Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-04-2009, 03:07 PM
matthughesfan21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
But now they're funding children's healthcare! They're heroes!!

haha just a few days ago they were worthless drains on society as well as taxpayers money, now they are heroes....Really living that American Dream huh?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-04-2009, 03:17 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Not to mention, they will be heroes of the children of illegal immigrants! Another benefit for illegal border crossings to give "legal" births!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
Was just watching CNN and found this to be quite controversial.

It's people's choice to smoke cigarettes, I personally am a non-smoker, but have friends who smoke (wish they didn't but that's their business).

They just announced a proposed tax increase of 62 cents per pack of cigarettes to pay for health care for children. 13 million children are estimated to benefit from this.

That's just picking on smokers, it's complete BS.
No its not. It's still their choice to smoke or not...they just have to pay more if they wish to continue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-04-2009, 06:52 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
No its not. It's still their choice to smoke or not...they just have to pay more if they wish to continue.
Sure it is. It's like the legislators in California passing laws that prohibit smoking in all bars. It infringes on the rights of something that's legal to do. Our government allows cigarettes to be sold, and throwing extra taxes to pay for something that is NOT their fault, or not allowing them to smoke in all public places is infringing on their rights.

Say I own a bar in California, I'm the one paying the rent, taxes, etc., I should have every right to permit smoking, but BS legislation prevents it.

Keep in mind, I'm a non-smoker, I hate cigarette smoke, but legislation and taxes like that is simply picking on smokers.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-04-2009, 07:02 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
Sure it is. It's like the legislators in California passing laws that prohibit smoking in all bars.
They did that in England.

Infact, any indoor public place. In our store they had to remove the smoking room...now the smokers are pushed outside.

You might "own" the bar...but you dont "own" the law that governs the land the bar is built on.

Again, there is nothing stopping you smoking...you just have to pay more, and watch you dont smoke in an area where its banned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-04-2009, 07:12 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
They did that in England.
Must be nice, I still think it infringes on people's rights though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
You might "own" the bar...but you dont "own" the law that governs the land the bar is built on.
Yup, and more proof that that the U.S. is changing from a Republic, as it was originally founded, to Socialism. Big government is the way of the future here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Again, there is nothing stopping you smoking...you just have to pay more, and watch you dont smoke in an area where its banned.
That's true, but I still think it's crap.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-04-2009, 07:17 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
1) Must be nice, I still think it infringes on people's rights though.


Yup, and more proof that that the U.S. is changing from a Republic, as it was originally founded, to Socialism. Big government is the way of the future here.


That's true, but I still think it's crap.
1) No it had a few unforseen side effects. For example...now the entrance ways to buildings get clustered with smokers, whereas the non smokers didnt see them before because they were all in smoke rooms...now you breath MORE of it then before. Also, late at night all the women and youths are OUTSIDE the clubs smoking rather then inside. At least inside they are out of the way...on the roadside and drunk they are a public disgrace, not to mention at risk from preditors who would take advantage of them.

No it kinda backfired.

2) A Republic is not IMHO as good as a Democrasy....when the U.S spreads its ethos through the rest of the world, it spreads democrasy not republicanism.

3)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-04-2009, 07:41 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
2) A Republic is not IMHO as good as a Democrasy....when the U.S spreads its ethos through the rest of the world, it spreads democrasy not republicanism.
Actually, the governments that we set up in countries like Iraq are Republics not Democracies. A Republic is where you democratically elect representatives to govern your country. A true Democracy would be to bring everything from installing a new stop sign to going to war up to a popular vote. We don't do that and we don't groom new "Democracies" to do that.

The official description of America's government is a "Federal Republic with Democratic Tradition." Some people also refer to it as a "Representative Democracy."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-04-2009, 08:35 PM
que
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

michael phelps took a puff but he didn't inhale
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-04-2009, 08:55 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by que
michael phelps took a puff but he didn't inhale
That means he can still run for President.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.