Arkansas ACT 1235 (SB978) Shuts Down Online Sales

[DC2]

All I'm going to say about any of this political stuff is...

I took an awesome quiz the other day...
2016 Presidential Election Quiz

I've never had to think so hard in my life.
My head hurt when I was done.

Sparked a lot of very interesting conversation with my wife too.
We mostly agreed on almost everything but one big question.

I won't say which one though.

 

[Kent C]

If those who are unable/unwilling to support a child are forced to, all that does is create more of a burden on society.

Just because 'they can't use their own money' doesn't mean they have a claim on yours. And it's only when there are socialist programs that create the burden on society that leads to imposing one persons decisions on others - iow, you're using a circular argument that never ends.

 

[DC2]

Just because 'they can't use their own money' doesn't mean they have a claim on yours. And it's only when there are socialist programs that create the burden on society that leads to imposing one persons decisions on others - iow, you're using a circular argument that never ends.

I was waiting for your reply on that.

So I don't want to send this thread into the Outside...
But I was very much wondering what your "solution" to this issue would be.

If you want to "share" please feel free to PM me.
(BTW I hate that word "share" and everything it stands for)

 

[Lessifer]

All I'm going to say about any of this political stuff is...

I took an awesome quiz the other day...
2016 Presidential Election Quiz

I've never had to think so hard in my life.
My head hurt when I was done.

Sparked a lot of very interesting conversation with my wife too.
We mostly agreed on almost everything but one big question.

I won't say which one though.

That's a pretty great quiz, easier than combing through rhetoric to see where a candidate stands. My results turned out pretty much where I thought they would.

 

[Lessifer]

Just because 'they can't use their own money' doesn't mean they have a claim on yours. And it's only when there are socialist programs that create the burden on society that leads to imposing one persons decisions on others - iow, you're using a circular argument that never ends.

There are many ways other than increased welfare rolls that impoverished or unwanted children can have a negative impact on society. I have benefited from some "socialist" programs, and I have contributed far more.

 

[Kent C]

All I'm going to say about any of this political stuff is...

I took an awesome quiz the other day...
2016 Presidential Election Quiz

I've never had to think so hard in my life.
My head hurt when I was done.

Sparked a lot of very interesting conversation with my wife too.
We mostly agreed on almost everything but one big question.

I won't say which one though.

Really thorough - fun for me :- ) Thanks for the link. It will be shared. My pick was who the survey thought it should be at 88%.

 

[Kent C]

There are many ways other than increased welfare rolls that impoverished or unwanted children can have a negative impact on society.

If you mean crime - I'm in favor of paying for the justice system - it's part of the Constitution. If you mean in other ways, there are private organizations that can help and many that would and many that have helped in the past and currently. I support some of those. There would be more of those without socialist programs and Americans esp. have been first to help and more would be willing if they didn't think that 'gov't handles that'.

last word on that from me..... back to Arkansas

 

[bluecat]

Unfortunately I do not live in Arkansas. If I did I would challenge this law all day long and on Sundays.

Nice little questionnaire DC. I will say mine as I believe we should coexist no matter what our political ideals are. We should be different.

90% Rubio, but I like Paul... but I also like Trump for his frankness.

 

[nicnik]

Name a few.

1)Premarital sex abstinence

from the 2012 National Republican Party Platfrom:
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

"We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. It is effective, science-based, and empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes and avoid risks of sexual activity."

2)God

3)Traditional marriage, only

Liberals use tax money for their causes - Planned Parenthood - which I'm not necessarily against - only those who wish to use it should use their own money not mine. I would never force anyone to say, buy a gun or have them buy my guns with tax money. Low flow toilets - IF you want that, buy one but don't force everyone in the country to. 'Safety' rigged gas cans. Again, if you can't figure out how to pour gas safely - get one. But don't force me to pay the extra cash for one or don't prohibit me from using something that is more handy. Why does NPR get gov't funds but not Rush Limbaugh (he wouldn't take them but Moyers and Charlie Rose would and do). I could go on forever, but if you know of some issues that the Conservatives force down the throats of people

God, premarital sex abstinence, drug abstinence, heterosexual sex exclusivity. Preferential treatment for so-called "job creators". Preferential treatment of investment income, over work income. Preferential treatment of heterosexual couples.

OR even better where they make everyone pay for issues that only conservatives would use, let me know of a few. I'm sure there are some but none are coming to mind.

"Only conservatives"? That's a pretty tall order. You didn't give any examples that only liberals would make use of. If you're claiming that only liberals make use of Planned Parenthood's services, it's far from true. I don't think only liberals use PBS, or even government funding of broadcasting. Replace the word "only" with "mostly", and excessive defense spending would qualify, since the excesses are used mostly by wealthy conservatives who benefit from them. The same with agribusiness subsidy excesses. And preferential treatment of investment income.

You've extended the discussion beyond what my comment was replying to, but I've bitten. I don't see this as entirely off topic, but it's getting there. Don't forget that most conservatives are anti-vaping, just not as commonly or as hardened as most liberals, even though true conservatism and true liberalism would embrace THR.

 

[Kent C]

1)Premarital sex abstinence

from the 2012 National Republican Party Platfrom:
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

"We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. It is effective, science-based, and empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes and avoid risks of sexual activity."

2)God

3)Traditional marriage, only

God, premarital sex abstinence, drug abstinence, heterosexual sex exclusivity. Preferential treatment for so-called "job creators". Preferential treatment of investment income, over work income. Preferential treatment of heterosexual couples.

"Only conservatives"? That's a pretty tall order. You didn't give any examples that only liberals would make use of. If you're claiming that only liberals make use of Planned Parenthood's services, it's far from true. I don't think only liberals use PBS, or even government funding of broadcasting. Replace the word "only" with "mostly", and excessive defense spending would qualify, since the excesses are used mostly by wealthy conservatives who benefit from them. The same with agribusiness subsidy excesses. And preferential treatment of investment income.

You've extended the discussion beyond what my comment was replying to, but I've bitten. I don't see this as entirely off topic, but it's getting there. Don't forget that most conservatives are anti-vaping, just not as commonly or as hardened as most liberals, even though true conservatism and true liberalism would embrace THR.

I've opted out of this but I really meant where liberal issues were funded by gov't. Not true for the ones you mention of conservatives - platforms are not laws. And I think you exaggerate the 'most conservatives are anti-vaping'. Even most Republicans aren't, but there is a faction - mainly from a religious perspective that are - iow, not that many who go with the 'your body is a temple' idea, even though they may be religious.

The idea that Republicans and Democrats were both against vaping came from the idea that anyone who voted for laws against selling ecigs to minors was looked at as 'anti-vaping' or pro-ecig regulation. So this rather minor (no pun) issue was used to promote some view of "moral equivalence", yet no Republican signed any of those letters to the FDA and most Republicans in Congressional committee hearings were pro-vaping, pro-innovation, anti-regulation. I don't recall one that was anti-vaping.

 

[nicnik]

The idea that Republicans and Democrats were both against vaping came from the idea that anyone who voted for laws against selling ecigs to minors was looked at as 'anti-vaping' or pro-ecig regulation. So this rather minor (no pun) issue was used to promote some view of "moral equivalence", yet no Republican signed any of those letters to the FDA and most Republicans in Congressional committee hearings were pro-vaping, pro-innovation, anti-regulation. I don't recall one that was anti-vaping.

Republicans holding national offices are our best hope in government for vaping issues. State and local Republican office holders have demonized, slandered, restricted, and taxed vapers and vaping. They too, have been better than the Democrats, but that's saying so little it's almost not worth mentioning. Almost, but not in the context of the big picture, which includes national, state and local, and the public. Most of the attacks come from the Left, and that's worth mentioning.

 

[Kent C]

State and local Republican office holders have demonized, slandered, restricted, and taxed vapers and vaping.

There is a weak faction within the Republican party - almost never 'conservatives' and never libertarians, who don't want to be demonized, slandered, by the liberal media, so they take on liberal issues - they're the 'reach across the aisle types who never get anything in return except for a few good media pieces until their next election where they are then demonized, slandered and shown pushing grandmas off cliffs. :- )

 

[nicnik]

There is a weak faction within the Republican party - almost never 'conservatives' and never libertarians, who don't want to be demonized, slandered, by the liberal media, so they take on liberal issues - they're the 'reach across the aisle types who never get anything in return except for a few good media pieces until their next election where they are then demonized, slandered and shown pushing grandmas off cliffs. :- )

Also, "weak" Democrats adopt conservative issues, attempting political gain (including not wanting to be demonized), which comes back to bite them when the primaries roll around. Some "weak" Libertarians adopt socially intolerent stances for political gain.

I don't see most of this as healthy compromise, especially when they are evasive and dishonest in defending themselves.

 

[Kent C]

Also, "weak" Democrats adopt conservative issues, attempting political gain (including not wanting to be demonized)

To be somewhat fair - sometimes it's just the district or State where they run. There are exceptions but you're not likely to see a true conservative running in Maine at the federal level or a true liberal Dem running in certain areas of West Virginia.

To question the rest of your post would take more space that isn't necessary here.

 

[nicnik]

Unfortunately I do not live in Arkansas. If I did I would challenge this law all day long and on Sundays.

Nice little questionnaire DC. I will say mine as I believe we should coexist no matter what our political ideals are. We should be different.

90% Rubio, but I like Paul... but I also like Trump for his frankness.

It's better than most of these types of questionaires, but still feels silly for me to take it seriously. I like my result of "I side 97% with Bernie Sanders". I think it's probably the first questionaire I've seen that can possibly be helpful to people who haven't followed the campaign very closely. And I agree with you - let's co-exist in peace.

 

[Max0819]

Well well. I do believe that Coke and Pepsi are next. See they contain caffeine, caffeine is a dangerous drug and a stimulant, very near to nicotine. As such, from now on all soft drinks, that may or may not contain caffeine, that may or may not contain flavorings, that may or may not contain high fructose corn syrup, sugars, or other sweetening products, that may or may not contain water (naturally occurring, filtered, recycled, or otherwise, henceforth called 'fluids'), this includes any 'dry' packets that the consumer may blend with sweeteners or fluids, as well as their liquid 'drip' alternatives, shall from this date forward, be considered a tobacco like product.

Dearest Nanny may I have a cookie?
Heavens no child they are bad for you.
Oh please Dearest Nanny, may I have some oatmeal in the shape of a cookie?
Heavens no child, someone might see you and think you are eating a cookie.
Oh please dearest sweet Nanny, I promise to hide by the garbage in the alley and not be seen.
Child unfortunately eating fake cookies might lead to you wanting real cookies, so no.

---- time passes ------

Child come to your Nanny please.
Yes dear Nanny, what can I do for you?
Child after considering it for some time, and studying the issues at great length, while considering all of the potential pitfalls and spending great sums of money on private testing, as well as talking with industry executives and their advisers, I, that is We, have determined that you may indeed have an oatmeal cookie. Please understand that it may not look like a cookie, nor taste like one, and in point of fact, will not actually contain oatmeal, but some substance that the advisers have assured me will be okay and uniquely designed for fit and purpose, carefully controlled by a few select companies. Given all this effort and time, you will of course have top pay ten times as much for this 'Cookie' and I will have to get another 70+% on top of that, for, as previously mentioned the potential harmful effects, and you may only purchase them at stores that have properly paid me for a license and agreed to restrict availability, all you need to do is show them the Identification that I will provide to you for a fee. Okay?

Oh yes dearest Nanny. Thank you thank you thank you. Thank you for looking out for my welfare, monitoring my whereabouts and product usage, and of course for caring enough to collect additional funding for my future potential health care of this unknown product.

Oh Nanny may I please.......


Max

 

[KattMamma]

Well well. I do believe that Coke and Pepsi are next. See they contain caffeine, caffeine is a dangerous drug and a stimulant, very near to nicotine. As such, from now on all soft drinks, that may or may not contain caffeine, that may or may not contain flavorings, that may or may not contain high fructose corn syrup, sugars, or other sweetening products, that may or may not contain water (naturally occurring, filtered, recycled, or otherwise, henceforth called 'fluids'), this includes any 'dry' packets that the consumer may blend with sweeteners or fluids, as well as their liquid 'drip' alternatives, shall from this date forward, be considered a tobacco like product.

Dearest Nanny may I have a cookie?
Heavens no child they are bad for you.
Oh please Dearest Nanny, may I have some oatmeal in the shape of a cookie?
Heavens no child, someone might see you and think you are eating a cookie.
Oh please dearest sweet Nanny, I promise to hide by the garbage in the alley and not be seen.
Child unfortunately eating fake cookies might lead to you wanting real cookies, so no.

---- time passes ------

Child come to your Nanny please.
Yes dear Nanny, what can I do for you?
Child after considering it for some time, and studying the issues at great length, while considering all of the potential pitfalls and spending great sums of money on private testing, as well as talking with industry executives and their advisers, I, that is We, have determined that you may indeed have an oatmeal cookie. Please understand that it may not look like a cookie, nor taste like one, and in point of fact, will not actually contain oatmeal, but some substance that the advisers have assured me will be okay and uniquely designed for fit and purpose, carefully controlled by a few select companies. Given all this effort and time, you will of course have top pay ten times as much for this 'Cookie' and I will have to get another 70+% on top of that, for, as previously mentioned the potential harmful effects, and you may only purchase them at stores that have properly paid me for a license and agreed to restrict availability, all you need to do is show them the Identification that I will provide to you for a fee. Okay?

Oh yes dearest Nanny. Thank you thank you thank you. Thank you for looking out for my welfare, monitoring my whereabouts and product usage, and of course for caring enough to collect additional funding for my future potential health care of this unknown product.

Oh Nanny may I please.......


Max

Excellent!!

 

[stevegmu]

Coke and Pepsi have powerful lobbyists and teams of attorneys; vaping has none...

 

[Kent C]

Please understand that it may not look like a cookie, nor taste like one, and in point of fact, will not actually contain oatmeal, but some substance that the advisers have assured me will be okay

 

[Rossum]

Dearest Nanny may I have a cookie?
Heavens no child they are bad for you.
Oh please Dearest Nanny, may I have some oatmeal in the shape of a cookie?
Heavens no child, someone might see you and think you are eating a cookie.
Oh please dearest sweet Nanny, I promise to hide by the garbage in the alley and not be seen.
Child unfortunately eating fake cookies might lead to you wanting real cookies, so no.

Quoted for posterity.

"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite."