Ask Me Help Desk - Another nanny state ban?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

How about regulating where convicted sex offenders are able to live, hang out or work?

Hello liberals:

Nope, and Nope!

Use what you will on your beef. It'll kill people and the lame stream media will report it. I'll read about it, and no - I ain't going to be your customer... That protection doesn't involve the nanny state... It involves the FREE MARKET at work.

If sex offenders need to be watched, they shouldn't be out. I have no problem with putting 'em away for good the FIRST time.

See you, liberals.

excon

Ex,
I'm on to you.

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello liberals:

Nope, and Nope!

Use what you will on your beef. It'll kill people and the lame stream media will report it. I'll read about it, and no - I ain't gonna be your customer... That protection doesn't involve the nanny state... It involves the FREE MARKET at work.
excon

No skin off my nose . I'll sell my beef at discount prices and I'll sell it out . I'll give back rewards to purchasers ; I'll sell it to people who don't read or pay attention to the news (a growing segment of the population) .They won't know about the harmful affects until long after I've vacated the farm and retired.

The problem is not regulation of the market.. it is useless ,counterproductive and excessive regulations that are the problem. I don't know of any free market conservative who thinks there should be absolutes like you are arguing for... and in truth ,I don't really think you believe the position you are taking on this issue . If there is any role for government it is in public safety .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

No skin off my nose . I'll sell my beef at discount prices and I'll sell it out . I'll give back rewards to purchasers ; I'll sell it to people who don't read or pay attention to the news (a growing segment of the population) .They won't know about the harmful affects until long after I've vacated the farm and retired.

If there is any role for government it is in public safety .

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree. I'm not an anarchist. Certainly, the criminal code would still exist. In my free market world, you'd STILL be in jail for killing people.

Besides, you're not saying, are you, that in our current heavily regulated environment, business is PREVENTED from adulterating their products?? Really?? Dude!

excon

Quote:

In my free market world, you'd STILL be in jail for killing people.

How could I be jailed for utilizing a legal ingredient ? There is no such a thing as an adulterated product unless there is a law associated with it ;even if it's only laws requiring accurate labelling . It is still government intervention in the "caveat emptor" world .

How about regulations preventing pot smokers from driving Subway trains... or any passenger carrying conveyance like Buses, planes etc..

Because I can quote cases where deaths have resulted from a stoned operator. JUST in the Washington DC Metro system

Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth, etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or...

There is not any evidence of a connection between children eating a happy meal and childhood obesity . That is why the attack against Micky D's by the clueless San Fran leaders is wrong . What they are doing is favoring other fast food places that do not include toys with the meal... it's not even that these other restaurants are offering a healthier alternative. Micky D's and Burger King should take this action to court .

Or they could sell the toy for the price of a meal and give the burger ,fries and drink away for the purchase of the toy. The toys are sure to be a hit at the Folsom Street Fair.

I hear Michelle is pushing for them to replace the happy meal with the McWagyu

The problem with kids being fat... is they are being fed too much and too much of the wrong things by their parents.

When did NO become a dirty word... and when did responsible parents start to take their kids to McDonalds often enough for them to become grossly overweight as a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is not any evidence of a connection between children eating a happy meal and childhood obesity .

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry. The feds DON'T need evidence. I hear they're producing a film called "French Fry Maddness". No, of course, its not true, but that hasn't stopped 'em before. As long as they can LIE to ban stuff, and it's JUST FINE WITH YOU, I'm not feeling your pain...

excon

You mean like Al Gores... An inconvienient truth... which is anything but. Or any other movie that moron Director produced.

Hello smoothy:

Try to focus... Do I understand that you support the nanny state ban on marijuana, but decry the ban on happy meal toys?

Aren't YOU the guy who made a thread called inconsistency and liberals?? I think you did. Can you see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your position? I don't think you can.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

Try to focus... Do I understand that you support the nanny state ban on marijuana, but decry the ban on happy meal toys?

Aren't YOU the guy who made a thread called inconsistency and liberals??? I think you did. Can you see the hypocrisy and inconsistency in your position? I don't think you can.

excon

Illegal drug use has NOTHING in common with banning plastic toys for kids.

You never answered my question about if you agreed with regulating Public Transportation operators regarding drug use... because we have had multiple cases of Metro Transit accidents with multiple fatalities that were directly caused by marijuana use... as manditory drug tests after the accident proved they were stoned. And it happens quite often if I can pull multiple instances JUST here in my area it happens other places too. You just won't hear the pro pot lobby reporting on it.

Now if you want to discuss how the right to put lives at risk driving stoned is equal to a fast food restaurant giving a plastic toy in a meal to a child the kids parents voluntarily bought, I'd like to hear it...

Because I don't remember Public Transit Passengers being asked of it was cool for the driver to smoke a doobie when they boarded... and no... if it was a bottle of Jack Daniels instead it would be no different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I hear Michelle is pushing for them to replace the happy meal with the McWagyu

With a side of yams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Illegal drug use has NOTHING in common with banning plastic toys for kids.

Hello again, smoothy:

The two positions, i.e. banning marijuana, for our own good, and banning toys, for our own good, have NOTHING in common with each other... Right...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

The two positions, i.e. banning marijuana, for our own good, and banning toys, for our own good, have NOTHING in common with each other... Right....

excon

YOU might want to be on a bus, plane or train opperated by someone stoned... or driving on the highway next to one... the rest of us don't. You support legalizing drunk driving too?

Now what THAT has to do with a plastic toy in a meal that hurts nobody..?

How about hunting trips on the border to pick off illegals?

I think the Feds packaging safaris for that can bring in money to the treasury and put a dent in the illegals problem both. After all, why regulate anything... lets have a free-for-all.

Lead paint... Chinese lead toys... Federal safety regulations... etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

YOU might want to be on a bus, plane or train opperated by someone stoned......or driving on the highway next to one.....the rest of us don't.

Now what THAT has to do with a plastic toy in a meal that hurts nobody....???????????????

Hello again, smoothy:

I got news for you. 25 million people smoke pot regularly. Don't you think you've been on a highway with one or two, or maybe been on a bus with a stoned driver? Did you live? Pot is NOT alcohol. In fact, it's actually marijuana that doesn't hurt anybody, but a plastic toy could kill a child...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I got news for you. 25 million people smoke pot regularly. Don't you think you've been on a highway with one or two, or maybe been on a bus with a stoned driver? Did you live? Pot is NOT alcohol. In fact, it's actually marijuana that doesn't hurt anybody, but a plastic toy could kill a child...

excon

What complete and total BS...

Pot does effect reactions... simular to alcohol... and in fact Stoned people KILL others... just like any drunk.

But then... you are far from objective about drugs... you simply discard any evidence that disproves any claims the stoners make...

And there have been SERIOUS accidents caused by Stoned operators... PROVEN by drug tests. Not one... not two... but many. There have been several Metrobus and Metrorail accidents HERE that the drivers tested positive for Pot use after the crash... not all survived.

But then... if your drug of choice was Cocaine... you would want that made legal too... or Heroine. There are far more legitimate uses that are proven by non-junkies for Opiates than there are for Pot... most of which are harped by the pot smokers themselves... so no... not a chance they have a bias and agenda to push their propaganda...

Cigarettes have never hurt a sole either... nor has beer... or Whiskey... or crack... hell lets just legalize streetwalking. Why regulate Teachers... lets let released rapists work in women's centers... schools... etc... after all, you think the Government has no business regulationg anything. Like drilling for oil off the pacific coast. I'm all for Drilling for oil off the west coast... they use lots of fuel... so... no drilling allowed... then no fuel goes there.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you'd like to start a drug thread, I'll join. But, for purposes of THIS thread, let's recap; you're fine with the nanny state banning stuff, as long as you THINK it should be banned. But if you DON'T think it should be banned, it should NOT be banned.

Does that about sum it up? Okee dokee.

excon

Actually Drugs isn't a nanny state issue... just because a State may say its legal doesn't make it so... Federal Law outlaws it and trumps any State law. So California can't technically make it legal in any way shape or form when it's a violation of federal law.

Why don't you just say, you like to get stoned... want to get stoned, and like to drive stoned...

And not argue its like drinking Gatorade.

Now... read what you just said...

Because you just did EXACTLY what you are accusing me of. Only I have better reasons for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Drugs isn't a nanny state issue.... Only I have better reasons for it.

Hello again, smoothy:

Your spin on it, doesn't make it so. The fact is, you're FINE with the state banning stuff, YOU think SHOULD be banned, but they're WRONG to ban stuff you DON'T think should be banned... And that should be so, because ----- you have good reasons.

Dude!

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Your spin on it, doesn't make it so. The fact is, you're FINE with the state banning stuff, YOU think SHOULD be banned, but they're WRONG to ban stuff you DON'T think should be banned... And that should be so, because ----- you have good reasons.

Dude!

excon

Its NOT a spin... its a fact. NO state in the United states can legalize anything that is already Illegal under federal Law...

They CAN enhance that, making more things illegal but they can't make them legal when a higher authority dictates otherwise. Dry towns are examples. Or a Dry State. Don't see the ACLU harping about that do you?

And listen to Mr. Hypocrite... yapping about how HIS views should be law... when they aren't trying to tell others that their perspective when it IS the same as current law has no merit. Because you have your reasons...

Sorry, but as mnuch as you may want it... Comminsts don't run this country... and thus... ONE allowed viewpoint doesn't exist. And you can't toss the opposition in a Gulag as much as the Dems have wet dreams about doing so.

Yeah you have the right to HOPE otherwise... but the fact remains that the law says Illegal drug use is... well Illegal.

And its been that way since way before either of us were born. For Damn good reason.

You notice the thought police aren't knocking on your door right now... Think about it a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Its NOT a spin...its a fact. NO state in the United states can legalize anything that is alreadty Illegal under federal Law....

Hello again, smoothy:

Here we go, off the rails once again... Please pay attention... We're talking about the IDEA of the nanny state banning stuff - not drug laws or states rights issues, or the Constitution, or federal law... We're talking about an IDEA - at least we were.

The OP was dissing the "nanny state". I simply mentioned that you guys LIKE the nanny state when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't. It's like our discussion the other day about "big" government... You LIKE "big" government when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't.

It's no more difficult than that.

excon

:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth, etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or...

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Thanks to a bipartisan anti-smoking statute, the nanny state's FDA has come up with some nice images to take up half the space of a pack of cigarettes, corpses, rotten lungs and teeth, etc.

Next up if they haven't banned Happy Meals, burgers and fries altogether - images of bypass surgery on your fries and 900 lb people on your hamburger wrapper. Or...

The Brits tried something similar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Here we go, off the rails once again... Please pay attention... We're talking about the IDEA of the nanny state banning stuff - not drug laws or states rights issues, or the Constitution, or federal law... We're talking about an IDEA - at least we were.

The OP was dissing the "nanny state". I simply mentioned that you guys LIKE the nanny state when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't. It's like our discussion the other day about "big" government... You LIKE "big" government when it suits your purposes, even though you SAY you don't.

It's no more difficult than that.

excon

And I have no problem with States banning certain things... while not others. You for example LIKE regulations pertaining to sex offenders... You LIKE regulations that will transfer wealth from those that earn it to those who are too lazy.

You like regulations that force Half the population that works hard to not only pay for their own health are... but for the other half too.

You want a PRIME example of NannyState... look no further than the Obama Administration and Obamacare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Brits tried something similiar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

Is there a human being walking this earth in an advanced culture that DOESN'T know Smoking causes cancer?

And if they don't... WHY? And if they are that stupid to know what it does, why are they allowed to walk free.

Now if they do know and still smoke... its because they don't give a damn... yeah it probibly IS a hard habit to break... but if they don't try then whose fault is it.

Everyone has seen those pictures by now... except for those in a few third world locations that are totally illiterate and have never seen a TV... the rest are fully aware today. And yeah... a quit Smoking Hotline would have better results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Brits tried something similiar
Death (cigarette) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

Australia has led the way when it comes to grisly photos on cigarette packets. These photos and aggressive anti-smoking programms have seen a significant decline in the number of smokers.

Australia has, and will have some of the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the world. By 2012 all cigarettes will be in plain packets ( no logos allowed). An increase in cigarette tax will go directly in health care.

Upon reading posts about 'the nanny state' one thing puzzles me above everything else. Your constitution guarantees you, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Our constitution doesn't have these type of rights yet, in Australia we see universal health care as necessary for 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. In other words, we see it as a fundamental right in the same way we see free speech as a fundamental right.

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.

Hello TUT:

Blows me away too. We certainly believe that a citizen has a RIGHT to have a fire in his HOUSE put out - but not one in his belly... Makes no sense..

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.

And as far as I know every hospital in America has to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. We've been there and discussed this. NO ONE is refused health care in America and insurance coverage is not a fundamental right.

So why don't most people just stop paying those crazy monthly premiums and just go to the hospital for free?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And as far as I know every hospital in America has to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. We've been there and discussed this. NO ONE is refused health care in America and insurance coverage is not a fundamental right.

Hello again, Steve:

I never did let you get away with your misstatements, and I'm not going to start NOW.

You get EMERGENCY treatment in the hospital. You don't get LONG TERM treatment. People who don't have insurance and who need LONG TERM treatment, in this country, DIED before this health care law. They suffered the nations DEATH PANEL. TUT is simply pointing out our very own DEATH PANEL, that you seem to want to go BACK to.

You don't get cancer treatment in the emergency room... You don't get your appendix taken out in the emergency room... You DIE if you need that stuff. How is it, that you DON'T know that??

excon

Compassionate Conservatism, Texas Style ? Progressive Nation

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I think adding a 'quit smoking hotline' # on the package would be more effective .

I have no doubt these images would be somewhat effective. In your face offensive, but effective. But if they're going to be consistent and fair, I do expect such graphic warnings on food packaging, alcohol and prescription labels.

On all those wheels of cheese they're pushing on us they should add images of clogged arteries and bypass surgery. Every glass of Pinot Noir served at the White House should be plastered with images of roadside memorials and drunk driving accidents. And goodness, I can't even begin to describe the graphics that should be on a prescription bottle of Lyrica.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I have no doubt these images would be somewhat effective. In your face offensive, but effective. But if they're going to be consistent and fair, I do expect such graphic warnings on food packaging, alcohol and prescription labels.

On all those wheels of cheese they're pushing on us they should add images of clogged arteries and bypass surgery. Every glass of Pinot Noir served at the White House should be plastered with images of roadside memorials and drunk driving accidents. And goodness, I can't even begin to describe the graphics that should be on a prescription bottle of Lyrica.

One can enjoy a glass of fine wine with a meal. I can have some grated cheese on my pasta. Can you think of any benefits of smoking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Australia has led the way when it comes to grisly photos on cigarette packets. These photos and aggressive anti-smoking programms have seen a significant decline in the number of smokers.

Australia has, and will have some of the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the world. By 2012 all cigarettes will be in plain packets ( no logos allowed). An increase in cigarette tax will go directly in health care.

Upon reading posts about 'the nanny state' one thing puzzles me above everything else. Your constitution guarantees you, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Our constitution doesn't have these type of rights yet, in Australia we see universal health care as necessary for 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. In other words, we see it as a fundamental right in the same way we see free speech as a fundamental right.

You have such rights in your constitution yet you seem to reject any idea that health care is a fundamental right for everyone regardless of their capacity to pay.

Tut

The problem is almost half the population expects the other half to pay so they can get it free. THat means the half that works the hardest has to pay twice as much to support the lazy half.

Fact is if you went into any Hospital emergency room... they would treat you for free.

They could NOT refuse treatment. That is something they don't want everyone to know.

And incidentally... there is NO country on the earth with socialized medicine that doesn't practice some form or quota and rationing of certain services.

And yes I can click off a list of close personal friiends and family that are now dead because of European socialized medicine that would likely be alive right now if they had been in the USA. And yes I've seen the insides of European hospitals way too often as well as having been a patient in an American hospital a few times... I'd much rather pay to be in ours than be in one of theirs for free.

At least in ours if you need it now you get it now. Except for organ transplants there is no waiting list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I never did let you get away with your misstatements, and I'm not going to start NOW.

I didn't make any misstatement, I was 100 percent correct.

Quote:

You get EMERGENCY treatment in the hospital. You don't get LONG TERM treatment.

And your state or community didn't already take care of those who needed a safety net? Mine does, always has and you know this because we've discussed the fact that my daughter was brought HERE to Amarillo, TX in the year 2000 to be treated for AIDS and all of the opportunistic infections she had with it. Her life was saved by our community hospital, her meds were taken care of by the State of Texas, and a PRIVATE physician provided her long-term care, so enough of this bullsh*t that I don't know what I'm talking about. OK?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fact is if you went into any Hospital emergency room...they would treat you for free.

They could NOT refuse treatment.

So why doesn't everyone do that then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

At least in ours you need it now you get it now.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you need a cancer removed, you DON'T get it now. You DON'T get it EVER. You DIE. Do you not understand this?

excon