The wrong road
Dennis Willroth, Emporia
Monday, February 9, 2009
HASN’T THE UNITED STATES always tried to impress or influence other countries that democracy is the right way to go? It seems that we have forgotten that for ourselves and we’re heading toward socialism.
In my opinion, the path we are heading down leads away from many of the things our forefathers fought and died for. Was it all in vain?
I am not a smoker, but the idea of giving up freedoms without any kind of a fight doesn’t sit well with me. I guess us Baby Boomers are just too old to care — or have we just gotten complacent and lazy?
If you are a non-smoker and the government told you that you have to smoke — would you take it lying down?
It isn’t proper to write the words that come to mind.
Stand up for your freedoms!
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
It just seems to me that while we are fighting about all these petty issues that there are a lot bigger fish we could be frying.
February 9, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Dennis- smokers, just because they smoke and bar owners or other businesses and business owners that allow smoking are definately not telling you that you have to smoke. You have always had the freedom of choice to smoke or not smoke, to frequent or go to a business that allows smoking or doesn't allow smoking and if you are a smoker you have or had to either stay out of a business that did not allow smoking or go outside of that business to smoke with the smoking restriction ordinance that is already in place, until next Month. The new ban smoking ordinance that the CAE and its proponants such as crackinsack is forcing upon certain individuals , group of individuals, certain businesses and business owners and this new ban definately takes away the freedom of business owners and businesses to allow smoking in their privately owned businesses and dictates to them how to run their businesses, in their best interests. This ban smoking ordinance also demeans smokers by forcing them to go outside and put themselves in peril from the weather and possibly dangerous situations that they otherwise may not be subjected to inside a smoking allowed businesses controlled environment ! You are absolutely right about fighting for our freedoms and rights.
You definately are not hypocritical. Just someone who recognizes what is right, fair, imparshial and what is wrong. So do not be like the CAE, its proponants or crackinsack and believe that bigotry, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc., is the right, fair and imparshial way to live your, our lives. " LONG LIVE FREEDOM and LIBERTY" ! DOWN WITH TYRANNY !
February 9, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"When a bar owner says he allows smoking, isn’t he telling you that you have to smoke?"
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! He's giving you FAIR WARNING so if you don't want to participate, you MAY LEAVE!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Willroth, you are correct! But as for the democracy issue, you may be interested in this:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
February 9, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Happiness09- The CAE and its followers are the ones who started this fight with their petty and bigoted ban smoking ordinance. I don't believe that fighting to preserve a citizens freedom, liberty and certain personal rights, is not really a petty thing to fight for. I agree it seems petty with what is happening in the country today, but it is not. If you stand or set by and let an individual or group of individuals start taking away certain personal freedoms and rights, it will eventually grow into the taking away or restricting more and more of our freedoms, liberty, and rights and we will be living under a tyranical or totalitarian rule. It is a much bigger fight to get rid of tyranny or totalitarianism and regain freedom, liberty and certain personal rights, than fight to preserve freedom, liberty and certain personal rights!
February 9, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the thoughtful letter;
crack and others have continually made the argument that Emporia needs this smoking ban to protect the health of workers and customers from 2nd hand smoke. Is 2nd hand smoke really dangerous or just an annoyance to people?Instead of buying into various studies (some of which are argued skewed), let's have our city commission order and pay for air quality testing in those businesses that still allow smoking. If PEL levels are above government standards then smoking will be banned in those businesses. This would follow the example of existing laws on the books in regard to health, fire and building codes. Then we will find out if we business owners are really harming the health of our employees and customers , or we are just an inconvienience to non-smokers. The city could pay for this study with the tax dollars from the clubs themselves if they dropped the allotment of tax dollars from clubs to the EDA.
Steve
February 9, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Maybe Stevie has the right idea, with a bit of a modification: How about the businesses that want to allow smoking be required to pay for independent, periodic testing to make sure PEL levels are safe. That way, the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for what is a business decision. Business owners should see it as part of the cost of doing business.
February 9, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Wouldn't matter Irish. He could pay for that test to be done on a daily basis and it still would satisfy CAE and it's followers.
February 9, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
crackinsack, You state that laws are made to protect people. Where does it stop. Maybe we should have a law to forbid you from crossing the street. Everyday people do get run over. Crossing the street kills! To heck with freedoms, let's just pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Let's not stop with just crossing the street. Let's ban driving. Everyday people get killed driving down the street. I'm sure you can think of more things to pass laws to forbid us to do. I'm with Dennis. I don't need the government to be my parent.
February 9, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "I'm standing up for my freedom to not to be harmed by the actions of others who are too selfish to take it outside."
You continue to make this statement and have yet to provide any proof that your statement is true.
Once again, I challenge you or anyone else to have a local physician register on this site with their real name and say they are treating ANYONE who is suffering health problems directly attributed to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
Put up or shut up, crackinsack.
Here's another quote for you, "" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Care guess who said that?
February 9, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
crackinsack: 60's, 70's whatever. I can't believe you are so naive as to say something about an "it has always been that way mentality". Have you come out of your shell lately and looked around? I am one of the baby boomers, and I see very little in this decade that is still the way it always was. Not to mention your obvious disrespect for the older generation. You should be ASHAMED if that word is in your vocabulary. I think you owe "Dennis" an apology.
February 9, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heloves (anonymous) says...
True democracy is really a myth as too many are too selfish. That is why we are a socialist republic. For people to truly "self-govern" in peace, the common good would have to be the aim of all. It hasn't happened yet. I've worked in medicine for over 20 years and yes I have dealt with those who have been victims of 2nd hand smoke as well as at leas one who claims his addiction to smoking was from 2nd hand smoking. May be a copout, but if one suffers it is too many. I'm not for "prohibition", but to paraphrase the Word, "laws are written for those who put their own selfish interest above the good of others" If the common good of all was the aim of all we wouldn't need laws. But this isn't Heaven..
February 9, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
heloves posted, "I've worked in medicine for over 20 years and yes I have dealt with those who have been victims of 2nd hand smoke as well as at leas one who claims his addiction to smoking was from 2nd hand smoking. "
Are you a physician? Are you willing to give your real name and state that it is your medical determination that your patient's health problems are directly attributed to exposure to 2nd hand smoke and not some other environmental factors?
February 9, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Hey, doesn't smoking exist in other places than North America and Western Europe? What's going on with Their cancer and heart disease rates? I'm sure Philip Morris has a good market in a few wealthy cities of "poorer" countries (Mexico City isn't too far away, and the there is all of South America) In fact, other countries around the world probably have a wider variety of smoke-able stuff, but I'm sure in every one, there is a portion that smokes only American cigs--and a lot of them, at that. What is going on with their health?
Despot crackinsack:
I will humor you this time, but don't expect it again. The difference is, that there are currently both kinds of businesses--smoking AND non-smoking. Supply and demand principles account for this. When you take away the supply for any demand, it is a loss in many areas: freedom, economy and culture. Entrepreneurs are left with fewer markets to find a niche in, and worse stigma is placed on a segment of the population, oppressing them as less valuable as you have so kindly illustrated for us by your own generalities about smokers. Pick up some text books, man!
And don't be deluded into thinking this will benefit the families of smokers who don't already take it outside. For that percentage of smokers, there will be more meals eaten-in so the smoker(s) can have their smokes at their own convenience, placing children in less ventilated, more saturated air with fewer chances to escape it. THINK of the CHILDREN!!
February 9, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The simple truth of the matter is, the head of the CAE and its influential members and followers only want all things to be absolutely their way, to their liking, their way of living , their way of believing and thinking, considerate only of their needs and wants and the most important thing on their agenda is to rule all and be all powerful to the point of using local government to acheive their goal and they absolutely care nothing about the personal rights, needs, wants, beliefs, way of living, etc. of others and doing so under the pretense of caring about the health of employees and customers.
February 9, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
heloves:
How much of that shs occurred in bars and restaurants?
Yes, the Word gives us the reason why human laws need to exist in addition to God's Law, but it also gives us guidelines on those. Not to paraphrase, I will quote:
Philippians 2: 3-4
"3.Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4.do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
If we believers are to be involved in law-making, as we are in this country, it is imperative that we examine each one carefully to distinguish the motives. Given that this has no real documented evidence, but originates in the minds of people who are seeking personal interests in selfishness and empty conceit, regarding themselves as more important than others, I don't believe we can back this ban with a clear conscience before God once all the observable data has been compiled and discerned.
This is not an issue of living in peace and harmony--this is an issue of some having a mindset that they should be able to go into any entertaining environment they want while not encountering any elements they don't want. If they were employing humility, they would readily concede that those environments don't belong to them, just because they are open to the public.
February 9, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Stupid question - If every place in Emporia is going to be non-smoking, why do the business owners have to purchase and hang signs stating so? Wouldn't the lack of ashtrays and employees telling people to take it outside be enough?
February 9, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
Should have known the mouth of the town is the first on here with the only oppinion that matters. If you dont like the smoke Cracky YOU may leave. Where do walters and all of your clan hang out at, in a barn in the middle of nowhere thinking all these bans up. Why dont you take a oxygen tester in all of these places that your on here complaining about and test the air. Show everybody in here your proof or are you just all mouth? All show and no go. If it test bad then you know where to stay out of if its so bad for your health.
ITS YOUR CHOICE TO GO INTO ANYPLACE OR NOT UNLESS YOUR BRAINLESS.
February 9, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Pingeon,
That's a great question, and one which will be asked to the city commission on Wednesday.
Matt
February 9, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I think if business owners are made to purchase signs for their businesses, the city should have to purchase signs saying its a non-smoking city. Or maybe CAE could pay for that. After all, they're the ones getting handouts!
February 9, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
One last thing. I've said this 100 times, but...
There are at LEAST 60 restaurants in Emporia that are smoke-free. There are 6, 7 at the MOST that aren't. Is this ban REALLY worth spending however many tens of thousands of dollars for 6 or 7 restaurants and maybe 12-13 bars? There are probably less than 30 businesses TOTAL in Emporia that allow smoking. Find one that doesn't. Is it REALLY that hard? Or do they all have to cater to you?
February 9, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Maybe we need to find out who is forcing people to go into these few place against their will. It seems that is a crime that is already on the books. Do tell, crack who is it exactly that is forcing you to go to these places. Anyone else who is forced to go into these places against your will please let us know as well. If you are afraid to tell us here please call the police.
February 9, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A reply to Irish;
Please re-read my earlier post about Emporia businesses being tested for air quality. My plan would already be paid for , by liquor taxes paid for by the smokers/drinkers in my club.
I think this would be a better use of my customers tax money, than giving EDA aka CAE those tax dollars to shut bars down.
Happines09:
This is NOT a smoker/non-smoker issue.
IT IS a rights issue, and that is pretty important.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 5:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
crack;
You are at worst, a frabricator of mis-statements, at best, an idiot!
I wish you would quit saying my bar is not safe for the public. Without some kind of proof, don't your statements border on slander/libel?
YOUR QUOTE:
"Keep it safe for your customers or close your doors to the public!"
Unless you can prove the toxic air quality in ANY business IN EMPORIA are above pels set by the government, you should watch your posts.
STEVE
February 10, 2009 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
MisterO,
did you notice heloves said ", I've worked in medicine for over 20 years," then went on to state personal observations and thoughts on 2nd hand smoke. That is ok of course, everyone has the right,(so far), to state their OPINIONS on here. I just hope they were not trying to put their opinions out there as medical facts.
February 10, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Another factoid from cracktoid;
To sum things up...if a kid is dumb enough to drink too many energy drinks all I can say is that the survival of the fittest goes for us humans too. It's best to weed that kind of stupidity out and thin the herd before they grow up and harm others by, say… smoking in public, for instance
say what?
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Crack,
You want to protect the kids, how about doing something about Fred Phelps picketing EHS (yes EHS!! not ESU) this coming Friday...
http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule....
February 10, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
When my body interprets the hot stove as “ouch”, I know I shouldn’t touch it.
Then why do you keep touching it. You know the stove is hot, don't touch it. Some of us don't mind the fact that the stove is hot. There are plenty of cold burners, touch one of those.
February 10, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh Oh Oh! Good you're back crack! Have you reported to the police the people who are forcing you to go into places you don't choose to go into?
February 10, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Crack,
3 of the 4 burners on the stove are turned off, why do you want to touch the hot one so bad? Ohh, that's right, someone's forcing you to, aren't they. I guess I can empathize with that, if you're being forced...
February 10, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
Crack: Nice to hear your throat is noticably clearer. I'm quite sure your brain is full of pure air also.
February 10, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
1. I find this REALLY hard to believe...
2. Who are you to tell them its not?
3. If CAE and EDA would do their jobs, this wouldn't be an issue.
4. Who are you to decide for these people? If you don't like it, don't go around it.
February 10, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Aman I mean cracky;
I think it is a good thing the older generation is set in their ways and worry about personal rights. If it wasn't for them you could be living in a dictatorship where you would not be able to speak your "mind"
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Gee, if it weren't for the older generations there would be no newer generations, and most of us older generation people have lived quite a while with being exposed to SHS and things more hazardous to your health than SHS and most older generation ordinances and laws were mostly fair, imparshial and do not or did not infringe on anyones personal freedoms, libertys and certain personal rights. Some changes and additions to the old ordinances and laws have had to be made to make them more fair and imparshial, but never completely changed to favor one segment of the citizens over another segment of citizens. I am proud to be of the old generation, that believes that preserving certain personal rights, liberties and freedoms is the most important thing to preserving this very nation.
If liberty, freedom and certain personal rights die, this nation cannot and will not long endure and will die also.
February 10, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sadinemporia (anonymous) says...
Crack: I have read so much on this stinking smoking ban and your "screen name" is always attached to everything regarding the ban. If you are so proud of it and such a supporter of the ban that you proclaim you are, why wouldn't you sign your name in support of it just as rbow and josiesbar signs their names in opposition of the ban? Just some food for thought?
February 10, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
studentmom (anonymous) says...
I can't help myself any longer and have to post...I have been reading through this blog regarding the right to smoke or not smoke and freedoms and persecution and on and on and on...
It amazes me that the leader of Emporians for Drug Awareness has chosen this issue as the platform for the entire city of Emporia...why? There is are so many "other" drugs out there that threaten our daily living in much more severe ways than dictating to business if they have the right to choose to be smoking or not. Where is the fight to regulate businesses selling drug paraphenelia and urine cleaning kits? How about developing more youth programs with the organizations money for illicit drug prevention instead of funding an anti-smoking campaign? There is very little stealing of merchandise, personal property damage, child abuse, sexual abuse, endangerment, neglect, suicide and of course murders related to smoking tobacco...wake up Emporia leaders! If you all would get as excited about fighting illicit drugs as you are about this smoking ban...our community could definately become a safer place.
Think about it.
February 10, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
studentmom- As you can see your plea has fallen on selfish, single minded deaf ears and beliefs.
What crackinsack and others fail to tell you is, there is already a smoking restriction ordinance in place that enforces a no smoking in public buildings and businesses that want no smoking in their businesses by post a " NO SMOKING ALLOWED" sign in plain sight, usually on the entrance door or window. And the irony of the smoking restriction ordinance already in place is, it is absolutely fair and imparshial to all citizens, smoker and non-smoker alike. All each person has to do is make up their own mind and make a choice.
However the head of the EDA and the CAE and their members and followers want absolutely everything only one way, their way.
They make the claim that smoking and SHS effects a greater number of people. However the deadlier drugs that you are talking about, effect a greater number of people than the EDA or the CAE and its followers seem to want to realize. The effects of these more dangerous and deadlier mind altering drugs can be seen and felt in increased bugleries, muggings, murders, lost work time, higher medical and health care costs, missed school and education oppertunities, lives destroyed, families destroyed, and jail, prison overcrowding and increased court, and law enforcement costs.
I do not believe that smoking and SHS has ever had the consiquences that the harder, more addictive, mind altering, more dangerous drugs have or will have on every man, woman and child in Emporia and the world.
I also believe that the head of the EDA, CAE and their members and followers may just realize that a smoking ban is or will not be the easiest thing to force upon the citizens of Emporia and it is so obvious that this ban is not entirely a health issue.
February 10, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
Crack: I personally have never been politically correct, but I do pride myself on my spontaneity. Thanks for noticing.
February 10, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, I'm not buying it. A person who works third shift, has smoking friends they hate but don't want to lose, afraid of losing their job, AND so recognizable that they would be immediately kicked out of the local bars? This person thinks very highly of his/herself and has a HUGE victim mentality to boot. Nope, I don't buy any of it.
I can't even imagine a job that would would be threatened by speaking out against smoking, other than a Philip Morris salesman--pretty sure no one around here does that--especially in the middle of the night.
Guess what? I have conducted my life as usual for the past two weeks and haven't come near a single smoking person. My lungs and throat feel great too!! I guess I'm really lucky that no one has victimized me that way.....................................or smart enough to not allow myself to be a victim even without a new law.
Disclaimer: I have never felt victimized by shs and there has been no convincingly scientific results to convince me that I have been.
February 10, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof;
By golly-- good golly, your description of our ole friend crakinsack is dead on.
I would have to agree with ole cracky on one thing though. If I knew for sure who she/He was (hah,Hah), I would probably ban them from my bar just like ole Teresa W. is.
Not because I disagree with them, just because I could.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Waah,waah,
You wouldn't want me hanging out at your house either crack, and I imagine you would ban me from there. (Your Private Property). I don't really want you at my bar because you are whiney, self-centered, and more than hard headed.
(My private property). Go ahead and live your life as usual, if that's what you consider living.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Ask some of my friends how easy it is to get ahold of me, and you will know how much of a "hermit" I am. No cell phone + rarely home. I don't really eat in all that often either. Also, I didn't say I hadn't been around smokers--I said I hadn't been around smoking people. There is a big difference.
I have had about a decade and a half of experience with two different (and yet, oh, so the same) "victims." People with that mentality are very good at running over other people--the favored tactic is trying to impose broad rules in an effort to stand up for themselves from individual persons. They prefer that method because they don't actually have to have what they see as a confrontation--they can just have someone with more authority take care of it for them. It is all or none with them and they do not understand true compromise. They define compromise as the other person giving in or in past tense as the way they feel when the other person didn't cow-tow to them. This is the mind-set that started this ban and now supports it. So what if you are a bartender who doesn't like smoke? Can the boss REALLY fire you for feeling that way--even if you say it to him? The answer may be, "tough," but you wouldn't be fired unless you were confronting customers with it.
And Steve has the legal right to refuse service to anyone he picks--he can be as arbitrary as he wants or he can have a reason. His prerogative.
February 10, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof;
You know there is no arguing with a rock, even a cracked one. I guess we will have to all just agree with everything the crack posts.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
crack, so you can't wait to sit at my bar and smile because I don't know who you are? What about all that smoke? I would hate to think of you getting ill just so you can smirk.
But you are entirely correct.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And leave my goat out of this.
February 10, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack once again posts unsubstantiated nonsense: "The ban will allow EVERYONE to go into these PUBLIC places without being harmed."
Once again, I say prove that someone is being harmed. You keep saying it - prove it.
Still no takers on the who said, "If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
February 10, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
rbow posted, "MisterO,did you notice heloves said ", I've worked in medicine for over 20 years," then went on to state personal observations and thoughts on 2nd hand smoke. That is ok of course, everyone has the right,(so far), to state their OPINIONS on here. I just hope they were not trying to put their opinions out there as medical facts."
Yep...I noticed, that's why I asked for clarification. "Worked in medicine" could mean anything - billing clerk, receptionist, etc. I can think of lots of ways to work in medicine, but that doesn't mean the employee is qualified to make a valid medical diagnosis.
February 10, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
MisterO the quote, " if repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth" , was make by "Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany.
February 10, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
misterO;
worked in medicine could also mean, candy striper or your local neigborhood drug dealer.
Crackinsack; SORRY , HARD FEELINGS are HERE! You can't expect to run my business down and screw with my livelyhood and expect to be friends. I don't know what world you live in but it's not the real one! If I knew who you were I would bar you from my private property, just because I can. As far as I am concerned you are everything that is wrong with America these days. Sorry for being so blunt, but, oh no I'm not.
And I know this gives you an excuse to hide behind your log-in name because you don't have the balls to stand behind your stupid statements.
Steve
February 10, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
but you are correct.
February 10, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
MisterO:
Another quote from Goebbles, "It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, it's task is to lead to success."
I expected to find that your quote was from Hitler, but I was just only slightly off. This man was just as frightening--interesting how he thought of himself as a "forward thinker" because he was highly intellectual and aligned himself with his own opposition just because they were the only ones who he felt were his intellectual equals.
Steve:
You are right about arguing--here, I've cautioned others and I'm getting too close to the same trap. You are also right that a "victim" is never in the wrong, and if you get offended at something they do, you have wronged them. They lose friends quickly, and it is always the other person's fault. I mis-calculated my experience with this earlier--it's TWO and a half decades. Fortunately, in real life, a person can get rid of or set boundaries on their "victims," but on here, it's a bit different.
Now, while I have a few more minutes, I want to go check out the issue Matt brought up earlier.
February 10, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- your following comment to Mr. Corbin (rbow) and I quote, You should hang a sign in your window that reads, "Smokers Only"... kind of like the signs people used to hang that read, "Whites Only". Discrimination is alive and well at Town Royal.
This comment is another example of your stupid, idiotic, non-sensical, illogicial thinking and beliefs.
Why in the "H_LL" do you think that a business owner, any business owners right to refuse service to anyone or allow anyone in his establishment is any more discriminatory that your idea of forcing anyone who smokes out of that same establishment for your selfish, tyrannical, despotic, dictatorial, discriminatory beliefs and way of living.
You crackinsack are the most hypocritical person in Emporia and the face of the earth.
Gee, kind of makes you angry when anyone threatens to deprive you of any of your personal rights or just threatens to deprive you of one of your personl rights doesn't it !
You, the CAE, its head, members and supporters have a lot of gall and impudence to even mention " discrimination " , as what you are trying to do amounts to the worst kind of discrimination.
AAAAHHHHH, to bad. The shoe hurts on the other foot, doesn't it, crackincrackpot.
February 11, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. Also crackinsack, you are not the only one in recent history who believed in " THE NEW WORLD ORDER".
February 11, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Thank goodness that's all settled. Now on to the news. Today the commissioners agreed to put the issue of the bans effective date on next weeks agenda and vote on it then. Your e-mails, letters to them would help. I am going to try to be civil in mine and remind them of the costs to the city in enforcing this ban which could last less then 45 days.
The possibility of someone getting a criminal record and the fines and court costs, just for a 45 day trail ban?
Bobbie Sauder from the CAE group spoke against the extension saying people needed those smoke free days to realize how nice it is. She also stated that she is looking forward to the live music at the Noose when it becomes non-smoking. Wow S.C., you may have to really re-name the bar "Country Club South". (Barflies inside joke) :)
Steve
February 11, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- You are right. Perhaps I should have used the word " BIGOTED", this word fits you much better that hypocritical ! Hmmmmmm, yes, I believe " BIGOTED" does fit and discribe you much better. Hypocrite or hypocritical gives you the benefit of doubt, however " BIGOT or BIGOTED" fits you like a glove.
big⋅ot /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht]
–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
big⋅ot⋅ed /ˈbɪgətɪd/
–adjective utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
big⋅ot⋅ed /ˈbɪgətɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tid]
–adjective utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Big"ot*ed\, a. Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others.
Syn: Prejudiced; intolerant; narrow-minded.
February 11, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Am I the only one who finds crackinsacks examples and attempts at justifying their bigoted beliefs very weird ?
A professional boxer compared to shs, a gun compared to shs, a speeding car compared to shs, someone relieving themselves on you to shs, pouring grease down someones throat to shs, etc., etc..
February 11, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
methusla:
I stated earlier, "a "victim" is never in the wrong, and if you get offended at something they do, you have wronged them" (as seen as the reaction to Steve being offended). I should add that they can never put themselves in another person's place or see from their side. At this point, as Steve reminded me, it's best just to let it go and move on to relevant things.
Pertaining to the smoking ban, let's put energy into the effective ban date.
Steve, congratulations on your loss!
February 11, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
I think I will join Crack’s boycott. It seems to me that Steve is forgetting who ultimately pays the bills/wages...the customers!
'enry
February 11, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Ok, two down how many left?
If all non-smokers boycott my bar there won't be a need for the ban, right? Let's see, what would that be called? The free market system, freedom of choice, freedom? The choice has always been there, exercise it while you can.
Anyone who knows me knows I am pretty laid back and a "live and let live" kind of person. They also know that if my business and the livelyhood it provides is attacked, I won't be so laid back.
I have a lot of non-smokers as customers who have told me the smoke in my bar is not bothering them, they expect it as part of the bar experience. I welcome them as well as smokers and have enjoyed the experiences of my thirty+ years in business. I WOULD NOT HOWEVER, wan't anyone to come into my business if they feel unsafe or that it is unhealthy to them. That would be greedy and selfish.
Steve
February 11, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
crack--
You can preach till you are blue in the face but they are (how did you say it earlier) "way to set in their ways" to understand. For whatever reason, they can not see the correlation from the hundreds of examples you or I or anyone else has posted.
February 11, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
Would it be greedy for you to allow some of your customers to allow others to be harmed or to make the enviornment unsafe?
February 11, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr;
Let's not re-hash the health issue. You feel shs is harmful, and it could be, in quantities never before seen in a business in Emporia.
One of the meds I take every day is Warfarin. You may know it by its everyday name, "RAT POISON" It thins the blood and prevents blood clots. Too much and you bleed to death. So you see the toxicity is really in the quantity of the poison.
As far as my customers, they can do just about anything they want in my bar as long as it is legal, and doesn't bother other customers. That said, I have always said that if shs really bothers you to a point of being uncomfortable it is your choice to use the exits. They are clearly lit even through the haze.
Steve
February 11, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
slvr,
To me, greedy is trying to ban the use of a legal product because you don't like it. That, to me, is the real definition of the word greed.
Matt
February 11, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moved the thread to a news forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
February 11, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "If a non-smoker spent enough time in a bar, I have no doubt in my mind that his/her lungs would look the same as the smoker’s."
Your doubts and opinions are not scientific or medical fact. Until you or any of the other ban proponents can get a local medical doctor to register on this site (with their real name) and say they are treating a patient for problems that without a doubt are directly attributed to 2nd hand smoke, I will continue call you posts lies and nonsense. There is a hospital right here in Emporia. A Cancer Center. LOTS of doctors. Get one of them - just one - to say without a doubt that 2nd hand smoke is responsible for one of their patients' health problems.
In another post, slvrnblck said, "For whatever reason, they can not see the correlation from the hundreds of examples you or I or anyone else has posted."
The 'hundreds of examples' you have posted are nothing but speculation on the possibility of increased risk based on flawed numbers generated by a computer.
The possibility of increased risk is proof of nothing. Provide death certificates showing cause of death "complications caused by 2nd hand smoke" and you will have demonstrated a correlation.
Or...you were given another suggestion earlier that would also provide convincing evidence: Get the EPA or OSHA to test the air quality in ANY of the bars, restaurants, or other establishment in Emporia that allows smoking. If either of those agencies determine that the air quality is below legally acceptable standards, you will have all the proof you need. That is a very reasonable request and one that should be very easy to do.
Come on...I DARE you. If you are so convinced the air quality is that bad, put your money where your mouth is and prove it. Put up or shut up.
February 11, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvrncrck posted
"You can preach till you are blue in the face but they are (how did you say it earlier) "way to set in their ways" to understand. For whatever reason, they can not see the correlation from the hundreds of examples you or I or anyone else has posted."
Wow, I feel the same about the two of you(crackinblk and slvrncrck) and the other health nuts that want to hang out at a bar. You refuse to listen to the other side and wonder why they don't listen to you. Hi pot I'd like to introduce you to black.
February 11, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )