Ghost of BiB Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Chilly Posted June 13, 2005 Author 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.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 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.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 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?
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 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?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 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...
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 That made no sense... 356894[/snapback] Debbie and VA are obviously having coffee this morning.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2005 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?
Pete Posted June 13, 2005 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
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 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.
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 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!!
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 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."
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 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?
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 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.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 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.
Recommended Posts