From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010010814525216807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-01-08 13:10:42 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010010801530050073-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> weg9 says: We are talking about owner-operated bars. A guy who happens
>> to smoke cigarettes buys and open his own bar.....He is the bartender.
>> It's his place. His friends and other patrons smoke. Then the city of
>> Palo Alto California makes a law that prevents smoking in any building
>> where the public may go. So he can't operate his bar, and has to either
>> stop smoking and turn his smoking friends away, and operate a non-smoking
>> place, or sell out and go to a different city. Palo alto is a fairly
>> large city of over 50 thousand people. There are lots of bars, There is
>> no basic reason why there can't be some smoking bars there. Smoking is
>> not illegal. The normal laws that govern drinking establishments should
>> not restrict smoking, since you can smoke on the street right outside any
>> building there.
>>
>> I have heard all of your objections to this, and none of them hold water.
>> To me, it is a direct imposition of the owners rights to prevent him from
>> operating a "smoking bar" in that, or any other city. If someone's rights
>> are transgressed by another person exercising his rights, then there is a
>> constitutional conflict. This happens all the time, and the courts have
>> to frequently decide which person's rights take precedence. In this case,
>> no ones rights are at stake but the owner of the bar. Other people who
>> can read can see that the bar is a smoking bar, and can go down the block
>> to another bar, (many other bars in Palo Alto) and drink in one of those
>> without being subject to any second hand smoke. But the bar owner of whom
>> I speak, plus all the people who smoke and would like to relax in their
>> own smoking bar cannot do so because of this highly discriminating law.
>> Palo Alto is one of the most liberal cities in a very liberal state. If
>> smoking is bad for people to do, then let the state or country ban it
>> altogether, as they have done with heroin and cocaine. If it isn't that
>> bad, and shouldn't be illegal, then why not let someone operate a,
>> "smoking bar"? A stranger might enter someone's home who smokes also.
>> People who smoke cigarettes don't have to put a sign on their front doors
>> stating that entering the premises will expose one to second hand smoke.
>> So just entering the home of any smoker in town is more dangerous than
>> going into a smoking bar, because there is no warning sign. The law is
>> illogical and discriminatory on the face of it. I can see that, so why
>> can't you geniuses see it?
>
> Your argument is sounding more, and more hypothetical than reality. As a
> thought experiment it fails miserably.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>

weg9 says: There is nothing hypothetical about this. It is true. The city
of Palo Alto, California did exactly this. No one can smoke in any public
place there, either a bar or restaurant. Even those with outside patios.
Many bar owners sold their places and left town. Many smoking drinkers also
left town whenever they wanted a drink. I lived there. I don't smoke, but I
realized the unfairness of the law immediately, and it is one of the reasons
why I left the state of California immediately upon my retirement. I retired
on August 18th, 1996, and by Christmas of that same year, I was in my new
house up here in Salem, Oregon. I sold my old house and moved here, and
bought another place all in four months. The state of California is
sick.....Very sick. I am afraid their disease will spread to the rest of the
country.

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_e6dnUFoqJVEONrWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b4750b7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B474033.F4781782(a)bytecraft.com...
>>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> One of the stranger dichotomies is the Democratic governments
>>> in the the US for the last 40 years or so is that they have been
>>> more fiscally responsible that Republican governments. The biggest
>>> republican failure has been that they have failed in many cases to
>>> fund their spending.
>>>
>>> The US was essentially bankrupt a year ago. GNP was seriously
>>> down, they were involved in two unfunded wars, revenue was
>>> lower than the costs of essential services at the local level.
>>> Infrastructure was being funded lower than the depreciation.
>>> Private interests were siphoning off about 6% of GNP in
>>> healthcare "overheads".
>>>
>>> I have rarely heard anyone talk about the real reason that
>>> the Reagan tax cuts appeared to work. At the time inflation
>>> was greater than 10%. Reducing tax rates at the same time
>>> as increasing everyone's income into the next tax bracket was
>>> a political shell game. At the same time long term debt was
>>> effectively reduced by the inflation rate. Blue smoke and
>>> mirrors was the phase at the time
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Bush administration was never a true conservative regime. It used the
>> conservatives and religious right as an excuse to line their pockets and
>> those of their buddies. Extreme left does not work and leads to a tyranny
>> of the left, as proved in the now defunct Soviet Union. A tyranny of the
>> right needs no further example. It was only after China started to move
>> to the right that it moved into the position it is now in. The major
>> problem with labeling and pigeonholing is that it allows for no middle
>> ground. There are times when the government has an obligation to step in
>> and times when it should just let businesses sort things out. The lack of
>> restrictions on giving the bailout funds is an example of what happens
>> when the government steps in and gives business carte blanche. If I were
>> the CEO of any of those banks, I probably would have done the same thing.
>> If anyone here says any thing to the contrary, I truly question their
>> veracity. I see no clear line when government should and should not act.
>> Indeed, to be truly effective the line must be flexible. The cry that
>> government is taking over our lives when it steps in on the health care
>> bill, is patently false. the Sara Palins of this world have no conscience
>> when they promote such lies as the bill includes "death panels." I wonder
>> why she promotes those lies. In her case it may just be stupidity.
>> </end mini rant>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> weg9 says: Actually any plan, public or private will have to include,
> "death panels". There is no way any insurance company, or any health plan
> can do whatever is necessary to keep anyone alive indefinitely. We are all
> mortal, and there will have to be some end point to preserving the health
> of everyone sooner or later. No matter what insurance plan they come up
> with, there will have to be some point where your health can no longer be
> supported, because of age, or some condition for which there is no
> practical cure, and someone will have to be allowed to decide when this
> point is reached, and the "plug" has to be pulled. That's the way it is
> now, and that's the way it will have to be in the future.


I hope you enjoyed your last word. You obviously have not read both the
Senate and House bills. You also obviously have not looked at the statistics
as to the number of lives that can be saved, or made significantly better if
the bill, even in its watered down form is passed.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s9qdnbxTiOFLPtrWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b474c6f$0$31303$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> 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.
>
> If they don't smoke, then they have no business being in my bar in the
> first place. They should have read the sign on the front door that tells
> them to beware of entering, because of the second hand smoke, and gone
> down the block to one of the many places where there is no smoking. How
> many times do I have to tell you this? I have described the situation at
> least a half a dozen times now.....Can't you people read? - That must be
> the problem. You liberals can't read, so you can't read the sign on the
> front door that warns you about the second hand smoke, and you come inside
> the door anyway, and start to choke from the second hand
> smoke.......Perhaps it is a good law after all. It is on the books because
> liberals can't read, and therefore have no way to protect
> themselves......I should have realized that to begin with. The liberal
> government of Palo Alto California is just trying to protect itself from
> an obvious hazard. Sorry, guys......I stand corrected.


I am going to purchase the property on either side of your bar. On one side
I will manufacture fireworks on half the property and distill gasoline on
the other half. On the other side of your bar I will open a chemical
producing plant. Then I will fully insure both my properties, hope for the
best and retire on the insurance proceeds. If folks are killed in your
bar, - screw them. They could have gone to a different bar.

--
Peter

From: David J. Littleboy on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> I am going to purchase the property on either side of your bar. On one
> side I will manufacture fireworks on half the property and distill
> gasoline on the other half. On the other side of your bar I will open a
> chemical producing plant. Then I will fully insure both my properties,
> hope for the best and retire on the insurance proceeds. If folks are
> killed in your bar, - screw them. They could have gone to a different bar.

Plagiarizing Ayn Rand is cheating.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: Peter on
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:_pCdnbABvr-pUtrWnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am going to purchase the property on either side of your bar. On one
>> side I will manufacture fireworks on half the property and distill
>> gasoline on the other half. On the other side of your bar I will open a
>> chemical producing plant. Then I will fully insure both my properties,
>> hope for the best and retire on the insurance proceeds. If folks are
>> killed in your bar, - screw them. They could have gone to a different
>> bar.
>
> Plagiarizing Ayn Rand is cheating.
>


I simply carried his own argument to its dryly logical extreme.

--
Peter