Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 03, 2006, 09:39:17 AM
-
Now that certainly is a sign that a rogue asteroid is about to hit earth!
How do our french/EU citizens feel about public banning of smoking?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/03/061003115949.i6zdhuii.html
-
Smoking in public establishments (bars, restaurants etc.) has been banned in Norway for years to protect the people working there. New York has the same smoking ban. What's the big deal?
-
"You have to respect the rights of others," said Valerie, 29, a smoker of 20 years. :confused: "I will have to go to smoke outside, I suppose. In the winter it will be harder though. Then I will have to smoke at home."
typo? :huh or has she been smoking since age 9?
I smoke, and havent been able to smoke inside at work since 1984. I dont smoke in my own house since 1989. I even was able to adjust when restaurants didnt allow smoking. But Bars? I think it should be up to the individual establishments/owners to allow or not allow smoking. You dont want to be around smokers then go to a non-smoking bar.
-
Seems like France is a little behind the times.
"Five states — New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California — have passed similar smoking restrictions that include bars and taverns. New York state's ban, which echoes the city's anti-smoking law, goes into effect July 24."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm
-
"Vee ahhr not politically correct heehhrre!" (http://gofrance.about.com/cs/travelbyinterest/a/smoking.htm)
Guess they are now.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Seems like France is a little behind the times.
"Five states — New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine and California — have passed similar smoking restrictions that include bars and taverns. New York state's ban, which echoes the city's anti-smoking law, goes into effect July 24."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm
That's old news, 3 years old in fact. Washington State, my state, now has the same ban. I support it (I don't smoke) :) Just thought it was odd that France, of all places, would actually pass that into law. My perspective of France was that it is a pretty "liberal" country but I've been wrong before ;)(shrugs)
-
We have banned it here in Spain this year, can't smoke at any public places. Restaurants can have a smokers area, but physically separated from the rest.
Bear in mind that we basically live in bars here, theres like one per every 80-100 people and families will go there with the kids.
Smokers can go on about freedom and this and that, but I'm glad no one can smoke in my face anymore. Now the problem are the cig butts in front of every building. They seem to have a need to behave disgustingly in any way they can.
-
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that 2nd hand smoke kills thousands of people annually and costs the community millions of dollars a year has something to do with it.
Smoking is a lot more common in Europe, but I don't think that means they are willing to absorb the costs of it (in deaths or Euros).
-
Good thing we stopped caring about personal freedom and choice.
-
laser... I never chose to have some jackwad giving me lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking.
Public spaces should be that: public. If people want to smoke.. which is THEIR private choice... they can go to a PRIVATE place and smoke there.
-
You thought the riots from the work related laws were bad.....jsut wait...lmao!
-
mon dieu, what is the world coming to? :)
-
Originally posted by Tac
laser... I never chose to have some jackwad giving me lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking.
Public spaces should be that: public. If people want to smoke.. which is THEIR private choice... they can go to a PRIVATE place and smoke there.
A privately owned establishment is not a public place. I'm all for smoking bans but I don't feel that I've any right to tell anyone what they can do in their own home, or any other privately owned place or establishment.
-
Originally posted by takeda
We have banned it here in Spain this year,
did you clear this with the muslims? better be careful...
-
Originally posted by Tac
laser... I never chose to have some jackwad giving me lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking.
Public spaces should be that: public. If people want to smoke.. which is THEIR private choice... they can go to a PRIVATE place and smoke there.
No one forced you to sit down next to a smoker. No one forced second hand smoke down your throat.
Don't likehow it is in the real world? Tough ****!
Go to a different restaurant! Go to a different bar! If you work at one of these places, demand that they not allow smoking! If they don't give in, quit.
You as the consumer and the worker have more power then anything else in this world, even governments.
-
teh french aer invented pubic smokems
-
So I can't "choose" to run around naked but I should be able to inflict cancer upon those around me?
Teh?
-
Originally posted by Texantaliban
Originally posted by takeda
We have banned it here in Spain this year,
did you clear this with the muslims? better be careful...
Yeah, they say they are OK with this and with the nudies in our museums too. :aok
-
Originally posted by Tac
laser... I never chose to have some jackwad giving me lung cancer from 2nd hand smoking.
Public spaces should be that: public. If people want to smoke.. which is THEIR private choice... they can go to a PRIVATE place and smoke there.
we did go to PRIVATE places, Restaurants and Bars are PRIVATE BUSINESSes, that provide services to the general public. PUBLIC place are like the Library, Parks, City Hall, and Convention Centers. Should the city, county, state, or Fed Gov have the right to legislate or prohibt legal behavior in a private place? Smoking is not illegal and neither is alcohol. Smoking is bad for you and so is alcohol. To smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice. Going to an establishment that allows smoking is a choice. Dont like it, go to an establishment that prohibts smoking. What was wrong with someone opening a non-smoking Bar that catered to the non-smoker? the way I see the Liberals/Greenie/Leftys missed out on a chance to add another tax. they could have allowed smoking bars and issued a license similar to a liquior licence.
go suck an egg...
-
Originally posted by takeda
Yeah, they say they are OK with this and with the nudies in our museums too. :aok
I dont know why I even ask, of course you did
-
Here in Connecticut I have been living under the confined spacing smoking ban for over 2 years and I love it!...I was a smoker at the time, and had absolutely no problem adjusting to the new law! Even as a smoker, I always found it nasty that a bar floor would be covered with cig butts, and the air freaking reek of 1000 cigarettes! In the past two years a lot of establishments here in Fairfield County have added patios with awnings for the smokers....
-
In most places with a smoking ban it is popular, even with smokers. It's an absolute pleasure to go out for the night and not return home smelling like an ashtray. Besides smokers who have to go outside for have taken up a new sport; 'smirting'. That is smoking and flirting outside the pubs. Great fun apparently. Not being a smoker I miss out on that aspect.
I was in France last week on vacation. I must say, I didn't find the bars or restaurants all that smokey. Despite the cliche, it seems the French like everyone else have mostly given up. I imagine France will take to it just like everyone else.
I just wish they would do something about their dogs though. You can't walk down any street with having to dodge the chien merde. ugh.
:eek:
-
I hate the smoke but....
It is simple.... a public place is one the public owns... the public should be able to decide if there will be smoking or not..
A private place is one the public does not own... they have no right to decide if anyone smokes in these places or not.
lazs
-
Banning smoking in publicly owned places makes more sense to me than banning it in privately owned places like bars and restaurants.
-
bars and restaurants that banned smoking have seen a increase in business, i guess the "people" have spoken.
-
john.. it that is the case then it would be bad bussines for a bar owner to allow smoking.
You shouldn't need a law.. you can just go and show him the studies and he will do your bidding.
Good idea, bad idea... it is his private property so he should be the one to decide... not the "people".
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Banning smoking in publicly owned places makes more sense to me than banning it in privately owned places like bars and restaurants.
I remember when smoking wasn't banned in private places like bars, cafes, and restaurants.
I remember when bars, cafes, and restaurants offered no smoking areas.
I remember when smokers completely ignored any requests not to smoke in those no smoking areas.
Its called karma. Smokers failed to respect others right to a bit of fresh air, heck they still fail. I walk outside our building to find a regular gathering of smokers crowded around the exits forming their own little cloud of pollution, not to mention the stubs they leave all over the place rather than walk 3 metres away to put it in a bin (which has an ashtray thingie on top).
Karma baby... karma.
-
Ironic that smokers get all high-horse about their rights to smoke, but completely ignore the rights of non-smokers to live, eat and breath in a cleaner healthier environment.
Smoking stinks, is dangerous to health in almost every way, causes cancer, contributes greatly to littering and filth. Tell me again why someone thinks it is a good idea?
-
Because it makes you look cool.
(http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/smoker.jpg)
ack-ack
-
farting bothers me more than smoking
-
Ya know, there are times I just have to shake my head and walk away. As a general rule, people are really a hoot. :D
-
Originally posted by Debonair
farting bothers me more than smoking
Farting seems to bother my wife too, can't figure it out myself, but it means peace and quiet. :D
-
Originally posted by Dago
Ironic that smokers get all high-horse about their rights to smoke, but completely ignore the rights of non-smokers to live, eat and breath in a cleaner healthier environment.
Smoking stinks, is dangerous to health in almost every way, causes cancer, contributes greatly to littering and filth. Tell me again why someone thinks it is a good idea?
Because freedom doesn't mean being free to do sensible things that everyone agrees with. You don't need a bill of rights to protect that. Freedom means being free to make personal choices that violate other peoples sensibilities.
If you do not like smokey restraunts and bars, don't frequent them. The free market should choose whether bars and restraunts should be smoke free.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Because freedom doesn't mean being free to do sensible things that everyone agrees with. You don't need a bill of rights to protect that. Freedom means being free to make personal choices that violate other peoples sensibilities.
Can you then like, for example marry your sister? (poor RedRadr)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How do our french/EU citizens feel about public banning of smoking?
heh i dont care cuz i dont smoke, but hey if they would ban alcohol
now that would be a different story! :D
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Because freedom doesn't mean being free to do sensible things that everyone agrees with. You don't need a bill of rights to protect that. Freedom means being free to make personal choices that violate other peoples sensibilities.
If you do not like smokey restraunts and bars, don't frequent them. The free market should choose whether bars and restraunts should be smoke free.
Dont you think your right to smoke should not in any way intefere with my right not to be exposed to the crap you put into the air?
Do you really believe you have a right to foul the air and prevent me from going out, your right to overrides my right not to breath carcenogenic air?
You think I should stay home because you want the right to foul the air with toxins?
Maybe you should exercise your right to stay home, you can smoke your way into cancer and I can enjoy clean air. That way we both get to enjoy our rights. You to smoke, me to breath.
If you stay home, my eyes won't burn, my body, clothes and hair won't smell horrible from your "rights", and I will enjoy a meal out or a drink with friends so much more.
Thanks for your consideration of my rights.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Dont you think your right to smoke should not in any way intefere with my right not to be exposed to the crap you put into the air?
Do you really believe you have a right to foul the air and prevent me from going out, your right to overrides my right not to breath carcenogenic air?
You think I should stay home because you want the right to foul the air with toxins?
Maybe you should exercise your right to stay home, you can smoke your way into cancer and I can enjoy clean air. That way we both get to enjoy our rights. You to smoke, me to breath.
If you stay home, my eyes won't burn, my body, clothes and hair won't smell horrible from your "rights", and I will enjoy a meal out or a drink with friends so much more.
Thanks for your consideration of my rights.
A. I don't smoke and I personally find cigarette smoke offensive.
B. I support reasonable restrictions on smoking in public places. Certainly the government can and should ban smoking in public buildings, if that's what the people desire.
C. However, I do not considder a ban on smoking in restraunts to be a reasonable intrusion of the government into the operation of a private establishment.
In the smallish city where I live, there were several non-smoking restraunts and two non-smoking bars BEFORE the collective nannyism decided that smoking should be banned altogether. The free market was voting with their dollars.
I enjoy going into any restraunt or sports bar without having to worry about a smokey atmosphere, but I do not believe it's a government protected right.
You say people should stay at home and smoke. I'm asking, how long until the nannyists decide that I can't smoke at home? (Again, I don't smoke, but in a free country I should be able to choose to).
I believe in reasonable government and that a reasonable place to draw the line is with privately owned establishments - where you have the free choice to frequent or not frequent one as you see fit for any reason, be it too much smoke or watered down drinks.
But the nannyists don't understand reason. They only understand excercising the tyrany of the many under the disguise of "the common good".
Again - being able to do what the majority of society finds acceptable is not freedom. Legislating away all "undesirable" behavior, no matter whether you are "right" or "in the majority" is NOT what this coutry was founded upon. An individual's right to make bad choices is exactly what freedom means, so long as those choices don't infringe on another individual's constitutionally protected freedoms - which does not include your right to go to any restraunt or bar and expect a smoke-free environment.
-
you should have the right to smoke any where or time you want , with a bag over your head. :lol
-
A private establishment is still a public place as long as it is open to the public. Over here smoking is still allowed in private clubs that require some sort of membership, or private parties held at bars, restaurants etc.
As long as anyone can walk in without trespassing it is a public place.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you should have the right to smoke any where or time you want , with a bag over your head. :lol
anti-smoking activists should stick a cork up their a-holes.
cigarettes are an appetite supressant so smokers fart less.
-
This isn't a french law per-se, just one that every member of the EU is following of has to follow. But I'm sure no one here is interested in that.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
This isn't a french law per-se, just one that every member of the EU is following of has to follow. But I'm sure no one here is interested in that.
Besides, when did the French follow any EU directive they didn't like?
-
Puff I don't PuffPuff think PuffPuffPuff it will annoy PuffPuff me I Puff stop smoking PuffPuffPuff between PuffPuff each cigarette Puff
Et Puff !
-
Originally posted by Viking
A private establishment is still a public place as long as it is open to the public. Over here smoking is still allowed in private clubs that require some sort of membership, or private parties held at bars, restaurants etc.
As long as anyone can walk in without trespassing it is a public place.
I understand that this is the nanny point of view.
The freedom point of view that respects limited government and economic freedoms is that even though an establishment is "open to the public", if the public has the free will not to frequent the establishment and the establishment survives or not based on customer satisfaction, then the government should butt-out.
This would apply to restraunts, bars and shopping malls, but, reasonably, not to city hall, airports, and the DMV.
-
agree sam... a private place is still a private place.
If you open your house to the public when it is for sale.... could you be fined, imprisoned or sued if you smoked in it?
I would say that the only obligation a private business had would be to post at the entrance that it was a smoking establishment.
the "public" is free to not go in and therefore is in no "danger".
LOL... I can't believe what a world of wussies we have where breathing a little smoke is considered daring and risky dangerous behavior...
The same people probly fill themselves with perscription and bathtub drugs all the time.
lazs
-
Businesses, in the U.S., who allow people into thier establishment do so by choice. They can just as easily ask anyone to leave. They can close thier doors anytime they like.
By the very laws governing businesses, they are not "public", nor or they "open to the public". The business owners are free to make that choice themselves. The federal or state governments should not be allowed to have a say in who is, or is not, allowed into a place of business. They very nature of such laws/statutes removes freedoms from the business owner.
Reasonable laws/statutes which govern the safety issues in a place of business are already in place. Adding one which states a business must post as to whether or not they allow smoking is reasonable as it does not restrict the owner of the business and allows the people entering the establishment to make a choice before they enter.
I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking. Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice. It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Dont you think your right to smoke should not in any way intefere with my right not to be exposed to the crap you put into the air?
Neither smoker's or non-smoker's rights trumps the owner of the restaurant's right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. If he wants to cater to smokers it's his right. If he wants to cater to non-smokers, it's his business...literally.
One can debate the wisedom of such a business decision, but if he fulfills the market's demand he will succeed, if not he won't. It's called capitalism, it does an economy.
The majority overrulling the owner's freedom for the so-called "good of whole" is called communism, it is teh sux.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Businesses, in the U.S., who allow people into thier establishment do so by choice. They can just as easily ask anyone to leave. They can close thier doors anytime they like.
By the very laws governing businesses, they are not "public", nor or they "open to the public". The business owners are free to make that choice themselves. The federal or state governments should not be allowed to have a say in who is, or is not, allowed into a place of business. They very nature of such laws/statutes removes freedoms from the business owner.
Reasonable laws/statues which govern the safety issues in a place of business are already in place. Adding one which states a business must post as to whether or not they allow smoking is reasonable as it does not restrict the owner of the business and allows the people entering the establishment to make a choice before they enter.
I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking. Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice. It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.
what he said.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
farting bothers me more than smoking
Back in the '70s my dad was taking a flight overseas and they screwed up on his seating and put him in the non-smoking section. so he lights up and the guy next to him starts complaining and told my dad that he should go to the smoking sections. My dad replied that when the guy farted my dad didn't tell him go to the farting section and shut the hell up.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Back in the '70s my dad was taking a flight overseas and they screwed up on his seating and put him in the non-smoking section. so he lights up and the guy next to him starts complaining and told my dad that he should go to the smoking sections. My dad replied that when the guy farted my dad didn't tell him go to the farting section and shut the hell up.
ack-ack
Reminds me of last summer, I was flying back from Rome in the first class section, and the guy next to me laid his seat out, turned on his side away from me to sleep, and kept farting. Couldnt hear it, but the smell was there.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking. Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice. It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.
I disagree with you entirely skuzzy.
As I kid I suffered from bad asthma. Smoking would trigger or inflame it.
In this good'old'days restaurants, cafes, whatever usually had "no smoking" areas which were clearly defined. Did that stop smokers? No. Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.
So, as a victim of a-hole smokers in the past I now relish the rules being imposed on them. Once again, it is KARMA. Smokers failed to respect the rights and requests of others so now non-smokers are the majority we're getting payback.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I disagree with you entirely skuzzy.
As I kid I suffered from bad asthma. Smoking would trigger or inflame it.
In this good'old'days restaurants, cafes, whatever usually had "no smoking" areas which were clearly defined. Did that stop smokers? No. Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.
So, as a victim of a-hole smokers in the past I now relish the rules being imposed on them. Once again, it is KARMA. Smokers failed to respect the rights and requests of others so now non-smokers are the majority we're getting payback.
Witness the Tyranny of the Many. This country was not founded on the values that the majority gets to trample the minory. This is a classic case of "I want what I want and what you want doesn't matter because I'm the majority."
Why, pray tell, would you as an asthmatic, even consider giving your busines to a restraunt who's owner shrugs you off in favor of a smoker?
Because you fail to excercise your freedom to stand up to a restraunt owner, walk out, and never return, you now think it's OK to use the government to bully the restraunt owner into providing the service that you want?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.
I've lived 26 years in NYC, and never seen this happen once.
This sounds too much like someone who wants an excuse to support smoking bans because, deep down, they can't reconcile their dislike of smoking with their belief that private businesses have the right to do as they please (within the law).
-
Then your parents should have gotten up and walked out and not gone back Vulcan. Someone should have called child protective services on your parents for putting you in harm's way. It was thier choice to do so.
See how regulation can cause a chain reaaction of events you really do not want? If you do not like the food at a restaurant, do you keep going back? Maybe a law is needed to restrict restaurant owners from serving food that does not taste good?
No, you simply do not go back if you do not like the food.
If the restaurant allows smoking, then do not go in it. It is your choice.
All my life in Texas, and I have never witnessed what you professed Vulcan.
-
Smoking in a public place falls into the same category as someone carrying a loud playing boom box on their shoulder imo. Both are intrusive but allowed in certain places while not in others. It really is about common courtesy and if if you have none expect to lose your privilege.
-
A place of business, which allows people to enter, is not a "public place" as defined by law, in the U.S.
A "public place" is an area where anyone can traverse without constraint. A public park is an example. Most outdoor areas, unless marked, are public places.
Businesses are private property. Private property is not considered "public".
-
vulcan is a perfect example of the selfish voter that the politicians target to get more laws passed and thus... give themselves more power over all of us...
How selfish is it to restrict the rights of everyone based on some inconvience to you or maybe percieved cost?
smoking has gone down. the "death toll" has gone down.... seatbelts are widespred.....
What did all of you do with the huge rebates you got from the health and car insurance agencies you deal with?
What are you doing with all the money that your reduced premiums are saving you?
As was pointed out... if you don't like what they are doing in a private business.... don't go in there. The smell of incence sickens me. I don't go into hippy shops that have it. no big deal.
lazs
-
I agree that businesses are private places. Most aren't going to let someone crank up their boom box assualting and offending the senses of others. Cigarettes assault a different sense but can be just as annoying.
I agree that government should not be dictating policy to privately owned businesses.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Smoking in a public place falls into the same category as someone carrying a loud playing boom box on their shoulder imo. Both are intrusive but allowed in certain places while not in others. It really is about common courtesy and if if you have none expect to lose your privilege .
And here we have the root of the problem.
Apparently the government exists to grant us the priviledges that it sees fit with respect to behavior in our privately owned establishments.
Stupid me, I was trying to make this about the basic rights of business ownership and personal freedoms that shouldn't be infringed upon by a majority will.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
And here we have the root of the problem.
Apparently the government exists to grant us the priviledges that it sees fit with respect to behavior in our privately owned establishments.
Stupid me, I was trying to make this about the basic rights of business ownership and personal freedoms that shouldn't be infringed upon by a majority will.
When you enter another's private property you do so on privilege, not right.
-
Originally posted by lukster
When you enter another's private property you do so on privilege, not right.
Privilege of the owner, not the government. If the owner says no smoking or leave, no problem.
If the owner says, "folks in here are smoking, take it or leave it," I don't get to use the government as a club to force the owner to make things how I want them.
-
It's all a matter of degree. You have the government protected right to not be physically assaulted when you enter a private business provided you behave yourself. Some claim that cigarette smoke is a physical assault.
I hate cigarette smoke but think it should be left to the establishment to allow or disallow it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It's all a matter of degree. You have the government protected right to not be physically assaulted when you enter a private business provided you behave yourself. Some claim that cigarette smoke is a physical assault.
I hate cigarette smoke but think it should be left to the establishment to allow or disallow it.
Well, here's where my credibility goes out window, because I think if a restraunt owner puts a sign on the door that says:
Enter at will. Be advised that in order to eat here you need to take a punch on the nose from our chef, verbal abuse from the wait staff, and be spit upon by our maitre d'.
Then you should have the right to go in and get assulted, and you should have no expectation of not being assulted if you go in - nor should you be able to go whine to the government about it. If there's a market for such a restraunt, why shouldn't it be allowed?
But again, I'm just a complete whacko who strongly believes in limited government and individual freedoms.
-
shouldn't that be spat upon?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I disagree with you entirely skuzzy.
As I kid I suffered from bad asthma. Smoking would trigger or inflame it.
In this good'old'days restaurants, cafes, whatever usually had "no smoking" areas which were clearly defined. Did that stop smokers? No. Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.
So, as a victim of a-hole smokers in the past I now relish the rules being imposed on them. Once again, it is KARMA. Smokers failed to respect the rights and requests of others so now non-smokers are the majority we're getting payback.
karma huh?
i didn't do jack **** to you, your family, or any asthmatic, and didn't start smoking until 1992 myself. i chose to smoke as a 19 year old adult because i could not buy booze. ironic huh? all I wanted was a buzz at the dance club to feel loose.
now people like you want to "punish" me and say it is karma or whatever horse **** reason you want.
I can't wait until they outlaw sugar or something like that... and all you nanny non-smoking sweet eating people whine and whine. the health costs of the overweight people must be stopped, so the govenrment will take over and take away the "bad" thing regulating what you can and can not have at a privately owned business. then I can say "karma" back atcha.
all this all is is the same people for prohibition re-incarnated and re-living the past. we all know how that turned out.
-
Originally posted by storch
shouldn't that be spat upon?
Now we're expecting restraunt owners to always use correct verb forms?!? Let's pass a law requiring it! :D
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
now people like you want to "punish" me and say it is karma or whatever horse **** reason you want.
Yup.... suffer social outcast muahahahahahahhahahaha!
-
All your bars and restaurants are belong to us now!
-
vulcan... I don't smoke... don't like anything about it.
Why do you want to "punish" me by giving government power over private business?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
Farting seems to bother my wife too, can't figure it out myself, but it means peace and quiet. :D
It only bothers my wife when I give her a "Dutch oven".
France should get smart and outlaw being French in public.