I so don’t have time for this today…
Tam posted on this guy’s whinge that smoking should be Federally BannedTM. The guy replied in her comments with the typical liberal “I am a Victim, Hear Me Roar” bullshit. This is my favorite:
There are thousands of federal laws that protect the public from daily hazards of living.
Let’s just grok that for a moment, shall we?
Number one, he says that like it’s a good thing, instead of utterly fall-down laughable.
Number two, “protect the public from the daily hazards of living”?? That’s just an eye-wateringly stupid statement right there. Are there T-Rexes on the loose? No? Sabretoothed tigers invading your swimming pools? No? Not even small irritated weasels gnawing at your doorjambs?
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where most people just cannot conceive of living without the Government’s help and supervision. Self-reliance to them means carrying the trash to the curb, so Government services can whisk it away to La-La Land. What happens before and after that is not really their concern, and they like it that way.
I just have one question, and it may as well just be rhetorical for all the intelligent response it will generate:
Do you enjoy being a victim?
Oh, I’m sure you don’t feel like you’re a victim. You probably feel nice and swaddled, like a cherished baby, secure in the protection of Grampa Government’s embrace. You’re happy having the Hard Decisions made for you, by people whose main qualifications seem to be their ability to spend other people’s money in the most wasteful fashion possible.
Well, the rest of us feel like actual Adults, son, and we’re getting pretty fucking sick and tired of Grampa Government’s attempts to stick us in Depends.
*GRRRRRR!!!!*
Smoking is already “federally banned” in all government offices (except those occupied by congresscritters, that is. The laws don’t apply to them.). So those of us who enjoy a nice cigar from time to time get to stand out in the freezing cold, getting sick, instead of having the freedom to choose to enjoy our cigars at our desks. I really get ticked at all these damned nanny-staters; I wish they’d all just go the hell to Ka-li-for-nia and stay there.
D.W.
January 6th, 2009
First, I didn’t say smoking should be banned. I said smoking in public places should be banned as a matter of good public health policy. Like many good public health policies.
And by the way, I am a convservative and blog constantly against federal involvement in many things.
I even talk about third hand smoke. Now that is some really scary stuff.
Come read my blog. You might learn a thing or two.
The Happy Hospitalist
January 6th, 2009
But not the things that represent your personal ox, of course.
You didn’t answer my question, so I sincerely doubt it.
Liberty Girl
January 6th, 2009
What’s your question? Do I consider myself a victim? I’m not a victim of anything. I make all my own choices in life and live with the consequences.
That consequence does not include infesting my lungs with the smoke of another in a public venue. If you are asking me if my right to breath the air of a public venue that isn’t filled with smoke trumps a smoker’s right to infest a nonsmokers lungs with toxic spew the answer is yes. Every time.
If you need an explanation why, then you are one of those people that don’t get it.
The Happy Hospitalist
January 6th, 2009
@The Happy Hospitalist:
Sorry, son, you’re a one-note wonder. Move on.
Liberty Girl
January 6th, 2009
HH: If possible, could we discuss this federal anti-public smoking ban proposal of yours without your straw-man arguments of HIV infected needles, nuclear waste, or lighting a fag in the NCIU ward coming into the picture? Thanks in advance.
I think the problem that I, as well as plenty of others apparently, have with your proposal is that what you are suggesting is illegal, unconstitutional, and yes, anti-American.
You suggest that the president of the United States, without due process of the voters or our representatives, make a decision that will affect millions of citizens. For that to happen, you willingly recuse yourself from any further decisions in how your government operates and give the government full and total power over how a citizen can choose to conduct his life and lifestyle.
I understand that your focus is based on what you perceive as a public health matter. Honestly, I do. If you think that smoking in public is a public health issue that should be addressed, fine. But perhaps in your enthusiasm for your cause you have failed to realize that the METHOD you chose to accomplish this is flawed.
I wonder if maybe your premise is flawed also. That the government, any government, should be allowed to dictate to its citizens (not ‘subjects’ in this country, but citizens of a republic) what, where, when, and with whom that citizen is allowed to participate in a legal activity. You make the suggestion that smoking in public is paramount to assault on any non-smoker. However, you fail to take into account that there are millions of other people in this country who may find that the smell of curry is offensive, or that are allergic to peanut butter or bees. If we allow the President to create law that affects one group, a group that you as an individual do not care for, what keeps the President from later deciding that the damn curry cookers are next. Or the beekeepers. This is precisely why what you propose is morally and legally wrong. No one member of our government should have the kind of power you propose. Our Constitution kind of lays that out.
Now, if you could get a majority of our hirelings in D.C. to decide that your proposal of a total public smoking ban is a good idea, (despite the fact that tobacco is a legal crop to grow, despite the fact that local, state, and federal levels of government receive taxes from the sales of tobacco products, and despite the fact that the definition of “public” is still a matter of some debate) and get it passed up to the office of the President, and if the President would sign it, then and only then could the ban you envision be enforced. That is basic “Civics” for you. Of course, the court battles, state court injunctions, and lack of enforcement could make it a mute point.
I think that you might be well served by re-thinking your position. If what you want is just to get attention, you have certainly done that. But if you are actually serious, despite the hyperbole that you have spouted, you seriously need to drop a little bit of attitude, find your emotional center, and decide if what you are proposing is good for the country at large, or just for your own personal interest group. Once you decide that, feel free to tell rest of us so we will know if your body of work is simply a façade around your true feelings or whether you just allowed yourself to get caught up in the moment of having fun arguing on the internet..
MLG
January 6th, 2009
That was wierd.
The Happy Hospitalist
January 6th, 2009
weird
The Happy Hospitalist
January 6th, 2009
Everyone has their blind spots, their issue where logic breaks down and is not consistently applied. Doesn’t surprise me that he sees a federal ban on smoking as perfectly reasonable despite his arguments against federal intrusion into other aspects of American life.
Roger
January 7th, 2009
My generation understood responsibility and accountability. Asshole liberals today think it’s Uncle Sam’s job to breast feed the whole fucking world.
DarLy
January 9th, 2009