Gay pride parade 'bumping and grinding' offend Tea Party hero & NY governor hopeful

Am I to understand that you don't agree with a government, local, state or federal wanting to force McDonalds to remove the toys from Happy Meals but you have no problem with self same government forcing business owners to ban smoking in their establishments? Can you say hypocrisy?

And for the record, I oppose BOTH. The real "conservative" position.
No that's the libertardian position. They are not the same issues. A person has to choose to consume a Micky D burger before it can effect him in any way, whereas a person does not get to choose to breathe exhaust from a smoker. :D
 
If I were your next door neighbor and I ran a pipe from my property that pumped hazardous waste on to your property, would you take 'The real "conservative" position'?
Really? You sat at your computer for how long before you came up with this drivel? If I let people smoke on my property you don't have to come to my property. If I want to put toys in the kids meals YOU don't have to buy one for your kids. It is the left that has decided that individuals should abdicate their right to make their own decisions. I don't like Cracker Barrel food. I imagine there are ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of us that don't. Does that mean if we can get people elected I can get laws passed so that really bad attempts at southern cooking can be outlawed. Hell have you seen the people who eat at cracker barrel. It is obvious the food is bad for them and makes them fat ass tubs of lard. So lets make it illegal to sell that food? Fuck no, let the market decide. I don't need nanny staters deciding for me.
 
Really, then what analogy would you come up with for people that don't smoke cigarettes having to breath in someone else's carcinogens?
I would say you are certainly free to leave the premises of whatever establishment that may be.
 
No that's the libertardian position. They are not the same issues. A person has to choose to consume a Micky D burger before it can effect him in any way, whereas a person does not get to choose to breathe exhaust from a smoker. :D

Yeah, SM, but the same argument can be made about going to a place to eat. If they allow smoking you don't have to patronize the place. I agree with smoking bans where non smokers may be required to patronize i.e. a government building; an office; etc.
 
Really? You sat at your computer for how long before you came up with this drivel? If I let people smoke on my property you don't have to come to my property. If I want to put toys in the kids meals YOU don't have to buy one for your kids. It is the left that has decided that individuals should abdicate their right to make their own decisions. I don't like Cracker Barrel food. I imagine there are ten of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of us that don't. Does that mean if we can get people elected I can get laws passed so that really bad attempts at southern cooking can be outlawed. Hell have you seen the people who eat at cracker barrel. It is obvious the food is bad for them and makes them fat ass tubs of lard. So lets make it illegal to sell that food? Fuck no, let the market decide. I don't need nanny staters deciding for me.

There we go...the right wing polarized rant. The ALL or NONE, ALL black or ALL white dribble. Here is a caveat that you ignored. Children are dependents, not adults, so they don't have the same lack of rules that you or I do. And they don't have the same privileges or responsibilities either. We could allow children to walk to school and cross our streets without crossing guards. And we could end the annoyance of having to slow down in school zones or stop for school buses. Children are not able to discern that a corporation is using a toy to lure them into ingesting garbage. NO ONE says McDonald's should stop offering the Happy Meal, just remove the HOOK.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. I am not ON your property, my carcinogens ARE. Tough shit for you.
 
Yeah, SM, but the same argument can be made about going to a place to eat. If they allow smoking you don't have to patronize the place. I agree with smoking bans where non smokers may be required to patronize i.e. a government building; an office; etc.
Yes but its a public health issue. In order to comply with its permit, issued by the local health department, they must provide a healthy atmosphere. I've designed commercial kitchens before and there's all kinds of requirements, all geared towards keeping the patrons healthy. During operations that also means clean floor, clean kitchen, water above a certain temperature, air-dry all dishes, employees wash hands, and now, thankfully, patrons don't smoke. :cig:
 
There we go...the right wing polarized rant. The ALL or NONE, ALL black or ALL white dribble. Here is a caveat that you ignored. Children are dependents, not adults, so they don't have the same lack of rules that you or I do. And they don't have the same privileges or responsibilities either. We could allow children to walk to school and cross our streets without crossing guards. And we could end the annoyance of having to slow down in school zones or stop for school buses. Children are not able to discern that a corporation is using a toy to lure them into ingesting garbage. NO ONE says McDonald's should stop offering the Happy Meal, just remove the HOOK.
BTW, you didn't answer my question. I am not ON your property, my carcinogens ARE. Tough shit for you.

On the one hand, you make the point that children are not responsible enough to make decisions for themselves, and that they do not have the same rights and privileges that adults do.

Then you say McDonalds should remove the Hook? Kids have to convince their parents to take them to McDonalds. Their parents should have the child's best interest in mind. After all, it is not McDonald's job to raise your child.

The toy is meant to entice children. The parents get to make the rules. If the child eats too many happy meals, the blame lies with the person providing transportation to McDonalds, who then buys the food and allows the child to eat the junk and have the toy. Blame the parents for this particular issue. Not McDonalds.
 
Yes but its a public health issue. In order to comply with its permit, issued by the local health department, they must provide a healthy atmosphere. I've designed commercial kitchens before and there's all kinds of requirements, all geared towards keeping the patrons healthy. During operations that also means clean floor, clean kitchen, water above a certain temperature, air-dry all dishes, employees wash hands, and now, thankfully, patrons don't smoke. :cig:

If I open my own restaurant, in my own building, and hire only smokers. Then I post signs outside and in all my advertising stating that this is a smoker's restaurant. What right does the nanny-state have to come in and force me to abandon my clientele??

No one forces a nonsmoker to enter a smoking establishment. If you don't like second hand smoke, don't go where they let smokers smoke.

The laws forcing all restaurants to be nonsmoking is nanny-state, libtard, overprotectionism. It is certainly not a view held by a true conservative. Conservatives want LESS intrusion into private lives.
 
I know that it is a form of authoritarianism and that authoritarianism not a liberal trait, and I bet you don't know that 'While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.'
Robert Altmeyer
What rubbish. Mao and Lenin might disagree with this silly statement. Authoritarianism doesn't have the boundaries you imply.
 
Really, then what analogy would you come up with for people that don't smoke cigarettes having to breath in someone else's carcinogens?
If they had a choice whether to enter that area? I'd call them suffering the consequences of their decision.
 
On the one hand, you make the point that children are not responsible enough to make decisions for themselves, and that they do not have the same rights and privileges that adults do.

Then you say McDonalds should remove the Hook? Kids have to convince their parents to take them to McDonalds. Their parents should have the child's best interest in mind. After all, it is not McDonald's job to raise your child.

The toy is meant to entice children. The parents get to make the rules. If the child eats too many happy meals, the blame lies with the person providing transportation to McDonalds, who then buys the food and allows the child to eat the junk and have the toy. Blame the parents for this particular issue. Not McDonalds.

You won't get an argument from me that parents bear the brunt of responsibility, but it's not that simple. Childhood obesity incurs a cost on all of us.

-------------------------------------

Childhood Obesity Costs


Obesity Related Health Care Costs are Soaring


Americans spend about 9% of their total medical costs on obesity-related illnesses, [1] and that amount will only increase if the current trends continue.

High personal costs: Severely overweight people spend more on health care and medicine. In fact, they often spend more on health care than current smokers. [2]

Direct national cost: The direct costs of treating obesity-related diseases are estimated at $61 billion. [3]

Indirect national cost: The indirect costs of obesity (such as missed work days and future earnings losses) have been estimated at $56 billion dollars per year. [3]

Rising disability claims: Being severely overweight makes it much harder to manage basic activities like bathing, dressing and getting out of bed. The number of people filing for disability is rising rapidly, and the fastest growing cause of disability is type 2 diabetes. [4]

Economic Disparities

Childhood obesity is having a larger impact on children from low-income families.

Poor health care: Over 1.6 million children were unable to get needed medical care because the family could not afford it. Medical care for an additional 3 million children was delayed because of worry about the cost. [32]

Limited access: In part because they lack access to healthy food and sports facilities, children from lower incomes are more likely to be overweight or obese. [33]

Fewer opportunities to stay healthy: In a study of 200 neighborhoods, there were three times as many supermarkets in wealthy neighborhoods as in poor neighborhoods [34] leaving fast food restaurants as the most convenient meal option for many low income families.

Citations

1. Finkelstein EA, Fiebelkorn IC, Wang G. National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: how much, and who’s paying? Health Affairs (Millwood). 2003; Suppl Web Exclusives; W3-219-W3-226. Available at: National Medical Spending Attributable To Overweight And Obesity: How Much, And Who's Paying? -- Finkelstein et al., 10.1377/hlthaff.w3.219 -- Health Affairs. Accessed October 26, 2007.

2. Obesity and Disability. Santa Monica, California: Rand Health; 2004.

3. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2008 Update, American Heart Association.

4. Obesity and Disability. Santa Monica, California: Rand Health; 2004.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital and Health Statistics. Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2004. Vol. 2006-1555. Hyattsville, Maryland: DHHS, 2005

6. Powell LM, Slater S, Chaloupka FJ. The Relationship between physical activity settings and race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine 2004; 1(2):135-44.

7. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. neighborhood characteristic associated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med 2002;22 (1): 23-9

The Cost of Childhood Obesity - Newsweek

The Skyrocketing Cost of Obesity: It’s Everybody’s Business


Child Obesity – Astonishing Facts

----------------------------------------------

This has even become a national security issue

Most Americans not Fit to Join - Military.com

The Census Bureau estimates that the overall pool of people who would be in the military's prime target age has shrunk as American society ages. There were 1 million fewer 18- to 24-year olds in 2004 than in 2000, the agency says.

The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.

Other factors include:

-the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.

-a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.

-a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.

Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.

Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.

Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.

That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.
 
No one will argue that obesity isn't a serious issue. But legislating what a privately owned restaurant can and cannot do is simply not the answer.
 
No one will argue that obesity isn't a serious issue. But legislating what a privately owned restaurant can and cannot do is simply not the answer.

Then I guess if privately owned restaurants want to serve dogs, cats and horses it's no one's business.

I 'get' the individual responsibility mantra, but if it applies to you and me, then it has to apply to everyone, including corporations.

Maybe you should learn about our founding fathers and the strict regulations they imposed on corporations like individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good.

I grew up in the liberal dominated era of this country. It was a period where individual freedoms were greatly expanded, but public protection was also expanded. President Kennedy would always speak about the obligations of the advantaged to serve not only their private interest but the public interest as well.



Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson said, what good is a political party unless it is serving a great national purpose? And what good is a private college or university unless it is serving a great national purpose? The Library being constructed today, this college, itself--all of this, of course, was not done merely to give this school's graduates an advantage, an economic advantage, in the life struggle. It does do that. But in return for that, in return for the great opportunity which society gives the graduates of this and related schools, it seems to me incumbent upon this and other schools' graduates to recognize their responsibility to the public interest.

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.



Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

Listen to this speech
 
Then I guess if privately owned restaurants want to serve dogs, cats and horses it's no one's business.

I 'get' the individual responsibility mantra, but if it applies to you and me, then it has to apply to everyone, including corporations.

Maybe you should learn about our founding fathers and the strict regulations they imposed on corporations like individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good.

I grew up in the liberal dominated era of this country. It was a period where individual freedoms were greatly expanded, but public protection was also expanded. President Kennedy would always speak about the obligations of the advantaged to serve not only their private interest but the public interest as well.



Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson said, what good is a political party unless it is serving a great national purpose? And what good is a private college or university unless it is serving a great national purpose? The Library being constructed today, this college, itself--all of this, of course, was not done merely to give this school's graduates an advantage, an economic advantage, in the life struggle. It does do that. But in return for that, in return for the great opportunity which society gives the graduates of this and related schools, it seems to me incumbent upon this and other schools' graduates to recognize their responsibility to the public interest.

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.



Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

Listen to this speech

The simple fact is that expanding the public protections will necessarily restrict public freedoms.

And the issue of smoking in privately owned restaurants is one in which individual freedom has been restricted.
 
The simple fact is that expanding the public protections will necessarily restrict public freedoms.

And the issue of smoking in privately owned restaurants is one in which individual freedom has been restricted.

What about the freedoms of the non smokers to breath air without carcinogens and harmful chemicals? For something to be called a 'freedom' exercising it shouldn't be at the expense of someone else's freedom or to the detriment of someone else.

Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke
 
What about the freedoms of the non smokers to breath air without carcinogens and harmful chemicals? For something to be called a 'freedom' exercising it shouldn't be at the expense of someone else's freedom or to the detriment of someone else.

The freedom of nonsmokers to breath air without carcinogens and harmful chemicals goes right along with their freedom not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

If nonsmokers were forced to enter the restaurant, I could see it. This is why I have no problem with smoking bans in gov't bldgs, public transport ect.

But a privately owned restaurant is a completely different matter. In this case, the gov't has overstepped its bounds.
 
The freedom of nonsmokers to breath air without carcinogens and harmful chemicals goes right along with their freedom not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

If nonsmokers were forced to enter the restaurant, I could see it. This is why I have no problem with smoking bans in gov't bldgs, public transport ect.

But a privately owned restaurant is a completely different matter. In this case, the gov't has overstepped its bounds.

Yea I know, and the non smoking employees are free to go find another job. Where does this right wing narcissism end?

There comes a point where the word 'freedom' no longer applies and it instead is best described as a restriction of someone else's rights.

If the establishment is a restaurant, their purpose is to serve food. So smokers have the right to walk outside and have a cigarette. Even though the restaurant is privately owned, they are still subject to public health standards and regulations. So chemicals from tobacco smoke could permeate the food.

Let's do it this way:

So at a restaurant the smokers have the freedom to go outside, smoke and re-enter.

And if the establishment is a smoking parlor, then non smokers can walk outside to breath fresh air.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top