Obama's Really Pizzing Off the Wrong People.....Just Sayin'

[EastUS1]

I had a law professor who said that the COTUS is there to protect the people you despise the most and to protect them.

Welcome aboard!, well...only if you ever get around to actually understanding, accepting and believing in that premise, said understanding of which you in NO way ever evidence through your postings.

"I am willing to ban it in public places because ...."/etc, ad nauseum.

 

[Ms Tree]

Whaaaaaattttttt???? Where did you get that? I'm very reluctant to want to ban anything. For me the standard is very high. Public is public, private is private. I do not go to private place that allow smoking. My health is more important. Public places are a different story.

I am not telling you what you or others may do in private. Only in public where your actions affect me. Perhaps I was not clear. The State interest is that of protecting the public welfare. So I do believe there is a valid state interest in preventing people from smoking in public places where the smoke can/does affect all those who surround them.

You are attempting to create a conflict where none exists. A person should have absolute control over their own person. The only limitations to such rights is where those rights infringe upon the rights of others. The states interest is in protecting the rights of it's citizens from infringement by others. No rights are absolute. They all have limits.

 

[Ms Tree]

Welcome aboard, if you ever get around to actually understanding, accepting and believing in that premise, said understanding of which you in NO way ever evidence through your postings.

"I am willing to ban it in public places because ...."/etc, ad nauseum.

Show me a single post that I have made that contradicts what I have posted.

If you fail to understand why smoking in public violates my rights then there is no use in continuing this discussion.

 

[EastUS1]

Show me a single post that I have made that contradicts what I have posted.

Don't pretend an entire inability to actually read, although I'm starting to wonder....

 

[EastUS1]

The State interest is that of protecting the public welfare.

A person should have absolute control over their own person.

My tolerance for bovine flatulence is momentarilly exceeded.

 

[Ms Tree]

Don't pretend an entire inability to actually read, although I'm starting to wonder....

So you have no proof to substantiate your claim?

 

[Ms Tree]

No conflict. The states job is to protect my rights up until the point my rights conflict with someone elses. Absent that, all you have in anarchy.

 

[EastUS1]

So you have no proof to substantiate your claim?

Oh, by no means. It's now within my honest estimation to believe you to be a person unsuitable to be even at the controls of a vehicle I must properly share roads with, which results in thousands of fatalities every year. Should I call upon "Big Brother" to have you banned? You are, after all, through your demonstrated 'logic", very likely a real and potential threat to my health and well being. 😉

 

[EastUS1]

The states job is to protect my rights......

But...Certainly NOT the Rights of any/all others, who's behaviors you would so cheerfully wish the mighty "state" to ban? That's sufficient cause for hearty laughter for me at present. Have a fine day. 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

Not sure where you getting my 'cheerful willingness to ban' from but have at it if it floats your boat.

 

[EastUS1]

Not sure where you getting my 'cheerful willingness to ban' from but have at it if it floats your boat.

Ms Tree: "What rational do you use to ban drugs but allow alcohol.....?" Quickly followed by: " I see smoking as a drain on society. I am willing to ban it..." What did I miss there? 🙂 That was extended by you to "public places" but the truth is that you're just all warm and fuzzy with wanting to "ban" ANYTHING that YOU don't approve of, while insisting on the easy embrace of that which YOU feel appropriate.

I give you all liberal "thought" and "logic" at it's finest. The term "cross-threaded-BS" doesn't even begin to adequately serve here. 😉

You really want the reasonable rules for a decent society? I'll offer the following cliche, with the caveat that "insulted" no longer applies within a society that's sadly foresworn personal, honorable and direct interaction, in favor of ever-increasing "comfort" and cowardice:

 

[Ms Tree]

You missed public verse private. You missed the part about 'your rights stop where mine begin' along with several others things and topped off with gross misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[EastUS1]

You missed public verse private. You missed the part about 'your rights stop where mine begin' along with several others things and topped off with gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Really? "I see smoking as a drain on society. I am willing to ban it..." What did I miss there? 🙂 That was extended by you to "public places..."....?

As in an immediately above post on this very same page: "Don't pretend an entire inability to actually read, although I'm starting to wonder...."

With your now-well-demonstrated, amazing alacrity and precise attention to detail; you might truly be an honest hazard to others on the roadways. I say we ban you from driving vehicles of any sort...purely for the public good, of course, which evidently, at least in your "mind", clearly trumps any Rights you may imagine you have, or your sort wish to allow for any others anyway. 😉 It's nothing personal, and purely for the "public good", and who would you be to ever even question such a benevolent notion? 🙂 Seriously: What's second-hand smoke compared to ton-plus-lethal-weapons moving at relatively high speeds? It's a truly wonderful thing that we have government "control" over everyone in those, isn't it? Otherwise..well, thousands of people could be killed every year, and we might all have to admit that the world just isn't a "safe" place, that no amount of Big Brother indulgence will EVER make it so, and that one must actually use his/her own brain to even hopefully survive long. Sigh!...We just can't have THAT sort of thinking, can we? Taking even the very first step in that direction leads to the slippery slope of personal responsibility for one's actions...and thank God we've the glorious government to try and keep us "safely" away from ever doing that! 🙂

PS: Should anyone ever wonder at such blatant contempt for government: I first and always ever donned a Uniform for the People of this nation, NOT the azzwipes in DC.

 

[southwind]

You missed public verse private. You missed the part about 'your rights stop where mine begin' along with several others things and topped off with gross misrepresentation of what I said.

And just who determines where my rights end and yours begin?

 

[EastUS1]

And just who determines where my rights end and yours begin?

Well...Whenever/IF it's not at all possible for peoples/nations/whatever to reach any mutual accords, and no reasonable consensus can ever be achieved, and actual history's accepted as any indicator of our species behavior...this cliche video, however much a product of fantasy, but none-the-less exemplary of historically established, human behavior, should suffice to ultimately answer that. From Clausewitz: "War is the extension of politics through other means". "Liberals", having thus far existed merely as an absurdly overly indulged and "protected species", and that solely through the efforts and sacrifices of others, have little to no even conceptual understanding.