Of course the answer to any problem is: make a law.
The article is about a public awareness campaign, which is really of course a false flag event designed to take even more of our rights away.
Bllomberg appears to be a meglomaniac....he has already passed a law prohibiting loud music in clubs, now it appears he wants to get into my head phones just like some politicians want to get in my bedroom.
I can't think of one useful or necessary law that was designed to protect me, as a legally consenting adult, from my own actions.
While based on this thread there seems to be little tolerance for things that simply annoy people, what I have no tolerance for are politicians who feel they know what's better for me than I do.
Of course the answer to any problem is: make a law.
The article is about a public awareness campaign, which is really of course a false flag event designed to take even more of our rights away.
Bllomberg appears to be a meglomaniac....he has already passed a law prohibiting loud music in clubs, now it appears he wants to get into my head phones just like some politicians want to get in my bedroom.
I can't think of one useful or necessary law that was designed to protect me, as a legally consenting adult, from my own actions.
While based on this thread there seems to be little tolerance for things that simply annoy people, what I have no tolerance for are politicians who feel they know what's better for me than I do.
While I won't disagree with your assessment of Bloomberg, I have to wonder if you even read the article you posted.
There is no mention anywhere of any laws or legislation - it's a health awareness campaign (one that is largely funded privately) about hearing loss. At any given time a city like NYC has tons of these going, about STDs, exposure to the sun, exercising etc. Again, why is this different than any of the other ones? Or are you against those too?
[While I won't disagree with your assessment of Bloomberg, I have to wonder if you even read the article you posted.
There is no mention anywhere of any laws or legislation - it's a health awareness campaign (one that is largely funded privately) about hearing loss. At any given time a city like NYC has tons of these going, about STDs, exposure to the sun, exercising etc. Again, why is this different than any of the other ones? Or are you against those too?
C'mon M....you know me better than that....that's why in my initial post I said...
Rockadelic said:
But even the cynic that I am didn't think these clowns would try to tell you that you shouldn't/couldn't listen to loud music on your own personal ear buds.....but, but, but they aren't making it illegal, just trying to educate folks.
That's how all the others began too.
The first step in banning anything is to "educate".....Bloomberg has a greater history than any modern politician of trying to "protect us from ourselves"...if I've indentified his agenda too early I apologize.
Bloomberg appears to be a megalomaniac... I can't think of one useful or necessary law that was designed to protect me, as a legally consenting adult, from my own actions.
Not only a megalomaniac, but always willing to throw his weight behind a useless, unnecessary issue (be it law or not) that does absolutely nothing to help repair any of the city's larger, over-arching problems, e.g. no problem banning large soft drinks, but a dismal failure at improving, for example, the school system.
Of course, for that to happen, he'd have to actually give a shit about said problems, which I've never believed he does. This is the same guy who, 5 years ago, when asked about the fact that the majority of 9/11 first responders still had lingering respiratory problems, replied with something to the effect of "I don't think there's any correlation there".
As far as the noisy earbud people, any law covering that would be unenforceable, and unfortunately, that group of people will likely not come to their senses until they're all wearing hearing aids at the age of 35.
While based on this thread there seems to be little tolerance for things that simply annoy people, what I have no tolerance for are politicians who feel they know what's better for me than I do.
And yet you seem to have plenty of tolerance for politicians who want to tell people other than you what they should do.
When people zap right-wingers for their inane anti-gay and anti-woman agendas you dismiss those concerns as unimportant.
But keep those liberal hands off Big Gulps! That's the true Freedom Ride of our time.
Should a cop be able to give you a ticket for letting a 3 year old ride unrestrained in the front seat of your Death Star? Should it be illegal for schools to teach kids that condoms prevent the spread of STDs?
As a supporter of Gay Rights/Marriage, Womens Rights and being Pro Choice I have never dismissed these issues as unimportant.
I have stated that when voting for President, regardless of what your views are on these issues, you should not have them as a top priority. There are much more important big picture issues that quite frankly, if not resolved, would render the former issues as much less important.
Regardless of party(Bloomberg has been BOTH a Democrat and a Republican) I am against all laws that are designed to protect me from myself. I support laws that protect a 3 year old from their parents stupidity and ignorance and I am for all types of education as long as it's not indoctrination.
Give me an example of one single law that is designed solely to protect a consenting adult from themselves that you support?
While based on this thread there seems to be little tolerance for things that simply annoy people, what I have no tolerance for are politicians who feel they know what's better for me than I do.
And yet you seem to have plenty of tolerance for politicians who want to tell people other than you what they should do.
When people zap right-wingers for their inane anti-gay and anti-woman agendas you dismiss those concerns as unimportant.
But keep those liberal hands off Big Gulps! That's the true Freedom Ride of our time.
Should a cop be able to give you a ticket for letting a 3 year old ride unrestrained in the front seat of your Death Star? Should it be illegal for schools to teach kids that condoms prevent the spread of STDs?
As a supporter of Gay Rights/Marriage, Womens Rights and being Pro Choice I have never dismissed these issues as unimportant.
I have stated that when voting for President, regardless of what your views are on these issues, you should not have them as a top priority. There are much more important big picture issues that quite frankly, if not resolved, would render the former issues as much less important.
Regardless of party(Bloomberg has been BOTH a Democrat and a Republican) I am against all laws that are designed to protect me from myself. I support laws that protect a 3 year old from their parents stupidity and ignorance and I am for all types of education as long as it's not indoctrination.
Give me an example of one single law that is designed solely to protect a consenting adult from themselves that you support?
Rock, what gives you the right to tell anyone what their top priority should be? Sorry, gay couple who's been together for decades and wants to get married- that should not be your top priority in this election- Rock deems your happiness as less important.
That sounds exactly like self-important politicians that you rail against.
Rockadelic can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was trying to be totalitarian about it - it seems like he's saying that an issue like gay marriage, which affects a small number of people relative to the size of the country, cannot, by definition, be as pressing an issue as (for example) the economy, which affects nearly everyone.
Anyone running for President would be foolish to put the smaller issue as a priority over the larger one, and anyone voting primarily on the basis of the smaller issue would be missing the big picture - I would think that even if you're gay, the ability to maintain a decent standard of living would be more important to your happiness than whether your marriage is recognized.
If that's the case, I'd agree. It doesn't mean the smaller issue isn't important, but at some point, when we look at our laundry list of societal problems, something has to take priority... and we all know the saying about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.
Rockadelic can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was trying to be totalitarian about it - it seems like he's saying that an issue like gay marriage, which affects a small number of people relative to the size of the country, cannot, by definition, be as pressing an issue as (for example) the economy, which affects nearly everyone.
Anyone running for President would be foolish to put the smaller issue as a priority over the larger one, and anyone voting primarily on the basis of the smaller issue would be missing the big picture - I would think that even if you're gay, the ability to maintain a decent standard of living would be more important to your happiness than whether your marriage is recognized.
If that's the case, I'd agree. It doesn't mean the smaller issue isn't important, but at some point, when we look at our laundry list of societal problems, something has to take priority... and we all know the saying about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.
If that is the case, then Rock I apologize. I misunderstood.
To a gay person who cannot collect life insurance, social security, etc from their significant other, then gay marriage is about the economy to them...
Seat belt laws are a law designed to protect you from yourself...are seat belt laws a bad idea?
Rockadelic can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was trying to be totalitarian about it - it seems like he's saying that an issue like gay marriage, which affects a small number of people relative to the size of the country, cannot, by definition, be as pressing an issue as (for example) the economy, which affects nearly everyone.
Anyone running for President would be foolish to put the smaller issue as a priority over the larger one, and anyone voting primarily on the basis of the smaller issue would be missing the big picture - I would think that even if you're gay, the ability to maintain a decent standard of living would be more important to your happiness than whether your marriage is recognized.
If that's the case, I'd agree. It doesn't mean the smaller issue isn't important, but at some point, when we look at our laundry list of societal problems, something has to take priority... and we all know the saying about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.
If that is the case, then Rock I apologize. I misunderstood.
To a gay person who cannot collect life insurance, social security, etc from their significant other, then gay marriage is about the economy to them...
Seat belt laws are a law designed to protect you from yourself...are seat belt laws a bad idea?
Seat belt laws are designed to protect me from drunken idiots and bad drivers and other things that are out of my control.
I can sit in my car parked in my driveway all day long w/o a seat belt.
As far as laws that ban Trans Fats and Big Gulps being for the greater good, that is a slippery slope that no one in their right mind would travel down given the myriad of possibilities and rationalizations.
As far as laws that ban Trans Fats and Big Gulps being for the greater good, that is a slippery slope that no one in their right mind would travel down given the myriad of possibilities and rationalizations.
In the context of ObamaCare, it's a slippery slope that will soon be part of daily discussion by politicians and lay citizens alike.
As far as laws that ban Trans Fats and Big Gulps being for the greater good, that is a slippery slope that no one in their right mind would travel down given the myriad of possibilities and rationalizations.
Slippery slope arguments are the first refuge of scoundrels.
"We can't decriminalize marijuana because it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know we'll be giving out free crack in kindergartens."
Marijuana being illegal is a perfect example of a law intended to protect us from ourselves.
Rationalizing the outlawing of large soft drinks by claiming it leads to obesity and subsequently effects us all with higher health care costs is some flat out bullshit not unlike your free crack to kindergartens analogy.
As far as laws that ban Trans Fats and Big Gulps being for the greater good, that is a slippery slope that no one in their right mind would travel down given the myriad of possibilities and rationalizations.
In the context of ObamaCare, it's a slippery slope that will soon be part of daily discussion by politicians and lay citizens alike.
True......You often hear that no one wants the law or government in their bedroom...I don't want them in my kitchen either.
Rockadelic can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was trying to be totalitarian about it - it seems like he's saying that an issue like gay marriage, which affects a small number of people relative to the size of the country, cannot, by definition, be as pressing an issue as (for example) the economy, which affects nearly everyone.
Sure, but it's a false choice.
"We can't worry about gays, women, or manatees until we FIX THE ECONOMY." What does that even mean? How will we know when it's fixed? Is there really some reason we can't do more than one thing at a time?
Not really sure how you got the idea that I was framing it as a one-or-the-other choice. Prioritization doesn't necessarily mean that. The federal government already does a great many things at the same time... and one doesn't necessarily have to be complete before another begins, but it doesn't really make sense for us to think that every single item on the list can be given the exact same level of attention, all the time.
Maybe a micro-example will make more sense: At my job, I currently have my hands in roughly 15 different projects. Some are more time-sensitive than others. Some affect a larger number of people than others. Some are more expensive than others. Some require more labor on my part than others. Some require assistance from other parts of my organization. They all must be completed within about 15 months, but the impact of some will be larger than others, which means that if I face any delays, I have to favor those that are most impactful. While I will be working on parts of all of them simultaneously, I have to weigh the various factors that come into play and prioritize them accordingly, and I have to re-assess them on a weekly basis, because there is a limit to how many things my team and I can accurately focus on at the exact same time. If it looks like we may not have the resources to finish all of them, then the least necessary may have to be pushed to the next fiscal year. We don't like that, but sometimes we have no choice.
Larger, wider-reaching issues have to have some level of priority over smaller ones, partly because the outcome of the larger issues often affects the smaller ones.
Comments
Bllomberg appears to be a meglomaniac....he has already passed a law prohibiting loud music in clubs, now it appears he wants to get into my head phones just like some politicians want to get in my bedroom.
I can't think of one useful or necessary law that was designed to protect me, as a legally consenting adult, from my own actions.
While based on this thread there seems to be little tolerance for things that simply annoy people, what I have no tolerance for are politicians who feel they know what's better for me than I do.
While I won't disagree with your assessment of Bloomberg, I have to wonder if you even read the article you posted.
There is no mention anywhere of any laws or legislation - it's a health awareness campaign (one that is largely funded privately) about hearing loss. At any given time a city like NYC has tons of these going, about STDs, exposure to the sun, exercising etc. Again, why is this different than any of the other ones? Or are you against those too?
C'mon M....you know me better than that....that's why in my initial post I said...
The first step in banning anything is to "educate".....Bloomberg has a greater history than any modern politician of trying to "protect us from ourselves"...if I've indentified his agenda too early I apologize.
Not only a megalomaniac, but always willing to throw his weight behind a useless, unnecessary issue (be it law or not) that does absolutely nothing to help repair any of the city's larger, over-arching problems, e.g. no problem banning large soft drinks, but a dismal failure at improving, for example, the school system.
Of course, for that to happen, he'd have to actually give a shit about said problems, which I've never believed he does. This is the same guy who, 5 years ago, when asked about the fact that the majority of 9/11 first responders still had lingering respiratory problems, replied with something to the effect of "I don't think there's any correlation there".
As far as the noisy earbud people, any law covering that would be unenforceable, and unfortunately, that group of people will likely not come to their senses until they're all wearing hearing aids at the age of 35.
As a supporter of Gay Rights/Marriage, Womens Rights and being Pro Choice I have never dismissed these issues as unimportant.
I have stated that when voting for President, regardless of what your views are on these issues, you should not have them as a top priority. There are much more important big picture issues that quite frankly, if not resolved, would render the former issues as much less important.
Regardless of party(Bloomberg has been BOTH a Democrat and a Republican) I am against all laws that are designed to protect me from myself. I support laws that protect a 3 year old from their parents stupidity and ignorance and I am for all types of education as long as it's not indoctrination.
Give me an example of one single law that is designed solely to protect a consenting adult from themselves that you support?
Speed limit.
However, driving slower and drinking less milk would be hard.
I was going to respond but you're a fool so I won't waste my time.
Yeah, give it some thought.
Rock, what gives you the right to tell anyone what their top priority should be? Sorry, gay couple who's been together for decades and wants to get married- that should not be your top priority in this election- Rock deems your happiness as less important.
That sounds exactly like self-important politicians that you rail against.
I can't think of a single law that fits that description.
Even Bloomberg's laws against trans fats and giant sodas used their cost to society as a whole as at least part of their justification.
Anyone running for President would be foolish to put the smaller issue as a priority over the larger one, and anyone voting primarily on the basis of the smaller issue would be missing the big picture - I would think that even if you're gay, the ability to maintain a decent standard of living would be more important to your happiness than whether your marriage is recognized.
If that's the case, I'd agree. It doesn't mean the smaller issue isn't important, but at some point, when we look at our laundry list of societal problems, something has to take priority... and we all know the saying about the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.
If that is the case, then Rock I apologize. I misunderstood.
Seat belt laws are a law designed to protect you from yourself...are seat belt laws a bad idea?
I think Fred summed up my comments well.
Seat belt laws are designed to protect me from drunken idiots and bad drivers and other things that are out of my control.
I can sit in my car parked in my driveway all day long w/o a seat belt.
As far as laws that ban Trans Fats and Big Gulps being for the greater good, that is a slippery slope that no one in their right mind would travel down given the myriad of possibilities and rationalizations.
In the context of ObamaCare, it's a slippery slope that will soon be part of daily discussion by politicians and lay citizens alike.
Marijuana being illegal is a perfect example of a law intended to protect us from ourselves.
Rationalizing the outlawing of large soft drinks by claiming it leads to obesity and subsequently effects us all with higher health care costs is some flat out bullshit not unlike your free crack to kindergartens analogy.
True......You often hear that no one wants the law or government in their bedroom...I don't want them in my kitchen either.
Not really sure how you got the idea that I was framing it as a one-or-the-other choice. Prioritization doesn't necessarily mean that. The federal government already does a great many things at the same time... and one doesn't necessarily have to be complete before another begins, but it doesn't really make sense for us to think that every single item on the list can be given the exact same level of attention, all the time.
Maybe a micro-example will make more sense: At my job, I currently have my hands in roughly 15 different projects. Some are more time-sensitive than others. Some affect a larger number of people than others. Some are more expensive than others. Some require more labor on my part than others. Some require assistance from other parts of my organization. They all must be completed within about 15 months, but the impact of some will be larger than others, which means that if I face any delays, I have to favor those that are most impactful. While I will be working on parts of all of them simultaneously, I have to weigh the various factors that come into play and prioritize them accordingly, and I have to re-assess them on a weekly basis, because there is a limit to how many things my team and I can accurately focus on at the exact same time. If it looks like we may not have the resources to finish all of them, then the least necessary may have to be pushed to the next fiscal year. We don't like that, but sometimes we have no choice.
Larger, wider-reaching issues have to have some level of priority over smaller ones, partly because the outcome of the larger issues often affects the smaller ones.
But yes, manatees.