Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 13, 9:29*pm, JustWait wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:20 PM, Tim wrote:







On Sep 11, 8:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, *wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

t That is simply a perversion of the law.











It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.

That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

Now that IS FUNNY! But then again, some women they would be ahead to
them give free beer to keep their tops on.

That's like this local pawn shop commercial with three uh, um, "girls"
and the announcer says "these girls are about to lose their shirts" and
I can hear men all over the state begging, please, noooooooooo.... Trust
me, nobody wants to see these girls with their shirts off...

I haven't seen the commercial, Scott. I wonder if it's on youtube?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 9, 1:34*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:20:56 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:









On 08/09/2011 5:50 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/8/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0700, wrote:

You seriously believe that all costs are passed along to the consumer?
All costs? Feel free to try and defend that statement.

Yes I do. Unless the company wants to lose money and nobody wants to
do that. Anything as inelastic as insurance premiums gets spread
universally so all prices just go up.

It's either that or pay the stockholders less. Which would you choose if
you were COTB.

Stock holders get their slice or no jobs/invest.

The Obama way, everyone on welfare.

You really have a hard-on for him don't you.

About as much as you do for Canuck and Fretwell

Oh wait, you're an idiot.

pot...kettle....

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 13, 1:05*pm, Drifter wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:18 PM, wrote:









On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:05:34 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:29:56 -0400, wrote:

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.

I don't have a RV, try again

She could pee on a fire hydrant.

And probably does on a regular basis.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/13/2011 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:20 PM, Tim wrote:







On Sep 11, 8:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

t That is simply a perversion of the law.











It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.

That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

Now that IS FUNNY! But then again, some women they would be ahead to
them give free beer to keep their tops on.

That's like this local pawn shop commercial with three uh, um, "girls"
and the announcer says "these girls are about to lose their shirts" and
I can hear men all over the state begging, please, noooooooooo.... Trust
me, nobody wants to see these girls with their shirts off...

I haven't seen the commercial, Scott. I wonder if it's on youtube?

Well, it's a local pawn shop so I doubt they advertize outside the
state... I will look, but trust me, you don't even want the picture in
your head.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On 9/13/2011 10:42 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:29 pm, wrote:
On 9/13/2011 10:20 PM, Tim wrote:







On Sep 11, 8:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:32:49 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:37:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:05:13 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:07:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:49:58 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:57:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 08:34:20 -0400, wrote:

I think they should be able to put up a sign that says "this is a
smoking establishment, if you don't like it, get even with me and
spend your money somewhere else."

Smokers shouldn't go where people are unless they refrain from exhaling.

If a privately owned place is clearly marked "smoking allowed", don't
go there. It is called freedom of choice.

You do not have the right not to be offended, particularly on someone
elses property.

A privately owned place that is open to the public, is quite different
than a privately owned place like your home.

t That is simply a perversion of the law.











It is not. It's been pretty well upheld by the courts.

I bet you would support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse
admittance of a person wearing a T shirt that said "Kill all the
fags" or something else offensive.

Don't have to, since most restaurants can refuse service to people who
are disruptive.

So public accommodation is not an absolute.

"Disruptive" is certainly an abstract assumption.

Have I ever said that is was? No shirt, no shoes, and now (in San
Francisco) no pants, no service.

That is discriminatory too.

I saw a sign yesterday that said

MEN, No shirt no service.

WOMEN No shirt, Free Beer.

Now that IS FUNNY! But then again, some women they would be ahead to
them give free beer to keep their tops on.

That's like this local pawn shop commercial with three uh, um, "girls"
and the announcer says "these girls are about to lose their shirts" and
I can hear men all over the state begging, please, noooooooooo.... Trust
me, nobody wants to see these girls with their shirts off...

I haven't seen the commercial, Scott. I wonder if it's on youtube?

OK Tim, click it only two hours before or two hours after eating... It's
just gross...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiAHnBA8Tzs

The guys in these commercials are just as bad...

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 11, 8:27*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:09:54 -0400, Drifter wrote:
On 9/11/2011 4:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:45:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:10:10 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:11:30 -0400, wrote:

Read up on fantasy andgetback to me.

The settlement was with the attorneys general of the states involved
and specified that this was going to be the end of it.

I am sure there might be some individual who might try to take on
Altria after this but they wouldgetground up and spit out. The idea
that anyone on the planet has not seen the warning on the side of a
cigarette pack is ludicrous.

Which has nothing to do with fantasy that lawsuits should be known
about in advance.

How many suits have there been since the settlement?

What difference does that make? Tell me about how many lawsuits are
known about in advance. I notice you keep avoiding telling me.

I suppose you consider 12 year olds cognizant of the dangers of cigar
smoke also. Typical "libertarian" nonsense.

12 year olds are prohibited by law from smoking.

As I said, the tobacco companies don't seem to care. Also, does this
mean you believe in certain gov't intrusion? I'm shocked!

You're shocked at Greg doing a flippy floppy? Why? He has to in order to
stay opposed to you.

It is not necessary Plume will always disagree with anything I say.
That is why it is fun playing withher. Icanusuallygetherarguing
withherselfbefore it is over.

And though bit hard on the arse by defeat, D'Numb will never recognize
it.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:06:24 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:24 -0700, wrote:

So, now you're going to have the barkeep prevent people who are
smoking, perhaps drunk people, walking in to the other area. Thanks
for making MY point.

Why not?
The bar keep has lots of rules they enforce.

Feel free to talk to the bartender.

I am sure I know more bartenders than you do.
My wife employs about a dozen at the country club. They are the bar
cops.

So, feel free to talk to them.
\

OK so you were full of ****.
BTW who do you think is there to enforce the smoking ban?
Same drunks, same cigarettes, the only difference is, instead of
having them move back to the smoking section you have to throw them
out. Great for business huh?

So, you're claiming that the bartenders are going to start enforcing a
ban on smokers ranging all over the place?

We were talking about "INSIDE" that bar/restaurant
Do try to keep up ... or are you changing the subject yet again?

Huh? I'm taking about inside. "the bartenders are going to start
enforcing a ban on smokers ranging all over the place" What do you
think "place" means???


OK I apologize, "all over the place" confused me. If you mean all over
the inside of the bar, yes the bartender or the manager if they have
one will enforce the smoking regulations or any other rules in that
bar. If it is a tough place they also have bouncers..

I still don't get your question

I hope you're wife is going to pay them extra for their extra effort.
I can just imagine bartenders chasing after smokers... around and
around the table. In the mean time, everyone else gets to breathe the
smoke.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:24 -0700, wrote:

It is only disruptive if we have nazis like you and Harry are there.
As you pointed out, it is not necessarily illegal to smoke in a bar in
Florida anyway. It all depends on what kind of license they have.
If it is a restaurant that serves liquor it is illegal. If it is a bar
that serves food (AKA a cocktail lounge with a class A license) it is
up to the county.
By a like token, if it is a tobacco store with a liquor license (a
cigar bar) it is legal too.



Oh, I'm a Nazi. Thanks for clarifying! So, it's not necessarily
illegal, but you don't like ANY restrictions on YOUR rights, and to
hell with anyone else.

I support everyone's rights.

So, define MY rights to not be around a carcinogenic cloud. How do I
avoid one in a restaurant. I'm seated. Some guy waltz' in from the
smoking section, and puffs away. I'm supposed to do what? Wait for the
bouncer? Leave myself?

I am just not convinced you have a right to go in a place clearly
marked "smoking allowed" and complain about the smoke. What is so
compelling in there that you have to go in there except for your
desire to be offended and sue someone over it?

If it's a public place and the law says it isn't a smoking allowed
place, I have just as much right as everyone else. I just don't get
what your problem is. The law is pretty clear.

It reminds me of the people who buy a house next to the airport
because it is cheap and then complain about the planes.

Which people? Are you changing the subject?

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

On Sep 14, 1:28*am, wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:55:24 -0700, wrote:

It is only disruptive if we have nazis like you and Harry are there.
As you pointed out, it is not necessarily illegal to smoke in a bar in
Florida anyway. It all depends on what kind of license they have.
If it is a restaurant that serves liquor it is illegal. If it is a bar
that serves food (AKA a cocktail lounge with a class A license) it is
up to the county.
By a like token, if it is a tobacco store with a liquor license (a
cigar bar) it is legal too.

Oh, I'm a Nazi. Thanks for clarifying! So, it's not necessarily
illegal, but you don't like ANY restrictions on YOUR rights, and to
hell with anyone else.

I support everyone's rights.

So, define MY rights to not be around a carcinogenic cloud. How do I
avoid one in a restaurant. I'm seated. Some guy waltz' in from the
smoking section, and puffs away. I'm supposed to do what? Wait for the
bouncer? Leave myself?

I am just not convinced you have a right to go in a place clearly
marked "smoking allowed" and complain about the smoke. What is so
compelling in there that you have to go in there except for your
desire to be offended and sue someone over it?

If it's a public place and the law says it isn't a smoking allowed
place, I have just as much right as everyone else. I just don't get
what your problem is. The law is pretty clear.

It reminds me of the people who buy a house next to the airport
because it is cheap and then complain about the planes.

Which people? Are you changing the subject?

No, twit. You are changing the subject. He is trying to make his point
easy for you to understand.

Wally-Mart in trouble locally
 

In article 0ab8acb0-5fc9-4c27-b214-
,
says...

On Sep 13, 9:36*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:49:05 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 9/13/2011 7:55 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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.

My argument all along. A longer life expectancy is the reward for a
dull, very dull life.

If you got em Bert, smoke em. No skin off my teeth.
Being a reformed smoker has saved me tons of money, eliminated a lot of
anxiety, cleared up my smokers cough, made my house look and smell
better, eliminated peer pressures to stop, freed up my time to do FUN
things.

If you are thinking of quitting, do it for yourself not for the pussys
that expect the government to meddle in your private affairs. You never
see the pussys asking someone to put out their smokes because they are
bothered by it. Better and safer for them to get the government to do it
for them. Eh Krause/Plume

I quit smoking 9 years ago. Just got tired of it after smoking for 29
years. I spent 7 years skydiving, it was the best 7 years of my life.
Skydiving, drinking and chasing women all over the DZ.

You sound like a case study in stupid, reckless behavior.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He's cried about his back injury for years.... something caused by
skydiving, if I remember right.

Wrong. The back injury originally occurred when I was 18. Went through
USMC boot camp with a herniated disk. Didn't start skydiving until I was
25.