Security and freedom

Under 3,000 Americans died on September 11, 2001, and the national response—led by the right—was to double down on sweeping, invasive, draconian, restrictive, and unconstitutional security measures, at all levels of policy and governance, in an over-abundance of caution; as if a largely regional criminal gang were in fact an existential threat to civilization itself. More than 3,000 Americans are dying just about every day from Covid, and the right’s response has been either to downplay (if not outright deny) the threat’s severity or to shrug one’s shoulders as if nothing could be done; with a popular right-wing sentiment against safety and caution, lest “fear control our lives.” It’s easy to point out this hypocrisy, but that’s presuming fear, security, freedom and “American lives” were really their concerns to begin with. The difference in response has nothing to do with cowardice v. bravery, caution v. liberty, security v. freedom, but everything to do with which sort of measures can be profitable to the warmongers and capitalists who run the show.

More than 3,000 Americans are dying just about every day from Covid

More die from the flu .
Or used to .

and the national response—led by the LEFT—was to double down on sweeping, invasive, draconian, restrictive, and unconstitutional security measures, at all levels of policy and governance, in an over-abundance of caution

Denying ignorance .
Why ?
It even happens in the Rant Section.

a reply to: Gothmog

How did the left manage to that in 2001?
Was it not the right?
I guess we can just deny facts also. Lol.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

There is a vast difference between lives lost to terrorist mass murder and lives lost to a once-in-a-century pandemic. The government can defend you from one, not the other. There are around 30,000 lives lost to car accidents, but no fool would cry to the government to protect them from car accidents.

a reply to: CitizenZero

But how does the denial narrative or fatalist narrative deal with something like food? In my mind and in real dollars, it feels like the strongest industry (and iterative with something like medicine). We can say it is obviously liberty> some sort of consumption spiral, but is there anything to be said for inferring empowerment from liberty (and doing our best to ignore the fatalism, which feels brittle anyway).

I don’t think this is a defense of neoliberalism, but arguably a blind spot of the left and—possibly—something to take from the rights version of the machine.

originally posted by: DarkPalSFO
a reply to: Gothmog

How did the left manage to that in 2001?
Was it not the right?
I guess we can just deny facts also. Lol.

Wow, just wow.
1) Try and remember the content of your own OP . That would help.
2) Try a bit of reading comprehension when someone else posts.
3) Using both 1 and 2 actually prevents one from doubling down on ignorance.

a reply to: Gothmog

Dude there was nothing to remember or nothing to read you took my post and changed it from “right” to “left” seems to me your the only one doubling down on your ignorance and denial of the reality the you are presented with. I know some pills are hard to swallow.

a reply to: Gothmog

Or is it because my point of view is different then yours some I’m ignorant? You have always had a tendency to post on all my threads. I think my threads might rub you the wrong way. Maybe you are just to “right” for us to ever agree.

originally posted by: DarkPalSFO
a reply to: Gothmog

Dude there was nothing to remember or nothing to read you took my post and changed it from “right” to “left” seems to me your the only one doubling down on your ignorance and denial of the reality the you are presented with. I know some pills are hard to swallow.

Try something besides denial when you offer a rebuttal even in the Rant Forum
I quoted a part in my original post.
A quote .
From your OP.
I do not know how I can be more lucid than that.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

But how does the denial narrative or fatalist narrative deal with something like food? In my mind and in real dollars, it feels like the strongest industry (and iterative with something like medicine). We can say it is obviously liberty> some sort of consumption spiral, but is there anything to be said for inferring empowerment from liberty (and doing our best to ignore the fatalism, which feels brittle anyway).

Personal responsibility, I think. I know that for my own case I prefer to seek knowledge and protect myself rather than leaving that up to some official or agent of the state.

a reply to: CitizenZero

There are around 30,000 lives lost to car accidents, but no fool would cry to the government to protect them from car accidents.

But it does. The government imposes safety regulations on car makers. It imposes speed limits and lane constraints and has hired the Highway Patrol to enforce those safety laws. The government requires passengers to wear seat belts, requires air bags and makes it the law to have insurance to pay for your hospitalization and/or medical care, should you have an accident.

At the very least, the government. AKA President Trump, could have leveled with the American Public and told us how contagious and dangerous this virus actually is, like he did with Bob Woodward, instead of downplaying and politicizing it. Instead, he and his administration has sabotaged efforts to control the virus and encourage super spreader events. All the while arguing before SCOTUS that the ACA should be repealed, endangering access to health care for millions of families.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But it does. The government imposes safety regulations on car makers. It imposes speed limits and lane constraints and has hired the Highway Patrol to enforce those safety laws. The government requires passengers to wear seat belts, requires air bags and makes it the law to have insurance to pay for your hospitalization and/or medical care, should you have an accident.

No , no it doesn't .
All those are State mandated.
By EACH State.
Do some research.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO

I don't think this is the fault of one political party, certainly not the right.

The left didn't come up with any pragmatic ideas. They wanted total lockdowns which would (and have) shifted the impact to economic devistation.

How about instead of creating record breaking unemployment we pay to have the vulnerable stay protected while the rest of the nation keeps everything going?

Hindsight has shown this was a marathon, not a sprint. There's no way we could have been harder on it by total shutdowns and still sustained everything we need to ensure the survival of society.

Only 3,000? When you wake up in the morning. Look at your wife, husband, child. Or think about your Dad, Mother, sister or brother, even friends. Then think about that number 3,000. How it was just thrown out there as a statistic.

Good post any how. S&F

a reply to: Gothmog

The post I replied to:

There are around 30,000 lives lost to car accidents, but no fool would cry to the government to protect them from car accidents.

My answer:

But it does. The government imposes safety regulations on car makers. It imposes speed limits and lane constraints and has hired the Highway Patrol to enforce those safety laws. The government requires passengers to wear seat belts, requires air bags and makes it the law to have insurance to pay for your hospitalization and/or medical care, should you have an accident.

Additionally:

NHTSA issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to implement laws from Congress. These regulations allow us to fulfill our mission to prevent and reduce vehicle crashes.

www.nhtsa.gov...

Do some research! The government does a lot to protect people from car accidents.

Rooowr! Phfft phfft! Put the claws away hombre.

a reply to: DarkPalSFO