Say Anything Blog

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.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

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.

Once again, Whistler you show a bit of ignorance. Rape is not a crime of beauty, it is a crime of control and power. But you just keep up the good ole boy stereotypes.

Puzzled I admit I was stretching for some advantage to killing your skin in a tanning booth.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

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.

Actually the only valid reason for tanning in a tanning booth (in my opinion of course) would be to get a base tan before you go on vacation. 

That’s probably safer for your skin then getting fried the first day.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Actually, I have found that it doesn’t really make any difference.  It can sometimes be misleading since you have a base tan you can more of the sun on the first day out in the Carribean.

I just take 4 or 5 different SPFs with me now and start out high and go low at the end.  Again, with the caveat that any tanning is not very healthy period.  I just like a bit of color for non-hosiery purposes.

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.

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?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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?

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I’m afraid you’ve all missed the magic mantra… “It’s for the children!”

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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.

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.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

You don’t want Socialized Medicine but you don’t want to do anything to limit the Artificial Causes of higher healthcare costs.The limit, in a market-based situation, is set by the supply/demand relationship, which is mediated by price.  Econ 101 As a socialist, you want everything to be commanded by a central authority, but our system of individual choice(and individual responsibility) works much better.  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.) It means that once you eat your cake, you no longer have it.  Duh.  It is very revealing that you don’t understand the saying, though.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

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.”

Where in the world did you get the idea that I think that we should be paying other peoples medical bills.

And even given the reality that the collectivists (like freeloader) have had some success getting with their agenda that still is no excuse to dictate what people may or may not do.

One bad law does not excuse another bad law. 

Way to endorse the chain to Fascism freeloader.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

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?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

What the heck were the Fascists besides a branch of Socialism.

They both have total control of the economy.  It appears that the fascists were more concerned with regulating individual behavior (as opposed to economic behavior) than the socialists.

I stand by my choice of words.  If it offends you it’s only because it’s true and you know it.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

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?

Free: With a few moments of thought, you might figure out that socialism and fascism are essentially the same, with only political differences.  They are both command systems, and you want to command others to do what you want them to do.  I have never thought it made much difference who was commanding me, only that I was being commanded.  I reject either the fascists or the socialists telling me what I can and cannot do with my money.  Understand now?  Our names for you are descriptive; they are accompanied by explanations, and so are not simply name-calling.  After all, you call yourself “freerepublican”, when you endorse neither freedom nor republicanism.  Go figure.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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

The freedom to make bad decisions is also the freedom to make good decisions.  You can’t kill one without killing the other.  Those who would control others never seem to understand that. The fact that you think you are doing it “for our own good”(or “for the children”), doesn’t make it any less onerous.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

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.

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?

We aren’t debating the legality of the tan, we are debating the legality of the machines.  Nice red herring though.

Not a red herring…just illustrating the absurdity of the nanny state!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

just illustrating the absurdity of the nanny state!

The nanny state is telling people the government knows what is best for them and can take care of them better than they can take care of themselves.

Now maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but to me, refusing to facilitate the ability for people to make bad decisions doesn’t quite meet that threshold.

Tanning beds are a relatively new thing, I don’t think the free market has proven that they are safe, as such why should the people’s representatives put their constituency in the position to make a bad choice?

I use the term “relatively new” so that you don’t try to compare it to alcohol or tobacco which have been around since civilization began.

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.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Now maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but to me, refusing to facilitate the ability for people to make bad decisions doesn’t quite meet that threshold.

No one is required to use a tanning bed; it is a personal choice, no there is no “facilitation” going on at all.  As usual, you don’t get the part about the freedom to make bad decisions being necessary to have the freedom to make good decisions.  More than that, what gives you the right to decide for anyone else what is “good” or “bad”.  You are definitely a nanny-stater here.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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

I don’t, but I don’t want to create that situation by limiting other people’s ability to make free choices.  Rather, I’d like a health care system that makes each individual responsible for their own health choices.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

It’s like DeKrey’s (R) bill to bad some sort of machine that allows people to inhale alcohol, now I’ve never heard of such of machine, but it doesnt sound healthy to me.

Now this tanning bed bill by Keiser (R) and Klemin (R) it seems that along with supporting increased spending, NoDak Repubs support government involvement in these issues.

I guess they are all socialists.

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It’s like DeKrey’s (R) bill to bad some sort of machine that allows people to inhale alcohol, now I’ve never heard of such of machine, but it doesnt sound healthy to me.

So that means we should ban it?

McDonald’s hamburgers are unhealthy too.  How long until we ban those too, Mr. Commissar?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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.

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.

That is obviously your way of thinking, but it’s pure nonsense.  If society is based on freedom(like ours), it allows people to do what they choose, within some rather loose guidelines.  That is exactly what they would naturally do on their own.

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.

That isn’t the objection to so-called “gay marriage”; the objection is that it isn’t marriage.  Duh.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

Exactly.  This is the problem with the current system.  So why not change the system rather than limit people’s free choices?

By the way, this situation where I pay in more to insurance than I get back (I go to the doctor once a year, if that) is going to end as soon as I get me and my new bride set up with a health savings account this year.

You see how that works, Free?  That way the money I pay in (aside from a premium on a high-deductible catastrophic policy) will stay in account just for me.  You can tan and get skin cancer all you want and it won’t cost me a dime extra.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

McDonald’s hamburgers are unhealthy too.  How long until we ban those too, Mr. Commissar?

Non sequitar.  Hamburger is a natural thing and when prepared properly very healthy.  I use vegi oil or when I really want to splurge olive oil when I make my hamburgers. 

I don’t eat at McDs cause it’s disgusting, but that’s my choice because I don’t want to be a burden on someone in 50 years.  But if you want to support the choices of selfish people that do, and end up paying for it, that is also your choice.

Rob,

Sorry, I meant to say that you don’t seem like the type that abuses your coverage.  One of my many typos.

But if you want to support the choices of selfish people that do, and end up paying for it, that is also your choice.

So…we can be free to eat hamburgers…but not free to tan?

I’d suggest that fast food hamburgers contribute a lot more burden to the current health care system than tanning does.  If you support a ban or regulation on tanning than you have to support the same sort of thing for hamburgers, otherwise you’re being inconsistent.

Or, you could join me in favoring making the system put more responsibility on the individual instead of the collective and avoid having to support limitations on free choices altogether.

Hamburger is a natural thing and when prepared properly very healthy.

The same can be said of tanning, I’m sure.  But what about people who live in sunny places like California or Florida?  What about people who work out in the sun all day?  Certainly the sunlight they’re exposed to is natural, yet it causes skin cancer as well.  Are you going to ban swimsuits at the beach next to protect us all from the choices made by “selfish” sunbathers?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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

You still don’t get it; without socialized medicine, we don’t all pay, the individual pays.  If I choose to buy health insurance, then that is my personal choice.  It’s not the same as socialized medicine; as a matter of fact, it’s just the opposite.  Can’t believe you don’t know this.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

But what about people who live in sunny places like California or Florida?  What about people who work out in the sun all day?  Certainly the sunlight they’re exposed to is natural, yet it causes skin cancer as well.  Are you going to ban swimsuits at the beach next to protect us all from the choices made by “selfish” sunbathers?

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

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?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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.

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?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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.

You favor making the government more invasive in order to keep it smaller.

That is a figment of Free’s imagination.  By definition, an invasive govt has to be large.  In Saddam’s Iraq, all the shiite families had “watchers”.
Invading our privacy and controlling us would be a very big job.
A small govt is less invasive because it will be busy doing its legitimate functions, and because it won’t take as much of our money.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I just don’t think that banning people from sitting is tanning machines is an outrageous afront to freedom.  I understand the slippery slope, but I take these things one instance at a time.

All freedom is sacred, Free.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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.

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.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

If you don’t have insurance simply go to ellinas and he’ll cover your bills for you.
The Whistler on January 8, 2007 at 12:14 am

Pay attention there Mr smartiepants.
I said: “Ok let these kids tan and when they are older let them die if they have skin cancer. No problem with me. 
ellinas on January 7, 2007 at 11:57 pm

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.

It is nobody’s Goddamn business what I do with my own skin.

Oh jeez, please, lets not make this an abortion debate.

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.

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.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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.

Well, unlike you, I think the rights of those extremist, asshat protesters need to be respected even if they have to be balanced with the rights of others.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob: Consider this difference: The funeral attendees are exercising their right of assembly, and it isn’t interfering with anyone else’s rights in any way.  On the other hand, the protesters are exercising their free speech rights specifically for the purpose of depriving the funeral attendees of their rights.  It’s not as “equal” as you make it sound.  I have no trouble telling the protesters that they do not have a right to deprive other citizens of their rights.  I see a fundamental difference there.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Well, unlike you, I think the rights of those extremist, asshat protesters need to be respected even if they have to be balanced with the rights of others.

I think they should be arrested for terrorism, or terrorizing at the very least. 

I used to be against the Anti-Flag Burning Amendment too on the “our troops died for their right to do it” line….until I saw someone burn the flag in a hateful way from 30 feet away, it just does something to a person.  That was the end of that “principled belief”.

Howabout the wire taps?  Where is the sacred freedom stand there since innocent American citizen likely do end up getting caught up in it.  We make exceptions for that?  How about the entire premise of th Patriot Act that there are times when it is appropriate to skirt people’s freedom for the better good.  The slippery slope goes both ways.

I was at the book story this evening and came upon a book called “Not a Suicide Pact” and I was thought “so that’s where Newt stole that phrase from.”

The premise of this “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” line of thought is a continuation of the belief that the Constitution is a “Living Document” that can be twisted and bent to whatever the era of history requires.

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.

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?

*This comment brought to you by streams of consciousness.*

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?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Well, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more when you say you don’t consider protesting protected speech.

Harassing people is a crime, but simply making a political statement in a public forum is not only not a crime but is one of the most important freedoms in this country.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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: 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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

...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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

If the intended recipients of freedom from the Creator is actually determined by their government, then why are setting up a “democracy” in Iraq?  And if that is the case, how can we fault dictators for their evils?

If it is the government that must realize the endowment, what does that do to our argument that it is impossible to impose freedom. 

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.

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.

Oh baloney, Robert.  Protesting isn’t always about intimidating or preventing others from expressing their free speech.  It’s often about informing the public or swaying legislators.

For someone who claims to be in support of free people making free choices you’re showing a disappointing amount of respect for free speech.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Oh baloney, Robert.  Protesting isn’t always about intimidating or preventing others from expressing their free speech.

I have made it very clear that I am talking specifically about when it is used to intimidate or suppress another citizen in their enjoyment of their rights.  I have been very specific about this, and don’t understand why you choose to misconstrue what I have written. If our govt can’t deprive a citizen of his rights, how is it that another citizen or group of citizens can do so?
To be very clear: I am referring to those who deliberately interfere with someone else’s rights, or who deprive them of those rights, not those who don’t.  Understand?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108,

I believe that your point on the protests is that the message plays a role in acceptability of protest.  Rob is correct that protesting a fundamental right, but as Rush says “you have the right to speak, but you have no right to be heard.”  Thus we must formulate the laws so that these people are in the middle of no where so no one has to deal with them.

It’s just a matter of time before some soldier opens fire on these wackos (hopefully pardoned), so for their own safety their form of expression is not acceptable.

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Actually, it’s their actions in violent intimidation and suppression of the rights of others to which I object…

That’s what the Protest Warriors are for.

I have been very specific about this, and don’t understand why you choose to misconstrue what I have written.

I don’t think I am misconstruing your message, Robert.

You claim that the “God Hates Fags” people don’t have a right to protest.  I disagree.  I think they have a right to their hateful protests as long as they don’t harass people or infringe upon the rights of others.

But that’s just me.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

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

And fun.

I think they have a right to their hateful protests as long as they don’t harass people or infringe upon the rights of others.

I say again, if they are intending to use their “free speech rights” to either intimidate or deprive others of their rights, that should not be Constitutionally protected.  If they don’t, then it’s OK.  How can I be any clearer, since you are obviously not getting what I’m writing here?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Rob: This is not an intellectual exercise for me.  I have been up close and personal with a lot of those violent protesters in the Sixties, and they specifically stated that they use free speech as a weapon against our society.  I lost a couple of high school buddies in the Chicago Riots, so I know what I’m talking about from personal experience.  When I see Cindy Sheehan, Act Up, or the Gay Pride parade in SF, as well as the Illegals doing their thing, I see criminal activity.  Sorry.  Those people, and many others, are using the justification of “free speech” to impose their minority agenda on the rest of us.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Robert,

Code Pink fruitcakes just run away.  They got scared cause we had louder bullhorns.

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Code Pink fruitcakes just run away.  They got scared cause we had louder bullhorns.

The cycle of violence continues…
I’m in favor of civil discourse.  No bullhorns need apply.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

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.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

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.

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 govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Teens think they are invincible in everything they do. Tanning in moderation is ok, but sometimes these kids want to get brown! So they going tanning everyday. It should also fall on the tanning salon owner as well and not let these kids tan all the time.

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