Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Obama is a tyrant for implementing policy by Executive Order, what is Gov. Fallin? She issued this EO back in Feb. because the OU regents adopted a more tolerant smoking policy than she liked. So, she just created her own new law by Executive Order. It just became effective last month.
Well there's a small difference here..a Governor can only do it for a state while the President can do it for an entire country.
The state you can escape from by moving..the national one..you can run but never escape it.
Well there's a small difference here..a Governor can only do it for a state while the President can do it for an entire country.
The state you can escape from by moving..the national one..you can run but never escape it.
That's about the most specious rebuttal I've seen yet. There is NO difference, unless you mean to say that tyranny at the state level is OK.
If Obama is a tyrant for implementing policy by Executive Order, what is Gov. Fallin? She issued this EO back in Feb. because the OU regents adopted a more tolerant smoking policy than she liked. So, she just created her own new law by Executive Order. It just became effective last month.
Republican Party = The intolerant Nanny State by Executive Order.
Agreed.
That is a messed up state, if the governor has that kind of sweeping power to ban smoking in all private businesses. I'm just confused why you would object to tyranny by any government
so since federal law allows buildings to make themselves smoke free, and as governor she has the power to order a smoke free workplace, somehow that is tyranny? what about the tyranny of san fransisco city council trying to ban smoking in the city outright? is that not also tyranny? how about bloomberg trying to ban all kinds of things in new york city, is that not also tyranny? if you are going to attack governor fallin for following federal law, then go after EVERYONE who tries to ban ANYTHING.
That is a messed up state, if the governor has that kind of sweeping power to ban smoking in all private businesses. I'm just confused why you would object to tyranny by any government
Not all private businesses, just state property, even if leased and even outside.
so since federal law allows buildings to make themselves smoke free, and as governor she has the power to order a smoke free workplace, somehow that is tyranny? what about the tyranny of san fransisco city council trying to ban smoking in the city outright? is that not also tyranny? how about bloomberg trying to ban all kinds of things in new york city, is that not also tyranny? if you are going to attack governor fallin for following federal law, then go after EVERYONE who tries to ban ANYTHING.
The San Francisco City Council is an elected, representative body. So is the New York City Council. They must approve Bloomberg's recommendations.
By doing this via Executive Order, Fallin has circumvented the elected state legislature. If Obama does something like that, he's called a tyrant. Yet, here we are with the identical same scenario and people are defending Fallin.
If Obama is a tyrant for implementing policy by Executive Order, what is Gov. Fallin? She issued this EO back in Feb. because the OU regents adopted a more tolerant smoking policy than she liked. So, she just created her own new law by Executive Order. It just became effective last month.
Republican Party = The intolerant Nanny State by Executive Order.
What, you thought the Dems were the only Nanny State party on the bloc?
I am kinda surprised that OK didn't already have this law though. I didn't think there was any place left in the US where you could smoke indoors or on public lands/properties?
That's about the most specious rebuttal I've seen yet. There is NO difference, unless you mean to say that tyranny at the state level is OK.
Is it?
There IS a huge difference because you CAN move from one state to another... however, that doesn't change the fact that it's as nanny state as bloomberg banning 16 oz sodas, and SF banning circumcisions, and so on and so on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
