This self righteous SOB signed the law to ban smoking in the state of New York. He even talked about smokers as if they are the scum of the earth.
This two faced SOB talks out of both sides of his filthy mouth!
"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.”
THEY are coming for the maple syrup next.
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.
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.
Thank you for posting, and bump to the top!
You're right! I took a solemn oath to protect and defend that document when I entered the United States Army many years ago, and then I had to go half way around the world and do it. A lot of men did it with me and some of their names are on a Wall in Washington D.C., as are the names of other men from other wars in countless cities and towns across this great nation. We fought, not for the printed word on that document, but for the ideals that it represents. Freedom, that's what we fought for, and that's what these idiots can't understand. It's not a printed word, it's a way of life, and it's the most priceless commodity on the face of this earth, and it's worth my life and the lives of all free men everywhere.
People that say such things are clueless and should be made to live under communist regimes, and never see the light of liberty again. Do not disparage the sacrifice of my brothers in front of me, I will defend them, and you will have hospital bills.
Thanks for the post. Though it would seem there still exist many who are still not persuaded, this poster does not now, nor did I ever require, convincing that the premise of this article was in fact true.
Yep. In the military it is called mission creep. I suppose this phenomena can be labeled “nanny-creep” What never ceases to amaze me is how folks can understand and apply the issue to smokers or kids selling candy but they don’t get it when it is applying to the 2nd Amendment
Apparently everyone has forgotten that it is only recently (relatively speaking) that this infringement FOR LIFE of a citizens 2nd Amendment rights has existed. This is for what is rapidly becoming a laundry list of new “crimes” some of which are only misdemeanors. Just since the 60s – 70’s has the nanny-state government decided that if anything ever occurs they can gleefully deny a Citizens 2 Amendment rights. And just as in the example of the ban on smokers rights we shall also see a ban on gun owners rights.
When smokers rights were first violated it was “common sense.” Any one remember what the ban was? Airplanes and elevators. Just common sense, right? Now we have totally lunacy on the issue, banning smoking in totally outdoor areas, attempts at banning smoking in ones own home, city-wide bans, etc.
We are now starting to see attempts at violating a citizens Second Amendment rights for “mental” reasons. And just who is to be doing the deciding? Well the government of course! It is just common sense. And what kind of issues? Well that would be unstable and suicidal, right?
Guess what smoking is in light of “modern” scientific data? Why, that is a huge health risk and everybody knows it. So, if you smoke (or eat “unhealthy” food) you are deliberate harming yourself and that is an indication of suicidal behavior. By-by Second Amendment rights and it will all be “legal”
But you will be disarmed just as if you had been caught robbing banks.
This self righteous SOB signed the law to ban smoking in the state of New York. He even talked about smokers as if they are the scum of the earth.
This two faced SOB talks out of both sides of his filthy mouth!
Let me help you.
When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.
When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.
When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.
When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.
When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.
When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).
When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.
When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.
When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.
When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.
When they came for the "polluters", I did not speak out because I was not a polluter.
When they came for the SUV drivers, I did not speak out, because I did not drive an SUV.
When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.
When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.
When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.