COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Printable View

10-05-2021, 12:12 AM
joeyc77

Quote:

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

I haven't. Never did prior to 911 either (though I would guess it has very likely happened both before and after). What's your point?

I sure hope you find this comment valuable. Your opinion means the world to me.

My point is since 9/11, we haven't had a terrorist attack of that magnitude. So did the ends justify those means?
10-05-2021, 12:17 AM
dbroncos78087

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

As far as internment camps go, i believe the prisoners in Gitmo would likely disagree. We also has a former president attempting to ban travel from certain foreign nations in the name of national security. Actually, we had two presidents attempt it if you count jimmy carter.

I have no idea on the effectiveness of the tsa or internment camps. Im guessing no one does. All i know is we haven't had another pearl harbor or 9/11 since those measures were taken. All i know for certain are the results. So again i ask, knowing the results do those ends, justify the means? Would you give up internment camps, bombing japan, wars in iraq and Afghanistan, tsa, spying on US citizens, etc if you knew there would be similar attacks?

I had a birthday a few months after 9/11. We haven't had any of the same terrorist attacks that you are talking about since then either. Do I get to throw my birthday into the mix for what might have prevented another attack? Or are we only giving some things potential credit?
10-05-2021, 01:52 AM
spliff(TONE)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

My point is since 9/11, we haven't had a terrorist attack of that magnitude. So did the ends justify those means?

Absolutely not.
10-05-2021, 03:14 AM
valade16

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

As far as internment camps go, i believe the prisoners in Gitmo would likely disagree. We also has a former president attempting to ban travel from certain foreign nations in the name of national security. Actually, we had two presidents attempt it if you count jimmy carter.

I have no idea on the effectiveness of the tsa or internment camps. Im guessing no one does. All i know is we haven't had another pearl harbor or 9/11 since those measures were taken. All i know for certain are the results. So again i ask, knowing the results do those ends, justify the means? Would you give up internment camps, bombing japan, wars in iraq and Afghanistan, tsa, spying on US citizens, etc if you knew there would be similar attacks?

As someone who has actually been stationed at GTMO and who was on the Litigation Support team I can tell you that there is a difference between those at GTMO and the Japanese interned in WWII. But even supposing there is not, do you think anyone would say the President as the authority right now to intern all Muslims in camps in the US because of Muslim terrorists? Because the President had that power in WWII and I don't think most would say he has that power now. Which is my point: a President's power is dependent on what the time period claims their power is. We haven't gone on this straight line march to more and more power, it's been a fluctuating line where we have in the past given a President way more power than they wield today.

I happen to know we haven't had another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 since a black actress won an Academy Award. Perhaps we should mandate they keep winning one for national security's sake. If you don't know those measures led to the lack of terrorist attacks, how can you claim as a hypothetical that not enacting them would lead to attacks?
10-05-2021, 06:22 AM
ewing

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

As far as internment camps go, i believe the prisoners in Gitmo would likely disagree. We also has a former president attempting to ban travel from certain foreign nations in the name of national security. Actually, we had two presidents attempt it if you count jimmy carter.

I have no idea on the effectiveness of the tsa or internment camps. Im guessing no one does. All i know is we haven't had another pearl harbor or 9/11 since those measures were taken. All i know for certain are the results. So again i ask, knowing the results do those ends, justify the means? Would you give up internment camps, bombing japan, wars in iraq and Afghanistan, tsa, spying on US citizens, etc if you knew there would be similar attacks?

“I have no idea on there effectiveness” and “would give them up if the result were similar attacks” are statements that don’t jive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-05-2021, 06:39 AM
joeyc77

Quote:

Originally Posted by valade16

As someone who has actually been stationed at GTMO and who was on the Litigation Support team I can tell you that there is a difference between those at GTMO and the Japanese interned in WWII. But even supposing there is not, do you think anyone would say the President as the authority right now to intern all Muslims in camps in the US because of Muslim terrorists? Because the President had that power in WWII and I don't think most would say he has that power now. Which is my point: a President's power is dependent on what the time period claims their power is. We haven't gone on this straight line march to more and more power, it's been a fluctuating line where we have in the past given a President way more power than they wield today.

I happen to know we haven't had another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 since a black actress won an Academy Award. Perhaps we should mandate they keep winning one for national security's sake. If you don't know those measures led to the lack of terrorist attacks, how can you claim as a hypothetical that not enacting them would lead to attacks?

Immediately after 9/11, had someone like donald trump been president, yes i believe Muslims could have been placed in internment camps or possibly deported. Most people wouldn't have had an issue with it as sad as that sounds.

The difference is the state agency responsible for our safety (government) decided those measures were necessary to lessen the chances our nation would undergo another terrorist attack. You and others on this forum, including myself, questioned those measures and don't believe all of them were necessary. Our country's leadership at the time believes they were. What is the difference between those leaders (Bush, Cheney, etc) being questioned and doubted and the current leaders (biden, harris, etc) the same? Instead say "trust the science" if people just shouted "trust our military" would it be the same?
10-05-2021, 06:42 AM
joeyc77

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I had a birthday a few months after 9/11. We haven't had any of the same terrorist attacks that you are talking about since then either. Do I get to throw my birthday into the mix for what might have prevented another attack? Or are we only giving some things potential credit?

I started dialysis right before the pandemic in 2020. I haven't got covid since the pandemic started. The reason isn't because of wearing a mask or because of the vaccine. It must be because of dialysis. Does dialysis get the credit or ?
10-05-2021, 06:46 AM
joeyc77

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewing

“I have no idea on there effectiveness” and “would give them up if the result were similar attacks” are statements that don’t jive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only know the measures and the results when it comes to post 9/11 terrorism. Those were the actions taken by the government and the results were no 9/11 type attacks.

Its the same with covid. You know the actions and measures taken by the government and eventually the results.
10-05-2021, 06:53 AM
ewing

COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Immediately after 9/11, had someone like donald trump been president, yes i believe Muslims could have been placed in internment camps or possibly deported. Most people wouldn't have had an issue with it as sad as that sounds.

The difference is the state agency responsible for our safety (government) decided those measures were necessary to lessen the chances our nation would undergo another terrorist attack. You and others on this forum, including myself, questioned those measures and don't believe all of them were necessary. Our country's leadership at the time believes they were. What is the difference between those leaders (Bush, Cheney, etc) being questioned and doubted and the current leaders (biden, harris, etc) the same? Instead say "trust the science" if people just shouted "trust our military" would it be the same?

All govt actions that limit personal choice are not the same. Mask wearing during a pandemic is not equal to the idea of Trump deporting people based on what faith they practice after a Muslim group makes a terrorist attack. You actually have to look at details instead lazily creating big picture tenets

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-05-2021, 06:56 AM
ewing

COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I only know the measures and the results when it comes to post 9/11 terrorism. Those were the actions taken by the government and the results were no 9/11 type attacks.

Its the same with covid. You know the actions and measures taken by the government and eventually the results.

there has been more then enough research to make educated guesses regarding the what outcomes would be with and without measures like masking and vaccination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-05-2021, 10:46 AM
dbroncos78087

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I started dialysis right before the pandemic in 2020. I haven't got covid since the pandemic started. The reason isn't because of wearing a mask or because of the vaccine. It must be because of dialysis. Does dialysis get the credit or ?

See now you get it!
10-05-2021, 01:41 PM
valade16

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Immediately after 9/11, had someone like donald trump been president, yes i believe Muslims could have been placed in internment camps or possibly deported. Most people wouldn't have had an issue with it as sad as that sounds.

The difference is the state agency responsible for our safety (government) decided those measures were necessary to lessen the chances our nation would undergo another terrorist attack. You and others on this forum, including myself, questioned those measures and don't believe all of them were necessary. Our country's leadership at the time believes they were. What is the difference between those leaders (Bush, Cheney, etc) being questioned and doubted and the current leaders (biden, harris, etc) the same? Instead say "trust the science" if people just shouted "trust our military" would it be the same?

This is painting with an extremely broad brush. You are reaching hard to create a false equivalency here. Not all government actions are equal. Mandating seatbelts is not the same as interning Japanese during WWII. Mandating vaccines or masks is not the same as interning Muslims today.

Just because two things limit personal choice to an extent doesn't mean they limit them equally or are equally as severe...
10-05-2021, 01:42 PM
valade16

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewing

there has been more then enough research to make educated guesses regarding the what outcomes would be with and without measures like masking and vaccination.

If you ignore all the details and just condense this down to the most basic broad strokes, it's the exact same!
10-05-2021, 02:04 PM
natepro

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeyc77

My point is since 9/11, we haven't had a terrorist attack of that magnitude. So did the ends justify those means?

How many 9/11's did we have before 9/11?
10-05-2021, 02:28 PM
catman

Quote:

Originally Posted by natepro

How many 9/11's did we have before 9/11?

Lots of them. One every year.