SouthTowner: This That and the Other

[uknoit2]

3 minutes ago, The Drunken Sailor said:

For some people, the rules only apply when they support you.

Same liberals that demand you be tolerant then want to jail you when you stand against them 

[Uknolil]

42 minutes ago, uknoit2 said:

Same liberals that demand you be tolerant then want to jail you when you stand against them 

 

[uknoit2]

Just now, Uknolil said:

 

[The Drunken Sailor]

45 minutes ago, LTCB said:

I'm bored and you are a great person so let's poke the bear with a pointed stick.

You are correct but are presenting only part of the issue and that makes your thoughts appear out of context with the responsibilities of the US Gov’t.  What you are espousing is from the roots of American democracy.  These roots spawned from documents like the Magna Carta, the petition of Rights, the English Bill of Rights and the Virginia Bill of Rights.

You also have to examine the writings of Philosophers Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as well as a handful of others.  Why you may ask….because the people that wrote our Constitution that limited government power did.  There is this concept in government based through Federalist principles called the Social Contract.

A Social Contract is basically an agreement between members of the community and the Sovereign or the government.  OK SO WHAT!  Well in laymans terms we the people agree to give up some of our power or freedom in exchange for government services and protection.  In the US Constitution’s Preamble it is written that we agree to this Constitution for several reasons but the one that applies here is to promote the General Welfare.  Welfare in its original intent in 1787 was meant as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.  The same way that the Government sets food standards so you cannot be sold poisoned food the Government can set standards of behavior.

Your observations in absolution are not new. In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” The argument about rights and freedom was analogized by that of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. The Judge simply stated “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”  Your right to move about freely during a time of National emergency simply isn’t an entitlement and in fact ends because other people are potentially affected.  You surrender that ability in exchange for the Government assisting with the health of all Americans and to restore Friday night football sooner rather than later.  I just had to try and steer this back to football somehow.

In Conclusion don’t tug on Superman’s cape, Never shoot a larger caliber target with a small caliber round, and never blitz the backside of a flexbone offense.

Great reply. Strong facts and solid presentation of them. Nothing to argue about honestly except we're not a democracy but a republic!  I kid, I kid. I say potato, you say potahto. 

Seriously though, your comments on Freedom of Speech in Wartime was a good example and is one of the reasons why I ended my post with saying "how do we stop it without infringement." It is truly a tricky situation. The truth is, if we could trust governments to do what is right, if we could trust them to give back what they take for a short time, if they all truly served at the best interest of the people, then I wouldn't mind them telling us what to do from time to time in situations like this. Unfortunately we can't trust them fully, and it doesn't matter which party is in power. That doesn't go for all politicians, but a vast number of them, especially a lot of the so called career politicians however seem to be more about self or about party than about the people. 

But on the other hand, we the people need to be smart and pay attention to what is happening as well. This isn't only about politicians telling us what to do or what not to do. We were given brains and common sense - well, most were. If social distancing is flattening the curve then we need to pay attention to it. If going out in public with a mask and gloves can protect you or those around you, then by all means wear them.

I am fortunate in the fact that my job will continue on during all of this, at least for now it will. We've put in social distancing guidelines and starting tomorrow morning we are following government advice and wearing masks and gloves. I hate working in gloves but if it protects me or those around me then I will learn to deal with it. We all need to do our part for ourselves and others.

Again, great reply but with all that you said I'm surprised by one thing - I figured you would call me out for using Franklin's quote out of context. 

 

[uknoit2]

I wonder......Are the Muslims prohibited from gathering in this country too??? 

[LTCB]

Nah DS.  I didn't want to make it sound like it against your POV just wanted to throw out a line and see what bites. 

[tradertwo]

32 minutes ago, The Drunken Sailor said:

Great reply. Strong facts and solid presentation of them. Nothing to argue about honestly except we're not a democracy but a republic!  I kid, I kid. I say potato, you say potahto. 

Seriously though, your comments on Freedom of Speech in Wartime was a good example and is one of the reasons why I ended my post with saying "how do we stop it without infringement." It is truly a tricky situation. The truth is, if we could trust governments to do what is right, if we could trust them to give back what they take for a short time, if they all truly served at the best interest of the people, then I wouldn't mind them telling us what to do from time to time in situations like this. Unfortunately we can't trust them fully, and it doesn't matter which party is in power. That doesn't go for all politicians, but a vast number of them, especially a lot of the so called career politicians however seem to be more about self or about party than about the people. 

But on the other hand, we the people need to be smart and pay attention to what is happening as well. This isn't only about politicians telling us what to do or what not to do. We were given brains and common sense - well, most were. If social distancing is flattening the curve then we need to pay attention to it. If going out in public with a mask and gloves can protect you or those around you, then by all means wear them.

I am fortunate in the fact that my job will continue on during all of this, at least for now it will. We've put in social distancing guidelines and starting tomorrow morning we are following government advice and wearing masks and gloves. I hate working in gloves but if it protects me or those around me then I will learn to deal with it. We all need to do our part for ourselves and others.

Again, great reply but with all that you said I'm surprised by one thing - I figured you would call me out for using Franklin's quote out of context. 

 

Great post.

  Our heads and hearts are in the same place... As much as I disagree with the concept of government enforcing behavior and free will restrictions on the public, I wholeheartedly agree that it's in our best interest right now. My concern is that some "leaders" will interpret this situation as a foot in the door for socialistic idealism. The danger of setting a precedent doesn't bother me as long as everyone understands that this situation demands drastic measures, and that our civil liberties can be temporarily given up for the overall well being of the general public. For those with enough awareness to understand the true value of your individual rights, you also understand that there will come the day that your rights should be fully reinstated, and that there will be resistance from some. I, for one, will gladly adjust my individual lifestyle in order to improve the odds that I affect no one negatively, and I doubt that it will be more than a minor inconvenience for most as long as the Constitution is upheld in the end. If these sanctions aren't repealed one and all once CV-19 is contained/controlled, this could be a dark day for capitalism, independence, and the way of life that we cherish.

[harley04]

14 hours ago, rlh said:

Some areas are letting car thieves and rapists go while threatening to put people in jail for checking on close friends and family as well as arresting pastors for holding church services even in a safe manor.

Good time too clean house rapist, murders, criminals on death row let them have there last meal tonight

[The Drunken Sailor]

9 minutes ago, tradertwo said:

Great post.

  Our heads and hearts are in the same place... As much as I disagree with the concept of government enforcing behavior and free will restrictions on the public, I wholeheartedly agree that it's in our best interest right now. My concern is that some "leaders" will interpret this situation as a foot in the door for socialistic idealism. The danger of setting a precedent doesn't bother me as long as everyone understands that this situation demands drastic measures, and that our civil liberties can be temporarily given up for the overall well being of the general public. For those with enough awareness to understand the true value of your individual rights, you also understand that there will come the day that your rights should be fully reinstated, and that there will be resistance from some. I, for one, will gladly adjust my individual lifestyle in order to improve the odds that I affect no one negatively, and I doubt that it will be more than a minor inconvenience for most as long as the Constitution is upheld in the end. If these sanctions aren't repealed one and all once CV-19 is contained/controlled, this could be a dark day for capitalism, independence, and the way of life that we cherish.

Couldn't agree more. I'm afraid that them getting a foot in the door now can set the precedent for others taking over the house down the road. 

[The Drunken Sailor]

1 hour ago, LTCB said:

Nah DS.  I didn't want to make it sound like it against your POV just wanted to throw out a line and see what bites. 

Oh, I know, I saw how you led into your post. Even if you were against it that is your right. A right that, if I am remembering correctly, you served to protect and for that I thank you.

[Jim1972]

6 hours ago, harley04 said:

Good time too clean house rapist, murders, criminals on death row let them have there last meal tonight

Yes if they were convicted without a doubt HANGEM High and buryem deep!

[rlh]

14 hours ago, LTCB said:

I'm bored and you are a great person so let's poke the bear with a pointed stick.

You are correct but are presenting only part of the issue and that makes your thoughts appear out of context with the responsibilities of the US Gov’t.  What you are espousing is from the roots of American democracy.  These roots spawned from documents like the Magna Carta, the petition of Rights, the English Bill of Rights and the Virginia Bill of Rights.

You also have to examine the writings of Philosophers Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as well as a handful of others.  Why you may ask….because the people that wrote our Constitution that limited government power did.  There is this concept in government based through Federalist principles called the Social Contract.

A Social Contract is basically an agreement between members of the community and the Sovereign or the government.  OK SO WHAT!  Well in laymans terms we the people agree to give up some of our power or freedom in exchange for government services and protection.  In the US Constitution’s Preamble it is written that we agree to this Constitution for several reasons but the one that applies here is to promote the General Welfare.  Welfare in its original intent in 1787 was meant as health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.  The same way that the Government sets food standards so you cannot be sold poisoned food the Government can set standards of behavior.

Your observations in absolution are not new. In June 1919 the Harvard Law Review published an article by legal philosopher Zechariah Chafee, Jr. titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” The argument about rights and freedom was analogized by that of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. The Judge simply stated “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”  Your right to move about freely during a time of National emergency simply isn’t an entitlement and in fact ends because other people are potentially affected.  You surrender that ability in exchange for the Government assisting with the health of all Americans and to restore Friday night football sooner rather than later.  I just had to try and steer this back to football somehow.

In Conclusion don’t tug on Superman’s cape, Never shoot a larger caliber target with a small caliber round, and never blitz the backside of a flexbone offense.

I would like to point out a couple of distinctions you mentioned.  While it was an influence to some of the founders during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and ultimately The Constitution, it wasn't all that or we wouldn't have had to kick King George III's butt no less than twice, 1st beginning on April 19, 1775 and again in 1812.  The other thing I want to point out is that the Bill of Rights don't confer those rights, it points out that the exist prior to being written down and they can't be given or taken by men or governments.  Just because some aren't specifically mentioned, they still exist as per the Ninth Amendment.  Lastly, I am taken aback how a plethora of 2-bit politicians/elected officials are suddenly "wise leaders" that couldn't collectively put out a dumpster fire or solve the recycling problems in their communities back in January 2020.