Skip to main content

Since you want gov't to stick it's nose into people's business in the name of "proctecting" you. How about these Best? 

 

*Fast cars should be outlawed because people may drive them irresponsibly.

 

*Casinos should be outlawed because people may steal to support a gambling habit. 

 

*Guns should be outlawed because people might use them for bad things or not store them properly. 

 

*Gov't should regulate what size portions restaurants serve because people might over eat.

 

Where does your nanny state idea of gov't butting into people's lives end? 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

Since you want gov't to stick it's nose into people's business in the name of "proctecting" you. How about these Best? 

 

*Fast cars should be outlawed because people may drive them irresponsibly.

 

*Casinos should be outlawed because people may steal to support a gambling habit. 

 

*Guns should be outlawed because people might use them for bad things or not store them properly. 

 

*Gov't should regulate what size portions restaurants serve because people might over eat.

 

Where does your nanny state idea of gov't butting into people's lives end? 

-------------

 

Ho hum. Typical liberal tactic. Deflect, twist, go off subject. What about YOUR nanny state? Let everyone do whatever the **** they want and then the nanny government can take care of them and wipe their noses and ***** at the expense of others.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

Since you want gov't to stick it's nose into people's business in the name of "proctecting" you. How about these Best? 

 

*Fast cars should be outlawed because people may drive them irresponsibly.

 

*Casinos should be outlawed because people may steal to support a gambling habit. 

 

*Guns should be outlawed because people might use them for bad things or not store them properly. 

 

*Gov't should regulate what size portions restaurants serve because people might over eat.

 

Where does your nanny state idea of gov't butting into people's lives end? 

-------------

 

Ho hum. Typical liberal tactic. Deflect, twist, go off subject. What about YOUR nanny state? Let everyone do whatever the **** they want and then the nanny government can take care of them and wipe their noses and ***** at the expense of others.

You are the one that wants govt to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Someone smoking a joint has ZERO impact on you.

 

You seem to think that someone who smokes a joint is equal to a meth head. 

 

Your reasoning for marajuana being illegal is that people will be irresponsible while high.

 

my question to you is what other things should be illegal that enable irresponsible behavior? Guns?alcohol? casinos? Fatty foods?

 

fyi, I am against welfare in its current state. If you want to see a bigger failure than the war on drugs take a look at the war on poverty.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I don't think therefore that allowing the free reign of drugs in the community is the answer. MJ on the other hand (most forms of it) does not have the huge psychotrophic effects of drugs such as PCP, heroin, etc, and is less addictive.  But also like I said, it is still a drug and in that sense has some side effects that are not thoroughly understood at this point.

----------------------------------

In a way a forum is the worse place to put your opinions. Sometimes they are understood, sometimes they aren't, sometimes people take offense because you dare have a differing opinion. I am 100% in favor of ANY drug that relieves the pain of an ill person, or heals that person. In fact, so in favor that IF it is an experimental drug, and the ill person is willing, they should be given said drug, under doctors supervision of course. The fact that so many people want prescriptions for marijuana, but ONLY the kind that makes them high, may be one reason some people object to it's use. Face it, this 'medical' use of marijuana has become a joke. Is it only me that is disgusted when healthy people say "I have a prescription for marijuana", and then snicker? 

 

I would have thought it was clear that the problem I have is with people who use drugs and alcohol recreationally. Stop coddling people. Treat the cause, don't medicate the person. Stop making excuses for bad behavior and start demanding responsibility. What is wrong with that? I do understand about addictive behavior, to a point. But, also I, and pretty sure everyone else, have heard so many speak of how they drank or used drugs for years and years, and one day just stopped and never looked back. So, that has to say that it's not only addictive personalities that are involved.

It really is none of your business what people do recreationally.

 

You want gov't to interfere in the private lives of citizens to force them to do what YOU think is best. That line of thinking makes you no different than the religious whackos that want religion in schools because THEY think that is what is best for people. 

 

Also, spare me the "they enable irresponsible behavior" argument. There are many other things that enable irresponsible behavior as well. 

------------------------

Yes, it IS my business what they do recreationally when it interferes with other's lives in a detrimental way. Very rich that you'd have a problem with what I want when you're crying like a little girl because YOU want your way. That's the liberal way, no one but them should have a say in anything. How about YOU spare ME that, "it's my right to be messed up and you have to put up with it, and not set boundaries" crap.

How does someone smoking a joint in their home impact you in a "detrimental" way? If they get out and drive then that is against the law. 

 

Once again, I will ask what else do you want outlawed that has the potential to impact you in a "detrimental" way? 

 

You want gov't to dictate your way of life on other people. You are just like the religious folks that want to keep gays from getting married. You are just like Seeweed that wants gov't to dictate how a business owner runs their business. 

 

 

===========

You lie, I never said that..

I do, however believe that a business should not be able to pollute and make people sick who are down stream, or down wind of that business, so it THAT is what you are referring to, then you are right. You don't have the right to poison or  kill me or my kids so your profit margin can be higher.

I do expect that the food I eat in a restaurant is prepared in a clean and acceptable environment, so I wind up eating a hamburger, and not a roachburger.

I guess , to a degree, I'm like ole "Joe the Republican" , except I accept the pragmatic  fact that some government controls are good.

 

A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
[This is an email that has floated around the internet since at least 2004.]

 

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

 


 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

Since you want gov't to stick it's nose into people's business in the name of "proctecting" you. How about these Best? 

 

*Fast cars should be outlawed because people may drive them irresponsibly.

 

*Casinos should be outlawed because people may steal to support a gambling habit. 

 

*Guns should be outlawed because people might use them for bad things or not store them properly. 

 

*Gov't should regulate what size portions restaurants serve because people might over eat.

 

Where does your nanny state idea of gov't butting into people's lives end? 

-------------

 

Ho hum. Typical liberal tactic. Deflect, twist, go off subject. What about YOUR nanny state? Let everyone do whatever the **** they want and then the nanny government can take care of them and wipe their noses and ***** at the expense of others.

You are the one that wants govt to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Someone smoking a joint has ZERO impact on you.

 

You seem to think that someone who smokes a joint is equal to a meth head. 

 

Your reasoning for marajuana being illegal is that people will be irresponsible while high.

 

my question to you is what other things should be illegal that enable irresponsible behavior? Guns?alcohol? casinos? Fatty foods?

 

fyi, I am against welfare in its current state. If you want to see a bigger failure than the war on drugs take a look at the war on poverty.

Kenny, you'll never get Best to understand. She is one of those who believed those bull**** drug films they made us sit through in school, back in the 70's & early 80's. Remember: Johnny goes up to his upstairs bedroom to relax after school. He lights up a joint, takes one puff and immediately starts hallucinating, seeing colors and hearing loud Jimi Hendrix music. He is instantly insane and can't handle what's happening. Then he screams and jumps out of his window to his death. All after one hit off a joint with 70's level THC.

This is Best's reality. She is clueless.

Last edited by DHS-86

Get me to understand what dhs? What part of working with, going to school with, seeing the dopers 'out and about', seeing ex-addicts talk about how drugs ruined their lives, hearing families of the addicts, past and present, talk about how they ruined the families lives are you missing? I have NEVER seen a 'drug film' as you describe.  I'm not clueless at all, you're like all the rest that think all drugs should be legal. You have no idea what the **** you're talking about, but you're not letting that stop you, because in your mind it's your right to get messed up in the head and by darn if others don't like it, too bad. You think you have rights to your opinions, but they (I) don't. Do you think everyone that opposes drugs are just clueless, but the dopers are smart? Pfttttttttttttttt.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Get me to understand what dhs? What part of working with, going to school with, seeing the dopers 'out and about', seeing ex-addicts talk about how drugs ruined their lives, hearing families of the addicts, past and present, talk about how they ruined the families lives are you missing? I have NEVER seen a 'drug film' as you describe.  I'm not clueless at all, you're like all the rest that think all drugs should be legal. You have no idea what the **** you're talking about, but you're not letting that stop you, because in your mind it's your right to get messed up in the head and by darn if others don't like it, too bad. You think you have rights to your opinions, but they (I) don't. Do you think everyone that opposes drugs are just clueless, but the dopers are smart? Pfttttttttttttttt.

 

You are hilarious! You are the one who has no idea about drugs. Not everyone who smokes a joint is a "doper" or "pot head". It is a natural plant and shouldn't be lumped in with the hard line drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. You do not differentiate between drugs, you seem to think they are all as bad as the other. And, you're right about one thing, I don't care if all drugs are made legal. Guess what? Everyone has freewill to do as they choose. If they don't wanna do drugs, they won't. I they wanna do drugs, they will. Legality has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone does drugs. It stops no one now, does it? If someone wants to shoot up and die, fine! It's their choice! And, you know, the herd always has ways of thinning. The strong will survive, just like nature intended. So, yeah, I do know what the **** I'm talking about.

 

Most everybody I know has done pot at one time or another, ( and I know a world of people) , so if Jennifer knows anybody who is a Baby Boomer, she knows people who have done pot. If she knows anybody who is a child of a baby boomer, she probably  knows people that have done pot.

Having said that, I kinda think she doesn't think very much of anybody much whether they have done any type of ddrugs or not. I guess she's just better than most of the rest of us.

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

seeweed, that was the first time I saw that Joe Republican thing.  It is funny and 100% true.  I've wondered who costs the government more, me or Mr or Mrs Tea party organizer.

____________________________________________________________________
Yes, its been around for years and just as erroneous, as ever.

 

A few examples:

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

That liberal would be Nixon, who founded the EPA.  Never thought of tricky ****y as a liberal.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

 

No, employer's medical plans were implemented to attract scarce workers during WWII, when pay raises were frozen.  The present Obamacare ill destroy this and cost much more.  Bills start coming due this month.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

 

Actually inspection laws were passed in reaction to The Jungle.  The author, Upton Sinclair -- socialist, wished the book to start a revolution. 

 

Progressives are like roosters.  They crow in the morning, disturbing one's rest.  Then, strut around claiming credit for the sunrise. 

 

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

seeweed, that was the first time I saw that Joe Republican thing.  It is funny and 100% true.  I've wondered who costs the government more, me or Mr or Mrs Tea party organizer.

____________________________________________________________________
Yes, its been around for years and just as erroneous, as ever.

 

A few examples:

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

That liberal would be Nixon, who founded the EPA.  Never thought of tricky ****y as a liberal.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

 

No, employer's medical plans were implemented to attract scarce workers during WWII, when pay raises were frozen.  The present Obamacare ill destroy this and cost much more.  Bills start coming due this month.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

 

Actually inspection laws were passed in reaction to The Jungle.  The author, Upton Sinclair -- socialist, wished the book to start a revolution. 

 

Progressives are like roosters.  They crow in the morning, disturbing one's rest.  Then, strut around claiming credit for the sunrise. 

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

As to Nixon, I always thought that he was interchangeable with LBJ and the same difference. The EPA was necessary at the time but the newest version of the EPA might be a true job killer.

 

As to employer based health insurance, the architect of the ACA (Obamadon'care) plan wanted to end that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...l?hpw&rref=books

 

WASHINGTON — Ezekiel J. Emanuel, who helped devise the Affordable Care Act, has a vision for how it will eventually work. Democrats hope it will not materialize anytime soon.

 

Mr. Emanuel expects the law to produce an unadvertised but fundamental shift in where most working Americans get their health insurance — specifically, a sharp drop in the number of employers who offer coverage to their workers. That scale of change would dwarf what took place last fall, when a political firestorm erupted over President Obama’s “if you like your plan you can keep it” pledge.

 

As to the the meatpacking industry changes, another Republican was involved:

 

The book's assertions were confirmed in the Neill-Reynolds report, commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Roosevelt was suspicious of Sinclair's socialist attitude and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities.

 

Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to thwart the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers (though neither had much experience in the field). Following their report, Roosevelt became a supporter of regulation of the meat packing industry, and, on June 30, signed the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._Meat_Inspection_Act

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

how many people you think best knows, who smoke pot? i'm guessing zero... 

i'm pretty sure michael phelps is worth more than the 'powder it'd take to blow him up'.. i'm just sayin'.

 

+++

 

Maybe you missed this >>>

 

While Phelps is better known for huffin' on a bong

 

https://www.google.com/search?...i=2&ved=0CCUQsAQ

 

Apparently his drug of choice is alcohol having been twice arrested for DUI.  Most recently last Tuesday.

 

http://espn.go.com/olympics/sw...-dui-charge-Maryland

 

Thank God he wasn't mellow.  Otherwise we might be reading about another Kevin Ward, Jr.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...y-decision/16160043/

 

Just sayin'

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

seeweed, that was the first time I saw that Joe Republican thing.  It is funny and 100% true.  I've wondered who costs the government more, me or Mr or Mrs Tea party organizer.

____________________________________________________________________
Yes, its been around for years and just as erroneous, as ever.

 

A few examples:

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

That liberal would be Nixon, who founded the EPA.  Never thought of tricky ****y as a liberal.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

 

No, employer's medical plans were implemented to attract scarce workers during WWII, when pay raises were frozen.  The present Obamacare ill destroy this and cost much more.  Bills start coming due this month.

 

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

 

Actually inspection laws were passed in reaction to The Jungle.  The author, Upton Sinclair -- socialist, wished the book to start a revolution. 

 

Progressives are like roosters.  They crow in the morning, disturbing one's rest.  Then, strut around claiming credit for the sunrise. 

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

As to Nixon, I always thought that he was interchangeable with LBJ and the same difference. The EPA was necessary at the time but the newest version of the EPA might be a true job killer.

 

As to employer based health insurance, the architect of the ACA (Obamadon'care) plan wanted to end that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...l?hpw&rref=books

 

WASHINGTON — Ezekiel J. Emanuel, who helped devise the Affordable Care Act, has a vision for how it will eventually work. Democrats hope it will not materialize anytime soon.

 

Mr. Emanuel expects the law to produce an unadvertised but fundamental shift in where most working Americans get their health insurance — specifically, a sharp drop in the number of employers who offer coverage to their workers. That scale of change would dwarf what took place last fall, when a political firestorm erupted over President Obama’s “if you like your plan you can keep it” pledge.

 

As to the the meatpacking industry changes, another Republican was involved:

 

The book's assertions were confirmed in the Neill-Reynolds report, commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Roosevelt was suspicious of Sinclair's socialist attitude and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities.

 

Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to thwart the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers (though neither had much experience in the field). Following their report, Roosevelt became a supporter of regulation of the meat packing industry, and, on June 30, signed the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..._Meat_Inspection_Act

========

I'm not going to argue the whole thing, anybody with walking around sense knows it's the Liberals who have always tried to save the planet, and the Republicans don't give a tinkers damm about the environment, they just want to protect industry so they can pollute freely.
However, I am going to comment on the trader to his country who became President, Richard Nixon.
Nixon, I believe, did not have an environmental bone in his entire body, but was able to see the inefficiency of what we had at the time . We had Love Canal disaster, burning rivers, the Hudson River was virtually poison, any sea creature that was able to somehow live in the Chesapeake Bay was uneatable. Air pollution in the nations cities was terrible at best, dangerous at worse. I have commented before that in '64 I climbed the Statue of Liberty, and from the crown , I could not see Downtown Manhattan for the smog (and Downtown Manhattan is rather large and looming). Nixon's one asset was  that he was keenly politically sensitive, and saw that the myriad environmental groups could not accomplish much, and in the sense that even a blind hog can root up an acorn on occasion, he signed into law the EPA and gave it cabinet level administration.
Now, if you doubt the first paragraph above, just remember the Republican debates last cycle where the idiot from Texas couldn't remember what agencies he would eliminate, and Ron Paul had to list a few for him, one was the EPA , and all on stage agreed. The only reason for that is that they are all bought and paid for by big energy in general , and the Koch Brothers in particular, and not a damm one of them cares anything about our environment. .

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:

I think we should all bow to those enlightened dems like Ulysses S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt for Yellowstone and the Yosemite National Parks. Only Clinton deserves higher praise for shipping the smokestacks to China. 

Both Grant ( really a horrible president) , and T Roosevelt were LIBERALS. There was a time when the Republican party had some visionary people in it who realized that the country actually works better with some liberal ideas. . Sadly , today, they don't seem to have any, anymore. I saw the change, I watched it happen. Entered our national politics along with Gingrich and his Contract on America, and the attempt to take down the president over BJs with Dennis Hatart.  who pretty much is responsible for ending functionality in the US House of Rep.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Hilarious, Weed dresses up like an old time tent revival preacher spouting fire and brimstone for wll who dare to cross him/

 

Then, old Squirrelly Dawg chimes in as the AMEN section.  Rejoice, Brethren and Sisthren, pass the plate and give.

 

Oh, since Condie hasn't mentioned it, the word is traitor, not trader. 

Thanks, I took two foreign languages in college, Spanish and English,.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I think we should all bow to those enlightened dems like Ulysses S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt for Yellowstone and the Yosemite National Parks. Only Clinton deserves higher praise for shipping the smokestacks to China. 

Both Grant ( really a horrible president) , and T Roosevelt were LIBERALS. There was a time when the Republican party had some visionary people in it who realized that the country actually works better with some liberal ideas. . Sadly , today, they don't seem to have any, anymore. I saw the change, I watched it happen. Entered our national politics along with Gingrich and his Contract on America, and the attempt to take down the president over BJs with Dennis Hatart.  who pretty much is responsible for ending functionality in the US House of Rep.

 _____________________________________________________________
Grant was a slave owner, who approved on the peculiar institution. He refused to free his slaves until passage of the 13th amendment == some liberal.

 

No, it was lying on a sworn legal document that nearly brought Clinton down.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×