Above It All

Рет қаралды 545

Andrea Rovenski

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 32

@hanneloreclemenson1228 Жыл бұрын

As far as I've seen, I'm one of the only people in my town that still masks..

@user-wi3yx3gy2o Жыл бұрын

I wear a mask on public transportation or any places where ai’m jammed in into a enclosed space with enough people that I’m likely to be forced within 2 meters of a stranger, and in all doctors offices, hospitals, and pharmacies. I do not consider this fool proof or bc even very vigilant, much less than extreme. I’m the only one so ever see who does this much (besides my immediate family that is), no matter how packed in people are. I do not understand this shift from “wear a mask outside alone or you are a bad and suicidal person” to “most people got vaxed 2 years ago so why are you wearing a mask when we don’t even know how well that works, weirdo?”

@jalalnowhereman7034 Жыл бұрын

May the Universe bless you Andrea.

@tylerhackner9731 Жыл бұрын

Andrea brings a great perspective as always

@user-wi3yx3gy2o Жыл бұрын

The problem with “if you did X then…” laws is the “if you did x” is not always as simple as “congress passed a resolution saying that you did x” or “a magistrate ruled that you did x”.” So, it needs to be read in terms of the (in this case) 14th amendment’s due process clause, which reads “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It is a basic principle of the legal cannon that is called “construction” that you should interpret any law or regulation in accordance with the other laws and regulations in place. Thus, if two provisions of the 14th amendment seem to conflict under one interpretation then one or both must be interpreted differently, if possible. In this case the only contradiction in the 14th amendment comes about if you interpret the insurrection as overriding the due process clause. If you read the insurrection clause as limited by the due process clause then what you have is if by due process of the law a person is judged to have engaged in insurrection, then that person being banned from office under the insurrection clause is the outcome if such a ruling.

@0r1gam1Abby Жыл бұрын

At approx 1:45:00 Andrea called me out. I didn't say i don't wear masks outside of the house. I just said i am destined to get it for a 4th, 5th, or 6th time because i cannot mask 24/7 even while sleeping and living in a house with 3 adults who refuse to believe covid is still a risk, 2 of which said adults are social butterflies. I do attempt to prevent putting members of the public at risk when i am out and about.

@andrearovenski Жыл бұрын

@JohnnyTooLateFTV Жыл бұрын

I can't wait for this premiere!

@knightlife22 Жыл бұрын

Laws don’t work the same for rich people. So we’ll see how this goes.

@GhostintheMachine-eg5wm Жыл бұрын

Friday is a fine day.

@hanneloreclemenson1228 Жыл бұрын

Going hard against MR ..

@user-wi3yx3gy2o Жыл бұрын

The refugee camp that was bombed was not a new refugee camp. It was created by the UN in 1948. It’s now a city. So not s bunch of tents full of people from north Gaza fleeing the IDF 2023 campaign per se but a like a town. Not to say any civilian sites should be bombed on the off chance the enemy is there. That is at a minimum callous and irresponsible, and because war crimes depend on knowledge and intent, possibly a war crime. So for example, if you think that the enemy had set up in a church, even though the law of war says you cannot attack churches deliberately, there is an exception if your intent was to attach the enemy that you thought was set up in the church. So how do you prove intent or knowledge on the part of the IDF? Well you look at patterns. The IDF had bombed so many churches, schools, hospitals, mosques, and places of explicit refuge, as well as so many civilian homes and other civilian sites, so quickly and so massively, that it is hard to believe that the IDF had good intelligence that each of these places in particular were being used by HAMAS, and it is increasingly becoming easier to believe that the IDF is indiscriminately attempting to use something akin to saturation bombing to soften potential resistance and reduce useful structures and infrastructure which it might be inconvenient or dangerous in a future invasion of North Gaza (which is an extremely callous disregard for civilians) or that the IDF is using something akin to saturation bombing merely to terrorize the civilian population. The fact that it would be easier to conquer a 20 mile by 20 mile rubble and dead body pile than s city of millions of civilians might not actually be considered a war crime by the UN, but it should be. Just doing it for the mere purpose of killing as many non-combatants there as possible is a war crime, and should he considered as such. Of course it is pretty easy to claim that what you are doing has to do with reducing enemy infrastructure, but a reasonable person should be able to tell the difference if there is a pattern of bombing large swaths of the city.