From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b461710$0$19494$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "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
>

weg9 says: I can certainly understand that you liberals refuse to address
my point. That operating a smoking bar doesn't take away anybody else's
rights, but the law that prevents it takes away the rights of the bar owner
who smokes and wants to operate a smoking bar. You guys skirt around the
issue, but can't explain to me (and the others on this forum) why there
should be such a discriminatory and unfair law. This is the kind of law that
flies in the face of the US Constitution, one of whose purposes is to
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is no different
from a law that takes all of Bill Gates' money away from him and distributes
it to the rest of us. It is just like the law that prevented a guy back in
the 60's from starting a cable TV business.....The dumb California liberals
voted for that one too, and the guy had to take it to the California Supreme
court in order to get it overthrown. Today, he would have to take it to the
US Supreme court, and even there, he might lose. That's because the
Constitution had become a near dead document, and the socialists are the
ones who have caused that......I speak of you guys. You are the socialists
who have caused it. "Liberals" is far too nice a word for you. You are, and
will be, the death of freedom in this country, and you are too dumb to even
know it.

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>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.

Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.

> Smoking is legal on the street.

The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.

>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.

The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
important than the rights of anybody else.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Chris H on
In message <4b46a58f$0$1622$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes
>Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.

It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.

We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
environment.

We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.

Everyone has equal rights.

>> Smoking is legal on the street.
>The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.

That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(

>>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.
>
>The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
>important than the rights of anybody else.

The problem is Bill is NOT an American.


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



From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-08 01:33:50 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said:

> In message <4b46a58f$0$1622$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
> <rfischer(a)sonic.net> writes
>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.
>
> It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
> is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
> cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
> owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.
>
> We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
> reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
> not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
> environment.
>
> We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
> to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
> but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.
>
> Everyone has equal rights.
>
>>> Smoking is legal on the street.
>> The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.
>
> That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
>> important than the rights of anybody else.
>
> The problem is Bill is NOT an American.

You may be correct. It seems Bill is a product of the planet Graham
(located somewhere in Oregon), where any foreign thought is declared
liberal or socialist regardless of the actual political bias of the
originator of those foreign thoughts.

Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be written
by conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money, and to control
his life.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: HEMI-Powered on
Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be
> written by conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money,
> and to control his life.
>
The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.
And Yes, liberals DO think the government should control your life
which is always curious since they scream freedom of speech until
someone disagrees.


--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich