Why Progressives Are So Dangerous to your Health And Freedom

[rightwinger]

Smokers have two options if they don't like the policy in NYC

1. They can pout like children and refuse to go to NYC

2. They can man up and hold off on smoking until they are in a permitted zone

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One man's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. You should have the freedom to smoke, but should not have the freedom to pollute the air I breath. When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices. As populations grow and we live ever closer together our individual freedoms will decrease. There is no way to avoid it.

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

 

[Flopper]

What fucking business is it of Government's anyway? What RIGHT do they have to mandate people have a plan -or else-?

Healthcare is a personal responsibility-PERIOD.

The business is that your smoke is affecting other people. You are free to smoke in your own private space. Smoking in public space used by others can be controlled

You being in a public space affects my health because you use up oxygen, which I need to survive, and spew out carbon dioxide, which is fatal to me, and others. As a matter of fact, it is more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Can I pass a law to keep you from doing either, or both, in public?

Before you start assuming anything about me and making a fool of yourself, I do not smoke, and never have. I would love, on a personal and selfish level, to see cigarettes totally banned so I would never have to smell the foul things again. That said, I know that my freedom demands that I support the rights of others who I find offensive, which includes those who smoke. If more people understood this we would not have to worry so much about the idiots who want to take away our freedoms.

You are on the side of the tyrants here.

"Can I pass a law to keep you from doing either, or both, in public?"
One can live without smoking, but one can not live without exhaling carbon dioxide. That is not a very good analogy.

 

[rightwinger]

For generations....smokers lived by the creed "If you don't like my smoke,,,you can leave"

Now that creed has been reversed to "If smokers want to smoke.....they can leave"

 

[rightwinger]

One man's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. You should have the freedom to smoke, but should not have the freedom to pollute the air I breath. When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices. As populations grow and we live ever closer together our individual freedoms will decrease. There is no way to avoid it.

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

Not too good at analogies today are you?

 

[Flopper]

One man's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. You should have the freedom to smoke, but should not have the freedom to pollute the air I breath. When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices. As populations grow and we live ever closer together our individual freedoms will decrease. There is no way to avoid it.

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

Of course, just about everything you do has some effect on others and may in one way or another infringe on the freedom of others.

You have hit on one of the primary purposes of government, which is to determine when the actions of an individual is determinable to society sufficiently to require laws and regulations.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One man's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. You should have the freedom to smoke, but should not have the freedom to pollute the air I breath. When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices. As populations grow and we live ever closer together our individual freedoms will decrease. There is no way to avoid it.

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

Not too good at analogies today are you?

What analogy am I getting wrong? Does driving not affect the safety and health of others?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One man's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. You should have the freedom to smoke, but should not have the freedom to pollute the air I breath. When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices. As populations grow and we live ever closer together our individual freedoms will decrease. There is no way to avoid it.

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

Of course, just about everything you do has some effect on others and may in one way or another infringe on the freedom of others.

You have hit on one of the primary purposes of government, which is to determine when the actions of an individual is determinable to society sufficiently to require laws and regulations.

Wrong again.

The primary purpose of government under the Constitution is to protect the rights of individuals, not to determine how and when to restrict those rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The business is that your smoke is affecting other people. You are free to smoke in your own private space. Smoking in public space used by others can be controlled

You being in a public space affects my health because you use up oxygen, which I need to survive, and spew out carbon dioxide, which is fatal to me, and others. As a matter of fact, it is more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Can I pass a law to keep you from doing either, or both, in public?

Before you start assuming anything about me and making a fool of yourself, I do not smoke, and never have. I would love, on a personal and selfish level, to see cigarettes totally banned so I would never have to smell the foul things again. That said, I know that my freedom demands that I support the rights of others who I find offensive, which includes those who smoke. If more people understood this we would not have to worry so much about the idiots who want to take away our freedoms.

You are on the side of the tyrants here.

"Can I pass a law to keep you from doing either, or both, in public?"
One can live without smoking, but one can not live without exhaling carbon dioxide. That is not a very good analogy.

It was good enough for the person I was addressing. I used a different one with you because you are able to argue from a position of logic, and not emotion.

 

[rightwinger]

Driving affects the safety and well being of others, should we outlaw it?

Personal liberty does not end when it infringes on another persons liberty, because everything we do infringes on others, personal liberty is unalienable.

Of course, just about everything you do has some effect on others and may in one way or another infringe on the freedom of others.

You have hit on one of the primary purposes of government, which is to determine when the actions of an individual is determinable to society sufficiently to require laws and regulations.

Wrong again.

The primary purpose of government under the Constitution is to protect the rights of individuals, not to determine how and when to restrict those rights.

Which section of the Constitution says that?

Aren't smoking restrictions protecting the rights of the non-smoker?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A little known fact of the American Revolution is that Our Founding Fathers fought the British to have a central government that would control the type of wood, nails, and drapes you could have in your house, the proper flow rate of water drawn from a well, what type of shoes your horses could wear, and how far a horse could go between meals.

Who knew that would EVOLVE into more money (actually) spent on health-CARE??!!!

"Insurers who fail to meet the 80 percent requirement must, under the law, give consumers rebates. Brokers say the rule is prompting insurers to cut commissions to reduce administrative costs.

Timothy Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law and a consumer representative to the NAIC, said most people won’t need brokers because buying policies on the exchange will be simple. “Frankly, I don’t think that there’s going to be quite as much to do as there is now,” he said."

Insurance-Brokers (& DEA-Agents) to Find REAL-Jobs??​

 

[DaGoose]

Bottom line........

If you believe that the government should ban abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution and/or marijuana then you believe in a government that should control the private lives and decisions of its citizens.

.

 

[Stephanie]

When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices.

WOW, that right there is some scary assed thinking.

Take it in folks, because THIS is where you are heading.

They are ordering up the brown shirts and Jackboots as we speak.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Bottom line........

If you believe that the government should ban abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution and/or marijuana then you believe in a government that should control the private lives and decisions of its citizens.

"If banks are resigned to changes in the credit card business, by no means are they at peace with the CFPB, itself the product of financial reform. House Republicans with ties to the financial industry this month moved to slash the bureau’s funding by 40 percent. That’s outrageous. Government regulation isn’t the answer to everything. But as the CARD Act shows, with some things it’s the only answer.

Liz Warren; Kickin' Ass!!!​

 

[Stephanie]

Funny how the anti-cigarette crowd loves pot.

The smoke from that is the OK kind, don't ya know.

 

[editec]

Oh?

Is banning smoking a now a progressive trait?

So that means that the people who smoke dope are what?

Conservatives?

 

[G.T.]

stfu about "dangerous." Pfft. Must have been a really sheltered life.

 

[WillowTree]

If any ConJob who is a member of this board, bitches about Health Care but remain on MediCare, then I have news for you. You are part of U.S. Government Funded, Tax Payer Supported Universal Health Care Plan.

IF and this is a very big IF you are so damn opposed to such health care, then put your fucking health care where your fucking mouth is and drop MediCare.

If you do not, your a hypocrite.

1. I'm not on Medicare, ahole. Like SocSec, I've been paying in my whole life, haven;t used a nickel of it and have no doubt whasoever that I won't be able to count on it when I'm rightfully entitled to.

2. Obama has already cut $500B from Medicare

3. ObamaCare needs to be declared unconstitutional and repealed.

4. Something along the line of the Whole Foods Suggestion should replace ObamaCare.

He's a fucking moron Frank, he doesn't realize that you haven't the choice whether or not to be on medicare, it's automatic, and secondly you are forced to pay for it you entire life, so fuck him. He can send me a check for all I've paid or he can stfu. how bout that?

 

[DaGoose]

Bottom line........

If you believe that the government should ban abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution and/or marijuana then you believe in a government that should control the private lives and decisions of its citizens.

.

When you make choices in your life that threaten the safety and well being of others, then it is property that government limit your choices.

WOW, that right there is some scary assed thinking.

Take it in folks, because THIS is where you are heading.

They are ordering up the brown shirts and Jackboots as we speak.

The Neo-Conservatives have already beat everyone else to it.....


.

 

[Jarhead]

Bottom line........

If you believe that the government should ban abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution and/or marijuana then you believe in a government that should control the private lives and decisions of its citizens.

.

Without your spin:

Abortion-there is a debate as to whether or not it is murder...and until that debate ends, you can not consider it a breach in private life decisions...unless, of course, you feel that allowing murder is allowing private life freedom. ( I do not believe it is murder, but I understand why those that do are against it)

Euthansasia- Same debate as above. I am pro euthanasia.

Gay Marriage- I believe the debate is waning and all, or most will see uit as it should be seen. Marriage is for all regardless of sexual orientation. But that is why we have debate and why debate is important.

Prostitution-Not sure myself as to why this is illegal.....but I respect those that are against it due to their religious convictions. But religious convictions should not dictate law. If your religion does not allow for prostitution, dont engage in it.

Marijuana- It is a controlled substance and we all agree that contorlled substances should be illegal withgout a prescription. However, there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not it should be deemed a controlled substance...with valid arguments on both sides.