Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL
The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion

The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"

Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".

In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.

 I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, guess what? We were wrong.

There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.

They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.

 They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.

To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:

"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".

Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.

You simply wouldn't go. Get it?

I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.

It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.

 

Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 521-538 next last
To: freeeee
I agree. I've found it difficult to distinguish the fine nuances between communism, socialism and fascism. Sound like a good idea for its own thread.

"Capitalism asserts that property is privately owned and privately controlled".
" communism says property is commonly owned and government controlled."
"Fascism is an economic and social theory that property, though privately owned, is subject to government control."

This is as good of a basic explanation as I have seen.

101 posted on 10/02/2002 12:23:16 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Thanks for those.

Looks like fascism is what we have here.

Watch all the anti's get angry for earning that label. "This has nothing to do with Hitler..."

102 posted on 10/02/2002 12:26:50 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Silly helion, you are so blinded by your own agenda, you miss the point.
103 posted on 10/02/2002 12:29:43 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
It is so discouraging to see that the people of this country lack the intellect or the integrity to see this BS for what it is. All too willing to dash liberty on the rocks of their desires. (how ya like that? I just wrote it) :-)

They come here dressed as conservatives, but are really nothing but authoritarians from the right. If I was a conservative, I would bash them unmercifully. (come to think of it, I do that anyway)

104 posted on 10/02/2002 12:32:42 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
It is so discouraging to see that the people of this country lack the intellect or the integrity to see this BS for what it is.

I know. I went to Europe, hardly the bastion of liberty, and even they didn't have this foolishness.

They come here dressed as conservatives, but are really nothing but authoritarians from the right.

They've perverted the term 'conservative', the same way socialists ruined 'liberal'.

BTW, nice saying.

105 posted on 10/02/2002 12:38:51 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
It is so discouraging to see that the people of this country lack the intellect or the integrity to see this BS for what it is. All too willing to dash liberty on the rocks of their desires.

They simply re-define liberty as the power of the majority to determine what people are allowed and not allowed to do.

We see it everyday here. How many times have you seen posted, "Just elect people who will get laws you want passed/repealed"? That's the statists reply to every argument. They simply see the "State" as the powertool of the majority.

106 posted on 10/02/2002 12:42:19 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
"If I want to have customers smoke, why can't I? If people don't like smoke, they can take their business elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand???

If this country is so free, why can't I start an all-smoking airline if I thought I could make money doing so?

You have stated the whole argument. Private property rights. The anti's fail to see this. They act like someone forces them to go into bars and other businesses.

Why don't you see Health Bars sprouting up around the country? The fresh juices should attract loads of customers.

I have my favorite Subway sandwich shop nearby. It does a good business. Down the street is a McDonald's. They have 5 times the customers, yet Subway is the healthier place.

Maybe we should outlaw Micky D's and force everyone to eat at the healthier Subway. The owner of McDonald's be damned. People need to be forced to do what is good for them because WE know better. Right?

107 posted on 10/02/2002 12:47:45 PM PDT by cibco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally; freeeee
They simply see the "State" as the powertool of the majority.

This one is excellent too. Great line

"All too willing to dash liberty on the rocks of their desires."

But, is it as good as this one? :-)

108 posted on 10/02/2002 12:51:05 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
They simply re-define liberty as the power of the majority to determine what people are allowed and not allowed to do.

Isn't that the precise definition of a small d democrat?

It's amazing how many democrats one finds on a 'conservative' web site.

109 posted on 10/02/2002 12:58:35 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it.

The incremental chipping away of the Fifth Amendment by freedom haters doesn't make private property rights any less valid.

Your consistent defense of mob rule is tiresome.

110 posted on 10/02/2002 1:03:18 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
But, is it as good as this one? :-)

*Grin*

This thread is full of priceless quotes. I guess that's what happens when the statists scurry away, leaving the forum to the adults.

111 posted on 10/02/2002 1:09:17 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Zon: This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf. #63

SheLion: WHAAAAAAAT????? #71

Zon: What are you having trouble with? 79

SheLion: Have a problem with this? I have a BIG problem with this. We do NOT need Big Government as a NANNY protecting us "for our own good." Yes, I have a BIG problem with this! #89

Then you agree with my posting it, right?

I thought from your "WHAAAAAT?????" reply in post #71 that you either took my post 180 degrees opposite of what I meant or your "WHAAAAAT?????" reply was sarcasm. As if to say, "What!? I'm shocked. You mean to tell me there are people on this forum that want to enlist government agents to initiate force against people on their behalf. That would never happen on FreeRepublic.".

Perhaps you can help clear that up for me -- 180 degrees opposite or sarcasm.

112 posted on 10/02/2002 1:10:45 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Oh, for crying out loud, you both get an "A" :-)
113 posted on 10/02/2002 1:12:42 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Oh, for crying out loud, you both get an "A" :-)

Sometimes ya gotta fish for a compliment for a long time before they start bitin'.

And I just wrote that one too!!!!

114 posted on 10/02/2002 1:17:10 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Miller time, outta here, have fun.
115 posted on 10/02/2002 1:19:08 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson; VRWC_minion

TJ: Groups of resturant owners acting to squash competition by using government to deny rights are every bit as evil as those who would do it for other reasons. 83

VRWC_minion: Thats majority rule.

So many groups. Gender/sex, sexual preference, anti-smoking, races, religions, age groups, political parties, environmentalists... on and on the list goes.

With each group there is a common denominator that joins each individual to the group. Once that is done new common denominators are proclaimed to exist among the group members. In order for a group member to be in good standing with the group they must adhere to the common denominators affixed to them by the herd-mentality manipulators -- elites that have the most power within the group -- the leaders.

At first, each person in the group is encouraged to sacrifice a tiny bit of their individuality for the "greater good" of the group. It begins small but quickly advances to larger and larger portions of the person's individuality being sacrificed for the greater good of the group. Those that fight to not sacrifice their individuality run the risk of becoming an outcast -- being ostracized by the group.

No group can withstand for long competing ideas within their group. Thus they shun competing ideas and the people that inject them into discussion. Among the several groups, far to many to list, there are individuals that chose to leave the group. When that happens new members must be recruited to maintain the size of the group or else the greater good of the group will diminish toward irrelevance.

History shows that the number of groups in existence increase over time. Especially in the last fifty years. Each group with it's own ideology to compete among other groups with their respective ideologies.

The manipulation of the heard mentality is stretched so thin that most people choosing to leave a group today do not take up membership or alliance with any other group -- save for one. They chose to be an individual and stand among other individuals. Among that group there are no leaders or members. Just the common denominator that each person is first an individual and that no individual is worth sacrificing for any "perceived" greater good of the group.

They've been there, done that.

In a world of competing groups and group ideas/ideologies competing among one another, all sacrificing the individual for the greater good, will be out-competed by the individual. For the one common denominator of all persons is that each person's individuality is more valuable than than any supposed greater good that sacrifices individuality.

How much harm to individuals and loss of human life has occurred in the name of religion and government? How much harm to individuals and loss of human life has occurred in the name of business, science and art? History shows that government and religion have the least respect for individuality. History also shows that business, science and art have the most respect for individuality.

Damn it's pitiful what is dressing up as a conservative around here lately.

It happens with every group. Yet, the most grossly misrepresented group is that of the individualist.

116 posted on 10/02/2002 1:20:13 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
The point is that the "peeing in the pool" stuff is an immature, juvenile analogy.

Now I see why you liked it...

117 posted on 10/02/2002 1:21:27 PM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson; FreeTally; freeeee
Now you guys stop going on about who came up with the best line.

I'm going to use them both in a future post and take all the credit for me, me, me!

118 posted on 10/02/2002 1:25:24 PM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"Capitalism asserts that property is privately owned and privately controlled".
" communism says property is commonly owned and government controlled."
"Fascism is an economic and social theory that property, though privately owned, is subject to government control."

This is as good of a basic explanation as I have seen.
__________________________________

Very good indeed, TJ. Do you have an original source for that quote?
119 posted on 10/02/2002 1:27:19 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
The poster is a poser.

I beg to differ with you, I have been a conservative since I was a kid in high school in the 1970's, when it was distinctly un-cool. You may not like my brand of conservatism, but that does not make me a poser.

Why is a concern for health and safety incompatible with conservatism? The Republicans do not stand for allowing people to sell adulterated food or marijuana; how does this differ from tobacco? Saying 'because it's legal' is begging the question. I say it shouldn't be legal, except in one's own home, for the very same reasons that almost all conservatives believe that other drugs should be regulated.

If you deny the power of government to regulate health and safety issues in places of public accommodation, then you left the Republican party about eighty years ago and are now in the province of radical Libertarians.

-ccm

120 posted on 10/02/2002 1:34:06 PM PDT by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 521-538 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson