Smoking, Trans fats, and terrorists

[manifold]

I opposed smoking bans and trans fats bans because I viewed both of them as unnecessary government intrustions on the free market. However, I want to throttle the living snot out of all those artards out there insisting that they are an infringement on personal liberty and a violation of constitutional rights. With such a twisted, perverted understanding of personal liberty so pandemic, it's hardly a surprise that real, legitimate rights are being constantly eroded with barely a peep. Thanks to the Patriot Act, you can have every right you're entitled to taken away without recourse. Period. Yet the same retards that insist we need to fight the terrorist scourge are often the same retards who get pissed because their "right" to eat an unhealthy meal, cooked in man-made fat byproducts, is being infringed upon.

Wake up you stupid donkeys!!

 

[Gunny]

I opposed smoking bans and trans fats bans because I viewed both of them as unnecessary government intrustions on the free market. However, I want to throttle the living snot out of all those artards out there insisting that they are an infringement on personal liberty and a violation of constitutional rights. With such a twisted, perverted understanding of personal liberty so pandemic, it's hardly a surprise that real, legitimate rights are being constantly eroded with barely a peep. Thanks to the Patriot Act, you can have every right you're entitled to taken away without recourse. Period. Yet the same retards that insist we need to fight the terrorist scourge are often the same retards who get pissed because their "right" to eat an unhealthy meal, cooked in man-made fat byproducts, is being infringed upon.

Wake up you stupid donkeys!!

So you are saying that the government deciding what I may or may not ingest on my own dime is NOT an infringement on my personal liberty? I disagree completely. I do agree however that it is also an intrusion on the free market.

How quickly we forget the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the goverment to "protect us" after 9/11 that partly resulted in the Patriot Act. Those would be the verysame people bitching about its infringement on the Constitution now.

I find the entire topic subjective. People tend to be just fine with legislation that infringes on the Constitution so long as it agrees with their agenda(s). The Patriot Act is just "another," not "the."

 

[Larkinn]

So you are saying that the government deciding what I may or may not ingest on my own dime is NOT an infringement on my personal liberty? I disagree completely. I do agree however that it is also an intrusion on the free market.

How quickly we forget the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the goverment to "protect us" after 9/11 that partly resulted in the Patriot Act. Those would be the verysame people bitching about its infringement on the Constitution now.

I find the entire topic subjective. People tend to be just fine with legislation that infringes on the Constitution so long as it agrees with their agenda(s). The Patriot Act is just "another," not "the."

The ACLU isn't. Which is why they defend anti-ACLU'ers like Limbaugh. Regardless, after 9/11 there were many on the left (unfortunately NOT the Democrats in the house or the senate) who were very worried about what would happen to our civil liberties.

 

[Gunny]

The ACLU isn't. Which is why they defend anti-ACLU'ers like Limbaugh. Regardless, after 9/11 there were many on the left (unfortunately NOT the Democrats in the house or the senate) who were very worried about what would happen to our civil liberties.

The ACLU has its own agenda which is garbage in its own right.

Those on the left were more worried about their asses than their civil liberties following 9/11.

 

[Larkinn]

The ACLU has its own agenda which is garbage in its own right.

And want to tell me how defending its most harsh critics falls into that agenda? Their agenda is to defend the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Those on the left were more worried about their asses than their civil liberties following 9/11.

Nice historical revisionism there. Some were, but definitely not all. Mainstream Democrats were worried about their election prospects, but many on the left and academics were worried about civil liberties, especially in a Republican administration.

 

[Shogun]

well, i'd say it's a matter of dimmed liberty when a business is restricted from selling to the consumer what the consumer wants. In my own neck of the woods smoking was banned in bars in 07. And, what do you know, 07 saw a mass exodus of local business closings, reduced population of our downtown area AND an increase in littering. As with Trans fats, until we don't have shit like Potted Meat, lard and high fructose corn syrup at the grocery store I suggest that punk bitches make a better personal choice instead of blaming KFC for their obesity.

As to how either of these stacks against complaints about Homeland security? An infraction is an infraction still. I don't really care if you value one over the other. As it is, pink lunger crusades are actually tangible rather than reflective of a popular book named after the year marvin Gaye died.

This is the kind of shit that makes me stand away from liberal politics.

 

[Ravi]

infringement on personal liberty

How is not allowing someone to perform a legal activity not an infringement of personal liberty? Not that I think it's a big deal in comparison with many provisions of the Patriot Act, but I don't understand this point.

 

[manifold]

So you are saying that the government deciding what I may or may not ingest on my own dime is NOT an infringement on my personal liberty?

Yes, that would be an infringment. Just like them not allowing you to inject yourself with heroin is an infringement of your personal liberty.

However, the trans-fat ban does no such thing. It bans restaurants from using it as an ingredient. It doesn't stop you from using it at home.

 

[manifold]

How is not allowing someone to perform a legal activity not an infringement of personal liberty? Not that I think it's a big deal in comparison with many provisions of the Patriot Act, but I don't understand this point.

What legal activity is a person not allowed to engage in? Regulating business is not the same as intruding on personal liberty. Taking a shit is a legal activity too. Are you saying that it's an infringement of my personal liberty because I can't drop trow and pinch off a loaf in downtown crossing?

 

[manifold]

well, i'd say it's a matter of dimmed liberty when a business is restricted from selling to the consumer what the consumer wants.

You mean like crack, prostitution and a line on tonight's game?

 

[manifold]

An infraction is an infraction still. I don't really care if you value one over the other.

That's a pretty black and white point of view, and entirely retarded. No offense.

As if being stripped of your right to habeus corpus is no different than being forced to stand outside for 5 minutes to down a smoke or five.

 

[manifold]

Their [ACLU] agenda is to defend the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

They don't seem to care much about thought crimes though, and that's too bad. They get it right more often than they get it wrong, but they're wrong by a mile on that one.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, that would be an infringment. Just like them not allowing you to inject yourself with heroin is an infringement of your personal liberty.

Your point?

However, the trans-fat ban does no such thing. It bans restaurants from using it as an ingredient. It doesn't stop you from using it at home.

Banning restaurants from using transfats is restricting my access from what has heretofore been available to me. That's an infringement.

It's a bitch when you take something away from someone that has been available up until that time. People tend to bitch about such things.

I would venture to say the US government might find more pressing matters to attend to than whether or not I'm ingesting transfats or some baseball player is using steroids or some coach is taping my signals.

 

[Ravi]

Government regulation of business to prevent illegal activity is okay by me. Smoking was what I was thinking of. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal. I'll never understand why the government has the right to tell a bar it cannot allow its patrons to engage in a legal activity.

 

[Larkinn]

They don't seem to care much about thought crimes though, and that's too bad. They get it right more often than they get it wrong, but they're wrong by a mile on that one.

So you think that someone who bludgeons a young child to death should get the same sentence as someone who gets into an accident while driving negligently and kills a child?

The only difference is the thought. But yet nobody calls that a thought crime. Perhaps because that thought is involved in the sentencing isn't really the issue, now is it? .

 

[Shogun]

You mean like crack, prostitution and a line on tonight's game?

crack is as deadly as trans fats? gosh, who knew?? But, yes, I'm all for the liberty to consume drugs. I just don't differentiate between pharmies and street drugs just because one comes from pfizer and the other from Jose down the street.


prostitutes? You mean like what can be found at the bunny ranch in Nevada? To think, the world did not explode during it's tenure. A line on tonights game? gambling is illegal, eh?

 

[Shogun]

That's a pretty black and white point of view, and entirely retarded. No offense.

As if being stripped of your right to habeus corpus is no different than being forced to stand outside for 5 minutes to down a smoke or five.

yea, well, the ninth Amendment is a pretty black and white conveyance of American liberties... Not to mention that business owners have rights and liberty to conduct business too.

Indeed, we in America probably are not required to put the same value on a hierarchy of "more worthwhile" liberty in line with your silly opinion. Of course, What is really retarded is trying to stack American liberties according to an opinion by some dipshit on the net who weighs one facet of liberty above all others. Thus, ALL liberty is worth protecting regardless if some net nutter thinks some liberty is less important than others.

I wonder if stomping a foot makes it any less ironic that marginalizing some liberties lower than others is probably the explicit point of the ninth amendment anyway. Naw... enumerated rights probably ARE more important than everything else.

 

[Shogun]

Government regulation of business to prevent illegal activity is okay by me. Smoking was what I was thinking of. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal. I'll never understand why the government has the right to tell a bar it cannot allow its patrons to engage in a legal activity.

no shit... especially when pink lunger bitches scream that second hand smoke kills... uh, at least that whats estimated projections suggest... BUT, hey, let's keep bars open and let people congregate in a pulbic location that REQUIRES driving home... Yes... it makes total sense. M.A.D.D. agrees!

 

[Ravi]

What legal activity is a person not allowed to engage in? Regulating business is not the same as intruding on personal liberty. Taking a shit is a legal activity too. Are you saying that it's an infringement of my personal liberty because I can't drop trow and pinch off a loaf in downtown crossing?

btw, using the public square as your own personal toilet is no way comparative to anything you've posted. Communicable diseases affect everyone not just those that choose to hang out with you.

 

[manifold]

Your point?



Banning restaurants from using transfats is restricting my access from what has heretofore been available to me. That's an infringement.

It's a bitch when you take something away from someone that has been available up until that time. People tend to bitch about such things.

I would venture to say the US government might find more pressing matters to attend to than whether or not I'm ingesting transfats or some baseball player is using steroids or some coach is taping my signals.

Ok fair enough. You score points on a technicality, but nothing for materiality. Try not to hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.