Christian Coalition Goals

[ljb]

This just in. The Christian Coalition has set these goals once they complete takeover of the Government.
1. Ban gay marriages
2. Ban gambling
3. Ban sales of alcohol
4. Ban X rated movies
These and other ideals will bring this country back to the solid family values it was founded on.
If you think this is not true, spend some time in the bible belt.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm sure those are their goals, but i think maybe they have a better shot at banning gay marriage prior to the others. Somebody had booze banned by amendment (lousy idea!) and I believe gay marriage is banned as of this moment in the USA. Gambling is ok if i profit! I agree the CC is way over to the right too far to be realistic.

[Dan]

Then they are going to have to quit playing the stock market.

I don't think I'll look good in an Amish hat.

:cool:

[Dan]

I was reluctant in posting this but since there are so many hypocrites running around America nowdays thinking they know what is best for us. And if you read my posts on other topics - I got nothing to lose anyway. Didn't Jesus say, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Here goes....

Want to know why 500,000,000 Protestants meet at 11:00 AM on Sunday mornings all over the world?

Martin Luther liked to drink beer on Saturday nights at a pub or at home discussing theology with all his buddies. The older he got the more beer he drank and the later he stayed. He kept resetting the times of morning church service until finally he decided on 11:00 AM.

So, today all 500,000,000 protestants follow this Sunday morning tradition because of the beer-drinking habits of a German theologian.

:)

You would never hear this in a church down here in NC in the heart of the Bible Belt. They would say it is blasphemy and demonic. Then they'll sing some of those hymns like 'A Mighty Fortress' which the tune was borrowed from an old German beer drinking song. Hmmmm....

Church history is not boring when you look at where all the traditions and customs come from. But people just blindly think that something is scriptural or in the bible without questioning.

If you are going to commit your life to something I say you need to study it's history and learn why you are supposed to believe the things they are telling you to believe.

:)

[Dan]

You can start throwing stones my way. I'm ready.

:)

[sq764]

Buddy, I read your post 3 times and I enjoy throwing stones.. I just have no idea what your point is here.. Are you for or against banning alcohol?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
This just in. The Christian Coalition has set these goals once they complete takeover of the Government.
1. Ban gay marriages
2. Ban gambling
3. Ban sales of alcohol
4. Ban X rated movies
These and other ideals will bring this country back to the solid family values it was founded on.
If you think this is not true, spend some time in the bible belt.


Yes, and we have other groups who favor Gay marriages, encourage gambling, favor alcohol, and love X rated movies.
Other that gay marriages, I enjoy everyting on your list.
I also am very glad the Christian Coalition has the right to disapprove of them. It is called freedom.

[sq764]

I guess the drunken, gay handicappers are shit out of luck if this comes to fruition..

[Tom]

LOL

[kenwoodallpromos]

Even cheistians differ on their own habits or vices. Since I spent years researching my genealogy, I will support the contentionthat some christians do not object to alcohol. Fermented plant products stay good longer, so making booze preserved liquid nutrition. My ancestor St. Arnuf knew that- he is the patron saint of beer brewing!

[sq764]

All I know is if they ever banned alcohol here, I am moving to Ireland.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Good! A non-smoker! The new Erin morality police who banned the sin of smoking nation-wide in the Emerald Isle will not bother you! / Where can we go and do anything we want? just Holland?

[Lefty]

Hmmm, i've drank and played Poker with more than one preacher.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Lefty
Hmmm, i've drank and played Poker with more than one preacher.

After 12 years as a cop I can tell you some stories about those who profess to be holier than thou...........

judges.........

preachers......

priests

Leaders of the Boy scouts and Girl scouts too....sometimes together........

the list goes on and on......they can set all the goals they want....human nature will always be the same........

[Lefty]

So right, JR. When I used to go to an after hours joint back home in Ind. we had all sorts there, including judges.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I know a lot of the words written around the time this country was founded, but there were still a lot of folks doing their thing too! You may know the stories of our floundering fathers- Washington losing lots of bets on grey racehorses; Burr and the duel; Frankin and the Hellfire Club; Jefferson making slaves of his own children; Samuel Adams beer; Wm Penn's Penzoil dealings; Benedict Arnold; the devil and Daniel Webster.

[sq764]

Ken, when they made smoking in public places illegal in Delaware it was a great day for me. I do not condone smoking, nor oppose it.. I just oppose leaving a bar or Delaware Park smelling like smoke..

[so.cal.fan]

You can't legislate morals. You can't make them "rules" in religions or governments.
People don't like to be told what to do.
As many of you guys know, I am an avid fan of all the cable news political shows on the three major networks, CNN, CNBC and FOX.
I find most issues very interesting and I want to learn, so I listen to it all. However, I use my remote to click off any discussions of Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc: The national politicians should not be involved in these issues, they are local issues. Obviously, some little town in Kansas is going to have different ideas of these issues as say, Las Vegas, Nevada. San Francisco is going to have different overall values than Thousand Oaks, California.
I'm not sure, but aren't there still towns in parts of the midwest/south that don't even sell alcohol on Sundays?
If you are in Utah, you have to buy booze at state run stores.
Hey, if that is what the majority of the people want in those areas, well and good.......the rest of us can live and visit elsewhere. George W. Bush and John Kerry need to address more crucial issues. IMHO.....
;)

[sq764]

In Delaware, until about 1 year ago, liquor stores were not allowed to be open on Sundays.. Just recently was the law passed that they were allowed to.

In the past 10 years in Delaware, we have had 3 racetrack casinos emerge, a smoking ban and liquor stores allowed to be open on Sundays. They are even throwing around the idea of legalizing football wagering only here.. I believe they had something like this 30 years ago, but it never worked out.

[Dan]

Originally posted by sq764
Buddy, I read your post 3 times and I enjoy throwing stones.. I just have no idea what your point is here.. Are you for or against banning alcohol?

I'm against banning alcohol.

Down here in the Bible Belt they preach against the evils of drinking. So my point is that what they don't realize is that even the time of meeting in their church was determined by a beer drinker.

There are a lot more customs and traditions in the church that if they took the time to see where they came from they would be shocked.

My son works for a guy over in Western NC. Owns a business and is a church leader. He has one of the guys who work for him buy him a couple of cases of beer each week. That's because he doesn't want to be seen buying beer in a store. Go figure. But he is quick to witness about the evils of drinking to new employees.

:D

P.S. It is like sin is this big buffett. If you don't like something on the menu then you can preach against it.

[Dan]

Speaking about the 'sin' buffett let's take tobacco. I'm not getting into a debate of either for or against it.

The majority of the country is against smoking. The evils of smoking are probably preached across the country every Sunday.

But where I am in Winston-Salem, NC you won't hear preachers preaching against it. Why? Because a majority of the people in their congregations either work in one of the two largest cigarette factories in the world or they grow it.

If a preacher preaches against it down here in NC then there goes all the tithes and offerings on Sunday. No money - no church. He will soon be put aboard a Greyhound headed out of town.

BL

[sq764]

....which leads us back to, yet again, the one driving factor for most decisions made on a daily basis... money..

[JustRalph]

that is why the Government won't ever make smoking totally illegal. The money it rakes in...........

[so.cal.fan]

JR is sure right about that......can you imagine if they just NOW, discovered tobacco?
And did tests on it? Do you think it would ever be legalized?
NO F*****G WAY!!!!!!!!
Can anyone think of any other drug that has caused more disease than tobacco? Perhaps alcohol? Close call.
I used to smoke so I am a self righteous PIA about cigs.....I am angry I didn't know better. I have a 38 year old son that has had terrible allergies since he was a baby, and still is subject to respitory infections. I TOTALLY BLAME MY SMOKING WHILE I WAS PREGNANT, and have apologized to my son more than once.
We just didn't know how bad it was in 1965.
All this said, it still will never be legislated, because people are going to do what they damn well please.......educate people.....give them the true facts, then ONLY THEY must decide.
And of course the biggest reason.......as JR and SQ reminds us......

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$:(

[Lefty]

I am not a smoker, never have been, never will be. But, to tell private property owners such as bar owners there can be no smoking on their property is ridiculous. For people not even to be able to smoke outdoors at a ballgame, is ridiculous. When all the tobacco lawsuits started my non-smoking friends were elated. I told them it was a slippery slope and if this stood other things such as certain foods would be next. They laughed and said I was wrong. Well, I wasn't.

[Dan]

Originally posted by sq764
....which leads us back to, yet again, the one driving factor for most decisions made on a daily basis... money..

Amen....preach it brother!

:cool:

[sq764]

Lefty, the smoking ban does not encompass the entire property.. For instance, Delaware Park has 'outside rooms' that people can smoke in. They are heated and comfortable.. They just cannot smoke inside around the simo area or at the slots.

Personally, as a non-smoker, I find this to be absolutely wonderful.

[Lefty]

Sq, that's fine, but in other places, CA for instance, they do not allow smoking in bars. The bar owner should decide that, not the govt. They're trying to get the same law passed to ban smoking in casinos here in Vegas. And the stupidest thing of all, you can't smoke in a ballpark, outofdoors!

[so.cal.fan]

Lefty,
You're wrong..........
:rolleyes:

It violates others rights to have to sit next to a smoker, it is a hazard to that person's health.
You may as well say it's okay to take a pee in a ballpark seating area, because you have a "right" not to miss a play......come on, Lefty...........the reason I don't go to Las Vegas? I can't stand sitting next to cigarette smokers. I can't stand my clothes smelling of cigarette smoke.

[sq764]

I am not going to pass judgement on smokers, all I will say is that I love going to the track now that it's smoke-free.

I used to chew tobacco (Skoal) from ages 15-28, so I can understand the habit.. But I am so glad I quit cold-turkey 2 years ago..

[so.cal.fan]

"I used to chew tobacco (Skoal) from ages 15-28, so I can understand the habit.. But I am so glad I quit cold-turkey 2 years ago.."


We are glad you quit too, SQ764! We like you and want you around for a while!

Look, people have a right to smoke, but not where it bothers others.
I wish everyone would stop using tobacco.....LOL, guess it's just the "MOM" in me, trying to protect everyone!

Plus: I told you all, I feel guilty that I smoked cigarettes while pregnant and it hurt my son.

[Lefty]

so. cal, tobacco is a legal product. Why should smokers be denied their rights? If you don't want to sit next to a smoker don't go. Most casinos have no smoking areas. While not perfect still affords rights to both smokers and non-smokers. You got it right, don't go, that's your right. But a bar owner should have the right to allow any legal conduct in his own damn bar. So you see, I am not wrong.

[Lefty]

The larger point is being missed by you and others, So. Cal. Tobacco, now certain food products. Where does it end? When they get to what you and i like to do, it might be too late to wake up and see that individual rights are being violated. The smokers today, us tomorrow.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
Do you think it would ever be legalized?
NO F*****G WAY!!!!!!!!

I love it when she talks dirty.............

[sq764]

Lefty, you say that tobacco is legal and ask why smokers should be denied their rights. They are not being denied the right to smoke, they are just not allowed to smoke in public places.

I love beer, but I am not allowed to drink it in certain places.. So is life.

In fact, I remember when my wife and I were in California and hit one of those Indian casinos in the desert. Only to find out they weren't allowed to serve alcohol.. So we left.. Plain and simple.

[Lefty]

so cal, btw, I don't buy into that 2nd hand smoke nonsense. I don't like the smell of it, but don;t blve it has hurt my health. I worked in bars for yrs and casinos after that. Any health prob I may have is not related to 2nd hand smoke. Smokers rights gone today, some of your rights, gone tom.

[Lefty]

Sq, you make my point. You left. But what if you couldn't drink beer anywhere publicly but it remained legal? This is what smokers face in CA and other places and get this; In Ca, they are even trying to make smoking illegal in private homes. The point is, we can't let these Nazi's get away with this or it will extend to all walks of life.

[sq764]

If I could only drink beer in designated places, or at my home.. I would probably stay home more..

OR....

I would go have dinner and not have to drink a beer.. Or go play horses without drinking a beer.

[sq764]

Lefty, I must ask you one thing.. What do you think was the main motivation was behind implementing the smoking ban?

1) Health Reasons (to protect non-smokers)

2) The state strong-arming society to comply with their rules

3) Money (not sure how)

4) Something other than the above?

[Lefty]

Money's big. Banning it justifies the robbing the lawyers and govt gave to the tobacco cos. Who's next?
Now fat people wanna sue fast food joints. Gimme a brk.

[sq764]

So you don't think health issues involving second-hand smoke to non-smokers EVER came into play with this decision?

[so.cal.fan]

Lefty, you mentioned ball games....okay, you buy seats at a ball game. I will be taking two little boys ages 5 and 7 to the Dodger games when they start.......do I want the 5 year old with asthma to be sitting next to a smoker? No way. Do I want to sit next to the smoker....no way.
Wouldn't you rather sit next to a guy drinking a beer than a guy smoking a cigarette, Lefty?
I do get your point, but it is an extremist view, imo.....and I don't buy it. There is a limit to individual freedom, Lefty.
You enjoy your smokers in the casinos, if you guys ever get rid of them, I'll come back! I'll even buy you a beer, Lefty! LOL

[Dan]

I understand both sides of the smoking issue. Here's one to toss around.

You go to a Nascar race and people smoke. You breathe the smoke.

But then again everyone is breathing in exhaust fumes. I've been to Bristol and you have a headache after the race from all the exhaust fumes.

I think the original issue was the hypocisy of the Christian Coalition trying to dictate how people should live.

Personally, I feel that whoever is running this country or trying to run this country likes to keep us all divided with issues such as the war, abortion, prayer in schools, gay rights, alcohol, tobacco, etc. Keep people riled up and against one another to further their own agenda.

Someone a long time again said, "A housed divided will fall."

BL

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by buddy_love
But then again everyone is breathing in exhaust fumes. I've been to Bristol and you have a headache after the race from all the exhaust fumes.

Yeah.....but it is a hell of a good time.....especially the night race.

I probably have lost a few lung cells at Bristol.......but ....it was worth it. Greatest show on earth.........not to mention the sounds. I surely wouldn't want to do it every day though..........

[Lefty]

I have an extemist view because I value a person's right to smoke as well as your right to drink beer? Don't think so. I don't think a person's right to say what goes on his own property, when it's legal is extemist. But in CA and other places a bar owner has no say. BTW, I had asthma from 2-16. Get rid of your microscope and get a telescope. You need to expand beyond your own little world. When they say no more beer drinking anywhere in public, then you'll squeal, but it will be too late cause you cared not until your ox was gored.

[Dan]

Yes, Bristol is the best. But Nascar has just about outpriced the average fan nowadays. Again money rules.

:)

[GameTheory]

So Cal --

I would suggest that yours is the extremist view. I would delicately ask, "Why should others change their behavior just because it bothers you?" If the private property owner wants to let people smoke on that property and you don't like it, don't go there. Asking everyone else in the world to accomodate you because you're irritated is backwards.

The smoking issue in particular really irks me (and I don't smoke) because all the "facts" you hear about second-hand smoke etc. are mostly outright lies....

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, has there been one conclusive scientific unbiased study proving that second hand smoke has killed even one person?

YES, there is circumstantial evidence, like the woman who worked in a smokey diner for 30 years, never personally smoked in her life, but died of lung cancer anyway. But how do we know she wasn't killed by the chemicals used to clean the grill, or the smoke and/or cooking fumes given off by the ovens, perhaps she had a high radon count in her basement....etc...etc...

Any people know of any scientific studies?

[Lefty]

There was supposed to have been one in England a few yrs ago but it was supposed to have proved that second hand smoke was not dangerous so it was quashed. Heard this from Rush, and you libs know how crazy he is...

[kenwoodallpromos]

House divided against itself was JC in Matthew, and Lincoln. / SO. CAl- My dad smoked when my mom was pregnant with me, and I have usually had sinus trouble. Ever heard of 3rd hand smoke? / My wife quit smoking when people started telling her they could smell cigarette smoke on the dog. / Off topic- looks like Buddy_Love and I have the same birthday according to PA's calendar.

[B. Comin']

Ban LBJ (does that stand for 'Last Blowin' Job?) from discussing politics.

Can we be sure your 'nick' isn't a cover for Dick (I mean Richard) Clarke?:confused:

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Yes, has there been one conclusive scientific unbiased study proving that second hand smoke has killed even one person?

YES, there is circumstantial evidence, like the woman who worked in a smokey diner for 30 years, never personally smoked in her life, but died of lung cancer anyway. But how do we know she wasn't killed by the chemicals used to clean the grill, or the smoke and/or cooking fumes given off by the ovens, perhaps she had a high radon count in her basement....etc...etc...

Any people know of any scientific studies?


One thing the anti-smoking people do is blame any death from a "smoking disease" on smoking, whether the person smoked or not or was even around smoke. In other words, ALL lung cancer deaths are because of smoking, ALL *heart disease* deaths are because of smoking, etc. Anything that smoking can cause is blamed on smoking even if it didn't cause it.

With regards to the second-hand smoke issue, I am only aware of studies that seem to show the opposite -- that second-hand smoke is generally NOT a danger. Now if you're in a position where you are breathing in lots (and I mean lots) of smoke for hours every day, day after day, it is common sense that you might be affected by that. So it could possibly be considered a occupational hazard for waitresses and bartenders (maybe). But just being around smoke while eating in a restaurant, sharing a house with a single smoker, etc might be irritating, but not really a health hazard.

Getting unbiased facts on this issue is extremely tough, however...

[doophus]

I was exposed to 3rd hand smoke because Mom smoked while carrying me.

I was exposed to 2nd hand smoke because Mom, Dad, and wife smoke(d). Wife still does.

I was exposed to 1st hand smoke for almost (50) yrs before I quit a bit more than (2) yrs ago.

I had no problems until I QUIT!! ;) :D

[sq764]

Does it take a death to prove the harm from second-hand smoke?

I have no evidence, or research or anything of the sort.. I am just asking whether lesser illnesses caused by second-hand smoke are worthy of recognition..

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, I am not a smoker...for the record.

[Lefty]

sq, the point is, smoking is legal. Smokers should have the right to smoke. Private property owners should have the right to have a legal activity on their own property.
You're a beer drinker; alcohol causes probs too. But beer is legal also. When they start suing beer cos and make all sorts of silly restrictions, and your ox is gored, then maybe you'll understand the big picture. This argument is not really about smoking but about rights. I don't smoke but if i don't stand up for smokers' rights, then my rights might be next to be attacked.

[Dan]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
But how do we know she wasn't killed by the chemicals used to clean the grill, or the smoke and/or cooking fumes given off by the ovens, perhaps she had a high radon count in her basement....etc...etc...

Any people know of any scientific studies?
Good points. What about these boob tubes we are staring at right now only 3 or 4 feet away? They are supposed to be checked out by UL or someone. Remember when we were kids our parents would tell us to get back from the TV? Now we are closer than ever.

I've worked in the computer industry for 25 years and have been exposed to numerous PC screens, CRT's, computer rooms, computers right next to my leg and even radio transmitters. ITT Couriers, Harris, DEC, DG, Microdata, Honeywell, IBM, Sun, HP, and of course our PC buddies.

My theory, if it is worth anything, is that in today's society we are totally inudated with microwaves, radio waves, frequencies, x-rays, airport scanners, etc. I've never heard of any studies of what these are doing to our bodies.

I have read that physicist's discovered that all of life emits radio waves and frequencies. That includes all the cells, neurons, neutrinas, etc., in our bodies. It seems to me that it is just common sense that all these frequencies going through us will eventually affect or alter our cell structures.

But then you can't be a hermit and go live in a cave. Because you'll be zapped there, too.

Just a thought....

Dan

[sq764]

Lefty,

Ok, playing devil's advocate.. If you are sitting next to me, and I am drinking beer, how does this negatively affect your health?

Now think about the opposite side of the spectrum.

And I don't understand where you get this "Smokers do not have the right to smoke anymore".. Where do you see this? Is there a law in place that I don't know about that has BANNED SMOKING ENTIRELY? Or made it illegal?

[Lefty]

sq, you're confused about the argument. That's why i'm an advocate of "no smoking" areas in public places. Both smokers and we non-smokers can co-exist. In CA you can't smoke in any bar or restaurant, period! That's nonsense. That's an abrogation of the property owners' rights.
You can't smoke outside in many public parks. Nutty!
And when it comes dn to it, i'd rather have a smoker next to me than a drunk.
But get on point. It's about rights.
Would you like the govt to tell you you can't drink beer hardly anywhere yet the substance remained legal? Frustrate the hell out of you, wouldn't it?
And in CA they have even discussed legislation to keep people from smoking in their own homes. How scary is that?
Drop smoking from the argument and substitute any other right. Then you'll get it.

[sq764]

Lefty,

Let's take a hypothetical situation..

Let's say, they do find out that second-hand smoke does cause cancer.

In this case, wouldn't a law being put in place to protect non-smokers be beneficial and jusitifed?

Furthermore, wouldn't this be along the lines of why drunk driving is illegal? (therefore restricting my right to drink and then drive? And making it illegal for me to drink in my car)

[Lefty]

If that's the case then why stop there. Make it illegal. My contention is private property rights but you don't seem to get it.

Analagy is flawed. Drinking impairs you so it's illegal to drink and drive. That's not a hypothetical but fact. What's it got to do with private property rights?
If I own a bar, and smoking is legal, then the govt shouldn't be able to tell me people can't smoke there. I think the proper thing would be to say create a non smoking area. But the smoking Nazi's want to stop it completely.
Don't worry, all our pleasures are on the Nazi agenda. Alcohol, food, even soda. Then you'll get it.

[sq764]

My point is private property or not, the law was put into place to protect 'innocent' people.. Whether it's on private property or not, it was put into place for health reasons.

Guess what, you do not have a RIGHT to do whatever you want. You still have the RIGHT to smoke, just not in certain places.. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO THOSE PLACES OR DO NOT SMOKE WHILE YOU ARE THERE!

Just as you have a right to smoke, you also have a right to avoid places where you cannot smoke.. Correct?

[Lefty]

Sq, it can work the other way too, if you don't like smoke then don't go to bars where smoking is perrmitted. If bar and Restaurant owners retained the right to have smoking or non smoking on their property then, guess what? EVERYBODY RETAINS THEIR RIGHTS?
Why must it be your way only?

[sq764]

It's not MY way.. It's the law.. I just happen to enjoy it, as it's nice to go to the track or a restuarant and not walk out smelling like an ashtray.. But that's me.

Delaware Park has been under the smoking ban for over a year now and it's as packed as ever.. So I guess the urge to gamble supercedes the urge to smoke for some people...

[Lefty]

Then you just don't understand one damn thing i've been trying to say about individual and private property rights. Enjoy the law until the law kicks YOU and your RIGHTS in the teeth. But you prob still won't understand. Pity.

[David McKenzie]

"You know tobacco smoke (first- or secondhand) is bad.
Tobacco smoke released from burning (oxidized) tobacco pours free radicals directly into your circulation through the lungs. No wonder smoking causes aging, wrinkles, cancer, heart attack and stroke."

Hyman, M.D.,M. & Liponis, M.D.,M. (2003). Ultra-Prevention. New York: Scribner.

[sq764]

Lefty, yeah I get your point - Anything legal should be allowed on private property.. I just happen to vehemently disagree with it.

You tell me that I don't care about the laws being put into place because I agree with them.. That is untrue. I respect laws that save lives and protect people... private property or not..

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, yeah I get your point - Anything legal should be allowed on private property.. I just happen to vehemently disagree with it.

You tell me that I don't care about the laws being put into place because I agree with them.. That is untrue. I respect laws that save lives and protect people... private property or not..


I am frightened by these statements.

[Show Me the Wire]

Me too. It is very scary people want to sacrifice their personal freedoms and rights, because they dislike a habit.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

What right is being given up? The right to smoke during dinner at a restaurant??

What about the right to eat dinner at a restaurant without smoke being blown into your face?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
What right is being given up? The right to smoke during dinner at a restaurant??

What about the right to eat dinner at a restaurant without smoke being blown into your face?

It is the rights of the restaurant owner that are being trampled (primarily). He/she should be able to allow smoking in their establishment if they want to. THEY OWN THE RESTAURANT -- not the people that eat there who CHOSE to come in. The patrons don't have a right to not have smoke in the room -- they have a choice whether or not to eat there. If they don't like smoke, they should go to a non-smoking restaurant (or sit in the non-smoking section if that is good enough for them).

[sq764]

Game, by reading your first sentence in your last post, it proves to me that you have not read much on this issue. In actuality, restaurant owners in Delaware have seen a slight increase in revenue since the smoking ban..

Gee.... Maybe 2 things happened: 1) People who avoided restaurants because they hated to have smoke in their faces during dinner started going back out, and 2) Smokers, who enjoyed these restaurants started to come back and just didn't smoke for the hour and a half it took for dinner?

Just speculating on the reasoning of course.. But you can't dispute the facts. (I am sure you will though, but oh well)

[sq764]

This article is from last year, so it does touch on bar owners hurting a bit, but read the comment from the woman Phyllis Wingate.. Doesn't that comment make it somehow worthwhile?


http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2003/11/25smokingbanoneye.html

[sq764]

Wow, private property bans.. Here's your next crusade Lefty..

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/business/2004/03/25employersgettin.html

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Game, by reading your first sentence in your last post, it proves to me that you have not read much on this issue. In actuality, restaurant owners in Delaware have seen a slight increase in revenue since the smoking ban..

Gee.... Maybe 2 things happened: 1) People who avoided restaurants because they hated to have smoke in their faces during dinner started going back out, and 2) Smokers, who enjoyed these restaurants started to come back and just didn't smoke for the hour and a half it took for dinner?

Just speculating on the reasoning of course.. But you can't dispute the facts. (I am sure you will though, but oh well)

I won't dispute this because it is not relevant. What does revenue have to do with it?

[Derek2U]

I agree 100% with Lefty & others .... cigs are legal & a big source
of revenue & there's zero proof about the 2nd hand smoke issue.
so, let the restaurant decide but in nyc there's no accomodation.
i think its disgusting ... and NO, i don't smoke.

[sq764]

Gametheory, the point is that no RIGHT was taken away.. The right to smoke in a restaurant is not a right, sorry..

Right to free speech? Sure

Right to bear arms? Sure

Right to light up a marlboro at Chile's after your meal? Um, no..

[sq764]

Derek, seeing that you disagree, now I feel better about my stance..


And how has there been no evidence of the harm of 2nd hand smoke?

Per the EPA article at:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand%20smoke%20can%20cause%20lun g%20cancer%20in%20nonsmokers.


"...secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).
Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year"

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by sq764
Gametheory, the point is that no RIGHT was taken away.. The right to smoke in a restaurant is not a right, sorry..

Right to free speech? Sure

Right to bear arms? Sure

Right to light up a marlboro at Chile's after your meal? Um, no..

First Off. I don't smoke...never have. Less than two years ago I buried my father after over a year of caretaking for him in my home as he died from lung cancer. 55 years of Camel non-filters did him in.

You are looking at this from the wrong person who is losing their rights. It is the Restaurant owner who is losing the right. The bar owner. The free market should set the rule on activity inside the restaurant. If Restaurant owners want to cater to smokers (as long as smoking is legal) then they should be allowed to do that. Now when we talk about rights in this context.......you are correct sq764. Rights are not the issue. There is no "right" to smoke. We are really talking about limiting personal liberties. Not rights. But the product is legal and if a business owner wants to cater to a person who is using a product that is perfectly legal.......they should be allowed to. People who want to smoke are participating in a legal activity. If they want to kill themselves, so be it. But as long as it is legal........they should be able to do it. Especially on private property. Now I won't argue the second hand smoke issue. I think there is evidence on both sides. But as a point of fact, inhaling smoke can't be "good for you" can it?

[Derek2U]

i keep hearing how "NO SMOKING has saved 5K peeps a year
who would have died from 2nd hand smoke" and yet i dont
think that ONE obit every listed that as a cause of death. Of
course smoking is lame but hey lots of peeps enjoy it and not
everyone who smokes dies of it & besides some just have a few
cigs at the bar & out havin fun.

[sq764]

Well Derek, I will give you one thing.. After reading your posts, you sure re-emphasize why alcohol is legal.

[sq764]

And Derek, when have you ever seen an obituary list 'smoking' as the cause of death? Wouldn't it list 'lung cancer' as the cause?

[Derek2U]

ur posts suck .

[sq764]

I didn't intend to make you look like a fool, it just happened..

[Larry Hamilton]

Now that is funny, you think he looks like a fool

[sq764]

Larry, sorry, but I put you on the same level as Derek..

[Tom]

If osmeone wnat s to smoke and coughand gag and die, so be it.
Stupidity is a right.
But don't do it in public places where non smokers don't want to breath in your vile crap. I am an ex-smoker and I NEVER smnoked in places where it was not appreciated. I never thought my rights were being viloted. I have the freedom of speech yet I keep my trap shut in theaters. I have a right to pass gas in public, but I tend to avoid it. I havethe right not to wash ans to smell like a camel, but I am not concerned with losing my right ot be a pig if I am expected to show up to work everyday clean.
As a group, smokers are thoughtless slobs and I have no respect for smoikers who feel they have the right to throw thier butts on the ground in the parking lot when no one provides them an ashtray. I have less respect for those that have a can provided for them and them miss it when they flick their butts.
You can make all the excuses for smokers you wnat to, but as an ex-smoker, I l know better. Quitting was the hardest thing I ever did and it was the smartest thing.
But it does seem pretty odd that you can sit next to a guy at a bar and not smoke becasue you will make him breath second hand smoke, but you can get tanked up and go out and run him off the road on your way home.

[Lefty]

sq, if you don't mind other people's rights being trampled, please don't holler when YOUR rights are trampled. The big picture is: i'm not talking about smoking or revenue but rights. Yours are up for grabs, you just don't know it yet.

[sq764]

Lefty, for the 50th time.. What smoker rights are being compromised here???

[Lefty]

The sound you hear is me banging my head against the wall.
SQ, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE BEING COMPRIMISED. Look at the big picture. Throw away your microscope and get a telescope.

[sq764]

Why do you think that property owners should be able to allow anything they want on their property, as long as it's legal? That is just ridiculous.

[schweitz]

If I own a bar and I decide that no smoking in my bar is allowed,that is my right--don't like it go somewhere else. If I decide that smoking is allowed, that is also my right--don't like it go somewhere else. Free market will decide whether I will still be in business. Govt. has no right to tell me to ban legal activities in my bar.

Smokers rights not compromised.
Non-smokers rights not compromised.

If either of the above groups don't like my rules they can go elsewhere.

Bar owners rights definitely compromised.

[sq764]

Not really... They have the right to still let their customers smoke.. They just face $200 fines per instance..

[Lefty]

Sq, you just letting this stuff go over or through your head.
My drill's not strong enough. I give. Don't holler when it's your rights being trampled since you don't give a damn about others' rights.

[sq764]

Lefty, it is not a RIGHT, get that through your dumbass skull...please...

You need to understand what a RIGHT is before you start to make judgements on it.. I know you won't, but please, please do.. For the sake of everyone here...

[Lefty]

Private property rights are not rights? Besides freedom, private property rights are what made and make this country greast. Bet you'd love it in Cuba. Maybe not; Castro smokes.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Why do you think that property owners should be able to allow anything they want on their property, as long as it's legal? That is just ridiculous.

Why?

In a free society, if something is legal, why on earth should we stop someone from doing it on their own private property, or allow others to? Isn't that what "legal" means? That it is supposed to be allowed?

For the government to ban smoking on private property is unconstitutional, IMO. But then again, we have a lot of laws that are plainly unconstitutional and no one seems to care.

Why someone would be so glad to grant the government the authority to tell them what to do with or on their own private property -- stuff that doesn't infringe on anyone else because everyone has a choice of what businesses to patronize -- I can't imagine. It is kind of sickening that so many people have willingly died to fight for the most fundamental human right of freedom and so many people treat freedom with outright contempt and just want to piss it away. The fact that someone can make flip comments about "smoke being blown in their face" when such a larger and fundamental issue is at stake -- well it "blows" me away...

[sq764]

Lefty, go to Cuba.. Take your dumbass private property rights there..

Oh wait.. with no laws, you would be dead in 24 hours..

Interesting thought though..

What do you think happened to the private property owners in Cuba that exhibit free speech? Do you think Castro's regime came by and said "Whoa, sorry, you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY".. OR.. Did they just decpaitate you and your whole 'private property'?

Get a clue man..

[GameTheory]

Private property rights are *THE* cornerstone of a free society. Private property rights are everything -- without them freedom is impossible. Private property issues are not trivial -- they are the most basic and important issues at the foundation of society.

[sq764]

Game, your statements scare the crap out of me.. If you think these rights are the cornerstone of a free society, you are a sad, sad man.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Game, your statements scare the crap out of me.. If you think these rights are the cornerstone of a free society, you are a sad, sad man.

They are only what make possible freedom of speech, press, and assembly, not to mention a capitalistic market economy. I think those things are kind of important. If that makes me sad, sad, then I'll take it...

[Lefty]

Sq, what? Better take that citizenship class again. Private Property rights ARE the cornerstone of a free society. And why do people like you always end up with name calling? Hmmmm.

[GameTheory]

Book recommendation:

http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/tir52_pipes.html

[sq764]

Lefty, people like me?? You mean realists? Rationalists?

And I didn't call you a name.. I said you were a sad, sad man.. That is a statement, not a name.. Sorry if you felt otherwise.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, people like me?? You mean realists? Rationalists?

And I didn't call you a name.. I said you were a sad, sad man.. That is a statement, not a name.. Sorry if you felt otherwise.

I thought I was the sad, sad man?

[Lefty]

by people like you i meant those like you that are always on the wrongside of an argument and don't seem to know what principles this country founded upon.
You also have a bad memory. You referred to "my dumbass private property rifghts" and "my dumbass skull." It's okay. It always happens when a person can't rationally defend his argument. Read the book that GR recommended.

[JustRalph]

Sq.... I think you are off on this one. Gametheory is right on.

If it is legal and I allow it on my property.......and you don't like it......you can leave. Let the market sort it out.


why is that so hard to understand?

Lets look at it this way...

If I own 40 acres of farm land and I allow people to ride their ATV's on it, should the county or city be allowed to come in and say that the smoke from the ATV's is harmful and I can't allow it anymore? It is the same scenario. You are restricting my right to allow a legal activity to occur on my property. The smoke from ATV's stays on my property right? The smoke from the bars and Restaurants stays inside the restaurants.......I don't see much difference. As long as those participating in the activity are lawful (helmets, license etc) I should be allowed to let them ride.

[sq764]

Yes, you are.. You haven't a clue about what a right is..

Regardless, I must ask you a few questions..

Before any smoking ban, if a private property owner, such as a bar or restaurant banned smoking, would this individual have been allowed to do such a thing????

Do non-smokers have a right to visit public places and experience a non-smoke environment?

If they were to make pot legal and SOME private property owners made it legal to smoke pot in their bars, but others made it illegal.. What options would the pot smokers have?

[Lefty]

q1. Yes.
q2. And the converse is true. Both can be accomodated.
q3. Option would be to go where it's allowed. Cig smokers and bar owners in many states do not have these options.
You don't realize it but your questions makes our argument.

[sq764]

Lefty, your answer to question #3 nullifies your whole argument..

But thanks for playing..

[sq764]

Lefty, cig and bar owners in EVERY state have the option to do what they want.. BUT.. the choice to do what they want results in fines..

We all have choices..

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Before any smoking ban, if a private property owner, such as a bar or restaurant banned smoking, would this individual have been allowed to do such a thing????Of course. Just as now there are no-smoking restaurants even in places where smoking in restaurants is legal.


Do non-smokers have a right to visit public places and experience a non-smoke environment?Let's define "public place". McDonald's and your corner pub, in the context of this debate, I would not define as public places -- they are private establishments. A public place would be a government building, a city park, etc. McDonald's and the corner pub should be able to allow smoking or not at their whim. The public/government areas should be able to allow smoking or not according to the wishes of the public -- this is a democracy, after all. So if a private establishment wants to ban smoking in their establishment, I have no problem with that. If they want to ban smoking in goverment buildings, I have no problem with that. I have a problem when the government says you may not allow smoking ever in your private establishment.

If they were to make pot legal and SOME private property owners made it legal to smoke pot in their bars, but others made it illegal.. What options would the pot smokers have? I imagine they would go to the pot-smoking allowed bars, wouldn't they? Legal and illegal are inappropriate terms here as the bar owners don't decide legality.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, cig and bar owners in EVERY state have the option to do what they want.. BUT.. the choice to do what they want results in fines..

We all have choices..

You're playing word games here. The point is that the government is coercing behavior outside of (what should be) their scope in a free society....

[sq764]

Coercing??

That is quite a soft term to use after all this... I mean you basically go from Natzi Regime tactics to 'Coercing'..


Give me a break..

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Coercing??

That is quite a soft term to use after all this... I mean you basically go from Natzi Regime tactics to 'Coercing'..


Give me a break..

Giving you a fine is coercing, yes. But it is all backed with force, somewhere, right? What if you refuse to pay the fine? Well, maybe they'll take away your property or your liberty. And how will they accomplish that? When push comes to shove, men with guns will be doing the coercing.

Interesting you bring up the Nazi regime. Banning smoking is one of the first things Hitler did...

[sq764]

Well when they start putting smokers in gas chambers, call me..

Man, you conspiracy theorists are comical..

[Lefty]

sq, how do you figure my answer to q3 nullifies my argument? The question itself nullifies your argument. I think you have gotten yourself hopelessly mixed up. Earlier I said the bar owners should have the right to say whether there was smoking or not in their bar and people could go where they choose. Smokers to smoker bars and non smokers to non smoking bars. Your question poses the same thing. You can't keep your argument straight but i'm not surprised. You don't like smoking but that's not the argument, private property rights are and you don't believe in them so you are hopelessly lost. But when they trample on YOUR rights, you will holler, blve me.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Well when they start putting smokers in gas chambers, call me..

Man, you conspiracy theorists are comical..


I haven't offered any, so I don't know how they could be funny. I'm sorry you think freedom is a big joke. There are a lot of dead people at Arlington Cemetary and elsewhere that aren't laughing.

I would ask you to take a good look over this thread and what you wrote -- you make a lot of flip comments about serious issues, throw around insulting remarks at people who haven't thrown any at you, and ignore responses to your questions and challenges to your "arguments" (in truth I'm not sure what your position is other than "yours is wrong"). If you are feeling really great about yourself after this debate, I would have to pass back the "sad, sad" label to you...

[sq764]

Ok Lefty.. you're side-stepping is fantastic.. You certainly should run for Rice's job..

[Lefty]

No side stepping at all. Go back and read what I wrote and what you wrote. Read GT's book recommendation and also get a memory course. Here's another thing: I can't run for her job cause she was appointed by the Pres not elected. Now I understand why you are having so much trouble with private property rights.

[sq764]

Catching me on semantics? That's just pathetic..

Go hug a tree or save a whale, loser.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tone down the inflamatory remarks....it cheapens the argument and makes the entire thread useless.

[Lefty]

go hug a tree, save a whale? What does that mean? I guess it means you're blustering because you are out of argument. I always try my best to keep it civil, PA, honest. But when they break down and call me names; I know i've won.

[Lance]

Lefty wrote:

"when they break down and call me names; I know i've won."

Score one for President John "F'ing" Kerry.

Just kidding, Lefty. You left yourself wide open, my friend.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
Why do you think that property owners should be able to allow anything they want on their property, as long as it's legal? That is just ridiculous.

sq764:

You are really scaring me. Read your history. Without understanding how you got somewhere, you will not understand where you are going.

Besides private property rights the government is prohibitting an individual the pursuit of pleasure i.e. enjoying a legal activity in public.

Look at it this way, if I buy your arguement, the government can legislate activities in your bedroom for health reasons. Sex kills and STDs are listed on the death certificate as the CAUSE of death.

sq764, you are advocating that the government should regulate unhealthy legal activities on private property, which includes sex, the right to procreate or just for enjoyment.


Think man about what you type, before you type. As Game Theory said, look at the big picture. Every time a group wants to limit someone's elses behavior they are unknowingly limiting their own personal rights.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree..

You see it as a right lost, or a loss of a pleasure, as you put it - The right to smoke anywhere on this green Earth..

I look at it as gaining a right to enjoy a pleasure – to visit a restaurant or any other private property and enjoy a smoke-free environment, as well as not have my health jeopardized.

And to Show Me the Wire’s comment about sex in private.. Maybe I missed the part about the smoking ban that said you couldn’t smoke in your house, or your car, or your front yard.. Which section was that in?

It’s really a shame that you all cannot step back and see that although something was lost, something was gained too.. But you seem to be too nearsighted to see this..

[Lefty]

Lance, nope, I didn't leave myself open at all. I didn't call you a name, or sq i called Kerry John F'ing Kerry. He's a candidate that left HIMSELF OPEN for that name. Think about the difference.

Sq, too bad you're stuck on the smoking issue when that's not the real issue at all but rights are the issue.
In CA the non smoking nazis are trying to get smoking banned from private homes. Hopefully they won't succeed cause your beer might be next. If you don't blve that private property rights are a fundamental cornerstone of freedom in this country you need to educate yourself further instead of getting in a lather about smoking.

[sq764]

Lefty, do you ever think there are valid reasons behind laws being put into place? Or are you one of those that just thinks every new law is another nail in the freedom coffin?

[Lefty]

I see no valid reason to strip people of private property rights when it need not be so. The fact that you do, as others have put it, frightening.
Did you know a few yrs ago a farmer in CA lost his property for accidently killing a Kangaroo Rat with his tractor? It seems the "Rat" is a protected species. Now these horrible laws to deprive bar and restaurant owners of their rights. When will it bother you? What right must you lose to suddenly awaken?

[sq764]

Again, and I will say it even slower for you this time... I think a right was gained too. Isn't there something to be said for the right to enjoy a night out with your family without being poisoned?

I guess in your world, no.

[Lefty]

What right was gained? I'll type this again, real slow. If Bar and Restaurant owners had the right to choose, then there would be places for the smoker and non-smoker alike. Noone loses any rights. Your way, these owners and smokers lose their rights. I can't put it any simpler for you. Again, what right must you lose to wake up?

[sq764]

Lefty, I am curious as to your take on seatbelt laws.. For or against them?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
I guess we will have to agree to disagree..

And to Show Me the Wire’s comment about sex in private.. Maybe I missed the part about the smoking ban that said you couldn’t smoke in your house, or your car, or your front yard.. Which section was that in?

The part you typed stating the following: "Why do you think that property owners should be able to allow anything they want on their property, as long as it's legal? That is just ridiculous. "

It is even scarier if you do not understand the ramifications of what you advocate.

You argue from what I understand the government has the right to regulate individual activities due to health concerns, i.e. second hand smoke. This concern is more important than private property rights according to you or an individual's right to the pursuit of happiness.

Well according to your way of thinking someone can argue sex is a health issue, therefore that would give the government rights to control sex between two consenting adults pursuing their happiness, on private property, to curb the spread of deadly STDs.

I am not a smoker. I am aware enough that smoking may cause or contribute to health problems. Noticed I said may, because no medical study can actually say smoking causes certain diseases. On the other hand there is direct evidence showing sex can cause death and disease. The medical evidence supports legitimate regulation of sex more than second hand smoke.

Like I said think about the big picture.

You get it now?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

Show me,

Are you still able to smoke in your house, which is private property?

I think you are embellishing just how far this law goes.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

How can I be embelishing? You argue that health concerns take priority over private property rights and the individual's right to pursue happiness. Right now there are people trying to pass laws to stop people from smoking in their own homes.

Using your type of thinking to justify this move. We are limiting private property rights and the individual's right to pursue happiness for the good of your neighbors health.

sq764 the United States of America was founded upon the belief of individual rights and private property rights. It was not founded upon government regulating rights due to health concerns.

Private property rights and the individual's right to pursue happiness is endangered every time one of these smoking bans or some behavior is regulated because of health concerns of the individual or a second party.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

What about non-smoker rights? Is there a right to eat in a no-smoke environment?

I know your response is "Well, if you don't like smoke, then go to places that don't have smoke".. Well, doesn't that work both ways?

[Show Me the Wire]

Let's expand on this regulative behavior. Right now the police cannot come into your house and search it or you without reasonable belief you are breaking the law or the police secure a search warrant.

Imagine the smoking ban gets passed making it illegal to smoke in your house. If you illegally smoke in your house a police officer would have the right to come into your house and arrest you for breaking the law. Do you really want to live in that type of society? If you do I do not.

Don not say this would happen. Read history, it may not have been smoking, but other benign reasons were given for unreasonable searches and seizures through out history.

The above is why private property rights and individual rights are so important and sacred to the founders of the United States of America and why they put serious limits on the reasons law enforcement can come into your house.

Do not give up these rights so easily, under the pretense of health issues of the general public. Of course the above scenario will not happen overnight but it will eventually evolve there.

BTW I am not advocating being a paramilitary type. I am advocating you think about the long-term ramifications every time you allow or support regulations banning things or requiring an action.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
What about non-smoker rights? Is there a right to eat in a no-smoke environment?

I know your response is "Well, if you don't like smoke, then go to places that don't have smoke".. Well, doesn't that work both ways?

No. You have no rights on someone else's private property, except to stay or leave.

But do not trample private property rights and individual rights in for a preference to be in smoke free areas.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

I think after reading a few of your posts, I realize we disagree, but not about the issue I thought we disagreed on..

I see your point in the scenario you gave, and yes, if I thought it was going there, I would be very concerned.

I guess the part we disagree on is that I don't see the smoking ban as right being taken away.. We all still have the right to smoke in our houses, cars, parks, streets, etc... Just not in restaurants or bars in certain cities/states. I don't see this as foreshadowing to a natzi regime, as you do.

[Lefty]

Why do you harp on a point that's been covered? If Private Propery owners retained their right to choose smokers and non-smokers alike would choose where to go and nobody's rights would be abrogated. Non-smokers like you and me would choose the non-smokers places and the smokers would go to their places? Over and over we have to state this and you ignore. Why must it be only one segment of the public that retains rights?
BTW, do you own property?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
I think after reading a few of your posts, I realize we disagree, but not about the issue I thought we disagreed on..


That is my point. By focusing on one unsanitary habit you lose sight of the big picture and allows other agendas to be accomplished.

How do you think prohibition started?

Do you understand why I found your statement : "Why do you think that property owners should be able to allow anything they want on their property, as long as it's legal? That is just ridiculous. " so scary? I really hope so.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[ljb]

Lefty,
If I get your message, you are saying the gubermint has no right to tell folks what they can/cannot do in a public place. (bar) What are your thoughts on the gubment trying to censor what we can watch on tv.? Of course their current actions are right in line with what I said in original post here.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Talk about spinning off topic. You are trying to confuse morality and the question of morals versus property rights and the individual's rights to pursue happiness.

Ever hear of cable and pay per view.

That is the problem with the extreme left they support no societal morals, just socialism.

And I believe your only agenda is to sow discord.


Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[ljb]

The topic is Christian Coalition Goals. I just said the current activities in censoring tv ties in with their goals. See Ban x-rated movies. No spin here. I am proud to be an American where we have freedom of speech.

[sq764]

Lefty, yes, I own property - our house.. And I can smoke in it if I choose. And I live in a state with a smoking ban..

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
The topic is Christian Coalition Goals. I just said the current activities in censoring tv ties in with their goals. See Ban x-rated movies. No spin here. I am proud to be an American where we have freedom of speech.


LOL. That is the thread's topic, not the topic in context you asked the question about.

The problem you have with TV is that the airwaves are owned by the public and the public has the right to regulate what is sent over the airwaves.

Unless the government owns the bar it is not a public place. It is a private place of business open to customers to take advantage of the bar's service and products.

See how you spun the topic.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[ljb]

rotflmao
The threads original topic is what i was posting about. Some of the rightys didn't care to discuss the original topic. (hurts when the truth bites em in the arse) so they tried to spin it off . Try to stay focused here.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
If I get your message, you are saying the gubermint has no right to tell folks what they can/cannot do in a public place. (bar) What are your thoughts on the gubment trying to censor what we can watch on tv.? Of course their current actions are right in line with what I said in original post here.

I can't read then, because you asked the above about government telling people "can or cannot do in a public place" (emphasis added).

Lefty was talking about private property and private business. I am not lefty nor am I a righty but I know the difference between public (Government) property and private property.

Yes, the Christian Coalition has the right to ask the government to regulate public property, the air waves. They do not have the right to ask the government to ban activities on private property.

The TV may be physically, in your house, but it receives signals carried via public property. Is this what you do not understand? No matter what you say you spun it and nothing is coming back to bite anybody, except you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Dan]

Good, back on topic. But then again I've gotten OT, too.

Speaking of the Christrian Coalition trying to censure TV now - it wouldn't surprise me. Goes back to my 'Sin Buffet' analogy. If you don't like something on the menu then your against others who like it.

Remember George Carlin's old routine about the 7 words you can't say on TV. Then he mentioned the preacher who tried to get everything censored? I think his line was like this:

"Hey, Reverend, there are two knobs on your TV. One is to turn it on and off and the other is to change the channel."

:)

[Dan]

Here is a question I'd like to ask Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son, who is the chairman of the FCC:

Michael, what is more obscene?

A. Howard Stern being on the radio.
B. Bono's comments at that awards show.
C. Janet Jackson's exposed breast.
D. Or you casting the deciding vote approving the Time/Warner-AOL merger which resulted in your father making millions off the deal and putting a lot of people out of work.

:)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by buddy_love
Here is a question I'd like to ask Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son, who is the chairman of the FCC:

Michael, what is more obscene?

A. Howard Stern being on the radio.
B. Bono's comments at that awards show.
C. Janet Jackson's exposed breast.
D. Or you casting the deciding vote approving the Time/Warner-AOL merger which resulted in your father making millions off the deal and putting a lot of people out of work.

:)

Hmmm.....didn't know about that one. But If I remember right.....most lost their asses in that deal. Unless you got out right away..........good post Buddy....

[Lance]

Lefty wrote:

"Lance, nope, I didn't leave myself open at all. I didn't call you a name, or sq i called Kerry John F'ing Kerry."

This is incoherent. Please rewrite.

[PaceAdvantage]

People just love to argue the smallest, most meaningless points, don't they? Never quite understood that kind of personality, but as someone once said, "Live and let live"

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
People just love to argue the smallest, most meaningless points, don't they? Never quite understood that kind of personality, but as someone once said, "Live and let live"


And Ian Flemming once said, Live and Let Die!:
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :D

[ljb]

From Show me
" Yes, the Christian Coalition has the right to ask the government to regulate public property, the air waves. They do not have the right to ask the government to ban activities on private property."
If you want to get technical here, a bar is not really private property. It serves the public and must abide by many government laws. Discrimination comes to mind. Even some so called Private Clubs have come under fire recently for discrimantory actions. Mind you I am not saying these actions are right or wrong I am just pointing out the slippery slope we are heading for with the Christian Coalition gaining so much control in our government.

[Tom]

Well, I am agreeing with Ljb again. Public places are a horse of a different color.
And the CC CAN ask the governement to restrict activities on private property. I own my house, but I cannot smoke Maryjane in it, nor can I invite hookers over for drinks and........
I can have dinner in my underwear but I cannot do that at the local Bar and Grille. More than once anyways. :D
I can cook out on a grille at home, but I cannot do it on Main Street in front of the drug store. Are my rights being violated?

[Lefty]

Lance, I wasn't incoherent, maybe you just fogot what you wrote. You said I left myself open when I called John Kerry John F'ing Kerry. Because earlier I said "when they call me names, I know i've won"
Calling John Kerry a humorous name based on something he himself said is not the same as calling someone i'm debating a vile name. I try not to call people that i'm debating, names. Sorry, you can't discern the difference. But the people i'm debating, when they run out of argument, start the namecalling. It's okay, i'm used to it.

[Lance]

Lefty,

Here is what I wrote: "Just kidding, Lefty. You left yourself wide open, my friend."

I was playing around in a friendly manner. Do we have to fight about everything? I agree with you on smoking laws. Can we leave it there?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, I am agreeing with Ljb again. Public places are a horse of a different color.
And the CC CAN ask the governement to restrict activities on private property. I own my house, but I cannot smoke Maryjane in it, nor can I invite hookers over for drinks and........
I can have dinner in my underwear but I cannot do that at the local Bar and Grille. More than once anyways. :D
I can cook out on a grille at home, but I cannot do it on Main Street in front of the drug store. Are my rights being violated?

Come on Tom......tell the Truth.........that's not the Government stopping you from doing those things.............

it's your wife stopping you!:D

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
From Show me

If you want to get technical here, a bar is not really private property. It serves the public and must abide by many government laws. Discrimination comes to mind. Even some so called Private Clubs have come under fire recently for discrimantory actions. Mind you I am not saying these actions are right or wrong I am just pointing out the slippery slope we are heading for with the Christian Coalition gaining so much control in our government.

It is private property, the business is regulated by governmental regulations through the guise of health and safety to collect taxes and other fees. Health and safety issues are always the excuse to regulate.

If you think it is really public property go there and try your ownership rights.

List of questions to help you determine if it is private or public:

If the business or building is sold will a private entity receive the profits or the government (excluding taxes)?

Does the government run the business or own the property or is the property owned by a private entity?

Does the government put restrictions on the use of the property or regulate the business?

Regulation does not equate to ownership. That is the slippery slope heading to socialism you are well on the path to.

Health and safety regulations are always the excuse government uses to limit rights. Is ti always a bad thing? NO. It is good that some businesses are regulated for sanitary conditions, however, an agenda can always be pushed using health and safety as excuses. Just like my earlier examples.

It would be better if you knew of what you say.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, I am agreeing with Ljb again. Public places are a horse of a different color.
And the CC CAN ask the governement to restrict activities on private property. I own my house, but I cannot smoke Maryjane in it, nor can I invite hookers over for drinks and........
I can have dinner in my underwear but I cannot do that at the local Bar and Grille. More than once anyways. :D
I can cook out on a grille at home, but I cannot do it on Main Street in front of the drug store. Are my rights being violated?

No, because any earlier generation gave up those rights under the guise of health and safety for the general public.

But you can go to regulated houses of prostitution in certain states, speaking of regulated sex for health and safety reasons.

Tom, that is the shame that people do not understand the rights they have freely given up and continue to give up these rights. Are you aware at one time it was possible to order your heroin from Sears, Roebuck and Co. and have it conveniently delivered to your home through the U.S. post office?

About the underwear thing there is also a thong (great typo for thing in this context) called courtesy for others.

And we are running out of bannannas

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

Lance, okey dokey.

Sq: If you say bar owners can't allow smoking on their own private property because of health issues and people go there to drink which isn't healthy either and then that same activity(smoking)remains legal, then it just becomes laughable and a lame excuse to deny that bar owner and a portion of his customers their rights. Every non-smoker better wake up and realize this isn't a smoking issue but a rights issue and some of their rights will be the next target for greedy trial lawyers.

[ljb]

Lefty said
" Every non-smoker better wake up and realize this isn't a smoking issue but a rights issue and some of their rights will be the next target for greedy trial lawyers.
Lefty it is not trial lawyers that are trying to deny us our rights to free speech etc. It is the Christian Coalition. Unless you can/will face that fact, you are part of the problem.

[GameTheory]

There are those on the left and right that want to take away (or already have) freedoms. Generally different issues, though. Many on the right would be happy to eliminate betting on horse races, for instance. While many on the left would like to eliminate smoking while betting on horse races. It is all religion, whether it is called so or not -- on the left they worship health.

[Show Me the Wire]

GameTheory:

very true perspective, well said.

Regards
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

Lefty, you say:

"If you say bar owners can't allow smoking on their own private property because of health issues and people go there to drink which isn't healthy either and then that same activity(smoking)remains legal..."

Dude, you just don't seem to grasp the concept here. But that is ok.. The whole theory here is to better the health of NON-SMOKERS, not smokers. The law wasn't put into place to help the health of smokers, by restricting smoking bars, restaurants, etc..

You are trying to say that the govt continue to let bar owners allow people to drink, which is bad, but not to smoke, which is bad too. This is not the issue..

On the other hand, if the beer drinkers at bars decided to start spitting beer down other, non-drinker's, throats, THEN I think you would have an equivalent.

I have yet to hear someone dying from second-hand beer fumes.

But, truth be told, I have not viewed every cause of death either, so I am open for correction..

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Once again there is no conclusive medical evidence second hand smoke causes specific health problems. Hell, there is no specific medical evidence supporting first hand smoke causes specific health problems. The warning on the package uses the word may, because medical evidence cannot prove first hand smoke causes these specific illness.

Without proof of specific cause why do you keep saying other wise?



Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

I submit the left does not worship health but worships power and will tell any lie to get it.
Lbj, you confuse decency standards with freedom of speech.

[GameTheory]

They all worship power, left, right, & center.

[Lefty]

Gt, not as much as the left. They will tell any lie. A few yrs ago the Repubs wanted the school lunch prgm to be controlled by the states and not the feds. The left bombarded us with msg;s how the Repubs wanted to cut funding for school lunches even though it would have meant and increase. These liars even used unsuspecting kids in their ads.

[Tom]

So if a bar is private and the owner should make all the rules, what if he decides that he will not serve blacks, or women?
Or he will feature nude dancers? Or that he will allow high stakes poker games in the back room? Or he will serve anyone as much as they want and then let them drive a car home?
Where do we draw the line?
A what point do the rights of the general public come into play?
If we have no rules and allow anything to go on, what becomes of society's rights? Should you be allowed to mow your lawn at midnight, neighbors be damned? Should I be allowed to run an auto repair business in my front yard? Should I be allowed to make drugs in my basement and sell them on the street?
Where do we draw the line?

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

All your points are valid. The only time the government should regulate private business is if there is a compelling reason. Private businesses invite the public to use the products or services. Sanitary conditions in a food establishment is a compelling reason to regulate food serving businesses.

If you open your business to the public discrimination based on race is illegal because there is no compelling reason to differentiate between races in defining the public.

Businesses that serve the public are privately owned, but they allow or open the property to the public to pay for the services. The paying for services does not make the property public property.

There is no compelling reason to ban smoking as it violates individual's rights to the pursue happiness and the rights of the property owner, because there is no conclusive medical evidence proving second hand smoke causes specific ailments or health problems.

The general public only has the rights granted to them on private property. Ever go to a live sporting event? read the back of the admission ticket, you being there is a license that can be revoked if your behavior is deemed offensive to the privately owned business.

Drugs are illegal so you do not have a right to do illegal things in your house. Smoking is legal so comparing the two is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

Orther examples you cite are zoning type ordinances that you agree to when you purchase the property in that area. Once again a totally different type of situation.

Laws can be changed if the people want them changed and yes you can grow marijuana in your basement if you live in California.

We should draw the line by using common sense, and tolerance while understanding that everytime private property rights or individual rights are limited more and more of the foundation set by the forefathers is being eroded.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

sq, so you are saying it's okay to discriminate against an action you don't agree with? Instead of having the bar owner decide if smoking can be permitted on his property it should be the govt and a big hurrah from you cause you don't like smoking. If the bar owner could decide then there would be choice and noones rights would be limited So you still don't get the big picture nor do you want to because you are so tunnel visioned. You don't understand that if you don't stand up for the other fellow's rights the noone will stand for yours. Seems like everybody is big on choice unless they don't agree with the choice. I've said it all before in everyway I can and i'm not getting through. You'll understand the big picture only when it's your ox being gored.

Tom, racism is illegal but smoking isn't. As I said, this is a rights issue. People seem not to mind abrogating someone's rights if they don't agrree with it but next it may be your rights.

[Show Me the Wire]

Seat belt laws are a great example of the erosion of rights, the right to privacy in a car and from unreasonable searches and seizures. In my state and many others it was found that seat belts save lives and there is a compelling reason to regulate drivers and passengers in cars for safety sake. No problem there as seat belts probably save lives.

However, when the seat belt laws were passed most laws limited the offense as a secondary offense, meaning the police could not stop you for not wearing a seat belt but give you a ticket for failure to wear one if he stopped you for a moving violation. As all things do the law changed to a primary reason to stop you even if you are driving within the speed limit and carefully.

Changing seat belt violations to a primary traffic stop reason means some more of your privacy protection has been eroded. While you are driving police officers have more unrestricted opportunities to seize you (easier to justify stops for fishing expeditions to see what they can find). That was not the original intent of the proponents for seat belt laws and the lawmakers that initially passed the law, but the reality is certain rights have been eroded.

Every time a law like this is passed more and more individual rights are threatened.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
No problem there as seat belts probably save lives.

Take it from someone who has dug many people out of wrecked cars........seatbelts save lives.

I have pulled more than my share of blood stained heads back from dashboards and windshields and a few steering wheels, hoping the person was still breathing. The ones wearing their belts usually were standing outside their car with nary a scratch, when I arrived.

I arrived on a scene once where my wife's car was sitting upside down in the middle of the road after rolling end over end 6 times. It is hard to drive when you are sleeping. The fire guys were loading her into an ambulance and she was bitching because they wanted to cut her new cashmere coat off. She was virtually unharmed unless you count a bump on her hand from hitting the steering wheel. They work.........wear them.

here in Ohio the seatbelt law is passive (secondary violation) but they are trying to change it (it may have already passed...not real sure) and make it an offense that would allow for "initial contact" and citation. Not sure I am behind that......I do believe in someones right to be stupid.

[ljb]

Lefty said
"Tom, racism is illegal but smoking isn't.
Why?

[GameTheory]

Actually, racism isn't illegal -- discrimination based on race is. Racism is an idea, discrimination is an action.

[Derek2U]

Good Sunday Morning Guys .... SEAT BELTS: 2 Thursdays ago
I was going back to NYC and on a road called the FDR. I was
in Boston for 2days on business & this co-worker was giving
me a ride back home. Out of nowhere zoomed this cop ... gave
him a $90 ticket for him not wearing a seat-belt and the cop was
very macho rude. (Thank Budha I had mine on mostly cause
I'm not car-passenger relaxed) .... This cops parting words were
"You have 15 days to respond ... if you don't your license will
be suspended. Have a nice day." ---- I say if a driver doesn''t
want to wear his seat belt then F Off. I just hated that encounter
and I already told my wife Solange & my parents NOT to give
anything to the NYC cops' donation drives this year.

[sq764]

Show Me the Wire and Lefty,

What do you think about the ban on talking on cellphones while driving?

I mean, you are in your own car - private property, doing something that is legal..

Agree with the law? disagree?

[Tom]

Your choice to not wear seat belts does affect others - in terms of health care costs for those injured/killed more severley in crashes
by not wearing belts. Are you willing to accept a responsibilty with that right, such signing a waiver that if you are injured in a crash and are not wearing your seat belt, your insurance company is off the hook and YOU pay all he bills?

Also, cigarettes are legal and durgs are not. Is not that an infringment of our rights?

[Derek2U]

hey good point. Do you really think that what you do or don't
do affects insurance rates? I suppose it matters but insurance
companys don't reduce rates too much. RE Smoking .... I can
only say that I'm a city guy & I go out maybe 4 times a week now,
down from 7 hehe, and CHOICE worked ... many restaurants
were always NON-SMOKING and many had sections & rarely
did I see any problem. And I knew of NO BAR that I would go to
that was NO SMOKING .... but I do know that NO STUDY shows
anything too serious for adults RE 2nd hand-smoke. I think
we are moving 2 a society where all rights are up 4 grabs ...
hehe i can see a backlash of sorts even among guys i know
from work places ... many of them say that F women rights now
there kinda opposed to them even abortion rights ... maybe thats
the key ... we should all VOTE-PETITION-DONATE etc ONLY for
things that work for us ....

[Lefty]

sq, you are clouding the aegument and mixing apples and oranges. Private property rights are the cornerstone of the greatness of this country. Driving is a priveledge and not a right it's apples and oranges.
But while im at it i'll weigh in; The cellphone argument is silly because there are a lot of distractions a driver must cope with. So let's also ban passengers, radios etc. Besides not smoking i also do not own a cellphone.

GT, absolutely right and I meant dicrimination against the races and not racism.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
Show Me the Wire and Lefty,

What do you think about the ban on talking on cellphones while driving?

I mean, you are in your own car - private property, doing something that is legal..

Agree with the law? disagree?

sq764:

I hope you know my answer by now. My point is your car is losing its status as private property and soon police will conduct more traffic stops at their whim, more than now.

Once again, yo ucite inconclusive reasons to support the limiting of an activity. Cell phone studies are inconclusive. The best study I have seen is that conversation itself is distracting to the driver. It does not matter if the driver is talking on a hands free cell phone or a passenger physically present in the car. Based on that study we should make it illegal for the driver to talk to a physically present passenger too.

All of these safety reasons you like to embrace have not be conclusively proven to cause any specific disease or danger. i.e. conversation itself.

However, if there really is a health or safety reason I would balance the right of the individual for the benefit of society, such as health inspections in restaurants and the need for running water for employees to wash their hands, There is direct medical evidence that deadly bacteria can be transferred from unwashed hands. You get my drift.

Your opinions that smoking causes specific health problems and that cell phones cause accidents are just that opinions and are not backed by conclusive scientific accepted principles. So my question to you is do you want your rights limited because of someone's opinion?

Additionally, you never answered my question if you understood why I said I was scared about your prior statements. Now I know you still do not understand my concern about what you stated earlier.

I am willing to be reasonable about safety issues. My post about seat belts should show you that. I am not against seat belt laws themselves as a secondary offense, I am against seat belt laws as a primary reason for a traffic stop.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Lefty]

Seat belts, cell phones, non-analagous argument. Direct Question:Why would you be against the property owner deciding if his place of bus. is smoking, non-smoking or divided to accomodate both? That way there would be a place for smokers and non-smokers alike. Why would you be against that?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Lefty
sq, you are clouding the aegument and mixing apples and oranges. Private property rights are the cornerstone of the greatness of this country. Driving is a priveledge and not a right it's apples and oranges.
But while im at it i'll weigh in; The cellphone argument is silly because there are a lot of distractions a driver must cope with. So let's also ban passengers, radios etc. Besides not smoking i also do not own a cellphone.

GT, absolutely right and I meant dicrimination against the races and not racism.

Lefty:

You are absolutely correct driving is a privilege and not a right, but a car is private property and a person should have a reasonable (not absolute) right to privacy in his car. We use to have that, but not anymore. This right is constantly being eroded. For example: Do you know a police officer can run your license plates to find out about the driver/owner of the car without any reason, except he wants too. A police oficer does not have that right to find out the, same infromation, about you if you are a pedestrian, behaving in a legal manner.

If you are in a car it does not matter if you are operating the car in a legal and safe manner, the police officer has the right to invade your privacy to search your driving records, address, etc.

Does this scare anyone? It scares me that we are giving away too many rights without knowing it. Personally, I am against any more restrictions that can be put on the very limited right of privacy I should expect in my car.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

Show me, first of all, I never gave an opinion on the cellphone ban, one way or the other.

Secondly, you guys are just too much. I gotta give you credit, you can 'spin' any argument you want to fit around your opinion..

Keep the laughs coming..

[Lefty]

show me, I agree. They ban smoking in bars what happens? In CA anyway they're talking and trying to pass legislation against smoking in the home. Non-smokers happily buy in to the argument because they don't realize some of their rights are next.
Ban cellphones and knee-jerk reaction is to agree but what's next? Radios? Passengers?

[Lefty]

sq, your sometimes offensive posts show me that you don't give a damn about rights if they don't agree with your personal agenda. That's the diff between you and me.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
Show me, first of all, I never gave an opinion on the cellphone ban, one way or the other.

Secondly, you guys are just too much. I gotta give you credit, you can 'spin' any argument you want to fit around your opinion..

Keep the laughs coming..

What are you talking about? I answered your question to me. You asked me my opinion and I told you.

Your question was based on safety issues the use of cell phones. So I assume you were citing the inconclusive studies about cell phone usage as the basis for the question. My mistake I thought there was a basis for the question.

In my post I never said you were in favor or against a cell phone ban, so what are you talking about? I talked about your opinions. You are on the record saying second hand smoke causes health problems. Is that not a fair statement?

And then you ask me about cell phones in the same context about safety. So I assumed you are the opinion cell phone usage increases the chance of an accident.

I gave you a full answer to your question. That is much more than you do to my questions.

Do you really believe the losing of privacy rights in a car is spin?

Look at you social security card. It says your number is not to be used for identification purposes. Guess what it is the primary way of identification. When the law was passed the public was assurd the spefic number would only be used for social security benefits and not to invade people's privacy. Looks like it did not work out that way. Is that spin too? What do you think is spin? Talking about the issues in a full and complete way?

This is facts about our rights and the erosion of them.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

There is an old saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I repeat my question to you.

Do you want your rights limited because of someone's opinion?

This question is directly related to the topic's thread. This Christian Coalition holds certain opinions that can effect your rights. Remind you they are just opinions, they are opinions because there is no specific valid scientifically accepted proof to back up their assertions.

Conclusions about second hand smoke and cell phones are nothing but opinions for the same reason the Christion Coalition conclusions are only opinions. Neither side has factual evidence.

However, the side that hides behind junk science to covince people there is a factual basis for opinion is guilty of deceit and are much more dangerous to our society.

You see the majority of us will reject one sides opinion because we believe they are fanatics, but a majority of people will embrace the opinion sown by the purveyers of junk science in the name of safety and health concerns.

Now will you please honestly answer my question?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

Lefty, the difference between you and I is that you twist every law into a reduction in rights. You are just looking for the next private law to take affect so you can bash that too.

If you ever read a paper, you would see the correlation between car accidents and cellphones. I certainly wonder if a family member of yours was killed, God forbid, because of someone talking on a cellphone, whether you would think differently about the law.

[sq764]

"Do you want your rights limited because of someone's opinion?"

Tell me Show Me, how are Supreme Court decision made? Are they based on a computerized system that spits out an answer? A mathematical equation? Or a set of opinions that are considered when making rulings?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, the difference between you and I is that you twist every law into a reduction in rights. You are just looking for the next private law to take affect so you can bash that too.

If you ever read a paper, you would see the correlation between car accidents and cellphones. I certainly wonder if a family member of yours was killed, God forbid, because of someone talking on a cellphone, whether you would think differently about the law.

I read in the news paper every day about alcohol and death, abuse, etc as well as gambling contributing to family abuse and neglect. So what is your point, I say there is a correlation between gambling, poverty, abuse and neglect.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
"Do you want your rights limited because of someone's opinion?"

Tell me Show Me, how are Supreme Court decision made? Are they based on a computerized system that spits out an answer? A mathematical equation? Or a set of opinions that are considered when making rulings?

sq764

You still refuse to answer my question, although I have answered yours. I will play it your way.

What do you think of the health hazard produced by automobile emissions? What is your position on air pollution and cars?

BTW I will give part of an answer, the Court forms opinions.

You need a civics lesson.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, the difference between you and I is that you twist every law into a reduction in rights. You are just looking for the next private law to take affect so you can bash that too.


Every law is a reduction in freedom, one way or another. Given that, they should have a damn good reason for making them, that's all. Also important is that they shouldn't supercede the basic principles of freedom that the country was founded upon. For instance, I don't think the legislature should even CONSIDER making laws that create victimless crimes -- gambling, prostitution, etc.

[JustMissed]

If you think cigarette smokers have a right to blow that G.D. smoke on me and my clothes, you are a fuc*ing idiot and anything else you say in the future is to be discounted to the level of an moron.

JustMissed

[sq764]

Hmm, this last post certainly puts a new spin on the discussion :-)

[Lefty]

sq, if we had a law against everything that caused a death in this country then absolutely nothing would be legal. Your argument had just gotten way off the mark and has become ridiculous.

It's a simple question that i'm waiting for you to answer. Why wouldn't it be better to have smoking and non-smoking bars and restaurants(the owner decides)so everyone's rights are protected? So if you are afraid of secondhand smoke you could frequent the non-smoking places and others could visit the smoking places.

[Show Me the Wire]

Did somebody crack open the vodka today instead of Friday:)

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

I prefer Makers Mark wiskey (no h) myself.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

just missed, I am no idiot and i don't smoke. But i'll ask you the same question that so far SQ hasn't answered. Why can't private property owners decide if smoking or non-smoking should prevail on their property so that would create places for both sectors of society and noone would lose their rights?
Or are you only interested in your own agenda and care not for others' rights? Because if you are, someday it will be your rights that are abrogated and noone may give a damn.

[sq764]

Lefty, you are right, I am wrong. That's what you want to hear, so you got it big daddy.

You have yourself convinced that your opinion is the only opinion, so it's worthless for anyone to try to put new ideas into your head.

You're never too old to learn, I hope you remember that..

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Lefty
just missed, I am no idiot and i don't smoke. But i'll ask you the same question that so far SQ hasn't answered. Why can't private property owners decide if smoking or non-smoking should prevail on their property so that would create places for both sectors of society and noone would lose their rights?
Or are you only interested in your own agenda and care not for others' rights? Because if you are, someday it will be your rights that are abrogated and noone may give a damn.

Hey, I don't give a damn if you smoke in your car, your home, on the beach. Just don't blow your smoke on me or my clothes.

Same goes for employment. If you own a business, you cannot discriminate in employment and just decide you don't want to hire blacks, gays, chinks, or God forbid those right wing fundamental Christians. I hardly think so.

So what makes you think you have the right to run a public establishment that would force your employees to breath that foul smoke.

I had a client that inherited his plumbing supply business from his father. His dad smoked three packs a day and dropped dead after teeing off on the 17th hole. His son, my client, tried to give him CPR to no avail.

His mother continued to smoke and was one of those belingerant smokers who did not give a shit if her smoking offended anyone else. I live in Florida where smoking is banned in restaurants and racetracks(thank God), but at that time we only had separate dining, smoking and non-smoking sections. She constantly bitched about the non-smoking sections, claiming, "How dare they restrict my right to smoke wherever I want to smoke".

Anyway, she died home alone of a massive heart attach in her early 60's. I normally don't go to funerals of clients unless their family generates a certain amount of income for me, but in this case I couldn't pass it up.

I remember looking at her lying in that coffin, unable to move or speak and thinking to myself, I bet she sure would like a smoke. Too bad they don't allow smoking in funeral homes.

JustMissed
:)

[ljb]

Justmissed,
Lefty does not want our personal rights restricted. Unless, of course, they are approved by the Christian Coalition. So far the CC has not come out with any formal suggestions for elimination of tobbaco so Lefty thinks tobbaco is ok. Talk to him about gubbermint controls over the airwaves and you may get a different view.

[PaceAdvantage]

JM, had to edit your post. Please don't use the "F" word, as that has yet to be approved for use on "NYPD Blue." I use the "NYPD Blue" acid test when it comes to permissible language. So far, haven't heard the "F" word on NYPD Blue, so you can't use it here.

Also, please curtail the use of overtly racist language....it's not necessary, and it give the place a bad smell.....


Thanks for your cooperation....

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
JM, had to edit your post. Please don't use the "F" word, as that has yet to be approved for use on "NYPD Blue." I use the "NYPD Blue" acid test when it comes to permissible language. So far, haven't heard the "F" word on NYPD Blue, so you can't use it here.

Also, please curtail the use of overtly racist language....it's not necessary, and it give the place a bad smell.....


Thanks for your cooperation....

Thanks PA for the heads-up.

Best of luck to you.

Justmissed

[Lefty]

My dad died of emphysema but I keep saying it's about private property rights not smoking but you guys can't see the big picture.
JM, do not come to Las Vegas, it's horrible, people still smoke in the casinos. Of course we have non-smoking sections(and I avail myself of them)so everybody can enjoy their rights.
JM, my view is, if you don't like the job, because of smoking or whatever, you are free to work somewhere else. I'm not big on employees telling owners what to do.

lbj, if you want to hear the f word go to cable. That way there can be some decency standards on the public airwaves.
BTW, I care not about the Christan Coalition, heckydurn, I don't even attend church. But I just don't think it's asking too much to have a modicum(and it is only a modicum)of decency on the public airwaves.

Sq, those words you typed could well apply to you. Read the book that was recommended because if you don't think private property rights is the cornerstone of a free society then you have some learning to do. And as you said, you're never to oldto learn.

[sq764]

Lefty, get over yourself, my God, it's sickening.

You made your statement, you think it's the right one, I disagree.. That is all.

I could be wrong and you could be wrong.. Who knows?? The difference is that I can accept the possibility that my opinion is wrong, you can't.

[Lefty]

If I thght I was wrong, I wouldn't have made the argument. Property rights are very important. If you entertain the possibilty that you may be wrong, find out more about the importance of private property rights.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
JM, had to edit your post. Please don't use the "F" word, as that has yet to be approved for use on "NYPD Blue." I use the "NYPD Blue" acid test when it comes to permissible language. So far, haven't heard the "F" word on NYPD Blue, so you can't use it here.

Thanks for your cooperation....


So......can I show my butt? Sipowitz id that. :D

[Tom]

SMTW.....

Nice dicussion-it's nice to actually discuss thing with somone here instead of arguing. You made some good points that I had not considered and will have to re-visit my opinions on few things.
Thanks for sharing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
So......can I show my butt? Sipowitz id that. :D


Only if you promise to make it your avatar!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Tom
SMTW.....

Nice dicussion-it's nice to actually discuss thing with somone here instead of arguing. You made some good points that I had not considered and will have to re-visit my opinions on few things.
Thanks for sharing.

Tom:

You are welcome. Discussion and friendly debate are meaningful to our advancement as a society.

Can't wait to see your new avatar!

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

PA:

Kudos to you for allowing us members the opportunity and the place to have these discussions.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[ljb]

Lefty said
"lbj, if you want to hear the f word go to cable. That way there can be some decency standards on the public airwaves."
Lefty please show me where I said I wanted to hear the f word.
Lefty please stop trying to put words in my mouth, this is an old right wing tactic. Rush gets away with it amongst the unknowing but, many on this board are wiser then the dittoheads.
Also kudos to PA for his standards on this board.

[JustRalph]

chinks? and you only go to their funeral if they make you enough money huh? WoW!

[Lefty]

lbj, then what's your point.? Maybe you just oppose decency.
btw, I have satellite and watched the Soprano's and Deadwood tonight. Lottsa bad language. I enjoy both shows but glad they're not public network fare.

[JustRalph]

http://www.justralph.com/butt_sipo.gif

[ljb]

Lefty,
My point is similiar to yours when it comes to tobbaco. I don't want the Christian Coalition deciding what I can or cannot watch on tv, or what i can do with my money (alcohol-gambling etc.) Like you said Lefty, connect the dots.

[Lefty]

Well, lbj, when Janet Jackson exposed her mammary at the SuperBowl show, it all came to a head and the outcry was from the PUBLIC, thereby forcing the fcc's hand.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
My point is similiar to yours when it comes to tobbaco. I don't want the Christian Coalition deciding what I can or cannot watch on tv, or what i can do with my money (alcohol-gambling etc.) Like you said Lefty, connect the dots.

ljb:

It is not about what you want. The real problem is you cannot understand the differences between public and private property and have no sense of individual rights or the Bill Of Rights.

Additionally, you lack common sense as you think the only people that have a right to an opinion are the people that agree with you. we had this conversation before, because you say something does not make it fact.

The Christian Coalition has the same rights to voice opinions as you do. Why do you insist they do not have a right to voice an opinion about how public property, the air waves, are used?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[ljb]

smtw
ljb:

It is not about what you want. The real problem is you cannot understand the differences between public and private property and have no sense of individual rights or the Bill Of Rights.
What I want is the freedom to watch/listen to what I choose without intervention by gubbermnt censors.

Additionally, you lack common sense as you think the only people that have a right to an opinion are the people that agree with you. we had this conversation before, because you say something does not make it fact.
Totally wrong, I do not agree with this paragraph in it's entirety.

The Christian Coalition has the same rights to voice opinions as you do. Why do you insist they do not have a right to voice an opinion about how public property, the air waves, are used?

Again you are wrong. The Christian Coalition has the right to voice their opinions however, when their opinions become law I am offended. This is just the first step in a move to take over our country. Next they will want to ban the teaching of evolution in our public schools ad infintium.

[sq764]

SMTW, you say:

"...you lack common sense as you think the only people that have a right to an opinion are the people that agree with you"


The fact that you say someone doesn't have common sense because THEY don't agree with YOU is quite ironic, as well as contradictory..

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by sq764
SMTW, you say:

"...you lack common sense as you think the only people that have a right to an opinion are the people that agree with you"


The fact that you say someone doesn't have common sense because THEY don't agree with YOU is quite ironic, as well as contradictory..


That's not what SMTW stated.

[sq764]

The point I was trying to make is that Show Me insists that everyone else (that doesn't hold his same opinion), has no common sense or doesn't understand the Bill of Rights or doesn't understand private versus public property.

Maybe he should look not too far to see who isn't understanding these things clearly. He won't, but that's to be expected with people like him..

[Lefty]

lbj, there are two kinds of airwaves, public and private. The FCC regulates the public airwaves, there is no regulation of the private airwaves; ergo, you can watch pretty much anything you want.
You talk about the Christan Coalition but what about the laws the secular society has had forced upon us?

[sq764]

Lefty, I think you should spend a year in Russia or Cuba, then come back here.. You might appreciate our laid back law system and you also might appreciate how freaking good you have it here.

Maybe then you will stop complaining about how the government is infringing on our rights. It's getting quite nauseating reading your posts anymore.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

You have enver responded to my assertions with any intelligent discussion. You cannot state that my definitions of public property are wrong, because you know I am teling the trugth.

Additionally, If you comprehend my post to say and I am quoting you:

The point I was trying to make is that Show Me insists that everyone else (that doesn't hold his same opinion), has no common sense or doesn't understand the Bill of Rights or doesn't understand private versus public property.

Maybe he should look not too far to see who isn't understanding these things clearly. He won't, but that's to be expected with people like him..

I suggest you take a remedial reading course and you take good look in the mirror. Too clarify it more for you My point is everyone is entitled to an opinion, including the Christian Coalition about the use of public property.

You do not agree anyone has a right to an opinion but you and your like minded friends. Only you and people that believe as you do hold correct and important opinions. Your thoughts smack of arrogance and elitism.

I would not expect anything less from a person such as yourselve.

I pray most people that read your posts now understand the dangerousness of arrogance and elitism.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

See, again, you are putting words in my mouth.

I agree everyone has an opinion, which is what makes this country great.. HOWEVER, when someone's opinion differs from your's, it's not wrong.. No OPINION is wrong.. You have to get over that fact.

You keep saying people (that disagree with you) do not understand private property right or the Bill of Rights, or whatever.. Here's a thought.. Maybe they DO understand all of the above, but do not agree with you AND have a differing opinion.. Come to grips with that fact and you will become a little more open-minded.

[sq764]

Show me, to address your last comments.. Anyone that actually READS my posts, knows I never once mentioned anything remotely close to 'not everyone is allowed' an opinion.

That's the difference between 'them' and you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by ljb
smtw
ljb:

It is not about what you want. The real problem is you cannot understand the differences between public and private property and have no sense of individual rights or the Bill Of Rights.
What I want is the freedom to watch/listen to what I choose without intervention by gubbermnt censors.


I want the freedom to smoke where I like.

you lack common sense as you think the only people that have a right to an opinion are the people that agree with you. we had this conversation before, because you say something does not make it fact.
Totally wrong, I do not agree with this paragraph in it's entirety.


I say it is totally right as proven by your other postings about Bush being a liar, over and over again.


The Christian Coalition has the same rights to voice opinions as you do. Why do you insist they do not have a right to voice an opinion about how public property, the air waves, are used?

Again you are wrong. The Christian Coalition has the right to voice their opinions however, when their opinions become law I am offended. This is just the first step in a move to take over our country. Next they will want to ban the teaching of evolution in our public schools ad infintium. [/B]

The left has the right to their opinion, but when they become laws I am totally offended. Next they will want to ban smoking in my own home. Or worse yet turn over our security to the U.N.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Lefty]

sq, if my posts are nauseating to you, then do not elicit them by starting your posts with my name. Communism sprang up from the eroding of rights of the common man. There are no private property rights in a Communist country, and it seems it is you and people like you who do not understand the full import of private property rights who would take us down that most awful path. Maybe it is YOU who should spend some time in a country where the people have no rights to understand how valued ours are and why we should protect them.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
See, again, you are putting words in my mouth.

I agree everyone has an opinion, which is what makes this country great.. HOWEVER, when someone's opinion differs from your's, it's not wrong.. No OPINION is wrong.. You have to get over that fact.

You keep saying people (that disagree with you) do not understand private property right or the Bill of Rights, or whatever.. Here's a thought.. Maybe they DO understand all of the above, but do not agree with you AND have a differing opinion.. Come to grips with that fact and you will become a little more open-minded.

I see you still have not taken the remedial reading course. In my opinion the world is flat. No opinion is wrong, eh.

Do you think before you type?

Regards.
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

Ahh, insults.. The sign of ignorance.. (Isn't that what you mentioned SMTW?)

I must know, however, what differentiates 'accepted science' and 'junk science' to you?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
The point I was trying to make is that Show Me insists that everyone else (that doesn't hold his same opinion), has no common sense or doesn't understand the Bill of Rights or doesn't understand private versus public property.

Maybe he should look not too far to see who isn't understanding these things clearly. He won't, but that's to be expected with people like him..

Could you enlighten me on what opinion I hold that so offends you? Is it you want us to give up our precious individual rights?

As I stated before you have never given an intelligent rebutal to any of my posts. Are you going to start now.

Another opinion I have is talking on cell phones causes health problems, so I say ban the technology. Am I right because after all it is an opinion and therefore it cannot be wrong?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
Ahh, insults.. The sign of ignorance.. (Isn't that what you mentioned SMTW?)

I must know, however, what differentiates 'accepted science' and 'junk science' to you?

Is it an insult? I asked if you thought before you typed? Since no opinion is wrong I must be right about the world being flat.

Sometimes you have to comminicate at the level of the receiver.

About the remedfial reading part I believe PA had to point out you read my post incorrectly. You do have a habit of miscommunicating about what I typed.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

See, it's useless to discuss this with you.. I don't find any of your posts particularly intelligent, but I don't mention it, I accept them as your opinion.. You, on the other hand, have to be insulting to other's, and condescending to some degree.

Regarding cellphones (as well as cigarettes and alcohol), the government is not banning any of them. You still have the right to kill yourself with lung cancer, or brain damage from cellphones, or liver cancer from liquor, etc...

When will you get this through your head that restrictions are not bans??

I know very few people that stopped smoking because of restaurant and bar bans. They either don't go anymore, or they smoke outside. Why? Because they still can..

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I think you are the only one that is insulted.

You still have not told me how you feel about car emissions and their contribution to air pollution and the related health problems car owners cause non car owners.

You are right I cannot communicate with you on a civil level.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[sq764]

No, I am not the only one insulted, but believe what you want..

Emissions- yes they contribute to air pollution.. And the govt put stricter emissions tests in place for this very reason.. I am sure somehow you will find that they restricted our right to pollute the air..natzis..

You can't communicate on a civil level because I don't agree with your nonsensical drivel.. Maybe others do, or maybe they just agree so they don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore.. Either way, they may have a good idea in doing so.

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I will not lower myself to your standards. If you feel I am spouting nonsense, please add me to your ignore list. I will not respond to any further posting by you directed to me.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

There you go again with the insults.. Quite hypocritical if you ask me.

It's sad that you view others that disagree with you as a lower life form. I truely feel sad for you. You miss out on a lot in this world if you live your life that way.

[Lefty]

sq, I don't think Showme has been insulting but has been knocking his brains out to educate. You have done most of the namecalling, but if you refuse to blve in the importance of private property rights then do so at your peril. Maybe if they told you they found an endangered bug in your yard so therefore that part of your property was restricted from you then maybe, you would understand. Before you say i'm giving a nonsensical example I jump to tell you it has happened in CA and Fl. In fact, in CA the environmental movement would not let property owners cut weeds and brush around their homes and then fires, fueled by this brush, consumed said homes. But you just take one step backward everytime some extremist group prposes it, and soon you will find yourself in a very restricted space.

[sq764]

So Lefty, here we are.. You are scared that your rights are being taken away on a more frequent basis. You are afraid that your right to private property is in danger and you are afraid that the government is overstepping their boundaries.

With that being said.. What is the next step for you? What do you do to combat this wreckless behavior by the govt? Do you fight it? If so, how? Do you move to another country? One that shows more respect to private property laws? What is the answer?

I ask the above questions with all seriousness..

[Show Me the Wire]

Lefty:

Per our previous posts, I would like to add.

If I wanted to reverse the trend of trampling individual rights, I would vote for political office holders that were in favor of limiting government intrusions, would you do the same?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Lefty:

Per our previous posts, I would like to add.

If I wanted to reverse the trend of trampling individual rights, I would vote for political office holders that were in favor of limiting government intrusions, would you do the same?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

I know I would!

[sq764]

SMTW, are these also the same politicians that ran on a platform of not raising taxes? Then raised taxes?

What the hell happened there? Don't tell me the politicians lie to the public just to get votes.. Damnit

[Lefty]

Sq, one way to fight it is try to educate people like you. It's a hard job. I suggest you read the book that was recommended, and listen to Rush, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly for starters. I'm scared because I see it happening and people like you don't see the big picture. That's what's scary. It's like the story of cooking a frog. You put him in lukewarm water and he's comfy and ok. You turn up the heat ever so gradually. By the time he realizes he's in trouble, he's cooked.

Showme, I always vote for who I think will be best for the country.
Most of this crap is visited upon us by trial lawyers and wacko environmentalists. Does that tell ypou my political party of choice?
A longtime ago Rush Limbaugh said that certain environmental groups were the new homes of the Communist party. When you view what's happened since, he has been prescient indeed.

[sq764]

"....and listen to Rush, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly for starters"

I think in one blurb I have found why we will never agree on this or many other subjects.. All I can say is to each his own...

[Derek2U]

I agree with Lefty and of corse I dislike your posts 100%. But
yet, I hate Sean Hannity & that low class O'Reilly guy ... i wish
he wanted 2 BoxMe ..hehe .... anyway, what sparked my retort
is this: I WANT MY KIDS TO DO EVERYTHING THEY WANT .... if it
passes my OK & if my kids are male. Then, i just realized after
hearing that CH7 report on TV & babys that I dont give a S..T but
my wife Solange was taking notes!! omg is this my meltdown??
if i have a boy as my 1st kid I want him to do everything he will want but if its a girl then she can have anything but not do it all.
WOW is this Budha testing me? yeah maybe ... but wtf I will never change but then i think how FaB the Capon was last nite--
and Capon = Male Chick w/CutOff Balls. i never thought i would
celebrate that .. so my Question ... do u think women feminize the world and mostly guys? why cant we just Be left alone, so 2 speak. ....