Are camps next? The CDC actually has a plan laid out for them. Link in comments.

lol

WHAT

Yep

WoW

I'm surprised I didn't see it sooner, it's been around since at least July

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Xt6pN_VASGOd3abMafH2Jj3Y2MMnj9NYF512KJLJ2M/edit

That's interesting, I'll have to take a closer look. Thanks

Great!

What the ff

I have a feeling these camps won't have macaroni art.

Oh man! That's a deal breaker for me

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

Just checked out your CDC link- Hmm, elderly people in "camps", what could possibly go wrong? Odd how none of the usual leftist trolls have any comments to "enlighten" us with about this- I guess it's hard to deny the truth of the CDC's own words.

Some try it anyway it would seem

Meanwhile on the Titanic:
"Get on the life raft, we have to save you from drowning!"
"No! I don't want to experience Dunkirk!"

What's that?

Meaning that the second speaker thinks that just because they're going in the raft that they're going to be shot by planes.

Obviously, these are two separate things. Of course, chronogically incorrect. But the analogy works. I read the link you provided. It's not a death camp or a labor camp.

Vigilance is not paranoia. I'm not afraid of such things becoming a reality, because I know there are those who are paying attention to such matters.

Would you expect death or labor camps to be labeled as such? Do you think an internment camp would be better? I have found no reason to trust the government, no matter who is president.

Failing to trust the government regardless of who is running it is paranoia.

If it is paranoia, it is paranoia justified by history. The US government has engaged in shocking actions against it's own people, in those rare instances when it is capable of action in concert.

Incorrect, history shows political motivations for these actions. The actions suggested by CDC are not political in nature, but purely for the health of the country. The only furnaces that would potentially be running is the furnaces for the dead bodies who died of the virus.

So political motivations justify atrocities? By that reasoning, Trump's behaviors are equally excusable. I have not heard that the WWII internment camps had furnaces, but that doesn't mean they weren't shameful. Are you willing to be a willing sacrifice for the health of the country because the CDC says so? Are you so certain that their motives are so pure and untainted by political motivation?

"So political motivations justify atrocities?" (The rest of your comment follows that assumption, so I won't address it.)

Not, what I said. You're cherry picking. Read the rest of what I said.

The CDC is not above and beyond political pressure, as the pandemic has shown. The eugenics plans of the 30's were justified as being for the "health of the country."

I don't doubt that there would be those who genuinely believe in the plan as stated. I'm not suggesting that the doctors are "all in on it." I'm not concerned about furnaces. I do think that there are those would take advantage and would profit from this "plan."

The actions suggested by the CDC may well be with the purest of medical intentions, but that will not prevent those with "political motivations" from using this plan to further their own ends.

You think they'd just straight out label it as such? Of course not! You think the Jews knew what they were getting into when they left their homes?

Yes they knew, that's why they were hidden in the homes of others, so they wouldn't get picked up. Did you ever read the Diary of Anne Frank?

Not all of them did. Especially when it first started. Read the historical accounts.

The operative language being "Not all of them." I have read the accounts. When they were being relocated from their homes, they knew they were in trouble.

So what happens when we're relocated from our homes?

What happens when Jesus rises for the second coming? What happens when Russia deploys its entire nuclear arsenal on the US?
What ifs are toxic thinking and cause paranoia.

Dunkirk was a battle in ww2 were the Germans surrounded the bulk of the British and French forces.

I'm well aware, and then they didn't go and and wipe them out and the British and French were able to escape on a motley of various vessels

I don't see how it relates

The German air force described it as like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yessssss, and the Mongols tried to invade Japan twice and were wiped out by typhoons on both occasions. How does it relate?

lol, something like that ;)

I looked at the link I surehope they don't try it

Me too, me too

duuuuuude, in compilation with Frush91's google doc link ????? YIKES.

Yeah, scary stuff

This was the plan all along. The kung flu just allowed them be ahead of schedule.

kung flu was on the schedule

wether it was or not it's the best avenue towards global tyranny.

I believe it

Oh Godwin's law, you're so crazy xD

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

That's f**ked up.

You're darn straight it is!
I can't believe I didn't hear about it before, it's from July!

It's not the same thing. Not even close.

Closer than anyone wants to get.

It's not close. It may resemble this in the sense that circumstances are dire and extreme measures are taken to achieve an objective. But the objective here is to protect people rather than kill them as it happened in death camps. These are isolation camps for when virility has reached such a state it is no longer safe for people until a vaccine is created or until virility has gone down.

Another way to think about it is like in a zombie movie. You would want a sanctuary to hide out in to avoid catching the plauge. It's more dangerous and likely to catch the plague out on your own, not impossible, but doable. However, you're protected in the safe area which is effectively inverted quarantine.

Tyranny is what we would have had if Trump had four more years.

The idea is so abhorrent that it doesn't have to be close.

You have no idea what the objective is. You only know what the *stated* objective is.

The difference between a zombie movie and the isolation camp scenario is that in the zombie movie the people chose to go to the sanctuary. In the link to the isolation shielding concept, the question of whether attendance is optional is rather poignantly unaddressed, but the language suggests that the people are things or resources to be managed rather than people with a choice.

As for Trump? Tyranny? Pff. I doubt it. In his first two years the Republicans had control of the government and couldn't pass gas, much less meaningful legislation. It will be the same for Biden. Our government is *designed* so that one man cannot run it by himself. Tyranny requires a level of efficiency that democracy is incapable of.

"The idea is so abhorrent that it doesn't have to be close.

You have no idea what the objective is. You only know what the *stated* objective is."
>> Textbook paranoia. You have no evidence to suggest that it could be anything other than the stated objective.

"The difference between a zombie movie and the isolation camp scenario is that in the zombie movie the people chose to go to the sanctuary. In the link to the isolation shielding concept, the question of whether attendance is optional is rather poignantly unaddressed, but the language suggests that the people are things or resources to be managed rather than people with a choice."
>> Your point is moot simply because it's not stated. I could argue that this is a method for people to take shelter if they chose. No where does it say or suggest it is mandated.

"As for Trump? Tyranny? Pff. I doubt it. In his first two years the Republicans had control of the government and couldn't pass gas, much less meaningful legislation. It will be the same for Biden. Our government is *designed* so that one man cannot run it by himself. Tyranny requires a level of efficiency that democracy is incapable of."
>> That's because Trump was busy overturning everything Obama did. He wasn't busy with new policy, he was busy invalidating Obama's presidency.

1. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that there isn't a parallel agenda. In fact, it sounds like the primary purpose is less to protect the high risk and more to reduce the strain on the healthcare system for the rest.

2. Neither does it state that it is not intended to be a mandate. What fool assumes an approaching lion has good intentions? By the time you find out, it's too late.

3. The Republicans in Congress could not agree on a healthcare alternative, or much of anything else. You speak of paranoia. Might the same not be said of your distrust of Trump?

As a side note, it is amusing that you chose to use zombies as an example, given that your username can be translated to mean "brain-eater!"

1. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that there isn't a parallel agenda. In fact, it sounds like the primary purpose is less to protect the high risk and more to reduce the strain on the healthcare system for the rest.
>> That's conjecture. Your logic states that in spite of what is stated, regardless of the lack of evidence to support your claim, or the overwhelming evidence to rebuke your claim, you have this entity to be dialed in as what your conjecture states. It cannot be any other thing until the evidence is in your favor. Then, the dialogue changes from denial to "HA! I was right, see?!" Put your conspiracies to rest. This is literal paranoia. "They're out to get me!" Do you have any proof? "No, they sent in their ninjas through the front lawn and they scrubbed my hard drive while I was at work." Oh. Makes sense. I'll grant you, this is hyperbole.

2. Neither does it state that it is not intended to be a mandate. What fool assumes an approaching lion has good intentions? By the time you find out, it's too late.
>> What fool looks at a Doctor and thinks they're serial killers? What fool thinks vaccines are how the government keeps track of you? What fool thinks the earth is flat? What fool thinks masks are a conspiracy to practice complacency? You're looking at this and yelling lion when it's a mere house-cat.

3. The Republicans in Congress could not agree on a healthcare alternative, or much of anything else. You speak of paranoia. Might the same not be said of your distrust of Trump? I have piles of evidence of what Trump has said and done to earn that distrust. Without question or subjection to interpretation. In spite of all that they "could not agree on." we still have never seen Trump's plan for healthcare. The only plan he ever did was a carbon copy of ACA. He scribbled out "ObamaCare." And wrote in red crayon "TrumpCare."

As a side note, it is amusing that you chose to use zombies as an example, given that your username can be translated to mean "brain-eater!"
>> Yes, I took some courses in Anatomy and Physiology and Biology. You learn the latin root words, prefixes and suffixes of various parts of the human body, the maladies that are associated with them. Like Hepat/o means liver. -itis is "inflammation of." So Hepatitis literally means "Inflammation of the Liver."

By now, I think it is clear that neither of us will change the other's mind. It seems that you trust the government without evidence that it is safe to do so, while I distrust the government without any evidence that their purpose is nefarious. We proceed from different starting points, likely based on personal experiences.

And by extension you would never trust the government in that situation without any precedence to the issue or evidence to suggest they would start putting the people -who don't have covid- into ovens.

Makes total sense.

Tyranny comes one step at a time, how many steps are you willing to take?