Berg

I could find nothing supporting that. I did find that in certain places, spitting on seagulls and sidewalks is illegal, but nothing about spitting on other people. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you are grasping at straws as you know it would be an unenforced law. Is that the best you can do in differentiating? Hypocrite. Smokers want it all their way, but that's OK. The avenue to prevent such has been taken via non-smokers sponsoring legislative action, as our system was set up to do, but somehow that's not comprehended by you? The government is not doing this unilaterally. Reasearch how it came about in CA. It was because the populace sponsored and voted for it. Again, that is our system. Invoking the slave issue is beneath you. Do you really think there is a comparison? I surely hope not. The problem with the government is that normal everyday people do not get involved enough unless it pushes their buttons. Most are oblivious to the infrastructure to which you refer, but take away their hot pockets and you'll certainly get a rise. Bottom line, if smokers (and people in general) were considerate enough exercise their habit in a non-intrusive way, I wouldn't care. It's what I do, but unfortunately, personal responsibility is lost on most normal people. They feel they should be able to do what they want and to hell if it makes someone else uncomfortable or sick. Very sad commentary on the human race. Lastly, if there really were a model where private establishements like restaurants and bars did equitably divide their services between those allowing and those restricting smoking, I'd have no complaint. Problem is, I want to got out to dinner with my Wife, and I no longer live in CA. Unless we go to McD's, we pretty much have to deal with smoke. However, the avenue given to us to rectify the situation is enacting legislation. I don't see why anyone would have a problem support that type of system. There is nothing stopping smokers from going to cigar lounges if they want to smoke. Resaurants are for eating and bars are for drinking. You may pooh-pooh it, but there is a historical pass that has been given to smokers, and it is quickly running out, thankfully. I was just thinking, how is it possible that the Jaguars are about to make the playoffs and the Bills are fighting for a top-5 draft pick?

The reason no one responds is because it debunks your side. You can't come up with a logical differentiation between blowing smoke everywhere and spitting tobacco juice everywhere, so you call it stupid. I think you know how that would be scored in a debate. And obviously you DON'T understand personal responsibility - I didn't say freedom, duh - or you wouldn't be claiming laws and common courtesy are left at the threshold of a "private establishment". Smokers have been catered to for years, and now they whine when non-smokers say enough. Boo-hoo. Either control your smoke, or don't do it. It's a concept even you should be able to grasp. Thankfully, your warped opinion is the minority, and non-smokers certainly ARE making their feelings known to establishment owners. How do you think the laws came about restricting smoking - duh? It is how our system works. C'mon Darin, at least make it challenging... PS - Merry Christmas A-$-$-h-o-l-e

Try making an effort to understand personal responsibilities, although your kind of "!@#$ you" attitude is what causes this kind of issue to begin with.Re-read the post responded to, then provide proof that there are in fact establishments that operate as purported. I have never seen one in any of the areas I have lived in OH, NY, CO, CA, and TX. And also, you continue to avoid my main point - smokers personal freedom should not infringe on my right to eat (or drink since that's what you seem to be fixated on, not that the specific service matters) without feeling like I'm sucking on an exhaust pipe. Lastly, let me continue this until someone responds - howzabout I spit my tobacco juice all over your clothes and in your hair? Hey, my personal freedom to spit wherever I want, right? The "1984" attitude of some of you is just laughable. Have you not paid attention to current events?

Wake up and do what? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but what is it you think we should be doing?

Do you know of ANY establishment that does that? It sounds really nice in principle, and it makes all the personal freedom kool-aid drinkers (Darin ) applaud. However, we live in the real world, and no business owner is going to intentionally alienate part of his/her customer base without being forced. It is for the same basic reasons that OSHA and Unions even exist. Bottom line, I want to go to a restaurant and not breathe other people's smoke and not end up smelling like an ash tray. How hard would it be for the self-absorbed smokers to respect that? I repeat - I wonder how people would react if I walked around spitting my tobacco juice in their hair and on their clothes. I see none of you addressed that particular comment.

No, my Wife worked in a bar before we were married and so did her sister. As far as me being a drinker, not really. A beer here and there nowadays, but I used to in college. I'm not really sure what your point is about alcohol. I believe people should be able to drink if they so choose. However, if it results in domestic violence, DUI, property damage, or anything else that affects someone other than themselves, there should be laws and repurcussions, which in fact there are. So like I said, I don't think I understand the analogy. I believe I stated unequivocally that smoking should NOT be banned nor taxed. However, smokers cannot ensure their habit is self-contained in a public setting. Therefore, my "personal set of rules for America" are quite simply that any individual's rights should not infringe on another's. In my opinion, it is the smokers who are selfabsorbed and intolerant. Their attitude is "!@#$ you, if you don't like my smoke, stay home". If that isn't the epitome of selfishness, I don't know what is. I am simply asking for common courtesy. I don't want to breathe the smoke that smokers choose to breath when I am at a restaurant or bar. I don't think that's much to ask. If I went around spitting my tobacco juice into people's hair and on their clothes, I'm thinking they'd be pissed even if they were smokers. IMO, it is a classic example of people choosing to take absolutely no responsibilty for how their actions affect others. No offense intended, but most smokers are extremely discourteous when it comes to their habit.

I am against any of the so-called "sin" taxes - in fact I'm against lots of taxes, but I digress. My problem with smokers is strictly that I don't personally like to smell it, have my eyes water, or have my clothes and hair smell like it. Anyone can smoke anything they want, just do it in a way that doesn't infringe on my clean air and clothes. I don't think that's much to ask, but apparently many smokers think it is. Again, as a tobacco addict myself, I understand how hard it is but I went to great lengths to keep my use strictly personal.

Dammit man that was funny too. You guys need to stop.

heehheee. Freakin' hilarious. Thanks KT{fab}D.

Good. Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids. And by the way, I'm a recovering (smokeless) tobacco user - 17 years.

I know. However, you should point this out to EII, since he seems to think the laws you are talking about can be repealed at any time without any type of economic, environmental, or social repurcussions at all. Everything in his world can apparently be "reset" at any time.

In today's hot pocket society? You're dreaming. People move on in an instant. Plus with the advent of the internet, disinformation is eventually and usually unceremoniously debunked. Case in point, WMDs in Iraq. What's the prevailing opinion now vice March 03? And the original hypothesis did not purport false stories, just greater access if favorable stories were written - deservedly or not. The veracity issue was your partisan introduction. If you truly believe this, thank God you are not a legislator.....or are you?????

Laws unquestionably much much worse.

Because one involves making laws the other involves making stories. The difference is extremely huge IMO.

bump

ALCON--This was sent to us by Staff Sergeant Melissa Johnson, who used to work in our orderly room and lost her husband in Iraq. v/r, Maj Sullivan I'm sure many of you are currently writing cards to friends and family. If you can, please send an extra one (or 10, or 20) to our American military heroes who are recuperating from wounds this Christmas Season. Please enclose a short note thanking them for their service and personal sacrifice. They are the protectors of our freedom, we must let them know. Your small act of kindness will be greatly appreciated. Here's the address... A Recovering American Soldier c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center 6900 Georgia Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20307-5001

As opposed to the normal threads that are so intellectually enlightening around here??

Actually I think he has gotten it worse. It's mostly his fault, but from day one, when he has opened his mouth in front of the media, he has come off sounding like a doofus - except for a couple of key speaches. Irrespective of anything he did or didn't do, Clinton was an excellent communicator - even when he was saying stupid things. Bush can't even pronounce nuclear correctly, so how is he supposed to convince people he's protecting them against WMD? I think Bush has taken more nonsequitur criticism than any Prez since at least Carter. MHO anyway.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. Maybe you should read CTM's post and then re-read my response to get the context.

I don't think you get exactly what BiB meant. Even if you know narrowly who you are "targeting", that doesn't necessarily mean your intelligence data collection will be that narrow. Unless the suspects are stupid enough to always talk on the exact same landline which happens to be the target. Possible I suppose, but unlikely it seems to me. Bottom line - it is impossible given the currently disseminated data to exactly characterize this situation. I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the NSA, but would have no problem seeing an investigation as long as appropriate security measures were taken, public and media be damned.

"footage"?? Maybe it was "inchage"???? I crack myself up sometimes

Gotta love Office Space

I'd phrase it slightly differently: "A person can say anything he/she wants, to anyone he/she wants, at any time under any circumstances with absolutely no repercussions."

Even if you are right about his coaching ability, what difference does it make if posters here promote him for HC? Ralph ain't(sic) so senile that he'd listen to our collective advice.

But WP didn't wear a headset, and that - as we all know - is a requirement for being a good HC.