Posted on 07/23/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 23, 2006 - 06:47
Don't the press in general and the New York Times in particular take pride in portraying themselves as ever-the vigilant defenders of the First Amendment? But judging by an editorial in the paper this morning, the Times experiences a power loss worse than the one currently gripping Queens when it comes to defending the First Amendment rights of groups it disfavors, in this case the tobacco industry.
Entitled Take the Tobacco Pledge, the editorial urges ratification of The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, known colloquially as 'the tobacco treaty.' Here's how the Times describes its provisions:
"Countries that ratify the treaty promise to limit or ban tobacco advertising, promotion and event sponsorship; raise cigarette taxes; enlarge warning labels on cigarette packs; move toward ending smoking in public places; crack down on tobacco smuggling; and make it more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking."
Raising taxes is a no-brainer for the liberals of the Times. But limiting or banning advertising? Isn't that an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights? And making it "more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking" - isn't that a restriction of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances?
How would the Times feel about a treaty that would restrict the ability of newspapers to advertize and make it more difficult for newspapers to influence legislation that concerns the press? What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?
I thought about doing some weeding...then thought again. ;*)
Yep.....the cop was laughing at them as he asked me for a light. LOL!
Ray, you have got to be kidding on this one. I'd rather be locked in a room with 10 cigarette smokers than one pipe or cigar smoker. The sickening, cloying smell of most pipe and cigar tobacco would gag a maggot and it just goes on and on and on because it takes them forever to finish it or put it away.
I've also never noticed pipe and cigar smokers being any more or less polite than cigarette smokers. I think you are just reaching here trying to sound less militant while you justify your attitude.
I asked you:
Where are you getting your information?
Where did you come up with this elusive "huge majority support" nonsense?
How was it measured and by whom?
Your response was to elude the questions regarding "huge majority support" by saying I use contradictory logic.
YOU said:
On the one hand there is no majority, on the other hand the majority is because of a propoganda machine.
I never said any such thing. Please read MY words and note they do not contain the word majority or huge majority.
did not have the alleged "support" - AND - The alleged "support"
Ten people out of 100 can "support" something. That does not however, equate to a "huge majority support" by any stretch of the imagination.
And here's the same bike at others:
Then there's the Yamaha-Gauloises bike of Valentino Rossi from 2 years ago:
And the same bike for other tracks
And another example from this year, Valentino Rossi's Yamaha-Camel bikes:
And the "PC" version of the team graphics. Notice that they're not even allowed to use the drawing of the camel. Notice it's now a drawing of a motorcycle!
It's really all pretty silly.
Mark
I'm not doing anything outside - it's raining.......sigh
Sorry to hear it. It is still wet from the big rain last night. Very cloudy...maybe I'll reconsider later. ;*)
shhhhhhhhhhhh
It's super-secret blackmarket....... for muscle cars....
I agree.........look at NASCAR - cigarettes can't be sponsors, but beer sure can.....
It makes no sense.
No children yet.
"Liberals". Technically, I call such people hypocrites, but tomato, tomahtto...
bump
Can't cook without smoke, Ray.
Some of us prefer to have dinner without Pecksniffs.
It takes an awful lot of nerve, or a massive ego, or a religious conviction on the smoking question to say something like that, Ray.
Or maybe all of the above.
Ray would not be happy if you were to light up anywhere in the universe.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Very well said! FReegards.
Fair or not we enjoy something called freedom. As a poster said on another thread "it's still a free country". There is no appeasing someone like you and you pettiness will bite you in the ass one day. You throw the term "addiction" around but the same applies to those on medications. What is the difference? One party at least gets to make a choice without your pious opinions. You are an enemy of freedom an need to go live in the biosphere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.