Coronavirus 2019-nCov: Political Thread

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

How can it be fake news when the effing emails are right there in plain site??

I believe that this discussion is around whether this thread related to RedState is accurate or not.

Well, here's a little tidbit about the accuracy of RedState.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/u...formation.html


The National Institutes of Health said on Monday that one of its public affairs officers would retire after he was revealed to be surreptitiously attacking his employer and one of its directors, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, in pseudonymous posts on Twitter and the right-wing website RedState.

The official, William B. Crews, worked for and promoted the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases while simultaneously denouncing the agency’s work and its director, Dr. Fauci, dismissing their research and public health advice in wild and conspiratorial terms under the pen name Streiff.


And there's more.....

A spokeswoman for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said that Mr. Crews informed the agency on Monday morning of his intention to retire after his online identity came to light. But she declined to say whether any investigation was pending or whether the agency believed that Mr. Crews had violated federal ethics regulations.

So that's the chicken's way out.

• Post trash under a pseudonym.
• Undermine your own life's work, I'm guessing because you're jealous of your boss. Criticize him publically by propagandizing your position (note I disagree with my boss frequently, too. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes she's right, but I'm not butt-hurt over it).
• Retire when you get caught violating your department's code of conduct.

No wonder some on this board are Covidiots....people read this trash all day AND they believe it. Here's my bet, I bet Mr. Crews will fade into the background, (perhaps he will write a going away tome for RedState) and retiring in professional shame. The professional stink he is carrying will follow him for most of the rest of his days.

He's lost all his credibility and everyone thinks he is a crank, except for folks like you, if you really believe this crap..

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Follow the law. Have respect for others.

I know you're a conservative, do you believe in law and order or do you pick and choose?

Not only that, this whole thing started when she was asked to leave (yes, because she would not wear a mask) and got disorderly. Seems like she should have not been fighting 'the guy in blue'.

Don't blue lives matter? I think they should.

Quick question: What statute in the Ohio Revised Code was put on the citation detailing what law she broke?

[ShockerFever]

Follow the law. Have respect for others.

I know you're a conservative, do you believe in law and order or do you pick and choose?

Not only that, this whole thing started when she was asked to leave (yes, because she would not wear a mask) and got disorderly. Seems like she should have not been fighting 'the guy in blue'.

Don't blue lives matter? I think they should.

Follow the law? Like all the peaceful protesters are doing around the country?

[SB Shock]

Follow the law. Have respect for others.

Ohio law only requires a mask when indoor, or outdoors whe you cannot socially distance. Also if you have a medical condition you are not required to wear a mask. The lady and her family were socially distanced and the lady was not wearing a mask because she suffers from Asthma.

[ShockerPrez]

NM

[MoValley John]

Not to throw too big of a log on this shitshow, but am I the only one that saw the NY Post article describing a mutation in covid 19 that is defeating hand washing and masks? Non peer reviewed, but if credible...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/09/24/covid-19-mutation-may-be-evolving-to-bypass-masks-hand-washing/amp/

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

Quick question: What statute in the Ohio Revised Code was put on the citation detailing what law she broke?

Geez, I thought you were a lawyer, but you have your case law wrong.....am I wrong?

https://schoollaw.pullcomblog.com/ar...school-events/

Look at the bottom of the provided link, this was a Federal Appeals Court decision.


The Court found that a school principal has the authority and responsibility for assuring that “parents and third parties conduct themselves appropriately on school property” and that school officials have a responsibility to prevent “the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that would interrupt the peace and quiet and disturb the tranquility required for the academic aspects of a school’s function.” The Court thus found that a parent does not have a general and unlimited First Amendment right to access school property and that schools may ban unruly parents from the school property during the school day. The Court thus found that a school district can properly ban people, including parents, from school property during the school day in order to maintain order at the school.

The ban in this case also extended to all school events, except for attendance at school graduation. The Court, however, found that sporting events were different than all other school functions and that a ban of the parent from attending sporting events to which the public was invited could run afoul of the First Amendment depending on whether the ban was reasonable and/or whether it was based on the parent’s expressed viewpoints.

In distinguishing sporting events from the regular school day, the Court noted that sporting events were open to the public and that they were events in which “the audience is encouraged not to be quiet but instead to engage in raucous and sustained noise.” The Court further opined that people attending the games were “expected to engage in expressive activity, chanting and cheering for whichever team they favor.” The Court, therefore, found that “[p]eace, quiet, and tranquility are not characteristics of, or normally associated with, sports contests.” The Court thus found that such sporting events were limited public forums, and therefore, a school can only regulate access to sporting events if the restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Based on the facts as alleged by the parent, the Court found there was sufficient evidence to send the case to trial on that issue.


Of course, this is all speculation, but you are thinking she got thrown out due to refusing to wear a mask (which could be construed as reasonable) or because she got beligerent with an authority figure (again, this could be construed as reasonable conduct.).

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

Not to throw too big of a log on this shitshow, but am I the only one that saw the NY Post article describing a mutation in covid 19 that is defeating hand washing and masks? Non peer reviewed, but if credible...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....d-washing/amp/

Happy Friday, MVJ, yes I did see it. I think some of the original reporting came out of Houston in the last couple of days or so. It was picked up in my local news feed.

If the peer review is correct, this could be a concern. We will see, I'm sure someone is reviewing the testing, results and conclusions.

[revenge_of_shocka_khan]

Follow the law? Like all the peaceful protesters are doing around the country?

You seem to be intellectually incurious. Are you one of those Conservatives who pick and choose which laws to follow? Is it OK to ignore a law you don't like while calling out others for the same behavior or do you just like to lump everyone in a group together?

Most of the people participating in the protests are peaceful. There are agitators on both sides involved in these things with different goals and methods. Agitators should be in jail. Disorderly people ought to be asked to leave (and if they don't) also be taken to jail.

Note I am not a situational supporter of law and order.

[SB Shock]

You seem to be intellectually incurious. Are you one of those Conservatives who pick and choose which laws to follow? Is it OK to ignore a law you don't like while calling out others for the same behavior or do you just like to lump everyone in a group together?

What part of the law was she breaking?

All individuals in Ohio must wear facial coverings in public at all times when:

• At an indoor location that is not a residence
• Outdoors, but unable to maintain six-foot social distance from people who are not household members
• Waiting for, riding, driving, or operating public transportation, such as a taxi, a car service, or a private car used for ride-sharing.

The order only requires those 10 years old or older to wear a mask. Additional exclusions include:

• Those with a medical condition or a disability or those communicating with someone with a disability;
• Those who are actively exercising or playing sports;
• Those who are officiants at religious services;
• Those who are actively involved in public safety; or
• Those who are actively eating or drinking.

https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal...pdate-07222020

Most of the people participating in the protests are peaceful.

I believe you are showing you are a propagandist troll for the left.

[Shockm]

Most of the people participating in the protests Before dark are peaceful. After dark, very little are peaceful and arrests should happen.

FIFY

[jdmee]

Most of the people participating in the protests are peaceful. There are agitators on both sides involved in these things with different goals and methods. Agitators should be in jail. Disorderly people ought to be asked to leave (and if they don't) also be taken to jail.

You sound like Trump.

[WstateU]

Follow the law. Have respect for others.

I know you're a conservative, do you believe in law and order or do you pick and choose?

Not only that, this whole thing started when she was asked to leave (yes, because she would not wear a mask) and got disorderly. Seems like she should have not been fighting 'the guy in blue'.

Don't blue lives matter? I think they should.

Yes, I posted the video, but didn't offer an opinion... I did say "Masks Matter", but the video doesn't show me enough to offer a strong opinion either way. I didn't like the use of her strong language to the police/security officer, but it did appear she was 'safely' social distancing with her mom and family. I have a close relative who was in an abusive marriage and refuses to wear a mask; wearing a mask causes her extreme anxiety and terrible flashbacks. Again, I'm not sure there's enough shown in the video for me to offer a strong opinion on the incident, but tasing the women seemed unnecessary... especially in front of what appeared to be her mom and son. She might have refused to wear a mask, but I don't think she should be treated like a criminal.

[jdmee]

Yeah. She doesn't have a high road. Not wearing a mask isn't a taseable offense, but agree with it or not the cop has a job to do and the number one rule should be don't be a dbag when they try to do it.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Geez, I thought you were a lawyer, but you have your case law wrong.....am I wrong?

https://schoollaw.pullcomblog.com/ar...school-events/

Look at the bottom of the provided link, this was a Federal Appeals Court decision.


The Court found that a school principal has the authority and responsibility for assuring that “parents and third parties conduct themselves appropriately on school property” and that school officials have a responsibility to prevent “the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that would interrupt the peace and quiet and disturb the tranquility required for the academic aspects of a school’s function.” The Court thus found that a parent does not have a general and unlimited First Amendment right to access school property and that schools may ban unruly parents from the school property during the school day. The Court thus found that a school district can properly ban people, including parents, from school property during the school day in order to maintain order at the school.

The ban in this case also extended to all school events, except for attendance at school graduation. The Court, however, found that sporting events were different than all other school functions and that a ban of the parent from attending sporting events to which the public was invited could run afoul of the First Amendment depending on whether the ban was reasonable and/or whether it was based on the parent’s expressed viewpoints.

In distinguishing sporting events from the regular school day, the Court noted that sporting events were open to the public and that they were events in which “the audience is encouraged not to be quiet but instead to engage in raucous and sustained noise.” The Court further opined that people attending the games were “expected to engage in expressive activity, chanting and cheering for whichever team they favor.” The Court, therefore, found that “[p]eace, quiet, and tranquility are not characteristics of, or normally associated with, sports contests.” The Court thus found that such sporting events were limited public forums, and therefore, a school can only regulate access to sporting events if the restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Based on the facts as alleged by the parent, the Court found there was sufficient evidence to send the case to trial on that issue.


Of course, this is all speculation, but you are thinking she got thrown out due to refusing to wear a mask (which could be construed as reasonable) or because she got beligerent with an authority figure (again, this could be construed as reasonable conduct.).

You said “Law and Order”.

She violated no “law”. She did not follow restrictions put in place by the schools, and when asked to leave, did not
comply with the request. The “order” part we can agree on it seems.

My biggest concern, more than Coronavirus, is that we are allowing the Executive branches (President and Governors) to basically make policies that are enforced as laws and the Judicial Branches are supporting them. Mostly because they were appointed by them.

“But it’s in the public’s best interest” — No, that is not. The state legislature passing a temporary law requiring wearing masks like they require wearing seatbelts is in the best interest of the people. Not the President or Governor saying they must.