Trying to understand the Tea Party

Jason P wrote:

Agreed. It wasn't like Snidely Whiplash showed up in a USDA coat and demanded action. The USDA contact was a very nice man who showed empathy but didn't have the authority to make any judgement calls and could only follow his direct orders. I was just trying to provide an example of how fragile a small business is. They don't have the assets and lawyers to fight the government. It's comply or give up.

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.

Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.

I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.

Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.

I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.

Starfall wrote:

aerial wrote:

BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...

I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you there. We liberals don't want government involved in our personal lives either.

It's not their business to tell me who I can love, who I can talk to, who I should vote for, who I should listen to, who I can associate with, and it's certainly not any of their business to spy on my phone calls and my emails.

aerial wrote:

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.

Are you saying you feel entitled to a sustained tax break... sort of like some people say others feel entitled to the benefits of social programs?

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.

I think he makes a great point. How exactly are you reasoning that some things are public health issues and others are not? Look up any public health organization and you'll see bike helmets listed right along with speed limits as public health issues.

Do you mean that if you break the speed limit you are infringing on the rights of others, whereas if you fail to wear a bike helmet you are not? One could argue that the other drivers on the road put themselves in danger by choosing to engage in a potentially dangerous activity (driving on roads with no speed limit), so it’s their responsibility to protect themselves if they choose to and their own fault if they are hurt… thereby putting them in the same category as the bike riders who don’t wear helmets. One could also argue that, while failing to wear a helmet doesn’t infringe on the rights of others because others are not in danger, it does infringe on the rights of the taxpayers who frequently end up picking up the tab for the medical care of people with head injuries… thereby putting them in the same category as the driver who may be hit if there were no speed limits. Additionally, helmet and car seat laws are only for minors. The argument there is that the state has an obligation to intercede on behalf of children who can’t be responsible for themselves when parents are neglecting to protect their children’s safety. You also mentioned that smoking in public places shouldn’t be regulated, though that infringes on the rights of others as well.

I think your lines between public and private health are pretty subjective/artificial.

I love how the people on here have such great advise on how to care for and Raise a child when the loudest ones on here don’t even have children......If you do decide to have them, unless your to selfish to put another life before yours......Only Then will you understand why parents do not want the government to tell us how to raise them......I agree that helmets have a purpose....but one could argue helmets will not save a child From injury if they get hit by a car while riding their bike...should we outlaw bike riding all together ? We do worry that the child may get hurt on the bike but even more worrisome is when your child leaves to drive the car by their selves for the first time.....should that be outlawed to because they could get hurt...is it child abuse letting them drive alone? Should we all wear a helmet while driving a car? Is it child abuse letting your child walk to school....there have been plenty of children abducted walking to school...
In my day parents smoked in the house,
we rode in the back of pickup trucks,
we rode in the back of station wagons (can you imagine a rear end collision?)
there were no car seats

We did not wear helmets
we ate bacon
lots’ of hot dogs and
sugar
...and guess what? Most of us are still here,( baby boomers).........
Your argument that if a child gets hurt taxpayers pay the bill has no merit.....there are people that do have insurance and are paying there own bills ....
like the OP said we only have one life to live.... but don’t you think it’s best to live it to the fullest........

BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...

Commy wrote:

Understanding the tea party.




Dissent is a good thing. These people dissenting are being marginalized by mainstream media, and most of the people on this board have eaten it up. They did the same thing with anti war protesters leading up to the Iraq invasion, never mind it was the first time in history people stood up to the authorities before they started dropping bombs. We were marginalized and outcast then, and these people are being marginalized now, while the elite go about their happy murderous policies.


Its a pattern of propaganda, evidence media serves the state.

that said, wear your fucking helmet.

prfctlefts wrote:

I think war fucking sucks. I think all the money wasted on defense contractors is BS to. But let me ask you this. Let's say we were to leave Afghanistan and the Taliban regained control and they continued to beat women and impose their drachonian laws on everyone. Would you be ok with that?

FiveB247x wrote:

Why paint the discussion to such extremes? Racism, Sexism, discrimination and draconian laws are in our nation, but that never seemed to bother anyone.. so we're taking a serious stand in Afghanistan first? Are we the world police or not? Do we intervene on behalf of human rights now? Do we cut trade and ties to China and the long list of places who carry out such tyranny? If you're going to carry out this philosophy and discussion, perhaps think it through to the end.

prfctlefts wrote:

I think war fucking sucks. I think all the money wasted on defense contractors is BS to. But let me ask you this. Let's say we were to leave Afghanistan and the Taliban regained control and they continued to beat women and impose their drachonian laws on everyone. Would you be ok with that?

FiveB247x wrote:

Which is my point - I don't think any movement or our society in general truly cares or has it in them to actually fix things. Everyone is far too comfortable and uncaring. America (the will of the people) has stuck it's head in the sand.

prfctlefts wrote:

I agree with you 100%. Like How come we havn't gone into Africa and cleaned house ? I mean there's actual genocide happening there. And nothing not one word from any of our elected officials.