Posts by Jerry Robinson56

Matthew Jackson2 said:First off, I’m not even going to dignify certain points with a response. Your entire contribution to this discussion seems to boil down to labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "selfish," which—frankly—is all you've offered. Engaging with that kind of mindless deflection isn't worth my time. I will, however, add this: if there is a genuine opportunity to swap one policy for an alternative that is just as effective at preventing infection but carries a significantly lighter burden on the economy, how on earth is that being selfish? Isn't it actually more selfish to insist on a harsher measure that threatens to push a massive portion of our citizens below the poverty line?

Under the Emergency Management Act, a certain amount of authority was transferred to civil defense units—though whether that's even legal is debatable, since any law infringing on fundamental rights would require a two-thirds majority in Congress, but let's set that aside for a moment and assume they managed it. Even so, certain powers weren't included in that transfer; for instance, the authority to declare a quarantine rests solely with the Secretary of Health. Yet, we saw the head of a local county task force—not even a national one—declare a quarantine on Manhattan Island, despite having no such power. The task force claimed everything was strictly by the book, only for a bill to be introduced in Congress last week proposing amendments to the Infectious Disease Protection Act that would allow those specific powers to be handed over to the task force—powers they supposedly already possessed. It's a complete shell game. If anyone is playing games here, it's the administration playing against itself. They are likely setting the stage to make Beroš the scapegoat; if things work out and he turns against the party, he officially signed nothing, but if the plan fails, the public eye will fall squarely on him.

So, while we are in the thick of fighting a pandemic, they are busy with cheap political maneuvering, and you have the audacity to accuse the President—who has barely even appeared in public—of playing these games!?

I am under no obligation to propose measures, nor am I required to prove anything to someone who does nothing but spit on others and slap labels on them. If you're so curious, feel free to visit my profile and use the "show user posts" feature; I certainly have no intention of digging through yours.

You wrote that people who feel the state isn't protecting them have the right to take matters into their own hands. That is deeply disturbing for two reasons:
1.) It’s practically a call for a mob to take over, which is deeply unsettling in its own right.
2.) According to what you're saying, it doesn't even matter if they're actually right; all that matters is that they *feel* they are. Good grief, man, every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there thinks the government is out to get them!

Sure, it happens constantly, but that isn't an excuse to just sit back and let it slide—especially not right now. Your logic here is exactly the same as those people who say, "So what? People are dying anyway."

What’s next, are you going to ask if my grandfather was a Nazi or a Communist?!

🙄

Matthew Jackson2 said:First off, I’m not even going to dignify certain points with a response. Your entire contribution to this discussion seems to boil down to labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "selfish," which—frankly—is all you've offered. Engaging with that kind of mindless deflection isn't worth my time. I will, however, add this: if there is a genuine opportunity to swap one policy for an alternative that is just as effective at preventing infection but carries a significantly lighter burden on the economy, how on earth is that being selfish? Isn't it actually more selfish to insist on a harsher measure that threatens to push a massive portion of our citizens below the poverty line?

Under the Emergency Management Act, a certain amount of authority was transferred to civil defense units—though whether that's even legal is debatable, since any law infringing on fundamental rights would require a two-thirds majority in Congress, but let's set that aside for a moment and assume they managed it. Even so, certain powers weren't included in that transfer; for instance, the authority to declare a quarantine rests solely with the Secretary of Health. Yet, we saw the head of a local county task force—not even a national one—declare a quarantine on Manhattan Island, despite having no such power. The task force claimed everything was strictly by the book, only for a bill to be introduced in Congress last week proposing amendments to the Infectious Disease Protection Act that would allow those specific powers to be handed over to the task force—powers they supposedly already possessed. It's a complete shell game. If anyone is playing games here, it's the administration playing against itself. They are likely setting the stage to make Beroš the scapegoat; if things work out and he turns against the party, he officially signed nothing, but if the plan fails, the public eye will fall squarely on him.

So, while we are in the thick of fighting a pandemic, they are busy with cheap political maneuvering, and you have the audacity to accuse the President—who has barely even appeared in public—of playing these games!?

I am under no obligation to propose measures, nor am I required to prove anything to someone who does nothing but spit on others and slap labels on them. If you're so curious, feel free to visit my profile and use the "show user posts" feature; I certainly have no intention of digging through yours.

You wrote that people who feel the state isn't protecting them have the right to take matters into their own hands. That is deeply disturbing for two reasons:
1.) It’s practically a call for a mob to take over, which is deeply unsettling in its own right.
2.) According to what you're saying, it doesn't even matter if they're actually right; all that matters is that they *feel* they are. Good grief, man, every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there thinks the government is out to get them!

Sure, it happens constantly, but that isn't an excuse to just sit back and let it slide—especially not right now. Your logic here is exactly the same as those people who say, "So what? People are dying anyway."

What’s next, are you going to ask if my grandfather was a Nazi or a Communist?!

It is perfectly clear that you lack comprehension and are solely focused on your own perspective. Furthermore, you clearly neglect to read the necessary material required to be coherent. From this exchange, it is evident that you embody everything I have observed.

Review:

Grace Jones86 said:Austria dealt with much harsher hotspots and a significantly more intense epidemic.

You simply refuse to grasp that the sheer number or intensity of the hotspots is irrelevant; what matters is nothing more than the isolation of those locations. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if your entire profession consists of selling smoke and mirrors.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

I am neither reproaching nor lecturing you. My apologies if it came across that way. They aren't breaking any laws—though I suppose I don't need to cite Article 52 of the Police Act for you.
It is simply an idiot from a larger stable of idiots, defending the President’s "wisdom" (which is a value judgment, not a fact), throwing obstacles in the way of the only logical course of action that could have been taken.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

Could you please repeat yourself? If there are no eyes left to see, then of course there is no point.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

Of course they aren't; it wouldn't be expected otherwise. It's not as if a mandatory curfew and state-mandated distribution of essentials wouldn't be deemed problematic too. I am looking at this as a choice between leaving things to fate or strictly managing a quarantine. Most people aren't reacting based on policy; they are reacting because of those who have "personal" grievances and feel a sense of self-importance... much like those incompetent taxi drivers who shouldn't be behind a wheel. Thus, my earlier assertion holds true— s e l f - i n t e r e s t —is the driving force behind the critics.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

You’re philosophizing... your detachment from reality is quite palpable.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

The nature of this complex virus is interesting enough on its own regarding its transmission and speed... these comparisons are simply a distraction from the topic at hand.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

Perhaps, if you find yourself siding with the oppressors...

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, when I am actually being paid to find solutions, then you can come at me and claim I’m failing to provide them, or that my solutions aren't up to par—in fact, you'd not only have the right, but the literal obligation to criticize me if you felt I wasn't doing the job I was hired for. But currently, we have people who *are* being paid specifically for that purpose, individuals who implement measures that I see as highly questionable; meanwhile, they dance around the law, claiming they aren't breaking any rules, and then they go about changing the laws just so they can pretend they aren't violating the ones they supposedly followed. It's all a performance to make it look like they are the ones saving the country, ensuring the opposition can't hold them accountable or, Heaven forbid, take credit for the success.

Besides, I've actually written down several proposals myself, but what good does that do?

That says more about you than it does about me—you're operating from a standpoint of total polarization, where anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically cast into the opposing camp. If I believe certain measures aren't well-designed, or that they result in less efficacy while placing a heavier burden on the economy and wasting more resources, is it really your contention that I must also believe all measures should be abolished entirely?

Once again, you're missing the point entirely. Policy measures have to account for every angle. A measure that might be epidemiologically perfect is a bad measure if it's impossible to implement in practice. If the infection of a certain number of people is a statistical certainty, then that is something that must be factored into the decision-making process—something we should strive to avoid, or if it can't be avoided, something we must work to minimize the fallout from. Whether or not the person who gets sick happens to live next door to me, whether they threaten my own family, and whether I personally blame them in that moment is a matter of my own perspective; however, whether or not the leadership accounts for the fact that such cases are inevitable is a direct reflection of the quality of their management.

And I suppose you’d apply that same logic to the conspiracy theorist who’s convinced the threat is just a fabrication designed by the establishment to keep him housebound? Does he feel the state isn't protecting him, thus giving him the right to wander out? Or how about that absolute moron who started hurlng stones at women walking their dogs from a high-rise balcony—mind you, the guy actually had to lug those rocks up to the balcony first! Or should we talk about the Taliban, who are so certain doctors are coming to sterilize them rather than vaccinate them against infectious diseases that they end up killing the medics instead?

Your statement is deeply unsettling, frankly.

And do you really think a system like that won't eventually screw up, find an opening for some petty theft, or exploit a situation to serve their own interests or settle political scores? That is precisely why they demand scrutiny and constant criticism.

🙄that happens constantly, regardless of the circumstances. Why don't you tell us who you voted for in the runoff... as for me, I crossed out both names on the ballot.

Bryan Taylor6 said:How exactly is the Democratic Party an accelerator and an innovator?

Because the Republican Party is the one responsible for the way our cities and towns are divided up today.

It is all a farce built on deception. The Republican Party simply carries on the legacy or copies the playbook. The issue lies within the system itself. Voter manipulation—utilizing non-existent or unreachable voters—is a far more potent tool. And that particular grease is well-applied by the Democratic Party.
And don't even get me started on how they select ministers. 🤦

hollowtrucker77 said:🤦😵🙂

🤣 Do you honestly believe that will help you... man... I still maintain a certain faith in humanity, though, well, God isn't watching over us anyway.

rapidfox21 said:Are you referring to this one? Passware Kit
I find it rather perplexing; from what I can gather, the utility seems strictly limited to recovering a handful of passwords.
.......Passware Kit stands as a formidable tool for anyone tasked with reclaiming lost or forgotten Windows and administrator passwords. It is a decisive solution for those navigating the frustrations of being locked out of their own systems.

No, that isn’t the one... I have several tools with similar names floating around in my head, so I can't recall the exact title offhand. However, the one I am thinking of restores everything—it doesn't just cherry-pick data by file extension; it actually performs a full restoration. Of course, that is entirely contingent upon what you have been doing with the drive in the interim. If the data was simply deleted or the drive was formatted, it shouldn't be an issue, but if you have been actively saving new files to that same disk, some data loss is inevitable. Still, the software provides a precise report on exactly how much it managed to recover. The process is straightforward: it scans the entire disk first, and then you select specifically what you want to restore. The only absolute requirement is that the BIOS recognizes the drive.
I am currently away from my home office, but once I am back, I will consult the manufacturer's documentation and provide you with a precise update.
Passwords are nothing more than a joke. 😁

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Actually, the problem is entirely within the system—this ridiculous fragmentation into tiny towns and little isolated pockets where you can't even budge 1.9 miles from your house without a pass just to maintain some semblance of a normal life, unlike people in major cities who can wander miles without needing permission. People aren't looking for grand adventures; they're just trying to function as normally as today's circumstances allow. But hey... it's easy to sit there and judge everyone else, isn't it?

In that light, yes, anomalies are an inevitable constant, and any high-level overview can only offer generalizations. Unfortunately, the rigid hierarchies found in law enforcement, medicine, education, and so on... they stifle intelligence and halt progress by dismissing any genuine initiative. I encounter this firsthand in my professional life every single day. You have to realize that systems are sustained by good people. That is the only way a system survives and evolves.
One must undergo the process of burning out and rising again more times than a phoenix just to prove a point.
Therefore, you must advocate for necessary changes at your own level, while remaining mindful not to compromise others. If the precinct captains or deputies are reasonable individuals, they possess the discretionary authority to exercise common sense in their enforcement. A solution can always be engineered, regardless of how insurmountable the obstacle appears.
Someone articulated it well: the Republican Party is directly responsible (utilizing artificial divisions to consolidate power) for all the, forgive me, nonsense we've had to endure, whereas the Democratic Party serves as the accelerator and the innovator.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I suppose I should exercise caution here, but I find myself agreeing with your premise. You seem to be suggesting that I ought to present an alternative perspective—implying that, despite my reservations, their performance remains fundamentally sound. To be perfectly honest, I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

When I offer criticism, I make sure to provide both a valid argument and a viable solution. From what I can gather, you seem content to offer nothing but complaints. Every time I attempt to extract the core of your position, all I find is pure selfishness. Just look at how they are treating me.
Wouldn't it be preferable if things weren't conducted this way? It truly would. Economics is nothing more than a grand deception—a series of backroom deals masquerading as science.
The capital hasn't actually vanished; it’s just that the gears have stopped turning. Money is still out there, sitting stagnant, refusing to circulate through the economy like it ought to.

Matthew Jackson2 As stated by:
I consider myself a conscientious individual, truly. I try to play by the rules. But if I maintain this level of compliance for one week, then two, then three—all while the situation deteriorates and the mandates become increasingly draconian—at what point do I finally snap? At what point do I simply say, "To hell with you all; I refuse to be the only fool left following these absurdities"? Perhaps it won't be me personally, but surely at least ten percent of the population will reach that breaking point. The situation has spiraled completely out of control.

That was a rather eloquent description you provided. However, one has to consider the implications: imagine if someone like that were to infect a member of your own family... simply because it’s easy, or perhaps just because they felt like it. What exactly would be the problem then?
I find myself agreeing with one particular sentiment expressed in this discussion. Those pedophile priests should be immediately shipped off to Manhattan Island without a second thought—let them go tend to sheep instead. This applies to all those self-righteous believers who continue to support them as well.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

Let them try. If they are truly convinced that the state has failed in its fundamental duty to protect both their physical and mental well-being, then taking action is their prerogative. It is their right.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

That particular branch of the system is absolutely crawling with incompetents, and I find myself in complete agreement with your assessment. Tell me, did you cast your vote for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? If you did, then frankly, you’ve come to your senses far too late. Given the state of our presidency, we should simply be grateful that we are still drawing breath.

Matthew Jackson2 said:I suppose I should tread carefully here, but you seem to be under the impression that I’m looking for an alternative—as if my only grievance is that I haven't provided a better way of doing things while simultaneously acknowledging they actually do a decent job. Honestly, I find myself at a complete loss for words; I truly have nothing to add to that particular line of reasoning.

Look, I consider myself a reasonable man—a level-headed individual who understands the need for order—but there comes a point where patience isn't just tested, it’s systematically dismantled. If I spend the first week being cooperative, then the second week trying to play by the rules, and by the third week I see the situation spiraling further into chaos while the restrictions only get more draconian and suffocating, what exactly am I supposed to do? At what precise moment am I expected to simply snap? I mean, I can sit here and be the only one following every single arbitrary mandate, but eventually, I’m going to reach a breaking point where I just want to yell, "To hell with all of you, I refuse to be the only sane person left in this circus." Maybe I won't be the one to lose my cool, but let’s be realistic: when things get this out of hand, at least ten percent of the population is going to hit that wall and finally push back. This whole thing has completely spun out of control.

The only other way this plays out is if people finally decide to stop waiting for permission and start taking matters into their own hands by carving out their own version of justice—and honestly, if that happens, this whole damn pandemic situation starts looking like a much smaller problem than what we're actually facing.

If the Secretary of Homeland Security can't guarantee that officers on the ground are actually following protocol, or if the Secretary of Health and Human Services can't ensure that an ER isn't turning away someone in desperate need of life-saving care, then we have reached a point where they’ve completely lost their grip on the very systems they claim to oversee. It’s a fundamental breakdown of leadership. In any other professional setting—and I mean really high-stakes environments like a major hospital administration or even a large corporate firm here in the States—you don't just sit by when things go sideways; you resign. You step down because the responsibility rests at the top. During a crisis, that internal accountability shouldn't just be a suggestion; it should be the absolute bedrock of how we function. When a failure occurs, the immediate supervisor has to act instantly. If they fail to act, their superior is obligated to step in and course-correct immediately. But if that entire chain of command remains paralyzed, if this systemic refusal to respond trickles all the way up to the Cabinet level, then the conversation is effectively over. At that stage, there is no longer a functioning government to debate with, because the leadership has essentially abdicated its duty.

I mean, sure, if you're talking about the islands, there's a certain logic to it—especially those spots that get completely cut off from the mainland when a massive storm rolls in off the coast—but honestly, everyone else in the region is just going to gravitate toward the four major medical hubs anyway.

Things could certainly be organized more efficiently, but if you find yourself lacking the necessary personnel, you might as well just take a photo. Given the current circumstances, I would argue that using the term "speaking" in this context is perfectly acceptable.

James Phillips92 said:I'm with you on this—it was a failed strategy.

There is no doubt in my mind that he would offer his services to engineer a final solution through various adaptations... 😁

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

How exactly is a "ban," which isn't even a ban, but rather a controlled measure, considered idiocy?
You need to grasp that you are potentially a danger to others, yet you are acting as if you are the only one who matters. It’s like driving at 130 mph on a highway and claiming, "Well, I always drive like this," right before the crash...
Do you still fail to understand the objective here? It is about isolating the outbreaks.
I doubt such a rigorous form of quarantine would have been feasible today, given that there are high-level professional responsibilities requiring travel... naturally, there is a 14-day period upon return... but still.

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

Quarantine has nothing to do with those historical maritime republics in the way you are presenting it. Such practices were utilized in parts of Africa for centuries before the concept of modern order took hold, often involving the burning of the infected along with their entire village... The infected were not permitted to leave their huts, thus preventing them from spreading the contagion to others.
The historical examples serve only to demonstrate that isolation is the only reliable measure. We still know very little about this virus, and it is referenced as being among the most dangerous pathogens when it reaches an unprepared location.
At least, that is how it is being framed.

stormybadger8 said:Look, when I actually use my brain, I realize that those quarantine measures used to be a legit solution (at least at first, anyway). But this whole "stay at home" rule being applied to absolute morons is just pure stupidity...
If we had actually implemented a real 40-day quarantine for everyone entering the country like they did back then, we probably wouldn't even have this virus right now.

On the other hand, this current ban—with its million different loopholes—is sheer idiocy. Back in the day, you didn't have 700 different tiny counties inside the Republic, and you didn't have scammers handing out fake permits. You didn't get special passes after 15, 20, or 30 days, let alone on day one. You stayed in quarantine for the full 40 days, period. No exceptions because "it's Easter, so the virus doesn't matter for five days." 🙂

So, if you actually bother to think about it, you'll see why I don't buy the idea that these little paper permits are what's stopping the virus. It's obvious to me, even if it isn't to you...

This merely highlights your lack of civility. A pass does not prevent the spread— where on earth did I write or even imply that it was a "cure"? .. you are trivializing my position through your own projections and words.
... a pass functions like a manifest on a shipping vessel... it ensures information is received, so they don't have to call stations for verification, and so on...
If one were to inquire about the coffee machine or the instant thermometer $17 — let's say, from a place like Walmart... you might struggle with the sensor whether you use the pass or not when the LCD fails to glow green 😁 .. I am merely jesting ..
In all seriousness, do try to be reasonable and accept that the deficiency lies within yourself rather than the system.
One need only observe the current state of affairs these days ...

EaseUS Todo PCTrans provides absolutely everything you are looking for, including the specific option to target one single "document"... and it functions flawlessly.
All you really need is an external drive, or you can simply plug in a USB flash drive to serve as your destination. /I haven't personally tested it with a thumb drive, but I am certain it will work./
I just hope the audio files aren't music tracks 😁

Jesse Hughes6 said:You missed the point entirely.
The guy was trying to explain that back during the era of those maritime republics, it wasn't the locals being quarantined, but the foreigners coming in.
You’re just way too caught up in your own theories to catch the slight hint of irony in his message.

The virus isn't just floating around us.
A virus lives inside an infected person.

He interjected himself into a thread that wasn't even directed at him, and his subsequent claims lack any semblance of logic, relying instead on mere "philosophy."
Furthermore, your clarification is entirely incoherent. It would be more productive if you attempted to clarify your own position.
Using irony in these circumstances does nothing to advance a serious discussion; I am at a loss as to why that isn't obvious. One does not have the luxury of wasting time on trivialities.
My responses are tailored to individual character... which occasionally makes it difficult to discern the actual thoughts of someone who inserts themselves into a conversation between two parties who have already reached an understanding.

And you neglected to read this one... Please provide a suggestion... I am not following the situation "over there," so a link would be appreciated. ... my response to his statement.

Jesse Hughes6 said:You missed the point entirely.
The guy was trying to explain that back during the era of those maritime republics, it wasn't the locals being quarantined, but the foreigners coming in.
You’re just way too caught up in your own theories to catch the slight hint of irony in his message.

The virus isn't just floating around us.
A virus lives inside an infected person.

🤦
Within the infected, it "merely" replicates, yet the consequences of transmission result in total pulmonary and renal failure. They are the ones spreading it.
I suggest you study basic virology before attempting to rejoin this conversation... I have neither the patience nor the inclination to lecture you on the genesis of life.
I could easily go silent myself.
As for how it reached the infected... whether via Amazon or Express Mail... DHL is reliable, though certainly expensive.☕

Anthony Jackson2 said:The fact that COVID managed to infiltrate nursing homes and care facilities—hitting the most vulnerable head-on—is proof enough that the task force completely missed the mark with their strategy and focus. On top of that, they burned through an absurd amount of time and resources on these pointless measures, all for absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't go that far... your premises are flawed. It wasn't possible to freeze the situation in place; at best, one could only attempt to move toward a state of heightened vigilance. When you are dealing with incompetent bureaucrats and opportunists, such as that individual from Chicago, you simply cannot expect to rely on those tasked with implementation. For instance, they didn't even have a functioning computer in the facility... which is perfectly consistent with that idiot's track record.

The virus is everywhere around us; the only variables are the viral load, the duration of the virus's lifespan, and the strength of one's immune system. If it doesn't reach the lungs, it isn't nearly as dangerous.
Naturally, there is always the possibility of exaggeration... that things aren't quite as dire as presented. However, I find myself disinclined to believe that.

Matthew Jackson2 said:So, essentially, our primary issue is a broken system, rather than the behavior of the public itself.

The epidemiologists over in Canada called this exact same measure unnecessary and excessive. Yet here we are, with our own officials digging their heels in to maintain it, even though it’s clearly insane. To date, a third of the adult population already holds a pass, and these little political cliques are starting to cluster together because they've realized the whole thing isn't sustainable. It's just that nobody has the guts to stand up and tell the Emperor he's wearing no clothes.

One ought to exercise caution when making such sweeping declarations... do you actually possess a solution, or perhaps an alternative worth considering?
It has been common knowledge for quite some time that the system is broken. However, they have no leverage and remain far too lenient. In my estimation, what they are currently attempting is adequate enough.

The current circumstances would necessitate rigorous measures—measures that are not only unpopular but inherently inhumane. The solitary error made was beginning this process far too late.

They could have utilized a venue like Madison Square Garden to confine those who refuse to follow established protocols without a compelling reason. One might also suggest placing the local mayor in isolation so he stops polluting the atmosphere during this period.
If one does not adhere strictly to the agreement, there will inevitably be collateral damage.

You may be a person of conscience and awareness, but others certainly are not... and so you suffer the consequences.

Matthew Jackson2 said:So, essentially, our primary issue is a broken system, rather than the behavior of the public itself.

The epidemiologists over in Canada called this exact same measure unnecessary and excessive. Yet here we are, with our own officials digging their heels in to maintain it, even though it’s clearly insane. To date, a third of the adult population already holds a pass, and these little political cliques are starting to cluster together because they've realized the whole thing isn't sustainable. It's just that nobody has the guts to stand up and tell the Emperor he's wearing no clothes.

It is a layered issue if you are referring to the passes.

The central task force can only make broad decisions, yet as you can see, the country remains fragmented; certain regions reach agreements, others do not, some follow recommendations while others sweep them under the rug, and even religious institutions are reacting in panic, calling upon their congregants...
It is essential that life proceeds and that basic necessities are met. This situation points toward something deeper: the inherent unsustainability of the capitalist model of exploitation.

Alexander Thompson said:So, they basically told everyone in Miami to just stay inside their houses—and then asked travelers coming from some sketchy parts of the country to just... self-isolate? I mean, I guess—but there had to be smarter ways to handle this than that, right?

Please suggest something... I haven't been following the situation "over there" could you provide a link. I suspect you might have conflated two different things, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough... quarantine protocols have been established since the days of the early American colonies 😁 though even the British had their own isolated outposts back then.
Limiting movement within the home is a sound approach.

stormybadger8 said:Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

Turn off the engine and actually use your brain for once...
Travel restrictions have been an established concept since the days of the early American colonies.

stormybadger8 said:Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

Do you have a link?
It should be obvious to you that there is no alternative—it is either quarantine or nothing (and a quarantine offers a wide array of measures; it isn't necessarily "total").

stormybadger8 said:Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

Your inability to comprehend this only confirms the stupidity, though certainly not the kind you are implying... It is the classic affliction of intelligent people who fail to realize that others exist who are even more capable, and the unbearable arrogance of their own assumptions ...

stormybadger8 said:Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

Quite the opposite; I am referring to the sheer incompetence of the local residents who were unable to come to an agreement.
Perhaps you could actually step up and assist your local municipality once you identify the core issue. But then again, complaining from the sidelines is certainly the path of least resistance, isn't it?

stormybadger8 said:Way to go. Bravo. 🙂

Go ahead. Prove that banning travel between a small town of 2,000, a mid-sized suburb of 8,000, and a little town of 3,000 actually accomplished anything. I'm waiting.
They issued 12,000 permits across towns A, B, and C. Just great. 😵

And then there’s the local precinct. They flat-out refused to handle the measure because the towns they cover—Town A, Town B, and Town C—can't stop bickering long enough to agree on anything. Typical.
That's exactly what's happening in my town. It’s a total circus, honestly. 🤦

Talking nonsense about how they used those kinds of measures in China, Korea, or wherever else... please.
First off, they don't have 600 municipalities for a population of 3.5 million. And they definitely don't have ten cops on duty who are supposed to be monitoring forty different routes between Town A, Town B, and Town C. Give me a break.

Only a genius Secretary could dream up this kind of stupidity. Clearly, they haven't spent a single second dealing with how things actually work on the ground. Real life? Never heard of it.

Look, given how things actually look on the ground, calling this a "measure" is a joke. No sane person would even call it that. It isn't one.
At the end of the day, it’s basically just a glorified wish list—completely unrealistic and impossible to control.
In a perfect world, that measure would have done the exact same thing as "stay at home." But let’s be real—it actually backfired because it just pissed everyone off.
It’s basically the same thing, except this whole mess actually cost a fortune. Between developing the apps, server costs, toner, printers, security stamps, and all that nonsense for making passes... it was just a massive waste of money.
Of course. And let's not forget the massive pile of nerves belonging to everyone tasked with issuing, processing, and micromanaging those damn permits.
At the end of the day, it all just boils down to whether people actually have the decency to follow the #StayHome order or not. Pure willpower. That's it.

It relies on conscience and moral awareness... a fact you seem to have grasped. But tell me, how would you handle those lacking a conscience? I would personally suggest rehab for the senseless, and perhaps some serious re-education for the unprincipled.
It is a far cry from a civilized society when people must be taught to value their responsibilities only upon their return...
What is your approach?
Though, I suspect many would remain dissatisfied with such solutions, wouldn't they?

P.S. Attempting to manufacture things with a 3D printer is a significantly greater folly... surely you haven't missed that?

Charles Fox10 said:If you act this way, and because you label anyone inclined toward the President as a psychotic follower, you aren't going to get much of an answer.

The statement above, along with several other posts that violate the rules, is the reason why approximately 50 posts were deleted.

Come now, man... don't play games with me.

A psychotic follower... which stands in stark contrast to the insults they hurl at the individual in question. At least you have spent years teaching me through various disciplinary actions to be more civil. 😉
And I must concede that, in the vast majority of instances, it hasn't just been you who was correct... Please do not view this as criticism, but rather as a clarification, given that you perform a significant task that borders on an exceptional one. The premise remains—we ourselves are not the priority...

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/psychosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351125

The multi-proven liar Zsa in the sky—you can find everything in her forum posts... including the fact that you deleted my post which completely exposes her fabrications, complete with links and markers of undeniable dispute.

Look, the woman is a l i a r... she simply continued lying. I have provided the posts indicating my claim that she presented herself as male, which is trivial, but suggests that perhaps two users are operating under the same handle.

She then accused me of lying 🤔(which is yet another of her falsehoods), and in the process, you banned me twice without any "justified" cause, based solely on your assertion that I am writing
nonsensical posts filled with trolling, distortions of fact, and even low-brow insinuations... which is precisely how a psychotic follower operates.
A distorted reality (psychosis) is not a disease per se, but rather a disorder of perceiving reality, though it can escalate into something more severe.

So, did this individual lie and falsely accuse me, while you punished me twice simply because you believed her without verification?
And let us not even discuss that comedian "Kiss Me," who writes with total sincerity that she hasn't paid because she hasn't received her paycheck yet.
😂 🤣

Furthermore, regarding the other matters where I agree with your stance that one shouldn't engage—I never initiate anything. When there is a clearly defined inquiry that requires proof, what begins are merely the headless outbursts of an uncivil forum user... and you know well that one ought to provide a link to support their claims. She is never capable of providing them... instead offering only her own "conclusions," which, alongside psychosis, bear no resemblance to reality. And of course, there is the matter of memory, which is deceptive for us all...
But I respond to everyone, regardless of the cost, whenever lies or slanders are written.

All of this is bizarre. I say, let there be a thread titled "Odes to the President," and you will be rid of me from this topic without any trouble... the individual in question is quite simply the greatest evil to emerge—as proven during the Premier's tenure... but the people chose this, and so it goes. That is my opinion, my experience, and my principled stance; whether it becomes an established fact is for time to tell, not for us.

Alexander Thompson said:So you mean like how travel restrictions applied to both Chicago and a tiny town in rural Illinois? I mean, sure, the "criterion" is technically the same (city/township), but the actual situations are worlds apart, don't you think?

I don't think so... 😁 I suggested you try following this step-by-step; even someone prone to jumping around should be able to grasp it. Or, if you prefer, you can interpret it however you wish—there's plenty of room for error given the sheer number of variables.
The criteria remain constant: the localization of the hotspot. It doesn't matter how extreme the specific parameters become. We look at the statistics, certainly, but once you have a single infected individual, you have a problem just as real as if there were ten.
Am I being clearer regarding these relationships?
In my previous point, I noted how the response scales with the numbers—just so there is no misunderstanding—it triggers immediately upon appearance and then adjusts once the spread or distribution stabilizes.
Therefore, one must proceed methodically, point by point, because the branching paths of this sequence extend toward infinity.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, there are actually people whose entire job description is to hunt down and penalize those ten specific individuals...

...they’re just too preoccupied scanning passes to actually get anything done.

Regarding these passes, the sheer volume being issued is staggering, and frankly, it highlights how much of a failure this whole measure has been. Sure, maybe they caught a few fools breaking quarantine, but you have to wonder if they could have snagged way more if the police weren't stuck monitoring thousands of checkpoints all across the country.

And don't even get me started on the technology we already have at our disposal. They have those vans equipped with automatic license plate readers that trigger alerts to patrols—it would have been incredibly easy to use that same tech to specifically target vehicles belonging to people under isolation orders or their family members. If they hadn't botched everything with that cowardly attempt at a last-minute legislative pivot, they could have easily utilized mobile phone data for surveillance instead.

Furthermore, since the ultimate goal here is supposedly to reduce travel, the most efficient way to achieve that is simply to create congestion. In a roundabout way, these passes end up doing exactly that—you can bet a lot more people would just skip the trip if they knew they’d be stuck sitting in a massive line. Now, considering that outdoor construction isn't banned and most major American cities typically postpone huge infrastructure projects until they have less impact on daily life, traffic would have plummeted if they had just kicked off those projects now. We might have had to spend more upfront, sure, but that money would have pumped directly back into the economy, and the investment would pay itself off once everything is back up and running with better connectivity.

In the meantime, the police could actually be out doing their real jobs instead of wasting their lives at stationary checkpoints.

🤣 Don't delude yourself; of course they exist, it’s just a matter of catching them before it's too late...
You haven't the slightest inkling of the scale of such an undertaking. Even if we were all perfectly disciplined and "on the grid," it wouldn't matter.
Authorities don't bother with sanctions when these fools commit blatant crimes or acts of violence repeatedly.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, there are actually people whose entire job description is to hunt down and penalize those ten specific individuals...

...they’re just too preoccupied scanning passes to actually get anything done.

Regarding these passes, the sheer volume being issued is staggering, and frankly, it highlights how much of a failure this whole measure has been. Sure, maybe they caught a few fools breaking quarantine, but you have to wonder if they could have snagged way more if the police weren't stuck monitoring thousands of checkpoints all across the country.

And don't even get me started on the technology we already have at our disposal. They have those vans equipped with automatic license plate readers that trigger alerts to patrols—it would have been incredibly easy to use that same tech to specifically target vehicles belonging to people under isolation orders or their family members. If they hadn't botched everything with that cowardly attempt at a last-minute legislative pivot, they could have easily utilized mobile phone data for surveillance instead.

Furthermore, since the ultimate goal here is supposedly to reduce travel, the most efficient way to achieve that is simply to create congestion. In a roundabout way, these passes end up doing exactly that—you can bet a lot more people would just skip the trip if they knew they’d be stuck sitting in a massive line. Now, considering that outdoor construction isn't banned and most major American cities typically postpone huge infrastructure projects until they have less impact on daily life, traffic would have plummeted if they had just kicked off those projects now. We might have had to spend more upfront, sure, but that money would have pumped directly back into the economy, and the investment would pay itself off once everything is back up and running with better connectivity.

In the meantime, the police could actually be out doing their real jobs instead of wasting their lives at stationary checkpoints.

Passes are merely a necessary evil, a transitional phase. Try to grasp the fundamental logic behind localized containment.

hollowviper said:So, what now? I suppose we can expect the criteria to be completely inconsistent from one state to another. It clearly all comes down to whatever the local officials decide to do.

Then there is the matter of the actual number of cases; one really ought to exercise some intellectual rigor instead of being purely self-interested.
The criteria remain identical... yet the outcomes vary wildly, do they not?