GTAVercetti 0 #26 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotecreeeeeaaaaaaak... Oh I feel so honored that the great PJ would take time out of his life of correcting peoples spelling and clan rallies to respond.. I am so honored. it's klan with a k people...get it right! Yeah, otherwise you are just Scottish. And no one should have to eat haggis.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 February 1, 2006 Sorry.... I defer to your superior knowledge on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #28 February 1, 2006 "Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #29 February 1, 2006 thank you. ccc just doesn't have the same ring to it."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #30 February 1, 2006 I hear you on that. I am excited that Washington has recently passed an anti-smoking initiative (and, yes, I voted for it). Prior to that being passed, there were lots of bars that had a no smoking policy, but unforuntaely, pool places tended not to be included in those, so it was difficult for me to "vote with my feet" and go elsewhere. As in-city living is important to me, no way can I afford my own place with a space big enough for a pool table. Prior to the smoking ban, there was one really cool bar that I used to frequent that had an indoor area, and a fenced-off outdoor courtyard with some large umbrellas (necessary for the local weather). Smoking was only allowed outside, and it was easy to circulate between the two areas. Interestingly, many of my smoker friends have supported the smoking ban - one is hoping that it'll help him to quit as he, like many smokers, is primarily a "social smoker" and he's hoping that the mere fact that he will have to go outside to smoke will help him decide it's not worth the bother. Next time I see you, Vinny... let's rack 'em."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #31 February 1, 2006 So you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #32 February 1, 2006 QuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I consider this a reasonable intrusion in the name of public health. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. (Oh, wait, this is Speaker's Corner... I'm supposed to rant and border on personal attack, right? Damn, I'm just not very good at this. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #33 February 1, 2006 Yes, you may leave now. You shoud be angrier and then yell at me for being fucking obtuse. oh, and say something shitty about Bush As for public health, I am ALL for banning smoking in PUBLIC facilties (ie, courthouses, government buildings, etc), but NOT when it is a private business.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #34 February 1, 2006 YOU'RE FUCKING OBTUSE!!! How's that? Oh, wait, wait... it's SC. Let me try again. YOUR FUCKING OBTUSE!!!!"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #35 February 1, 2006 QuoteYOU'RE FUCKING OBTUSE!!! How's that? Oh, wait, wait... it's SC. Let me try again. YOUR FUCKING OBTUSE!!!! That is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. Although generally, you would want to question my intelligence by perhaps phrasing a question that makes it sound like I believe in something absurd: Do you HONESTLY believe that controlling guns will save us from rampaging babies and killers monkeys? See? makes its seems as if I proposed such an outrageous idea and you have the smarts to suggest that it is dumb. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #36 February 1, 2006 QuoteThat is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. I'm starting to understand why RL is stalking you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #37 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteThat is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. I'm starting to understand why RL is stalking you. Check my post again. I added some more stuffWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #38 February 1, 2006 QuoteCheck my post again. I added some more stuff Thanks... I might get the hang of this SC thing after all. Or I might just continue with the occasional well-timed one-liner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #39 February 1, 2006 I would not blame you. SC is a harsh mistress.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #40 February 1, 2006 QuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #41 February 1, 2006 QuoteI would not blame you. SC is a harsh mistress. True dat. It's more my personality... there's very little in this world that I can be bothered to get worked up about; this includes the vast majority of what gets discussed in SC. But coming here can be a great source of amusement. And Bush still sucks. Gavin Rossdale is a hack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #42 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things. I knew someone would bring this up. Hell, I almost did it myself. It is a fine line and I really have no good answer. I will skip the shooting part, because, as you said, that is quite extreme. The difference between say food regs and smoking ban is that the food regs apply to the establishment itself (ie the employer and his employees). The smoking ban applies to customers. Food regs help reduce harm originating from the business itself that may be unseen. Smoking bans are not protecting us from a poorly run business; they are protecting us from customers who are easily visible. We cannot always see that a socket is going to cause a fire when we enter a restaurant or that the food will kill us, but we sure as hell can see whether people are smoking or not If a business wants to cater to smokers, I think they should be allowed to.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #43 February 1, 2006 The rationale that is commonly given for smoking bans is that it protects the health and safety of the employees of the establishment, not the customers. In effect, then, it's a labor law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #44 February 1, 2006 QuoteThe rationale that is commonly given for smoking bans is that it protects the health and safety of the employees of the establishment, not the customers. In effect, then, it's a labor law. Horrible argument. You don't want to work in a smoke filled enviroment? Find another job. Or find a restaurant that IS smoke free voluntarily. They DO exist.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #45 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things. I knew someone would bring this up. Hell, I almost did it myself. It is a fine line and I really have no good answer. I will skip the shooting part, because, as you said, that is quite extreme. The difference between say food regs and smoking ban is that the food regs apply to the establishment itself (ie the employer and his employees). The smoking ban applies to customers. Food regs help reduce harm originating from the business itself that may be unseen. Smoking bans are not protecting us from a poorly run business; they are protecting us from customers who are easily visible. We cannot always see that a socket is going to cause a fire when we enter a restaurant or that the food will kill us, but we sure as hell can see whether people are smoking or not If a business wants to cater to smokers, I think they should be allowed to. OK then; if the danger is visible, and the public can avoid the danger because they can see it, then it should be allowed. So if I own a vacant lot in a crowded residential neighborhood, I can set up an outdoor firing range as long as I have a big wall at one end to catch the bullets. That way the danger is clearly visible, and anybody who does not like it can avoid my lot. Maybe not such a good example, but I'm searching for a principle here, since rules and laws are based on principles. What principle is it that would exempt smoking from being banned, as opposed to other bans on unsafe materials and behavior. Reminds me of something I heard not long ago: Why don't we just remove the safety labels from everything and let nature take it's course?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #46 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteThat is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. I'm starting to understand why RL is stalking you. The more, the merrier. We can discuss tactics this weekend. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #47 February 2, 2006 Quotehttp://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2055191#2055191 Comments like this are VERY VERY telling. There's absolutely nothing in the post you linked which indicates PJ attends klan rallies or militia meetings. Do you have problems reading? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #48 February 2, 2006 QuoteDepends. Could they still have their Jew Lawyers? No but I guess you do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #49 February 2, 2006 1. That didn't come from the post you linked to. 2. Imagine . . . Jewish lawyers in Israel. Who knew? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #50 February 2, 2006 Its Waddling and Making Duck noises again.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
GTAVercetti 0 #37 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteThat is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. I'm starting to understand why RL is stalking you. Check my post again. I added some more stuffWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #38 February 1, 2006 QuoteCheck my post again. I added some more stuff Thanks... I might get the hang of this SC thing after all. Or I might just continue with the occasional well-timed one-liner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #39 February 1, 2006 I would not blame you. SC is a harsh mistress.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #40 February 1, 2006 QuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #41 February 1, 2006 QuoteI would not blame you. SC is a harsh mistress. True dat. It's more my personality... there's very little in this world that I can be bothered to get worked up about; this includes the vast majority of what gets discussed in SC. But coming here can be a great source of amusement. And Bush still sucks. Gavin Rossdale is a hack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #42 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things. I knew someone would bring this up. Hell, I almost did it myself. It is a fine line and I really have no good answer. I will skip the shooting part, because, as you said, that is quite extreme. The difference between say food regs and smoking ban is that the food regs apply to the establishment itself (ie the employer and his employees). The smoking ban applies to customers. Food regs help reduce harm originating from the business itself that may be unseen. Smoking bans are not protecting us from a poorly run business; they are protecting us from customers who are easily visible. We cannot always see that a socket is going to cause a fire when we enter a restaurant or that the food will kill us, but we sure as hell can see whether people are smoking or not If a business wants to cater to smokers, I think they should be allowed to.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #43 February 1, 2006 The rationale that is commonly given for smoking bans is that it protects the health and safety of the employees of the establishment, not the customers. In effect, then, it's a labor law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #44 February 1, 2006 QuoteThe rationale that is commonly given for smoking bans is that it protects the health and safety of the employees of the establishment, not the customers. In effect, then, it's a labor law. Horrible argument. You don't want to work in a smoke filled enviroment? Find another job. Or find a restaurant that IS smoke free voluntarily. They DO exist.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #45 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you voted for the government to have more intrusion into private business? Not my cup of tea. I suppose it depends on what you consider intrusion versus protection. We obviously are OK (I hope most people are OK) with laws that make it illegal to shoot someone, even in a private establishment. Yes, that is an exteme example, but clearly there is not a priciple that we adhere to that says you can do whatever you want in a private establishment. Same with building codes. It is illegal to lay 220 volt 200 amp bare wires across the floor; even though people are free to spend their money elsewhere. Same with food preparation. It is against code to store raw meat at room temperature. Buyer beware is not enough protection in many things. Smoking is a definite health risk with serious consequences. Nothing wrong with rules about these kinds of things. I knew someone would bring this up. Hell, I almost did it myself. It is a fine line and I really have no good answer. I will skip the shooting part, because, as you said, that is quite extreme. The difference between say food regs and smoking ban is that the food regs apply to the establishment itself (ie the employer and his employees). The smoking ban applies to customers. Food regs help reduce harm originating from the business itself that may be unseen. Smoking bans are not protecting us from a poorly run business; they are protecting us from customers who are easily visible. We cannot always see that a socket is going to cause a fire when we enter a restaurant or that the food will kill us, but we sure as hell can see whether people are smoking or not If a business wants to cater to smokers, I think they should be allowed to. OK then; if the danger is visible, and the public can avoid the danger because they can see it, then it should be allowed. So if I own a vacant lot in a crowded residential neighborhood, I can set up an outdoor firing range as long as I have a big wall at one end to catch the bullets. That way the danger is clearly visible, and anybody who does not like it can avoid my lot. Maybe not such a good example, but I'm searching for a principle here, since rules and laws are based on principles. What principle is it that would exempt smoking from being banned, as opposed to other bans on unsafe materials and behavior. Reminds me of something I heard not long ago: Why don't we just remove the safety labels from everything and let nature take it's course?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #46 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteThat is much better. I have been duly chastised for my ignorance. You have bested me in this duel of minds. I'm starting to understand why RL is stalking you. The more, the merrier. We can discuss tactics this weekend. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #47 February 2, 2006 Quotehttp://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2055191#2055191 Comments like this are VERY VERY telling. There's absolutely nothing in the post you linked which indicates PJ attends klan rallies or militia meetings. Do you have problems reading? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 February 2, 2006 QuoteDepends. Could they still have their Jew Lawyers? No but I guess you do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #49 February 2, 2006 1. That didn't come from the post you linked to. 2. Imagine . . . Jewish lawyers in Israel. Who knew? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #50 February 2, 2006 Its Waddling and Making Duck noises again.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
