SFGate: Senate votes to ban smoking in cars carrying young kids

[Thiebear]

Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).

Well, he's not a libertarian ... lets let the facts actually get in the way...

[nelms]

Well, he's not a libertarian ... lets let the facts actually get in the way...

Of course he isn't, but he pretends to be. His comments about not letting the government intrude into our lives is a joke, considering his support of a socialistic federal government.

[Larry]

Who asked you to stick your beak in this. This is between me and Comrade chommie (Captain America vs. Captain Commie).

1) You may observe, this is a thread about a California law, dealing with smoking in cars.

2) It is not a thread about how many personal insults you can sling.

3) lucky didn't "stick his beak into this". You did. (And yeah, so did chom.)

4) This chip on your shoulder isn't between you and "Captain Commie". It's between you and about half of the world. And it wasn't cute when you were 12.

[chomerics]

Dang it I can't help myself

Your argument is faulty in that National security is the Executive branch's RESPONSIBILITY in the constitution. It is the most important charge to it.

Now if you can show evidence of them using surveilance for other uses other than national security, then I will agree.

TWA, that is a faulty analogy and you know it. How can I show you when they won;t allow any oversight into the program? They are disobeying the law by not going before a judiciary to get warrants, this is a direct violation of the law as it is constituted. Now, you may well be correct, they may NOT be listening to people in cases other then of national security interest, but how do we know? You seem to have a "trust them" approach, when they have ALREADY lied to the American citizens on the issue. I, OTOH, don't trust them at all.

This question was never answered by anyone in the administration, and I believe it exposes ulterior motives: What can they do differently by ignoring the FISA statute when it comes to warrants then if they obey it? What extra power does it give them in terms of national security that can not be done within the FISA laws? If ANYONE can successfully argue WHY national security is BETTER without FISA then I am all ears, but in 6 months, I have not seen even a half hearted attempt to answer the question.

BTW: The quote you used was a condemnation of those that were hesitant to give up the security of the British empire for the chance of Freedom, and it is annoying to see your usage in that way. .

Really? Is the point valid or isn;t it? You see, quotes like this expose the massive hypocrisy in the neo-con cult agenda. Things like freedom and security are used as political tools, not as they should be. We invaded Iraq, and in essence gave them their freedom and made them less secure as a country. Iraq now is a MUCH MUCH more dangerous place for the average Iraqi then under Saddam. So who is to say Iraqi's want freedom over security? The neo-cons keep arguing that security is more important then freedom, and they try to strip freedoms away when ever they can, either through written law (ie Patriot Act 1 & 2) or through illegal means (wiretapping). So who are they to say what is more desirable for a population? What gives them the right to tell US as citizens that security is more important, and to tell Iraqi's that freedom is more important?

You see, the quote works VERY well with both the ludicrous arguments posed here in blatant hypocritical fashion about NANNY government, and also when looked at in more general terms of the Iraq war and our freedoms here at home.

The founding fathers would be appalled :moon: :nana:

I agree, the founding fathers would be completely appalled with the way our country is run right now!

[chomerics]

Your point is the most retarded one I've seen on this board for quite some time. Congratulations.

Evidently you never read your own posts, because I would fathom a guess that your radical viewpoint has posted quite a bit more outlandish things then saying you are a hypocrite when it comes to NANNY government.

You certainly are for a NANNY form of government yourself, aren't you? I've seen you advocating federal program after federal program. Supporting minimum wage laws, supporting social security, supporting this and that.

Really? So tell me how SSI is telling people what they can and can not do with their bodies. Tell me how SSI removes a freedom from people. Tell me how the SSI program is the government telling me what I can and can not do with my life. You see, social programs aren'y NANNY government any more then the military, or schools are. They are a form of operation by a governing class on how to spend tax money. You may not like the fact that some of your tax money goes to welfare, as I may not like the fact that some of my tax money goes to the Iraq debocle. It doesn;t mean government is NANNYing us, they are chosing how to spend their money.

When they decide what I can do with my body, what i can eat, what I can drink, and personal choices I make, then that IS a definition of the NANNY form of government. Just because you have a hypocritical stance does not mean you are wrong. No, instead it means that you are nothing more then a partisan who can't discern your OWN ideology from your parties.

So don't pretend you are Mr. Libertarian. When you want to smoke your pot in peace, you are Mr. Libertarian. Then you turn around and want the government to tell us how much we should make, what our retirement should be, etc. etc. You are the ultimate hypocrite, Comrade Chommie.

Really, when have I EVER claimed to be a libertarian? You OTOH have claimed it quite a bit, and you have been called out for your own hypocrisy. Do you even know what an ideology is? Do you even understand what a libertarian is? The funny thing is that I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system, and I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. You, OTOH, try to pass yourself off as one because you are ashamed of your party. Well, on that account, i can;t really blame you.

[nelms]

Evidently you never read your own posts, because I would fathom a guess that your radical viewpoint has posted quite a bit more outlandish things then saying you are a hypocrite when it comes to NANNY government.

Really? So tell me how SSI is telling people what they can and can not do with their bodies. Tell me how SSI removes a freedom from people. Tell me how the SSI program is the government telling me what I can and can not do with my life. You see, social programs aren'y NANNY government any more then the military, or schools are. They are a form of operation by a governing class on how to spend tax money. You may not like the fact that some of your tax money goes to welfare, as I may not like the fact that some of my tax money goes to the Iraq debocle. It doesn;t mean government is NANNYing us, they are chosing how to spend their money.

When they decide what I can do with my body, what i can eat, what I can drink, and personal choices I make, then that IS a definition of the NANNY form of government. Just because you have a hypocritical stance does not mean you are wrong. No, instead it means that you are nothing more then a partisan who can't discern your OWN ideology from your parties.

Really, when have I EVER claimed to be a libertarian? You OTOH have claimed it quite a bit, and you have been called out for your own hypocrisy. Do you even know what an ideology is? Do you even understand what a libertarian is? The funny thing is that I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system, and I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. You, OTOH, try to pass yourself off as one because you are ashamed of your party. Well, on that account, i can;t really blame you.

Uh, the government telling me how to fund my retirement years is intruding in my personal life. :doh: Why do they have to take my money and make my decisions on how I am going to live my retirement years? You really need to put the bong down, chommie.

As far as "I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system", let me just say bwhahahahahahhahhahahhahhahahahaha! What a complete joke.

[PokerPacker]

Of course he isn't, but he pretends to be. His comments about not letting the government intrude into our lives is a joke, considering his support of a socialistic federal government.

he is defintatly not a libertarian (nor does he pretend to.) he is easily playing in left field,

[PokerPacker]

Uh, the government telling me how to fund my retirement years is intruding in my personal life. :doh: Why do they have to take my money and make my decisions on how I am going to live my retirement years? You really need to put the bong down, chommie.

As far as "I hold a LOT more libertarian principals dear to my own belief system", let me just say bwhahahahahahhahhahahhahhahahahaha! What a complete joke.

you do realise that 50 percent of each liberal and conservative views match up with those that are libertarian, right?

so the fact that he is the resident liberal of this board, it shouldn't be surprising that he agrees with many libertarian views.

[twa]

Quote Chom

"TWA, that is a faulty analogy and you know it. How can I show you when they won;t allow any oversight into the program? They are disobeying the law by not going before a judiciary to get warrants, this is a direct violation of the law as it is constituted."

:laugh: Works both ways huh? Niether of us can supply enough facts to settle the issue. We will have to agree to disagree , and with the issue in the courts perhaps the issue will finaly be resolved.

Though I'm sure someone will be unhappy.

Now can we get back to working together against the goverment overeaching in private lives?

[nelms]

you do realise that 50 percent of each liberal and conservative views match up with those that are libertarian, right?

so the fact that he is the resident liberal of this board, it shouldn't be surprising that he agrees with many libertarian views.

But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.

[PokerPacker]

But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.

as i said, he's a liberal, not a libertarian. those are liberal ideals, just like how conservatives are against big government programs, but turn around and support the government's right to intervene in your personal life. both parties share libertarian ideals, but the each just happen to carry a different half of them.

[chomerics]

But he passes himself off as defender of the individual against the "Nanny" government. Yet, he supports a beheemoth social security progam, as well as other bloated social programs, but can't see that they are "Nanny" programs. He's either being dishonest or dense or most likely both.

No Nelms, social programs are NOT nanny government. They are how government spends THEIR money, not your money THEIR money.

SSI falls into the same boat as the military, a government funded industry. It isn't a law restricting a freedom on someone. You want to try to change the argument to suit your purposes and mask your hypocrisy, but I won't let you. I will point out to everyone else here that you think government stepping on one aspect of privacy is ok, but not another one.

For me, SSI is nothing more then a safety net for the less fortunate people when they retire. It is NOT your money any more then it is MY money, anymore then the money going to Haliburton is MY money. It is the GOVERNMENT's money, and they decide what to do with it. You may not like the way they spend their money, but it is not the same thing as the "NANNY" government.

You see, NANNY government has to do with personal freedoms, and what you can and can not do. If you want to take the SSI analogy and say financial freedom, well then, you have to do the same thing for the military, police, firemen and every other service governments provide us. If you don;t like the distribution of funds, you can change them by voting in people more along your beliefs. But that is not the same thing as NANNY government, because neither is telling you how you HAVE TO live your life, and what you can and can not do with yourself and your body. There is a very distinct difference, and only people who are complete hypocrites can't see why.

[Redskins Diehard]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/28/state/n193817D14.DTL&hw=smoking+cars+children&sn=001&sc=1000

I think they may be taking things a bit too far...

For the people who have forgotten

[Popeman38]

Here is the important bill that was passed, and was tucked WAY at the bottom of the article:

IMMIGRANT LICENSES — By a 42-34 vote, the Assembly approved legislation that would let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.

The measure by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would overturn a 1993 law that prohibits the state from issuing licenses to drivers who cannot prove they are in the country legally.

Supporters said giving licenses to illegal immigrants would make the roads safer by ensuring that all drivers go through state testing and get insurance. But critics charged that giving licenses to illegal immigrants would reward those who break the law.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

[nelms]

No Nelms, social programs are NOT nanny government. They are how government spends THEIR money, not your money THEIR money.

:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

[Predicto]

Here is the important bill that was passed, and was tucked WAY at the bottom of the article:

IMMIGRANT LICENSES — By a 42-34 vote, the Assembly approved legislation that would let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses.

The measure by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would overturn a 1993 law that prohibits the state from issuing licenses to drivers who cannot prove they are in the country legally.

Supporters said giving licenses to illegal immigrants would make the roads safer by ensuring that all drivers go through state testing and get insurance. But critics charged that giving licenses to illegal immigrants would reward those who break the law.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

This is actually a bill I support. Not because I support illegal immigrant rights, but because I want to make sure that as many people as possible who are driving on the roads near me have actually passed a driving test.

IMO, the DMV is about road safety only.

[Predicto]

I feel the same way about, say, allowing illegal immigrant kids to get vaccination shots. It's not for their sake - it's for MY sake and the sake of my kids.

[TheKurp]

For the people who have forgotten

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.

[chomerics]

:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

And YOU do not have a say as to where the money goes now do you? So it really isn't YOUR money to begin with. It is money you never saw, and it is money you owe the government simply for being a citizen of this country, so no, again you are wrong. The tax money you pay is not YOUR money any more then it is my money. You have no right to the money, do not get to decide how it gets spent, or anything. If it was YOUR money, then is the money you pay the mortgage company YOUR money as well?

[nelms]

And YOU do not have a say as to where the money goes now do you? So it really isn't YOUR money to begin with. It is money you never saw, and it is money you owe the government simply for being a citizen of this country, so no, again you are wrong. The tax money you pay is not YOUR money any more then it is my money. You have no right to the money, do not get to decide how it gets spent, or anything. If it was YOUR money, then is the money you pay the mortgage company YOUR money as well?

Dude, you have some serious issues if you really think this way. Serious mental issues. Please stop hijacking this thread any further.

[Popeman38]

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.

Nice guilt trip Kurp. I am against this because I do not want the gov making my decisions fro me. Like, say end of life decisions? I had to make the decision to remove life support to my son. What happens to the people in the future who are placed in this unfortunate situation if the gov tells them they can not remove life support because it would be damaging to their child? (see Terry Schaivo case) So maybe there is more than callousness behind some of the opposition.:2cents:

[The Evil Genius]

Guys, lets not forget - this is regulating what happens inside of an automobile.

It's in the same legal mode that the state DMV can make you wear a seatbelt (or be fined) or force you to put your 6 year old or younger kid in a car seat (or be fined).

Not sure why this opposition would be any different than the opposition mentioned above. They are all about safety of either you or your kids.

[Popeman38]

Guys, lets not forget - this is regulating what happens inside of an automobile.

It's in the same legal mode that the state DMV can make you wear a seatbelt (or be fined) or force you to put your 6 year old or younger kid in a car seat (or be fined).

Not sure why this opposition would be any different than the opposition mentioned above. They are all about safety of either you or your kids.

Your laws mentioned above is to keep the child safe from the automobile i.e: slamming into the dashboard, through the windshield, and suffering disfiguring or deadly physical injury. There is a difference.

[chomerics]

I haven't forgotten. I'm still trying to get over the callousness of those who view the damaged lungs of little children as little more than a casualty of war over what they deem to be a fight over the government infringing on their personal choices.

Kurp, the paper you cited still does not conclude that asthma is a result of second hand smoke. It even offers a counter-intuitive statistic which says the opposite of the argument position.

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general.

Children with asthma were just as likely to be exposed to ETS as children in general. In other words, there is no statistical correlation between second hand smoke and asthma in children. This is why I said I wanted to look at the study, and why i said I was skeptical to say the least. The initial test proves nothing, and the back up test proves that there is no statistical difference if children are exposed to ETS or not, as to if they get asthma.

Again, i am not arguing that it is right, but there is nothing that I have seen which tells me difinitively that second hand smoke is any MORE dangerous to a child then normal environmental factors. And with that being said, I would err on the side of the government staying OUT of my personal life. It would need to be a very strong argument, with a pretty tight case for me to change my mind about this as well.

[JohnLockesGhost]

:doh: You really aren't that dense are you? THEIR money? :doh: :doh: Last time I checked, that money came out of MY paycheck. :doh: :doh:

No, no. You only THINK it's your paycheck. You really are just working for the government. But they let you keep a little.