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.
Well -- there used to be more security that you could go to work and not have Middle Easterns hijack a plane to destroy the building you're in, and there used to be a right to run in the Boston Marathon without Middle Easterners' bombs in place to kill and maim everyone near the finish line.
False flags didn't begin in my lifetime till Viet Nam.
You must like the Nanny State telling you what you can eat, drink or smoke. You must like the loss of your 4th Amendment rights.
It has nothing to do with speed limits and smoking in a hospital bed.
First, the "nanny state" doesn't tell me what I can eat, drink (unless a minor) or smoke (with the exception of marijuana and crack.) Cigarettes are legal, so is alcohol. We label food so consumers know what's in the package. These are reasonable regulations.
Second, I know some imagine the 4th Amendment to say something that it does not, but this is the text:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think your post would be what the kids call "flipping the script". I go about my business and the only wussies I hear are those complaining how they cant smoke in their hosital beds or cant drive 100 miles ph in a school zone. blah balh balh...
Give me a break...stop complaining wussies. grow the f up.
Yeah, that's what people are fighting for.
The freedom to smoke in a hospital bed and the freedom to drive 100 mph in a school zone.
P.S. I see no reason why a terminally ill patient should be denied a smoke. Hell. we give them morphine and all manner of dope anyway. What's a Marlboro gonna hurt? If I ran a hospital I'd let the dying light up. It's the humane thing to do.
The freedom to smoke in a hospital bed and the freedom to drive 100 mph in a school zone.
P.S. I see no reason why a terminally ill patient should be denied a smoke. Hell. we give them amorphine and all manner of dope anyway. What's a Marlboro gonna hurt? If I ran a hospital I'd let the dying light up. It's the humane thing to do.
If patients are not allowed to smoke, it's to protect other patients from second-hand smoke.
Interesting list. But didn't they drop the no-more-incandescent lightbulbs thing?
I think it was narrowly defeated at the last minute. By if that ban had passed, twenty years from now people would ask the same question, 'what freedoms have we lost' and there would be people oblivious to the fact that we used to be free to buy whatever light bulb we wanted.
Back in the day, Soviet citizens were free to buy whatever government produced car they wanted, after they filled out the government paperwork and waited a few years for their car. That's the type of government allowed freedom we are headed towards, and we are over halfway there.
Except that your "freedom" to discriminate in hiring infringes upon other people's freedom to make a living.
Well, I think you are misunderstanding the problem. For instance, no one is entitled to any job, regardless of skin color, gender, age, religion, etc. There are a million ways people already legally discriminate, and no one really cares, because we see those things as "good discrimination".
For instance, when people hire a housekeeper. Most people only want to hire women. I mean, who wants a male housekeeper? Furthermore, many want to only hire attractive housekeepers. Some only want to hire older housekeepers(because they feel they are more responsible). Is that kind of discrimination acceptable?
The point is, if I'm looking to hire someone for my business. I should have the right to hire whoever I believe is best for the position I'm hiring for. And nothing stopped blacks from only hiring other blacks, or Asians only Asians. And really, that's what happens all the time in the world today.
When I go to a fast-food restaurant, say McDonald's. Depending on location, its either all blacks working there, or all Mexicans. When I worked for McDonald's back in 1996 in my suburban town, it was basically all white people working there. I mean, the evening shift was basically all kids from my high school.
If you ever go into an Asian business of any kind, its basically all Asians working there. If you go into what many call a "***** store", where most of the high school kids were buying cigarettes illegally. Its always a bunch of like, Indians, Pakistani's, Vietnamese, or some other Asian group working there.
The truth is, no one has the "freedom" to work anywhere.
I have a friend who is Chinese, and he says his father told him even when he was young, not to do business with Asian people. Because they are always out to ********* over. I have a black friend who says not to do business with black people. I've personally done plenty of business with all different races and ethnic groups. And I'll tell you, at least in certain kinds of business(I deal with a lot of low-income people), you feel a hell of a lot better when you get a phone call from a person who sounds white, than anyone else.
I mean, I do a lot of business on craigslist. And I have to drive to "meet" people with large amounts of cash in my pocket. If I have someone who sounds remotely ghetto call me, I say no thanks. I don't feel like getting robbed today.
In fact, I feel a lot better doing business with women than men. In fact, I love doing business with women. And if I could stay busy only doing business with women(especially older women), I would.
What does it make me? A sexist ageist racist? Or just a realist?
If patients are not allowed to smoke, it's to protect other patients from second-hand smoke.
I understand why. And I agree with that.
If I owned a hospital I wouldn't allow the vast mojoruty of patients to smoke.
But if they are gonna die I'd go ahead and let them. What's the big deal? We give 'em all these narcotics and crap anyway. A little tobacco won't hurt them.
Now I wouldn't let them smoke around the patients that are gonna walk out of there. Or patients that don't want to be around smoke, terminal or not.
I think your post would be what the kids call "flipping the script". I go about my business and the only wussies I hear are those complaining how they cant smoke in their hosital beds or cant drive 100 miles ph in a school zone. blah balh balh...
Give me a break...stop complaining wussies. grow the f up.
Typical liberal debate tactic, create a straw dog, a ludicrous caricature of the views on the opposing side of an issue. We do have diminishing freedoms in the US, because of the statists in and out of government, who want to dictate our rights and freedoms thru laws and regulations. When the liberal position is weak and flawed, out they come with the most asinine comparisons they can think up.
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.
