"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.

Yes you did. Several times actually.

Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to
protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit
your prejudice.

When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is.
Why is this such a tough concept to grasp?


Is it such a tough concept to grasp that tax policy designed to discourage
corporations from spending money to the detriment of the national economy,
and contrary to the interests of the citizens, is not necessarily
"nannyism"?

How is advertising detrimental to the national economy? If a corporation
wastes its money on unproductive marketing, the company suffers. Are you
implying that companies don't have the right to be stupid and tank
themselves?? And yes, protecting corporations from themselves is nannyism.

Nannyism is the expectation that a Race Committee will prevent you from
sailing in more wind than your skill level can accomodate.

Is it nannyism when the race committee simply chooses not to have to round
up bodies and destroyed craft after allowing a race that shouldn't have been
run? You obviously haven't spent much time racing sailboats. Race
committees make such calls all the time, for whatever reason. I've seen
such calls made in America's Cup Racing as well.

It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular
group. Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money?
Hardly.

Really? Does it happen for free?

Oh, well you've really opened a can of worms for yourself here, Doug. Let's
talk about all the myriad wealth-redistribution programs the government
fosters. They cost those for whom there is no apparent benefit far more
than putting a few embossed dots on paper money. Yet you seem to favor such
programs, while denying the blind the ability to determine what bills he
has. Pretty damned hypocritical.

If I am expected to pay for it, and to put up with the inconvenience of
changing all may money, then I am being penalized.

Your illogic boggles the mind.

Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking.

Oh yeah, those two things are exactly the same!



Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.


I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in
life.

Don't be so obstuse and hypocritical, then.

LOL. This from the King of Obtuse and Hypocrisy.

Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by
a wide margin.


I'm sure.

My only hope for you, Doug, is that somewhere, years down the road, you'll
see how delusional you've been. You're nowhere near as bright as you
believe yourself to be, but if you keep telling yourself that you are, I've
no doubt you'll be able to continue fooling yourself. But only yourself.

Max