Red Mosquito

PHATJ wrote:

Rob wrote:

PHATJ wrote:Follow the money, Strat. Quit being so damn ignorant. Who owns the companies that make and sell vaccines?

Don't leave us hanging. I feel like you're almost at the good part.

Also, where do you get your news?

Look into it yourself. I don’t want to ruin the ending.

PHATJ wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Are you saying I can't be liberal and value freedom? Cool story if so. Hit me up when you AR-toting wannabes who most of you never served your country actually man or woman up and do so

Also, what about all the other genders? Do they have to man or woman up as well? Just curious.

Mickey wrote:I'll also note that the ability to rationalize stay-at-home orders to protect the most vulnerable as "government overreach" (or, tyranny) but being unwilling to consider mandatory re-opening which automatically kicks vulnerable workers off unemployment and forces them back to their jobs before it is demonstrably safe to do so as a parallel form of "overreach" is....well, it's something.

Mickey wrote:Incidentally "right to work" is the chosen term for a legislative agenda designed to further expose workers to market imperatives, so I do see where he's getting it from.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

McParadigm wrote:It’s just flatly weird to me that being told you can’t go to work during a pandemic is a huge liberty issue for some people, but being forced to return to work when you don’t feel safe is not.

Like, I think conservatives would get a much warmer response if their attitude was “people who don’t feel safe returning to work should be able to make that call, until such time as a professionally developed, very specific ‘green zone’ of societal safe-to-work conditions has been met. People who do feel safe should have the right to engage in a specific set of behaviors, like going to work and gathering, so long as they do not intentionally expose themselves to people who have not made that same call.”

Instead it’s just GIVE ME ALL THE THINGS I WANT OR IT’S TYRANNY

Mickey wrote:Josh never responded to this the last time he threw a hissy fit in this thread so I'll post it again:

Mickey wrote:I'll also note that the ability to rationalize stay-at-home orders to protect the most vulnerable as "government overreach" (or, tyranny) but being unwilling to consider mandatory re-opening which automatically kicks vulnerable workers off unemployment and forces them back to their jobs before it is demonstrably safe to do so as a parallel form of "overreach" is....well, it's something.

Orpheus wrote:No, we tried to dig further into with you, and you ignored everything we asked.

PHATJ wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s just flatly weird to me that being told you can’t go to work during a pandemic is a huge liberty issue for some people, but being forced to return to work when you don’t feel safe is not.

Like, I think conservatives would get a much warmer response if their attitude was “people who don’t feel safe returning to work should be able to make that call, until such time as a professionally developed, very specific ‘green zone’ of societal safe-to-work conditions has been met. People who do feel safe should have the right to engage in a specific set of behaviors, like going to work and gathering, so long as they do not intentionally expose themselves to people who have not made that same call.”

Instead it’s just GIVE ME ALL THE THINGS I WANT OR IT’S TYRANNY

I’d be happy to have that conversation, and of course I think it’s each person’s right to choose whether or not they actively participate in the public spectrum. That’s their right.

Instead, what happens as soon as a conservative suggests that stay at home mandates, and governments deciding who is “essential” and who isn’t, is unconstitutional? Liberals lose their shit, call the conservative a ”selfish, white-privelaged, arrogant, fuck-wit”. Yeah, that’s really encouraging a constructive conversation. You guys are so self righteous. It’s nauseating.

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Josh never responded to this the last time he threw a hissy fit in this thread so I'll post it again:

Mickey wrote:I'll also note that the ability to rationalize stay-at-home orders to protect the most vulnerable as "government overreach" (or, tyranny) but being unwilling to consider mandatory re-opening which automatically kicks vulnerable workers off unemployment and forces them back to their jobs before it is demonstrably safe to do so as a parallel form of "overreach" is....well, it's something.

I won’t be responding to anything you post. Ever. You burnt whatever bridge we could have possibly had a long time ago. I don’t typically even read your posts anymore.

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Josh never responded to this the last time he threw a hissy fit in this thread so I'll post it again:

Mickey wrote:I'll also note that the ability to rationalize stay-at-home orders to protect the most vulnerable as "government overreach" (or, tyranny) but being unwilling to consider mandatory re-opening which automatically kicks vulnerable workers off unemployment and forces them back to their jobs before it is demonstrably safe to do so as a parallel form of "overreach" is....well, it's something.

I won’t be responding to anything you post. Ever. You burnt whatever bridge we could have possibly had a long time ago. I don’t typically even read your posts anymore.

You should try reading them, they're quite good.

Simple Torture wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

Mickey wrote:Josh never responded to this the last time he threw a hissy fit in this thread so I'll post it again:

Mickey wrote:I'll also note that the ability to rationalize stay-at-home orders to protect the most vulnerable as "government overreach" (or, tyranny) but being unwilling to consider mandatory re-opening which automatically kicks vulnerable workers off unemployment and forces them back to their jobs before it is demonstrably safe to do so as a parallel form of "overreach" is....well, it's something.

I won’t be responding to anything you post. Ever. You burnt whatever bridge we could have possibly had a long time ago. I don’t typically even read your posts anymore.

You should try reading them, they're quite good.

Paste your posts onto a .bmp and upload them to FB; he'll read them then.

McParadigm wrote:

PHATJ wrote:

McParadigm wrote:It’s just flatly weird to me that being told you can’t go to work during a pandemic is a huge liberty issue for some people, but being forced to return to work when you don’t feel safe is not.

Like, I think conservatives would get a much warmer response if their attitude was “people who don’t feel safe returning to work should be able to make that call, until such time as a professionally developed, very specific ‘green zone’ of societal safe-to-work conditions has been met. People who do feel safe should have the right to engage in a specific set of behaviors, like going to work and gathering, so long as they do not intentionally expose themselves to people who have not made that same call.”

Instead it’s just GIVE ME ALL THE THINGS I WANT OR IT’S TYRANNY

I’d be happy to have that conversation, and of course I think it’s each person’s right to choose whether or not they actively participate in the public spectrum. That’s their right.

Instead, what happens as soon as a conservative suggests that stay at home mandates, and governments deciding who is “essential” and who isn’t, is unconstitutional? Liberals lose their shit, call the conservative a ”selfish, white-privelaged, arrogant, fuck-wit”. Yeah, that’s really encouraging a constructive conversation. You guys are so self righteous. It’s nauseating.

You may be willing to have that conversation, but the republican party is already taking steps to make it quicker and easier for employers to get workers who won’t return to work kicked off unemployment, and the president has called for lawsuit protections for those same employers. So it seems that as far as they’re concerned, that conversation is already over and done. Those policy sets are now intertwined: force a re-opening, and punitively punish those who don’t comply.