Local After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later - Page 17

Bowser · 01-16-2013, 12:05 PM

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

suzzer99 · 01-19-2013, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

3 liberals and whatever the **** KCNATIVE is calling himself these days. Actually I have no clue if the 3 banned are all liberals, really doesn't make a lick of difference. It's just the first three that decided other people's rights aren't that big of a deal... so I decided to illustrate the consequences of that line of thought to them. And YES it isn't a RIGHT to post on a BBS , let's try to be a little less literal...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Are you really this stupid?

Let's look at the entire exchange.

So, Direckshun claims I attacked A liberal and I correct him and point out it was 3. I then make it clear that, in fact, I have no clue if all 3 were liberal but that my statement was simply a correction of the use of the singular in his post which implied it was only one person who was targeted.

Pretty sure most people would read the exchange and conclude that I made it clear that I didn't know if the 3 were liberal or not. If you can''t see that then you may want to look into brushing up on your reading comprehension before you make it a habit of responding to my posts.

Oh ok. Well then I guess I was just making a point about how frustrating it is to argue with someone who's being intentionally obtuse, and ignores most of your points.

I'm sure you'll appreciate this new approach to forum use.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 01-19-2013, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turd Burglar

And AustinChief, there was a critical flaw in your attempt to teach me and the others a lesson by taking our "right" to post on ChiefsPlanet away......

I stepped outside to have a post on CP, but I still couldn't do it.

Raiderhader · 01-19-2013, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Oh ok. Well then I guess I was just making a point about how frustrating it is to argue with someone who's being intentionally obtuse, and ignores most of your points.

And Kyle manages to demonstrate two points with one blow. Pure genious (CP spelling).

suzzer99 · 01-19-2013, 05:39 PM

The funny part is, my intentional obtuseness to make a point is still orders of magnitude less dumb than the Republicans building their entire convention theme around an obvious Obama slip taken out of context, that a two-year-old could see didn't mean what they were claiming it meant.

So maybe there's three points in there somewhere.

**AustinChief** · 01-19-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

And AustinChief, there was a critical flaw in your attempt to teach me and the others a lesson by taking our "right" to post on ChiefsPlanet away......

I stepped outside to have a post on CP, but I still couldn't do it.

ARGHHHH! I am not claiming that smokers have a RIGHT to smoke in bars. I have NEVER claimed that. it is asinine. BAR OWNERS are the ones whose rights I am talking about. The law is a violation of their private property rights. Unlike the smoker who can step outside, or the nonsmoker who can go to a non-smoking bar... the property owner is left with NO recourse but to go along with the bullying of one advocacy group.

Bowser · 01-19-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

ARGHHHH! I am not claiming that smokers have a RIGHT to smoke in bars. I have NEVER claimed that. it is asinine. BAR OWNERS are the ones whose rights I am talking about. The law is a violation of their private property rights. Unlike the smoker who can step outside, or the nonsmoker who can go to a non-smoking bar... the property owner is left with NO recourse but to go along with the bullying of one advocacy group.

I was just trying to be clever/funny. I'm not slinging darts at you.

**AustinChief** · 01-19-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

I was just trying to be clever. I'm not slinging darts at you.

It actually was pretty clever, I just wanted to make sure my point was clear.

suzzer99 · 01-19-2013, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

ARGHHHH! I am not claiming that smokers have a RIGHT to smoke in bars. I have NEVER claimed that. it is asinine. BAR OWNERS are the ones whose rights I am talking about. The law is a violation of their private property rights. Unlike the smoker who can step outside, or the nonsmoker who can go to a non-smoking bar... the property owner is left with NO recourse but to go along with the bullying of one advocacy group.

Do you feel property owners have a right not to serve black people if they don't want to?

Cmd'r&Chief · 01-19-2013, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Do you feel property owners have a right not to serve black people if they don't want to?

I suppose anybody business owner should be allowed to not serve whoever they want...Though it would be an incredibly poor business decision to do so.

**AustinChief** · 01-19-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Do you feel property owners have a right not to serve black people if they don't want to?

of course, so now non-smoker is a protected class? Don't be a ****ing moron.

I could just as easily say... "do you think it is ok for a majority racist, white town to pass a law saying bar owner's aren't allowed to serve blacks or mexicans." See the problem?

Smokers and non-smokers aren't protected in that way so it is idiotic to try to take the argument down that road.

Let's try to stay away from protected classes and instead look at optional behavior that could offend (ie smoking). As I pointed out before. Let's pretend you live in Texas and open a bar. The majority in town are Cowboys fans.. they find it offensive to be around fans of other teams. Is it ok for that majority to pass a law making it illegal for the bar in question to display Chiefs gear? What about not even displaying Chiefs gear but just ALLOWING patrons to wear Chiefs gear? It would be a RIDICULOUS law. The very idea that someone would be ok with that is ludicrous. That's the exact same situation with smoking bans except that smoking has been demonized to the point that people no longer feel any outrage when private property owner's get ****ed by laws like this.

Yes, you can argue... WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENZ!!! WHAT ABOUT THE WORKES HEALTH!!! As I have pointed out... if ETS levels get high enough to violate OSHA's workplace air quality standards then you'd have an argument. They don't, so you don't.

No one really cares about the workers. It's just an excuse to get their way, push their agenda and to bully private property owners. Period. They want non-smoky bars to go to and don;t want to let the MARKET decide. They'd much rather just FORCE private businesses to do what they want.

dmahurin · 01-19-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Do you feel property owners have a right not to serve black people if they don't want to?

Yes, but they will go out of business really fast. The beauty of the free market at work.

suzzer99 · 01-19-2013, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

I suppose anybody business owner should be allowed to not serve whoever they want...Though it would be an incredibly poor business decision to do so.

Yeah except plenty of business owners in the south were doing just fine for hundred years with that policy. The reasons it would be a bad business decision have a lot more to do with the civil rights movement than you think.

suzzer99 · 01-19-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmahurin

Yes, but they will go out of business really fast. The beauty of the free market at work.

Yet they didn't in real life in the South. For decades. And there was no sign they were going to.

dmahurin · 01-19-2013, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Yet they didn't in real life in the South. For decades. And there was no sign they were going to.

Ya 50 years ago, do you think that would fly today?

Cmd'r&Chief · 01-19-2013, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Yeah except plenty of business owners in the south were doing just fine for hundred years with that policy. The reasons it would be a bad business decision have a lot more to do with the civil rights movement than you think.

It wouldn't anymore though. The mass majority of America is over racism. For some reason we think we need to keep holding on to it though.

View Poll Results: How do you feel about the smoking ban?
Love it	38	53.52%
Hate it	8	11.27%
It's still a violation of my civil rights	13	18.31%
Couldn't care less one way or the other	12	16.90%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

01-16-2013, 12:05 PM
Bowser What's Clark gonna do, Cotton? Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In Transition Casino cash: $50964929	After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another? Poll to come.
Posts: 45,314

01-19-2013, 05:39 PM	#244
suzzer99 Veteran Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: LA Casino cash: $36282	The funny part is, my intentional obtuseness to make a point is still orders of magnitude less dumb than the Republicans building their entire convention theme around an obvious Obama slip taken out of context, that a two-year-old could see didn't mean what they were claiming it meant. So maybe there's three points in there somewhere.
Posts: 3,389

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode