IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[Protagoras]

You are a liberal, changing the subject won't help.

[Roscoe]

That's exactly the subject. You're so far removed from reality that you're arguing that liberals support the law.

Nonsense. Liberals, Libertarians, anarchists and your various comrades despise the rule of law.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
-- John Adams

[Protagoras]

I am showing that liberals like you are also authoritarians and are afraid of citizens who are armed.

[Roscoe]

I am showing that liberals like you are also authoritarians and are afraid of citizens who are armed.

Backwards. Criminals have cause to fear an armed citizenry.

Liberals, Libertarians, anarchists and your various comrades despise the rule of law.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

[Protagoras]

Cut and paste your own posts as many times as you wish. it won't change the proof of you liberalism and opposition to the second amendment. You are a liberal,,exposed, again.

[tpaine]

"Libertarians despise the rule of law." - Roscoe-lies


How demented of you roscoe. We put up post after post urging you to support the constitutional rule of law, and you respond advocating the big government line on guns, drugs, - whatever.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Wow. Another example of clintonizing an argument. I can find hundreds of quotes throughout history that counter every word you said. It's a matter of taking things out of context. Now why don't you run along and go back to DU before we hurt you with some three syllable words and your brain explodes. Your liberal mommy and daddies are calling, time to quit playing.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Liberals, Libertarians, anarchists and your various comrades despise the rule of law."

A pure Hegelian tactic. You are trying to make an argument without a logical pretext but using emotion as your only support. Libertarians love the rule of law. Those laws that are designed for the maintenance of the freedoms of the nation. If, in your little itty bitty brain, you can figure out how my having a cigar, in a bar, which you have no desire to patronize, how am I infringing on your freedoms? Uh, nope, can't find that one in the Constitution. But you have fallen into the liberal-socialist trap of legislation from the bench and via the terror of the minority. Because a perceived group of people "could" have their freedoms impinged upon, you wish to create rules modifying human behaviour. BZZZZZZZZZt...won't work Einstein. The only laws which worked to modify human behavior ended up destroying a nation. And in the end, it destroyed Nazi Germany. You can not tell people to "not" be Jewish. Unless you kill them all. You can not tell people that they can not smoke. Unless you intend to kill all of them.

[Max McGarrity]

SheLion, Eden Prairie saw the light and voted down the draconian ban. Score one for the good guys.

[Max McGarrity]

It is the American way. Your in denail that this trend can be reversed. Its a done deal. The major chains want the laws changed and the end result will be increased profits for everyone in the business because maintaining the staffing and the equipemt for providing smoking and nonsmoking sections will be eliminated and with a state wide ban the income will remain the same. ...Once the economics works against you your screwed.

Minnie, minnie, minnie. So much misinformation, so little time. The income does not remain the same, the income drops by 20-30% and often never recovers. For small businesses with a small margin of profit, that's the kiss of death. Of course, when they're gone, the customers they had left move on to the Big Boys who could weather the storm. So, yeah, it's good for some, but not for the small business owner--remember? He's the guy who built this nation.

[VRWC_minion]

I said a regional wide ban. A customer in the middle of Manhatten isn't going to travel to CT or NJ to eat.

[Roscoe]

opposition to the second amendment.

Backwards. The 2nd Amendment isn't a call to anarchy.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"I said a regional wide ban. A customer in the middle of Manhatten isn't going to travel to CT or NJ to eat."

A great use of Federal and state law enforcement. Yup, why look for terrorists when we can tie down those cops writing tickets to smokers. Thank God people like you really don't matter to the big picture of managing the day to day affairs of the USA.

[Roscoe]

I can find hundreds of quotes throughout history that counter every word you said.

Find one.

[Roscoe]

Libertarians love the rule of law.

LOL

[xm177e2]

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.

That's right, we live in America, a Democratic Republic, where people are allowed to organize, associate, and speak freely.

If you have a problem with that, you should move to Canada.

[Whilom]

Thanks for your thoughtful and temperate contribution. I agree that we need less government and more devolution of power, but while we may agree on that, others may ask: “What does he mean by small?” “What does he mean by ‘best’?” “What does he mean by ‘locally’?” If there is disagreement about those, how do we resolve that disagreement and apply the outcome to our everyday lives? We have chosen representative democracy as the framework in which disputing claims and ideas can be tested, modified, adopted, or discarded. That process decides “small,” “best,” even “local.” Whatever gets decided is applied then with the community’s authority. Each of those decisions defines more or less and restricts more or less uses of all property, private or public, and individual conduct, private or public. When the community’s rules are violated, the community acts to punish the violator. All communities have rules and restrictions. They differ in how they formulate and apply those rules and restrictions. That’s the heart of the matter for me. Most of us are unwilling to cast aside our commitment to the framework in which our communities -- national, state, county, and township -- carry on their business and permit authoritarians to rule by fiat.

The issue is whether a resturant is a public venue or conveyance. Can a member of the public choose another bus line or find another ball park right field to sit in? Hardly. Therefore some regulation of conduct of all has some precedent. But he dang sure can go to another restaurant, bar, or private business to trade.

That’s a tolerable arrangement, I’d say, but if the community disagrees and works through the chosen framework of representative democracy to establish other arrangements, who’s arrangement should prevail -- mine or the community’s? I can propose my arrangement in the political marketplace and work toward its adoption, but if another arrangement prevails I will respect it or risk punishment for violating it.

As the fundament of our chosen system resides the Constitution. But who decides what the Constitution means and how it is to be applied in any particular dispute? Each decides for himself? Let the lawyers decide? Recognize the “superior intelligence” of one or a few and let them decide? The Constitution itself did not resolve those questions. In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court declared its power to decide what the Constitution means and the two other branches of government accepted that, as did the citizenry. That settled the matter and, ever since, the Supreme Court has continued to decide constitutional disputes -- sometimes in ways that I liked, sometimes in ways that I didn’t. It is not mere defiance for a person to insist that he does not care what the process says, he will decide for himself what the Constitution means. It is a challenge to the fundamental framework of the community. Those who reject the process can be heard as a matter of right, but the community will resist, as it has done, their efforts to destroy that process and set themselves up as final authority.

[VermiciousKnid]

The restaurants have chosen to go non-smoking provided their is a state wide ban to protect them.

Where did you see this? Did I miss something THAT big in this story?

No, you didn't miss it, but as you may or may not know, all the downstate counties (Westchester, NYC, Nassau, and Suffolk) are all having "talks" to follow in NYC's footsteps, so as to insure that the NYC ban doesn't stand alone, which would, of course be devastating to the restaurant and bar business there.

In fact, one Nassau County (Long Island) Dem actually uttered these charming words: "If you are downstate, the only place you'll be able to smoke is in your own little closet."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only law on this matter that should be enacted is this one: ALL BUSINESSES SHALL CLEARLY POST THEIR SMOKING POLICIES AT THE FRONT DOOR OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.

I must say, I have been watching and reading these threads, and am utterly shocked and terribly dismayed to see so many so-called Conservatives supporting these kinds of laws. I just don't understand what has happened to us --what changed us from a people who used to make decisions for ourselves into a people who turn to the government to make them for us. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Regards,

PS: If these smoking bans are such a wonderful and fantabulous idea, why oh why do they need a law to enact them?

[Just another Joe]

I agree. If they are so great why do we need a LAW?

[Leisler]

"Thats majority rule." So if the majority of Germans want to round up the Jews, you'd.....

"Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution(Bill of Right, not the Constitution.) like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it."

The Bill or Rights does protect some rights, but that, and it says so clearly, does not limit any other rights that are unmentioned.