Of course the Reichstag Fire Decree and the current lockdown isn’t identical. However, there are some basic similarities l- playing on people’s fears, restricting our rights, giving no timeline to get those rights back (or at least it’s a moving goalpost)
Very Skeptical wrote:
That doesn't seem like "a bunch of similarities." Right now the government is telling people to stay home because there's a pandemic going on and social distancing is the only method they currently have for slowing the spread of the virus. It has nothing to do with suppressing political opposition, which becomes immediately apparent when you look at the media -- a lot of people are going after politicians at the moment, and that would be the one of the first things to be suppressed if the situation was in any way similar to the Reichstag Fire Decree.
Nobody can give an accurate estimate as to when stay-at-home orders will be lifted because we've never had a COVID-19 pandemic before; we don't know how long this will take, and giving false estimates would irritate people at best or, at worst, they would resume normal activities as soon as we reached the estimated date -- regardless of updated information and guidelines -- and the virus would spread even more rapidly and exacerbate the problems we're already facing. This is the reason Fauci isn't being specific with a date. Trump and Pence aren't being specific because they clearly don't have a good enough understanding of the situation to make an informed statement. Actually, Trump did try to establish a date for things to return to normal -- he said he wanted everything to restart by Easter, and everyone told him no because we knew from watching the progression of the virus in other countries that the situation wouldn't improve in such a short time frame.
If the insinuation is that by telling people to not hold large gatherings the government is violating the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, that's not true. The government is trying to prohibit large gatherings of people because it could increase the rate at which the virus is transmitted; the emphasis is on adhering to social distancing guidelines, not on outlawing any sort of congregating whatsoever. Furthermore, the Reichstag Fire Decree took away far more freedom, including the rights to free speech and press -- given the amount of dissent in America right now, those freedoms are clearly still active. Also, the RFD allowed for indiscriminate arrest of political opponents; not only has this not happened in America, even in light of the pandemic, but many people haven't been arrested even when violating social distancing guidelines designed to protect vulnerable people from a potentially lethal disease.
The American government is handling the situation poorly, I won't argue against that, but they're not violating civil liberties. They're being nowhere near as strict as other countries like Italy and Spain, and the relatively lax attitude toward this whole pandemic is at least partially responsible for the severity of the situation in America.
What? Haven't you been paying attention lately? The governors from both Rhode Island & Florida were violating the 14th amendment with out of state travelers:
https://www.danmorrisshow.com/rhode-island-pulling-over-out-of-state-drivers-during-pandemic-is-illegal-judge-napolitano-says/Some very good reading on this subject:
https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitanohttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2004211Freedom of speech is being illegally restricted by requiring people to stay home. Free speech at it's most basic level is someone in the town square making some type of speech or proclamation. We did not arrest people in St Louis or Baltimore when they were rioting in the streets over issues that were incorrectly portrayed. What would the Government do today if a bunch of sane people peacefully marched down the sidewalk in Washington DC?
energeticlotuseater wrote:
Of course the Reichstag Fire Decree and the current lockdown isn’t identical. However, there are some basic similarities l- playing on people’s fears, restricting our rights, giving no timeline to get those rights back (or at least it’s a moving goalpost)
This ^
Playing on people's fears is the big one. When you have a nation paralyzed in fear many are willing to give up all of their rights for perceived protection offered by the government. It's 24/7 bombarded of "coronavirus" coverage from the main stream media. Many negative fear-mongering stories shown almost hourly. A daily body count ticker on the networks. Images of body bags, refrigerated storage trailers for the bodies, tents being set up outside hospitals, U.S. Navy wartime hospital ships arriving, etc. This plays on people's emotions - creates stress, anxiety & FEAR.
Just the other day I'm at a local grocery store standing in line on a designated "6 ft social distancing line." An elderly lady in front of me turns around and says; "sir...your foot is over that line!...don't you know what social distancing means?" I apologized and asked her why she was so scared and she says; "getting the coronavirus...what did you think! This is the fear that is consumed by many people in this country right now. My foot barely over a social distancing line and a person responds in hysteria.
And just when I thought I saw everything - frightened people are now calling 911 on their neighbors who are coughing thinking they the coronavirus:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3914247/coronavirus-cathy-calling-911-loud-coughing-neighbors/amp/energeticlotuseater wrote:
Let’s all keep in mind that the government (s) that are taking away our civil liberties have given us no definite timeline or even target on when they will drop their lockdowns/stay-at-home orders. It is very worrisome when people like Dr.Faucci, Trump, Pence can only give very vague phrases like “flatten the curve” when they talk about the goal of the lockdowns and EVEN then Dr.Faucci won’t commit to when he would be willing to drop the lockdowns.
Read a bit about the Reichstag Fire Decree. You’ll find a bunch of similarities between that and today’s situation. Both were/are supported by people from all political affiliations.
The states instituted stay at home directives, not the Feds. This is such a basic and obvious aspect of the virus response, i must question your whole premise and reasoning, if not your entire purpose. And with that said, Fauci and others are quick to point out, in complete transparency, that the virus will dictate how soon things may return to normal, and they don't know. Governors largely due the same but the ones i've seen generally list the duration of the current stay at home directives, with a mention that they may need to be extended,
I will take civil libertarians seriously when they can make an argument without having to do a slippery slope to (insert Moa, Hitler, Maduro, Stalin, etc.) argument. The virus lockdowns are the most straight forward example of the government's obligation to care for the health and welfare of the citizens it governs. Benjamin Franklin's notion of "liberty" wasn't about having a government with no authority to do anything. It was about a government that protected liberty by keeping its citizens safe. Back in the 1700s it was the powerful and wealthy Penn family that was willing to let the settlers on the western edge of Pennsylvania get slaughtered by French and Indian raids. Today, it is the billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Lloyd Blankfein who are happy to send hard working Americans out to catch corona virus and die a horrible death to preserve their stock prices.
nasty brutish and short wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
And the way it is now used by empty headed pseudolibertarians is almost the opposite of what Franklin meant. The quote is believed to be from a letter Franklin wrote the governor of Pennsylvania. The western most settlements in Pennsylvania were under attack from the French and Indians. Pennsylvania wanted to raise funds for the defense of these settlements by taxing land belonging to the Penn family. The Penn family bought off the governor, who blocked the efforts to tax the Penn land. Thus, "purchase a little temporary safety" refers to the Penns buying off the governor to keep from being taxed. "Essential liberty" refers to the ability to defend the citizens of Pennsylvania from attack by the French and Indians. So, the phrase actually would apply to those who seek to protect their economic interests by limiting lockdowns (temporary safety) against those who need the government to protect them from the spread of the virus (essential liberty).
Can we talk about how OP took a quote from a historical figure, changed the wording to say what he wanted it to say, posted it in quotations (but with no name attributed to it) so readers who had heard the original quote would confuse it for that one/assume it was by a historical figure, and then when he got called out on it went "what if I quoted myself? that's still technically a quote, right?". I think people will take the quote a lot less seriously if they found out it was made by some loser on a forum rather than a respected founding father.
By living in a governmental system, you necessarily give up some liberties. Everyone has to follow laws, everyone has to pay taxes. Why do we do this? Security.
His credibility is shot. His opinion is mud.
yes yes yes wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
Let’s all keep in mind that the government (s) that are taking away our civil liberties have given us no definite timeline or even target on when they will drop their lockdowns/stay-at-home orders. It is very worrisome when people like Dr.Faucci, Trump, Pence can only give very vague phrases like “flatten the curve” when they talk about the goal of the lockdowns and EVEN then Dr.Faucci won’t commit to when he would be willing to drop the lockdowns.
Read a bit about the Reichstag Fire Decree. You’ll find a bunch of similarities between that and today’s situation. Both were/are supported by people from all political affiliations.
The states instituted stay at home directives, not the Feds. This is such a basic and obvious aspect of the virus response, i must question your whole premise and reasoning, if not your entire purpose. And with that said, Fauci and others are quick to point out, in complete transparency, that the virus will dictate how soon things may return to normal, and they don't know. Governors largely due the same but the ones i've seen generally list the duration of the current stay at home directives, with a mention that they may need to be extended,
Whether it’s local or federal governments or a combination of the two running ransacked over our constitution it doesn’t really matter to me.
The stay at home orders will most likely be extended time and time again but the problem is they have set no target or goal as to when these lockdowns will stop. Is it when the corona virus death count us 0? That could take years, or possibly never. Just saying the “lockdowns and a return to normalcy will be determined on how the Coronavirus pandemic develops” is dangerously vague and quite frankly unacceptable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So where do you get your information about the crisis if not from some branch of the media and the health experts they talk to?
Youtube videos that anonymous posters linked to on the 4chan incel boards are the most trustworthy sources of information.
But 3 million Americans die every year, mostly from preventable causes. So why is the Government taking freedoms away to save a few lives when it is not doing it to save millions of lives? Not to mention many states count the death of a pregnant woman as 2 lives so why would the Government not outlaw abortion?
Precious Roy wrote:
What goes up must come down. The coming down part, according to my regression analysis with Excel, actually has very little to do with the quarantine order.
Oh, wait. I didn't know you had an excel spreadsheet. I guess that proves everything. And you cited the well known principle of infectious diseases "what goes up must come down". Was that the subject of your Phd dissertation? I am currently working on "pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered" and also have an excel spreadsheet. I am working 24/7 to get it done before my colleague publishes his work on "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush". I don't want to have to present at the same conference of internet dodo brains as that guy. He would steal my thunder.
Typical. When you don't have a good point to argue, make fun of the poster.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So where do you get your information about the crisis if not from some branch of the media and the health experts they talk to?
Youtube videos that anonymous posters linked to on the 4chan incel boards are the most trustworthy sources of information.
They may be given that the establishment is taking them down as fast as they are put up
When Abdul makes his dirty bomb
And plants it in a bin,
It detonates but we go on,
"Terror must not win!!"
But what about when Israel drags us into several, unending wars in Muslim majority nations?
Where are the brave American patriots pushing back against that?