Lockdown Larry

**CarrollCoRaven** · 05-11-2020, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Jiggly Puff isn't winning in 2024 because he's going to likely be competing against Nikki Haley.

Good luck winning that one.

I don't think he could even win Maryland's primary against her.

**CarrollCoRaven** · 05-11-2020, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Vlad the lad

I could see lockdown trying to take Biden’s spot on the dem ticket

Another old white guy on the Dem ticket?

**Greg** · 05-11-2020, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by DitkasSausage

My point; lockdowns are not, have not, and will not be effective. Your argument that they are is essentially, "I have a cold, and I ate a bunch of bananas... the cold went away so bananas cure the common cold." It is a bad argument and it's not propped up by any comparative data that shows other locations that took a different approach having negative results.

You quoted me but I assume this part is directed elsewhere since we agree that the lockdowns were at minimum oversold and done. Likely they weren't needed or were in limited areas like NYC.

**Vlad the lad** · 05-12-2020, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by DitkasSausage

There is zero evidence the lockdown succeeded in it's goals... none. How many states took zero actions? I think the number is 18-19 depending on your definition. How many have been open since late April-May 4th? About 28. So over half of the country is open... the numbers are not rising. How do you explain states and countries that didn't implement any form of lockdown having, more often than not, lower %'s than states that did? Not totals (which would be skewed due to populations), but percentages of people. The hardest hit percentage wise has been CA and NY... you can say it is metropolitan, but that wouldn't explain upstate NY or northern CA which also still carry higher than average percentages. There is actually a better case that lock-downs and stay at home orders have been the opposite of effective.

Now you have IL and MI arresting people for going on hikes and going boating. This is the clear case of a city defining law for a rural area. I grew up in IL.... ~95% of the state is farmland and fishing towns... the other 5% is Chicago, Rockford, and East St. Louis. Yet a couple of people in rural counties will be arrested and thrown in jail, even though they don't have one reported positive case of COVID in the entire county.

My point; lockdowns are not, have not, and will not be effective. Your argument that they are is essentially, "I have a cold, and I ate a bunch of bananas... the cold went away so bananas cure the common cold." It is a bad argument and it's not propped up by any comparative data that shows other locations that took a different approach having negative results.

This is exactly what I was saying about Sweden. But sadly, like everything else, science and data have been replaced with politics and opinion

**Ortizer** · 05-12-2020, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Courts have ruled that telling somebody they can't use property is akin to taking it. This is to restrict the government from dictating how property is used without explicitly taking it to get around our rights.

The 9th simply applies this way: Just because the use of a boat on a waterway is not explicitly listed does not mean the people don't have that right. This amendment was meant to make clear that our rights are not limited to those listed elsewhere. The original wording also included a limitation on the growth of government but that was removed before finalization, unfortunately.

Correct, but that doesn't mean we do have the right either, so you would have to make a compelling case that it's an individual right free from restriction vs the state retaining the right to regulate the use of waterways.

Oh man. I can only imagination the fun if the limitation on growth was maintained.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 05-12-2020, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by DitkasSausage

There is zero evidence the lockdown succeeded in it's goals... none. How many states took zero actions? I think the number is 18-19 depending on your definition. How many have been open since late April-May 4th? About 28. So over half of the country is open... the numbers are not rising. How do you explain states and countries that didn't implement any form of lockdown having, more often than not, lower %'s than states that did? Not totals (which would be skewed due to populations), but percentages of people. The hardest hit percentage wise has been CA and NY... you can say it is metropolitan, but that wouldn't explain upstate NY or northern CA which also still carry higher than average percentages. There is actually a better case that lock-downs and stay at home orders have been the opposite of effective.

Now you have IL and MI arresting people for going on hikes and going boating. This is the clear case of a city defining law for a rural area. I grew up in IL.... ~95% of the state is farmland and fishing towns... the other 5% is Chicago, Rockford, and East St. Louis. Yet a couple of people in rural counties will be arrested and thrown in jail, even though they don't have one reported positive case of COVID in the entire county.

My point; lockdowns are not, have not, and will not be effective. Your argument that they are is essentially, "I have a cold, and I ate a bunch of bananas... the cold went away so bananas cure the common cold." It is a bad argument and it's not propped up by any comparative data that shows other locations that took a different approach having negative results.

Where in Illinois?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 05-12-2020, 11:12 PM

Saw that Hogan is expected to ease up on restrictions today.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**CarrollCoRaven** · 05-13-2020, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Saw that Hogan is expected to ease up on restrictions today.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Lockdown Larry is now announcing Maryland is entering Phase 1 of his 3 step plan,

CNN just disowned him.

**Greg** · 05-13-2020, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Correct, but that doesn't mean we do have the right either, so you would have to make a compelling case that it's an individual right free from restriction vs the state retaining the right to regulate the use of waterways.

Oh man. I can only imagination the fun if the limitation on growth was maintained.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Actually, you missed it. I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A CASE I HAVE A RIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO MAKE A CASE I DO NOT! That is the 9th amendment.