Old 16th October 2009, 01:34   #1
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
More Blue State Bullshit

Just another Oregon Blue State bunch of liberal hacks are probably going to enact a smoking ban in our Hillsboro public parks effective next Wednesday. The fine is $250.

They've already got to the bars. They've already enacted smoking bans outdoors in any block that contains medical offices.

Just another case of activism trumping common sense. I'm getting really tired of legislation and law enforcement being used to establish social engineering instead of being involved in public safety.

Oregon needs an enema to excrete all the aging hippie liberal douchebag politicians that were even too far left to exist in California.

If you think any of this is to actually improve quality of life. It isn't. It's just that in the absence of being able to do anything really useful, they can draw some smarm smugness from being able to screw with people.

Maybe they can ban smoking in the parks. If they could ban the crack dealers, I'd find that more important. Maybe they should put down the pipe themselves. I think it's funny that I run into a lot of these miscreants that are "non-tobacco" smokers

It must be nice to sit around, get stoned and figure out what's next while drawing civil service pay.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 03:29   #2
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,986
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Good or bad, it's not as much a blue vs. red thing as people think. While it is true that it's more common for democrats to be heard speaking out for the ban and republicans to speak out against, the difference is anything but polarized, and when it comes to actual votes, things get pretty surprising.

Quote:
Results Thursday as the House, on a 60-39 vote, passed the first significant curbs on smoking in Virginia bars and restaurants.

Voting yes were 21 Republicans and 39 Democrats. Voting no were 31 Republicans, six Democrats and two independents.
As you can see, Republicans could have easily voted the ban down.

I have been in two states where the issue was voted on while I lived there (PA and OH), and in both cases, the vote would not have been won without the significant, deciding chunk of republican voters. PA's vote total was 41-9 (with many R's that could have tossed the vote either way). Ohio's vote was closer, but with no noticeable tendency for either party to have voted one way or another.

This is damn near shocking, but it does come from a very reputable source:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17410/inc...ic-places.aspx

Quote:
Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to show increased support for smoking bans in restaurants, hotels and motels, and the workplace.

Currently, 62% of Republicans want to ban smoking in restaurants, up from 47% in 2003 -- a 15-point increase. By contrast, independents are eight points more likely to support a ban in restaurants (from 40% to 48%), while Democrats are only five points more likely (from 48% to 53%).

A similar pattern is found among partisans about smoking in hotels and motels. Forty-one percent of Republicans support a smoking ban in these establishments, compared with 28% of independents and 33% of Democrats. For Republicans, the current figures represent an increase of 15 percentage points over a similar reading in 2003, but only a 6-point increase for independents, and a 5-point increase for Democrats.

In the workplace, Republicans show an increase in support by 11 points (from 36% in 2003 to 47% in 2005) and independents by 5 points (32% to 37%). Democrats show an insignificant one-point decline, from 41% to 40%.
So, while the blue and red thing looks like it once was quite true, it isn't so much anymore.

Wanna know what's funny? I have always spoken against bans in places like bars and ESPECIALLY private clubs. I don't think that those places are critical for everyday life like say a grocery store or hospital, and therefore should be allowed to make their own decisions on their smoking policies, so long as they enforce age restrictions as they always have.

Many people get bad impressions of smokers and smoking because of non-health related issues too, like the stereotype of smoking being the rebel thing to do, or the littering that a lot of smokers do, or even tossing lit tobacco products out of moving vehicles, often into dry grass where they could start a fire. Those kind of things really ruin the reputation of more respectful, responsible tobacco users, who seem to get punished by the rest of the public. When someone sees that kind of stuff (in addition to the health issues), he/she forms an immediate degree of hatred for the person, regardless of party affiliation. When that lit cigarette flies out of the car in front of someone, they seem mad that a cop didn't see it and bust them for it, so the only thing left to do is to vote for bans and tax the hell out of tobacco, which I don't think is fair for people that don't do that shit.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2009, 05:50   #3
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by swingdjted
he/she forms an immediate degree of hatred for the person, regardless of party affiliation.
I don't see it that way at all. Litter is litter. I live on a corner lot near an Intel plant. Wanna talk about the haven of liberal health minded people who take walks for health and toss granola bar wrappers, Coke zero cans and empty water bottles in my yard?

Yeah, smokers start some fires. Lightning starts more. The reason they are so devastating is that farmed forests were protected by tree huggers. Farmed forests get logged or they burn. What does that do to the carbon footprint?

When you want to stop littering, you write littering tickets. When you want to stop forest fires, you stop people from ejecting lit cigarettes. When you want to engage in some busibody bullshit, you ban outdoor smoking.

Republicans? I'm in Oregon. What's that? You'd have to drive out some place population zero to find any of those.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 20th October 2009 at 07:31.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2009, 00:17   #4
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,986
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
All I was really trying to say is that there really isn't a correlation between political party and votes for/against smoking bans anymore.

As for the rest, I wouldn't say that it's right or wrong how people react, but it's what I see happening a lot.

You say lightning causes wildfires more than smoking, and you're probably right, and I could add to that by saying lung cancer can be caused by uncontrollable things other than smoking such as genetics. Most people don't argue against either assumption, they just want to show their willingness to reduce either occurrence in a way they can control, whether it's something that will be effective or not. Others just flat out don't like being around smoke and vote against it whether they think it's fair or not.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2009, 08:35   #5
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
While Republicans sometimes vote for this stuff, I don't find the activism coming from them. Maybe it's just trying to look "hip".

I think we have far too many people in this country that suck. They've taken their own fundamental bitchiness and figured out how to project it in the name of righteousness.

It all boils down to the old adage "Trendy bitches suck!".

The problem is we let them run the fucking place.

They'res an easy barometer. Are you bitching or are you helping? Bitching isn't helping.

A low carbon emission, pacifist, atheist, non smoking, skinny, progressive, vegetarian, new age douche bag is still a douche bag.

In it's right wing iteration, it's "Jesus might love you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole".

Last edited by rockouthippie; 21st October 2009 at 09:22.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2009, 09:22   #6
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,986
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
I think we have far too many people in this country that suck.
I couldn't help but laugh. No idea why, but thats the funniest thing I've read/heard all day.

I guess we're in a day where people just want to polarize in some way. I see a recent increased strong tendency in people I see and hear to take a current issue and then decide which extreme to represent, rather than to figure out where to "draw the line" before going "too far".

I guess if a student blew smoke in my face at work (at a school), I'd follow the policy for a write-up and follow my belief that a school-aged student shouldn't be smoking at school. Hopefully that'll never happen. If later I saw the same student as an adult sitting on a park bench having a cigarette as I drove by, I would think nothing of it, because it really doesn't affect anyone in a negative way, unless you get into health care costs that many people share, which isn't a valid argument here because a ban on park smoking doesn't stop someone from smoking at home.

It just seems that excess is in fashion these days. On political issues it's getting really out of hand, and it seems like it is resulting in stalemates because compromises for the greater good don't happen.

Off the topic of smoking bans, although I wouldn't call it activism, Republicans and Democrats seem to be more hostile towards each other than ever, showing overwhelming support for media hosts like Bill O'Reilly/Glenn Beck on the republican side and Keith Olbermann/Rachel Maddow on the democrat side. While all 4 seem to do a little to support their own party, it seems like they're better known for their bashing of the opposite party. I don't mind a limited amount of energy spent recognizing differences with an opposing school of thought, as that is often necessary, but the comparatively bigger focus should be on the productivity of the non-opposing school of thought.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd October 2009, 19:57   #7
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
I guess we're in a day where people just want to polarize in some way.
That's true, but mostly I find the "polarizing" done by conservatives is to oppose liberals who are really the ones driving wedges. Between men and women, black and white, gay and straight, smokers and non-smokers. Now fat and skinny! and people that need to use a personal mobility device!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m..._b_291852.html

Last edited by rockouthippie; 22nd October 2009 at 20:26.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2009, 02:30   #8
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,986
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Your first statement can go either way. Plus, if either party holds a stereotype for being obese, it's historically the republicans. Working (exercising) class people are more traditionally stereotyped as being democrats. Heavyset white collar businessmen (pencil pushers) are more traditionally stereotyped as being republicans. Just look at the party mascots, or their talk show hosts! I only wish I could say that I'm democrat and healthy, but some kind of upper respiratory infection has taken my voice hostage for a few days, but that's not really a result of negligent health habits.

The above is gross stereotyping though, regardless of which side you aim from.

You'll see that most health care plans do have clauses that give discounts for people who have healthy habits - for example, I saved over $100 last year for logging exercise in addition to saving even more for not being a smoker. Once-per-year preventative physical exams ("wellness exams") are at no extra charge from the insurance provider too. It's hard to predict whether or not a government run program will include this or not, but I'm guessing it will considering it will be modeled in many ways after plans in the private sector.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2009, 04:34   #9
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
The language for "fat prejudice" and "smoking prejudice" is in the current draft of the health bill.

It's also hard to predict whether, as you age, that you'll keep those discounts. 1 in 8 of us becomes alcoholic. 60% of us drink too much. You eat meat. Drink whiskey. Chop firewood. What is your risk? Will you blob out when you hit 45? Become an alky? Drop a tree on yourself?

Maybe we could get a super special discount for people that only eat kibble, don't drink, don't smoke, don't drive, don't fly, don't have sex and wear a motorcycle helmet when they take a shower.

This NYT article says the discount for yuppies in their habitrail could be as much as 50%.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...-premiums-too/

Guess what? This will exclude fat people from the work place. It's already doing it. I'm glad we have the Democrats to show us a sanctioned prejudice.

Anti-smoking zealot and very fat guy Rob Reiner must not realize his own party thinks he's a health menace. Oprah and Al Gore better get back on the treadmill!

I liked Ben Stein's editorial here:

Stein: Democrats are Fat Cats and Elitists

This is just a back door for "preexisting condition" exclusion.

[img]http://retrovision*****wp-content/uploads/codepink_fat_lady.jpg[/img]

Democrat or Republican

Last edited by rockouthippie; 23rd October 2009 at 05:27.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2009, 05:23   #10
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,986
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
originally spoken by commedian Chris Rock at a stand-up comedy gig
Anyone that makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fuckin' fool, ok?
Stop blaming political parties. It just doesn't work that way. I could spend time finding sources that show just as many reds doing the stuff that blues do and vice versa. The biggest attempted message behind my posts has been to try and look at the issue instead of whether or not liberals or conservatives need to be bashed. Bashing the other party is an extremely counterproductive distraction from what could be productive work on resolving issues. Whether or not a stand on an issue has correlation, whether weak or strong, to a political party or ideology doesn't matter nearly as much as what the stand is and whether or not it could be used to form a helpful solution.

Nice photoshop above by the way. (no 3-dimensional work, poor lighting, etc. etc.)

[edit]It's getting interesting how you suddenly edit after seeing my post so that my statements don't as well point out what they were intended to point out... Very sneaky indeed. Perhaps I'll have to wait the 3 hours next time.[/edit]

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2009, 05:43   #11
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Bashing the other party is an extremely counterproductive distraction from what could be productive work on resolving issues.
I'm not bashing Democrats. I'm pointing out that the Democrats are BASHING US!

That's because most of us aren't the elitist few who are intelligent enough to micromanage the lives of us mere plebes "for our own good " You can tell they are so smart because most of us that work give them at least a third so they can fuck with fat people, people that believe in Jesus and smokers.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 23rd October 2009 at 06:12.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Community Center > The Bitchlist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump