Rand Paul Ridicules Mask-Wearing as 'All About Submission' to Government

[Revmitchell]

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said "no science" is able to corroborate mask mandates across the country, warning Americans that "submission" is the real aim of public health officials

Rand Paul ridicules mask-wearing as "all about submission" to government

 

[SGO]

Where is the "science" that says Sen. Paul's assertions are correct?

 

[JonC]

What about seat belts? Is this not an even more example of submission to the government? There is not even the possibility that me not wearing a seat belt could hurt someone else (except, perhaps, that I fly out of my window and strike a motorcycle going 80 mph the opposite direction).

Anyone who wears a seat belt yet complains that masks are government overreach are hypocrites.

Then there is also the issue that we are to be submissive to authorities. I guess sin....or rebellion....is engrained in us.

 

[777]

No, if you don't wear a seat belt in this state, you will be fined 160 dollars. THAT is why we wear seat belts, not because we're "hypocrites".

Big nanny government can go take a flying leap, I think the mask issue is being oversimplified by Rand Paul but it has turned into not wearing one in public being a sign of defying "authorities" like Jackboot Inslee and wearing one being an act of virtual signaling. It's just cloth.

 

[just-want-peace]

What about seat belts? Is this not an even more example of submission to the government? 1)There is not even the possibility that me not wearing a seat belt could hurt someone else (except, perhaps, that I fly out of my window and strike a motorcycle going 80 mph the opposite direction).

2) Anyone who wears a seat belt yet complains that masks are government overreach are hypocrites.

Then there is also the issue that we are to be submissive to authorities. I guess sin....or rebellion....is engrained in us.

1) Disagree!! Any time you have to make a drastic maneuver there is a great possibility of you losing control of your car - simply because you may wind up on the passenger side - then everybody else has to look out for you!!!

2) I started wearing seat belts long, LONG, before it was mandated simply because in my job I saw quite a few HP cars that were totaled yet many of the injuries were limited to stuff like a cracked rib, or a broken arm, nose etc. In every case of minor injuries, the driver was wearing a seat belt - AND this was prior to the shoulder strap being added, just the belt!

Seemed to me just made common sense to use the seat belts!!

 

[SGO]

mask care uh

or mask scare AAAAAH

Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus

 

[Revmitchell]

Niether the cdc nor who are trustworthy. They both have become political arms.

 

[SGO]

Niether the cdc nor who are trustworthy. They both have become political arms.

Ok can you find a link to the "science" which states masks are relatively useless?

Or if no internet link, do you have a masking tape?

 

[Salty]

Interesting analogy of masks with seatbelts.
So with the permission of the OP, I shall continue.

In my driving classes, I would ask the students if the seatbelt law was good. Most people would say yes.
Then - I would say - lets suppose we make a law that would require all cars to have a light on top - which would light up when seatbelts were not being worn. Interesting - the students did not like that law.- Then I would recommend that all occupants of a vehicle should be required to wear a helmet - as that would reduce most head injuries - again - my students did not like that ideal either.

But the fact remains that people have died because they did have on a seat belt . Could be the car caught on fire, the vehicle plunged into water, or a short person - 5' 2" and below - seatbelts can be dangerous - as it could snap your neck - there are attachments you can get for that. But the bottom line is that wearing a seat belt does NOT guarantee you will survive a seatbelt. Same with a mask - do they help - YES - is it a guarantee that you will not get the Chinese virus - NOPE !

Than one last thing - when I talk to a pro-abortion - I mention that I am glad they are against the seat belt law. They ask what do you mean. My answer - Well, you beleive that a person has a right over his own body - so you must be against the law that says you must buckle up. Same with masks!

 

[percho]

1) Disagree!! Any time you have to make a drastic maneuver there is a great possibility of you losing control of your car - simply because you may wind up on the passenger side - then everybody else has to look out for you!!!

2) I started wearing seat belts long, LONG, before it was mandated simply because in my job I saw quite a few HP cars that were totaled yet many of the injuries were limited to stuff like a cracked rib, or a broken arm, nose etc. In every case of minor injuries, the driver was wearing a seat belt - AND this was prior to the shoulder strap being added, just the belt!

Seemed to me just made common sense to use the seat belts!!

And that is great. You looked out for You but is it a function of government to look out for you and to tell you that you must wear a seatbelt?

 

[Salty]

And that is great. You looked out for You but is it a function of government to look out for you and to tell you that you must wear a seatbelt?

Great question!

IMHO - The job of Govt is to protect me from other people - not from myself.

So yes, the law should require a person to have headlights on his car, so I can see him/......

 

[Reynolds]

Where is the "science" that says Sen. Paul's assertions are correct?

Where is science that says he is incorrect?

 

[Reynolds]

What about seat belts? Is this not an even more example of submission to the government? There is not even the possibility that me not wearing a seat belt could hurt someone else (except, perhaps, that I fly out of my window and strike a motorcycle going 80 mph the opposite direction).

Anyone who wears a seat belt yet complains that masks are government overreach are hypocrites.

Then there is also the issue that we are to be submissive to authorities. I guess sin....or rebellion....is engrained in us.

Not really. Even though it was the law, I never wore a seat belt. After going through a car windshield I changed my own mind. I do emphatically disagree with the seat belt law.

 

[just-want-peace]

Great question!

IMHO - The job of Govt is to protect me from other people - not from myself.

So yes, the law should require a person to have headlights on his car, so I can see him/......

Totally agree!! Just as the seatbelt allows YOU to keep control of YOUR car so YOU don't endanger others.

 

[just-want-peace]

And that is great. You looked out for You but is it a function of government to look out for you and to tell you that you must wear a seatbelt?

Are you saying that me, keeping control of my car, on a crowded I-State, is only a benefit to ME!
Either you mis-state what you mean, or I'm grossly misunderstanding you! Please clarify!! Thanks.

 

[Salty]

Totally agree!! Just as the seatbelt allows YOU to keep control of YOUR car so YOU don't endanger others.

So you would be in favor that at least all drivers should be required to wear helmets ?
Am I correct?

 

[Reynolds]

So you would be in favor that at least all drivers should be required to wear helmets ?
Am I correct?

We want to be really, really safe. Wear helmets. Wear Kevlar/nomex crash suits that include gloves and boots. Limit all cars to 30 mph. We need to be real safe. If people are still getting hurt, we limit cars to 15 mph.

 

[SGO]

In the OP,

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said "no science" is able to corroborate mask mandates.

Why then, if he has no science or you say where is the opposing science, he said it just to be contrary to tap into the the liking of those against the mandate or does he really have some proof?

Defend the statement rather than attacking a question to verify.

 

[Salty]

We want to be really, really safe. Wear helmets. Wear Kevlar/nomex crash suits that include gloves and boots. Limit all cars to 30 mph. We need to be real safe. If people are still getting hurt, we limit cars to 15 mph.

People want things to be perfect. Well, we live in a world that has be messed up by sin. Thus nothing will be perfect. The Top 12 causes of death in the USA accounted for over 800,000 lives. Yet, the coverage even on the # 1 (Heart disease) w/ over 600.000 - has never recieved the coverage that the Chinesee virus has recd. ..12 Leading Causes of Death in the United States

So, the question - at what point does the virus become acceptable - what - no more than 50 deaths a day (= 18,000 per year)? # 12 on the list claims 38,000 / year = 105 per day.. In the middle of the list is # 5 (Stroke) is at 142,000 = 389 per day.

Going back to driving - some 50 years ago - motor vehicle deaths was 50,000 a year - population has double - so we will say - that would be 100,000 a year -(if no one wore seat belts) = 275 per day. - In the past 50 years due to seat belts and tougher DWI laws - the annual death was 50,000 50 years ago. Currently is almost 40,000 which is about 110 per day.

So, should we say that once daily Chinesee Virus death is below 350 a day - do we call that acceptable? Does that mean we can return to normal?

 

[percho]

Are you saying that me, keeping control of my car, on a crowded I-State, is only a benefit to ME!
Either you mis-state what you mean, or I'm grossly misunderstanding you! Please clarify!! Thanks.

No I am saying that you use your seat belt because you understand that is the safest thing, And I agree I use mine also because I am looking out for myself. However I do not believe it is the governments job to look out for me by making it a law.