Author Topic: Smoking in Bars... (Read 6488 times)

vorticon · « **Reply #45 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:32:48 PM »

Quote

The government obviously looks for easy targets in the beginning - those that would not elicit much sympathy. Most people do not realise that itbis not a particular right that is important but the concept of rights itself.

so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???

miko2d · « **Reply #46 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:35:24 PM »

vorticon: so what your saying is in the beginning american presidents were just picked out of thing air?

They were elected by the electoral college. The members of the electoral college were appointed by the States according to whatever rules the States had. There is no specification whatsoever in the Constitution that the electors should be elected democratically or that their votes should reflect the democratic preferences of their electorates. And neither were they.

"In the beginning" only a tiny percentage of the non-representative elite - wealthy property owners - were entitled to vote for the electors.
Even now in most (all?) States the electors do not reflect the democratic voting of the states' populations but the majority - or the biggest minority.

The Holy Roman Habsburg Empire had an electoral college that elected it's emperors for hundreds of years. Surely that does not qualify them as democracy though it would not be "picking emperors out of thin air".

US was created as a Constitutional Republic, not democracy. The founders abhored the very idea of democracy - and rightly so.
The first america president ever to utter the word "democracy" in an official setting was Woodrow Wilson.

miko

vorticon · « **Reply #47 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:42:30 PM »

didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...

miko2d · « **Reply #48 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:46:14 PM »

Frogm4n: They always scream that. The other myth is that if you raise corprate taxes that the price will be passed on to the consumer. Of course if they raise their prices someone will always undercut them.

That is plain impossible. You cannot take resurces out of the private economy and still have the same amount of resources left - or even the same amount of production going on.

The mystical "will always undercut them" never shows up - unless it's a chinese who sell us stuff and loan the money back to us so that we could buy more.

miko

vorticon · « **Reply #49 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:48:41 PM »

Quote

US was created as a Constitutional Republic, not democracy. The founders abhored the very idea of democracy - and rightly so

so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???

Creamo · « **Reply #50 on:** February 17, 2004, 12:59:05 PM »

Just shoot me. This has gone beyond retarded.

ra · « **Reply #51 on:** February 17, 2004, 01:04:01 PM »

I have that album!

miko2d · « **Reply #52 on:** February 17, 2004, 01:06:12 PM »

vorticon: so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???

Who determines what constitutes abuse? Soviets took children away from religious families because they considered raising children religious to be abuse. Australians took children away from aboriginal families because they consider raising a children by native australians to be abuse. Americans take children away if the bureaucrats believe them to be overweight or if the parents want to spank their children or for countless other reasons.

vorticon: didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...

Who are you talking about? Americans? To start with, very few fough to escape and not that hard. "The system" was hardly oppressive by our standards - the tax rates were around 3-4%, not 50%. And the system they established was a Confederation. It degenerated into Union later.

so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???

That is a non-sensical question. The concept of rights is not compatible with the existence of a "leader".
The people should only have the right to choose who will administer Law and guard their rights - not who will create the Law and/or limit people's rights.

People can only have rights in a republic. They can have no rights whatsoever in a democracy - only the privileges granted or taken away on a whim of the government.

miko

Creamo · « **Reply #53 on:** February 17, 2004, 01:08:22 PM »

Arrrg.

Kapow.

vorticon · « **Reply #54 on:** February 17, 2004, 01:55:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
vorticon: so if in a country it was a right that a parent could abuse/use there child and that country then removed that right you would still be pissed off???

Who determines what constitutes abuse? Soviets took children away from religious families because they considered raising children religious to be abuse. Australians took children away from aboriginal families because they consider raising a children by native australians to be abuse. Americans take children away if the bureaucrats believe them to be overweight or if the parents want to spank their children or for countless other reasons.

vorticon: didnt know that...seems like a fancy way to choose a temprary emporor/dictator...hardly seems better than the system they fought so hard to escape...

Who are you talking about? Americans? To start with, very few fough to escape and not that hard. "The system" was hardly oppressive by our standards - the tax rates were around 3-4%, not 50%. And the system they established was a Confederation. It degenerated into Union later.

so despite all you posturing about peoples rights you dont beleive people should have the right to choose who there leader would be???

That is a non-sensical question. The concept of rights is not compatible with the existence of a "leader".
The people should only have the right to choose who will administer Law and guard their rights - not who will create the Law and/or limit people's rights.

People can only have rights in a republic. They can have no rights whatsoever in a democracy - only the privileges granted or taken away on a whim of the government.

miko

1. common sense determines what is child abuse...as in rape, torture, beating your kid half to death just cause your drunk outta your mind...use as in making em work 12 hours a day for pennies...you know the sorta thing that makes you wish there wasn't a law against murder
2.err i was referring to the war of independance...
3. that made absalutly no sense at all...no country has ever not had a leader...and its usually a DICTATORSHIP in wich peoples rights can be removed on a whim...not a DEMOCRACY where the people can choose to overrule a governments decision if it is not to there liking...

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #55 on:** February 17, 2004, 02:39:14 PM »

I've been to bars where there are loud mouthed meat head jerk asses, when are they going to ban those *******s? I don't like dealing with them while I'm drinking.

Oh wait, nevermind... I just go to another bar.

Its amazing, thats exactly the same situation it should be like in a bar... and thankfully still is in VA and DC. MD seems to be becoming the east coast CA. They even advertise on TV "Smoking stops here." MD is also second to VA on the east coast for producing tobacco.

I just don't understand why it can't be left up to the decision of the bar owner? Are they incapable of choosing for themselves what they want for their business?

For an enlightened society and a super power, we sure are some ***** bellybutton sorry mother ****ers that can't think for ourselves and actually excercise our freedoms. Freedom to work in a smokey bar, freedom to not. Freedom to own a bar and let people smoke in it, freedom to not. Freedom to go to a smokey bar, freedom to not. Creamo, pass the gun.
-SW

cpxxx · « **Reply #56 on:** February 17, 2004, 02:49:42 PM »

Get used to it smokers, your day is done. I have no objection to anyone killing themselves with any substance they choose. But I seriously object to smokers forcing me to inhale their crap and then telling me THEIR rights are being effected when their foul habit is banned. They can damage their health if they want but have no business damaging mine.

Here in Ireland the smoking ban in the workplace starts on March 21st and I for one can't wait. Now I can go out to a pub or nightclub for the night and not have to inhale the exhaled crud of the minority of ********s who still think smoking is socially acceptable. Then go home smelling like a butt end.

Smokers are a dying breed as slogan goes. Now they can die on their own with the rest of us having to inhale their s**t. This is nothing to do with the nanny state or rights. It's about a bunch of retards who been inflicting their dirty habit on the rest us for years. Smoking is now as socially acceptable as spitting these days.

Creamo · « **Reply #57 on:** February 17, 2004, 02:54:12 PM »

Right on! Lets go to Pubs and drink Diet Soda!

cpxxx · « **Reply #58 on:** February 17, 2004, 02:59:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Right on! Lets go to Pubs and drink Diet Soda!

Go on if that's your thing, Diet Soda! Just don't piss it all over me when you finish with it. Which in effect is what smokers do.

Creamo · « **Reply #59 on:** February 17, 2004, 03:16:57 PM »

And don't come to drink beer in a bar and act like cotton candy should be served instead of shots of Jeager, we will get along.

Until then, I can do without *****s' crying at an adult establishment about adult vices.