Lot of new folks out in the BC this year from what I’ve seen. SAR is gonna be real busy.
1 Like
I’m noticing allot of these kids are quoting survival rates specifically for their age demographic. Its like fuck everyone else.
1 Like
I used to laugh at those backcountry skiers looking down on them from the chairlift.
Now I have to join them and buy all that retarded climbing tapes for skis and what not. Fuck covid.
1 Like
That’s not at all what happened. I seriously doubt it ever would have happened with this illness. Remove the restrictions and things would be back to normal. At least where I am. Maybe other places got so bad that people self-quarantined and eliminated COVID.
This is true for some who haven’t ever taken it seriously but the idea that everything would be back to normal without restrictions isn’t accurate at all. A good majority of the population isn’t going on vacations, on cruises, to the movies, to bars, etc when we have cases that are hitting 200,000 per day and 2500 deaths per day.
You can open everything back up exactly how it was this time last year and you’re going to see diminished numbers in all those things.
1 Like
How the hell am I supposed to refer to a case that has not happened yet? An act isn’t unconstitutional only after the court decides it is. It is unconstitutional, it’s brought to court then the court decides its constitutionality. This specific case has not been presented to the courts yet, it’s just happened. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a ‘rules for thee, not for me’ unconstitutional application of long expired emergency orders. Meaning, the governor cannot continually extend emergency orders ad nauseum.
In NY, from a case that was presented a while back the court did strike down Cuomo’s orders against religious services.
In this particular case, I said the orders were unconstitutional. You said 'how are they unconstitutional and what do these orders violate. I presented the 1st ammendment, you persisted that it wasn’t enough. So I brought cases from other places, where very similar edicts were declared unconstitutional in other places. Decisions that can and probably will serve as precedent in this case should it go to court.
In a normal conversation, that should and would have been enough evidence to show that this action taken by Cuomo and DeBlasio are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional once they hit a courtroom, since very similar edicts were struck down as unconstitutional in other places already.
But in a bid to “win”, you fire back that this case hasn’t been declared unconstitutional specifically.
Okay, fine. This case has not been brought before the court yet, therefore the court has not made a decision yet, that this action by the governor and mayor have not yet been declared unconstitutional. And apparently, you will only accept that nonsensical directives are unconstitutional only after it has been adjudicated in a court of law. And hence and therefore, until the court rules on the specific case, it’s not unconstitutional. Do I have that right?
It’s important to remember that the people saying those things are morons.
1 Like
You’re right, I should have applied some ashanimadinadibadpressure.
What’s this? A Giuliani strategy?
Just because you think that I think you know what you’re saying doesn’t mean that what you said means what you think I think it does.
It doesn’t work like that.
1 Like
No I wasn’t. I wasn’t taking about binding precedents. I was talking about precedents, whether binding or not are still used in and by the judiciary all the time. Don’t you watch ‘Law and Order’?
Regardless, I wasn’t talking about binding precedents. How the hell would I have binding precedents for court cases that have just now been adjudicated?
@Aragorn was not showing the dissimilarities. Because they are not dissimilar and the text proves that. He’s basically saying that this action by the governor and mayor are not unconstitutional until this case has been disseminated in the courts and found to be so. In other words, nothing is unconstitutional until a court has ruled that each specific incident is in fact, unconstitutional. At least that is the requisite amount of proof required to show that this particular action, taken against Mac’s Bar and Grill is unconstitutional. It’s a hell of a burden to overcome.
It means that my dog can shit in your yard as much as it wants until a court of law has decided I am violating your rights. Prior to that decision, I am not violating your rights.
And @Californiagrown
Remember 89-91 ish timeframe and visiting Pikes Peak with out of state friend.
Gave a lift to a couple of snowboard bums each direction, doing some back country boarding. I had never heard of the things and thought 'This will never make it." Oops.
3 Likes
Lol. But think of it this way… Fresh powder that nobody’s touched!
I’m happy for where you’re at, but that’s not the sense I get at all. We all agree that lockdown is a vague term and that the time for controlling this thing with such a thing is likely past. We all agree that the economy is hurting and we need to try to keep things moving. But I do not see things just magically going back to normal except with the younger, college aged crowd.
2 Likes
It was right about 88 or 89 that I saw a Warren Miller movie featuring among others, Craig Kelly and I said "I’m going to do that! "
It was all down hill from there.
Most resorts in the US would not let you on a lift with a snowboard at the time.
That was poor wording on my part. I doubt things will go back to normal now, but I don’t believe things would have changed if we hadn’t had all of the forced changes in the first place.
1 Like
That’s not exactly what I said. You are ignoring the reasoning and the point of why I said what I did.
No. I was trying to get you to focus on ONE damn case instead of moving all around, and specifically the one I linked from the other thread. That was, you know, the purpose of my reply about THAT case rather than any random old case.
Moreover, not all cases are similar with was PRECISELY THE REASON I wanted to focus on that one case that you posted. Your own USA Today link just above cites two other states (California and Nevada) where the Supreme Court decided against churches instead of for them. In other words, no all these cases are not legally the same.
In other words, cases in Michigan and Pennsylvania are not probably legally the same (as I said before) to the NY cases. And, more to the point, I don’t want to deal with moving goalposts.
1 Like
Ok fair enough. We’ll probably agree to disagree there, but I will admit your case is plausible. I do think eventually things would have dropped off a cliff regardless, but certainly at a significantly later date.
1 Like
Well its my first day back to work… did you have any lingering fatigue after?
2 Likes
Good news! Hope your wife is doing equally well.
Can’t speak for him, but I did not. Fortunately.
2 Likes
I did, but mine was a little bit complicated with the pneumonia and chf.
And I went back to tree cutting at the end of July/beginning of August , so that’s its own kind of ass beating.
It took like a month before I could really hit the gas again and move in a way I found satisfactory. In the mean time it was like running with a dead spark plug.
Is that about where you’re at?
I think I used mucinex to clear things up a little too. Like 99% sure. And red potatoes with skin on for potassium/electrolytes and hydration.
2 Likes
Okay, next time I will quote you.
Bullshit. I couldn’t “focus on ONE damn case” (see I quoted you!) because it’s not a case, yet. Your original question was exactly this:
I gave a high level review, off the top of my head.
So I answered:
Then you said:
Then I said:
And presented cases that had already been before the courts and ruled unconstitutional. And since these were decisions based on federal law which applies everywhere, I was showing how this case in NY was similarly unconstitutional.
THEN, which means later, you started saying this:
So, to recap. You asked this question: “Why is this unconstitutional? I’m not asking why it’s bad policy, a bad decision, or anything else. I’m asking why the situation is unconstitutional.”
Can you point to anything in this question where I was to assume that you meant that I was to show cases in NYC or specifically this incident that dealt specifically with this bar in this area? You added your conditions after the fact. You asked a question, you didn’t find my answer sufficient because I suppose I didn’t reference anything. So I provided references to explain the answer to your question “Why is this unconstitutional? I’m not asking why it’s bad policy, a bad decision, or anything else. I’m asking why the situation is unconstitutional.”
Can you show me, in the asking of your question where the conditions you presented after the fact, are? If not, then the question was asked and answered.
You required that this case be adjudicated by a court of law and found to be unconstitutional after the answering. You moved the goal posts. You changed and re-framed the entire question as a completely different question after I answered the original.
So to answer your other, amended question. No I have no evidence to present that shows that this case was argued in a court of law and found unconstitutional because no such case has yet been filed. But by the precedents from other cases of people and businesses in similar situations, the courts have found similar edicts to be unconstitutional; referring to the Constitution of the United States, not the State’s constitution.
If this case does end up in the courts, then after the courts finding’s, I can say for certain this action by the government of NY was found to be unconstitutional.
Can you show me, in your original question, where I was to determine you meant that specific bar in that specific spot in NYC?