For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option. Think about it — this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?That he uses the word "overreach" is interesting, as that's exactly what Paul is doing, so much that in going from point A to Point B it's as if he's encircled the globe and ended up back to back with himself. It's curious that Rand Paul is a doctor, yet has a problem with a restaurant having to inform it's customers what they're putting into their bodies. Instead of acknowledging it for what it is, ie the government not telling you what to eat but rather what you are eating, he of course is doing cartwheels to please a small band of people who clamor the loudest by painting the government as an evil mamba snake trying to grip itself around you. As for his faux paranoia via "Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?", I wonder if Rand has a problem with the evil government making sure the airlines are pretty fanatical about ensuring their planes are safe to fly every day, or that the hamburger you have in your hand right now isn't made out of koala bear doo-doo. Probably not, but calorie counts are a bridge too far. Of course.
Listen, you fucking cornfed idiot: the government isn't telling you not to eat yourself to a heart attack, it's simply telling you how close you're getting.
But of course, this is yet another case of someone desperately doing anything to become a part of a government he claims to think evil and unnecessary. And luckily for him the people supporting him are even dumber than he is.
19 comments:
(screeeeech) changed my mind... a bit of an extremist, this Rand Paul.
Hey Rand! It takes a village, not a village idiot.
Jem.
Letting people know what's in their food is great. But I would not be surprised if the overreach and general lack of restraint shown, for instance, by NYC's mayor with a legal product like cigarettes, would be extended to certain foods. I mean, once the "it's-not-good-for-you" mantra goes into zealot mode all bets are off and taxing the shit out of certain products is the only way in their eyes. They've succeeded with cigarettes and want to do the same with soft drinks. Figuring poor folk won't be able to stand up for this bullshit, they went ahead with the latter nonsense as well. (Thankfully, it's dead in the water. For now.)
If they're serious about taxing the bad stuff I say let's make beers $10 a pop, have six packs sell for $50, the cheapest wine $75/bottle and see what happens.
In the meantime, how 'bout making good, nutritious food affordable to poor folks, instead of taxing their soda, huh?
PS: Someone asked the other day, "I don't smoke; never have, never will. So, why do I have to endure the sight of those nasty ads by the front door of my corner bodega?"
Love to hear that answer.
Double those. Let's get as much cash as we can as we purify our minds and bodies and protect our precious bodily fluids. No smoking, drinking, drugs, cholesterol, fat, butter, soda, cell phones.
Just a high tax Cream of Wheat future.
We MUST protect the children.
We need to protect the poor, stupid people (and especially the really stupid ones who might vote for Rand Paul, god forgive them) from the evils of carbonated death.
Have you seen the orand and grape soda these people drink?
It's astonishing.
Xmastime is exactly right. By accepting an inspector of meat, we naturally must accept that the government not only "inform" us that smoking is bad for us, but that it is stamped out.
It's for our own good.
http://www.bantransfats.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/19/crackdown-binge-drinking-code
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/08/eveningnews/main4784060.shtml
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/27/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100427
Thankfully, progress is being made.
"I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option."
This guy is a fucking menace. We need to ban his ass.
Tobacco smoking is about the dumbest bete noir any politician can try to turn into a prized puss.
Talk all you want about the "inconclusiveness" of second-hand smoke studies when it comes to lung cancer, Penn and Teller, it just proves you're good at sleight of hand. There are however several hundred studies that are conclusive when it comes to second-hand smoke causing emphysema, childhood asthma, and heart disease.
Keeping the non-smoking public safe from these things is a good idea. And if keeping most or all restaurants, bars and public buildings free from smoke does that, then it is a small price to pay. We can still smoke in our homes and cars and prostitute's apartment.
I don't have a problem whatsoever w/the smoke ban in public places. Except for bars. If someone can give me a legitimate explanation as to why it makes sense to ban another poisonous substance from a place where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING healthy is also being consumed, I'll shut my trap. (Also, I don't recall the last time someone smoked 2 cartons of Marlboros, drove their car and ran over a family of five, their driving skills impaired by nicotine. Just sayin'.)
As for overreach and smoking in our homes, I recently read a piece in the NY Daily News about a non-smoking couple who refused to buy an apt in a smoke-free building. You see, the smoke-free part included the inside of the apartments themselves. The prospective buyers did not know about this clause initially, and yet despite it not affecting them personally, they declined to purchase the place on principle. How long before the city of NY passes a non-smoking in apts ordinance? Think it's far-fetched? I wouldn't bet against it.
Almost everything we consume is potentially harmful to us. Educate us, then. But let people decide on their own what to do. Taxing my smokes and my whiskey is not the answer. That's some spiteful, puritanical, "shut-up-I-know-what's-best-for-you shit from the wine-and-cheese crowd.
Chicago BANS goose pate, California BANS transfats in restaurants. This isn't just telling you what is there -- and what if they don't want to know what is there when they go out for a special meal, so it is an unnecessary cost on the restaurant? It is government trying to be your parents and treating us all as children.
To be honest, I'm surprised Marley is this stupid:
Xmastime is exactly right. By accepting an inspector of meat, we naturally must accept that the government not only "inform" us that smoking is bad for us, but that it is stamped out.
Marley, no one is asking that we "stamp out" the double baconater-torpedo taco with cheese-double down fried chicken. All we're saying is that people should know how much fat theyre putting into their bodies. Oh wait - do you have a problem with beer bottles listing how much alcohol is in each bottle? Gee. Probably not.
Now, let me take you by the hand, since you're obviously an idiot....would you like one double baconater-torpedo taco with cheese-double down fried chicken" or two? Great!
Gee, we havent stopped you from getting what you wanted at all, have we? Gee whiz, big, bad evil government tells you what to buy, but we don't do we? Oh, but government is so awful!!!!!
So this is 2000 calories. And, ironically, not only do we not wanna stamp out the double-down, we wanna sell more of it!!
Grow the fuck up. You sounded like an idiot with this one, and I look forward to you rebounding. Government informing does not = government "stamping out!" unless you are lazy. You're smarter than that.
Hey doublestuff. Do you disagree with this statement:
"I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option."
Hey Kool Ade. Do you support "mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus?"
In the end, that's the issue at hand.
Education is great, even if condescending ("hey, dummy, that orange soda has a shitload of sugar? Have a Snapple!").
But we're reallt not talking about educting the poor dumbshits who chow on hoagies, are we?
So, if the entire upshot of your snide approach is "we need calorie counters and warnings for the morons that orange soda make you fat and smoking is bad [oh, and while we're at it, 'rinse, lather and repeat' does not mean ad infinitum," then we agree.
Fair enough, Deluise?
"Hmmm, I'll have the Italian hoagie [read the menu 4000 words to get to the price]"
"Ummm, make it the sliders."
hey Singlestuff,
thats so weird - i just flipped to the Simpsons and its the one where they go to Ireland and upset because there's no smoking allowed inside!
lets not pretend that some restaurants would really choose to be "smoke free," since they'd see that as missing out on potential customers. all a smoking ban really does is level the playing field, which I know you fans of "free market" and "competition" aren't too crazy about. your falling for this particular example puts you right where Rand Paul wants you: shaking your fists at "evil gubment!!!" for not placing the interests of a single person over those of the general public.
the difference between you and me is that i can understand the government protecting me in many instances, whereas you only care about being protected from the government when it's a coupla dudes swinging on monkeybars, after which it's perfectly fine to throw everybody's rights out the window.
Love,
DS
Your inability to answer yes or no questions speaks volumes.
"Banning alcohol in bars merely levels the playing field."
I'm happy you want the government protecting you. I'm confident, however, that you can wipe that big fat keister of yours without an FDA reminder.
And don't speak of monkey bars. They've been banned, along with dodge ball, due to their racist connotation and damage to self esteem.
I think the fact that Kiko and I came with 475 yards of agreement should force you to think a little deeper.
Now shut the fuck up and do that for 18 hours.
And the difference between you and me is about 6 ham hocks and half a steer.
im only now realizing that your Iran policy of "nuke them off the Earth or invite them for cookies while killing us" applies to everything else as well; ie, there's no in-between. people are either brilliant enough to smarmily know that they're eating shit that could kill them, or too stupid to be able to read the calorie counts anyway.
in between, there are millions of people who greatly appreciate that restaurants hafta have such lists available, and theyve maybe shaved a few pounds off some people, which outweighs (pun!) the almost zero amount of work and money that goes into making these lists accessible.
look at you. you're doing cartwheels to screech about calorie counts because your puppetmaster Rand is clapping his hands at you that you should be outraged at such counts signaling the end of freedom and liberty. unlike restaurants which, although bitching about the inconvenience as they would about having to do anything, for the most part havent screamed that posting caloric counts is a win for the terrorists.
and the steer bit is kinda lazy for you. should you take a quick nap, rest up?
Post a Comment