Ouch, that's a low blow! OK, so the lawyers try to profit off every human vice — tobacco, fast food, sex, alcohol, fast driving, snowball fights, you name it — is this an argument against legalizing one particular vice? Lawyers trying to profit on reducing individual responsibility to being a ward of the state are a symptom of a completely different malaise — subjection to collectivism. Nothing to do with the natural penalties individuals pay for their own vices.
Heh. I'm rather a conservative myself, so I try to lead an upright upstanding life and try to avoid any penalties for actions, natural or otherwise. But neither do I want to interfere with other people making stupid mistakes. I'm equal to them, I figure, in no better a position to determine what's best for them than they are to determine what's best for me. In fact, that's what I hate about Canada, that there are all these politicians and bureaucrats doing their best to determine what's in my best interests and making me pay for the privilege of having them look out for me.
"Unprotected" sex can cause serious problems. I imagine right wingers will want to have that regulated in view of the serious health issues that may occur as the result of unprotected sex, notwithstanding the immorality of some sexual liasons.. even though sex is generally a consentual activity.
Oh crap, Manitoba and BC are only suing because they think the precedent has been set and it's an easy case - or at least that's what the lawyer scumbags think. Cigs = guaranteed easy win.
I'm waiting for some pot head to sue the Fritos and Twinkies companies for making them fat (they obviously can't sue the "pot company").
Why this blog? Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
"what Canadians think".
In all that time they
never once asked.
This is just the voice
of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage email Kate (goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every
tip, but all are
appreciated!
"I got so much traffic afteryour post my web host asked meto buy a larger traffic allowance."Dr.Ross McKitrick
Holy hell, woman. When you
send someone traffic,
you send someone TRAFFIC.
My hosting provider thought
I was being DDoSed. -
Sean McCormick
"The New York Times link to me yesterday [...] generatedone-fifth of the trafficI normally get from a linkfrom Small Dead Animals."Kathy Shaidle
"Thank you for your link. A wave ofyour Canadian readers came to my blog! Really impressive."Juan Giner -
INNOVATION International Media Consulting Group
I got links from the Weekly Standard,Hot Air and Instapundit yesterday - but SDA was running at least equal to those in visitors clicking through to my blog.Jeff Dobbs
"You may be anasty right winger,but you're not nastyall the time!"Warren Kinsella
"Go back to collectingyour welfare livelihood."Michael E. Zilkowsky
Ouch, that's a low blow! OK, so the lawyers try to profit off every human vice — tobacco, fast food, sex, alcohol, fast driving, snowball fights, you name it — is this an argument against legalizing one particular vice? Lawyers trying to profit on reducing individual responsibility to being a ward of the state are a symptom of a completely different malaise — subjection to collectivism. Nothing to do with the natural penalties individuals pay for their own vices.
Hey, be careful what you wish for.
Heh. I'm rather a conservative myself, so I try to lead an upright upstanding life and try to avoid any penalties for actions, natural or otherwise. But neither do I want to interfere with other people making stupid mistakes. I'm equal to them, I figure, in no better a position to determine what's best for them than they are to determine what's best for me. In fact, that's what I hate about Canada, that there are all these politicians and bureaucrats doing their best to determine what's in my best interests and making me pay for the privilege of having them look out for me.
Lawyers, well, that's another fight.
"Unprotected" sex can cause serious problems. I imagine right wingers will want to have that regulated in view of the serious health issues that may occur as the result of unprotected sex, notwithstanding the immorality of some sexual liasons.. even though sex is generally a consentual activity.
Ahem. I sympathize with the passion and dedication you guys have to a previous topic... but this is not a marijuana post.
"When used as intended by the manufacturer, tobacco use can result in devastating health consequences for smokers and non-smokers � including death,"
"When used as intended by God, life can result in devastating health consequences for those that live and those that don't - including death."
I guess we should see if we can sue God now.
Oh.. it's not a pot legalization post? Hmmm.. ok :)
Let's talk about the dangers of chicks wearing mini skirts on sidewalks, causing car accidents.. lawyers love that kind of stuff too :)
Gosh, Kate, I seem to have got carried away again. Even conservatives can feel a little unfulfilled on a Friday night.
Oh crap, Manitoba and BC are only suing because they think the precedent has been set and it's an easy case - or at least that's what the lawyer scumbags think. Cigs = guaranteed easy win.
I'm waiting for some pot head to sue the Fritos and Twinkies companies for making them fat (they obviously can't sue the "pot company").