What about corrective lenses? Anti-biotics? Fertility drugs? Surgery of any kind. They all let human beings avoid the forces of natural selection.
Well, right now...no one is trying to ban you from using those products you just listed. People have free will to use or not use them. If someone refuses to use corrective lenses, and pulls a Mr. Magoo and walks into a speeding truck...well, that his choice to take himself out of the gene pool, isn't it?
:)
I'm all for letting people make their own decisions, and live (or not) with the consequences...I don't want the govt mandating it....
It is the government's responsibility to promote public health insofar as having a city full of sick people is not in the civic benefit.
Hmm...care to point out this responsibility the state or federal govt. has in any state or the federal constitution? I believe that is where the governments get their mandates and powers.
Saying that we shouldn't encourage people to eat healthier foods
I didn't way a word about not encouraging people to eat healthier foods. I think we do and we should continue to espouse sound eating principals and practices.
However, the article is talking about the govt. actually banning the USE of a food (in this case a beverage) that isn't really healthy for you. I myself, enjoy a big coke or other soda every few months...the full sugar kind. I like a few diet ones maybe once or twice a week normally. Sometimes I go for long bouts without...this is because I know they aren't healthy in the long run. But as a guilty pleasure on occasion or a treat, there is nothing wrong with them I like at time...when on a long road trip to stop in, and treat myself to a Big Gulp maybe....again, not very often. But if this NY ban were pervasive, in trying to save the idiots from access to them as well as someone that is responsible in their consumption of them...well, then, that is a far different matter.
Why are we becoming a nation that is trying to go to the lowest common denominator with that we allow supposedly free people with free will can do with their own bodies?
Promoting healthy lifestyle is one thing....forcing it upon you by limiting access to what you as a free willed grown adult can do...is quit another.
I suspect nobody will be signing up for your newsletter.
Considering the # of posters agreeing with me, and the mods...I'd say there would be a few that would sign up for it.
Many of us are put off by the nanny state....and wish for the govt to let us alone to succeed, and to even fail. I'm a gambler, I'd rather be free to try and fail....and do as I please with my own life and my own body.
With what money? Chance are the man is indigent because he hasn't been out of the house in god knows how long to work. Plus any money he does have is going to end up paying for his medical care trying to save his 600 lb ass.
You know...I don't think the govt should tell you whether you can commit suicide or not, that should be a personal decision.
This guy was obviously suicidal...and they should have respected his wishes, and let him expire....his actions were obvious, he was just taking a slower way out.
When PS3 first came out, I bought one because I wanted Blu-Ray and I could get a stand alone player for $500 or get a PS3 and have a game console for the same price. The difference though is that back then you only HAD a choice of $400+ Blu-Ray players. I can go down to Wal-Mart and get a Blu-Ray player w/ Netflix etc for $60 on sale. So unless I just realllly wanted a console, I could put a player in every room for that much. The point is that Sony might have lost that business several years ago, but there are alternatives now.
True in large part I think. However, I'd think keeping an optical drive in the PS3 would be pretty cheap...and keep it appealing for those that want to keep from adding one MORE component on the old media rack...
I mean, even today, I'd consider that...I'd get it for BR...and I *might* play games too someday....and would get the PS3 over just a BR player.
But I see your point....the impetus from about 2-3 years back when all BR players were $$$ is missing these days with dirt cheap BR stand alone players...
Well, they also might lose a segment of the business, I'm sure isn't quite insignificant...those that buy these systems to PLAY optical media on them.
A couple years back...I gave myself a PS3 for Xmas....for the following reasons:
1. At the time, was a good price on a 3D capable bluray player
2. Plays dvds, CDs...etc
3. Streams Netflix (and now Amazon)..ok, this one has nothing to do with the drive)
And actually, the fact that it played games, was just a bonus. I've not tried to play many on it yet....still having trouble learning all the damned controls on the thing...and 3rd person perspective still get me. I try playing Red Dead Redemption, someone starts shooting me, next thing I know I'm either staring at the ground or up in the sky and getting shot....and then die.
Oh well...but anyway....I'd have to think at least in the past that would be a significant market. Some of us that lay out good cash for a higher end TV and audio system...prefer to watch our media from a format that can give the full HD experience, and have full 7.1 or whatever audio...something even streaming just cannot match...at least, not yet.
When our country started, very few had the attitude of "fuck'em" to his/her fellow American.
Ok, my mistake...let me be more specific.
Government mandated care for others wasn't around. Sure families took care of each other, and help from the community, voluntarily from your neighbors, etc...was the way of life. I agree with that, and I'm quite generous with my friends and family....but I don't like having my money sucked up by the govt...and given to who knows who for whatever reason. I like to be the judge of who is worthy of my help (time and fiscal).
but it is A-OK to spend that same dollar feeding, clothing, educating and keeping the poor healthy - IN A PRISON.
ONLY if they committed a crime, like theft, murder, etc....
And since you are suggesting that the drugs convictions are taken off the table - that would be a dollar spent on thieves and murdering thieves.
Instead of on poor single parents and their children.
How do you figure that? If we weren't locking up so many people for wanting to light up a joint, we'd be saving LOADS of money. How is that taking anything away from poor folks? I don't see the tie between the two. I was basically saying if we weren't wasting money on locking up people that want to smoke or ingest something...we'd have plenty of money and prison space for people committing REAL crimes...things that hurt innocent people (murder, rape, theft, etc).
Most people that do some drugs (booze being a drug) do not go out and rape, murder or otherwise hurt other people around them. If that were the case, the US would have been totally engulfed in flames long ago....most people do some form of chemical recreation here...and most can handle it just fine. Strangely, the one that does seem to cause the most problem, is the legal one....ethyl alcohol.
What's wrong with your life that you spend so much time poring out vileness on the internet? Take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. Do you really like what you see?
No problems here at all...I am quite happy with myself, my life, etc.
Nope...no self esteem issues here.
:)
Why do you ask? My reply above was succinct, and would have proven to be a simple fix to the problem.
Should my tax dollars or govt time go to fixing someone else's stupid? I don't see that anywhere in any state or federal constitution.
The problem is that when they get ill, the health system then has to cover that.
Fuck'em....no it does NOT have to cover them.
If people got the inkling that no one else is going to pay your tab for everything, including healthcare...then people my have a fire lit under their asses to work and save to provide for themselves and their families.....and keeping their family size in check so that these needs could be met realistically.
When our country started, up until the entrechment of the nanny-welfare society we find ourselves in currently...it worked this way. You made it, or you didn't....and it wasn't anyones fault by your own.
The US became a great nation due to reliance on the independence and self-reliance of the people....much of the reason it is going downhill, is due to us taking this 'need' for humans to struggle a bit, and be self reliant away.
As I've posted before...I'm not completely without heart. If you are truly infirmed (mentally or physically handicapped) or elderly and not able to work...sure, lets have a safety net. If we reduced the welfare state to JUST this...we'd nip the debt problem in the bud in just a few years. If you're able bodied and don't choose to work....well, fuck'em, I'm not my brothers keeper.
Our govt and society should be here only to set up an environment where you can survive and succeed with sufficient work (and yes, even some luck). It should not be (and wasn't set up to be originally) an entity that protects you from your own dumb ass judgments and actions. It should allow you to succeed, but if you fuck up, well, you should be allowed to fail.
Life is tough....and no, you shouldn't get a trophy just for showing up.
You know....we had plenty of POOR in this country over the years before we came to this nanny state we have now....if you didn't take care of yourself back then, or your family didn't...you just didn't make it.
We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?
I mean, I'll go for a little modernization...if you're infirmed or old, and just can NOT work, ok...safety net there.
But if you are able bodied at all....well, you must work, and if you fucked up, and had too many kids....well, you need to figure something out. Maybe after awhile with the govt NOT coming to give everyone welfare, etc....and it might take a generation for this lesson to sink in....but after awhile, these idiots might just figure out they need to quit having unprotected sex, having kids...because no one is going to pay them to stay at home, watch tv and breed even more. Let's end this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence which just feeds upon itself and breeds generations that know nothing MORE than the welfare system.
Would it be tough? Sure...but, you have to start some where. We in the US weren't like this originally....we need to go back to that.
And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation. That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.
"It took the combined efforts of police, fire department, Hazmat unit and EMTs to finally get a 600-pound man in need of medical attention out of his Pennsylvania home." our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)... it's not like this was a 20 minute call either. they had to CUT THE HOUSE AWAY to get the kid out.
Well, if they'd waited a bit longer, for him to kill himself....waited till he died, they could have just cut him up and take him out in pieces....made it a ONE time job...and much easier on everyone.
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.
Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
This is a private business. They can do what they like.
I too hope there is no such law, I support her right to say it on every street corner. Just like I support youtubes right to not have to carry this filth.
True...and I usually argue that point too...but I don't see someone voicing this opinion as 'filth'...and not sure why youtube would ban it....its their choice, but I don't think they should be so quick to silences point of views that might be slightly controversial.....
Those Founding Fathers would be ashamed to see intelligent officials (like Supreme Court Justices) that refuse to use their own capable minds to decide if something needs a fresh interpretation for a specific time and place.
No, I don't think they would....they would wonder why, if things needed changing per the changing times...that the people and their representatives hadn't moved in the fashion proscribed by the Founding Fathers...and amended the Constitution as needed?
It isn't up the the SCOTUS to change the Constitution...it is to be changed by the Amendment system, and then...SCOTUS will rule future cases based on that version of the amended constitution.
As the article relates, if it were up to Scalia, he would interpret laws based on the state of the country in 1789, not as things exist now. Which is what this country needs, someone who thinks things should be frozen in time, never changing and kept as they were.
Close...but no cigar.
It should be interpreted as it is currently written.
If you want to have things 'change with the times', there is a method for that...amendments!
That is the proper method by which you keep the constitution from being frozen in time, but the Justices ARE supposed to interpret it as currently written.
So because Hate speech is in her holy book youtube should keep it up?
Saying you believe that some actions or lifestyles are wrong...is not hate speach. Since when did expressing opinions or beliefs become hate speech.
Geez, I hope there's not an actual hate speech law on the books that covers something like this....sure would take a lot of the 'fun' out of the freedom of speech we used to enjoy here in the US.
The older equipment such as the Dish HD 822 DVR I have already has a skip forward 30 seconds button (and a skip back 10 seconds button). Viewers like me already skip commercials this way, it just isn't as convenient as a button that just skips all of them. If Fox really thinks we're watching commercials and have been for years, they're delusional and need to take some anti-psychotics.
The ATT Uverse dvr's have the same skip forward/backward buttons and it works quite well.
TIVO has always had a button combination you could push in, that would activate the skip buttons on its remotes too....so, the 30/10 second skip thing isn't new, and doesn't seem to be a problem for the networks, just the auto skip.
I"m curious..what the grounds they're suing over? Against the law to skip commercials? When did any consumer sign onto that contract?
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully SCOTUS will overturn Obamacare.....
Well, right now...no one is trying to ban you from using those products you just listed. People have free will to use or not use them. If someone refuses to use corrective lenses, and pulls a Mr. Magoo and walks into a speeding truck...well, that his choice to take himself out of the gene pool, isn't it?
I'm all for letting people make their own decisions, and live (or not) with the consequences...I don't want the govt mandating it....
Hmm...care to point out this responsibility the state or federal govt. has in any state or the federal constitution? I believe that is where the governments get their mandates and powers.
I didn't way a word about not encouraging people to eat healthier foods. I think we do and we should continue to espouse sound eating principals and practices.
However, the article is talking about the govt. actually banning the USE of a food (in this case a beverage) that isn't really healthy for you. I myself, enjoy a big coke or other soda every few months...the full sugar kind. I like a few diet ones maybe once or twice a week normally. Sometimes I go for long bouts without...this is because I know they aren't healthy in the long run. But as a guilty pleasure on occasion or a treat, there is nothing wrong with them I like at time...when on a long road trip to stop in, and treat myself to a Big Gulp maybe....again, not very often. But if this NY ban were pervasive, in trying to save the idiots from access to them as well as someone that is responsible in their consumption of them...well, then, that is a far different matter.
Why are we becoming a nation that is trying to go to the lowest common denominator with that we allow supposedly free people with free will can do with their own bodies?
Promoting healthy lifestyle is one thing....forcing it upon you by limiting access to what you as a free willed grown adult can do...is quit another.
Considering the # of posters agreeing with me, and the mods...I'd say there would be a few that would sign up for it.
Many of us are put off by the nanny state....and wish for the govt to let us alone to succeed, and to even fail. I'm a gambler, I'd rather be free to try and fail....and do as I please with my own life and my own body.
You know...I don't think the govt should tell you whether you can commit suicide or not, that should be a personal decision.
This guy was obviously suicidal...and they should have respected his wishes, and let him expire....his actions were obvious, he was just taking a slower way out.
True in large part I think. However, I'd think keeping an optical drive in the PS3 would be pretty cheap...and keep it appealing for those that want to keep from adding one MORE component on the old media rack...
I mean, even today, I'd consider that...I'd get it for BR...and I *might* play games too someday....and would get the PS3 over just a BR player.
But I see your point....the impetus from about 2-3 years back when all BR players were $$$ is missing these days with dirt cheap BR stand alone players...
A couple years back...I gave myself a PS3 for Xmas....for the following reasons:
1. At the time, was a good price on a 3D capable bluray player
2. Plays dvds, CDs...etc
3. Streams Netflix (and now Amazon) ..ok, this one has nothing to do with the drive)
And actually, the fact that it played games, was just a bonus. I've not tried to play many on it yet....still having trouble learning all the damned controls on the thing...and 3rd person perspective still get me. I try playing Red Dead Redemption, someone starts shooting me, next thing I know I'm either staring at the ground or up in the sky and getting shot....and then die.
Oh well...but anyway....I'd have to think at least in the past that would be a significant market. Some of us that lay out good cash for a higher end TV and audio system...prefer to watch our media from a format that can give the full HD experience, and have full 7.1 or whatever audio...something even streaming just cannot match...at least, not yet.
Ok, my mistake...let me be more specific.
Government mandated care for others wasn't around. Sure families took care of each other, and help from the community, voluntarily from your neighbors, etc...was the way of life. I agree with that, and I'm quite generous with my friends and family....but I don't like having my money sucked up by the govt...and given to who knows who for whatever reason. I like to be the judge of who is worthy of my help (time and fiscal).
ONLY if they committed a crime, like theft, murder, etc....
How do you figure that? If we weren't locking up so many people for wanting to light up a joint, we'd be saving LOADS of money. How is that taking anything away from poor folks? I don't see the tie between the two. I was basically saying if we weren't wasting money on locking up people that want to smoke or ingest something...we'd have plenty of money and prison space for people committing REAL crimes...things that hurt innocent people (murder, rape, theft, etc).
Most people that do some drugs (booze being a drug) do not go out and rape, murder or otherwise hurt other people around them. If that were the case, the US would have been totally engulfed in flames long ago....most people do some form of chemical recreation here...and most can handle it just fine. Strangely, the one that does seem to cause the most problem, is the legal one....ethyl alcohol.
No problems here at all...I am quite happy with myself, my life, etc.
Nope...no self esteem issues here.
Why do you ask? My reply above was succinct, and would have proven to be a simple fix to the problem.
Should my tax dollars or govt time go to fixing someone else's stupid? I don't see that anywhere in any state or federal constitution.
I mean "pull out"? That doesn't sound like the manly thing to do!!
I say leave it in and get the job done.
Hell, if her cabinets are too ugly, just roll her over and go from behind....
Fuck'em....no it does NOT have to cover them.
If people got the inkling that no one else is going to pay your tab for everything, including healthcare...then people my have a fire lit under their asses to work and save to provide for themselves and their families.....and keeping their family size in check so that these needs could be met realistically.
When our country started, up until the entrechment of the nanny-welfare society we find ourselves in currently...it worked this way. You made it, or you didn't....and it wasn't anyones fault by your own.
The US became a great nation due to reliance on the independence and self-reliance of the people....much of the reason it is going downhill, is due to us taking this 'need' for humans to struggle a bit, and be self reliant away.
As I've posted before...I'm not completely without heart. If you are truly infirmed (mentally or physically handicapped) or elderly and not able to work...sure, lets have a safety net. If we reduced the welfare state to JUST this...we'd nip the debt problem in the bud in just a few years. If you're able bodied and don't choose to work....well, fuck'em, I'm not my brothers keeper.
Our govt and society should be here only to set up an environment where you can survive and succeed with sufficient work (and yes, even some luck). It should not be (and wasn't set up to be originally) an entity that protects you from your own dumb ass judgments and actions. It should allow you to succeed, but if you fuck up, well, you should be allowed to fail.
Life is tough....and no, you shouldn't get a trophy just for showing up.
We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?
I mean, I'll go for a little modernization...if you're infirmed or old, and just can NOT work, ok...safety net there.
But if you are able bodied at all....well, you must work, and if you fucked up, and had too many kids....well, you need to figure something out. Maybe after awhile with the govt NOT coming to give everyone welfare, etc....and it might take a generation for this lesson to sink in....but after awhile, these idiots might just figure out they need to quit having unprotected sex, having kids...because no one is going to pay them to stay at home, watch tv and breed even more. Let's end this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence which just feeds upon itself and breeds generations that know nothing MORE than the welfare system.
Would it be tough? Sure...but, you have to start some where. We in the US weren't like this originally....we need to go back to that.
And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation. That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.
Well, if they'd waited a bit longer, for him to kill himself....waited till he died, they could have just cut him up and take him out in pieces....made it a ONE time job...and much easier on everyone.
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.
Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
...and in other news, un-employment in India instantly rises 120%....
True...and I usually argue that point too...but I don't see someone voicing this opinion as 'filth'...and not sure why youtube would ban it....its their choice, but I don't think they should be so quick to silences point of views that might be slightly controversial.....
No, I don't think they would....they would wonder why, if things needed changing per the changing times...that the people and their representatives hadn't moved in the fashion proscribed by the Founding Fathers...and amended the Constitution as needed?
It isn't up the the SCOTUS to change the Constitution...it is to be changed by the Amendment system, and then...SCOTUS will rule future cases based on that version of the amended constitution.
Close...but no cigar.
It should be interpreted as it is currently written.
If you want to have things 'change with the times', there is a method for that...amendments!
That is the proper method by which you keep the constitution from being frozen in time, but the Justices ARE supposed to interpret it as currently written.
Thankfully, so far...there is no such thing as a law banning "hate speech".....and there should never be one.
Where do you define hate speech? At some point...it can completely erode free speech in general.
Maybe in a country outside the US....I'd dare say even 'hate speech' (whatever the hell that is) is protected speech.....
Saying you believe that some actions or lifestyles are wrong...is not hate speach. Since when did expressing opinions or beliefs become hate speech.
Geez, I hope there's not an actual hate speech law on the books that covers something like this....sure would take a lot of the 'fun' out of the freedom of speech we used to enjoy here in the US.
The ATT Uverse dvr's have the same skip forward/backward buttons and it works quite well.
TIVO has always had a button combination you could push in, that would activate the skip buttons on its remotes too....so, the 30/10 second skip thing isn't new, and doesn't seem to be a problem for the networks, just the auto skip.
I"m curious..what the grounds they're suing over? Against the law to skip commercials? When did any consumer sign onto that contract?