Mighty Favog Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 He won't be mayor forever... that's the good thing. Do they have term limits? Seriously why does everyone somehow hate him even though its not their mayor. And yes they have term limits. Maybe they think his priorities should be elsewhere rather than concentrating on headphones and SODA . .... or even giving "Plan B" morning after pills to 14-year old girls. First plan B is not the abortion pill. It simply isn't. And second would you rather say no to the plan b and have the kid bring a unwanted baby into the world? Kids make mistakes, its even worse when parents make them keep their mistakes. This thread is now going to get banned. Never said it was. Where in my posts did you read that?I will add that Bloomberg did this without the parents' consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 I clean my ears with a steak knife, that is why my sister keeps saying we shouldn't eat meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 No he wouldn't. Pretty sure about that one. Don't know what you have been reading. If you live in the north east, you know infinitely more about this character than I do. That being said, I can only form an opinion from what I've read, kind of like my wife forms an opinion about my co-workers based on what I tell her. In my OPINION ONLY, he appears to me to be someone who would rather treat the symptoms rather than the disease. Hopefully that's vague enough not to get the thread locked. I offered my opinion as you asked something to the effect of "Why don't people like him" or something like that. People read the news and form opinions as I did. It's as simple as that. Like I said, his decisions don't affect me so I"m not as passionate about the subject as someone who lives with the consequences of his actions. Knowing ONLY what I've read, I wouldn't vote for him if he ran for office here (but I'm sure many would). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 He won't be mayor forever... that's the good thing. Do they have term limits? Seriously why does everyone somehow hate him even though its not their mayor. And yes they have term limits. Maybe they think his priorities should be elsewhere rather than concentrating on headphones and SODA . .... or even giving "Plan B" morning after pills to 14-year old girls. First plan B is not the abortion pill. It simply isn't. And second would you rather say no to the plan b and have the kid bring a unwanted baby into the world? Kids make mistakes, its even worse when parents make them keep their mistakes. This thread is now going to get banned. Never said it was. Where in my posts did you read that? I will add that Bloomberg did this without the parents' consent. Most people mistake it for, its popular for pro life to confuse that. And so what. So what if bloomberg allowed it. Would you prevent your child from getting plan b if they wanted it? That's the exact reason why they let them get it without parental permission. In this case the parent needs to step aside. Also from your article verbatim, "Parents can bar their children from getting contraceptives or a pregnancy test if they sign an opt-out form. But the DOE says only one to two percent of parents do that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 No he wouldn't. Pretty sure about that one. Don't know what you have been reading. If you live in the north east, you know infinitely more about this character than I do. That being said, I can only form an opinion from what I've read, kind of like my wife forms an opinion about my co-workers based on what I tell her. In my OPINION ONLY, he appears to me to be someone who would rather treat the symptoms rather than the disease. Hopefully that's vague enough not to get the thread locked. I offered my opinion as you asked something to the effect of "Why don't people like him" or something like that. People read the news and form opinions as I did. It's as simple as that. Like I said, his decisions don't affect me so I"m not as passionate about the subject as someone who lives with the consequences of his actions. Knowing ONLY what I've read, I wouldn't vote for him if he ran for office here (but I'm sure many would). I live in NY or very near it so I do know infinitely more about this person than character. And opinions get skewed heavily on what source you decide to read. It seems that you restricted many of "what you read" about him to certain newstations like to broadcast. Note, he was a former republican candidate that broke with the republican party and became a independent. As for claiming he seems to only go give pain medication for a gash on the leg. No in fact he actually sent undercover nypd to gun stores in such states as north carolina, south carolina, virginia, etc that selll an abnormal amount of handguns to a few individuals that have been arrested with illegal gun possession in NY City. He sent them as an operation to try and remove gun stores that knowingly sell guns in a straw deal or such. That's going after the root of the problem with illegal guns in NY City. But conservatives called it stepping out of line. He also sent his anti terrorist task force to investigate potential terrorists in other states outside of NYC. The action was deemed illegal but then again its going after terrorism at the heart of the problem, by finding individuals suspected of terrorism and terrorist cells. Political stands Some of the policies Bloomberg advocates parallel those of either the Democratic or the Republican party platform. He is socially liberal or progressive, supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, for example. On economics, foreign, and domestic issues, Bloomberg tends to be conservative. He opposed a timeline for withdrawal from the Iraq War, and criticized those who favored one. Economically, he supports government involvement in issues such as public welfare, while being strongly in favor of free trade, pro-business, and describing himself as a fiscal conservative because he balanced the city's budget.[64] Environmentally, he believes in man-made climate change. Bloomberg has been cited for not allowing many emergency officials who responded to the September 11, 2001 attacks to attend the tenth anniversary observation of this day.[65] He also is at odds with many around the United States for not inviting any clergy to the ceremony marking the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.[66] Social issues Bloomberg supports abortion rights, stating: "Reproductive choice is a fundamental human right and we can never take it for granted. On this issue, you're either with us or against us." He has criticized pro-choice politicians who support pro-life candidates.[67] Bloomberg supports governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity".[68] He also supports same-sex marriage with the rationale that "Government shouldn't tell you whom to marry."[69] Bloomberg supports the strict drug laws of New York City. He has stated that he smoked marijuana in the past, and was quoted in a 2001 interview as saying "You bet I did. I enjoyed it." This led to a reported $500,000 advertising campaign by NORML, featuring his image and the quote. Bloomberg stated in a 2002 interview that he regrets the remark and does not believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.[70] Domestic issues On crime, Bloomberg opposes the death penalty, stating, "I'd rather lock somebody up and throw away the key and put them in hard labor, the ultimate penalty that the law will allow, but I'm opposed to the death penalty."[71] As mayor he increased the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In regard to the change, Bloomberg commented, "Illegal guns don't belong on our streets and we're sending that message loud and clear. We're determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve serious time behind bars."[71] Education Bloomberg replaced the school board set up by the state with direct mayoral control over public education.[72] He raised the salaries of teachers by fifteen percent[73] while the test scores of students in the city and the graduation rate rose as well.[74] He is opposed to social promotion, i.e. the promotion of students to the next grade level for strictly social reasons, stating that students should be promoted only when they are adequately prepared for the next grade level. However, recent studies have shown that New York City high school graduates are not prepared to meet the challenges of college. Many take remedial courses for no credit in their first year. These criticisms have put a dent in the Mayor's reputation on education.[75] He favors after-school programs to help students who are behind.[75] As mayor, Bloomberg strengthened the cell-phone ban in schools.[76] Environmental issues In 2012, TRAVEL+LEISURE rated New York City the top, number one "Dirtiest American City," for having the most unremoved, publicly visible litter, selected and voted for by both magazine readership and city residents.[77] In dealing with global warming and New York's role in it, Bloomberg has enacted a plan called PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York to fight global warming, protect the environment and prepare New York for the projected 1 million more people expected to be living in the city by the year 2030.[78] Bloomberg has been involved in motivating other cities to make changes, delivering the keynote address at the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit and stating, "[W]e now know beyond a doubt that global warming is a reality. And the question we must all answer is, what are we going to do about it?" Bloomberg also talked about how he would go about fighting climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, using cleaner and more efficient fuels, and encouraging public transportation.[79] His ideas have occasionally been rejected, such as the New York State Assembly's rejection of his idea for applying congestion pricing below 60th Street in Manhattan. On February 21, 2013, Bloomberg spoke with oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens in support of a new eco-friendly food truck. A press conference took place in front of city hall where the company, Neapolitan Express, explained how their mobile pizzeria emits 75% less greenhouse gases than trucks running on gas or diesel. The company is expected to launch early 2013. [80] Immigration On issues of domestic and homeland security, Bloomberg has attacked social conservatives on immigration, calling their stance unrealistic, "We're not going to deport 12 million people, so let's stop this fiction. Let's give them permanent status."[81] He supports a federal ID database that uses DNA and fingerprint technology to keep track of all citizens and to verify their legal status.[82] Bloomberg has held that illegal immigrants should be offered legalization and supported the congressional efforts of John McCain and the late Ted Kennedy in their attempt at immigration reform in 2007.[83] Regarding border security, he compared it to the tide, stating, "It's as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: defeat the natural market forces of supply and demand... and defeat the natural human desire for freedom and opportunity. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness', people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country."[84] In 2006, Bloomberg stated on his weekly WABC radio show that illegal immigration does not strain the financial resources of New York City, since many immigrants are hard working and "do not avail themselves of services until their situation is dire".[85] Health legislations In 2012 Bloomberg passed a law banning the sale of many sweetened drinks more than 16 ounces in volume. The limit applies to businesses such as restaurants and movie theaters, but does not apply to grocery stores including 7-Eleven.[86] Around the same time, city schools began administrating Plan B emergency contraception medication to girls as young as 14 without parental consent, unless parents opt out in writing.[87] During the same month, the city passed a law limiting circumcision practice among orthodox Jews. The legislation requires that at each event, the circumciser receives signed consent forms from the parents, that they were notified of health risks associated with cleaning the wound by sucking blood from the wound. This regulation caused an outcry among the orthodox communities on the infringement of their religious freedom,[88][89] and the matter was taken to federal court.[90] Response to 9/11 Bloomberg believes that the September 11, 2001 attacks were not intended to be solitary events.[91] When he assumed office, he set up a Counterterrorism Bureau which works along with the NYPD intelligence division to gather information about terrorism affecting New York worldwide.[92] He believes that funding for Homeland Security by the federal government should be distributed by risk, where cities that are considered to have the highest threat for a terrorist attack would get the most money.[93] Bloomberg is also a supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act.[94] Economic issues Bloomberg characterizes himself as a fiscal conservative for turning the city's $6 billion deficit into a $3 billion surplus; however, conservative PAC Club for Growth has criticized him because he increased property taxes and spending while doing so. Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too — but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them. To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets — not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns — and by all indications, we've got one coming. —Michael Bloomberg, speech to UK Conservative Party, September 30, 2007 [64 ] Bloomberg has expressed a distaste of taxes, stating, "Taxes are not good things, but if you want services, somebody's got to pay for them, so they're a necessary evil."[95] As mayor, he did raise property taxes to fund budget projects; however, in January 2007 he proposed cuts in property taxes by five percent and cuts in sales taxes, including the elimination of taxes on clothing and footwear. Bloomberg pointed to the Wall Street profits and the real estate market as evidence that the city's economy is booming and could handle a tax break.[96] Bloomberg's self-described fiscal conservatism also led him to eliminate the existing $6-billion deficit when he assumed office. Bloomberg balanced the budget of New York City by raising property taxes and making cuts to city agencies.[97] Bloomberg is in favor of providing tax breaks to big corporations for the good of the whole community. As mayor, Bloomberg lobbied the CEO of Goldman Sachs to establish its headquarters across from Ground Zero by promising $1.65 billion in tax breaks. Regarding this deal, Bloomberg stated, "This [New York City] is where the best want to live and work. So I told him [CEO of Goldman Sachs], 'We can help with minimizing taxes. Minimizing your rent. Improving security. But in the end, this is about people.'"[98] Bloomberg has had a less cordial relationship with unions as mayor. In 2002, when New York City's transit workers threatened to strike, Bloomberg responded by riding a mountain bike through the city to show how the city could deal with the transit strike by finding alternate means of transportation and not pandering to the unions.[99] Three years later, a clash between Bloomberg and the New York City Transit Authority over wages and union benefits led to a full blown strike that lasted three days. Negotiations led to the end of the strike in December 2005, but controversy exists over Bloomberg's handling of the situation.[100] Bloomberg is a staunch advocate of free trade and is strongly opposed to protectionism, stating, "The things that we have to worry about is this protectionist movement that has reared its head again in this country...." He worries about the growth of China and fears the lessening gap between the United States and other countries: "The rest of the world is catching up, and, there are people that say, surpassing us. I hope they are wrong. I hope those who think we are still in good shape are right. But nevertheless, the time to address these issues is right now."[101] Bloomberg has placed a strong emphasis on public health and welfare, adopting many liberal policies. As the mayor he made HIV, diabetes, and hypertension all top priorities. He extended the city's smoking ban to all commercial establishments and implemented a trans fat ban in restaurants.[102] Bloomberg has been a strong supporter of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation – the largest urban healthcare agency in the United States – serving over 1.3 million New Yorkers, and has touted its use of information technology and Electronic Health Records to increase efficiency and enhance patient care.[103] He launched a program called Opportunity NYC which is the nation's first-ever conditional cash transfer pilot program designed to help New Yorkers break the cycle of poverty in the city. He instituted a $7.5 billion municipal affordable housing plan, the largest in the nation, that is supposed to provide 500,000 New Yorkers with housing.[104] Bloomberg has expressed concern about poverty and growing class divisions stating, "This society cannot go forward, the way we have been going forward, where the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing."[101] If anything he is a moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 My gosh what a mixed bag he is. Doesn't change my opinion of him though, if anything it reaffirms it. Thanks for the read. Very enlightening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Bloomberg, he's a classic. He knows whats best for the sheeple. A very wise man once said, those that would sacrifice freedoms for promise of safety deserve neither. That's not an exact quote but you get the idea. The only thing these kooks can't take is my memories of how great this country used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 My gosh what a mixed bag he is. Doesn't change my opinion of him though, if anything it reaffirms it. Thanks for the read. Very enlightening. Yes because nothing is more patriotic than voting down party lines. He's a moderate or libertarian at most. He does what works. When things don't work he changes his opinion. He doesn't let religion dictate what he does or at least publicly. He obviously is fiscally minded by turning a -6 billion in debt to 3 billion in surplus. NYC has never been safer with 414 homocides last year out of a city of 8 million, that means there is 1 homocide per 20,000 people or put it this way, if a town of 20,000 has one murder it is statistically more dangerous than NYC. As for the reason why he most likely offered plan b to children 14 and older, its more fiscally responsible than anything. No one wants to pay for another teenage pregnancy. Statistics say that that 14 year old is going to be put on welfare and shelter programs,etc and will most likely be a burden not a benefit to society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I have one more observation. I am NOT however stating my opinion on these matters rather pointing out the irony of his stance. He believes it's OK to kill inocent unborn children but opposes killing convicted criminals. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd? Again, I'm not stating my personal thoughts on either matter, rather showing how he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I have one more observation. I am NOT however stating my opinion on these matters rather pointing out the irony of his stance. He believes it's OK to kill inocent unborn children but opposes killing convicted criminals. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd? Again, I'm not stating my personal thoughts on either matter, rather showing how he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. The medical and legal community disagree with medical doctorates and juris doctorates disagree about your statement that it is killing an unborn child. Also you know cutting family planning in Texas was such a good idea they are now forced to reinstate it. http://www.peacock-panache.com/2013/03/texas-forced-to-admit-cutting-family.html And note plan B is not the abortion pill as I made clear before. Even Mighty Favog admitted to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The medical and legal community disagree with medical doctorates and juris doctorates disagree about your statement that it is killing an unborn child. A lot of people disagree with what I think on a variety of things. I've seen many many judicial opinions that are frankly laughable. Don't get me started on Drs. Thanks for the posts Jay, you're a fanboy, I get it. There's nothing you can post that would sway my opinion about this knucklehead and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're so adamant about trying to do so. Likewise, there's nothing I can post that would change your opinion. You're happy with him, great, you can keep him. New Yorkers must be happy with him too as they elected him. I'd never vote for him, sorry if that somehow offends you. You'll never convince me that black is white. BTW, I was born and raised in upstate NY. Carl Party on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I'll go along with Carl and will add a couple more things. When/If I have a child, I will be the one to raise him/her and not have the government superceed my choices of what that child does as long as it does not step on the rights or persute of someone else's happieness as stated by our founding father. Liberals think our founding fathers did not foresee some of the problems that exist. Truth is they abstractly did. What ever happened to installing the values that some parents loving and caring hold that having sext at such a young age is morally wrong and can lead to more problems than having a child they can't support? Here's what I foresee happening; teenage sex is going to skyrocket and the cases of STD's, HIV, etc. will too. You can't possibly think that a child that has an STD and wants desperately to have sex is going to tell their partner while putting the chance of it happening by telling the would be partner beforehand. Not to mention teenage prostitution. To close, I will make choices for my life, not the government. You call him a moderate. In actuality he's one of the biggest Liberals you'll ever run across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The medical and legal community disagree with medical doctorates and juris doctorates disagree about your statement that it is killing an unborn child. A lot of people disagree with what I think on a variety of things. I've seen many many judicial opinions that are frankly laughable. Don't get me started on Drs. Thanks for the posts Jay, you're a fanboy, I get it. There's nothing you can post that would sway my opinion about this knucklehead and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're so adamant about trying to do so. Likewise, there's nothing I can post that would change your opinion. You're happy with him, great, you can keep him. New Yorkers must be happy with him too as they elected him. I'd never vote for him, sorry if that somehow offends you. You'll never convince me that black is white. BTW, I was born and raised in upstate NY. Carl Party on. Upstate NY is not NYC and you know that. Upstate NY has more to do with Maine than NYC. As for fanboy hardly, its just that other mayors were either idiotic or detrimental to NYC. David Dinkins was a moron (a liberal) Rudy Guiliani (a conservative) was more authoritarian I find that Bloomberg is a good inbetween. I am not going to change your opinion because I might as well be talking about Democrat vs republican. Its that simple. As I said if you don't agree, just don't come here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 I'll go along with Carl and will add a couple more things. When/If I have a child, I will be the one to raise him/her and not have the government superceed my choices of what that child does as long as it does not step on the rights or persute of someone else's happieness as stated by our founding father. Liberals think our founding fathers did not foresee some of the problems that exist. Truth is they abstractly did. What ever happened to installing the values that some parents loving and caring hold that having sext at such a young age is morally wrong and can lead to more problems than having a child they can't support? Here's what I foresee happening; teenage sex is going to skyrocket and the cases of STD's, HIV, etc. will too. You can't possibly think that a child that has an STD and wants desperately to have sex is going to tell their partner while putting the chance of it happening by telling the would be partner beforehand. Not to mention teenage prostitution. To close, I will make choices for my life, not the government. You call him a moderate. In actuality he's one of the biggest Liberals you'll ever run across. Truth is they abstractly did. So you are not an originalist (conservative) and please if you are going to make statements follow them with actual quotes to validate them. I'm a realist not a liberal in terms of sex. Kids are going to have sex. They always have they always will. We arbitrarily made 18 the age when one becomes an adult but even common popular literature hints that Romeo and Juliette were 13 or 14. They were having sex in the 1500's. It was expected that a girl was of marriage age at that time as well. It's asinine to believe that abstinance is the only answer. This is the reason why rural areas have higher teen pregnancy than their counterparts in urban areas. http://www.mnn.com/family/babies-pregnancy/blogs/teen-pregnancy-rate-higher-in-rural-america A new study has found that the teen birth rate in rural counties in the United States is nearly one-third higher than that in suburban and urban areas of the country. ..... The overall good news is that the teen pregnancy rate declined by almost 49 percent across all areas from 1990 to 2010. But the decline was slower for teen girls in rural areas - only 32 percent. Also the cases of HIV are going down, as with other statistics I love when real evidence is brought in versus "what people know" http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm Gonorrhea: While reported rates are at historically low levels, cases increased slightly from last year and more than 300,000 cases were reported in 2010. There are also signs from other CDC surveillance systems that the disease may become resistant to the only available treatment option. Chlamydia: Case reports have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years, and in 2010, 1.3 million chlamydia cases were reported. While the increase is due to expanded screening efforts, and not to an actual increase in the number of people with chlamydia, a majority of infections still go undiagnosed. Less than half of sexually active young women are screened annually as recommended by CDC. Syphilis: The overall syphilis rate decreased for the first time in a decade, and is down 1.6 percent since 2009. However, the rate among young black men has increased dramatically over the past five years (134 percent). Other CDC data also show a significant increase in syphilis among young black men who have sex with men (MSM), suggesting that new infections among MSM are driving the increase in young black men. The finding is particularly concerning as there has also been a sharp increase in HIV infections among this population. I really hope you educate yourself on STD's or STI as they are called now. Most cases are not reported because they are undiagnosed. Many STIs are not even known to the person as there are no symptoms. Many men carry an STI that causes cervical cancer to females. It does absolutely nothing for men but they are the carrier. And then they made a vaccine for it and idiotic people call it a vaccine to allow for people to have sex. You take a vaccine for the flu because you don't know who has it, sometimes you have the flu and don't know until many days later. This is the same situation for many STI's. Also all of your statements are debunked. STD have not skyrocketed, Teenage pregnancy is the lowest in decades. And to talk about teenage prostitution what is the leading reason why there is teenage prostitution? Oh runaways because the teenage cannot get along with their parents. They decide to runaway and they sell their body. Maybe if we stop having runaways, teenage prostitution would go down...... Just a thought. Lastly even though I have shown you evidence that STI's are many times asymptomatic, another thing I believe the parents should not need to know is if the child is actually having an STI panel to see if they are in fact positive for an STI. Why, well I wonder what kind of stigma the parents will bring if they were told that their child is having a STI panel done. Teenagers simply won't get tested if they know their parents are going to find out. Same thing with abortions, that's why teenagers "take a vacation" to a state that has less conservative views on abortion (take for example of Ireland and England, nearly all women in Ireland go to England to get an abortion simply because Ireland forbids most types of abortion, even in the case of the life of the mother. People who are seeking abortions will always try and get one yet we have many states in America that heavily restrict this or stigmatize this. No Abortion is pretty or pleasant. Its probably one of the worst things that a woman can do to herself physically and emotionally but it is a fact of life) Does anyone remember the prom baby delivery where the girl delivered her baby during prom in the bathroom and dump the baby in the trash can? Do we want a society that restricts abortions so people throw viable babies in dumpsters? To close, I will make choices for my life, not the government. No simply the government is allowing your child to make choices for their life (in cases of Plan B or abortions) instead of the parents forcing their views onto the child. And again verbatim from the article you posted, "Parents can bar their children from getting contraceptives or a pregnancy test if they sign an opt-out form. But the DOE says only one to two percent of parents do that." You call him a moderate. In actuality he's one of the biggest Liberals you'll ever run across Yet you made no case to show he is a liberal, if anything he is a libertarian which is a fiscal conservative in most regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Seriously why does everyone somehow hate him even though its not their mayor. I have no problem with NYC and have fond memories of field trips there when I was in high school. You asked a question and I was attempting to answer it. The fact that you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you, is irrelevant to the above question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Seriously why does everyone somehow hate him even though its not their mayor. I have no problem with NYC and have fond memories of field trips there when I was in high school. You asked a question and I was attempting to answer it. The fact that you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you, is irrelevant to the above question. If there were serious arguments or such. I mean to the OP, had Bloomberg actually banned headphones that could do more than 110 db I would disagree with him and actually protest it as well but in this case its a case of nothing to get your jimmies bunched up for. Its simply telling people in ads, hey that loud music can damage your ears! The soda thing was a simple nothing as well. Want more than 16 ounces, buy two simply. And the question I should have mentioned was more rhetorical than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 And the question I should have mentioned was more rhetorical than anything. Sorry, I didn't realize that. Maybe an emoticon would have been apropos[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 Perhaps the makers of MP3 players should put in output limiters? There are also volume limit restrictions parents can set in iPods. Good ideas, that would have to be applied across all the various brands of ipod -style players. Why not step up and limit Klipsch earbuds to say 95db or 100bd? 110db rated buds are just insanely irresponsible. Lead the pack. Get whatever trade association audio builders belong to, to adopt a standard. Standards are employed across all industries to self-regulate. To me the issue is the earbud's intrinsic design results in an ability to so, so easily do serious damage to peoples hearing. I would adamantly oppose any legislation to limit output SPL in headphones. That's recipe to destroy safe dynamics. Hey Doc, given the compression employed in far to much current music and the fact we are talking about MP3's, not real recorded music, hasn't the damage already been done? The dynamics, transients,spl, what have you, are already down the toilet. You're already getting slammed to death, so why not try to save a few of those little ear canal hair thingies for another day? The music to which I prefer to listen is not overly compressed and was produced within the last decade. Regardless, the issue here is far more complicated at a technical level and what you're proposing would even affect the quality of safe levels of compressed music. Not all headphones have the same sensitivity and impedance - both of which affect the MaxSPL. The headphone amplifier ICs on the market have voltage restrictions, so you end up with wildly varying maxSPL between different headphones. Because the headphones and portable devices are separate, you can't limit the worst case scenario at the portable device without dramatically reducing the safe levels for everyone else using higher impedance earphones. If you try to limit the maximum output in the earphone, now you're affecting safe dynamics for non-compressed music, or you're adding distortion for everyone at lower levels. There's also tons of research showing that listening damage is a function of both level and duration. Listening at a moderate level for several songs can cause just as much damage as a loud level for one song. Why not address the problem at the root and take care of the knowledge of the masses instead? Getting back to t he subject at hand. I am startled at the most recent replies. This may be the first time in Forum history that a topic has gone astray.[] Very informative reply good Doctor. I did not understand the amount of variance and it's possible effect on safe listening levels. It would seem that addressing the hearing damage earbuds cause if a bit more complicated than I had first imagined. Still in all, they do strike me as being inherently dangerous, and I'm thinking that cans are the safer bet. It certainly strikes me that if a company or an industry is gong to sell these devices they have some obligation to inform the public of the inherent dangers. The Bloomberg initiative is a public awareness campaign. Seems like the companies that sell these things should sign on and promote national awareness campaign. After all, is Klipsch just another tobacco company? "Hey it ain't our problem." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Still in all, they do strike me as being inherently dangerous, and I'm thinking that cans are the safer bet. It certainly strikes me that if a company or an industry is gong to sell these devices they have some obligation to inform the public of the inherent dangers. The Bloomberg initiative is a public awareness campaign. Seems like the companies that sell these things should sign on and promote national awareness campaign. After all, is Klipsch just another tobacco company? "Hey it ain't our problem." The thing is that Klipsch DOES inform the public of the inherent dangers! I just pulled up the manual for the new Image A5i sport headphones, for example and on the very first page there is a big warning showing the OSHA safe hearing guidlines, complete with a table showing the amount of exposure at the various dB levels, i.e. at 90 dB, limit the amount of exposure to 8 hours maximum per day. Also, I went and pulled up the user's manual for the Apple iPod Nano (just to pick one, something that I commonly see at the gym), they have a WHOLE CHAPTER (granted, it is near the end at chapter 14), that deals with safety and handling, including a large paragraph about the dangers of listening to the music at to loud of levels. Hell, I even went to the Bose site and pulled up the manual for one of thier SIE2 sports headphones, and again, there on the first page was a warning about potential hearing damage from listening to music to loudly. I would imagine that any other of the reputable manufactures of both headphones and the players themselve also have warnings about listening to loudly. I recall seeing the same warning in the manual for my Nintendo 3DS as well and even with regards to using the headphone port on my Wii U "gamepad" device. So just how much more do we need here? Signs plastered all over the buses and subway trains? TV ads? (And I do remember seeing such ads back in the 80s, especially when the new Sony Walkman players were coming out and becoming popular). The point is that there are ALREADY warnings in the manuals. Now, granted, if not already there, they probably should include a warning on the actual product packaging itself (after all, who actually reads the manuals these days?). For example, I found the box my iPod came in and there was no such warning there, although there is one in the manual itself, but alas, I don't have the original packaging my Klipsch headphones came so, I don't recall if there was any warnings printed there either. They could plaster all the warnings they want and there are still going to be a few dunderheads out there that is going to crank it up. So do we punish an entire industry by putting some ridiculous mandated limits in the products because of a few idiots, that despite all the warnings saying otherwise, will still go and blast thier ears out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The custom 3 had warnings about loud use. And I think its fine that NYC decided to take excessive loud headphones as a public service announcement as much of the daily commuters use headphones due to public transportation versus other cities that have more car stereo use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.