Vaccine

EvilGoalie 21 said:
Yeah I think your "I am Wallace" link broke during reply. I try not to post too many videos, gifs, images, etc. On my end that sort of stuff ends up just being hard to distinguish from the pop up ads. I image with the premium thing you get a more seamless user experience. But seeing how its Friday and it's a good tune, what the heck. Plus, in this time of ratty t-shirt lock down fashion, these matching tailored double-breasted maroon jackets deserve a moment of admiration.

Click to expand...
 
Here's the Wallace pic from-lots of pages ago at this point. It appears to me that his head injury has impaired his cognitive state. Of course, that's nothing compared to the fate that awaits him. Here's the thing though. check out the two dudes sharing a sword. Against this orgy of rugged manly individualism the director has chosen to sneak in the withering effects of creeping collective action. Eroding from within. I suppose one could argue that an army is the quintessential form of collective action. Or maybe they just ran out of swords for the extras. But why derail a good metaphorical train just as its leaving the station.

towton.jpg
 
Grace T. said:
Hey EOTL. How yah been? Long time, huh? Whatcha been up to? Still playing amateur counsel?

1. Wow way to distort my position. Dad4: see this is a deliberate mischaracterization of position in an attempt to lie....when you post the study itself and invite people to read it themselves, I'm not attempting to distort anything. EOTL: The legal issue is not just livestock...it's whether the counties have authority to undertake actions which exceed the enumerated powers set out in the statute, considering no one contemplated such powers at the time the statutes were drafted. It is entirely possible that a court would agree with you and say and statute was not intended to be limiting. It is also entirely possible that the courts could say certain actions undertaken (the relevant one was the shuttering of churches and virtually all economic commerce which was the issue at the time) exceeded the powers granted by the statutes. The emergency decree was a belt and suspenders approach to give the counties more leverage. Newsom facing a political recall made a tactical decision to leave that in place to allow the counties maximum flexibility to do what they thought they needed to do while at the same time not taking any actions himself (such as a state wide indoor mask mandate) that might make him accountable during the recall.

2. My position that the states should have maximum flexibility is because of the US constitution and the states are sovereign entities. As you know, the Constitution doesn't care if California is several multiples the size of Rhode Island. My position that states should be allowed to control their own pandemic responses is based on my belief of a limited interstate commerce clause and that nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power over public health, therefore reserving such right to the states. The counties, of course, have no such sovereign claim, and therefore are subordinate to the state and have such powers only as the state governments delegate under their respective constitutions.

3. Liberals loved the distinction of sovereign powers while Trump was president. Otherwise, Trump would have ordered Newsom and Cuomo and the other blue state governors to open up. Now Republicans love the distinction because DeSantis can give Biden the finger. Having recently returned from the Dakotas, it sets up a hilarious and nonsensical situation that you need to wear a mask to enter a national park there, but pretty much no one else is wearing a mask.

4. At first you had me going (even the reference to Golden Gate) that you are an actual legal scholar but your failure to understand the distinction in 2, the vocab you use and the quasi legal understanding and failure to understand legal nuances (few lawyers take absolutist legal positions....it's beaten out of us in law school) points to you being my old friend EOTL. Missed yah (not).
Click to expand...

1. Where is the language in the statute that says a local health agency's authority to take action in response to a pandemic is limited to burning livestock? It doesn't exist. The statute is painfully clear that a local health agency has broad authority to do what it wants to limit the negative impact of infectious diseases. The local ordinances that do so specifically reference this section. There is literally nothing that supports your "theory" that it is Newsom's fault that local agencies have implemented their own ordinances because they only have that authority that local agencies may not implement their own pandemic rules unless the governor has declared a state of emergency. That is just a lie no matter how many words you use to obfuscate that.

2. States are not "sovereign". They have only powers not granted to the federal government, which you would know if you read the Constitution or were an attorney. Second, you are correct that the Constitution doesn't care if LA is bigger than Rhode Island. But do you know who does? The "sovereign" state of California, which decided by state statute using its state power that it would allow its local jurisdictions to decide how to handle pandemics in their jurisdictions as they decide are best unless and until the state decides it must intervene. So just as the federal Constitution allows the federal government to delegate certain matters to the states, which it does all the time, the state Constitution allows the state to similarly delegate things like authority to handle a pandemic, to local jurisdictions unless and until it decides otherwise. There is no practical reason why L.A. should have less ability to make decisions about how best to handle a pandemic in its jurisdiction than Rhode Island, and there is also no legal reason either given that the "sovereign" state of CA has elected to use its state power to let local jurisdictions decide what is best for them. This provides by far the best flexibility for everyone because places like LA County obviously have different needs than Butte County, but the state can certainly intervene using its state power if it decides one of them is fucking it up. Honestly, you sound like someone who went to law school and took constitutional law but completely failed to learn anything about a state's "sovereign" power, which includes its "sovereign" ability to establish how government in its state works.

3. This is just made up bs.

4. As I have asked before, where is the legal authority that says the Health and Safety Code section that provides local jurisdictions with authority to implement their own rules and regulations in a pandemic is limited to burning clothes and livestock, as you claimed? I actually cited the statute that is directly on point, which is not "quasi" law. The only "quasi" legal discussion here was your bs nonsense about a county's authority being limited burning livestock and something to do with measles based on a vague penumbra that you can't support with a citation to anything.

I had not made any personal attacks on you, yet here you are doing exactly that, probably because that is the only thing you can do in response to the fact that your "legal" opinion that counties only have the authority to implement mask and other mandates if a state of emergency is declared - or is limited to some nonsense about burning livestock - is simply a lie. You don't practice law and probably never have, that is clear. And although that is not a requirement to understanding how the federal, state and local governments interact and what authority they have, it is very obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are so clueless that you're talking about the US Constitution on an issue that is governed by the California Constitution because, you know, the "sovereign" state of California gets to decide what its local jurisdictions can and cannot do.
 
Desert Hound said:
It still doesn't explain why you wear them.

1) you are vaxxed
2) you are fairly young
3) you are fairly health
4) you have claimed now for over a year that surgical masks will do the job.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between universal masking and one person donning a mask. The first has a considerably larger impact than the second- not simply because one involves more people, but because one is more effective at changing the rate of growth of the virus.

But, to understand this, you’d have to be willing to think of covid as a societal problem instead of as an individual one. As I said before, you are either unwilling or unable to make that cognitive leap.
 
GoldenGate said:
1. Where is the language in the statute that says a local health agency's authority to take action in response to a pandemic is limited to burning livestock? It doesn't exist. The statute is painfully clear that a local health agency has broad authority to do what it wants to limit the negative impact of infectious diseases. The local ordinances that do so specifically reference this section. There is literally nothing that supports your "theory" that it is Newsom's fault that local agencies have implemented their own ordinances because they only have that authority that local agencies may not implement their own pandemic rules unless the governor has declared a state of emergency. That is just a lie no matter how many words you use to obfuscate that.

2. States are not "sovereign". They have only powers not granted to the federal government, which you would know if you read the Constitution or were an attorney. Second, you are correct that the Constitution doesn't care if LA is bigger than Rhode Island. But do you know who does? The "sovereign" state of California, which decided by state statute using its state power that it would allow its local jurisdictions to decide how to handle pandemics in their jurisdictions as they decide are best unless and until the state decides it must intervene. So just as the federal Constitution allows the federal government to delegate certain matters to the states, which it does all the time, the state Constitution allows the state to similarly delegate things like authority to handle a pandemic, to local jurisdictions unless and until it decides otherwise. There is no practical reason why L.A. should have less ability to make decisions about how best to handle a pandemic in its jurisdiction than Rhode Island, and there is also no legal reason either given that the "sovereign" state of CA has elected to use its state power to let local jurisdictions decide what is best for them. This provides by far the best flexibility for everyone because places like LA County obviously have different needs than Butte County, but the state can certainly intervene using its state power if it decides one of them is fucking it up. Honestly, you sound like someone who went to law school and took constitutional law but completely failed to learn anything about a state's "sovereign" power, which includes its "sovereign" ability to establish how government in its state works.

3. This is just made up bs.

4. As I have asked before, where is the legal authority that says the Health and Safety Code section that provides local jurisdictions with authority to implement their own rules and regulations in a pandemic is limited to burning clothes and livestock, as you claimed? I actually cited the statute that is directly on point, which is not "quasi" law. The only "quasi" legal discussion here was your bs nonsense about a county's authority being limited burning livestock and something to do with measles based on a vague penumbra that you can't support with a citation to anything.

I had not made any personal attacks on you, yet here you are doing exactly that, probably because that is the only thing you can do in response to the fact that your "legal" opinion that counties only have the authority to implement mask and other mandates if a state of emergency is declared - or is limited to some nonsense about burning livestock - is simply a lie. You don't practice law and probably never have, that is clear. And although that is not a requirement to understanding how the federal, state and local governments interact and what authority they have, it is very obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are so clueless that you're talking about the US Constitution on an issue that is governed by the California Constitution because, you know, the "sovereign" state of California gets to decide what its local jurisdictions can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Here's the Wallace pic from-lots of pages ago at this point. It appears to me that his head injury has impaired his cognitive state. Of course, that's nothing compared to the fate that awaits him. Here's the thing though. check out the two dudes sharing a sword. Against this orgy of rugged manly individualism the director has chosen to sneak in the withering effects of creeping collective action. Eroding from within. I suppose one could argue that an army is the quintessential form of collective action. Or maybe they just ran out of swords for the extras. But why derail a good metaphorical train just as its leaving the station.

View attachment 11618
Click to expand...
Weak!!!
 
Grace T. said:
You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.
Click to expand...
EOTL is Satan's side kick. This is where I go deep into rabbit hole and most stay at the top because no one wants to look at all the evil that the likes of this man and his crew has done to folks like you and me Grace. EOTL kills and lies and threatens dads and their children not to go around his campus.
 
GoldenGate said:
1. Where is the language in the statute that says a local health agency's authority to take action in response to a pandemic is limited to burning livestock? It doesn't exist. The statute is painfully clear that a local health agency has broad authority to do what it wants to limit the negative impact of infectious diseases. The local ordinances that do so specifically reference this section. There is literally nothing that supports your "theory" that it is Newsom's fault that local agencies have implemented their own ordinances because they only have that authority that local agencies may not implement their own pandemic rules unless the governor has declared a state of emergency. That is just a lie no matter how many words you use to obfuscate that.

2. States are not "sovereign". They have only powers not granted to the federal government, which you would know if you read the Constitution or were an attorney. Second, you are correct that the Constitution doesn't care if LA is bigger than Rhode Island. But do you know who does? The "sovereign" state of California, which decided by state statute using its state power that it would allow its local jurisdictions to decide how to handle pandemics in their jurisdictions as they decide are best unless and until the state decides it must intervene. So just as the federal Constitution allows the federal government to delegate certain matters to the states, which it does all the time, the state Constitution allows the state to similarly delegate things like authority to handle a pandemic, to local jurisdictions unless and until it decides otherwise. There is no practical reason why L.A. should have less ability to make decisions about how best to handle a pandemic in its jurisdiction than Rhode Island, and there is also no legal reason either given that the "sovereign" state of CA has elected to use its state power to let local jurisdictions decide what is best for them. This provides by far the best flexibility for everyone because places like LA County obviously have different needs than Butte County, but the state can certainly intervene using its state power if it decides one of them is fucking it up. Honestly, you sound like someone who went to law school and took constitutional law but completely failed to learn anything about a state's "sovereign" power, which includes its "sovereign" ability to establish how government in its state works.

3. This is just made up bs.

4. As I have asked before, where is the legal authority that says the Health and Safety Code section that provides local jurisdictions with authority to implement their own rules and regulations in a pandemic is limited to burning clothes and livestock, as you claimed? I actually cited the statute that is directly on point, which is not "quasi" law. The only "quasi" legal discussion here was your bs nonsense about a county's authority being limited burning livestock and something to do with measles based on a vague penumbra that you can't support with a citation to anything.

I had not made any personal attacks on you, yet here you are doing exactly that, probably because that is the only thing you can do in response to the fact that your "legal" opinion that counties only have the authority to implement mask and other mandates if a state of emergency is declared - or is limited to some nonsense about burning livestock - is simply a lie. You don't practice law and probably never have, that is clear. And although that is not a requirement to understanding how the federal, state and local governments interact and what authority they have, it is very obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are so clueless that you're talking about the US Constitution on an issue that is governed by the California Constitution because, you know, the "sovereign" state of California gets to decide what its local jurisdictions can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

I liked the part about "if you...were an attorney".
 
espola said:
I liked the part about "if you...were an attorney".
Click to expand...
I know you are and so is the EOTL/Golden Gate bridge avatar lawyer dudes. You guys stole youth soccer and lied doing it. What a bunch of losers who use girls to make a buck. Losers!!!!
 
espola said:
Argument by assertion. Haven't we discussed this already?
Click to expand...
Liar & cheater Espola. On here protecting what you think you own with power & control. Wow, what a loser on a soccer forum with no kids. You must have something to protect, right loser?
 
Grace T. said:
You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.
Click to expand...

I've laid out my case for why Newsom left the emergency order in place and why the counties authority is limited. I hear your argument but I disagree with it. It's a reasonable one...I simply disagree for the reasons I outlined, but I tend to be a strict constructionalist while you clearly are not.

As to the federal/county distinction, you were the one that pointed out the inconsistency. I was trying to explain it. The federal government only has powers which were not delegated to it by the states. The federal government is limited in scope. The states have the remainder of the powers reserved to them. As to their relationship to the counties, that's a matter of state law and the state constitutions (which as you know, in California, are much easier to amend than the federal constitution). The state delegated certain powers to the federal government....the state delegated certain powers to the county (and is free to change that delegation to the extent they are permitted under their constitution) but ultimately it is all about the states.

I haven't heard a denial you are EOTL. Same language, same schtick, same MO, same quasi legal understanding. If you aren't him, feel free to explain who you are and what brings you to a soccer forum. Except for the most severely dysfunctional of us, we don't generally speak to each other that. It's usually all: "I hear your view and I respect that, but here's why you are wrong_____". What brings you to a soccer forum? What's the association with Golden Gate....my bro taught there for a while?

Otherwise, EOTL is the only person I've ever blocked on these forums and I have no desire to relive that relationship. Even espola is better (at least he's funny and makes me laugh)
 
Grace T. said:
You so are EOTL man, or his otherwise his clone. EXACT SAME SCHTICK.
Click to expand...

Where is the authority that says a county cannot implement a mask or vaccine mandate unless Newsom has declared a state of emergency, as you claimed?

Where is the statute or case that says Health and Safety Code 120175 only allows a county to burn livestock and applies apparently only to measles, but does not allow a local health agency to implement mask or vaccine mandates in a pandemic without a state of emergency being declared?

How does your "analysis" of the US Constitution have anything to do with the extent to which California can, or in this case did, delegate authority to local jurisdictions to implement mask or even vaccine mandates?

The only schtick is that you keep lying and personally attacking those who definitively prove that you are lying. Are you going to start talking bs about "natural order" again since actual laws and how governments actually work are beyond your comprehension?
 
GoldenGate said:
Where is the authority that says a county cannot implement a mask or vaccine mandate unless Newsom has declared a state of emergency, as you claimed?

Where is the statute or case that says Health and Safety Code 101085 only allows a county to burn livestock and applies apparently only to measles, but does not allow a local health agency to implement mask or vaccine mandates in a pandemic without a state of emergency being declared?

How does your "analysis" of the US Constitution have anything to do with the extent to which California can, or in this case did, delegate authority to local jurisdictions to implement mask or even vaccine mandates?

The only schtick is that you keep lying and personally attacking those who definitively prove that you are lying. Are you going to start talking bs about "natural order" again since actual laws and how governments actually work are beyond your comprehension?
Click to expand...

Again, your quasi understanding is showing or you'd know that law isn't just as easy as the statute doesn't say the it exactly or there isn't a case on point.

The US Constitution question is a separate question (you had asked 2).

Again, you are dodging. Your failure to deny you are EOTL or explain who you are, coupled with overly hostile and somewhat bipolar personality, points to you being EOTL.
 
Grace T. said:
I've laid out my case for why Newsom left the emergency order in place and why the counties authority is limited. I hear your argument but I disagree with it. It's a reasonable one...I simply disagree for the reasons I outlined, but I tend to be a strict constructionalist while you clearly are not.

As to the federal/county distinction, you were the one that pointed out the inconsistency. I was trying to explain it. The federal government only has powers which were not delegated to it by the states. The federal government is limited in scope. The states have the remainder of the powers reserved to them. As to their relationship to the counties, that's a matter of state law and the state constitutions (which as you know, in California, are much easier to amend than the federal constitution). The state delegated certain powers to the federal government....the state delegated certain powers to the county (and is free to change that delegation to the extent they are permitted under their constitution) but ultimately it is all about the states.

I haven't heard a denial you are EOTL. Same language, same schtick, same MO, same quasi legal understanding. If you aren't him, feel free to explain who you are and what brings you to a soccer forum. Except for the most severely dysfunctional of us, we don't generally speak to each other that. It's usually all: "I hear your view and I respect that, but here's why you are wrong_____". What brings you to a soccer forum? What's the association with Golden Gate....my bro taught there for a while?

Otherwise, EOTL is the only person I've ever blocked on these forums and I have no desire to relive that relationship. Even espola is better (at least he's funny and makes me laugh)
Click to expand...

Where is the statute, regulation, or case that says H&S Code section 120175 does not allow a county to implement a mask mandate even without a state of emergency being declared? It sounds like your answer to everything when you have no legal support whatsoever is to claim "strict construction". But as you should be aware if you were actually a lawyer, strict construction requires a judge to apply only the text as written, yet here you are claiming we should ignore the text as it is written and instead limit it to crap like burning livestock and the measles although the statute says nothing about either of those things. You are making the exact opposite of a strict construction argument. You are claiming that H&S Code 120175 should be limited by the same penumbra nonsense that you presumably complain about in Roe v. Wade.

You can't even get "strict construction" right. That's just the phrase that people like yourself who have no idea what they're talking about use as a dog whistle when they aren't getting what they want.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Well, Scotland is still part of the UK, so yeah.
Click to expand...
I find war a very weird metaphor to assert individualism.

Armies are not collections of isolated people, each doing whatever they please.

It works in fiction. But in the real world, an individualist soldier is rogue. Less like Braveheart and more like Heart of Darkness.
 
dad4 said:
I find war a very weird metaphor to assert individualism.

Armies are not collections of isolated people, each doing whatever they please.

It works in fiction. But in the real world, an individualist soldier is rogue. Less like Braveheart and more like Heart of Darkness.
Click to expand...
Elitist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top