Political Crossfire Forums

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/

New York Mulls Trans-fat ban.

The smoking bans which are happening in more and more places all the time are a good start, but fortunatily governments in the USA don't stop there.

Because people shouldn't have freedom. They can't be trusted. It is the mandatory responsibity of a government to be everyone's mommy, and make sure they can't make their own personal decisions that affect no one else.

"Land of the Free" is a tired washed up concept anyway.

thintheherd · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

Yeah, I tried to warn those militant non-smokers what sort of slippery-slope it is allowing gov'ts to regulate individual choice.

Too bad they cannot see it.

morons...

<sits back, awaits the "oh, but it will be good for people" crowd to show up :roll:>

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

That's what's most important, is that it is good for the people. Since it is good for them, obviously the government is doing the right thing, like they have the moral imperative to do.

Eating brocoli is also good for you. Brocoli contains vitamin C, but it also has cancer preventing agents that you don't see on the nutrition label.

I recommend that anyone who reads this should go to their city council and lobby them to enact a mandatory brocoli eating program. All residents should be required to consume at least 3 oz. of brocoli each week. Because people who don't eat their brocoli aren't as healthy. And that is bad. We can't allow that.

There can be exemptions though. If someone can get doctor certification that they are allergic, at which point they will have to eat prunes.

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Donuts In Danger

straw man wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/

New York Mulls Trans-fat ban.

The smoking bans which are happening in more and more places all the time are a good start, but fortunatily governments in the USA don't stop there.

Because people shouldn't have freedom. They can't be trusted. It is the mandatory responsibity of a government to be everyone's mommy, and make sure they can't make their own personal decisions that affect no one else.

"Land of the Free" is a tired washed up concept anyway.

First its vending machines, now its donuts, fries, and the like. It's just like the drug legalizations: if people wanna get fat and eat nothing but donuts, then let them, its not hurting you. Actually, I hope it does pass so people in NYC can get the incentive to take back their freedoms.

Quote: Because people shouldn't have freedom. They can't be trusted. It is the mandatory responsibity of a government to be everyone's mommy, and make sure they can't make their own personal decisions that affect no one else.

If you're serious about that statement, then you and I are gonna be debating and arguing for a LONG time :?

thintheherd · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

I took the OP's post as pure sarcasm.... was I wrong OP?

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Yeah it's all sarcasm.

The scary thing is that people say the same as me, but they MEAN IT!

:shock:

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject:

straw man wrote: Yeah it's all sarcasm.

The scary thing is that people say the same as me, but they MEAN IT!

:shock:

Oh. I was about to blow up on you. But seriously, by passing this ban on fatty foods, NYC is only proving that the government has too much power and needs to be regulated, and not the good people.

thintheherd · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject:

Looks like the Reverend has already covered this subject.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66119&highlight=

phoucault · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 30

i like the OP's sarcasm, it was well done. Although he was wrong on one point. And that was when he said that the decisions won't effect any one else. Having more and larger un-healthy Americans will put more strain on the Health Care system. I's not trying to justify the ban, because i'm against most government intrusions into my life, but i just get nit picky with flawed argumentation.

thintheherd · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

phoucault wrote: i like the OP's sarcasm, it was well done. Although he was wrong on one point. And that was when he said that the decisions won't effect any one else. Having more and larger un-healthy Americans will put more strain on the Health Care system. I's not trying to justify the ban, because i'm against most government intrusions into my life, but i just get nit picky with flawed argumentation.

Speaking of which, that's not quite correct. Unhealthy living only places strain on the public portion of the healthcare system.

You can't tell me that the privately owned, privately paid healthcare system is 'strained' by more customers.

Donkeykick · Joined: 27 Oct 2005 Posts: 367 Location: Ohio

thintheherd wrote: Yeah, I tried to warn those militant non-smokers what sort of slippery-slope it is allowing gov'ts to regulate individual choice.

Too bad they cannot see it.

morons...

<sits back, awaits the "oh, but it will be good for people" crowd to show up :roll:>

Here is one that just showed up. George Pataki! Lets take a peak into his web site, shall we?

George Pataki's Web Site wrote: > Anti-Tobacco Programs - Through the Governor's efforts, anti-smoking funding was increased from $55 million to $95 million annually - the amount recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.

Question: Does any one know if George Pataki has turned Liberal here lately?

Superfly · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 5118 Location: Tornado Alley

Nah, the way Pataki looks at Bush with those googly eyes, he definately hasn't changed parties.

The problem is all the nazis in Albany. They sit in their ivory towers, and try to tell everyone how to live.

This is New York, though. I guarantee you if they can't ban it, they'll tax the heck out of it, where normal people can't afford it.

Donkeykick · Joined: 27 Oct 2005 Posts: 367 Location: Ohio

Superfly wrote: Nah, the way Pataki looks at Bush with those googly eyes, he definately hasn't changed parties.

The problem is all the nazis in Albany. They sit in their ivory towers, and try to tell everyone how to live.

This is New York, though. I guarantee you if they can't ban it, they'll tax the heck out of it, where normal people can't afford it.

I agree. When the GOP doesn't raise taxes nationally, they simply make States and local communities absorb it. :wink:

phoucault · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 30

thintheherd wrote: phoucault wrote: i like the OP's sarcasm, it was well done. Although he was wrong on one point. And that was when he said that the decisions won't effect any one else. Having more and larger un-healthy Americans will put more strain on the Health Care system. I's not trying to justify the ban, because i'm against most government intrusions into my life, but i just get nit picky with flawed argumentation.

Speaking of which, that's not quite correct. Unhealthy living only places strain on the public portion of the healthcare system.

You can't tell me that the privately owned, privately paid healthcare system is 'strained' by more customers.
You're quite right, the private sector will remain unchanged, but sadly, the private sector isn't the one to worry about. A MediCare crash, due to unhealthy baby-boomers, would leave millions of americans without any health insurance.

Superfly · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 5118 Location: Tornado Alley

Donkeykick wrote: Superfly wrote: Nah, the way Pataki looks at Bush with those googly eyes, he definately hasn't changed parties.

The problem is all the nazis in Albany. They sit in their ivory towers, and try to tell everyone how to live.

This is New York, though. I guarantee you if they can't ban it, they'll tax the heck out of it, where normal people can't afford it.

I agree. When the GOP doesn't raise taxes nationally, they simply make States and local communities absorb it. :wink:

But that would assume that NY has to be told to raise taxes. I thought they just did it for chuckles?!?!

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject:

phoucault wrote: i like the OP's sarcasm, it was well done. Although he was wrong on one point. And that was when he said that the decisions won't effect any one else. Having more and larger un-healthy Americans will put more strain on the Health Care system. I's not trying to justify the ban, because i'm against most government intrusions into my life, but i just get nit picky with flawed argumentation.

It was just like that time they actually planned to place a tax on soda, but that was child's play compared to this.

thintheherd · Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

phoucault wrote: thintheherd wrote: phoucault wrote: i like the OP's sarcasm, it was well done. Although he was wrong on one point. And that was when he said that the decisions won't effect any one else. Having more and larger un-healthy Americans will put more strain on the Health Care system. I's not trying to justify the ban, because i'm against most government intrusions into my life, but i just get nit picky with flawed argumentation.

Speaking of which, that's not quite correct. Unhealthy living only places strain on the public portion of the healthcare system.

You can't tell me that the privately owned, privately paid healthcare system is 'strained' by more customers.
You're quite right, the private sector will remain unchanged, but sadly, the private sector isn't the one to worry about. A MediCare crash, due to unhealthy baby-boomers, would leave millions of americans without any health insurance.
Medicare is destined to crash no matter how many nanny laws go into effect. Somehow people manage to get sick without money. You can't legislate them out of it without sacrificing freedom.

And no one said freedom has no cost.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

straw man wrote: That's what's most important, is that it is good for the people. Since it is good for them, obviously the government is doing the right thing, like they have the moral imperative to do.

Eating brocoli is also good for you. Brocoli contains vitamin C, but it also has cancer preventing agents that you don't see on the nutrition label.

I recommend that anyone who reads this should go to their city council and lobby them to enact a mandatory brocoli eating program. All residents should be required to consume at least 3 oz. of brocoli each week. Because people who don't eat their brocoli aren't as healthy. And that is bad. We can't allow that.

There can be exemptions though. If someone can get doctor certification that they are allergic, at which point they will have to eat prunes.

Wait! it wouldnt be fair. Some people cant afford as much brocoli as other people can. there should be a government program to provide brocoli to the poor.

CountryGuy · Joined: 04 Feb 2006 Posts: 1027 Location: Pennsylvania

If you want to really blow your mind... Remember our government has given out CHEESE and BUTTER to the poor for ages. I smell a conspiracy to kill the poor!!! :lol:

00timh · Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 13037 Location: upstate NY

Donkeykick wrote: thintheherd wrote: Yeah, I tried to warn those militant non-smokers what sort of slippery-slope it is allowing gov'ts to regulate individual choice.

Too bad they cannot see it.

morons...

<sits back, awaits the "oh, but it will be good for people" crowd to show up :roll:>

Here is one that just showed up. George Pataki! Lets take a peak into his web site, shall we?

George Pataki's Web Site wrote: > Anti-Tobacco Programs - Through the Governor's efforts, anti-smoking funding was increased from $55 million to $95 million annually - the amount recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.

Question: Does any one know if George Pataki has turned Liberal here lately? When it comes to social policies such as this he has always favored the nanny aproach. If you think NY is bad now, wait until Spitzer gets a hold of the State.

NY has the highest Gasoline taxes, was the first to sign into law a complete statwide ban on public smoking, the first to ban cell phones while driving. Now people can no longer enjoy good food. For those of you who think the dems are really better than the Republicans, see what a democrat mascarading as a Republican will do, wait until the the far left get control, Our society will end up looking like what it was portayed in the movie Demolition man.