Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


jk

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Me: simpsons' depiction of nuclear power ruined public perception of it

You: it was the Media!

Me: do you have any examples of this?

You: *lists liberal media outlets rather than examples*

Me: again, actual examples?

You: look it up yourself

 

Not sure how I'm supposed to have a rebuttal to that. I'm more than willing to back up my assertion about the Simpsons.

not sure if you heard but watching the simpsons is racist now per hank azaria (but he won't give back the millions he made being a racist tho)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the game of pin the tail on a moving donkey the CDC reverses course (for the 19th time) to recommended anyone in close contact with someone of documented Covid positive status needs to get tested even if the close contact individual is asymptomatic. 

#pickaf***inglane

#noendgameinsight

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm no lawyer, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I'd go with the old standby:

Amendment 1: freedom of speech (widely interpreted today to include freedom of expression). 

 

Put a far less subtle, less PC, way: Don't make me wear a gold star. 

 

Let's not get 2 things mixed up.  Mask mandates are not innately unconstitutional.   The 1st Amendment is first and foremost subject to the health and safety of the people.  The Supreme Court just validated this in March.  

That said, does the federal government (unlike the state) have the authority to mandate the wearing of masks?  This is where we are in unchartered waters.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

The 1st Amendment is subject to the health and safety of the people. 

Gee, and some would like to change "1st" in your statement to "2nd" I'm sure. 

 

And please explain how one can "mandate" if one does not have "authority". -- I mandate you eat a PB&J for supper tonight! (You laugh because I'm not the boss of your meals.) 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

In the game of pin the tail on a moving donkey the CDC reverses course (for the 19th time) to recommended anyone in close contact with someone of documented Covid positive status needs to get tested even if the close contact individual is asymptomatic. 

#pickaf***inglane

#noendgameinsight

You don’t think Caputo’s leave had anything to do with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Gee, and some would like to change "1st" in your statement to "2nd" I'm sure. 

 

And please explain how one can "mandate" if one does not have "authority". -- I mandate you eat a PB&J for supper tonight! (You laugh because I'm not the boss of your meals.) 

 

 

Quit being difficult.  This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J.   Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority.  The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such.  But, like I said, we're in new territory here.  There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks.  As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party.  As it stands now,  the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

Quit being difficult.  This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J.   Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority.  The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such.  But, like I said, we're in new territory here.  There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks.  As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party.  As it stands now,  the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.  

You just spelled it out.
Authority --> Justification --> Mandate --> And they'd have to make their argument because there's nothing on the books. 

At this point, it must be noted that if they have to make a legal argument for it, they don't presently have authority to mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Speaking of QAnon craziness.    This Fox interview came to an awkward screeching halt when Newt brought up George Soros.     

 

 

What would this segment have to do with Qanon? Harf and Melissa Francis freaked out when Newt made a statement that is 100% accurate and verifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hayduke1 said:

Fair enough.  He shifted positions a bit.  I just went off memory of an earlier speech. 

However, it is in question whether it would be constitutional.  

In the meantime, I am going drinking and driving, not wearing seat belts.  The heck with speed limits too.

Because.. freedom!

If you want to make poor decisions that’s on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

So Newt is wrong?

He is insinuating that the DAs make their decision based on what the scary Jewish globalist boogeyman irrationally feared by white trash conspiracy theorists tells them.

If you have beef with Soros but not the Uihleins, then you just don't like when people donate to democrats, not that the ultra rich can curry favor by making donations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

He is insinuating that the DAs make their decision based on what the scary Jewish globalist boogeyman irrationally feared by white trash conspiracy theorists tells them.

If you have beef with Soros but not the Uihleins, then you just don't like when people donate to democrats, not that the ultra rich can curry favor by making donations.

So he is right.  Whataboutism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

 

Quit being difficult.  This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J.   Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority.  The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such.  But, like I said, we're in new territory here.  There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks.  As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party.  As it stands now,  the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.  
 

The Governor that Isn’t interested in your mask mandate could turn around and tell you to pound sand up your ass. What are you going to do to him or her?
 

South Dakota Governor  Christie Noem didn’t shut down South Dakota and the Democrats had a stroke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, petey23 said:

What would this segment have to do with Qanon? Harf and Melissa Francis freaked out when Newt made a statement that is 100% accurate and verifiable.

Blame the losers who claim Soros is paying Antifa to kill patriots and helped the Nazis for making any criticism of him sound like a conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goon said:

The Governor that Isn’t interested in your mask mandate could turn around and tell you to pound sand up your ass. What are you going to do to him or her?
 

South Dakota Governor  Christie Noem didn’t shut down South Dakota and the Democrats had a stroke. 

And now, North and South Dakota lead the nation in Covid-19 outbreaks per capita. 

Look what your ruling could do to the USA, oh great Chief Justice of the Soopreme Court of the internets. 

You should have stuck to crappy college hockey columns. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

And now, North and South Dakota lead the nation in Covid-19 outbreaks per capita. 

see, its repeating stuff like this that makes you look stupid...positives do NOT mean hospitilization or for that matter, sick.   we have more positives because we tested a record 10k+ people, witch, in it self, means nothing!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...