Posted on 03/15/2008 7:45:46 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
Liberals get really testy when some folks, devout Christians for example, choose to live their lives under God’s laws; but have no compunction in compelling others to live under the tender mercies of the Nanny State where they make the rules.
Five years ago, when the smoking ban in restaurants first went into effect in my home state of Connecticut, I told a few folks who were happy about it, that it was only a matter of time before the government came after their private property rights or other issues that were near and dear to their hearts. Most people scoffed at my defense of the restaurant owners’ property rights and one fellow actually said, “"The problem with you people is that all you care about is the Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualconservative.com ...
"Then they came for foods that contain trans fats and I didn't speak up or object, because I eat healthy and besides, this did not really affect me.........
"Next they came after children for eating candy in school and I didn’t speak up or object, because I don’t have children or considered this simply an isolated and extreme situation……
(Conn. student suspended for buying candy in school) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1984558/posts
Okay all of you defenders of the Nanny-Nazi-Police-State ( having delegated to themselves Extraconstitutional powers) who have begun arbitrarily regulating many of our personal (LEGAL) activities and choices (OF WHICH YOU DID NOT PARTAKE OR CONSIDERED PERSONALLY OFFENSIVE, THERFORE, SUPPORTED) we tried to warn you, but you dismissed us as fear-mongering, self-serving, irrational, dotes.
(AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST OFFENDERS WAS ELLIOT--"John #9--SPITZER WHEN HE BULLIED AND THREATENED CREDIT CARD COMPANIES FROM PROCESSING PURCHASES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ONLINE AS WELL AS FEX EX AND UPS FROM ACCEPTING SHIPMENT OF SAME)
We attempted to alert all, that this was all about POWER as opposed to legitimate "health issues," and all about "the chilluns," but you would not listen.
Well, the proverbial chickens are predictably coming home to roost. Which “right” or “freedom” do well all enjoy, will be the next target of the power-hungry-nanny-state?
You know who you are. How do you like it now?
Nanny State Ping
apparently intellectualism is so overextended that it had one of its L’s repossesed.
Ironically, I was just reading another thread where I found the following quote from Daniel Webster.
“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”
Okay, I give up. Please elucidate us!!
The spelling in the link.
I hate when I do that. But then, I don't think I've ever claimed to be an intellectual. Quite the contrary, in fact.
“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”
Another Quote which comes to mind attributed to Samuel Johnson in 1775: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
While there is debate about the exact quote, even earlier than that, it's was attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) as saying: "Hell is full of good intentions or desires."
Either way, the meaning is more apropos today than ever.
Sorry, my friend, for a second ping to this, but I pinged the whole list before reading the entire article, which I highly recomend to you as it deals extensively with the California Homeschool ruling.
THEY are coming for the maple syrup next.
Thank you. Unlike Libs/Dhimis, I accept FULL responsibility for the faux pas.
Will ten lashes with a wet noodle, suffice as suitable punishment? lol
All jocularity aside, I would not rule this out.
Of course while I love Vermont Maple Syrup, I'm presently trying to lose a "few" pounds.
Thus I would not speak up or object, as this does not affect me. /s
Maybe we could replace it with a 1. I’ve seen that done somewhere before. ;)
No, first they came for pot and other drugs, and you not only didn’t object, you supported them vociferously because you agreed it was “bad for you.” Now that they have come for the smokers, trans fats, and candy you have no cause to object because you helped establish the precedent. Pity.
Here’s a Kelo connection article.
Mine's not for sale.
You also get the Nanny State even in the halls of Corporate America. One of the vehicles I own is a P/U truck. It is a 17 year old truck and it has a few dents from off-roading. It has a double pipe bumper in the back and a roll bar on top. Where I use to work at, one of the executives (woman, born and bred in the Washington DC area and worked for IBM at one time) didn’t like seeing it by the building. I found a nice tow notice on the driver’s side window. I got then called in, got chewed out for parking it by the building and was told it was an eyesore and it will be parked away from the building. That executive mentioned through my manager that crappy looking trucks should be banned as well. I know many East Coast states target old vehicles through safety inspection laws. As soon as the national requirement was lifted in 1981, most states got rid of it.
Of course I totally missed the set up. I could have said, "They already came for the "L"" or something but, no, I had to make it complicated...
Oh, I can understand that. It would leave a gaping hole.
I wouldn’t be able to log in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.