Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

45. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:09 RollinThundr
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

I'm fine with regulating tobacco, course when you talk about regulating tobacco do you mean the half of the price of the pack that's all pure tax or actual regulation?

Feinstine's anti gun bill is a perfect example, the woman has a permit to carry in San Fransisco, one of the toughest places in the US to get that type of permit. It's ok for her to have the means to protect herself, just not you or I. She's had a 10+ year agenda to attack the 2nd amendment, I doubt any of her constituents want to remove the 2nd amendment of the constitution. And to me that's the crux of the issue on both the left and the right, politicians today forget that they're supposed to work FOR us. Not for their own agendas. Somehow We the People got lost along the way.

The soft drink ban in NY due to fatties. Yes I know Bloomberg is an independent but his views are all pretty much extremely liberal anyway, may as well just call him a liberal.

Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo