In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 748
Online now 1751 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Elitism again. Jim, you should see a doctor about that and get it removed. . It's very unattractive.
Social libertarian here...as are most under 50 conservatives. Free individuals should be able to smoke, drink screw, snort or sell what ever they want...even their vagina, as long as they aren't hurting anyone against their will, or violating someone Else's property rights.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Adm Spinebender 15 months ago
I like eating at a certain Italian restaurant, and I'd really like to eat there without inhaling someone's second-hand smoke. Now, the owner probably doesn't want me to have to inhale that somoke, but he just doesn't want to lose the business of the smoker who wants to pollute the air for everyone. In fact, I'm guessing the owner himself doesn't even want to inhale that smoke. Who would?!
The basic solution is that the smoker have his cigaret before of after his dinner, outside the building. It ain't that hard. But he's stubborn. He wants to smoke his cigaret right there at the table, surrounded by people who'd rather not inhale his smoke. Which can only mean that his right to smoke whenever and where ever he wants must be more important than my right to eat in a smoke free environment.
Yeah, no, I'm ok with my government stepping in here.
This post was edited by VladtImpaler205 15 months ago
It is not the role of government "to make lives better". If someone's behaviour is not infringing directly on someone elses rights the government needs to stay out of it. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions and not be accountable to the government.
As Ronaldus Maximus said: "Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem." If a regulation stops someone from opening a small business by making it too expensive to do so, then it is not good 90% of the time. We will end up a boring sanitized society with nothing but large corporate businesses who are the only ones who can afford to do business under the regulatory blizzard that often they are behind knowing it will stifle and crush all the upstarts and mom and pops.
So then how do you explain roads?
This would mean that you're against FDA/Health Department regulations for privately owned restaurants/bars too, right?? I mean, why should the government tell you that you can't have rats running around in that kitchen where you cook food for thousands of people??
I get it man. It's your joint! If people get sick from your food, they don't have come back. I totally get it.
And why does our evil government require employees to wash their hands after using the restaurant?? I mean, what's that about??
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by VladtImpaler205 15 months ago
Well said. I tried not to make this a lib vs cons issue because both groups do the same things attempting to force others into behaviour that they find acceptable. While at the same time trying to outlaw or ban activity that they do not agree with.
People just need to mind their own damn business and keep the government out of our lives.
1. What happens when people don't take responsibility for their own decisions and actions?
2. I don't feel accountable to the government. In fact, quite the opposite. As long as we have elections, I'm pretty sure I'll continue to feel this way.
You have absolutely zero comprehension of the argument at hand.
"The RCMB on 247 is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet."
You are then saying your right to be smoke free super cedes his right to choose what he wants to allow in his private property. You can choose not to go if he allows smoking, he can choose to cater to you....or not. Lefties are so offended if they perceive that they are not being catered to, or having their ass kissed. Life isn't fair. Sometimes they cater to you, sometimes to another market. Get over it. Freedom is about choices not mandates. I don't seem to recall anything in the Bill of Rights about eating in a smoke free environment.
Vim must have checked out the statistics of every bar and establishment in the entire state. He's a mod, he has plenty of free time.
What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...
What is the point of government if not to make life better??? Why have a government to protect your rights if not to make your life better? That's the whole point! Your life is better because government is protecting your rights. Your life is better because government is keeping your environment healthy. You life is better because government establishes a system of laws that allow a massive group of diverse people to co-exist, coordinate, and benefit from each other.
better find a vegan place to go to... chances are there are firearms in that italian joint...us italians are notorious gun nuts.
This thread is a perfect example of people PICKING AND CHOOSING when they want government! It's hilarious that people actually think this way.
Protect me from guns! Don't tell me how big my Big Gulp can be! Build better roads and highways! But don't do construction when I have to go to work in the morning!
People are quite entitled these days, huh...
This law was passed not to accomodate patrons of restaurants who might not want to dine or drink while inhaling cancer causing chemicals, it was passed specifically to accomodate employees of said places, who have a right to work in an environment where they aren't forced to inhale dangerous cancer causing chemicals.
That is specifically the role of government and society.
You want chaos move to Congo.
How was the truck pull?
Exactly! If I want to run a meth lab in my house, I should be able to. If I want to refuse to serve minorities in my restaurant, I should be able to. If I want to serve spoiled food, I should be able to. If I want to lock fire exits, I should be able to.
No wait, no I shouldn't, you're dumb.
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
Tell Ronaldus to get back to me after he tries living in an anarchy for a few years. No gov to protect his rights, defend his freedoms, etc. Enjoy.
Left, right, or center....the role of government when it comes to issues of public health has been well established, both legally and in terms of public support. So no....you can't use asbestos to insulate your home, you can't use lead paint, you can't use leaded fuel, you cannot dig a pit to dump fuels, pesticides get banned, drunk driving laws change, etc. Does the role of government in this regard change (expand) as new information (science) becomes available?! Of course, but while individual freedoms remain intact, the ability of oneself to impact the health of others is appropriately limited by government in the name of public health.
Exposure to known carcinogens causes cancer. Thus, smoking and exposure to second hand smoke is bad for your health. If that's a choice you want to make, you have the right, and it should be taxed appropriately to pay for the impact that choice makes on the cost of treatment through either public or private insurance. Michigan, like many other states and many other countries, has simply come to the realization that the science is clear and action in the name of public health needed to be taken.
The concept of public health seems to be lost on many in this thread......
This post was edited by Heathens 87 15 months ago
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi
Works both ways from my vantage point
Case in point: Abortion/Planned Parenthood
This post was edited by Cosmo_Kramer 15 months ago
Yeah, you are WAY out of touch.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Thanks. Now I have to explain why I'm smirking in a meeting!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports