Calolfornia

[Jason]

Science

Edited December 10, 2020 by Jason

[Lhalo]

Now we know who’s dick Gavin got his throat aids from. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

Science

He just set Newsom up for a huge lawsuit. Every restaurant should file individual damages, not class action, a hundred thousand individual claims. All based on a lie by the Governors office about the safety of dining out which created a policy that was illegal in nature. 

[Lhalo]

52 minutes ago, calscuf said:

I’m 99% sure a business owner can’t sue the state for damages because it thinks an emergency order is unfair.

Honest question: Is there precedence for this situation? 

Maybe something like this happened during the WWII blackouts in CA?

Edited December 10, 2020 by Lhalo

[Adam]

Suing the government is always an uphill battle. You’re asking the state to rule against itself.

it’s really a shame that there aren’t repercussions. Some fucktwat governor can violate the constitution for months before the Supreme Court says “you can’t do that.” But that governor never faces consequences. He just has to give a little Donovan McNab “my bad” chest pat and that’s it.

 

There’s no incentive for him to change his behavior after that

Edited December 10, 2020 by Adam

[Taylor]

6 minutes ago, Adam said:

Some fucktwat governor can violate the constitution for months before the Supreme Court says “you can’t do that.” But that governor never faces consequences. 

States' rights!

[Adam]

47 minutes ago, Taylor said:

States' rights!

You need a few more months of work before you’re ready to take your skills to Twitter.

I understand the point you’re making but my post was based in the current landscape of American government. I reject any discussion about my individual rights. Currently there is a federal government and limitations on what the states can do. The states know those limitations but make decisions anyway. The constitutionality of some of those decisions is in a gray area. I’m referring to black and white situations. Any seventh grader knows that religious assembly cannot be violated by the government yet The government has put forth policies and guidelines that does just that.

[Blarg]

Yeah, but you can protest about not being able... to... assemble in large... groups... 

Does that make any fucking sense? 

[Jay]

Politicians have to choose between:

"he mishandled the crisis and people died"

and

"the lockdowns hurt small businesses"

Guess which one they will choose?

[Adam]

42 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yeah, but you can protest about not being able... to... assemble in large... groups... 

Does that make any fucking sense? 

It doesn't have to make any sense. The vast majority of people who have the energy and motivation to publicly cause a fuss are binary thinking non-contributing nothings with no stake in anything productive.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

41 minutes ago, Jay said:

Politicians have to choose between:

"he mishandled the crisis and people died"

and

"the lockdowns hurt small businesses"

Guess which one they will choose?

Except the reality is that both of those paths come with a lot of additional consequences.  The lock downs in CA are contributing to a massive budget shortfall, possibly a million or more people have been pushed into poverty some extreme poverty, a lot of kids mostly on the lower end of the economic spectrum are falling behind, a lot of small businesses will close and never come back and the list goes on.  It as a no win situation but the initial mantra was "stop the spread" then we kind of sat in limbo for a few months when it seems like businesses should have been able to open up to some degree. 

I'd say the majority of people in the state have followed the rules but those didn't apply when people were protesting and rioting and elected officials not speaking up against that takes away from when they tell everyone else to stay home.  Now you've got people who have been following the orders more or less for almost 9 months getting lock down fatigue which is what's happening across the country.  It's just one giant clusterfuck that has been mismanaged at pretty much every level.  No easy solutions and I won't crucify our leaders for the path they took but I sure can for the mixed signals and lack of direction.  Obviously though a big part of the problem is too many people who can't seem to act for the greater good even for just a few months.   

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

It as a no win situation but the initial mantra was "stop the spread"

No that was later. The initial mantra was "shut down for two weeks so we don't overwhelm the hospitals."

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

No that was later. The initial mantra was "shut down for two weeks so we don't overwhelm the hospitals."

The goal posts have been changed to hockey nets 

[Tank]

5 hours ago, Adam said:

Any seventh grader knows that religious assembly cannot be violated by the government yet The government has put forth policies and guidelines that does just that.

i'm going to disagree with you on this. 

[Taylor]

5 hours ago, Adam said:

You need a few more months of work before you’re ready to take your skills to Twitter.

I understand the point you’re making but my post was based in the current landscape of American government. I reject any discussion about my individual rights. Currently there is a federal government and limitations on what the states can do. The states know those limitations but make decisions anyway. The constitutionality of some of those decisions is in a gray area. I’m referring to black and white situations. Any seventh grader knows that religious assembly cannot be violated by the government yet The government has put forth policies and guidelines that does just that.

Since all large gatherings are banned, and not just religious ones, I wonder if it's really a violation of "freedom of religion." Disneyland and movie theaters are closed, too. 

If it were a matter of people could contract it in large crowds but not spread it, that would be a different story. But someone choosing to go into a place where chances of contact are higher can then spread it to someone who is taking steps to stay safe. It's the same reason that the anti-vax movement isn't just a matter of "muh freedoms" because there are people who would get the vaccine but can't because of various medical conditions, and now they're susceptible to previously eradicated diseases because next-door neighbor is an anti-vaxxer and her kids got measles.

We have the freedom to make certain decisions, even if those decisions will cause harm to ourselves. But what if those decisions cause harm to other people? Should those decisions still be protected? I know it's a slippery slope. Technically, driving a car is a dangerous activity because you could accidentally hurt someone who is trying to be safe (hi, Geoff!).

But as a Christian, I personally don't have a problem with churches having the same restrictions as other kinds of institutions and businesses. I can't speak for every church, but Saddleback has actually done more since the pandemic started than ever before in our history—despite not having in-person worship services since March. We've become the largest free-food distributer in Orange County. If you care about spiritual stuff, over 20,000 people have made decisions for Christ at our food distribution events. As MT has pointed out, it's Saddleback's choice to do ministry that way, and it shouldn't be the government's job to tell churches what they can and can't do. And if the pandemic ends and there are still restrictions on churches that don't exist elsewhere, that becomes a huge problem. But these are strange and difficult times.

That being said, Newsom is a pretentious hypocrite and I can't wait to not vote for him again when his term is up.

[mtangelsfan]

25 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Since all large gatherings are banned, and not just religious ones, I wonder if it's really a violation of "freedom of religion." Disneyland and movie theaters are closed, too. 

If it were a matter of people could contract it in large crowds but not spread it, that would be a different story. But someone choosing to go into a place where chances of contact are higher can then spread it to someone who is taking steps to stay safe. It's the same reason that the anti-vax movement isn't just a matter of "muh freedoms" because there are people who would get the vaccine but can't because of various medical conditions, and now they're susceptible to previously eradicated diseases because next-door neighbor is an anti-vaxxer and her kids got measles.

We have the freedom to make certain decisions, even if those decisions will cause harm to ourselves. But what if those decisions cause harm to other people? Should those decisions still be protected? I know it's a slippery slope. Technically, driving a car is a dangerous activity because you could accidentally hurt someone who is trying to be safe (hi, Geoff!).

But as a Christian, I personally don't have a problem with churches having the same restrictions as other kinds of institutions and businesses. I can't speak for every church, but Saddleback has actually done more since the pandemic started than ever before in our history—despite not having in-person worship services since March. We've become the largest free-food distributer in Orange County. If you care about spiritual stuff, over 20,000 people have made decisions for Christ at our food distribution events. As MT has pointed out, it's Saddleback's choice to do ministry that way, and it shouldn't be the government's job to tell churches what they can and can't do. And if the pandemic ends and there are still restrictions on churches that don't exist elsewhere, that becomes a huge problem. But these are strange and difficult times.

That being said, Newsom is a pretentious hypocrite and I can't wait to not vote for him again when his term is up.

Except religious gatherings aren't like all the others you mentioned.   They are specifically protected in the Constitution.   

Its amazing to how eager we are to simply hand over our rights and freedoms for just a bit of safety 

[Adam]

13 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Since all large gatherings are banned, and not just religious ones, I wonder if it's really a violation of "freedom of religion." Disneyland and movie theaters are closed, too. 

If it were a matter of people could contract it in large crowds but not spread it, that would be a different story. But someone choosing to go into a place where chances of contact are higher can then spread it to someone who is taking steps to stay safe. It's the same reason that the anti-vax movement isn't just a matter of "muh freedoms" because there are people who would get the vaccine but can't because of various medical conditions, and now they're susceptible to previously eradicated diseases because next-door neighbor is an anti-vaxxer and her kids got measles.

We have the freedom to make certain decisions, even if those decisions will cause harm to ourselves. But what if those decisions cause harm to other people? Should those decisions still be protected? I know it's a slippery slope. Technically, driving a car is a dangerous activity because you could accidentally hurt someone who is trying to be safe (hi, Geoff!).

But as a Christian, I personally don't have a problem with churches having the same restrictions as other kinds of institutions and businesses. I can't speak for every church, but Saddleback has actually done more since the pandemic started than ever before in our history—despite not having in-person worship services since March. We've become the largest free-food distributer in Orange County. If you care about spiritual stuff, over 20,000 people have made decisions for Christ at our food distribution events. As MT has pointed out, it's Saddleback's choice to do ministry that way, and it shouldn't be the government's job to tell churches what they can and can't do. And if the pandemic ends and there are still restrictions on churches that don't exist elsewhere, that becomes a huge problem. But these are strange and difficult times.

That being said, Newsom is a pretentious hypocrite and I can't wait to not vote for him again when his term is up.

I don't have any issue with you criticizing people for the decisions they make if you truly feel as if those decisions present dangers to other people. I even see no issue if you choose to ostracize those people. That said, where do you think "muh freedoms" come from? Are you of the mind that the State or society as a whole should have significant influence over how an individual chooses to live his or her life? No one but you is responsible for your own health and safety. Forcing people to adhere to values they don't share is wrong. You could take the position that actions leading to the spread of the disease is a violation of another person, but I don't believe that argument holds any water in the current situation, unless they have intent to spread the disease after contracting it. A bunch of people are walking around with the virus. Each person has the sole responsibility to live in a way that upholds what they value. Don't wanna get the virus? Lock yourself up. 

 

 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Except religious gatherings aren't like all the others you mentioned.   They are specifically protected in the Constitution.   

Its amazing to how eager we are to simply hand over our rights and freedoms for just a bit of safety 

Spot on! Our rights don’t go on pause, ever. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

21 minutes ago, Adam said:

I don't have any issue with you criticizing people for the decisions they make if you truly feel as if those decisions present dangers to other people. I even see no issue if you choose to ostracize those people. That said, where do you think "muh freedoms" come from? Are you of the mind that the State or society as a whole should have significant influence over how an individual chooses to live his or her life? No one but you is responsible for your own health and safety. Forcing people to adhere to values they don't share is wrong. You could take the position that actions leading to the spread of the disease is a violation of another person, but I don't believe that argument holds any water in the current situation, unless they have intent to spread the disease after contracting it. A bunch of people are walking around with the virus. Each person has the sole responsibility to live in a way that upholds what they value. Don't wanna get the virus? Lock yourself up. 

 

 

This is like saying speeding should be legal, and if you dont want to get run off the road stay home. There is a direct cost to the community as a whole for negligent abuse of freedoms. Everyone should be allowed to do as they please right up to the point where it starts affecting others, and we are solidly in that area now.

[Taylor]

25 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Except religious gatherings aren't like all the others you mentioned.   They are specifically protected in the Constitution.   

Its amazing to how eager we are to simply hand over our rights and freedoms for just a bit of safety 

I get what you're saying, but I feel like you're being a bit hyperbolic. Churches have certain guidelines, many are following those guidelines and many aren't, but it's not like worship services are being raided. Do you really think any of our politicians want to stomp on religious freedom? About 70 percent of Americans attend church. It would be incredibly unpopular to go out of their way to disenfranchise churchgoers.

[Adam]

4 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This is like saying speeding should be legal, and if you dont want to get run off the road stay home. There is a direct cost to the community as a whole for negligent abuse of freedoms. Everyone should be allowed to do as they please right up to the point where it starts affecting others, and we are solidly in that area now.

Speeding should be legal

[mtangelsfan]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I get what you're saying, but I feel like you're being a bit hyperbolic. Churches have certain guidelines, many are following those guidelines and many aren't, but it's not like worship services are being raided. Do you really think any of our politicians want to stomp on religious freedom? About 70 percent of Americans attend church. It would be incredibly unpopular to go out of their way to disenfranchise churchgoers.

If they are threatening them because they are gathering they are actually stomping on freedom of religion and freedom of assembly

[Taylor]

32 minutes ago, Adam said:

I don't have any issue with you criticizing people for the decisions they make if you truly feel as if those decisions present dangers to other people. I even see no issue if you choose to ostracize those people. That said, where do you think "muh freedoms" come from? Are you of the mind that the State or society as a whole should have significant influence over how an individual chooses to live his or her life? No one but you is responsible for your own health and safety. Forcing people to adhere to values they don't share is wrong. You could take the position that actions leading to the spread of the disease is a violation of another person, but I don't believe that argument holds any water in the current situation, unless they have intent to spread the disease after contracting it. A bunch of people are walking around with the virus.

You act like America is the Wild Wild West and we get to do whatever the hell we want all the time, except now COVID has shown up and the government is taking away all of our freedoms. There has to be a balance between complete freedom and individualism (anarchy) and forced collectivism (Communism/fascism). 

32 minutes ago, Adam said:

A bunch of people are walking around with the virus.

That isn't practical for the vast majority of people, and you know that. Extremely rich people can lock themselves in their houses and be fine, but most people have to interact with people at some point during their day or week to survive. 

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

If they are threatening them because they are gathering they are actually stomping on freedom of religion and freedom of assembly

I disagree. If COVID ends and these restrictions remain in place, I will agree with you. 

[St1ck]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

If they are threatening them because they are gathering they are actually stomping on freedom of religion and freedom of assembly

Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?