FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


How one state's bill is trying to trash the US constitution





ocalhoun
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108604
Quote:
"Pandemic Response Bill" 2028 was passed by the Massachusetts state Senate on April 28 and is now awaiting approval in the House.

As stated in the bill, upon declaration by the governor that an emergency exists that is considered detrimental to public health or upon declaration of a state of emergency, a local public health authority, with approval of the commissioner, may exercise the following authorities (emphasis added):

* to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; [so, they can search without warrants now]

* to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility, and to allow the reopening of the building or facility when the danger has ended;

* to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated, or to destroy any material; [illegal confiscation of property?]

* to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons; [say goodbye to your right to peaceful assembly]

* to require a health care facility to provide services or the use of its facility, or to transfer the management and supervision of the health care facility to the department or to a local public health authority; [illegal confiscation of property?]


I'm sure the meda's gotten you very scared about the over-hyped swine flu... But really, do we have to give up our constitutional rights to protect against it?

If so, why weren't these rights revoked much earlier, for other, more deadly diseases?

I hope that this bill doesn't pass... And if it does, I hope the courts get rid of it quickly.
handfleisch
I just can't believe anyone would still link to World Nut Daily. Even other conservatives are calling for a boycott of the website, because it is embarrassing their movement with its embrace of such things as the Birthers (the kooks who claim Obama isn't an American citizen) and the idea of Obama wants Nazi-style concentration camps. But since you believe Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer, no wonder WND seems reasonable.

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/organizing-against-worldnetdaily
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I just can't believe anyone would still link to World Nut Daily. Even other conservatives are calling for a boycott of the website, because it is embarrassing their movement with its embrace of such things as the Birthers (the kooks who claim Obama isn't an American citizen) and the idea of Obama wants Nazi-style concentration camps. But since you believe Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer, no wonder WND seems reasonable.

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/organizing-against-worldnetdaily

And this is relevant how?
Are you insinuating that there is no such bill?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I just can't believe anyone would still link to World Nut Daily. Even other conservatives are calling for a boycott of the website, because it is embarrassing their movement with its embrace of such things as the Birthers (the kooks who claim Obama isn't an American citizen) and the idea of Obama wants Nazi-style concentration camps. But since you believe Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer, no wonder WND seems reasonable.

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/organizing-against-worldnetdaily

And this is relevant how?
Are you insinuating that there is no such bill?


If it's not a right wing delusion, then please cite a non-insane source for it. Otherwise, the reality-based public will ignore the shriek of the-sky-is-falling, because we are tired of this garbage. The same right wingers said that "death panels" are in the health reform bill. (Hint: they're not.)
deanhills
Looks as though the source Ocalhoun quoted got you sidetracted Handfleisch, so to get us back to the topic I have found another source ..... Brick wall
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20731342/detail.html

ocalhoun wrote:
But really, do we have to give up our constitutional rights to protect against it?
If so, why weren't these rights revoked much earlier, for other, more deadly diseases?I hope that this bill doesn't pass... And if it does, I hope the courts get rid of it quickly.
Agreed. Looks as though it has been tried unsuccessfully a number of times before, last time being for Avian Influenza, hopefully the present one will go the same way, can't imagine it will be accepted by the House, just does not make sense, hopefully it will be chucked out even before it is discussed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic_Preparedness_and_Response_Act
coolclay
I don't really know what to think about it. I certainly think that the future of the human race is slightly more important than someones belongings, but at the same time I am sure bureaucrats will use this if it passes for purposes other than those originally intended or because someone uses there opinion rather than scientific resources. I think I would certainly have to say no to this legislation because of its possible ramifications.
ocalhoun
coolclay wrote:
I don't really know what to think about it. I certainly think that the future of the human race is slightly more important than someones belongings,

The encroachments of your rights in this bill could be abused, allowing for further removal of rights...
Forbidding peaceful assembly, in particular, could give the government a way do legally disrupt any protests it didn't approve of.

Yes, it might protect your health a little, from a over-hyped virus. (Hopefully, it isn't being hyped just for this purpose, that would be scary...) But are you willing to give up your freedom for that tiny extra bit of protection?

Have we switched from "Give me freedom or give me death!" to, "Take my freedom! Just keep that scary swine flu away from me!"?


This is exactly the same thing Bush did with the Patriot Act: Use fear (of terrorists, of diseases, of aliens, it doesn't matter which) to get people to give up freedom in exchange for protection.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
This is exactly the same thing Bush did with the Patriot Act: Use fear (of terrorists, of diseases, of aliens, it doesn't matter which) to get people to give up freedom in exchange for protection.
Maybe it is not a fear about anything specific anymore, since there is so much of fear hanging around, people seem to have become frozen into unresponsiveness to something as threatening as this to their very basic rights. The marketing surrounding the healthcare legislation is taking up so much of media time and coverage, this one may just be able to slip in through the backdoor if the media does not bring this to the attention of everyone. When I was doing my Web searches yesterday there was hardly any "hits" that came up, in fact there were more reports about the previous legislation for Avian Bird Flu, than the current legislation. There was also nothing mentioned about it in the New York Times. Shocked
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though the source Ocalhoun quoted got you sidetracted Handfleisch, so to get us back to the topic I have found another source ..... ]
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20731342/detail.html

Good job, DH, and let this be a lesson to us all. If you want to be taken seriously on civil rights (or anything, for that matter) then quote from a reputable source. From your link:
Quote:
Ironically, conservative critics and officials with the American Civil Liberties Union are on the same page.
'"Any type of a policy that makes people scared tends to drive them underground, and that's terrible from a public safety and public health point of view," said Carol Rose, of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

The ACLU is always concerned about our rights, not just issues that can be used as a political game.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though the source Ocalhoun quoted got you sidetracted Handfleisch, so to get us back to the topic I have found another source ..... ]
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20731342/detail.html

Good job, DH, and let this be a lesson to us all. If you want to be taken seriously on civil rights (or anything, for that matter) then quote from a reputable source. From your link:
Quote:
Ironically, conservative critics and officials with the American Civil Liberties Union are on the same page.
'"Any type of a policy that makes people scared tends to drive them underground, and that's terrible from a public safety and public health point of view," said Carol Rose, of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

The ACLU is always concerned about our rights, not just issues that can be used as a political game.

OK Handfleisch, so can you let us know whether this legislation is a bogus story? And if it is true, are you in favour of the legislation?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though the source Ocalhoun quoted got you sidetracted Handfleisch, so to get us back to the topic I have found another source ..... ]
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20731342/detail.html

Good job, DH, and let this be a lesson to us all. If you want to be taken seriously on civil rights (or anything, for that matter) then quote from a reputable source.

If a reputable source and a non-reputable source say the same thing, what difference does it make?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though the source Ocalhoun quoted got you sidetracted Handfleisch, so to get us back to the topic I have found another source ..... ]
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/20731342/detail.html

Good job, DH, and let this be a lesson to us all. If you want to be taken seriously on civil rights (or anything, for that matter) then quote from a reputable source.

If a reputable source and a non-reputable source say the same thing, what difference does it make?


1. They aren't saying the same thing. There is a big difference between
Quote:
"There is a fine line between protecting our civil liberties and protecting public health. And there's areas of this bill that may cross that line," he said.

and
Quote:
alarmist language over possible outbreaks of swine flu as well as a series of moves by the federal government are fueling fears federal agents will soon be forcing citizens to be vaccinated prompting the Constitution Party to launch a pre-emptive defense against any such effort.

Hilarious, really. In one sentence they call others alarmist and then start screaming that the sky is falling.

Plus that shilling for some new political party is enough to make this piece laughable from journalistic point of view. It sounds like the old Soviet news agency, Pravda.

2. We know we can generally rely on a reputable source. It doesn't make stuff up whole cloth or spin the hell out of it. We know we aren't being overtly and consciously manipulated, as we are in the WND piece. And as I have pointed out, WND is so discredited that if they stated six times six was thirty-six, I would have to grab my calculator to make sure.
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Student and Teacher Conversation!!
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
America is you, no matter who you are
Rumsfield being investigated for War Crimes
Separation of church and state: my ideal solution.
Should 9/11 Trials be heard in Civilian or Military Courts?
Honest, hardworking AZ man asked for his "papers",
The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life
Constitution is Too Confusing for Dems to Understand
Obama proposes the largest single year debt increase ever!
Obama's State of the Union 2012
The policies of: Rick Santorum
Who to blame for US Government shut down
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.