Jump to content

Discussion:2019 Novel Corona Virus (Covid19) and It's Political Ramifications #5


Pepe

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Nicholas said:

    All survived. Even some that were elderly and some that were overweight and some that had underlying health issues. Throughout human history, mankind has always faced hurdles that subjected many of unfortunate individuals of humanity to many unfortunate and terrible circumstances and situations, including plagues and diseases in the past. Even at times in the past where many suffered and succumed to deadly plagues and viruses long before science and medical technology was as advanced as it is in modern times. Yet, mankind has always found ways to persevere and move on and get past everything that had unfortunate and profound effects on many of the worlds populations. It's no doubt that covid19 is a highly contagious virus, but it is also a virus that is only lethal to a very small percentage of the overall population and it is a truly unfortunate and terrible plague besides being sad relating to those that it has been, and will yet be lethal to. But, mankind cannot bury their heads like Ostriches when afraid, by continuing to implement and enforce lockdowns that destroy and take many peoples lives in other ways that the virus itself does not. Everyone must do their own part by wearing appropriate facial coverings and maintaining appropriate social distancing when necessary, along with maintaining proper individual hygiene in individual efforts to combat the virus until an efficient and reliable vaccine is completed and distributed throughout the worlds populations.   

230,000 + have not survived.  That's the bottom line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nicholas said:

Everyone must do their own part by wearing appropriate facial coverings and maintaining appropriate social distancing when necessary, along with maintaining proper individual hygiene in individual efforts to combat the virus

Yes I totally agree...There's just 1 problem...some don't 😒

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nagachilli2 said:

Yes I totally agree...There's just 1 problem...they don't 😒

You only have to see all the demonstrations, protests  and social gatherings over here in the UK and then everyone wonders why the toll count is rising, unbelievable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, O_U812 said:

230,000 + have not survived.  That's the bottom line.

     Of course any loss of life from any virus is one too many. Out of an estimated overall population of over 330,000,000 + people, 230,000 is less than .01 %. As unfortunate as it is, more will likely die before an efficient and reliable vaccine is completed and distributed amongst the overall population that add more protection to those more vulnerable to developing serious or worse health conditions or issues or even from dying from contracting the virus. In the mean time, people cannot be expected to stay at home or anywhere else and not work to be able to support themselves and their families. People need to be vigilant and adhere to common sense rules and guidelines of wearing appropriate face coverings when out in public or near more than a couple of other people, and to maintain appropriate distancing when away from home or out in public, and for those that refuse to, there should be stiff fines imposed on first offenses, afterwards, they should face incarceration for awhile. Besides that, people need to engage in individual hygiene practices more than ever before. But people cannot be expected to always remain in place somewhere while the lives of their families besides themselves fall apart because of other reasons not directly caused by the virus, but indirectly so, along with communities, cities and townships, states, and even the country as a whole falls apart and collapses around them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2020 at 2:55 PM, Ridgerunner said:

One of your typical tactics. You use other people's words to express your ideas, and then claim that you didn't say it when someone calls you out on the comment. You are so phony, deceitful, and gutless.

You have a very short attention span and memory. Let me help. No tactics in play here. I can't and won't take credit for someone else's words. That's called plagiarism. So, I only quoted the words of someone else.

I did refute your claim that I spoke the words, because they weren't my words. I also said, explicitly, that I did agree with them, or I wouldn't have posted them.

No tactics, just truth. Something you have a BIG problem with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, Ridgerunner said:

Being an originalist means that a justice makes decisions based upon the original intent of the written text of the Constitution and laws.

If ACB were a true originalist, she couldn't be a Supreme Court Justice. She couldn't enter into contracts, or own property in her name, or have equal rights, or even vote. That's true originalism.

On 10/14/2020 at 3:37 PM, Ridgerunner said:

Being an originalist means interpreting the constitution and law as they are written and not seeing things that are not there in order to fit a justice's personal ideological agenda.

That's not quite true.

"In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". Wikipedia"

And, even though that second part, "...not seeing things that are not there in order to fit a justice's personal ideological agenda," doesn't even enter into it, I'm sure ACB intends to use her "originalist" thinking in just that manner, to suit her and/or her party's agenda.

Having said that, how would it even be possible for anyone, originalist or otherwise, to "...interpret the Constitution based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"? Who can know the minds of men who have been dead 200+ years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, letsdothis said:

If ACB were a true originalist, she couldn't be a Supreme Court Justice. She couldn't enter into contracts, or own property in her name, or have equal rights, or even vote. That's true originalism.

That's not quite true.

"In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". Wikipedia"

And, even though that second part, "...not seeing things that are not there in order to fit a justice's personal ideological agenda," doesn't even enter into it, I'm sure ACB intends to use her "originalist" thinking in just that manner, to suit her and/or her party's agenda.

Having said that, how would it even be possible for anyone, originalist or otherwise, to "...interpret the Constitution based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted"? Who can know the minds of men who have been dead 200+ years?

You study all the writings of those leaders to understand their thinking at the time the Constitution was adopted. That's what real Constitutional scholars do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, letsdothis said:

You have a very short attention span and memory. Let me help. No tactics in play here. I can't and won't take credit for someone else's words. That's called plagiarism. So, I only quoted the words of someone else.

I did refute your claim that I spoke the words, because they weren't my words. I also said, explicitly, that I did agree with them, or I wouldn't have posted them.

No tactics, just truth. Something you have a BIG problem with.

Wow, I must have really gotten under your dishonest thin skin. I made that comment on Oct.14 and you've been stewing on it ever since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...