From: Chris H on
In message <4b45ebc6$0$19432$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:tlhak5tbfik0hmh8v6i2qhu66vralprk0l(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:31:59 -0500, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:s1m7k5pv6i1fmqh8tcglllo1svv2db1pn3(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4b43cb90$0$19462$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>> I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are so
>>>>>>>> bitter. There must be little joy in your life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Peter
>>>>>>> There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of that
>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>> bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any
>>>>>>>lack of
>>>>>>> joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders of
>>>>>>> asses like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your constant
>>>>>> name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Peter
>>>>>My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a
>>>>>bar and
>>>>>operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined
>>>>>it for
>>>>>him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you to
>>>>>turn
>>>>>your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who worked
>>>>>and
>>>>>slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and then
>>>>>have
>>>>>the dumb liberal government take it away from him.
>>>>
>>>> The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
>>>> that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a bar.
>>>> There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.
>>>>
>>>> He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted by
>>>> the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
>>>> The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
>>>> signs he can use to advertise his business.
>>>>
>>>> He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
>>>> restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.
>>>>
>>>> You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
>>>> every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
>>>> the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
>>>> business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
>>>> conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling
>>>all who
>>>disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
>>>I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
>>>business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.
>>
>> I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.
>
>You are probably right
>
>> He objects to everything.
>
>
>Unless it benefits him.

One thing he is not is an American.....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:04:28 -0500, "Peter"
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:tlhak5tbfik0hmh8v6i2qhu66vralprk0l(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:31:59 -0500, "Peter"
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:s1m7k5pv6i1fmqh8tcglllo1svv2db1pn3(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4b43cb90$0$19462$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>> I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are so
>>>>>>>> bitter. There must be little joy in your life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of that
>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>> bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any lack
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders of
>>>>>>> asses like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your constant
>>>>>> name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a bar
>>>>>and
>>>>>operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined it
>>>>>for
>>>>>him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you to
>>>>>turn
>>>>>your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who worked
>>>>>and
>>>>>slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and then
>>>>>have
>>>>>the dumb liberal government take it away from him.
>>>>
>>>> The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
>>>> that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a bar.
>>>> There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.
>>>>
>>>> He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted by
>>>> the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
>>>> The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
>>>> signs he can use to advertise his business.
>>>>
>>>> He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
>>>> restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.
>>>>
>>>> You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
>>>> every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
>>>> the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
>>>> business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
>>>> conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
>>>who
>>>disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
>>>I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
>>>business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.
>>
>> I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.
>
>You are probably right
>
>> He objects to everything.
>
>
>Unless it benefits him.

Provided that he understands that it benefits him. Many things that
he objects to do benefit him, but he doesn't see that.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e3tbk5p9ncp4fu017d2r6ogmihe9loi226(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:04:28 -0500, "Peter"
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:tlhak5tbfik0hmh8v6i2qhu66vralprk0l(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:31:59 -0500, "Peter"
>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:s1m7k5pv6i1fmqh8tcglllo1svv2db1pn3(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:4b43cb90$0$19462$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> bitter. There must be little joy in your life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>> There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>> bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any lack
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> asses like you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your
>>>>>>> constant
>>>>>>> name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a bar
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined it
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you to
>>>>>>turn
>>>>>>your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who
>>>>>>worked
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and then
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>the dumb liberal government take it away from him.
>>>>>
>>>>> The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
>>>>> that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a bar.
>>>>> There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.
>>>>>
>>>>> He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted by
>>>>> the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
>>>>> The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
>>>>> signs he can use to advertise his business.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
>>>>> restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
>>>>> every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
>>>>> the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
>>>>> business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
>>>>> conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
>>>>who
>>>>disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
>>>>I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
>>>>business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.
>>>
>>> I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.
>>
>>You are probably right
>>
>>> He objects to everything.
>>
>>
>>Unless it benefits him.
>
> Provided that he understands that it benefits him. Many things that
> he objects to do benefit him, but he doesn't see that.
>


How can that be?
According to his postings, he is a mega genius. therefore, he must
understand everything.

--
Peter

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4535f6$0$19444$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YrudnTFtg7zhrNjWnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b452ff3$0$12831$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:s1m7k5pv6i1fmqh8tcglllo1svv2db1pn3(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4b43cb90$0$19462$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>> I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are so
>>>>>>>> bitter. There must be little joy in your life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of that
>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>> bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any lack
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders of
>>>>>>> asses like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your
>>>>>> constant
>>>>>> name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a bar
>>>>>and
>>>>>operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined it
>>>>>for
>>>>>him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you to
>>>>>turn
>>>>>your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who worked
>>>>>and
>>>>>slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and then
>>>>>have
>>>>>the dumb liberal government take it away from him.
>>>>
>>>> The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
>>>> that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a bar.
>>>> There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.
>>>>
>>>> He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted by
>>>> the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
>>>> The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
>>>> signs he can use to advertise his business.
>>>>
>>>> He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
>>>> restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.
>>>>
>>>> You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
>>>> every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
>>>> the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
>>>> business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
>>>> conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
>>> who disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
>>> I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
>>> business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> His patrons can't smoke inside his bar. But they can go 10 feet outside
>> on the street and smoke. If you can't see the idiocy in that, then I have
>> every right to call you a "stupid liberal". You and Cooper both have the
>> same dumb mindset. If the government does it, then it must be right.
>
>
> Just when did I ever say that?
> Don't you ever dare misquote me. Your postings are that of a selfish, self
> centered who has no regards for the rights of others. I would never equate
> you with a true libertarian. True libertarians have enormous feelings for
> the rights of others.
> OTOH you refuse to give up one of your perceived rights, to accommodate
> the rights of others. What a sad life you must lead. You may have the last
> word as I will not reply. There is no need to and quite frankly, you bore
> me.
>
> --
> Peter
weg9 says: I didn't say you said it......I am saying it. In Palo Alto,
California, you can't smoke inside any bar, but you can smoke on the street.
That's a fact. So, if the guy can't have his patrons smoke, but they can
smoke out on the street, that's not the same thing as naked dancing, or
selling booze after hours or other laws that the city/state makes to
regulate bars. I am just pointing out your stupidity.......But I really
don't have to, do I? The liberal position is stupid on the face of it.
That's why I left that state, and moved up here to Oregon......But the
liberals are infiltrating here too.......

From: Bill Graham on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:Gr6dndJYkbsY1tjWnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
>>>who
>>>disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
>>>I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
>>>business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.
>>
>> I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.
>> He objects to everything.
>
> As someone who listened to Ayn Rand's yearly lectures on the Boston
> lecture circuit back in the 60s/70s, and read everything she wrote, I
> think that Bill captures the unbridled selfishness of true libertarianism
> perfectly. You guys don't understand how horrifically bad libertarianism
> really is.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California. Smoking is legal on the street. You can go to other, non-smoking
bars if you don;t smoke. Why can's a smoking bar owner put a sign on his
door that says, "Danger. - This is a smoking bar. If you come in here you
will be subjected to second hand smoke. If that is unacceptable to you, then
please go down the block to Mike's place and drink there......His bar is
non-smoking"

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.