Yeah, More Nannyism

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
I hate children.

:roll:


Actually, marin, when you figure that you are a Democrat in name only and that the extremist views you post here do not represent that of mainstream Democrats, it seems that your radical authoritarian brand of socialism isn't winning any elections either. While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country, the most successful in history. Fascinating...

And my "ideological rigidity"?? I get this from a mental puppet who posts nothing but rhetoric and talking points? STFU.
And has no one else here noticed that supposed poor-loving/rich-hating Democratic faithful are rabidly defending the agenda of a rich Republican? Sometimes this place is just a bit too much...

Actually, my liberal views do represent those of mainstream Democrats, or did you miss the last election?
Nancy Pelosi, incoming speaker, Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, all from
San Francisco/Marin. And my views are very much in line with theirs.
And when have I defended the agenda of a rich Republican? If you meant Bloomberg, he is actually a Democrat.

I'm sure he'd be quite surprised (and pleased no doubt) to hear that. :laugh:

And no, marin, your views are not mainstream dem, or do you want to go over Feinstein's voting record with me?

Of course, you are wrong again.

In 2001 the incumbent mayor, Rudy Giuliani, was ineligible for re-election, as New York limits the mayoralty to two terms. Several well-known New York City politicians aspired to succeed him. Bloomberg, a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, decided to run for mayor as a member of the Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Meanwhile, Bloomberg was a registered Democrat until about a year ago. He has made no bones about the fact that he switched parties because a Democratic primary would have been impossible to win. Bizarrely, he candidly admitted that he was a "liberal" at a press conference where Gov. George Pataki endorsed him. But, he's not just liberal. Rudy Giuliani is socially liberal on abortion and gay rights. But he has the instincts of a conservative on crime, taxes, and challenging various liberal dogma. His battles on publicly funded art, for example, have been immense. Bloomberg demonstrates none of this willingness to pick symbolic cultural battles. He's a liberal Democrat in everything but name.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george110601.shtml
Yes we could go over Feinstein's record, but she is not really mainstream, she is a conservative democrat. I'd be happy to go over Pelosi's or Boxer's record though.

No, Feinstein is the mainstream Dem, Pelosi and Boxer are the radicals.

All you're doing here, Marin, is continuing to dig that hole. Liberal Democrat joins Republican party to get elected. Wow. And what about the rich part you're ignoring. He's the 34th richest man in America according to Forbes.

BTW, now that I hate children, is anyone going to back up the claim that I am somehow knee-jerking against this ban beyond the fact that I said I think it's unnecessary and probably foolish? I know you radicals like to play your little straw man games that I am evil Satan himself because I dare to disagree with you, but I think (as this does grow a little bit tiresome after a while) that you should wake up and realize that I've been fscking with you just to make you look like the fools you are. And yes, I do this often, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I give you just enough rope to hang yourselves with. You whine and lie and generalize your prejudices and label both yourself and others what you (and they) are not and destroy all intelligent discussion on this board, so I think it's the least you deserve.

I whine and lie, what did I lie about? And we hung ourselves? With what, the truth.
Here in California Senator Boxer and speaker Pelosi are mainstream, it is you that are the radical. How many of your Libertarians got elected?
Your name calling is what is destroying intelligent discussion here, maybe you should just STFU.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, I guess this is a carry over from a couple of days ago, so now not worshipping Hugo Chavez and not wanting the government to legislate personal choices is being a right wing kook. You are hopeless child.

Yep, you nailed it. That is rot's definition of a right-wing kook. Marin's is anyone who supports any type or extent of free markets, no matter how much that person might otherwise believe in personal liberties. Craig's is anyone who believes that the Democratic party is not as holy as the Pope. McOwen's is anyone who believes that such things as rich Democrats and poor Republicans actually exist. And on and on and on.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: marincounty
maybe you should just STFU.

If he did that his brain would have to think for a minute about how stupid the bs that comes out of his mouth is, and his spinal cord would probably strangle him for such idiocy, it's self preservation, don't be a hater.

 

[glutenberg]

We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic
I hate children.

:roll:


Actually, marin, when you figure that you are a Democrat in name only and that the extremist views you post here do not represent that of mainstream Democrats, it seems that your radical authoritarian brand of socialism isn't winning any elections either. While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country, the most successful in history. Fascinating...

And my "ideological rigidity"?? I get this from a mental puppet who posts nothing but rhetoric and talking points? STFU.
And has no one else here noticed that supposed poor-loving/rich-hating Democratic faithful are rabidly defending the agenda of a rich Republican? Sometimes this place is just a bit too much...

Actually, my liberal views do represent those of mainstream Democrats, or did you miss the last election?
Nancy Pelosi, incoming speaker, Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, all from
San Francisco/Marin. And my views are very much in line with theirs.
And when have I defended the agenda of a rich Republican? If you meant Bloomberg, he is actually a Democrat.

I'm sure he'd be quite surprised (and pleased no doubt) to hear that. :laugh:

And no, marin, your views are not mainstream dem, or do you want to go over Feinstein's voting record with me?

Of course, you are wrong again.

In 2001 the incumbent mayor, Rudy Giuliani, was ineligible for re-election, as New York limits the mayoralty to two terms. Several well-known New York City politicians aspired to succeed him. Bloomberg, a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, decided to run for mayor as a member of the Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Meanwhile, Bloomberg was a registered Democrat until about a year ago. He has made no bones about the fact that he switched parties because a Democratic primary would have been impossible to win. Bizarrely, he candidly admitted that he was a "liberal" at a press conference where Gov. George Pataki endorsed him. But, he's not just liberal. Rudy Giuliani is socially liberal on abortion and gay rights. But he has the instincts of a conservative on crime, taxes, and challenging various liberal dogma. His battles on publicly funded art, for example, have been immense. Bloomberg demonstrates none of this willingness to pick symbolic cultural battles. He's a liberal Democrat in everything but name.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george110601.shtml
Yes we could go over Feinstein's record, but she is not really mainstream, she is a conservative democrat. I'd be happy to go over Pelosi's or Boxer's record though.

No, Feinstein is the mainstream Dem, Pelosi and Boxer are the radicals.

All you're doing here, Marin, is continuing to dig that hole. Liberal Democrat joins Republican party to get elected. Wow. And what about the rich part you're ignoring. He's the 34th richest man in America according to Forbes.

BTW, now that I hate children, is anyone going to back up the claim that I am somehow knee-jerking against this ban beyond the fact that I said I think it's unnecessary and probably foolish? I know you radicals like to play your little straw man games that I am evil Satan himself because I dare to disagree with you, but I think (as this does grow a little bit tiresome after a while) that you should wake up and realize that I've been fscking with you just to make you look like the fools you are. And yes, I do this often, and yes, I am proud of the fact that I give you just enough rope to hang yourselves with. You whine and lie and generalize your prejudices and label both yourself and others what you (and they) are not and destroy all intelligent discussion on this board, so I think it's the least you deserve.

I whine and lie, what did I lie about? And we hung ourselves? With what, the truth.
Here in California Senator Boxer and speaker Pelosi are mainstream, it is you that are the radical. How many of your Libertarians got elected?
Your name calling is what is destroying intelligent discussion here, maybe you should just STFU.

Except that Bay Area Californians by no means represent mainstream Democratic party views and you know that.
"My Libertarians" get elected the same way Bloomberg got elected.
And you might want to read through this thread and see who started that name-calling and who persists in it.
Oh... that's right... I hate children. Silly me.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic


Except that Bay Area Californians by no means represent mainstream Democratic party views and you know that.

Hmm, you may want to look at election results and who is going to be speaker of the house. You may be in for a bit of a shock.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ayabe
not wanting the government to legislate personal choices is being a right wing kook. You are hopeless child.

No libertarians = right wing BS, with a heaping spoonful of naiveness and greed to top it off and a round of obnoxious know it all pompousness to round it all out.

So now I'm a libertarian? Got any more labels? Again you don't know me or haven't read any of my posts. Vic and I for instance disagree all the time. Edit - But i don't hold grudges and try to treat each topic as a clean slate, otherwise this forum turns into an idealogical mess and nothing sensible can come of that.

This ban is wrong, people should have the choice. The logic you are applying to justify this could be applied to an incalculable number of things. You can't be for it then against depending on whether an issue tickles your fancy. You are either for personal freedom or against it.

Big Macs are terrible for you, everyone who eats one knows this, but they have a choice. I am all for making it mandatory to post nutritional information, so that people can make informed choices. But taking away that choice is against our core values.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
Except that Bay Area Californians by no means represent mainstream Democratic party views and you know that.

Hmm, you may want to look at election results and who is going to be speaker of the house. You may be in for a bit of a shock.

Yes, a lot of conservative Democrats got elected in the South.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
Except that Bay Area Californians by no means represent mainstream Democratic party views and you know that.

Hmm, you may want to look at election results and who is going to be speaker of the house. You may be in for a bit of a shock.

Yes, a lot of conservative Democrats got elected in the South.

And if they represented the direction the Dems wanted to take the country one of them would be speaker, but they are not.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

Also, from a Libertarian standpoint, are corporate entities guaranteed similar rights as the individual? I haven't been able to find any real information about this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

It was addressed and immediate dismissed admist a hail of personal attacks.
Trans fats are not necessarily cheaper. They were developed with government support as a supposed healthier alternative to saturated fats, like animals fats and butter. That turned out not to be true. Now... imagine if people with the pass-a-law-to-protect-everyone mentality had banned butter a couple of decades ago? Between fighting off personal attacks, that and what ayabe said has been my point since I entered this thread.

edit:

Also, from a Libertarian standpoint, are corporate entities guaranteed similar rights as the individual?

NO! Although the obvious fact that corporations are comprised of individuals is recognized.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

This happens all the time, one year people are saying eggs are terrible for you, next year they're great, same with butter, margarine, saccharine, coffee, beer, wine on down the line.

As for the poor, I disagree that the poor are not as educated about food choices, they have access to the same nutritional information as the rest of us. Just go into a restaurant and ask. I think the difference may be in whether they care or not. I was an extremely poor college student at one time, but I still managed to eat relatively healthy food. There are alternatives.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CPA
See story here.

I know many of you will see this as a beacon of hope and triumph for humankind, but I see this as another means to an end of our freedoms and self-reliance. Thanks NYC for believing that I can't take care of myself.

You can go ahead and keep eating that ****** and have a heart attack. I'm glad NYC did something about this.

 

[glutenberg]

Well, trans fats were developed with two goals. One was for the cheaper costs due to longer shelf life of artificial trans fats versus natural oils and second was the assumption that artificial trans fats could be healthier.

The butter analogy is good and the only response I have to it is that they're banning an artificial additive to food that offers no benefits except shelf life (since its health related benefits have been disproved). As heart disease is the number one non-natural killer of Americans (partially attributable to the higher trans fat diets that have developed), should we wait around for the market to correct itself while the individual person is harmed by it?

Another thing I'm curious about is how does a one's actions, no matter how personal, not affect others? If you smoke in your house, you are exercising your liberty but if you get cancer, are you not infringing on other peoples' liberties (in particular, family members) of avoiding emotional hardship? This probably comes mainly from my confusion about what liberties Libertarians support specifically.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

This happens all the time, one year people are saying eggs are terrible for you, next year they're great, same with butter, margarine, saccharine, coffee, beer, wine on down the line.

As for the poor, I disagree that the poor are not as educated about food choices, they have access to the same nutritional information as the rest of us. Just go into a restaurant and ask. I think the difference may be in whether they care or not. I was an extremely poor college student at one time, but I still managed to eat relatively healthy food. There are alternatives.

My points was more that poorer people typically are less educated. They may hear on the news (and we know how accurate the news is sometimes and how unbiased they can be) that trans fats are bad for them but how do they know they are bad? They aren't typically privy to internet usage also this creates the expectation that people are always burdened to find out the truth.

Regarding the eggs and wines, etc, data. I wholeheartedly agree that it switches around alot. That's what I'm trying to figure out about Libertarians since from what I can tell, their argument is that perfect information is required to have informed consumers. Now, if information is jumping around like that yearly, how will the market adjust from consumer choices if no one can be sure of the information's accuracy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Another thing I'm curious about is how does a one's actions, no matter how personal, not affect others? If you smoke in your house, you are exercising your liberty but if you get cancer, are you not infringing on other peoples' liberties (in particular, family members) of avoiding emotional hardship? This probably comes mainly from my confusion about what liberties Libertarians support specifically.

There is no right to be protected from emotional hardship. That would be completely unreasonable and impossible. There would have to be laws like your girlfriend couldn't break up with you or something ridiculous like that.

 

[glutenberg]

I'm just trying to understand how Libertarians weight rights of individuals and which rights they actually support. I see people adding in random rights like rights of businesses to run their business the way they want and so on.

Also, since businesses are not regarded as people, isn't the banning of using a particular additive by those businesses not limiting your rights to a certain product as that product is attainable elsewhere? Businesses serve the mass and as such, does every person's rights need to be taken into account? Should it be my right to be served foods that aren't cooked with trans fats? Say I go to a McDonalds, it is my right not to be discriminated against because I don't enjoy trans fats, so should McDonalds immediately offer food cooked in trans fats and foods cooked in alternative oils? The issue I have with artificial trans fats is that it's artificial and doesn't give me an impression of being something to choose on. Had full accurate data and information been available for this product, it would've never made it to the market to begin with. But that's an entirely different matter and just a personal opinion.

P.S.
Thank you Vic and ayabe for returning this to a civil and informative discussion.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

No I didn't say Vic hated children. You are wrong once again. I said " In other words, Vic is in favor of poisoning children. "

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

It was addressed and immediate dismissed admist a hail of personal attacks.
Trans fats are not necessarily cheaper. They were developed with government support as a supposed healthier alternative to saturated fats, like animals fats and butter. That turned out not to be true. Now... imagine if people with the pass-a-law-to-protect-everyone mentality had banned butter a couple of decades ago? Between fighting off personal attacks, that and what ayabe said has been my point since I entered this thread.

Hey Vic, I agree with you that knee-jerk responses can result in bad decisions in hindsight... but what if it turned out that butter was banned and it really was worse for you? By taking action now you use the information you have available to you - if you are wrong you can always unban something I suppose. Of course, you always have to weigh the potential costs of banning/restricting something in a knee-jerk fashion as well...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why do we discuss whether people should be free to make bad choices when it is precisely that people who make them aren't free to do otherwise? People have this absurd notion that they have free will. There is no such thing. Free will is the rubric behind which we hide when we want to ascribe guilt and blame. It is vital to the prosecutor mentality that needs the inferior out there to justify and magnify the greatness purported to be in them. You are what you are totally by accident. We do not know what we feel but what we feel runs everything.

Totally disagree. Free will is very real.

You had no choice but to disagree, no?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why do we discuss whether people should be free to make bad choices when it is precisely that people who make them aren't free to do otherwise? People have this absurd notion that they have free will. There is no such thing. Free will is the rubric behind which we hide when we want to ascribe guilt and blame. It is vital to the prosecutor mentality that needs the inferior out there to justify and magnify the greatness purported to be in them. You are what you are totally by accident. We do not know what we feel but what we feel runs everything.

Totally disagree. Free will is very real.

You had no choice but to disagree, no?

Ahh, good ol' Philosophy 1 at UCLA all over again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

It was addressed and immediate dismissed admist a hail of personal attacks.
Trans fats are not necessarily cheaper. They were developed with government support as a supposed healthier alternative to saturated fats, like animals fats and butter. That turned out not to be true. Now... imagine if people with the pass-a-law-to-protect-everyone mentality had banned butter a couple of decades ago? Between fighting off personal attacks, that and what ayabe said has been my point since I entered this thread.

Hey Vic, I agree with you that knee-jerk responses can result in bad decisions in hindsight... but what if it turned out that butter was banned and it really was worse for you? By taking action now you use the information you have available to you - if you are wrong you can always unban something I suppose. Of course, you always have to weigh the potential costs of banning/restricting something in a knee-jerk fashion as well...

It is my experience that bad laws are almost impossible to get off the books, even after the mistake is realized. For example, I think homosexuality is still illegal in several states.

 

[Pandamonium]

Trans fats were first synthesized by industry giants in the hope of turning waste into product. They were tolerated, IIRC, because WWII strained the cooking oil industry.

Currently, we're not in a state of war. Currently, there is seemingly incontrovertible evidence that these synthetic oils are harmful to one's health. Currently, no company is going to stop producing a product that saves it money in the name of public health. Currently, it would seem that most of the american public is too dumb to grasp the concept that food consumption can affect one's health. (Otherwise, obesity wouldn't be such a big problem.)

So yes, having a government mandate to address trans fat removal is a good thing. In general, it's not- I'm a libertarian. But trans fats have become entrenched in our society as a cost-saving measure by private industry. They were permitted in the past, under a different set of circumstances than those that currently exist. The only other straightforward way to remove trans-fats is to pay companies to stop producing it. I'd rather have new laws than have higher taxes to PAY COMPANIES TO NOT PRODUCE a product.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
We all need to calm down and reroute this conversation back on track, so everyone, stop with the personal attacks. I still would like to know how Libertarians account for socio-economic issues when regarding consumer choices.

That has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread. Through consumer education (before legislation), and strict fraud protection enforcement. This is why Marin said I hate children.

People haven't addressed this at all. Consumer education requires scientific data to only support one side or the other. What happens when data shows support for each side 50/50? Also, how do they account for the poorer education that people lower on the socio-economic ladder will receive? If trans-fats are what keeps food at a relative cheaper price, are you not creating a situation where poorer people are more affected by trans fats than people who have the option of buying healthier alternatives?

It was addressed and immediate dismissed admist a hail of personal attacks.
Trans fats are not necessarily cheaper. They were developed with government support as a supposed healthier alternative to saturated fats, like animals fats and butter. That turned out not to be true. Now... imagine if people with the pass-a-law-to-protect-everyone mentality had banned butter a couple of decades ago? Between fighting off personal attacks, that and what ayabe said has been my point since I entered this thread.

Hey Vic, I agree with you that knee-jerk responses can result in bad decisions in hindsight... but what if it turned out that butter was banned and it really was worse for you? By taking action now you use the information you have available to you - if you are wrong you can always unban something I suppose. Of course, you always have to weigh the potential costs of banning/restricting something in a knee-jerk fashion as well...

It is my experience that bad laws are almost impossible to get off the books, even after the mistake is realized. For example, I think homosexuality is still illegal in several states.

Is it really? I thought those laws have been removed for quite awhile now.