Ask Me Help Desk - Another nanny state ban?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Pathetic.

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. I don't believe the state should interfere with how I spend my money... However, THIS is the natural outgrowth of laws that YOU support... Although you make fun about smoking potato's, you have NO PROBLEM hiring the nanny state to arrest and jail people who spend their money on marijuana... Apparently, you support this law for OUR OWN GOOD - a nanny state proclamation if I ever heard one. You also scream and holler about the mandate to buy insurance that's been foisted upon you... That too, is the natural progression of the same ideology that YOU support... You just want it to be ONE way - YOUR way. You want to ban the stuff YOU want banned, not the stuff YOU like. When that happens, you throw up your hands and complain about the NANNY state... But the enemy in THIS battle, my friend, is YOU.

As I've said MANY times in the past, if you want to protect YOUR liberties, you have to protect your NEIGHBORS liberties. You didn't, and we're ALL paying for it.

excon

Well at least it's gone from everything is Bush's fault to everything is my fault.

Sorry, I see no moral equivalence or natural progression in criminalizing a drug that does impair function and puts the public at risk, and banning toys for kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Sorry, I see no moral equivalence or natural progression in criminalizing a drug that does impair function and puts the public at risk, and banning toys for kids.

Hello again, Steve:

You STILL miss the point... It's not about the MORAL issues, it's about the LEGAL issues... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that protect children from toys that get caught in their throats... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that prevent people from eating food that isn't good for them... Certainly, it's MORAL to pass laws that prevent the inevitability of you and I paying for their medical bills... So, a case CAN be made for the MORALITY of the SF ban.

If you want the laws of the nation to protect MORALITY, then you're going to get laws that protect OTHER PEOPLES morality when they have POWER. It's actually BETTER to protect ALL us from everybody's morality - and let you and I spend our money as we see fit.

But, you don't get any of this... You talk about MORAL equivalence of criminalizing a drug that impairs function and puts the public at risk, yet you say NOTHING about banning alcohol, which of course, puts the public at a much greater risk than pot. So, there's nothing MORAL about your position, at all.. It's pure ideology.

excon

I don't miss the point at all, ex and I agree, alcohol is worse. Better yet, I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans, so you can stop blaming me for leading to the ban of toys in Happy Meals.

In fact I find it quite ironic that the left wants to at the same time legalize pot while banning toys. What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, hell we'll give you the needles to shoot your heroin and condoms to your 13 year old, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

Luckily in Ca. when it comes to moral issues voted for by referendum ,there is a cintilla of common sense left in the populace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Luckily in Ca. when it comes to moral issues voted for by referendum ,there is a cintilla of common sense left in the populace.

Will they attack Mormons again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't miss the point at all, What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

Hello again, Steve:

You ABSOLUTELY, do miss the point... You're still trying to equate YOUR morality with the RIGHT morality...

You also miss a couple of other things... You think the legalization issue is about "getting as high as you want". Nothing could be further from the truth. What it really is, is an acknowledgment of the failed drug war, and a REAL attempt to DO, what the drug war purports to do, but FAILS to do. That's to keep pot OUT of the hands of children... If it's legal, and sold in places where ID's can be checked, and poisons can be detected, we'll protect our children BETTER than we have been. Right now, they buy it at the local dealer who doesn't care how young they are. That's cool with you, I guess. No it isn't, you'll say. You'll say we need to get rid of the local dealer, and we CAN if we only "cracked down"... Do you know how silly that's sounding these days??

The other thing you missed (you too, tom), is that you don't change laws based on 50 years worth of lies overnight... Like gay marriage, pot WILL become legal.

But, this thread is about the nanny state... Go ahead - complain about nuggets while you wear your right wing blinders... But, don't come complaining to me when the nanny state does OTHER stuff you don't like, cause they WILL. That's simply, because, as you've said, there's SOME things the nanny state bans, that you're perfectly HAPPY about them banning - for our own good, of course...

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I like how you edited this part out, "I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans."

Your argument with me is a strawman. Oh, and it doesn't matter that we legalize something and check ID's and such, the kids are going to get it anyway and the left is going to fight for their right to have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Oh, and it doesn't matter that we legalize something and check ID's and such, the kids are going to get it anyway

Like alcohol and cigarettes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

the kids are going to get it anyway and the left is going to fight for their right to have it.

Hello again, Steve:

I'M the left. I epitomize the left. I've posted LOTS about kids, and pot, and legalization... Never once did I advocate that children should smoke pot. In fact, I don't know anyone who thinks children have a right to have pot. Dude!

But, it's fine that you'd add more lies to the debate. Your side has been doing it for 50 years. What else is new? The TRUTH?? From you guys?? Nahhh.

excon

PS> I didn't edit it either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Like alcohol and cigarettes?

Um, that's exactly what I was referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

PS> I didn't edit it either.

What you quoted:

Quote:

I don't miss the point at all, What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

What I said:

Quote:

I don't miss the point at all, ex and I agree, alcohol is worse. Better yet, I've said before that I really don't have a problem with legalizing marijuana. I've also come out against smoking bans, so you can stop blaming me for leading to the ban of toys in Happy Meals.

In fact I find it quite ironic that the left wants to at the same time legalize pot while banning toys. What kind of a stupid message is that to send? Get as high as you want, endanger your health and the safety of others, hell we'll give you the needles to shoot your heroin and condoms to your 13 year old, but don't you dare eat chicken nuggets and play with toys.

You only omitted everything in italics to make on seamless quote.

I know you wouldn't advocate kids having the right to smoke pot, but the push to undermine parental authority grant kids more rights has been well documented here. If sex is harmless then children should have their sexual freedom they say. If pot is harmless and legal why shouldn't kids have that freedom as well? That's a natural progression if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That's a natural progression if you ask me.

Hello again, Steve:

Like gay marriage progress's into marriage with horses. Yeah, I know how you guys think.. Bonkers...

excon

It's no goofier than you blaming me for banning Happy Meals. Truth be told, you just want to argue. Banning Happy Meals is stupid, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

"cause that what you think black people eat?

What's wrong with Yams... they are highly nutritious http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/loun...yams-5759.html. And in fact... Yams (which are NOT the same as sweet potatoes contrary to popular opinion) are African and Asian in origion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_(vegetable)..so yes a lot of Black people do eat yams... and a lot of other things.

I'd say something that's been cultivated as food for 8,000 years in Africa might be consumed by a lot of blacks.

Stuff White People Like

Heck... schools are better off serving both Yams and Sweet potatoes than they are mystery meat or Mac and Cheese.

And I'm no vegan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Stuff White People Like

What's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What's your point?

How about then Cowboys!

As already acknowledged, they suck. So what's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

As already acknowledged, they suck. So what's your point?

You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You posted about the Cowboys in a Pre-election recap thread - what was the point of that?

It was a response to an inside joke. And the point of yours?

Also an inside joke, plus it's funny!

When the USDA isn't taking taters away from kid's diets, they're pushing cheese on us.

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ain't the USA a hell hole, eh?

Because of cheese? Dude. :rolleyes:

I like my Velveta... doesn't matter what a California politician says...

Hello again, Steve:

What do you think the government does with the milk it buys for the sole purpose of keeping milk prices HIGH? They make cheese. What do they DO with all that cheese?? But, that's not the subject of my question to you. I suppose you'll object to the premise of my question, but I'll live with your objection...

What I want to know is this. Although you complain about the "nanny state" banning stuff for our own good, it HAS been established that you believe the "nanny state" SHOULD ban SOME stuff for our own good. I just want to know WHERE you draw the line?

Yes, that changes the conversation from a complaint about government, to the moral decisions we make... That's, frankly, what this is about... You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the " should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here.". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

excon

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

You huff and puff about my bringing attention to it. You say, "oh, drugs, OF COURSE the "nanny state" should ban them... But, we're talking about happy meals here." Maybe you can justify that by saying the department that bans drugs ISN'T the "nanny state". It's the cops... To which, I wrinkle up my nose and wonder what you've been smoking...

Dude, when you answer your questions for me there's not a whole to say is there?

Quote:

PS> Do you favor price supports that help dairy farmers, but hurt consumers?

Hell no ! That is an easy earmark to get rid of .

The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods .

In that I think the government has a legitimate role . It would take too long for me to get into great details . But let's talk about salt since that is what gets nanny staters like Bloomy's panties in a knot.
Inherently there is absolutely nothing wrong with sodium from salt. The real problem is the salt(primarily sodium chloride ) that gets marketted . Processed table salt is junk that gets bleached and has addatives that are indeed harmful . Unprocessed sea salt is ugly and not as white . But it contains many useful minerals (calcium, magnesium, potassium and 90 other trace and micro-nutrients)and should be part of the average diet. Mined from underground salt deposits,table salt is heat blasted, chemically treated, heavily processed to eliminate trace minerals and contains additives to prevent clumping. Table salt has added iodine which occures naturally in sea salt.

High fructose corn syrup should not be a food ingredient and the primary reason it is is to satisfy a subsidized agricultural constituency.

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The funny thing about the happy meals is that if there is a reason they are unhealthy ,is because the government allows the harmful ingredients in the final product to be used . Why blame Micky D's for selling harmful products when they are cooking up ingredients that are lawful ? It's the crap that should not be used in food manufacturing that is the biggest problem in manufactured foods .

Hello again, tom:

I think you're on to something... Maybe the nanny state could ban whatever ingredients you're talking about above, instead of toys and happy meals...

But, it's STILL the nanny state involving itself in our buying decisions. I don't see much difference in government banning stuff that McDonalds can't buy, or banning the happy meals that those ingredients produce.

The question is, do you support government intervention into our buying decisions. It seems clear to me that you do.

excon

Yes I do and I have been consistent on this point . The problem however is not the food but the lawful ingredients used in the foods . I am in favor of the government deciding a food ingredient ,drug ,chemical is unsafe for human consumption and taking measures to ban or restrict it's usage .
Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.

I think San Francisco would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientific link between happy meals and childhood obesity .There is no basis at all for the ban execept to be punitive to McDonalds. I hope they take the city to court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So I see that what excon says is correct: you are FOR regulation for the stuff that you want regulated. Isn't that the nanny-statism that you so deplore?

Again, if you guys are going to answer for me then just talk among yourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Does that make me a nanny-stater ? No . I think that is a traditional legitimate role of government.

Hello again, tom:

One man's nanny state, is another man's government doing its job.

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Let the free market rule.
excon

That's much worse than government regulation In my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Me? I'm what you wished you were. I don't believe the government has ANY role in my buying or selling decisions... Let the free market rule.

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?

Good ,then I'll use massive amt's of growth hormones on the diseased beef I raise and you'll gladly purchase it from me .

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Except for health care. How about assault weapons?

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh... I don't want 'em to regulate my insurance company OR my gun store. I want to be able to BUY whatever the market offers. Should I be able to buy a bazooka? Uhhh, YES! I actually BELIEVE in the Constitution.

excon

How about regulating where convicted sex offenders are able to live, hang out or work? Or what doctors are allowed to practice... same with lawyers. Or who can drive schoolbuses or other means of public transportation.