February 13, 2012

Emporia Weather

Currently Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
26° Snow
Partly Sunny
Rain Likely
Partly Sunny
Mostly Sunny
Light Snow Fog/Mist 34°
25° 		46°
32°		 46°
31°		 47°
28°		 49°
30°

Advertisement

Advertisement

Reader Poll

What should the City of Emporia do to improve Housing in Emporia

View all polls

Events

Search events

Comments

glarson (anonymous) says...

More on the original letter to the editor:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...

June 18, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 4:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have not been on these fourms or posted for quite some time,(maybe a month or more) and I see why now. Same people,same subject,same silly comments."

Apparently you missed my posts.

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 8:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Posted by rbow (anonymous) on June 18, 2009 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"As Forest Gump once said;
"SILLY IS AS SILLY DOES"

or something like that."

Steve apparently reads them.

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

And I read them too!.......ask auntie Folks if she can remember the trip we took in the 63 Chevy station wagon from mugwump to pooterville back in 1961......or maybe it was a 61 Chevy wagon and the trip was in 63....or something like that.

June 18, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Serious say:
Once you go yokel you never go back.
Don't try to escape your roots.

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Dullards, feeble-minded, barn raisin', stone age, meth-user, dense, yokels. As long as you follow everything with a smiley face & LOL or say you were just joking, then its ok. Once in a while is fun, or poking fun at yourself at the same time, but we see the pattern. Make derogatory remarks (and yes, I know they have been made at you also) - but then always follow them up with "I was just joking" gets old. And very transparent. Idiotic Jacka$$. (Just joking).

Yes, I really WAS just joking, I don't in any way mean to imply that you are what I just said - just trying to make a point. When it becomes a pattern the thin disguise/excuse gets to be exactly that - very thin. You've made very derogatory remarks about "country folk", and then when your very own words are turned around and used again just replacing them with city you start crying Stereotype. The word you should have used was Hypocrite.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically place them into one of the categories listed to start off this post.

June 18, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, If you are insulted or embarrassed to be called a " tyrant " or an " arbitrary " person, it is because your actions justify it. You madame, crackinsack, are both a tyrant and arbitrary .
ty·rant (tī'rənt)
Definition:
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

ar·bi·trar·y [ rbə trèrree ]
adjective
Definition:
1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles.

You, crack will always be a " tyrant " and " arbitrary " whether you like it or not and nothing will change that !
You belive that you may sling mud, name call and insult people, but believe that you should not be subjected to the same, in return . And every time you sling the mud, name calling, insults, etc., you try to justify it by saying it was a joke, well crack, I think people can see thru you and you are the joke !
You have attached the mantel of , terrorist, murderer, etc., to people who smoke, as well as say that the people who smoke and the businesses and business owners who allowed smoking were purposfully and with mallace killing and murdering people ! Were those remarks also a joke ?
I believe that you were not joking and truly believe what you say ! No joke intended.
And your following statement is not a true statement, " Do we discriminate against smokers for making them step outside to smoke? No, because their actions justify it."
Here is the definition of " discriminate " , and by definition you are discriminating against people who smoke !

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅nate  /v. dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. di-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. di-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, -nat⋅ed, -nat⋅ing, adjective
–verb (used without object) 1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
The fact is you hate people who smoke, businesses and business owners that allowed smoking and discriminated against both by removing a freedom of choice and personal right and liberty .
And no matter how you spin it or look at it that is wrong.

June 18, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Also crack, I am not a " smoker ", I think of myself as a " Freedom Fighter " !

June 18, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm more of a referee than a Freedom Fighter. If you tackle someone at one end of the court (and tell me you never even touched the person, you were "only joking") and then cry foul because they said "Boo" at you while you were shooting at the other end, even though they were either standing 6 feet away or did the exact same thing you did at the other end of the court............ I'm gonna blow my whistle. This ain't MSNBC.

June 18, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I'm a "Fall" personality but I'm trying to be more "Spring".

June 18, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

The team that is getting the foul called on them always complains that.

I'm not referring to the sides of the issue, which I obviously am on 1 side, despite the fact that I can't stand SHS myself. I'm referring to your barbs at people but when I took your EXACT words and changed them back at you I suddenly became a stereotyper.

Be glad I just called a regular foul - I could have made it a technical foul and made you sit out for 10 minutes :)

June 18, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, you could not be more wrong about the merit of the people who smoke, you and others do not judge these people on their actual true life qualities or merit, you judge them based upon the belief of what you have been led to believe and your own prejudice and hatred toward the people that smoke, businesses that allowed them to smoke and the owners of the businesses that allowed them to smoke ! Therefore you do not judge them on acutal merit, but judge them on their habit of smoking, which in your arbitrary mind, makes them, according to your way of thinking, murders, killers and as non-equals (People who smoke cannot expect equal treatment as people who don't.), your exact words and that madame is the very essence of discrimination !
So I suggest you re-read the definitions of discriminate, arbitrary and merit and do a little re-evaluating, conscience searching, and soul searching, that is if you have a soul or conscience .

June 18, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
Your arguments while being ..................... well they just ........................... and then when you turn around and ................... that one thing ..................................... OK OK OK ............................... it's like a football game and the other team is .................. no baseball ..................................... bottom of the ninth and there's a couple of outs or something .............................. but your swim cap isn't water proof .............................. what? .................................. wait wait wait let me start over ........................ It's like cheese ................................... no that's not it ............................................ but you gotta admit, cheese is good.

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_eating_c...

Darn. Maybe, if I eat swiss cheese, I could just eat the holes, and leave the cheese alone, and that would be healthier....... but I'm sure I would smell like cheese and lactose-intolerant people would probably get sick from inhaling my second-hand cheese fumes so I won't be able to do that in public much longer.

Is it discrimination for Dairy Queen to put up a sign that says "No lactose-intolerant people allowed"? Or that they should enter at their own risk?

SHC - Second-Hand Cheese

Not to be confused with Second Hand Intolerance To The Everyday Dairy (products)

geesh..... I think I might have just censored myself..... sorry, Gwen.... :)

June 18, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

O.K. crack, follow me on this, if you can. Smokers aren't purposfully harming anyone that has the common sense to make the decision, to choose not to be harmed by choosing to stay away from the people who smoke and the businesses that allowed smoking. Are you able to comprehended the concept of self preservation, by not exposing yourself to the supposedly deadly shs and the people who smoke and the businesses that allowed smoking ?
You say you like smokers ! And yet you brand them as killers, and yes murders is a very harsh term, that is not deserved by people who smoke, you also refer to them as non-equals to non-smokers, which again, is very discriminatory ! One certainly would never know you liked smokers, according to your comments and attitude toward people who smoke !
You know you could be catagorized as a killer or murderer for helping to kill the bussinesses that are now suffering from the smoking ban !
Did you know that you actually have to be exposed to people who smoke and shs to be harmed !
Crack, you have always had the freedom to go where you please, but that wasn't good enough for you, was it !
And crack another stupid analogy of yours, punching someone in the face, etc., is not the same as smoking, and you know it ! Please try to use a comparison that is the same as smoking, that is if you can, autos, guns , knives, clubs, fists, etc., are also not the same !
By the way, since you have catagorized people who smoke as murders, killers and non-equals ! How would you catagorize those bussinesses and business owners who allowed people to smoke in their businesses ?

June 18, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good lord, have you ever even once in your whole life laughed? Ever?

Even someone that was a "Dullard, feeble-minded, stone age, meth-user, dense, yokel" (your words, not mine) - (besides, just joking) - could surely not get their knickers all in a buch at stupid humor that blatant.

Oh.... I forgot. Everytime you slam someone, follow it with "just joking", and its funny. Anytime someone genuinely tries to be funny without calling anyone something derogatory...... ZING..... right over your head......

A horse's tomato probably has at least a better sense of humor. Why don't you try to BE one?

Instead of analyzing the scientific possibilities of a horse and a tomato mating and the offspring being a horse's tomato and then computing the odds of it having intelligence and then giving a long dissertation on how harmful SHS might be to both horses & tomatoes but doubly so to their offspring which by the way would be cruel if I was to shove a tomato down a horses throat or a horse down a non-smokers throat which of course is silly and if you think that then you're obviously a yokel and need to go to a barn raising at Bluestem while I sit and sip tea all intellectual like and gaze upon the lesser minions that I have to live amongst knowing how superior I am because I know deep in my genius that logjam wasn't all that great except when they had the concert with the horse and the tomato and of course that just didn't make sense but nothing anyone says does because only I am funny and nobody else.

Just joking.

June 18, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Besides, air isn't free much longer. Unless you pay the carbon tax :)

June 18, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Uhm..... SHL.... Second Hand Light.... I walked into the store that advertised Very Bright Lights, Enter At Your Own Risk. Some people in there were wearing aluminum foil hats and clothing and it reflected off and I got sunburned. (I burn very easily). I have started a petition to have them either dim their lights or institute a non-shiny clothing dress code.

Joking.... or not?

(This is like taking candy from a baby...... )

Your friendly neighborhood horse's tomato

Did I mention they were wearing aluminum foil hats to stop the aliens from manipulating their brains like in the movie Circles.

Or they were big Logjam fans getting ready for a concert.

June 18, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Here is a question for crack;
You are on a family outing in the great outdoors ( woods ).
You and your family come upon a thicket of poison oak !
You see it, you know it can harm you ! What do you do ?
a. go ahead and enter the thicket of
poison oak and be harmed
b. choose to not enter the thicket of
poison oak and avoid harm
c. try to get the poison oak banned from the woods

June 18, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

methusla, that's silly. Only the woodland animals are allowed to vote on banning the poison oak. And and any migratory geese that happen to be stopping by overnight, but not the bear on the other side of the river, even though he regularly takes a s$$t in the woods daily next to that very poison oak thicket, because his cave is on the other side of the river. But the geese can of course, even though they are only on their way to Canada.

June 18, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Thanks for catching me on the movie name. Circles didn't sound right to me but at the moment I just couldn't recall what it was.

Turns out the bears defecations are the major source of fertilizer for the poison oak. And he spends the majority of his time foraging for grubs under the rotted log right next to it. He contributes much, much more than the migratory geese who are only passing thru. He is there every year, and his children, daily except for hibernation. While the geese probably will pick a different college the next year. One where they can smoke freely in the poison ivy patch :)

June 18, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Teehee, that's funny open_eyes. I can actually see and understand the humor in your post, unlike some. Oh wait, she was joking, or was she being serious? I can't tell anymore, she said that she was both.

June 18, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

It is still obviously stupid to me to exclude those that live outside this imaginary line, that they seem to think makes all the difference in how things should be decided.

June 18, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Just to the 66801 residents, pretty simple crack, but I guess you couldn't stay out of a smoke filled bar, so it figures you can't handle this.

June 18, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

methusia,open_eyes and giggles, I'm very proud of you for hanging in there!!! Must say, that for most people, what you've said is true and valid but for crack the ability or desire to understand just doesn't seem to be there. She would rather be the "bully" she so often talks about, guess because she has been there so very often, "No! they can't tell me what to do". Crack, what you fail to realize is that we as humans live in this world together and I for one, hate your attitude. I being a teacher, imagine most of your life you sat on the side because you were unable to accept other children for what they were, YOU wanted them like YOU!!!

June 18, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

The way I understand it the bars are doing pretty good in olpe now that Euphora's smoking ban has passed. If you had let olpe voters vote they just might have given you a little better margin than you ended up with. .....thereby making your claims about the voters having spoken a little more credible.

But the part that really gets my shorts in a bunch is your claim that this was all about the rights of non-smokers to go to previously smoking bars without being subjected to SHS. All right you won your right. Won of course at the expense of the rights of others to engage in an otherwise legal activity in ways beneficial to them.

So now that you have the smoke free bars all to your little selfs.....WHERE IN THE HE-- ARE YOU......and why are some of those now smoke free bars going broke. You won your precious choice......so use it!

June 18, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I don't know for sure(which is rare by the way) but I believe crack does go to the bars and spends money. The fact that he is still here argueing his point is evidence that he bought into the lies of the CAE and their reasoning for this piece of dookie of a ban. The problem is when they got what they wanted they moved on to the next trendy thing for bored rich house wives to do leaving crack out all alone. While I disagree with cracks view on the ban I gotta give him credit for stickin in there. Will the bored rich house wives come out and spend their sugar daddy's money at the bars? Nope. Was this all predicted by a lot of us? Yep. sad sad sad

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Crack said:
Suppose every time I go to a bar, I punch everyone who walks in square in their face. (including myself) There’s no logical reason for why I do it; I just think it’s fun and I don’t believe it harms the people very much.
Now, follow me on this one, I'm harming everyone in the place, right? Do you think I should be treated differently (asked to leave) or is that discrimination against people who like to punch folks in the face? Keep in mind that punching people doesn’t necessarily cause permanent harm depending on the force applied. (it’s all a matter of “how much and how often”)
Ole Corb says:

I wish you would.

And now you say it is the "dosage" of the second hand punching that makes it harmful?

Someone forgot their meds today!

June 18, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I wasn't refering to ole crackey per se when I asked my rhetorical question......I believe she is doing her share (and I still prefer crackey as a she) But I asked it of her in her self-appointed role as the only remaining spokesman for the CAE. In fact....if truth be known....I'd bet the CAE wishes she would shut up. In their mind she is prolonging a debate over something they are tired of and want to go away.
Thery have paid their homage to the anti-smoking gods and now have other fish to fry.
In some ways I feel sorry for crackey because truth be known she may have been the only true believer of the bunch.
Crackey.....all your cohorts were just into it for a little mid-winter diversion.

June 18, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"In some ways I feel sorry for crackey because truth be known she may have been the only true believer of the bunch."

I second that emotion.

Nicely put biscuitboy.

Seriously R. Folks

June 18, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

crack. "Allowing only the creatures that live (even temporarily) in that area to vote ensures the decisions will only be made by the creatures it will affect the most."

So...... why do city people vote on rural matters???? Do we have a double standard?

And secondly, it does NOT ensure that the decision will only be made by the creatures it will affect the most. I would say someone that lives outside the city but works daily inside the city and/or owns a property/business in the city is more affected than a college student who is only passing thru, or someone who lives in the city but does the majority of their work/business outside the city.

But we can't look at every person and decide if/where they spend the majority of their money and time. Like I said before: County seat, county vote. No system is perfect but we suddenly don't seem to care about drawing the line when the reverse is true, when laws pertaining to rural/outside the city limits get voted on.......

June 18, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

(And I meant to add) - but yes, the house cat DOES get to come out and vote on removing the bears favorite rotted log...... so you just agreed with me. Maybe there's hope for you yet, I see a glimmer of comprehension now..... :)

June 18, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Let me see if I have this straight. crack thinks that the temporary, non-permanent people ( college kids ) should be allowed to vote on an issue that will affect all the citizens of Emporia and those citizens who don't live inside the city limits. However those citizens who don't happen to live inside the Emporia city limits and yet pay their taxes in Emporia, whose county law inforcement is based in Emporia, whose taxes, money, etc., go to the city of Emporia, in part, should not be allowed to vote on any issues that will affect them just as much as those who live inside the City limits of Emporia, except the temporary people ( college kids ) that will most likely be gone in 3 or 4 years anyway !
In case anyone has forgotten Emporia started as an agricultural ( farm ) town, county and farm citizens have supported this town for many, many years with sweat, blood, tears and money and are continuing to do so on a solid, regular basis and yet are told by some in the town, you as county dwellers can not have a say on issues and matters that will have the same affect on you as us city dwellers !
And what is to be told to a company that is looking at Emporia as a place to settle and build ? " Oh by the way you may not be able to run your business or company the way you expect to or see fit to or cater to a certain clientel, because you may offend certain people in Emporia, but you are welcome to come here anyway !
Oh, and comparing someone to something or someone else is the same as saying that they are similar or like that to which you compare them !
And crack you are so paranoid about being harmed by something someone does or may do, I just can't believe you leave the house.

June 18, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Non smokers should be taxed to cover business losses in Emporia. NO, maybe the Gazette should cover the losses since they knew but refused to print the studies showing what really happened to mom and pop size businesses when smoking bans were enacted. AND they STILL refuse to follow up and check on that BOOMING business their reporting promised. Come on! Tell us about the BOOMING business! Gwen, WHERE are you????? WHere is Hellebust? You sure printed HER material without question! Has the drug funded ad money to the Gazette dried up yet? You'll soon only have local business people to depend on for ads. But they are all broke. Crack's grants are probably gone already. But the Health Department employees should get busier as former self insured people will now be in line.

June 19, 2009 at 7:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

This one goes out to crack.

A classic that is sooooo 80s!

Awesome!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28KobN...

June 19, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Yeah dude! If you want it. Nothin' breaks your stride that's fo sho. The crazy thing is, I look almost exactly like that dude.

Wierd.

Seriously R. Folks

June 19, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

No prob. Let's just keep city residents out of rural matters then, shall we? Else we'll soon have people from Colorado voting on our matters?

Emporia = Lyon County Seat. Lyon County laws are made there. Lyon County residents vote? How many other things do we have that are voted on by Lyon County residents?

June 19, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Olpe and Americus have their own bars and their own ordinances. Still a simple concept. Still fair and right. You are grasping at straws.

June 19, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

True, but Olpe & Americus don't also make laws that affect the entire county, they're not the County Seat.

Nothing is perfect. Just don't argue that it doesn't affect rural people and therefore they shouldn't vote unless you also argue city residents shouldn't vote on matters that affect rural. That's all I'm saying.

June 19, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hmmm..... now just where is it I pay my county taxes on my property in Lyon County..... think hard..... think, think...... I've got it! Colorado!

Actually, they need to keep the fence around the lagoon so stupid city people don't stumble into it and try to take a bath based on the latest rumor from Paris that it's like a spa treatment that has "curative" properties. That and the stench of their fake "airs" makes the lagoon stink worse. It's twice as bad when you mix s$$t with people who are mostly full of the same thing.

Just fooling! We're all friends here! No hard feelings ; ) :)

June 19, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Yeah, I can tell that a good long lagoon bath don't have no a healin' powers. Stupid Cosmo!

Seriously R. Folks

Sorry I trespassed on yer property open_eyes.

June 19, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Where did you get the entire county out of my argument? 66801 zip code does not include the entire county. I don't give a flip about what Olpe or Americus vote for their ordinances. I want a vote where I have ordinances. Get your head out of the lagoon.

Oh right, I'm supposed to put "just kidding! : )" (that makes it all better).

June 19, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

The businesses there sure seem to use my money. And taxes we pay on city property get used there. Just as the city folk's taxes on rural property do. Moreso than transitory college kids.

No problem, seriouslyfolks. Sorry I didn't make the "Enter At Your Own Risk" sign bigger. There's a non-city section over in one corner that doesn't smell nearly as bad. Sign there says "Just Say No To Crack". You are welcome at any time as long as you don't start demanding I make Eau de Crack available for all patrons and turn the place into a nuclear dumping ground. :)

June 19, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I took the fence down now that city dwellers no longer have a say about my lagoon. Except for the college students who come out there now to hang out and smoke. (They hide behind the cattails).

Looks like alot of my tax money might go to bail out Californians.

Life is so Unfair...... :(

June 19, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Heck, some may spend more time in E-town than Olpe. "

Heck yeah they do! We have Walmart!

Seriously though all this is justa MMMooooo point anyhoo. There's not goin ta be another vote on the smokin thingy anyway. The people who didn't want the ban were too lazy or something to get out and vote so they're not going to push it any further me thinks. On the other hand maybe more people really wanted the ban than not and another vote would just turn out the same way. Either way ................

Seriously R. Folks

I voted NO but thems the cards I rekon.

June 19, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

I think that is what zip codes are for. To define where you live. If you live in Olpe zip code, you vote on Olpe matters, and so on and so forth. They have their own city, their own bars and their own ordinances. It is still keeping it simple and about as fair as it can be.

June 19, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Since politics became a word one of the biggest on-going disputes ever has been deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't in any election. Both sides fight for the right to decide which people get to speak and which ones don't. It's some times called gerrymandering...or the art of manipulating voting districts to give your side an advantage.

Whomever does it best wins the most elections....witness the Euphoria anti-smoking ordinance. And they knew exactly what they were doing!

June 19, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Well folks, this debate, name calling, inuendos, etc., is getting us absolutely nowhere ! It is obvious there are those who believe that they know whats best for everyone and that the smoking ban was and is a health issue and those of us who believe that they don't know whats best for everyone and that the smoking ban was and is a rights, freedoms and personal liberties issue and neither side is willing to concede to the other !
My final thought on this whole fiasco is, there are individuals or group of individuals that want so badly for Emporia to be like Lawrence, Kansas City, Wichita, Topeka and the other large Metropolitan Citys that they are willing to have certain bans placed upon there fellow citizens to try and be like those other large Citys !
Here is the truth of the matter, Emporia, Kansas has and will always be known as a rural, small town, in Kansas and placing bans on your fellow citizens and neighbors will not and can not make Emporia, Kansas a mega City or cultural center of the Universe, no matter how many bans are enacted ! Emporia started as a small rural farming community and is still a small rural farming community, surrounded by farms, ranches, whose owners and families have been here much, much longer than the so called cultural, know it all, supposedly educated, city dwellers and these people and families are harder working, honest, more tolerant ( in most cases ) than city people will ever be and whether the city dweller likes it or not, these country folk support the City of Emporia in more ways than most of us City of Emporia citizens would like to admit !
How many Industries have come and gone in the 147 years Emporia has been in existance ? However the farms, ranches, and the people who work them are and have been the only real constant in this area and much of Emporias progress is due to the monetary support from these citizens faithfully shopping Emporia, paying taxes in Emporia, etc.!
Yet there are those City of Emporia citizens who see fit to insult, degrade, belittle these country neighbors and claim to do so in a joking manner !
If and when the surrounding farms and ranches die and the farmers and ranchers that work them are gone or leave, Emporia will be in extreme difficulty !
Emporia is a rural community in Kansas, always has been and always be !
This will be my last post on this subject ! Because I grow weary of trying to open closed eyes and closed minds !
Good Luck, my friends .

June 19, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree methusla....if we all just quit talking about it and go about doing what we have to do to live with our selves, crack will have no body left to argue with and will either find a new topic or argue with herself.

June 19, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think cracks last post topped them all for being the dumbest I've seen yet.

Yes, being from the country, when I go out to eat in the city, I always park 3 blocks away, and ask for a table as far from anyone as I get. Preferable at least a quarter of a mile. Heck, back when I worked at the Beef, everyone else was elbow to elbow on the lines but I tried to be at least 1/2 mile away. Same thing at Walmart. I can't shop till 3:00am when the place is empty.

I remember growing up we always left keys in the vehicles for the express reason of "what if a neighbor had car trouble and came by when you weren't around and needed to borrow a vehicle?" Not to mention everyone pitched in and did farmwork whenever a neighbor was hurt or laid up, heck, we even left the house unlocked so a neighbor in need could use the phone if they broke down (that is, until some "sympathetic/empathetic" people from the city came out and robbed the place).

Living in a city now I only know 2 of my neighbors, and the others won't even hardly acknowledge me. I'm sure they wouldn't chip in and mow my yard or anything if I was sick. Unless I paid them. And I darn sure won't leave the keys in my vehicle or the house unlocked.

Maybe city folks should live in the country for awhile an find out what its REALLY like to be sympathetic/empathetic for your neighbors.

You are right, what works in the country doesn't necessarily work in town. Its called "intelligence", by not being so full of yourself and your ignorant stereotypes to realize there really isn't that much difference between people based on purely where they live anymore. I'll bet crack still thinks country folk still have to head for the fort when there's an Indian uprising. (After all, the fort has high-speed internet).

What utterly incompetent ideas. Amazing.

June 19, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

You're right now that you've "reworded" it, there ARE a wider range of opinions & values living in the city. And from what I've seen, living in both for many years, less sympathy and empathy. Maybe crowded living just makes for thicker skin. I don't think I've ever seen city folks drive by a neighbor being beaten up and/or robbed and just looked the other way and kept on driving because they "didn't want to get involved". Yet we see stories like that in big cities all the time. Also the neighborhood "gang" in the country is just a pack of coyotes so they don't give us quite as much trouble as MS-13 :)

As for your latest "just kidding", that's ok crack, like I said before, you are about as transparent as they come. You might think the only people reading this board are the few in this discussion but they're not. There's plenty more rope if you need any.

June 19, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Oops, meant to say I've never seen COUNTRY folk drive by a neighbor being pummelled/robbed....... must have been the badger viscera smeared all over my keyboard. (Do they even have keyboards in the country? Thought they still used tin cans & string to communicate?)

June 19, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think most are smart enough to recognize the diff between some sarcasm in fun and some honest superior/inferior attitudes. Problem is, you do enough of the latter then you're never going to get away with the former anymore.

As for you helping, good for you, and you're probably right.

You can take the boy/girl out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy/girl :).

I tripped and fell in the street in the city once while I had my arm in a sling and was lying there in some serious pain. I heard cars driving right by me only swerving enough to miss me and nobody stopped to ask if I was ok or help me. Must have been their city upbringing shining through, eh?

June 19, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Come to think of it, I opened my eyes (squeezed shut from pain) just in time to catch the license...... by golly, I think the plate DID say "YY4U"...... LOL...

Thanks for swerving. Little did you know that the ice you dumped on me from your McDonald's drink as you zoomed past me actually was refreshing and felt good, so the jokes on you. So there :)

June 19, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I would have voted "No', and I would not have done any of the things you just described.

It's ironic on the one hand you say how country mentality is to help your neighbor, and on the other hand country mentality is not to care about others, but on the other hand country mentality is to vote No because they don't care and would drive on by, but on the other hand country folks would never do that.

It's not the smoke that is making me dizzy :) It's that constantly shifting strike-zone again. I'm just gonna go ahead and walk to first base now. Heck the catcher can't even find the ball it went so far over his head so I'm not gonna wait around and see whether you called it a ball or a strike :).

I think I'm with the rest. (Yawn). Friday evening is beckoning me......

June 19, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Those strawberry foo-foo drinks are really good down at the
?

June 19, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-K7zO...

June 19, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

In principle I certainly agree that country folk appear more open and less defensive than city dwellers......perhaps because they have less opportunity to meet the dregs of society out there in the wide-open spaces.

Having spent some time in Detroit, I can tell you that stopping for somebody laying in the street in apparent pain.....might well be a ruse just designed to get you out of your car so they can trade up so to speak. But this doesn't mean that there are not good, caring people living in cities. I remember when civil rights icon Rosa Parks....(one of my personal heroes).....was robbed in her Detroit home a few years ago.....that perp gladly turned himelf in to authorities just to get away from the wrath of the streets.

I've never lived in the country in my life but have also stopped to help people here in the Emporia environment. And I give as much as I possibly can to help people and animals that are in dire straits......this of course when I can take time out from being a free-loading, lazy, in-grate of an idiot, as is so often pointed out by my fellow traveler under_score.

June 20, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Cracky....... Did you offer the waitress a job? Now she STILL works in the resturant but has no customers. Who's crying now? As far as smoking bans bringing in thousands of new residents- kind of sounds like when you said that smoking bans would make business BOOM. Hutchinson City Council told pro ban advocates that THEY would have to do a petition drive if THEY wanted a harsh ban. Then Siemens Corp announced they were opening a plant in Hutch and would hire over 400 people. HMMMMMM!

June 20, 2009 at 7:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I certainly know for a fact there are wonderful, caring, compassionate, extremely intelligent poeple in the city as well as in the country, and both have their share of ignorant, uncaring, uneducated dregs of society. Just as in every segment of peoples/locations/societies in the world. I only point them out in reverse to counter cracks' usual stereotypes. Really people ought to own at least one mirror.

June 20, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"I certainly know for a fact there are wonderful, caring, compassionate, extremely intelligent people in the city"

Ah shucks
Thanks

June 20, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pJj6s...

June 21, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Thank you, Emporia, for voting for restrictions on public smoking. My kids and I had the best, smoke-free breakfast at S&S this morning. The taste and smell was wonderful!

June 21, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

In Wichita, they passed a compromise ban. Businesses could choose to stay smoking or not allow it. Funny thing. I can name a couple businesses that decided to stay with smoking and their revenues INCREASED. One of them saw a 20% increase. Who'd a thunk it????

June 21, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

S&S cafe is known for their healthy food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfcF1...

At least your clothes won't smell like smoke.

June 21, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Bucket."

June 21, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"It's only wafer thin."

June 21, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish;

I have said before the breakfasts at S&S were Great.

I sure hope you weren't the drunken dumby that turned them in for a smoking violation @ 1:30 a.m. Sun. Someone called in and woke up our firefighters to report illegal smoking outside the kitchen door. Whoever turned them in should know the ten foot requirement is from the main entrance of the business, Not the Employee entrance. No charges filed. I sure hope our local fire dept. enjoys these calls in the middle of the night. Perhaps the city can take the names of those reporting the violations, and if it is not a violation, charge the "SNITCH" with filing a false police report.
UHMMMM, more money for the city coffers.

June 21, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLH...

citizen's arrest

June 21, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

just call me Gomer and while your'e at it get me a bucket!

June 21, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

That's not cool. Waking the firefighters up at 1:30 to report a smoking violation. Of course no charges are filed. By the time they woke up, got dressed, drove to S&S and looked around, crack had finished her cigarette. There's no way they will catch anybody smoking where they shouldn't unless they catch them in a business (read "bar") check.

June 21, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

pingeon:

Just picture it. At 1:30 in the morning it was most likely someone who had been out partying/ drinking, who jumped in their car drunk, and went out for their after drinking grease fix. They saw the people smoking outside the kitchen door and felt the overwhelming urge to "BOOK EM DANNO"
I bet they are a lot of fun to party with!

Whovever did it they are a looser!

June 21, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish:

I also hope this isn't the first time you have been out since the smoking ban took effect. You pro-banners were going to take up the slack of lost business, remember?

June 21, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

It has not ceased to amaze me how ever since this ban became known, otherwise intelligent seeming people have not really understood it. I have had "medically educated" people tell me how glad they will be to never get sick from smoke ever again while others discuss how they can now go out to their favorite restaurant without smelling any smoke. Upon briefly questioning them, however, I came to learn that they were only exposed to smoke at family functions (mostly in homes) or that their favorite restaurants were already those that had opted to be smoke free.
It does not surprise me at all to learn that they aren't any better educated post-ban about what it even was than they were pre-voting. Sad,..sad,..sad!!
I am rather disgusted about the expenditure of my tax money to pay for these false alarms, though, when the city, state and country are already broke. Do people ever stop to think about how much they are willing to pay for each law they vote for. How much does the average law cost per day? Most citizens are far too short sighted, though, to even realize that laws=money and if they know it, they are too disconnected. Maybe we should start billing all people for their taxes instead of attaching it to other things (sales tax) or putting it on property, with a breakdown of what percentage goes to what function shown on the bill. It might connect them a little better to what they are asking to pay for.

June 21, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Wow, Pingeon. That's amazing. Cause my buddy who owns a bar in Wichita went no-smoking and has seen his business increase, too.

June 21, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Stevie, be careful what you wish for. I've given you more business in the past few weeks than I've ever given you in the past 10 years. I'm trying.
How come you aren't calling out your "loyal" patrons who have abandoned you?

June 21, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Great! At least they have "Freedom of Choice" as we USED
to! Good for Wichita!!! Understanding "Rights"!

June 21, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Actually, I ordered the Trucker's Roundup with wheat toast and a Coke. Very tasty...I highly recommend it.

And I didn't leave a tip. But my kids did....20 percent.

June 21, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

And I'll bet you an omelet that the person who called in the smoker is also the same person who has been complaining that not every business in town is properly displaying a no smoking sign.

In other words, some who just wants to cause trouble and is afraid to give the ban a chance because it just might work.

June 21, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

How and when will we be able to tell if it works?

June 21, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I know I said I would not post on this subject again, however I see that my favorite of all posters has decided to start posting again and as usual is spouting inuendo and conjecture, irishemporia ! The conjecture I refer to is the following statement, " I've given you more business in the past few weeks than I've ever given you in the past 10 years. I'm trying "
Well there is only one way to attach any validity to such a statement and that is to have all your receipts from the Royal for the past 10 years as well as your receipts from the past few weeks !
The inuendo is the following statement,. " And I'll bet you an omelet that the person who called in the smoker is also the same person who has been complaining that not every business in town is properly displaying a no smoking sign."
This statement is inuendo because you cannot prove who called in the smoker !
Same old type statements, from the same old egotistical person !
I concur with seriouslyfolks, just exactly how long does it take to see if something is going to work, when more businesses go broke and close !
The pro-ban people intimated that business would increase, almost immediately and exponentialy after the ban was enacted ! I have only one answer to these thoughts and statements, " NUTS " !
If a smoking ban is so great, why is Wichita, Salina, and others who have enacted a ban, reconsidering and modifying or repealing their enacted bans ? One possible answer and only one answer loss of revenues collected !

June 21, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Excellent point(s), oh4theluvof. Especially the part about people being more exposed to SHS in homes & family functions than in restaurants. Maybe the next law we need to enact will be a real "LAFFER"......(Laws Against Family Fun & Enjoying Reunions).....

June 21, 2009 at 11:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish:

Thanks for the business, as you can tell by my crowds you know we need it.

But I hope you were not implying I was the one who called in the S&S. They were against the ban, and we ate there before and since on a regular basis. Food is good, and reasonable prices. freindly people too, not a bunch of stuffed shirts.

I called in one complaint, (with my name), and if the fire marshall hadn't talked me out of filing the complaint, the 1st person charged under the law would have been a city commissioner who voted for it.
The way things have worked out since I wishda ,coulda shoulda done it.

June 22, 2009 at 1:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Irish, if the smoking ban is good for business, then maybe you can help explain these numbers...

$58,822.48--Liquor enforcement taxes, Lyon County, May 08
$44,670.78--Liquor enforcement taxes, Lyon County, May 09

$34,634.53--Liquor enforcement taxes, Lyon County, APR 08
$39,043.18--Liquor enforcement taxes, Lyon County, APR 09

http://www.ksrevenue.org/liqreports.htm

HMMMM, something changed...

$5,000 MORE from APR 08 to APR 09, but $14,000 LESS from MAY 08 to MAY 09...

You made your bed, now lay on back.

Matt

June 22, 2009 at 3:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

PS-- The above numbers are actually from the preceding month... i.e.- APR 08 taxes are from MAR 08 sales...

June 22, 2009 at 3:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Great data josiesbar....it will be fun to see how they manipulate their way around that.

As to dirtbags calling in false alarm smoking complaints I have an idea. When your neighbors are out in your front yard beating the crap out of each other at three-o-clock in the morning and you call the police a strange thing often happens. If by the time the police arrive, your neighbors have finished rearranging each others face, the first thing the police will do is park their cars in front of your house.....full lights flashing......and come up and knock on your door.....even when you have given them the address of the miscreants.

This of course has a chilling effect on people wanting to complain about neighbors that have already proven themselves to be from hell. If nothing else it makes you put your money where your mouth is.

Maybe the same thing can be done about dirtbags calling in smoking complaints......no response unless the complainent is there to put his/her money where their mouth is.

Might be worth a try.

June 22, 2009 at 4:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Have to agree with Steve about S&S's breakfast.....they are the best in town and have been since Fred's Derby folded years ago. JMO

I went there before the ban and I've been there since....The breakfast is just as good now as it was before.....only difference is now it's easier sometimes to find a place to set. Just one more thing the no-smoking crowd can be proud of.

June 22, 2009 at 4:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Irish, NAME the bar that went non smoking in Wichita. It is easy to check. Name it. Come on, NAME IT! Every bar that got the exemption license is doing great. I stopped at the Red Lobster last Thursday at 7 PM. ( On West Street. I'll be specific!)One third full. I asked a waittress why. She said they had lost a bunch of business after smoking ban. She didn't look very happy or any healthier!

June 22, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

driveonby......oh but the people will come pouring in soon....you must believe what our non-smoking guru's tell us.....good times are just around the corner......they will be there......just wait......believe......hope.....go broke.

But at least while you are setting on the street begging (like i always do) you will be healthier until all those smokers out on the sidewalk poison you. LOL

June 22, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

driveonby,
I know I am not irish and am not real familier with Wichita, but I will hazard a guess as to the bar, not by name, but could it be on N. Rock Road, and did it go non-smoking in May and if so, I think I may know the name of the bar !

June 22, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
Just like your wants, needs, rights, beliefs, life, way of living, intolerance, poor human attitude, lack of compassion, bogus health fears, etc. is your excuse for your discriminating oppression of your fellow citizens, friends and neighbors.
Oh, thats right, I forgot you are the only one that is of any importance in this world, everyone and everything else is just second rate, by your way of thinking, especially those human beings and citizens who smoke !

June 22, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crack, I'm going to try to explain this to you on here, although I think I would have much better luck drawing you a picture on a Big Chief tablet with a crayon.

$58,822.48--May 08
$44,670.78--May 09 -- (-)$14,000

$34,634.53--APR 08
$39,043.18--APR 09 -- +$5,000

$26,050.38--MAR 08
$34,947.93--MAR 09 -- +$8,000

$36,776.49--FEB 08
$40,773.16--FEB 09 -- +$6,000

$52,620.16--JAN 08
$50,271.25--JAN 09 -- (-)$2,000

Now let me see if I can sum this up for you. January liquor enforcement taxes were down $2,000 from the previous year, which means sales were slightly down from the previous year in January. Then they rose $6,000 in February, $8,000 in March, $5,000 in April (which is from March sales, when the economy really hit bottom), and then mysteriously dropped $14,000 in May (which is from April sales, the month the smoking ban was implemented). Hmmmm....

http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/forms/li...

Crack, all I'm asking you to admit is this:

Liquor enforcement tax dollars dropped $14,000 in MAY 09 vs MAY 08, while the rest of this year vs. last year saw either very small drops or modest gains.

Can you agree that the above statement is accurate?

June 22, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

http://www.ksrevenue.org/liqreports.htm

Wrong link, sorry

June 22, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I'd like someone to answer the question I posted last night, preferable irishemporia who said "In other words, some who just wants to cause trouble and is afraid to give the ban a chance because it just might work."

How and when will we be able to tell if it(the ban) works?

June 22, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Smoking ban = epic fail

Matt

June 22, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Here's what you don't get. Except for a small drop in 05 and 06, every year you mention was at least a little higher than the year before. Since 2004, there has never been a $14,000 drop from one year to the next. Come to think of it, except for 05 and 06, there wasn't a drop at all. There aren't too many variables to base my conclusion on. There are only two logical ones. The economy and the smoking ban, and I ruled out the economy, because all of the previous months except January showed modest gains, and Jan was only down slightly.

You never were good at arguing against reason, and now I know that you are horrible at arguing against hard numbers.

June 22, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Seriously, How and when will you know it is NOT working?

Josie, didn't the bar close before the ban?

June 22, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Tsk Tsk Tsk. I asked you first.
In order to answer either question we need to know the bans intention. If it was to make things harder on bars and some restaurants in an already hard time then mission accomplished, i guess. If it was so people could go get lit and try to have sex with strangers without their clothes smelling like smoke, mission accomplished, I guess. If it was so people could go to restaurants and shovel grease into their pudgy cheeks without smelling like smoke mission accomplished I guess. If it was to "save lives" we will never know because if someone doesn't die because of this smoking ban you will never be able to prove it.

June 22, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Here is a question for everyone: Will the smoking ban rid Emporia of all its bars? Of all its restaurants?

June 22, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Answer: NO!

Will it contribute to less hours per week for employees and their wages?

Answer YES!

June 22, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Another question for everyone:

You jump in too, Irish

Is it morally right for 10 college students to vote,(and enact a city-wide ban), in our city election in April when they graduated and moved in May?

June 22, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

No, the ban will not get rid of those bars and restaurants that were already non-smoking, however it may acomplish the task for which the bans soul purpose was designed to accomplish, to get rid of or reduce the number of bars and restaurants that the pro-ban people did not frequent that much in the first place and do not frequent that much even after the ban !
What this ban has managed to accomplish in the way of an oversight on the part of the pro ban crowd, is to force valuable revenue out of the City into the surrounding towns that still allow smoking . Nice move pro-ban crowd, bet you didn't count on or think of that being a negative ramification of banning smoking did ya !

June 22, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

It is morally right and truly an obligation for anyone -- student or not -- who is registered to vote. However they voted, we can only hope they are informed.

June 22, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It is now what it has always been.....class warfare between the self-righteous and pure of thought and deed non-smokers....and their dirty heathen counterpart working people smokers.

Before I get called out on it......I include all the non-smokers who worked and voted against the ban in the second group...most all of them working class folk themselfs.

June 22, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Crack, again you state: "Revenue is no excuse for harm"plus the statement "my fellow Emporians won't be harmed by their "SHS", shows you truly don't know what you are talking about for it will harm YOUR fellow Emporians when their job is gone, wages are cut and NOT because of the economy BUT the BAN!

Also, you stated to biscuitboy: "since Fred't Derby folded years ago", was there another ban?" This shows us that HAVE lived here most our lives, either you have moved here recently or you have actually NO knowledge of Emporia, now or then. You just want to put your "two cents" in with no regards for anyone but YOU. If you truly care as much as you say about the people of "Emporia you would have voted "no"
against this ban, seeing it for what it is. You never did answer the question: Did you offer the pregnant waitress a job? Also,you said earlier concerning "a family of four doesn't have to have steak in a smoking business", they didn't BEFORE the ban ,if you recall, believe Montana Mikes went "no smoking" BEFORE the ban was enacted. Please get your facts straight.

June 22, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I happen to know for a fact that some college students smoke. And future potential students may not like current students speaking for them. They may not like a town where freedoms are steadily being eroded.

Next thing you know they'll be marching in the streets against the Ayatollah's of Emporia. I'm sure this website will be blocked and we'll all have to Twitter.

June 22, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

If the smoking ban is so beneficial, surely there is something of substance proponents can point at and say it's working. If not perhaps a time line of when we will start seeing the benefits. Please stop arguing that the ban has had nothing to do with the business drop and show us the positives of the ban, that is your battle ground(supposedly).

ps
not having stinky clothes is lame and seems to be all you got, we've all heard that one so try something else.

June 22, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Ban all Mexican Restaurants!

I had too many refried beans last time..... and later... well.... it made me kinda stinky......

June 22, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

"Olpe (and surrounding areas) can have the smokers' "cancer money" for all I care. "
This particular quote from a well know poster, shows exactly the self-serving attitude and beliefs and intolerance that they truely have for others and that they care for no-one but themselves.
Who will be the next group of citizens and businesses that will be attacked and discriminately oppressed by these selfserving tyrants.
It will be a great selling point for Emporia when a business, etc., is told that they may locate here, but they will have to operate according to the local Emporia group of " know it alls " and they can not operate their business, etc., except only as this group of " know it alls " dictates and if you don't, there will be bans placed upon you !

June 22, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes! I guess we now don't have a choice concerning our "stink", just a "fatter" tummie!!! See! ANOTHER negative for this ban, can't smoke so eat more/weight gain, Oh!!!

June 22, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

You might think they only affected me, but you should have heard the complaints from others in the car ride home.....

June 22, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I was stuck inside a big wooden "Obama" with open_eyes and I can tell you for a fact that those beans he ate affected me in bad ways. Not very good ventilation in big wooden "Obamas".

June 22, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, the following statement, by you makes no sense,
"Without their vote, we wouldn’t know what future potential college students want."
Even after letting the temporary citizens ( college students ) vote on this issue . How do you claim to know what future students and citizens want ? Just because a smoking ban passed, does not mean it is what future students and citizens necessarily want or need or that a smoking ban will be the only thing that will attract them. In fact it may just turn them away from Emporia !

June 22, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So THAT's why the rest of you made me exit out the..... uhm..... horses tomato...... instead of taking the ladder like everyone else.....

I was a walking WMD - glad Cheney didn't take a shot at me...... good thing I made it over into Syria before he did.... :)

June 22, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

You're right, methusla. We elected GW in 2004, therefore it is obvious Repubs won the last election, since at that point we knew what all future potential voters wanted.

The election was rigged! The ruling clerics in the Senate stole it! March in the streets!

June 22, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, Is it not the truth, that a group of supposed know-it-alls has succeeded in forcing or telling all current Emporia citizens and businesses, business owners what they must do and not do !
And does this not hold true for future businesses, business owners and citizens ! Where have I skewed anything at all, by telling the truth ?
Do you not believe that you know whats best for all Emporias businesses and citizens and all of Emporias future businesses, business owners and citizens? Hence the term know-it-all !
know-it-all  /ˈnoʊɪtˌɔl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [noh-it-awl] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person who acts as though he or she knows everything and who dismisses the opinions, comments, or suggestions of others.
Again I ask you where have I skewed anything at all ?

June 22, 2009 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Crack, you amaze me!!! What residents? They all left town because of no revenue (money) but again, as you've said a number of times, one doesn't need that! You did say that you were willing to donate your wages(what wages, no job!) to help the bars that are now faced with less "revenue"? Oh! again they don't NEED revenue!!! I keep forgetting that!!!! Enjoy your higher taxes, those of us who are left to pick up the pieces of the "Pro-Ban". Also, you NEVER answer any questions or acknowledge when you are so very wrong. Oh! I forgot again, not in your personallity, for you know what is best for everyone and ALL the facts!!! Please tell us how it feels to be right ALL the time or at least in your mind!!!

June 22, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

How can a person make the statement, " Emporia is a town that cares about its residents.” , when in actuality there are those in Emporia, that discriminate against and oppress certain, if not all of its citizens, businesses, business owners and future businesses, business owners and citizens ?
Now thats really taking care of all the Citys citizens isn't it !
Oh, and I almost forgot, if you smoke we don't need you or your money in Emporia !

June 22, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"College students (as a whole) have different interests, wants, and values"

Which means...... some of them smoke...... some (whether they smoke or not) are against the ban.......

1 + 1 = 2

Wouldn't you agree?

June 22, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, first, were you EVER a college student? I was and at that time was more interested in staying alive, financially and keeping my grades up. In all truthfulness, truly wasn't interested in what the community around me did or didn't do, unless it would benefit ME with a better grade! These kids are sent here by there folks mainly because we ARE a small community therefore hopefully less trouble for them to get into. Many times tuition is lower then in other communities, a win/win situation for the parents. No, they SHOULDN'T have a vote concerning matters of the community because most likely it won't be their bread/butter later on Get it?.

June 22, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I never said this years or next years were or weren't against the ban. Just pointing out YOUR wierd way of thinking that you seem to presume that all college students are pro-ban.

On the other hand, compared to yours, it IS wierd. I don't shift my strike zone every pitch.

1 + 1 = 2 and I have a wierd way of thinking. Right. For me, it will not be 3 tomorrow, and 7 the day after that, then 4 the day after that.

I'm kinda wierd that way.

June 22, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,

Now rats urinating is more practical than smoking and shs!
My God talk about twisting and skewing ! I believe the practicality of rats urninating is even more twisted and skewed than any of the other lame comparisons you have come up with !

June 22, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Oh ratpiss, let's get back to shs.

June 22, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

You all know, shs
second hand stupidity.

June 22, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
You said the following, " Olpe (and surrounding areas) can have the smokers' "cancer money" for all I care."
Does this statement of yours imply that the smokers and their money are not welcome or needed in Emporia ?
Sure sounds that way to me ! And crack, you are the biggest skewer of all, as you have managed to skewer ( stick it to just about everyone ) !

June 22, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, and crack, your statement, " Olpe (and surrounding areas) can have the smokers' "cancer money" for all I care."
Just proves that you neither care about the welfare of the City of Emporia or its citizens, just your needs and wants !
Oh my, another of my skewed comments !
The problem with you crack is , the truth really hurts you doesn't it !

June 22, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Crack, I expected that with your "know-it all" attitude BUT you were correct, I goofed up, SEE! I'm not perfect and NEVER said I was. Boy! how wrong you are with your "judging" others, no, my parents didn't pay a dime or select my college. Plus, IF you know as much as you think, MANY of the kids at Emporia State do come from other communities and ARE sent here by their parents, also come here married, even maybe with children because of the quality of Emporia State, BUT they don't plan on LIVING here when they finish getting what education they are after, therefore this is not to be their bread/butter. They should NOT have a vote into MATTERS of this community.

You are truly a "little" Hitler by saying those in the country should not vote that live here and are productive people for many years to those that are productive perhaps for 3/4 years. Now whose priorities are out of wack?

June 22, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

What does it matter whether a college student should be allowed to vote? If they meet all the qualification to vote in an Emporia city election, including residency, then let them vote.

June 22, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Many states (maybe even all, I don't know) allow college students to register to vote in either their hometown or their college town. They cannot vote in both.
I wonder how many of them care more about their hometown (where they may be more likely to work, such as in a family business or where they have connections/family/friends) than in their temporary college town?

I have sympathy for people who get their kicks ROFLMAO at other's expense. They're the kind of people that will claim in public to care about a poor waitress while secretly they laugh behind her back because possibly she may not have had the education others have.

June 22, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

What I'd like to know is why everyone is so worried about Iran and North Korea.

After all, they put a smiley face after all their threats.

June 22, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes, liked your last statement. Most important thing to remember is that I'd rather be "huMAN", caring etc. then a know-it-all. (yes, I am a woMAN!!! and proud of that fact!!!Don't believe cracky poo has ever said!!!! (really doesn't make any difference, one way or another, other then an earlier post.)

June 22, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

crackey....I'm an old man and know very few college student s personally....but I do know a few. And the few that I know all worked against the smoking ban.....even though none of them smoke.

You see college students...like non-smokers....like smokers....like business owners.....like self-centered know-it-alls are not monolithic....and all of them except the last category some time look beyond their own self-interest and think of the rights of others.

June 22, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Opps, I didn't type the "n" on never. 20 wacks with a wet noodle!!!!

June 22, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I would consider someone that has common sense and dignity but might misspell a word or 2 to be more intelligent than I would someone who somehow woke up with the misguided notion that they were somehow superior to all of "you people".......

Personally I understand the college issue, I'm just trying to point out the dissonance between labeling and stereotyping rural people as less qualified or less deserving to vote because of the various reasons given which were all disproven (but each time called foul balls by an extremely tunnel-visioned umpire) while at the very same time touting a students right to vote when they have even less reason to be concerned.

June 22, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack, are you seriously trying to tell me the smoking ban had no negative influence on the bars? If so, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn real cheap!

For the rest of you, I posted numbers from liquor taxes collected in Lyon County showing a $14,000 decrease between May 08 and May 09

June 22, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

!. The EOB was also registering voters and, in more than one instance witnessed by me, were encouraging voters how to vote.

2.No professor in his or her right mind would offer extra credit for yes votes because they would have NO WAY of verifying the vote.

3.I'll take your word that the ban had negative impacts on some businesses. However, the business owner who wants to survive will be the one to overcome adversity and figure out a way to attract new customers and bring back the old customers. The one who sits on his butt and just complains will be the one who shuts his doors for good.

June 22, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Steve......since the smoking ban people are so convinced that overcoming the loss of business caused by the ban is such a piece of cake......they would probably be interested in purchasing a downtown bar with a long proud history.

Some of the photos of the old days at the Towne Royal that you have contained pictures of some of my family taken before I was born....and that was a loooong time ago.

June 22, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia, just can't seem to break the habit of conjecture and inuendo !
" !. The EOB was also registering voters and, in more than one instance witnessed by me, were encouraging voters how to vote. "
You do remember the definition of both inuendo and confecture don't you !
There was also a student or students that were posting on the previous smoking-ban debate forum , that stated he/she saw and heard the offer of various rewards made to encourage students register and vote a certain way .
I admit that this to could be inuendo and conjecture, just as irishs statement, since neither can be validated as truth !
I do know that statements of inuendo and conjecture accomplish nothing but doubt !

June 22, 2009 at 7:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

What is really stupid, is to thnk or say a business owner who has worked hard and usually long hours, for a number of years building a successful business, building loyal return customer base . And after some selfcentered, selfish, egotistical group of individuals, force them to change the way they do and run their businesses, forcing them to loose customers, revenue and possibly even their lively hood entirely. And a person such as irishemporia has the unmitigated gaul to say that the business owner is lazy and needs to find a way to attract new customers or to get the old loyal customers back. Perhaps the business owner is to old to, basically start over, has that fact ever entered your mind ?

June 22, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish:

Your statement;
"No professor in his or her right mind would offer extra credit for yes votes because they would have NO WAY of verifying the vote."

IS CORRECT!

However when that professor teaches a health and wellness course and has indoctinated for the 4 weeks prior to the vote the "advantages" of voting for a ban, what do you expect from those who hadn't voted for president, but found it worthwhile to vote for a smoking ban?

But then we ARE talking about certain professors at ESU.
They are not all bad apples but it only takes one to spoil the barrel.

June 22, 2009 at 7:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I would like to know where Deanna Roose and Jenna Hinkley are now? You know, the two young students who jumped for joy when the vote counts were announced.

Where are you now, ladies, and how has life treated you?

June 22, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Irish : Name one instance where you heard someone promised something by EOB for registering to vote, other than their right to vote. Our job as EOB was to register and rally voters to vote against the ban. You have a propensity for stating things without being able to back them up.
Please name your "buddys" bar in Wichita that has shown an 20 % increase in business since going non-smoking, or your statement that you have frequented my bar more in the last 2 months then the prior 10 years.

Your ability to "HIDE" behind your username allows you to do this. It would be nice to know wheather to give your statements any credibility or just write you off as another no-rights advocate. If you don't want your name known by the general public you can e-mail me at townroyal@sbcglobal.net and we'll keep our differences private.

June 22, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"However, the business owner who wants to survive will be the one to overcome adversity and figure out a way to attract new customers and bring back the old customers"

Are you serious? Really? Overcome adversity, Irish? Would you define adversity as the largest economic downturn since the great depression? Or the loss of 30% of your business due to the smoking ban?

Bar owners in Emporia are now dealing with both. You seem to think you're so smart, what would you with your infinite wisdom due?

Matt

June 22, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, you said "I'm an old man", now remember, please, that some are old when they are 30, age is strickly a number. Others are very "youthful" in appearance and thought when they are 70. Also, we don't give up "until the fat lady sings" and this fat lady ain't given up or singing!!!! :)

I LOVE the pictures in at Towne Royal, very nice touch. I have had to ask Steve various times just who some of the pictures are. Very interesting., love the history.

June 22, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Nice little blurb on 49 news tonight about the city smoking ban and beer gardens. Try to catch it again tonight.
The city will be discussing it Wed. at their study session.

June 22, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Beer Gardens ! Beer Gardens may benefit only those businesses who have additional space for one, and then there goes the so called level playing field !
Then what about foul weather and winter, who wants to sit out in a hail storm or zero or sub-zero temperatures, sleet, ice and snow and have a meal, a drink, and a smoke !
Don't mean to be a wet towel, just thinking of the possibilities !

June 22, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

If every smoker in Emporia lit up at the same time, in the same place, how many would it take to fill up the jail? And say, NONE had ID on them. Would the City get a ticket if this happened at a Council meeting? WHy would a bar owner get a ticket but the City wouldn't? What's the EXACT law on this? ANyone know?

June 23, 2009 at 12:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

driveonby......that's a very interesting question you ask. The answer to that question might even encourage one old man to light up a cig. for the first time in eight years......just one.....for the cause. Or maybe better.....if a smoker lit it the old man would be glad to hold it.....for the cause.

But then we of course are not...and would not...encourage any illegal activity like that tea party that was held back there prior to the American Revolution. We would not condone civil disobedience. No sir.....We would not....Sir!

June 23, 2009 at 4:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

crackey.....just a few points I want to touch on as I stir about this morning.

.........I agree that we should not underestimate the importance of the college students to the future well-being of Euphoria. In fact it appears increasingly evident that the college is about all this old town has left.....after years of enlightened ATHENS OF THE PLAINS leadership by elitist now-it-alls. Of course the farmers and ranchers are still around.....but they don't count. There just......well...farmers and ranchers.....they have mud....and other things.....on their shoes....they don't count for nothing. In fact lets move the fair grounds out to the edge of the county somewhere so we don't ever have to deal with them.

......"what's worse losing your job or having cancer?" crackey bellers. Depends on which situation you find yourself in biscuitboy replies. Then of course if you have lost your job and have cancer you will have lost your health insurance and won't be able to treat the cancer so your misery will be short lived. Incidentally...whatever happened to all that tobacco tax money that was suppossed to help cover the medical cost of smoking related illnesses?

........then crackey argues...."money isn't everything".....not unless you have lost your job...and your health insurance....and have cancer sez biscuitboy.....as he points out that people that make such statements almost always are the ones with a pocket full of money. It's amazing how unimportent it gets when you have plenty.

.........Fred's Derby---I may not have this exactly right....but as I recall the building was old and the people that had it were tired. It was also right at that time when old-fashioned truck stops were being viewed as being as worthless as farmers and ranchers are to the Euphoria economy. So it was torn down and a convienence store and self-service gas station (the kind of places college students love) was built in its place. Then those worthless farmers and ranchers had to start going to S&S......a place where they could go drink coffee and smoke cigarettes on those days when work in the fields was not possible. That was then...this is now.

.......Lastly......those refried beans did too affect others than open-eyes....to this I can attest!

June 23, 2009 at 5:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Hope there are no typos in above rather wordy post.....there by showing me to be an ignorant, lazy, poor, ingrate, of an idiot.....oh wait.....I already was all of the above.....Sorry!

June 23, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

driveonby & busicuitboy:

I thought about the smoking at a commission meeting early on. Thought it would be a good way to protest and incur a small fine to prove a point. Then I found an obscure ordinance about disrupting a city meeting and the fine was up to $5,000.00 and 1 year in jail. Left my smokes at home:)

Steve

June 23, 2009 at 6:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

So if I understand this correctly.....a person comes into your club and lights up and you get fined......a person goes into a city commission meeting and light up and they get fined and thrown in jail for a year. Isn't democracy as is now practiced a wonderful thing. And who says Euphoria isn't the home of the self-righteous and the elite.

June 23, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

It's a great day in Emporia!

June 23, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would like to give you an example of just how ridiculous this smoking ban is and how intolerant people can be who think that they now have the power and right to complain about anything that has to do with this ban, no matter how trivial it might be !
A few days ago while I was sitting on the benches inside Walmart. A lady left the store and almost immediatly came back in the store to complain to the door greeter about a cigarette butt in one of the outdoor butt recepticles that was still emitting, what she thought was an inordinate amount of smoke and she thought something should be done about it !
How rediculous can, are and will people be or get ?
After seeing and hearing and experiencing this incident, I am more convinced than ever that a public places indoor smoking ban is or will not be the end of this nonsense and more of our rights, freedoms and liberties may be taken away .

June 23, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

The sad thing about all this is that those elitist pro-ban snobs have gone on their merry ways, not one looking back to even consider what havoc they have wreaked with those who make their livings in the bar business.

Remember when all this was in full swing? Why even ole Teresa would get all riled up enough to defend herself from time to time. Those were the days. At least we knew she and her band of state money thieves were reading the posts.

You're right, Steve. It's a great day in Emporia!

June 23, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

BiscuitBoy! You misspelled "now-it-alls" - it should have been "KNOW-it-alls"!!!!!

Bad, bad, bad biscuitboy....... tsk, tsk, tsk.... I'll let crack come down from her white tower amongst us heathens and properly chastise you....... :)

And methusla you left out an "e" in "immediatly"..... and misspelled "rediculous"......

Boy, if those don't prove that the ban is righteous and crack is master, I don't know what does.....

Either that or some people (like me) type fast and don't always bother with spell check (probably due to a LACK of being overly anal)

I'm goin too intentunally mispel a few werds here like kat just so my frends biskitbouy & methusla wont git piked on all alone by cracky.....

June 23, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Did I mention Einstein often didn't wear matching socks? What an dullard!

June 23, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Methusla:

I hope the greeter told the lady "To STUFF IT!"

The butt, that is:)

June 23, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

My quewstion (take THAT!) is that now EDA/CAE/whatever the last acronym was, have secured further state, federal, and private grants (along with a percentage of liquor taxes, which were down $14,000 in May from the previous year. Good job on that one), what is the next ban going to be? I really want to know where this money is coming from/going to, ESPECIALLY the tax money!

Matt

June 23, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Meth:

Was the lady complaining to the walmart greeter a fat cow dressed in a sweatshirt and stretch pants?

June 23, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

AHAHAHAHA!

Those are the worst ones! The people that are 200 pounds overweight, complaining that second hand smoke is bad for them. Gotta love it.

June 23, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

No matter, the outcome will be that the store will probably move the butt-kits further from the doorways and those nasty smokers will just toss their smokes on the ground, instead of using the proper recepticles. Darn another misssspelled word.

June 23, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"lit cigs tossed IT 'em".

Obviously someone with a college education would NEVER make a grammatical mistake like that........... LOLOLOL :)

Oh, I almost forgot:

Legal Disclaimer: Just Kidding

June 23, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

create:

Rumor has it that ole Teresa and a couple of her old cronies hit a local night spot a while back a.b. (after ban), and a good time was had by all until they started to complain about that girl at the bar smoking. Well the girl had an electronic cigarrette, which is not covered by the ban as there is no burning tobacco or smoke emmitted by the user. Needless to say teresa and her coven left the bar in a puff, I mean huff , probably never to return, at least until the new ban against electronic ciggs is implimented by the city.

June 23, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Was she playing "Grand Theft Auto: Smoking" on one of the computers?

June 23, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

no games for that girl. She's all business!

June 23, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

What's up with Wendy's?

June 23, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, first I WAS NOT questioning your education, only asking if you had gone to college in trying to obtain the way alot of college students feel or I FELT, more concerned with survival, grades then what the community around me was doing. If you, for once, got off that " Defensive High Horse" you would have realized this fact.

Also, Folks, "thank you" for your support! From just a "silly,stupid" COUNTRY gal!!!!Guess that is what we country folks are best doing or being, plus other "adjectives" that Crack has called us!!!!

June 23, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XkD5s...

June 23, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow, no the woman was not large, wearing a sweat shirt and stretch pants. She was average in size, fairly well or decently dressed . Could have been Teresa W. or crackinsack !
Oh, BTW, crack the butt recepticle was not on fire, because I had walked, or hobbled by that very same recepticle a few minutes before and it was emitting a small amount of " cigarette " smoke, not excessive by any means and after the complaint a Walmart maintenance went and checked it and made the comment to me, " what is wrong with some people today, the damn thing was hardly smoking at all ! " I replied with a shrug and said " You know some people just don't have any tolerance or common sense ! "
I just can't help but feel that the next phase of bans will be a ban on outdoor smoking or possibly a ban on smoking everywhere ! I believe the control freaks are going to become totally " out of control " !

June 23, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

For those who don't know how totalitarianism is accomplished
or comes into being. First an individual or group of individuals convinces, dupes or forces the people into believing that they know whats best for all people ! After gaining the trust of the people or some of the people thru lies, deception and not intirely true facts. The totalitarian individuals or group of individuals either enacts or forces an enacting of a seemingly beneficial, necessary and harmless banning of the peoples freedoms, rights and liberties ! However before the unsuspecting citizens know it, more and harsher bans on freedoms, rights and liberties are enacted or forced upon them and before the unsuspecting citizens know it they have lost most or all of their rights, freedoms and liberties and are living under the totalitarian, oppressive rule of an individual or group of individuals, who end up being the only ones with any rights, freedoms or liberties . And there you have the birth of totalitarianism.
Just in case some of you, my fellow citizens are not familiar with what totalitarianism is, the following explains it quite well and in one sentence !
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system that strives to regulate nearly every aspect of public and private life.
Sorry to get carried away and ramble. But I do not wish nor want anyone to live in a totalitarian society, where only certain individuals are the only ones who have any rights, freedoms and personal liberties .
Again I am sorry for rambling, but a citizens rights, freedoms, personal liberties is a big deal for me !
I will try to stop posting and just read for a while, however I may read something that may set me to rambling again !

June 23, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

methusla......the only thing in your post I question is the move to do away with smoking alltogether. To do so would mean a loss of the taxes they live on...and I don't see that happening.

June 23, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Biscuitboy:

You are not a smoker, I am a smoker. Would you help me with a presentaton to the city commission to ban the sale and use of ciggs and tobacco product within the city limits? That seems to be the only way to truley protect the health and welfare of Emporia residents. Just think, Emporia could jump ahead of Manhattan and Lawrence and be the first city to ban this nasty, non-healthy product. Think of the money pouring in from the American Cancer society and Tobacco Free Kansas to help this cause. What do you think?
Steve

June 23, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Once we get tobacco use prohibited we can start on booze, then fatty foods, and a mandated 2 hours physical fitness regime for all citizens, We could actually become "The ATHENS of the plains.

June 23, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

It does leave the question; If Kansas becomes Tobacco Free, where will those hard working people go? Missouri?

June 23, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, rbow,
Sorry, I used a poor choice of words in my post. Instead of the word " everywhere " ! I should have said, I should have said outdoor smoking ban and possibly a Lyon County smoking ban !
And the bad thing is, Lyon County already has the #1 ban smoking advocate on the County Commission !
Just think if an outdoor smoking ban and County wide smoking ban is enacted. The people who still want to smoke, have a drink & dine will have to drive to Strong City, Cottonwood Falls, Madison, Lebo, Burlington, etc. to do so !

June 23, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I really don' t think Kansas or any state will become " Tobacco Free " ! Being tobacco free would mean the loss of an awfully lot of money the politicians could and are stuffing into their pockets ! However outdoor and indoor smoking bans may be a horse of another color !

June 23, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have a question.
How is it a person that lives in the City of Emporia may run for and serve on the County Commission and yet the people who live outside the City limits of Emporia, in the County can not vote on City of Emporia issues ?
And can a person who lives outside the City limits of Emporia, in the County, and pays their taxes, shops in Emporia, owns a business in Emporia, run for a seat on the City Commission ? If they are not allowed to run for a City Commission seat or vote on City issues, this seems a little unfair and lop sided to me !

June 23, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

Methusla,
Because a resident of Emporia is also a resident of Lyon County they get to vote on county issues. But a resident who resides in the county or another city, such as Admire, is not a resident of Emporia.
To vote on county issues, one must be a resident of the county. To vote on Emporia issues, one must be a resident of Emporia.

I do a fair amount of shopping in Topeka, Wichita and Kansas City. My company does a ton of business in Omaha. Do you really think I should have the right to vote on issues in those communities just because I spend some money there?

I'm curiouse, though. What makes you think that allowing rural residents to vote on the smoking ban would have defeated it?

June 23, 2009 at 11:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

If I haven't done it already, I need to thank Steve, Matt and the others who urged people to register to vote. I think the ban would have passed by an even greater margin if these folks had not tried to educate people on the issue.

June 23, 2009 at 11:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

rbow.......I think it is a great idea...and I'm in for the duration. Y ou know who I am so just get ahold of me personally and let me know what's needed.

It would be great to see how the Gazette covered it.....and to hear all the smoking ban proponents arguments to keep their gravy train on the track.

June 24, 2009 at 5:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

You know if
"TOBACCO FREE KANSAS" really want's Kansas to be to tobacco free, then an outright ban on the product is necessary. We know that prohabition did not work on booze, but maybe ciggs would be different. When we get the ban on smokes, we can't forget to include nicotine patches also. We already have 3 city commissioners on our side as they are on the record for protecting the publics health. Jim Barnett should back us as well as Teresa, Bobbie, and Margie. I'm going to get started on this and will get back with you buiscuit. Maybe we can get some backing from crackinsack?
Steve

June 24, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

As I recall.....I mentioned just such a thing to crackinsack some weeks ago.....at that time she appeared luke cool to the idea. If memory serves it had something to do with her not wanting to violate the right of smokers to smoke.....as long as she didn't have to be around it.

The CAE, TFK, and all the aforementioed local folk.....have as we know.....allways been big on rights......as long as the rights were theirs. But maybe if we promised to go ahead and go after other things that might generate some now monies for them to operate on....they might soften their views.

Man...I hope I'm not using the wrong their for there!

June 24, 2009 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree one hundred percent that if nicotine is sooooo baaaad that we can't even permit its secondhand transfer......then those nicotine patches have to go.

I have no doubt the big pharmacutical (sp) houses would agree and would certainly dip into their deep pockets to help finance our humble efforts to make the world a safer place for all of us.

June 24, 2009 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

there---their
for---four
our---or
to---too---two
yolk---yoke
no---know
The list goes on and on. English can be so confusing.....maybe we should just switch to something like say Spanish.....

Aaaargh......No....NO....nOOO.....just kidding......really....I was just kidding/////......I don't even know how to speak Spanish......I'm soooooooorry!!!

June 24, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Si'
See.

Have to head up to T-town for doc appt. and see the grandkids. Will check back here later to see if anyone else thinks this tabacco ban idea will work.
Steve

June 24, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Ich sage, dass wir zu Deutsch schalten. So ist jeder gleichermaßen verwirrt.

Vote YES on the tobacco/alcohol/fatty food ban!
Goooooooooooooooo health nuts!

June 24, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack, you say and I quote " Banning tobacco would be an infringement of our rights. "
Just how in the H-LL would banning tobacco be an infringement on your (our ) rights, when you have openly admitted that you do not smoke or use tobacco products ?
Are you afraid that banning tobacco products will cause harm to everyone, including you, even though banning the source of your worries about harm would actually be a much healthier move than just banning the smoking ?
Could it be that the banning of tobacco products would cause all the free money in the way of grants would dry up and your/our taxes would skyrocket ?
What a hypocrite you are crack !

June 24, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow,
Since crack thinks a tobacco ban would infringe upon her rights, " Banning tobacco would be an infringement of our rights. " , I am for anything that may take away one or all of cracks rights, count me in, even banning of unhealthy fast foods and the places that prepare and serve them, that should hit a nerve with a certain Emporian ! If you do not still have my email address, let me know by posting here and I will email it to you !

June 24, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jcook66801,
I knew the answer to my question. I was trying to make a point that non-permanent residents of Emporia ( college students ) who do not own real-estate in Emporia nor pay real-estate property taxes in Emporia are allowed to vote on City issues that may adversly affect those permanent, tax paying City and County residents. However those same taxpaying County residents are not allowed to vote on any City issue that may adversly affect them also.
And that is what I believe is not right nor fair !
I believe that college students should be allowed to vote on National Issues and elections. However I believe that college students should not be allowed to vote on State issues or elections or local issues or elections, unless they can prove permanent residence in that State, County or Municipality and real property tax payments for at least 10 years !
I chose 10 years, because I feel that after living in a place for 10 years, one is not so likely to leave, unless absolutely necessary .
Qualifying as a so called permant resident after only living anywhere for only 6 months is a travisty commited against the real permanent residents of a State, City and County.

June 24, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
cruel is as cruel does ! Its a little different, when you believe one of your rights may be threatened, huh ! And we all know that there is no way you will ever choose to start smoking. You hate smoking and smokers too much !
And yes you are a hypocrite, for even thinking you will choose to start smoking. You would never start doing something that you hate so much and turn you into that which you despise ( smokers) and would force you to have to choose to go outside of any public business, if you got the urge to have a smoke !
As many of us on this forum have said before your are so transparant .
And crack there is nothing as childish as a person who wants & needs to go certain places and do certain things, without restrictions and yet would deny others their wants & needs to go certain places and do certain things, without restrictions.

June 24, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
Did I not tell all of you ban smoking advocates, during the smoking ban debate, that there may come a time when one or more of, what you believe to be your " rights " may just be threatened with being banned ?
And banning tobacco products would illiminate the problem of smokers, smoke, shs, those things you hate, and be healthier for everyone.
Also banning unhealthy fast foods and the places that serve fast foods would make for a healthier society .

June 24, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, THANKS so much for our "lesson" of the day BUT BEFORE cracky gets you, our-hour. You are a dear AND we have learned to protect each other!!!! Also, glad you retracted concerning Spanish, Heaven HELP us!!! I truly thought we as Americans spoke English but I'm finding in my "ole" age that things aren't always what they SHOULD be or as cracky has said "the old ways" or of the past!!

rbow, sincerely wish the best with your doctors appt. Also, super you are getting to see the grandkids. How old is that little guy that your daughter/husband brought into TR as a baby? Was so very precious, must be around 3 now, the FUN age!!!

June 24, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

sandman....I told you it was confusing.....but I am far too (to---two) old to learn Spanish now.

June 24, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Lernen Sie, um Deutsch jetzt zu sprechen.

June 24, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, as you pointed out concerning my education, how did you do in Math??? You keep saying "the majority", please don't forget the "margin" of error that most surveys carry. Yes, a recount was done BUT, as I pointed out before I was amazed during the voting (which I worked) at the number of people that didn't understand the voting question. Now, that misunderstanding COULD have made the numbers different. As I see and understand, 6/8 votes is NOT a majority but that the numbers were balanced (even). In a state that I lived in the (+) had to be at least over 10, which this wasn't BUT in Kansas one over wins but is not a majority!!!!

June 24, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, I TRULY agree with you concerning age but we MUST remember we are like fine wine, hopefully getting better as we age. Now at what, I don't have a clue!!!!!

June 24, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

A person with logic and reason would know better than to go places where they believe the environment of that place is killing them. I'm just sayin'.

Eine Person mit Logik und Grund würden besser als kennen auszugehen, wo sie glauben, dass der Umwelt von jenem Ort sie tötet. Ich sage nur

June 24, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, AGAIN I'm not surprised at your response. I also looked up the meaning of "majority" BUT I also KNOW that in Stat classes one or 8 is not a "majority" because of the "margin of error".

Also, are Canadians, who speak French, Americans? I believe they are in the Northern Continent.Most would argue with you concerning that!!!!

June 24, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks, believe that is German, isn't it? We had a foreign exchange son from Germany which gave me a chance to learn a LITTLE. In fact he called last week, he and his wife had a bouncing baby boy a week ago tues. He(them) have been over 4/5 times since he was here with us, always great to see him. A dream is to get to Germany. Also had a daughter from Sweden that I still keep in contact with. I had the opportunity a few years ago to go to Sweden, beautiful country.

June 24, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Yeah, I was stationed over there a decade and a half ago or so. I figure if some people don't want to learn English we could make it fair and we could all learn to speak German since very few people already do.

June 24, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
Why don' t you try and convince Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela that he is an American and see what he tells you or for that matter try and convince any of the peoples of South America, Central America, Mexico or Canada that they are Americans ! You would be funny if you weren't so pathetic !
By your reasoning and logic, the next thing you will be advocating is that everyone one living in the Americas, since they can be known as or called Americans should be voting in any of the countrys of the Americas affairs and issues !
YEEEEgods, what a thought and picture !

June 24, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm curious....... is the White House completely non-smoking? If so, where does Obama go when he has a "relapse" and sneaks in a cig?

June 24, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But crack...... the students..... have already surpassed the master.......... :)

Grasshopper open_eyes

June 24, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, You are not making fun of yourself, you would never do that, your think to much of yourself to make fun of yourself ! Stop say just kidding after demeaning everone on this forum, if you didn't mean it, you wouldn't have said it in the first place !
Transparent, transparent, transperent !
Also the school you should be thinking about opening is CRACKS SCHOOL OF INTOLERANCE, rights bashing and stripping, how to take away a persons freedoms in one easy step, personal liberties trashed, how to be a tyrant, how to oppress your fellow citizen and how to jokingly insult or demean people and yet mean it. These would be courses you could teach well .

June 24, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Technically, yes, but I think most people (around the world) know what is being referred to by use of the term "American". Politicians, people on the street.... when they talk about "America"...... they don't mean Argentina...... "Coming to America" wasn't about hitting the shores of Peru....

I have no problem with intolerant, rights-bashing strippers. As long as I get to give them dollars I got from the "stimulus" package......... LOL

June 24, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of worrying about how the rest of the world sees us. Half of them hate us because we're pro-democracy, half hate us because of this, or that, or something else. Over 66,000 American soldiers are buried in France - they died saving their miserable b$$ts and how does France feel about us? Oh how soon people forget...... or do they?

This was an article in 2005, regarding how the French REALLY felt about America:

"Paul Cruce, an American now attending school in Paris to become a baker (great idea!), has written me some fascinating email about his surprising experiences over there in the midst of all the conflagrations:

What I have found to be far more common is a real warmth for the U.S. and I have found it in surprising and unexpected ways. Examples:

* October a year ago I was here for a week. I had been invited to a Hallowe’en dinner party prepared by a couple I know, both of whom are chefs. During the dinner, I was asked by another guest if I supported Bush or Kerry. With a smile, I quickly and firmly replied “President Bush.” To my surprise, the entire table - about 30 people altogether - burst out in applause. One woman said, “The U.S. did the right thing in Iraq. Chirac is on Saddam’s payroll. That’s the only reason our government has opposed yours there,” and all the other heads at the table nodded in agreement. This group included some people whom I know usually vote for the Socialist Party rather than Chirac’s UMP."

Maybe France has the same problem we do over here..... the people feel one way, but our government & media feel differently........

Personally, I think alot of it is just the "biggest kid on the block" syndrome. You could also be the nicest kid on the block but everyone is always gunning for # 1. Everyone wants to take down the top dog.

June 24, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Crack,
The reason that most people here do not think your jokes are funny is because they are not. You keep saying that you are joking, but for a joke to be made those witnessing the joke would have to redeem some sense of the humor you are presenting. A little jab here or there might be considered just a little chuckle that could be tolerated. You have overstepped the limit of small jabs and quips, and go to all out bashing. Once again as several have pointed out here, just kidding and LOL don't cover these faux pas.

Looks like someone just didn't get enough attention as a child and so they scream and throw tantrums now to get attention. Mommy and Daddy didn't love you, so you're going to knock down the kid on the playground minding his own business. Furthermore you create your own reality when you ignore the logical points of others, and charge through with half-truths and feigned concern for others.
Only more appaling is you telling others to not take it personally. You attack people personally, and then tell them not to be bothered by it. It is the same as those who physically abuse others and after they hit someone to say they didn't mean it. Right.
Oh by the way, I'm not attacking you. Don't take it personally, it's just a joke. LOL. Just kidding!

June 24, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

crack,

Dream On :)

June 24, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, AGAIN, just ask ANY canadian if they are American and if you think you
have been hit hard here,you don't have a clue!!!!

open_eyes, you are so correct concerning"biggest kid on the block" syndrome and this smoking ban proves that. You would think Emporia,Kansas was large enough to let each individual make their own choices (which we did have) to one of control. Now crack says"I want to CONTROL you" and also tell you who and what you are to accept. Sorry, BUDDY, won't happen!!! "But it is truly sad that we can't live and let live!!

June 24, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

crack,

Read much?

June 24, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack:

What I was saying about all those hard working people and where would they go? I was refering to all the leaches living off tax dollars and Johnson&Johnson grants to do away with tobacco products. If Kansas was tobacco free there would be no need for ole Helburst and her coven up there in Topeka. Insurance rates would go down, everyone would be healthier, workers would be happier, no one would smell like smoke, hell, it would be just like Dorthy and her big happy family in OZ.

June 24, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Couldn't you see your way to join the cause, "FOR THE GREATER GOOD"?

June 24, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

While in college I became friendly with a girl from Mexico and we often would chide each other about the differences in our countries.

She would often kid me by calling me a silly american......and I would try to convince her that Mexico was part of North America making her also American. She would have none of that however claiming that only people from the United States were Americans.

Take it for what it's worth.

June 24, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Once again I'm confused....must be my age.

How is it that ole crackey.......once all to willing to dance all over the rights of smokers to protect the public health......now claims she could not even consider protecting the public health from smoking, fatty food, or the curse of evil drink (aka-the demon rum) because it would perhaps violate somebody's right to live as they wanted.

What up with that......huh?

June 24, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
Whats up with that, is ole crackey is so full of herself and self serving and so mixed up, she can't tell which end is up !

June 24, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
In case you haven't noticed all the peoples who have immigrated to and live in the USA, refer to themselves as,
Mexican-American, Guatemalan-American, Brazilian-American, Chilen-American, Venezuelan-American, Argentinian-American, Canadian-American and so on and so forth. And they do this only after immigrating from their native countries to the USA or America .
When someone shouts death to America and Americans, do they mean the USA, the people who live in the USA or America or do they mean everyone you perseive as being American and live in the as you say Americas ?
The whole world views and understands that the term American means a person who lives in and is a citizen of the USA or America. The rest of the world also views and understands that the term America means the USA or America ! Except of course ole cracky who believes that everyone who lives in the Americas is an American.

June 24, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Wow, disappear for a couple days and the forum explodes!

Irish - I'm glad to hear that your buddy's business here in Wichita is doing good. I'm glad the population base in Wichita is big enough to support that. The difference is also we still have a choice, for the most part. It's the minors that lost the choice. If you're under 18, you can't go in if the place allows smoking. I've got very good connections in the restaurant and hospitality industry and I'm not hearing the same thing occurring as what your buddy is experiencing on a very wide scale.

As for the American debate, I usually think of "American" as someone living within the US. However, I was reminded this is not the case upon a visit to Mexico some time ago. I was trying to order a pizza and I said to the gentleman at the store "Back in America, we do it like this....." He put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Where do you think you are amigo?" I rephrased to say, "Back in the States, we do it like this...." He smiled, told me he could do that and the pizza would be right up. Take that one for what it's worth.....

June 24, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, apple cider with a touch of rum, heated up, GOOD
STUFF! Sure warms one up in the winter when the snow is blowin!!!

June 24, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

sandman.......and a touch of rum laid on to a glass of Coke and ice does wonders for a hot summer day as well. That demon rum can be a pretty wonderful thing at times...but remember...it's the public health we are talking about here so we must Buck-Up and be strong!

June 25, 2009 at 6:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,Believe me, I am thinking of the public health!!!! Most women will say they like to share recipes!!! Also, why must we Buck-up and be strong? Shoot, at this age you need to enjoy life because you never know when they will "ban" something you enjoy!!!

June 25, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

sandman......

I should have been putting lol's behind these post.....all of this talk about outlawing all of these things is a sarcastc attempt to point out the hypocrisy and B.S. of the public health claims of the smoking ban cadre.

And crakinsack was all for placing public health before individual rights when it involved something she didn't do anyway.....but now she has reveresed her position one-hundred and eighty degrees once you start talking about things she enjoys.....(aka--the "demon rum").

June 25, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy, you are so very correct in what you've written. Believe we all knew EXACTLY how crack would respond to starting a new ban when the money is taken away (cigarette taxes), fast food is removed and booze, then caring for public
health is removed. Believe we tried to point this out before the ban was voted on. Tis sad that so many of us learn reality AFTER the fact and truly have no true feelings for our human race of goodness only selfish needs or wants.

June 25, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack,
Part 1
I and others have shown you and posted and explained to you many, many, many times that vehicle exhaust emissions are harmful to the general public and the environment. I have shown and posted scientific and medical info showing you that the burning of bio-mass materials, such as wood, grass, leaves, pasture and crop land, etc. is just as harmful or more harmful to the public as tobacco smoke, shs. Others on this forum have shown you and posted statistics showing that the smoke from coal fired electric generating stations is also harmful to the public and the enviornment, all of the above have been proven to be harmful or detrimental to all the public, even you . But you dismissed or excepted all of these as necessary and beneficial, TO YOU ! However you give no thought or creedence to the idea that those who smoke, those businesses & business owners that allow smoking may believe that what they do is necessary and beneficial to them and that you may have the common decency to choose to avoid the smokers, the smoking allowed businesses and the alleged harmful SHS that you know full well exists there . But
instead of you having the common sense and decency to avoid the smokers, smoke and shs, you and others decided to force the bussinesses, business owners to change their every day operations and forced the smokers to avoid you and others on a selfish, selfcentered whim .
noun

Definition:

1. passing impulse: a sudden thought, idea, or desire, especially one based on impulse rather than reason or necessity

June 25, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
Part 2
And again crack you dare to compare smokers and smoking to killers, rapests and those who assault someone ! You are really a pathetic person. Those who purposly kill, rape and assault someone is why those laws were enacted. People who smoke, businesses & business owners who allowed smoking were not purposely, with intent or malice, intending to kill, rape or assault anyone. If you or anyone knowingly, on purpose with intent, walks into or hangs around smokers, places that
that allow smoking are the only ones totally responsible for doing harm to yourselves, because you/they know full well that there may or may not be harmful elements present, such as, the allegedly harmful and deadly shs, you only did so because that is what you wanted to do, even knowing the risks.
And you and others are so bigoted, by purporting to be thinking of the health of the employee that works in a smoking allowed business. You and others probably have not given any thought or creedence to the fact that those working in that environment, may possibly want to work there and enjoy working there. Also don't you think those employees or prospective employees have right to choose to work there, even if they know that they would be placing themselves in harms way ?
C'mon crack you need to admit to yourself and others that your attitude toward smokers, smoking, bussinesses that allowed smoking and the owners of those businesses, was, is, has been, will be and will always be about you and what your selfcentered, intolerant attitude wants and don't give a hoot about what others may want or need !
Like I said before crack ! When it comes to someone talking about banning anything that you perceive as one of your rights, you get all huffy and hollar at the top of your voice.
The possible loss of any of your perceived rights does't set very well, does it !
And you say you're not a bigot or hypocrite.

June 25, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

crackinsack sez "The pro SHS crowd has always had this all or nothing attitude....". Excuse me, but I think that sounds much more like the pro smoking ban crowd to me.

Seems they had places where they could go enjoy an evening out doing what they wanted to do and not be subjected to SHS. But that wasn't good enough for them. No they wanted it all. They wanted to be able to go everywhere and anywhere they wanted without regard to what other people might want to do with their evening out. So they railroaded through a ban that gave them everything they wanted....while telling anybody that might have had different ideas....."LOVE IT OR LUMP IT BUCKOS".

Now which side appears to have a more all or nothing attitude crack....huh.

June 25, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

crack,

By "Read much?" I was referring to the e-mail letter from the American in France offered by open_eyes describing French attitudes toward politics in the U.S.

You didn't get it. Instead you put your own spin on it.

BTW, if you really knew how to invent sarcasm, you would never have to say afterwards that you were only joking. However, you have already earned yourself a rep for being a bombastic little ankle-biter so any attempts at sarcasm now will simply not work.

See, my comment of "Read much" was sarcasm, but you didn't get it.

June 25, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, you state "I look at each issue to see if it's beneficail and necessary", AGAIN, I ask, "beneficial and necessary" to WHOM? Before the ban, if you remember, if I went somewhere and they had a "no smoking" sign, I KNEW I wasn't to smoke inside and didn't, no matter how I felt concerning the sign. Why was it so different for you when there was a "smoking" sign which ment there WAS smoking inside. BOTH were legal signs. Now, what you have said on past post, the general public MUST obey the law, BUT not precious crack, for she goes where crack wants, when crack wants!!!! May I ask, what is the difference here??? Why should you have more "rights" then the rest of the public?
Since you've stated over and over concerning SHS is harmful, I truly am in doubt why you would ever subject yourself when as I've said in the past you were "fair warned". We smokers
truly deserve the same "rights" as you non-smokers and I truly have no problem with that, but why do you and the other non-smokers think you have the right to make choices for the remainder of the public? Please! don't give me "the majority of voters"-you and I BOTH know it could have easily gone the other way,and was basically "split".

In all reality, this is WHAT we have tried to tell you and haven't been able to get you to understand. None of us want to take YOUR rights away, why do you feel it is you DUTY to take ours.. We were NOT hurting you or anyone for you had your choice and we had ours, then. That is why this smoking ban is so very unfair for you had places you could go BEFORE and so did we, you have stripped that away from the smokers by your and CAE "selfish" desires.

June 25, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

She either has a short curcuit in her hardwiring.....or she is just psychologically incapeable of seeing anything but her own self-centered needs and desires. Sometimes that is refered to as being amoral.

June 25, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

An hour???!!

Hear that guys, she only goes to the bar for an hour. No wonder the bars are failing. She couldn't stand the smoke for the hour she went out and spent $60.

Crimeny! Oh but fair is fair right? We can't have fun for any amount of time in Emporia bars, but crack will have her fun filled hour...

June 25, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Can anyone tell me what the H$LL intentionally and purposely spraying " pepper spray " in someones face has to do with someone knowing that smoking, smoke, shs and smokers being in an enclosed place or businesses and intentionally and purposely and knowingly choosing to expose yourself to the harm that you believe is present, instead of just choosing to avoid the harm, has to do with what is and has been debated and discussed on these threads ! And crack you are not invited to answer, because your responses are so irrational, mixed up and beyond reality, no one can understand them anyway !
And the difference any and all of your so called comparisons is, the fact that all of your irrational examples, denote the purposeful intention to harm someone. Where smoking, smokers, businesses that allowed smoking and businesses owners that allowed did not, were not and are not purposefully intending, with malice , to harm anyone. I can't explain it any simpler than that ! But apparently you can not or are incapable of understanding the difference between purposefully, intent and malice and therein lies your problem or dilema !

June 25, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

o let me get this straight......long long ago....and far far away....smokers could go anywhere they wanted......while non-smokers could only go to some places with out accepting something they didn't want to accept.....namely SHS.

Non_smokers felt they were somehow getting cheated by this because smokers after all could go to non-smoking places.....never mind that to do so smokers had to deal with something they didn't want to deal with....namely not smoking.

So non-smokers worked, planned, connived and by the narrowest of margins......affected a change whereby non-smokers could now go anywhwere they wanted.....and smokers could too as long as they were willing to accept something they didn't want to deal with.....namely go out without smoking.....an otherwise legal......and heavilly taxed activity.

And with this change...non-smokers proclaimed they had made everthing now fair for everybody So by going from non-smokers having a choice to go someplaces where they could have their way by avoiding some places where they wouldn't.....to now where non-smokers have their way everywhere they go while non-smokers have their way no place. And they swear that this is more fair......More fair only to them.

June 25, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Let's all leave crackinsack alone and everbody go over to the visitor center forum and sic "justa_thought." They just said Emporia was a second class city! grrrrrrr

June 25, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
Your exlaination and perfectly sound way of thinking and logic is absolutely lost on crack and the other ban smoking block-heads.
rbow,
justa_thought is probably a pro smoking ban supporter, who has the same mind set, that smokers are second class citizens and should be treated as such.

June 25, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

So Methusla, you want to take away the rights of some to vote? I am afraid that is just wrong. And even if your plan were to be put into action, how do you know the ban would have been defeated?

I don't see how you can advocate rights while limiting the rights of current legal voters.

June 25, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, punk? morons? Why do you find it so very necessary to call people all sort of names, cut them down etc., while debating? Do you feel everyone is attacking you? Please, show me in my last post where I attacked you? I believe I ASKED questions that could have been answered with an answer, not an attack.

We are not against you but AGAINST what you believe. We DO HAVE THAT RIGHT AS YOU have the same rights towards your beliefs. Crack, I sincerely hope that thru your life you aren't faced with disappointments and/or sadness and if you are, you are able to handle them better then you have shown us your ability here. Best of Luck.

Sandman

June 25, 2009 at 10:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

jccook 66801
I believe that temporary residents, such as college students, etc, who have no long term vested interest in the issues that may have adverse or beneficial consequences to the City or County who only temporarly live in that City or County for 4/6 years, should not be allowed to vote on any City or County issues that may have long term affects on that City or County !
Do you believe that you have the right to vote in another Citys, Countys or States issues, if you do not own any real property or pay taxes on that real property in that City, County or State knowing full well that you are not going to live there and become a permanent resident of that City or County ?
How many of the ESU students make Emporia their permanent residence after graduating. .02%, .08%, 2%, 5%, 10%, or more. I am betting on between .01% and .08% .

June 25, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

jcook66801, I sincerely hope you don't mind me putting in my 2 cents worth. In this debate I have questioned WHY the college students, who are truly "part-time" residents but are
18 able to vote in a "city action" vote and residents who may LIVE outside the city BUT own a home(rental perhaps) or a business in the city limits unable to vote? I ask, who has more to "stake", the college student, who will live in Emporia, Kansas perhaps 3 or 4 years or the person who ownes a business (such as a bar)or other property? Also, that person who ownes a business but has purchased their home outside Emporia City Limits has shown to the city of Emporia that they are a productive person and truly added to the "lively" hood of Emporia, not only in business matters but otherwise, seems somewhat "lopsided" to me.

Please excuse if I've made mistakes, it is late and this gal is tired.

June 25, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I agree sandman......its not weather or not the college stuents who attend school here and are registered here have a right to vote here. State law says they do.

The question is why people who live on the wrong side of some imaginary line are denied the right to vote here....even when they have committed their lives, their hopes, their dreams, and even their taxes and their businesses to the city of Euphoria.

Its not so much that the college students shouldn't be allowed to vote......But "by golly" those people who live in the county that have committed their lives to this county and its county seat....that would be Euphoria.....should be allowed to vote also.

June 26, 2009 at 4:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I wouldn't be suprised that in this heat wave the bars in town are letting their customers smoke indoors. I know I wouldn't want my customers falling over from heat-stroke while standing outside smoking. JUST LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR HEALTH!

June 26, 2009 at 7:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

crack.......using your logic we don't ban smoking per se, fatty fast foods, or your personal favorite alcohol, because an individual partaking of any of them is not indirectly harming any one else. That in and of itself is of course wrong because the wide-spread use of all three add hugh amounts of indirect harm to others in terms of increased health cost and insurance rates. With alcohol the indirect harm cost is even higher in terms of broken homes, broken lives, and incarceration due to its misuse.

But you side-step this point with your contention that people have a choice to partake.....and shouldn't be denied that choice just becuse that choice is harmful to you. You argue it should only be denied when others have no choice but to be harmed by your actions.

So answer me this. Prior to the smoking ban did not non-smokers have a choice of entering, or choosing to work in places where smoking was permitted. By the same token...did they not also have a choice of not entering such places.....thereby not being subjected to the harm.

Therefore....by your own logic.....what harm the non-smoker entering smoking establishments might incure.....was incurred at their own risk therefore making them unworthy of public health protection.

BY your own logic.....the only people that were really worthy of such protection were those that had absolutely no choice but to expose themselfs to the risk of SHS.....or those that were dragged off the street and forceablly exposed. Kinda like the little child exposed to drunken rages at their home.....rages they can not control or avoid.....the dangers of being run over by drunk drivers....or the higher health cost we all endure even if we partake of non of the above.

Live by your logic and die by your logic!

June 26, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

If that's true, why has no one been charged with assault when someone else was smoking around them?

June 26, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

If you use your legal pepper spray around your home and repeatedly sprayed it in your child's face I can assure you would be charged with child abuse and endangerment. This may be the weakest argumant you have ever used.

Probably the most reveling thing you have ever said was your boast....."well we are changing that way of thinking."

There boys and girls is crackinsack revealed.

June 26, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

In many of the bars I used to go to if somebody walked in and you sprayed them with pepper spray for no reason you would get more than sued....if you get my point. The point of my boot up your keister! lollollol

June 26, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

crack....if a fellow citizens was really concerned by the dangers of SHS......and had enough sense to find his kiester using both hands.....said citizen would not have voluntarilly placed himself in harm's way.....now would he.

June 26, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, crack, crack-
Once more you revert or continue to use comparisons that do not compare ! It is legal to own many objects that may do harm to someone. However the law says that you may not use these objects to intentionally, with malace, do harm to someone.
Follow closely. Smokers, businesses that allowed smoking and the business owners did not or were not intentionally, with malace intending to harm anyone.
Those of you, crack and others, who knew that smokers, smoking and the allegedly deadly SHS was being done and may be present in an establishment and yet through their own stubborn, selfcentered desires, needs and wants, chose to enter the establishment and put themselves in " HARMS WAY " , are the only ones responsible for doing harm to themselves !
However, because of the selfcentered mode of thinking that you and others have and not wanting to admit to yourselves that you and you alone are responsible for harming yourselves by making the stupid choice to put yourselves in " HARMS WAY " by consiouslly exposing yourselves to the alleged harmful environment, decided to punish those who did not intentionally or with malace harm you, ( you did that all on your own ), by forcing the enactment of a ruthless, needless, unnecessary law !
And as has been pointed out by many.
You and others had many places that did not allow smoking you could choose to go to, that would not cause you harm.

June 26, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

WOW Crack,
Finally you drop the LOL facade. I throw a little of your own dirt back at you and you flip out. You see, we all know that the LOL is just a cover-up. Your thinly veiled insults don't go un-noticed.
Oh and another thing, I was making fun of your money spent and your time out because it is truly a pathetic attempt to make this all seem like you are doing your part. You and yours are not making up for what you took away, as that is quite clear to everyone. I'm sorry you don't see the humor in that, I guess what goes around comes around doesn't it crack. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
You may not care about someone else's rights to enjoy themselves or the right of a business owner to continue with business, but I do. I am a non-smoker with a sense of compassion for rights that I might not partake in, but think they need to be preserved just the same.

June 26, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

The question was not aswered. Crack, if you can be expected to make a CHOICE to smoke or not, why shouldn't you be expected to make a CHOICE whether to go to smoking venues or not? It has nothing to do with pepper spray or punches in the nose or any other of your peculiar arguments. Simple question, are you or are you not capable of making choices without government intervention? According to your logic, the SOURCE of second hand smoke should be eliminated. And that is smoking. WHY don't you lobby to stop the selling of the source of the problem. You are STILL going to run into smokers as long as tobacco can be bought.

June 26, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

driveonby,
I am afraid your attempt to reason or debate with crack and other smoking ban " blockheads", is, as the " BORG " say, " FUTILE ". I have tried, in vain, to reason or enlighten crack to the meaning and obvious advantages of " tolerance " , to the rights, freedoms, liberties, wants, needs and desires of others who must share this particular little part of the world called Emporia, Kansas with them. And I have done so with short to the point posts as well as long, lengthy explaination by explaination posts . But have had little success, as crack and others are to selfcentered to think of anything other than their own selfish rights, freedoms, liberties, wants, needs and desires, what ever they may be, to even consider tolerance and fairness toward others .
And you are correct, crack and others either avoid answering logical questions, with an illogical question or comparison of their own.
At times I wonder if it is even worth the effort !

June 26, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BOY IT'S HOT! I WOULDN'T BE SUPRISED IF BARS WERE LETTING THEIR CUSTOMERS SMOKE ON DAYS LIKE TODAY!

STEVE

June 26, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

CRACK,

We have frozen lemonaids and pina coladas for cooling off the smoke is free.

June 26, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

breaking the law!
breaking the law!
And stop calling me shirley.

Steve

June 26, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

what's the opposite of CAE,
(clean air Emporia)?

EAC,
Emporians against crackinsack.

June 26, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Steve.....next halloween you and methusla and I can dress up as Waters, Sauder. and crackinsack.....and go as the three witches of Euphoria. lol...just kidding.....only a joke.

June 26, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack,
You and others had to go to the extreme of a smoking ban to educate people ? What was wrong with boycotting those businesses that allowed smokers, smoking ? What was wrong with legally pickiting or handing out educational materials to educate the smokers to the evils of demon tobacco use and the harm it allegedly does to them and others ?
The CAE and you never even tried the boycott, picket, handing out of educational materials, did you , why not ?
Now you have succeded in moving the smokers from inside a privately owned business, outside to the publicly owned sidewalks, parking lots, streets, etc., where everyone who passes by is exposed to the allegedly harmful effects of tobacco smoke, shs, along with all the other outdoor pollutants. Now you and others truely have no choice but to be exposed to the smokers and the SHS ! Way to go teacher, your really are a good educater ! NOT !
I surely wouldn't want you as a teacher to educate me, only if you taught a class in how to be intolerant of others and how to destroy a persons rights, freedoms and liberties and only if you wanted to learn how to take an allegedly harmful substance and move it from a place where only those who chose to be exposed to it and move that allegedly
harmful substance outside to where now, everyone has no choice, but to be exposed to the allegedly harmful substance, along with other potential harmful substances !
Remember, the CAE, you and others have stated that " there is no safe limit to the exposure of smoking or shs ! "
Am I wrong, but doesn't that mean that there is no safe exposure to smoking, shs, even if it happens to be outdoors ?
Taking that into consideration, will there now be an effort on the part of the CAE, you and others for an outdoor smoking ban ?
Remember I have said many times, that with the ideology of the CAE, you, other certain individuals and certain groups of individuals that the next step in control of Emporias citizens would be an outdoor smoking ban as well as bans on other activities of certain citizens, that do not meet with certain citizens or a certain group of citizens ideology !

June 26, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
One question. Who gets to be who ?

June 26, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Take your pick buddy.....there's not a good witch in the bunch.

June 26, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, I was going to suspend responding on this forum because I was and am so VERY tired of your negativism and rude comments to people that I DO respect. Then you come
up with another statement that truly shows how fake you and your statements are. You said: "I'll be darned if I'll let them make my choices for me when I'm not the one who is hurting others.:" Now from what I've read here, you don't seem one bit bothered by "hurting others" with your words, you TRULY seem to enjoy and delight doing so. Believe me BUDDY, I would so much rather be in a smoky bar with them then in a "non-smoky bar" with YOU. Also, hurting bar owners that were "smoking" with loss of revenueI( KEEP forgetting they don't NEED revenue!!!) I guess with that statement, also that includes CAE and City of Emporia, correct? Now, answer this, why is it so IMPORTANT for CAE or whatever they are called to continue receiving our tax dollars thru their precious grants?(or any OTHER sources) Do not the bars that you and others have delighted so in taking their revenue deserve the same??

Since you have chosen to belittle a friend because of his use of "Webster's" but have shown us it is OK for you, I will give you the meaning of hurt:
Verb:
l. to experience or cause to experience physical pain or emotional distress.
2.To cause harm to:damage
3.To offend
Noun:
1. bodily pain or injury
2 mental suffering
3. Damage: harm

Soooooooo, you see (maybe!) you have been able to do a
number of these!!!!!(and your CAE group)

Gee, I was wondering, how about the bars that are experiencing a loss in revenue SUE you and CAE for the
"hurt" you have done. Alot of that "hurt" is RIGHT HERE in BLACK AND WHITE!!!!!

June 26, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

What comes after news forum?

June 26, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes, I have a question. Did you get a chance to give those intolerant, rights-bashing strippers dollars from your "stimulus" package? You never said. I've been waiting to hear how you used your "stimulus" package, thought it might give me some ideas!!!!! :)

June 26, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

Sandman,
How funny it is to read your comments about Crack. While I don't agree with Crack, I fail to see how he/she is any more or less negative than most everyone else on this. I see bashing from all sides that, quite frankly, takes a lot away from this forum and this discussion.

And yes, I'll be the first to admit that I am guilty of bashing, too.

And no, it doesn't matter who fired the first shot. All that matters is that we are all guilty of participating.

June 28, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

Regarding who gets to vote, if we wanted a county-wide vote, we probably should have considered a county-wide ban (can't beieve I am saying that).

by your logic, the guy who lives in Kansas city but owns rental property in Emporia should get to vote? Or the guy in New York, or the gal in Japan? Where do you draw the line?

I have no problem with Emporia residents only voting on Emporia issues. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I suggest, however, if you don't like the rules, contact your legislator and have them put forth a change.

It is also interesting how the issue of who gets to vote has only surfaced (to my knowledge) during the smoking ban debate. Surely if it was a true issue, it would have surfaced long before now.

June 28, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

jcook66801.......I don't know about here in Lyon County......but who gets to vote has arisen in other places.....Washingtom County Arkansas for one..... back in the early eighties.

A brohaha broke out over Fayetteville's duty to provide fire protection to Washington County. I think you can probably guess where the two sides stood on the issue but the real fight was over who got to vote on it. Fayettville won. I know all of this because I was living there at the time.

June 29, 2009 at 4:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

The battle lines were drawn in much the same way.
County folk argued they worked in fayetteville.....did business there.....spent money there....and were essential to fayetteville's continued prosperity.
City folk on the other hand believed the fire department was owned by them.....was their problem to care for...and the county had no inherent right to use it as they saw fit.
I realize the issue is greatly different but it was much the same fight.

June 29, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

jcook66801, You state by logic concerning voting, in response, please read ALL of the above post and we have stated that living in the COUNTY (Lyon), paying taxes to the county, owning a business and WORKING etc should be able to vote. Also, along with this goes being a PRODUCTIVE part of Emporia, Ks. which by large, most of the people of Lyon County, therefore BEING a part of Emporia, Ks.

I'm not sure if you are aware that in this past election there were a number who owned businesses in Emporia, worked in Emporia but were not permitted to vote because their main residence was in the county and not Emporia. This is where the argument concerning the college students comes in. It is not that those said students be able to vote but WHY can they but those who have committed their lives to Emporia BUT live outside the city limits can't.

Also, concerning crack. PLEASE just read this entire blog.and I believe you will realize that for the most part, we(being the ones AGAINST the ban) have tried to debate with crack but to no avail. In cracks last post, I believe to giggles, in that post crack called s:dummies:,punk,morons,flippin ignorant, this ALL being in ONE post. Yes, we ARE not perfect, but,
after awhile of this, you begin to retaliate, being human nature, BUT don't believe we have used the "name calling" that crack has resorted to.To me, most of the ones opposing crack have tried to use logic and NOT name calling in the debating. You see, crack has done this on ALL the blogs, before, during and after the ban then wants to come out with the "holyer then thou" attitude, this I resent. I will say crack finally admitted that yes, I was correct concerning Canada, that was a step forward and I was proud of crack for doing so, not because I WON, but that someone else said something that was true. In the past I have felt this is all a game to crack by the statements that have been made and it isn't,it is our lives PLUS a major part of the lives of those that DO OWN a business, such as a bar that was smoking. It was and IS all about CHOICE!!! We make choices everyday of our lives and at one time could choose if we wanted to attend a smoking or non-smoking bar, now that choice has been taken away,the livelyhood of the smoking businesses has been cut and those that brought up this ban, "Said, Oh, we promise THAT won't happen", it did and from what I understand that business that was lost has not be replaced.

June 29, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

sandman, it didn't work out so well. First, I was late to the club, since I worked overtime to have some extra $$ to spend, and they took it all at the door and "redistributed" it to those who left work early. Then, the strippers were only allowed to be clothed in Sarah Palin "slutty flight-attendant" outfits (business suits), so it was pretty boring anyway. One stripper showed more skin by tearing off her sleeves and going sleeveless (Michelle Obama look) - but that was deemed too "classy", and she was removed. Despite all this, and the AC.... for some reason I still felt like the temperature was rather warm in there, and once my temperature started to rise the bouncers came and accused me of warming the planet, and took the rest of my money. They called it "cap and trade" or something like that. All in all, I thought it was quite a dud..... everything was completely the opposite of what was advertised outside.......... but the club still had high approval ratings...... go figure.... :)

June 29, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

crack, you say to Steve that he would be breaking the law allowing smoking, now I ask, didn't you do the very same thing before the ban in going into a "smoking" establishment and NOT liking smoke? What many have tried in the past to point out was the fact that those signs, "smoking"-"No smoking" were LEGAL signs and went with the ban as it stood then. Again I ask, where does the difference arise if I were to take your attitude of "I can go where I want when I want" or" they aren't telling me what to do" and go into a place and smoke? Please don't tell me it is all about "SHS" for we both know it wasn't and isn't. Maybe we all need to take your attitutde "they aren't going to tell me what to do!" You broke the law, why can't we??

June 29, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open_eyes!! I truly enjoy how you phrase things, GOOD JOB!!
I'm so very sorry the experience wasn't as you apparently desired nor worth the money. Gee, that is just like government, take every last cent you've got!!! You must remember tho, you did help the economy in SOME manner! Wasn't that what this was all about getting this economy to "rise"? (can't believe I just wrote that!!!!!!!) So glad I am "sandman"!!! A laugh here and there adds so much to life!!!

June 29, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

ioeb_eyes, I failed to say that I believe I'll just put it in the bank, not as much fun BUT a lot safer!!!!! Gee, and I was at hopes you would give me some ideas since our nation is paying major interest to China so we could have. I'll most likely gain, on the percent, more interest then what WE are able to pay back. (Heaven help us for it is sure no one else will!)

June 29, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yeah, but guess who owns the banks now..........

My advice is live it up and spend every last cent! Then after you're broke the government will take care of you, so no worries...... that's the new mindset, hard work does NOT pay.......

Besides, remember the stories about how all the recipients of emergency aid after Katrina were blowing it all at the strip joints? I'll just say I got Katrina'd!!! LOL :-)

Or maybe I need to become a stripper...... nah, I'm sure I'd get sued by the people trampled during the stampede OUT of the club...... :(

June 29, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

open-eyes, yes, your are correct on who owes the banks, again, no choice in the matter. Only wish I didn't have so MUCH ownership, I'm going broke!!!!

True concerning hard work. I look at what I pay each month for health insurance while some get it FREE at my and others expense. Somehow our priorities have gotten so very mixed-up.

Now, don't short change yourself, you MIGHT be a GREAT
stripper, at LEAST you would be working, something new for our nation and not expecting a handout. Concerning Katrina and being "Katrina'd", won't go there.

My favorite saying is "Life is a WONDERMENT!" for it truly is.
I just wonder what will happen next???? Common Sense?
What is that!!!!!! With this smoking ban it stands for reason that if you take away SOMETHING will need to replace and believe that is not being shown.(i.e. revenue) That is why this whole ban is a JOKE but afraid not on the ones who voted "no."For they tried to give that worning before hand to
no avail or i.e. caring. Guess they thought it wasn't going to be
themselves that would be affected, i.e. selfish. They didn't think it through that those that were pushing this ban, 1. didn't need the money or 2. living off us (government),i.e fundings.

June 29, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"Clothing-challenged" entertainers......

June 29, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

And here I thought they were now called, " Exotic Dancers ", boy I am really behind the times ! Not to give away my age but I can remember when when it was called " Burlesque ", and that was only because they had other acts on the bill, besides " Strippers " .
And back then they would not get completely nude but were required to at least wear " Pasties " and a " G string " .
Also there was a required amount of distance maintained between the stage and the audience . No lap dancing, no contact with the audience what-so-ever was allowed.

June 29, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I think "Clothing-challenged" entertainers started getting more respect when they started allowing lap dances in the oval office.

June 29, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Was that because "Second-Hand" contact with the dancers was harmful to ones health? Like when the men got home when their wives found out where they'd been and there was "contact" (lap dance) they'd beat them over the head with whatever was within reach?
I'm going to have to switch over to crack's side on this one. A woman has the right to strip, but only at home. Shouldn't do it out where the second-hand effects could adversely affect the health and well-being of others.....

(Or you could just not go in the strip bar at all, but that would be too simple, and give people too much freedom. We need more mind err...... sorry, I meant "government" control......)

June 29, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I wonder, could public ogling be considered a health risk ?
After all ogling a girlfriend or boyfriend of someone might be a health risk!
And would an ogling ban in enclosed public places or in public be an infringement on a persons rights, freedoms and liberties ?

June 29, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Ogling seems to be very big in a certain culture that is pretty big around these parts. It really makes me "angry" but they aren't really hurting anyone I guess. It's just very demeaning and rude.

I've heard that during the lap dances in the white house there was plenty of ogling going on but no "relations".

June 29, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

OK Guys, you've given me my laugh for the day!!! Open-eyes, come on, you were more fun being you and not crack. Also, believe I would be one of those wives hitting my hubby over the head, he wouldn't know what hit him when I got done!!! BUT now you want to take that "right" away-RATS! No stripping except in my home!!!! Great point!!! Thanks for a super laugh!!!

June 29, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Oh! I forgot, not a jealous bone in this "ole" body of mine, I would only be warning because of health reasons!!! He'd know next time what to expect!!!!(have my doubts there would be a "next time!!") I

June 29, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

If the majority are for the smoking ban, I would like to know WHO the majority are. I know for a fact that the majority of bar and pool hall patrons smoke. SO did you do your study of the majority at the Baptist Church? The majority of people don't care about this issue. The hysteria was created just as the "studies" were that supported it. FIGHT BACK! YOU CAN! This is a rights issue. IF you are too stupid to avoid smokers you need analysis.

June 30, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I know quite a few people that go to Baptist Churchs that signed the patition and were going to and probably did vote NO. I don't know what you're trying to imply driveonby. I go to Church and I voted NO and talked to people all the time about the fact that it was a rights issue. You best check yourself.

Seriously R. Folks

June 30, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31601393/...

June 30, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Seems to me that this whole thing is about health care costs. Think for a second or two about who is pushing for health care reform. Huh?

June 30, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks ;
You are right, it is about health care costs ! But the one major over-riding factor in the rising cost of anything is " Greed " and supply and demand, but greed is the one, predominately uncontrollable factor !

June 30, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

How true methusla......and if it wasn't for so much greed in some sections of the health care.....and health care insurance......industry we wouldn't have to be even considering single source systems today.

When the health care insurance business tells me they fear any change in the status quo might affect the quality of my health care I laugh out loud. Any body that believes that needs to go back and repeat credibility 101.

July 1, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I didn't mean to imply that I laughed about any change in the quailty of my health care....what I laugh about is the health care insurance people acting like the quality of my care is their main concern.

Their main concern now is the same as it's always been.....how much money can we make....and how quickly and easily can we make it.

Now, those may be fine principles for a company making widgets to operate by......but when it comes to health care for me and my loved ones......I would prefer that different ideals apply.

July 1, 2009 at 6:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I agree that this boils down to greed but it is not some vast right wing Christian conspiracy as some have implied. On a large scale the ban trend is about "health care reform"(socialism) on our local level it's about the fat cats wielding their "power" so they can feel more important, this is just the tool they used to do it this time. As much as people like to blame those Christians for everything, sorry not this time. I'm sure that there were Christians that voted for it but I personally know more that voted against it.

Seriously R. Folk's health care reform
water
free weights
bicycle
salads
stairs
walking

July 1, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

I am from the South. I was a Baptist. You DID NOT drink, smoke, dance, or even think about that fornicating stuff! I'm very glad to hear that Emporia Baptists are so open minded and freedom loving. I would not have switched to Methodist if I had been in Emporia! And THAT is sincere!

To those who are considering a drive to ban the selling of nicotine products in Emporia. YESYESYES!!! I'm sure you noticed how shrill and defensive the pro ban person got when this was mentioned. The grant funds to these groups would cease IMMEDIATELY if this were passed. Also, the State of Kansas would dissolve the Tobacco wing of the Kansas Department of Health and Enviornment, saving tens of millions. And, the gravy train down at the County Health Department would dry up.
Since we can no longer sit with friends in a bar or pool hall or even in a mechanic's shop and have a smoke with like minded adults, we should SHARE this loss of income with ALL businesses, big and small. NO nicotine sales at Dillons, Kwik Shops, gas stations, WalMart, Walgreens, EVERYWHERE. And NO MORE grants for Cracky and friends, since they would no longer get them. NO more lovely newspaper and radio ads with grants from pro ban.
The multi billion dollar industry that says they are pro ban ARE NOT PRO BAN. They are pro harassment.
DO THE SELLING BAN ON NICOTINE, AND MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE ALL NICOTINE REPLACEMENT PRODUCTS, TOO! Nicotine replacement has higher concentrations of nicotine CAUSING people to WANT to SMOKE. DUH!!!
And just for your info, the FDA says they will cut by half the nicotine in tobacco. So you will BUY TWICE as much and PAY TWICE as MUCH in taxes! That's why they raised the $6.10 per carton BEFORE giving control of tobacco to the FDA.
PUT CRACKY OUT OF A JOB, Whether she works for the paper (Gwen) or for the CAE, she will be out of work if this were to pass! Notice that she IS NOT PRO BAN!!
Seems perfectly clear that she WANTS people to smoke. She just wants to please her pharma masters and demonize folks onto nicotine replacement products.
Read their Play Book. Steve has it. She is doing and saying exactly what is in the book. It strictly FORBIDS lobbying to stop the selling of nicotine.
Please ask Dr. Barnett to comment on what he thinks of the banning of nicotine sales. NOW THAT WOULD BE FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!! He's no more pro ban than cracky is.

July 1, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

driveonby;
Here, here ! I and others agree whole heartedly, that this was never a health issue, but a control issue. As I and others have said, why ban just smoking and not the cause of the smoking and addiction, ALL TOBACCO PRODUCTS and TOBACCO REPLACEMENT PRODUCTS and alieviate the problem alltogether. However as soon as you mention banning anything that may adversly affetc a smoking ban proponent the wailing and screaming begins !
What a bunch of bigots and hypocrites the pro ban smoking bunch are.
I also have the pro ban crowds play book, ( Bible ), on computer disk.

July 1, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

methusla are you saying that the Bible is the pro ban hand book?

July 1, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Ain't it strange how quickly a person's view will change when it starts to get into their coin purse. Many of the tax cut people act the same way.

July 1, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks,
No, I am not saying that the Bible is the pro ban hand book "
What I was saying was, the CIA FUNDAMENTALS OF A SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE handbook is the Bible of the pro ban crowd. And the pro ban crowd follow its instructions with a fervor that borders on mania !

July 1, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

That's what I thought yo meant methusla, I was just making sure.

July 1, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

driveonby:
I helped collect petition signatures and 95% of them were those of members of the patriotic Baptist church I grew up in. In that church, you do NOT (choose to) "drink, smoke, dance, or even think about that fornicating stuff!" but you also DO NOT use the government to strip the American right of others to do so! Yo can ask Steve how many of those signatures were valid and I can guarantee that 80% of them made it out to vote "no."

I said a LONG time ago that locally, this was a power play but higher up it was a nationalized health care agenda. Other opponents were afraid to look that deep because they were/are hoping for the nationalized health care. Everything seems to continue pointing in that direction.
People, you are going to have to choose...freedom? Or socialized healthcare? You won't get both.

July 1, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof.......the beauty of freedom loses some of its luster when faced with catastrophic health care cost and no insurance or way to pay for it.

Freedom is a wonderful thing when you are talking about our basic rights and liberties......but when you start applying it to health care benefits it rings a little hollow when the only freedom you have is no choice at all.

July 1, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I don't think anyone will disagree with the fact that our health care system needs fixed/overhauled. But is socialized/nationalized healthcare the answer? We've already snuck it in a bill that illegal immigrant children get free health care, when will we start raising that bar? Easiest way to get health care for your children right now is to renounce your American citizenship.

If nothing else, though, I've heard that just the threat of nationalizing the system is bringing some health costs inline. Don't know personally if that is true but they were talking about that on the news today....... maybe they just need a good scare put into them?

I don't know the answers, but I think it needs alot of thought and work. And now it looks like they're going to try to ram it thru as soon as possible (again). Good old two-faced Nancy Pelosi, the "most ethical and transparent government ever" says she will NOT give the public even a week to review the bill before the voted on it......

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content...

Not to mention her "most ethical" ever moves to block any investigation into her statements about the CIA lying, etc, etc..... I'm sure she'll win re-election easily, though.

Oh well, looks like it won't matter anymore now that Franken is confirmed. With the 60-vote majority, they get to do whatever they want, and then sit back and call the other party the party of NO, claim they don't want to work together, etc, etc...... (sigh)....... THAT'S the REAL transparency about Pelosi......

I'd just like to know why all the people who screamed bloody murder that we were rushed to war in Iraq and that the opposition wasn't listened to are so silent about stimulus/health care being forced thru 10 times faster, congress not even having time to read it all, oppostion being ignored, (ABC wouldn't even accept paid air-time), etc......... amazing how fast some people can do a 180. I must need my brakes fixed, I try to and I just skid off into the ditch.... :)

Signed: The lemming who gladly voted NO at the cliff's edge.....

July 1, 2009 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

If the threat of nationalized health care is enough to cause some of our benevolent masters of kindness.....aka health care insurance providers.....to realign some of their health care cost...then thats suppossed to tell me they have suddently seen the light.....NOT!!!!!

What it tells me is they have been taking us to the cleaners with malice and forethought all along.....and the only thing different now is they are worried sick their little gold mine might go away.

Meantime.....their little gold mine has brought untold suffering to how many of us?

Personally it would not bother me one bit if they lost it all.

July 1, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

It's not even in the self interest of an insurance company to have mandatory health insurance because it would force them to take patients they couldn't make a killing on. The best way for health insurance companies to remain fat and sassyis to continue the status quo.

That's why we are seeing such a well funded effort to convince us of all the terrible things that will happen if we change the game. What they don't want us to be convinced of however is the terrible things would mainly occur to them.

July 1, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

As the President announced today, drug companies have said they will now cut costs to the consumer, in some cases by 50 percent. Wow! Does this mean that it would be rip offs as usual were it not for the national health plan being discussed?

You're right, biscuit. We've been ripped off for years and the health insurance industry is paying for all kinds of ads to keep us blindfolded. And you're right, the dangers would be to their own pockets if we change the game. Screw them!

July 1, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Seriously R. Folk's health care reform
water
free weights
bicycle
salads
stairs
walking

It's super cheap!

July 1, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Senator select Al Franken?

July 1, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Like I said, you can't have both. A smoking ban that is in place now looks less horrible than the thought of foregoing social health care. If the government is going to pay for your health, they are going to dictate how you maintain your health...period!

I'll tell you what. When the US public education system starts working, I'll jump on board for the health care thing. In the meantime, I'd just rather have my tax dollars back to privately school my children (which I can't afford to do right now because I'm paying for a broken system) and to pay the health care provider of my choice (which I currently do but won't be able to after health care is socialized because I'll be paying for yet another broken system).

July 1, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, I don't know that the insurance companies are paying for all sorts of ads to keep us "blinded", I've listened to callers on shows from other countries that call to warn us AGAINST adopting what they have - but SOMETHING needs to be done, and I'm willing to listen to all ideas (unlike ABC news & those currently in power). And I believe that's absolutely true, if fear of a national health plan is already driving down costs then that tells us we've just been getting ripped off - for a long time now.
Now if we would just let the scientists against global warming have their say, instead of our current all-out media push to keep us "blinded"..... pretty sad the excuse the EPA gave to the dissenting scientist as to why his research was suppressed...... but that's another topic.....

July 1, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31681795/...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30352252/

Americans fat and salty until the government tells us we can't be. I guess it's OK for a large organization to tell us how to live as long as it isn't those Christians.

July 1, 2009 at 11:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I am afraid the age of " BIG BROTHER " seems to have arrived, even much sooner than even I anticipated !

July 1, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Well for one thing open_eyes those ads being run by the guy that brought us the swift boat veterans for distortion ads are being paid for by the insurance cartel.

oh4theluvof......and you don't think the insurance companies don't dictate what health care you receive by telling you what they cover and what they don't. At least with the government doing it everybody would have some level of coverage.....

Everybody views things differently I guess.....but I'm convinced most people would be better off trusting their well being to the government than to a private, for-profit, insurance company, unless of course you are one of the few who can afford to pay the insurance man for his caring kindness.

And I am happy to pay even more taxes for improved education sytem that is open to all American students.....but I don't want one penny of my tax dollar going to fund private schools that are not avaiable to all......or teach specific agendas. And I'm sure I will hear about that last sentence in regard to creation-science. lol

July 2, 2009 at 4:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks......

.........you must have accidentally put one too many "S's" in your earlier post. I'm sure you mean't to write Senator-elect Al Franken. He received the most votes...unlike that time when George W. Bush receicved fewer votes and was "selected" by the USSC. LOL

July 2, 2009 at 5:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof and open_eyes and others......

Its not that I don't understand some of your concerns. I too worry about creeping government interference in our personal lives......few campaigned any harder aginst the smoking ban than I.....even though I don't smoke. I also recognize that government run enterprises are rarely singled out for being effecient and streamlined.

But when you look at the number of people who have no insurance in this country......the number of bankruptcies filed because of catastrophic health care cost......and the amount of taxpayer money already spent eventually paying for treatment that would have been more effective and cheaper if done at an earlier stage......you can't hardly deny that what we have is broken.

And just because its not broken for you personally doesn't make everything alright. I heard recently a figure that placed per capita health care cost in this country at almost nine-thousand dollars per year. I personally know a man that pays eight hundred dollars per month in health care insurance premiums. If you don't have that kind of money....you don't have that kind of money.....and telling that person well you just have to cut back on other things is either ignorant of cruel or both.

Something needs to be done and it appears to me a private option plan.....with a government alternative for those less well financially blessed.....has the most promising possibilities. JMO

The other alternative might be to just keep on keeping on and let the bodies of the poor people just start stacking up in the streets like in some third world backwater. But then they would start stinking and we would have to spend some of our precious tax money to do something with them and we all know how we hate to pay taxes.

July 2, 2009 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

In order to insure everyone, one of two things is going to have to happen, either people are going to have to really step up and take better care of themselves like Seriously R. Folks or the government is going to have to use their power of persuasion(bans, more laws, more "sin" taxes (that's a nice way for socialists to make it look like those taxes are put their by those Christians when in fact only the government can tax you.)) to make people more healthy thus keeping the cost down. If you want to be consistent and you want more government involvement in health care you need to be for the bans because that has to be a part of it. We are not really known for taking care of ourselves hence the need for government to take over and do it for us.

And that's how that works.

Seriously R. Folks

July 2, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Then am I to assume seriously that you are more in favor of letting the corpses of the poor people that didn't take care of themselves stack up like cordwood in the streets? Just kidding.

But realistically, not everybody is going to adopt your health maintenence plan any more that they are going to adopt your just stop doing it plan for drugs. And even if they did...health mintenence plans are only part of the solution.....genes also carry a major role so some people will have many health problems no matter ho healthy they try to live. So some of both categories would be the ones stacking up in the streets.

July 2, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

If you are for socialized health care you need to be for bans as well, that's all I'm saying. They go together like rama lama lama ke ding a de dinga a dong. They have to.

As for as people taking care of themselves, I know it's not going to happen. It sure reinforces one of my beliefs though, people are fallen.

And that's how that works.

Seriously R. Folks

July 2, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Come on Gwen!

How about a new page, just got back from the doctor, (no Insurance) and I have developed tendinitous of the index finger from holding the scroll button down.

July 2, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.nextag.com/hand-grip-exerc...

July 2, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Sorry Steve. I forgot to add the little winking guy thingy after that link.
;)
There it is.

July 2, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I've repeatedly said we need to do SOMETHING, and I'm willing to listen to all options (NOT JUST Obama's). I fail to see how that is "denying it is not broken".

And who is behind suppressing all research that contradicts man-made global warming? Did you read the EPA memo's to the scientist? Hint: It's not the Swift Boat folks.... (sorry to get off-track, just pointing out how we can't really trust ANYONE anymore....)

Besides, I was referring to callers on talk shows from other countries, not paid ads. People that have moved to the US and claim despite our problems it is much better than what the "anti-Swift-Boat" ad people would lead us to believe.... remember..... propaganda is a 2-way street....

Of the 46 million "uninsured" people in the US, something like 12 million are here illegally. GOSH, surely there are alot of people in Pakistan and Nepal that are uninsured that we should take more of my tax dollars to take care of, right? And what about Peru? There are SO many more people I as an American taxpayer should be working hard to support........but then again, as one more on the conservative side of the fence, according to the studies, I ALREADY give much more statistically and percentage-wise of my income to charities than liberals, who would prefer the government do it (translation: OTHER people's money)....

July 2, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks;

I bought one of those, only used it once.

My big nose got in the way and I broke it!
But, thanks anyway:)

July 2, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I can only assume all of those people who just happened to be calling into some talk show (wouldn't be old Rush baby's would it) from a foreign country must then have enough money to pay for all the wonderful health care they received here because without deep pockets they wouldn't have so much to brag about.

As to your 46 million uninsured figure.....most of the figures I have heard are quite a bit higher that that.....around 60 million. But for the sake of the argument I will accept that figure for now. So if 12 million...about 25 percent....are illegal aliens....that leaves 34 million.....roughly 75 percent that are good ole citizens of the USofA. Now 34 million is not exactly chump change even if it is an accurate figure. So are we suppossed to just hang that 75 percent out to dry because we have a beef with the other 25 percent. That hardly seems fair to me.

Especially since we are talking about health care for Americans here. Even bringing health care for illegal aliens into the conversation is like comparing apples to oranges......and looks like little more than a diversionary tactic to me.

I'm not even going to touch the global warming thing. But after re-reading my post I don't see where I ever accussed you personally of saying it wasn't broken......What I was trying to say was that just because you might be happy with the system you have now....that doesn't make it a good system for everybody.

July 2, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I don't personally do this but I know families that do. Since health insurance isn't required, they don't enroll in it, but they find out what the premium amount would be and they stick it in a special savings account to be used for medical emergencies. When they have more than enough accumulated, they skim off the top for vacations or large ticket items, leaving plenty for unplanned circumstances. This takes a great amount of self control and some planning, but they don't get "taken" by the big, bad insurance companies that way.
Me, I just pay for it, knowing I may not need it, but the security comes at a price. I have been uninsured before because it wasn't available through an employer, but I did have a savings account to cushion me until I could get the insurance.

July 2, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Like everyone else I am pondering the life and music of Michael Jackson and "We are the world" came to mind. Since we are a global community and it's good to insure all "Americans" wouldn't it be GREAT to insure the world! Let's not think about it, it sounds really nice so lets just do it. We don't want to leave anyone out. What could go wrong?

We are the world
We are the children
Let their laughter
remind us how we used to be
I am the eggman
Koo koo ka choo
Islands in the stream
That is what we are the world

July 2, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

seriously:
I can't decide if it has to be really hard to be you, or if it's really just "simple." Thank you for contacting me the other night and helping to answer my question---I really thought you would respond on here, but that probably worked out better. It is a compliment that you would reveal your identity to me.
At any rate, though, I still think it just must be very difficult to live in your head from what we see here.

July 2, 2009 at 8:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

In my head you will find a place wher Sasquatch, cougars and armdaili can sit at the same table in peace and enjoy some armydeeli jerky and some spicy ardamilli chilli in peaceful harmony.(ardamlias are canibals so it's not as wierd as it sounds) Poptarts cure what ails ya and they are distrubuted for free by the Jolly Green Rancher. Spelling and grammer are thing past the of. Sweat sock jingle dee half pipe lollipop stainless steel slipper-go-round. If bran muffin were tootsiepops you git my drift.

!Warning! If you have a history of mental illness in your family please don't read this post!

Whoops! I should have put that at the beginning. Oh well, too latte'.

July 2, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof.....Your alternative suggestions and comments are fine as far as they go......but they all assume one thing.....a reasonably comfortable level of income.

The problems with health care in this country really doesn't usually apply to most of those people until the costs get so catastrophic that only the super-rich could cope. The problem appears at the other end of the social ladder......the family making 20 to 30 thousand dollars a year. It takes all the money these people have to eat and keep a roof over the head. And please don't suggest to me.....as one person recently did.....that these people could have made more money if they had't been to lazy to get more education. Most of the really poor are also presently covered to some extent by Medicaid.

So...as is often the case....its not the real poor, or the comfortably well-off that....that get the shaft......its the working poor. It's the ones that make the minimum wage.....(the one nobody ever wants to raise)....it's the people that wait our tables and mow our lawns......and wash our cars......these are the ones that need some help.

And telling them to just work harder and live more frugally is a dishonest answer. Lets tell them the truth. Either tell them they are important enough to us that we are willing to help them.....or tell them that frankly we don't give a damn and let them eat cake. Whichever the truth is....you decide.

As far as insuring all the people in the world....get real . I'm not even happy about insuring illegal aliens in this country. But that is a separate problem that has nothing to do with fixing health care cost for our citizens. And always trying to mix the two is nothing but a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real issue.

July 3, 2009 at 4:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof

My last paragraph above was not aimed at you.

July 3, 2009 at 4:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Trying to insure this country is only a little less far fetched than insuring the world. If it's all about caring about people why wouldn't we try? We don't want to tell the "few" in this country to "let them eat cake" but we want to tell that to the many(the world)? That's just coooooold blooded.
Let's not kid ourselves either when we say "we", I am not that far above the $30,000 a yr. you mentioned above so I am not going to be included in the "we" that is going to be paying for it.(until it spirals out of control and we all are forced to be "charitable" which isn't really charity even if you want it to be). I haven't been above $30,000 very long and spent a decade or so working my uneducated self up to this point so I know it can be done. If you tell people that is impossible and give them a hand out and say "That's just the cards you were dealt." they will stop trying(most anyway). Welfare was spiraling out of control until Clinton and the Republican Congress did some serious reform. This is going to spiral out of control again but now with the one party system we now have it ain't goin' to stop.
We can discuss this all we want but it is going to happen. This country is or soon will be socialist. This is good news for people who think charity is having the government taking from that guy and giving to that gal. Me I'd rather give sacrificially and have it mean something than to have the government force people that don't want to to be charitable to give. It's funny that liberals hate to have morals forced on them but are willing to force theirs on others. Tee hee hee.
Don't get me wrong the goal of insuring everyone is noble but the way we are going to get there is not in my opinion. Trickle down economics is the "right" way in my opinion(land of opportunity and all that). That failed because of greed and what trickled down wasn't jobs and opportunities but something else that ain't worth much so we find ourselves here. I still believe in the principles of trickle down economics but unfortunately it, like all things, is tainted by fallen people.

July 3, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Actually the various shows were late evening, none of them Rush. Multiple talk shows.
As far as "swift-boat" tactics go....... been catching the news lately? Even Helen Thomas is getting fed up with Obama's staged town-hall meetings for health care. Is that any different? Could it be that we're also being fed alot of propaganda in the other direction also? Pretty bad when even the liberal press is starting to see thru it.

I did a quick search again. Never saw the number 60 million anywhere. Propaganda again? By who? Could it be that each side stretches the numbers to be favorable to them? Also in those same studies, approx the same number as illegals are people who simply don't want health insurance. Young, healthy people, simply don't want it. They simply made the choice to put their money elsewhere (free country, ya know). And many of those could afford it, just chose not to. Now, I disagree with them, (I was young and indesctructable once :) - but that shouldn't be included and thrown in a group of people who "want health care but can't afford it". So the bloated numbers keep getting smaller all the time.

And I don't feel that insuring illegals is a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real issue. I feel that statement is just the opposite, a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real issue. If we're going to fix health care, then let's FIX it. Let's say I coach a baseball team. And I am responsible for getting them all baseball shoes to play in. If I can't afford to get everyone shoes because I took 1/4 of the money and bought shoes for the tap-dancing squad I think that IS part of the problem, and not a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from why I can't afford to buy shoes for everyone on the baseball team. I AM being real. Part of the problem with passing health care reform is the enormous cost. Well, let's start breaking it down and seeing why it costs so much......... (I forgot, we didn't elect a pres who would go over ANYTHING "line-by-line" to look at expenses.....).

And I apologize for extrapolating that you thought I denied things were broke. Re-reading I see my mistake, my bad. Got carried away.

Freedom is a two-edged sword at times. Freedom to succeed also implies freedom to fail. Does that mean we look the other way for those at the bottom? Of course not. But we can't hold everyone's hand either. Now they are saying on the news there is new wording added that may add a fine for people who don't take health care. ???????????? The Repub sen was stating they've pretty much been completely shut out of the Kennedy committee's working on the plan. No input whatsoever. (No need to work together now and listen to different points of view, they've got their 60). Remind me again - which one is the "party of no"?

Maybe we should change "Independence Day" to "Dependence Day" (now THERE'S a Rush quote....)

July 3, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"The problem appears at the other end of the social ladder......the family making 20 to 30 thousand dollars a year."

Yes, biscuit, I am VERY aware of this, having lived my entire life in this income bracket, except when I was below it as a single college student working part time jobs with no insurance. As a child, I was in a family of 6 in this income bracket and now as an adult, a family of 4 in this income bracket. One of those part time jobs was at West Dillons where I watched customer after customer abuse the social assistance programs (My grocery budget has NEVER equaled the amount they receive in the food assistance program). I have qualified for that same assistance most of my adult life, but have treated it as a last resort, resulting in never having to use it.

"And telling them to just work harder and live more frugally is a dishonest answer."

This statement kind of makes me mad. How is teaching people to live frugally (read: honestly on what you earn) being dishonest? Isn't it the lies of the greedy who taught us how to spend, spend, spend, our way into debt they would profit from, the dishonest element here? Remember back when people did only live on what they made (mortgages aside) and were able to pay for what they needed by not going out and blowing their money on frills? You claim an age that indicates you are from that generation.

July 3, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open-eyes

Yes.....propoganda and bloated numbers do work both ways and I have no doubt that BOTH sides have done their fair share of bloating. But the key here is both sides do.....as is so often the case in our debates...you want me to accept your numbers as fact.....and I want you to accept mine. But the real truth is both are bloated.

None of that however changes the fact that there are a large number of people who would love to have affordable health care and can't afford it. In fact...how many of those people that you cite as simply saying they chose not to have coverage.....made that choice at least partly because of the high cost.

As to the ones that decide (free country ya know) to play russian roulette and opt out....what's the first thing they do when they lose? They declare bankruptcy and dump the whole thing right back in our laps anyway. If they are forced to play either through mandatory insurance or "socialized medicine" as some like to call it.....then they at least have to help share the cost rather than playing fast and loose with our money. So now the numbers are getting bigger again.

If anyone thinks that we are not already paying for the people that arn't insured (for whatever reason).....I've got some ocean front property in Chase County for sale cheap. And I'm not sure that even the government couldn't do it cheaper and more effeciently than the way those bankruptcies and write-offs pass the cost on to us now.

I think there should be a fine for people that refuse to protect themselves just because they would rather live dangerously. A fine commensurate with what the slackard would be able to pay.

As far as the politics are concerned......the dems are not being one bit more close-minded now than the reps were being back when Delay kept the party faithfull in lock step during "W" one. The only difference is now its your guys that are out and I see no need to feel any more sorry for you now than you did for me then. Its nothing personal though....just business. lol

July 3, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof

I do remember that time and we as a people were better off then. JMO But we all bought into a live better through credit and debt pipe dream after the second world war that for a time brought us the highest standard of living in the world.....at least until the bubble burst as it appears to be doing now.

But the point I was trying to make with the statement that made you mad was that with the average cost of everything now...and the debt load many are already carrying....just expecting many of them to just buck-up work their way out of it is ay best a little late.....if not unrealistic. Unless of course you are willing to go back to the days of the great depression.
I'm old enough to remember a lot of people who lived those days and they don't want to go back.

July 3, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks.......

trickle down and volunteerism have been our modus operandi for most of the past three decades and here we are. If they haven't worked any better than they have by now. what makes you think they are going to work so well in the future?

Incidentally...I'm starting to feel like old crackey must feel on the smoking issue.....Why's every body always picking on me......? LOLLOL

July 3, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"If they haven't worked any better than they have by now. what makes you think they are going to work so well in the future?"

I never said it would work well in the future.

July 3, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

As I see it, when there are public hand out programs there are always going to be those with their hand out, but don't always need nor deserve a " hand out " and there are going to be those who are going to use, abuse and take advantage of a supposedly free " hand out " system. The problem is, nothing is " FREE ". Someone is always going to have to pay the bill and that someone is usually almost everyone. In the form of higher prices, higher taxes, etc.
The one thing we all should remember is the fact that nothing is " FREE " . Another example, the recent trillions of dollars given out in the form of bail out moneys and stimulus monies.
Someone is going to have to pay for this stimulus and bailout plan and I think we all know who is going to pay ! You, me, everyone and the future generations of working Americans for some years into the future.
Basically, this country has dug itself into a hole and that hole is just getting bigger and deeper and the hole America has managed to put itself into is in danger of collapsing and burying this Country and everyone in it .

July 3, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I got cut off earlier because the clock demanded that I tend to life issues, but there are a few observations I wanted to continue. EVERY person I know that is receiving public assistance owns a cell phone. Most of them also have cable tv and internet. I, on the other hand, have opted out of two of those in order to use our income for actual needs. I could even have one of them (not both) but that would eat up the monthly surplus that we have finally managed. It is small, but it is an accomplishment, as at one time, we would spend the entire amount, then use credit cards to supply the extra money that we wanted to spend. We have reduced that (higher than the national average) debt load by half over the past four years, all the while under 30,000 yearly income), and are continuing to whittle it down. Until we started prioritizing and refusing to spend money we didn't have in that moment, we made no progress. I do expect others to learn the same lesson and go through some trials in order to strengthen our economy and health care because I have done it and it works. We are actually more effective consumers now in that the money we spend is real and does not reduce our future spending by paying for it perpetually.
Another point, is that while I am making the most of our food budget, purchasing filling and nutritional foods to feed my family, most of the people on food assistance are filling their carts with sugar laden cereals and snacks and prime cuts of red meat (the likes of which I have only possessed when a nice couple supplied us with their version of a month's worth of meat during a time that we were really struggling and I was planning on going down to apply for assistance), using food cards to pay for those while spending their cash on beer, cigarettes, soda pop and lotto tickets. Ironically enough, as a result of our healthy diet, we will be the ones who don't need all this health care but have money set aside just in case, and they will be the ones that created or magnified genetic predispositions to major health problems while having spent every dime they had access to.
It all seems pathetic to me when the solution is simple and proven but the experiment will be expensive and a failure.

July 3, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof....I admire your grit and tenacity.....I really do!

Perhaps you could increase your modest income by writing a book or holding seminars on how to support a family of four on less than 30-thousand dollars a year and still maintain a surplus. It appears you have some skills and abilities not commonly found today.

Obviously.....many people you have known on assistance lack those skills.....either because they were never taught them.....or because they didn't want to learn them......probably some of each. And only a fool would disagree with methusla's statement that if you provide hand outs some will take advantage of them. I agree with all of this.

But I also believe that it is dead-wrong to claim that all people in need of help with health care cost fall into this category. Apparently most of the people you have known on assistance have been undeseving deadbeats.....and I too have known some of them. But I have also known a lot of really hard working people....people with the same pride and grit as you....who have not been as capeable or as lucky as you have been to do as well as you have.

And to claim that all of them are there only due to their lazyness.....or ignorance.....or both......is equally blind or ignorant on our part. So to use the deadbeats as an excuse to ignore the plight of the others is comparing apples to oranges. So we can then can ignore the real problems of deserving people and still hold our heads up high and claim we have done the right thing.

Are we as a nation incapeable of devising a system that allows for the need with out rolling over for the non-deserving. I would like to give us more credit than that.

July 3, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

One more thought. although it is wonderful that you have managed to set aside some money for a rainy day.......on your income I doubt that it would be enough to even come close to covering the cost associated with a catastrophic illness. And since you implied earlier that your health insurance comes through your employment.....as it does with most Americans......what happens when you lose your job and end up paying about thirty percent of your income to cobra just to keep that policy. Things like this happen everyday. And if you lost your job because of the illness and can't find another...what then.

July 3, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I have no doubt that we could be easily overwhelmed by one major illness, but I also know we have a wonderful support system in family and church that would help all they could by both giving as well as finding other charitable resources. You have only to look at the support around Mariah Serrano to see how this works.
I included the tidbit about being ready to go apply for assistance because I have been at the point of exhausting all other options. If we teach our citizens self-control first and hand-outs last in a long line of solutions, we could easily manage those who need assistance with what is already in place. I do not advocate being so proud as to refuse to consider it, but I do advocate making the criteria firmer and require financial counseling to minimize the length of time. Since we are headed toward this socialized system, I hope that diets and exercise will be required and supervised in the cases that they would eliminate the need for any or all prescription drugs. I think we need to teach many very undisciplined citizens how to invest in their own situations instead of expecting others to pick up the tab. Who knows? If we did it right, we might even find that private charitable organizations are able to handle the load of actual necessity and that the government doesn't really need to do anything except saying mostly "no."

July 3, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I see what you are saying......and on paper it all sounds simple and effective.....I have serious reservations however about how well it would translate to the real world on a large scale. The Mariah Serrano response has so far been heartwarming......but what if it drags on for years and the cost climb into the millions of dollars. Will your church and charity based local solution have the will and the resources to stay the long haul.

I realize I am presenting a hopefully very rare extreme example of the danger...but I also believe you are presenting an overly optimistic example of the benefit. And most of day-to-day real life is lived somewhere in the middle. And after you get several...maybe scores.....of Mariah's in the same small town......how thin can those that are willing to help be spread. I see your solution as a wonderful thing in the places where it would be applied......I just see too many other [places where it couldn't...or wouldn't be applied.

What about the newcomer to town.....the one that maybe looked different from us.....or acted different....or believed different.....or that we just didn't like. What happens to them...and do they have to make us like them before the type of help you are advocating kicks in? I just see so many problems....and so many people left out in the cold....leaving the government as the only place where we can assure all citizens of equal help.....while through taxes we all pitch in and help each other. The only difference then between paying taxes and giving to charity.....would be that the help would be ditributed more evenly through the taxes......and everybody would have to contribute.

What is so wrong about that?

July 4, 2009 at 5:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Then what happens to the Mariahs of our country once the local resources are dried up...or diverted to a new project? What happens to the newcomer if he can't, or won't, make us like him....(usually accomplished by changing to look, act, or believe, more like us)...?

What happens now is the bills continue to mount and eventually they file bankruptcy.....and go on the public dole.....then we end up paying for it anyway...either directly or indirectly. In the meantime people who lost out in the bankruptcy raise their cost to us to off-set the loss.....and the only people that really win then is the attorneys. Of course they are the ones that write most of our laws...so I guess that's to be expected.LOL

July 4, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

What happens when the entire nation goes bankrupt trying to pay for this, that and the other?(more government control like bans(to keep costs down) or worse) Sure we have tons and tons of money now but ................ wait .... no we don't. I know it is very popular to PREACH socialism right now, hugging cancer patients and telling heart wrenching stories of bodies piling up and if "we" don't do this and do it now "we" are bad, but the fact is WE CAN NOT AFFORD IT!

July 4, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I always hear people say what kind of a message are we sending to our children....or what kind of a message or we sending to people overseas.....when talking about this or that.
Well what kind of a message are we sending when we say we are the only industrialized nation on earth that can't afford to take care of the health of its own citizens.
We could afford a lot if we weren't so selfish as to paying any more than minimal taxes.
WE COULD AFFORD IT IF WE WANTED TO. We always seem to be able to afford another war.

July 4, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

If England, Canada, Australia, most of europe, and all of scandanavia, can afford it why can't we? Are we more broke than them?....or maybe we just don't want to be bothered.

July 4, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Thomas Jefferson never waivered from the principles of limited government, and those inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. In 1816, he wrote, nay, insisted that "the tasks of a liberal republic were few: government should restrain individuals from encroaching on the equal rights of others, complel them to contribute to the necessities of society, and require them to submit their disputes to an impartial judge." (From a speech to honor Jefferson by Jean Yarborough). In Jefferson's own words, "When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions."

By "compel them to contribute to the necessities of society," I believe Jefferson means that we must all help each other, and a national health plan is a necessity of society.

Like President Obama said just the other day, no one is going to be forced to change to a government health plan if you already have one you like. He also said that we are not going to be just like the Canadians as all those terror ads on TV are stating. He went on to explain that a national health plan would put everyone who uses it in a larger pool and that's why it would be more inexpensive than those offered by companies with more risk experience. (Sorry I know there's a word for this, but it escapes me right now).

I agree with biscuit. We can always seem to afford another war.

July 4, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"What message are we sending our children?" That's right out of the CAE handbook right there. LOL
There are so many messages "we" send my kids that I have to tell them are wrong so I don't rely on "we" to raise my kids, I do it myself.

CAE ( Communist Americans in Emporia )

just kidding of course ....................... well sorta

July 4, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

create...I know the term you are referring to but I can't come up with it either..

Thanks by the way....I was starting to feel awfully lonely out here by my self!

July 4, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

create, biscuitboy,
I don't know whether the word you are looking for is " Group " or not, but I do know that most employers that offer health insurance to their employees, the plan is know as a " Group Insurance Plan ", which means that several employers are members of a health insurance plan and being a group in a plan usually means that the premiums, etc. are less expensive as individual plans, hence the term " Group insurance plan ".
Or possible the word you are looking for could be either " Cartel " or " Combine " .
Just a guess from a not so inelligent ole man .

July 4, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Thanks for the input methusla, but the word we are looking for is one of those five dollar words meaning how insurance companies assess various risk to determine how much money they think they can make by writing certain policies.

It is certainly not in the long term interest of the insurance company to write policies that will cost them more than they will bring in. They are afterall in the business to make money....lots of money.

This is often overlooked when people talk about the cost of government health care compared to private health care. At least the government's top priority is not to make any board of directors are stockholders rich.

Maybe somebody in the insurance business can help us out with the word we are looking for.

July 4, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I don't know latin so I ran all the words through a latin to english dictionary.....they all hit but there were too many variables and I still couldn't translate.

The word I had in mind however was a single english word.

July 4, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I've got it.....the word I was trying to come up with was actuaries...or actuariels.......not that it makes a damned bit of difference to anything.

July 4, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
You are absolutely on the money. " Actuaries "
The reduction in risk brought by insurance relies on a mathematical concept called the law of large numbers. That law states that the ability to predict losses improves with larger groups. Using calculations based on statistics, experts known as actuaries can accurately predict the losses of a large population, even without knowing when or how any one individual will experience loss.

July 4, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Look up Board of Actuaries. This group is funded by insurance companies.
In my little business, I do withholding on each employee. Then I have to match it and send it to the Feds along with the Federal Withholding. FICA withholding is .0765 of salary. As most small taverns and pool halls are reducing employees and/or time worked, the FICA withholding goes down. FICA pays for all the Mediacare and Medicaid. Even a 20% drop per business will reflect in an alarming drop in revenue to these programs. What is trickling down will turn into a flood of debt. Once productive tax paying businesses will close. The ripple effect will cut across ALL businesses as former business owners will be shopping ALOT less. All this to make a couple of pharma funded busybodys happy. UNREAL! THANK YOU EMPORIA GAZETTE for supporting this!

July 4, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Then the law of large numbers is why the insurance companies are so oppossed to any changes in health care in this country that might decrease their large numbers.....thereby decreasing their profitability.

My grandmother used to tell me "unless you have learned something new everyday of your life...you have already died". Well I must be alive and kicking because I have learned several new things today.

So all these horror stories the insurance companies have been putting out about government health care have just been so much baloney......What they are really afraid of is losing their large numbers whereby they control risk for maximum profitability.

And I was just begining to think they really cared.....Shame--Shame!!

July 4, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Another thing I lerned today is that latin does not lend itself well to word-word translation......I would have never arrived at the real meaning the way I was trying to go about it.

Thanks for the help YY4U.

July 4, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
Yes, you are essentially right about the insurance companies losing the large numbers. You see, if health care is, as some people call it " socialized ", similar to medicare, which is a form of socialized health care, the health insurance companys will lose large numbers of people paying outragious amounts for insurance. Also the health care providers will only be allowed to charge what the government dictates is a fair amount to charge, which will really put a clamp on the greed and runaway healthcare insurance and healthcare costs.
You could say it will be a form of government cost regulation .
Which is, in my opinion is and has been needed for sometime now, because it would seem that most large greedy bussinesses either don't want to nor have the ability to regulate their own greed !
And most of the health insurance companies stock holders or owners are physicians or health care providers and most health care providers, ie. hospitals, clinics, etc., major stock holders are also physicians. Thereby in my opion, this makes healthcare providers, clinics and hospitals monopolys !
And I might add that I have absolutely no complaint about Medicare at all, it has treated me well over the years and have had no problem getting treatment, seeing my doctor, etc.

July 5, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Neither have I methusla. Not only have I had no problem receiving care....the care has been of good quality.....and the "evil socialzed Medicare bureaucracy" has been quite available and helpful during a recent dispute I had with Newman Regional Health over a billing issue.

My experience has been quite favorable.....and all the horror stories floating around out there look like so much bull to me.

July 5, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Another thing that looks like so much bull to me is all these democratic congressmen who are waffling around on this issue and doing their best to renege on the arguably number one reason they were elected. If that doesn't show the power of the industry lobby I don't know what does.

July 5, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Interesting article with some pros and cons:

"Europe's free, state-run health care has drawbacks"

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090...

July 5, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

justthinkin (anonymous) says...

Another term associated with health insurance is Adverse Selection... meaning, only those that need & use the coverage will enroll while the healthy will opt out, thereby driving premium costs higher in order to cover expense and maintain profits. I think that's why employers and insurance companies object... They are afraid that the healthy group will opt for the promised lower health premiums and choose to control their own, more routine, expenses - leaving the more expensive consumers to the group health plans, thus driving up those costs.

July 5, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justthinkin (anonymous) says...

Also, once again I agree with Methusla ... let's look at who owns, controls, and profits from not only the insurance companies, but the hospitals and clinics as well, doctors ! It seems they aren't content with their personal earning levels, they see another cash cow in ownership in the provider forums and the insurance companies. It would be a financial conflict of interest for them to want to try to control costs for the public.

July 5, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

justthinkin

Your adverse selection point is a good one and from the point of view of the insurance company is a valid reason to oppose government involvement.

But if the governments role is to protect all of its citizens.....not just a select few....it would have to opt to provide health care coverage for many who now have none, over protecting the profitability of a few choice shareholders. JMO

July 5, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

If this isn't socialism what is it? You all bag on the capitalists(private companies) and want the government to tell the what to do. "Also the health care providers will only be allowed to charge what the government dictates is a fair amount to charge"
I don't understand how you can say things like "as some people call it " socialized "" when that is exactly what you're taking about. I'm not trying to pick on methusla, I just took quotes from his post because it was the closest but I've heard others say similar things. I call this socialism because it is. You guys say it's not socialism but your definitions of what you think should and is going to happen is socialism. You can't just call something a different name and expect everyone to believe it's not what it is. Not this guy anyway. Nope, not today. You can call it rainbow unicorn cureall munchy pills but that doesn't make it not socialism. If that is what you want why are you so afraid to call it what it is?

July 5, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks

You sound as if you think this is the first time any of this has ever happened.....This country has been becoming increasingly "socialized" since the great depression and the dust bowl. And that march has continued pretty much unabated through both democratic and republican ascendencies.

Many of the "socialized programs" that have been instituded have become a part of
American life and rarely ever thought of for what they are.
These include not only things like Medicare and Social Security......to all kinds of credits and subsidies given to everything from the elderly to wealthy farmers.

I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that if you suddenly withdrew today all the programs in America that could fit the definition of socialism you would hit virtually every man, woman, and child in this country.

All the attention being givin to it now appears to me to be just more catch-phrase opposition. JMO

July 5, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

So if all these things are socialism why is it, when I call them what they are, people get offended and try to say they are something else? That is my point. I don't know why people that want more of it don't just call it what it is. If you want more of it, don't be ashamed of it. Wave your banner high. There's nothing we who don't like it can do anyway.

July 5, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks

I have a couple of questions.
Do you think that the greed of capitalism is responsible for the mess the country is now in ?
If so, do you believe that it is time to try something different ?
If so, what, in your opinion do you believe should be done ?
Do you believe there needs to be something done about the runaway costs in this country ?
If so who should be the one to iniciate that control ?
Surely you don't believe the capitalistic, greedy companys and businesses should, could or even want to be the ones to control the costs, or regulate themselves, do you ?
Having the companys, businesses, etc. regulate themselves would be like asking a bank robber to guard the bank vault and not take any of the money !
If you have the government set back and do nothing, the uncontrolled greed that has been the one absolute constant problem for the last 3 decades will only get worse and costs to the citizens of the country will only continue to spiral upward out of control !
Having the government bring the costs under control with regualtion is the only way I can see bringing everday costs to the average joe citizen to an acceptable and fair level. I just wish someone would have had the guts to say enough and clamped down on the greed of the companies, banks, businesses, etc. a litter sooner .
Don't get me wrong capitalism is a great thing until the greed takes over and then it can be the worst thing in the world !
What really gets my goat, is the fact that when costs are out running the peoples disposable income, the people complain. But when someone who just happens to be a government official either wants to do something about it or manages to do something about there are those people who don't like the government trying bring some semblance of sanity, control and fairness back to the system and bring the costs down to a manageable level for the people. The cry of " Socialism " resounds through the land !
What is socialism ?
Socialism, economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all.

July 5, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S
seriously folks, it may seem that I am picking on you. But I assure you I am not. I just want to understand the fear of having the government step in and try to get costs under control, stop the runaway greed, etc..
I believe that if " socialism " when instituted and managed in the way I posted above could be a better than we have now !

July 5, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Wow, I see some of us were unable to leave our computers to enjoy the holiday. I feel so badly for all you wheelchair-bound people, but am glad that Al Gore invented the internet for you. It must have been a lot more difficult in your prior decades of immobility. ;p (winking and sticking out tongue in teasing tone)

I am going to just pick out a few quotes and respond mostly with questions of my own.

"By "compel them to contribute to the necessities of society," I believe Jefferson means that we must all help each other, and a national health plan is a necessity of society." --create
If this was a necessity, wouldn't the founding fathers have put it in place?

"...no one is going to be forced to change to a government health plan if you already have one you like" --create as per President Obama
Yes, well, no one is forced to use the public school system either if they can afford another type of legal enrollment. Those of us who only have funds for one education and those are taken from us and put into the public system first, have had our financial hands tied. How many of us same citizens will be unable to pay any better for both public and private when it is insurance.

"At least the government's top priority is not to make any board of directors are stockholders rich." --biscuitboy
Really? Have you seen the current numbers on Congressional salaries---Congresspersons AND all of their staff and benefits??? Also, judging from the public education system, the government is not very efficient in translating dollars to results.

I don't have cable or even antenna tv now (thanks to a gov't decision) so I don't know what "terror ads from the insurance companies" you all are talking about. All I know is that the best predictor of future results are past results and as far as public systems already in place, this comes closest to the public education system. If I don't like what I see there, what would cause me to have any confidence in any similar programs.

Also, to clarify for biscuitboy, when I said, "...that would help all they could by both giving as well as finding other charitable resources," I didn't mean they would all be local resources. I meant that there would be a continuing chain, probably going private but non-local first and then maybe government help. That's what led me to believe that true cases of need could be handled by what already exists if the smaller cases and especially the sponge cases were "weeded out" by being taught that the gov't is the last line. Right now, because it is an easy target, it is the first line--quickly becoming the only line.

July 5, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Do you think that the greed of capitalism is responsible for the mess the country is now in ?"
Yes to a degree.
"If so, do you believe that it is time to try something different ?"
Yes.
"If so, what, in your opinion do you believe should be done ?"
Revival.
"Do you believe there needs to be something done about the runaway costs in this country ?"
I don't know.
"If so who should be the one to inicate that control ?"
I don't think is supposed to be the governments job in this country to set the prices of things but I could be wrong. It seems that we recently had a lesson on free market economics and that was the conclusion we came to.
"Surely you don't believe the capitalistic, greedy companys and businesses should, could or even want to be the ones to control the costs, or regulate themselves, do you ?"
Knowing that the government is made out of the same stuff(people) that these companies are I think as it takes power from these companies gives it to themselves the problems will be multiplied because the government has the capacity to wield that power in a lot more scary ways than a company does. Like bans and such.

July 5, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I know this is lengthy, but one more thing. In answer to ,"But if the governments role is to protect all of its citizens......it would have to opt to provide health care coverage............"

I say,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

We all know that if the founding fathers meant "government funded social assistance programs" by "general welfare," they would have founded those also.

July 5, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I don't really believe that the government wants to take power away from companys, so to speak. I believe the government and its leaders want to get the runaway greed of the companys boards of directors under control to a certain extent and put some of the money that has been flowing into the coffers of the greedy companys, ceo's, bords of directors and stockholders and yes even congressmen, etc. ! These greedy companys, ceo's, boards of directors and stockholders have shown that they have no semblance of caring about anyone but themselves.
And as long as their greed goes unregulated or controlled they will continue not to care about anyone but themselves.
Well what happens to these companys when the people they have been bleeding dry can no longer afford the high costs that these greedy S.O.B's are demanding for less than sterling services ? The consequences will be much worse than any government intervention and regulation. Even with government regulation these companys will still make money. The only change will be the ceo's, boards of directors and stockholders will be making millions of dollars, instead of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and will be forced to learn to live like everyone else, that is, live with less. And another benefit will be costs to all citizen consumer will or should be lower and everyone will receive the same services for a fair set cost.
I am not entirely thrilled about government intervention and regulation myself, but if government intervention and regulation works and puts this country and its citizens back on its/their feet, then I say, lets give it a try and see what happens .

July 5, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

A perfect example of the greed and uncontrolled costs being passed on to the public consumer, has taken place right here in Emporia just recently.
Cable One has dropped 4 or 5 channels from its basic package and yet raised the price by some $5.00, the cost of basic cable from Cable One is now around $55.00 . Its not worth it !
What happened to airline passanger prices when the govt. de-regulated the airfare pricing ?
Gov't regulation can be a beneficial thing, if done properly.

July 5, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Do I think that the greed of capitalism is responsible for the mess the country is now in?

Yes, to a degree, but I also think the the same thing of socialism, communism, etc..... EVERY system of government has its faults.

You should have just left the question at "greed". There will never be a perfect system of government on this earth, because we do not have perfect people to run them. As seriouslyfolks said, the gov is made out of the same stuff(people).....

I've said before that pure capitalism cannot succeed. You need limits, aspects of many different systems. And it will never be perfected. But I believe a system which places the power into the hands of the people is the best of what there is. We didn't turn into the greatest nation the world has ever seen on the strength of communism or socialism. Just ask the communistic Chinese how injecting elements of capitalism into their system has raised the standard of living & given better lives to their people.

So its all a trade-off. No system is perfect, every system needs modifications and limits, and every system is constantly going to undergo change and adjustments. I've said repeatedly I'm willing to listen to any and all ideas...... but why isn't our current administration of the same mindset?

As for the government's top priority is not to make any board of directors are stockholders rich..... oh lordy, that's the best one I've heard yet. I'm constantly amazed at how lit up our senate & house are at night - its because of all the glowing halo's above all the congressperson's heads - LOL. Global warming is a good example - do a little digging into the money behind pushing that agenda and squashing any and every voice of dissent. It may be right - but if it is, what does it hurt to listen to others? Wouldn't it be easy to disprove and thus make your point even more emphatically? Look at the money people in GE surrounding our gov on that one..... gov's top priority my a$$....... LOLOLOL.....

But yet gov intervention in capitalism is a necessity to a point. Given the nature of humanity. Just as rights and powers residing in the individual is a necessity given the corrupt nature of government. I'm just saying let this "fair and transparent" government start living up to what it claimed it would be, instead of even liberal reporters now complaining about staged town-hall meetings and major networks refusing paid ads from any opposing ideas.

As the final line in the link I posted above stated:

"Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The U.S. health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."

July 5, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

In case you have not realized it, most health insurance companys dictate to you, what illnesses, surgerys, etc., are covered and what they will pay for and not pay fornow anyway.
So whats the difference in a govt. sponsered health care program and what you have with a private insurance company now, except maybe the govt. sponsered program may not dictate what is paid for, only how much the health care provider can charge for services.

July 5, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I really don't think our gov't would make the mistakes or allow what has happened in Europe to happen here in this country, at least I hope not.

July 5, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I certainly hope not as well. It looks like at least in Europe health care suffers at one place to make it up in another. And no, I'm not just referring to the rich. They can always get what they need, that's not the problem. But the London person quoted above wasn't talking just about European-style, he was referring to government involvement. I'm nervous, too. That's why I want to listen to other ideas. Unlike what we currently attempting to do.

Oh, I forgot, that's right, there was an op-ed in the Gazette awhile ago about how the GOP was just the party of "No". My bad. I keep forgetting Helen Thomas is a liberal the way she railed on the press about their staged town-hall meeting on health care. Does that mean she's a racist now???? :-)

July 5, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I too am somewhat nervous about government control and regulation. But it seems as if noone has any positive ideas about how to stem the rising cost of healthcare, etc..
The problem has been created by our govt. and its legislators allowing this to happen for some 3 decades and allowing things things to get out of control and costs to skyrocket and have either not been willing to do anything about the runaway greed and skyrocketing costs of just about everything, for the sake of greedy profiteering on the part of themselves and the private sector.
And now that our govt. and its legislators are willing to do something about 3 decades of runaway costs, greedy profiteering and greed and coruption in their own midst, the ones that are screaming " foul " the loudest are the greedy, private profiteers and these same greedy profiteers have engaged in a campaign of " fear mongering " and " fear of big government control propaganda " to try and save their own uncontrolled, greedy profiteering !
Since noone in the private enterprise sector is or seems willing to bring skyrocketing costs under control, then the unpleasant task of doing so falls to the only entity that seem will to do so. Our govt. and its legislators .

July 6, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

paulkersey (anonymous) says...

˙˙˙ǝuo sıɥʇ uo ɥɔood ǝɥʇ pǝʍǝɹɔs ʎllɐǝɹ noʎ ǝʞıl sʞool ¡ǝldoǝd oƃ oʇ ʎɐʍ

¡pɐǝɥ sʇı uo pǝddılɟ uǝǝq sɐɥ plɹoʍ uıʞuıʇs ǝloɥʍ ǝɥʇ `uɐq ƃuıʞoɯs ɹnoʎ oʇ

sʞuɐɥʇ

July 6, 2009 at 2:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

That's my point too methusla.

I keep hearing how the current administration refuses to listen to other ideas.....what ideas. They probably feel they have allready heard everything the Republicans have to say......No, that won't work.....the only good ideas are our ideas.....the only good plan is to change nothing. If they have so many good ideas where are they and why haven't we already heard them.

oh4theluvof....

No. I don't know that provide for the general welfare doesn't mean helping its citizens with health care cost. Claiming that such a thing would have been stated specifically if it was intended that way is akin to saying provide for the common defense didn't include offensive bombers...or building roads didn't include interstate highways.
As to your comments on your inability to provide your children with a private education because you first have to pay for a public one. So what. Everybody does. And the role of the government is not to make it possible for a few to have what they want.....its to provide a minimum level of benefit to everyone If that minimum level is not up to your standards then it is your job to figure it out from there.

By the way....I was a little offended by your wheelchair remark. I realize you were kinda making a joke but I was raked over the coals a while back for a comment about handicapped people not "carrying their load"......well wheelchair bound people find it a little difficult to go out to the lake and romp and play also. And no...I am not in a wheelchair.

July 6, 2009 at 6 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks...

One reason people may be a little reluctant to describe anything as socialistic or socialist based is that the word has been so totally demonized by some. I've seen it used as a synonym to communism....or even facism (as ridiculous as that was)......and truth is its not.

In fact has I've tried to explain before much of what we have now is socialistic in nature. And though it can be used in many ways.....its broadest use refers to a concern for the common good of a group of people. And the word itself is based on the word society which is where we all live.

I for one am not nearly as afraid of the word as it is being used here to describe health care for all of our citizens as I am afraid of the way it would be misused by others.

July 6, 2009 at 6:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

one more point I forgot to address is all this hoopla about senators and congressmen being just as greedy as the corporate boards of our friends at the banks and insurance companies.

Greed knows no bounds...it can be found everywhere from the poor child taking two scoops of potatoes and leaving none for his brother.....right up through the marbeled halls of business and government...and yes..sometimes even to the church. But when business men are involved the benefits are going only to them and their shareholders.....and you can't throw jobs into this mix because the jobs result from normal business profits.....not the high end greed that has brought us so much heartache of late.

But the biggest differenc e between corporate greed and government greed is the government people work for me...and are hired and fired by me and others. You can't say the same about the corporate fat cats.

July 6, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/1...

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05...

and the response:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/...

I'm not surprised that you say "what ideas"? After all, ABC refused to air any, the town hall meetings are staged...... doesn't any of that raise your eyebrow just the least little bit? There are complaints about the GOP plan - well sure there are. I hear lots of complaints about the Dem one too - like how the heck are we going to pay for it? But complaints on one side seem to be ignored alot more than others...... anyone remember a little thing called the Iraq war? Anyone learn anything? Guess not......

July 6, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I wouldn't say it is that clear-cut and dried as to who hires and fires who. 51% of a board can vote one way, just as 51% of the country can. And we have a choice to what companies we do business with. But the American people themselves are too greedy to do so. We complain non-stop about everything being made in China but will anyone buy American if it costs them 2 cents more? Besides, I can name quite a few people in congress that should have been fired 20 years ago...... but they're still there..... and I'm sure we'll hire them again..... LOL
The biggest difference between corporate greed and government greed is that government greed is packaged and presented to us in a form or pill that we readily swallow , often without questioning it.......... we've been lead to believe nowadays that the old saying "just say no to drugs" is somehow a bad thing. How things change.

July 6, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

People, here are a couple of things to think about !
What do you think the price of an automobile would be today, if the fact that the greed of the Company's ceo, board of directors, stockholders and yes even the workers were not factored into the price of that new automobile ?
What do you think the price of a gallon of gasoline would be today, if the greed of the oil rich nations and the big oil company's ceo's, boards of directors, stockholders and the workers were not the biggest factor in determining the price of oil and its by products ?
What do you think the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a pound of meat, etc. would be if it were not for the greed of the ceo's, boards of directors, stockholders and workers of the companys, corporations and greedy, corrupt government legislators and leaders of governments ?
Whether you like to or want to admit it or not, corporate and governmental greed is the one and most influential thing, as to whether the costs of everday living essentials for the average world wide citizen consumer will rise, stabilize, level off or be reduced . The plain and simple truth is THE NEED OF GREED = HIGHER LIVING COSTS for the average joe citizen of the world .
And like it or not, there are times when government leaders and legislators will have to stop thinking about themselves, the greedy companys, corporations, etc., stop sitting on their hands, get off their greedy, selfish, selfcentered butts and start thinking and doing what is best and beneficial for all the citizens and peoples of their respective countries and the world . Even if it means a certain amount of government control and regulation .

July 6, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

As near as I can understand, people on both sides of the issue have ideas, some good and some bad, however the same old partisan politics comes into play as to the arguing that " my/partys healthcare cure is best" and yet neither knows how either solution will be funded or paid for . Tax credits, isn't that just another form of government bail out, only it sounds a bit nicer and where will the money for tax credits come from ! It doesn't matter which bill is pushed thru and enacted, the problem is still going to be funding and either way the national debt is going to climb higher .

July 6, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And where would the price of any of the above be if government bloat and inefficiency was the sole determiner of the market?

This was just an opinion piece, but an excerpt:

"Graham Glass writes,

When I used to live in the UK, many industries like gas, electricity, and transport were owned by the government. Since government services don't have to compete, there was little incentive for these industries to innovate, reduce costs, and otherwise behave like regular businesses. After years of stagnation, the government finally sold these industries to private enterprise and now they are run much more efficiently."

Look at China: Now that they've loosened government control on things, and injected parts of capitalism into their economy, it has taken off and raised the standard of living for many in a country with 4 times our population. Has it made some greedy people rich? Of course. But has it also improved the lot of the masses overall? Undoubtedly.

Some studies have come out recently showing that for every dollar the government spends, the GDP is increased by 1.6. But for every dollar given back to the private sector in the form of tax cuts, it increases $3.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/bus...

Besides, now that the government (current year) has to borrow 46 cents for every dollar spent (and pay interest on it), I fail to see how that benefits us all that much.

A certain amount of government control and regulation, yes. The 1 trillion $$ question is: How much?

July 6, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"..because you first have to pay for a public one. So what. Everybody does."
This is exactly my point. This is the prediction I'm making for the health care takeover. It was said that we wouldn't HAVE to participate, but knowing how the education thing works, I know we will end up having to participate. We will be required to have coverage and no longer have the money to continue our private coverage. This, and knowing that a very large percentage of the people wanting this COULD work hard enough to have it but choose not to, is why I'm opposed to the idea. At least in Communism, everyone has to participate in the work---socialism, not so much. I want no part of either.
And yes, I was teasing a group of people who I know to have capable legs of acting as if they were confined to their computers. I myself may make it back to check things here this evening, but I'll probably see yo all here tomorrow. Have a good day and remember that Vitamin D is inexpensive and prevents a lot of very bad health.

July 6, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Or this scenario could happen. We've already tried it. Hawaii tried gov run health care for children, and dropped it after 7 months.

"Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services."

July 6, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Think about this, the way people feel that this is a must for the government to do is the same way crack felt that the government needed to ban public smoking. When this rainbow unicorn cureall munchy pill turns into full blown socialized medicine, which it will, you can expect more bans to keep cost down and you better not complain about them then or Seriously R. Folks is gonna say "I told ya so." as we are in the line to get our government cheese and rainbow unicorn cureall munchy pills.

July 6, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks
I don't want the government to have complete control of everything, either. And I don't believe that is the motive or aim behind this healthcare for all idea or bill .
However, when private enterprises, such as health insurance companys ( who are primarely owned and backed by physicians ) and healthcare providers ( medical clinics, hospitals etc., whose primary stock holders are also physicians and backed by private health insurance companys ), both of whom are unwilling stop or control their own runaway, greedy, profiteering and help lower healthcare costs, so it seems ! Then someone with some authority and power is going to have to make these profit mongers think about and do what's best and beneficial for everyone, by way of government intervention and regulation, since the government is the only authority with enough power to the job. I don't like the idea of government involvement any better than anyone else, but I have seen no other viable, cost effective alternatives. As I have said, " Tax Incentives ", just a nice way of saying " Government bail out ", and how do you control, that the tax incentive received by everyone will be used on healthcare and not on something else !
Besides, any kind of monetary incentive will not reduce the cost of, nor improve the quality of healthcare. In fact I believe any monetary incentive will only make the problem of rising healthcare costs worse, not better. The health insurance and healthcare provider sharks, when they see this monetary incentive ( bail out ) money, will only grow larger and an uncontrolled feeding frenzy will be inevitable !
" No Sir Reee Bob " , there is going to have to be some sort of control and regulation forced upon these private enterprise sharks, before costs are going to be brought under control !
And here is the " Quandry " . The people of the country by themselves cannot control the private enterprise sharks. There are those people who have been propagandized into believing that the governments ultimate goal is to absolutely control everything and don't want any government involvement in solving the problem at all ! So what is to be done, boycott the private enterprises, such as the health insurance companys and the healthcare providers ? Boycotting would be futile . So are there any other options, I see none. No matter what is done someone will definately not be happy .
I agree that something needs to be done but what ?

July 6, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

People want the government to control what THEY want the government to control. This ain't gonna work. I personally gave up on having a government that did exactly as I see fit a while back, that is how I can be a goody two shoes my self and still support bar owners rights. That is a correct understanding of liberty. With liberty will there be a danger of greed? Yes. It comes with the territory. To paraphrase the Bible , "all thing are lawful for me but not all things are beneficial". These people of which you speak have definitely used that liberty for license to line there own pockets and then some but if you ask the government to legislate their morality don't get upset when they do it to you. Big pharma or whatever can spend money all they want but our one remaining political party is going to show them how's they daddy and it ain't goin' to be pretty. I'm just warning y'all. That's all I can do. As John Lydon of P.I.L. (formerly Johny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) said "This is what you want, this is what you get."

July 6, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks
I do see your point and agree, to some extent. However I also agree with the point YY4U just made, " What other business can have you sign a document accepting full responsibility for payment before you know what the cost will be or what it is that you will get with absolutely no guarantee of satisfaction or anything? " But as I have said noone, including you, me and others has any viable, suitable, cost effective solution that will satisfy or be agreeable to everyone. C'EST LA VIE ! So having said that, the only altenitave, is no alternative at all and just let things continue as they have for decades and have it end up as it has in the world before in history, only the wealthy will be able to afford to live or die and afford to have access to health care .
There are definately some hard, not so easy, unpopular decisions to be made and I do not envy those who are going to have to do the decision making, no matter what decision is made it will not be a popular one !
On the one side the Dems believe that a government controlled health care system is whats needed. Whew, very unpopular ! On the other side you have the Repubs who believe that the status quo of the past and no change is the solution. Whew, also very unpopular !
What to do ! What to do !

July 6, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

YY4U, your statement about how much the industry is spending to counter claims should tell us something....... is true......... and also sounds an awful lot like the global warming lobby as well. Seems like people pick and choose which ones they decide gives them reason to pause and consider alternative views......

I think everyone is in agreement - something needs to be done - and its gonna take some government action. What and how much?

Trying to understand better the root of the problem, I did a little searching on the causes of rising health care costs.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa211.html

"Patients overuse medical resources since those resources appear to be free or almost free." (Seems to me gov health care is going to add to that, not reign it in - see Hawaii above)

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/ful...

has an interesting perspective that (among others) some feel an unfettered free market in health care would drive costs down.....

Anyway, just some info for digestion. (Don't sue me for malpractice if it gives you indigestion - LOL)

YY4U - per your last question - unfortunately medicine isn't always an exact science, as in yes, you have this, and this will cure you 100%. Unfortunately. Hence the high cost of malpractice insurance? Anyway..... how would you change that? Can you guarantee medical results? Can anyone? (I'm not talking about cases of obvious malpractice or medical negligence - which it looks like, from what we've seen of other cases around the world, increase with government involvement) - but how can anyone guarantee anything medically?

July 6, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

methusla, could you please point me to some links or proposals by Republicans currently that believe status quo and no change is the solution?

Thx!

July 6, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05...
As I see it the tax incentives aka. ( tax cuts ) or ( govt. bail out monies) is the same old status quo that started with the last administrations, tax cuts and govt. bailout hand outs and there is no provision in their proposal, so far, for any sort of cap or regulation on health insurance costs or health care costs. And I am sorry, but I do not see how tax incentives is going to provide health care for everyone or lower costs. You are still going to have health insurance companies and health care providers involved and able to charge whatever they want and that is not going to lower the healthcare costs !

July 6, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well..... I read thru it (again, I already had) - and I saw alot more there than the simplistic view you give it.

"All insurance offered on the Exchange would have to provide coverage meeting the same standards as the insurance offered to federal employees and members of Congress under the Federal Employee Health Benefits System."

Now there's a thought. The same insurance our Congress gets. No wonder so many there are against it....... LOL

"Those without coverage who suffer costly and serious illnesses could always obtain coverage from the pool. They would be charged what they can reasonably pay based on their incomes, with remaining costs covered by state payments into the pool. " Don't see where that is status quo.... and many other changes.....

And the price tag is a whole lot cheaper. Do we throw everything else down the toilet to have medical utopia? (Which I am sure, will soon turn into anything but).....

July 6, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I read thru it two or three times and did not see where it says anything about the same healthcare plan the legislators have !
However that is what really makes this a great country, two people can see or read the same thing and see it differently and have a discussion about how they interperet what they see . I am sorry I really don't see the part about the Repubs. health care plan being the same as what the legislators have.
I will try reading it again, because these old eyes or mind is not quite as good as it used to be, I may have missed something .

July 6, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Hear.....Hear....!!!!

July 6, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Does it really matter what the republicans say anyway? Why even discuss it. Obama won, his team won and this is going to happen PERIOD. Some people get the government to do what they want others see this as a big can of worms. Just like the proban people got what they wanted with the smoking ban. They could see no wrong with it and continue to deny anything is wrong with it now. I'm just going to sit back and watch all this unfold and pinch my nose when it starts to stink. I will continue to diet and exercise and take care of myself because 1. I don't think the government is very good at stuff 2. I believe it is my responsibility to do so, not everybody else.

July 6, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill....

July 6, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"All insurance offered on the Exchange would have to provide coverage meeting the same standards as the insurance offered to federal employees and members of Congress under the Federal Employee Health Benefits System."

Well, it didn't say the same insurance, just insurance coverage meeting the same standards. I even made a joke about it afterwards. Forgive me for my joke implying that it was the same insurance.

Everyone is free to interpret to their own understanding what would be different and what would not. I read several paragraphs on tax incentives (referred to as being "key") - but alot of paragraphs outlining quite a few other things. One BIG thing I noticed was the price tag (or lack thereof). I'm not in the "deficit under Bush = bad, deficit under Obama = good" crowd. And since we've already spent ourselves silly (and are now already talking about an additional stimulus bill, since this one didn't work - now that Biden has says we inherited a worse economy than they thought, and I'm remembering all the talk that it was the worst situation since the Great Depression, which is in itself yet another lie, the economy of late Carter/early Reagan was worse)......... I'm just wondering where all the $$ is going to come from eventually.......... oh, never mind.... I think I already know.......

Anyway, I'm not saying this is the correct path to take, or one that would work better. I'm just saying maybe, as people often are forced to do when they find their bank account empty, we had better do a little more research and try to find ways to not spend as much $$ as we would like at the moment. Oops, forgot again. Supermajority and party of no. Sorry, I keep forgetting how politics works......

I'm with seriouslyfolks. Don't tell me later on the pile of manure is starting to smell. I told you that's what happens when you put it out in the sun......... but I'm still willing to cross my fingers and hope this time will be different....... :)

July 6, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

If if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if

July 6, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"If a waitress works where there's shs she may get lung cancer." "If shs is banned she may not die." "If they ban shs people may go to bars more." Do you guys realize how similar your arguements for this done deal sound like the pro ban peoples arguements for the ban? The thing with that was there was a chance for the opponents(myself included) to do something, with this we can do nothing thanks to our one party system. Congrats on your victory.

July 6, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

seriously:
Remember our Anti-ban motto, "Let the free market system decide?"

Could this possible apply even with big corporate things like insurance companies or even with who you seek medical care from? Maybe I'm just being too optimistic, but whatever you do, don't be financially responsible. No one else is and you will be the one screwed over as they are catered to if you do. Happy Birthday America...there is a new dream now.

Also, I kind of moved this one over to http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
minus these last four posts

July 6, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Nice move oh4theluvof......moving the discussion over to another board thereby leaving out all of the discussion that was not to your liking from over the weekend. I'll bet your a big fan of Karl Rove.

July 7, 2009 at 3:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

MY JOB IS DONE

August 26, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

TO MUCH TIME

August 30, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Gwen, stop and think, really think!

Who appointed you censor in chief?

September 2, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisements