Gotta say, I agree with Psaki on this. I mean sure, the science suggests that masks are pretty much worthless to prevent the spread of the disease, and yeah, regulation of state health issues isn't exactly under federal purview and okay, states that have been more lax with mask mandates allowing individuals to assess their own risk saw no significant increase in cases relative to their more authoritarian counterparts but dammit, last I checked this is America, and here in the good ol' USA we're all about really futile and stupid gestures.

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

I bet you are wearing a mask. Is abbot stopping you?

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

No local government shouldn't have the power to force mask mandates or vaccine mandate. That's crap and you should be against that.

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

Is your argument that some unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away should be deciding safety measures for Texas?

edit: never mind, I saw your other post

As poster above said, it should be individuals who choose; they should not be forced to wear masks or get vaccines against their will by any government entity, local or otherwise.

---

Like you can choose to drink and drive or shoot firearms in public parks? Because there are laws against that that restrict your freedom to drive and shoot guns.

Behavior is going to be regulated by government. It's just a question of the guys hundreds of miles away doing it or the folks in your city/town hall. Thought you guys would be in favor of the latter.

Cromagnum said:

---

Raggedy Ann needs to stay in her lane. She's nothing but an ugly mouthpiece for the left. Who does she think she is to give governors orders on what they should be doing?

---

I dislike when appointed individuals tell elected individuals how to do their job.

If they were truly scared of the china virus, they would close the border. Don't believe the narrative.

And a decree by some idiot local official for 3million people is better?

The state law just takes the gov out of the equation, businesses and people can't decide for themselves what to require. The most freedom, delivered by abbot.

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

You need the government to tell you whether you can or cannot wear a mask? You must be one of those people who can't figure out how to get a voter ID.

Shocking, neither your examples concern private property, you can drink, drive, and shoot guns all at the same time.

Yet one order tells private property owners what to do (your local Marxist), while the state prevented that while allowing private citizens to decide for themselves.

blacksox said:

---

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

Is your argument that some unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away should be deciding safety measures for Texas?

edit: never mind, I saw your other post

As poster above said, it should be individuals who choose; they should not be forced to wear masks or get vaccines against their will by any government entity, local or otherwise.

---

Like you can choose to drink and drive or shoot firearms in public parks? Because there are laws against that that restrict your freedom to drive and shoot guns.

Behavior is going to be regulated by government. It's just a question of the guys hundreds of miles away doing it or the folks in your city/town hall. Thought you guys would be in favor of the latter.

---

Could we say your concern for local control is moderate? Meaning that you're neither a moderate nor concerned about local control, you're simply a leftist troll.

ktownag08 said:

---

Anyone that wants to wear a mask, vaccinated or not, is free to do so. Not sure why that concept is so hard.

---

This. If you think your vaccination and mask works, then me not wearing a mask and not getting a shot has no effect on you.

Blacksox:

"No see tyranny is actually freedom when it's my party that's oppressing you and taking away your freedom!"

Just defund ISDs. Simple. Make individuals pay for their own education. You will see an increase in church schools, subdivision schools, unleased commercial real estate schools. Parents should get a property tax break if you have children in school. Those left out can wear a mask in public school.

I'm not allowed to say what I want so here is a clown watering a tree:

%3Fitemid%3D10162552&f=1&nofb=1

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

The Governor is ensuring that local government stays limited. Hope that helps.

blacksox said:

---

Beerosch said:

---

What a little tyrant. Not really surprised by the authoritarian talk though. It's called states' rights so she can go **** herself.

---

Let's see here. She is criticizing state governors from preventing local governmental entities from having mask mandates if they so choose. She doesn't think DeSantis and Abbott should be tyrants by forbidding Pensacola and Dallas from enacting mask rules, if they should so choose. Isn't that a good, conservative thing? Limited government and local control? Or is it more conservative for Abbott to govern as the emperor of every city, town and school district in the state?

---

Holy ****

hush,...he doesn't know that there aren't actually three tiers of government.

PneumAg said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Beerosch said:

---

What a little tyrant. Not really surprised by the authoritarian talk though. It's called states' rights so she can go **** herself.

---

Let's see here. She is criticizing state governors from preventing local governmental entities from having mask mandates if they so choose. She doesn't think DeSantis and Abbott should be tyrants by forbidding Pensacola and Dallas from enacting mask rules, if they should so choose. Isn't that a good, conservative thing? Limited government and local control? Or is it more conservative for Abbott to govern as the emperor of every city, town and school district in the state?

---

Holy ****

---

Liberal crap like this is why we must keep fighting and must not lose. They actually think like this.

PneumAg said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Beerosch said:

---

What a little tyrant. Not really surprised by the authoritarian talk though. It's called states' rights so she can go **** herself.

---

Let's see here. She is criticizing state governors from preventing local governmental entities from having mask mandates if they so choose. She doesn't think DeSantis and Abbott should be tyrants by forbidding Pensacola and Dallas from enacting mask rules, if they should so choose. Isn't that a good, conservative thing? Limited government and local control? Or is it more conservative for Abbott to govern as the emperor of every city, town and school district in the state?

---

Holy ****

---

ktownag08 said:

---

Anyone that wants to wear a mask, vaccinated or not, is free to do so. Not sure why that concept is so hard.

---

Because that is not good enough for liberals. They want to drive home a point of authority to the people. They don't believe that people should choose their pathway but the government will decide for you. They want total tyranny

I'm all about no mask mandates on a state level. But I gotta wonder what a lot of our position would be if Beto was governor. What would be be saying about local government? I think local government is the best government in actuality. It's one that the people can get involved in.

Rockdoc said:

---

PneumAg said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Beerosch said:

---

What a little tyrant. Not really surprised by the authoritarian talk though. It's called states' rights so she can go **** herself.

---

Let's see here. She is criticizing state governors from preventing local governmental entities from having mask mandates if they so choose. She doesn't think DeSantis and Abbott should be tyrants by forbidding Pensacola and Dallas from enacting mask rules, if they should so choose. Isn't that a good, conservative thing? Limited government and local control? Or is it more conservative for Abbott to govern as the emperor of every city, town and school district in the state?

---

Holy ****

---

Liberal crap like this is why we must keep fighting and must not lose. They actually think like this.

---

Fortunately people such as this soy boy are not breeding. Not by choice, obviously.

It's quite simple:

If this were about preventing death then the left would smile and leave TX and FL to their own ill-fate. Fewer deplorables and all.

But TX & FL stand as opposition to federal control and may well prove that control / trust was misplaced. It'll become impossible to convince purple states to maintain the suicide pact if the red states (big and small) are doing great without it.

NoHo Hank said:

---

Gotta say, I agree with Psaki on this. I mean sure, the science suggests that masks are pretty much worthless to prevent the spread of the disease, and yeah, regulation of state health issues isn't exactly under federal purview and okay, states that have been more lax with mask mandates allowing individuals to assess their own risk saw no significant increase in cases relative to their more authoritarian counterparts but dammit, last I checked this is America, and here in the good ol' USA we're all about really futile and stupid gestures.

---

Forget it. He's rolling.

Robin Hood Was A Thief said:

---

I'm all about no mask mandates on a state level. But I gotta wonder what a lot of our position would be if Beto was governor. What would be be saying about local government? I think local government is the best government in actuality. It's one that the people can get involved in.

---

Well they (Republicans) are trying to pass a bill to strip our Governor of these kinds of powers. Local government is the best unless you live in a place like Austin or Houston, which are mini version of California, then it's WORSE.

ktownag08 said:

---

Anyone that wants to wear a mask, vaccinated or not, is free to do so. Not sure why that concept is so hard.

---

Because that means personal freedom and thought, and the overlords simply cannot tolerate such things

I must be forgetting the times when blacksox was rooting and cheering,in happiness and agreement at the prospect of Perry making the HPV vaccine mandatory for kids when they turned 12 or 13 or whenever, seeing,as he is all about government mandating what we have to be injected with.

blacksox said:

---

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

Is your argument that some unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away should be deciding safety measures for Texas?

edit: never mind, I saw your other post

As poster above said, it should be individuals who choose; they should not be forced to wear masks or get vaccines against their will by any government entity, local or otherwise.

---

Like you can choose to drink and drive or shoot firearms in public parks? Because there are laws against that that restrict your freedom to drive and shoot guns.

Behavior is going to be regulated by government. It's just a question of the guys hundreds of miles away doing it or the folks in your city/town hall. Thought you guys would be in favor of the latter.

---

I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference in the government forcing you to do something against your will, and the examples you described.

schmellba99 said:

---

I must be forgetting the times when blacksox was rooting and cheering,in happiness and agreement at the prospect of Perry making the HPV vaccine mandatory for kids when they turned 12 or 13 or whenever, seeing,as he is all about government mandating what we have to be injected with.

---

Perry had the wrong letter next to his name

Can we have a debate between the ginger clown and Future President DeSantis before God shows his mercy and ends it all?

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

Is your argument that some unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away should be deciding safety measures for Texas?

edit: never mind, I saw your other post

As poster above said, it should be individuals who choose; they should not be forced to wear masks or get vaccines against their will by any government entity, local or otherwise.

---

Like you can choose to drink and drive or shoot firearms in public parks? Because there are laws against that that restrict your freedom to drive and shoot guns.

Behavior is going to be regulated by government. It's just a question of the guys hundreds of miles away doing it or the folks in your city/town hall. Thought you guys would be in favor of the latter.

---

I am sure you are smart enough to see the difference in the government forcing you to do something against your will, and the examples you described.

---

Prohibiting an action is very different from forcing an action.

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

I absolutely agree. And that "someone" is each individual person in their own self interest.

blacksox said:

---

Artorias said:

---

blacksox said:

---

OK, so someone has to make the decisions on what safety measures are appropriate and you guys think that should be one guy in Austin decreeing rules for nearly 30,000,000 people scattered over about 270,000 square miles. Makes sense. Limited, local government sucks.

---

Is your argument that some unelected bureaucrats thousands of miles away should be deciding safety measures for Texas?

edit: never mind, I saw your other post

As poster above said, it should be individuals who choose; they should not be forced to wear masks or get vaccines against their will by any government entity, local or otherwise.

---

Like you can choose to drink and drive or shoot firearms in public parks? Because there are laws against that that restrict your freedom to drive and shoot guns.

Behavior is going to be regulated by government. It's just a question of the guys hundreds of miles away doing it or the folks in your city/town hall. Thought you guys would be in favor of the latter.

---

So you are not in favor of my body, my choice?