[Signing] Blue Jackets sign Zac Rinaldo

[dino7c]

What a dumbass...why would an NHL team take that risk for a tweener.

not to mention the PR of saying the entire team is vaxxed

Should have seen this coming

[tvp2003]

Zing!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1440361448056639493

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

He's on a two-way NHL contract. Also, a pandemic isn't political.

How the government should respond to the pandemic is the very definition of a political issue.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ this is technically correct (the best kind of correct)

Having said that, I am sure most people understood the intent, which was likely more to do with whether the existence of a pandemic is something to be determined differently based on political leaning

More importantly, the ‘cheap shot’ tweet about Rinaldo was perfect and I wish I had said it !

[Karl]

What an idiot. Bad enough that he sucks ass at hockey. I was hoping he'd be smarter about the pandemic (especially after seeing him consistently wear his mask while up in the pressbox).

Guess I expected too much of him. My fault.

[Geeoff]

does the arena in cleveland not have a policy re: vaccinations?

[MrMike]

I have a feeling this will be his last NHL/AHL contract

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

How the government should respond to the pandemic is the very definition of a political issue.

Actually, it isn't. You're conflating the mechanism of representation of populations, the formation of policy, and the influence of opinion on policy of how government operates. Governments make many decisions that are not political in nature all the time. Many large issues in government are resolved without political interference in any shape or form. Healthcare is one of those areas where tens of thousands of decisions are made daily without political interference. Many divisions of government are apolitical and only execute policy. Branches concerned with healthcare are normally apolitical and only execute policy and plans. Considering there is policy on the books as to how to handle pandemic, these divisions of government would be able to respond without politics entering into the equation. The fact that there needs to be debate about the execution of a long standing plan on dealing with pandemic is clear example of "making an issue political" and clear political interference in the response. That is not how most of the government works. Again, most divisions are apolitical and just get the job done. Only where the grandstanding idiots in Washington/Ottawa try to make a name for themselves through a very public means of interference in execution of existing plans does your ideal come to reality.

[GioforPM]

Whether the government should force me to wear glasses to drive is a political issue. Discuss...

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Whether the government should force me to wear glasses to drive is a political issue. Discuss...

How’s your eyesight? Do you need glasses?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

How’s your eyesight? Do you need glasses?

How dare you or the government seek my medical information.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Actually, it isn't. You're conflating the mechanism of representation of populations, the formation of policy, and the influence of opinion on policy of how government operates. Governments make many decisions that are not political in nature all the time. Many large issues in government are resolved without political interference in any shape or form. Healthcare is one of those areas where tens of thousands of decisions are made daily without political interference.

Those decisions are made based on the policies set by politicians.

Many divisions of government are apolitical and only execute policy.

The policies themselves are a matter of politics.

Branches concerned with healthcare are normally apolitical and only execute policy and plans.

Political policy and political plans.

Considering there is policy on the books as to how to handle pandemic, these divisions of government would be able to respond without politics entering into the equation.

There are multiple conflicting policies on the books, and there are also basic, long-standing human rights that the policies, as written, may easily infringe upon. Many people here think that it is appropriate to put people under permanent house arrest for failing to carry papers proving vaccination, even though there are hundreds of years of case and constitutional law denying that the state has the authority to force people to carry papers period. (Not to mention hundreds of years of case and constitutional law forbidding detention without trial and conviction.) That is most definitely a political question, and one that goes right to the root of the nature of a liberal society.

The fact that there needs to be debate about the execution of a long standing plan on dealing with pandemic is clear example of "making an issue political" and clear political interference in the response.

Long-standing plan? The ‘plan’ consists of a bunch of mutually contradictory orders issued in knee-jerk fashion from month to month and week to week. Open everything up! Shut it all down again! No shutdowns! Open the bars but shut down the churches! OK, open the churches to 50 people but the stores to 100. And close the schools, no wait, open them, no, close them again. Wait, now, let's abolish all outdoor meetings. Except the ones for causes we approve of, those can go ahead. Until we say they can't.

That is not how most of the government works. Again, most divisions are apolitical and just get the job done. Only where the grandstanding idiots in Washington/Ottawa try to make a name for themselves through a very public means of interference in execution of existing plans does your ideal come to reality.

Throughout, you assume that the policies in place are correct and beyond question or alteration. If any of the policies need to be altered – and they are being altered from day to day – then those are political decisions and that is a political process. It is purely fatuous to pretend otherwise.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Whether the government should force me to wear glasses to drive is a political issue. Discuss...

It is, in fact, a political issue, which was settled decades ago by passing a law that has remained substantially the same ever since.

Anything done by government is a matter of political questions that have been asked and answered; starting with the question of whether the government is the body that should be doing a given thing at all. Sometimes the answers turn out to be incorrect, or damaging to other legitimate interests, and the questions need to be asked again.

This is the ABC of public policy. I'm not surprised that you don't get it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It is, in fact, a political issue, which was settled decades ago by passing a law that has remained substantially the same ever since.

Anything done by government is a matter of political questions that have been asked and answered; starting with the question of whether the government is the body that should be doing a given thing at all. Sometimes the answers turn out to be incorrect, or damaging to other legitimate interests, and the questions need to be asked again.

This is the ABC of public policy. I'm not surprised that you don't get it.

Your use of “political” is overly broad in this context. You know what everyone wins by a “political decision”. Let me in such decision and at getting elected or defeating an opponent. It doesn’t include routine bureaucratic decisions

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your use of “political” is overly broad in this context. You know what everyone wins by a “political decision”. Let me in such decision and at getting elected or defeating an opponent. It doesn’t include routine bureaucratic decisions

So going with vaccine passports, and placing all who either refuse to get them, or to whom the government fails to issue them, under indefinite house arrest – this is merely a routine bureaucratic decision? Not policy? Neither politicians nor the public should be involved?

You're a born totalitarian, which is why I fully expected you not to understand anything I had to say. Your wish to crawl at the feet of all-powerful bureaucrats is no surprise to me.

[N-E-B]

At what point do you just admit you’re fighting a losing battle? I get why people are angry but sitting out and acting like a baby isn’t helping anyone. No one is impressed by the sacrifices you’re making. You’re proving a point to nobody but yourself.

Wouldn’t people rather just get the shot and live a normal life again? I think there’s enough evidence and data now that the risk of vaccine side effects is low and worth the risk.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1440463153016434693

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So going with vaccine passports, and placing all who either refuse to get them, or to whom the government fails to issue them, under indefinite house arrest – this is merely a routine bureaucratic decision? Not policy? Neither politicians nor the public should be involved?

You're a born totalitarian, which is why I fully expected you not to understand anything I had to say. Your wish to crawl at the feet of all-powerful bureaucrats is no surprise to me.

Whoa.. nobody is putting anyone under 'house arrest'. Don't want to get vaxxed? Fine, you don't have to, but you are putting other people at risk, period. Nobody is forcing the unvaxxed to stay home and be monitored - that's house arrest. You have the freedom to go out any time you want at any time you want, but you can not go into public places full of people, you know, because you can potentially continue the spread of the virus that is causing the pandemic. Point is, it is a huge stretch to argue that you are now under house arrest just because you can't go to restaurants, movie theatres and other NON ESSENTIAL public areas.


As for totalitarianism - I get it. I grew up brain-washed through my social studies classes through my schooling in which they basically indoctrinated you into thinking that the only way was the conservative way. BS on that. If you think this is some grand scheme to institute some sort of totalitarian regime, then there is no point in talking. I was also indoctrinated into thinking that 'socialism' = USSR = evil. None of those 3 necessarily equate to one another.


There is a thing called social democracy where people get to vote, but government actually does do the right thing for the PEOPLE first, then business. That's what mostly happens in western Europe these days - not 'socialism' like we think of that equates to the former USSR and so forth.



Want proof? Show me where the USA - a 'democratic' capitalist country ranks on various things like happiness, quality of life, safety, security, education, freedom (ha!), and other metrics. They are way down the list.


Man, I really can't stand people clamouring that we are losing our freedoms because we are trying to put an end to a pandemic. Life is not normal right now, but the longer people keep insisting that their God given rights to do as they please and #### any sense of social responsibility is making this last way longer than it needs to.

[GioforPM]

I’m far from a born totalitarian. I’m a pragmatic left leaning lawyer if you want a label. But whatever. What I’m saying is that when people say “that was a political decision” they mean something completely different than you do.

ETA: Insult in place of argument noted, though.

[jlh2640]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Those decisions are made based on the policies set by politicians.



The policies themselves are a matter of politics.



Political policy and political plans.



There are multiple conflicting policies on the books, and there are also basic, long-standing human rights that the policies, as written, may easily infringe upon. Many people here think that it is appropriate to put people under permanent house arrest for failing to carry papers proving vaccination, even though there are hundreds of years of case and constitutional law denying that the state has the authority to force people to carry papers period. (Not to mention hundreds of years of case and constitutional law forbidding detention without trial and conviction.) That is most definitely a political question, and one that goes right to the root of the nature of a liberal society.



Long-standing plan? The ‘plan’ consists of a bunch of mutually contradictory orders issued in knee-jerk fashion from month to month and week to week. Open everything up! Shut it all down again! No shutdowns! Open the bars but shut down the churches! OK, open the churches to 50 people but the stores to 100. And close the schools, no wait, open them, no, close them again. Wait, now, let's abolish all outdoor meetings. Except the ones for causes we approve of, those can go ahead. Until we say they can't.



Throughout, you assume that the policies in place are correct and beyond question or alteration. If any of the policies need to be altered – and they are being altered from day to day – then those are political decisions and that is a political process. It is purely fatuous to pretend otherwise.

Dude, why don’t you go start a freedom rally somewhere and cry about this somewhere else. Because I get enough of you guys complaining about it on social media. Nobody cares about your anti vaxx/covid theories or your educated arguments. Get the shot to help the health care system and protect others. Or don’t get the shot and be excluded from some of the nice privileges of life has to offer. Either way stop f%#^+ whining about freedom already.