RikidyBones
Formerly utvols88
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Messages
- 39,690
- Likes
- 99,889
And it’s not about them ATTENDING. It’s the LEAVING afterwards and SPREADING by going to stores...thus affecting the lives of those who didn’t choose to ATTEND. No individual’s rights or group’s thereof supersede the rest of the population.
agree. then don't throw HS history/civics class lessons out there as a reason we should be good with NOT madating and enforcing shelter at home orders.I love ya, Jake, but this is a weak effort. You could use this sentence to justify almost any response to an external threat, no matter how serious.
a reasonable risk with everyone under the mandates, following the guidelines set out, yes.The people at the store went into the public knowing of the risk, though. Correct?
gotta get woke....injustice everywhere. even when they're trying to prevent you from getting sick and/or dying, they're out to get ya. FL man showed 'em......We stand in the middle of pages of laws. Laws that are permanent and questionable to say the very least. Most with justifications that are egregious.
Guess I'm just surprised that it's temporary policies that have an actual safety concern and legitimate cause to return us to the American way of life, that's a trigger.
a reasonable risk with everyone under the mandates, following the guidelines set out, yes.
that over a 1000 people broke the mandate and are out and about doing their own thing?...no....that's an unreasonable risk that I nor anyone in my family should have to take simply becuase these morons just don't get it....
Depends on the “drastic action” you’re speculating. Checks and balances exist. Took a lot of wheeling and dealing to get checks sent out to the citizens. No one person or group thereof could enact it by themselves.But you've given them the authority now. What if they decide that the opioid epidemic is a public health emergency that requires drastic action?