Coronavirus

LOL! Where is any of this **** written in the law codes? Like I tell Bubba your feelings are not reality. You would have been one of the unfortunate fools dying at the hands of Washington and his men during the Whiskey Rebellion. In my life I've disobeyed the law on several occasions but every time I did I realized i didn't have a right to assault someone enforcing those laws.

Edit- If you think someone is a statist because they think cops shouldn't be fair game for violence makes me realize you're ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Just because you can't discriminate between positivist unjust law and custom or natural law, doesn't mean I don't accept reality. The reality is that not all laws are worthy of obedience. A policeman getting on your case in a park about how close you are standing to someone else is illegitimate. Sometimes it is better to suffer because of your disobedience than it is to go along with your tail tucked between your legs.

If you know anything about the Whiskey Rebellion you would know that Washington was in the wrong and was being used as a tool by Hamilton who was jumping at the chance to kill US citizens, even those who had fought in the Revolution. If you side with Hamilton in that one, you might as well be a Progressive Democrat.

"Violence". Your a Statist because you think the State is right no matter what they say.
 
If I were a judge, I'd put that kid in jail for 6 months to a year. I would push for no parole and I would make sure this follows him for the rest of his life.

I'm sick of this quarantine as everyone else is, but that **** is out of bounds. Hope he gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty tyrannical just for a policeman getting pushed into a lake. I've been pushed into a lake many times, but I never acted like such a ***** demanding the person go to jail, pronouncing that if I were there judge I would ruin their life.

What a bunch of petty ********.
 
Monahorns said:
If you know anything about the Whiskey Rebellion you would know that Washington was in the wrong and was being used as a tool by Hamilton who was jumping at the chance to kill US citizens, even those who had fought in the Revolution. If you side with Hamilton in that one, you might as well be a Progressive Democrat.

"Violence". Your a Statist because you think the State is right no matter what they say.
Click to expand...

I guess Washington was a statist too. LOL! Good grief. If you've read anything I've said over the last few years you would know that I have never said the state is always right. Have you noticed I've been on the protestors' side against the governors? However, I'm not a hoodlum who advocates assaulting officers of the law either.
 
Last edited:
No. Washington was a duped by Hamilton. Hamilton was a lying schemer, and Washington trusted him too much.

Good. We agree that the state isn't always right, and that the protesters are right.

I admit I am a radical. But I just don't see how pushing the park policeman into the lake is assault. Or maybe my definition of assault is different. I come back to several thoughts. I don't think the young guy meant to hurt the policeman. I don't know his intention of course, but it seems like an impulsive push back to someone who was being pushy himself. Plus, there is nothing dangerous about standing next to people on a dock on Lake Austin. To think so makes normal behavior illegal. We can't let the government do that to us.
 
Okay, you two...

c0ac47832e2320f3132b67cc679937b3.png
 
Monahorns said:
You are talking about the law as written. I don't think all laws are just or legitimate. I don't support Legal Positivis
Click to expand...

I don't think all laws are just or legitimate either. However, I do believe in the rule of law and don't think one's subjective opinion of the law grants him the authority to assault a police officer who's just doing his job.

Monahorns said:
If the policeman pushed a protester into the water, he wouldn't be guilty of assault.
Click to expand...

Depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding it, yes he could be guilty of assault.

Monahorns said:
You base your opinion on holding policemen and government officials to privileged or higher status. I don't. They are both human. They should be held equally under the law. If they aren't that is a failure of our legal system.
Click to expand...

No, you actually don't think they are the same for the purpose of enforcing the laws,. That's BS. You're either a liar, or you haven't thought this through at all.

Monahorns said:
It isn't weird. Despite us agreeing on different subjects. Y'all all believe in Statism.
Click to expand...

If you think LH is a statist, I wouldn't argue the point. However, Garmel and I are statists? That is laughable.

Monahorns said:
The person may have acted foolishly in light of current law. It could be pointless because he isn't going to get his way. But he is standing up for what should be his right. In that he is a patriot and a hero.

Otherwise, we have to believe that it is somehow unethical or immoral to stand less than 6 feet from a person. We have to believe a policemen has the right to tell people just how close or far away they are allowed to be to other people. We have to believe that people don't fundamentally own their own bodies and the ability to make their own decisions where it doesn't infringe on other peoples'. We have to believe that Government has the right to announce and enforce any edict they want, without vote, without constraint.
Click to expand...

No, we don't have to believe any of that. How you interact with the police and what you think of the law he's charged with enforcing are separate issues.

For starters, I don't think telling people to socially distance in a public place in the middle of a pandemic is so terrible that it justifies a breakdown in the rule of law or acts of violence. Are the merits of that debatable? Sure. But is it an act of tyranny or an abuse of their rights? No. Why? For the same reason I don't have a problem with public schools requiring students to get vaccinated. The issue affects people beyond those involved. So no, I wouldn't endorse this dumbass's act of protest.

However, let's suppose he was acting against a law that truly was an abuse of his rights. It still wouldn't give him the right to assault the officer. For example, Rosa Parks resisted obeying a law that most would agree was unjust. She got arrested for it. Suppose she had kicked the arresting officer in the nuts. Would she have been justified in doing that? Under your standard, she would have been. To me, she wouldn't have been.
 
Monahorns said:
What are you talking about? Just because you can't discriminate between positivist unjust law and custom or natural law, doesn't mean I don't accept reality. The reality is that not all laws are worthy of obedience. A policeman getting on your case in a park about how close you are standing to someone else is illegitimate. Sometimes it is better to suffer because of your disobedience than it is to go along with your tail tucked between your legs.

If you know anything about the Whiskey Rebellion you would know that Washington was in the wrong and was being used as a tool by Hamilton who was jumping at the chance to kill US citizens, even those who had fought in the Revolution. If you side with Hamilton in that one, you might as well be a Progressive Democrat.

"Violence". Your a Statist because you think the State is right no matter what they say.
Click to expand...

When you attack a police officer, he has the right to use deadly force. Keep that in mind the next time you see some guy try and shove a police officer. Agree/disagree, you do so and get shot, it's on you.

This is called picking your fights. If a officer is violating your liberties you have a right to fight back, but if your safety is not in question and you are violating his safety then you reap what you sow.
 
I might have had it in early January. It was the worst sickness I had as an adult and it took two weeks to recover. I need to take a test to find out because I would like to help others if I can.
 
Another article examining masks as well as speaking about epidemiology of CoronaVirus.

Researchers, writing in two new papers, attempt to tackle the efficacy of masks, one more rigorously than the other, and come to differing conclusions. One study examined the effect of masks on seasonal coronaviruses (which cause many cases of the common cold) and found that surgical masks are helpful at reducing how much virus a sick person spreads. The other looked particularly at SARS-CoV-2 and found no effect of either surgical or fabric masks on reducing virus spread, but only had four participants and used a crude measure of viral spread.

Do face masks really reduce coronavirus spread? Experts have mixed answers. | Live Science
 
My opinion is this. If that slight sliver of fabric stops it then I'm good. I'm better than not wearing it. Wearing it also puts me in the frame of mind to social distance. It's the uniform of prudence.
 
You are not better wearing it according to experts. You are preventing it for those around you if you are sick. Anything less than N95 is not protecting you.
 
LongestHorn said:
Click to expand...


And if Hillary was president it would be zero right? We would have had 100,000 extra ventilators March 1st? We would have had 50 million more masks on March 1st?

Would Nancy have not been telling everyone to party in Chinatown at the end of February? Would Cuomo and DeBlasio not been telling everyone in NY everything was cool and not to worry?

Would Fauci not have gone on TV at the end of February saying this wasn't something we should be concerned about?

Would the information coming out of China and the WHO been different?

I don't care what you think Trump could have done differently. You need to show real data that none of these high level individuals had that somehow Trump had that was unequivocal.

The fact is that pretty much nothing would be different.
 
2003TexasGrad said:
The fact is that pretty much nothing would be different.
Click to expand...

At least by their rhetoric, one thing would have been different. They would have let thousands of infected Chinese people fly into the US and cough on people - and for entirely politically correct ******** reasons. Don't ever let them forget that. They're actively trying to rewrite history. Bring it up every time they say anybody was too slow.

On a similar note, one particularly sanctimonious slogan I keep hearing from the more radical and shrill globalists is that the "virus knows no borders." Do they know how dumb that sounds?

So if we restrict our border to China, would the virus have gotten sneezed out by someone in China, swum across the Pacific, and infected people on West Coast beaches? It can't survive in sunlight, but it can swim. A far more accurate statement would be that the "virus doesn't know borders that are open."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top