Conservative Mind Set & Conspiracy Theories

Ah, the Nanny State’s ever watchful eye glares at competition. In Palm Beach Florida, a local church wanted to feed Thanksgiving meals to the homeless gathered in John Prince Park, but local park rangers turned the group away, ordering them to stop...


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

The Obama administration has declared war on what they apparently think is a scourge of price fixing in the United States. And what industry have the singled out for this scrutiny? Big Pharma? The oil industry? No…it’s the humble piano teacher.


http://poorrichardsnews.com/
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

Radical leftists aren't trying to control every move you make? After 40+ years it might be time for the old Captain to pick up a weapon again. When they start telling me what I can and can't do in my own home, with a LEGAL substance, it's time for me to say trespassers will will shot. Survivors will be shot again.
And no, I don't smoke, but I just may start again just to snuff the butt out in some leftist motherfuckers face.

The town of San Rafael, Calif., has passed a ban on smoking that city officials have called the most stringent in the nation. The new ordinance makes it illegal for residents to smoke in their own homes if they share a wall with another dwelling.

The ban applies to owners and renters alike, and it covers condominiums, co-ops, apartments and any multi-family residence containing three or more units.

http://gma.yahoo.com/california-town-bans-smoking-condos-apartments-share-walls-172256834.html

BTW, This is the reason that gun owners are so suspicious of what leftists call "reasonable restrictions". Smoking bans started out with reasonable restrictions, and now have grown to the point where smoking is almost impossible to do anywhere, even your own home.
More...

I'm guessing you never lived above or next to a smoker in a condo. I know people who do. They don't like it.
Your right to kill yourself with smoke stops at the point your smoke starts to kill me.
Freedom is great thing. Too bad dumb, shallow-thinking, hysterical righties have such a narrow, biased definition of it. Being free from having one's air polluted by some addict is one of them.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

I'm guessing you never lived above or next to a smoker in a condo. I know people who do. They don't like it.
Your right to kill yourself with smoke stops at the point your smoke starts to kill me.
Freedom is great thing. Too bad dumb, shallow-thinking, hysterical righties have such a narrow, biased definition of it. Being free from having one's air polluted by some addict is one of them.
More...

The one thing I will agree with you on. When something infringes on another's right, then it is no longer your right. Ie, when you smoke, and you do it around others, that is no longer a right you should be entitled to.

Smoke all you want in your own house, car, or property.
 
You’ve probably heard about the new trend that involves people faking hate crimes and other outlandish acts of prejudice in an apparent attempt to shed light on injustice or something. Apparently it’s all the rage these days. I guess the people doing it don’t understand that they’re making things harder on themselves in the long run. That being said, the case involving several “bias incidents” at Vassar College in New York might be a little different than all the others. Why? Because the perpetrator was one of the students in charge of investigating the “bias incidents”.


http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/68761574676/meet-the-vassar-college-student-who-faked-hate-speech
 
Quote from Lucrum:

NANNY STATE ALERT! ...
If the lawsuit is successful in forcing EPA to impose new regulations on wood-burning heating units, many low- and middle-class families living primarily in rural areas may be forced to spend thousands of dollars to switch to newer units or use more expensive forms of energy in order to stay warm....
More...

What bothers me about these regulations is not that a seemingly argument for them cannot be made, it often can be, it's whether sufficient consideration has been given to cost benefit analysis, and whether the proponents have a conflict of interest. It is self-evident that many, perhaps most, regulations have their genesis in good intentions, but the impetus for them may come from politically mediated business interests that are often successful in remaining obscure. As a result the cost, in dollars, aggravation, and lost personal freedom, may far outweigh any benefit, other than, of course, those who may personally profit.

On a personal level, I would generally prefer to accept greater personal risk in exchange for greater personal freedom, and less government intrusion.

Here is a specific example. In my home town, if a gas meter has been shut off for 6 months or more the gas company removes the meter. When later a meter is reinstalled, it was routine for the gas company to check for leaks, by pressurizing the line and checking for a pressure drop. (One of those electric car tire inflaters is used.) There was no additional charge for this. (Alternatively, any home owner can do their own test, with all gas appliances shut off, by walk and sniff and then marking the meter's fast dial. If an hour later the dial has moved, there is a leak.) Recently the city passed an ordinance making it illegal for the gas company to reinstall a meter where gas service previously existed without having a licensed plumber do a pressure test. The test takes i5 minutes and now costs $200. The gas company still provides this service gratis in the county, but not within the city limits. Good intentions were likely behind this new regulation, and lucrative work for plumbing contractors resulted. But no increase in public safety was achieved, though cost associated with reinstating gas service increased from $35 to $235. This is an example, of a costly yet superfluous regulation that provides no additional benefit. It is also an example of bad government.
 
Quote from piezoe:

What bothers me about these regulations is not that there may not be valid argument for them,there usually is, it's whether sufficient consideration has been given to cost benefit analysis; and whether the proponents have a conflict of interest. It is self-evident that many, perhaps most, regulations have their genesis in good intentions, but the impetus for them may come from politically mediated business interests that are often successful in remaining obscure. As a result the cost, in dollars, aggravation, and lost personal freedom, may far outweigh any benefit.
More...
Don't forget the often overlooked unintended consequences of many if not most regulations.

On a personal level, I would generally prefer to accept greater personal risk in exchange for greater personal freedom, and less government intrusion.
More...
That's odd coming from you. Just the other day you weren't concerned with the size of government. You're not going two faced on me are ya?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Don't forget the often overlooked unintended consequences of many if not most regulations.

That's odd coming from you. Just the other day you weren't concerned with the size of government. You're not going two faced on me are ya?
More...


Naturally I am concerned with the size of government. What I said was if you concentrate on achieving good, efficient government you will get to the best size automatically. I'll say it another way, but more bluntly: It is wrong headed, and not very smart, to rail against government being too large and indiscriminately call for smaller government. That is the kind of idiotic thinking that gave us the sequester. And it is the same kind of idiotic thinking that infects the radical wing of the Republican party today. They are not interested in good government. They are not interested in efficient government. They are only interested in small government, because they think government is bad. If they can't have their way and eliminate much of government, then they will settle for making it malfunction, and then say: "see I told you so, government is bad!"

That, in fact, is a mechanism by which Soros reflexivity operates. It's a mechanism implied by his observation that "if you believe government is bad, you will create bad government."
 
Quote from piezoe:

Naturally I am concerned with the size of government. What I said was if you concentrate on achieving good, efficient government you will get to the best size automatically. I'll say it another way, but more bluntly: It is wrong headed, and not very smart, to rail against government being too large and indiscriminately call for smaller government. That is the kind of idiotic thinking that gave us the sequester. And it is the same kind of idiotic thinking that infects the radical wing of the Republican party today. They are not interested in good government. They think government is bad, and if they can't have their way and eliminate much of government, then they will settle for making it malfunction, and then say: "see I told you so, government is bad!"
More...
Now you're you going full liberal retard on me. Virtually all the conservatives I know are calling for more efficient productive cost effective government. NOT no government. The part you seem to be overlooking is that a more efficient productive cost effective government. Would inextricably be a smaller government.

That, in fact, is a mechanism by which Soros reflexivity operates. It's a mechanism implied by his observation that "if you believe government is bad, you will create bad government."
More...
Your stock craters every time you quote that arrogant asshole Soros. Just so you know.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top