Yeah, More Nannyism

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

There must be no mirrors in your glass house.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

There must be no mirrors in your glass house.

The people I voted for won and now are the majority, what do you have? You and the other 5 angry white men hiding in your moms basements whining about socialists and plotting the downfall of the country, thats it.

Even admitted socialists can get elected, all you have is your frothing wackiness and you think you represent america? what a laugh riot.

 

[glutenberg]

Really the only knee jerk reaction I have seen in this post has been from Vic. Everyone else has been trying to discuss the pros and cons of this ban and all I hear from him is the most knee jerk reaction of believing this has somehow imposed his free will. I don't like science and logic? Where did you draw that from? I can pretty much claim the same thing for you since obviously, you don't like science or logic (it's great to make accusations without any support, isn't it?). In fact, I would go so far as to say that your beliefs leaves you in a microcosm without the ability to consider society as a whole. Your world consists of everyone being pefectly knowledgeable and the hopes that the market will always control substances. You leave out all socio-economic discussion regarding what portion of society is going to be the most informed assuming that everyone has the same access to the same information and that there will never be conflicting scientific data. Your world is a thinktank world of the privileged with total disregard to reality and the fact that hierarchies will always exist. You think people who are barely able to support themselves should be subjected to more trans fat foods than the richer people? Do you think that there is that much of a savings cost in using artificial trans fats than regular oils? Your world supports only the profit margin of corporations and ignores the general benefit of society. If you think that caring about the general benefit of society equals moral highground, then so be it. All it shows is your absolute ignorance to all the factors in a functioning society. So, I followed your method of pretending like I know every poster's intentions and thoughts perfectly (after all, you're the master of the perfect information world) and decided to frame my own opinion about you. Give me a break.

If you want an example of consumers not making the right choices even with full information, just look at the oil industry. Why would anyone stay with oil knowing that sources are depleting, it's effect on the environment, rising prices, etc? Shall we take our sweet time figuring out alternative sources knowing full well the political lobbying behind the oil industry? The tobacco industry has historically been the same.

So, I await patiently for your kneejerk, almighty response to why we're all playing the moral highground card and why your system is so perfect. So, carry on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

There must be no mirrors in your glass house.

The people I voted for won and now are the majority, what do you have? You and the other 5 angry white men hiding in your moms basements whining about socialists and plotting the downfall of the country, thats it.

Even admitted socialists can get elected, all you have is your frothing wackiness and you think you represent america? what a laugh riot.

What admitted socialists got elected, rot? The Dems that you and I both voted for (my rep is David Wu BTW) got the majority because they returned to the moderate middle. You need to wake up or something.
BTW, I am currently posting from my 6th floor window office.

 

[Steeplerot]

Who is a famous libertarian? hmm the unibomber? what a joke. :laugh:


Edit:

oops sorry, I forgot bill o'reilly. :laugh:

 

[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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Really the only knee jerk reaction I have seen in this post has been from Vic. Everyone else has been trying to discuss the pros and cons of this ban and all I hear from him is the most knee jerk reaction of believing this has somehow imposed his free will. I don't like science and logic? Where did you draw that from? I can pretty much claim the same thing for you since obviously, you don't like science or logic (it's great to make accusations without any support, isn't it?). In fact, I would go so far as to say that your beliefs leaves you in a microcosm without the ability to consider society as a whole. Your world consists of everyone being pefectly knowledgeable and the hopes that the market will always control substances. You leave out all socio-economic discussion regarding what portion of society is going to be the most informed assuming that everyone has the same access to the same information and that there will never be conflicting scientific data. Your world is a thinktank world of the privileged with total disregard to reality and the fact that hierarchies will always exist. You think people who are barely able to support themselves should be subjected to more trans fat foods than the richer people? Do you think that there is that much of a savings cost in using artificial trans fats than regular oils? Your world supports only the profit margin of corporations and ignores the general benefit of society. If you think that caring about the general benefit of society equals moral highground, then so be it. All it shows is your absolute ignorance to all the factors in a functioning society. So, I followed your method of pretending like I know every poster's intentions and thoughts perfectly (after all, you're the master of the perfect information world) and decided to frame my own opinion about you. Give me a break.

If you want an example of consumers not making the right choices even with full information, just look at the oil industry. Why would anyone stay with oil knowing that sources are depleting, it's effect on the environment, rising prices, etc? Shall we take our sweet time figuring out alternative sources knowing full well the political lobbying behind the oil industry? The tobacco industry has historically been the same.

So, I await patiently for your kneejerk, almighty response to why we're all playing the moral highground card and why your system is so perfect. So, carry on.

Would you care to quote these kneejerks of mine? I'd like to see them.

Sometimes I'm amazed at what people post given that these threads are documented, recorded, archived, and available for all to see. This isn't a verbal conversation.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

*Raises hand*

What is so whacked out about wanting the government to stay out of people's personal choices?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

*Raises hand*

What is so whacked out about wanting the government to stay out of people's personal choices?

All americans want this within reason, you think it is something special or unique? If you do you need to rethink the right wing cultish mindset you have been fed.

Anyhow, you are full of it, if you for example are being held up you would be wishing for government intervention from the police for example.

 

[glutenberg]

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?

He's a lifelong Democrat. He used the moderate Republican stance to succeed Giuliani. The country was founded on the original moderate Republican stance with Liberal ideals. Even the economy that this country was founded on was not entirely based on a pure, free market. Where you got the idea that the US was founded on your ideals, is beyond me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Who is a famous libertarian? hmm the unibomber? what a joke. :laugh:


Edit:

oops sorry, I forgot bill o'reilly. :laugh:

If O'Reilly is a Libertarian as you keep alleging in thread after thread after thread, then why did he refuse the LP candidate's (Michael Badnarik) challenge for a publicized debate during the 2004 election, after O'Reilly said he would pay $50k to any 3rd-party candidate willing to publicly debate him?

Sometimes, rot, I don't think you realize what a lying fool you make yourself look like here.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

*Raises hand*

What is so whacked out about wanting the government to stay out of people's personal choices?

All americans want this within reason, you think it is something special or unique? If you do you need to rethink the right wing cultish mindset you have been fed.

Anyhow, you are full of it, if you for example are being held up you would be wishing for government intervention from the police for example.

You know dick about me buddy so you better check yourself.


Got any more straw men?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Really the only knee jerk reaction I have seen in this post has been from Vic. Everyone else has been trying to discuss the pros and cons of this ban and all I hear from him is the most knee jerk reaction of believing this has somehow imposed his free will. I don't like science and logic? Where did you draw that from? I can pretty much claim the same thing for you since obviously, you don't like science or logic (it's great to make accusations without any support, isn't it?). In fact, I would go so far as to say that your beliefs leaves you in a microcosm without the ability to consider society as a whole. Your world consists of everyone being pefectly knowledgeable and the hopes that the market will always control substances. You leave out all socio-economic discussion regarding what portion of society is going to be the most informed assuming that everyone has the same access to the same information and that there will never be conflicting scientific data. Your world is a thinktank world of the privileged with total disregard to reality and the fact that hierarchies will always exist. You think people who are barely able to support themselves should be subjected to more trans fat foods than the richer people? Do you think that there is that much of a savings cost in using artificial trans fats than regular oils? Your world supports only the profit margin of corporations and ignores the general benefit of society. If you think that caring about the general benefit of society equals moral highground, then so be it. All it shows is your absolute ignorance to all the factors in a functioning society. So, I followed your method of pretending like I know every poster's intentions and thoughts perfectly (after all, you're the master of the perfect information world) and decided to frame my own opinion about you. Give me a break.

If you want an example of consumers not making the right choices even with full information, just look at the oil industry. Why would anyone stay with oil knowing that sources are depleting, it's effect on the environment, rising prices, etc? Shall we take our sweet time figuring out alternative sources knowing full well the political lobbying behind the oil industry? The tobacco industry has historically been the same.

So, I await patiently for your kneejerk, almighty response to why we're all playing the moral highground card and why your system is so perfect. So, carry on.

Would you care to quote these kneejerks of mine? I'd like to see them.

Sometimes I'm amazed at what people post given that these threads are documented, recorded, archived, and available for all to see. This isn't a verbal conversation.

Every one of your posts is as much a kneejerk reaction as those you claim to be reacting in that fashion. So, no, I'm not going to repost all of your posts.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ayabe

You know dick about me buddy so you better check yourself.

I can see you and Vic are going to get along great! freakin e-thugs tough guys lol

Step off my liberty you commies socialists yo!

 

[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.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
While my classical liberal views are those that founded this country

Bwahahahaha! You keep telling that to yourself and the 5 other whackos who buy this BS.

*Raises hand*

What is so whacked out about wanting the government to stay out of people's personal choices?

Because personal choices affect others? In this case, the externality of medical coverage.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Really the only knee jerk reaction I have seen in this post has been from Vic. Everyone else has been trying to discuss the pros and cons of this ban and all I hear from him is the most knee jerk reaction of believing this has somehow imposed his free will. I don't like science and logic? Where did you draw that from? I can pretty much claim the same thing for you since obviously, you don't like science or logic (it's great to make accusations without any support, isn't it?). In fact, I would go so far as to say that your beliefs leaves you in a microcosm without the ability to consider society as a whole. Your world consists of everyone being pefectly knowledgeable and the hopes that the market will always control substances. You leave out all socio-economic discussion regarding what portion of society is going to be the most informed assuming that everyone has the same access to the same information and that there will never be conflicting scientific data. Your world is a thinktank world of the privileged with total disregard to reality and the fact that hierarchies will always exist. You think people who are barely able to support themselves should be subjected to more trans fat foods than the richer people? Do you think that there is that much of a savings cost in using artificial trans fats than regular oils? Your world supports only the profit margin of corporations and ignores the general benefit of society. If you think that caring about the general benefit of society equals moral highground, then so be it. All it shows is your absolute ignorance to all the factors in a functioning society. So, I followed your method of pretending like I know every poster's intentions and thoughts perfectly (after all, you're the master of the perfect information world) and decided to frame my own opinion about you. Give me a break.

If you want an example of consumers not making the right choices even with full information, just look at the oil industry. Why would anyone stay with oil knowing that sources are depleting, it's effect on the environment, rising prices, etc? Shall we take our sweet time figuring out alternative sources knowing full well the political lobbying behind the oil industry? The tobacco industry has historically been the same.

So, I await patiently for your kneejerk, almighty response to why we're all playing the moral highground card and why your system is so perfect. So, carry on.

Would you care to quote these kneejerks of mine? I'd like to see them.

Sometimes I'm amazed at what people post given that these threads are documented, recorded, archived, and available for all to see. This isn't a verbal conversation.

Every one of your posts is as much a kneejerk reaction as those you claim to be reacting in that fashion. So, no, I'm not going to repost all of your posts.

Translation: you didn't find any of these alleged knee-jerk reactions.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ayabe

You know dick about me buddy so you better check yourself.

I can see you and Vic are going to get along great! freakin e-thugs tough guys lol

I don't need a lecture from a lightweight like yourself, I have been labeled a left wing whacko and now a right wing whacko by you; and all you have to defend yourself are straw man arguments.

By your definition, I guess being gay should be outlawed, since anal sex has a much higher rate of STD transmission than normal intercourse, gotta protect people from themselves you know.

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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ayabe

You know dick about me buddy so you better check yourself.

I can see you and Vic are going to get along great! freakin e-thugs tough guys lol

Step off my liberty you commies socialists yo!

I didn't see ayabe do any e-thugging, except point out that you obvious don't read his posts (FYI: he's a leftist and proud of it).
You, however, are always thugging it, rot. Or can I assume you aren't going to address your usual O'Reilly accusation, but just ignore that and move on to a Limbaugh accusation?

 

[glutenberg]

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.

Got to love self-proclaimed winners of internet forums. Yay for you. If you still can't figure out how your point of view that your expressing is as much of a kneejerk as those who expressed their point of views on the topic, then I don't know what to say to you. By the way, the only person destroying intelligent discussion is you. I posed a few questions regarding Libertarianism out of curiousity to become more informed to be responded with, "And is it "science with agenda" or "science that tells you what you don't want to hear"? Either way, you don't sound like a lover of science, or of logical thinking." You're resulting to personal attacks as much as everyone else, so get off your moral high horse of being the only one trying to encourage intelligent discussion.

 

[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.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Really the only knee jerk reaction I have seen in this post has been from Vic. Everyone else has been trying to discuss the pros and cons of this ban and all I hear from him is the most knee jerk reaction of believing this has somehow imposed his free will. I don't like science and logic? Where did you draw that from? I can pretty much claim the same thing for you since obviously, you don't like science or logic (it's great to make accusations without any support, isn't it?). In fact, I would go so far as to say that your beliefs leaves you in a microcosm without the ability to consider society as a whole. Your world consists of everyone being pefectly knowledgeable and the hopes that the market will always control substances. You leave out all socio-economic discussion regarding what portion of society is going to be the most informed assuming that everyone has the same access to the same information and that there will never be conflicting scientific data. Your world is a thinktank world of the privileged with total disregard to reality and the fact that hierarchies will always exist. You think people who are barely able to support themselves should be subjected to more trans fat foods than the richer people? Do you think that there is that much of a savings cost in using artificial trans fats than regular oils? Your world supports only the profit margin of corporations and ignores the general benefit of society. If you think that caring about the general benefit of society equals moral highground, then so be it. All it shows is your absolute ignorance to all the factors in a functioning society. So, I followed your method of pretending like I know every poster's intentions and thoughts perfectly (after all, you're the master of the perfect information world) and decided to frame my own opinion about you. Give me a break.

If you want an example of consumers not making the right choices even with full information, just look at the oil industry. Why would anyone stay with oil knowing that sources are depleting, it's effect on the environment, rising prices, etc? Shall we take our sweet time figuring out alternative sources knowing full well the political lobbying behind the oil industry? The tobacco industry has historically been the same.

So, I await patiently for your kneejerk, almighty response to why we're all playing the moral highground card and why your system is so perfect. So, carry on.

Would you care to quote these kneejerks of mine? I'd like to see them.

Sometimes I'm amazed at what people post given that these threads are documented, recorded, archived, and available for all to see. This isn't a verbal conversation.

Every one of your posts is as much a kneejerk reaction as those you claim to be reacting in that fashion. So, no, I'm not going to repost all of your posts.

Translation: you didn't find any of these alleged knee-jerk reactions.

Translation: Posting all of your knee jerk reactions wastes everyone's time.