New Tax on Indoor Tanning Goes into Effect--I found this odd....

[MaggieMae]

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

Taxpayers subsidize, governments borrow. Make it retroactive to 1/1/10. I've lost 35 lbs.

See? You'd take it if it was retroactive!! Congrats on your weight loss. Do you have a picture of you at 38 in '68 and one today that we can compare?

 

[MaggieMae]

None of my posts have mentioned an "R" or a "D", Maggie....I have been saying "government" all along, and "politicians" all along. Anyone from any party needs to be asking questions and they are not, if they don't and are being led around....they are the sheep.

Really? I was responding to this comment:

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

Where you assume that I, personally, fall within your broad characterization.

You mentioned the "D"...not me Maggie.

Well you know I'm not affiliated with the "New Republicans." C'mon, own it.

 

[Meister]

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

Taxpayers subsidize, governments borrow. Make it retroactive to 1/1/10. I've lost 35 lbs.

See? You'd take it if it was retroactive!! Congrats on your weight loss. Do you have a picture of you at 38 in '68 and one today that we can compare?

Geeze Maggie...is this where I step in and ask you how was breaking rock to make dirt in the early years of our planet?

 

[drsmith1072]

Maybe instead of saying people i could have used businesses like Weight Watcher, Jenny Craig.....
But just like Dave stated....if it was about our health, the government would just outlaw....right?....but they would rather keep the cash cow.

In case you missed that is the way everything works in politics these days. Why do you think republcians didn't do anythign REAL about SS, immigration and medicare when they were in power?? It's because if they actually solved the problems then they could no longer use them as a political tool to gain votes. It's basically the same reason that republicans CHOSE to make the tax cuts temporary so IF someone chose not to extend them and let them expire then the right wingers could claim that person supported raising your taxes and rally voters against them.

I am not saying one wrong justifies another I am merely saying that perhaps you should look to your own side with the same microscope that you put the dems under? Maybe you will learn something.

Ummmm, I haven't put a side to this except the people, and the government...No D's, no R's....government and politicians, smitty.

Funny thing is that maggie showed how you apply your standard and label R and D's just fine without mentioning the actual words based on how you label the left as being blindly supportive of the government. Furthermore, this entire thread is chock full of right wingers upset about what the obama administration is doing according to their perceptions so you bringing up what the CURRENT government is doing to the CURRENT people kind of spells out who you are talking about.

I merely brought up how cons have manipulated the system and you chose to ignore it. Imagine that.

 

[Meister]

Really? I was responding to this comment:


Where you assume that I, personally, fall within your broad characterization.

You mentioned the "D"...not me Maggie.

Well you know I'm not affiliated with the "New Republicans." C'mon, own it.

I'm not a republican, Maggie. You said it....you can own it and quit assuming. I will say that I have voted for more democrat presidents than republican presidents in my life.

 

[Meister]

In case you missed that is the way everything works in politics these days. Why do you think republcians didn't do anythign REAL about SS, immigration and medicare when they were in power?? It's because if they actually solved the problems then they could no longer use them as a political tool to gain votes. It's basically the same reason that republicans CHOSE to make the tax cuts temporary so IF someone chose not to extend them and let them expire then the right wingers could claim that person supported raising your taxes and rally voters against them.

I am not saying one wrong justifies another I am merely saying that perhaps you should look to your own side with the same microscope that you put the dems under? Maybe you will learn something.

Ummmm, I haven't put a side to this except the people, and the government...No D's, no R's....government and politicians, smitty.

Funny thing is that maggie showed how you apply your standard and label R and D's just fine without mentioning the actual words based on how you label the left as being blindly supportive of the government. Furthermore, this entire thread is chock full of right wingers upset about what the obama administration is doing according to their perceptions so you bringing up what the CURRENT government is doing to the CURRENT people kind of spells out who you are talking about.

I merely brought up how cons have manipulated the system and you chose to ignore it. Imagine that.

Maggie assumed and so are you, smitty. Please understand what I am saying....republican government....democrat government, I'm against both....they are overstepping their authority over the citizens of this great nation. Anyone, who follows what they are trying to pull off are the sheep and will follow blindly.
So put a lable on that Okay?

 

[drsmith1072]

That would fit if the government put out health announcements about the dangers of high exposure to UVA and UVB... but that is NOT what is being done here... it is expanding the tentacles of taxation, power, and increased government intrusion into the lives of people who are not doing illegal acts.... if they really wanted to 'help' they would make tanning beds illegal... but we ALL know this is not about helping people or anything else of the sort... this is big nanny government at it's best

Who do you think paid for that campaign as the government tried to persuade people to not use drugs?? Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president.

And that is a public service announcement.. much along the lines of many others across all points of the spectrum... and that is good for government to make a statement while not expanding and grabbing control and expanding the arms of taxation.... A public service announcement is not interference... but nice try

Has nothing to do with a DEM president or REP president or whatever else... it has to do with the nanny state and the expansion of government into areas where it has NO business being...

As stated... if this were about 'betterment' or whatever else.. the government would make it illegal to operate these tanning beds... I would not agree with the law, but doing that would make sense... this is indeed a power grab and punitive taxation to expand

As said before this "expansion of government into areas where it has no business" has occured in the past and republicans have supported it in the past so it's funny that there are so many comments about it NOW.

Furthermore it wasn't JUST public service announcements but also a crackdown on drug use that the government deemed illegal in order to influence opinions and manipulate people into not using them and the point that i am making is that republicans support such intervention and interferrence when it suits their needs and your spin has done nothing to counter that point.

And is ay it again. Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president. So are you against any and all forms or just the ones that suit your needs?

 

[drsmith1072]

Ummmm, I haven't put a side to this except the people, and the government...No D's, no R's....government and politicians, smitty.

Funny thing is that maggie showed how you apply your standard and label R and D's just fine without mentioning the actual words based on how you label the left as being blindly supportive of the government. Furthermore, this entire thread is chock full of right wingers upset about what the obama administration is doing according to their perceptions so you bringing up what the CURRENT government is doing to the CURRENT people kind of spells out who you are talking about.

I merely brought up how cons have manipulated the system and you chose to ignore it. Imagine that.

Maggie assumed and so are you, smitty. Please understand what I am saying....republican government....democrat government, I'm against both....they are overstepping their authority over the citizens of this great nation. Anyone, who follows what they are trying to pull off are the sheep and will follow blindly.
So put a lable on that Okay?

Based on your own past comments about the left wanting a nanny state you define whom you were referring to, no assumptions necessary.

BTW I see you are still avoiding the content. Imagine that AGAIN.

 

[Dr.House]

Ummmm, I haven't put a side to this except the people, and the government...No D's, no R's....government and politicians, smitty.

Funny thing is that maggie showed how you apply your standard and label R and D's just fine without mentioning the actual words based on how you label the left as being blindly supportive of the government. Furthermore, this entire thread is chock full of right wingers upset about what the obama administration is doing according to their perceptions so you bringing up what the CURRENT government is doing to the CURRENT people kind of spells out who you are talking about.

I merely brought up how cons have manipulated the system and you chose to ignore it. Imagine that.

Maggie assumed and so are you, smitty. Please understand what I am saying....republican government....democrat government, I'm against both....they are overstepping their authority over the citizens of this great nation. Anyone, who follows what they are trying to pull off are the sheep and will follow blindly.
So put a lable on that Okay?

Smitty has a habit of twisting people's words around to suit his belief in what "you really meant"....

"I know you said vanilla, but what you REALLY meant was chocolate!"

 

[DiamondDave]

Who do you think paid for that campaign as the government tried to persuade people to not use drugs?? Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president.

And that is a public service announcement.. much along the lines of many others across all points of the spectrum... and that is good for government to make a statement while not expanding and grabbing control and expanding the arms of taxation.... A public service announcement is not interference... but nice try

Has nothing to do with a DEM president or REP president or whatever else... it has to do with the nanny state and the expansion of government into areas where it has NO business being...

As stated... if this were about 'betterment' or whatever else.. the government would make it illegal to operate these tanning beds... I would not agree with the law, but doing that would make sense... this is indeed a power grab and punitive taxation to expand

As said before this "expansion of government into areas where it has no business" has occured in the past and republicans have supported it in the past so it's funny that there are so many comments about it NOW.

Furthermore it wasn't JUST public service announcements but also a crackdown on drug use that the government deemed illegal in order to influence opinions and manipulate people into not using them and the point that i am making is that republicans support such intervention and interferrence when it suits their needs and your spin has done nothing to counter that point.

And is ay it again. Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president. So are you against any and all forms or just the ones that suit your needs?

And it was wrong in the past as it is wrong now

Crackdown on ILLEGAL DRUG USE... see the term ILLEGAL.. meaning the government passed a law making it ILLEGAL or AGAINST THE LAW.... not some bogus tax grab

I don't care if 'Republicans' supported it or Independents or Democrats or Green Party members or whatever other political group.... I do not support it no matter the party affiliation of those proposing it

Being for limited government and lesser sized government and lesser governmental interference does not mean that you are against EVERYTHING government... but nice try, no matter how typical it is for a winger to do

 

[Meister]

Funny thing is that maggie showed how you apply your standard and label R and D's just fine without mentioning the actual words based on how you label the left as being blindly supportive of the government. Furthermore, this entire thread is chock full of right wingers upset about what the obama administration is doing according to their perceptions so you bringing up what the CURRENT government is doing to the CURRENT people kind of spells out who you are talking about.

I merely brought up how cons have manipulated the system and you chose to ignore it. Imagine that.

Maggie assumed and so are you, smitty. Please understand what I am saying....republican government....democrat government, I'm against both....they are overstepping their authority over the citizens of this great nation. Anyone, who follows what they are trying to pull off are the sheep and will follow blindly.
So put a lable on that Okay?

Based on your own past comments about the left wanting a nanny state you define whom you were referring to, no assumptions necessary.

BTW I see you are still avoiding the content. Imagine that AGAIN.

Yes I'm against a nanny state with the Obama administration, I'm against Obama administration not protecting the border, and the out of control spending.
I was against the Iraq war, and the out of control spending under the Bush administration, I was against Bush not protecting the borders.
Who ever is the next president, I will probably be against a lot of his/her policies also.
All your trying to do is set me up for one of your gotcha posts....you can't do it, smitty.

 

[MaggieMae]

Taxpayers subsidize, governments borrow. Make it retroactive to 1/1/10. I've lost 35 lbs.

See? You'd take it if it was retroactive!! Congrats on your weight loss. Do you have a picture of you at 38 in '68 and one today that we can compare?

Geeze Maggie...is this where I step in and ask you how was breaking rock to make dirt in the early years of our planet?

Huh? Other than not everyone knowing what "38 in '68" refers do, I don't get your point.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe what the government should do is subsidize weight loss programs.

[Ducking from incoming...]

Taxpayers subsidize, governments borrow. Make it retroactive to 1/1/10. I've lost 35 lbs.

See? You'd take it if it was retroactive!! Congrats on your weight loss. Do you have a picture of you at 38 in '68 and one today that we can compare?

I was 7 in '68. I think I was about 50 pounds then. In '79 I was a 44R suit jacket with a 28waist. Suit jacket is the same, but the waist probably isn't going to get better than a 31 by fall. Anyways, I really have no interest in taking money from other hard working taxpayers for such a silly thing that already benefits me (weight loss).

 

[drsmith1072]

And that is a public service announcement.. much along the lines of many others across all points of the spectrum... and that is good for government to make a statement while not expanding and grabbing control and expanding the arms of taxation.... A public service announcement is not interference... but nice try

Has nothing to do with a DEM president or REP president or whatever else... it has to do with the nanny state and the expansion of government into areas where it has NO business being...

As stated... if this were about 'betterment' or whatever else.. the government would make it illegal to operate these tanning beds... I would not agree with the law, but doing that would make sense... this is indeed a power grab and punitive taxation to expand

As said before this "expansion of government into areas where it has no business" has occured in the past and republicans have supported it in the past so it's funny that there are so many comments about it NOW.

Furthermore it wasn't JUST public service announcements but also a crackdown on drug use that the government deemed illegal in order to influence opinions and manipulate people into not using them and the point that i am making is that republicans support such intervention and interferrence when it suits their needs and your spin has done nothing to counter that point.

And is ay it again. Face it, if you were against government interferrence and influence then you would be against it in ALL forms not just those that happen to occur under a democratic president. So are you against any and all forms or just the ones that suit your needs?

And it was wrong in the past as it is wrong now

Crackdown on ILLEGAL DRUG USE... see the term ILLEGAL.. meaning the government passed a law making it ILLEGAL or AGAINST THE LAW.... not some bogus tax grab

I don't care if 'Republicans' supported it or Independents or Democrats or Green Party members or whatever other political group.... I do not support it no matter the party affiliation of those proposing it

Being for limited government and lesser sized government and lesser governmental interference does not mean that you are against EVERYTHING government... but nice try, no matter how typical it is for a winger to do

Thanks for making my point for me. After all, nothing shows government interference more that the FACT that the government made certain choices illegal in an attempt to control or modify behavior that some felt was immoral or wrong.

Oh and like I said before, it's funny how so many on the right are now trying to make a huge deal of it when they tend to support government interference when it suited them in the past and I am certain that they will again the very next time the opportunity presents itself.

Furthermore, I NEVER said anything about being against EVERYTHING government so thanks for the red herring as you try to put words in my mouth and attack me for something I never said, which far more typical for a winger to do.

 

[Dr.House]

"attack"....

 

[drsmith1072]

Maggie assumed and so are you, smitty. Please understand what I am saying....republican government....democrat government, I'm against both....they are overstepping their authority over the citizens of this great nation. Anyone, who follows what they are trying to pull off are the sheep and will follow blindly.
So put a lable on that Okay?

Based on your own past comments about the left wanting a nanny state you define whom you were referring to, no assumptions necessary.

BTW I see you are still avoiding the content. Imagine that AGAIN.

Yes I'm against a nanny state with the Obama administration, I'm against Obama administration not protecting the border, and the out of control spending.
I was against the Iraq war, and the out of control spending under the Bush administration, I was against Bush not protecting the borders.
Who ever is the next president, I will probably be against a lot of his/her policies also.
All your trying to do is set me up for one of your gotcha posts....you can't do it, smitty.

LOL how is asking you to admit your previous statements which define and explain your

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

statement as you try to define someone based on your usual left/D and right/R comments??

No you didn't SPECIFICALLY mention D and R but based on your history in an attempt to define the left/Ds as wanting a nanny state and not questioining the government, it's pretty clear who and what you were talking about. Like I said, no assumptions needed especially when your comments focus on the current left/D administration and any who dare agree with or support it.

Why don't you have the integrity to just admit it??

 

[Meister]

Based on your own past comments about the left wanting a nanny state you define whom you were referring to, no assumptions necessary.

BTW I see you are still avoiding the content. Imagine that AGAIN.

Yes I'm against a nanny state with the Obama administration, I'm against Obama administration not protecting the border, and the out of control spending.
I was against the Iraq war, and the out of control spending under the Bush administration, I was against Bush not protecting the borders.
Who ever is the next president, I will probably be against a lot of his/her policies also.
All your trying to do is set me up for one of your gotcha posts....you can't do it, smitty.

LOL how is asking you to admit your previous statements which define and explain your

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

statement as you try to define someone based on your usual left/D and right/R comments??

No you didn't SPECIFICALLY mention D and R but based on your history in an attempt to define the left/Ds as wanting a nanny state and not questioining the government, it's pretty clear who and what you were talking about. Like I said, no assumptions needed especially when your comments focus on the current left/D administration and any who dare agree with or support it.

Why don't you have the integrity to just admit it??

Go home, Smitty.....you have empty arguements that are just rediculous. Almost as rediculous as you are.

 

[Meister]

"attack"....

lol

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes I'm against a nanny state with the Obama administration, I'm against Obama administration not protecting the border, and the out of control spending.
I was against the Iraq war, and the out of control spending under the Bush administration, I was against Bush not protecting the borders.
Who ever is the next president, I will probably be against a lot of his/her policies also.
All your trying to do is set me up for one of your gotcha posts....you can't do it, smitty.

LOL how is asking you to admit your previous statements which define and explain your

The funny part about it is that you won't question it, because it's from the government.

statement as you try to define someone based on your usual left/D and right/R comments??

No you didn't SPECIFICALLY mention D and R but based on your history in an attempt to define the left/Ds as wanting a nanny state and not questioining the government, it's pretty clear who and what you were talking about. Like I said, no assumptions needed especially when your comments focus on the current left/D administration and any who dare agree with or support it.

Why don't you have the integrity to just admit it??

Go home, Smitty.....you have empty arguements that are just rediculous. Almost as rediculous as you are.

aww look at how quickly you revert to trolling type non-responses. It's almost as if you are two separate people based on how you can seem coherent one minute making semi decent arguments and then you switch to a nonresponsive hack who can only attack those who disagree with him.

You know, it's obvious to see what you were talking about but why don't you have the integrity to just admit it??

 

[MaggieMae]

Is there anything that the average American people do which many of you liberals feel is NOT worthy of taxation?

Yeah, I'd like to tax your cheap shots (neg reps) every time you don't like what someone says. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. Man up for a change and spit it out for all to see, you sneaky piece of shit.