It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves

SFGbob

2001400ex said:

RedRocket said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.

You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.

Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.

You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.

And you call me stupid?

If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.

There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.

You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.

Bob can't admit the government had anything to do with lower smoking rates. He thinks you can't smoke in a bar because drinkers care whether he lights up.

Hondo is trolling me again by fucking strawman ass. Are you capable of a discussion that doesn't involve you fucking strawman ass Hondo?

2001400ex

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

RedRocket said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.

You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.

Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.

You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.

And you call me stupid?

If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.

There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.

You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.

Bob can't admit the government had anything to do with lower smoking rates. He thinks you can't smoke in a bar because drinkers care whether he lights up.

Hondo is trolling me again by fucking strawman ass. Are you capable of a discussion that doesn't involve you fucking strawman ass Hondo?

Are you capable of an argument?