2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Publius

So why not open up a non-smoking bar for non-smokers, instead of forcing all bars to ban smoking? Smoking may be destructive to one's health, but it is their choice to put that shit into their body and your choice as to whether or not you CHOOSE to be near them. You don't (shouldn't) have the right to take away something they enjoy because you don't want to experience it.

I don't want to be subjected to small children throwing tantrums when I'm in the grocery store, we should pass a law banning children from the grocery store (or requiring that they be muzzled).

I'm with you. I think the bans are bullshit.


In Cook county (the county Chicago is located in) they are passing a ban.
I wouldn't even be able to open a bar and call it "Cancer McCirrhosis". Who wouldn't know what they are getting into by going in there? Yet I would be fined and/or closed down if I let someone light up in there.


Moral of the story: If you don't like second-hand smoke, avoid it. There are plenty of things I don't like and I do my best to stay away from those things. People do not have a right to walk into the restaurant or bar of their choosing and have everything the way they want it. That's the whole reason there is more than one place to eat per city.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If 99% of voters picked someone as president who promised everyone $10,000, should the election be nullified?

Absolutely.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If 99% of voters picked someone as president who promised everyone $10,000, should the election be nullified?

Yes

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'm with you. I think the bans are bullshit.


In Cook county (the county Chicago is located in) they are passing a ban.
I wouldn't even be able to open a bar and call it "Cancer McCirrhosis". Who wouldn't know what they are getting into by going in there. Yet I would be fined and/or closed down if I let someone light up in there.


Moral of the story: If you don't like second-hand smoke, avoid it. There are plenty of things I don't like and I do my best to stay away from those things. People do not have a right to walk into the restaurant or bar of their choosing and have everything the way they want it. That's the whole reason there is more than one place to eat per city.

The City of Dallas passed a smoking ban last year or the year before. Since then numerous bars in Deep Ellum and the West End (both Dallas nightlife hotspots) have shut down because people don't go to them anymore.

Smoking socially seems to go hand in hand with drinking socially, and there is a very real drop off in patrons to an establishment any time these bans are put into place.

[Thorgrim]

There is a fundamental disagreement, I believe the voters should be able to pick their president...senator...congressman...

It'd be grossly unconstitutional and tyrannical to ignore the choice of voters picking someone who meets all the qualifications

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is a fundamental disagreement, I believe the voters should be able to pick their president...senator...congressman...

It'd be grossly unconstitutional and tyrannical to ignore the choice of voters picking someone who meets all the qualifications

now you're just trolling. Promising the people monetary renumeration in exchange for their vote is an unacceptable tampering with of the electoral system.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

now you're just trolling. Promising the people monetary renumeration in exchange for their vote is an unacceptable tampering with of the electoral system.

who said it was "in exchange for their vote"

his example was crystal clear:

10,000 for being a good american, to everyone


That's not bribery, its a pubically announced plan


What if someone said "ill give everyone a 10,000 tax break" would that also be "bribery"

This is completely silly, if you want to make "bribery" that easy to be guilty of...then basically every politician would be in jail because they promised tons of money into their district, almost directly into the pockets of their voters

There's a pretty easy example, pretend Jefferson had lost his primary to the netroots challenger, and a Republican got in the race and said "I'm going to push hard everyday, make it my sole mission to get tons of money back into NO, every family that moved back and is now voting in this election will get $10,000 to pump the economy back up"

again, if the republican won, he should be in jail for bribery for his public platform?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

who said it was "in exchange for their vote"

his example was crystal clear:

10,000 for being a good american, to everyone


That's not bribery, its a pubically announced plan


What if someone said "ill give everyone a 10,000 tax break" would that also be "bribery"

This is completely silly, if you want to make "bribery" that easy to be guilty of...then basically every politician would be in jail because they promised tons of money into their district, almost directly into the pockets of their voters

There's a pretty easy example, pretend Jefferson had lost his primary to the netroots challenger, and a Republican got in the race and said "I'm going to push hard everyday, make it my sole mission to get tons of money back into NO, every family that moved back and is now voting in this election will get $10,000 to pump the economy back up"

again, if the republican won, he should be in jail for bribery for his public platform?

You've gone off subject.

I was talking about a poll, not a campaign promise.


Nearly everyone would take the money. Does that mean they should get it? No.


What if a majority wanted to reinstate slavery? Should we do it?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

You've gone off subject.

I was talking about a poll, not a campaign promise.


Nearly everyone would take the money. Does that mean they should get it? No.


What if a majority wanted to reinstate slavery? Should we do it?

Polls...politics...

anyway...if everyone wants a 10,000 tax refund...does that mean they should get it? many would say yes

Now you're talking about slavery...our constitution is pretty clear, if you want to amend it and have the numbers, you can do it, however it "feels" to you, its our constitution and unless you want to rip it up and start over then big majorities rule the day

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is a fundamental disagreement, I believe the voters should be able to pick their president...senator...congressman...

It'd be grossly unconstitutional and tyrannical to ignore the choice of voters picking someone who meets all the qualifications

Assuming the tax break/giveaway met the presentment standard (the house, senate and pres all go with it), I see no problem.

We agree.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Assuming the tax break/giveaway met the presentment standard (the house, senate and pres all go with it), I see no problem.

We agree.

Yeah I'm not sure where the whole nullifying people's votes comes from on publically announced campaign issues...but, they seem pretty angry

[Kytro]

If you don't like the bans, vote in someone to repeal them - should be easy, right?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

If you don't like the bans, vote in someone to repeal them - should be easy, right?

It shouldn't need to be done because a court should never uphold them in the first place.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Kytro

If you don't like the bans, vote in someone to repeal them - should be easy, right?

Ultimately that doesn't have much relevance, I consider a forum like this to be weighing our opinion in the first place.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

It shouldn't need to be done because a court should never uphold them in the first place.

In your opinion, perhaps, but the problem is that everyone has a different opinion. The courts decide if something is legal or not, and if congress dissents, they have the power to act.

The nature of politics often means politics of the day prevails

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

In your opinion, perhaps, but the problem is that everyone has a different opinion. The courts decide if something is legal or not, and if congress dissents, they have the power to act.

The nature of politics often means politics of the day prevails

It's a clear case of democratic tyranny and the federalists are spinning circles in their graves

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Ultimately that doesn't have much relevance, I consider a forum like this to be weighing our opinion in the first place.

Indeed it does not, it was merely a jibe at they system.

I am in favour of the bans, in most circumstances, though I ma not in favour of total bans so to speak.

The nature of social interaction and pressures means people will subjected to risk purely for the enjoyment of others and a public space, even if privately owned implies a certain degree public responsibility.

Freedom for once person can remove freedoms for others, in in fact, almost always do. We backed up by reasonable evidence, I believe that restriction of harmful activities in public places is not unreasonable.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

It's a clear case of democratic tyranny and the federalists are spinning circles in their graves

That is the system you have to work with, am I don't think what dead people would have though is really all that relevant - you cannot easily apply historical thinking to a modern context. The world is a different place, the social and political landscape is different.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That is the system you have to work with, am I don't think what dead people would have though is really all that relevant - you cannot easily apply historical thinking to a modern context. The world is a different place, the social and political landscape is different.

yet the concepts stay the same