Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
And I'm saying, it's their right to pass pointless and silly laws.
It's a difference in ideology. While you think that I'm "whining" by bringing up States' Rights, I'm simply saying that's the power of that government to do so.
I could very well accuse you of not realizing the influence of a billionaire beyond the realm of New York when he is paying for political ads for politicians in Illinois
. Is this fundamentally fair? Sure, why not? We also blame big corporations of doing the same thing.
Wait a second, Bloomberg IS a big corporate entity!
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!That's part of my point: a law that prevents you from passing a kind of law is meaningless.
edited 14th Mar '13 12:48:54 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ninja'd like hell. If Mississippi is like a kid at the table shouting "I DON'T WANT TO EAT MY VEGETABLES AND YOU WON'T MAKE ME!", then Bloomberg looks a lot like the annoying know-it-all who buts into business that isn't his and when people say so he goes "WELL I'M RICH SO I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!"
It was an honorSo rich people aren't allowed to take up causes and use their money to advocate for them? Now we're stomping on the First Amendment because we don't like the message.
It sounds like you don't want to be told by someone that you need to take care of your body. Well, too bad.
edited 14th Mar '13 12:42:43 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, the sad thing is, rich people kinda can do what they want. >_< But that's a separate thing.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, they have the right as a state to pass such a law. /shrug
You can't cure stupid, only hope it dies faster than smart.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: it sounds like you're trying to make an argument where there isn't one because it's not a message you personally support. Don't put words in my mouth, please.
You're quick to attack the use of "State's Rights" because you're not keeping it in mind during your arguments. I'm trying to remind you that there is a reason why those legislators make those kinds of meaningless laws, not that I personally support what they do with it.
It is the bottom line, regardless of whether the law is stupid or not. And it -is- a stupid law.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
If you can't fix the foods themselves thanks to the powerful influence of their lobbyists, and you can't convince people to change their eating habits, then you attack the problem where you can. I support the principle behind Bloomberg's law even if I think the implementation was half-assed.
Seat belts. Immunizations. Smoking laws. Drinking laws. Prostitution laws. Helmet laws. We have thousands of laws about what you can and cannot do with your body. If you are really so determined to live a life free of people telling you what to do, you missed that boat by several thousand years. If you buy the Eden story, you missed it for the entire existence of the human species. (Don't eat that Apple!)
edited 14th Mar '13 1:08:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Everyone one of those laws you threw up are laws designed to stop someone from harming anybody else. Even your seatbelt example fits; more fatalities raises the insurance rates for everyone.
There are politicians who think like you, and try to use that logic to instill this fantasy where they get to legislate everything for everyone else.
Thankfully, much as I like you Fighteer, your outrageous fantasies aren't shared by the general populace.
It was an honorEdit: Ninja'd.
![]()
All of those laws are to protect other people, not just yourself. That includes even seatbelt laws, as it is tied to overall traffic laws, and specifically passengers. And when it does affect -you-, it is because you are the driver of a few thousand pounds of metal. An ejected driver cannot control a missile.
Prostitution laws, smoking laws, etc. etc. All smoking laws are there to protect other people, not yourself.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:08:46 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!And eating yourself into obesity has social costs as well. This isn't some liberal fantasy here. It's documented. We can pass laws restricting behavior when it carries a demonstrable harm to yourself or to society.
"your outrageous fantasies aren't shared by the general populace" You'd be surprised, Starship. This is not an argument over kind, it's an argument over degree.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:10:51 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Then again we can argue that Mississippi has the right to do this, but I'm not sure I can trust Mississippi with this considering the last anti-obesity measure I heard from them was trying to ban obese people from eating in restaurants.
The level of stupid on all sides of the argument is just astounding.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
That article mentions that the bill was proposed by Ted Mayhall and two other Representatives. Mayhall is a Republican. Don't know about the other two. (They weren't mentioned by name so I can't look up their political affiliation.)
Anyway, that bill wasn't even proposed by a Democrat; it was either a Republican bill or one from both parties.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:15:12 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Specious correlations based on the flimsiest of evidence are utterly transparent. Many people have uncommitted sex irresponsibly, I suppose we ban that too. People watch too much TV, you want a law restricting viewing hours? People drink too much coffee, where's your call for a ban on large coffees?
The Orwellian methods you seem to support don't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, they look pretty ridiculous.
EDIT: Wait a second. So Mississippi want to preemptively ban silly soda laws, but then they draft phenomenally fucking stupid restaurant laws.
I can't begin to grasp the stupidity of this.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:18:14 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor
Many of those things are certainly on the radar of health advocates, but the mechanisms for enforcing them are highly problematic. And who the hell said I want Orwellian control over what people do? I'd prefer if the unhealthy crap we shove into our mouths simply wasn't available at all.
Education is a great way to get people to adopt healthy behaviors, but it has to be coupled with practical solutions to the easy availability of unhealthy crap.
As for unprotected sex, we've already seen how education coupled with the mandatory availability of contraception works wonders on that.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:19:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Sigh, yes, Fighteer, I know there are those who think like you do; that they're performing some service by being overly righteous nannies.
But fortunately, as Mayor Mike learned, freedom is something we value in this country and therefore most of the time we jump on such stupid police-state tactics out the gate. The Mayor thought he could preempt it by rattling his sabre, but he was mistaken.
Now, maybe we can take aim on some of the other similarly stupid bans and restrictions out there.
You confuse me. So you see that education couple with availability of options works better than Puritan style mandates. And yet you keep arguing for Puritan style mandates. What gives, my man?
edited 14th Mar '13 1:22:32 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorTo be fair, that bill that would've banned restaurants from serving obese people doesn't seem to have passed, and it was years ago (2008), and only proposed by 3 Representatives. So this whole incident is an interesting bit of trivia but nothing really important.
(Clarification: the unimportant thing is the proposed legislation to ban restaurants from serving obese people; the other bill about pre-empting future legislation seems a bit more significant.)
Yeah, I got that. I just felt like looking up who proposed it so I thought I might as well post it, especially as there's been this talk about "liberals" trying to impose health-based legislation so hopefully at least someone other than me wanted to know.
edited 14th Mar '13 1:23:21 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Um, Oh So, there's a theory that's opposite. A bunch of well-fed people in your restaurant implies you serve a lot of what people like. Whereas, skinny people in a restaurant implies your portions are wanting or the food isn't that great.
Note; this is a piece of folk-black humor, so don't read too much into it.

Maybe a stupid question, but can they actually pass a law like that?- to the effect of saying "you can't pass this type of law in our state"- I guess you probably can, but I was sort of thinking of the law struck down on a different issue in Romer v. Evans.
Basically, I wonder at the difference between (for example) banning gay marriage in Mississippi (currently ok) and passing a law saying that no legislature can ever pass a law allowing gay marriage in Mississippi (probably not ok).
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki