Differences on re-opening

[Drummond]

Ok, so we should all listen to our real Gov'ts officials and obey them completely and without question.
As long as they aren't "liberal".
Have i got that right now?

Yes, I think that's reasonable.

Put it this way. You've got the choice of trusting a Right wing Government, versus trusting a Left wing one.

I for one would trust a Left wing Government about as far as I could throw it. Right wing Governments ... a wholly different kettle of fish.

We have Boris Johnson heading our own Government. I completely trust him. I've no basis whatever for not doing so.

So, if he orders a lockdown, as he has, I'll trust his judgement. He passes laws to facilitate that order.. I'm fine with them, and will obey them to the letter.

You see, I trust my Government's motivations. They're doing their best for me. I know this. I trust this. No rebelling out of spite for me, thanks very much !! I've no wish either to harm my interests, nor those of my fellow citizens.

Your country, by contrast, threatens us, in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', to increase the chances of the globe suffering a second pandemic wave.

Should we be grateful ? Should we see YOUR system, as superior to ours ?

On what basis ?

Your drive for freedom threatens a very dire outcome. My 'Big Brother' Administration (a ridiculous assertion) does nothing of the kind.

Whose system is more benign ? YOU tell ME.

[Evmetro]

Yes, I think that's reasonable.

Put it this way. You've got the choice of trusting a Right wing Government, versus trusting a Left wing one.

I for one would trust a Left wing Government about as far as I could throw it. Right wing Governments ... a wholly different kettle of fish.

We have Boris Johnson heading our own Government. I completely trust him. I've no basis whatever for not doing so.

So, if he orders a lockdown, as he has, I'll trust his judgement. He passes laws to facilitate that order.. I'm fine with them, and will obey them to the letter.

You see, I trust my Government's motivations. They're doing their best for me. I know this. I trust this. No rebelling out of spite for me, thanks very much !! I've no wish either to harm my interests, nor those of my fellow citizens.

Your country, by contrast, threatens us, in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', to increase the chances of the globe suffering a second pandemic wave.

Should we be grateful ? Should we see YOUR system, as superior to ours ?

On what basis ?

Your drive for freedom threatens a very dire outcome. My 'Big Brother' Administration (a ridiculous assertion) does nothing of the kind.

Whose system is more benign ? YOU tell ME.

Wow! I would die fighting before a government could own me like they own you.

Covid 1984!

[revelarts]

Yes, I think that's reasonable.
Put it this way. You've got the choice of trusting a Right wing Government, versus trusting a Left wing one.
I for one would trust a Left wing Government about as far as I could throw it. Right wing Governments ... a wholly different kettle of fish.
We have Boris Johnson heading our own Government. I completely trust him. I've no basis whatever for not doing so.
So, if he orders a lockdown, as he has, I'll trust his judgement. He passes laws to facilitate that order.. I'm fine with them, and will obey them to the letter.
You see, I trust my Government's motivations. They're doing their best for me. I know this. I trust this. No rebelling out of spite for me, thanks very much !! I've no wish either to harm my interests, nor those of my fellow citizens.

Your country, by contrast, threatens us, in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', to increase the chances of the globe suffering a second pandemic wave.
Should we be grateful ? Should we see YOUR system, as superior to ours ?
On what basis ?
Your drive for freedom threatens a very dire outcome. My 'Big Brother' Administration (a ridiculous assertion) does nothing of the kind.
Whose system is more benign ? YOU tell ME.

again wow.

Ok I'll address that seriously. just to get it out there.
Well here's my problem with that.
I, for one, only give that level of trust to God himself.
period.

After that, well I've read history and lived through times where gov't's --under the left and right--- have been exposed as NOT always having my or the nations best interest at heart. From simply lying to the nation for money and power, to the extreme of using children in gov't experiments or letting people die by the hand of corporations.
And of course from time to time some officials simply make mistakes.

Ronald Reagan had a saying "Trust but verify"
I think that's wise.
Also our nation was founded by people that had a HIGH distrust of Gov't power. Who created the constitution and the system of gov't to hopefully mitigate against gov't abuses. So the people would remain in control and not have to simply implicitly trust the benevolence of random leaders. Plus the public wasn't set up to simply RELY on the gov't for it's overall well being. The individual, the family, Church and the local community were the primary basis for life. Not looking off trustingly to Washington D.C. or London.

there are pages of documents to that effect... many of the sentiments originate from great people from Great Britain. like John Locke and others

a few quotes for you to consider:

"Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it."

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
– Edmund Burke - statesmen and member of British parliament circa 1700s
.........

“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
– James Madison, 4th president of the United States
.........

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 3rh president of the United States, writer of declaration of independence
.........

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
– Thomas Paine, 18th-century British-American political activist
.........

“As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government, so the consent of the people is the only foundation of it, in reason, morality, and the natural fitness of things.”
– John Adams, 2nd president of the United States
.........

It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of our nation worthwhile."
– Earl Warren, Chief Justice Supreme Court Justice, circa 1950s
.........

“Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.”
– Douglas MacArthur, U.S. Army general in WWI, WWII and Korea

I'll leave you with this last one.

“Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.”
~ John Locke

[Hot Dogger]

Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice

The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...source=twitter

Not even gonna print the fear inducing blaming BS from this one, read on your own, the title is enough.

We used to have a country where 5 out of a 100 men died building and working railroads, bridges, skyscrapers, mines, tunnels, forges, foundries, you name it. All in the name of progress to provide their families a better life. Today the country is chock full of scared little wimps waiting and hoping for the government to provide.

[jimnyc]

I'm pointing these out from my POV as an American. These are for any continued denials of abuses or censorship taking place. Nope, my rights don't get deleted, altered, updated, changed, suspended, taken away or any way it can be described. It'll be fought for, and I'm far from alone.

--

NJ Woman Flexing Right To Protest Stay-at-Home Order Charged with Criminal Violation

In the latest example of what could be deemed an overreach by government officials during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, a New Jersey woman has been charged with violating emergency orders by organizing a protest of the state-mandated lockdown orders.

Kim Pagan, a resident of Toms River, New Jersey, was issued a summons by the New Jersey State Police, according to the state’s Department of Law and Public Safety.

WNBC reported Pagan organized a protest at the New Jersey statehouse in Trenton, New Jersey, on Friday in response to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s far-reaching lockdown order.

Her crime? She is charged with “violating the emergency orders by organizing a prohibited event.”

The charge sounds like something you would read about in a bad dystopian novel, but it is happening in the Garden State.

Rest - https://www.westernjournal.com/nj-wo...nal-violation/

16-Year-Old Wisconsin Girl Threatened With Arrest Over Coronavirus Instagram Posts, Now Suing Sheriff

16-year-old Amyiah Cohoon was one of the early coronavirus patients. The Wisconsin teenager had taken a field trip with her classmates to Florida in early March, just as the virus hysteria was starting up. They wrapped up the field trip early amid concerns and returned to Oxford, Wisconsin. Within a few days, Cohoon was starting to show symptoms of the virus. This was before testing was readily available, but doctors pretty much concluded she had the virus based off of her symptoms.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...suing-sheriff/

One Arrested as Raleigh, NC Police Suspend First Amendment; Declare Coronavirus Lockdown Protest “Non-Essential Activity”

Raleigh, North Carolina police suspended the First Amendment Tuesday, dispersing a protest against the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus lockdown and arresting one protester for failing to disperse. The police issued a statement declaring “Protesting is a non-essential activity” that was in violation of an executive order by Governor Roy Cooper (D) prohibiting mass gatherings.



Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...tial-activity/


And some on the never ending censorship taking place:

Facebook Deleting Coronavirus Posts, Leading To Charges Of Censorship

Facebook and other tech companies are working hard to curb misinformation on their platforms about the emerging COVID-19 or Coronavirus pandemic.

Maybe too hard.

“Facebook is blocking COVID-19 posts from fact based sources,” a Facebook friend who noticed it told me. “Facebook is hiding these posts. At the time of viral pandemic this shouldn’t be happening.”

Multiple others have experienced the same thing, and it’s the day after Facebook, along with Google, Twitter, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Reddit issued a joint statement on combatting misinformation on their platforms. That’s a good thing, as long as what they’re targeting actually is incorrect or spammy information, and not quality reporting from generally-recognized sites.

Apparently, those sites include Medium, Buzzfeed, and USA Today.

Others that I’ve personally seen via screenshotted block notices include Stuff, The Independent, and the NY Post. The Dallas Morning News was also impacted.

Given that Facebook is a key source of news and information for many, this has resulted in more than a few conspiracy theories. “Facebook is going hard on information control, I guess Facebook wants us all to be misinformed and die,” one friend opined.

Rest - https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoe...of-censorship/


YouTube to Ban Content That Contradicts WHO on COVID-19, Despite the UN Agency’s Catastrophic Track Record of Misinformation

Soon, YouTubers will be silenced if they don’t agree with the United Nations on public health. As The Verdict reports:

YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations, according to CEO Susan Wojcicki.

Wojcicki announced the policy on CNN on Sunday. WHO is an agency of the UN, charged with overseeing global public health. The Verdict report continues:

Wojcicki said that the Google-owned video streaming platform would be “removing information that is problematic”.

She told host Brian Stelter that this would include “anything that is medically unsubstantiated”.

“So people saying ‘take vitamin C; take turmeric, we’ll cure you’, those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said.

“Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”

While the decision has been welcomed by many, some have accused the streaming giant of censorship.

Rest - https://fee.org/articles/youtube-to-...isinformation/


Social media censorship in the time of coronavirus (I know folks in the UK may feel differently, and this article is a lot about the BBC and our good folks over there, but I'm more concerned about the US, and also more so trying to point out the censorship that is taking place.) ... Also, in todays age and society, we are all starting to rely on the internet more and more for our news sources and much of that is on social media, where folks share with one another. And depending on what they believe, others will see.

Social media censorship in the time of coronavirus

Every day new initiatives are being announced to ensure people have the correct information on the COVID-19 pandemic, but who watches the watchers?

The BBC reported today that the UK government is cracking down on misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. This is taking the form of ‘a rapid response unit within the Cabinet Office [that] is working with social media firms to remove fake news and harmful content.’ As ever ‘harmful’ is undefined, but the government seems worried that people could die as a result of being misinformed.

Meanwhile an initiative started by the BBC, among others, called the Trusted News Initiative, has announced plans to ‘tackle potentially harmful coronavirus disinformation’. Most things are potentially harmful, surely, and there’s something distinctly sinister about an organisation designating itself ‘trusted’. Surely that’s for other people to decide.

“During emergencies of this magnitude, the need for trusted, factual, evidence-based reporting is more crucial than ever,” said Noel Curran, Director-General of the European Broadcasting Union, which calls itself ‘the world’s leading alliance of public service media’ and is a member of the TNI.

“Yet there is a tide of misinformation and bad information, driven mainly through online social platforms, which is threatening to undermine public trust and cause further anxiety for people. This initiative underlines the role of public service media in tackling misinformation head-on and delivering accurate content that audiences can safely rely on.”

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are all members of the TNI too and on top of this, they seem to be constantly rolling out initiatives of their own. Last week Nick Clegg, Facebook’s VP of Global Affairs and Communications wrote about what the company is doing to ensure purity of information across all its platforms.

The most untainted source of COVID-19 information, according to Clegg, is the World Health Organization. So Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are now all spamming their users with top tips from the WHO, in many cases whether they like it or not. Until recently not many people would have contested claim that the WHO is the ultimate global authority on such matters – the clue is in the name, right? – but the tendency of its senior leadership to overtly kowtow to China, as in the clip below, is undermining trust in it.

Speaking of Twitter, it seems to be taking a strong position on the matter of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that also seems to have at least some positive medical effect on COVID-19. Twitter apparently doesn’t like people bigging the drug up too much on its platform, even going so far as to take down posts from President Trump’s Lawyer, Rudy Giuliani and the President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, for extolling its virtues.

However, as Axios points out, Twitter is inconsistent in its implementation of this new rule, having recently permitted a tweet of clear misinformation from tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to stay up. This highlights the problem with this latest attempt at censorship, one shared with all others. The censorship decisions ultimately have to be made by humans and will therefore always be flawed.

Until recently very few people expected Twitter to be expert on the therapeutic qualities of hydroxychloroquine, yet now we do. Meanwhile Facebook has unilaterally anointed the WHO the Oracle of Healthy, despite its refusal to acknowledge Taiwan and many questions about its effectiveness in mitigating the catastrophe the world is now having to endure.

As for ‘trusted’ sources, how much of the mainstream media can really be trusted? Very few publications don’t have some kind of bias, with the US especially egregious in that respect. If President Trump suggested a new course of action, how sure can we be that CNN or the New York Times wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand or that Fox News would subject it to proper scrutiny?

Rest - https://telecoms.com/503401/social-m...f-coronavirus/


Was your Facebook post on the coronavirus deleted? This is why

Anti-spam issues prompted accusations of censorship.

Over the past 24 hours, users have reported that their Facebook posts relating to the novel coronavirus have been vanishing.

In these cases, users have been notified that their posts violate community standards, a boilerplate notification sent when posts are removed as they are deemed to be fake, fraudulent, or steeped in misinformation.

Facebook's community standards "outline what is and is not allowed on Facebook [...] based on feedback from our community and the advice of experts in fields such as technology, public safety, and human rights." Posts reported for breaking these rules are often linked to violence, extremist content, or scams.

Rest - https://www.zdnet.com/article/was-yo...d-this-is-why/


And here is even one in the UK, from someone appointed by Boris Johnson. I wonder if he is entitled to his opinion? And what would happen if he got in front of a camera at home and made and uploaded a Youtube video stating his position, if it would be deleted, or should be deleted?

Some out there may scoff at the source of aljazeera. I don't read it, it only came back in various searches and I saw it. It seems to be interviews and direct words from folks, so I feel comfortable posting it. If any of the facts within are to be disputed, I'm more than open to that. Just know that I have already looked and verified.

UK police accused of abusing power to enforce COVID-19 lockdown

Some police may have gone 'further than they should have', says government minister, amid concerns over civil liberties.

As Britons navigate their way around restrictions to try and contain the spread of the new coronavirus, there are growing fears that police officers are abusing their new powers.

Some British police might have gone too far, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told Sky News on Tuesday, less than a week after the UK approved emergency legislation that gave police the power to issue instant 30-pound ($37) fines to people who gather in groups of more than two people or leave their homes without good reason such as for work, food-shopping or exercise.

"I am sure there are individual examples where perhaps you look at it and think that is perhaps a bit further than they should have gone but in general terms, I think the case is that if people help everybody out, including the police, by staying home and the rest of it, then there will be no problems," said Shapps.

Some police have been accused of being overzealous by using drones to spy on people taking walks at nature spots and stopping dog-walkers from driving their pets to open spaces. There were reports they had even urged some shops not to sell Easter eggs because they were not essential items.

"The tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform, they are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command," Jonathan Sumption, a former UK Supreme Court judge, told the BBC.

"This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes."

As the national conversation turned to the lockdown enforcement, #policestate trended on Twitter in the UK, with several users offering their views.

"In all this, we cannot forget the importance of our civil liberties. Whilst this does not mean we should be able to do whatever we want, it does mean that the police should not abuse their power in such a vulnerable time," said Twitter user Olivia Lewis.

Unlike other countries, forces in Britain "police by consent" and pride themselves on being answerable to the public and not the state.

Martin Hewitt, chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), said they were looking to ensure consistency in the police response as everyone got to grip with the new "unprecedented measures".

"Our plan is that we will engage with people, we will explain the measures ... we will encourage people to go home but then as a very last resort we will enforce," he told BBC radio.

The government drafted in the new regulations amid concern some Britons were failing to heed advice to avoid social gatherings to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The fast-tracked 329-page emergency bill faced little resistance in Parliament.

Before the regulations were introduced, the opposition Labour Party's Lord Falconer of Thoroton said he supported the powers.

"In normal times it would be utterly unacceptable. These are not normal times. As long as the emergency lasts and these powers are necessary, they should be available to the government."

In recent interviews with Al Jazeera, human rights experts said draconian measures to contain the spread of coronavirus were understandable in the short term, even if they limited civil liberties, but warned global governments should not abuse their powers.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...084607759.html


While verifying a few things from above, I then came across this article as well, which of course backs up the words from the prior as well.

Covid-19: ex-supreme court judge lambasts 'disgraceful' policing

Lord Sumption criticises Derbyshire police for stopping people exercising in Peak District

A former supreme court justice has heavily criticised Derbyshire police for stopping people exercising in the Peak District saying that such behaviour risks plunging Britain into a “police state”.

Lord Sumption warned that police had no legal power to enforce “ministers’ wishes” and that the public should not be “resigning their liberty” to over-zealous citizens in uniform.

“The behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people in using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the fells so people don’t want to go there is frankly disgraceful,” he said.

“This is what a police state is like, it is a state in which a government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One.

Rest - https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ceful-policing

[Evmetro]

I'm pointing these out from my POV as an American. These are for any continued denials of abuses or censorship taking place. Nope, my rights don't get deleted, altered, updated, changed, suspended, taken away or any way it can be described. It'll be fought for, and I'm far from alone.

This gives me the warm fuzzies.

[Drummond]

again wow.

Ok I'll address that seriously. just to get it out there.
Well here's my problem with that.
I, for one, only give that level of trust to God himself.
period.

Again, wow ... indeed !!

So, to cut what appears to be a very long story short .. you'll not trust anybody ? You can't conceive of having a leadership entirely devoted to your greater good, one that will move heaven and earth to work to make your lives better ?

What a very sad existence Americans must be living, if they feel motivated to forever distrust public officials, whose job is to serve them ?

In that case, why don't you always vote Lefties into power ?? You KNOW to distrust THEM !!

But I'd hate to be a Right-wing politician in America. If what you say is a proper guide to how Americans think and feel, I'd simultaneously know that (a) I'll always do my best for my fellow citizen but (b) I'll also know that nobody will trust that I will.

What a miserable existence, AND an UNDESERVED one, for that well-meaning politician to go through !!

That's just terrible. Perverse in the extreme, and simply terrible.

And you want me to believe your system is superior ????? You've got to be joking !!!

'Trust but verify' makes no sense. With the proper trust, verification is redundant and actually insulting.

OK, Revelarts. I owe you thanks. Not that I needed it, but from what you've said, I can now know beyond doubt that the UK system is superior.

And I can know one other thing. You people are so mired in the past, you've zero capability to adapt to present-day conditions. Which is what I thought must be true anyway.

[Drummond]

I'm pointing these out from my POV as an American. These are for any continued denials of abuses or censorship taking place. Nope, my rights don't get deleted, altered, updated, changed, suspended, taken away or any way it can be described. It'll be fought for, and I'm far from alone.

Reminds me of a stellar speech in Patrick McGoohan's 'The Prisoner'. In the first episode, 'Number Six' gives Number Two a little tirade. He says:

'I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered ! My life is my own'.

All laudable stuff, of course. But in that series, Number Six really WAS living in a police State. He, at least, had reason to say what he did (within the confines of the fictional plot ..).

The thing of it is, Jim, you live in the free-est Nation on Earth. I'm happy to acknowledge you do. But, crazily, you seem not to know it.

That is so sad.

Why, you're about to become free enough to so open up your country and your economy, that thousands more will die of infection than would've done, otherwise !! You don't have a Central Government apparatus willing or able to stop you .. apparently.

Sad again !

Thanks for including British examples in your last post. But they don't tell you quite what you think they do. We have various police forces across the UK .. and, they've interpreted rules given to them rather more differently than anyone thought they would. Derbyshire is reportedly the 'worst', tracking individual hikers with drones. Also, by the way, they've given out hundreds of fines.

The Metropolitan Police, serving London, has given out ... no fines, AT ALL.

It's interesting, to say the least. You'd think the UK system to be inferior because so much, here, is centralised. But, here, we have examples of central directives being so loosely defined that forces interpreted them somewhat freely.

By American standards, isn't this a source of congratulation ? Apparently ... NOT. All it did was leave you with material to criticise us with. Ironically, the basis for it was that the central directives were not as tightly and unassailably expressed as they perhaps should have been.

Revelarts' post is a revelation. I owe him thanks for his clarity. I now know that American 'freedom' is based on a paranoia not permitting any trust to ever be felt toward any authority, no matter how well meaning that authority is.

My standard of existence is better. I have a great PM in Boris Johnson. I will trust him unless given proof that I cannot. There will be no paranoid distrust of any politician where I lack reason for distrust.

I'm sorry that Americans cannot do this for themselves.

As for those voices who do voice distrust: either they can prove good reason for it, or, partisan agenda-chasing explains it. Distrust needs to have something relevant AND CURRENT to explain it.

[Drummond]

Wow! I would die fighting before a government could own me like they own you.

Covid 1984!

You'd do it, die for a 'cause', not even grounded in reality.

My Government does not 'own' me. All my Government does is provide authoritative clarity. This it backs up with laws, designed to serve my better interests.

I'm not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds me.

Your ridiculous example of 'Covid 1984' illustrates this perfectly. 'Covid 1984' is an INVENTION, AND NOTHING MORE. But, because you like it so much, it takes on a feeling of reality for you, doesn't it, Evmetro ?

So, you'll fight for an idea (i.e an invention, and one designed to define what you're expected to perceive, too !). But, how about being grounded in reality ? Will you be so keen to fight for that ??

[Black Diamond]

You'd do it, die for a 'cause', not even grounded in reality.

My Government does not 'own' me. All my Government does is provide authoritative clarity. This it backs up with laws, designed to serve my better interests.

I'm not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds me.

Your ridiculous example of 'Covid 1984' illustrates this perfectly. 'Covid 1984' is an INVENTION, AND NOTHING MORE. But, because you like it so much, it takes on a feeling of reality for you, doesn't it, Evmetro ?

So, you'll fight for an idea (i.e an invention, and one designed to define what you're expected to perceive, too !). But, how about being grounded in reality ? Will you be so keen to fight for that ??

You think your government feeds you?

Our nation was born out of distrust for tyranny and monarchy. It was carefully set up so our president could not be king george iv
Should we elect a president every four years that has absolute power outside of our citizens being allowed to carry machine guns and rip him apart in the press or from the public square? And freedom to worship?

[Kathianne]

I am quite confident that the book was indeed fiction. The comparison of the fiction book to the current political landscape is entertainment.

Since it was published in 1949, bank on it.

One of the first novels of the horrors of socialism/communism.

[Drummond]

You think your government feeds you?

I know it does.

As of this evening ... indeed, for weeks, now ... our Government has spent out massive funds to ensure that people can still afford to feed themselves. Wages once paid for out of businesses are now being paid directly by Government.

That's to say, we don't have fifty States that might quibble about what they may do for their People. No. We have ONE central authority, providing ONE policy direction, providing CLARITY of direction. We have efficiency of direction, and that efficiency is feeding people.

Our nation was born out of distrust for tyranny and monarchy. It was carefully set up so our president could not be king george iv
Should we elect a president every four years that has absolute power outside of our citizens being allowed to carry machine guns and rip him apart in the press or from the public square? And freedom to worship?

Distrust of an authority from hundreds of years ago is one thing. Allowing it to roll over literally centuries, so that no one leader is ever trusted, no matter how good he is, shows zero regard for reality. If you're going to distrust, do it from a position of real-time knowledge and relevance, not mere assumption that has its roots buried deep in your ancestry !!

[Kathianne]

Wow. i mean wow.

looks like you really do love Big Brother.

Indeed. I asked him days ago, 'what if Johnson says it's time to open up?' He admitted he'd go along with the new guidelines. Yep, he just seems to think that it's only the US that should have to wait, or something.

No matter, the US is going to open up, that's a given. I do expect it will be a bit of open and close, by specific areas. We just can't keep doing what we were 2 weeks ago.

I think we should realize that there are huge differences between UK and US conservatives. He does NOT understand the Constitution, nor respect much of our system of government.

He feels his is 'the best,' which is likely true for UK residents.

[Drummond]

Since it was published in 1949, bank on it.

One of the first novels of the horrors of socialism/communism.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale.

It is also ... please try to comprehend this ... it is FICTION.

Do you people always mire your understanding of the present from what was around generations previously ?

I think I envy you. If your ending of Covid-19 lockdowns becomes the great favour to the virus that I think it will, who knows .... maybe your perception of the horrors to come will have a timelag of fifty or more years to it !!

Will your citizens of 2075 suddenly wake up one morning, and think ... 'H'm. Maybe what our people did in causing all that suffering and death back in 2020, wasn't a great idea, after all ?'

Here's an idea.

Why not face those horrors, in .... 2020 ????

[Kathianne]

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a cautionary tale.

It is also ... please try to comprehend this ... it is FICTION.

Do you people always mire your understanding of the present from what was around generations previously ?

I think I envy you. If your ending of Covid-19 lockdowns becomes the great favour to the virus that I think it will, who knows .... maybe your perception of the horrors to come will have a timelag of fifty or more years to it !!

Will your citizens of 2075 suddenly wake up one morning, and think ... 'H'm. Maybe what our people did in causing all that suffering and death back in 2020, wasn't a great idea, after all ?'

Here's an idea.

Why not face those horrors, in .... 2020 ????

That would be depending on a government to tell me what to do. You enjoy that.