JohnCorrespondent

"... people's EYES are also a conduit for t***smitting the v***s ..." I would reword that as: "People's eyes are also a conduit for receiving the v***s."

That's the main reason I wear a face shield when I'm out and might pass near people. Of course it won't keep out ambient aerosols; but it would stop a direct sneeze or droplets coming from talking. I'm not near people very often -- maybe a few minutes total per week.

I have a relative who worked in a high-risk place. I mailed him my best eye protection, which was a ski mask for the eyes that had what I think is a pretty good seal.

JohnCorrespondent

Thanks; but "law and order over burning and l**ting" does not really address the point. Of course most people want some form of (a) "law and order"; and of course most people don't want (b) "burning and l**ting" to happen. But there's another important factor! It's (c) "the right to peacefully protest". You did partially address (c) with your last line about "...held to account...". But I think the point needs to be made more clearly, which I shall try to do here:

What's happening is that when so-called "law and order" is brought in, they either squelch both (b) and (c), or squelch mainly just (c)! (Think: why?) (to be answered, below)

Ha ha -- I laughed when contemplating my next sentence:

It's a lot easier and safer to find and arrest a peaceful protester, than to find and arrest an arsonist or thief. The peaceful protester is RIGHT THERE and NOT DANGEROUS. So the police-person can _do_ something, by arresting _that_ person, and go home afterward to his/her wife/husband and children, without injury and maybe even without psychological trauma. He or she will probably get to keep his/her job, continue to get paid, and (often) not even get sued.

Arresting a criminal is a lot harder and more dangerous! First they have to FIND him/her. Criminals don't stand around chanting with locked arms with other protesters. Most criminals HIDE or have already run away. That's how arsonists and l**ters act, for example. And then, if you can FIND one, they're more likely to be dangerous -- after all, they're a criminal, so who knows what they might do. Try to arrest one of them, and you run the risk of being seriously injured in the process. You might even get shot and k**led. You might even have to k**l the suspect in self defense, and I assume that can be hard to live with sometimes, even if you _didn't_ make any mistake under pressure. What happens to the police-person's family after all this? They may have a traumatized or severely injured father/mother and spouse, or even a dead one.

I'm really glad I'm not a police officer, having to make such choices -- or a police higher-ranking officer who has to choose and give orders.

So, anyway, back to the earlier point: It's not really a choice between { (a) } versus { (b) }. It's a choice between { some form of "law and order" which may or may not be truly law and order } versus { some combination of (b) and (c) }.

It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water: they may succeed in clearing the streets of all questionable activities, but in the process they also got rid of the right to peacefully protest.

Qualitatively (and exaggerated) it's like this: you can make a _very_ orderly society, but to do that you'd have to get rid of democracy and replace it with a dictatorship -- and even then you'd probably have worse problems like more c**ps to come.

I suppose that some of the time, even when the police officers do the wrong things, it's not totally their fault. The higher ranking person who set up the situation is at least partly to blame. So, for example, presently, we have mayors saying (in effect) "let us handle this; we don't want your shock troops" while we have President Trump sending in greater force which results in a worse situation. Compare graffiti and broken windows, on the one hand, with intimidations and injuries to peaceful protesters and members of the press! https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/minneapolis-police-injure-arrest-journalists-protests.html?fbclid=IwAR2L14uRdP1WFbSMUIJ5vaWchXleEGWRR7lKNxieqJX-y_zw15ke3uHRcQY

There are definitely some people who don't want any Black L***s M****r protest to succeed or be carried out successfully and make an impact. They can make it _way_ more difficult for everybody by being provocateurs. Here's an example https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-s*********t-trying-to-incite-floyd-r**ting/571932272/ but really can't you easily imagine plenty of young rowdy people taking advantage of a peaceful protest and sowing some trouble at it? One of the jobs of police _should_ be to keep the protest peaceful and watch for provocateurs and stop _them_. But the federal troops were sent on a mission from Donald Trump who doesn't make distinctions like that and spews out wh**ever pops into his head (can we all agree that that's an accurate description of Donald Trump?) -- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland-idUSKCN24L1I1

JoyV

Whoever that stick wielding man in camo is, he sure doesn't move or attack like a trained federal law enforcement officer. Not to mention the sneakers. Federal law enforcement will move in as group not charge individually well away from any other officers. https://people.howstuffworks.com/r**t-control1.htm
There have been people wearing camo and police gear (you can buy online) posing as law enforcement while doing criminal acts. The one who comes immediately to mind is Branden Michael Wolfe who posed as a police officer in his commission of arson. I don't know who those attackers were carrying sticks or extra long narrow batons, but I highly doubt they were federal law enforcement.

As for the fires in Portland, there are plenty of videos of r****rs setting or stoking the fires. https://news.sky.com/video/portland-protesters-attempt-to-set-courthouse-on-fire-12033999

JoyV

Assuming the numbers of cases and deaths are accurate, that the case numbers are so high while the deaths are plummeting is a GOOD thing. This means that the v***s is less deadly than previously reported. And until there is either a v*****e or the spread reaches the point where herd immunity comes into play, trying to avoid exposure at most will just delay when you will become exposed. The v***s will spread until it has no available hosts. This means most everyone an infected person comes in contact with is immune either because they were given a v*****e or they already had the v***s and beat it. You can't hide from a highly contagious v***l outbreak which is t***smitted both by contact with infected surfaces and is airborne.

As for those who are asymptomatic spreading it, there have been zero known cases of the v***s being spread by someone who is asymptomatic. This myth began when early in the p******c someone stated that we don't yet know that it can't be spread from someone asymptomatic. The statement was turned around as the v***s can be spread by those who are asymptomatic. That there have been hundreds of thousands of cases with NO confirmed spread by the asymptomatic infected does not PROVE it can't be spread by someone asymptomatic. But it is VERY strong evidence it can't or at most is very rare. Most v***ses are only contagious while the infected have symptoms.

There is an article claiming an asymptomatic woman rode an elevator in an apartment complex and infected 70 people. But that case was determined to be from unrepaired plumbing of sewage pipes in the building. All other anecdotal evidence makes the assumption that the asymptomatic person was the only close contact anyone who became C***D positive had. How many possible exposures could any of us come across in a day, let alone the weeks of incubation period.

JoyV

Have you actually checked out what is on that list? Many of the things they list as lies are actually true. For example when he contradicted the statement that stop and frisk was overturned by the supreme court, the fact checkers said he was wrong and it had been overturned. But later it was confirmed that Trump was correct. Another category in the list is his rounding of large numbers. If he said 3000 and there was actually 2998, it is counted by the media as a lie. Another category is his stated opinion. An opinion is just an opinion. It can't be either a lie or a fact. It is an opinion. If you were to investigate every so called lie on their list, I doubt you would be left with more than 10. And most of those are campaign promises which he is in the process of getting done but has not yet achieved. Or that have multiple parts. For instance his promise to build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it. He IS building the wall. He has not gotten Mexico to 100% pay for it, though he HAS gotten their cooperation in border security which they are paying their share of.

JoyV

You say, "One problem with this set of things is that it is stifling toward dissent and creativity." Can you give examples of conservative ideal stifling dissent or creativity? Is there conservative political correctness?

I mention property rights twice because of its prominence in our constitution. Property rights includes your right to your ideas. Your right to your person. Your right to your genes. Property rights is the foundation of most of our liberty. As for human rights, without property rights there is no human rights. What is often called human rights under international agreements is something given, not something guaranteed as inalienable; therefore not actually a right but a privilege. If people are subjects, they can have their "rights" abridged or terminated. If people own themselves they are sovereign and are not GIVEN privileges which are erroneously labeled as rights.

JoyV

F*****ts are a type of socialists. F*****ts are anti-private property. anti-private business. Anti-personal beliefs. Anti-religion.

A f*****t State nationalizes health care, education, businesses, sports, entertainment, media, living quarters, reproduction, and the means of production. and enshrines political correctness. It redistributes wealth.

In N**I Germany the government controlled nearly every aspect of their subjects lives. And while businesses could seem to be privately owned, the government dictated what you could or must produce, how much, who you could or must sell to, who you could or could not employ, whether or not you could keep any profit; and any portion of your product, money, or business; including the entire business; could be confiscated at any time for any or no reason.

A******n was not only legalized but mandated for those deemed undesirable.

And the rise of the f*****t control was done by a combination of glorifying the media to convince people that the media could always be trusted to tell you the t***h (so that when you take full control of the media people will believe what you tell the media to publish); by turning loose violent thugs who intimidated, vandalized, burned property and historical symbols, and assaulted people who were perceived as being against them or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time; by eliminating the former government and community structure (including eliminating the police and replacing them with your own approved substitutes); and by promoting hatred between certain groups.

Trump is the very antithesis of a f*****t.

JoyV

I agree with you regarding the use of unmarked cars for those who are not under cover agents. But you are incorrect that the federal law enforcers are unidentified. Individual names were removed but the agency patches were not. If you look closely at the pictures from Portland, you will see the customs patch on the CBP agents, marshal patches on marshals, etc. Anyone in camo without such a patch on their shoulder was NOT a federal law enforcer. Once removed from the immediate vicinity, the CBP read the people they picked up their rights and abided by those rights. The v***l video of the CBP agents taking Mark Pettibone off the street didn't tell the whole story. According to Mark Pettibone, he was treated politely after being "thrown" in a van [though the video clearly shows him being escorted to the van and placed inside with no roughness and no throwing involved.]. He admitted to being read his rights. He declined to answer any questions and was soon released. He confirmed this.

The key word in your last sentence is PEACEABLY! Setting fires, destroying property, blocking traffic, climbing on peoples cars, shooting, or throwing rocks, masonry, frozen bottles, or fireworks at people is NOT peaceably assembling!!!!

JoyV

Agreed!

JoyV

Long before SARS CoV-2 the CDC, OSHA, and NIH were publicly against the wearing of masks as protection from v***ses. It was on the CDC website that wearing a mask could increase you chances of getting sick. This was removed sometime in March or April. Surgical masks were designed to stop bacteria, not v***ses. N95 masks were designed to stop industrial particles from being breathed in by industrial workers, not v***ses. Biohazard suits, which include an oxygen supply, were designed to protect against v***ses.

What surgical, cloth, or N95 masks do is prevent the spraying of large droplets from someone who is symptomatic. This reduces the immediate distance the v***s travels. But it doesn't stop the microdroplets from being propelled or prevent the v***s from passing through the mask and floating in the air currents for several hours. And that doesn't even take into account that few people follow mask protocols in the first place.

I have now had my 4th bout of bronchitis caused by a bacterial sinusitus from wearing masks. The bacteria I breath our collects in the mask where it builds up and concentrates. The moisture and reduced easy oxygen flow leads me to dizzyness and sometimes passing out (I have lungs scarred from an explosion when I was in the military). This lowers my already c*********d i****e s****m and opens the door to a bacterial sinusitis infection which gives me bronchitis, fuether reducing my oxygen. I also developed a chemical sensitivity from my military service which causes me to have an anaphylactic reaction from most antibiotics. So getting any bacterial infection is hard to fight. I have now bought bandanas which are even less effective than masks but which meets the requirement imposed by the governor of my State who has mandated both arrest and fines for not wearing a mask anywhere outside your home.

JoyV

The eyes are a BETTER conduit for a v***s than breathing it is.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"Trump is the very antithesis of a f*****t."

Yep!

F*****m & C*******m are both Totalitarian
The NWO/Bilderberg agenda uses both systems
To study their agenda - Google: “CFR,TC,Bilderberg group”

*Council on Foreign Relations CFR & Trilateral Commission TC Background & Quotes*
“An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal attack" – Richard Gardner ,
Ambassador to Italy - quoted in (CFR)Foreign Affairs, April, 1974

“Actions at the multinational level will be needed, if the process of international relocation of industries is to be accelerated in an organized fashion…….”
TC Report #23, 1982

Big Money controls both parties by installing vetted CFR members
CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Zbigniew Brzezinski formed Trilateral Commission for David Rockefeller in 1973, and Jimmy Carter was made a founding member. Jimmy Carter became President,
& ZB became Carter's National Security Adviser. ZB was also an Obama advisor

ZB - Referring to the rivalry between the USSR and the United States – “The eventual outcome of the competition is however, foreordained, given the inherent superiority of the c*******t system “ - 'Between Two Ages' (1970 - ps.146,147
“The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.” – Senator Louis T. McFadden (22 years on the U.S. Banking & Currency Commission) Google : Louis T. McFadden, Congressional Record, Fed expose
Great book on NWO agenda – ‘The World Order’ by Eustace Mullins at Amazon

moldyoldy

Edit

Main articles: Stop and frisk and Consent search
Stops by NYPD[1]
Year Stops
2002 97,296
2003 160,851
2004 313,523
2005 398,191
2006 506,491
2007 472,096
2008 540,302
2009 581,168
2010 601,285
2011 685,724
2012 532,911
2013 191,851
2014 45,787
2015 22,565
2016 12,404
2017 11,629
2018 11,008
2019 13,459

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"Main articles: Stop and frisk and Consent search
Stops by NYPD[1]
Year Stops
2002 97,296
2003 160,851
2004 313,523
2005 398,191
2006 506,491
2007 472,096
2008 540,302
2009 581,168
2010 601,285
2011 685,724
2012 532,911
2013 191,851
2014 45,787
2015 22,565
2016 12,404
2017 11,629
2018 11,008
2019 13,459" - moldy

Why did you prove our point?
That it is the Democrats that promote a police state.

moldyoldy

Joy claimed that this was over long ago.