This should please the anti-smokers...

F1nut

Steve, interesting and I stand corrected.

BIZILL

simple solution. eventually california will be a haven for the weak. terrorists need a simple target. them weinies already pretty much did away with arms. they are defenseless. soon, they will ban military bases from their fair state. wide open for attack. goodbye, my fellow americans. actually, i would never wish for that to happen, but that's where it's headed.

californians will be begging we arizonans to protect their arses. and we will.

brettw22

Those that suffer from the 'I want my ways to rule everyone elses lives' mentality need to take a swim with concrete blocks attached to your feet.

An office environment is an enclosed space, so it's automatically a different environment than what is the outside world (thus OSHA).

I'm ok with people being arrested at bars, but only if the cops are in the parking lots and checking out how people are leaving. If someone well over the legal limit is about to drive off, grab em. If that saves one life, it's worth it.

I personally don't have a problem with the fingerprinting thing. They started doing that in AZ I think a few years ago (that Sherriff Joe does more crazy **** than many probably know). The fact is that it's a quicker identification option and really, if you haven't been doing anything wrong, why does it matter?

Skynut

Cali has a bunch of whining lightweights that make or agree with the lame laws however, if you look at the majority of the state in terms of "regular joes" you would see there are still plenty of us here and many of us have the means to defend ourselves from enimies both foreign and domestic.:D

We also (curently) have plenty millitary presence to be the first line of defence for the countries left side.:cool:

On the other hand we are the best target for N. korea.:mad:

As for the fingerprint thing, I did not want to have a magnetic stripe on my license let alone give them the right to fingerprint me whenever they feel like it.

I DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT to do the right thing by it's citizens, they have historicaly done what is in the best intrest of their pocketbooks and I believe they will continue to do so until we the people have the ability to force them to stop.

This goes back to Steves last thread about what or who is next.
One step at a time they will infringe on our rights because people say "it doesn't effect me" and "if you obey the law it shouldn't bother you"

Mark my words and bookmark this thread when I say that this mentality will lead to unimaginable consequences for people who refused to see it comming.

Someday in our lifetime the govt. will figure out how much money they can make if every car had an automatic tracking device (like onstar) that will automatically issue a ticket to the cars owner whenever it exceeds a speed limit, does't come to a complete stop, makes an unsafe lane change or follows too close. Or perhaps because you have not had it serviced for an extended period of time.
What if your significant other could pull up your record and see everywhere you have been and what time you were there? It shouldn't matter if you don't do anything wrong.
None of it should effect anyone but the law breakers.
After all none of us ever exceed the speed limit even for a brief moment.

PolkThug

Skynut wrote:

Someday in our lifetime the govt. will figure out how much money they can make if every car had an automatic tracking device (like onstar) that will automatically issue a ticket to the cars owner whenever it exceeds a speed limit, does't come to a complete stop, makes an unsafe lane change or follows too close. Or perhaps because you have not had it serviced for an extended period of time.

I've thought about that also. If insurance companies continue to get their way, it will slowly happen.

bobman1235

brettw22 wrote:

I'm ok with people being arrested at bars, but only if the cops are in the parking lots and checking out how people are leaving. If someone well over the legal limit is about to drive off, grab em. If that saves one life, it's worth it.

I personally don't have a problem with the fingerprinting thing. They started doing that in AZ I think a few years ago (that Sherriff Joe does more crazy **** than many probably know). The fact is that it's a quicker identification option and really, if you haven't been doing anything wrong, why does it matter?

I'll agree with both of these. Ther'es a big difference between stopping someone as they get behind the wheel outside a bar and going INTO the bar and just arresting someone for being "drunk in public". Huge difference.

As for the fingerprint thing... I don't really see the difference between running your license or your fingerprint. I'ts just an identification tool, isn't it? Unless you're using a fake license, which is a felony last I checked, they would bring up identical information.

heiney9

Skynut wrote:

Where does it end?

This is not an attack on anyone with allergies so don't read it wrong, I have known a few people with sensitivities to smoke, perfume, and various other allergies and I know they are real for you but, they do not directly effect the majority of people. When the majority of people have to change their normal life to accomodate your normal life it just does not seem fair to the majority.

Sky, just for fun let's take your POV to the extreme. Handicapped people make up a very small percentage of the population so why make accomodations for them. Usually there may only be 1 handicapped person working in an office. Let them fend for themselves why make changes that will change the normal life of everyone else? I know it's the law now, but at one time it wasn't.

Yes, it's an extreme example but the principle is exactly the same . Workplace accomodations are part of the working environment for both employer and employee. If there is a situation that arises and it's a problem for just one person, steps need to be taken. That doesn't mean either one side or the other has to make all the consessions; it means things need to be worked out to an appropriate solution. Do some people take advantage of this? Yes, absolutely.

H9

Skynut

I actually agree with you heiny, I am mearly asking where it ends?
If a person is wearing a lot of perfume or cologne and I like the smell it is fine but if the smell is not one I like it bothers me.
I have been on elevators with people who thought they smelled good and I couldn't wait to get off but, if it is a hottie and I like the smell I will get in close and just bask in it. (I know I'm a perv)

But if I had to go through a scrub down on my way into the office for bubble boy to work outside his bubble that would irritate me.

The handicap parking and ramps are ok with me but the fact that they (handicap people) can sue me if they can not get into my building without an effort pisses me off. I am sorry you have no legs or can not walk but for you to expect the entire world to be prepared for your visit is ridiculous.
If you can do the job then great I will hire you and make sure that you do not have problems but in my 13 years with my present company we have NEVER had one wheelchair arrive. We have ramps to the building and rails in our john in anticipation for their visit so we are not sued when they finally show up but so far no one in a chair has cared to visit us.

I read about a person once that was sueing a buisness for not haveing a ramp. After further investigation they were found to have several lawsuit going for the same reason and also had no business being at that buisness anyway.

Demiurge

heiney9 wrote:

Sky, just for fun let's take your POV to the extreme. Handicapped people make up a very small percentage of the population so why make accomodations for them. Usually there may only be 1 handicapped person working in an office. Let them fend for themselves why make changes that will change the normal life of everyone else? I know it's the law now, but at one time it wasn't.

Yes, it's an extreme example but the principle is exactly the same . Workplace accomodations are part of the working environment for both employer and employee. If there is a situation that arises and it's a problem for just one person, steps need to be taken. That doesn't mean either one side or the other has to make all the consessions; it means things need to be worked out to an appropriate solution. Do some people take advantage of this? Yes, absolutely.

H9

So what? The big lie out there is that the businesses wouldn't do it on their own. The world isn't full of solely cold hearted **** that wouldn't make accomodations for a handicapped person, I'm sure we all have had contact with people who needed special care, and we help them. Forcing businesses to spend thousands of dollars for something that will likely never be used is an abuse of government. There is nothing extreme about it. If someone didn't want to make it easy, you patronize another business or work somewhere else. I don't know what makes people think they are entitled to everything. The free market works wonders, try it sometime.

steveinaz

man, can I stir up some **** or what?

heiney9

steveinaz wrote:

man, can I stir up some **** or what?

Yes you sure can.......are you on the move Steve? You keep changing your location. Are you afraid we might hunt you down stomp on your cigarette? Us non-smokers are such bad-asses you know .

H9

F1nut

Of note:

St. Paul City Hall Bans Easter Bunny

ST. PAUL, Minn. (March 23) - The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.

St. Paul City Hall removed a toy rabbit and pastel-colored eggs like the ones above in order to not offend non-Christians. One councilmember said he didn't get why they couldn't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians. A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money. St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians. But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

3/23/2006 09:32:34
Jose M. Osorio, Sacramento Bee / ZUMA Press

I **** on Tyrone Terrill, what a PUTZ!!!

heiney9

F1nut wrote:

Of note:

St. Paul City Hall Bans Easter Bunny

ST. PAUL, Minn. (March 23) - The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.

St. Paul City Hall removed a toy rabbit and pastel-colored eggs like the ones above in order to not offend non-Christians. One councilmember said he didn't get why they couldn't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians. A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money. St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians. But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

3/23/2006 09:32:34
Jose M. Osorio, Sacramento Bee / ZUMA Press

I **** on Tyrone Terrill, what a PUTZ!!!

Christ........(oops sorry to offend those religious) I swear the world is coming to an end. I'm seriously considering dis-connecting myself from any type of news reporting agency. I am so glad I was a kid when I was a kid. Society is so 'effd up. Lately it always seems to be at one extreme or the other. Where's the common ground and common sense.

It 'effing offends me that they are offended by the Easter Bunny. What are the courts gonna do for me? I want to see an Easter Bunny, an Easter scene when I go to the mall. I'm a Christian and it's my right to view these things where and when I've always viewed them...

Damn........I gotta stop here, I'm gonna blow a gasket.

H9

Demiurge

F1nut wrote:

Of note:

St. Paul City Hall Bans Easter Bunny

ST. PAUL, Minn. (March 23) - The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.

St. Paul City Hall removed a toy rabbit and pastel-colored eggs like the ones above in order to not offend non-Christians. One councilmember said he didn't get why they couldn't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians. A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money. St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians. But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

3/23/2006 09:32:34
Jose M. Osorio, Sacramento Bee / ZUMA Press

I **** on Tyrone Terrill, what a PUTZ!!!

Do you see the irony here? What's the name of the city? ST. PAUL!!!!!!!!

heiney9

Demiurge wrote:

Do you see the irony here? What's the name of the city? ST. PAUL!!!!!!!!

I guarantee if Jesse Ventura was still the Govenor he'd whoop those peoples a$$es for trying to take that stuff down. Minnesota isn't usually this conservative. They are a pretty tolerable, common sense state. This really suprises me. I guess all it takes is one pr*ck of a politician to get a bug up his a$$.

H9

Demiurge

Minnesota isn't usually this conservative. They are a pretty tolerable, common sense state.

Minnesota is quite liberal, and this is a liberal move. It isn't the conservative movement trying to get God wiped out of society.

brettw22

Demiurge wrote:

Forcing businesses to spend thousands of dollars for something that will likely never be used is an abuse of government.

Those bars in the bathroom are GREAT for leverage......

Skynut

It is all part of the big plan.
Somewhere in the world two people are causing all this change.
Soon we will not be bothered by Christmas music and toy comercials on television around "the holidays"
We will instead be forced to endure the holidays of all the other countries.

Ever noticed that firecrackers are illegal on the Fourth of July for most of us (at least here in cali where we might hurt ourselves or others) but the chinese get to have a field day for their new years celebration?
How does that work?
In some places we are not even allowed to celebrate with fireworks. What happend to the rockets red glare and bombs bursting in air?

Skynut

Demiurge wrote:

Minnesota is quite liberal, and this is a liberal move. It isn't the conservative movement trying to get God wiped out of society.

I believe you will find the wipe out of God to be on the liberal agenda.

steveinaz

In a similar attempt, some members of the city of Las Cruces, New Mexico wanted the "3 Crucifixes" removed from the entrance of the city---the city's namesake...

How about be remove the people instead?

steveinaz

Get Out And Vote Folk's. That's How You Make Our Unheard Majority Heard. See You At The Polls.

My whole point to the Rant smoking thread was to get people to realize that you need to be careful about who you pick on, and the consequences of your actions that restrict others from doing things that you don't like. You could be the next "group" that gets restricted.

reeltrouble1

There are so many hot button issues in here. Well, at least we have the forum to get them out. Very serious things are happening. I can at least address LEO issues. The problem is not the legitimate initial use of govt. collected information. Its that much of the info the govt. gets can get classified as public information or need to know ok dokie. Think about your SS# that was supposed to be for you and is under the privacy act, but how many people have that little gem of a number that belongs to you. Your drivers lisence number forget about it. I have seen how the Pat. Act is taught to LEO's and how it can used to fit situations that you would worry about whether you break the law or not. I worry about this Act, I am not the only one but it is law. LEO's are sworn to enforce the law.

We are not a nation of men. We are a nation of law. The founding fathers tried to anticipate this, they could not however, anticipate the kind of technology we have. Men are greedy, have their own personal agenda's, think of the Ollieguard sp? in Russia. The problem I see is the manipulative special interest attack's on freedom's generated by fear, thereby developing a new interpretation or different interpretation of the constitution, there is much debate in this arena being done by folks far more powerful and hopefully, more knowledgeable than I. Our nation and the world are standing at a crossroads, I suppose, in a way its nothing new, just bigger, with more potential for death and destruction, its mostly about power and money, gee, nothing new in those concepts. Not my favorite topics.

The right to pursue "happiness" is concept well framed by law, however, what makes you happy can be diametrically opposed to some one else's happiness, i.e. my right to smoke vs my right to breath clean air. I know most air is no longer clean, but then thats about money and once again happiness.

Our business leaders have finely tuned a system to protect their interests despite any particular political parties holding of offices. Remember, a this given. The people at the top of any system have an inherent interest in maintianing that system. Its a mess, I find solace in my family and beautiful music along with some other things, I vote, write letters which change little but make me feel better.

RT1

Demiurge

brettw22 wrote:

Those bars in the bathroom are GREAT for leverage......

HAHA, like the 2 cheerleaders for Carolina?

brettw22

Demiurge wrote:

HAHA, like the 2 cheerleaders for Carolina?

Um.......ya......for that too........lol

Skynut

The problem as I see it is that throughout history the people in power fight to get more power and more money. They continually crap on the little people because the little people have no power against it. Eventually (as proven through history) the little people get fed up and revolt to re-gain some say in the events that shape their lives. This has happened throughout history with Kings and oligarks (sp) and the people end up killing off the power holders for a chance to better their own lives.
We are now in a world economy and if our leaders continue to rape us eventually there will be no other solution but to take the power back. This will not be easy and will have a negative impact on the entire world.

Eventually we will all hold our fist in the air and yell off with their heads in response to "let them eat cake"

neomagus00

^^ why do you think the second amendment is under such attack? it's basically the only right we have that guarantees our ability to overthrow the government, if necessary (mentioned either in Declaration or Constitution, i don't remember)

Ron-P

the state of California labeled secondhand smoke a toxic air contaminant just like car exhaust or industrial emissions.

According to this kind of logic and comparison we should then shut down all industrial plants and not drive cars.

Skynut

Ron-P wrote:

According to this kind of logic and comparison we should then shut down all industrial plants and not drive cars.

only the ones in public or our backyards.:D

Shizelbs

The Seattle Times has a nice article on how the ban of smoking in public places in the State has forced business to close, lay off employees, and ponder suicide.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002936775_smoking17m.html

brettw22

Can the bars not become private and sell memberships (maybe as a membership fee, give a carton of cigarettes as a welcome gift), but everyone who comes in has to be a member or with a member?

Wouldn't that be allowed to get around this thing? you could create a warehouse sized bar and you'd make millions on that idea that it's not open to the public.