Just happened to catch it... What were they thinking? There are some "misses" in any show, but this one had me shaking my head afterwards. I think they had a character say second hand smoke does not cause cancer and people who smoke choose to... Maybe that was the satire, but it was buried very deep among many, many the pro-smoking statements...
Even Philip Morris says its addictive and there is no safe cigarette. I guess a way to cover their collective ass against future lawsuits. Or, maybe they just really care about us.
"New Kentucky Shark" wrote in message news:ns3Gb.519844$[email]...
Cartman's anti-smoking commercial: "You know, some people say there's no proof that second-hand smoke kills. The tobacco companies say there's no proof that second-hand smoke kills. I've just been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. I guess... I'm the proof. The next time you want to believe that second-hand smoke doesn't kill, think about me. Because, by the time you see this commercial, I'll be... dead."
I took that to show to what lengths anti-smoking commercials could go to drive their points home.
'Dead?? Uh what... what does that mean, "I'll be dead"? Hey, uh what, what was that "dead" part?'
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful New Kentucky Shark declared...
It does, for extremely small values of "cause". Non-smokers who spend significant amounts of time around smokers are .0000025% more likely to develop lung cancer than those who don't.
For those smoking it. But if someone wants to do so, good for them.
Not when the general population is going to eventually outlaw indoor public smoking in the US. That's the smoker's problem.
And how wrong is that? We're supposed to be living in a democracy. If the majority decide that smoking is too gross and/or dangerous to do in a public place, is it wrong to back that up with law? I'd say probably not, but I do have some sympathy.
There's a concept called "tyrany of the majority". There's a sig floating around somewhere to the point that just because a million people believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.
But is outlawing public smoking foolish? I'd say not at all. Tyrannical? Possibly. Foolish? No way. Other than pissing people off, I doubt there's a single true downside.
Would such a law hurt bars? Naah. I don't buy it. Hurt tobacco farmers? Maybe. I have to think there's a good alternative. Hurt the tobacco industry? Those guys are in deep shit, anyway. One could guess that less smoker/smoking may mean less lawsuits.
This is a tyranny I can get behind and not feel ashamed about. Smoking is stupid and, to me, intrusively disgusting. I do feel for the squeeze the new laws are putting on the smoker as far as being able to enjoy their habit, but they need to realize that their habit has caused active discomfort to others for a damn long time and that there is a very understandable reason that things are changing.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:ToMGb.65152$[email]...
Tyranny you can get behind, huh? What if it was tyranny that affected you? Would you be behind that, as well? Isn't better to stop all "tyranny" rather than just the type that affects you?
If someone lights up and causes you discomfort, you can walk away. I don't have as much of a problem with banning smoking in places where you have no choice to be around it (work), but I do have a problem with banning it in restaurants or open air, etc when you do have a choice.
Many people I know don't like to eat when someone is smoking nearby...even the ones who smoke. Aside from that, yeah... I don't think it's rude to just light up in front of anyone, but it is rude to not put it out on request, or to go elsewhere . It's *your* choice to smoke. Those around you shouldn't be the ones who have to accommodate *your* choice.
"The Vampire Muffin Man" wrote in message news:[email]...
If
in
probably
guess
you?
squeeze
active
don't
no
the
or to
be the
What country are we talking about? This is freaking America. You SHOULD be able to behave however you want to behave as long as it isn't directly harming another person. It is a person's choice to smoke, and it should stop there. As long as those who are offended (for lack of a better term) have the option to go, eat, sit, play, walk, etc. somewhere else, then the non-smoker should go somewhere else. I think if someone lights up and is asked to put it out, it would be POLITE to do so, but it shouldn't be mandated by law.
Actually, yes, we *should* be allowed to smoke pot, snort coke and take any drug as long as we're adults and as long as we're not endangering anyone else by driving, etc.
"Torturing puppies" is nowhere in the same league as drugs, because animal cruelty makes animals suffer. If I choose to smoke pot, no one suffers.
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:38:43 GMT, "New Kentucky Shark" wrote:
I never paid them any attention before . . .
Now if you'll recall, their actual quote was, "Just so you know, we're ashamed The President of the United States is from Texas." I just adapted their words to show my distate for _them_.
Everyone is entitled to expressing their opinion, even entertainers... If we don't agree, ok. But do we really need to burn them in effigy, burn CDs, etc? I've never listened to their music, but I respect them (her) for expressing an opinion... when asked to comment on something political, all Britney Spears does is smile and shake her ass... Granted it's not a bad answer, but doesn't really contribute to the discussion.
"New Kentucky Shark" wrote in message news:5tSLb.8614$[email]...
for
The great thing about America is, if you want to do that you can. I was watching something on CSPAN the other night where one of CA's fine senators, Barbara Boxer, said that seeing people destroying the Dixie Chicks CDs reminded her of the "Nazi book burnings" (libs LOVE to throw out that "Nazi" word)
Hmmm, let's see, 1) Nazi book burnings = state-sponsored censorship 2) mashing up Dixie Chicks CDs = consumers expressing displeasure at a supplier (the Ditzy Chicks) by way of their product (CDs) effectively the same as a boycott
And this is the same in Barbara Boxer's eyes? Glad she's not my representative. Granted the response of steamrolling a bunch of Dixie Chicks CDs may be a little extreme (I would have sold their CDs on eBay or something and gotten some money for them), but it isn't the same as the government seizing all of their CDs and destroying them. Not by a longshot.
all
No, Britney responds with well-thought out statements like "ummm" "Like, you know?" and "and stuff."
Boy, if I had a dime for every time I heard a conservative use "Commie" to describe anything relating to liberals! (actually, I'd probably have enough for a GBA, a PS2, about 10 games, and a 20" flat-screen; or maybe that's just my wishlist) Isn't there some saying about being "able to give it, but not take it"?
Look again: while they seem different, both engender public destruction of property, and another similar thing: mob mentality (I doubt all those people rooting on the book burners worked for the government). Both are cases of group intimidation, which the Nazis specialized in. BTW, does this mean this thread is Goodwinized?
Screw that, lookit those C-Cups!
Vaughner
"Well, thanks to the internet, I'm bored with sex."
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" wrote in message news:[email]...
we're
If
burn
senators,
"Nazi"
to
enough
just
not
I have no research to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that the liberal smear of Nazi is used much more than the conservative smear of "Commie." Personally, the only people I have ever labeled as Commie are actual communists. I don't like to throw out labels unless the label applies.
or
longshot.
of
people
this
You need to look again, the book burnings were enforced by the state. Steamrolling CDs were done by private citizens. There's a huge difference between the two. You're a fool to assume they are the same because of "mob mentality."
Yeah, right. Public burning of any art form, as a result of the artist's political opinions (or any other factors) is pandering to the mob mentality at best. Now you would have us believe that just because it is not "state enforced", it's somehow OK. Well, it's not. Burning of books, or in this case CDs, smacks of the Nazis any way you look at it. Of course, this is nothing new for the Bible belt - they have a long history of burning something they don't like, from the Beatles to J.D.Salinger, and even what they adore, like crosses, for example.
You went a bit far towards the end, but that's pretty much what I was going to say. Here's the point: physical intimidation goes beyond mere speech into an outright veiled threat. (why stop at CDs or whatever?) It's bad when it's government-sponsored, it's even worse when people do it willingly . . .
Vaughner
"Well, thanks to the internet, I'm bored with sex."
Don't know, but how many unknown & struggling acts witnessed this and altered their behavior, lyrics or public utterances to avoid public condemnation? The Dixie Chicks were in a position to take on & resist the CD burners.
"Gus" wrote in message news:2OeNb.35305$[email]...
artist's
"state
this
is
Dixie
That's the beauty of America. You have the right to express yourself in anyway that you choose. You must also expect to suffer the backlash from those who disagree with you. Had the Dixie Chicks been the Indigo Girls, or U2, or some other hippie band (and hippies suck, just to keep this semi-OT), we might have never heard of this. But since the majority of the Dixie Chick's audience (country music fans) don't agree with them, this was a big deal
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
difference
"mob
mentality
Do you even know the reason for the book burnings in Germany? Do you understand why that was a state-sponsored action? Likewise, do you understand why those folks in Shreveport decided to steamroll the Dixie Chicks CDs? It isn't even close to being the same. You interpreting that as "destruction of art" and this is incorrect. The Nazi party burned books by Jewish, Communist, or other 'denigrate' authors to purge their country of any "non-Aryan" thought. This was a state-sponsored act. Those people in Shreveport that steamrolled the Dixie Chicks CDs brought in copies that they owned (not seized from book stores and libraries) did so to express their displeasure with the DC's criticism of the President in a foreign country. You're looking at the "destruction of art" and not at the reason behind the destruction. In one instance, the purpose was to censor any non-German information from being accessed, in the other it was just an extreme case of a boycott and freedom of expression. I'm not too happy with Bono, and for that reason I got rid of all my U2 CDs. Its the same thing, I just didn't take them out to my backyard and smash them up.
And the decision to burn Beatles records or J.D. Salinger works was made by private individuals. What difference does it make to you? If I want to take all my Led Zeppelin CDs, or Metallica CDs, or Van Halen CDs, or Tool CDs and destroy them because I'm not happy with something that group did, what business is it of yours? The problem comes in when my government seizes property to destroy it, as in the case of the book burnings.
No, I rely on you to provide the essential information that helps me function in my daily life. For example, which utensil do I use to shovel food into the large opening in my head?
So what? The "folks in Shreveport" steam-rolled the CDs to (at least symbolically) purge the country of dissent and any disagreement with the current Republican and neocon policies. Let's make one thing clear, though: I don't buy for one moment the notion that the CD burning was a spontaneous act, btw. If you would have me believe that, that you're either very naive or a jerk.
There is no valid reason at any time to publicly burn anything, be it a stack of CDs, paintings or someone in effigy. It panders to a lynch mob mentality and certainly evokes nasty parallels with totalitarian regimes which tolerate and organize such events.
No one's questioning the legality of the act. By the same token, burning books and art in Nazi Germany was perfectly legal as well, under the Third Reich laws, which means that the Nazis were simply exercising their freedom of expression as well.
It's certainly *not* the same thing, but if you can't see that, there is precious little that I can do to show you. I'm not even going to dwell on the absurdity of "getting rid" of CDs or books or paintings created by artist whose political opinions we disagree with. That, my friend, is pure stalinism, in your case on the personal level. Are we supposed to burn Ezra Pound's poetry because he was a fascist? Or Neruda's because he was a communist? Or Shakespeare's because he was an anti-Semite? Who's next for the 451 degrees Fahrenheit?
Not all art destroyed in Nazi Germany was seized. A great deal was state owned, residing in museums and libraries, while a big chunk was also brought in by individuals who, much like you, were "not too happy" with the Modernist art and mostly Jewish artists.
Try to see a big picture. Let's say that instead of burning DC CD's, the mob, pardon me, a spontaneous group of individuals, was burning all the CDs recorded by the Jewish singers. Would that be perfectly acceptable, too?
The fact that the Arian Nation and KKK are legal under the Constitution, for example, does not mean that they're an acceptable civilized alternative.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
because of
not "state
Apparently so.
you
that
books
country of
though:
You are either incredibly dense or willfully obtuse. You (ought to) know good and well that those CDs weren't destroyed because people were trying to purge the country of anything. Those CDs were destroyed because the people who bought them disagreed with the actions of the band that produced those CDs and were simply expressing their displeasure with said group. If they were trying to "purge the country" don't you think they would have destroyed more than just CDs from THEIR OWN PRIVATE COLLECTION? Apparently this concept is too complicated for you noodle-headed liberals to wrap your mind around.
spontaneous
Of course it wasn't spontaneous. The event was hosted by a radio station, for pete's sake. There's one little tidbit of essential information you apparently missed. I don't believe I ever suggested that. If I did, then I apologize.
they
their
country.
the
SO what? If PRIVATE individuals want to engage in a PRIVATE book burning, cross burning, CD smashing, bong smoking, or orgy, what business is it of yours? If no one is being directly harmed or threatened, what difference does it make to you? It can create all the parallels you want it to, as long as no one is being harmed or threatened, who cares?
case of
freedom
WRONG! The book burnings were a government-sponsored action! Just because non-government people took part in it doesn't automatically change it from government-sponsored censorship to mere freedom of expression. If Uncle Sam decides to go into a library and remove all the Karl Marx books from public libraries and a large mob of citizens decide to join in, that doesn't change the fact that it was still a government-initiated act of censorship.
didn't
It is the same thing! The only difference is that instead of one person smashing up his CDs, its a large group of people smashing up their CDs(again CDs that they own, personally.) Its just an act of freedom of expression.
Ezra
If YOU own your OWN goddamn of those materials and YOU want to destroy them because YOU disagree with them, that's fine by me! If every single citizen of the United States decides to destroy their own private copy of Shakespeare's works because he is an (alleged) anti-semite, THAT'S FINE! I would have a problem with it if the government decided to do so, or if privated individuals wanted to destroy MY or government owned property. I believe in the book (or movie) Fahrenheit 451, that was a case of GOVERNMENT keeping books out of the hands of its citizens, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM CITIZENS GETTING RID OF THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER THEIR OWN VOLITION. Why is that so difficult for you to understand.
Nazi book burnings (and Fahrenheit 451) = STATE-SPONSORED CENSORSHIP CD smashings = PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The ONLY way the "CD smashing" could equate with the Nazi book burnings is if it was a GOVERNMENT-INITIATED action. I think you're just deliberately trying to irritate me.
what
by
Tool
did,
brought
I have a problem with the state destroying materials for the sake of censorship. If a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL destroys his own PRIVATE "work of art," I don't care and I certainly am not going to remove his freedom to choose to do so. As long as you are not directly harming another individual or creating an immediate danger to other people, I believe you should be free to do as you choose, including taking every book in your house and burning it because you want to discourage free thought.
CDs
As long as those CDs were private property and the "mob" (again, I never said that the smashing act was spontaneous) had permission to destroy that private property, no I would not have problem with it. I might disagree with the group's motivations for performing that action, but I'm certainly NOT going to remove their freedom to act as they wish with THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
for
I never suggested that they are acceptable, but it certainly ought to be legal. The Aryan Nation is free to hate Jews as much as they want, and the Klan is free to hate blacks as much as they want. As long as their actions do not infringe upon another individual or his property or pose an immediate danger to others, they can spew hate, or burn crosses, or smash CDs by Jewish singers to their heart's desire. The KKK can burn crosses (on their own property) and scream "We hate niggers!" until they are blue in the face. As long as they don't hurt anybody or destroy another individual's property, I won't stop them. As much as I would like that sort of hate and resentment to go away, I'm not going to take away their freedom to act as they wish, with the above limitations.
Yeah, it's those damn liberals again. The same ones who forced drugs on that fat-ass windbag on AM.
Again: no one is questioning the legality of these acts. To say, however, that public burning of selected artists' art based on their political opinions, does not smack of the Third Reich, means shoving your head in the sand. Not everything that is legal is socially, culturally and politically acceptable.
Yes, see how far you will go if you organize from your public media position, for example, a public burning of Jewish authors' books. Try to explain to the ADL, JDL and B'nai Brit that "as long as no one is being harmed or threatened, who cares". Or try to organize on the radio a public burning of Bibles and then try to explain to the judge presiding over your case that you weren't really trying to incite a riot (which would invariably ensue, most likely started by the same DC CD burning assholes), you were simply exercising your freedoms, so who cares.
Not all of them! Which, according to you, makes the ones that weren't perfectly OK.
There are no absolute freedoms anywhere, in case you didn't know. Nevertheless, you keep harping about the legality of the act, while I'm trying to tell you that there are other aspects of the act that a normal person would take into consideration. Public burning of any art form is, in my opinion, a disgusting form of exercising your freedom.
Because apparently we post from the opposite civilizational levels. To you, all is well as long as private individuals are exercising their rights. While this may work in theory, you keep forgetting that societies are comprised of these individuals. I, for one, would refuse to live in a country where the art burning individuals were a majority, because sooner or later they will start passing legislation tilted towards their world views. Would you like to live in a country where, for example, the KKK had a 90% membership rate? How long do you think it would take to escalate the verbal attacks? What's that, the Constitution would protect you? The Constitution is a piece of paper that carries only as much clout as the society allows it.
[snip]
[snip]
The problem in this whole story is that you keep defending the *legality* of all these positions which no one questions to begin with. All I'm saying is that the Aryan Nation and the KKK are not civilized alternatives, just like public burning of CDs isn't either.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
know
trying to
people
those
they
destroyed
mind
that
the
It DOESN'T have to be acceptable, as long as it is legal. Determining what is "acceptible" is awfully subjective. What you find socially, or culturally, or politically acceptible will differ from what I or someone else finds socially, or culturally, or politically acceptible. What is legal is the only concrete way of determining what one can and cannot do.
burning,
of
difference
invariably
That's entirely my point. I'm exercising my freedoms, and its up to me to decide what freedoms I will and won't excercise, based upon the repercussions. In the case of inciting a riot, the actual action isn't the crime, its the fact that you are performing that action with the intent to cause a disturbance.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE OK!!!! All I'm saying is that non-government sponsored book burnings are LEGAL. (In any event, apparently you do need some background information on the "Nazi Book Burning." There was only one MAJOR book burning in Nazi Germany. That is, one book burning that was newsworthy, because it was the only one reported. It took place in 1933. The main courtyard at Humboldt University in Berlin was cordoned off where the "denigrate" books were brought in and burned..)
If we are to ban things that are "socially, culturally, or politically unacceptible" who gets to determine what fits under that category. I don't think that smearing a canvas with feces and calling it art is culturally or socially acceptible yet, apparently, some do. I think that smoking SHOULD be socially and culturally unacceptible, but I am not in favor of laws banning that type of behavior just because I (or even a majority of the people) disagree with it.
CDs(again
expression.
in
That's your opinion. And that's also one of the reasons we have laws. To protect me if I want to behave in a fashion that YOU find unacceptible. You look down on those people that smashed the Dixie Chick's CDs (which, again I will point out that these were CDs that THEY purchased with their own money, thus owned the CDs), and find that a disgusting form of exercising their freedom (that's funny, a disgusting form of freedom.) What THOSE people found a disgusting exercise of freedom was Natalie Mains degrading HER president oversees in a time of war. Funny how you think one is a disgusting form of the exercise of freedom, and one isn't.
pure
a
for
them
citizen
I
I
GOVERNMENT
you,
YES! EXACTLY! Private citizens are free to act in any way they choose, as long as another individual or property is not being directly harmed. It is that private individual's responsibility to weigh the consequences of his personal exercise of freedom against the rewards of said exercise. For example: Natalie Mains of the Dixie Chicks is 100% within her rights to go overseas and disparage her president. No "legal" punishment should befall her. She must expect that some people will disagree with her, and decide if it is worth it to her and her band to voice her opinion. As it happened, some people DID disagree with her, and they voiced their opinion of her and her band by destroying their PRIVATE copies of the Dixie Chicks' art. Of course, these people (and the radio station that organized the event) must also weight the consequences of their actions against public backlash. If too many people disagree with their position, the radio station loses listeners and advertising revenue, and the people participating take the risk of being considered "rubes" and "uncivilized." Apparently, to them, it was worth taking that risk to voice their disapproval of Natalie Mains and the Dixie Chicks. That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work in a free market society/economy. At no point does the government need to get involved, as no individual or property was directly harmed or threatened.
or
views.
verbal
it.
Which is one of the reasons why he have a three branch government. One man, Nine justices, and over 500 legislators on the Federal level alone (not to mention the various state goverments) the chances of a 90% majority being established on anything is nil. Our Founding Fathers acted with enough foresight to plan for this type of eventuality, IMO.
the
of
is
like
Again, thats your opinion. I don't think it is very civilized or socially acceptible to go overseas and criticize your president or government, especially in time of war, but I'm certainly not going to seek a legal means of preventing people from doing so, as that would be abridging their freedoms. How about you? Would you seek a legal way to prevent someone from destroying their own private property just because you view it as uncivilized? Where would you stop?
You're sadly mistaken. It is uncivilized and completely unacceptable to *not* criticize your president or government. No one is above criticism, especially not the political assholes. Refraining from standing up to the authority on any grounds can only lead to the abuse of that authority.
Don't make me laugh. When the reasons for going to war are as phony and fabricated as the neocons' were, that's exactly when one should speak up.
How many times do I have to say that the legality of the act was never questioned? That doesn't mean I can't rightfully compare it to the Nazis. If you don't like my saying it, read what you wrote so far about the freedom of speech.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
socially
If
of
I'm not trying to abridge your right to free speech, I don't want to shut you up. You have a right to believe what you believe and to voice those beliefs. I have a right to tell you that you are wrong.
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" wrote in message news:[email]...
criticism,
the
up.
someone
as
Nazis.
freedom
Wow! I've never seen so many liberal buzzwords crammed into one site. Let's address a few, shall we? Budget deficit. You cannot look at the dollar amount when looking at the deficit, you must look the deficit as a percentage of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Of course we have a larger DOLLAR amount, our GDP DOLLAR amount is larger, as well. Take two households, one with an annual income of $10,000 dollars and one with an annual income of $100,000 dollars. Last year, the $10,000 dollar household's yearly expenses were $11,000 dollars, so they had a $1,000 dollar deficit. The $100,000 household's expenses were $103,000 dollars, they had a $3,000 deficit. The richer household's deficit is almost 3 times that of the poorer household. However, the poorer household's deficit is 10%, while the richer household's is only 3%. For which household will it be easier to cut expenses and make up the deficit this year? The one with only a 3% deficit, right? Now switch gears over to the budget deficit. It may well be $500 billion, but that's ONLY 2.7% of GDP. Last year the deficit was 4.2%. The highest the deficit has ever been was during WWII, when the it was 30.3% of GDP. According to the US Dept. of Treasury, from 1934 to 2004 (70 years) only 12 years has our budget been a surplus. The Democrat argument that "this is the largest deficit in US history" is a bunch of hogwash. Its not even the biggest deficit in the last 25 years. (1983, the deficit was 6% of the GDP). All this is said with the understanding that (according to the US constitution) the President has NO POWER to spend money. That power lies with congress. Guess what? During the most recent years when the budget had a surplus (1996-2000), guess what the majority party in congress was? Hint...it weren't the Democrats. The Republicans gained the majority in both the Senate and the House in 1996, the deficit was about 1.7%. By 1998, we were running a surplus. In 2003, the GDP grew 7.2%, the highest rate in 19 years.
"No signifigant job growth." Between August and October, the government reports that the economy added an average of 55,000 jobs per month. At that rate, the economy is improving at a slightly better rate than it did in 1991 and 1992. Since June, the jobless rate fell from 6.2% to 5.7%. Since September, the number of unemployment claims has fallen by $500,000. http://www.iht.com/articles/126064.html
"No WMDs." Let's just ignore the fact that Saddam has gassed THOUSANDS of Iraqis. Yeah, he USED to have WMDs. But he got rid of them. After all, the UN told him he had to, he had to listen, right?
"Unilateralism." Unilateral: adj. 1) Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament. 2) Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement. Currently, there are over 30 countries involved in Iraq, including: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
Of course you can. Even if the deficit as a percentage of the GDP is not the highest in the last 25 years, it is still the largest deficit ever, even when adjusted for inflation.
That's only the projected deficit (i.e. wishful thinking), based on the same math used when Bush took the office, under which the country should have had a surplus. We all know where that went. Or maybe we don't.
So what? You think WW2 is in any way comparable to 2004? When there's a world war on, GDPs are way down in any country and the results are skewed. Introducing WW2 into the equation is a red herring.
Not this tired old argument according to which the President is just an honorary figure. The budget proposals come from the White House and the Congress approves it. That doesn't mean that they are its creators.
For the real effects of the allegedly insignificant US deficit, take a peek:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/7657034.htm
At this rate of "adding jobs" (and btw, it was 10,000 in December), it will take almost four more years just to get back to the 2000 level. Hence "insignificant".
This is a lie. The number of people *receiving* benefits has dropped, which can be largely contributed to their benefits running out.
If he "got rid of them", why was the invasion necessary? Here were Bush's reasons for the Iraq war, in the order of importance:
- imminent danger to the US: by now it is clear even to the dumbest morons that Iraq in 2003, with its dilapidated army and weakened economy, wasn't a threat to anyone, let alone the US (what a preposterous claim to begin with) This was *the* reason for going to war. What a crock of shit, turns out. - Iraq's WMDs: remain elusive and nowhere to be found, even though the UN inspectors were declared incompetent when they couldn't find them; all of a sudden our inspectors are asking for more time - Iraq's nuclear weapons program: unmasked as an outright fabrication by the CIA and the White House - Iraq's Al Qaeda connection: debunked as fabrication and wishful thinking - Iraq's 9/11 connection: a White House media red herring with no basis in reality whatsoever - Iraq's human rights abuses and violations: so what? When are we invading China, North Korea, half of Africa, half of eastern Asia, etc?
Bush *lied* about every single point above and people continue to die on a daily basis as a result of that. Clinton had his cock sucked and had to go through the impeachment process. How many people died as a result of his blow job?
Who cares who's now "involved"? It was unilateral because it wasn't approved by the UN and, with the exception of the UK, no other NATO member joined (other than the former commie states that desperately need money from the US). Whereas the intervention in Afghanistan was justified and necessary, the Iraq debacle is a pre-programmed job cooked up by the neocons such as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld long before 9/11. It serves no one but Israel. Bush should be on trial for treason.
<snip what seems to have become irrelevant/bandwidth-lard>
Here I thought this'd just be about the war!
Anyway, you saw the archive?:
<http://www.markfiore.com/animation.html>
Some of his stuff is a bit extreme (when not outright extreme) for me, but I love the guy's use of animation and interactivity. Actually this is one of my favorites:
Again, I was just going for the war comments, but:
Intersting how you ignored Clinton's first tax proposals, ones that were unanimously oppossed by Congress Republicans, and led to a 40% drop in the deficit. I'll at least give Bush credit for knowing how to ride the economic cycle like Clinton did. Call me crazy for preferring tax-and-spend to borrow-and-spend . . .
Does seem like good news. I *do* hope this refers to a net increase, and not a gross increase . . .
Nice way to dance around the issue. Back in '89 (around the time of said
gassings) I had braces put in; I guess this means I still have them!
Those last two sentences almost seemed sarcastic, though there's far more
truth in them than you might want to imagine . . .
I *knew* I shoulda put *this* one up:
<http://www.markfiore.com/animation/wmd.html>
Wow, ya got some real winners there. (didn't we pay off Turkey?) Though you marked the UK, they weren't exactly rolling out the welcome mat during our president's last visit. Still, I'm left wondering how many of those countries actually sent soldiers (much less significant ammounts) and not just "word support."
Vaughner
"Well, thanks to the internet, I'm bored with sex."
Who do you think has the best shot at getting elected (over Bush)? I don't think anyone thought Bush would be taken seriously when he was elected--included himself. But after 911, he is in some kind of hopped up dream world where he thinks he is doing God's work--and all the conservatives agree... No one around him to restrain him... Scary thing is there are about 3-4 Supreme Court judges about to retire sometime soon. (I wonder why they haven't during the GW era? Are they afraid for their grandchildren?)
As for Kerry, Kennedy is considered the conservative Senator from MA... doesn't bode well for the "Democrats": http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/2004PR_1/2004pr_1.HTM
I guess this means you have some honor, and don't listen to much talk radio. At least once, Rush Limbaugh refered to Clinton judicial nominees as "Commies" (ironically, while defending Bush nominees). Then there's "Boom" of "Kylie and Boom" (at least that's how I think it's spelled), who not only said "Commie liberals," but sometimes played the Soviet Anthem (or some Russian music) when he really got going; and this was a *sports* talk show!
Vaughner
"Well, thanks to the internet, I'm bored with sex."
"Antonio E. Gonzalez" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:5tSLb.8614$[email]...
entertainers...
(her)
was
"Commie"
that's
but
liberal
radio.
I listen to talk radio all the time. Walton and Johnson in the mornings, Rush Limbaugh at lunch, and Hannity and local talk show host Mike Wolf on my drive home.
"Commies"
"Kylie and
I've never heard this, but I don't doubt it. If you mean Justices Thomas and Scalia, its a well-known fact that Limbaugh is a fan of Thomas. Not sure how he feels about Scalia.
Errr, just a quick correction: I was talking about *this* Bush's nominations (appelate courts, et. al.). Also, Bush the Elder didn't nominate Scalia (that would be Reagan). Are you sure you didn't mean Suter?
Vaughner
"Well, thanks to the internet, I'm bored with sex."
"Gus" wrote in message news:rReNb.35355$[email]...
"Commie"
that's
but
Ummm, if they admit it? You know, people like Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro. Oh, and Danny Glover. I don't go around calling Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton "Commies" just because I don't like them, if that's what you mean. Though both are very much in favor of a form of socialism, and communism is just socialism with attitude. I certainly don't throw around "Commie" the way most liberals I know toss around "Nazi" or "Fascist." For some reason, liberals like to use invectives in their arguments ("wingnut" for instance). I guess its better than saying "nuh-uh."
As long as it doesn't harm any other individuals. I think you should be allowed to smoke pot or snort coke, if you're stupid enough to do that. 1) It doesn't harm anyone else. 2) Legalizing "illicit" drugs would shortly undermine the "drug culture" in the US 3) It would free up law enforcement officers to perform other law enforcement duties. 4) It would free up our court system. 5) It would (theoretically) reduce the amount of taxes we have to pay. I'm all for legalizing drugs. Hell, let people set up little hash bars and charge sales tax on it. Same goes for prostitution, if you're stupid enough (or pathetic enough) to pay to get laid.
"The Vampire Muffin Man" wrote in message news:[email]...
don't
no
the
or to
be the
Many people I know don't like to eat when someone is talking nearby...even the ones who talk. Aside from that, yeah... I don't think it's rude to just run your mouth in front of someone, but it is rude to not shut up on request, or to go elsewhere. It's *your* choice to talk. Those around you shouldn't be the ones who have to accomodate *your* choice.
No. Typically I would answer this question with "yes", but we've found the perfect counter-example to that, haven't we.
Hey, that's fine. Campaign against the anti-smoking legislation that coming around. I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is:
1) Smoking is gross. This is a point that I find is ignored all too often by the anti-anti-smokers, so I thought I'd bring it up. 2) I've enjoyed the new laws when I've been to places where they are in effect, and when they come to my state, I'll continue to enjoy them.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:TK3Ib.25685$[email]...
If
in
probably
you?
No we haven't. I don't accept limitations upon anyone's freedom, be it their right to own a gun, light up in public, smoke weed, say a prayer at a football game, tell some chick at work that she "looks nice today," engage in sodomy in their own home, or dig a ditch in their backyard (See the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers for an explanation on that one.) As long as that behavior is not DIRECTLY HARMING another individual, there shouldn't be a law against it (almost a Libertarian viewpoint there, huh?) Tyranny is tyranny whether its against you or me or someone else.
don't
no
in
Agreed
This is a point that I find is ignored all too
They absolutely will make those 'offended' by smoking enjoy themselves more in some places. But its still limiting someone else's freedoms. You've already said that you'd oppose a law limiting your freedom, why do you stand idly by while someone else is being affected?
Haven't you ever heard that old Martin Niemoeller saying? First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a socialist; Then they cam for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak out for me
I'm not equating the "struggle" of smokers (I am not a smoker, BTW) with the true struggles of Jews and others in Nazi Germany but I am saying
First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out- because I was not a smoker
Did I say I would oppose any law limiting my freedom? If so, my mistake. There are some freedoms that should be restricted. Freedom to litter is one good example. There are others.
Also, keep in mind that there are still health arguments (which I've been intentionally ignoring). I don't really want to get into the whole second-hand smoke thing because I have not researched it, but, intuitively, it seems very unlikely that being around a large amount of second-hand smoke (such as being a bartender) has no negative health impact whatsoever.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:LimIb.28686$[email]...
the
guess
Smoking
at a
engage
EPA
shouldn't be
is
squeeze
active
more
stand
Yes. You stated that banning smoking in certain areas was "tyranny you can get behind." I asked if that tyranny was directed at you, would you still support it, you replied "Ummm, no..."
There ought to be limits on freedom. Didn't George Bush say that? ;-) Agreed, freedom to litter should be restricted. My biggest pet peeve is when I'm driving behind a smoker and they toss their cigarrette butt out the window when they've finished. These people would probably never toss an empty Coke can out the window, but think nothing of flicking a butt out.
As have I, because...
...both my father and my uncle grew up in a house with second hand smoke. My uncle is as healthy as can be, and my father, aside from being a little overweight, suffers only from high blood pressure (which can probably be attributed to raising me.) Likewise, my mother-in-law, her two sisters and one brother grew up in a house with second hand smoke. They aren't exaclt healthy, but none of the illnesses they suffer from (brain cancer, thyroid problems, etc) are associated with cigarette smoke. And when I say the grew up in a house with second-hand smoke (on both sides), I'm talking about a house where you can walk in for 5 seconds, walk back out and smell like smoke for the rest of the day. My grandparent's house was so bad that if they sent you fudge for Christmas, it TASTED like cigarette smoke. I know very few people that actually grew up in a house with second-hand smoke, but NONE of those people suffer from heart disease, or lung disease, or any of the other illnesses commonly attributed to cigarette smoke.
"Gus" wrote in message news:4vOIb.13782$[email]...
democracy.
do
affected
found
as
have
it
in
You've
can
still
the
smoke.
little
That's a fairly safe assumption. Since no one has conclusively linked second hand smoke to health problems, anecdotal evidence is really all I have to go on. I know people who grew up in a smoking household, and NONE of them suffer any of the illnesses commonly associated with smoking. My father's blood pressure problem has only existed for the last 10 years or so. He's 52, and hasn't been around second-hand smoke for over 30 years.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:LimIb.28686$[email]...
Richard - considering the same "deadly" poisons are present in exhaust from automobiles (and certain industrial facillities, sometimes much worse), don't you think we should restrict the right of people to drive in populated areas? I mean, every time you drive down the street you are filling my lungs with the dangerous by-products of burning fossil fuels in your engine and, intuitively, it seems very unlikely that being around a large amount of exhaust has no negative health impact whatsoever.
So when I kindly ask you to please refrain from driving because I find it offensive, smelly and bad for my health, are you going to comply?
So what? People's "freedoms" are routinely limited all the time. Besides, where does it say people have the "freedom" to smoke? Smokers insisting on smoking in the company of non smokers are comparable to overeaters forcing the rest of us to eat their "2nd hand" food.
Not sure it still is, but in the late 80s Denver banned it in most of it's parks.
Many outdoor sports staduims ban it now, or relegate it to boxes... Which I think is good; because it's not easy to walk away when you've paid for season tickets and Bubba two rows down decides to light up and doesn't care whether others around him think his cigar smells sweet, or it smells like ass..
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:ToMGb.65152$[email]...
To me, people named "Richard" are stupid and intrusively disgusting. Your very existence cause me a great deal of discomfort, therefore it is the government's responsibility to ensure that people like you are no longer allowed to exist.
By the way, I also hate beets, so we should certainly ban them as well. And I'd say a vast majority of the population probably hate spam, tripe and anchovies - so let's do away with them as well. I'm partcularly annoyed when the person next to me at a restaurant has anchovies and I'm subjected to the noxious vapors of secondhand anchovy. I mean, I shouldn't have to put up with that, now should I?
AFAIAC, smoking should be allowed anywhere. Hell, smokers should be allowed, nay, required to enter the homes of non-smokers before lighting up, use their children as ashtrays, as well as engage in sports activities in their kitchens involving fine china as freezbies. Everyone else should be not only allowed to carry a handgun, but to use it as frequently as possible while being blind-folded in a kindergarten. Oral sex involving nuns and horses should be federally mandated in front of every Starbucks and defecating in each others' handbag should be considered a sign of affection.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
Your
And
subjected
to
allowed,
their
only
Actually, no. I fail to see how you draw a comparison between exercising one's right to smoke and one's right to shoot up a kindergarten. Tell me again how the two have anything in common? Also explain how smoking correlates to destruction of property such as fine china and handbags as well as child abuse. Finally, explain how ALLOWING smoking correlates in any way, shape or form to a "federal mandate".
Now, on the other hand, I do agree with you that everyone should be allowed to carry a handgun, and that oral sex involving nuns and/or horses should be allowed just like smoking as long as there is consent from the nun or horse involved. You might not like horses, but you have no business denying them to those that do. Just like smoking. Or beets, tripe, spam and anchovies.
Because as long as no one gets hurt, everything's fine, right?
Certainly, just after you explain how eating beets or anchovies correlates to smoking. Finally, explain how banning smoking correlates in any way, shape or form to the government's responsibility that people called Richard are not allowed to exist.
The only difference being that the cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen, while beets, tripe, spam and anchovies do not magically jump from another person's plate into your mouth.
And last, but not least, explain how exactly is anyone denying you to smoke? You can light up a dog turd and smoke it for all I care, but if its smoke is a carcinogen, do it in the open or in your children's room.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
exercising
me
No, not right, but if you're too stupid to see the difference between shooting a weapon at a bunch of kids and smoking a cigarette, there's no point arguing with you I suspect.
in
Easy. All three are legal, do not harm others and should be outlawed in public because they are "disgusting".
Automobile exhaust is a "known carcinogen" that magically jumps into my lungs - yet driving is legal. I don't hear you complaining about that.
smoke?
I will just as soon as you explain how exactly anyone is denying you the ability to move away from something you find unpleasant.
No one's shooting at kids, just like no one's blowing smoke in anyone's face. But if they happen to catch a bullet or develop a cancer, that's another story, isn't it?
Where is smoking outlawed in open spaces or on your property? But if you feel you have the "right" to smoke indoors next to me, then I have the "right" to shoot my gun next you or play music at 120dB or even take a dump in front of you.
Who cares? That's something that *everybody* chooses to live with. Tacitly approving one carcinogen doesn't mean that I signed a blank form accepting all of them. Grow up.
Evasion duly noted. So you agree that next time you light up indoors next to me, I can just start blasting music at 120dB. Just move away. Of course, like smoke, I have the "right" to follow you around.
"Gus" wrote in message news:kHRJb.24195$[email]...
Smoking
longer
annoyed
while
in
exercising
Easy. How about the inherent right Americans have to do things that are lawful. Kinda like my right to watch football, drink beer, go fishing and pick on stupid people like Charles & Mambo?
Effectively, yes. The vague notion of the "pursuit of happiness" is warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't even allow you to have certain types of consensual sex in the privacy of your own home in some states, if the "people" in those states decide so. Even racial discrimination wasn't unconstitutional until about 60 years ago.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
are
and
The "vague notion of the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
It WAS unconstitutional. Just because a judge hasn't declared it so doesn't mean that it isn't already unconstitutional.
"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...
of
or
Right, I'm not arguing this point. I think you misspoke, though. The Constitution neither allows nor forbids you to have sex in a certain way. I believe that if it isn't implcityly implied in the Articles of the Constitution, it's up to the states. I don't think the Constitution *cares* either way for how a citizen chooses to participate in sex.
"Gus" wrote in message news:kHRJb.24195$[email]...
Smoking
longer
annoyed
while
in
exercising
It isn't a "right" to smoke, its a right to behave the way you want to behave. As long as that behavior doesn't directly harm or infringe up on the property rights of another individual, you ought to have the right to behave any way you wish.
I see how silly your post is. You're equating a completely moronic aversion to a very reasonable aversion. Your whole premis is flawed and not even worst discussing. You're also not accurately describing the scenario. No one is arguing that people should not be allowed to smoke.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:MGFGb.63588$[email]...
my
Not a democracy, a democratic republic. If we lived in a "democracy" the popular vote would decide who the president was, and you'd get to vote on whether or not you're taxes get raised. As it is, you get to elect people to go to DC and vote for you, thus you live in a republic.
Not the majority. What if some nut-wad in NYC decides that smoking is icky and decides to ban smoking in bars and other "public places?" Oh, wait, that's already happened. My dad and I were having this argument the other day. My dad hates smoking, so he said something to the effect "I could care less if they decide to ban smoking in restaurants, in fact, I'd be in favor of it." I retorted with "do you really want the government to be able to tell business what they can and can't do on their own property? What happens if they decide to extend that power to individuals? After all, smoking in one's own home may be harmful to others in the home..." He saw it my way.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:eK3Ib.38301$[email]...
and
the
You said "We're supposed to be living in a democracy." We aren't supposed to be living in a democracy, we're supposed to be living in a democratic republic. I will accept that the general population believes that we live in a democracy, they are misinformed about that.
"Gus" wrote in message news:x_dIb.35291$[email]...
and
the
on
people
icky
other
care
favor
to
saw
Why is that? Because he understands that YOUR government should not be allowed to place limitations upon YOU willy-nilly? Or are you just trying to be a dick?
Many people, including me. I would equate public smoking with picking your nose and wiping it on top of the chair next to you. Tolerable, yet disgusting.
On or about Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:07:45 GMT, Richard Edwards made the sensational claim that:
I don't like to smoke indoors, and won't unless I'm sure it's quite ok with whoever's house I'm in. Public buildings no way, it's illegal here anyway. Outdoors is fair game. That's why god created wind dude.
You don't understand that people sensitive to smoke, like me, can smell someone lighting up half a block away when the wind is right, and if I can't get away from it, I'll end up with congested sinuses, not sleeping, mongo headaches, etc. It's a pretty miserable night.
It is amazing how some people can notice it from across a small parking lot. It's a very big smell to those who spend most of their time away from it. When I get in a smoker's car or go into a heavy smokers apartment, it's a stunning experience.
Another facet of the "disgusting" argument: I grew up in a smokers home. I recently had my grandma tell me about how she stopped smoking because when little 5 year old me came over, I absolutely reeked of cigarette smoke. Of course I was used to it at that point, so I didn't notice it. She was a smoker, though, and she did. Isn't that kinda sad?
I wrote poorly. I wasn't saying that it was sad that she quit. I was saying that it was sad that I was such a stinky little 5 year old and didn't know it.
could be psychological.... if you can smell it, then your breathing in dozens of known carcinogens, hopefully in low doses if "downwind"... when I ride my bike to work I can smell it from passing cars. I don't think that does any harm (to me).
If you want to do it in your home or car, fine. Your choice... There are people with respiratory problems such as asthma that are easily affected though.
I understand it. I'm like that. It's MY problem, not theirs. Part of the point of the episode is just that. This is a matter of people like us butting into other people's (smokers) business. The "butt out" was aimed at US. And they've got a point.
Telling people that they aren't allowed to do X can and has come back to haunt people later when the public's focus changes and "X" becomes something THEY like.
"Gus" wrote in message news:vXwGb.395804$[email]...
made the sensational claim that:
with
anyway.
Then walk away. Walk away man! Just walk away. Sort of like those idiot's who call the local radio morning show to complain about what they talk about. Dude...don't like it? Change the channel.
Or get the law changed. Sorry, but that's obviously one of the non-smoker's options.
I understand your bitterness, but can you have to be able to at least understand that when someone is presented with an opportunity to get rid of something that disgusts them, they probably will take it. That opportunity is pretty much here.
Keep fighting against it. There are some valid points on your side.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:uO3Ib.25689$[email]...
yet
complain
But you're passing a law that bans something that ought to be legal in a free society (Like America's is supposed to be.)
But don't you see that this is wrong? You don't like someone else's BEHAVIOR, so you'll pass a law that bans that behavior? Queers were up in arms over that Texas Sodomy law, because that law banned part of their behavior simply because some stodgy old fart in Texas thought that behavior was offensive.
I'm not a smoker. I smoke a cigar once or twice a year, usually on my back porch in or in my backyard. Banning smoking in restaurants would only make for a more pleasant experience for me in some restaurants. I'm still against it, because I don't think it should be yours or the government's business to limit someone else's freedom simply because it makes someone else "uncomfortable." That's why I say, if someone is smoking around you and it makes you uncomfortable, then just walk away.
I don't buy that it's straightforward that it ought to be legal. There are good arguments on both sides. Remember, I'm not trying to outlaw smoking altogether. One could argue that it ought to be legal to toss their McDonald's wrapper out their car door.
Just as you say I (the non-smoker) can leave, the non-smoker can also leave in order to smoke. Not a big difference, there.
Nope, I don't think it's wrong. Restrictive, perhaps even oppressive, maybe. I would also describe it as for the best.
So you're one of the people who's concerned about loosing freedoms. Fine. Commendable, even. Doesn't really change my position that I would enjoy such a law and would be willing to sacrifice the bit of slippery slope that may come back and bite me in the future.
No, thanks anyway, why should I have to move somewhere else because some asswipe insists on lighting up? I'm at a restaurant for dinner, some jackoff lights up & I'm supposed to go somewhere else? How unAmerican.
"Gus" wrote in message news:L2eIb.35374$[email]...
yet
So? If your outside and someone's cigarette smoke is bothering you, then just walk further away. It isn't that hard.
complain
Yep.
How unAmerican.
Actually, that's as AMERICAN as you can get. You and the smoker both have the same freedoms. You, to choose another place to eat if the smoking bothers you. The smoker, the freedom to smoke while he or she enjoys a meal. This freedom is also extended to the restaurant and its owner. They are free to choose whether or not to allow smoking on their property. If you pass a law banning smoking in a restaurant, two of the three parties involved are having their freedoms imposed upon. Limiting someone's freedoms beacause an aspect of their behavior makes you 'uncomfortable' is about as UN-American as you can get.
Outdoor isn't nearly as disgusting and indoor. Not even the same ballpark (although it is still unpleasant).
Some other guy (the one who called me a fascist) also seemed to get that I was trying to stop public smoking. I never said that. All I said was that it was disgusting. I shared my opinion and asked for thoughts on that opinion. That's all.
I'm really just enjoying the inevitable wave. I do think it's a bit wrong that in some states smokers can't smoke in bars, but I love the result. When I first went over there, I was unaware of the law. I have to say I was surprised at how very much I enjoyed the results. I can sympathize, though.
On or about Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:31:16 GMT, Richard Edwards made the sensational claim that:
I seriously don't like smoking indoors. My ideal bar would have an outside area for smoking. Actually, most of the problem is cigarettes, which are a compromise for convience and cost. They're small, easy to get, etc etc. I'd much rather spend an hour with a good cigar than 6 10 minute stretches with cigarettes.
I think thats the point of the episode. You hate smoking, but you try to make other people not to smoke, that make you a facist. I used to smoke for 3 years (2 packs/day), then I quit just like that. I use to hate people who smoke weed (most of my friends do that), now I dont hate them anymore. I guess what im trying to say is, stop being such a hard ass.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:BguGb.11087$[email]...
So (and I'm doing the devil's advocate thing here) you and these other people have a problem, and you're trying to project it on the smokers. This can boomerang later when you're doing something that other people object to, like groping women or whatever.
Well, yeah, it could. However, I think smoking is probably the single biggest example of something that many people can't stand. I'm young enough to say that I can't even imagine what it would be like if smoking was allowed in the workplace.
Can you come up with anything else that's legal and is as annoying and harmful?
Alcohol. People driving their own cars without automation. Homeland "Security".
Really? No. I tormented my parents when I was a kid until my Mom gave it up and my Dad retreated to the bathroom to smoke. He eventually DID give it up, though.
My point stands, though. It'll come back to haunt us in some way we don't expect. Opening up this door is not a good idea. Social pressure, not law, is what is needed. I once asked a tobacco company employee when she would go to work for a company with better morals. I am thinking of the Mafia as having better morals.
Very dangerous, but, unless I'm badly mistaken, not considered by the general public as anywhere near as annoying. I say alcohol doesn't make the grade. It may be the closest thing, though.
"Richard Edwards" wrote in message news:RL3Ib.25686$[email]...
If
Well, that might already be covered under "vandalism" or "defacing property" I know a guy that got a ticket for sticking a peice of gum under a bus stop bench and a cop saw him. The ticket was for defacing public property, I think. If there's already a law against it, do we need another one?
Just holding up my analogy. I don't mind a law that says wiping a booger on a chair is illegal just like I don't mind a law that say public indoor smoking is illegal.
"misses" in any show, but this one had me shaking my head afterwards. I think they had a character say second hand smoke does not cause cancer and people who smoke choose to... Maybe that was the satire, but it was buried very deep among many, many the pro-smoking statements...
Even Philip Morris says its addictive and there is no safe cigarette. I guess a way to cover their collective ass against future lawsuits. Or, maybe they just really care about us.