Hmm. Mommypants, or Mommyjahns http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mom-jeans/229048/

So this means they cannot sell an Irish coffee???

Why do these people think they know better than you do, anyhow?

There has been more than one time that I've had an Irish coffee.

And what if the guy sits a at bar has a four or five drinks and then switches to coffee to sober up before driving? Isn't that mixing alcohol and caffeine?

I've never been a fan of Red Bull and vodka, Four Loko, or Jaeger Bombs. I always figured that passing out was one of the body's defense mechanisms. I mean, when people get drunk enough, they tend to have stupid ideas, but after enough alcohol, they also tend to get tired. Why would I want to drink something that was going to keep me awake during what could potentially be the most self-destructive period I could imagine?

That said, while I might personally agree with the idea behind the law, it's not my place to impose my reasoning on someone else. Why is that such a difficult concept these days?

That bill would even sweep up a rum and coke in its prohibition? So what is the designated driver supposed to drink?

The mayor of NYC wants to ban table salt, forget the name of the town that is banning outdoor smoking or the California war against the evil known as happy meals. Now we have this asshat who, yet again, has decided what is good for an otherwise educated adult to choose for themselves.

I find it fascinating that all these instances where we are treated as to stupid to make our own decisions so our freedoms must be abrogated are always democrats. Why exactly is that? Because they want to be in control of every aspect of our lives. Soon they will just pass a law that requires us to call a comrade hotline to find out what we can or cannot do that particular day.

I don’t know about the rest of you but I for one am a little tired of these pompous elitist politicians thinking that they are superior intellectually to rest of us and know what is better for us and our families than we do. Remember this; those who can do, those who can’t teach and those who can’t teach become politicians…..

"I find it fascinating that all these instances where we are treated as to stupid to make our own decisions so our freedoms must be abrogated are always democrats."

In fairness, it hasn't always been that way. The authoritarians, like the libertarians, are always looking for a home and it has changed several times over American history. Leftism was working on hijacking liberalism as far back as the 1920s and had pretty well completed the process by 1975, although the classical liberals seemed not to realize it until 1990 or so. In the meantime, the GOP under Reagan's leadership did a pretty good job of marginalizing the extreme wing of the paleos (e.g. David Duke).

There's little doubt in my mind that authoritarian government was what the leftists intended all along. For one thing, that's been the result in nearly every country where leftists have gained control. But it really crystallized for me in the early 1990s after I had a chance one day to ask David Horowitz about this. His response to me was that authoritarianism was what his 1960s leftists had intended from the start: "We fought for our freedoms so we could use them to take away everyone else's." Leftists justify their base desires by telling themselves that they are the only enlightened humans on Earth, and that all other people are destructive forces that need to be ruled with an iron fist. Since the Democratic Party today is bought and paid for by leftists, that's the sort of political thinking that you get from them.

Re: Cousin Dave
Nicely stated. Thanks!

I find it fascinating that all these instances where we are treated as to stupid to make our own decisions so our freedoms must be abrogated are always democrats.

Last I checked Bloomberg wasn't a Democrat.

Since the Democratic Party today is bought and paid for by leftists, that's the sort of political thinking that you get from them.

This overstates the case substantially. The Democrats do get a lot of money from unions and environmental groups. And the auto bailout was excessively favorable to union interests.

But they also get a lot of money from banks and other big corporations, and implement policies favorable to those organizations. Obama's new chief of staff is a J.P. Morgan Chase executive, not exactly a bastion of anti-capitalist activism. The healthcare bill, at the request of the Pharma lobby, prohibits reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

The Democrats are not getting sufficient credit for their tremendous accomplishments, efficiency, and attention to detail.

They have passed amazing legislation. They certainly have enacted into law more words in fewer bills than any other Congress in history.

More amazing is that those bills are so intuitive and natural in what they accomplish, that it is not even necessary to read them. The President and his viziers can now decree what is necessary and right, confident that this power to do good is contained somewhere in these documents. And, there is more good news to come.

The "Do the Right Thing" Bill
========
Future news:

"Do The Right Thing" will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michele Obama (now in her 3rd term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then "Do the right thing". The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President's actions should she desire this.

The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions, allocate liquor licenses, and grant carbohydrate waivers to restaurants.
=========

We have a choice in the next few elections. Vote out any legislator, Pub or Dem, who wants to increase control over your life without the clearest necessity. Or, embrace a government which will Do the Right Thing for you, in detail.

- -
ObamaCare as a practical matter pays homage to the free market while it stubbornly tries to manipulate a complex society through rules and "law". The bill doesn't attempt to get all of the details right, it merely tells the HHS Secretary (Sebellius) to solve all the problems and make all the rules.

Many organizations (insurers, doctor's groups) would be proposing their solutions in a free market. They are constrained by state laws and anti-trust against the doctors (!).

The government can't solve this problem because it must operate through nests of rules, rather than a profit from serving its customers. Those laws cannot be written or administered in the necessary complexity. Only private actors can administer with some discretion, held accountable by law to avoid force and fraud.

The worst part of government control is that it slows down the evolution of possibly many partial solutions. The government adopts one approach and freezes. Woe be to the customers.

If this control by government is accepted by the populace, we will eventually have the Do the Right Thing Bill. Maybe we already have it in practice.

That bill would even sweep up a rum and coke in its prohibition? So what is the designated driver supposed to drink? - Bill

Sounds like it to me. And, Uh, a designated driver should not be drinking rum and coke. As I read it, any place could be selling coke so long as no alcohol was mixed with it - which is the type of think a designated driver should be drinking.

I wonder if places could sell both to one person and than that person could mix them. Such as, some one could get a shot of Jaeger in a large glass and a can of red bull and then mix them on their own.

So what is the designated driver supposed to drink?

I would suggest ginger ale and cranberry. A nice palate cleanser, and when served in a clear glass, looks just like a vodka and cranberry. Just tip your bartender.

Christopher -

Bloomberg IS a Democrat, he switched parties to ride Giuliani's coat tails into office.

And if you think an investment banker or a megacorp CEO is a capitalist, you need a better dictionary.

They want profit, and they want to stifle competition so they don't have to innovate.

Brian, your definitions of people are conveniently chosen to support your arguments. Bloomberg was elected as a Republican, and defeated Democrats repeatedly to stay in office. Therefore, he is a Republican.

Investment bankers are capitalists: they put money to work to make more of it. That they also push for regulations that benefit their business just makes them no different than any other business.

Christopher, you are the one conveniently changing definitions. Bloomberg changed parties and repeatedly supports and promotes the Democratic legislative agenda. He is a Democrat In All But Label Only.

And investment bankers are not capitalists, they are corporatists (fascists, actually). a capitalist wouldn't think of using government to restrict his competition outside of patent and copyright laws. Only when corporations and government become partners is it possible for legislation that explicitly limits competition to happen.

Perhaps you should research regulatory capture and capitalism and tell me if they are compatible.

You don't even get a copy of the home game.

Bloomberg leaves Republican Party
=== ===
06/20/07 - The billionaire former CEO was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the Republican Party in 2001 for his first mayoral run.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg left the Republican Party on Tuesday and switched to unaffiliated, a move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

Bloomberg: "Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city."
=== ===

Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid

I don't think he can be any worse. He definitely understands business.

I assume Bill was joking about the designated driver, but his point about the rum and Coke is valid... any mixed drink containing tea or a caffeinated soft drink would be illegal. Perhaps it would be legal to serve them separately and have the customer mix them... but that's sending us back to the days of bottle clubs. That's stupid. It's 2011 now, not 1960.

He is a Democrat In All But Label Only.

And yet, he's never had a Republican challenger!

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

CS Lewis

Funny how so many democrats are becoming what they claim they've been fighting against for 50+ years.

I was incorrect. I did not realize that Bloomberg ran last time as an independent. So he's an independent, not a Republican.

Christopher is just trying to be a good little progressive by projecting all of his moral failings onto everyone else.

We aren't buying it any more. All you new-age motherfuckers can take your "social justice" progressive agenda and stick it up your ass sideways.

The adults are taking the country back. You sixties hippie retreads have been fucking things up for far too long.

Oh, and if any of the Republican old guard think they're gonna get away with returning to status quo ante, they are in for a rude shock.