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

WinterBorn said:
Another example of nanny-state liberalism.
Click to expand...

Nanny state? Really...Liberals have been pretty much outside the halls of power since the late 1960's. The liberal dominated era I grew up in from the New Deal through the Great Society saw a large increase in freedoms and liberties for the common man, a large increase in the middle class and middle class wealth, social programs that drastically reduced poverty in our nation and helped millions of Americans, that 'We, the People' part of the Constitution. And especially the elders that paved the way for us were able to live out their lives with health and dignity to the end.

What is the conservative legacy?

US_incarceration_timeline.gif


incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif


The conservative 'Nanny State'...

britannica_prison.jpg



Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke
 
All that is very true, but irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

If I own a restaurant, and want to allow people to smoke inside it, the gov't has no business meddling and saying I cannot.

This is not a public health issue that needs legislating. If that were the case, then outlaw tobacco completely.
 
Damn Yankee said:
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
Click to expand...
No, they choose to go into the restraunt that allows smoking. Don't go in, don't eat there. Same as not eating at McDonalds.
 
Bfgrn said:
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
Click to expand...
Don't go in the fucking restaurant you idiot. Fuck why do people have to cater to any of us? If they want business they will cater to those people that will spend the most money there. You have no RIGHT to eat anywhere you want so that you can make people not smoke, not wear perfume, not fart. This is where you nanny staters on the left and the right go fucking loony. You think you have the freedom to make people conform to you. If they don't, well by god there oughta be a law.
 
Bfgrn said:
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
Click to expand...

Sorry buddy, but even though I am a non-smoker, I would have to side with Winter and Soc on this one.

Don't want to breathe smoke? don't go in.

Also, depending on where you live, cigarette smoke may be the least of your worries. Here in H-town we breathe in more carcinogens everyday, spewed from the refineries, than we'd EVER take in, even in the smokiest of restaurants.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is typically the stance of a smoker.
 
Socrtease said:
Don't go in the fucking restaurant you idiot. Fuck why do people have to cater to any of us? If they want business they will cater to those people that will spend the most money there. You have no RIGHT to eat anywhere you want so that you can make people not smoke, not wear perfume, not fart. This is where you nanny staters on the left and the right go fucking loony. You think you have the freedom to make people conform to you. If they don't, well by god there oughta be a law.
Click to expand...

This is the "people who know what's mo' better for you than you do" crowd at work and they typically reside smack dab in the middle of the liberal party.

I don't smoke, but I believe if you are going to limit the rights of people killing themselves with cigarettes you open yourself to doing the same with people who gorge themselves on twinkies and fried food.

How about nutrition check points in front of grocery stores and fast food restaurants? If you're over a certain weight, you have to have an escort into the store.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
This is the "people who know what's mo' better for you than you do" crowd at work and they typically reside smack dab in the middle of the liberal party.

I don't smoke, but I believe if you are going to limit the rights of people killing themselves with cigarettes you open yourself to doing the same with people who gorge themselves on twinkies and fried food.

How about nutrition check points in front of grocery stores and fast food restaurants? If you're over a certain weight, you have to have an escort into the store.
Click to expand...
But this is where you buddy Southern Yankee is. He thinks that it is perfectly ok to tell the owner of an establishment that he can't let people smoke in his business. And you are right it is no different than regulating people that gorge themselves or buy their pudgy little fucking kids happy meals all the time. I have 5 children, not ONE of them is overweight. I take them to McDonalds once every 3 or 4 months. The fact that they have toys in their food does not somehow force me to go there. I can, and DO avoid the place. It is the same for smoking. If someone lets people smoke in their bar or cafe and you aren't a smoker, DON'T FUCKING GO THERE! Why is this so hard to grasp? If enough people don't go then the owner may have to change her smoking stance. That is fine with me since it is her business. The government needs to stay the fuck out of it.

Right now in NYC they are debating a bill that will make it against the law to smoke in a park, on a beach or in public plazas. Basically putting outdoor smoking off limits. The "science" on second hand smoke is tenuous, the science on second hand smoke outdoors is non-existent. This is not about health it is about control. It needs to stop. Smoking will only be the first casualty. They will come for the big macs, the twinkies, the chips and the doughnuts. Things the government should stay out of.
 
Socrtease said:
But this is where you buddy Southern Yankee is. He thinks that it is perfectly ok to tell the owner of an establishment that he can't let people smoke in his business. And you are right it is no different than regulating people that gorge themselves or buy their pudgy little fucking kids happy meals all the time. I have 5 children, not ONE of them is overweight. I take them to McDonalds once every 3 or 4 months. The fact that they have toys in their food does not somehow force me to go there. I can, and DO avoid the place. It is the same for smoking. If someone lets people smoke in their bar or cafe and you aren't a smoker, DON'T FUCKING GO THERE! Why is this so hard to grasp? If enough people don't go then the owner may have to change her smoking stance. That is fine with me since it is her business. The government needs to stay the fuck out of it.

Right now in NYC they are debating a bill that will make it against the law to smoke in a park, on a beach or in public plazas. Basically putting outdoor smoking off limits. The "science" on second hand smoke is tenuous, the science on second hand smoke outdoors is non-existent. This is not about health it is about control. It needs to stop. Smoking will only be the first casualty. They will come for the big macs, the twinkies, the chips and the doughnuts. Things the government should stay out of.
Click to expand...

Listen, Soc, you don't like me and yet I can be civil with you and discuss issues. I don't need to drag the people you call friend that I may not like or agree with into it and suggest that because you are friendly with them you ascribe to their beliefs in everything.

Take your shots. I am a big girl and I can handle them, but this was a post directed at you based on something you said I agreed with. You bringing Southernman into it says more about your issues with him than anything. so have at it if it makes you feel better.

I agree the government should stay the fvck out of private establishments. I agree they shouldn't be telling us what health insurance to buy or what fvcking appliances we should have in our basements.

My point, in case you missed it, was be careful opening the door to shit like this cuz they're going to be walking through it!
 
usaloyal2theend said:
So you are saying that people who smoke don't believe in protection of individual freedoms?

Odder yet.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said. My argument has always been about individual rights. That you made the comment about it typically being the stance of a smoker was odd. As if protecting the rights of individuals was something smokers did more often.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, that is not what I said. My argument has always been about individual rights. That you made the comment about it typically being the stance of a smoker was odd. As if protecting the rights of individuals was something smokers did more often.
Click to expand...

No, that is your interpretation of my comment.
 
Threedee said:
Its my stance, I'm not a smoker. I light-up a few with my smoker friends/aquaintances, annually, and that's as far as I am willing to go.
Click to expand...

So? You still looking for a fight with me 3D?

It's my stance as well, and I do not smoke, but I know quite a few people who smoke here in California and I can say with complete confidence that smokers have little to no rights here. They would love to have establishments that designate them as being smoker friendly and are unsuccessful in many situations and all of the ones I know of.

Every situation is controlled by local government. They will not allow smoking bars, and hotels in my area and I believe it has also been outlawed in The City.

A perfect example of the government deciding what you do with your health and how you live your life and it will not stop here.
 
Socrtease said:
No, they choose to go into the restraunt that allows smoking. Don't go in, don't eat there. Same as not eating at McDonalds.
Click to expand...
Except its a matter of public health. Local governments issue permits and will shut them down if they are unsanitary. That obviously includes fat turds like you exhausting smoke through bung licking lips. :clink:
 
Socrtease said:
But this is where you buddy Southern Yankee is. He thinks that it is perfectly ok to tell the owner of an establishment that he can't let people smoke in his business. And you are right it is no different than regulating people that gorge themselves or buy their pudgy little fucking kids happy meals all the time. I have 5 children, not ONE of them is overweight. I take them to McDonalds once every 3 or 4 months. The fact that they have toys in their food does not somehow force me to go there. I can, and DO avoid the place. It is the same for smoking. If someone lets people smoke in their bar or cafe and you aren't a smoker, DON'T FUCKING GO THERE! Why is this so hard to grasp? If enough people don't go then the owner may have to change her smoking stance. That is fine with me since it is her business. The government needs to stay the fuck out of it.

Right now in NYC they are debating a bill that will make it against the law to smoke in a park, on a beach or in public plazas. Basically putting outdoor smoking off limits. The "science" on second hand smoke is tenuous, the science on second hand smoke outdoors is non-existent. This is not about health it is about control. It needs to stop. Smoking will only be the first casualty. They will come for the big macs, the twinkies, the chips and the doughnuts. Things the government should stay out of.
Click to expand...

This is a straw man. Two actually. The science on indoor second hand smoke is not in doubt. Active kids can eat an McD's several times a week and not get fat. Besides, McD's has several healthy items on their menu that even a fat turd like you can eat and not have a problem.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
So? You still looking for a fight with me 3D?

It's my stance as well, and I do not smoke, but I know quite a few people who smoke here in California and I can say with complete confidence that smokers have little to no rights here. They would love to have establishments that designate them as being smoker friendly and are unsuccessful in many situations and all of the ones I know of.

Every situation is controlled by local government. They will not allow smoking bars, and hotels in my area and I believe it has also been outlawed in The City.

A perfect example of the government deciding what you do with your health and how you live your life and it will not stop here.
Click to expand...

I can't help if you decide to play Devil's Advocate without bothering to drop us a line that you actually don't support the fascism that is smoking bans and regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top