Top | Newest First | Oldest First
deadmoon · 31-35, F
We're in the middle of a pandemic and California is one of the states getting hit the hardest. He should have done that a long time ago, to be honest. I don't really care. I just want the rate of infection to slow down so we don't overwhelm our hospitals. It's a minor inconvenience in the grand scope of things.
deadmoon · 31-35, F
@sunsporter1649 It's a temporary situation. Nobody wants to be kept on lockdown forever. Nobody wanted this to happen at all. But we all gotta do what we gotta do until life can get back to normal once again.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@deadmoon Yup, time to get the feces cleaned up from the streets of Oroville
Mamapolo2016 · F
from ncsl.org
[quote] State and local governments are primarily responsible for maintaining public health and controlling the spread of diseases within state borders. Among other state public health emergency preparedness powers, every state, the District of Columbia and most territories have laws authorizing quarantine and isolation, usually through the state’s health authority. The federal government has authority as well, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to monitor and respond to the spread of communicable diseases across national or state borders, or if the state government is unwilling or unable to effectively respond.[/quote]
[quote] State and local governments are primarily responsible for maintaining public health and controlling the spread of diseases within state borders. Among other state public health emergency preparedness powers, every state, the District of Columbia and most territories have laws authorizing quarantine and isolation, usually through the state’s health authority. The federal government has authority as well, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to monitor and respond to the spread of communicable diseases across national or state borders, or if the state government is unwilling or unable to effectively respond.[/quote]
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Mamapolo2016 LOL, that's one way to clean the feces off the California streets.
SW-User
@SW-User 😂 this comment got me rolling.
Rickg · 31-35, M
Idk
I’m not a constitutional expert
But I’m pretty sure the govt can take drastic measures in a time of emergency and take away most civil liberties
Probably lots of clauses and laws and fine print to accomplish it
Personally I think it’s justified given the circumstances
Problem if this shit becomes normalized and more widely used
I’m not a constitutional expert
But I’m pretty sure the govt can take drastic measures in a time of emergency and take away most civil liberties
Probably lots of clauses and laws and fine print to accomplish it
Personally I think it’s justified given the circumstances
Problem if this shit becomes normalized and more widely used
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
You have problem if the Government wants to control. You have problem when the Govt does not take any steps to control. You are just problematic.
People want to secure their life to avoid unnecessary expenses of taking the virus out if they get it. You seem like a rich guy who throws cash down the road when you walk. Sadly, everyone is not like you. You should eat bat soup and eat Pangolin too. They might taste good right now for you.
People want to secure their life to avoid unnecessary expenses of taking the virus out if they get it. You seem like a rich guy who throws cash down the road when you walk. Sadly, everyone is not like you. You should eat bat soup and eat Pangolin too. They might taste good right now for you.
View 3 more replies »
TheOrionbeltseeker · 36-40, M
@DownTheStreet why you want to put someone else's life on risk because of your little adventures?
The kids may catch it from you. Maybe it does nothing to you but it can be harmful to younger ones and toddlers.
The kids may catch it from you. Maybe it does nothing to you but it can be harmful to younger ones and toddlers.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@TheOrionbeltseeker Sounds just like the goddamndemocrats, eh?
The “No Ban Act,” introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) and co-sponsored by 219 House Democrats, would have prevented Trump from immediately implementing a travel ban on China once the outbreak of the coronavirus spread past its origins of Wuhan.
Instead, the No Ban Act would have allowed travelers from Wuhan to continue to arrive in the U.S. while the president received guidance from Congress.
“This bill imposes limitations on the President’s authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the United States and terminates certain presidential actions implementing such restrictions,” a summary of the legislation reads.
The “No Ban Act,” introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) and co-sponsored by 219 House Democrats, would have prevented Trump from immediately implementing a travel ban on China once the outbreak of the coronavirus spread past its origins of Wuhan.
Instead, the No Ban Act would have allowed travelers from Wuhan to continue to arrive in the U.S. while the president received guidance from Congress.
“This bill imposes limitations on the President’s authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the United States and terminates certain presidential actions implementing such restrictions,” a summary of the legislation reads.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@TheOrionbeltseeker miss nancy covered that loophole by including funding for planned parenthood in the China Virus bill. She is an equal opportunity killer
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Jeffrey53 Well is that not nice of him
Jeffrey53 · 51-55, M
Go out then do what you want not my problem @sunsporter1649
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
SW-User
@JBird I know but why did so many people criticize China for doing the exact same thing? Im just sick of the hypocrisy!
DownTheStreet · 51-55, M
Reverend · M
@sunsporter1649 demotwats is only two.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Reverend Much quicker to spit out, for sure
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@SW-User And of course the goddamndemocrats are all over it, right, just trying to protect their voters.
The “No Ban Act,” introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) and co-sponsored by 219 House Democrats, would have prevented Trump from immediately implementing a travel ban on China once the outbreak of the coronavirus spread past its origins of Wuhan.
Instead, the No Ban Act would have allowed travelers from Wuhan to continue to arrive in the U.S. while the president received guidance from Congress.
“This bill imposes limitations on the President’s authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the United States and terminates certain presidential actions implementing such restrictions,” a summary of the legislation reads.
The “No Ban Act,” introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) and co-sponsored by 219 House Democrats, would have prevented Trump from immediately implementing a travel ban on China once the outbreak of the coronavirus spread past its origins of Wuhan.
Instead, the No Ban Act would have allowed travelers from Wuhan to continue to arrive in the U.S. while the president received guidance from Congress.
“This bill imposes limitations on the President’s authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the United States and terminates certain presidential actions implementing such restrictions,” a summary of the legislation reads.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Reverend · M
Samthemo blocked me lol
Bagalamaga · 56-60, M
It is now