|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
|
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/11 8:03 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... 5. I'd like to see the growing, manufacturing and sale of tobacco products made illegal in this country and made illegal for U.S. companies selling tobacco products abroad. Absent that, I'd like to see another $5 a pack tax imposed against cigarettes and a suitable increase in the tax assessed against cigars, "dip," and similar tobacco products. Have a nice, smoke-free day! You are just like the people at my church who don't like gambling. They went to the parish pastor and told him that Bingo was gambling and that it was a sin and that they wanted the Friday night Bingo stopped. The pastor, a wise Catholic priest, said to them that he would be happy to shut down Bingo every Friday night if they would write a $10,000 check to the church each month. Bingo is still played every Friday night. Alcohol is just as bad as tobacco why not make both illegal? Then you and your buddies who think the same way can then write big fat checks to the local, state and federal governments to cover the lost tax revenue. There are worlds of difference between gambling and smoking and even drinking. You can gamble in moderation, you can drink in moderation, and if you are careful, you aren't going to kill yourself or others. Smoking in moderation will still lead to cancer. Your moderate gambling and your moderate drinking (that means, of course, no drinking and driving) aren't going to have any impact on me. Your smoking does...it offends my senses and if I am exposed to enough second-hand smoke, it also presents a health hazard and, of course, once you contract one of the smoking-related cancers, it's going to increase my medical insurance costs. Because of my union business, I have to go to Las Vegas frequently. I don't gamble, but I'm not offended by the acres of slot machines and card games in every casino. I walk right by them without giving up a quarter. Well, that's not entirely true. I might drop a single quarter in a slot machine, usually at the bloody awful Las Vegas airport. I am pleased that smoking in restaurants in Maryland has been banned. It's pleasant to enjoy a meal without having to inhale the stench of cigarettes or cigars. -- I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 12:50 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. Will you let the poor man enjoy his cigars in peace. I'm sure he would extinguish his stogie if someone in his foresom complained about it. As usual you are making mountains out of molehills. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:28 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:34 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. You have plenty of places to have your clean healthy environment, why not let people who want to engage in a LEGA:L activity have their place? You don't have to go there. Personally I think anyone with one of those crying, puking, poop machines they carry around should have to take them outside when they are interrupting my dinner. A leaky diaper in a restaurant is far more of a health hazard than a guy with a cigarette and a crying baby is certainly more obnoxious. I have even seen women change a diaper at the table. Smoking is an effective means of masking those odors. Also masks the stench of cat. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:29 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:01 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:18:52 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:54:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:10:37 -0400, wrote: We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers you. I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter how good the food is.. So, you're now claiming that there are no restaurants or bars in malls? Restaurants are by nature public. There's no Fed ban. These are local and state issued bans. Too bad if you don't like what your state has done. The law applies equally to a restaurant in a mall and one out on a lonely dead end road. Are you saying that if it was away from the mall it could allow smoking. Otherwise you are trying to change the subject again. Take a limiting case... Imagine driving down a highway in the middle of nowhere. You need to use the toilet and finally you come across the only restaurant for miles. Unfortunately, it's a smoking establishment and you're allergic to cig smoke. So, that's why it applies equally That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. The world does not revolve around your weak bladder. What was your plan if the bar was closed? She could always squat in the woods. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 2:58 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:15:15 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:46:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:00:26 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:22:35 -0400, X ` wrote: On 9/12/11 9:14 PM, wrote: Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. The "fun people" aren't smokers. Smokers smell bad, they pollute the air with their stench, their smoke ruins the taste of food, the smoke sticks to your hair and your clothes *and* it is not healthy. Then why is it so important that you go into a bar that allows smoking? Nobody said allowing a bar owner to allow smoking meant ANY of them have to. Let the bar owner decide who he wants to cater to. This makes no sense. He never said that. I've already pointed out the fallacies in your argument, but you refuse to think about it. What makes no sense? That the bar owner gets to decide whether his bar is smoking or non smoking? Why is that so hard? You and Harry can go somewhere else. Many states have decided that people's health are more important than your right to slowly kill yourself. Didn't realize that you were such a rights and freedom grabber. No wonder you are smitten with Obama. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:04 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:28:08 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:50:34 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:13:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:39:18 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote: The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed in section with it's own air system?? If they did, would you be happy? I thought not. They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough. Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people. I was just at a party in a restaurant. After eating we smokers all went outside for a smoke. Some non-smokers tagged along to avoid boredom. Left about 2/3 of the party sitting there twiddling their thumbs. They sat in dumb silence until we got back. Then the party resumed. Anti-smokers are often a sad lot. Walk around all their lives with a stick up their ass just to live a few more years of their uptight misery. Pretty sad. Some are okay. They usually do other drugs. Well said. It is interesting how many people do tag along with the smokers, even if they are not smoking themselves. I am one of those people. I really am not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers. I have never really smoked cigarettes and my 5 or 6 cigars a year are usually out on the golf course. If someone bitches about that, all I can say is ... FORE! You are a smoker. You smoke cigars. So, to put it another way, you're a call girl not a hooker when it comes to tobacco? Yes, we can see that you're very uninterested in anyone else's rights to a clean, healthy environment. You have plenty of places to have your clean healthy environment, why not let people who want to engage in a LEGA:L activity have their place? You don't have to go there. Talk to your state and hang out in a bar. Florida's enclosed workplaces, including restaurants and public places, are 100% smoke free as of July 1, 2003 as a result of a state constitutional amendment. Bars are exempt from the smoke free requirements. Florida law still preempts local governments from enacting smoke free regulations, stating, "This legislation expressly preempts regulation of smoking to the state and supersedes any municipal or county ordinance on the subject." Personally I think anyone with one of those crying, puking, poop machines they carry around should have to take them outside when they are interrupting my dinner. A leaky diaper in a restaurant is far more of a health hazard than a guy with a cigarette and a crying baby is certainly more obnoxious. I have even seen women change a diaper at the table. Feel free to try and get that legislation through the state house. Of course, you're the king of false equivalencies. Now you're equating children with a disgusting and dangerous habit. You are really piling it on. Greg sure has the patience of Job when it comes to ping ponging with you. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:05 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:29:56 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:01 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:53:31 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:18:52 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:54:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:10:37 -0400, wrote: We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers you. I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter how good the food is.. So, you're now claiming that there are no restaurants or bars in malls? Restaurants are by nature public. There's no Fed ban. These are local and state issued bans. Too bad if you don't like what your state has done. The law applies equally to a restaurant in a mall and one out on a lonely dead end road. Are you saying that if it was away from the mall it could allow smoking. Otherwise you are trying to change the subject again. Take a limiting case... Imagine driving down a highway in the middle of nowhere. You need to use the toilet and finally you come across the only restaurant for miles. Unfortunately, it's a smoking establishment and you're allergic to cig smoke. So, that's why it applies equally That is bull****. You really had to stretch for that one. The limiting case is a legitimate logic tool. Look it up. The world does not revolve around your weak bladder. What was your plan if the bar was closed? Pee on your RV. IC Like the dog that you are. |
Wally-Mart in trouble locally
On 9/13/2011 3:06 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:32:16 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:54:32 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:54:36 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:43 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:18:52 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:54:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:10:37 -0400, wrote: We were not talking about malls, we were talking about bars and restaurants. If a person wants to have a "smoking allowed" restaurant on a separate lot, you have no reason to be there if smoke bothers you. I bet you don't spend a lot of time in strip joints either, no matter how good the food is.. So, you're now claiming that there are no restaurants or bars in malls? Restaurants are by nature public. There's no Fed ban. These are local and state issued bans. Too bad if you don't like what your state has done. The law applies equally to a restaurant in a mall and one out on a lonely dead end road. Are you saying that if it was away from the mall it could allow smoking. Otherwise you are trying to change the subject again. Take a limiting case... Imagine driving down a highway in the middle of nowhere. You need to use the toilet and finally you come across the only restaurant for miles. Unfortunately, it's a smoking establishment and you're allergic to cig smoke. So, that's why it applies equally. What if you were allergic to peanuts and the peanut shells were 2" deep on the floor.? huh? No idea what you're asking. You say the bar has to cater to your smoke aversion, wouldn't they then have to cater to your peanut allergy if you had one? Would they have to keep their grass mowed in case you were allergic to weeds? So, basically you're saying that a food that harms a very tiny number of people is somehow the equivalent of a drug that harms just about everyone who comes in contact with it. Keep at it. You're making history with false equivalences. You've come full circle , now, on the peanut thing. Your original claim was that large number of people had peanut allergies. Now it's a tiny number. Greg was right. He can lead you anywhere he wants to take you. Watch out! He'll have you chewing on your own ass It's really funny to watch you two interact. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com