Posted on 07/19/2006 4:47:01 AM PDT by xrp
If one looses 20% of potential business needlessly, that would be big. It would be huge actually.
"I may not be anti-smoking, but I AM anti-rude jerk"
"Because people like you are the ones who ultimately cause our freedoms to be restricted."
let's dispense with your cute Dan Ratherism next:
you were generally an anti-social jerk"
"proved you to be a liar with your silly attempt to back pedal "
"I demonstrated how you were a hypocrite in your accusations"
"you can't lie or make blatantly hypocrtical statements in your own defensive victimhood"
"Your last resort is to lie, and issue a cute one-liner "
"Who is backing away, beaten down, unable to put together a logical argument"
"Pure bluster, with no basis for it."
" The spreading cancer of the anti-smoking Puritans should be of concern to free men everywhere. As economist Ludwig von Mises cautioned, "Once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments."
Aside from the patently hypocritical rant you posted, your argument, as I said, has no merit in a common sense-based debate.
Substitute whatever cause-dujour you choose for the "smoking" rights debate, and you will see that minority opinions have no place in your Utopia. Your interpretation of what others should or should not be allowed to do, is the same philosophy that the Socialist Elitists use to expound on the virtues of Socialism, where only THEY can decide what is proper, permissible, and in furtherance of "the public good". Sorry, Charlie, others enjoy the freedom to choose what to do with our personal lives. Subjecting OTHERS to your interpretation of permissable acts does not foster freedom, nor does it allow for the "consideration for others" that you propound to use as an excuse.
Again, all hat and no cattle is the operative phrase here, and you've proven it with your rant.
If hotels can cater to non-smokers then as a general principle bars and restaurants should be able to cater to smokers. If they so choose. In a free market bars and restaurants would be able to go either way or have smoking/non-smoking sections
Wow! For such a peace loving guy, you sure hold a lot of hate in your heart for smokers! Be they Christian, American, hard working, peace loving as well. If they smoke, you hate them. Pity. And you are in a Republican forum?
I don't know where you get your information, but there are 50 million smokers in the US. We still out number the NRA and the AARP.
Stop spewing more lies unless you have research to back you up.
Who, me? LOL
I was a military dependent for over 34 years. I was married to a Viet Nam Vet with two Purple Hearts. We traveled extensively.
So yes, I would say I am quite familiar with the military.
Thanks for the ping.
The "true conservative" smokers here on FR will never understand this. They are blind to any hints that their own smoking behaviors can be the problem. Much like the person addicted to alcohol, many of the tobacco addicts here truly believe that everyone else is to blame for society as a whole coming down on them.
Its nanny's, its liberals, its folks who want to control them. Of course these people do want just that but the vast majority that are voting for bans are just the average Joe who want to breath air without cigarette smoke.
This denial of the true state of affairs interferes with their ability to deal realistically with the true reasons for the smoking bans. Even thought I do notice that by repetition I have made some small headway that the issue is the smell and not the danger of SHS, they have still failed to appreciate how truly offensive the smoke is to nonsmokers.
This failure is partly biological in that they have a greatly reduced sense of smell and are desensitized to their smoke and partly psychological. The psychological is a defense against confronting how obnoxious their habit truly is to the average nonsmoker and most importantly a defense against any potential hindrance of their ability to get the next fix.
All in all if it were not for the effect of the precedent that is being set by the laws being passed to inhibit their behaviors this would be just another sad side effect of addictions.
I have yet to see a group of addicts change anything by being disobedient. They are generally too self absorbed.
Go to smoke enders.
Here is a hint. If you do not take the next cigarette their is a limited amount of urges to smoke but if you take the next one their is an unlimited amount.
For example, if you smoke 15 smokes per day and if we assume that by the end of one year you will have hardly any urges after that then you might assume that all that is between you and freedom is 5,000 urges to smoke.
When looked at this way you mentally greet each new smoking urge with excitement and thankfulness that you are one urge closer to freedom. Sort of like a journey that is complete after 5,000 steps.
"With airlines, restaurants, bars, hotels, motels, and in some cases entire cities unwilling to accomodate me, I'm going to eventually get a little restless.
I have always found that something involving gunpowder cures that"
Sounds like nicotine really has you by the short hairs.
Just quit smoking. If you fail, try again. Regardless of how many time you fail, keep trying to quit.
3 step plan. Quit buying em, Quit bumming em, Quit smoking em.
Why would a nonsmoking room smell like smoke?
True. They have a choice and so do I. I can spend my money elsewhere.
Natural gas heat can cause yellowing, too.
Bravo!! I was getting a little tired of the holier than thou superior attitudes. Even from smokers.
Speaking of psycological, you seem to go beyond just being an antismoker. You are full of hate for smokers. You are reeking with it. You should seek counceling for your rabid moonbattiness.
And, you have no problem with inhibiting "behaviors" by the government?
I believe (and don't quote me here, as I am not a Jeffersonian Scholar), but I believe the Declaration of Independence included words to the effect:
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
I would like to pursue my "Liberty and Happiness" without Government interference by passing laws SELECTIVELY APPLIED TO ONLY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, which seems also to be a bit inconsistent with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
If anyone has ever successfully litigated an "inconvienience" case against a smoker, please cite it.
Me, too....
18 year old dog! Oh my. I don't suppose it died of old age. Nah. Had to be the cigars.
That's what my wife said, too.
"Scooby" was a great companion, but she really had a good run for a dog.......
A real class act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.