From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message

>>> 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.
>>
>You would be breaking the zoning laws.....I have absolutely nothing against
>zoning laws.

Why should there be any zoning laws, hypocrite? Don't people have the
right to do as they please with thier own private property?

> I don't think any libertarian doesn't believe in zoning laws.

That's because libertarians only believe in rights for themselves and
not for others.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-08 20:21:46 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:

> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> ---------------------------<Le Snip>--------------------------

>> You would be breaking the zoning laws.....I have absolutely nothing against
>> zoning laws.
>
> Why should there be any zoning laws, hypocrite? Don't people have the
> right to do as they please with thier own private property?

Irony is not one of Bill's strong points.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Chris H on
In message <_e6dnUFoqJVEONrWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
<weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>weg9 says: Actually any plan, public or private will have to
>include, "death panels".

Nope wrong again... (as usual) Not in Europe (or for that matter
anywhere else I know of.

>There is no way any insurance company, or any health plan can do
>whatever is necessary to keep anyone alive indefinitely.

This is true but in Europe they do their best. They keep you alive as
long as possible.

>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.

This is true but it is not repeat NOT due to financial constraints. In
Europe it is usually the relatives who say "enough is enough" time to
turn off the machines as it is pointless to continue. This is when the
loved one is in pain with no hope of recovery or in a complete
vegetative state etc.



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



From: Chris H on
In message <RMqdneGYGql9QNrWnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
<weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4b47c61d$0
>>
>> 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
>You would be breaking the zoning laws.....I have absolutely nothing
>against zoning laws. I don't think any libertarian doesn't believe in
>zoning laws.


So intrusive Government laws to protect idiots are OK if you like them
and not ok if you don't

SO what if someone else has the opposite view?

The like the smoking law but not the intrusive zoning laws?

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



From: Chris H on
In message <UfGdnSZKpKHIAtrWnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
<weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>
>"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.

I have some sympathy wit that view.

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