McCain will help the free market. Obama will destroy it.

from JoeUser Forums

Alegria Online Mall: A place with something for everyone.

*****************************************************************

I am pleased to announce these new merchants Skymall Inc, Netflix, jbandme (female apparel), and Lego

@ Alegria Online Mall.

***************************************************************************** 

     What do you believe in when you live in a society that values nothing?  I work in an industry plagued by people with no morality and respect for business.  However, I have stated many times that it is not my business how much cab drivers in downtown el paso charge the customer.

     The city of stupid el paso texas thinks it has the right to set the prices for the service self-employed cab drivers working in private industry provide to the public. In fact, most people think that they know how much taxi service should cost.  Well, it is our business and the correct price is the price the seller asks for, not what the consumer thinks.

     My dilemma is that I am surrounded by men of 50 plus years who behave like 15 year old hard core gang members.  Their business plan is we are going to take the trip even if we are not first in line and we are going to charge what we want no matter what anyone says.  Again none of these is my problem except that these people think I am going to let them steal from me and not say anything.

     Now the communist government of el paso provides taxi inspectors.  However, these four inspectors only know how to cash their paychecks.  Rarely do they post them selves at the taxi stand long enough to discourage these cab drives from their gang like behaviors.

     These people are receiving a paycheck they should do the job.  Everyone who takes a job and the money should do the job.  However, these individuals answer to anything is to play politics with issues.  Every time I make a cab driver who wants to charge what he is not suppose to leave the line the majority go running to the taxi inspectors crying about how I am harassing them. 

**********************************************************************************

Sierra Trading Post, iTunes, and Time Life are announcing some favorite products and some New Deals.

******************************************************************************************************

 

     My response is well they are charging what city ordinance says they cannot.  The taxi inspectors just shrug their shoulders.  Now there is a war between me , the other cab drivers, and the taxi inspectors.  Cab drivers in el paso for the most part are low-lifes with no morality what so ever.  However, taxi inspectors are city employees with responsibilities who should be doing their job regardless of their personal opinions.

     My other option is the police.  However, is el paso the police officers believe they are only going to enforce the laws that appeal to them.  Most of the time a person calls them for assistance, if it is something the cops do not want to do, they make the person complaining the problem and start harassingly them.  By harassing I mean yelling at the person, insulting the person with bad words, provoking the person to do something that will get him or her in trouble, and even filing false charges.

    This brings me to my central point.  Systems in society do not function.  I am sure we all have complaints about government workers not working.  Today, however it is critical.  When police officers think they do not have to respond to cries for help from the public, criminals run wild.  Then people start taking the law in to their own hands.

     Before, you know it you have full blown anarchy.  Several years ago the city of stupid el paso installed cameras at red lights to catch people who run red lights.  Even with big signs that say "camera enforced", on average 5000 people run these red lights a month. 

     That is the human condition.  It is my way no matter what any one thinks.  In Obama and McCain we see two people with the "it's my way" mentality.  I cannot trust McCain because in my opinion he will say or do anything to get elected.  I do not respect Obama because he supports the murder of the unborn and cannot see that people's poverty is the result of people's own actions.

     No one makes any one poor.  In the land of opportunity no one has an excuse for failing.  However, we allows our selves to be convinced that only one kind of life will do for us.  In addition, if we do not get that life we throw a tantrum and refuse to work at anything.

     Is this really behavior government should be encouraging?  I see it as unproductive.  Facilitating people's poor attitude will not solve poverty it will only increase it.  When a person has been beat up by parents, siblings, and life, any excuse to give up will do.

      This is a critical time in America.  Parents are excusing them selves from their responsibility to educate their children.  The end result is people who respect nothing and work hard at destroying everything.  These type of people cannot make quality choices about the leadership of the most important country in the world.

      Petty politics will harm the US.  We have to go beyond a sense of "I have to help my guy win".  The correct choice is a person who can lead with vision and honor.  I contend that it is wrong to turn over the spoils of success to people who have proven they only know how to fail.

      It is better for everyone to know that the way to provide for one's self is through work.  I guess this is the determining factor for me in choosing between McCain and Obama.  McCain will not interfere with free market economy which creates the jobs people need to earn money to feed themselves.

     I know McCain has been talking about regulating CEO's salaries.  This is wrong and very unlikely that McCain would try to actually interfere in the salaries of Americans. 

     Obama on the other hand has told us all that he plans to tax and spend.  Obama wants universal healthcare.  He wants to bail out people who bought more home that they could afford.  He wants to help the jobless and homeless.  In addition, he wants to help anyone who has ever suffered and been done wrong by life.

     This is not the job of government.  Government is only suppose to be in charge of basic services like garbage collection, police, fire, medical, and military.  It is not the job of government to gift a life to everyone.

     Furthermore,  the majority of Americans are hard working and productive citizens.  Again, I will state that only around 15 percent of American population represent people who cannot provide for them selves.  The other 85 percent chooses to work.

      In addition, many people are poor money managers.  Every day in America people are choosing to get into credit card debt.  Is this my problem?  Should I be forced to pay their bills?  Furthermore, isn't freeing these people from their responsibilities only encouraging their bad behaviors.  When will people learn to be personally responsible, if government keeps bailing them out everything they mess up their lives?

      Moreover, in these critical times can we afford to generate more people with a bad attitude who only want to destroy?  Many years ago I wrote about how our generation is not the last generation.  I see thousands of years still ahead for humanity.

     If the human race keeps going in the direction it is going life will not have any value.  However, life always has value and we have to defend it with quality choices, not our bad attitude and desire to destroy.

 

*********************************************

Alibris books is still offering 90% savings.

Luggage Online is offering 70% in savings.

***************************************************************************

12,135 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Yep the Bush years sure were great huh? record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment , yeah republicans do great with the economy lets give them 8 more years to see how more screwed up things can get. god forbid obama takes us back to the prosperity of the 90's , that would be horrible.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment
End of quote


Record economic development caused by over-indebtment by most of the citizens. You forgot that one. Problem is, all of it was merely a bubble. When credit crashed, the bubble popped.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

I work in an industry plagued by people with no morality and respect for business
End of quote

This was an interesting perspective really, i think much of the problem with society todays is that buisness itself is a means to conduct oneself away from the usual model of social morality, being rude and abrupt, direct and uncompashionte are often considered good buisness practice's.

You then go on to say that the job of goverment is not to look after those whom are not performing well in society. I think this is a ridiculous notion, and one that has led to many a disaster in huamnity.

Karl Marx witnessed, during the industrial revolution in England, Manchester, extreme levels of poverty and how the goverement and society had litteraly left these peopel behind. Marx used these influences to attack the captalistic approach to society and we all know how that ended up.

Captalisim needs to take responsiblity for those it leaves behind, and believe you me it does. At the same time there are those that just want an easy ticket, it is often a grey area to distinguish between the two, that is not to say however that we shouldn't try.

Worse still to ignore it, leaves captailisim open to attack at the fundemental level and runs a risk of it imploding on itself just as Marx predicted.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yep the Bush years sure were great huh? record spending , adding to the deficit high gas prices and high unemployment
End of quote


If I recall when Mr. Clinton was president he touted his 5.5% unemployment as the lowest in history. We just went up to 5.2% and we were at a low of 4.8% during the Bush Administration. How do you see record high unemployment?

Gas was $2.12 when the Democrats took back Congress. Speaker Pelosi publicly stated that she and her fellow democrats were going to bring down the price of gas because $2.12 was too high. So far you don’t seem to understand math too well. Down means lower, up means higher. So now that gas is at $3.97 a gallon you say that is bad but what did the President have to do with it. Congresswoman Pelosi easily proved that it was the Congress not the President that controlled the price of gas. Sorry but you will have to eat that one alone.

The record spending I agree with you on. But you can’t fight a war without money, if the congress does not want to spend the money they can cut the budget. It is the Congress that holds the purse strings not the President. The Budget may be suggested by the President but it is written by Congress. You do know how the three branches of government work right?

Captalisim needs to take responsiblity for those it leaves behind, and believe you me it does. At the same time there are those that just want an easy ticket, it is often a grey area to distinguish between the two, that is not to say however that we shouldn't try.
End of quote


You, sir, sound like a Tory. I agree with you here.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gas was $2.12 when the Democrats took back Congress. Speaker Pelosi publicly stated that she and her fellow democrats were going to bring down the price of gas because $2.12 was too high. So far you don’t seem to understand math too well. Down means lower, up means higher. So now that gas is at $3.97 a gallon you say that is bad but what did the President have to do with it. Congresswoman Pelosi easily proved that it was the Congress not the President that controlled the price of gas. Sorry but you will have to eat that one alone.
End of quote


I think their learned the lesson that the Congress has little control over the oil price. Specially when you have a Veto-easy president.

when you think of it, a Bush has vetoed a lot of things the Congress voted in the past year and a half, hasn't he? It's easy to blame a governement branch for doing nothing when the branch controled by your favorite party can paralyse it almost at will.

It is the Congress that holds the purse strings not the President. The Budget may be suggested by the President but it is written by Congress. You do know how the three branches of government work right?
End of quote


Well, the previous congress did had an habit of spending a lot of money on political goals for their own counties. They increased those kind of spending by a huge margin, if I remember right. I don't have the numbers with me, however. (these spending doesn't have anything to do with the war)

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think their learned the lesson that the Congress has little control over the oil price. Specially when you have a Veto-easy president.
End of quote


Please tell me what the president vetoed that would bring the price of gas down? I am sure the liberal democrats would have had that all over the news by now. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

when you think of it, a Bush has vetoed a lot of things the Congress voted in the past year and a half, hasn't he?
End of quote


When you think of it, think a little harder, of the veto’s he did how many were overridden by congress?

Well, the previous congress did had an habit of spending a lot of money on political goals for their own counties.
End of quote


Yeah, that was disgusting, and it is why they are no longer in power. We sent conservatives to the Congress to make a smaller government and they went crazy. Conservatives voted them out of office. Now that the liberal democrats have had 2 years to fix things we have even higher prices. One more election and you won’t find a democrat in congress as a serious block of votes.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please tell me what the president vetoed that would bring the price of gas down? I am sure the liberal democrats would have had that all over the news by now. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?
End of quote


the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Luckily, it was overriden. It just that crops cannot grow overnight, you know.

When you think of it, think a little harder, of the veto’s he did how many were overridden by congress?
End of quote


Two of them. The one up here, and Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Out of 10 Veto, 9 of them was in the past year and a half. 10 of them in the past 2 years.

One more election and you won’t find a democrat in congress as a serious block of votes.
End of quote


that remains to be seen. What odds Vegas give about it?  ;) 

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Luckily, it was overriden. It just that crops cannot grow overnight, you know.
End of quote


Yes, it was passed and now prices are up for food and fuel. Good work. Smart idea making it more expensive to eat.

Two of them. The one up here, and Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Out of 10 Veto, 9 of them was in the past year and a half. 10 of them in the past 2 years.
End of quote


These acts have no potential of reducing the price of food and fuel and since the passing of these bills against the president’s wishes prices have gone up. They were bad bills.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, it was passed and now prices are up for food and fuel. Good work. Smart idea making it more expensive to eat.
End of quote


How can subsidies increase the product price? The increase in food and fuel has happened independantly of such bill.

Before the bill, farmers could still sell maize to make ethanol, but now it's more profitable overall. I don't see how that directly influence the price of the stuff. Now, the increase in food price is directly linked to the increase of fuel price, since fuel is one of these people's greatest expanse.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
How can subsidies increase the product price? The increase in food and fuel has happened independantly of such bill.
End of quote


Because my dear friend, if you write a bill to encourage the sale of bio-fuels you are telling them they can make more money on the fuel than the food. You have the same acreage of food being planted but now part of it goes to make fuel. The law of supply and demand goes into effect. Less supply, more demand, higher prices. It cost more to buy food you have to raise the price of what you sell to afford to eat. The price of gas goes up so the trucker can afford to eat, the higher fuel prices means that everything trucked, bused, trained, or flown will cost more including food going to market. All of this because some well meaning idiot wrote a bill giving incentives to grow bio-fuels.

You think it is bad now wait another two or three years. The Florida citrus growers are getting rid of their orange trees so they can plant some plant that makes better bio-fuel. The cost of OJ just went through the roof! They are going to try a test crop of half a million acres. How many orange trees will be destroyed just to see if it is profitable? If it is not profitable it takes five years for an orange tree to produce fruit after it is planted. So we are looking at seven to ten years of higher citrus prices it the new thing does not work and even higher prices if it does work because they will cut down more trees.

The price of corn was the first thing to go up a few years ago because it was the first test crop. Higher food prices means higher fuel prices. It seems you and the idiots that dreamed up this nightmare did not think that far ahead. The price of corn is going up world wide because other countries are doing the same thing. The smart move would have been to drill for more oil. Increase supply reduces demand and lowers prices.

Yup a brilliant idea to trade food for fuel.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yup a brilliant idea to trade food for fuel.
End of quote


Hey, don't look at me. Personnally, I'm against the Maize ethanol. It's totally inneficient. Sugar ethanol is a much better and efficient product.

On the other hand, Sugar ethanol isn't produced in america, so no one in your borders are really interested hearing about it..

If you found a way to make sugar (the food product) extremely more expensive by turning all the sugar production toward fuel, I think we may solve two of America's problem with one stone:

- Fuel shortage
- Obesity (sugar overnutrition)
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the other hand, Sugar ethanol isn't produced in america, so no one in your borders are really interested hearing about it..
End of quote


You are quite mistaken they are gearing up for the conversion of our sugar to fuels. Almost all food producers are looking at it to get the subsidy. Farming is a business, and whatever makes money is what they will look at. This is why the subsidy is insane.

If you found a way to make sugar (the food product) extremely more expensive by turning all the sugar production toward fuel, I think we may solve two of America's problem with one stone:
End of quote


Less sugar for the food market means higher prices for foods that use sugar. Again we will cause the price of fuel to go up. Keep food out of the fuel markets and you can reduce the price of fuel. Drill for more oil, and you reduce the price of fuel.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Less sugar for the food market means higher prices for foods that use sugar.
End of quote


Or less sugar into the darn food. Ever seen how much sugar is in every single freaking product you buy?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or less sugar into the darn food. Ever seen how much sugar is in every single freaking product you buy?
End of quote


Do you really believe this? You really think that less sugar will be put into food products? If that were the case then when the price of sugar doubled in the 70’s all they did was use corn syrup as a substitute. The amount of sweetness and calories did not change just the type of sweetener. By the way that raised the price of corn which raised the price of gas. All you do it make the product more expensive.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you really believe this?
End of quote


Yhea. Food producers have a chance to supply less sugar-saturated products, advertising both "cheaper" and "better for the health".
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yhea. Food producers have a chance to supply less sugar-saturated products, advertising both "cheaper" and "better for the health".
End of quote


I mean no disrespect when I write this. My first reaction upon reading your response is that you need to stop doing tainted illegal drugs.

Seriously what do you know of the business world? I am asking this in good faith, not as an insult or a put down.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I mean no disrespect when I write this. My first reaction upon reading your response is that you need to stop doing tainted illegal drugs.

Seriously what do you know of the business world? I am asking this in good faith, not as an insult or a put down.
End of quote


Keep in mind that Cikomyr is responding based on his Liberal side that is all about feelings. He would hope businesses, which exist solely to make money, would actually care about their customer's health as oppose to how much money they can get from them. I mean really, is health was a concern even for companies who sell healthy food, then why would health food be more expensive than their not so health counterparts? I mean have you seen the price difference between a normal veggie (say a carrot) and an organic one?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keep in mind that Cikomyr is responding based on his Liberal side that is all about feelings.
End of quote


Yes, he is only 22 years old and a Canadian which means that what he sees as conservative is really a moderate liberal. But even at 22 I could see the way the world is. I seriously want to know how he sees business because at his age he will be one broke individual by the time he is thirty.

I mean have you seen the price difference between a normal veggie (say a carrot) and an organic one?
End of quote


Yup, that is why I refused to buy organic food.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keep in mind that Cikomyr is responding based on his Liberal side that is all about feelings. He would hope businesses, which exist solely to make money, would actually care about their customer's health as oppose to how much money they can get from them.
End of quote


Please don't assume, or you'll make an ass of you.

Those kind of condescendant tones are really annoying. Cut it out.

Off course I don't think the companies actually care about the people's health. But the customers might eventually. Specially if sugar-saturated products become more expensives while the sugar-less stays the same price, then some customers might find it easier to feed themselves on a less destructive diet.

But even at 22 I could see the way the world is. I seriously want to know how he sees business because at his age he will be one broke individual by the time he is thirty.
End of quote


You obviously don't know what the heck you're speaking about Paladin. I happen to know business very well, and how they think. Off course it's all about profit. The thing is, I want them to make more profit while selling healthy diets and/or having an environmental policy than while not doing it.

"Volountary measures" my ass. A company will only do "volountary measures" if he thinks he can score good PR while at it. I want the companies to make a buck out of it, not paying a buck if they do it wrong.

(and while I know a company itself won't lift a finger to volountary help it's environnement (either the health of its consumer base or the physical environnement) except it thinks the PR effect will outweight the costs, I know it's merely because a business has to work within a quite limited mindscape. A CEO who wants to do good but looses profit to the company because of his nice actions will loose his job pretty quick and be replaced by someone who won't make the same mistake. Shareholders don't care much that the company managed to get healthy products to a reasonable cost to the customers if sales are down 20%)

(But individuals can be generous and do their own helping. So it's not the peoples within a company that are soulless, it's the company itself. But that's how it is supposed to be. Now, the legal/fiscal environnement should simply influence the legal and fiscal system around said companies so that their best course of action for profit is trough moral actions defined by the Governement, which is, in theory, controlled by the people)

So lick my ass, punk. It's not all about carebears and fluffy birds in my world.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Off course I don't think the companies actually care about the people's health. But the customers might eventually. Specially if sugar-saturated products become more expensives while the sugar-less stays the same price, then some customers might find it easier to feed themselves on a less destructive diet.
End of quote


So your plan it to be a fascist, controlling the world for everyone’s own good?

People are fat because they choose to be unless they have a medical reason. putting less sugar in food is not the cure. People will do what makes them feel good regardless of what YOU think. Forcing everyone into your nightmare of what you think is healthy is wrong. It is people like you that put forth the lie about secondhand smoke. No people can’t smoke where they want. Even after the supposed scientific study was proven to be a lie. It’s for our own good people say even when there is no proof of this. Just like the global warming lie has been proven to be a hoax, but for our own good we should stop putting CO2 into the air. Another lie to support the hoax. Now you with sugar, will there be anything people can do for pleasure that you won’t try to criminalize?

The thing is, I want them to make more profit while selling healthy diets and/or having an environmental policy than while not doing it.
End of quote


That is just it, YOU WANT, why don’t you just worry about you and let us worry about us? It is none of your business how or what I eat. It is not your business what I drink, smoke, or drive.

So lick my ass, punk. It's not all about carebears and fluffy birds in my world.
End of quote


Sorry I don’t date outside my species.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
So your plan it to be a fascist, controlling the world for everyone’s own good?
End of quote


Off course not. I plan for the people controlling the world. The citizens, the voters. Are you an oligarchist, willing to leave every society's leaning and directions into the sole hands to CEOs?

People are fat because they choose to be unless they have a medical reason. putting less sugar in food is not the cure. People will do what makes them feel good regardless of what YOU think.
End of quote


What I think is irrelevant. We were talking about the market sugar price for food, fuel and (possibly eventually) sugar will rise, right?

So, as I said originally, it might improve the health of people. The market will ajust eventually. It's just that this time, it might adjust in a way that is less detrimental to the society.

People are fat because they choose to be unless they have a medical reason
End of quote


You just told me a few posts above how hard it actually is to be able to buy healty food. I think people are fat because they eat not well and have a sedentary lifestyle. Now, I don't think we can actually do something about the latter outside of promoting sports and the such. But I think the market can actually do something about the former, if good food becomes cheaper compared to bad.

That is just it, YOU WANT, why don’t you just worry about you and let us worry about us? It is none of your business how or what I eat. It is not your business what I drink, smoke, or drive
End of quote


Oh.. So it's not of my business if someone is smoking in the same room than I am? I am breathing the same smoke than he is, you know. Or are you gonna say that all the studies about smoking is bad for health lies too?

And you can call me a fascist if you want, but if you do roadrage behavior, you are a criminal in my mind. I don't care about your so-called right, you are endangering the health of your fellow citizen. That's why there are LAWS against those behavior. Same for speeding, drinking/driving.

Sorry I don’t date outside my species
End of quote


Wasn't talking to you.

I just don't react well when people are using words like "Canadian" to talk the way they would do about a retard. In a modern society, talking about someone with condescendant tone is considered extremely rude.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Off course not. I plan for the people controlling the world. The citizens, the voters. Are you an oligarchist, willing to leave every society's leaning and directions into the sole hands to CEOs?
End of quote


I don’t see how controlling our companies will make things better for people. I don’t see how making companies do what is not profitable for them will make things better for people. People have choices and they exercise those choices. If you choose not to eat food that is full of sugar then you are doing your will. If enough people choose to do as you do then the company will either change or go out of business. That is the natural order of business. As far as being oligarchic I am not. I am a business man. I make money by giving my clients what they want at a fair price. If they no longer want my services then I am out of date or my product is out of date. The myth of big corporations running the government is not true, it has been tried in Japan and they went into a depression at the end of the 80’s and still have not dug themselves out of it.

Oligarchies just like communism and socialism have been proven failures. The only model that has worked is capitalism. It works for the people, it works for the government, it works for all who try it and let it run its course. Once capitalism changes its model to any of the above the people suffer, the government suffers, and nations begin to fall. All through out history you see how it has worked and how when messed with has failed. You want to let the people decide, that is fine that is how capitalism works. The purpose of government is to do for the people what the people alone can not do for themselves. Self defense, public safety. Everything else is a waste of government and money.

The first rule of business is to make payroll, failure to do this is criminal.

What I think is irrelevant. We were talking about the market sugar price for food, fuel and (possibly eventually) sugar will rise, right?

So, as I said originally, it might improve the health of people. The market will ajust eventually. It's just that this time, it might adjust in a way that is less detrimental to the society.
End of quote


Right and based on that I asked what you thought so it is not irrelevant. Based on your thinking I can then understand where you are coming from and where you are heading, and agree or disagree with it based on that.

The problem is who is to decide what is good or bad for society? I want a product and the product is legal who is anyone to say I can’t have it?

You just told me a few posts above how hard it actually is to be able to buy healty food. I think people are fat because they eat not well and have a sedentary lifestyle. Now, I don't think we can actually do something about the latter outside of promoting sports and the such. But I think the market can actually do something about the former, if good food becomes cheaper compared to bad.
End of quote


I never said it was hard to buy, I said it was not worth the cost. It is over priced in the market place. It does not taste any better, the nutritional value is marginal at best. Therefore not worth my time or effort to eat it or buy it. The last time I ate health food was in the 70’s, I did not like it then and I don’t buy it now.

Oh.. So it's not of my business if someone is smoking in the same room than I am? I am breathing the same smoke than he is, you know. Or are you gonna say that all the studies about smoking is bad for health lies too?
End of quote


Sorry to burst your bubble but there is still no proof that smoking will kill you. Yes, a smoker stands a higher risk but too many smokers die of other causes. Too many non-smokers die of lung cancer. My mother died of lung cancer, and she never smoked a day in her life. My grandmother on my father’s side died of old age and the only time she did not smoke was in the hospital.

Less people smoke today than 40 years ago but more people are dying of cancer today than 40 years ago. To get on the silly side of medicine one could say that not smoking causes cancer.

I only state what has been proven. Second hand smoke is not a danger to non-smokers. Every study that was done has stated this. So if a person wishes to smoke they take their life in their own hands. It is their business. If you don’t like the smell of smoke don’t hang around smokers. Why do you insist on demanding that they accommodate you and your beliefs while you disregard theirs?

I don't care about your so-called right, you are endangering the health of your fellow citizen.
End of quote


How? Show me how this is happening.

Wasn't talking to you.

I just don't react well when people are using words like "Canadian" to talk the way they would do about a retard. In a modern society, talking about someone with condescendant tone is considered extremely rude.
End of quote


Your last sentence was better than the insult you threw. I suggest you use that one instead. Beign rude in return is not going to gain you any respect.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
All right, I'll give other counters when I'll have more time..

The problem is who is to decide what is good or bad for society? I want a product and the product is legal who is anyone to say I can’t have it?
End of quote


Generally, something good or bad is something that is considered detrimental to the lifes of the citizens. For example, cocaine is bad, because it can lead quickly to the destruction of life. Same for many drugs.

You can widen that argument by saying that many sugar products are also bad. Not totally by themselves, however, but by the sheer quantity of the stuff eaten by the consumers, both because it's cheap and it's good to taste. Obesity is detrimental to the life of a citizen, so it would be a good thing it such food were less attractive to the customers.

I don't care a twinkie once in a while, I eat Quebec's own sugar-cake myself once in a while, and I love the stuff. It's just it begins to be very dangerous for the general health situation of our countries. Obesity is on the rise, like it or not. I don't want us to end up like in Wall-E.

Same with cigarets and alchohol. Sure, I know, it's not illegal. But it's restricted. Why? because the society agreed, once, that such products can be bad for someone, so they prevented the children to have them. Now, if it happened that the cigaret price went up 100%, I personnally think it would be a good thing overall. But I don't want the governement to put incredible taxes for that to happen. We have to find a market-incentive, or use tobbaco/tobbaco fields for other products, you see what I mean?

Oligarchies just like communism and socialism have been proven failures.
End of quote


Where? There have been some failed communist or socialist states, but these have generaly been downfalled by the dictatorship that governement them, not the economical state itself. The main problem with communism, it's that it is way to easy to establish and maintain a dictatorship with it.

As for Oligarchy.. well, I'm in the UAE presently, and I have to say to you, it's thriving and healthy.

I never said it was hard to buy, I said it was not worth the cost. It is over priced in the market place. It does not taste any better, the nutritional value is marginal at best. Therefore not worth my time or effort to eat it or buy it. The last time I ate health food was in the 70’s, I did not like it then and I don’t buy it now
End of quote


Yhea, sorry. What I meant was, hard to buy = high cost. But if the sugar price happens to rise, more people (not all of them) will buy that stuff rather than eat the "general" food saturated with sugar.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is still no proof that smoking will kill you. Yes, a smoker stands a higher risk but too many smokers die of other causes. Too many non-smokers die of lung cancer. My mother died of lung cancer, and she never smoked a day in her life. My grandmother on my father’s side died of old age and the only time she did not smoke was in the hospital.
End of quote


Nonono, I never said "it will kill you", I said "bad for health". Higher blood pressure, respiration problems, cancer, cardiac trouble etc... all of those are increased by smoke. You can't get out of the fact that smoking is bad for health, killing or not.

How? Show me how this is happening.
End of quote


If I breath your smoke because you wanted to smoke in the same room than me (like in a restaurant or a bar), then you are increasing my likelyhood to develop above-mentionned health problem. Maybe I am more vulnerable to such problem, and constant exposure to second-hand smoking will be damaging to my health. Just because you, and other people like you, wanted to suck your miracle stick.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Same with cigarets and alchohol. Sure, I know, it's not illegal. But it's restricted. Why? because the society agreed, once, that such products can be bad for someone, so they prevented the children to have them. Now, if it happened that the cigaret price went up 100%, I personnally think it would be a good thing overall. But I don't want the governement to put incredible taxes for that to happen. We have to find a market-incentive, or use tobbaco/tobbaco fields for other products, you see what I mean?
End of quote


This is where your argument falls apart. When I started to smoke cigarettes cost 50 cents a pack. Now they cost 2.50 a pack. That is more than double the price yet people still smoke. In New York the price is going from 7 dollars a pack to 9 dollars a pack, I started smoking in New York at age 14. More than double the price but people still smoke. They are told they can’t smoke in public buildings and still they smoke. None of the social engineering that you have suggested has worked, including the health risks associated with smoking. People will do what they want to do.

Where? There have been some failed communist or socialist states, but these have generaly been downfalled by the dictatorship that governement them, not the economical state itself. The main problem with communism, it's that it is way to easy to establish and maintain a dictatorship with it.
End of quote


Soviet Union lasted 70 years and collapsed under its own weight and corruption.

North Korea can not feed its self while South Korea can feed itself and has enough to export.

Cuba can not feed its self and when the Soviet Union fell the standard of living in Cuba went back to pre-industrial levels.

China was going bankrupt, and could not feed its people until it changed its model to capitalism under a dictatorship. The dictators are wise enough to allow the businessmen to do their thing with little interference. The PLA Peoples Liberation Army runs the sweat shops that produce inferior products with slave labor and they don’t make much money.

Every communist government has failed to succeed in taking care of its people.

Socialist governments like France are dying on the vine, 20% unemployment, slow business do to over regulation, and brutal taxation to pay for social programs. The unions in France are now complaining that they work too hard and want to go from a four day work week to a three day work week. They still want to get paid for a 40 hour work week but only work 24 hours a week. Evil corporations don’t like this idea. Since they are paying 40 hours of pay for 32 hours of work now.

Please show me a socialist government that is succeeding.

Japan was the lone oligarchy I am aware of. Business runs the government, they choose the candidates, and provide funding for the candidates. The politicians tell people to invest their money in Japanese corporations as a sign of patriotism. Those corporations do not pay dividends to share holders. So if you owned Japanese stocks they only made money when you sold them and that would be considered unpatriotic. Businesses require you to work 16 to 18 hours a day, but they only pay you for 8 hours. On paper a Japanese company is highly productive because they do 16 or 18 hours of work in only 8 hours. I know because I lived there for four years. The result is the corporations made huge amounts of money and little serious expenses.
Citizens pay between 22 and 28% in taxes, there is no real retirement program so the citizen has to bank 50% of their pay in order to have money to retire on. They have to live on about 25% of their salary. A secretary makes about 8 to 12 thousand a year. Apartments are expensive and take about 14% of the monthly salary. The rest has to pay of food, clothes and transportation. Keep in mind a cup of coffee costs 5 dollars, not Starbucks. A melon costs about 75 dollars. Rice, a staple there is kept artificially high to keep the farmers growing rice. Rice grown in America is cheaper even after the cost of shipping it to Japan than rice grown at home. To protect the Japanese farmers a tariff is imposed on imported rice and other products. There is no competition there it is all fixed by the corporations. I don’t see any of that in America or Canada. It is rare to have a Japanese citizen on a salary retire because most die of heart attacks from exhaustion by age 35 to 40.

After reading all this you really want to say that you live in an oligarchy?
If I breath your smoke because you wanted to smoke in the same room than me (like in a restaurant or a bar), then you are increasing my likelyhood to develop above-mentionned health problem.
End of quote


This has been disproven in every scientific study published. The closest one was the UN report where they published a summary of the report that said the exact opposite of the final report which they refused to publish until it leaked out and then they recanted the summary. The anti-smokers refused to accept the actual report and cling to the summary. The short version is they wanted to say it was bad but could not prove it according the World Health Organization studies.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
After reading all this you really want to say that you live in an oligarchy?
End of quote


Well.. I am in a Gulf country right now. Oligarchy = power within the hands of a few elite. I think the Sheik governement system applies for Oligarchy.

When I started to smoke cigarettes cost 50 cents a pack. Now they cost 2.50 a pack
End of quote


Well, when you started to smoke cigarettes, when was that? Don't you think the general prices in your society has increased since? Tell me you year, and I'll find the comparative CPI index to tell you if the price really has increased.

More than double the price but people still smoke. They are told they can’t smoke in public buildings and still they smoke. None of the social engineering that you have suggested has worked, including the health risks associated with smoking. People will do what they want to do.
End of quote


Funny. Most study I have seen prove that in area such as New York, even if there are still smokers, their % is slowly-but surely- going down. Yhea, they are still smoking, but there are less of them every year. I am not sure if it's because of attrition, or because they quit, however.

This has been disproven in every scientific study published. The closest one was the UN report where they published a summary of the report that said the exact opposite of the final report which they refused to publish until it leaked out and then they recanted the summary. The anti-smokers refused to accept the actual report and cling to the summary. The short version is they wanted to say it was bad but could not prove it according the World Health Organization studies.
End of quote


Now I am going to ask you to give me a link about that. I simply do not accept that argument on YOUR word, no way. "Smoking isn't bad for health"? Rubbish.