Codey Makes It Illegal To Smoke In Bars...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Can't win the argument so you resort to bashing the state of California...nice. :roll: If you dislike CA then don't come here. Fact is the air quality here is quite good I've lived here for 16 years and can't remember the last time I heard of a smog advisory (so long as stupid smokers aren't throwing their lit butts out the window and starting forest fires).

CA deserves to be bashed. It is the home of the largest collections of suckers and busybodies on earth.

Current statewide air quality

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Except history.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

outside for 3 minutes... oh no. either that or in their own houses.

Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

statements like that are about as sane as those who oppose gay marriages and implying that it'll lead to people marrying their pets.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

The statistics do not support the argument that this is a public health issue. Remember that we are still talking about BARS, whose entire reason for existence is to serve the public the poison that kills 100k people every year in the US, plus an additional 20k deaths from those people who drive home from these bars. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the bars should not be allowed to exist period.

actually, they do.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No basis, I believe they went from banning in public, to banning in private businesses, next it's going to be in private homes. I mean, is it all right if a spouse kills another one by smoking. I'm surprised there are not thousands of criminal and civil lawsuits right now because of such cases. I mean it's illegal to poison another person, right? If I was a smoker and I killed my wife because of it, first I'd feel like sh1t, then I would be worried that my kids would hate me for killing their mother.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

The statistics do not support the argument that this is a public health issue. Remember that we are still talking about BARS, whose entire reason for existence is to serve the public the poison that kills 100k people every year in the US, plus an additional 20k deaths from those people who drive home from these bars. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the bars should not be allowed to exist period.

actually, they do.

Did you even read my post? It doesn't look like it. Either that or you're just trying to pretend you have a retort when you actually don't.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

outside for 3 minutes... oh no. either that or in their own houses.

Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

statements like that are about as sane as those who oppose gay marriages and implying that it'll lead to people marrying their pets.

They're nothing alike. But I could see why a failing medical student would make the comparisson.

I'm AGAINST government control, my sig says it best. I didn't say I was a republican. I agree with gay marriage because people have the right to choose. I don't think the government has the right to say what people can and can't do. But see thats where its confusing for people like you because I'm consistent.

 

[Vic]

Inconsistency in political ideology is a requirement in partisan politics. It proves that you are loyal to the partisan cause as opposed to being able to think for yourself. In a special interest-driven, "majority of the moment" political environment, partisan affiliation is crucial to survival, as the individual is the smallest minority of all.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

I don't seem to recall anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke...which amendment was that?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
This is funny coming from you, a guy who is not even open to the suggestion that we cut back on polution and instead says (paraphrased): "we either consume and use energy and technology as much as we want or we shiver outside in the cold like cavemen". For someone who's single-minded as you are about pollution and global warming issues it's hard to imagine you give a damn about the smog in LA.

I have never used a phrase like that before... not even paraphrased. Pollution is a case of causing legitimate harm to others -- I am against it as much as reasonably possible. Global warming is junk science caused by jumping to conclusions from insufficient datasets. Your mistake in logic here is that by thinking that because I am pro-technology that I am also pro-pollution.

Well, I just spent about 15 minutes searching for the thread I wanted on this. I couldn't find it. I searched using every word I can remember being used by both you and me, and the thread still wouldn't come up.

However, because I can't find it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and retract my statement.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

I don't seem to recall anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke...which amendment was that?

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

I don't seem to recall anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke...which amendment was that?

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the people have determined that smoking in restarants and bars is something they don't want to be exposed to.

ZOMG!!! The government has more power because I can't smoke a cigarette in a public place!!! Give me a fvcking break...:roll:

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

The statistics do not support the argument that this is a public health issue. Remember that we are still talking about BARS, whose entire reason for existence is to serve the public the poison that kills 100k people every year in the US, plus an additional 20k deaths from those people who drive home from these bars. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the bars should not be allowed to exist period.

actually, they do.

Did you even read my post? It doesn't look like it. Either that or you're just trying to pretend you have a retort when you actually don't.

i did read your post... that's why i highlighted the part i disagreed with and retorted.

as for alcohol consumption, smoking kills more people than alcohol does. in fact, smoking kills more people than aids, alcohol, cocaine, homicide, suicide, car crashes, and fires combined. also, alcohol can be cleared by your body and the liver can reverse the damage done to it.

also, i've never heard of second-hand drinking.... and alcohol doesn't exactly emit fumes that intrude on your airspace and cause you bodily harm. that's why i said that until there were cigarettes that kept the smoke within your personal air zone, i'm against smoking in bars/public/whatever.

also, say a pregant woman wants to go out with some of her friends to a bar one weekend. she doesn't want to drink, but she wants to dance and have fun with her friends. why shouldn't she be able to have fun just because people with an inconciderate/selfish habit feel like smoking. smoking is about as considerate as going around farting on people, except not as healthy.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

Who gives a crap. I'm still glad you can't smoke in them.

So because your glad - that makes it ok. This is an argument about what is morally right for the freedom of people OTHER then you.

Like Ive said time and time again - you could already find restaurants if the smoking was an issue for you. But now where do the smokers go?

outside for 3 minutes... oh no. either that or in their own houses.

Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

statements like that are about as sane as those who oppose gay marriages and implying that it'll lead to people marrying their pets.

They're nothing alike. But I could see why a failing medical student would make the comparisson.

I'm AGAINST government control, my sig says it best. I didn't say I was a republican. I agree with gay marriage because people have the right to choose. I don't think the government has the right to say what people can and can't do. But see thats where its confusing for people like you because I'm consistent.

i'm a failing med student? where'd you get that from?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

I don't seem to recall anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke...which amendment was that?

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the people have determined that smoking in restarants and bars is something they don't want to be exposed to.

ZOMG!!! The government has more power because I can't smoke a cigarette in a public place!!! Give me a fvcking break...:roll:

<sigh> You can't read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can you? You probably think "the people" could pass laws against the freedom of speech, don't you?
Don't work that way.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits
i did read your post... that's why i highlighted the part i disagreed with and retorted.

as for alcohol consumption, smoking kills more people than alcohol does. in fact, smoking kills more people than aids, alcohol, cocaine, homicide, suicide, car crashes, and fires combined. also, alcohol can be cleared by your body and the liver can reverse the damage done to it.

also, i've never heard of second-hand drinking.... and alcohol doesn't exactly emit fumes that intrude on your airspace and cause you bodily harm. that's why i said that until there were cigarettes that kept the smoke within your personal air zone, i'm against smoking in bars/public/whatever.

also, say a pregant woman wants to go out with some of her friends to a bar one weekend. she doesn't want to drink, but she wants to dance and have fun with her friends. why shouldn't she be able to have fun just because people with an inconciderate/selfish habit feel like smoking. smoking is about as considerate as going around farting on people, except not as healthy.

Way to sidestep my argument entirely by switching from ETS to active smoking... :roll:

At least we can all be happy to know that the next laws you fascists will pass will be against farting. I admit that's gonna be a tough one for me to argue against... the dangers of noxious methane!!

:roll:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
And the people have determined that smoking in restarants and bars is something they don't want to be exposed to.

ZOMG!!! The government has more power because I can't smoke a cigarette in a public place!!! Give me a fvcking break...:roll:

<sigh> You can't read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can you? You probably think "the people" could pass laws against the freedom of speech, don't you?
Don't work that way.

<sigh> Smoking isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right that is clearly defined in the Constitution (well as clearly as anything is defined in our Consitution anyway).

Blah blah blah, slippery slope...this will lead to the banning of everything bad for you that we currently enjoy blah blah blah. Tell you what, if that ever happens I'll gladly admit that you were right and I was wrong okay?

Edit-The day that eating a cheeseburger makes someone else fat I'll gladly abolish that too.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
no, i don't want cigarettes banned. never said i did.
why do you have to make me out to be the bad guy? i am not the only one who is happy that smoking is banned in bars/restaurants.

Nope, I'm with you on this Mosh. Banning smoking in public places is a okay in my book! In fact, I'm happy about it.

A bar is not a public place. It is a private business establishment.

who fvcking cares if it's a private business establishment? when it comes to public health, the government has the right to step in and regulate for the benefit of the people... that's what our government is there for. it's there to protect and serve the public that runs it.

The statistics do not support the argument that this is a public health issue. Remember that we are still talking about BARS, whose entire reason for existence is to serve the public the poison that kills 100k people every year in the US, plus an additional 20k deaths from those people who drive home from these bars. If we were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, the bars should not be allowed to exist period.

actually, they do.

Did you even read my post? It doesn't look like it. Either that or you're just trying to pretend you have a retort when you actually don't.

i did read your post... that's why i highlighted the part i disagreed with and retorted.

as for alcohol consumption, smoking kills more people than alcohol does. in fact, smoking kills more people than aids, alcohol, cocaine, homicide, suicide, car crashes, and fires combined. also, alcohol can be cleared by your body and the liver can reverse the damage done to it.

also, i've never heard of second-hand drinking.... and alcohol doesn't exactly emit fumes that intrude on your airspace and cause you bodily harm. that's why i said that until there were cigarettes that kept the smoke within your personal air zone, i'm against smoking in bars/public/whatever.

also, say a pregant woman wants to go out with some of her friends to a bar one weekend. she doesn't want to drink, but she wants to dance and have fun with her friends. why shouldn't she be able to have fun just because people with an inconciderate/selfish habit feel like smoking. smoking is about as considerate as going around farting on people, except not as healthy.

shhhh, stop making sense.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Well they can't smoke outside, at least the law says they can't. There house, yes - but you never know, that could go away too. Or at least in areas of the country like Boston and California.

I love how people don't see where laws like this lead - to more laws restricting more freedoms. I've already seen proposals to stop people from smoking in their own vehicles.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. An argument that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

No?? I'd say the unlimited power the government has with the Patriot act would be the only example I need. Which has also been amended to give the government even more power. All of the camera's going up to monitor what everyone does. The whole RF chip thing they're only using at gas stations and toll booths which the government is currently testing for people at airports.

I love how liberals can take the stance like this against the Patriot Act but not with other things penned by other liberals denying you the same rights.

I don't seem to recall anything in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke...which amendment was that?

Amendment IX: Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the people have determined that smoking in restarants and bars is something they don't want to be exposed to.

ZOMG!!! The government has more power because I can't smoke a cigarette in a public place!!! Give me a fvcking break...:roll:

<sigh> You can't read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, can you? You probably think "the people" could pass laws against the freedom of speech, don't you?
Don't work that way.

because we agree with this law doesn't make us extremists who want all of our rights taken away one by one. no one here is against freedom of speech.

the paranoia you guys want to distribute by thinking this smoking ban is the beginning of the end is really silly.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits
i did read your post... that's why i highlighted the part i disagreed with and retorted.

as for alcohol consumption, smoking kills more people than alcohol does. in fact, smoking kills more people than aids, alcohol, cocaine, homicide, suicide, car crashes, and fires combined. also, alcohol can be cleared by your body and the liver can reverse the damage done to it.

also, i've never heard of second-hand drinking.... and alcohol doesn't exactly emit fumes that intrude on your airspace and cause you bodily harm. that's why i said that until there were cigarettes that kept the smoke within your personal air zone, i'm against smoking in bars/public/whatever.

also, say a pregant woman wants to go out with some of her friends to a bar one weekend. she doesn't want to drink, but she wants to dance and have fun with her friends. why shouldn't she be able to have fun just because people with an inconciderate/selfish habit feel like smoking. smoking is about as considerate as going around farting on people, except not as healthy.

Way to sidestep my argument entirely by switching from ETS to active smoking... :roll:

At least we can all be happy to know that the next laws you fascists will pass will be against farting. I admit that's gonna be a tough one for me to argue against... the dangers of noxious methane!!

:roll:

*farts in Vic's general direction* :laugh:

how did you get your elite title anyway? you must've done something else besides argue relentlessly to get it. care to enlighten me on why you are elite?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<sigh> Smoking isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right that is clearly defined in the Constitution (well as clearly as anything is defined in our Consitution anyway).

Blah blah blah, slippery slope...this will lead to the banning of everything bad for you that we currently enjoy blah blah blah. Tell you what, if that ever happens I'll gladly admit that you were right and I was wrong okay?

Once again, you don't know how to read the Constitution. Freedoms do not have to be clearly defined in order to be protected. That's what the 9th and 10th Amendments are all about.

And yes, that is happening, though I know you will never admit being wrong. You could have just picked your lazy ass up and gone to a non-smoking bar (roughly half the bars in Portland are now voluntary non-smoking), but nooooo.... your lazy fascist ass had to make sure that a law was passed in order to spare you the inconvenience. And as that attitude becomes prevalent, that there is no difference between choice and coercion, that coercion is more effective than choice, that the majority is both empowered and entitled to disenfrachise the minority, our rights and freedoms WILL disappear, one by one. And not just will happen, has been happening for the past 100 years as we descend steadily into this mob rule.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<sigh> Smoking isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right that is clearly defined in the Constitution (well as clearly as anything is defined in our Consitution anyway).

Blah blah blah, slippery slope...this will lead to the banning of everything bad for you that we currently enjoy blah blah blah. Tell you what, if that ever happens I'll gladly admit that you were right and I was wrong okay?

Once again, you don't know how to read the Constitution. Freedoms do not have to be clearly defined in order to be protected. That's what the 9th and 10th Amendments are all about.

And yes, that is happening, though I know you will never admit being wrong. You could have just picked your lazy ass up and gone to a non-smoking bar (roughly half the bars in Portland are now voluntary non-smoking), but nooooo.... your lazy fascist ass had to make sure that a law was passed in order to spare you the inconvenience. And as that attitude becomes prevalent, that there is no difference between choice and coercion, that coercion is more effective than choice, that the majority is both empowered and entitled to disenfrachise the minority, our rights and freedoms WILL disappear, one by one. And not just will happen, has been happening for the past 100 years as we descend steadily into this mob rule.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
how did you get your elite title anyway? you must've done something else besides argue relentlessly to get it. care to enlighten me on why you are elite?

Ask the mods. It was bestowed to me out of the clear blue sky one day, although I was told that several members had petitioned for it.

Care to enlighten me as to why you are NOT elite?

 

[Vic]

Ah... are you bitter because I took your attention-whoring emotional argument away from you, Mosh?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: moshquerade
how did you get your elite title anyway? you must've done something else besides argue relentlessly to get it. care to enlighten me on why you are elite?

Ask the mods. It was bestowed to me out of the clear blue sky one day, although I was told that several members had petitioned for it.

Care to enlighten me as to why you are NOT elite?

link to thread where several members petitioned it? i mean, there must have been reasons as to why they felt you deserved it.