« Moonbat Professions Deemed Undesirable for Marriage | Main | The Envious Condom »

Two things the NY Times are good for: starting fires and house training pets.

I don't think it should be used as toilet paper because it could leave a nasty rash.

These people are morons!

So he mentions research that links soft drinks to some diseases and cigarettes to others. Fair enough. Can he be consistent then and link promiscuity to the very expensive diseases it causes?

This reminds me of Demolition Man. Soon there will be no fried or spicy foods, no meat, and machines on posts that fine you whenever you use profanity. Bring on the Dr. Cocteau plan!

soon all that will be left is Soylent Green

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

This guy looks like he ate a couple of thousand of twinkies. Man, that face looks like he's trying to keep a big fart in.

Taxes because people eat too much and get fat. Fine. But ONLY IF YOU ARE FAT. Why should I pay because you can't close your pie hole?

I drink soda, I'm not fat. Why do I pay for your bad behavior? Following this "logic" you would have to tax EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE because someone, somewhere is misusing it. (I may have just given a very bad idea to some politicians!)

Obama's victory spells the end of personal responsibility in America. We now simply require everyone to pay for the wrong headed-ness of the few. And pay. And pay. And pay.

CAN I PLEASE OPT OUT?

Hypothetical inquiry:

If a New York Times reporter commits coprophagia is it cannibalism?

But they are all for legalizing narcotics. Twisted.

Apple seeds have trace amounts of POISON! BAN APPLES!!

Can we have a scientific research on liberalism please?

Look at his mutated flipper hands. That's what constant exposure to Moonbatty diet does to you.

The blind leading the stupid

You can always count on the NEW YORK SLIMES to support stupid taxes becuase the NEW YORK SLIMES is a stupid liberal news paper i hope they go broke ALL THE CRAP THATS FIT TO PRINT

Spurwing, you add SO much to the discourse...

Farmer Ted, they're for legalizing narcotics...but they never said how much they'd TAX them! Oh brother, would that ever be the dream-windfall for the lefties! (Then again, Mr. and Ms. "Progressive", call up your buddies in Amsterdam to see how wonderful life is with unfettered access to drugs and hookers. Ask them why they're closing half the city to this stuff.)

Hm, and that these food items that are to be taxed are largely staples of middle- to low-income earners escapes people like the socialist New York governor and Kristof, who after all totally care about the poor and all, I mean, right?

Tax New York Cheesecake and the Carnegie Deli for those huge sandwiches, and Peter Lugar's Steakhouse and hell, why stop with those? Tax every dessert, every large piece of meat, all fried food, just tax the crap out of it until everyone quits being able to eat anything and they lose weight.

Please, Masters, TELL US WHAT WE CAN HAVE.

Sick. These pols are sick and should be tossed out, but anyone in NY that wants to just accept this, then you deserve to live there and pay up.

But if consumers switch to diet soda (what I drink), won't the soda companies start charging more for it since the demand will go up while the demand for regular soda will drop?

He also will tax cigarettes sold on the reservations to non-Indians. That will not only not only severely effect the tribal income of the Senecas, but will likely be yet another cause for war between the Nations and the state of New York. There are "Honor Indian Treaty" signs up all over the place now.

If he touches the casinos, there will be an Indian uprising.

Do it EXACTLY His way, or go screw yourself. No deviation permitted. You inhale the number of times per minute WE permit you to inhale. NO DEVIATION PERMITTED! If King Obama says "you die", you die, you stinking conservative has-beens!.

We are Obama's. We rule by HIS breath. Obama is EVERYTHING! If HE says you pay, YOU PAY.

LEAVE HIM ALONE!

Hmm, seems the libs are going back to their roots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

"Hmm, seems the libs are going back to their roots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

"Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. ... The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad."

"Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. ... The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad."

The use of the term "Reducto Ad Hitlerum" or me commonly known as Godwin's Law, is also often a logical fallacy. It assumes tha comparisons to Hitler are always unfair and thus render the argument moot.

Well, ya see, taxes are not just for revenue generation; we don't need no steenkin' revenue, we'll just run a deficit! No, taxes are more and more for social engineering. Do it their way and forfeit your freedom of choice, or do it your way and pay them money. Here's your rock, there's your hard place.

"According to Cocteau's (insert libtard name here) plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal?"...

Edgar Friendly (Dennis Leary) Demolition Man

I knew when the government went after big tobacco, it would open up anything else the government said was bad for you. Remember who was the leader that wanted to punish big tobacco? McCain.
Anytime the law does something to protect you, you will lose some freedom.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Demolition Man" is a movie that should be required viewing for all conservative adults. It perfectly demonstrates what the liberals' "Utopian" society would look like if they completely took over.

Kristof is my most hated moonbat columnist at the Times. He's been spouting nonsense for years. I remember reading him once, before I knew his ouvre, and thinking "is this parody?"

They have been trying for years to snag those Indian cigarettes for taxes. No luck. They can try again, but believe me, there will be an uprising. It's happened up here before (the Mohawks). There are big huge signs all over the reservation somewhat near to me, which say "Hey Spitzer! This is Mohawk Land, Not Yours!"

who wants to go into the bootleg bidness?

Let them eat cake!

"The use of the term "Reducto Ad Hitlerum" or me commonly known as Godwin's Law, is also often a logical fallacy. It assumes tha comparisons to Hitler are always unfair and thus render the argument moot.

If you bothered to look at the article you would know that:

"Reducto Ad Hitlerum" has very little to do with Godwin's law.

Godwins Law states that as a conversation gets longer, the chances of a comparison being made to Nazi's or Hitler approaches 1. This applies to many things other than Hitler/Nazis.

Reductio ad Hitlerum states that it IS a fallacy to say that "Because Hitler liked X, X is bad"

See the difference?

...and its also an ad hominem/Reductio ad Hitlerum combination to say "Hitler liked X, You like X, Therefore both you and X are bad"

Which, once again you would have realised if you looked at the article. Or maybe not.

A HOT AIR TAX for all liberal eco-freaks like AL GORE and the jerks from GREENPEACE and that various others pushing this carbon footptint global warming popycock have them pay a special tax everytime they open their fat stupid pieholes and emit their HOR AIR

Well, whatever Latin terms may be tossed around, or however Hiltlerish it may or may not be, I'm against increased nanny statism.

"It assumes tha comparisons to Hitler are always unfair and thus render the argument moot."

And thirdly also you might like to know that Godwin's law says absolutely nothing about the validity of the comparisons. Only the chances of a comparison occurring.

OH for God's sake, anonymous. You were more interesting spouting moonbat drivel than when you're holding philosophy class. Nobody's that impressed.

"OH for God's sake, anonymous. You were more interesting spouting moonbat drivel"

It seems in your world anything thats not wingnuttery is moonbattery.

Anon,

Sigh.

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]"

The two are intertwined. And are used as substitutes for one another. And yes, the common use of the "law" is that whoever references Hitler has lost. It has an identical application as Reducto ad Hitlerum/Nazi.

But of course now you're just splitting hairs.

Just as you will surely try to say "well, I didn't ridicule this comparison...just comparisons to him in general".

When someone compares an idea or action to Hitler or the Nazis, they already think the idea or action is bad, and they believe that the totalitarian Nazis using it as well demonstrates it. In general, the Nazis didn't have a lot to look up to...and unless we're going to ridicule running the trains on time...the comparison has a potency if true.

So your charges are lazy and unintelligent. As is your "defense" of them.

I seem to recall a large Tea Party thanks to taxation like this. Looks like Soda is next!

When that happens. I refuse to buy any soda and I like soda. I will not buy the
(cancer stuff DIET SODA.)
And I am not FAT. I am over 50. So now they will put the soda companies, to lay off workers because people will not stand for that.. we are the people of power not anybody else. I feel sorry for the soda companies! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Yeah, tax Twinkies too. Because Interstate Bakeries Corporation (the makers of Twinkies, is a fat-cat corporation, bleeding the people dry... Right... Where's the Twinkie Bailout? Is anyone aware that IBC filed for bankruptcy a few years ago, and are just recently out of the deep water and out of bankruptcy? Besides, IBC is headquartered in the middle of "Red State Flyover Country" and who cares about them? Not New York State, that's for sure...

"The two are intertwined. And are used as substitutes for one another. And yes, the common use of the "law" is that whoever references Hitler has lost. It has an identical application as Reducto ad Hitlerum/Nazi."

Get it though your head.

Godwin's law SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the validity of the argument. (I never stated it did, i never mentioned Godwin's law, you did, incorrectly stating it's the same as Reducto ad Hitlerum) Some people may think it does but it doesnt. Godwin's law could be applied to almost any topic.

"Reducto ad Hitlerum" Also doesnt say anything about the VALIDITY OF THE COMPARISON. Only that "Hitler liked X, Therefor X is bad" IS A FALLACY.

To me it seems what your trying to do is, say:

"You invoked Godwin's law incorrectly, which is a fallacy itself".

When i never even mentioned Godwin's law. I have demonstrated that Reducto ad Hitlerum is completely different.

"Just as you will surely try to say "well, I didn't ridicule this comparison...just comparisons to him in general"."

I never said anything about the validity of the comparison. What i said had very little to do with the actual comparisons, only implications of it.

Hitler liked German Shepherds. I like German shepherds. That is a valid comparison.

To say that "Hitler liked German shepherds, you like german shepherds, therefore both you and German Shepherds are Bad". That is Reductio ad Hitlerum.

On usenet, someone will say Godwins law when nazis are invoked. This does not mean a law has been broken in that sense of the word, its more like me bouncing a ball and saying "Newtons Law".

Just because some people treat it as a law that can be 'broken' doesnt mean it is one.

Look, from wikipedia:

Reductio ad Hitlerum
"The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad." = Reductio ad Hitlerum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Godwin's law
The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." = Godwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

That should settle it.

Anon,

Your obsessing over this kinda reminds me of Hitler.

Your body reacts to sugar substitutes the same way it reacts to sugar, it releases insulin into the bloodstream. Unfortunately, the insulin does not bond with the sugar substitutes as it does with sugar, and over time your body becomes insulin resistant. This is the first step into Type II Diabetes.

When will the first lawsuit begin as a new diabetic sues NY for promoting their disease?