In this thread: I destroy liberal Ideology by playing the part of a liberal

[Immanuel]

Reminds me a hell of a lot about the liberal attack on smoking in bars and hell... even your own homes.

Immie

Not this liberal. I smoke at least a pack a day.

They like to claim that every nanny statist idea is liberal. (Well at least when there is a Democrat in the WH)

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

 

[Vast LWC]

Or a more pragmatic view might be that Democrats continue to fight the 'race' or 'equality' wars because it is very big business and very profitable to them to do so. And in so doing, they keep their constituency corraled on the plantation.

Republicans take the view that the war and all the essential battles have been won and it is now time to stop fighting the war and allow the dividends of peace to kick in and allow racism becomes a distant memory. To artificially keep it alive is doing far more harm than any good.

1. How is affirmative action "profitable" for Democrats?

2. What is "the plantation" other than a right-wing talking point?

and

3. You say "Republicans take the view", referring to all Republicans, but I think that there are in fact a large range of motivations behind wanting to end affirmative action among various Republican factions, and not all of them are so noble.

I myself feel that perhaps it's time to end many facets of affirmative action. Perhaps a gradual rescinding of some of the programs is in order. However, don't let my more extreme progressive friends hear that, or they might kick me out of the Liberal club.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not this liberal. I smoke at least a pack a day.

They like to claim that every nanny statist idea is liberal. (Well at least when there is a Democrat in the WH)

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

I know people from both sides of the fence that are strong anti-smoking advocates.

The only people I know that defend smoking in bars and restaurants are Libertarian-leaning types.

Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is in bars, but I can see a problem with people smoking in restaurants, especially restaurants where small children may be in attendance.

However, as a former smoker myself, I've never had a problem with stepping outside to light up. In fact, it creates a great social atmosphere where smokers often form a bond over their habit.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not this liberal. I smoke at least a pack a day.

They like to claim that every nanny statist idea is liberal. (Well at least when there is a Democrat in the WH)

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

Show me where I claimed that! I claim that it is an authoritarian nanny statist idea and anyone who defends it is a nanny statist. If a democrat supports it, if a republican supports it, it is still a nanny statist idea.

 

[bripat9643]

It is absolutely impossible for conservative reactionaries to convincingly act like a liberal, on the other hand, they are easy to imitate, just be a callous dickhead.

If you want to behave exactly like a liberal, just take a knife and slice across your frontal lobes.

Being a callous dickhead does indeed include cursing, personal attacks and violent imagery, thanks for demonstrating.

You're the one who started the personal attacks and violent imagary, or do you think calling someone a "callous dickhead" is a compliment?

 

[Immanuel]

They like to claim that every nanny statist idea is liberal. (Well at least when there is a Democrat in the WH)

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

I know people from both sides of the fence that are strong anti-smoking advocates.

The only people I know that defend smoking in bars and restaurants are Libertarian-leaning types.

Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is in bars, but I can see a problem with people smoking in restaurants, especially restaurants where small children may be in attendance.

However, as a former smoker myself, I've never had a problem with stepping outside to light up. In fact, it creates a great social atmosphere where smokers often form a bond over their habit.

I suspect that in this case, I probably take the libertarian point of view. As far as I am concerned this decision should be left up to the individual owners of the bars and restaurants. I myself prefer not choking on smoke when I am dining. Given the choice between two different restaurants right next door to each other one inviting smokers and the other not, I would choose the non-smoking one even if they charged a premium.

However, I feel like one should let the market determine this and not someone that believes they know better than everyone else.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

They like to claim that every nanny statist idea is liberal. (Well at least when there is a Democrat in the WH)

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

Show me where I claimed that! I claim that it is an authoritarian nanny statist idea and anyone who defends it is a nanny statist. If a democrat supports it, if a republican supports it, it is still a nanny statist idea.

Thank you for clarifying that. Sorry, I mis-interpreted what you meant.

Immie

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, you are claiming that preventing smoking in bars and restaurants is a Republican idea? I don't know about in terms of politicians, but I can tell you all the people I have spoken to about this who have defended it are, in fact, liberals.

By the way, I don't smoke. I did for about one week when I was 13. I got caught and told if I wanted to smoke I had to sit in a closet and smoke a Tiparillo Cigar. If I could do that, I was welcome to smoke as long as I did not steal the cigarettes or bum them from my parents. I didn't make it through three puffs in the closet. At the age of 22, I took one puff off of the cigarette of a friend's girlfriend. I guess what they say about why tobacco compnies have to target young children is correct. That shit is nasty!

Immie

I know people from both sides of the fence that are strong anti-smoking advocates.

The only people I know that defend smoking in bars and restaurants are Libertarian-leaning types.

Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is in bars, but I can see a problem with people smoking in restaurants, especially restaurants where small children may be in attendance.

However, as a former smoker myself, I've never had a problem with stepping outside to light up. In fact, it creates a great social atmosphere where smokers often form a bond over their habit.

I suspect that in this case, I probably take the libertarian point of view. As far as I am concerned this decision should be left up to the individual owners of the bars and restaurants. I myself prefer not choking on smoke when I am dining. Given the choice between two different restaurants right next door to each other one inviting smokers and the other not, I would choose the non-smoking one even if they charged a premium.

However, I feel like one should let the market determine this and not someone that believes they know better than everyone else.

Immie

funny how so many libs are pro-pot....but they put all kinds of restrictions on tobacco...which is not even illegal....(yet)

 

[KevinWestern]

I know people from both sides of the fence that are strong anti-smoking advocates.

The only people I know that defend smoking in bars and restaurants are Libertarian-leaning types.

Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is in bars, but I can see a problem with people smoking in restaurants, especially restaurants where small children may be in attendance.

However, as a former smoker myself, I've never had a problem with stepping outside to light up. In fact, it creates a great social atmosphere where smokers often form a bond over their habit.

I suspect that in this case, I probably take the libertarian point of view. As far as I am concerned this decision should be left up to the individual owners of the bars and restaurants. I myself prefer not choking on smoke when I am dining. Given the choice between two different restaurants right next door to each other one inviting smokers and the other not, I would choose the non-smoking one even if they charged a premium.

However, I feel like one should let the market determine this and not someone that believes they know better than everyone else.

Immie

funny how so many libs are pro-pot....but they put all kinds of restrictions on tobacco...which is not even illegal....(yet)

Just want to note that I'm sure if pot were legalized, those same liberals would apply the same sorts of regulations, such as warnings, age requirements, ect to it.

Too, I think tobacco (in cigarette form, from one of the big commercial producers) contains many more carcinogens than marijuana, and are are much more habit-forming and addictive, from what I understand. So perhaps that can serve as justification for their rationale.

 

[JohnLocke1799]

No....while libertarians have some good conservative ideas.....libertarian ideology is at its roots a bastardized form of anarchy.....

Untrue. Libertarianism supports ONLY the minimum amount of government TO PREVENT anarchy.

Horse shit.

What is the evidence to support your eloquent conclusion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Or a more pragmatic view might be that Democrats continue to fight the 'race' or 'equality' wars because it is very big business and very profitable to them to do so. And in so doing, they keep their constituency corraled on the plantation.

Republicans take the view that the war and all the essential battles have been won and it is now time to stop fighting the war and allow the dividends of peace to kick in and allow racism becomes a distant memory. To artificially keep it alive is doing far more harm than any good.

1. How is affirmative action "profitable" for Democrats?

2. What is "the plantation" other than a right-wing talking point?

and

3. You say "Republicans take the view", referring to all Republicans, but I think that there are in fact a large range of motivations behind wanting to end affirmative action among various Republican factions, and not all of them are so noble.

I myself feel that perhaps it's time to end many facets of affirmative action. Perhaps a gradual rescinding of some of the programs is in order. However, don't let my more extreme progressive friends hear that, or they might kick me out of the Liberal club.

I should have qualified "Republicans' as the vast majority of Republicans because of course there will be exceptions within any group. But Republicans (as a generic term for those most representative of that party) recognize that Affirmative Action has accomplished what it needed to accomplish within a decade or two. Now it is largely counterproductive in that those who benefit from it will be largely seen as 'token's or people who achieved their position without merit. IMO, shared by many, Affirmative Action reinforces the insidious form of racism that assigns people to second class status and incapable of succeeding without 'Whitey's" help

. And by reinforcing that mentality and convincing minorities, most especially black people, that they are perpetual victims in constant need of rescue, and by promising them benefits, Democrats keep them corraled on the 'planatation' where they will continue to be obligated to vote the Democrats into power. And Democrats thus can continue to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes on the backs of the black vote.