Slamdance
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Slamdance
-
-
Just for the record Germany and most of Europe does not have the problems with Drinking that the USA has.
I don't know why but just putting out there...
As has been previously stated, and I agree, if you are old enough to fight and die for your country AND old enough to vote for the idiots who are going to send you to do as such, you should be able to drink.
One of the reasons the U.S.A. has such a drinking issue (I refuse to catagoize it as a "problem") is because we as a nation have made it such a rite of passage and make drinking such a big effin' deal.
In Europe, drinking milk is over by the time you are out of diapers. The young drink wine (diluted) or weak ales and beers or, mostly, juice and water. Drinking is seen as no big deal and part of the normal way of life. Granted there are exceptions (Oktoberfest comes to mind), but for the most part, they have a more "adult" view of alcohol, whereas we here in the States, have a distinctly "frat boy" take on the alcohol industry, equating booze with boobs, etc.
It has the view of the "forbidden fruit" and therefore all the more desirable. We need to get over that and make alcohol less of a big deal, not more.
If you want to raise the drinking age (and voting age and the age of military service) to 25 or 35 or try Prohibition again, good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you.
And to you MADD members and supporters;
You can beso mi culo, you guys are an effin' racket and hypocrites (sp?).
-
Okay, that's what I thought. I was pretty sure I already answered those questions, but here I go again...
Because I personally detest guns and have a strong desire for the world to someday be rid of them altogether. My own personal selfish agenda, nothing more and nothing less.
Fair enough.
Good luck with that.
We shall have to agree to disagree on guns and gun ownership.
Have a great Independence Day, one and all!!!
-
Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?
No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?
Hey DaveK,
These are the questions in question...
Enjoy
-
i own a Pink .22 and its sweet if someone were to break in to my house i would wound him with the little round it pumps out and beat the crap out of him with the Hot Pink stock until the police arrive
PINK???!!!
Embrace your feminine side.
-
As a righty I Like Bill Maher, I watch his show on HBO weekly, during the season. I wasn't real confortable with his anti-Catholic rant though I thought it that was a little over the top. Ironically he dated Ann Coulter.
I don't think he dated her as much as HAD to find out if she had a penis to go with her Adam's apple.
As a non-practicing Catholic, I still find more to agree with his and others anger at the Church's covering up for molesters than the Church's explanations (or lackthereof) for it.
And I'm still waiting for DaveK to answer my questions...
Or is personal responsibility not applicable to legal gun ownership, just owning/going to bars that allow smoking?
-
Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?
No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?
Here I go quoting myself again...
I guess I'm just waiting for DaveK to answer the effin' questions.
And, as Bill Maher said, "I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-assisted suicide, pro-unassisted suicide, hell, I'm for anything that gets the traffic moving..."
-
I think the key to smoking is moderation.
The key to pretty much everything is moderation.
But, IMO, you are still ducking the question of what is the difference in restricting smoking vs. restricting firearms ownership.
-
How do quantify the risk Dave? By potential or stupidity? And the risk is on who? You say the risks of guns is troublesome, but you advocate smoking. You want to strip the rights of gun owners, but you can't see the overall harm done by smoking in society. Smoking kills tens of thousands more people in this country each year than do guns and that is not even debatable. By the way, are you Nancy Pelosi's brother??
I'll take for granted that smoking/smoking related issues kill more people than guns. I don't care. I do not understand either one of the sides on these issues.
Oxbow6, Sioux-cia, et al, are ok with guns and legal gun ownership, but want to remove the right of a business owner to legally allow smoking in his OWN establishment.
DaveK and some others whom I'm to lazy to go back and find out who they are, are ok with legally smoking in bars, but want to even further restrict gun ownership to the point of taking guns away from everybody. (IF I'm exaggerating, please correct me.)
This is what I'm referring to as a nanny state. All of you need to stop making decisions for me. If I want to own a bar that allows smoking and carry my gun inside said bar, I should be able to. If you don't like smoking or the fact the owner is strapped, don't effin' patronize the place.
Personal responsibility, people, is it really that difficult for you to grasp?
-
Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?
No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?
I suppose it is kind of egotistical to quote oneself. Mea Culpa.
DaveK,
IMHO when you don't address the questions directed towards you, you just prove the point of those who disagree with you. You want to state comments made by Bill Hicks (whom I think is effin' insightful and hilarious) and direct people to the Brady website.
You don't seem to want to put the effort into giving information as much as getting into a internet argument. (As the "new" saying goes, "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you won, you're still retarded.") I'd apologize to any I've offended, but I direct their angst to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If you don't want to own firearms, cool. That is your choice. Just like you want to be able to smoke in a bar in Fargo. That choice has been taken from you. Don't take my choice to LEGALLY own a gun.
As Voltaire said (somewhat), "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
-
You're getting it, read what you just said Illegal Possession. We (collective us on SS.com) are legal gun owners. We don't need anymore background checks than we already have. Like I said already you do not know what you are talking about, every gun that I bought I did a back ground check and a it was registered. I don't need anymore checks and balances.
Awww DaveK,
Here I thought you were a reasonable man. Someone who believed in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!
Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?
No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?
I find it incredibly ironic that I am on the same page here as Goon and the Triouxper, being as we have had philosophical differences in the past. Just proves no reasonable person is 100% conservative or liberal.
-
No, not at all.
You're not against driving and talking. Check.
So technically what you are really against is holding anything while talking.
Be it a phone to ear while talking, candybar to mouth while talking, soda pop to mouth while talking.
You're against holding something to your ear while talking. It is still a distraction to have to dial that hands free (because you are no longer watching the road) and takes concentration to have that convo and that other hand can now legally put their makeup on while commuting to work in the morning.....does that make you any safer?
Another Great Law!
Actually what I'm against are idiot drivers being distracted by anything while I'm on the road. But hey, I'll take what I can get.
As Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) said in "Tombstone" - "My hypocrisy only goes so far..."
-
Ok, you don't have to pay extra for a hands free device. The point is you are not allowed to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle in a manner you choose. You are regulated by law to use a hands free device. Your personal rights are being infringed upon. Before this law was passed, it was previously legal to use your private cell phone in your private vehicle without a hands free device.
I don't understand where you're going with 'Not to mention environmental issues.' There are less environmental issues smoking outside versus smoking indoors.
It was a suggestion. I don't know of any private smoking clubs in ND, because I don't care to go to one, but perhaps someone will open one. If a bar owner is going to lose business because smoking is no longer allowed indoors, it would stand to reason (that reasoning) that same bar owner will make more money by changing his public establishment to a private smoking bar. I will keep a lookout for news of bars switching to private smoking clubs.
However, you are still able to use your phone in your private vehicle. If you want to say that being forced to use a "hands-free" device is an infringement, so be it.
Environmental issues: outside in ND in winter is cold, inside, where smoking was previously legal, not so much.
I venture to guess that no bar owner in Fargo will change from a public "non-smoking" venue to a private club. I do not know how difficult it is to obtain a liquor license in Fargo, but here it is akin to translating Sanskrit. Going from public to private will more than likely cause the loss of said license.
Bottom line, the law passed in Fargo. I disagree with it on the principles I have already stated.
C'est la guerre.
And it is a "war".
"It's a war on personal freedom. Never forget that." -- Bill Hicks
-
It certainly does. She is not allowed to use her cell phone in her PRIVATE vehicle without first paying a hundred bucks to comply with the law.
A bar owner can provide for an outdoor environment on his property for his smoking clients thereby complying with the law.
I would qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment as an establishment open to members only. The general public cannot enter the premises or participate in activities on the premises with being invited by they owner of said establishment. I believe that private clubs are regulated differently in most states but don't know if ND has such regulations in place.
Paying a hundred bucks for what? A hands-free device? I got mine as part of the phone package and it wasn't a hundred extra.
An OUTDOOR environment is not INSIDE, which was previously legal. Not to mention environmental issues.
Where do we find these private smoking/drinking clubs that aren't regulated by ABC laws? Good luck with that.
-
Also, it is illegal in California to smoke in your vehicle if a child is present. You can be pulled over and fined.
The whole 2nd ammendment case is also rediculous.
Lastly and Completely off topic as well:
Just when you thought people couldn't get offended by license plates on vehicles, you were wrong:License Plate Story
I can't wait to see what other letter combinations people can come up with to be offended by. More wasted state money. Eventually we will be down to "Wingdings" font from Microsoft Word to make license plates.
Back to your regularly scheduled tobacco debate
I'd love to tell you what I got away with on my plate, but some bluenose would probably dime me off to CA DMV.
-
Yes and no. She can still use the phone and drive but there is a caveat applied, she needs hands free technology to do it.
It's still legal to drink and smoke. The caveat is it cannot be in a public establishment.
I see the point about the bar owner. BUT, the bar is PUBLIC. I would not oppose smoking in PRIVATE drinking establishments.
The "hands-free" caveat doesn't prevent her from doing anything.
The "smoke-free" caveat prevents me as a bar owner from legally allowing smoking or as a smoker to legally smoke. That is the infringement on personal freedoms.
How do you qualify a PRIVATE drinking establishment?
BTW, can't you two (DaveK and Sioux-cia) play nice or just effin' ignore each other?
-
But, isn't that infringing on soccer mom's personal freedom?
I'd vote for that as well!
Nope, she still gets to use the phone while driving.
IF they OUTLAWED phone use while driving, THAT would be infringing on her personal freedom.
See the difference?
Smoking is OUTLAWED inside certain places. You HAVE to go outside to smoke. There are no legal inside accomodations for smokers that I'm aware of.
The infringement of personal freedom is being done to the business owner who chose to allow smoking in his place and the smoker who chose to LEGALLY smoke and no longer can. Prior to the smoking ban, there was NO infringement to the non-smoker. They could CHOOSE to work or patronize at a place that allowed smoking.
Tag, you're it...
-
We have that in Grand Forks as well.
The "hands-free" law? Or the idiot drivers? Or both?
-
Children, children...
Play nice, will ya? Or I'll stop this thread right now and give ya what for.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Being as out here in the land of fruit and nuts and lawsuits, the smoking ban has yet to be overturned, I seriously doubt it will happen in Fargo. However, enterprising business owners have found ways around it and I'm sure the same will happen there. Environmental concerns notwithstanding.
It's nice to know five of the nine Supremes are still upholding the 2nd Ammendment.
And, starting July 1, it will be illegal to use your cel-phone while driving without a hands-free device in the State of Kalifornia. (Yes, I voted for this one. I'm so over soccer moms driving their oversize SUV's, juggling a phone and a Starbucks triple pump vanilla frappachino and shrieking at their spoiled brats texting their spoiled brat friends trying to turn me into a red smear.)
-
Maybe he got word the real killer wasn't in Florida or Vegas.
Better lock your doors all you blond haired, blue eyed babes.
-
your freedoms are not extended to compromising others health
I am not referring to compromising anyone's health, except with their informed consent. This is what I am referring to:
If I was a bar owner in Fargo, I would be furious. It's my bar. I allow smoking here. If you don't like smoking, don't work here or drink here. Pretty effin' simple, if you ask me. Not to mention, (like I already did) that if it was my bar, and other bars allowed smoking and I didn't, what a great marketing tool that has just been lost. There's your big picture.
-
Asbestos, lead based paint, flourinated water, mandatory immunizations, government regulated building codes, mandatory education, ...........
I'm all for regulations that serve the greater good and for the children's sake.
None of the things you listed infringe on personal freedoms, except in the loosest of definitions.
-
You guys are doing it again...
For me (and probably for some others here), it is not about smoking as much as it is about the steady erosion of personal freedoms.
Smoking = bad. OK, got it.
People get sick and die from all sorts of causes. So are we to ban from the public everything that has the potential to get you sick, hurt you, or kill you?
Is that really the society you want to live in?
Do you really want the gov't to regulate every aspect of your life "for the greater good" or (my personal favorite) "for the children's sake"?
I played with fireworks and rode skateboards and bicycles without a helmet my entire childhood. I have all my digits and no dain bramage as far as you know.
Now, kids are required to wear helmets and most of the really effin' cool fireworks are only available in Tijuana. Boring...
All in all, it's a moot point here in CA, but it really bothers me that this "let the gov't be my mom" mentality is infecting the one place I thought individuality would have been prized.
If I was a bar owner in Fargo, I would be furious. It's my bar. I allow smoking here. If you don't like smoking, don't work here or drink here. Pretty effin' simple, if you ask me. Not to mention, (like I already did) that if it was my bar, and other bars allowed smoking and I didn't, what a great marketing tool that has just been lost. There's your big picture.
-
Golfed in right behind Brian Lee's 4-some last Thurs. He had his cap on backwards the whole round and I doubt he is either one.
Fixed your post. And how do you know, did you ask?
Clarification is your friend.
Tag, you're it...
-
I don't like those. Same with backwards hats.
A good friend of mine, who lives in GF incidentally, has a quote about backwards hats.
"If you wear your hat backwards, you're either a catcher or a c**ksucker. So which is it?"
Drinking Age~~yeah its a REAL debate
in Community
Posted
Although you did not point me out directly, I'm fairly certain you are referring to my "MADD" comment/insult/OPINION.
The MADD machine is one of the problems in the U.S. as far as alcohol perception is concerned. And while there is some doubt about the rumor that the former chairman was arrested for D.U.I. after a MADD fundraiser, it think it would be karma if it were true.
MADD started out with the right idea, to help the victims and their families who were hurt or killed in accidents caused by drunk drivers.
It has become one of the main demonizers of alcohol instead of educators and a profitable non-profit organization. It has also become a requirement in CA to attend one of their "classes" if you are arrested for D.U.I. here. In these "classes" you are lectured to and given heart-rending stories of families victimized by the idiocy of drunk drivers. You are also required to give a "voluntary" donation of $20.00. If you do not give the "voluntary" donation, MADD does not send the court the proof you attended the class. Kinda like extortion, don'tcha think? As the B.A.C. for driving under the influence keeps getting lower and lower (because of pressure from MADD and insurance companies), these classes get bigger and bigger, and the money pours in. I'm sure that in the near future, if you are over .05 BAC, you will be LEGALLY intoxicated. Arrests will go up, and the money for courts, lawyers, MADD, drunk driving classes, rehabs/sober living homes, etc. will be off the charts.
That's why I call it a racket.
As far as my "hypocrites" comment is concerned, I have attended TOO many functions where I have seen judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, AND MADD members drinking alcohol and then driving.
Isn't that the definition of hypocracy (sp?)?
If you are referring to the raising of the drinking/voting/military service age, I was not insulting you, I just find it highly unlikely that it will happen.