PDA

View Full Version : Local Now Super-conservative Kansas legislature to effectively ban strip clubs


banyon
03-13-2011, 07:17 PM
They can't work on the budget, but they can find time to meddle in this garbage:

Sex club limits spur House battle
Posted: February 14, 2011 - 5:41pm



http://cjonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/photos/new021511topless1.JPG
Wichita attorney Charles O'Hara, who represents strip club owners, testifies Monday to a House committee consideration a bill banning drinking and full nudity at adult businesses in Kansas.


By Tim Carpenter
THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Jefferson County morals crusader Stephanie Kaniper pleaded in an emotion-choked voice Monday for intervention by the House to thwart expansion of sexually-oriented businesses in Kansas.

The Ozawkie leader of a grass-roots organization fighting a proposed strip club in Meriden — the site would be 900 feet from Jefferson West Middle School — sought passage of a bill to strengthen the hand of cities and counties under assault.

"Many lack legal expertise and have scarce funds to withstand lengthy lawsuits," said Kaniper, president of Jefferson County Citizens Group.

Her opposite, Sedgwick County strip-club attorney Charles O'Hara, took a free-enterprise approach while opposing restrictions on locations of new cabaret establishments and severe limitations on existing venues.

O'Hara said a single provision — prohibition on serving of alcohol in nightclubs — would destroy the economic viability of topless bars.

"If this passes," he said, "they can't function."

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee completed the first of two days of hearings on House Bill 2107. A second day of testimony is scheduled for today, and the committee is likely to vote on the bill later this week.

The House bill mirrors a controversial new Missouri law designed to wrap state control around sexually oriented businesses.

The proposed Kansas measure would prohibit cities or counties from granting permits for adult clubs within 1,000 feet of churches, schools, daycare centers, parks and libraries.

In existing adult entertainment businesses, the bill would prevent alcohol from being served. Full nudity would be banned in those establishments.

Semi-nude entertainers would be required to stay on an elevated stage a minimum of six feet from all customers. Dancers wouldn’t be allowed to touch clients, effectively banning lap dancing.

Clubs couldn't be open from midnight to 6 a.m.

Wichita Rep. Judy Loganbill, the ranking Democrat on the House committee, said there was irony in sponsorship of this type of bill by legislators who advocate removal of government's hand from private business affairs so entrepreneurs can create jobs and pull the state out of recession.

"It's always interesting those who argue the most for less government intrusion into one's personal and one's business life seem to produce the bills that are designed to impose regulation on people," she said.

Rep. Forrest Knox, a Fredonia Republican on the committee, said the bill regulating sexually oriented business could be viewed as intrusive.

However, he said, consequences of operating a sex industry in Kansas necessitated passage of the reform bill. The damage to people exposed to explicit entertainment should be unacceptable, he said.

"You've got to weigh this," Knox said. "We're talking sin. I will not walk away from that."

Phillip Cosby, executive director of the state office of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, said the industry was responsible for increases in crime, sexually transmitted disease, blight, property devaluation, prostitution, human trafficking and drug sales.

The pervasive influence of strip clubs destroys the state's quality of life, he said.

"Our sense of safety, wholesomeness and innocence is evaporating," Cosby said. "When you and I were in grade school we played freely with our friends on Saturdays in our neighborhoods and beyond. Those days of experiencing such freedom and safety are long since gone."

Tim Carpenter can be reached
at (785) 296-3005 or

http://cjonline.com/news/2011-02-14/sex-club-limits-spur-house-battle

johnny961
03-13-2011, 07:42 PM
The proposed Kansas measure would prohibit cities or counties from granting permits for adult clubs within 1,000 feet of churches, schools, daycare centers, parks and libraries.

I'm not so much against this part of the restriction. I can understand people not wanting these types of businesses within clear eyesight or close walking distance of their kids schools, churches, etc.


In existing adult entertainment businesses, the bill would prevent alcohol from being served. Full nudity would be banned in those establishments.

Semi-nude entertainers would be required to stay on an elevated stage a minimum of six feet from all customers. Dancers wouldn’t be allowed to touch clients, effectively banning lap dancing.

Clubs couldn't be open from midnight to 6 a.m.


It is this part of the law I have a problem with. I'm not saying that I personally condone the behavior that goes on inside these establishments. But, that being said, it is my opinion that what goes on peacefully and otherwise legally behind closed doors between mutually consenting adults is their business, meaning that the government shouldn't get involved. Noone's pursuit of happiness should be curtailed because someone else decides to force their own personal values on another individual through legal channels.(in this case, someone who despises these businesses shouldn't be able to infringe on those who enjoy them as long as one isn't harming the other) If someone is disagreeable to this type of business, they should simply avoid patronizing it.

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 07:46 PM
It sure is ironic how the Right yell and scream that government should stay the hell away from intruding into private lives and business practices, and then they turn around and do this.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

notorious
03-13-2011, 07:48 PM
Isn't it great when a group of people can push their beliefs forcefully onto others?



Bible thumpers can kiss my ass.

Brock
03-13-2011, 07:52 PM
Bible thumping douchebags.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 07:59 PM
It sure is ironic how the Right yell and scream that government should stay the hell away from intruding into private lives and business practices, and then they turn around and do this.

I've wondered myself how this fits into their general position on business and freedom. Doesn't make sense to me.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:04 PM
For a good time, call 525-555-8723

http://www.dallasvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tye.jpg

Ask for Camero

C'mon over to Arkansas, I'll show ya a good time!

Direckshun
03-13-2011, 08:05 PM
Here's a fascinating question:

Can conservativism ever truly be politically successful without having to harvest an overtly religious agenda?

I'm not sure that it can. Ask yourself... if the Republican Party, and conservativism in general, expelled this type of policymaking in total from its agenda, would they stand a chance politically?

johnny961
03-13-2011, 08:06 PM
You fellas spend alot of time in strip clubs?

:loser:

:rolleyes: No, if you'd read my entire post and the portions of the OP that I quoted, you would get the jest that I more or less do NOT personally condone some of the behavior that goes on inside these establishments. That being said, who the hell am I to tell anybody else where they can or cant go and what they can or cant do? It's none of my damn business what any of the folks do who patronize these establishments as long as their doing it in privacy and not harming the general public in doing so.

Bewbies
03-13-2011, 08:07 PM
They did something like this in one of Atlanta's suburbs a few years ago. The law had really been targeted at one really big club...

Instead of shutting down, they stopped serving alcohol and opened up to 18 yr olds. Funny thing, the business went through the roof, the legislation totally backfired. LOL

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 08:08 PM
You fellas spend alot of time in strip clubs?

:loser:

Just curious: How do you feel about statewide smoking bans?

(Edit: I see you decided to delete that post. Good call, because it was f*cking stupid.)

Bewbies
03-13-2011, 08:09 PM
Here's a fascinating question:

Can conservativism ever truly be politically successful without having to harvest an overtly religious agenda?

I'm not sure that it can. Ask yourself... if the Republican Party, and conservativism in general, expelled this type of policymaking in total from its agenda, would they stand a chance politically?

This isn't a fascinating question. It's a stupid one.

Can liberalism exist without having millions of people on welfare? I mean seriously, it's a fascinating thought.

Bewbies
03-13-2011, 08:10 PM
Just curious: How do you feel about statewide smoking bans?

Dumb. Especially in the freedom loving havens where you can't even smoke outside.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:12 PM
[QUOTE=johnny961;7488061 It's none of my damn business what any of the folks do who patronize these establishments as long as their doing it in privacy and not harming the general public in doing so.[/QUOTE]

What if your neighbor turned his/her house into a strip club?

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:13 PM
Just curious: How do you feel about statewide smoking bans?

It should be up to the proprietor.

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 08:13 PM
Dumb. Especially in the freedom loving havens where you can't even smoke outside.

The point is that opposing smoking bans doesn't make you a smoker.

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 08:14 PM
It should be up to the proprietor.

So, you're a smoker then. Right?

And a hypocrite. If it should be up to the proprietor and his customers to decide whether or not smoking should be allowed, how can you not understand that it's the exact same issue with strip clubs?

Of course, it's not EXACTLY the same. Nobody dies from second hand stripping.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:16 PM
So, you're a smoker then. Right?

ROFL

This is ridiculous.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 08:19 PM
What if your neighbor turned his/her house into a strip club?

:LOL:It's highly doubtful that this would ever happen to anybody as the vast majority of personal residences are in areas that are zoned for residential only and EVERY strip club I've ever observed was either in a comercially zoned area or out in the middle of nowhere where there are no zoning laws or neighbors within earshot. Try again.

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 08:23 PM
ROFL

This is ridiculous.

Yes, it's just as ridiculous as your post which you subsequently deleted.

That was the point.

The Mad Crapper
03-13-2011, 08:26 PM
:LOL:It's highly doubtful that this would ever happen to anybody as the vast majority of personal residences are in areas that are zoned for residential only and EVERY strip club I've ever observed was either in a comercially zoned area or out in the middle of nowhere where there are no zoning laws or neighbors within earshot. Try again.

Yes, it's just as ridiculous as your post which you subsequently deleted.

That was the point.

I see. You two "libertarians" want strip clubs, just not in your neighborhood.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 08:35 PM
I see. You two "libertarians" want strip clubs, just not in your neighborhood.

Saying that I want strip clubs is an reach. I can think of many other places I would alot rather spend my time and money at. But, again, it's not my right to tell people who enjoy adult entertainment whether they can or can't engage in something they enjoy. Much the same as it is not my right to tell people they can't go to church, even if I personally disagree with their beliefs from a fundamental standpoint. It's their right to beleive whatever the hell they want irregardless of whether or not I agree with it.

Royal Fanatic
03-13-2011, 08:40 PM
I see. You two "libertarians" want strip clubs, just not in your neighborhood.
Please think before you post. Your arguments are ludicrous.

There are lots of things I don't want in my neighborhood. I don't want bowling alleys, movie theaters, Wal*Marts, prisons, or sewage treatment plants in my neighborhood, nor do I want strip clubs there.

That doesn't mean that I want some religious fanatic in the state government banning any of those things.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:03 PM
Here's a fascinating question:

Can conservativism ever truly be politically successful without having to harvest an overtly religious agenda?

I'm not sure that it can. Ask yourself... if the Republican Party, and conservativism in general, expelled this type of policymaking in total from its agenda, would they stand a chance politically?

Very good question. I don't know that it can.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:11 PM
It sure is ironic how the Right yell and scream that government should stay the hell away from intruding into private lives and business practices, and then they turn around and do this.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

ah yes. ted haggards of the world, unite.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Very good question. I don't know that it can.

maybe some of ya'll got some years on me, so help me out. when did the evangelical Christians take over the party? late 80's? early 90s?

before that?

and what was the philosophy of the GOP prior to the invasion?

no reason you can't drop the overt religiosity and still scream about guns, freedom, lower taxes, and how great Amurika was.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 09:19 PM
Missouri did it. Kansas might was well too.

It's just a matter of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

If you don't like strippers, stay out the strip club.

If you don't like smokers, stay away from the outside of a bar.

If you don't like poor people, stay out the hood.

If you don't like kids, stay away from schools.

I dunno. Seems pretty easy to me to avoid the strippers.

For the life of me, i've never just stumbled in to a strip club, looked up, and just been horrified of where i ended up. Every single time i've gone, i've gone with the intention of seein some naked ladies. so if i've never accidentally stumbled in to a strip club, i'm pretty sure no one else has either.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:32 PM
maybe some of ya'll got some years on me, so help me out. when did the evangelical Christians take over the party? late 80's? early 90s?

before that?

and what was the philosophy of the GOP prior to the invasion?

no reason you can't drop the overt religiosity and still scream about guns, freedom, lower taxes, and how great Amurika was.

To be completely honest, I never really followed the history as to when the GOP adopted conservatism from a religious standpoint. Maybe one of the history buffs around will chime in. I'd kinda like to know that one myself.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:42 PM
Missouri did it. Kansas might was well too.

It's just a matter of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

If you don't like strippers, stay out the strip club.

If you don't like smokers, stay away from the outside of a bar.

If you don't like poor people, stay out the hood.

If you don't like kids, stay away from schools.

I dunno. Seems pretty easy to me to avoid the strippers.

For the life of me, i've never just stumbled in to a strip club, looked up, and just been horrified of where i ended up. Every single time i've gone, i've gone with the intention of seein some naked ladies. so if i've never accidentally stumbled in to a strip club, i'm pretty sure no one else has either.

Good points. The obvious is to simply avoid the activity if you despise it rather than try to mandate that EVERYBODY avoid it. People trying to force their beliefs onto others(extremism and lack of tolerance, look at what is going on in some parts of the world now because of this) have caused more damage to society than the pervert with an addiction to strip clubs.

CrazyPhuD
03-13-2011, 09:46 PM
LOL I wonder if the bill is partially funded by the the Las Vegas Tourism Bureau?

go bowe
03-13-2011, 09:48 PM
What if your neighbor turned his/her house into a strip club?i'd expect a big discount...

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:50 PM
LOL I wonder if the bill is partially funded by the the Las Vegas Tourism Bureau?

:LOL: Now wouldn't that be a kicker! That would be one hell of a way for Sin City to promote tourism if Vegas were one of the few places with unrestricted adult entertainment. Eliminate the competition. :evil:

johnny961
03-13-2011, 09:51 PM
i'd expect a big discount...

ROFL

Direckshun
03-13-2011, 09:52 PM
no reason you can't drop the overt religiosity and still scream about guns, freedom, lower taxes, and how great Amurika was.

Well you potentially lose tens of millions of votes, for one.

Dave Lane
03-13-2011, 10:00 PM
To be completely honest, I never really followed the history as to when the GOP adopted conservatism from a religious standpoint. Maybe one of the history buffs around will chime in. I'd kinda like to know that one myself.

It's pretty much always been there. Pat Buchanan declaring GOP stood for gods own party was really a pivot point I think. Reagan was one of the first to be very outwardly more evangelical Christian than his predecessors.

Fundemental conservative ideals are very much in line with religious belief. They are at their core a rejection and fear of change and a personality fearful in general.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:04 PM
Reagan was one of the first to be very outwardly more evangelical Christian than his predecessors.

Except for the democrat that immediately preceded him who was actually an evangelical Christian? That Reagan?

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:06 PM
Isn't it great when a group of people can push their beliefs forcefully onto others?

Lord knows the Left....never, ever does that? Heh. LMAO

HonestChieffan
03-13-2011, 10:07 PM
Liberals only like regulation if they do the regulating. Same for conservatives. Anyone who thinks one side has a leg up on the other is a dumbass of major proportion.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 10:07 PM
Well you potentially lose tens of millions of votes, for one.

I honestly wonder how many people are turned off by the Republican party because of some of their religious conservative positions? I honestly don't know. The reason I ask is from alot of the posting styles I've noted, a number of people here seem to subscribe to the conservative ideology on a number of issues that balk when it comes to religious conservatism issues that they are not comfortable with. On the flip side of that coin, I know alot of blue collar workers that one would think would be liberal leaning that vote republican mainly because of their religious values. I don't know how this would even out.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:08 PM
I honestly wonder how many people are turned off by the Republican party because of some of their religious conservative positions? I honestly don't know. The reason I ask is from alot of the posting styles I've noted, a number of people here seem to subscribe to the conservative ideology on a number of issues that balk when it comes to religious conservatism issues that they are not comfortable with. On the flip side of that coin, I know alot of blue collar workers that one would think would be liberal leaning that vote republican mainly because of their religious values. I don't know how this would even out.

Look at the number of people who vote Libertarian and you have your answer. The rest of them realize that the Republican party's existence relies on the uneasy marriage of social and fiscal conservatives.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 10:10 PM
Liberals only like regulation if they do the regulating. Same for conservatives. Anyone who thinks one side has a leg up on the other is a dumbass of major proportion.

I would have to agree that both sides IMO tend to like government regulation as long as it benefits their ideology in general.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:11 PM
Well you potentially lose tens of millions of votes, for one.

not sure that you would. it's not that they would defect to the other side. now, they might not remain as active as they are now. but i'm not sure they wouldn't either.

Rove got them out en mass. But that's not worked out really well either.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:11 PM
Just curious: How do you feel about statewide smoking bans?

Great question that separates the talkers from the walkers in a hurry.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:14 PM
Great question that separates the talkers from the walkers in a hurry.

Unless one, erroneously, doesn't view second-hand smoke as a "real" issue. Heh. :hmmm:

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:15 PM
Unless one, erroneously, doesn't view second-hand smoke as a "real" issue. Heh. :hmmm:

That doesn't have anything to do with the point of his question.

:facepalm:

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:17 PM
That doesn't have anything to do with the point of his question.

:facepalm:

Statewide smoking bans, and second-hand smoke aren't related? Really? :spock:

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:19 PM
Statewide smoking bans, and second-hand smoke aren't related? Really? :spock:

from a philosophical standpoint? no, can't see the relation.

from a practical standpoint of finding at least some justification for forcing business owners to do something that harms their business, sure.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:20 PM
Statewide smoking bans, and second-hand smoke aren't related? Really? :spock:

Yes, they're related. However, that wasn't the point of his question, you fucking imbecile.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:21 PM
I swear to God and two other white men, Kotter, I have no use for your bullshit.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 10:25 PM
Unless one, erroneously, doesn't view second-hand smoke as a "real" issue. Heh. :hmmm:

I know that secondhand smoke carries health hazards. But, that being said, I personally really don't give it much thought. My occasional exposure to secondhand smoke when I frequent somewhere that allows it(public smoking) is rather benign compared to some of the other dangers I'm exposed to on a daily basis to put it into complete perspective.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:26 PM
Yes, they're related. However, that wasn't the point of his question, you ****ing imbecile.

I swear to God and two other white men, Kotter, I have no use for your bullshit.


You want to call me an imbecile; and YOU are the one saying that second hand smoke has nothing to do with statewide bans on smoking? Seriously?

I don't know what YOU are smoking, but it might be worth finding out.... LMAO

And I'm the bull-shitter? ROFL LMAO

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:30 PM
I know that secondhand smoke carries health hazards. But, that being said, I personally really don't give it much thought. My occasional exposure to secondhand smoke when I frequent somewhere that allows it is rather benign compared to some of the other dangers I'm exposed to on a daily basis to put it into complete perspective.

Our state recently banned public smoking; smokers still smoke, but the rest of us...are now able to enjoy happy hour, and seeing a band a few times a month. Holy Mother of Jesus, the world has NOT ended; and the restaurants and clubs are doing, much better than Chicken-Little said they'd do.

Imagine that!

When was it ever a God-given or Constitutional right....to pollute the breathing air of other citizens? Seriously?

LMAO

Dave Lane
03-13-2011, 10:31 PM
Liberals only like regulation if they do the regulating. Same for conservatives. Anyone who thinks one side has a leg up on the other is a dumbass of major proportion.

Holy shit I agree with something HCF said. I'm in shock.

It's the story of who's ox is getting gored.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:31 PM
You want to call me an imbecile; and YOU are the one saying that second hand smoke has nothing to do with statewide bans on smoking? Seriously?

I don't know what YOU are smoking, but it might be worth finding out.... LMAO

No, I said that secondhand smoke had nothing to do with his question, you utter ****ing moron.

His question was intended quite pointedly to cause property rights champions to examine whether they were being consistent or inconsistent in supporting or opposing legal behavior in a private setting no matter the nature of the legal behavior.

Now, please. I beg you in the name of all that is holy. Don't ever engage me again, you ****ing hopeless loser. You ****ing government worker.

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:34 PM
Our state recently banned public smoking; smokers still smoke, but the rest of us...are now able to enjoy happy hour, and seeing a band a few times a month. Holy Mother of Jesus, the world has NOT ended; and the restaurants and clubs are doing, much better than Chicken-Little said they'd do.

Imagine that!

When was it ever a God-given or Constitutional right....to pollute the breathing air of other citizens? Seriously?

LMAO

why would you go somewhere you felt uncomfortable? why support that business at all?

if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go to a smoking bar. damn that seems simple.

but instead of patronizing a non-smoking bar (ya, they used to exist until the government leveled the playing field) you ask the government to step in a demand that all establishments conform to your desire of a smoke-free atmosphere.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2011, 10:39 PM
why would you go somewhere you felt uncomfortable? why support that business at all?

if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go to a smoking bar. damn that seems simple.

but instead of patronizing a non-smoking bar (ya, they used to exist until the government leveled the playing field) you ask the government to step in a demand that all establishments conform to your desire of a smoke-free atmosphere.

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!

Only very large cities and states had a real choice. When smoking was a "right," the vast majority of most restaurants and bars were smoking. One couldn't go into a place for happy hour or a band...without emerging doused in the nasty-assed smell of tobacco. That's one group, infringing on the rights of others; that ain't rocket science, Poindexter. Just sayin'.

:hmmm:

healthpellets
03-13-2011, 10:44 PM
Only very large cities and states had a real choice. When smoking was a "right," the vast majority of most restaurants and bars were smoking. One couldn't go into a place for happy hour or a band...without emerging doused in the nasty-assed smell of tobacco. That's one group, infringing on the rights of others; that ain't rocket science, Poindexter. Just sayin'.

:hmmm:

Voluntarily entering an establishment wherein patrons are allowed to consume adult items such as tobacco and then complaining about the environment is akin to building a house next to a hog farm because the land was cheap and then demanding the hog farm cease business immediately because the smell is atrocious.

Doesn't...er, shouldn't...work that way.

BIG_DADDY
03-13-2011, 10:47 PM
Only very large cities and states had a real choice. When smoking was a "right," the vast majority of most restaurants and bars were smoking. One couldn't go into a place for happy hour or a band...without emerging doused in the nasty-assed smell of tobacco. That's one group, infringing on the rights of others; that ain't rocket science, Poindexter. Just sayin'.

:hmmm:

Poindexter?

johnny961
03-13-2011, 10:49 PM
This is getting way off from the OP, but since we're discusssing public smoking I thought that I'd throw this one out there. When these bans started appearing, I kinda thought there would be an increase of private clubs(membership required) that allowed smoking as a condition of membership when a person applied for membership. Wouldn't this be a way around these smoking bans if a nightclub owner really wanted to circumvent the bans? Then whoever signed up for a membership could not claim that they were offended by the smoking as smoking being allowed was one of the conditions of their membership to begin with. I had heard this floated as a possibility by a couple of nightclub managers I knew back when this thing first started gaining steam. But I don't know how these laws pertain to private clubs or whether or not that would even be a feasible idea from a business standpoint.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 10:54 PM
This is getting way off from the OP, but since we're discusssing public smoking I thought that I'd throw this one out there. When these bans started appearing, I kinda thought there would be an increase of private clubs(membership required) that allowed smoking as a condition of membership when a person applied for membership. Wouldn't this be a way around these smoking bans if a nightclub owner really wanted to circumvent the bans? Then whoever signed up for a membership could not claim that they were offended by the smoking as smoking being allowed was one of the conditions of their membership to begin with. I had heard this floated as a possibility by a couple of nightclub managers I knew back when this thing first started gaining steam. But I don't know how these laws pertain to private clubs or whether or not that would even be a feasible idea from a business standpoint.

The way Colorado shut that door was to use the ban to protect employees of private clubs and organizations. If there are three or more employees, the establishment must be smoke free even if it's a private club.

johnny961
03-13-2011, 11:14 PM
The way Colorado shut that door was to use the ban to protect employees of private clubs and organizations. If there are three or more employees, the establishment must be smoke free even if it's a private club.

That may be similar to alot of the bans we see here. Everywhere that has these types of bans has their own wording. These bans really don't mean much to me as I gave up the tobacco habit quite some time ago. I can see where they would be a major hassle to the smoker, though, as pretty much all bars and nightclubs used to be pretty much smoker friendly. And smoking and drinking were pretty much activities that were considered to go hand in hand by a good number of people. Occasionally being around smokers never really did bother me much, even after I gave up the habit myself.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2011, 11:18 PM
See, I don't drink, but I still want to enjoy happy hour or a live band on occasion, so I'm working for a ban on alcohol sales in Colorado bars.

"Bob" Dobbs
03-13-2011, 11:28 PM
What if your neighbor turned his/her house into a strip club?I gotta say I'd love it. She's HAWT!

Direckshun
03-13-2011, 11:45 PM
Look at the number of people who vote Libertarian and you have your answer. The rest of them realize that the Republican party's existence relies on the uneasy marriage of social and fiscal conservatives.

Exactly.

Without playing hard to the religious base, the Republican Party probably wouldn't stand much of a chance.

Silock
03-13-2011, 11:49 PM
maybe some of ya'll got some years on me, so help me out. when did the evangelical Christians take over the party? late 80's? early 90s?

before that?

and what was the philosophy of the GOP prior to the invasion?

no reason you can't drop the overt religiosity and still scream about guns, freedom, lower taxes, and how great Amurika was.

It was the early 90s, IIRC. Fucking ridiculous.

LET THEM STRIP.

Fucking pathetic right-wing douchebags.

Silock
03-13-2011, 11:50 PM
Exactly.

Without playing hard to the religious base, the Republican Party probably wouldn't stand much of a chance.

I think that's completely inaccurate. Those people still would vote conservative for the fiscal reasons and less government intrusion reasons. Where else would they vote?

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 12:18 AM
I think that's completely inaccurate. Those people still would vote conservative for the fiscal reasons and less government intrusion reasons. Where else would they vote?

Possibly the Constitution Party could attract a small number of them, but there's a good chance that a substantial fraction of them wouldn't vote at all. The Republicans simply cannot afford to alienate the so-called "values voters."

Silock
03-14-2011, 12:36 AM
Possibly the Constitution Party could attract a small number of them, but there's a good chance that a substantial fraction of them wouldn't vote at all. The Republicans simply cannot afford to alienate the so-called "values voters."

I think the "values voters" would still vote. They did before the party was hijacked. There's no reason to think they wouldn't continue.

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 12:40 AM
I think the "values voters" would still vote. They did before the party was hijacked. There's no reason to think they wouldn't continue.

I'm curious. How old are you? I ask only because it would help me understand your point of view if I knew which election cycles you've seen and which you've just heard or read about.

The thing is, I don't remember a time that the party was hijacked and I've been watching pretty damn closely since Ford/Carter.

Also, I say this as a guy who spent more of his adult life as an atheist than a believer — so far, at least (although it's getting close to tipping the other way).

Silock
03-14-2011, 01:00 AM
30.

I don't "remember" the party being hijacked, but I know that it happened, being a PoliSci (for all intents and purposes) major and all. It wasn't totally an overnight thing, as the precursors were there stretching all the way back into the 60s with the Southern Democrats and Barry Goldwater. The Moral Majority movement in the 80s was there, but didn't quite catch on. It REALLY took off in the early 90s, particularly with Gingrich and trying to wrest back control of Congress from the Democrats.

Honestly, I don't know how you missed it. But, I say that as a student of history with the advantage of looking back on it without experiential prejudice (as I wasn't really aware of it in the early 90s, and before that, I wasn't even alive).

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 01:55 AM
Well, the thing is, from my point of view, there was no hijacking at all. When I was young, both parties had strong constituencies of religious people (or, at the very least, people who did religious-like things). Large — huge — percentages of people on both sides had no problem understanding and proudly proclaiming that their moral compasses were based in their belief traditions. I grew up around a lot of blue collar, Eastern European Catholics that were an anchor point of the Democratic party, and had been for decades. John Kennedy became almost as important as any saint to those people, because he was seen as an Obama-like figure in American politics. Finally, after years on the outside, the Catholics had arrived at the top of American politics.

On the other side, the resentment was very real and quite widespread. Sure, Kennedy was a Catholic, and Catholics were Christians (well, kinda, except for all that Pope and Mary stuff), but they sure as hell weren't the right kind of Christians. Look, we've never had a Jewish president. We've never had a president who is openly atheist (and maybe not even a closet atheist). There's a reason for that, and the reason is the central importance of religion in American politics.

Religion hasn't hijacked anything, because religion (and most specifically, the Christian religion) helped buy this vehicle that is American politics. It has the original ownership papers and it has always taken its turn in the driver seat. Godlessness is the new passenger that recently jumped demanding that we should follow its navigation.

Truly, I don't see how religion could ever be accused of hijacking any part of American politics when American politics as we've always experienced it has never for a moment operated outside the strong influence of religion.

Silock
03-14-2011, 02:40 AM
There's a difference between a politician being religious in his or her personal life and one that tries to exploit people's faith in order to grant themselves more power. The latter is exactly what the Republicans have done. Sure, there were religious politicians before, and now. But it wasn't a tool in the toolbox, so to speak, like it is now.

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 03:06 AM
There's a difference between a politician being religious in his or her personal life and one that tries to exploit people's faith in order to grant themselves more power. The latter is exactly what the Republicans have done. Sure, there were religious politicians before, and now. But it wasn't a tool in the toolbox, so to speak, like it is now.

Perhaps I'm just cynical. I think religion is a well worn and ancient tool that has always been used and continues to be by each party. The religion of the left is just a new kind of religion that doesn't rely much on a traditional God.

ClevelandBronco
03-14-2011, 03:14 AM
I do think that at some time in the not-too-distant future that the U.S. will probably be ready for an openly atheistic president who helps usher in an era of a religion of the people, by the people, and for the people.

RubberSponge
03-14-2011, 04:00 AM
This is exactly what the majority of Kansans voted for when they voted for Brownback. IMO you reap what you sow.

It's hard enough for this state keep it's younger population as well as attracting incoming young workers. Which also in turns makes it even harder to court businesses wanting to step foot in our communities. No incoming company wants an aging workforce.

We have been talking about the youth flight from the state for the past decade. A look to the NW part the state will tell you how much the youth flight has a significant impact on the well being and survival of communities. There are towns simply dying in NW Kansas because of this.

So what happens is you get a political agenda that marries itself to a older generation. A political agenda that is completely out of touch with the future generations of the state. Kansas if it wants to make any gains socially, economically and politically in the near future would be wise to think about changing it's politics that more closely mirrors the values and politics of those in their last 50yrs of life, rather than those in their last 10 yrs of life. But good luck with that.

Silock
03-14-2011, 04:41 AM
Perhaps I'm just cynical. I think religion is a well worn and ancient tool that has always been used and continues to be by each party.

I totally agree. But it's much worse now than it was before.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 07:03 AM
It sure is ironic how the Right yell and scream that government should stay the hell away from intruding into private lives and business practices, and then they turn around and do this.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

It is, which is why it bothers me when people call them conservatives. They aren't. They're democrats with bibles.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2011, 07:11 AM
It is, which is why it bothers me when people call them conservatives. They aren't. They're democrats with bibles.


Wait.

Are you implying that some democrats are christians?

Can we also assume that some Republicans are not as religion focused as others, that there may actually be a range of attitudes on the issue of religion and how it impacts ones politics and life?

Could there be Baptists and Methodists and Catholics who are republicans and democrats?

This is a pretty wild thought. From what I see and read here on the planet all republicans are single minded christian soldiers and reformers and no democrat would ever consider a religious belief as they formulate a position on an issue.

Are you challenging this?

Jaric
03-14-2011, 07:24 AM
Wait.

Are you implying that some democrats are christians?

Can we also assume that some Republicans are not as religion focused as others, that there may actually be a range of attitudes on the issue of religion and how it impacts ones politics and life?

Could there be Baptists and Methodists and Catholics who are republicans and democrats?

This is a pretty wild thought. From what I see and read here on the planet all republicans are single minded christian soldiers and reformers and no democrat would ever consider a religious belief as they formulate a position on an issue.

Are you challenging this?

I suppose I should have clarified that I was not refering to all republicans, only the sect of the party that only believes in smaller government when it suits their needs but are all too eager to use the government to push their own agenda. Except instead of "help the poor!" it's "stop teh strippahs!"

That shit infuriates me. You can't claim to be in favor of smaller government and then do shit like this. That's bullshit

notorious
03-14-2011, 07:31 AM
The Democrats want to tax the hell out of the strippers for their income until they age out of their "beauty window" and fall into government social programs so that they can support their drug habits and kids.


Republicans just want to get rid of strip joints and convert the strippers into good Christians.



/absurdity.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 07:35 AM
The Democrats want to tax the hell out of the strippers for their income until they age out of their "beauty window" and fall into government social programs so that they can support their drug habits and kids.


Republicans just want to get rid of strip joints and convert the strippers into good Christians.



/absurdity.

I just want a fucking lap dance.

notorious
03-14-2011, 07:45 AM
I just want a ****ing lap dance.

That's too much to ask for.


Watch you back. Banning Strip Joints is just the beginning for the Necromongers. Your journey to the Underverse will be glorious.

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv12/questionable_motives/riddick16.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 08:13 AM
It sure is ironic how the Right yell and scream that government should stay the hell away from intruding into private lives and business practices, and then they turn around and do this.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

It sure is ironic how the left claims the right yells and screams for govt to be in people's private life and businesse practices. Sorry, but this claim you made on the right is a mirror image of the left's claims. You guys want the taxpayers to fund abortion. You want gay marriage which is govt recognition aka public recognition of instead of privatizing it. Besides, two-valued logic doesn't work. States have a right to public morality under our Constitution which allows for a federalist system. That's the way it is.

Royal Fanatic
03-14-2011, 11:56 AM
It sure is ironic how the left claims the right yells and screams for govt to be in people's private life and businesse practices. Sorry, but this claim you made on the right is a mirror image of the left's claims. You guys want the taxpayers to fund abortion. You want gay marriage which is govt recognition aka public recognition of instead of privatizing it. Besides, two-valued logic doesn't work. States have a right to public morality under our Constitution which allows for a federalist system. That's the way it is.

You are assuming facts that are not in evidence. I'm not a member of the Left.

You don't have to be a liberal to recognize blatant hypocrisy by conservatives.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 11:58 AM
You are assuming facts that are not in evidence. I'm not a member of the Left.

You don't have to be a liberal to recognize blatant hypocrisy by conservatives.

Please, don't call them conservatives.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 12:46 PM
You are assuming facts that are not in evidence. I'm not a member of the Left.

You don't have to be a liberal to recognize blatant hypocrisy by conservatives.

You don't have to be a member. You just have to be seeing it using one of their arguments.

It's only hypocrisy if you look at limited govt as meaning NO govt or in a black&white manner because our system is not set up in a binary way. It's a mixed form of govt. It allows states the police power on morality which goes by community values. Conservatives are not anarchists or mini-anarchists like libertarians. They do claim to support the Constitution though which has set up a system of federalism.

As far as economics and markets go I've never heard a conservative make an argument for zero rules or regulations either. In fact many today support some of the earlier Progressive legislation like the Fair Labor Standards Act on overtime and child labor as well as the 8 hour workday. It's the excessive egalitarian and/or unnecessary regulations that are onerous because markets regulate themselves on many things but not on all things like fraud. You don't understand conservativism. Markets largely self-regulate, behavior not so much to a Conservative. So they regulate some behaviors, particularly public because they feel if they don't then govt has to step in later. So overall it still results in less govt. Just sayin' that's the philosophy. The Constitution allows for such rights in local areas. This should fall under zoning laws.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 12:54 PM
Please, don't call them conservatives.

They are. And this is conservatism. That public school you rave about didn't teach that apparently. :hmmm:

Conservatives regulate some social behaviors but not markets so much because those are mostly self-regulating. Libertarianism is not conservativism.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 02:04 PM
Please think before you post. Your arguments are ludicrous.

There are lots of things I don't want in my neighborhood. I don't want bowling alleys, movie theaters, Wal*Marts, prisons, or sewage treatment plants in my neighborhood, nor do I want strip clubs there.

That doesn't mean that I want some religious fanatic in the state government banning any of those things.

I'm sure the people in that black neighborhood where the strip club and prison is would prefer a Walmart, movie theater or bowling alley.

Please think before you post.

chiefsnorth
03-14-2011, 02:19 PM
Republicans hate boobs! Vote for us!

Radar Chief
03-14-2011, 02:36 PM
That's too much to ask for.


Watch you back. Banning Strip Joints is just the beginning for the Necromongers. Your journey to the Underverse will be glorious.

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv12/questionable_motives/riddick16.jpg

I’d take a lap dance to some Necros.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/axIPEmCEK3A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Royal Fanatic
03-14-2011, 03:01 PM
I'm sure the people in that black neighborhood where the strip club and prison is would prefer a Walmart, movie theater or bowling alley.

Please think before you post.
You thought about it all day, and THIS is the response you come up with? :facepalm:

E. Norma Stitz was a much better poster than The Mad Crapper. That guy should come back.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:06 PM
You thought about it all day, and THIS is the response you come up with? :facepalm:

No, I didn't think about it all day--- it just took all day for me to have an opportunity to post it.

It's real easy for you to compare a strip club to a bowling alley, because you live in a nice lily white neighborhood.

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2011, 03:07 PM
Couldn't people just not patronize the club and it would go away?

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 03:07 PM
Couldn't people just not patronize the club and it would go away?

Unless it's not the locals. Sorry, this goes by community standards and local zoning.

Royal Fanatic
03-14-2011, 03:09 PM
No, I didn't think about it all day--- it just took all day for me to have an opportunity to post it.

It's real easy for you to compare a strip club to a bowling alley, because you live in a nice lily white neighborhood.

Unfortunately for other people, they aren't afforded that luxury.
Strip clubs and bowling alleys both generate huge amounts of traffic. I don't want the traffic from either in my neighborhood, and it makes no difference if my neighborhood is predominantly white or black.

I wouldn't want to live next door to a movie theater or a shopping mall for the same reason. That doesn't mean I want some nanny state declaring them illegal.

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2011, 03:09 PM
Unless it's not the locals. Sorry, this goes by community standards and local zoning.What is the "community standard?"

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:11 PM
Strip clubs and bowling alleys both generate huge amounts of traffic.

OK so the people who have a strip club in their neighborhood were given a choice between the strip club and a bowling alley?

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:12 PM
What is the "community standard?"

If you're a libertarian, as long as it's not in my backyard, I'm fine with it.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 03:13 PM
OK so the people who have a strip club in their neighborhood were given a choice between the strip club and a bowling alley?

Well....

In a way yes.

See, if no one wants the strip club, no one will go to it. They go out of business and there is no strip club. Likewise, if they really want a bowling alley, eventually someone will put one up and they can all go bowling and the owner has a nice new business.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:14 PM
Here's a fascinating question:

Can conservativism ever truly be politically successful without having to harvest an overtly religious agenda?

I'm not sure that it can. Ask yourself... if the Republican Party, and conservativism in general, expelled this type of policymaking in total from its agenda, would they stand a chance politically?

Yeah, because there is no such thing as Christian Conservatives who vote Democrat:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/nyregion/with-health-risks-in-mind-a-community-battles-billboards.html

With Health Risks in Mind, a Community Battles Billboards
By GEORGE JAMES
Published: June 29, 1997Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Single-Page

SECAUCUS — In late 1995, a Federally financed alcohol and drug-abuse prevention agency conducted a survey of billboards advertising tobacco and alcohol in Hudson County.

The survey, yet another reflection of growing nationwide discontent with glamorizing the use of liquor and cigarettes, determined that most of the billboards were in minority neighborhoods, primarily in Jersey City. The results persuaded officials of the Hudson County Community Partnership, the agency that conducted the survey, that the alcohol and tobacco industries were targeting Hispanic and black consumers, and the young.

For example, said Joseph Ford, program coordinator for the partnership, along 26 blocks of Martin Luther King Drive in a predominantly black area of the city, he and three community organizers counted and took photographs of 23 billboards -- nearly one per block. Many advertised malt liquor and cigarettes.

They later discovered that 38 billboards were within 500 feet of schools and other gathering places for young people, despite the stated principles of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America not to advertise products illegal for sale to minors within that distance.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 03:14 PM
Yeah, because there is no such thing as Black Christians who vote Democrat:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/29/nyregion/with-health-risks-in-mind-a-community-battles-billboards.html

Unpossible. Those are like gay Republicans.

Royal Fanatic
03-14-2011, 03:15 PM
OK so the people who have a strip club in their neighborhood were given a choice between the strip club and a bowling alley?
Your responses make no sense whatsoever.

I feel like I'm speaking English and you're responding in Spanish.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:17 PM
Your responses make no sense whatsoever.



You seriously think this is a traffic issue?

ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 03:31 PM
What is the "community standard?"

Look it up. You can start with the Tenth Amendment and some past cases about general laws being left to the state and their public morality powers. BTW the community standards will vary from place to place and in different times. THAT's the WHOLE idea.

FishingRod
03-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Look it up. You can start with the Tenth Commandment and some past cases about general laws being left to the state and their public morality powers. BTW the community standards will vary from place to place and in different times. THAT's the WHOLE idea.



10th Commandment????

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor???

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 03:40 PM
10th Commandment????

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor???

Has nothing to do with any religious reference. People don't even understand the kind of govt we have and how it's supposed to operate.

The Mad Crapper
03-14-2011, 03:52 PM
Your responses make no sense whatsoever.

I feel like I'm speaking English and you're responding in Spanish.

Strip club = bowling alley because both generate traffic. Your logic is impeccable.

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2011, 04:22 PM
Has nothing to do with any religious reference. People don't even understand the kind of govt we have and how it's supposed to operate.If it's not a religious reference, to which 10th commandment are you referring?

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 04:25 PM
If it's not a religious reference, to which 10th commandment are you referring?

I had to go back and look because I still didn't know what you meant. That was a typo. I must have been thinking about something else while typing that. I edited it.

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2011, 04:28 PM
I had to go back and look because I still didn't know what you meant. That was a typo. I must have been thinking about something else while typing that. I edited it.Freudian slip.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 04:30 PM
Freudian slip.

I never heard of that brand for slips. Do you have a link?

I don't even know what the Tenth Commandment is about or says. I'd say it was because Christians were mentioned earlier.

Pitt Gorilla
03-14-2011, 04:35 PM
I never heard of that brand for slips. Do you have a link?

I don't even know what the Tenth Commandment is about or says. I'd say it was because Christians were mentioned earlier.It notes that powers not granted explicitly to God by the Bible are reserved to everybody else.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 04:50 PM
Oh Cool.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 05:56 PM
I don't even know what the Tenth Commandment is about or says. Thou shalt not have sex in the champagne room.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2011, 06:02 PM
Thou shalt not have sex in the champagne room.

That ain't right.

Jaric
03-14-2011, 06:03 PM
That ain't right.

Oh lighten up. God has a sense of humor. How else do you explain confession?

EDIT: And this is coming from a Catholic.

HonestChieffan
03-14-2011, 06:09 PM
Oh lighten up. God has a sense of humor. How else do you explain confession?

EDIT: And this is coming from a Catholic.


You have a point. This coming from a non Catholic who went through Cursillo. BTW.... Cursillio is very worthwhile.

Royal Fanatic
03-14-2011, 08:18 PM
You seriously think this is a traffic issue?

ROFL
No, I think you can't deal with the fact that you are being incredibly hypocritical. That's why you keep spewing out nonsensical answers.

On the one hand you constantly criticize Obama and the Democrats for trying to foist a nanny state upon everyone, yet when the Republicans try to foist a nanny state on everyone regarding sexual mores, you're just fine with it.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2011, 09:01 PM
I would only hypocritical if it didn't fit their ideology and it fits the conservative ideology.
Anyone calling it hypocritical doesn't understand political Conservativism or federalism.

RubberSponge
03-15-2011, 12:09 AM
I would only hypocritical if it didn't fit their ideology and it fits the conservative ideology.
Anyone calling it hypocritical doesn't understand political Conservativism or federalism.

Rational people understand it just fine. It's just like any other political demographic. Anytime it fits the agenda for the moment, it's just fine and dandy for that demographic. Include conservatism and federalism in that as well.

I've read this board for a while and I've seen the criticism of you more times than I can count. Some justified, some not. But it's very clear you have quite a illusory superiority issue.

The Mad Crapper
03-15-2011, 05:37 AM
No, I think you can't deal with the fact that you are being incredibly hypocritical. That's why you keep spewing out nonsensical answers.

On the one hand you constantly criticize Obama and the Democrats for trying to foist a nanny state upon everyone, yet when the Republicans try to foist a nanny state on everyone regarding sexual mores, you're just fine with it.

You're creating a false narrative and projecting your own hypocricy onto me. That's ok. I'm used to it.

blaise
03-15-2011, 05:39 AM
I never really understood the thrill of sitting there and paying a chick to pretend she's interested in you.

Royal Fanatic
03-15-2011, 07:14 AM
You're creating a false narrative and projecting your own hypocricy onto me. That's ok. I'm used to it.
I've already explained why your position is hypocritical. Please explain how mine is.

The Mad Crapper
03-15-2011, 07:22 AM
I've already explained why your position is hypocritical. Please explain how mine is.

You invented "my position" and then called me a hypocrite.

Your assertion that a bowling alley = strip club is convenient because you have neither in your neighborhood, nor the threat of one ever being built in your neighborhood.

The Mad Crapper
03-15-2011, 07:33 AM
[COLOR="Blue"]Phillip Cosby, executive director of the state office of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, said the industry was responsible for increases in crime, sexually transmitted disease, blight, property devaluation, prostitution, human trafficking and drug sales.

Does anybody want to rebut cosby's assertions?

BucEyedPea
03-15-2011, 07:39 AM
You invented "my position" and then called me a hypocrite.

Your assertion that a bowling alley = strip club is convenient because you have neither in your neighborhood, nor the threat of one ever being built in your neighborhood.

Yep! He made a strawman argument, a logical fallacy, for a whole ideology.

FishingRod
03-15-2011, 11:08 AM
Has nothing to do with any religious reference. People don't even understand the kind of govt we have and how it's supposed to operate.

Sorry was gone for a while. I assumed 10th commandant was not what you really meant and but I honestly have no idea what it was you were trying to say. Would you please clarify the point you were trying to make?

FishingRod
03-15-2011, 11:32 AM
By the way I am pretty Libertarian in my beliefs and to cut to the chase, I think the government has no business making rules about what reasons Consenting adults deem acceptable for having sex. If it is for $20 it isn’t my business. So obviously I think they should keep their nose out of the strip clubs. I really don’t have a big problem with their zoning laws but perhaps the reverse should also be true in that one can’t build a school or a church next to a strip club. Fair is fair. Now I certainly do not want any of my daughters to grow become strippers or prostitutes but that is my own and hopefully their moral code which feel no need to impose on others. Owning a firearm or having the right to own one does not make a person go rob someone. Having liquor sales legal on Sunday does not transform a person into an alcoholic. Having strip clubs and prostitution operating legally does not instantly make a person a whore or a John. So doing these things under the guise of Family values or smoking bans and seatbelts laws under the cloak of what is best for society makes both the left and the right hypocritical. People like to tell other people what to do and get their selves a chubby when someone else’s perceived vices are curtailed.

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2011, 11:34 AM
Sorry was gone for a while. I assumed 10th commandant was not what you really meant and but I honestly have no idea what it was you were trying to say. Would you please clarify the point you were trying to make?

I suspect that the 10th "commandant" is not what you meant, either.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 11:45 AM
At least the state can earn money from the strip clubs. There needs to be a more liberal stance on this, IMO. Naked bodies are more demonized than weapons and violence in this country.

ZOMG!! A pair of titties!! EVIL!! Keep them away from our children. Uh, boobs are food for kids, so if we didn't demonize them, it wouldn't ever even be a big deal.

All this will do, is create more back door seedy prostitutes... which all money is effectively hidden from the state.

The economy sucks ass... and they are worried about strip clubs. Fucking idiots.

Bowser
03-15-2011, 11:51 AM
YOU CAN HAVE MY STRIPPER WHEN YOUR PRY HER FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS

FishingRod
03-15-2011, 11:52 AM
YOU CAN HAVE MY STRIPPER WHEN YOUR PRY HER FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS

LOL

teedubya
03-15-2011, 11:55 AM
Looks like there will be some fresh ass on http://KC.Backpage.com soon! lol

Fresh hookers, FTW!!

BucEyedPea
03-15-2011, 11:57 AM
Sorry was gone for a while. I assumed 10th commandant was not what you really meant and but I honestly have no idea what it was you were trying to say. Would you please clarify the point you were trying to make?

The Tenth Amendment leaves these things to regulate, not regulate or ban to the states which are allowed to go by community standards. It's earlier in the thread being clarified to Pitt Gorilla. Perhaps you should read the thread?


By the way I am pretty Libertarian in my beliefs and to cut to the chase, I think the government has no business making rules about what reasons Consenting adults deem acceptable for having sex.
I understand the libertarian position perfectly well. But our Constitution is not libertarian in this sense because this is not the business of the Federal govt. No, the incorporation doctrine should not apply. It's bogus anyways. Unfortunately, some libertarians like R. Barnet and Pilon are libertarian centralizers who would use the incorporation doctrine to force the long arm of the feds on the states in the name of liberty. This is NOT our system. We are a federalist system which is what the Constitution established. So states have rights —not just individuals. There should be a balance between the group and individuals.

Personally, in my area I would allow them depending on how they are zoned. We have many here but they don't stick out like a sore thumb and I am not aware of any other issues they bring to the community. However, I do not buy the consenting adult idea as an absolute across the board valid reason for such things. I think it's bogus. Some behaviors, although consenting, do spread and when they do they break down the society whereby more govt is necessitated and that means less liberty too. I don't want that and I do not want to pay for that. I don't want to pay for other's stds, needles, broken families etc.

go bowe
03-15-2011, 12:15 PM
What if your neighbor turned his/her house into a strip club?i'd help him build an addition... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

suzzer99
03-15-2011, 12:18 PM
That's too much to ask for.


Watch you back. Banning Strip Joints is just the beginning for the Necromongers. Your journey to the Underverse will be glorious.

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv12/questionable_motives/riddick16.jpg

I'm so glad someone else appreciates this awesome awesome movie. So underrated at the moment. Til Underverse Come.

Easy 6
03-15-2011, 03:14 PM
Thank God atleast one state is ready to buckle down & tackle the the real problems we face these days.

Guru
03-15-2011, 06:39 PM
I'm no fan of strip clubs but have no problem with them existing. I don't think they should be anywhere near a school though.

banyon
03-16-2011, 09:18 PM
The Tenth Amendment leaves these things to regulate, not regulate or ban to the states which are allowed to go by community standards. It's earlier in the thread being clarified to Pitt Gorilla. Perhaps you should read the thread?



I understand the libertarian position perfectly well. But our Constitution is not libertarian in this sense because this is not the business of the Federal govt. No, the incorporation doctrine should not apply. It's bogus anyways. Unfortunately, some libertarians like R. Barnet and Pilon are libertarian centralizers who would use the incorporation doctrine to force the long arm of the feds on the states in the name of liberty. This is NOT our system. We are a federalist system which is what the Constitution established. So states have rights —not just individuals. There should be a balance between the group and individuals.

Personally, in my area I would allow them depending on how they are zoned. We have many here but they don't stick out like a sore thumb and I am not aware of any other issues they bring to the community. However, I do not buy the consenting adult idea as an absolute across the board valid reason for such things. I think it's bogus. Some behaviors, although consenting, do spread and when they do they break down the society whereby more govt is necessitated and that means less liberty too. I don't want that and I do not want to pay for that. I don't want to pay for other's stds, needles, broken families etc.

Pretending that this is a federalism issue is pretty obtuse. There is a massive conservative (and "tea party" to a lesser extent effort to get involved on all levels of government, state, local, and boards of education in which the local/state entity is demonized as some malevolent entity that is reaching too far into regular peoples lives. Have you not been paying attention to the rhetoric in Wisconsin? In any event the "government interfering with our lives" rhetoric is usually just code for "my property taxes are too high". Then when you get to the stuff they don't like, that rationale falls away.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 09:22 PM
I see no point in strip clubs. I find it a total waste of $ to throw cash at a woman you have no shot of going home with. That being said, it is a business and the last thing our State Gov needs to be doing is anything that hinders the profitability of a small business.

petegz28
03-16-2011, 09:23 PM
I'm no fan of strip clubs but have no problem with them existing. I don't think they should be anywhere near a school though.

While I have favored the notion of red light districts, wtf does putting it by a school have to do with anything? I am not saying it is ideal, but still.