Ghost of BiB Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 A bar is PRIVATE property. Tough concept. As far as your eating a cheesesteak, let me know if you're affecting my pocketbook once you're on medicare/caid because that's when it's a hell of alot more intrusive than some guy's cigarette. Second hand smoke outdoors is less dangerous than the sh-- your car puts out. Fug do you sound like a liberal. Go pop a midol. 356596[/snapback] I've heard rumors that Pamprin is just as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Yeah, we should put another 50,000,000 people in jail. After that, we can go after fatty foods. Eventually we're going to get to golf, which is environmentally unsound. Get off your high horse and try freedom. It doesn't suck. 356573[/snapback] Duuuuuuuuude, Golf is baddddddddddddddddddddd. It causes divotsssssssssssss. Hold on I need another hit. Freedom comes with responsibility. The responsibility not to blow smoke in the air I breath. I don't see how me eating a cheesesteak or hitting a white ball around a field affects anyone else. Of course you smoke in a building I am in or in the doorway just outside that building and I have to breath that sh-- because you have no responsibility to others. Fine smoke, just do it in your car, your house, and out of public doorways, and out of public places. 356584[/snapback] Freedom also allows you to leave the room, go outside, to another bar, or what not. You could even start a bar without smoking, without a low being put into effect! As long as its legal, why the hell should someone that doesn't like it be able to say "you can't smoke here?" You have the power to change your situation - use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Duuuuuuuuude, Golf is baddddddddddddddddddddd. It causes divotsssssssssssss. Hold on I need another hit. Freedom also allows you to leave the room, go outside, to another bar, or what not. You could even start a bar without smoking, without a low being put into effect! As long as its legal, why the hell should someone that doesn't like it be able to say "you can't smoke here?" You have the power to change your situation - use it. 356667[/snapback] Nah, VA likes Motherment when it suits HIS purposes. Slippery slope, here we come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Nah, VA likes Motherment when it suits HIS purposes. Slippery slope, here we come. 356719[/snapback] You're right, I rethought this and I think there are cases where smoking should be permitted. If the owner of the bar, truely owns the bar he could allow it. Now that means he isn't leasing/renting or anything else on the building except the sole owner. Therefore if he owns the building and the bar it should be allowed if he wants, otherwise, no way because it isn't his bar really. If it is a publicly traded company bar (e.g., Benegins) it should not be permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 If it is a publicly traded company bar (e.g., Benegins) it should not be permitted. 356793[/snapback] Why not let the owners (i.e. the shareholders) decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Why not let the owners (i.e. the shareholders) decide? 356806[/snapback] What if the shareholder is a government fund. Government would have to divest from all of those companies, driving stock prices down. Besides that isn't a private ownership. If they want to they should buy back all the stock and become a none publicly traded company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 What if the shareholder is a government fund. Government would have to divest from all of those companies, driving stock prices down. Besides that isn't a private ownership. If they want to they should buy back all the stock and become a none publicly traded company. 356808[/snapback] Private ownership=NOT OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT This concept must be alot harder than I thought. What the hell is a government fund? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 What if the shareholder is a government fund. Government would have to divest from all of those companies, driving stock prices down. Besides that isn't a private ownership. If they want to they should buy back all the stock and become a none publicly traded company. 356808[/snapback] That made no sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 That made no sense... 356894[/snapback] Debbie and VA are obviously having coffee this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Debbie and VA are obviously having coffee this morning. 356900[/snapback] Sure, I actually have opinions that don't meet with a political party, take what I feel is good and fair, whether it be a repub, dem, libertarian or whatever cause and you are going to bunch be with a mouthpiece. Thanks. It's so nice to actually be able to form an a set of opinions on something without being a mouthpiece. Let me know when you stop being a mouthpiece for the libertation/constitution party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Sure, I actually have opinions that don't meet with a political party, take what I feel is good and fair, whether it be a repub, dem, libertarian or whatever cause and you are going to bunch be with a mouthpiece. Thanks. It's so nice to actually be able to form an a set of opinions on something without being a mouthpiece. Let me know when you stop being a mouthpiece for the libertation/constitution party. 356902[/snapback] Independence of thought is much better when it makes sense, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Sure, I actually have opinions that don't meet with a political party, take what I feel is good and fair, whether it be a repub, dem, libertarian or whatever cause and you are going to bunch be with a mouthpiece. Thanks. It's so nice to actually be able to form an a set of opinions on something without being a mouthpiece. Let me know when you stop being a mouthpiece for the libertation/constitution party. 356902[/snapback] I've got your back brother. The way I see it, if it is a stand-alone, privately owned establishment that does NOT serve food, I have zero problem. If people want to go to a pub that caters to the non-smoking crowd, or vice versa, so be it. You are not impinging on a persons right to clean air if people go specifically to an establishment where they know the air will be fithly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I've got your back brother. The way I see it, if it is a stand-alone, privately owned establishment that does NOT serve food, I have zero problem. If people want to go to a pub that caters to the non-smoking crowd, or vice versa, so be it. You are not impinging on a persons right to clean air if people go specifically to an establishment where they know the air will be fithly. 356912[/snapback] VABills and Johnny Coli are "brothers" now? Now I've seen it all. What's next, Rich in Ohio and Exiled in Illinois going to agree on something? Beausox going to say something that makes sense? Erynthered going to learn to spell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Dear lefty,Do you really believe that outlawing murder will solve the murder problem? Thanks, Bluefire 354889[/snapback] Damn lets do away with all laws. Your logic is so brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I've got your back brother. The way I see it, if it is a stand-alone, privately owned establishment that does NOT serve food, I have zero problem. If people want to go to a pub that caters to the non-smoking crowd, or vice versa, so be it. You are not impinging on a persons right to clean air if people go specifically to an establishment where they know the air will be fithly. 356912[/snapback] Oh, that's right. I missed the "right to infringe on private property for the good of the masses" clause in the Constitution. Your "rights" as a patron should under few circumstances trump the owner's where legal substances are concerned. You also have the "right" not to patronize the establishment as well as the "right" to tell the owner why you made that decision. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 VABills and Johnny Coli are "brothers" now? Now I've seen it all. What's next, Rich in Ohio and Exiled in Illinois going to agree on something? Beausox going to say something that makes sense? Erynthered going to learn to spell? 356921[/snapback] Sur, sur, I get out of a meating an dis is what i here? tanks CtM!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Sure, I actually have opinions that don't meet with a political party, take what I feel is good and fair, whether it be a repub, dem, libertarian or whatever cause and you are going to bunch be with a mouthpiece. Thanks. It's so nice to actually be able to form an a set of opinions on something without being a mouthpiece. Let me know when you stop being a mouthpiece for the libertation/constitution party. 356902[/snapback] Ooh, the often imitated "I'm losing the argument so I'll try and pidgeon hole my opposition." Let's see, within the last week I've been called to the right of Stalin and now I'm a mouthpiece for the libertarian party. Must be doing alot right if people can't even get close. Reality: Freedom is just that. You have the freedom not to patronize private establishments that allow LEGAL substances to be consumed on there. Freedom is FAR more important for those on the MINORITY than the MAJORITY - see "Frankenstein." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Oh, that's right. I missed the "right to infringe on private property for the good of the masses" clause in the Constitution. Your "rights" as a patron should under few circumstances trump the owner's where legal substances are concerned. You also have the "right" not to patronize the establishment as well as the "right" to tell the owner why you made that decision. Amazing. 356936[/snapback] I'm saying that if people want to smoke, and the pub owner is willing to let them smoke, than they can smoke. If they don't want to be in a pub that allows smoking, they don't have to go in. Whose rights are being violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I'm saying that if people want to smoke, and the pub owner is willing to let them smoke, than they can smoke. If they don't want to be in a pub that allows smoking, they don't have to go in. Whose rights are being violated? 356950[/snapback] Sorry for the misunderstanding. Must be something in the water. EDIT: I'm not sure what food has to do with anything. Someone forcing you to go out to eat? REALITY: If you ban smoking in eating establishments, it won't be long before it's in bars, too. Then illegal altogether. Then they move onto something else. Eventually, there isn't any freedom left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Ooh, the often imitated "I'm losing the argument so I'll try and pidgeon hole my opposition." Let's see, within the last week I've been called to the right of Stalin and now I'm a mouthpiece for the libertarian party. Must be doing alot right if people can't even get close. Reality: Freedom is just that. You have the freedom not to patronize private establishments that allow LEGAL substances to be consumed on there. Freedom is FAR more important for those on the MINORITY than the MAJORITY - see "Frankenstein." 356940[/snapback] I see today is hypocrite day. I didn't know that. Seems you bunch me the Wicked Witch of the Left and it's okay. I bunch you with a bunch of retarded militia turds and you get upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I see today is hypocrite day. I didn't know that. Seems you bunch me the Wicked Witch of the Left and it's okay. I bunch you with a bunch of retarded militia turds and you get upset. 356971[/snapback] Keep wishing. It ain't helping you look any different than a halibut on the deck after being gaffed. When you explain "What if the shareholder is a government fund" in a coherent manner, the comparison to Debbie and her "lahjik" will go away. Until then, it's valid. Sucks to be you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Sorry for the misunderstanding. Must be something in the water. EDIT: I'm not sure what food has to do with anything. Someone forcing you to go out to eat? REALITY: If you ban smoking in eating establishments, it won't be long before it's in bars, too. Then illegal altogether. Then they move onto something else. Eventually, there isn't any freedom left. 356960[/snapback] Food complicates the matter, because there is no age limit at which you can legally eat. The legal limit for smoking and drinking would exclude people under a certain age. If the establishment serves food, then it wouldn't be able to exclude minors because it wouldn't have any legal reason to descriminate against them. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and this idea will most likely get bombed by those here who are, but I see it as an acceptable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Food complicates the matter, because there is no age limit at which you can legally eat. The legal limit for smoking and drinking would exclude people under a certain age. If the establishment serves food, then it wouldn't be able to exclude minors because it wouldn't have any legal reason to descriminate against them. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and this idea will most likely get bombed by those here who are, but I see it as an acceptable solution. 356975[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 356976[/snapback] You can't smoke until you are 18. You can't drink until you are 21. Therefore, there is no reason for a minor to be in a bar. But, if you serve food, then you have no legal reason to exclude them. So, if you want to have an establishment that caters to smokers, you can. Unless you serve food, then you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Keep wishing. It ain't helping you look any different than a halibut on the deck after being gaffed. When you explain "What if the shareholder is a government fund" in a coherent manner, the comparison to Debbie and her "lahjik" will go away. Until then, it's valid. Sucks to be you. 356972[/snapback] The Government runs retirement funds for their employees. The invest the money in stocks. These stocks can be on such companies as Chili's, etc.... Does this explain it to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Food complicates the matter, because there is no age limit at which you can legally eat. The legal limit for smoking and drinking would exclude people under a certain age. If the establishment serves food, then it wouldn't be able to exclude minors because it wouldn't have any legal reason to descriminate against them. I'm clearly not a lawyer, and this idea will most likely get bombed by those here who are, but I see it as an acceptable solution. 356975[/snapback] Your reasoning is...well, awkward. But the principle - that smoking isn't permitted where food is served - has been put into practice in some places. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with it. Though honestly...it's not an issue I follow too closely. My view on smoking has been and will always be the same as my views on nose picking or masturbation: if you have to do it, do it in private and don't force me to participate in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Your reasoning is...well, awkward. But the principle - that smoking isn't permitted where food is served - has been put into practice in some places. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with it. Though honestly...it's not an issue I follow too closely. My view on smoking has been and will always be the same as my views on nose picking or masturbation: if you have to do it, do it in private and don't force me to participate in it. 356996[/snapback] So you say smoking should banned also. Or are you saying we should have public jerk off bars. Was that Gum I just stepped in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 So you say smoking should banned also. Or are you saying we should have public jerk off bars. Was that Gum I just stepped in. 357001[/snapback] Or maybe smoking should be banned everywhere but San Fransisco... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 356976[/snapback] AD, the plot thickens. A "liberal" democrat from Brooklyn proposed legislation which would establish "smoke free" apartments in NYC Housing Projects. The projects would be completely smoke free in 2010. Not drug free mind you, smoke free. I cannot link it, but it is on the front page of the NY Post. My wife was raised in a housing project. I have both personal and professional experience in said projects, and I am telling you as pure fact, there will be riots when these "Health Inspectors" invade the homes of many who have their apartments, and little else. As for VA Bills, I respect the fact that he cares enough about liberty to have softened his stance at all. I cannot FULLY blame the politicians. There are enough sheep and selfish people to follow the pied piper wrt issues such as this, banning Howard Stern (or even jailing him), or making gay marriages an issue in the presidential race. Doing these things get them elected it seems, and you know, people are buying into it. Again, I predict that there will be no barbecues, drinking nor smoking permitted at tailgates in RWS within 5 or so years. We will be exspected to stand around and look at each other, or maybe discuss world peace. That will mark the end of my (quite expensive) annual trips to the Ralph, and I doubt if I will be the only one to stay home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 AD, the plot thickens. A "liberal" democrat from Brooklyn proposed legislation which would establish "smoke free" apartments in NYC Housing Projects. The projects would be completely smoke free in 2010. Not drug free mind you, smoke free. I cannot link it, but it is on the front page of the NY Post. My wife was raised in a housing project. I have both personal and professional experience in said projects, and I am telling you as pure fact, there will be riots when these "Health Inspectors" invade the homes of many who have their apartments, and little else. As for VA Bills, I respect the fact that he cares enough about liberty to have softened his stance at all. I cannot FULLY blame the politicians. There are enough sheep and selfish people to follow the pied piper wrt issues such as this, banning Howard Stern (or even jailing him), or making gay marriages an issue in the presidential race. Doing these things get them elected it seems, and you know, people are buying into it. Again, I predict that there will be no barbecues, drinking nor smoking permitted at tailgates in RWS within 5 or so years. We will be exspected to stand around and look at each other, or maybe discuss world peace. That will mark the end of my (quite expensive) annual trips to the Ralph, and I doubt if I will be the only one to stay home. 357006[/snapback] Okay let me address the Public housing issue. The people in there are getting rental assistance because they are poor. Secondly it is a public building. On the second issue smoking already should be banned based on that reason alone. Secondly if you are poor and can't afford housing why should you be permitted to smoke if you obviously can't afford rent let alone cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Okay let me address the Public housing issue. The people in there are getting rental assistance because they are poor. Secondly it is a public building. On the second issue smoking already should be banned based on that reason alone. Secondly if you are poor and can't afford housing why should you be permitted to smoke if you obviously can't afford rent let alone cigarettes. 357009[/snapback] But VA, people are not perfect. My father in-law raised 7 children in a project. He smoked. His children now consist of a restaurant manager, police officer, cpa, corrections officer, RN and a psychologist with a doctrite. They are all successful and are contributing to society. Being poor is not a reason to strip a person's rights away. My father in-law should be allowed to raise his family without his home being invaded and searched for cigarettes and/or ashtrays. Deep down, I think you agree, and would not want to subject others to this abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Secondly if you are poor and can't afford housing why should you be permitted to smoke if you obviously can't afford rent let alone cigarettes. 357009[/snapback] Are you looking for legislation regarding this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 The Government runs retirement funds for their employees. The invest the money in stocks. These stocks can be on such companies as Chili's, etc.... Does this explain it to you? 356984[/snapback] No it doesn't. The government gives the employees the option of participating in a private retirement plan that is run by private industry - no different than your 401K, really. Morals in investing simply because you don't like a particular habit? And YOU hate people? I can only see the commissions and panels being setup and the billions wasted on determining whether a particular company is decent enough in their day-to-day practice for government employees to put their cash into them. That's so blindingly fuggin' short sighted I'm having a hard time believing you're not duct taped like a mummy in a closet while Debbie and Tenny are pecking away at your keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Are you looking for legislation regarding this? 357024[/snapback] Not to mention the ridiculous cost of enforcement. Can you imagine an entire entity setup just to go in and find butts and ashtrays? Maybe they'll stumble across a Twinkie rapper and we can send the whole family to Gitmo. VERY smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Are you looking for legislation regarding this? 357024[/snapback] No but if you are poor and need public money, then all the government is doing is subsidizing your smoking habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Secondly if you are poor and can't afford housing why should you be permitted to smoke if you obviously can't afford rent let alone cigarettes. 357009[/snapback] Anything else you'd like to restrict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 No but if you are poor and need public money, then all the government is doing is subsidizing your smoking habit. 357030[/snapback] The government subsidizes everything else, why not this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Anything else you'd like to restrict? 357031[/snapback] computer use in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 No it doesn't. The government gives the employees the option of participating in a private retirement plan that is run by private industry - no different than your 401K, really. Morals in investing simply because you don't like a particular habit? And YOU hate people? I can only see the commissions and panels being setup and the billions wasted on determining whether a particular company is decent enough in their day-to-day practice for government employees to put their cash into them. That's so blindingly fuggin' short sighted I'm having a hard time believing you're not duct taped like a mummy in a closet while Debbie and Tenny are pecking away at your keyboard. 357028[/snapback] Again so glad to see that people can have an opinion other than yours. While some of us are not so elequent with the English language, some of us actually have opinions beyond what a media source or political party tells us. I know I am a rare breed in that matter, but accept it any how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 computer use in Florida. 357034[/snapback] Should we sterilize them too? After all, the government is supporting them, and them only. The hole is getting deeper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts