OT: Vote?

[conversationpc]

Why don't you just decide not to patronize establishments that are willingly smoke-free? I hate smoking also, but I would rather exercise my freedom of choice to go to restaurants that meet my requirements, not the government's.

Because there are TWO...do you like a little variety in your life? I would like to exercise my right to breath fresh air...btw, coming from a 15 year ex smoker.

Establishments should be able to decide for themselves whether they will be smoke-free or not. If I don't like the fact that a particular restaurant that I would like to go to allows smoking, then I don't go. I don't have a right, nor should the government, to tell a private business owner that he/she cannot allow smoking.

Is it sometimes inconvenient? Absolutely, but having freedom means you sometimes have to be inconvenienced and Americans sometimes think they are entitled to have things a certain way.

[NealIsGod]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

I love the way you argue.

You ride a bike to work, Matt?

[conversationpc]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

I love the way you argue.

You ride a bike to work, Matt?

He probably drives one of those queer-looking tiny little Euro cars, the ones that are barely big enough for a midget to drive. It's gotta be rough on the feet, though, with those holes in the floor for the Flintstone-style brakes.

[heardonthestreet]

We voted on a $1 a pack tax increase. I would have MUCH rather seen a vote to ban smoking in public places vs. just taxing smokes. What you pay for cigs doesn't directly effect me, but breathing that shit does.(except for those whose kids will now go hungry or shoeless cuz you just HAVE to have a pack instead) [/color][/size] [/b]

Why don't you just decide to patronize only establishments that are willingly smoke-free? I hate smoking also, but I would rather exercise my freedom of choice to go to restaurants that meet my requirements, not the government's.

........................................

I hate that expression, "Freedom of Choice" anymore. It's obvious that freedom of choice negates others freedom of choice.

[Angiekay]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

I love the way you argue.

You ride a bike to work, Matt?

Who is arguing? I stated my opinion and he jumped me about and that was my response. Easy, cheesy

I don't smoke anymore and I don't like going places where there is smoke...which there are MUCH more then not. Even when I WAS a smoker I NEVER thought I had more rights then nonsmokers, but I was and always will be in a minority about that opinion. It's very easy to use the government as a scapegoat for telling someone what to do, vs just having a compassion and concern for fellow humans health and comfort.

Sad.

[conversationpc]

We voted on a $1 a pack tax increase. I would have MUCH rather seen a vote to ban smoking in public places vs. just taxing smokes. What you pay for cigs doesn't directly effect me, but breathing that shit does.(except for those whose kids will now go hungry or shoeless cuz you just HAVE to have a pack instead) [/color][/size] [/b]

Why don't you just decide to patronize only establishments that are willingly smoke-free? I hate smoking also, but I would rather exercise my freedom of choice to go to restaurants that meet my requirements, not the government's.

........................................

I hate that expression, "Freedom of Choice" anymore. It's obvious that freedom of choice negates others freedom of choice.

Exactly.

[Angiekay]

Americans sometimes think they are entitled to have things a certain way.

So I've noticed.

[conversationpc]

Americans sometimes think they are entitled to have things a certain way.

So I've noticed.

Some of them are called The Smoking Nazis.

[whocares]

Deano (and other's who care), just to let you know, not that it matters much... McCaskill didn't so much win because she got STL & KC, as much as winning in rural areas that are mostly Republican areas in this hick state. Not to mention she had WAY less attack ads on TV, something that people are finally admitting sways their vote sometimes, than Talent(less) did. Her attacks were against his voting policy(ies), his attacks were personal against her family, not as much against her politcal work, which is what it should be about. Not that we should have to watch attack ads at all on TV. I wonder if the Founding fathers of this country had tv's back then, if they would have resorted to this kind of mud-slinging in the same ways.

It was a late night waiting for results here in STL on the big 4-5 issues on our ballots, but it was all worth it for those who voted for McCaskill.

PS - I'm so GLAD the politcal ads are over with for another few months.

[heardonthestreet]

PS - I'm so GLAD the politcal ads are over with for another few months.[/quote] "whocares"


..............................................
And may the best women win, lol. Let's hear it for the ladies!

[conversationpc]

I wonder if the Founding fathers of this country had tv's back then, if they would have resorted to this kind of mud-slinging in the same ways.

They did engage in mud-slinging. It wasn't unheard of for one to accuse the other of sleeping with a prostitute or some such charge. Of course, the news didn't travel nearly as fast but it did happen quite often.

[Red13JoePa]

How diplomatically gentlemanly of you, HOTS.

[heardonthestreet]

Come on Joe baby! You know that your mother and wife and maybe your daughter, if you have one, are the best things that ever happened to you, lol. This Country is in desperate need of a Mother. Mother knows best!

[NealIsGod]

THE FOUNDING FATHERS MUST BE SO PROUD!

Transcript of Flex Malarky, 38, of West Chester, PA, checking his voicemail the evening of 10/25/06:

FLEX: Wow! 17 messages! I’ve never felt so popular! Let’s hear them…

*BEEP!*
Hi. My name is Becky and I have an important message for you regarding next month’s state congressional election. Did you know that candidate Bill Beckingham has raised property taxes numerous times over the last 3 years? Aren’t Pennsylvania families paying too much in taxes anyway? You need to…*BEEP!*

FLEX: I need to move on to the next message, thank you very much.

*BEEP!*
Hello. My name is Steve and I have an important message for you regarding next month’s state congressional election. Did you know that candidate Nancy Furlong supports George W. Bush? Can you believe that? A jock strap won’t even support Bush anymore! This means Furlong supports the deaths of thousands upon thousands of our soldiers who are dying…*BEEP!*

FLEX: That’s enough of that. Let’s hear what’s next.

*BEEP!*
Hi. My name is Bill Beckingham and I’m running for State Representative in Harrisburg next month. Did you know that my opponent, Nancy Furlong, supports George W. Bush? That means she supports the needless deaths of our brave men in arms and higher taxes and curbing stem cell research that could cure cancer and…*BEEP!*

FLEX: You have got to be kidding me. Next!

*BEEP!*
Hello. My name is Nancy Furlong and I am running for State Representative in Harrisburg in November. My opponent, Bill Beckingham, is a liberal Commie who does not understand or appreciate family values. I do. I have six kids, I’m Catholic, I’ve been married to the same man for 24 years, and did I mention I have 6 kids? *BEEP!*

FLEX: Yes, you did. Do I have any messages here for me?!

*BEEP!*
Bill Beckingham here again. I’ll bet you have a voicemail or two from my Fascist, Bible-thumping opponent, Nancy Furlong……*BEEP!* Hi! Nancy Furlong here! My opponent smoked weed and inhaled! *BEEP!* Bill Beckingham again! Nancy Furlong may have been married to the same man for 24 years, but he’s her third husband! *BEEP!* Nancy Furlong again! Bill Beckingham is gay! *BEEP!* Bill Beckingham! If Nancy calls me gay, she means I’m happy! *BEEP!* No, I don’t! *BEEP!* Nancy Furlong’s husband must be gay for marrying her! *BEEP!* You lusting after my man? *BEEP!* I could steal your man without even blinking, ya pig! *BEEP!* Bite me, ya tax-hiking Commie! *BEEP!* In your wildest dreams, ya Nazi gun-slinging whore!

*BEEP!*
I’m Bill Beckingham, and I approve these messages.

*BEEP!*
I’m Nancy Furlong, and I look forward to securing your vote on November 7th.

[larryfromnextdoor]

an interesting political ad... ron kind.....STUPID!!!!!

http://www.break.com/index/ron_kind_campaign_ad.html

[Blueskies]

an interesting political ad... ron kind.....STUPID!!!!!

http://www.break.com/index/ron_kind_campaign_ad.html

WOW! Larry! Finally contributing to my thread?

[larryfromnextdoor]

an interesting political ad... ron kind.....STUPID!!!!!

http://www.break.com/index/ron_kind_campaign_ad.html

WOW! Larry! Finally contributing to my thread?

hey phylllis,, yea im late on it i know,, but it doesnt appear u needed help ,,, i really have nothign to contribute here,, i have no politcal agenda,,

[Blueskies]

an interesting political ad... ron kind.....STUPID!!!!!

http://www.break.com/index/ron_kind_campaign_ad.html

WOW! Larry! Finally contributing to my thread?

hey phylllis,, yea im late on it i know,, but it doesnt appear u needed help ,,, i really have nothign to contribute here,, i have no politcal agenda,,

didn't u vote? for shame!!

[Barb]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH CALIFORNIA? This state actually voted FOR the government to be able to seize private property for whatever reason they want! It lost by 5 points!

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

This was Propostion 90:

GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.
Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.
Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
Defines “just compensation.”
Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.
Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.
Exempts certain governmental actions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.

[conversationpc]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH CALIFORNIA? This state actually voted FOR the government to be able to seize private property for whatever reason they want! It lost by 5 points!

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

This was Propostion 90:

GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.
Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.
Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
Defines “just compensation.”
Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.
Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.
Exempts certain governmental actions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.

Unbe-freakin'-lievable! I'm glad I don't live in the UCSR (Union of Californian Socialist Republics).

[Barb]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH CALIFORNIA? This state actually voted FOR the government to be able to seize private property for whatever reason they want! It lost by 5 points!

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

This was Propostion 90:

GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.
Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.
Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
Defines “just compensation.”
Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.
Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.
Exempts certain governmental actions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.

Unbe-freakin'-lievable! I'm glad I don't live in the UCSR (Union of Californian Socialist Republics).

I thought Eminent Domain abuse was an American issue -- not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I think there are just some seriously ignorant people voting in this state.

[whocares]

As far as I'm concerned the Government has no right to tell me I can't smoke in a BAR or restaurant. Most people going there SHOULD expect that there MAY be someone smoking there, especially at a bar. What's next, no drinking at a bar or restaurant?

There's also no reason to take property away from homeowners, just to get MORE tax money from a strip mall or big corporation. Eminant domain is such a joke. Though not as big a joke and waste of money as Arizona making "English" the official language of the state. Who thinks up this shit? he people who allow E.D. (Not erectile disfunction), won't be so happy when someone tries to take away the home they've lived in for years.

[conversationpc]

As far as I'm concerned the Government has no right to tell me I can't smoke in a BAR or restaurant. Most people going there SHOULD expect that there MAY be someone smoking there, especially at a bar. What's next, no drinking at a bar or restaurant?

How about the recent news out of New York? I haven't heard anymore on this in a couple of weeks but someone proposed that trans-fats be removed from all restaurant food. Of course, KFC just announced they are doing it in their restaurants.

[whocares]

You know, CPC, you and I don't always see eye to eye, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's less boring than being all kiss-ass all the time, ya know?

As for the trans fat issues, if someone wants to eat fatty foods, then let them. It's no one's business if someone else is grossly overweight. Should fast food "restaurants" be held responsible because they have something popular with the masses? I don't think so. NO one is holding a gun to anyone's head (far as I know) and making them eat fast food. It's a way of life because let's face it, parents are lazy these days in that they won't spend time to cook something healthy (or have their old enough kids cook something healthy). If I want fast food while I'm out running errands, I eat it, if I gain a pound or two from eating it, it's MY fault, ya know? Heck, I'm a Wendy'sholic. (Though all fo the Wendy's are now closed in my area due to bankruptcy filed by the local owners). You can't beat a frosty and biggie fries (the old ones) sometimes.

When I'm at home, I cook as healthy as I can with fresh ingredients, and can feel better for it. When I eat someplace away form home, I don't expect that.

[yulog]

[quote="whocares"]As far as I'm concerned the Government has no right to tell me I can't smoke in a BAR or restaurant. Most people going there SHOULD expect that there MAY be someone smoking there, especially at a bar. What's next, no drinking at a bar or restaurant?

I guess the voters disagree with this since the smokers ban is being passed all over the U.S-----i think it comes down to the fact that--smokers are causing harm to non smokers--and both people should have equal rights to go in the same bar or restaurant but neither should be subjected to any harm by each other ,whether it be physical or caused by harmful tobacco.

[whocares]

As pointed out already Yulog, these places are private businesses. If the Government told me I couldn't allow people to smoke when they came to my house which is a private business, besides the place I sleep, then I'd tell them to shove it up their asses. (expecting full well to get audited sometime soon afterwards.

Several restaurants lose customers because they aren't allowed to have smoking areas anymore. The bars don't have as many patrons in them anymore, because people aren't free to smoke (even in the designated areas) anymore. Hell in some places you aren't even allowed to smoke OUTSIDE in public. I know what you are saying about harming other people with second hand smoke, but on the other hand, if people want to kill THEMSELVES by smoking then it's their choice. Much like going to a bar or restaurant where there MAY be smoking. Do you know how many people out there smoke even after having lost someone to some sort of cancer caused by smoking? How stupid is THAT?

The U.S. isn't much of a free country anymore, too many people poking into everyone elses business and telling them how to live their (short) lives.

[yulog]

As pointed out already Yulog, these places are private businesses. If the Government told me I couldn't allow people to smoke when they came to my house which is a private business, besides the place I sleep, then I'd tell them to shove it up their asses. (expecting full well to get audited sometime soon afterwards.

Several restaurants lose customers because they aren't allowed to have smoking areas anymore. The bars don't have as many patrons in them anymore, because people aren't free to smoke (even in the designated areas) anymore. Hell in some places you aren't even allowed to smoke OUTSIDE in public. I know what you are saying about harming other people with second hand smoke, but on the other hand, if people want to kill THEMSELVES by smoking then it's their choice. Much like going to a bar or restaurant where there MAY be smoking. Do you know how many people out there smoke even after having lost someone to some sort of cancer caused by smoking? How stupid is THAT?

The U.S. isn't much of a free country anymore, too many people poking into everyone elses business and telling them how to live their (short) lives.

They lose smoking customers, but they gain non smoking customers back, who stopped goin because of not being able to breath, it all balances out.--California has done research that has been showing this evidence --they use it when bar owners use that excuse to try to stop them from creating the ban
As far as the people who smoke after losing someone to cancer or having cancer and surviving themselves,i agree its sad. all people use poor coping skills at some point in their lives whether it be smoking, alcohol, drugs, sex, violence, overeating-----alot of this takes a tremendous amount of hard work to fix----especially when life becomes stressful.Its alot easier to go back to old habits than to stick with new ones.

[Matthew]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

The air in every major city is wretched...and it's not the cigarette smokers who are to blame. Perhaps you live in the wide open spaces of rural America- but in London I get a lungful of crap when I open the door each morning.

And the pollution we have is nothing compared to - say - Los Angeles, the standard-bearer of puritanical attitudes toward smoking. I went there about ten years ago and the smog which covered the city in the early evening was extraordinary to behold. But when I went to a party late in the evening and lit up a fag....my god...it was like these people had never seen smoke before....they were HORRIFIED...and made all these mock-coughing noises and pained faces...

And yet these same people had chosen to live in a city with no pedestrians...and virtually no public transport...where everyone drove no matter how short the distance....where smog warnings were routine....and the tourist shops were full of postcards with a picture of a guy with a gas-mask saying, "Welcome To LA".

I'm not defending smoking or denying that it can be unpleasant for other people - but equally the theatrical, intolerant and judgemental reactions to smoking by people who drive and who choose to live in major cities which they help to pollute....well, it just gets on my wick sometimes.

[Matthew]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

I love the way you argue.

You ride a bike to work, Matt?

Who is arguing? I stated my opinion and he jumped me about and that was my response. Easy, cheesy

I don't smoke anymore and I don't like going places where there is smoke...which there are MUCH more then not. Even when I WAS a smoker I NEVER thought I had more rights then nonsmokers, but I was and always will be in a minority about that opinion. It's very easy to use the government as a scapegoat for telling someone what to do, vs just having a compassion and concern for fellow humans health and comfort.

Sad.

But voting to ban smoking is like telling someone what to do.

[SF-Dano]

I can just picture you, Angie....walking out of the polling station...flushed with self-righteousness...and driving away in your car which belches out a load of exhaust into the street.

You're not in a confined room right behind me inhaling it, either....are you?

The air in every major city is wretched...and it's not the cigarette smokers who are to blame. Perhaps you live in the wide open spaces of rural America- but in London I get a lungful of crap when I open the door each morning.

And the pollution we have is nothing compared to - say - Los Angeles, the standard-bearer of puritanical attitudes toward smoking. I went there about ten years ago and the smog which covered the city in the early evening was extraordinary to behold. But when I went to a party late in the evening and lit up a fag....my god...it was like these people had never seen smoke before....they were HORRIFIED...and made all these mock-coughing noises and pained faces...

And yet these same people had chosen to live in a city with no pedestrians...and virtually no public transport...where everyone drove no matter how short the distance....where smog warnings were routine....and the tourist shops were full of postcards with a picture of a guy with a gas-mask saying, "Welcome To LA".

I'm not defending smoking or denying that it can be unpleasant for other people - but equally the theatrical, intolerant and judgemental reactions to smoking by people who drive and who choose to live in major cities which they help to pollute....well, it just gets on my wick sometimes.

Agree with you on this one Matthew.