Posts by Joshua Gray75

Lawrence Reed3 said:It’s officially in effect starting today! Basically, they’ve split up the region into seven different zones—which sort of overlap with the old county lines. You can move around freely within your own zone, though. So, for instance, since I'm in a place like San Diego, I could probably head over to somewhere like Fresno or even San Bernardino without a hitch, but I wouldn't be able to make it to Los Angeles or San Francisco right now.

And what about the rest of America... does that just not matter? 🙄

It seems quite clear that this whole business of "grouping municipalities" into these exclusive zones isn't happening anywhere else in the States... perhaps? 🤔

Are the citizens in the other regions simply second-class residents now? Are we not all meant to be equal under the Constitution?

Is there a legal expert out there who can make sense of this logic—or does everything truly just depend on the whims of local power brokers...?? 🤔

Melissa Collins3 said:Exactly. It’s just as absurd as trying to tell Americans they aren't allowed to drive from New York to Los Angeles.🤔

So, the idea is that you can lift such a restriction—entirely—but only for a select few...? 🤔

Jessica Booth48 said:It’s official for the local district... they should have handled this from the start. Now they're finally acting smart instead of playing games.
http://https://www.localgovernment.gov/news/district-announcement-8081

I can't seem to get that link to load... but regardless—I truly hope they expand this to the rest of the country soon... and perhaps finally allow for seamless movement within the old municipal boundaries...

Edward Fisher86 said:Consider this an official notice that I am now open to taking suggestions directly from the field.

Or perhaps just suggestions from this forum... 😁

Just look at my previous post:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=7...postcount=1717

It is almost as if this entire announcement—this whole gesture—was merely a response to it...

Well... I suppose I chose the wrong career path. I really should have gone into politics...

Lawrence Reed3 said:Finally, something that actually makes sense!
https://www.nytimes.com/article/life-and-style-news-updates-daily

But what does this actually look like in practice—and more importantly, who does it affect? I mean, which specific townships or municipalities are we talking about merging here? Is it based on total land area, population density, or perhaps even infection rates from recent health crises? Is this just some preliminary announcement to stir the pot... or has something definitive already been drafted somewhere in the bureaucracy?

hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.

...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.

So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.

So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.

Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.

Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁

So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.

The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html

Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.

Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.

Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.

I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.

I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.

Tax is paid based on the permanent residence or legal domicile. If their workplace is located where they have registered both their primary and (permanent) residence—then, sure, you could interpret it that way.
But to claim it is paid simply because of where one works—well, that sentence alone, stripped of its context, is just plain incorrect.

That's about as much as I can say regarding reading comprehension.

Regardless of everything else—you could have expressed your point above without resorting to insults or calling me stupid.
However—your personal opinion regarding my intelligence is quite irrelevant to me. In fact, such comments tend to reveal far more about your own character than mine.

And frustration doesn't necessarily have to be... fleeting. If you truly believe it is, perhaps it's worth seeking professional advice? 🤔

Quote:>

Edward Lee77 says: that whole idea of using option-based passes—it’s honestly pretty terrible and just plain messy. ... It doesn't take much effort to see the flaws—just a tiny grain of salt and the cracks start showing... But if they actually wanted to fix it, they'd have to admit they were wrong in the first place... >

Is there really some deep-seated issue with admitting that the "system" you designed has flaws—and then actually working to fix them? 🤷
If you fix it, you fix it.
Who exactly is being harmed by that? 🤷

Edit: That sounds more like a question for psychologists and sociologists—I'm certainly not an expert in those fields, so I won't pretend to weigh in on their work.

Drew Johnson2 said:Small Town on the island of Maui—just a little settlement without its own grocery stores or pharmacies... they all fall under the jurisdiction of Old Town, which is where they have their 3.7 miles. Now, Old Town doesn't even have a gas station, so people actually have to drive out to Key West or Maui itself just to fuel up. They even need a permit to get through. And yet, someone has the audacity to ask what kind of use anyone would have for fuel in Small Town... as if that were the primary concern. Honestly, how do they even manage to get to the grocery store in Old Town in the first place?

Well, when you live in Chicago.... 🤷 ... you clearly haven't the slightest clue how life works in those 420 different municipalities that make up the US...
Honestly... I'd be too embarrassed to ever make a statement like that... ☕

Bryan Taylor6 said:How is it "justified" if they've already handed out over half a million of them?

At this rate, we’ll have more entry permits issued than actual citizens left...

Hmm.... no... yeah...☕

Gerald Kern77 said:It could certainly be worse—if this continues, I’ll likely have to apply for a special permit just to drive to a Suburban City to swap out my tires.😵 Then, inevitably, someone will question why I’m still driving on winter treads when it's over 70 degrees out.

Since my local tire shop is in a Suburban City—which, given where I am, is quite a trek from my neck of the woods—getting tires changed wouldn't be considered an "epidemiological risk." But since it is... well, here we are.🤦

Meanwhile, I'll be driving to a shop in 3.7 miles (my own town) ... rather than traveling to 3 (the nearby major city) ... which will surely do wonders for reducing the epidemiological risk of spreading the virus.

Drew Johnson2 said:Just when you think things couldn't possibly get any more absurd, someone actually pulls you aside and asks, "What do you even need fuel for?" 😵

🙂

I had to read that sentence twice just to process it...

Though, honestly, his little declaration regarding "who pays the local tax" is arguably even more striking... ☕

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

The trip to the center of town where my shop, pharmacy, and doctor are located—I definitely need gas for that. 3.7 miles.
Are you expecting me to walk all that way or...?
There isn't a single gas station in my municipality.

Is that clear enough for you?

No—I don't need fuel for the car—since I'm not allowed to go anywhere anyway 🙄....

🤦

After those two gems of yours (the first being about who gets a cut of the profits...), I really have nothing left to discuss with you—so please, stop quoting my posts.
As for your personal frustrations (with work, life, or whatever else...) try dealing with them somewhere more appropriate.

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

That bolded part is simply incorrect... though you basically answered your own mistake right below it.

It’s funny how you act like an expert on everything—only to drop something this nonsensical.
🤦

Let me save you some time:
...c/p "it is prescribed that local income tax be paid at the rate determined by the municipality or city, and it belongs to the municipality or city within whose territory the taxpayer's residence or habitual abode is located"...

https://www.irs.gov/pub....aspx?id=18445

I’m going to say this again—and I might just have to repeat myself a few more times if necessary:
Personally, I don't have an issue with the concept of movement restrictions themselves.
The real issue lies in the fact that applying these limitations based on municipal boundaries (that is, arbitrary administrative lines) is completely illogical and—if you really want to put it that way—disproportionate...

Article 16 of the Constitution states:

Rights and freedoms may only be restricted by law in order to protect the freedom and rights of others, the legal order, public morality, and health.
Any restriction of freedom or rights must be [B]proportionate to the nature of the need for such a restriction in each individual case.[/B]

Where exactly is the "proportionality" in this?
Restricting movement within a small suburb of 6km2 versus restricting it within a massive metropolitan area like Washington, D.C., which spans 640km2—I fail to see any "proportionate nature of the need" there—regardless of how one chooses to define it...

☕

nimbleharbor10 said:The sheer stupidity lies in creating this artificial necessity to hunt down permits. If we were being logical here in the States, perhaps limiting movement within county lines would make sense. But with this whole permit circus, hundreds of thousands of people already hold them because they’re part of the Headquarters, issued them to themselves, or actually have a valid excuse. This means restricting movement is both mindless and useless; ultimately, the people with genuine needs get penalized while scammers just forge an ID, all while police checkpoints create unnecessary friction with citizens.

Furthermore, the gentlemen at the Headquarters really ought to realize they lack any actual legal standing for these prohibitions. If Congress were to declare a State of Emergency, that would provide the Civil Defense Headquarters with the necessary legal foundation; as it stands, they are simply violating the Constitution. The fact that the police are assisting them in these violations, and the media is just blaring about how citizens aren't allowed to leave their residences, only highlights how prone we are as a society to authoritarianism—how we'd rather spit on the law than actually fix it.

Chaos, public resentment, flawed solutions, and far too many pointless local agencies:

This article might actually be drawing from some of my own posts from just three days ago:

But hey—it’s good to know someone is actually reading this forum...

So, I’ll add this to the mix:

Wherever an opposition party holds power at the municipal level—they start making noise...
(playing the political points game, though, fair enough... that’s their prerogative...)

I just hope those folks in the ruling parties realize they need to stack up political capital too... specifically with the people living in these small towns—or rural areas, rather... because that is where their actual voter base resides.

In the major metropolitan cities, they don't really have much of a stake there....

There’s a massive wave of frustration regarding the sheer illogic of the stay-at-home orders—so many citizens are pushing back because they can't even drive to the next town over just to hit a pharmacy (since their own town doesn't have one) or grab gas at a station (because there isn't one in their municipality). They're taking these complaints straight to local officials, who—to be fair—are starting to realize this isn't a sustainable long-term strategy. Of course, you'll notice those local leaders are much more receptive when the Democratic Party or some other opposition group holds the reins...

As far as I can tell, these logical inconsistencies are only really being flagged by two members on this forum.
Maybe a few others too—though they aren't nearly as loud about it—or perhaps they've finally grasped what the vast majority of people here (and elsewhere) are actually talking about.

For some, a massive ego simply won't allow them to admit that they might be wrong—even occasionally.
For others, this forum serves as little more than an outlet for personal frustrations...
Some people just don't want to think.
And then there are those for whom it all simply doesn't matter.

☕

Let me copy this over from another thread:


Here is what the local community is actually asking for...

- Extending the expiration dates on current permits

- Ensuring senior residents can still rely on their existing permits

- Making the permits valid for the entire county...

- Allowing permits to cover essential agricultural work

- Issuing permits specifically for trips to the grocery store

quietfox38 said:You heard that wrong. They've actually issued 192,000 e-permits in just two days.

http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a497225...be-smisao.html

Božinović mentioned something later about how they are "monitoring the situation on the ground" and are aware of the issue regarding "multiple municipalities—meaning, finding a way to link several areas together"... he didn't say it word for word, obviously, but that was the gist of it. Perhaps there is still a chance they will show some flexibility so that movement isn't strictly confined to just one municipality at a time...

So, there you have it. Let's try to stay optimistic! 😉👍

And a quick note to the handful of people living in Washington, D.C. who don't see anything wrong with these restrictions—I’d suggest you pack your bags and move to North Korea. It sounds like your kind of paradise.
(And yes, hollowmason64, that goes for you too...)

Yeah, I know—I’ll probably get a warning for this. Or maybe even a ban for a few days... Not that it matters much, I spend far too much time on here anyway... 😁

I moved this over to a different thread—but I figured I'd drop it here too:

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/decennial-census.html

According to the 2011 census data, we're looking at 429 municipalities and 127 cities.

Take Međimurje County, for example: an area of 729 km2, comprised of 22 municipalities and 3 cities. 🤦
(Which means if you average them out, each municipality or city covers about 29 km2.)

Washington, D.C.: 640 km2

Just wanted to paint a clearer picture of what this "residency restrictions" nonsense looks like when you scale it down to the municipal level...

rustywalker42 said:Wait, you seriously think the opposition doesn't realize what a total mess this is?

If I actually have to go running to the news or the opposition because they aren't aware of the situation, then I have nothing left to talk to them about.

It's pretty simple.

Oh, they know... to an extent.
But if only a handful of people reach out to them—then it's just "fine"...

However, once a massive crowd starts "bothering" them—that's when those same opposition parties might start looking for ways to score points for future elections... and then the administration will start thinking they need to rack up some points too... which is when you can actually expect something to happen.

That said, nobody should actually be giving in. Movement restrictions should stay—it's just a matter of defining the boundaries "spatially"—rather than by "municipality."
For instance, movement—within a certain radius 6.2 miles from one's home address. You could travel to the nearest major shopping center—once a week.
(... and so on... )

On the other hand—personally, I would restrict movement within Washington, D.C. It has the highest population—which means the most infections... what does someone like Stephanie need to do to get from Central Park to Times Square? Or vice versa.

But if something like that were implemented—then perhaps (and I say perhaps) New Yorkers would finally understand what it means when you can't go a few miles away just because it's a different municipality. Right now, it's easy for them to say "stay home"—when they live within spitting distance of a Walmart/Sprouts/Lidl/Target...

(though then they'll likely start making excuses: "but our elderly parents live over there..." right... as if nobody living outside of NYC doesn't have elderly parents in some other town whom they can't visit without a permit...)

To all of you stuck with these ridiculous local travel restrictions—I’ve already pointed out we have over 400 municipalities to deal with, so come on now...—have any of you actually tried filing a formal complaint somewhere else, or are you just here to vent on a message board?
For instance—maybe reach out to the press?
Or perhaps contact an opposition party?
A single person complaining won't change a thing... what we really need is some kind of "critical mass" to make an impact...

(And please, don't tell me there's no point—it's only been eight days since these measures were implemented... it's far too early to claim "nothing can be done"... if that's truly your outlook, then honestly, stop complaining here altogether...)

Look, I'm not against the measures themselves. I'm not inherently opposed to movement restrictions.
It's just that I am strictly against the sheer stupidity they've devolved into!!
You aren't allowed to drive from one tiny suburb into the next town over—even though that suburb might only be a couple of square miles—yet you're perfectly fine traveling from one end of Washington, D.C. to the other... hmm...