Most Americans describe themselves as conservatives in the same sense that there are more crazy Napoleons than any other historical figure.

Even if Wookie didn't have me ignored, he probably still wouldn't care about actual data

http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/defense/research-most-americans-not-conservative-743/

its time for the "pick a Poll" game!!!! on the count of three everyone pull a off the web. (oh the innuendo is limitless...)

1....2....3!

source
or...

source

While I'm squarely on the side that the federal government can and should regulate things for the betterment of its citizenry, and I think I'm mostly in favor of public smoking bans on the local level, I think this particular issue is pretty silly. I didn't even know there was such a thing as flavored cigarettes until I read this thread. All the cigarettes I saw when I was a teen were the normal kind.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. Big Tobacco is the government's favorite whipping boy/cash cow. There are plenty of other laws they could make that would benefit people more, but anti-tobacco laws are tried and true.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of public smoking bans.

I wonder what George Washington would think of criminalized marijuana.

Smoking inside leaves toxic residue on every surface.. it builds up and can be really bad for you.

Here in Arizona, if a building has its own ventilation system it can allow smoking. We still have a couple bars and smoke shops you can smoke in.

nah, he watches fox

All those damn polls confuse conservatism with republicanism, damnit. A ****ing hell of a lot of DEMOCRATS are conservative, they are just too ****ing stupid to realize it.

RJR and Phillip-Morris are coming out with all these new menthol cigarettes (which arent covered by this ban) because (and this is a direct quote from a PM rep who comes to my store every couple of weeks) "its what all the kids smoke."

Truth

word

The thing I hate most about smoking is taxes... I was just in South Carolina and it was $7 for two packs. Now that I'm back in AZ it's $13. I'm basically volunteering to spend more on taxes, and the government is profiting off my addiction.

And a lot of republicans are liberal and are too ****ing stupid to realize it.

Most Americans - like Wookie here - think 'conservative' means watching episodes of Leave It to Beaver while absent-mindedly stroking themselves over the notion of America reverting to some mythical past where you had real family values and everybody was a white protestant.
The difference between liberal and conservative in modern America is really just the difference between who the government will spend their trillions of dollars on: the poor and the rich, respectively. It's all disingenuous.

If you watch Fox News and can't figure out why nobody with more than a grade 10 education respects you, this should help you understand.

The real conservative party now is the libertarians. But the idiotic masses all think that they are liberal because the first five letters are the same.

That's why we need to get the Republicans and Democrats out of office and start getting a blend of parties in Washington. This tug-of-war has been hurting the country for decades...

I don't know what facts he cited but I did err again. I should have used the word "plurality" instead of "majority". A common error for a common man.

I regret the mistake.

What's truly unfortunate is that American libertarians have hijacked the word 'libertarian' to be synonymous with free market pro-property ideology, while everywhere else in the world libertarianism is much closer to anarchist Marxism. American libertarianism is really just classical liberalism (in the political sense, not some absurd derogatory sense).

American Liberalism is pretty far from classical liberalism.

The democrats want socialist anarchy.
The republicans want a police state.

This has got to be the most ignorant thing I've read on Massassi in the past 15 minutes.

You don't proofread your posts?

Touche.

Certainly not in the past 15 minutes, though.

No, wookie. I was saying that you must not proof read your posts, because if you did, your own post would be the most ignorant thing you have read in the last fifteen minutes.

Everyone got it but you. They are all laughing at you now. I am so very sorry.

Christ, do you need everything spoonfed to you?

Republicans: fiscally permissive, socially authoritarian.

Democrats: fiscally authoritarian, socially permissive.

Um, actually, I think it was clear that I acknowledged your joke by saying "touche" and then further acknowledged, and engaged in self-depricating humor, by admitting that I hadn't proof read any of my posts in the fifteen minutes previous.

Wow, I don't even think Emon will jump in to call that a backpedal (he might though).



He might have meant that but I'm simply going to take your translation at face value. However, you have won the new most ignorant thing I read at massassi in the past 15 minutes award as I disagree with your definitions as much as I do his. Actually, I take that back. I'll simply just disagree but I do think you give him too much credit.

This is actually the most accurate thing I've read on page two.

PATRIOT act anyone? Supported by a lot of the Republican Congress and Republican president?

They both want a police state. There's no major difference between them.

Politicians are chosen based on how well they can run a campaign, not their knowledge and understanding of things that are important to the governing of the nation.

Well yeah, its well known that politics is really just one big popularity contest.

That's sort of the whole point of democracy.

Thus, why Obama managed to get elected, in spite of being an idiot.
[ok and Bush before him for that matter]

By what standard are you judging him an idiot?

Transferred from Occidental to Columbia after 2 years.
BSc Political Science from Columbia University.
Graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law.

Are you saying he's stupid because he's doing things you disagree with? Or maybe because you've forgotten that there are thousands of people involved in drafting new legislation, and Obama's only official job is reactionary to this process?


BA History from Yale (2.75 GPA)
Earned an MBA from Harvard


You don't have to be an idiot to be wrong. And just how are you qualified to be deciding that either of these men are stupid?

He might as well have a degree in stupid, he joined the armed forces.

Let me just say that going to good schools and getting good grades does not mean you're smart, nor does it MAKE you smart. It means you're good at school. No more, no less. You can be smart and do crappy in school, and you can be dumb and do great. Not only that, but there're all kinds of smart and all kinds of dumb in the world, and few are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, as soon as the government has control over peoples' health care, you'll start seeing this get a lot worse. No doing drugs, no smoking, no drinking, no unhealthy eating, no soda....it's really up in the air as to where it'll stop. Once you're paying for other people, it starts being your concern how they live their life, and that's when you will start suggesting. Then strongly suggesting, then, the majority will agree and begin telling. Then enforcing. And they'll be right to make you live healthier. After all, they're paying for your healthcare.

So which are you? An idiot who went to an Ivy League school or a smart high school dropout?

Slippery slope argument.

This is America. When we use a word incorrectly, it's not because we don't understand its use. We're redefining it. It's evolution of language. This is America.

(the above applies to more than language)

I am a somewhat gifted individual who consistently underachieves at school because I'm doing it wrong. I know plenty of people less gifted than me who do much better in school without really gaining any knowledge. I know plenty of less-gifted people than me who have become much smarter than me through hard work and have excelled at school. I also know people much more gifted than me who never went to college, and I know people much more gifted than me who excel at school. I don't want to sit here and go through all the possible combinations, but I hope you see my point. If I was smarter in high school I would NOT have gone to college right away, and I would have saved a lot of money and time by going to school for the right reasons, not just because it's what you're supposed to do.
Not that any of that is relevant. Please don't fish for personal arguments, you're above that. Or you were, anyway.

Regarding my argument, no, it's not a slippery slope argument. It contains a slippery slope if you want it to, but that's not the point. The point is that if I pay for your healthcare, I gain the right to tell you how to take care of yourself. It's not a slippery slope, it's a natural and correct progression that'll just take time to fully implement. Slippery slope implies that it starts okay and due to a misstep ends up sliding into some horrible nightmare. It doesn't. It's a discrete step. As soon as I pay for your healthcare, I get to tell you how to live or else I'm being ****ed over.

Personally, as I'm sure you've gathered, I think everyone gets ****ed over anyway, but that's not really important.

It's tough to find an original term these days. Everything's been soiled at one point or another. Can't go around calling myself a liberal or else people will get confused. But then again, conservatives used to mean classically liberal, but now conservative really just means republican, which as has been discussed here already, isn't really conservative. Labels suck.

How do you know you are "somewhat gifted?" What standard are you measuring yourself against? Your friends, who have better grades than you?

Actually your entire second paragraph consists wholly of a slippery slope argument.

SLIP'N'SLIDE




weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I use that term because, for example, I never studied for my SAT or ACT and I got a 1420 and a 33 on them, respectively. I know people who do very well in school and studied very hard leading up to those tests and didn't do nearly as well. You're pushing for criteria and I'm saying that it's not that simple. Those tests are about as relevant as any school I've seen, which is to say: not very. Must you make a big deal out of this? It's really unimportant...I was just saying if the man thinks the guy is stupid, let him.

And yet again, no, it's not a "slippery slope" argument. There is no slope. It's just a big, level mud pit. IF I pay for something, I have a right to say how it's applied. Thus, I get to tell you how to live, whether that means no drugs, no smoking, or no soda. I don't care what order. The word "progression" is what's bothering you, because it's the wrong word. They're all the same to me. It's not a "progression" but just one thing after another, in no particular order. It doesn't matter how MANY things, or how "bad" they are, any one is the same as any other.