Fretful Nanny State Laws. Libtards run amok!

Looks like Libtards really don't want to control the bedroom. Just the lightbulbs, the cradle and the dog house! And the grocery store, too!

************************************************** **********
Big mother is watching with new laws in mind
Democratic proposals to regulate behavior draw Republican scorn.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

SACRAMENTO -- Enjoy fast food? Like to light up while you watch the waves? Forget to sock away money for your kids' education?

Some California lawmakers want to change your ways. They've planted a crop of proposals this year — "nanny" bills, as they're called — that would:

• Restrict the use of artery-clogging trans fat, common in fried and baked foods and linked to heart disease, in restaurants and school cafeterias.

• Bar smoking at state parks and beaches, and in cars carrying children.

• Open a savings account, seeded with $500, for every newborn Californian to use at 18 for college, a first home purchase or an investment for retirement.

• Fine dog and cat owners who don't spay or neuter their pets by 4 months of age.

• Require chain restaurants to list calorie, saturated fat and sodium content on menus.

• Phase out the sale of incandescent light bulbs, which are less energy-efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs.

The debate has commenced in the Capitol: How far should government go?

The proposals are the brainchildren of Democratic legislators. Republicans, who say the sponsors are trying to parent the whole state, are having none of it.

"Could you imagine the founding fathers dealing with — I don't know — wearing a helmet when you're in the buggy?" said the Assembly's Republican leader, Mike Villines of Clovis.
************************************************** ***********


Also see-
************************************************** ***********
San Francisco May Ban Plastic Bags
http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-plasti...ll=ktla-news-1

scene : dark alley. two figures stand 3 feet apart. first figure is in a long trenchcoat, one hand inside of coat holding something. second figure is clean cut, average, hands in pockets griping cash.

trenchcoat : " Listen i`m tellin` ya, this stuff is primo man !"

clean cut guy: " are you sure ? Last time i bought some some guy told me it was 100% and it wasn`t dude"

trenchcoat: " Whoa dude, this stuff is from central america !
Pure 100% animal fat Dude! Your fench fries will
have never tasted so good !"

Sounds of police sirens the two figures scatter and run. 8)

...and they celebrate Colt Gay Porn Day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

scene : dark alley. two figures stand 3 feet apart. first figure is in a long trenchcoat, one hand inside of coat holding something. second figure is clean cut, average, hands in pockets griping cash.

trenchcoat : " Listen i`m tellin` ya, this stuff is primo man !"

clean cut guy: " are you sure ? Last time i bought some some guy told me it was 100% and it wasn`t dude"

trenchcoat: " Whoa dude, this stuff is from central america !
Pure 100% animal fat Dude! Your fench fries will
have never tasted so good !"

Sounds of police sirens the two figures scatter and run. 8)

---

---------

You need to get your facts straight before trying to make comedy. The dangerous trans fats being banned are not from animals but rather from hydrogenated plant fats........

Furthermore---peanut oil makes the best fries.

I don't see anything wrong with legislation aimed at protecting people's health.

Is it wrong to ban smoking in cars when children are present TFan? Should not consumers have enough information to choose what food they will pay for and eat based on calorie content among other things? Some people have to keep an eye on their sodium consumption for medical reasons- should they not be given such information?

In any case, most if not all fast food chains in the US do not use animal fats for their French fries, and have switched to vegetable fats. In some cases, beef flavouring or animal-based powder is added for flavour but beef tallow which was once the fat of choice is no longer used. Just another fact that you were unaware of, White_Male_Canada, before trying to crack your silly jokes

The legislation you mention, TFan, could mean some major improvements in health. The EU has a bunch of laws like this and, even though nobody likes laws (or lawyers) much (apart from the lawyers themselves) these laws have helped the member states (especially the new member states) immensely. The laws are not here to restrict liberty but to promote health and welfare.

Anyway, you guys shouldn't talk about civil liberties. Remember the "war on drugs" (which America is losing) and the Patriot Act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LG

I don't see anything wrong with legislation aimed at protecting people's health.

Is it wrong to ban smoking in cars when children are present TFan?

---

Aha! The go-to move of the brown shirts. "It's the CHILDREN!"

Of course the supposition here is that the children actually exist and weren't vaccuumed out of the womb.

Do embryonic children have the right to protection against vacuums?

Quote:

---

Should not consumers have enough information to choose what food they will pay for and eat based on calorie content among other things? Some people have to keep an eye on their sodium consumption for medical reasons- should they not be given such information?

---

It's up to the consumer and the shop. Personally, if I had to keep a careful diet, I'd be picky about where I ate. It's my responsibility to find these things out, no one elses.

Quote:

---

In any case, most if not all fast food chains in the US do not use animal fats for their French fries, and have switched to vegetable fats. In some cases, beef flavouring or animal-based powder is added for flavour but beef tallow which was once the fat of choice is no longer used. Just another fact that you were unaware of, White_Male_Canada, before trying to crack your silly jokes

The legislation you mention, TFan, could mean some major improvements in health. The EU has a bunch of laws like this and, even though nobody likes laws (or lawyers) much (apart from the lawyers themselves) these laws have helped the member states (especially the new member states) immensely. The laws are not here to restrict liberty but to promote health and welfare.

Anyway, you guys shouldn't talk about civil liberties. Remember the "war on drugs" (which America is losing) and the Patriot Act?

---

America, as a whole, is a juggernaut. Just because some of our citizens decide to piss their lives away doesn't change that.

While i'm a firm believer in total liberty for the people, i realise that a lot of the people make poor decisions with that liberty.


I do not advocate any law governing a person's decision to be an idiot. But I do realise that if such a law were in place it is not out of the realm of possibility that it would improve the lives of others.


It is stupid to argue the point whether such "nanny" laws will make life better or worse. Because such laws strike at the very essence of liberty the debate should be about whether they should exist or not.

I believe they should not exist. While the health of a society is an important concern, freedom is more impotant. Nobody would want to live in a place where the government jails everybody and feeds them wheat germ and yogurt so that they can survive until 90 in imprisonment....

Consequently, nobody should be in favor of laws the disregard the right to choose in favor of a governmentally mandated menu of choices.

[quote="olite71"]While i'm a firm believer in total liberty for the people, i realise that a lot of the people make poor decisions with that liberty.[quote]


Can't have it both ways. You either support the laws of bigotry or the laws of totalitarianism. Though the brown shirts want to tell you you can have it both ways, you cant. Each person believes the way the brain and heart believe. Take away that and you should pray to the party above.

TFan,

You haven't answered my questions wiseguy:

-Is it wrong to ban smoking in cars when children are present TFan? Don't you know that passive smoking can cause as much harm as actual smoking?
-Should not consumers have enough information to choose what food they will pay for and eat based on calorie content among other things? You say you stick to a careful diet. Wouldn't it help if restaurants could actually tell you what is in the food you eat?
-Some people have to keep an eye on their sodium consumption for medical reasons- should they not be given such information? What about people with high cholesterol?

Quote:

---

-America, as a whole, is a juggernaut. Just because some of our citizens decide to piss their lives away doesn't change that.

---

So, Mr Libertarian, do you support the legalisation of all drugs? You should, if you are being honest about what you say- isn't up to the individual to choose whether he or she takes them or not? What about other things that some people might want to do? What about pollution and other things that can harm other people's health?

You see, it's not just about freedom, but also about protecting health. Yes, people can eat whatever they want, I agree. But, unless they know what they are eating, how can they choose?

Smokers can continue to smoke. I would never ban smoking. But where smoking can harm other people's health, especially the health of children, then you need to apply legislation for the public good. People who want to drink can drink. But they shouldn't drive, becuase they can kill both themselves and other people in an accident.

The specific pieces of legislation you mention relate to public health and consumer protection. I think they will do a world of good if applied properly.

As for your the embryonic children you argue about...I'm really not in the mood to argue, except to note that there are at least certain circumstances where a woman should be entitled to have power over her own body. It is not the state's to do as it wishes. And there are circumstances where bringing a life into this world may not be a good idea. The question is in what circumstances and at what stage of pregancy to draw the line, for me. Seeing things in black and white as you do is an oppressive expression of a type of chauvinism, in my opinion. But that is not an argument I want to get into now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LG

TFan,

You haven't answered my questions wiseguy:

-Is it wrong to ban smoking in cars when children are present TFan? Don't you know that passive smoking can cause as much harm as actual smoking?

---

Is it wrong for parents to smoke with kids in the car? Yes. Is the danger of GOVERNMENT INTRUSION into the lives and behavior of law-abiding private citizens a greater danger to our nation than said parents smoking with kids in the car? Yes.

Without liberty, safey does not matter. Without liberty, life is not living.