Slamdance
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Slamdance
-
-
And Oxbow6 (and anyone else who wants to throw the "love it or leave it" argument out there),
My first instinct is to tell you to "piss off"...
I am so over the jingoistic crap.
Please come up with something better.
The reason I and others on here are annoyed with these nanny laws is part of the democratic process. I vote precisely so my voice can be heard.
I love my country. However, it is the most effed up one on the planet, except for all the other ones.
I vote so I can bitch.
And, as was said on the movie the "F-word"...
"...the Republicans are trying to take my porn and the Democrats are trying to take my guns. Who speaks for me?"
-
This is for Slamdance and homeofthesioux! Slamdance you keep saying that if a bar owner wants to allow something that is there choice. Should a bar owner be able to say I think a 15 year old is old enough to consume alcohols so I am going to serve everyone over the age of 15? Do they have that choice? No they don't because of Public Safety we have to wait till we are 21 to drink, legally. That is because it is harmful for them to drink at such a young age.
My guess is we all drank underage and had some fun in our day, but I for one love being able to go to a bar and not have to smell like smoke the next day. But I do think that there should be accomadations for those who choose to smoke.
Just my two cents.
If you really want to get off on a tangent about drinking age, I'm happy to oblige. I feel that if you are old enough to vote or fight and die for your country you are old enough to drink. Either lower the drinking age or raise the age of voting and military service.
Your "15 year old being served alcohol" is not a valid argument. And, at this point in Fargo, neither is my bar owner allowing smoking. The smoking issue is what I am annoyed with. Prior to this law being passed, a business owner could LEGALLY allow smoking in his place. His employees would be aware of this and could decide to work there or find other employment. His potential customers could either patronize this place that allowed smoking or choose to go somewhere else. Those choices have been removed. That is not fair.
The only accommodations here in CA are that smokers have to go outside on a smoking patio or, in the case of gov't buildings, 20 feet from any entrance, to enjoy their vice. Granted, the "20 ft. rule" is not seriously enforced, but it is part of the law. My guess is that a smoker in February in Fargo is pretty much S.O.L.
I have already stated I like being able to go out and not smell of smoke by the end of the evening. That is not the point. The point is: our freedoms are being eroded and we as a nation are allowing it to happen.
That is not why I honorably served my country.
-
Evenin'
I do have a life outside my love of Sioux sports and home in general.
First, Sioux-cia, I apologize if I sounded like I was attacking you personally. My "high-horse" comment was directed towards everyone who feels that they have the right/obligation to tell other people what to do "for their own good." If you feel you fall in that particular group, that's on you...
As an aside, I agree with you on most other topics. (Except for Prpich, he's all yours as far as I'm concerned).
I am not "pro-smoking" as much as "pro-freedom of choice."
No one has yet to make a convincing argument to me that, if I was a bar owner, and I made it perfectly clear to my employees and customers, I allowed smoking in MY place of business, what right is it of the gov't to tell me I cannot do that?
Someone said my use of the word "criminal" was extreme. When you are pulled over and cited for a traffic violation, for all intents and purposes, you are a "criminal" in the eyes of the law. The same holds true for business owners and patrons caught violating the "no smoking" laws.
As insane Irish Steven said in "Braveheart", "stop changing the subject, just answer the fukkin' question."
-
It is not about MORALITY. It's about PUBLIC HEALTH!
Nice avoidance of the question.
Who are you to tell me how to run my place of business? If you don't like it, don't give me your business.
You can coat it in whatever buzzwords (public health, for example), but it still comes down to my rights as a business owner being trampled by the self-righteous telling me how to live and conduct my life.
Get off your high horse.
The smoking ban is unfair. Period.
-
Perhaps I'm a little slow. It is Monday, after all.
Explain to me why it is fair that if I am a smoker or the owner of an establishment that allows smoking, I am now relegated to the position of a criminal?
Example: I own a restaurant/bar. I inform my employees and clientele that I allow smoking in my establishment. You do not have to work here nor do you have to patronize my place of business.
What the hell is wrong with that? Who are you to force your morality/health care issues/disgust with smokers/smoking down my throat? That is not fair. That is not freedom.
Because of this smoking ban, previously innocent people are now criminals.
Hell, I don't smoke, and this legislating of morality really pisses me off enough to start.
-
Children do not have a choice. It's their parents' choice. I don't think siouxjoy made the decision to have a lifelong respiratory condition. That was his mother's choice.
Saying your not responsible for choices people make for their own children makes me sad. I see people making dangerous choices for their childen frequently. My choice is to report them to the police/social services. My choice is to spend an extra 15/20 minutes, making other patients wait longer, to tell them exactly how they are endangering their children's health. Heard it already? Too bad, you're going to hear it again because obviously you weren't listening the last time someone warned you about the adverse affects you actions have for your children. My choice is to not accept children suffering because of their parent's 'rights' to do whatever the hell they please inspite of the damage to their children. My choice is to get involved. To look the other way because it's not my problem is not my choice.
But, we're getting off topic. You have the choice to go to an establishment that allows smoking (kittie payment) or to go to an establishment that does not allow smoking. The choices for non-smokers is now greater.
As a health care provider who works mainly in emergency room/ Urgent Care settings, a helmet law is always the better choice, IMO. I wish they were stricter. I wish that a helmet law could take away the right to drive a motorcycle or could put the driver in jail rather than losing a life or limb or living with the fact that a passenger died because she was allowed/given the right to ride without a helmet. If it were my child whose organs I had to donate because of a 'choice', I would forever wonder why things had not been done differently so my child would still be here to outlive her parents. So the right to ride a bike without a helmet is being trampled, well, society isn't as free as we want it to be. Look around and you'll see it's never been as free as you think it was. When taking away 'rights' for the betterment of public health is an issue that comes to a public vote, I know which way I'm voting.
Fine. You choose to get involved. I commend you. In fact, if I were an uneducated parent and you took the time to politely educate me, I would sincerely appreciate it.
However, I am so effin' over self-righteous people forcing their choices upon me and forcing me into the position of a lawbreaker, where in the not-so-distant past I would not have been. With the smoking ban, smokers and owners of establishments that still allow smoking are now in the position of being criminals. How fair is that?
Seat belt laws
Helmet laws
Smoking bans
Artificially low speed limits
Etc.
Some of these are just common sense, why do they need to be laws?
Just because common sense isn't so common?
Why is that my fault?
Why can't I choose to smoke in a place that the owner allows smoking? Why can't drive my truck without a seat belt and suffer the consequences if I am in an accident? Why can't I ride my motorcycle without a helmet and, again, suffer the consequences if I am in an accident? Why can't I drive at a higher speed than 70 mph on flat straight surface from GF to Fargo?
I don't care if you do it. It doesn't affect me. It's none of my business. Stop making my business, yours.
-
"Children don't have a choice."
Isn't the choice of the parent to decide to smoke or patronize establishments that allow smoking and bring their kids there?
Why is that my problem?
When I go out to places with my kids, I choose not to go to places that allow smoking.
When I go out with my adult friends, I choose to go to places we agree on, smoking or non-smoking.
Isn't choice a wonderful thing? Why are you trying to take mine away?
As an aside, as a motorcycle rider, my condolences go out to Krista's family. I do not know what her age was or if she understood the dangers of crashing without a helmet, but that doesn't mean a helmet law is good idea.
Case in point, here in CA, there is a mandatory helmet law. However, it is legal to ride a motorcycle in just shorts and flip-flops, just as long as you have a DOT approved helmet. Hmmmm...
BTW, being an organ donor is just the right thing to do, rider or not.
-
I find this thread kinda funny, because I have been living with the smoking ban here in CA for quite some time.
It is nice to go out to a bar or two, and not smell horrible by the end of the night.
Some of the bars illegally allow smoking. They set up "kitties" for the smokers to donate to if they are lighting up, in case the bar gets fined.
I feel, as some on here do, that if I owned a business and wanted to allow smoking, why can't I do so? You do not have to patronize my place, you don't have to work here. Why are allowing this country to become such a nanny state?
I ride motorcycles. Prior to the helmet law here in CA, I wore my helmet 90-95% of the time. It saved my life on a number of occasions. But I still voted against it. I do not like having my choices taken away from me.
I don't smoke (except for an occasional cigar at home or in Vegas), but I am almost ready to take it up just to piss off all the self-righteous non-smokers. I remember when Dagwoods opened and was the first non-smoking bar in GF. I thought, "What a brilliant business decision." Everytime I visited home and went out to Dags, it was packed. Now that marketing opportunity for a new place is removed.
I don't get it.
-
Ahh, boo freakin' hoo...
You are in Austraila. The Lucky Country fer cryin' out loud!
Go surfin', find a shelia, and a have beer or 15 and stop whinin'.
Christ, I wish I was there, even during your winter, I loved it there.
-
Dunno if this a repost, but I thought it was interesting...
-
[some members of this site will live out their adult lives in their parent's basement for a reason.
How true!!! -
Murder Inc. was a myth. There was never an actual group that did hits for the mob. wikipedia is not a good source for anything.
How do you figure Murder, Inc. was a myth? The sources quoted in the Wiki article are valid news accounts.
-
I have nothing against ARC, but we should really stop contracting out to them for our officials.
Please forgive my ignorance, but WTF is ARC?
-
Ahh,
Hermit's just the troll under the bridge.
I like to hear him ramble, he sounds "Hockey Helmet Special."
-
You are spot on....the newspaper in the city in which I live had Hak's suspension on the front page of the sports today. Keep in mind that they seldom report a Sioux score, included nothing on Duncan winning the Hobey or anything discussing the Sioux players helping out in Northwood. But one little screw up by the coach and that is headline news....I want to cancel my subscription!
Did Hak make a mistake....of course he did, in one moment he reacted before thinking. It happened, he apologized...get over it! I have had the opportunity to meet Hak on several occasions - his demeanor, his actions, his poise, his character, represent UND in the highest regard.
What a joke...this is such a "non-event".
I'm guessing the temps up in GF have finally reached the Old Nick's home. It has officially frozen over and I'm finding myself in "agreeance" with "The Triouxper".
As far as this being a "non-event", I don't know about that, but it sure is fuckin' funny.
-
... leave oshie alone...
Maybe you can do a YouTube rant like that kid did for Britney Spears...
-
This thread is a bunch of overreacting to all the overreacters.
I hope (against reason, I know), that I'm not overreacting by being disappointed in the fact that TJ was busted and suspended for a game. I think he is a great hockey player and, by all accounts, a stand up guy. But he has also made some poor choices that have caused him, his family, the team, and to a lesser extent, the fans, a bit of grief.
I find it sadly humorous that the most strident voices protesting the discussion of this latest incident are saying "it's no big deal, why all the fuss?"
None of the posters on this thread, as far as I know, work for USA Today, the Herald, or any east coast papers. So, someone besides us fans think it IS a big deal. The people who think it is not a big deal, what do you think should be the fans' reaction? What would be reasonable in your viewpoint?
I'm not, in any way, shape, or form, saying that TJ Oshie is a bad guy, a criminal, should be punished, thrown off the team, etc. I'm not being hysterical, unreasonable, or angry in my disappointment that he made a poor decision and got arrested. Apparently some on this board would disagree, so you tell me, what my reaction SHOULD be?
I await your responses with bated breath.
-
Here's the Triouxper's candidate for 2008...
And...uhh...siouxbomb...I think you have me confused with dagies, do a little bit better checking of who you are quoting.
I haven't convicted TJ of anything (nor has dagies as far as I can tell), I just think he was stupid for getting himself in trouble and (as stated on the TJ support thread) I hope the charges are specious and dropped for his sake.
-
IMO What's the big deal! They are college students. Just because they are athletes doesn't make them different than all the other college students that like to party and socialize. As far as people who believe these athletes should be role models, set good examples, etc. - that's the parents' job! You set the good example and upbringing, and let them learn a lesson by mistakes other people can make.
The difference between students and student-athletes is the reason TJ is sitting out a game. By being arrested he violated a code of conduct that all student-athletes sign at the beginning of their season. Like it or not, they ARE representing UND. An athlete being arrested casts the school in a bad light. Guilt or innocence is for the court to decide, but just being arrested means you violated your responsibility as a student-athlete, thus the suspension and this little "debate".
Was that redundant enough?
-
Did you leap off the Favre bandwagon too when he had his issues with Vicodin?
Ah yes, Vicodin and beer, the breakfast of champions...
-
lets just watch barney and hold hands!
I hate that damn dinosaur and are your hands clean?
-
anybody feel dumb yet??? he got in a fight....nobody complains when it happens on the ice. maybe he should've fought on the ice, give the team some momentum, it woulda been the same penalty, w/o all the bellyachin, eh?
Nope, not feelin' dumb yet.
Because he SHOULD have done it and left it on the ice.
And I don't expect any type of standards from any college students, I just take them at face value. They aren't raising my kids, I am (without ritalin and x-box, we have a PS-2
). -
I also think that the rest of the guys will pick up the slack and make the huskies their medieval puppy dog bitches tommorow night.
WORD!!!
-
I hope the charges ARE dropped and all he has to lose is one game.
And then I hope he finally learns his lesson.
(Lord knows it took me long enough)
Fargo Smoking Ban
in Community
Posted
"I'll contribute to Oxbow's fund and help you move away to a 'better place'." Sioux-cia
First class to Tavarua, please.
I understand this is not a "free-country". I understand your health-care argument. I just don't buy it.
I am not debating the effects of smoking. I know smoking is bad. I know second-hand smoke is bad.
I have kids. When I am visiting my family in GF and we all go out, we don't go to places that allow smoking, or find a table as far away as possible from the smokers.
I wear my helmet when I ride, because it is safer and I don't want to pay a fine. The same with seat belts and car seats when my kids needed them. I did not like having the choice taken from me and I voted against all of those laws. Not because I'm irresponsible, but because I believe in freedom of choice.
If you (prior to these nanny laws being passed) did not want to exercise common sense, I say let Darwinism take its course.
jingoistic - chauvinistic patriotism (the dictionary is your friend)