I came across this on another board where I am also considered a troll by kaneman

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master.

You know what's even more like fire? Fire. So we have a fire department and they put the fires out. Good thing we have government.
H

Our Fire department does work very well. Of course... it's a volunteer fire department. Funded by folks they help out, donations, etc. So, government does what there for me?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:45 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I agree. But what about waitresses? Should they be forced to work in an unsafe enviorment?

No. They can be informed of the risk, and they can choose from there whether to work in a potentially hazardous environment. Hell, you can even give them hazard pay for their troubles if they do decide to work in those conditions.

[img]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:23 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

We're from the government and we're here to help. That what They told Ed and Dr Brown on Thursday, as the Gillie snipers opened fire on his houseguests and family pets in New Hampshire.
www.myspace.com/time2makeastand
www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6626080&nav=4QcS

Fire departments were founded by arsonists running mafia extortion "protection" rackets. I've personally been threatened by a fire dept supervisor with "a jail cell with my name on it if I use the word 'arson'", when I tried to present him with photographic evidence of the arsonists in action, as a towering inferno engulfed the govt building next door to my penthouse. That govt contractor "accidentally" burned down its own HQ 6 months later, winning a free HQ thanks to govt-approved insurance fraud.

Quote:

Crews Watch Home Burn, Family Forced To Pay

A Gilbert family whose home burned to the ground while town firefighters refused to douse the flames will get a bill from the private fire company that eventually responded.

The double-wide mobile home in an unincorporated county area on South Higley Road was destroyed Wednesday night.

Gilbert firefighters responded to the blaze and made sure no life was at risk, but did not fight the fire under a town policy because it is in an unincorporated area.

Instead, the Rural/Metro Fire Department went to the fire as a courtesy, but they came too late to save the home.

Rural/Metro officials said they'll bill the family about $10,000 dollars anyway.

The county island fire protection issue has simmered for more than a year.

Rural/Metro ended subscription service, and county island residents voted against joining Gilbert to get protection. So for now, Gilbert officials say they will not get fire protection.

www.kpho.com/news/13397618/detail.html

"One of Edward Bernays' early clients was the tobacco industry. In 1929, he orchestrated a legendary publicity stunt aimed at persuading women to take up cigarette smoking, which was then considered unfeminine and inappropriate for women with any social standing. He initially consulted with psychoanalyst A. A. Brill, who told him that cigarettes were symbolic of the male penis. Therefore, if one wanted women to take up the habit of it was necessary to first connect the act of smoking to the idea of challenging the established male power in society. Women would smoke, he said, if the cigarette was a statement against the male-dominant ways, because this way women would symbolically have their own penises."
-Wikipedia, Public Relations, quoting BBC TV's Century of the Self
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

"An Urban Legend of sorts is the resemblance of Joe Camel's nose and snout to that of a penis and scrotum, perhaps as subliminal advertising."
-Wikipedia, Joe Camel

"I’ve also struggled with the tobacco companies’ arguments that their product is not addictive because fifty million Americans have quit and because one million Americans quit each year. But, just as they say their products are only like gummy bears, they recently maintain that their use of ammonia, a primary ingredient in urine, is only to improve a cigarette’s taste. Rat poison was also used to improve taste in pipe tobacco. Dr. Pankow quickly asked that I call him "Jim" and explained that the basis for the comparison between the modern cigarette and crack cocaine is the chemical process of "free basing," which is accomplished by the additive ammonia. This process is used by most tobacco companies and was used by Richard Pryor when he accidentally set himself on fire several years ago. When ammonia is added to nicotine, ammonia picks up one additional hydrogen atom from the nicotine molecule and becomes NH4. The free base process simultaneously matches the PH of the tobacco smoke to the PH of the lungs. Bioavailability is maximized by matching the PH of the nicotine to the PH of the membranes through which the nicotine must pass before flowing in the bloodstream. The civil liability significance of ammonia cannot be overstated. It is ammonia and thus "free basing" that turns heads at the Department of Justice."
-David Lee attorney at law, Can cigarettes really be compared to Crack?
www.jdlee.com/art2.htm

But when Gangsta Govt teams up with British American Tobacco Corporations, using taxdollars as welfare for farmers to genocide 400,000 US citizens every year, and supreme courts award billions of dollars in bribes PAID TO GOVT BANK ACCOUNTS INSTEAD OF SMOKING VICTIMS, then we have ourselves a serious problem.

Manufactured tobacco-based chemical mixtures have literally become weapons delivery systems engineered to massacre millions of US citizens in death camps. GOVT fails to require 1,000s of ingredients to be listed to purchasers of "tobacco" products, which voids any contract, due to lack of "meeting of the minds" and "informed consent". Real tobacco does not spontaneously burn, requiring addition of deadly incendiary chemicals. Psychological warfare techniques are used to ensure CHILDREN become addicted to nicotine before the age of consent, enslaving them to GOVT tobacco taxes as adults. According to CIA agent Bernays, cigarettes also brainwash male sheeple to be homosexuals, sucking on a penis like a pacifier.

What's amazing is that murder victims don't start slaughtering govt employees, farmers and retailers for dealing this deadly insecticide.

God made nicotine as a natural dewormer, which is great for feeding to pets and people. That's it's only legitimate purpose.

As for the National Park Service, it's current director Mary A. Bomar is a citizen of Great Britian, so the Queen of England is now directing NPS.GOV, probably as part of SPP.GOV merger of USA, Canada and Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_A._Bomar
www.cr.nps.gov/history/hisnps/NPSHistory/directors.htm

British Petroleum already gets 90% of the oil in Alaska, for export to Communist China, Japan, Russia and Mexico. US Dept of Homeland Security is directed by Michael Chertoff, born in Communist Czechoslovakia, who's a current citizen of a Israel, whose mommy founded Mossad. All GOVT highways in USA are now being given to the King of Spain and the Queen of England, to turn all USA roads into toll roads, for GPS taxation by-the-mile, as currently enforced against British subject/slaves in England.
www.piratenews.org/kill-robocops.html

Govt Communism and Govt Fascism are not your friend, nor is an unelected global govt-corporate dictatorship. Both have genocided 100,000,000s of sheeple in the past century in USA, Europe, Middle East, Russia, China, Africa.

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I agree. But what about waitresses? Should they be forced to work in an unsafe enviorment?
No. They can be informed of the risk, and they can choose from there whether to work in a potentially hazardous environment. Hell, you can even give them hazard pay for their troubles if they do decide to work in those conditions.

Well, as much as I'd like to see reduction in Gov, I'll probably never qualify as a 'true libertarian'... 2nd hand smoke, is in my opinion, hazardous. Do we let parents harm their children by smoking? Probably yes. Employment is a tough matter. I have to choose between working in a smoking environment or not working at all? Very hard choice. I am personally content that that in NY they have outlawed smoking in public places. I would also say, in any case, that if smoking leads to problems which would normally be covered by 'public' benefit, it should be denied (of course, a 'real' libertarian would solve that problem by simply tossing out all the safety nets any how)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:29 AM

Which leads back to Kaneman's original observation "Those of you who still believe in elements of the welfare/warfare state, get it through your heads: Government is no more or less than a bludgeon. Government is force. Government is a gun. That is all it is and all it can ever be. Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master. If you do not believe in initiating deadly force in order to make sure a person doesn't smoke in a restaurant that isn't yours, you cannot support a smoking ban without living a delusion."
I suppose the only counter is, what makes you think you can stop someone from smoking in a restraunt you own? Will you 'legally' be able to throw him out? Can you do it, if he's bigger and more skilled in combat than you? Can you call the police to remove the offender? Will they? You can refuse to serve the fellow, certainly; but if the smoker is there to 'make a point' he may not care.

In any case, I have no delusion that I can 'make' someone not smoke in a restraunt that I own.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 1:22 PM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

If he is smoking and you don't want him too, ask him to stop. If he refuses to stop, ask him to leave. If he refuses to leave, you can physically throw him out. If he's bigger//stronger than you, you can call the cops, and if they won't help, you're probably within your rights to shoot him. If he fought back against your forcing him to leave, then you are defending yourself and your property.

Granted, most people wont get that far and if/when a gun is brought in things tend to go along the lines of the smoker leaving. Also, it is reasonable to say that the cops will remove a person, because you can say he's on your land without permission after you've asked him to leave, so their refusing to help is unlikely. No police department wants to get sued for failure to do their jobs. Granted, this may not get your smoker out but it is probably way beyond the realm of possibility anyway.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:35 PM

Maybe. You must remember this is in 'mythical Kaneman land' where there aren't any 'no smoking laws'. Perhaps we don't have cops either; I'm not clear on what's left when Kaneman is done.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 10:07 PM

Re: Smoking.

Firstoff, if you prefer that I don't smoke near you for heavens sake man up and ask me politely like a human being and fellow person, and it's all cool.

You come up to me with threats and hostility though, I am likely to return the favor and am probably better at it.

And what I do on my own property a hundred miles and more away from you ain't your business, is it now.

Also consider I can apply the same argument to your SUV and it's toxic emissions - and I want you to think on that, and think HARD.

Being stuck at a bus stop next to your idling road beast for five minutes is more harmful and toxic than sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant for an entire week, and should I step over there and demand you shut off your engine ?

Past a certain point this shit gets ridiculous, and never once has it been about peoples health cause most of the "anti-smoking" folks have heavy investment into those patches, which are in fact, if you do your homework, simply set up to addict you to their product instead of big tobacco.

Big pharma and Big tobacco, it's just a pair of slimy drug dealers fightin over turf and neither one gives a damn about it, and most of the do-gooder crapola is a pretty shiny face on a greedy hand sticking out for government money, MY tax dollars robbed from MY paycheck, and on top of it the enormous excise tax paid on each pack.

Look into WHERE that money goes and the ridiculous crap it's spent on and who gets rich off it - and then we'll talk.

But if you think those people actually care about anyones health but their own financial health, you're dreaming.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:19 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Fucking right Frem.

I want SUVs banned.
I want semi truks banned.
I want compact cars banned.
I want forest fires banned.

I want keyboards at work banned because they promote carpal-tunnel syndrome.

I want computer monitors and video games banned because they've ruined my eyes.

I want internet porn banned because if I diddle my doodle too much I'll have erectile dysfunction by the time I'm 40.

I want coughing banned because your germs can make me sick.

I want car horns banned because they can damage my hearing prematurely.

I want marriage banned because most marriages are going to end in divorce and the kids are going to be fucked up.

Oh... and Hero, no matter what I've said about you in the past I'm starting to warm up to you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Re: Smoking.
Firstoff, if you prefer that I don't smoke near you for heavens sake man up and ask me politely like a human being and fellow person, and it's all cool.

Ok, no problem. I agree with you 100%, this is -always- the place to start.

Quote:
You come up to me with threats and hostility though, I am likely to return the favor and am probably better at it.

I never have problems with reasonable rational folks. I have not doubt you'd be better at it. In all likelyhood, I'd much more likely to hire someone such as yourself to 'enforce' the 'no smoking restraunt' I would own in this theortical world where I cannot rely on law to support a no smoking rule in this theortical restraunt.

Quote:

And what I do on my own property a hundred miles and more away from you ain't your business, is it now.

In general, I agree. Personally, I can't tell you how many times I've wandered into a restraunt, asked for non-smoking, gotten it, gotten my food; had a smoker sit down, start smoking. At this point, I can realize the restraunt has inadequate controls on their non/smoking areas, but the dinner is pretty well shot. Sure, I can ask nicely for them to not smoke, but in all cases they will observe they are 'rightly' in the smoking area. Occaisionally I've asked to move tables, and the waiter/waitress will accomodate if possible. In any case, keep in mind that a 'quiet non-smoker' rarely agrevates a smoker; the reverse is often not the case. Also call me sick of cigarrett butts cast out car windows.

Quote:

Also consider I can apply the same argument to your SUV and it's toxic emissions - and I want you to think on that, and think HARD.

I wouldn't own a vehicle that gets less then 25 MPG. But I appreciate the point you are trying to make. Incidentally, I think that gov. has been massively underactive in promoting environmental controls; but I'm sure that's not the point you are trying to make.

Quote:

Being stuck at a bus stop next to your idling road beast for five minutes is more harmful and toxic than sitting in the smoking section of a restaurant for an entire week, and should I step over there and demand you shut off your engine ?

Past a certain point this shit gets ridiculous, and never once has it been about peoples health cause most of the "anti-smoking" folks have heavy investment into those patches, which are in fact, if you do your homework, simply set up to addict you to their product instead of big tobacco.

Big pharma and Big tobacco, it's just a pair of slimy drug dealers fightin over turf and neither one gives a damn about it, and most of the do-gooder crapola is a pretty shiny face on a greedy hand sticking out for government money, MY tax dollars robbed from MY paycheck, and on top of it the enormous excise tax paid on each pack.

Look into WHERE that money goes and the ridiculous crap it's spent on and who gets rich off it - and then we'll talk.

But if you think those people actually care about anyones health but their own financial health, you're dreaming.

So, you think if we simply stop regulating pharma they will meakly do appropriate testing for safety. Sorry, if anything, I believe more testing requirements should be put in place. As far as gov 'waste' and folks getting rich off it, I have no qualms about privitization of things that don't have to be done by the gov; for instance, if fire fighting can be done more effectively by private/volunteer, then I'm all for moving it off gov's plate.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 1:49 PM

Yanno, Incident at a Dennys on Ritchie Hwy, in MD...

We come in, four of us - place is downright empty, near deserted, ok ?
Given the hour not surprising cause we worked nights.
We ask for, and get seated at, a table in the smoking section, wayyy off in the corner on the other side of the building, mind you.
And we place our order, get some coffee, and me and ray fire up, neither don nor steve smokes... now, about 8-10 minutes later.

In comes some smarmy lookin suit, who gets into a passionate discussion with the manager, who after a bit of that comes all the way over to us, on the other side of the building, and tells us to put out our smokes!

Now bear in mind that this was a rather large dennys with a perfectly adequate airscubber and circulation system, which in fact we are sitting directly under the intake so we did not "smog out" steve and don.

You can imagine me being a bit less than happy with this, and told him to perform an anatomically impossible act, and he then told us if we didn't like it, leave - and we did, all four of us, and gave him the finger when he held up the check, although don crumped up a ten spot and bounced it off the jerks chest, and from that day on, we ate somewhere ELSE after work.

Forgive me if I have not much sympathy for someone who goes into a business that allows smoking or has a smoking section - and then complains about people smoking.

I don't go into non-smoking establishments and then bitch that they won't let me light up, in spite of the fact that the ratio is pretty damned heavy against smoking, and I *will* honor a business that allows me to over one that does not even if it is of inferior quality, because they offer me a preferred environment, same as a non-smoker wants a smoke free building, see ?

So let's not play doublestandard there, ok now ?

Although mixed section restaurants should have an adquate ventilation system that is inspected and tested by the health dept during the regular inspection process, in fact, ANY restaurant should, smoking or non, only common sense, but when has that ever been common.

Quote:
Incidentally, I think that gov. has been massively underactive in promoting environmental controls; but I'm sure that's not the point you are trying to make.

Nope, but it's not a bad one neither.
Also, bear in mind that by classing these beasts as SUVs and making sure they weigh OVER a certain amount GVW it lets them sleaze their way out of certain emissions reqs too.
But yeah, SUV exhaust is way worse than secondhand smoke, but no one seems to care too much about that, which, if the priority really was health instead of profit, they would.

Quote:
So, you think if we simply stop regulating pharma they will meakly do appropriate testing for safety. Sorry, if anything, I believe more testing requirements should be put in place.

Oh, you got me backwards there, dude, I want us ALL up in Big Pharma's business given past events and sure as HELL I don't want the FDA as it is, the coverup and PR arm of Big Pharma, I want them to actually do their damn JOB for once.

I'm just sayin that a lot of this antismoking crap is pushed by the nicotene patch companies, who set their quit-smoking programs up so that you WILL fail, and so in the end you are simply changing dealers for the same drug, see ?

That's not encouraging your health, that's two dope dealers fightin over your business by telling you pretty little lies - neither one gives a shit ABOUT you, just your money.

And hey, i'm all for whoever gets it done most efficiently for a buck, but no way no how is it the damn GOVERNMENTS job to run MY gorram life, and sure as hell they got no right to take MY tax dollars from MY paycheck and then use them to run a propaganda campaign aimed at forcing ME to change MY lifestyle to suit THEM.

Like. Bloody. Hell.

Show me where in the US Constitution it authorises them to do this ?
And yes, follow where that money goes and what it's actually used for, and you will be feeling kinda ill about it too.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:57 PM

Fer what its worth, I wouldn't ask someone in a smoking section to not light up. That someone did you, is unfortunate. It's just plain wrong (well, polite asking isn't plain wrong(mildly presumptuous, perhaps), but insisting after is).

The SUV loophole is irritating to me too. I can't believe they let that slide through the emissions and MPG guidelines seperate from cars.

Re Nicotene patches, I've had a few friends who swore by them for getting off cigs. To the best of my knowledge they have completely abandoned the patches as well (of course, if they haven't, how would I know).

Sounds like you are probably more concerned with the job the FDA is doing than I am; likely because you have better information than I. There are some specific concerns I have regarding some drug testing; on the other hand, I have no reason to have confidence the items that have caught my awareness are the only problems in their domain.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:10 AM

You sound like a reasonable dude, Lead.. would that more folk were.

I can come off harsh, but mostly it's cause i'm starting to feel really backed into a corner by the combined forces of society and government all wanting to run my damn life for me, and it's gettin up my back no matter how well meant it is.

And in re: the incident mentioned - oh no, the suit didn't come over there, he sent the restaurant *manager* over there, and it struck me as an ego-stroke power play cause we were seated at the diametrically opposed opposite corners of a rather sizeable restaurant AND underneath the air scrubber intake, so I think that was more about some suits ego than anything else, and it cost them four customers 3 nights a week.

As for emissions, one of the things pissin me off is the EPA lookin the other way for SUV's but getting all up in the case of us moped-scooter folk and our 'dirty' 2 stroke engines that get 80-210 miles per gallon, and in their entire lifespan put out less exhuast than a single coast run with a tractor trailer, cause we don't have a PAC or big $$$ lobby to buy them off you see.

Last info I had on the effectiveness on those patches placed then at an average of 4%-11% depending on demographics and in many cases, statistically insiginificant as a factor - not sayin they wouldn't help someone, but only if they ignore the designed-to-fail "program" and do what works for them best.

As for butts, I smoke my own hand rolled filterless, waste not, want not, less or no additives cause I buy in bulk lots, and no resulting litter, either.
(and I roll em torpedo-style as a snark at the local PD, which has long since quit buggin me or threatening me with paraphanelia charges since)

And yeah, any real investigation into the doings of the FDA, or hell, any Govt agency, will turn your stomach in hurry.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:42 AM

np, read enough of your posts to know your heart is in the right place; not that we always agree, but what would be the fun in that?

Sent the mananger; yes, I suppose you did say that in the first post, it didn't sink in. That's plain obnoxious.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:16 AM

Leadb,
You keep saying "mythical kaneman land", my original post was not to start an anti/pro smoking thread. It was meant to be on GOV power and the constitution. You also said a 'theoretical land where there are no smoking laws', well there are states(New Hampshire) that still allow smoking anywhere.

I guess what I am saying is it is not the Fed's place ..or even the states place to decide if you can smoke in MY fucking restaurant. It should be up to me. If I lose business because I allow smoking that's my problem. If I gain business......... If I allow smoking and it offends you.. leave, don't work for me, move along....Know what I'm saying? Of course you do...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Leadb,
You keep saying "mythical kaneman land", my original post was not to start an anti/pro smoking thread. It was meant to be on GOV power and the constitution. You also said a 'theoretical land where there are no smoking laws', well there are states(New Hampshire) that still allow smoking anywhere.

I guess what I am saying is it is not the Fed's place ..or even the states place to decide if you can smoke in MY fucking restaurant. It should be up to me. If I lose business because I allow smoking that's my problem. If I gain business......... If I allow smoking and it offends you.. leave, don't work for me, move along....Know what I'm saying? Of course you do...

I know better what you mean. What I'm really not clear on is how far you wish to limit the fedgov power, or state gov in this case. For instance are you really saying that you would like to see OSHA complete abolished; if a company happens to have asbestos fibers floating freely where workers are expected to breath that's just fine? If you do not mean such an extreme 'end position' then it would be helpful if you clarified what 'middle ground' you would be proposing.
In NY state you can still run a restraunt which permits smoking but the restrictions are pretty tight; you need not only be the owner, but all workers need to either be yourself or family; or there needs to be some way that the other workers would not be exposed (eg: kitchen is still smoke free; or there's a limitted space where smoking is permitted and only owner/family serve those folks. I realize that makes it pretty impractical to run a smoking restraunt. I believe the underlying principle is that workers should be able to work in a safe environment; they should not be forced to choose between a safe work environment and putting food on the table.
To be honest, personally, I was always reasonably content to simply not go places where the smoking was too bad. My wife is really the more sensitive of the two of us, and it was pretty bad news if we went some place different and found the non-smoking areas were not well isolated. Personally, I'd be content if a place indicated they had a non-smoking section there be requirements that it be setup sufficiently that the smoking area would not impinge on that non-smoking spaces; and if it wasn't that they not be permitted to mark a space non-smoking. At least then we'd know once we settled someplace we wouldn't have to worry about drifting smoke.
In any case, I well understanding you mean the smoking issue as an example of where you feel gov (state gov, sometimes county gov in some areas) has overstepped. I'd be interested to know how far back you wish to roll back such rules and restrictions on other topics. For instance, do you think it would be ok for a company to post : "Asbestos in air" and simply expect the workers there to deal with it on their own? Or perhaps you think a sign isn't even necessary? Or do you believe the current requirements that the asbestos levels need to be maintained below a certain level is reasonable?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:19 AM

My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this, soon he will be out of business, he'll have no workers.....if it is the peoples will. If people choose to work there that's their choice. In no way am I saying the hazards shouldn't be disclosed to the populous, just saying that a free people can choose their own fate...

OR

Maybe the government can ban crab fishing.......I hear it is quite dangerous......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:37 AM

Kane, you might wanna consider studying other people a little bit if you intend to try communicating with em - I'm well aware that you don't care if you offend em, but it would help to effectively get your point across even so.

The salient point is just how much government interference is too much, and the root of that problem actually lies in the whole issue of corporate personhood, something that never should have been allowed in the first place as it lead to the immense robber baron super corps that can bend the gov to their will financially or otherwise.

Once that genie was out of the bottle and they couldn't stuff it back in, the Gov responded by trying to put controls on the zaibatsu in other means, which mostly doesn't work cause the big guys get it waived, loopholed, or just laugh at the pathetic fines which amount to less than 0.01% of the profits of ignoring those rules at that scale.

While that's going on, the small and mid sized businessmen get completely hammered under a massive amount of nitpicky rules and regulations that often have little or nothing to do with the business they're running, or are badly applied in such a fashion as to be ruinous to them.

Much as I dislike Gov agencies, the health inspectors do serve a fairly useful function, and I would not eliminate them - however, the problem is better solved by requiring ANY restaurant to have an adequate, fully tested ventilation system regardless of whether it allows smoking or not, in all truth it's damned common sense thing, for both health AND safety reasons, how are you going to vent the smoke in the event of a minor kitchen fire, yes ?

There's limits, but where they are is a really debateable issue cause there's no way to make everyone safe in a free country, and if the choice comes down to it, I will not bet on a "safety" that is all but illusion in exchange for my freedom, no.

As for choosing between risking your neck and putting food on the table, that's a lot of jobs, especially anything dealing with heavy machinery, heck, even my job pushing a cab can be dangerous.

Life isn't without risks, you can trip on a curb, fall at the wrong angle and break your neck, but that's no reason to outlaw curbs, so we gotta look at this from the aspect of social triage with emphasis on personal freedom whenever possible.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:57 AM

"Kane, you might wanna consider studying other people a little bit if you intend to try communicating with em - I'm well aware that you don't care if you offend em, but it would help to effectively get your point across even so."

Man, I am bad. I had no idea I was being offensive to anyone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

and the root of that problem actually lies in the whole issue of corporate personhood Amen

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:11 AM

K-man...When is that "offensive" tag coming off you?

Why did it appear in the first place?

Lot's of people here use the F word, so why are just you ( all I can see ) being Scarlett lettered?

I don't think you're a troll....you may be many things, but I don't see any trollish posts from you.

A troll would come on FFF and bash Firefly or Serenity...you don;t do that...you may bash some FF fans, etc...but that 'aint no troll. I like your posts...they're certainly not mainstream here, but they're always entertaining...and that's really why I'm here. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And every time I see this "I came across this on another board where I am also considered a troll" I think - ahhhh ... other people with the same fine sense of reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:10 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
K-man...When is that "offensive" tag coming off you?

Hopefully never.

Quote:
Why did it appear in the first place?

You actually read his posts and don't know this answer?

Quote:
but I don't see any trollish posts from you.

A troll would come on FFF and bash Firefly or Serenity...you don;t do that...you may bash some FF fans, etc...but that 'aint no troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns

...

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding

...

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this,

Ah, so you agree that employers should be legally required to make it known what dangerous conditions exist, such as asbestos in the air, etc; so that the customers and employees can make healthy decisions?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:

You actually read his posts and don't know this answer?

Um, it's actually 'her', Seven, but whatever.

Interjecting Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
K-man...When is that "offensive" tag coming off you?

Why did it appear in the first place?

Lot's of people here use the F word, so why are just you ( all I can see ) being Scarlett lettered?

I don't think you're a troll....you may be many things, but I don't see any trollish posts from you.

A troll would come on FFF and bash Firefly or Serenity...you don;t do that...you may bash some FF fans, etc...but that 'aint no troll. I like your posts...they're certainly not mainstream here, but they're always entertaining...and that's really why I'm here. Thanks.

Some people just can't take a joke. Like that sevenpercent retard( what normal human goes and adds a wikipedia link for the definition of troll, that pickle licker is obsessed with me). I have no idea how long I must remained tagged, but like most people would guess....I don't care anyway. I will always march to my own music...If not I would turn into rue...just a sad lonely girl going through life trying to find the dildo that fits and being pissed that they don't come that big....Well, it's true.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this,
Ah, so you agree that employers should be legally required to make it known what dangerous conditions exist, such as asbestos in the air, etc; so that the customers and employees can make healthy decisions?

Not necessarily healthy decisions...just informed decisions. I don't think making healthy decisions is mandatory or should be. I mean, I have unprotected sex with one legged, cross eyed, intravenous drug using whores, because I like to. Well, that's not really true....they usually have two legs

.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this,
Ah, so you agree that employers should be legally required to make it known what dangerous conditions exist, such as asbestos in the air, etc; so that the customers and employees can make healthy decisions?

Not necessarily healthy decisions...just informed decisions. I don't think making healthy decisions is mandatory or should be.

Fair enough, I only referenced 'healthy' since you did, 'informed' is what I meant as well. In general, I wouldn't get that upset if we took that route; I only object to the depths of lying and secrecy corporations will go to to avoid admitting, much less providing up-front information, regarding the health risks in the environment the employers establish. Main advantage is we can go back to strong unions. That's one thing an 'overly protective' gov. has done is reduce the need for unions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this,
Ah, so you agree that employers should be legally required to make it known what dangerous conditions exist, such as asbestos in the air, etc; so that the customers and employees can make healthy decisions?

Not necessarily healthy decisions...just informed decisions. I don't think making healthy decisions is mandatory or should be.
Fair enough, I only referenced 'healthy' since you did, 'informed' is what I meant as well. In general, I wouldn't get that upset if we took that route; I only object to the depths of lying and secrecy corporations will go to to avoid admitting, much less providing up-front information, regarding the health risks in the environment the employers establish. Main advantage is we can go back to strong unions. That's one thing an 'overly protective' gov. has done is reduce the need for unions.

I like you....not in a gay way.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:41 PM

This may surprise you, but did you know that at one time Anarchists and Unionists were *very staunch* allies and often worked in concert ?

One of the reasons Unions ever made any headway was the Anarchists willingness to use violence and break stupid oppressive laws without a blink in order to bust the chops of the corporations.

Eventually, the unionists cut us out, wanting to be reasonable and play nice and not get portrayed as violent vandals - and ever since, they've had their asses kicked, every effective strike broken by scabs, by federal troops, every useful tactic outlawed wholesale, and those very folk who wanted a smooth, reasonable front went to the same politicians screwing the workers for a handout or two and then assisted in the screwing.

If you doubt that, go look up the haymarket riot, mayday riots, and delve into anarchic history, they even tried to off JP Morgan and demolish wall street at one time.

These days the Union way is to suck up to the CEO and beg for scraps from the corporate table as the board of directors pull a tom jones... it's pathetic and disgusting.

If they ever do manage to reach down and find a pair, they know where to find us.

Violence of some sort is inherent in a truly free market, a restauranteer who's serving potentially dangerous food may not fear a fine too much, but for damn sure he'd fear the locals taking the place down around him in retaliation.

Not to mention that's way more satisfying than a class action in which the only people to recieve a dime of compensation are the lawyers.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So JONGSSTRAW,

Was wondering, do you find these quotes "retard ... pickle licker" ... "trying to find the dildo that fits" not offensive ? Or is that true only when they are directed at someone not you ? Just curious how deep your acceptance goes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So JONGSSTRAW,

Was wondering, do you find these quotes "retard ... pickle licker" ... "trying to find the dildo that fits" not offensive ? Or is that true only when they are directed at someone not you ? Just curious how deep your acceptance goes.

Love how you highjack a thread, that has merit, to debate if I am offensive. If I wasn't I would not be tagged as such. That being said, you dildo using fat slut. Some people enjoy it, And Haken likes you coming back...or should I say CUMMING back...bye bye brain slut........

..leave me alone!!! Well, it's true..

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"you dildo using fat slut"

You used the same words in another thread. How ... original.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So JONGSSTRAW,
Was wondering, do you find these quotes "retard ... pickle licker" ... "trying to find the dildo that fits" not offensive ? Or is that true only when they are directed at someone not you ? Just curious how deep your acceptance goes.

I've been called lots of things here too.
Sometimes I get mad, but usually laugh it off.
You seem to like to inject yourself into many of these posts, so you must be prepared to deal with the responses....as far as OFFENSIVE...I dunno...what passes for offensive these days? Kaneman gets an OFFENSIVE TAG, but PN doesn't? How is that reasonable? Lots of others here have used profanity & derogatory terms and descriptions of people and their thoughts...I don't see them getting OFFENSIVE TAGGED...so I guess it only occurs when.....(what?)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"you dildo using fat slut"

You used the same words in another thread. How ... original.

If the shoe fits.........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kaneman got the "offensive" tag b/c a lot of people wrote in and asked that 'it' be banned.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh Kaneman,

you finally admitted you really ARE unoriginal ! I knew it all along.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kaneman got the "offensive" tag b/c a lot of people wrote in and asked that 'it' be banned.

Says who?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kaneman got the "offensive" tag b/c a lot of people wrote in and asked that 'it' be banned

A lot of people ??
How many people ??
What people ??
The "decision" to SCARLETT LETTER Kaneman or anyone else is bullshit, and you know it. STill waiting for an honest and fair reason why it was done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I only know what I was told, which is what I told you. If you want further answers you'll have to write in and ask those questions yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:23 AM