Spies?

If that's the best plan anyone can come up with, then we're doomed.

The purpose of such a law would not be to protect the public, but an excuse for mass detention of political disagreeables

Yep.  Keep the masses in line.

Americans nowadays are more educated, opinionated, and free-thinking than ever before in history.  The politicians are afraid of their constituents.

From Tom Woods today (I'm including his last sentence re financially supporting his efforts):

Until 2020, I had no idea just what a racket "public health" was, and what a bunch of control freaks and incompetents -- a terrifying combination -- were in charge of it.

Here's a small example, from yesterday:

The Centers for Disease Control published a Tweet that included this line, along with a link to an article about Delaware: "In Delaware, universal mask use helped reduce #COVID19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths."

Before I even show you Delaware's chart, think about what it should look like if what this January 5 Tweet said weren't misleading.

Ready?

Here it is:



(Thanks to Ian Miller -- @ianmSC -- for the chart.)

So we have two things of note here.

Number one: looking at these hospitalization numbers on January 5, 2020, would your conclusion be: masks sure lowered the number of hospitalizations?

Number two: the mask mandates in Pennsylvania and Delaware went into effect nine days apart, and yet their curves both came down at exactly the same time. So as Ian wonders, are we supposed to believe that mandates at different times had exactly the same result at exactly the same time, or might it make more sense to conclude that the spread of the virus is regional and seasonal?

This kind of reminds me of CNN and Canada. They published an article called "Why Canada Flattened the Curve -- and the US Didn't." The usual nonsense, as you might imagine.

Days later, well, you can see what happened:



Do you suppose they wrote a follow-up article acknowledging this? (And yes, deaths also increased, not just "cases.")

In a previous email I pointed out all the European countries where back in May we got told-you-so articles about how they wisely flattened the curve because they listened to their public-health officials, blah blah blah. And then, starting in September, their numbers went way up and we never heard from the media again.

As Michael Malice says, this isn't bias, as some people describe it. It's an agenda.

I'm doing all I know how to do as just one person to get real information to the public.

If you like and appreciate what I do, you'll be like a kid in a candy store with all the goodies -- including membership in the coveted Tom Woods Show Elite -- that I give to folks who support the work:
 
http://www.SupportingListeners.com

science! consensus! experts!

science! consensus! experts!

Because some people are just stupid

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Because some people are just stupid

No difference than Nigerian scams.  If there weren't any suckers in the world, the scammers would do something different.

No difference than Nigerian scams.  If there weren't any suckers in the world, the scammers would do something different.

or gun sale scammers...

or gun sale scammers...

#wasntprovenincourt #totallydidnthappendude

or gun sale scammers...

Interesting correlation.


If one is a sucker for one type of scam, he/she/they are likely a sucker for other scams.

We used to call this "naivete'."   Now, it's just called stupidity.  There's no reason to be uninformed with today's access to information.

People tend to belive what they WANT to belive.   

Interesting correlation.


If one is a sucker for one type of scam, he/she/they are likely a sucker for other scams.

We used to call this "naivete'."   Now, it's just called stupidity.  There's no reason to be uninformed with today's access to information.

People tend to belive what they WANT to belive.   

nope, it's called a "calculated risk"
lol

The purpose of such a law would not be to protect the public, but an excuse for mass detention of political disagreeables

Ok, so if I have Ebola and say "F$&% you world, I am going to the mall" then you think there should be no laws in place which prevent me from doing so? The government should have no legal authority to restrict my movement regardless of how dangerous a disease I may have? 

Ok, so if I have Ebola and say "F$&% you world, I am going to the mall" then you think there should be no laws in place which prevent me from doing so? The government should have no legal authority to restrict my movement regardless of how dangerous a disease I may have?

what other diseases can the govt come in and detain you for? AIDS? Mental health? the flu (because pneumonia kills)...

Ok, so if I have Ebola and say "F$&% you world, I am going to the mall" then you think there should be no laws in place which prevent me from doing so? The government should have no legal authority to restrict my movement regardless of how dangerous a disease I may have?

Your example uses one person, but you desire loosely defined unconstitutional powers to unlawfully detain how many people? Tens of thousands? Millions? Sounds like an authoritarian wet dream

what other diseases can the govt come in and detain you for? AIDS? Mental health? the flu (because pneumonia kills)...

The government can and does take away people's freedom in relation to mental illnesses.

HIV is not so easily transmitted, there would be no reason to lock up someone with HIV.

Could you answer the question I raised though?

Your example uses one person, but you desire loosely defined unconstitutional powers to unlawfully detain how many people? Tens of thousands? Millions? Sounds like an authoritarian wet dream

Nowhere did I say it could be loosely defined. I am only pointing out the problem of your argument that any revocation of someone's rights is unconstitutional. If you are going to argue that it is unconstitutional to confine someone with a deadly and contagious virus then you have to accept that you cannot prevent a person with such a virus from going out and infecting others.


I am not even going to entertain the silly conspiracy theory that detaining people with deadly contagious viruses is just a front for mass government internment camps.

Nowhere did I say it could be loosely defined. I am only pointing out the problem of your argument that any revocation of someone's rights is unconstitutional. If you are going to argue that it is unconstitutional to confine someone with a deadly and contagious virus then you have to accept that you cannot prevent a person with such a virus from going out and infecting others.


I am not even going to entertain the silly conspiracy theory that detaining people with deadly contagious viruses is just a front for mass government internment camps.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. Try adulting harder

Again you used the one person with Ebola as an example but you want unlimited power to detain an unspecified number of people based on what? A medical diagnosis? Party loyalty? Feels? Very disingenuous.

Ok, so if I have Ebola and say "F$&% you world, I am going to the mall" then you think there should be no laws in place which prevent me from doing so? The government should have no legal authority to restrict my movement regardless of how dangerous a disease I may have?

Key words are u have ebola, vs not having it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

can the govt detain you for being drunk at home with a car in your garage? Drunk + driving = kills. The potential is there for you to kill someone.....

can the govt detain you for being drunk at home with a car in your garage? Drunk + driving = kills. The potential is there for you to kill someone.....

We just witnessed the government destroy people’s lives for what turned out to be an abnormally bad flu season, so no. No extra power for them

Ok, so if I have Ebola and say "F$&% you world, I am going to the mall" then you think there should be no laws in place which prevent me from doing so? The government should have no legal authority to restrict my movement regardless of how dangerous a disease I may have?

How many people broke quarantine/self-isolation after testing positive?  We know for a fact the NY Governor's brother who works for CNN, Chris Cuomo, did.  There were several visitors in HI who did.

When you say the gov't has the authority to "restrict" your movement, how, exactly, are they authorized to do that?  Ankle bracelets?  Incarceration?  Bail bond?  Force, up to and including lethal force? 

Lethal force might sound excessive, but when your rhetoric whirls around how someone who carries the virus is potentially killing people, that's the path you seem to be running down at breakneck speed.