with the individual and the State, not just with the State). We also agree that physically arresting people for simply being outside is, at the least, counterproductive and authoritarian.

The core purpose of a government is to serve and protect its citizens. When its citizens are in danger, it is the responsibility of that government to mitigate risk and provide relief in a way that is appropriate, effective, and efficient. Whether an action is appropriate depends on how much freedom the citizens are allowed by the nation's laws.

I'm not sure where you got your idea of the perspectives and motives of government workers (and I'd love to hear where you got it to better understand where you're coming from), but it's quite a bit off base. Of course there are government workers who are disconnected from anything outside their little bubble; every entity has those people, including in businesses. In government, those constitute a tiny fraction of the Federal workforce. There are very real consequences for government, especially for those in elected and appointed positions. Waste, fraud, and abuse carry very serious consequences, including getting fired and going to jail. And getting fired from a government job for one of those reasons completely destroys your career - you can't get another job in the government ever again, and no one outside the government with any sense will be willing to hire you either.

You seem to be an actual Capitalist, who believes the market should exist without any controls beyond those inherent to supply and demand. If that's the case, then you are incredibly naive.

This is the most ridiculous definition of a Leftist I've ever seen. If there is a Left, there must be a Right. Otherwise the term is inappropriate and misleading, since there is already a well-established and generally accepted Left/Right spectrum of political ideals. Within that spectrum, extremes in both directions tend toward the tyrannical.

If "the Right" is a tool of tribalization, what does calling someone a Leftist do but create a single term to mobilize your tribe of..non-Leftists...against them? Just say tyrant. It's what you really mean, and it places your ideas outside the political ideological spectrum so you can do what you want to do - focus purely on an official's actions and motives.

Ya got me

Why the sarcasm KF, that it's democrat governors stomping on the Bill of Rights?

It's what they've been doing. Facts are facts.

There's nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that guarantees a freedom, then says "well, except in case of..."

“Time, place, and manner“ restrictions have been consistently upheld, even during times of non-emergency.

Try holding a massive rally without a permit, or block the streets of a crowded intersection during rush hour, or shout down a congressperson delivering a speech on the House floor, to make your political point, and see what the authorities do.

If there were ever a compelling justification for such restrictions, now is the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

I’ve come to expect you to offhandedly construe constitutional text while completely ignoring any judicial decisions of the past 200+ years that have construed its meaning.

Anyway, I’d suggest that “time, place, and manner” restrictions go hand-in-hand with “peaceable.”

If you don’t find that persuasive, well, then there’s not much else I can do to convince you.

Redneck hick? Lol. I'm from a suburban Southern background. Y'all and folks are supremely useful words. It is what it is.

Perhaps using the word "construe" twice in the same sentence was not ideal, but what I said is not the gobbledygook you believe it to be.

You're really grasping here. Anyway.

Got anything that says "time, place, and manner" restrictions are incompatible with the First Amendment? Apart from your own novel, personal interpretation, of course.

So sez the hack who can only list McStain and Romney, the RINO's, as the only 'republicans' you like.

Those are the two big ones I like to talk about, both because they were the GOP’s last two Presidential nominees, and because Sen. Romney manned up and voted to remove the stain on our country that is Trump — and the late Sen. McCain, if he were still alive, would have joined him.

There are others — Bob Corker, Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan, Justin Amash, and conservative writers like George Will, Ross Douthat, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, even Jonah Goldberg on occasion — whom I like, but most of them are dead, retired, or no longer associate with the Party. Because, you know, they’re principled.

George H.W. Bush is probably my favorite President of either party in the modern era. Tremendous accomplishments in just one term, successfully managing complicated geopolitical crises like the disintegration of the USSR and the Persian Gulf War. And fondly remembered by all who knew him well as an absolute class act.

Which Democrats do you like?

F**k neo con wheelchair boy. F**k Axis of Evil shitbag warmongerer too.

Yep, all the RINOS get a shout out.

Tulsi was okay. Don't like her identity politics but at least she was antiwar. There are no high profile Dems that I like because they are all extremists. I'm sure there are some classical liberals kicking around tho.

What is tyranny?

How do Democrats engage in it?

I don’t remember asking for your opinion, but sure. That’s one perspective. Though Kylie’s right, the logical assumption is that the OP was about lockdowns being an act of tyranny, not about specific tyrants who happen to have issued lockdown orders.

"What I think is true for everyone because it makes sense to me and I'm infallible." Typical reaction when you're challenged. Boring, really.

I responded to the OP, and was asking for a response from BurntFingerForge. Your opinion is cute.

Let's not forget this racist piece of shit.

K. Wasn’t asking you, but...k.

Awwww..... your fascism is showing.

Lol you don't seem to know what fascism is.