No earthly idea Jackie was a smoker

[Humphrey Maltravers]

I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final
version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from
the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the
day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.
Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie
was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.

Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching
Oliver Stone's "Nixon."


Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
puffed away on cigarettes in public.

[Anthony Marsh]

How many people knew that he was confined to a wheel chair and wore leg
braces?

[Ace Kefford]

On Apr 28, 10:42 pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Humphrey, I am wondering how old you are? It's not much of an
exaggeration to say that everybody smoked back then. It was not until the
Surgeon General's report in (I think) 1964 that there started to be any
sustained action by people in general to not smoke or more likely give up
smoking.

[bigdog]

On Apr 28, 10:42 pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com>
wrote:

At one time people could smoke cigarettes and not be considered pariahs.
That was before political correctness took over. Cigarette smoking was not
only acceptable but popular. It would be hard to find a movie made back
then that was set in those times where someone wasn't smoking a cigarette.
Movie stars smoked. It was considered cool. Athletes smoked. Ted Willams
and Joe DiMaggio both endorsed cigarettes. There is an iconic picture of
Ben Hogan and Arnold Palmer standing on the first tee at Augusta National
and both were smoking. Palmer did a cigarette commercial for Marlboro.
When Jack Nicklaus beat Palmer in a playoff to win the 1962 US Open, he
tapped in the final putt with a cigarette hanging from his lips. I
remember some football coaches from that era smoking one the sidelines
during the games. My last image of Hank Aaron as a ballplayer was in his
final year when he was mostly the designated hitter for the Milwaukee
Brewers and while his teammates were in the field, the TV camera zoomed in
on him as he was sitting on the bench puffing away. Politicians (and their
wives) have always smoked. Even Obama smoked until fairly recently.
Politicians are much more conscious of public perception, so they do their
smoking away from the cameras.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Apr 29, 7:29 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

[About FDR:]

> How many people knew that he was confined to a wheel chair
> and wore leg braces?

I recently watched one of the FDR documentaries and biography movie.

His polio was not such a big secret, either. It was common knowledge.
What was kept from the public view was the seriousness and
incapacitating degree. It was a matter of PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

http://tinyurl.com/7dcw2w4

FDR bought the thermal baths location in Warm Springs, Georgia and
retired there for a while. According to one of the films, it was
Eleanor's idea, but according to the other, she was adamant about him
quitting politics and leaving.

He died there, accompanied by his assistant/mistress, Lucy Mercer
Rutherfurd.

-Ramon

[Sandy McCroskey]

bigdog wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:42 pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
>> Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
>> experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final
>> version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from
>> the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the
>> day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.
>> Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie
>> was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.
>>
>> Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching
>> Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>
>> Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
>> puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>
> At one time people could smoke cigarettes and not be considered pariahs.
> That was before political correctness took over.

Watching Mad Men, I often have occasion to marvel at the fact that smokers
used to light up in elevators and on planes. That was before it dawned on
people that cigarette smoke (including the second-hand variety) really is
a carcinogen and otherwise a serious health hazard. Or do you not believe
that?

(By the way, I recently stopped smoking marijuana... I now use a
vaporizer.)

I remember when Christopher Hitchens (R.I.P.) confronted the Nation staff
in the conference room here after he had parted ways with the magazine
over the Iraq War. He petulantly insisted on lighting up, as if this was a
"political correctness" issue. Well, he was certainly within his rights to
poison his own body, but he had no more right than a multinational
corporation to pollute the air others breathe.

/sandy

[Dave Reitzes]

One cultural icon promotes the joys of Philip Morris cigarettes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exJtXArLP3w

Two other icons prefer Winston:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c

Dave

[Ace Kefford]

Hi Sandy,

The best in the "transitional period" was the "smoking section" in
airplanes. There was not even the facade as in restaurants of somehow
the smoking area being a separate and somehow isolated area where the
smoke was contained. It was just the last bunch of rows.

If any of us, including smokers, could go back in time to even the
early 1980s we would be amazed by the constant smell of cigarette
smoke everywhere. But you don't need a time machine. Just travel
outside the U.S.!

[Ace Kefford]

On Apr 30, 5:29 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bigdog, it wasn't "political correctness" that changed the perspective on
smoking. You seem old enough to remember the commercial with Hamilton
Burger of Perry Mason fame explaining how cigarettes had led to his
imminent death. This was WAY before that catch-phrase of "political
correctness" came in. (Was it Yul Brenner who did one too?)

As we later learned the cigarette situation actually WAS one of those
long-running conspiracies. It took a whistle-blower to finally convince
the hold-outs of what the cig companies knew all along.

My mother smoked through the pregnancies with me and my siblings and
finally quit. Lots of other ordinary people did it, and it had NOTHING to
do with the dodge of labeling it "political correctness." It had to do
with realizing this was a product that killed you.

(For what it's worth, I'm not coming from any position of superiority or
enlightenment on this. I drink too much and no doubt am killing myself
with that drug. So be it. But it really bugs me how people now jump too
easily to the "political correctness" label.)

OK, that's enough on that.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4f9f0dab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...

>
>bigdog wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 10:42 pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
>>> Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
>>> experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final
>>> version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from
>>> the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the
>>> day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.
>>> Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie
>>> was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.
>>>
>>> Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching
>>> Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>>
>>> Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
>>> puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>>
>> At one time people could smoke cigarettes and not be considered pariahs.
>> That was before political correctness took over.
>
>Watching Mad Men, I often have occasion to marvel at the fact that smokers
>used to light up in elevators and on planes. That was before it dawned on
>people that cigarette smoke (including the second-hand variety) really is
>a carcinogen and otherwise a serious health hazard. Or do you not believe
>that?
>
>(By the way, I recently stopped smoking marijuana... I now use a
>vaporizer.)

How does that work out for you? The weed requires heat to break the
double bond between two of the carbon atoms to activate the good stuff in
the weed. I wouldn't think a vaporizer would do all that.

Hey, but what do I know about the weed!

Bill Clarke

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yeah, that ganja freak on the old SNL shows could never have gotten off
with his raw weed sandwiches.

For oral ingestion, I used to melt it into butter by holding a flame
under a spoon.

With a vaporizer, the cannabinoids boil and form a tasty vapor.

Here's the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_%28cannabis%29
And here's a quote, taken somewhat at random:

<quote on>
In 2007 a study by University of California, San Francisco published in
the Journal of the American Academy of Neurology[4] examined the
efficacy of a vaporizer that heats cannabis to a temperature between 180
?C (356 ?F) and 200 ?C (392 ?F) degrees and found:
Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to
harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it
replicates smoking's efficiency at producing the desired THC effect
using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms,
this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of
THC.

</quote off>

Vaporizers can be pretty fancy, with digital temperature control, and
expensive. But I am using the neat and simple pipe found at
http://www.vaporgenie.com/.


/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/30/2012 5:29 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:42 pm, Humphrey Maltravers<hmaltrav...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
>> Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
>> experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final
>> version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from
>> the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the
>> day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.
>> Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie
>> was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.
>>
>> Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching
>> Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>
>> Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
>> puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>
> At one time people could smoke cigarettes and not be considered pariahs.
> That was before political correctness took over. Cigarette smoking was not
> only acceptable but popular. It would be hard to find a movie made back
> then that was set in those times where someone wasn't smoking a cigarette.
> Movie stars smoked. It was considered cool. Athletes smoked. Ted Willams

Maybe because they were being paid by the corrupt cigarette companies to
smoke in public and on TV and in the movies.
It's called Product Placement.

[Clubking01]

Jackie was apparently a three-pack-a-day smoker when she was diagnosed
with non-hodgkins lymphoma in January 1994. She quit smoking at the
request of her daughter Caroline, but only lived four more months, passing
away in May 1994.

She did a very good job of hiding her smoking from the public all those
years.

[Clubking01]

On Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:42:15 PM UTC-5, Humphrey Maltravers wrote:

Tobacco companies became masters at targeting a group. During World War
II, soldiers were issued free cigarettes, the result being millions of
nicotine-addicted G.I.s returning home after the war. Their
girlfriends/wives picked up the habit, and this was part of the reason why
smoking was so prevalent during the 1950’s and early 1960’s before the
TV/Radio ban.

Before the ban, Cigarettes were big business in TV and, as many of you
pointed out, people smoked on TV all of the time. Cigarette companies
sponsored 55 network TV shows as late as 1963, and their ad buys accounted
for 10% of all TV revenue. Many of their sponsorships then targeted
teenagers who, in some cases, made up as much as 30% of a
cigarette-sponsored program's viewership. With their parents puffing away
and images of smoking being cool, the tobacco companies sure knew how to
develop to a whole new generation of smokers.

With regard to the JFK assassination TV footage, it is Interesting to note
that such on-air people as Frank McGee and Bill Ryan on NBC, and Jay
Watson and Bob Walker on WFAA, can be seen either holding cigarettes,
puffing on them, or sitting within a stream of smoke from a hidden
ashtray, at various times throughout the coverage that weekend.

[Card53]

I teach speech and writing at a local junior college, and we spend some
time in my classes on the art of persuasion. We look at how advertisers,
politicians, persuasive speakers, et al, employ similar techniques to
convince people to buy their products or ideas. My students always enjoy
when I do a PowerPoint presentation of old-time advertising, especially
the cigarette ads. I usually mention the radical changes in society with
regards to smoking, and how things have changed since I was in college.

Among the things they're amazed to learn:

-Several cigarette ads featured endorsements by doctors. ("Soothes nerves!
Comforts the throat! You'll cough less!")

-When I was in college in the '70s, it was not uncommon for students and
instructors to smoke in the classroom.

-Virtually the only places where you'd find a "No Smoking" sign were
around flammable materials.

-Many high schools had outdoor smoking "lounges" for junior and senior
students up through the mid-1980s.

-Stores, offices, planes, trains...you could smoke just about anywhere.

-Any kid with a note from a parent could buy smokes at the corner store.
(Gee, I wonder if some of those notes were forged?)

...and so forth. I think we've gone a bit overboard with a few smoking
restrictions, but overall I'd say we've made a huge step in the right
direction.

John L.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <13673059.34.1335892307903.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynmm24>,
Clubking01 says...

>
>On Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:42:15 PM UTC-5, Humphrey Maltravers wrote:

>> I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in=20
>> Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester=20
>> experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final=20
>> version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from=
>=20
>> the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the=
>=20
>> day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.=20
>> Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie=
>=20

>> was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.

>>=20
>> Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching=
>=20
>> Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>=20
>>=20
>> Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily=20

>> puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>
>Tobacco companies became masters at targeting a group. During World War
>II, soldiers were issued free cigarettes, the result being millions of
>nicotine-addicted G.I.s returning home after the war.

The C-Ration boxes we got in Vietnam still contained cigarettes in a small
5 cigarettes pack.

Bill Clarke

[bigdog]

I don't ever remember a time when people didn't know cigarette smoking was
bad for your health. The term coffin nails predated the Surgeon General's
warning being placed on the cigarettes. People who chose to smoke (my
mother was one) did so knowing the risks because they enjoyed it. It used
to be considered a person's right to make such choices. People could
smoke, drink, and eat whatever they chose and accept the consequences of
their choices. Now we have the PC police trying to mandate that people
make what the deem to be healthy choices. Nobody is getting out of here
alive. Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.

[bigdog]

I remember David Brinkley talking about when he first came to Washington
as a reporter in the 1930s. Press conferences were much more informal than
they are now. Reporters would crowd into the Oval Office and everybody,
including FDR would be smoking. The reporters would drops ashes on the
rug.

You must have had a more liberal high school than I went to in the 1960s.
We still had to sneak our smokes in the boys room with a lookout for the
teacher making the rounds to catch us.

I think banning smoking on airplanes was a good idea, but as you say, it
went way overboard. It is absurd to see smokers shivering outside their
office buildings in the winter during their smoke break because employers
are not even allowed to provide an indoor smoker's room. You'd think that
the Taliban had taken over when bars aren't even allowed to decide whether
they want to allow their clientele to smoke.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <b61979db-f61a-48ee...@e9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog says...
>
>On Apr 30, 10:47=A0pm, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 5:29=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 10:42=A0pm, Humphrey Maltravers <hmaltrav...@gmail.com>

>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
>> > > Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
>> > > experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final

>> > > version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised fr=
>om
>> > > the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on =

>the
>> > > day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.

>> > > Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jac=

>kie
>> > > was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.
>>

>> > > Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watc=

>hing
>> > > Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>
>> > > Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
>> > > puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>>

>> > At one time people could smoke cigarettes and not be considered pariahs=
>.
>> > That was before political correctness took over. Cigarette smoking was =

>not
>> > only acceptable but popular. It would be hard to find a movie made back

>> > then that was set in those times where someone wasn't smoking a cigaret=
>te.
>> > Movie stars smoked. It was considered cool. Athletes smoked. Ted Willam=
>s
>> > and Joe DiMaggio both endorsed cigarettes. There is an iconic picture o=
>f
>> > Ben Hogan and Arnold Palmer standing on the first tee at Augusta Nation=

>al
>> > and both were smoking. Palmer did a cigarette commercial for Marlboro.
>> > When Jack Nicklaus beat Palmer in a playoff to win the 1962 US Open, he
>> > tapped in the final putt with a cigarette hanging from his lips. I
>> > remember some football coaches from that era smoking one the sidelines

>> > during the games. My last image of Hank Aaron as a ballplayer was in hi=

>s
>> > final year when he was mostly the designated hitter for the Milwaukee

>> > Brewers and while his teammates were in the field, the TV camera zoomed=
> in
>> > on him as he was sitting on the bench puffing away. Politicians (and th=

>eir
>> > wives) have always smoked. Even Obama smoked until fairly recently.

>> > Politicians are much more conscious of public perception, so they do th=

>eir
>> > smoking away from the cameras.
>>
>> Bigdog, it wasn't "political correctness" that changed the perspective on

>> smoking. =A0You seem old enough to remember the commercial with Hamilton

>> Burger of Perry Mason fame explaining how cigarettes had led to his

>> imminent death. =A0This was WAY before that catch-phrase of "political
>> correctness" came in. =A0(Was it Yul Brenner who did one too?)

>>
>> As we later learned the cigarette situation actually WAS one of those

>> long-running conspiracies. =A0It took a whistle-blower to finally convinc=

>e
>> the hold-outs of what the cig companies knew all along.
>>
>> My mother smoked through the pregnancies with me and my siblings and

>> finally quit. =A0Lots of other ordinary people did it, and it had NOTHING=

> to
>> do with the dodge of labeling it "political correctness." It had to do
>> with realizing this was a product that killed you.
>>
>> (For what it's worth, I'm not coming from any position of superiority or

>> enlightenment on this. =A0I drink too much and no doubt am killing myself
>> with that drug. =A0So be it. =A0But it really bugs me how people now jump=

> too
>> easily to the "political correctness" label.)
>>
>> OK, that's enough on that.
>
>I don't ever remember a time when people didn't know cigarette smoking was
>bad for your health. The term coffin nails predated the Surgeon General's
>warning being placed on the cigarettes. People who chose to smoke (my
>mother was one) did so knowing the risks because they enjoyed it. It used
>to be considered a person's right to make such choices. People could
>smoke, drink, and eat whatever they chose and accept the consequences of
>their choices. Now we have the PC police trying to mandate that people
>make what the deem to be healthy choices. Nobody is getting out of here
>alive. Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
>choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
>

Bang On!

Bill Clarke

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On May 1, 6:20 pm, Card53<Car...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:46:43 PM UTC-5, Clubking01 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:42:15 PM UTC-5, Humphrey Maltravers wrote:
>>>> I just finished reading Sam Kashner's highly illuminating article in
>>>> Vanity Fair about the trials and tribulations William Manchester
>>>> experienced dealing with Jackie, RFK, and Evan Thomas, over the final
>>>> version of "Death of President." One detail that was to be excised from
>>>> the final manuscript was the contents of the purse Jackie carried on the
>>>> day of the assassination, in particular, reference to her cigarettes.
>>>> Until reading that bit of information, I had no earthly idea that Jackie
>>>> was a smoker. Talk about a well-kept secret.
>>
>>>> Along the same line, I had no idea Pat Nixon was a smoker, until watching
>>>> Oliver Stone's "Nixon."
>>
>>>> Boy, times have significantly changed from the days when FDR merrily
>>>> puffed away on cigarettes in public.
>>
>>> Tobacco companies became masters at targeting a group. During World War
>>> II, soldiers were issued free cigarettes, the result being millions of
>>> nicotine-addicted G.I.s returning home after the war. Their
>>> girlfriends/wives picked up the habit, and this was part of the reason why

>>> smoking was so prevalent during the 1950?s and early 1960?s before the

Louis Lapham smokes in his office down the (short) hall from The Nation he
effluvium pervades the corridor. I'm sure we possess the technology,
however, to produce truly smoke-proof rooms. So why not indeed? I guess
you'd have to pump in the (minimal?) oxygen these people still need.

I used to smoke a pack a day, for a couple years in my early 20s. It was
nothing but a habit, though not nearly as expensive as it is today. I
never felt so free as the day I finally really quit (after many false
attempts). Some years later I would, out of sheer boredom, occasionally
light up an unfinished Camel filterless from an ashtray in a newspaper
office where I was typesetting. Even if I had only a couple puffs, when I
woke up the next day, my head would feel like it was filled with concrete.
Second-hand smoke has a similar effect on me. I sometimes wish I had a gas
mask while climbing the five flights to my apartment. I may be more
sensitive to cigarette smoke than some, but it's a scientific fact that
the fleeting positive effects of the first few puffs of the day (on blood
flow and breathing) are the body's instinctive reaction against the
poison, usually overcome before that butt is snuffed. Only nicotine
addiction keeps folks lighting up.

Which is what the cigarette companies have always banked on.

How ironic that to some people the cigarette dangling from their lips is
thought of as a badge of freedom. Rebel Without a Cause indeed.

I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
many people as possible.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Then why were the tobacco companies spending so much money, literally for
decades, trying to foster the notion that cigarettes were harmless, even
good for people, if nobody was ever fooled?

What a conspiracy that was. As everybody knows, there were a lot of
deniers concerning the real medical evidence, and there were plenty of
fake "scientific" studies funded by tobacco companies to back them up.

But of course people suspected. How could they (cough, cough) not have?!

The campaign to deny the obvious itself makes that clear.

That's exactly why Big Tobacco had to pull out all the stops with their
Big Lie campaign.

But good for you if you never bought the propaganda!

You smoke for your own good reasons.

(And you can quit any time, right?)

> The term coffin nails predated the Surgeon General's
> warning being placed on the cigarettes. People who chose to smoke (my
> mother was one) did so knowing the risks because they enjoyed it. It used
> to be considered a person's right to make such choices. People could
> smoke, drink, and eat whatever they chose and accept the consequences of
> their choices. Now we have the PC police trying to mandate that people
> make what the deem to be healthy choices. Nobody is getting out of here
> alive.

Indeed.
And you could live in a perfectly healthy way and still die in some
excruciatingly painful and gruesome manner.

Still, I think it's not unwise to control what one can in life and
consider the odds.

> Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
> choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
>

And exactly how, pray tell, is Michelle Obama dictating any choice to you?

How are the "PC police" mandating that you, or anybody, "make what they
deem to be healthy choices"?

I really don't know what you're referring to. Perhaps the requirement to
obtain health insurance. Is that it? What else?


/sandy

[John McAdams]

On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?

Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
dictate *other* people's lifestyles?

And human freedom is never "non-ideological."

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

I live in a non-smoking housing complex and it's fun to see the women
rush out in a snowstorm and smoke a cigarette for 30 seconds and then
rush back in.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did Michelle Obama personally tell you not to smoke when you visited the
White House? Would you feel better if it were Ronald Reagan who said it?

[bigdog]

Priceless, Dave. I'd seen the Mike Wallace commercial before. The
Flintstones came to TV when I was a kid and I would rarely miss them, but
I don't remember the commercial. I guess it's because cigarette
commercials were so much a part of TV that there was nothing about the
Flintstones endorsing a cigarette that would seem memorbable. Imagine what
the PC police would be doing with that today.

PS. Mike Wallace's endorsement of Phillip Morris seems even more
compelling now that he lived to the age of 93.

[bigdog]

I'll give you just one example. Restaurants in many locations are banned
from using trans fats in their recipes. When I go to a restaurant, I want
the chef deciding what ingredients will go into my meal, not some
goverment food nazi.

[Sandy McCroskey]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>> many people as possible.
>>
>
>
> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>

I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've said? I
was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side of smokers
and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public opinion.

Did I endorse any particular law?

There actually are such establishments in New York City...
http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm

"Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."

> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>

I would indeed find it odd if it were true. Wherever do you get the notion
that I want to do any such thing?

I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal choice regarding drugs and
foods. (By the way, after you've tried a vaporizer, smoking pot feels, as
my girlfriend said the other day, "barbaric.")

But I do think we need such regulatory agencies as the EPA and the FDA.
Poisons may be sold, but not unlabeled... and not as something else.

> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>

I believe that people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want.
(Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)

I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
another person's nose begins.

An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise ordinances
that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.

Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

I see that Wisconsin was the 27th state to ban smoking in bars
(enforcement has been... "hazy").

I reiterate that, in principle, I find laws preventing unwanted ingestion
of poisons to be as sensible and nonideological as the ban on lead-based
paint. But if you want to say the ban on lead-based paint is an
infringement of freedom and hence "ideological," go right ahead. Of course
it is, if that's where you're going to draw the line.

And so are, quite obviously, the laws against marijuana use. So are you
for decriminalization?

I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to give
some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the Bill of
Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one of the
principles of our way of life.

But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a bar,
you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your own
mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the old-time
bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto while you were
enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot, you couldn't do a damn
thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the pendulum has swung the other way.

/sandy

[John McAdams]

On 3 May 2012 13:58:51 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>> many people as possible.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>
>
>I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've said? I
>was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side of smokers
>and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public opinion.
>

So you admit that if I want to open a smoking bar, and let people
smoke, I have a right to?

>Did I endorse any particular law?
>
>There actually are such establishments in New York City...
>http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm
>
>"Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
>December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
>products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."
>

Why December 31, 2001. Is it now illegal to open such an
establishment?

If so, isn't that a bad law?

>
>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>
>I would indeed find it odd if it were true. Wherever do you get the notion
>that I want to do any such thing?
>
>I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal choice regarding drugs and
>foods. (By the way, after you've tried a vaporizer, smoking pot feels, as
>my girlfriend said the other day, "barbaric.")
>

I wouldn't consume it either way. I only consume alcohol because
various beverages go well with food.

>But I do think we need such regulatory agencies as the EPA and the FDA.
>Poisons may be sold, but not unlabeled... and not as something else.
>

That's fine, so long as you apply the principle consistently.

But people who do are rare.

>
>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>
>
>I believe that people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want.
>(Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
>freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>

So they need to be forced to be free.

>I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
>another person's nose begins.
>
>An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise ordinances
>that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>
>Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.

I've never smoked. I've never advocated communism. But I believe
people have the right to do either.

.John

--

[John McAdams]

On 3 May 2012 14:00:07 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>> many people as possible.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>
>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>
>> .John
>>
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
>I see that Wisconsin was the 27th state to ban smoking in bars
>(enforcement has been... "hazy").
>

Yep, we have our nazis here just like New York.

>I reiterate that, in principle, I find laws preventing unwanted ingestion
>of poisons to be as sensible and nonideological as the ban on lead-based
>paint. But if you want to say the ban on lead-based paint is an
>infringement of freedom and hence "ideological," go right ahead. Of course
>it is, if that's where you're going to draw the line.
>

The only justification for banning lead based paint is "information
costs." I don't mind people using them so long as future tenants of a
property that might have them on the walls know about it.

>And so are, quite obviously, the laws against marijuana use. So are you
>for decriminalization?
>

Yes, and also for hard drugs.

>I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to give
>some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the Bill of
>Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one of the
>principles of our way of life.
>
>But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a bar,
>you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your own
>mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the old-time
>bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto while you were
>enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot, you couldn't do a damn
>thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the pendulum has swung the other way.
>

But you are free to avoid any bar or restaurant that permits smoking.
Indeed, if a lot of people don't like second-hand smoke, that creates
a large incentive for owners to have a "no smoking" policy.

People avoid all kinds of bars. A straight person might avoid a gay
bar, and a woman who doesn't want to get "picked up" may avoid a bar
where she will be hit on. There are probably plenty of bars *you*
avoid because of something about the ambiance (maybe Republicans
frequent the place).

.John

--

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
><gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>many people as possible.
>>
>
>
>Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>
>Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>dictate *other* people's lifestyles?

Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the
political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.

Bill Clarke

[Sandy McCroskey]

Sandy McCroskey wrote:

> Louis Lapham

Lewis!
(It was late.)

And he's a great guy.

I guess he's breaking the law with his smoke. But he doesn't have to
hide in the stairwell, as I have...

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Can you taste the absence of those yummy trans fats? I haven't noticed any
degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)

The question is, Where do you draw the line? A chef should certainly not
be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
can agree there.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 13:58:51 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>
>> I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've said? I
>> was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side of smokers
>> and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public opinion.
>>
>
> So you admit that if I want to open a smoking bar, and let people
> smoke, I have a right to?
>

You have an unalienable human right to do so.
Your local law may disagree with that.
So you have a speakeasy situation.

>
>> Did I endorse any particular law?
>>
>> There actually are such establishments in New York City...
>> http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm
>>
>> "Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
>> December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
>> products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."
>>
>
> Why December 31, 2001. Is it now illegal to open such an
> establishment?
>

Apparently.

> If so, isn't that a bad law?
>

It could be better.

>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>
>> I would indeed find it odd if it were true. Wherever do you get the notion
>> that I want to do any such thing?
>>
>> I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal choice regarding drugs and
>> foods. (By the way, after you've tried a vaporizer, smoking pot feels, as
>> my girlfriend said the other day, "barbaric.")
>>
>
> I wouldn't consume it either way. I only consume alcohol because
> various beverages go well with food.
>
>
>> But I do think we need such regulatory agencies as the EPA and the FDA.
>> Poisons may be sold, but not unlabeled... and not as something else.
>>
>
> That's fine, so long as you apply the principle consistently.
>
> But people who do are rare.
>
>
>>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>>
>> I believe that people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want.
>> (Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
>> freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>>
>
> So they need to be forced to be free.
>

Is that even possible?
I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.
I was just pointing out one of the many ambiguities and ironies in life.

>
>> I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
>> another person's nose begins.
>>
>> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise ordinances
>> that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>>
>> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
>
> I've never smoked.

Didn't mean for you to take that personally.
/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 14:00:07 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>
>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>
>>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>>
>>> .John
>>>
>>>
>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> I see that Wisconsin was the 27th state to ban smoking in bars
>> (enforcement has been... "hazy").
>>
>
> Yep, we have our nazis here just like New York.
>

I agree that smokers could be cut some slack, but I find the "nazi" tag a
bit over-the-top.

"Smoking sections" really didn't work in most bars. and smokers are
increasingly in the minority. The law was good for business (or it
probably would never have passed).

>
>> I reiterate that, in principle, I find laws preventing unwanted ingestion
>> of poisons to be as sensible and nonideological as the ban on lead-based
>> paint. But if you want to say the ban on lead-based paint is an
>> infringement of freedom and hence "ideological," go right ahead. Of course
>> it is, if that's where you're going to draw the line.
>>
>
> The only justification for banning lead based paint is "information
> costs." I don't mind people using them so long as future tenants of a
> property that might have them on the walls know about it.
>

And they would need to know about it *because* of the health risk.

There's no way anyone could ever be 100 certain that anyone using the
building would always be made aware of that.

For example, what if the building eventually becomes abandoned and some
homeless folks move in to squat?
(Serves them right?)

>
>> And so are, quite obviously, the laws against marijuana use. So are you
>> for decriminalization?
>>
>
> Yes, and also for hard drugs.
>

Bravo.

>
>> I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to give
>> some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the Bill of
>> Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one of the
>> principles of our way of life.
>>
>> But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a bar,
>> you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your own
>> mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the old-time
>> bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto while you were
>> enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot, you couldn't do a damn
>> thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the pendulum has swung the other way.
>>
>
> But you are free to avoid any bar or restaurant that permits smoking.
> Indeed, if a lot of people don't like second-hand smoke, that creates
> a large incentive for owners to have a "no smoking" policy.
>

Yes, and I think this incentive would have been felt eventually fairly
extensively in the absence of any coercive law.

> People avoid all kinds of bars.

...which is why I also spoke of restaurants in the old days, where you
might be sitting undisturbed by smoke through the appetizer but get smoked
out during the main course.

> A straight person might avoid a gay
> bar, and a woman who doesn't want to get "picked up" may avoid a bar
> where she will be hit on. There are probably plenty of bars *you*
> avoid because of something about the ambiance (maybe Republicans
> frequent the place).

Well, I was very disappointed to find out this week that I can't go down
to West Virginia in a couple weeks to visit my Republican sister and
brother.

But it's just as well. The temperature is going to be up in the '80s in
Morgantown and Doris has no air-conditioning.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
and Fascist.

Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.

[Sandy McCroskey]

John's characterization of my views was incorrect. See my response.

(By the way, the term "politically correct" was originally used *by*
leftists to refer to their less flexible comrades.)

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 2:04 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 13:58:51 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>
>>
>> I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've said? I
>> was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side of smokers
>> and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public opinion.
>>
>
> So you admit that if I want to open a smoking bar, and let people
> smoke, I have a right to?
>

That depends on your local laws.
There is no right to smoke enumerated in the US constitution.
You may have a case with the current Supreme Court if you argue that
smoking is YOUR pursuit of happiness.

>
>> Did I endorse any particular law?
>>
>> There actually are such establishments in New York City...
>> http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm
>>
>> "Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
>> December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
>> products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."
>>
>
> Why December 31, 2001. Is it now illegal to open such an
> establishment?
>
> If so, isn't that a bad law?
>
>>
>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>
>>
>> I would indeed find it odd if it were true. Wherever do you get the notion
>> that I want to do any such thing?
>>
>> I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal choice regarding drugs and
>> foods. (By the way, after you've tried a vaporizer, smoking pot feels, as
>> my girlfriend said the other day, "barbaric.")
>>
>
> I wouldn't consume it either way. I only consume alcohol because
> various beverages go well with food.
>

Booze has killed more people than pot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, do you agree with Ron Paul?

> I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to give
> some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the Bill of
> Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one of the
> principles of our way of life.
>
> But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a
> bar, you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your
> own mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the
> old-time bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto
> while you were enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot, you
> couldn't do a damn thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the pendulum has
> swung the other way.
>
> /sandy
>

But you think we don't have the right to know what's in what we eat and
drink?
So you oppose all regulation of companies so that they are free to
poison us?

[Anthony Marsh]

Even other people? Remember the furor that the extreme rightwingers
tried to start about Obama eating dog meat?

> (Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
> freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>
> I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
> another person's nose begins.
>

No, you have no right to swing your fist at another person's nose.
Assault is illegal.

> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise
> ordinances that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>
> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
> /sandy
>

Ever hear of second-hand smoke? Bus drivers are forbidden from ever
smoking on the bus even when there are no passengers because the
chemicals can get trapped in the fabric of the seats.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, when you go to a restaurant you ask them to cook it with trans fats?
Do you know that some people are so pushy that they ask the chef to not
cook with MSG because they are allergic to it? What about the restaurant
that lied to a customer and said there were no nuts in that meal and the
person died from a nut allergic reaction?

When I went to the grocery I asked for a pound of pink slime, but they
said they were not allowed to sell it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 1:56 PM, bigdog wrote:

Naive. You think that all smokers MUST die of lung cancer in their 40's?
Almost half of lung cancers are in non-smokers.
Throat cancer is also a complication from smoking. Even gum cancer from
chewing.

[bigdog]

On May 3, 7:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:07 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/2/12 5:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>> Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
> >>> choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
> >> And exactly how, pray tell, is Michelle Obama dictating any choice to you?
>
> >> How are the "PC police" mandating that you, or anybody, "make what they
> >> deem to be healthy choices"?
>
> > I'll give you just one example. Restaurants in many locations are banned
> > from using trans fats in their recipes. When I go to a restaurant, I want
> > the chef deciding what ingredients will go into my meal, not some
> > goverment food nazi.
>
> Can you taste the absence of those yummy trans fats?

That's not the point. When I go out to eat, I am making a consensual
transaction between myself and the restaurant. I am giving them what they
want (my money), in exchange for what I want (a good tasting meal). As
long as we are both happy, it's none of the government's business. If the
restaurant fails to give me what I paid for, they aren't going to get any
more of my money.

>I haven't noticed any
> degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
> NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)
>
> The question is, Where do you draw the line?

The line I would draw has already been crossed by the food police.

> A chef should certainly not
> be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
> can agree there.

I'm quite sure the laws that were already in place would have held a chef
legally accountable for trying to poison me. Restaurants already had
health codes for safe food handling. Beyond that, I'm not looking for
health food when I go out to eat. I want something that tastes good. If
it's not good for my heart, that's the risk I choose to take.

[Sandy McCroskey]

About what?

>> I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to give
>> some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the Bill of
>> Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one of the
>> principles of our way of life.
>>
>> But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a
>> bar, you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your
>> own mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the
>> old-time bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto
>> while you were enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot, you
>> couldn't do a damn thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the pendulum has
>> swung the other way.
>>
>> /sandy
>>
>
> But you think we don't have the right to know what's in what we eat and
> drink?
> So you oppose all regulation of companies so that they are free to
> poison us?
>

It's incredible that you were able to misconstrue something I said, or
that you dreamed I said, and come up with that.

I've never said anything like that to anyone anywhere at any time.


/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/3/12 8:39 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

What else could that possibly have meant?

> Remember the furor that the extreme rightwingers
> tried to start about Obama eating dog meat?
>
>> (Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
>> freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>>
>> I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
>> another person's nose begins.
>>
>
> No, you have no right to swing your fist at another person's nose.

That's what I said.

> Assault is illegal.
>

>> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise
>> ordinances that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>>
>> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
>> /sandy
>>
>
>
> Ever hear of second-hand smoke? Bus drivers are forbidden from ever
> smoking on the bus even when there are no passengers because the
> chemicals can get trapped in the fabric of the seats.
>
>

If you don't read my posts, please don't "reply" to them.

/sandy

[Ace Kefford]

On May 3, 2:12 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4fa285f4.4910...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

> ><gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
> >>lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
> >>out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
> >>many people as possible.
>
> >Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>
> >Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
> >dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>
> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the
> political correct crowd.  An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>
> Bill Clarke

Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa2db7e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Blame it on the media that has been downright dishonest about the matter.
We've been eating it for years, it is beef after all, and now all of a
sudden the media needs a story and here we are. Now we lose about 13
pounds of meat per carcass.

The media might be the downfall of this country.

Bill Clarke

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/3/12 11:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On May 3, 7:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On May 3, 9:07 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>>>> Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
>>>>> choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
>>>> And exactly how, pray tell, is Michelle Obama dictating any choice to you?
>>
>>>> How are the "PC police" mandating that you, or anybody, "make what they
>>>> deem to be healthy choices"?
>>
>>> I'll give you just one example. Restaurants in many locations are banned
>>> from using trans fats in their recipes. When I go to a restaurant, I want
>>> the chef deciding what ingredients will go into my meal, not some
>>> goverment food nazi.
>>
>> Can you taste the absence of those yummy trans fats?
>
> That's not the point.

Isn't it? You seem, then, to contradict yourself, when you say,

> When I go out to eat, I am making a consensual
> transaction between myself and the restaurant. I am giving them what they
> want (my money), in exchange for what I want (a good tasting meal).

"...what I want (a good tasting meal)."

> As
> long as we are both happy, it's none of the government's business. If the
> restaurant fails to give me what I paid for, they aren't going to get any
> more of my money.
>
>> I haven't noticed any
>> degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
>> NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)
>>
>> The question is, Where do you draw the line?
>
> The line I would draw has already been crossed by the food police.
>
>> A chef should certainly not
>> be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
>> can agree there.
>
> I'm quite sure the laws that were already in place would have held a chef
> legally accountable for trying to poison me. Restaurants already had
> health codes for safe food handling. Beyond that, I'm not looking for
> health food when I go out to eat. I want something that tastes good. If
> it's not good for my heart, that's the risk I choose to take.
>

Obviously, such laws need to be argued on a case-by-case basis. I
haven't done enough reading on trans fats to engage in a debate about
them. But here's someone who says that if you "Lose the trans fats, you
lose the flavor":
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/39/29_39bklynangle.html

I don't think bacon is going to be banned... is it?
(I'd move! Ha!)

/sandy

[bigdog]

On May 4, 10:18 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 5/3/12 11:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 7:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net>  wrote:
> >> bigdog wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 9:07 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net>  wrote:
> >>>> On 5/2/12 5:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>>>> Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
> >>>>> choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
> >>>> And exactly how, pray tell, is Michelle Obama dictating any choice to you?
>
> >>>> How are the "PC police" mandating that you, or anybody, "make what they
> >>>> deem to be healthy choices"?
>
> >>> I'll give you just one example. Restaurants in many locations are banned
> >>> from using trans fats in their recipes. When I go to a restaurant, I want
> >>> the chef deciding what ingredients will go into my meal, not some
> >>> goverment food nazi.
>
> >> Can you taste the absence of those yummy trans fats?
>
> > That's not the point.
>
> Isn't it? You seem, then, to contradict yourself, when you say,
>
> > When I go out to eat, I am making a consensual
> > transaction between myself and the restaurant. I am giving them what they
> > want (my money), in exchange for what I want (a good tasting meal).
>
> "...what I want (a good tasting meal)."
>

I see no contradiction. I think the chef is a better judge of what
ingredients will make my meal taste good then a government food nazi.
It might seem like a small intrusion but that is how a free people are
manipulated into surrendering their freedom. A little at a time.
Smoking bans began with non-smoking sections on airplanes. Then it was
no smoking on flights of under two hours. Then no smoking on
airplanes, period. From there the smoke banners moved into the work
place, first forcing companies to provide smoking areas, then banning
smoking in the workplace altogether. Then it was on to bars and
restaurants. This is the same reason that those of us who hold the
Second Amendment dear refuse to accept what the gun banners call
"common sense" measures. These common sense mearsures are nothing more
than incremental gun bans.. Does anybody think for one minute that if
we grant compromise and give in on one of these measures, they won't
come back before the ink is dry asking for more and more restrictions.
One would have to be naive to think that the gun banners are ever
going to be satisfied until they have completely outlawed private gun
ownership.

Whether we are talking about food, cigarettes, or guns, the method is
the same, Convince the public to accept small concessions of their
freedoms and tell them you are doing it for their own good. I'm not
buying it.

> > As
> > long as we are both happy, it's none of the government's business. If the
> > restaurant fails to give me what I paid for, they aren't going to get any
> > more of my money.
>
> >> I haven't noticed any
> >> degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
> >> NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)
>
> >> The question is, Where do you draw the line?
>
> > The line I would draw has already been crossed by the food police.
>
> >> A chef should certainly not
> >> be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
> >> can agree there.
>
> > I'm quite sure the laws that were already in place would have held a chef
> > legally accountable for trying to poison me. Restaurants already had
> > health codes for safe food handling. Beyond that, I'm not looking for
> > health food when I go out to eat. I want something that tastes good. If
> > it's not good for my heart, that's the risk I choose to take.
>
> Obviously, such laws need to be argued on a case-by-case basis. I
> haven't done enough reading on trans fats to engage in a debate about
> them. But here's someone who says that if you "Lose the trans fats, you
> lose the flavor":http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/39/29_39bklynangle.html
>
> I don't think bacon is going to be banned... is it?
>

Probably not right away. That is probably down the road.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ee3e2821-7db7-42b4...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Ace Kefford says...

>
>On May 3, 2:12=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4fa285f4.4910...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> ><gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>

>> >>I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that bann=

>ed
>> >>lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>> >>out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>> >>many people as possible.
>>
>> >Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>
>> >Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>> >dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the

>> political correct crowd. =A0An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.

>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?
>

DOB 1945

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.

There has been a long trend in the PC crowd telling us how to conduct our lives.
They have enough power to influence our government to pass laws telling us how
to live. I consider it un-American. You, on the other hand consider it
acceptable as long as it fits your agenda.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

So you like it when the chef puts poison in your food without telling
you? Or did you ask for the arsenic or the cyanide?

> It might seem like a small intrusion but that is how a free people are
> manipulated into surrendering their freedom. A little at a time.

Isn't that the Tea Party motto: First they come for our cigarettes, then
they come for our guns.

> Smoking bans began with non-smoking sections on airplanes. Then it was
> no smoking on flights of under two hours. Then no smoking on
> airplanes, period. From there the smoke banners moved into the work

I haven't seem you objecting to the increasing security procedures at
airports. Body cavity searches on a 5 year old?

> place, first forcing companies to provide smoking areas, then banning
> smoking in the workplace altogether. Then it was on to bars and
> restaurants. This is the same reason that those of us who hold the
> Second Amendment dear refuse to accept what the gun banners call
> "common sense" measures. These common sense mearsures are nothing more
> than incremental gun bans.. Does anybody think for one minute that if
> we grant compromise and give in on one of these measures, they won't
> come back before the ink is dry asking for more and more restrictions.
> One would have to be naive to think that the gun banners are ever
> going to be satisfied until they have completely outlawed private gun
> ownership.
>

Do you realize that everyone in the Tea Party is legally insane?
These are the same people who opposed floridation of water because it
was a Communist plot.
And now Michelle Bachmann claims that a vaccination caused her mental
retardation.

[Sandy McCroskey]

When I asked if the absence of trans fats affected the flavor, you said
*that* wasn't the point.
I guess you meant something else though.

> It might seem like a small intrusion but that is how a free people are
> manipulated into surrendering their freedom. A little at a time.
> Smoking bans began with non-smoking sections on airplanes.

You don't think that was a good idea?
Only smokers could fly, then?

> Then it was
> no smoking on flights of under two hours. Then no smoking on
> airplanes, period.

Considering the way air circulates, or rather doesn't, in airplanes
(rather like subway tunnels), and considering what cigarette smoke
contains, this is an eminently sensible public safety measure.

Too bad for the addicted, of course. Chew that Nicorette.

> From there the smoke banners moved into the work
> place, first forcing companies to provide smoking areas,

Not a good idea?

> then banning
> smoking in the workplace altogether. Then it was on to bars and
> restaurants. This is the same reason that those of us who hold the
> Second Amendment dear refuse to accept what the gun banners call
> "common sense" measures. These common sense mearsures are nothing more
> than incremental gun bans.. Does anybody think for one minute that if
> we grant compromise and give in on one of these measures, they won't
> come back before the ink is dry asking for more and more restrictions.
> One would have to be naive to think that the gun banners are ever
> going to be satisfied until they have completely outlawed private gun
> ownership.
>
> Whether we are talking about food, cigarettes, or guns, the method is
> the same, Convince the public to accept small concessions of their
> freedoms and tell them you are doing it for their own good. I'm not
> buying it.
>

People who don't smoke have rights too.

Sometimes living with other people requires compromises.

>>> As
>>> long as we are both happy, it's none of the government's business. If the
>>> restaurant fails to give me what I paid for, they aren't going to get any
>>> more of my money.
>>
>>>> I haven't noticed any
>>>> degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
>>>> NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)
>>
>>>> The question is, Where do you draw the line?
>>
>>> The line I would draw has already been crossed by the food police.
>>
>>>> A chef should certainly not
>>>> be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
>>>> can agree there.
>>
>>> I'm quite sure the laws that were already in place would have held a chef
>>> legally accountable for trying to poison me. Restaurants already had
>>> health codes for safe food handling. Beyond that, I'm not looking for
>>> health food when I go out to eat. I want something that tastes good. If
>>> it's not good for my heart, that's the risk I choose to take.
>>
>> Obviously, such laws need to be argued on a case-by-case basis. I
>> haven't done enough reading on trans fats to engage in a debate about
>> them. But here's someone who says that if you "Lose the trans fats, you
>> lose the flavor":http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/39/29_39bklynangle.html
>>
>> I don't think bacon is going to be banned... is it?
>>
> Probably not right away. That is probably down the road.
>

Ha ha.
It'll never happen.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

And you would oppose them.

[Ace Kefford]

On May 4, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <ee3e2821-7db7-42b4-8cf7-4f34db5fa...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

If you were born in 1945, then surely you are aware that freedom of
speech and personal freedom were under attack long before the current
"catch phrase" of "politically correct" came about.

When "politically correct" first came into vogue it was a useful term
to describe those who had gone way overboard in seeking to make all
speech non-offensive and inclusive. Now it's almost always just a
knee-jerk slur used to divert actual thought where the position in
question has nothing to do with being "politically correct" -- sort of
like how 35 to 50 years ago "McCarthyism" was used to tar things that
had nothing to do with the sins, methods, and thought-processes of
real McCarthyism. Just plain lazy.

[Anthony Marsh]

You could also claim that the intestines, hooves and brain are also beef
just because they came from the cow. Some fine butcher shops specialize in
selling different parts of the cattle separately as delicacies. Fine, but
you know up front what you are getting. The secrecy is part of the
problem. The reason for 12 years of secrecy was because they knew they
were doing something unethical.

Ever heard of Mad Cow disease? Feeding diseased brains back to the cattle
as feed?

[Anthony Marsh]

That you argue for the rights of cannibals.

>
>> Remember the furor that the extreme rightwingers
>> tried to start about Obama eating dog meat?
>>
>>> (Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising their
>>> freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>>>
>>> I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end where
>>> another person's nose begins.
>>>
>>
>> No, you have no right to swing your fist at another person's nose.
>
> That's what I said.
>

No. You said that you have the right to swing your fist at another
person's nose as long as it doesn't connect. I am just informing you
that you do not have the right to swing your fist at another person's
nose. That is called assault. In most jurisdictions it is only a
misdemeanor. Unless it's aggravated.

>> Assault is illegal.
>>
>
>>> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise
>>> ordinances that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>>>
>>> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
>>> /sandy
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ever hear of second-hand smoke? Bus drivers are forbidden from ever
>> smoking on the bus even when there are no passengers because the
>> chemicals can get trapped in the fabric of the seats.
>>
>>
>
> If you don't read my posts, please don't "reply" to them.
>

There is a vast difference between blowing smoke in someone's face and
lingering second hand smoke. I just wanted to make you aware of how far
the law has intruded.

> /sandy
>

[Anthony Marsh]

About drugs, silly. That all drugs should be legal.
Is that what Libertarian means?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>
>> On 5/3/2012 2:12 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>
>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the
>>> political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>
>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>> and Fascist.
>>
>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>
>
> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>

You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.

Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.

Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
umbrage at that.

And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
sexism. Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
society. Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
public policy or employment.

/sandy

[John McAdams]

On 4 May 2012 17:11:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>>

>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>> and Fascist.
>>>
>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>
>>
>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>
>
>
>You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
>sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
>sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>

Get off your politically correct high horse.

The people most likely to "judge those of another race and sex" are
politically correct leftists.

They are racist and sexist bigots against white males.

>Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
>racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.
>

Right, and non-politically correct people have an equal right to judge
politically correct people to be racist, sexist and fascist.

You leftists don't have an special right to call people names.

>Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
>umbrage at that.
>

Politically correct people take umbrage at being called racist, sexist
and fascist.

>And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
>this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
>sexism.

Yes, it approves of anti-male sexism and anti-black racism.

>Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
>society.

Not among the politically correct, who feel free to be complete bigots
toward people they disagree with.

Do you admit that Bill Maher has said nasty sexist things about Sarah
Palin?

Is that OK?

>Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
>hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
>public policy or employment.
>

What about people who want to discriminate against white males?

And you need to look closer to your own social circle to see bigots.

.John

--

[John McAdams]

On 3 May 2012 19:35:46 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>
>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the
>> political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>
>John's characterization of my views was incorrect. See my response.
>
>(By the way, the term "politically correct" was originally used *by*
>leftists to refer to their less flexible comrades.)
>
>

My understanding is that it was first used by leftists who were
politically correct. It meant "forget whether that's true or not, you
should not be saying it because it undermines our political agenda."

[John McAdams]

On 3 May 2012 23:43:14 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 3, 2:12=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4fa285f4.4910...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>

>> >Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>
>> >Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>> >dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the

>> political correct crowd. =A0An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.

>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?
>

Are you denying that the politically correct crowd is an intolerant
bunch?

[John McAdams]

On 4 May 2012 16:50:06 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 4, 12:11=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <ee3e2821-7db7-42b4-8cf7-4f34db5fa...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Ace Kefford says...

>>
>?
>>
>> >> >Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>> >> >dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>

>> >> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by t=
>he
>> >> political correct crowd. =3DA0An intolerant bunch if there ever was on=

>e.
>>
>> >> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?
>>
>> DOB 1945
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>If you were born in 1945, then surely you are aware that freedom of
>speech and personal freedom were under attack long before the current
>"catch phrase" of "politically correct" came about.
>
>When "politically correct" first came into vogue it was a useful term
>to describe those who had gone way overboard in seeking to make all
>speech non-offensive and inclusive. Now it's almost always just a
>knee-jerk slur used to divert actual thought where the position in
>question has nothing to do with being "politically correct" -- sort of
>like how 35 to 50 years ago "McCarthyism" was used to tar things that
>had nothing to do with the sins, methods, and thought-processes of
>real McCarthyism. Just plain lazy.
>

No, political correctness is the knee-jerk assumption that all
propositions are to be judged by the race, gender and sexual
orientation of the people who supposedly believe them.

And it doesn't matter whether the groups in question *really* believe
the politically correct position or not. Women, for example, are not
more likely to favor abortion being legal than men are.

If you don't recognize this in (for example) colleges and
universities, then you must yourself be politically correct.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 11:40 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On May 3, 7:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On May 3, 9:07 am, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>>>> Something is going to kill all of us. I prefer to make my own
>>>>> choice and not have it dictated to me by Michelle Obama.
>>>> And exactly how, pray tell, is Michelle Obama dictating any choice to you?
>>
>>>> How are the "PC police" mandating that you, or anybody, "make what they
>>>> deem to be healthy choices"?
>>
>>> I'll give you just one example. Restaurants in many locations are banned
>>> from using trans fats in their recipes. When I go to a restaurant, I want
>>> the chef deciding what ingredients will go into my meal, not some
>>> goverment food nazi.
>>
>> Can you taste the absence of those yummy trans fats?
>
> That's not the point. When I go out to eat, I am making a consensual
> transaction between myself and the restaurant. I am giving them what they
> want (my money), in exchange for what I want (a good tasting meal). As
> long as we are both happy, it's none of the government's business. If the
> restaurant fails to give me what I paid for, they aren't going to get any
> more of my money.
>

Yeah, if you're dead after they poisoned you.

>> I haven't noticed any
>> degradation in the taste of potato chips since such a law took effect in
>> NYC. (Though that might be why the prices have gone up.)
>>
>> The question is, Where do you draw the line?
>
> The line I would draw has already been crossed by the food police.
>

So you want to go back to the good old days of food safety where the
only recourse was to lynch the cook?

>> A chef should certainly not
>> be allowed to put absolutely anything at all into your food. I'm sure we
>> can agree there.
>
> I'm quite sure the laws that were already in place would have held a chef
> legally accountable for trying to poison me. Restaurants already had

How long ago. How does killing the chef after he's already poisoned you
protect you?

> health codes for safe food handling. Beyond that, I'm not looking for
> health food when I go out to eat. I want something that tastes good. If
> it's not good for my heart, that's the risk I choose to take.
>

Some poisons taste better than others. Remember when they thought
tomatoes were poison?

[John McAdams]

Correction: anti-white racism.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 7:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> Bill Clarke wrote:

>> In article <4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...

>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that
>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are
>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>

>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by

>> the political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>
> John's characterization of my views was incorrect. See my response.
>
> (By the way, the term "politically correct" was originally used *by*
> leftists to refer to their less flexible comrades.)
>

Wrong as usual. The term "politically correct" was invented by extreme
right wingers to attack their critics.

Current usage

Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began
when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the
1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times
in 1990,[9] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with
its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and
disapproval than with reverence. But across the country the term p.c., as
it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over
what should be taught at the universities." Bernstein referred to a
meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, California, on
"'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," which examined "what
effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on
scholarship". Bernstein also referred to "p.c.p" for "politically correct
people," a term which did not take root in popular discussion.

Within a few years, this previously obscure term featured regularly in the
lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against
curriculum expansion and progressive teaching methods in US high schools
and universities.[10] In 1991, addressing a graduating class of the
University of Michigan, U.S. President George H. W. Bush spoke against "a
movement [that would] declare certain topics 'off-limits,' certain
expressions 'off-limits', even certain gestures 'off-limits'" in allusion
to liberal Political Correctness.[11] The most common usage here is as a
pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular
sensibilities at the expense of other considerations. The converse term
"politically incorrect" came into use as an implicit term of self-praise,
indicating that the user was not afraid to ignore constraints associated
with political correctness. Examples of the latter include the
conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by Regnery
Publishing[12] and the television talk show Politically Incorrect.

The central uses of the term relate to particular issues of race, gender,
disability, ethnicity, sexual preference, culture and worldviews, and
encompass both the language in which issues are discussed and the
viewpoints that are expressed. Proponents of the view that differences in
IQ test scores between blacks and whites are (primarily or largely)
genetically determined state that criticism of these views is based on
political correctness.[13]

Examples of language commonly referred to as "politically correct"
include:[14][page needed]

"Intellectually disabled" in place of "Retarded" and other terms
"African American" in place of "Black," "Negro" and other terms.
(However, "Black" is used in English-speaking countries other than the
U.S.)
"Native American" (or "First Nations" in Canada) in place of "Indian"
"Caucasian" in place of "White", and other terms
"Gender-neutral" terms such as "firefighter" in place of "fireman,"
police officer in place of policeman.
Terms relating to disability, such as "visually impaired" or "hearing
impaired" in place of "blind" or "deaf"
"Holiday", "winter" or "festive" in place of "Christmas"
Any consideration of a woman as sexist, since only the powerful can
be sexist or racist.

In the United Kingdom, "political correctness gone mad" is a catchphrase
associated with the conservative Daily Mail newspaper.[15]

In a more general sense, any policy regarded by the speaker as
representing an imposed orthodoxy may be criticized as "politically
correct."[16]

[Jason Burke]

Neither will banning outdoor smoking.

Oh, wait...

>
> /sm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 7:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

> John McAdams wrote:
>> On 3 May 2012 14:00:07 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>
>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that
>>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are
>>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>
>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>>

>>>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>

>>> I see that Wisconsin was the 27th state to ban smoking in bars
>>> (enforcement has been... "hazy").
>>>
>>

>> Yep, we have our nazis here just like New York.
>>
>
> I agree that smokers could be cut some slack, but I find the "nazi" tag
> a bit over-the-top.
>

Some people just add the Nazi prefix to signify anyone who is strident,
dogmatic and bullying in their beliefs, forcing them on others. And of
course some use it as a joke, such as Soup Nazi. Seinfeld was not
suggesting that the chef fought for Germany in WWII. Just that he was
unforgiving and demanding like a Nazi.
Extreme rightwingers use it defensively to try to turn the tables on
those who criticize them. Hence the term FemiNazi.
So far EcoNazi has not taken over for EcoTerrorist.
Sometimes it is used to attack groups they don't like by trying to link
them in the mind of the public with Nazis. A similar term was coined by
the Pentagon called IslamoFascist to justify their racism.

But supporters of smoking point to the Nazi efforts to ban smoking.

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a featured article. Click here for more information.
A Nazi anti-smoking ad titled "The chain-smoker" saying "He does not
devour it [the cigarette], it devours him"

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between
smoking and lung cancer,[1] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco
movement[2] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern
history.[3] Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the
beginning of the 20th century,[4][5] but these had little success,
except in Germany, where the campaign was supported by the government
after the Nazis came to power.[4] It was the most powerful anti-smoking
movement in the world during the 1930s and early 1940s.[6] The National
Socialist leadership condemned smoking[7] and several of them openly
criticized tobacco consumption.[6] Research on smoking and its effects
on health thrived under Nazi rule[8] and was the most important of its
type at that time.[9] Adolf Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco[10]
and the Nazi reproductive policies were among the motivating factors
behind their campaign against smoking, and this campaign was associated
with both antisemitism and racism.[11]

The Nazi anti-tobacco campaign included banning smoking in trams, buses
and city trains,[6] promoting health education,[12] limiting cigarette
rations in the Wehrmacht, organizing medical lectures for soldiers, and
raising the tobacco tax.[6] The National Socialists also imposed
restrictions on tobacco advertising and smoking in public spaces, and
regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.[6] The anti-tobacco movement did
not have much effect in the early years of the Nazi regime and tobacco
use increased between 1933 and 1939,[13] but smoking by military
personnel declined from 1939 to 1945.[14] Even by the end of the 20th
century, the anti-smoking movement in postwar Germany had not attained
the influence of the Nazi anti-smoking campaign.[13]

Hitler's attitude towards smoking
Hitler encouraged his close associates to quit smoking.

Adolf Hitler was a heavy smoker in his early life—he used to smoke 25 to
40 cigarettes daily—but gave up the habit, concluding that it was a
waste of money.[10] In later years, Hitler viewed smoking as
"decadent"[14] and "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man,
vengeance for having been given hard liquor",[10] lamenting that "so
many excellent men have been lost to tobacco poisoning".[18] He was
unhappy because both Eva Braun and Martin Bormann were smokers and was
concerned over Hermann Göring's continued smoking in public places. He
was angered when a statue portraying a cigar-smoking Göring was
commissioned.[10] Hitler is often considered to be the first national
leader to advocate nonsmoking, although James VI and I of Scotland and
England has a better claim to that title by three hundred years.[19]

Hitler disapproved of the military personnel's freedom to smoke, and
during World War II he said on 2 March 1942, "it was a mistake,
traceable to the army leadership at the time, at the beginning of the
war". He also said that it was "not correct to say that a soldier cannot
live without smoking". He promised to end the use of tobacco in the
military after the end of the war. Hitler personally encouraged close
friends not to smoke and rewarded those who quit smoking. However,
Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco was only one of several catalysts
behind the anti-smoking campaign.[10]

> "Smoking sections" really didn't work in most bars. and smokers are
> increasingly in the minority. The law was good for business (or it
> probably would never have passed).

>
>
>>
>>> I reiterate that, in principle, I find laws preventing unwanted
>>> ingestion of poisons to be as sensible and nonideological as the ban
>>> on lead-based paint. But if you want to say the ban on lead-based
>>> paint is an infringement of freedom and hence "ideological," go right
>>> ahead. Of course it is, if that's where you're going to draw the line.
>>>
>>

>> The only justification for banning lead based paint is "information
>> costs." I don't mind people using them so long as future tenants of a
>> property that might have them on the walls know about it.
>>
>
> And they would need to know about it *because* of the health risk.
>
> There's no way anyone could ever be 100 certain that anyone using the
> building would always be made aware of that.
>
> For example, what if the building eventually becomes abandoned and some
> homeless folks move in to squat?
> (Serves them right?)

>
>
>>
>>> And so are, quite obviously, the laws against marijuana use. So are
>>> you for decriminalization?
>>>
>>

>> Yes, and also for hard drugs.
>>
>
> Bravo.

>
>>
>>> I agree that that local non-smoking ordinances could be worded to
>>> give some relief to the nicotine-addicted. After all, we have the
>>> Bill of Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority. That's one
>>> of the principles of our way of life.
>>>
>>> But let's talk some more about "freedom": When you take a drink in a
>>> bar, you choose your "poison," lift your own glass and put it in your
>>> own mouth. But you couldn't opt not to inhale the carcinogens in the
>>> old-time bars. And if someone sat down at the next table in a resto
>>> while you were enjoying your smoked salmon and fired up a cheroot,
>>> you couldn't do a damn thing about it. Smokers ruled. Now the
>>> pendulum has swung the other way.
>>>
>>

>> But you are free to avoid any bar or restaurant that permits smoking.
>> Indeed, if a lot of people don't like second-hand smoke, that creates
>> a large incentive for owners to have a "no smoking" policy.
>>
>
> Yes, and I think this incentive would have been felt eventually fairly
> extensively in the absence of any coercive law.
>
>> People avoid all kinds of bars.
>
> ...which is why I also spoke of restaurants in the old days, where you
> might be sitting undisturbed by smoke through the appetizer but get
> smoked out during the main course.
>
>> A straight person might avoid a gay
>> bar, and a woman who doesn't want to get "picked up" may avoid a bar
>> where she will be hit on. There are probably plenty of bars *you*
>> avoid because of something about the ambiance (maybe Republicans
>> frequent the place).
>
> Well, I was very disappointed to find out this week that I can't go down
> to West Virginia in a couple weeks to visit my Republican sister and
> brother.
>
> But it's just as well. The temperature is going to be up in the '80s in
> Morgantown and Doris has no air-conditioning.
>
> /sm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2012 7:33 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:

>> On 3 May 2012 13:58:51 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that
>>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are
>>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>

>>> I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've
>>> said? I was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side
>>> of smokers and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>

>> So you admit that if I want to open a smoking bar, and let people
>> smoke, I have a right to?
>>
>
> You have an unalienable human right to do so.

So you're an expert on the Constitution. Can you point out which section
enumerates our right to smoke? Or are you talking about some
pre-Constitution agreement or treaty with Native American tribes?

> Your local law may disagree with that.
> So you have a speakeasy situation.

>
>
>>
>>> Did I endorse any particular law?
>>>
>>> There actually are such establishments in New York City...
>>> http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm
>>> "Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
>>> December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
>>> products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."
>>>
>>

>> Why December 31, 2001. Is it now illegal to open such an
>> establishment?
>>
>
> Apparently.
>
>> If so, isn't that a bad law?
>>
>
> It could be better.

>
>
>
>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>>

>>> I would indeed find it odd if it were true. Wherever do you get the
>>> notion that I want to do any such thing?
>>>
>>> I'm a libertarian when it comes to personal choice regarding drugs
>>> and foods. (By the way, after you've tried a vaporizer, smoking pot
>>> feels, as my girlfriend said the other day, "barbaric.")
>>>
>>

>> I wouldn't consume it either way. I only consume alcohol because
>> various beverages go well with food.

>>
>>
>>> But I do think we need such regulatory agencies as the EPA and the
>>> FDA. Poisons may be sold, but not unlabeled... and not as something
>>> else.
>>>
>>

>> That's fine, so long as you apply the principle consistently.
>>
>> But people who do are rare.

>>
>>
>>>> And human freedom is never "non-ideological."
>>>>

>>> I believe that people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want.

>>> (Though I find it somewhat ironic to speak of a person exercising
>>> their freedom to remain addicted, i.e., in an unfree state.)
>>>
>>

>> So they need to be forced to be free.
>>
>
> Is that even possible?
> I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.
> I was just pointing out one of the many ambiguities and ironies in life.

>
>>
>>> I believe that one person's freedom to swing his fist should end
>>> where another person's nose begins.
>>>

>>> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise
>>> ordinances that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>>>
>>> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.
>>

>> I've never smoked.
>
> Didn't mean for you to take that personally.
> /sm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Let me rephrase that. It is beef meat.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? Outdoor smoking is banned on several campuses and within 25
feet of buildings in some areas.


> Oh, wait...
>
>>
>> /sm
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That's your correction?
Racism is something that whites do to blacks.
Perhaps you mean discrimination. Blacks discriminate against each other
all the time. Sometimes based on racial background.
"If you're white you're all right, if you're black, get back, if you're
brown, stick around."
We even had some racists trying to charge that Barack Obama was not
black enough!

[Anthony Marsh]

That's your explanation? I guess that explains why Obama leads in women
voters over Romney and why Romney leads over Obama in male voters.
BTW, I am opposed to abortion for non-moral reasons, but I don't think
one group has the right to limit the rights of another.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/4/12 5:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 17:11:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>>> and Fascist.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
>> sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
>> sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>> judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>> and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>>
>
> Get off your politically correct high horse.
>

Are you not also opposed to sexism, racism and fascism?

> The people most likely to "judge those of another race and sex" are
> politically correct leftists.
>

I didn't judge anybody. I spoke in general terms.

Any particular application of those terms, from left or right, may
indeed be biased or inaccurate.

> They are racist and sexist bigots against white males.
>
>
>> Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
>> racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.
>>
>
> Right, and non-politically correct people have an equal right to judge
> politically correct people to be racist, sexist and fascist.
>
> You leftists don't have an special right to call people names.
>
>
>> Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
>> umbrage at that.
>>
>
> Politically correct people take umbrage at being called racist, sexist
> and fascist.
>

I would hope anybody would.

>
>> And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
>> this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
>> sexism.
>
> Yes, it approves of anti-male sexism and anti-black racism.
>

I think you meant to write "anti-white"?

I meant that the Constitution no longer legitimizes slavery or denies
women the vote. I'm going to go on hopefully believing that you have no
problem with *that*.

>
>> Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
>> society.
>
> Not among the politically correct, who feel free to be complete bigots
> toward people they disagree with.
>
> Do you admit that Bill Maher has said nasty sexist things about Sarah
> Palin?
>
> Is that OK?
>

I imagine he has, he's a bit of an ass.
(But Sarah Palin is a joke, anything intrinsic to her womanhood aside.)
"Is that OK?" That means what?
He has a right to.
Doesn't mean I find it tasteful.

It's like this every time I post anything on anything remotely
political. Suddenly I have to answer for everybody left of Joe Lieberman
(and in the most general, boilerplate terms). But I'm speaking only for
myself.

>
>> Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
>> hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
>> public policy or employment.
>>
>
> What about people who want to discriminate against white males?
>

In principle, discrimination is discrimination.

Why don't we refer to something concrete for a second?

Do you think the Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act discriminates against

white males?


> And you need to look closer to your own social circle to see bigots.
>

Good grief!

I wasn't going into partisan politics, John. I thought I was speaking in
general terms that all well-meaning Americans could endorse. I even
expected Mr. Clarke would have to agree that sexism and racism are
judgmental and that fascism is coercive.

Go on decrying racism, sexism and fascism where you see it, and I will
do the same. That's our right as Americans. It's not news to me that we
see it in different places.


/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's right; and its first use in its current sense also originated
with leftists, applied to other leftists.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

First used? You got a citation for that? Do you mean in Ancient Greece?

I got a citation for you, from Wikipedia.

That's why I have to call you "fact challenged."

[Sandy McCroskey]

What I just said was that this would have to be decided on a
case-by-case basis.

How did you miss that? It's the line you replied to.

From what I know of trans fats (maybe not enough), I'm for the ban. Not
that I had a say in it.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Absolutely right.
It's just another boilerplate adjective (as "boilerplate" seems to be
one of mine today. Ha)... which doesn't provoke thought but rather
forestalls it.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's an old expression, my mother used to say it. Apparently she was
quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

If you don't get it, that's not my problem.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2012 5:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 17:11:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>>> and Fascist.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
>> sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
>> sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>> judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>> and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>>
>
> Get off your politically correct high horse.
>
> The people most likely to "judge those of another race and sex" are
> politically correct leftists.
>

Once again you show your true colors.
You use the term "politically correct" as a rightwing weapon against
Liberals.

> They are racist and sexist bigots against white males.
>

Racism is something that whites do against blacks.
Maybe you are thinking of the term discrimination.
Sexism is something that men do against women.

>
>> Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
>> racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.
>>
>
> Right, and non-politically correct people have an equal right to judge
> politically correct people to be racist, sexist and fascist.
>

But not to misuse the terms.

> You leftists don't have an special right to call people names.
>

What names do you want to hear?

>
>> Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
>> umbrage at that.
>>
>
> Politically correct people take umbrage at being called racist, sexist
> and fascist.
>
>
>> And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
>> this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
>> sexism.
>
> Yes, it approves of anti-male sexism and anti-black racism.
>

No such animal.

>
>> Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
>> society.
>
> Not among the politically correct, who feel free to be complete bigots
> toward people they disagree with.
>

And Gays can be anti-Gay like the Republicans.

> Do you admit that Bill Maher has said nasty sexist things about Sarah
> Palin?
>

Not sure which comments you mean. You mean if he called her stupid? So
he can call a man stupid, but not a woman?

> Is that OK?
>
>
>> Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
>> hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
>> public policy or employment.
>>
>
> What about people who want to discriminate against white males?
>

You mean the rich Rspublicans discriminating against poor white males?

> And you need to look closer to your own social circle to see bigots.
>

You want to see someone use the term "politically correct"? Take a look
at Ted Nugent's rant on TV.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/4/12 5:58 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/3/2012 7:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that
>>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are
>>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>
>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>
>>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by
>>> the political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>> John's characterization of my views was incorrect. See my response.
>>
>> (By the way, the term "politically correct" was originally used *by*
>> leftists to refer to their less flexible comrades.)
>>
>
> Wrong as usual. The term "politically correct" was invented by extreme
> right wingers to attack their critics.
>

HA HA!

You should read the paragraph directly *above* the ones you copied from
Wikipedia, as to the term's original use. I am well aware (how could I not
be?) that it was taken over by the right wing. Everybody knows that usage.
The interesting, lesser-known thing is that it started on the left.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/4/12 6:01 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/3/2012 7:33 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 3 May 2012 13:58:51 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
>>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that
>>>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are
>>>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>>
>>>> I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've
>>>> said? I was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side
>>>> of smokers and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you admit that if I want to open a smoking bar, and let people
>>> smoke, I have a right to?
>>>
>>
>> You have an unalienable human right to do so.
>
> So you're an expert on the Constitution.

*No* what I said! (Once again!)
I said, um, "unalienable [inalienable?] human right."

Maybe my use of that adjective made you jump to the conclusion that I
was talking about the Constitution.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

You are not allowed to call another poster racist, sexist and fascist.
That is not politically correct!

> and sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way
> *they* judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use
> of force and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>

Something like that. But rarely do they admit what they are.

> Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
> racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.
>

Not in this newsgroup.
Is it ok for racists to call fellow racists racists, etc.?

> Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
> umbrage at that.
>
> And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement,
> but this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of
> racism or sexism. Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our
> melting-pot society. Bigots have the right to express the putrid
> contents of their hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on
> them in matters of public policy or employment.
>

Do you know that in some place hate speech is a crime?

> /sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2012 4:50 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On May 4, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke<Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article<ee3e2821-7db7-42b4-8cf7-4f34db5fa...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ace Kefford says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 3, 2:12=A0pm, Bill Clarke<Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>>>> In article<4fa285f4.4910...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...

>>
>>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>>>>> <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>

>>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that bann=

>>> ed
>>>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>>>> many people as possible.
>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>
>>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>
>>>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the

>>>> political correct crowd. =A0An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>
>>>> Bill Clarke
>>

>>> Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?
>>
>> DOB 1945
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> If you were born in 1945, then surely you are aware that freedom of
> speech and personal freedom were under attack long before the current
> "catch phrase" of "politically correct" came about.
>
> When "politically correct" first came into vogue it was a useful term
> to describe those who had gone way overboard in seeking to make all
> speech non-offensive and inclusive. Now it's almost always just a
> knee-jerk slur used to divert actual thought where the position in
> question has nothing to do with being "politically correct" -- sort of
> like how 35 to 50 years ago "McCarthyism" was used to tar things that
> had nothing to do with the sins, methods, and thought-processes of
> real McCarthyism. Just plain lazy.
>

McAdams says that I am not allowed to use the term "McCarthyism."
It is not politically correct!

[Jason Burke]

On 5/4/2012 2:09 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/3/2012 11:41 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 5/3/12 8:39 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>>> On 5/3/2012 1:58 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> John McAdams wrote:

>>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that

>>>>>> banned lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are

>>>>>> increasingly out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business
>>>>>> will cater to as many people as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> I'd have no problem with them. Doesn't that follow from what I've said?
>>>> I was pointing out that social pressure used to be on the side of
>>>> smokers and that now it's against them. It's the tide of public
>>>> opinion.
>>>>

>>>> Did I endorse any particular law?
>>>>
>>>> There actually are such establishments in New York City...
>>>> http://gonyc.about.com/od/barsnightlife/tp/smoker-friendly-bars.htm
>>>> "Most are cigar bars, which by definition, must have opened prior to
>>>> December 31, 2001, 10% of revenue must come from the sale of tobacco
>>>> products, and 60% of revenue alcohol sales."
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>>>
>>>>

>>> Assault is illegal.

>>>
>>
>>>> An analogy: I like loud music, but I have no problem with noise
>>>> ordinances that allow folks to get a good night's sleep.
>>>>
>>>> Smoke all you wish. Just don't blow it in my face.

>>>> /sandy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ever hear of second-hand smoke? Bus drivers are forbidden from ever
>>> smoking on the bus even when there are no passengers because the
>>> chemicals can get trapped in the fabric of the seats.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you don't read my posts, please don't "reply" to them.
>>
>
> There is a vast difference between blowing smoke in someone's face and
> lingering second hand smoke. I just wanted to make you aware of how far
> the law has intruded.
>
>> /sandy
>>
>
>

Is it just me, or is this thread getting just a tad off-topic?

[John McAdams]

On 4 May 2012 19:57:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 5/4/12 4:50 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>> On May 4, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke<Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article<ee3e2821-7db7-42b4-8cf7-4f34db5fa...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ace Kefford says...
>>

>> When "politically correct" first came into vogue it was a useful term
>> to describe those who had gone way overboard in seeking to make all
>> speech non-offensive and inclusive. Now it's almost always just a
>> knee-jerk slur used to divert actual thought where the position in
>> question has nothing to do with being "politically correct" -- sort of
>> like how 35 to 50 years ago "McCarthyism" was used to tar things that
>> had nothing to do with the sins, methods, and thought-processes of
>> real McCarthyism. Just plain lazy.
>>
>
>
>Absolutely right.
>It's just another boilerplate adjective (as "boilerplate" seems to be
>one of mine today. Ha)... which doesn't provoke thought but rather
>forestalls it.
>

It can be used that way, but it does exist as a distinct sociological
phenomenon.

The basis assumption is that all issues are to be judged on the basis
of race, gender and sexual orientation. There is no need to look at
facts or logic, just decide which side the "oppressed" group is on (no
need to ask them, they are assumed to be on the side of academic
leftists) and take that side.

I call the this "black lesbians can't be wrong" principle. In the
real world, black lesbians may or may not be wrong -- all depending on
evidence and logic.

.John

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2012 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/3/2012 2:12 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>>>

>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>

>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>

>>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the

>>> political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>

>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>> and Fascist.
>>
>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>
>
> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>

I have the right to judge anyone, no matter what country this is.
I never said that people don't have the right to be what they are.

> There has been a long trend in the PC crowd telling us how to conduct our lives.

As well it should, to make the society better.

> They have enough power to influence our government to pass laws telling us how

Not always. Sometimes they have to use education and pressure.

> to live. I consider it un-American. You, on the other hand consider it
> acceptable as long as it fits your agenda.
>

And what exactly is my agenda?

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 5/4/12 5:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 17:11:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>> On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>>> and Fascist.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>>
>>
>>

>> You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,

>> sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and

>> sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>> judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>> and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>>
>

> Get off your politically correct high horse.
>

> The people most likely to "judge those of another race and sex" are
> politically correct leftists.

>

> They are racist and sexist bigots against white males.
>

To quote Bill Clarke, then: "Who are you to judge that these racist,

sexist and Fascist are in error?"

To quote Bill Clarke: "One has the right to be racist, sexist and Facist
[sic] if one wants to be."

So if you've got no problem with that... you've got no problem with that.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hey, I agree with you that black lesbians can be wrong.
Imagine that!
In fact, I don't know anybody who wouldn't agree with that.

But again, we're arguing in a void without specifics.
If you present a concrete case where it was argued that black lesbians
cannot be wrong, we could discuss it further.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

That was his point.
You jumped in between that line and the one immediately after it (again).
Amazing.
Jason said:
>
>> Oh, wait...

Get it?
He's saying it already happened.

(But unless we're taken over by an Islamic dictatorship, I daresay we'll
still be eating bacon... at least for the rest of mine and Jason's
lifetime.)


>>>
>>> /sm
>>>
>>
>>

[bigdog]

I have never said I thought the smoking ban on airplanes was a bad idea.
The problem is the banners never seem to want to stop. If they don't like
it, they will keep pushing for more and more restrictive measures until
they get what they want which is a total ban on whatever it is they deem
to be evil. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights
of its citizens. When one person's right conflicts with that of another,
it is up to government to decide which takes precedent.

> Too bad for the addicted, of course. Chew that Nicorette.
>
> > From there the smoke banners moved into the work
> > place, first forcing companies to provide smoking areas,
>
> Not a good idea?
>

Not when there are solutions such as smoker's lounges where those who
choose to smoke can do so without infringing on the rights of the
coworkers to breathe clean air. It should be left to each employer whether
or not to provide such a haven for smokers, not the government. We used to
have such rooms where I used to work until the State of Ohio banned such
practices. The smokers had to go outside.

>
>
>
>
> > then banning
> > smoking in the workplace altogether. Then it was on to bars and
> > restaurants. This is the same reason that those of us who hold the
> > Second Amendment dear refuse to accept what the gun banners call
> > "common sense" measures. These common sense mearsures are nothing more
> > than incremental gun bans.. Does anybody think for one minute that if
> > we grant compromise and give in on one of these measures, they won't
> > come back before the ink is dry asking for more and more restrictions.
> > One would have to be naive to think that the gun banners are ever
> > going to be satisfied until they have completely outlawed private gun
> > ownership.
>
> > Whether we are talking about food, cigarettes, or guns, the method is
> > the same, Convince the public to accept small concessions of their
> > freedoms and tell them you are doing it for their own good. I'm not
> > buying it.
>
> People who don't smoke have rights too.

And as long as the smokers aren't infringing on those rights, the
government has no business stepping in.

>
> Sometimes living with other people requires compromises.
>

So let those compromises be made by a free society, not an
authoritarian government.

I wouldn't bet my retirement nest egg on that one.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...

>
>On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>

>>> On 5/3/2012 2:12 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article<4fa285f4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John McAdams says...
>>>>>

>>>>> On 3 May 2012 09:04:37 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

>>>>> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/12 5:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say the laws are as sensible and non-ideological as those that banned
>>>>>> lead-based paint. But the law quite aside, smokers are increasingly
>>>>>> out-numbered in today's society. A profitable business will cater to as
>>>>>> many people as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't a business (a bar, say) cater to smokers if it wants to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>>>> dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>>
>>>> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by the
>>>> political correct crowd. An intolerant bunch if there ever was one.
>>>>
>>>> Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>> and Fascist.
>>>
>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>
>>
>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>
>
>
>You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
>sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
>sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>

>Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
>racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.

Of course. It is called free speech and it works, or is supposed to work,
both ways. I think today the biggest threat to freedom of speech is not
the government censors but the political correct police. They shout to
high heaven about the "N" word but they think it is so cool when the
rappers use the word, not to mention the sexist and violent nature of
their "songs". Where are the political correct police here? If one isn't
careful Sandy they end up having to destroy the village in order to save
it. Did you sleep through that jewel? And do they really call that Rap
crap "songs"?

>Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
>umbrage at that.
>
>And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
>this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
>sexism. Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
>society. Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
>hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
>public policy or employment.
>

>/sandy

I'm all for tolerance. In fact, I am a tolerant fellow. I am a big fan
of free speech. I can't say the same about the political correct police.

And don't be sorry, I lived through the civil rights movement in the south
where I was raised and where I stayed. You ever read David Halberstams,
"The Children". Great book. Ever see the white and colored water
fountains and rest rooms. I lived in them and that is the reason I can
forgive Lyndon Johnson for his terrible conduct of the war. He changed
the south and he did it at a high personal cost.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4481d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 4 May 2012 17:11:11 -0400, Sandy McCroskey

><gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/4/12 3:21 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article<4fa2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The term "politically correct" was invented by the racist rightwingers to
>>>> counter attack Liberals who were criticizing them for being racist, sexist
>>>> and Fascist.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of admitting their errors they counter attack.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You've made my point. Who are you to judge that these racist, sexist and
>>> Fascist are in error? This is America. One has the right to be racist and
>>> sexist and Facist if one wishes to be.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You espouse a double standard. You say people have a right to be racist,
>>sexist and fascist. Perhaps you are those things yourself. But racists and
>>sexists are called (or call themselves) that because of the way *they*
>>judge those of another race and sex and fascism justifies the use of force
>>and violence to coerce others to do things against their will.
>>
>

>Get off your politically correct high horse.
>
>The people most likely to "judge those of another race and sex" are
>politically correct leftists.
>
>They are racist and sexist bigots against white males.
>
>

>>Surely non-racist, non-sexist, non-Fascist people have a right to call
>>racists, sexists and Fascists by their right names.
>>
>

>Right, and non-politically correct people have an equal right to judge

>politically correct people to be racist, sexist and fascist.

>
>You leftists don't have an special right to call people names.
>
>

>>Funny, though... a lot of truly racist, sexist and Fascist people take
>>umbrage at that.
>>
>

>Politically correct people take umbrage at being called racist, sexist
>and fascist.
>
>

>>And, actually, I'm sorry if you slept thru the civil rights movement, but
>>this country does not (any longer) constitutionally approve of racism or
>>sexism.
>

>Yes, it approves of anti-male sexism and anti-black racism.
>
>

>>Tolerance is supposed to be one of the virtues of our melting-pot
>>society.
>

>Not among the politically correct, who feel free to be complete bigots
>toward people they disagree with.
>

>Do you admit that Bill Maher has said nasty sexist things about Sarah
>Palin?
>

>Is that OK?

>
>
>>Bigots have the right to express the putrid contents of their
>>hardened hearts but do not have the right to act on them in matters of
>>public policy or employment.
>>
>

>What about people who want to discriminate against white males?
>

>And you need to look closer to your own social circle to see bigots.
>

>.John
>

Well said. Thank you Dr. McAdams.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>

Was this dirty dog racist black? You aren't aware, are you, that some
light skin black people consider themselves superior to their dark skin
brothers and naturally the dark skin brothers rather resent this.

You don't get out much do you?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa45dfc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...

Sure I agree. I have sisters and nieces and I sure has hell insist on
fair and equal play for them. I've seen the ugliness of racism first hand
and I sure didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

I also believe in freedom of speech. To be clear here, this being
American, I think one can say about any thing they want to say (yelling
fire in the theater excepted).

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4695d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Sandy McCroskey says...

Well hell Sandy, there it is. They do in fact have that right in America
(let us remove the Facist). Do you not agree?

You certainly have the right to judge these racist and sexist but be
careful of self-righteousness. It is a dangerous thing.

I'm mostly a live and let live person. I don't want to mess with anyone
and I don't want anyone messing with me. That is why I don't go out the
pasture gate too often I guess.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

And here we have it. Marsh thinks if we do as he says society will be
better.

The gospel according to Marsh and the rest of the politically correct
crowd.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4fa44a35....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 4 May 2012 16:50:06 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 4, 12:11=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ee3e2821-7db7-42b4-8cf7-4f34db5fa...@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.c=

>>om>,
>>> Ace Kefford says...
>>>
>>?
>>>

>>> >> >Do you find it odd that a pot smoking leftist like yourself wants to
>>> >> >dictate *other* people's lifestyles?
>>>

>>> >> Freedom of speech and personal freedom has long been under attack by t=
>>he

>>> >> political correct crowd. =3DA0An intolerant bunch if there ever was on=

>>e.
>>>
>>> >> Bill Clarke
>>>
>>> >Can I assume you weren't around in the 1950's or 1960's?
>>>
>>> DOB 1945
>>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>If you were born in 1945, then surely you are aware that freedom of
>>speech and personal freedom were under attack long before the current
>>"catch phrase" of "politically correct" came about.
>>

>>When "politically correct" first came into vogue it was a useful term
>>to describe those who had gone way overboard in seeking to make all
>>speech non-offensive and inclusive. Now it's almost always just a
>>knee-jerk slur used to divert actual thought where the position in
>>question has nothing to do with being "politically correct" -- sort of
>>like how 35 to 50 years ago "McCarthyism" was used to tar things that
>>had nothing to do with the sins, methods, and thought-processes of
>>real McCarthyism. Just plain lazy.
>>
>

>No, political correctness is the knee-jerk assumption that all
>propositions are to be judged by the race, gender and sexual
>orientation of the people who supposedly believe them.
>
>And it doesn't matter whether the groups in question *really* believe
>the politically correct position or not. Women, for example, are not
>more likely to favor abortion being legal than men are.
>

>If you don't recognize this in (for example) colleges and
>universities, then you must yourself be politically correct.
>
>.John
>

I don't have the exact quote but the fellow that said the politically
correct were those people who thought it possible to pick up a turd by the
clean end cracked me up.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't start this thread and I didn't start the discussion about
"politically correct." You just want to silence dissent.

[Anthony Marsh]

I did. The paragraph I quoted refers to how you guys are using the term
here, not to Ancient Greece.
You're not using it in the Leftist sense.