kzsteele

bumpity bump bump bump (Dec 6, 2008 | post #9)

Secondhand smoke causes... 09:27

QUOTE who="confeder ate1978"]verm ont went to the queers way back.[/QUOTE] lulz (Dec 5, 2008 | post #15)

confederate said "queers" ... lol. come on, smokers' rights fundies. aren't you going to call out this bigotry? or perhaps your are selective in the bigotry you choose to oppose? so sad... (Dec 5, 2008 | post #7)

back to the top with you! (Dec 5, 2008 | post #6)

Should smokers be sterilized?

ew.. old people flirting (Dec 4, 2008 | post #26)

lol (Dec 4, 2008 | post #2)

Quitting Smoking abruptly and High Rate of Lung Cancer

lol... cracked like an egg. i was wondering how long that would take. (Nov 28, 2008 | post #16)

i can't address this post or your other post right niw, but i will say that you didn't answer the question i posed in my previous question: "a guy owns a business and wants to serve and employ only people of his ethnic heritage. one question for you: putting legality aside for this one moment (i have faith that you can do it just this once), do you believe he *should* be able to cater to and associate with those of his choosing by using his freedom as an american to keep those who are not of his ethnic decent out of the establishment that he owns, maintains, and pays taxes on?" take a crack at that, if you dare. i will be back tomorrow with my other responses. remember, just because one thing is legal and the other is not does not make one an apple and the other an orange. (Nov 1, 2008 | post #191)

actually, the health codes are on the owner of the business. tell me, free_america, who answers to the man when it becomes known that the employees have not been washing their hands like they're supposed to? who is subject to fines or possible revocation of business license when the inspector finds a rusty spatula in the mayonaisse container? who gets a nice ass-handing when the DoH discovers a bunch of mice raising families in the store room? think about that and get back to mesays whodiscrimination is not against the law. unlawful discrimination, on the other hand, is (race, sex, handicap status, etc). this is why a business owner can eject a patron simply on the grounds that he doesn't like the type of clothes the guy is wearing even in the absense of any known customer dress code. said owner can even say in court that he didn't like the thuggish look of the guy. that's discrimination right there and it is perfectly legal. the reason why is because thuggish-looking people are not specifically protected under any provision of the united states constitution. but anyway, lets get this back on track. a guy owns a business and wants to serve and employ only people of his ethnic heritage. one question for you: putting legality aside for this one moment (i have faith that you can do it just this once), do you believe he *should* be able to cater to and associate with those of his choosing by using his freedom as an american to keep those who are not of his ethnic decent out of the establishment that he owns, maintains, and pays taxes onthese are not apples and oranges, but rather more along the lines of different kinds of apples. the issues i am bringing up are perfectly legitimate as they ultimately relate to the principles behind smoking bans. it's about government mandated control. i want to see where you are drawing your lines as to what is acceptable and what is not. remember, just because one thing is legal and the other is not doesn't make one an apple and the other an orange. but i can play the this-is-illegal-an d-that-is-not game with you. so let's play now. you start by telling freedom to stop badgering people about meat smoke. after all, meat smoke and tobacco smoke are apples and oranges, especially since tobacco smoke is banned indoors and meat smoke is not. zing! (Nov 1, 2008 | post #189)

i don't understand... if the DoH can say "all establishments in the food service industry must abide by all health codes" then why can't they also say "all establishments that are places of public assembly must abide by all applicable smoking ordinances"? you say that smokng bans are forced on the owner. well, if the DoH went with the example i just gave in regards to smoking bans, it would no longer be forced on the owner, but rather forced upon "all establishments that happen to be places of public assembly". the owner is left out of the equation now since he or she willingly opens a business or continues to conduct business under the known provisions of an established smoking ordinancediscrimin ation is not against the law. in fact, discrimination is indeed allowed at the workplace. the catch is that you're not allowed to discriminate for a small handful of things. but regardless, the illegality of that is what this is about. are you suggesting that there is a point of no return here, that once something becomes illegal it's no longer worth fighting for? don't bail out on me, free_america. not that you would, but i have had a bad streak of luck with those on the anti-ban side who try to back out of a discussion on the grounds that i am "playing games" or "diverting issues". (Nov 1, 2008 | post #182)

i am confident that the casual reader has read enough of your posts to see that you are a mental case with a wild obsession. i am sure someone here will reply to this and say something similar about me. that's fine. i doesn't change my confidence factor any. oh, have you backed up your massive archive of posts that you have been collecting since 2006? i recommend dvd backups. use dual layer dvds, too, since they can hold over 8 gigs of data. actually, having thought of it, your collection is probably far greater than that. perhaps you should use tape backup instead. and store your backups in a safe place, too. in addition to storing copies all over your house (you know, in case a burglar breaks in and steals a backup, you'll have a hundred other copies), you might consider using a safety deposit box. after all, you wouldn't want to lose them in something like a fire. don't worry about baby or other family pictures, either. they're not even near as important as your precious collection of topix posts. if you need any money for the dvds, let me know. i can paypal you $0.30 for the cost of the dvd. (Nov 1, 2008 | post #179)

ok, sounds good. so would you be happy if smoking bans were placed on the occupation rather than the business owner? for example, all facilities that are public places of assembly shall be subject to smoking ordinance XYZ. sounds like that would take care of all your woes, would it notyou just stated that you do not disagree with my previous statement. having said that, would you support a movement geared at granting business owners back their right to serve and employ individuals based on criteria such as race? i'm not talking about affirmative action here, either. i'm talking about "i don't want to serve that guy because he's black" or "i don't want to hire asiansthat comment you made was an attempt to spin this particular discussion in the direction of "they get to congregate where they are catered to so why can't the smokers have the same". i was just trying to keep the discussion on track. i also didn't "decide" that it was irrelevant. it was already irrelevant by virtue of the fact that it didn't have anything do to with what we are currently talking about. again, not being nitpicky... i am just sayin. (Nov 1, 2008 | post #177)

how does it feel knowing you wasted all that time typing out a post that i didn't read? the only thing i actually saw was the eye-catch color of the blue link that undoubtedly points back to some post i made almost 2 years ago. find a hobby. (Nov 1, 2008 | post #175)