Vaccine

GoldenGate said:
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.
Click to expand...
Elitist!
 
GoldenGate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, not even a denial. Reason I'm insistent upon it before I engage you is because EOTL crossed a line with me and attacked my kids. I'm not prepared to engage with you in the absence of knowing you aren't, since I strongly suspect you are.
 
Grace T. said:
Wow, not even a denial. Reason I'm insistent upon it before I engage you is because EOTL crossed a line with me and attacked my kids. I'm not prepared to engage with you in the absence of knowing you aren't, since I strongly suspect you are.
Click to expand...

You were perfectly fine engaging me until you ran out of things to say. This is just an excuse to avoid that you are wrong.

The California Constitution says "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws".

Using your "strict construction" of the California Constitution that you apparently never knew existed, can you please "strictly construe" this language in a way that establishes that a city or county cannot implement an ordinance with a mask mandate unless an emergency declaration has been declared? Does "all" now mean "all but mask mandates unless the Governor declares a state of emergency"? Does "make" now mean "can't make"? Does the plain language "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances" suddenly mean "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances other than mask mandates when a state of emergency declared"?

You have zero idea what you are talking about. You had no idea that the California Constitution dictates what a county may or may not do. Instead you are babbling nonsense about the US Constitution.
 
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...

Just checking in -- I'm not EOTL either.
 
GoldenGate said:
You were perfectly fine engaging me until you ran out of things to say. This is just an excuse to avoid that you are wrong.

The California Constitution says "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws".

Using your "strict construction" of the California Constitution that you apparently never knew existed, can you please "strictly construe" this language in a way that establishes that a city or county cannot implement an ordinance with a mask mandate unless an emergency declaration has been declared? Does "all" now mean "all but mask mandates unless the Governor declares a state of emergency"? Does "make" now mean "can't make"? Does the plain language "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances" suddenly mean "local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances other than mask mandates when a state of emergency declared"?

You have zero idea what you are talking about. You had no idea that the California Constitution dictates what a county may or may not do. Instead you are babbling nonsense about the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

That was before I realized you are likely EOTL. I even smiled at first because of the Golden Gate reference...wondered if you might be one of bros former students. With every step you take, the only thing you are doing is convincing me more and more you are in fact EOTL, which is why I'm no longer engaging you on the merits. Same bipolar frenzy, same angry attacking rhetoric, same quasi legal understanding, same look at me I'm a legal scholar mentality. It's a bullseye, particularly given there's been no denial....you seem to have the same clock, BTW, that EOTL had...something about access to a library computer IIRC.

There are 3 possibilities, in descending order of probabilities: 1) you are EOTL (in which case goodbye), 2) you are a colleague but are having a severely rough time (something is going on....full bipolar mode or something...again we don't speak to each other this way)....if so, please be aware the bar organization has some resources available for people that are having a hard time...pm me and I can point you to some resources and I'm happy to help in any way I can, 3) this is just you (perhaps maybe even a law student) and are just having a real hard time expressing yourself without the hostility....in which case please fill me in, colleague to colleague...what brings you here...let's have a friendly chat, get to know each other, and we can resume on amicable grounds now that we know each other colleague to colleague....pm me if you'd like to do it privately.

Otherwise, later and blocked.
 
Grace T. said:
That was before I realized you are likely EOTL. I even smiled at first because of the Golden Gate reference...wondered if you might be one of bros former students. With every step you take, the only thing you are doing is convincing me more and more you are in fact EOTL, which is why I'm no longer engaging you on the merits. Same bipolar frenzy, same angry attacking rhetoric, same quasi legal understanding, same look at me I'm a legal scholar mentality. It's a bullseye, particularly given there's been no denial....you seem to have the same clock, BTW, that EOTL had...something about access to a library computer IIRC.

There are 3 possibilities, in descending order of probabilities: 1) you are EOTL (in which case goodbye), 2) you are a colleague but are having a severely rough time (something is going on....full bipolar mode or something...again we don't speak to each other this way)....if so, please be aware the bar organization has some resources available for people that are having a hard time...pm me and I can point you to some resources and I'm happy to help in any way I can, 3) this is just you (perhaps maybe even a law student) and are just having a real hard time expressing yourself without the hostility....in which case please fill me in, colleague to colleague...what brings you here...let's have a friendly chat, get to know each other, and we can resume on amicable grounds now that we know each other colleague to colleague....pm me if you'd like to do it privately.

Otherwise, later and blocked.
Click to expand...

The only hostility here came from you. I did not personally attack you until you started making personal comments like the above to me and others. I cited the statute that says you were wrong and the California Constitutional provision that says you are wrong, and your response is stuff like this. You don't want to discuss this in a public forum any more because you can't. All you have are personal attacks. That is the only thing you can do when you are exposed for the fraud that you are.

Where is the law, court case, statute, regulation, constitutional provision or anything that says a county cannot implement a mask mandate other than if a state of emergency is declared? You are the "strict constructionist", so it must exist in plain and unambiguous language, right? For a "strict constructionist" it should be incredibly easy to point out the plain and unambiguous law that says a county cannot implement a mask mandate unless a state of emergency is declared.
 
espola said:
Just checking in -- I'm not EOTL either.
Click to expand...

Oh everyone except for crush sort of accepts that. EOTL is just nasty, hostile, but also very smart (in kind of a cracked mirror sort of way). You are different and make me genuinely laugh, which is why I never blocked you. I actually don't believe that there are a whole lot of dopplegangers out there (though I did love that I sort of had one of my own for a while). EOTL has a very distinct style so this is the first one I really suspect it. I think NOTF has a couple, I thought kicking (or maybe hound)=mad hatter (I miss the mad hatter), I don't think dad4 has any, I think the outlaw had 1, but I tend to be more circumspect about the entire sock puppet thing. It's hard to cover your personality and grammar if you post a lot.
 
GoldenGate said:
The only hostility here came from you. I did not personally attack you until you started making personal comments like the above to me and others. I cited the statute that says you were wrong and the California Constitutional provision that says you are wrong, and your response is stuff like this. You don't want to discuss this in a public forum any more because you can't. All you have are personal attacks. That is the only thing you can do when you are exposed for the fraud that you are.

Where is the law, court case, statute, regulation, constitutional provision or anything that says a county cannot implement a mask mandate other than if a state of emergency is declared? You are the "strict constructionist", so it must exist in plain and unambiguous language, right? For a "strict constructionist" it should be incredibly easy to point out the plain and unambiguous law that says a county cannot implement a mask mandate unless a state of emergency is declared.
Click to expand...

Wow...I reach out my hand and this is what you come back with? BTW, you've tipped your hand so you clearly know who EOTL and why it's of relevance (otherwise you would have tried a "EOTL, what's that?" And I don't know if you realize it, you are like a dog obsessively locked in with a bone. O.k....no denial, we go with 1 then. Blocked, thanks for playing.
 
Grace T. said:
Wow...I reach out my hand and this is what you come back with? BTW, you've tipped your hand so you clearly know who EOTL and why it's of relevance (otherwise you would have tried a "EOTL, what's that?" And I don't know if you realize it, you are like a dog obsessively locked in with a bone. O.k....no denial, we go with 1 then. Blocked, thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Argument by assertion, etc.
 
dad4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the leap.

Covid will be endemic. Something we are going to have to live with.

You are still stuck on the idea that limitations/masks/vaxxes are going to make it go away.

One point of view is realistic. The other is fantasy
 
watfly said:
Um, I don't know anybody directly (only like friends of a friends) that hasn't been vaccinated. No one feels like they're being held hostage that I know. If your feeling held hostage its out of your own irrational fear.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of people who are annoyed with the anti-vax minority. The most common response is contempt. It takes a special person to believe that vaccines have computer chips inside and can make you magnetic.

But there is also a sense that this would be almost over if the last 80 million people would just take their shots.

It hurts that the herd immunity threshold is so high. If it were 70%, then it would not be issue.
 
Desert Hound said:
I think you are missing the leap.

Covid will be endemic. Something we are going to have to live with.

You are still stuck on the idea that limitations/masks/vaxxes are going to make it go away.

One point of view is realistic. The other is fantasy
Click to expand...

Endemic is certainly a reality for many. There will be more spikes but then an eventual descent into a baseline level of infection in many communities. Seems like the writing is on the wall. Vaccination will continue to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, but infections, hopitalizations, and deaths will still happen.

Everything else is just political blabbery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top