Liberals vs Conservatives (dollars, compared, terrorists, economic)

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu

I am a smoker. Before the ban in Illinois, when determining where I wanted to go, I had a choice to make. I could either visit a restaurant that didn't allow smoking, or one that the owner determined that it was Ok. There were non-smoking establishments before the law was put in place you know.

Many times, I visited restaurants that were smoke free, and I still went because I enjoyed the food/atmosphere etc. I didn't complain, or ***** that a legal activity, smoking, should be allowed. Instead, I respected the owners decision, and enjoyed my time there.

Or, I could go to a place that would allow me to have a cigarette after dinner with my cup of coffee. I went to these places too because I enjoyed that relaxing portion of my meal.

The problem that I have is the audacity of some people to think that their preferences outweigh anybody elses. You don't smoke, and because you OPTED not to go to smoking establishments, you decieded that the best answer was to bring government in to change the establishment and owners decision to YOUR preferences. The market didn't go your way, and force the owner to ban smoking by lack of patrons, so you felt it necessary, along with politicians, to FORCE your preference on everybody else.

I believe that this is what the liberal neighbor was commenting about. I do oppose that rule/regulation/law. It is ridiculous that some people have such an arrogant position in life, they believe that their preferences should be forced upon others. They enter into somebody elses PRIVATE establishment, and tell them that they should change the way they do something.

As a good comparison, lets assume that a steakhouse grills over an open flame, charing the outside of their blackened steak. The anti-smoking law would be the same as somebody coming into that restaurant, claiming they want the blackened steak, but requesting that the owner cook it on an electric grill. Whent he owner refuses, and claims that his blackened steak sells very well as it is and the patron is able to order an alternative off the menu, the patron storms out in a fuss and calls her local state representative to have a law drafted outlawing blackened steak cooked on an open fire.

Its complete absurdity.

Just as I did when I decieded not to go to a restaurant because they didn't allow smoking, you have the choice to go elsewhere as well. Stopping pushing your will on me and other business owners. I believe THAT is what the liberal was talking about. Why can't the libs just leave us alone?

Paragraph 1: Well, I think the tough part here, and a big dent in your argument, is that I don't believe many Americans would really want to make a decision on where they can eat based on whether or not there is smoking. Personally, I'd rather make my decision on the quality of food at a restaurant, considering it is an eating establishment, not a smoking establishment. At least by my understanding of restaurants. I know there were non-smoking establishments. But many of the state public bans provide public bans for places aside from just consumer based locations. Such as banning smoking within a specific range of a public building (usually in feet). Public parks, sporting events, etc. I like that.

Paragraph 2: A cigarette isn't a portion of your meal, just as chewing gum wouldn't be.

Paragraph 3: I don't understand the necessity to make it about "forcing". No one is forcing you to do anything that someone else was not once forcing a not smoker to do (not smoke vs. inhale smoke). Smoking simply being a personal choice isn't enough to allow it to be done in public. Lots of people personally choose to have sex, but that isn't enough for it to be done in public. There are people (if you can believe it), who actually enjoy being urinated on. But that isn't enough for it to be done in public.

Paragraph 4: The liberal neighbor could have been commenting on any manner of rules and regulations in relation to the government, I agree. That's what I think too. I think it's hard to say, given what the original poster wrote, exactly what it was that she was referring to. And certainly not smoking or abortion and only those things, on a whim. I'm of the opinion that government seeks often to make the most logical choices with the best interests of people in mind. They don't always succeed, certainly. But I also think that a lot of times they do so from a place of practical and common sense that will fly in the face of people who want to use extreme examples as a method of explaining why certain legislation won't work. Given enough time and circumstances to develop disaster scenarios, no laws work. But then, given enough time and circumstances to develop disaster scenarios, lawlessness doesn't work either.

Paragraph 5: I don't feel that, that is a good comparison at all.

Paragraph 6: I live in a state in which a smoking ban was enacted under conservative government, for the record. I'm not pushing my will on you. If my will is that I don't smoke, I'm merely looking out for myself. I don't care if you smoke in places that don't impact me. I don't understand the argument. Why should smokers be allowed to "force their will" on others, but not vice versa?

The only thing I can think of is that smokers believe that allowing them to smoke is an expansion of liberty compared to it being a contraction when non-smokers have their way. But I don't agree with that. I feel like smoking is debilitating and disruptive to the point that it is actually a greater contraction of liberty.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

You can't prove it in car accident deaths either, for all you know, everyone in car accident simply had heart attacks from second-hand smoke seconds before impact.

You lose the argument.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are really comparing something that is only supported by epidemiological studies that focus on very specific groups (spouses of smokers and people who work in environments with a lot secondhand smoke) with small relative risks and that are more often than not that have margins of error so wide that they do not rule out the exact opposite effect (that secondhand smoke is good for you) and those results expanded to the entire population (you can project more deaths that way) to something that can be pretty easily verified. You know, blunt force trauma, third degree burns, and decapitations. I can see how easy it is to compare the two...

Now who has the mind of a child?

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

I only take my dog on approved walking trails and ALWAYS clean up after them. In fact, in the two years I have been walking my dogs on a certain trail near my house, I have seen TWO piles of dog poo. TWO. That's it. The dog owners where I live are very considerate and would like to keep that trail dog friendly so we don't mess it up for everyone else.

If only smokers had that same train of thought.

Cigarette butts are ugly, but that aren't toxic like dog crap is. Both are biodegradable, but one smells horrible when you step in it, and the other doesn't. Where I live, there's dog crap everywhere, especially when the snow melts.

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

Cigarette butts are ugly, but that aren't toxic like dog crap is. Both are biodegradable, but one smells horrible when you step in it, and the other doesn't. Where I live, there's dog crap everywhere, especially when the snow melts.

Cigarette butts are toxic, actually.

[AutumnFOG]

There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding cigarette butt litter. The biggest myth is that cigarette filters are biodegradable. In fact, cigarette butts are not biodegradable in the sense that most people think of the word. The acetate (plastic) filters can take many years to decompose. Smokers may not realize that their actions have such a lasting, negative impact on the environment. [

This myth has been perpetuated not just by the wishful thinking of many smokers, but also by the cigarette companies, who have taken great pains to keep their customers in the dark on this issue.

Most cigarette filters are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic. The white fibers you see in a cigarette filter are NOT cotton, but a plastic that can persist in the environment as long as other forms of plastic.

Even with a small amount of unburnt tobacco clinging to it, a single cigarette butt soaked for a day is enough to turn a liter of water a sickly yellow brown and kill 50 percent of fish swimming in it. Without tobacco, it takes about 4 smoked filters to do the same job.

etc etc etc

[jcarlilesiu]

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

The general public would have that ability, sure. But I'm in favor of leaning towards history when it comes to a reliance on owners to govern themselves. Socially speaking, this has never worked out well. (No Coloreds, No Irish, etc. etc. etc.)

A bar or restaurant that allows smoking is not saying "no" to any race, gender, sex, or religion. There is no "no" in the whole business model. They are saying "yes" they allow a legal activity to take place inside their establishment. I don't think this is a very good analogy.

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

If toplessness is legal, and an establishment owner would like to have a collection of well-endowed females shaking their things out the window of a shop on Main Street, is it the public's responsibility to avoid going down Main Street if they have a moral issue with nudity? Even if the owner has decided that, in his establishment, toplessness is perfectly fine?

Toplessness in public is NOT legal already. Thus, if their waitresses were shaking their tatas out the window, they are breaking the law. This has nothing to do with the argument for or against a private business owners right to allow or disallow legal activities inside their establishment.

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

If animal breeding is legal, and an owner conducts the breeding in open view of the public next to a restaurant, is it the publics responsibility to simply avoid the owner's establishment because they have decided that, on their property, breeding is okay?

Absolutely. I probably wouldn't go to a restaurant where I could see the cow that I am going to eat. That is my personal decision. But if the owner is following all sanitation codes and conducting the business as established, they should be able to have the cows wonder around the dining room if the owner so desires. I don't think that business would hold up over time, but who am I or you or anybody else to say that because I don't want to see the chicken I am going to eat... that it should be outlawed?

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

If a company creates a product that lets off a foul smell that makes some people sick and may harm their health, say, a privately own sewage center, but it legal on all grounds, is it the publics responsibility to avoid that part of town? What if it is in the same building as another location?

Smoking inside a private establishment isn't the same as a sewage plant that lets off odor around an entire part of the town. I think you are stretching a little here.

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

It is a fine line. I tend to think that in instances of personal freedom, the burden is on the user, not the person who is inconvenienced by the usage.

The person who is inconvienced by the usage has the oppurtunity to go elsewhere, to a public location, or to a private establishment that doesn't allow usage. If the owner deciedes that the usage, which is legal, is allowed... then that is the end of the road in my eyes. The issue here is public and private. If something is private, then the owner should be allowed to conduct legal activities of his choosing inside the establishment.

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

This is, to me, sort of a community thing, and how we all get along together, by accepting the burdens of limiting some personal freedom to some quarters of our life (see: smoking at home, etc.) in order to better accomodate a larger section of people from something.

To be quite blunt. I don't give a rats about what the community wants. The reason why is, the community can make the decision NOT to subject themselves to what ever burdens them.

The thing that really ticks me off about your argument is the fact that you think that your view of "community" is the end-all be-all. That the way you think that things should happen, and what should and shouldn't be allowed for the betterment of society is what we should legislate. This may work find in settings where the areas are community owned, libraries, sidewalk, parks, etc. but when you cross that line to start instilling your values for the betterment of "community" on a place the community DOESN'T own... I have a real issue with that.

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

I know there are plenty of people who feel inconvenienced by the inability to smoke wherever, but I think that, that number is less so than those who feel the opposite. In the same way, to me, that we see that in many places where being topless is actually legal, we don't see women running around restaurants with their shirts off, as a general matter of community respect, I would like to think that smokers would be willing to deliver that same level of respect to those people.

That has nothing to do with community respect. We don't see waitresses running around with their tops off because the owner feels they can bring in more patrons and make more money by making them wear tight skimmpy shirts rather than being topless.

See the market works. If a business owner decieded to allow his waitresses run around half nude, the number of people visiting his establishment would decrease, and in return the business may fail. The "community" speaks with their dollars, and in turn drives a business model they find acceptable.

If before the smoking ban went into effect, all bars that allowed smoking were to lose business and closed (or changed to non-smoking), then the market would have spoken. The issue I have is with people like you or don't allow the market (or community) to actually speak, but rather goes around behind the community and asks the government to install laws which coincide with your preferences with some cheap excuse that you care about the betterment of "community".

The community HAD spoken. And since the law has went into effect, the community continues to speak. Bars are seeing reductions in profit as less people patronize their establishment due to the laws put in place.

I feel bad for the bar owner. I don't feel bad for the people who shouldn't have went into the bar as it was.

[jcarlilesiu]

Originally Posted by Nujabes

Ironic that you tell me not deflect, when the thread has been deflected to analogies between smoking and cars,

Wasn't me

Originally Posted by Nujabes

between guns and abortions,

I didnt say that

Originally Posted by Nujabes

and you've had no problem with that.

I came in after those conversations, and thus didn't continue the trend of deflecting the conversation. Are you finished deflecting now so that we can continue to debate this logically?

Originally Posted by Nujabes

If you need an answer for the second question, I have to wonder if you're completely ignorant of what occurred in the subprime mortgage crisis?

Yeah, people were stupid and accepted mortgages with terms they couldn't afford. Simple. The banks lent to these COMPLETELY IGNORANT people at a rate which raised their own risk, and the pot boiled over.

How that has anything to do with this discussion, I am unsure.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Nujabes

Let me give you a nice, easy to consume wikipedia quote regarding one of the major causes of the crisis:



In other words, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, an act which does the very thing you're asking me to defend, led to the practices on Wall Street that led to our current economic crisis. Is this not good enough evidence for you? Do you disagree? Need more sources?

WRONG, changing the mortage rules in 1995 by clintons head of HUD, Henry Cisneros, was a major cause of this , not glass stegall.

sorry to INFORM you but these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's



1993 NAFTA---- (orignally proposed under Carter, pushed under reagan, Negoiatiated under Bush1, passed by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton.....expanded under bush2.---the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.,.....and being expanded even more under Obama....all puppets of the Brezezinski globalization modual



1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros, and later through his second HUD Chief, Andrew Coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-dov' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))



For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy.....



1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.)



1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry (glass stegall) a PART of the whole problem, but not the main cause



2000 clinton signs the China trade bill



2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)

2001 democrats push china through the UN for acceptence into the WTO (negotiated by clinton)

[jcarlilesiu]

Originally Posted by Nujabes

In other words, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, an act which does the very thing you're asking me to defend, led to the practices on Wall Street that led to our current economic crisis. Is this not good enough evidence for you? Do you disagree? Need more sources?

You can continue to talk down to me if it makes you feel better, but it has no affect on me. Feel free to continue.

As far as how this justifies ones personal preferences being forced upon private establishments I am unsure. I am not seeing the correlation between my initial question, and your round about answer.

Can you link your argument together to actually address the question that I asked.

[Nujabes]

I disagree with what you blame the mortgage crisis on, since it flies in the face of what most major economists are saying. Additionally, your attempts to ascribe all the blame to liberals are downright laughable, but it's a moot point, since your own argument places the blame on deregulative activities, thus proving my point. Thanks.