DOJ tramples on the Constitution

Using police powers to support "science" is what the Plandemic has brought us, and many have died in the process.

Your claim to "science" on this matter is about as persuasive as Fauci's claims regarding "science". Not persuasive in the least, with a strong undercurrent of desperation

 

That's true. What is a guy supposed to do???

 

You might consider no longer posting falsehoods. I don't know where Qnon exists (likely in the heads of some individuals), and have no interest in reading such threads even if I knew where they were.

 

Bottom line, science has proven to be much better than opinion.

 

Bottom line, you advocate for invoking police powers, and that makes you an authoritarian in the mold of Anthony Fauci. That makes me most skeptical of your claims, just as I'm skeptical of anything A. Fauci says.

 

Kind of a nonsense statement .. and not even sure if it is true. Propaganda has proven to much better at swaying public opinion than science on "Covid" - which brought us the vax mandates. Same thing with Second hand Smoke laws - Science took a back seat to political bandwagon.

 

Invoking police powers to do what the law allows you do to is not authoritarian. Our government has the right to seek information by using subpoenas, as the Constitution states. No one is taking it anywhere else. You are the one that is taking it to the extreme

 

So far, your posts strongly suggest you are a government man, that you are ignorant of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution.

 

What you say is total reality but is it the right thing to accept? Do we accept living based on erroneous opinions (propaganda) or do we try to take it where there are guidelines based on actual knowledge and studies?

 

Are you saying that gender reassignment should be addressed by government policy and dictates?

 

I am not a government man but when you are living in a nation of 340 million people and each one of them has a personal opinion, having a government that institutes the laws in place and makes decisions based on a democracy where the majority rules is the right thing to do. Otherwise, you have anarchy and chaos.

As far as the Constitution is concerned. It is the best document ever written and should be followed religiously BUT there are things in the Constitution that are outdated and obsolete based on the fact this world is no longer the same as it was when it was written. In those days there was no television, no radio, no social media, no capacity to move products/money in minutes, etc. The Constitution needs to be amended to address those changes.

 

If science dictates that it is the best solution for those involved, "yes". It certainly should not be dependent on biased opinion of people that have no knowledge of genes and what makes a man a woman or a woman a man.

 

Has nothing to do what is the "right thing" to accept --- we know what the right thing is to follow the science ... but this is not what happened .. it is not what was "accepted". Propaganda was substituted for Science .. which brought us the vax mandate.. Lies and false narrative and misrepresentation was substituted for the science .... and this we should not accept -- but the Public does accept . and other similar in our Gov't .. all the time. We think of Gov't corruption as no big deal these days .. business as usual

 

The US government DOES NOT honor or enforce "the laws in place". That you apparently believe otherwise shows how gullible you are.

We have chaos in this country today, by many standards. For example, the Attorney General has instructed his troops to go after parents who speak too much truth and ask too many questions at school board meetings. Our Pentagon has been deceiving the public since before The Pentagon Papers came out, and now has injected all our soldiers and sailors with toxic serums. Gangs of hoodlums break into stores and nobody is punished. Numerous career bureaucrats perjure themselves in Congress before the TV cameras and nothing happens.

Wake up and smell the napalm Lucky. You've been sound asleep for years.

 

This doesn't make sense in realistic terms.. as both sides can claim support from science -- pandemic a fine example.

Police powers support the Gov't - who will always claim science on their side.. .. what you are then arguing for here is authoritarianism.

 

You are taking this conversation to an area where it does not belong.

Let me say to you what I have said to all and said it a million times.

Humanity by nature is fallible. That means that if you look at errors, injustice, and stupidity, you will find some each and every time. There is NO perfection anywhere.

What needs to be done is to find the area where there are more good things than bad things. We all need to learn to live with the bad if we want the good that comes out of it. This is just like a marriage where you marry for good and bad and know full well that both will be experienced. Unless the bad of your mate is worse than the good, you stay married as there are no better solutions.

Having said that, some problems do have to be fixed but in order to debate about them, ALL the details involved need to be brought into the conversation. More often than not, it is the individual talking about it that is not aware of all the details (good and bad) and is making a judgement without enough information to make it. Isn't our Constitutional laws based on someone being found guilty in a court of law only if there is no doubt left?

You seem to be making a judgement here and yet you do not offer any other details other than the negative ones.

 

Yes, and that is why a consensus of the studies needs to be adhered tp=o.

Climate change is the perfect example. 97% of all scientists have stated that Global warming is occurring but there is 3% that don't. What should we do? Do what the consensus says.

In the pandemic there were different studies made that gave different results, but the consensus was that masks and vaccines is what was needed. The government needs to go with the consensus and not with the opposite side.

That is life and it is what makes sense.

 

Lucky1

In an effort to advance rational public dialogue in Post 135 I asked you a simple question which you have refused to reply to. So far, I'm impressed in all the wrong ways.

 

You missed the boat mate. We all agree that the scientific consensus should be adhered to-- that is a statement of silliness. .. The consensus says the sun is going to rise tomorrow - and this scientific fact needs to be adhered to ? .. is a statement of nothing.

97% say earth is warming .. that is the consensus .. There is no Consensus as to what we should do about it. .. there is no "Consensus says"

Consensus says we should reduce carbon emissions .. vunderbar -- there is no consensus as to how we should go about doing this.

You claim .. "we should use police action to enforce consensus" .. OK .. what this means is that Gov't will engineer some kind of consensus .. real or imagined .. may or may not have basis in reality .. and enforce that .. enforce the political band wagon du jour - which will have nothing to do with the consensus in science.

For example --- 99.99 of "us Scientists" - agree that the increase of CO2 emissions over last 25 years .. from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons /year is because of industrialization of non industrialized populations .. in conjunction with population growth.

Never heard that one before --- did ya .. First question should be .. "Why Not" .. why are you unaware of "The Scientific Consensus"

What does the consensus say we should do about it ? How are we going to 1) stop the increase 2) decrease from there.

Leaving that Question unanswered .. what should we not be doing .. how about not transporting our pullution problems to non industrialized nations.. giving the bowl of rice a day crowd a cabbage once a week . instead of putting refinery in their back yard .. because industrialization of the rice eater causes his consumption to go from 1 to 36 ..

This increase in "consumption" leads to increase in CO2 .. but also .. a massive increase in pollution of the Ocean .. and once again .. this is the 99.99% scientific consensus.

Biden's solution to the Problem ? "Not in my Back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean" Environmental Policy .. which violates not only the consensus .. but their own New Green Deal "Commandments" - "Thou Shalt not Transport Pollution problems to other nations" .. and especially not non industrialized populations.

but but but --- I thought Red were the "Anti Science" crowd .. and .. perhaps they are in some ways on the fringe. but in terms of general overall policy it is Blue that are the anti Science road warriors .. enforcing law by using police -- as if they represent a consensus in Science.


..

 

After reading your entire post all I can say is that in all of these cases, we should let the courts and the laws decide what is right and what is wrong. You and I have don't have enough information to make any opinion. We should stay out of it but when we don't stay out of it, we should either be clear that it is OUR opinion (based on how we personally interpret the laws) or supply all the information available about the subject itself (not try to prove our point using other similar situations).

 

Maybe you should ask Trump because he played a theme song attributed to Qnon and had a picture with a lapel with the Qnon logo on it.

 

Let the courts decide what ? You are not understanding what you are saying ... first you say science should decide .. now you say the courts should decide You are not making any sense - not saying what is being decided nor on what basis.

So what are you proposing -- as it moves from one post to the next .. that every decision of Gov't is made is by a court ? in this case every decision with respect to the environment - every environmental regulation .. and every other decision on every other issue.

This is absurd .. due to infeasibility .. but - even if it was feasible -- it may not be any good .. as Judges are not experts in science - and are subject to political influence .. so you still get rulings based on the political bandwagon .. rather than the science..

 

Evidently, you are not understanding what I am saying even though I am making effort to explain it in the best way possible without having to spend more time than the subject deserves.

Yes, science should be the deciding factor but the reality of "any" government is that the courts and the laws are the actual deciders of what happens. Normally, the courts follow what the science says as going against the science normally opens a can of worms that the courts do not want to address. After all, if the laws go against the science, it normally means corruption is occurring.

Having said that, this topic does not deserve any further of my time, especially when I am talking to someone that wants to be more conflictive than trying to understand the common sense of what I am talking about.

Let's leave it as "we agree to disagree". End of story for me. Thanks for the time you spent in answering my posts.

 

Tis not my lack of understanding that is the issue .. but yours .. You started out talking about how decisions should be made on basis of science .. You said science proven much better than opinion.

You were told .. no one is disagreeing that decisions should be made on science .. but the fact of the matter is that they are not made on the basis of Science ... we all agree that "They Should Be" .. and we should all have a fairy godmother .. but thats not reality .. not what is happening.

Then .. unable to grasp this reality - despite a detailed example - you cry out ... "The decisions should be made by the courts. completely switching gears to another argument .. as if somehow the other argument made sense..

This idea .. despite being far down a rabbit hole -- was addressed to humor you .. and found desperatly lacking .. a reflection of your lack of understanding .. not mine sport

 

Exactly. The secular progressive left support for the deep state against ordinary citizens is well known. We will not be intimidated by this regime. MAGA!