I Cannot Fucking Believe This!!!! I was a republican, but now I am not so sure. It is nobody’s Goddamn business what I do with my own skin. Fuck you!!! I am 12- 13 in two hours, but I have to tan for dance competition or I look like a friggin’ marshmallow on stage!!! I suppose next there is going to be a law against living near the equator or a ban on trans fats, oh, that’s right, there already fuckin’ is!!! Fuck it.

If you don’t have insurance simply go to ellinas and he’ll cover your bills for you.

That’s a win win. You want to pay everyone’s health insurance and I’m content to pay for mine.

refusing to facilitate the ability

Making something illegal isn’t “refusing to facilitate”. Facilitating might be giving a tax break to it.
Very odd choice of language. We don’t say the government is “refusing to facilitate” murder by making it illegal… must affect your thinking…or vice versa.

They should require parental permission to use them under the age of 16.

The good thing is that girls that use them when they are young can look like dried up old ladies when they get to college. That’s a good defense against date-rape I suppose.

Whistler,

Why should a practice that ends up costing more in future healthcare costs be allowed to continue anyway? When these people get skin cancer and can’t pay their bills the liberals will have even more support for universal healthcare. So in the interests of not furthering the cause of socialism, activities that are inherently unhealthy and dangerous just should not be sanctioned by the representatives of the people.

I think it should be an individuals choice, just like smoking.

Thank you, I understand that, while I admit to the tanning booth syndrome prior to sun vacations, I know the potential damage now that I am older.

Someone does need to tell these girls that tanning so much that they look more purple than tan can’t be good for them, and isn’t attractive in the least.

Just make the law say that you have to be an adult (18) to use them.

As far as aluminum bats, my right knee can tell you that they are bad news.

Nothing, I would assume you don’t want to take the financial responsibility of other people’s stupidity.

No socialized medicine, no financial responsibility for other people’s stupidity. Duh!
Seriously, what part of this do you still fail to understand? Socialized medicine is the cause of the problem, not the solution to it.

We dictate which drugs you can use and when…it’s not so far of a stretch to dictate when you can tan. The government seems to be trying to do what is in the best interest of its citizens. Not that I agree with it, but there were plenty of girls when I went to high school that often had fake tans. It should be the parents’ decision but they certainly do look old and dried, not to mention used up when you see them in college.

Tanning is good for one thing: getting sunlight to decrease the effects of winter depression or any other depression. I have never intentionally tanned, partly because I can’t have a tan for long, but I’ve been told that I look a few years younger than I am.

Getting a natural tan will also encourage these young people to go outside instead of sitting inside all day, and perhaps they will do something more productive.

However, all of this should be the parents’ decision unless the government finds that it can immediately cause harm to persons other than the recipient of the tan.

I’m offended by someone telling me what I can and cannot do.

What wrong with saying that “your right to do what you want ends when my tax dollars or insurance premium has to pay for it.”

How is that different from the Libertarian principle of “You can do whatever you want until in enfringes on my right to do whatever I want.”?

If the goal is personal responsiblity than the individual should pay for the choices rather than society or the collective holders of insurance.

Insurance is for accidents and should not cover poor decisions and preventable diseases.

No socialized medicine, no financial responsibility for other people’s stupidity.

If he has insurance he still pays for their stupidity because Rob seems like the type that does abuse his coverage – thus, if he has insurance he probably pays more in than he gets back.

Socialized medicine is the cause of the problem, not the solution to it.

Demand for socialized medicine will certainly increase if more people do stupid things that make them sick that they cant pay for.

Someone foots the bill, whether it is taxpayers of policy holders, either way, we all pay.

When are you going to regulate our access to the sun, Mr. Commissar?

Thats just a silly statement.

People are free to make bad choices, but they are also free to elect liberals that want you to pay for it. So in the end, you end up paying for it because people’s choices are what make them dependent on liberalism.

Free: Your entire approach to this is socialistic. Healthcare costs should be individual, and so the individual makes the decision and bears the responsibility. You know, that American thing about freedom of choice and individual independence?
robert108 on January 7, 2007 at 01:11 pm

Ok let these kids tan and when they are older let them die if they have skin cancer. No problem with me. I am used to the sun and natural tans. It’s the WASP chicks that will suffer. Oh yeah the Nords and Vikings also.

What wrong with saying that “your right to do what you want ends when my tax dollars or insurance premium has to pay for it.” That is the problem with your thinking; no one’s tax dollars should have to pay for what is an individual responsibility. Socialized medicine is the problem here; what part of that don’t you understand?

How is that different from the Libertarian principle of “You can do whatever you want until in enfringes on my right to do whatever I want.”? I’m not an advocate of “liberaltarian” thinking, so you will have to figure that one out for yourself.

If the goal is personal responsiblity than the individual should pay for the choices rather than society or the collective holders of insurance. Exactly. You contradict your previous reasoning here.

Insurance is for accidents and should not cover poor decisions and preventable diseases. Insurance is a personal economic choice. You can buy as much as you want, or as little as you want, and for anything you want; it’s your choice. Get it?

It seems as if you keep trying to say that I want to ban all protests, and that’s simply not the truth. For me, it’s about depriving others of their rights through violent intimidation. If you approve of that, then we definitely disagree. You see, I don’t think we should let a small minority dictate to the majority. That is exactly what violent protesting does.

I’m in favor of civil discourse. No bullhorns need apply.

It’s an arms race that we must win. We must drown out their attempts to drown out their attempts to drown us out. If we don’t, then we all become the pacifists they want us to be.

…the Creator of the Declaration of Independence gave All Men, not just American Men those rights.

I have encountered this argument from lefties many times, and the flaw in it is that the US is a unique govt, in that it realizes this “endowment” by the Creator. All who come under our jurisdiction are guaranteed those rights, by virtue of their citizenship, but those who choose another jurisdiction also choose that jurisdiction’s approach to human freedom and equality. We are simply respecting their choice. Since they are not US citizens, and since they seek to destroy us, they are certainly not protected by our approach to human rights.
Of course, if the Creator chooses to “beam them up”, I would have no objection.

Well, I still think 300 yards is too close. Hoawabout 400 miles so they cen’t even come to the state in the first place. They can protest in the middle of the Red River or something, preferable during a flood without boats.

Rob: I think using the legislative process to advance your agenda is one of the most important freedoms in this country. I said that protesting which is designed specifically to either intimidate or prevent another citizen from expressing his or her rights is not Constitutionally protected. I know we allow it, but I think that’s wrong. It has been developed into a weapon to suppress the free speech rights of others, and that crosses the line, IMO. It’s much more than harrassment; I consider it violent intimidation, in many cases. It should be adjudicated on a case by case basis, and judged on the facts, but it should be subject to the law, not excused on some general principle. It has been abused, and mostly by the left. It’s become their way to force minority rule on the rest of us.

It’s very black and white, either it is a literal document to be judged in terms of stict constructionism, or it’s a living document that can be manipulated at the hands of whoever is in power.

No, it’s a document that guarantees the sanctity of this country, and it can be amended by a specific Constitutional procedure. Duh.

Being the devils advocate for a second there, if freedoms can not be limited for cases of personal bodily health, then where is the principle that says
they can be be limited for collective bodily health?

You can say that, if you want to be foolish. There is no valid analogy there. If we allow the jihadists to destroy this country, the Constitution has no meaning. This isn’t about “health”, it’s about life and death. Didn’t you get the memo from OBL?

Rob said “All freedom is sacred, Free.”

So are you opposing the bill to bar the crazy religious wackos from protesting funerals? I don’t oppose that, but if all freedom is sacred then certainly you must since you used the word all and freedom of speech and assembly is core to all of our freedom.

robert108,

Yes, I understand. And I don’t hide the fact that I believe the President has the power to limit the 4th Amendment on a few people for the greater good of us all. And I don’t hide the fact that the Patriot Act does just that, and the only reason i don’t object is because I am not affected by those limitations.

I also do not object to refusing those rights to terrorist on American soil at Gitmo because while they are two different documents, the Creator of the Declaration of Independence gave All Men, not just American Men those rights.

But I don’t have a problem taking the rights that the Creator gave to All Men away from the terrorist for a single second. Does that make me unprincipled?

Rob:

Free speech means free speech.

IMO, not when it is used specifically to deprive another citizen of his rights. You see, I don’t regard protesting as protected speech; I think its intent is to intimidate and silence free speech, and is therefore not Constitutionally protected. Criminal activity is not a “right”, unless you wish to pervert the meaning of the word.

I believe that your point on the protests is that the message plays a role in acceptability of protest.

Actually, it’s their actions in violent intimidation and suppression of the rights of others to which I object, and I sincerely hope that no soldier shoots them. This should be handled legislatively, with clear boundaries prohibiting violent intimidation and depriving others of their rights.

Walking up and down the street chanting SMASH LEFT WING SCUM! SMASH LEFT WING SCUM! SMASH LEFT WING SCUM! is pretty intimidating itself.

Your choice, not mine. I have already said that it’s the activity, not the message with me. As usual, you are in your own little world, I guess. If you are depriving others of their rights by doing that, or if you are intending to intimidate others from enjoying their rights, then it’s wrong, not matter what the message is. Get it?

BTW, bad decisions don’t “lead to socialized medicine”; bad decisions lead to bad consequences, which tend to improve decision-making in the future, unless some politician like yourself is there promising to relieve the people of the consequences of their bad decisions. This exchange of freedom for security not only enslaves the people, it deprives them of the lessons of their own faulty reasoning, so that they can do better in the future.

If we do not counter their activities, they win by default.

Not if we make violent, intimidating protest illegal. That would end the cycle of violence you advocate.

If the intended recipients of freedom from the Creator is actually determined by their government, I didn’t say that it was determined by their govt; our Constitution is a pact between our citizens and their govt; it doesn’t cover the whole world. then why are setting up a “democracy” in Iraq? We are actually freeing them to have the right of self-determination; ultimately what they choose is up to them. And if that is the case, how can we fault dictators for their evils? You really don’t know the answer to that question? Because what dictators do is wrong. Duh.

If it is the government that must realize the endowment, what does that do to our argument that it is impossible to impose freedom. Freedom must be chosen; but first, it is necessary to have the choice. Dictatorship prevents that choice.

When Iraq becomes free, it will not because the Iraqi government spontainiously became enlightened to their people’s endowed rights, it will because visionary leaders and brave soldiers from America gave it to them. All we can do is give them the opportunity to determine their own fate. After that, it is up to them. Otherwise, we would be the dictator.

The Iraqis took a big step forward by executing Saddam, after a fair trial.

Free: You’re confused; being civil is not the same as being a pacifist. As a matter of fact, a lot of those “pacifists” are pretty violent.

You’re confused; being civil is not the same as being a pacifist. As a matter of fact, a lot of those “pacifists” are pretty violent.

No, they preach that our foreign policy should be based on pacifism. Yes, they preach that in a violent way. But we must not just lay down in the name of “taking the high road.”

The Patriot Guard bikers that protect these funerals are themselves protester – more specificly counter-protesters.

My job with the Leadership Institute was to travel the midwest to college campuses and find conservative students and show them how to start clubs, recruit others like them, and to stand up for themselves by launching counter-protest activities against the leftists that dominate college campuses.

If we do not counter their activities, they win by default.

Insurance is a personal economic choice. You can buy as much as you want, or as little as you want, and for anything you want; it’s your choice. Get it?

Transpose “want” for “afford” and you are correct.

All I am saying is that by facilitating people to have the choice to do clearly dangerous things to impose a higher demand on society, you are making it easier for the real socialists to push their agenda of socialized medicine.

If the personal choice of bad decisions leads to socialized medicine what is gained in the macro view?

Way to endorse the chain to Fascism freeloader.

You and Robert108 need to have a conference call to determine whether I am a socialist or a facist. Develop some talking points and such beyond name calling. Put some effort into it.

You don’t want Socialized Medicine but you don’t want to do anything to limit the Artificial Causes of higher healthcare costs. Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to. (A cliche that never really made sense, of course a person will eat the cake they have.)

At the very least, those that use tanning beds should have to sign waivers that follow them around like a credit report so that the rest of society doesn’t have to pay for their treatment. Use at your own risk. Feel free to use the cancer machine, but you are paying the bills.

Same should go for smokers too.

Sure! The law will keep ‘em out of the tanning booth! But, what about back alley tans? If I let my kid run around in the back yard without a shirt, will I be able to prove to the authorities that it was a lawful unhealthy tan as opposed to an artificial illegal one?

freeloader is there any limit to your arrogance?

I’m offended by someone telling me what I can and cannot do.

Why don’t you just grow up and mind your own business.

Seriously, what do you have against freedoms? Even those as simple and innocuous as tanning?

Nothing, I would assume you don’t want to take the financial responsibility of other people’s stupidity.

If society allows someone to do something stupid that they would not naturally do on their own then the liberals can turn around and say that society also takes financial responsibility via implied consent.

It’s like gay marraige, the only ligitimate reason to be against it is to deny them the rights to insurance because of the higher costs of medical care for their lifestyle. The rest of society should not pick up the cost of their choices so conservatives for other reasons, including this, prevent them from the ability to make society pay for their choices.

Why should a practice that ends up costing more in future healthcare costs be allowed to continue anyway?

What a stupid question! Because we are a free country!

Where in the world do you get the idea you’ve got any business telling someone what they can and cannot do.

You just went 100 steps lower in my book for thinking that you have any business bossing people around like that. Who do you think you are Mussolini?

Well, I’m not misunderstanding or misstating your positions. I wish you’d quit claiming that. I simply disagree with you on this point.

So you’re saying that we should restrict people’s free choices so that they won’t elect liberals to give them entitlements?

That sounds counterproductive to me. The goal of conservatism is to avoid bloated, invasive government. You favor making the government more invasive in order to keep it smaller. What good is a smaller government to me when my free choices are heavily regulated?

And regulating access to the sun isn’t silly at all. The sun causes far more skin cancer than tanning booths. If you want to be consistent, than you must support regulating our access to the sun. And our access to hamburgers, which are a bigger health threat than tanning beds as well.

Where will it end, Mr. Commissar?

Like I said earlier, the issue isn’t the tan itself, it is the machines and the access to the machines.

I’d be willing to wager that more skin cancer is caused by the sun than tanning beds.

When are you going to regulate our access to the sun, Mr. Commissar?

So are you opposing the bill to bar the crazy religious wackos from protesting funerals?

I said that all freedom is sacred meaning that we should put a great deal of consideration into anything that limits it.

In the instance of protests disturbing funerals we don’t just have one freedom being exercised, we have two freedoms being exercised by two different people. One group of people are exercising their free speech, the other group is exercising their right of association, religion and assembly. All of these rights are sacred, but in order for all groups to engage in them there must be some sort of balance. The funeral attendees can’t exercise their rights when the wackos are right on top of them screaming and chanting.

So legislators struck a compromise. The protesters can still exercise their freedom to protest, they just have to do it at a distance so that it doesn’t violate the funeral-goers right to assemble, etc.

Rhiannon, I sympathize with your position, but for a 12 year old you certainly have a dirty mouth on you. People will tend to take you more seriously if you tone it down a bit.

But I understand your frustration. It is your body, and it should be up to you (and your parents, given that you’re a minor) what you do with it.

And no Freep, this isn’t like abortion. With abortion we’re talking about ending the life of someone other than the mother. It isn’t just the mother’s body involved, but also the body of an unborn child.

You don’t want Socialized Medicine but you don’t want to do anything to limit the Artificial Causes of higher healthcare costs. Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it to.

The artificial cause of higher health care costs is not the choices we make but rather that we make those choices in an environment where we are not directly responsible for paying for our own health care.

The answer to this problem is not to limit choices, but rather to increase personal responsibility. We should be pushing things like health savings accounts to reduce health care costs, not telling free citizens what they can and cannot do.

I’m a fat bastard. I know that, and I know it’s my fault. Some day some person like you is going to come along and try to regulate my diet and exercise through legislation for the sake of “reducing health care costs.”

That’s not something that should happen in a free society. AGain, the problem here is a health care system that makes you responsible for my health choices…no the fact that I have free choices.

Seriously, what do you have against freedoms? Even those as simple and innocuous as tanning?

All freedom is sacred, Free.

I have no trouble telling the protesters that they do not have a right to deprive other citizens of their rights.

Neither do I, which is why I support the law banning them from being able to protest at these funerals.

But I wouldn’t support a law banning them from their protests altogether, stupid as they are. Free speech means free speech. It applies to scholarly intellectuals and screeching idiots alike.

Why should a practice that ends up costing more in future healthcare costs be allowed to continue anyway?

That is a problem with a health care system that makes the collective bear the health expense consequences of the individual. It is not a problem with tanning.

You also illustrate perfectly we we shouldn’t have government-backed health care. When the taxpayers are footing the bill there will be all sorts of excuses to ban certain activities. Like tanning. Or aluminum bats.