Can someone explain why we can't just give freedom a chance?

[Unkotare]

The electoral college is actually a defense AGAINST the popular will.

No it's not, you idiotic coward.

 

[Unkotare]

That's the thing though. No one is forcing jack shit on you. YOU, on the other hand, are calling to force your crap on the owners and patrons of businesses. It is logical back flips and pretzels that you call such 'freedom.' It is simple concept; owners of private property and businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they are going to allow smoking in their facility. You do not have the right to that businesses product no more than you should have the right to decide what legal devices they allow there.

Yep.

The reason a person goes to a bar or a restaurant is that they want to. They have looked at the positives and the negatives of visiting that establishment and made up their mind that the good outweighed any bad.

Part of the "bad" for some is the smell of cigarette smoke. Okay, that goes into the equation. If that smell is enough of a negative to make you decide not to go there, that's the risk the business owner is willing to take. If the amount of business he loses as a result of allowing smoking outweighs the amount of business he adds or retains, he may choose the change his mind.

He can't make you go there, he can't make you stay there.

It's his call.

Not yours, unless you own more than 50% of that business, or unless you're chained to a chair.

Freedom has to be a two way street, or it ain't freedom.

.

The problem with the government's reasoning is that cigarettes are still legal. However, consider this: it is not illegal for you to go home, make a ham sandwich, wipe it on your ass, and then eat it. Would you want it to be legal to sell asswipe ham sandwiches to the public?

 

[JoeB131]

The electoral college is actually a defense AGAINST the popular will.

No it's not, you idiotic coward.

Okay, you've had four cases where the guy who got the most votes- which is the popular will- got the presidency. Three of those involved dodgy backroom deals (Adams and Clay made a backroom deal to give Clay Secretary of State in 1824, Southern states awarded their electors to Hayes in order to end reconstruction, Bush won because Republican appointees stopped a recount in FLorida).

But it gets worse. We have 50 states, but about 40 of them are already out of play. Which means if you live in Illinois or Texas, they don't care about your vote. It's just those 10 "Swing states", which will probalby narrow down to about 5 in October.

But here's the hilarious thing. By 2020, Hispanics will flip Texas to a blue state, and it will become mathematically impossible for a Republican to win after that.

But you'll defend this awful system no other country in teh world would ever use because 1) You have this bizarre worship of old dead slave-holders, and 2) You just can't admit George W. Bush was a huge mistake.

 

[Unkotare]

The electoral college is not a defense against the popular will, you idiotic coward. It is a means of balancing the interests and influence of states with large and small populations in our electoral system.

Open a book sometime, you fucking moron.

 

[rightwinger]

I have whatever rights a bar owner wants me to have as a patron in his establishment. If he wants to allow people to smoke in his bar, so be it. You don't like it? Pick a different bar where the owner banned cigs.

It's not like there's a shortage of bars in this country.

I'm afraid you don't. The bar owner does not have the choice to decide which toxic chemicals his patrons will be subjected to

Patrons have the right to enter an establishment and not be subjected to noxious smoke. You don't have the freedom to force your filth onto other people

Bullshit....The bar is private property.

If you don't like the air, go somewhere else.

You are correct

If smokers don't like the clean air, they are free to go somewhere else.

They are free to smoke on their own private property, not a public accommodation

 

[rightwinger]

That's the thing though. No one is forcing jack shit on you. YOU, on the other hand, are calling to force your crap on the owners and patrons of businesses. It is logical back flips and pretzels that you call such 'freedom.' It is simple concept; owners of private property and businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they are going to allow smoking in their facility. You do not have the right to that businesses product no more than you should have the right to decide what legal devices they allow there.

Yep.

The reason a person goes to a bar or a restaurant is that they want to. They have looked at the positives and the negatives of visiting that establishment and made up their mind that the good outweighed any bad.

Part of the "bad" for some is the smell of cigarette smoke. Okay, that goes into the equation. If that smell is enough of a negative to make you decide not to go there, that's the risk the business owner is willing to take. If the amount of business he loses as a result of allowing smoking outweighs the amount of business he adds or retains, he may choose the change his mind.

He can't make you go there, he can't make you stay there.

It's his call.

Not yours, unless you own more than 50% of that business, or unless you're chained to a chair.

Freedom has to be a two way street, or it ain't freedom.

.

You do not have the freedom to force noxious chemicals down another persons lungs any more than you have the freedom to dump noxious chemicals down a river.

If you don't like it, find another river

 

[JoeB131]

The electoral college is not a defense against the popular will, you idiotic coward. It is a means of balancing the interests and influence of states with large and small populations in our electoral system.

Open a book sometime, you fucking moron.

Why do we need to do that? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming count more than mine?

That's kind of stupid, when you think about it. (Oh, wait, you aren't into the whole "thinking" thing, are you?)

Two things we ought to chuck. The Senate and the Electoral College.

 

[JoeB131]

That's the thing though. No one is forcing jack shit on you. YOU, on the other hand, are calling to force your crap on the owners and patrons of businesses. It is logical back flips and pretzels that you call such 'freedom.' It is simple concept; owners of private property and businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they are going to allow smoking in their facility. You do not have the right to that businesses product no more than you should have the right to decide what legal devices they allow there.

Yep.

The reason a person goes to a bar or a restaurant is that they want to. They have looked at the positives and the negatives of visiting that establishment and made up their mind that the good outweighed any bad.

Part of the "bad" for some is the smell of cigarette smoke. Okay, that goes into the equation. If that smell is enough of a negative to make you decide not to go there, that's the risk the business owner is willing to take. If the amount of business he loses as a result of allowing smoking outweighs the amount of business he adds or retains, he may choose the change his mind.

He can't make you go there, he can't make you stay there.

It's his call.

Not yours, unless you own more than 50% of that business, or unless you're chained to a chair.

Freedom has to be a two way street, or it ain't freedom.

.

You do not have the freedom to force noxious chemicals down another persons lungs any more than you have the freedom to dump noxious chemicals down a river.

If you don't like it, find another river

A point here. The science on "Second hand smoke" is sort of dubious. While I don't like being around smokers and don't want them smoking when I'm trying to eat, the notion the government has to take away your ability to smoke in a bar to protect me is kind of silly.

 

[Unkotare]

The electoral college is not a defense against the popular will, you idiotic coward. It is a means of balancing the interests and influence of states with large and small populations in our electoral system.

Open a book sometime, you fucking moron.

Why do we need to do that?

Go back to the high school you dropped out of and slap the history teacher who failed to teach you anything right across the face, you ignorant shit.

 

[JoeB131]

The electoral college is not a defense against the popular will, you idiotic coward. It is a means of balancing the interests and influence of states with large and small populations in our electoral system.

Open a book sometime, you fucking moron.

Why do we need to do that?

Go back to the high school you dropped out of and slap the history teacher who failed to teach you anything right across the face, you ignorant shit.

I have a degree in history.

KNowing what happened doesn't make it a good idea.

Because the Founding Slave Rapers had a reason to put this in the constitution, doesn't make it a good one.

In fact, the electoral college as they originally envisioned it failed by the fourth election that they had with it in 1800. The system was so flawed they had to put in the 12th Amendment to give us the somewhat less flawed system we have now.

(It involved Aaron Burr trying to pull a dodgy deal to get appointed president even after Jefferson won the election.)

 

[Unkotare]

Why do we need to do that?

Go back to the high school you dropped out of and slap the history teacher who failed to teach you anything right across the face, you ignorant shit.

I have a degree in history.

And you don't understand the purpose and origin of the electoral college? What the fuck were you doing all that time, you idiotic pussy?

 

[JoeB131]

Go back to the high school you dropped out of and slap the history teacher who failed to teach you anything right across the face, you ignorant shit.

I have a degree in history.

And you don't understand the purpose and origin of the electoral college? What the fuck were you doing all that time, you idiotic pussy?

I understand the origin perfectly well.

Just like I understand the origin of the constituition counting blacks as 3/5th of a white man.

I just think it was a horrible idea, which eventually had horrible consequences.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" is usually the cause of most bad decisions.

 

[Unkotare]

I have a degree in history.

And you don't understand the purpose and origin of the electoral college? What the fuck were you doing all that time, you idiotic pussy?

I understand the origin perfectly well. .

From your comment thus far it seems you do not, you idiotic pussy.

 

[Oddball]

I'm afraid you don't. The bar owner does not have the choice to decide which toxic chemicals his patrons will be subjected to

Patrons have the right to enter an establishment and not be subjected to noxious smoke. You don't have the freedom to force your filth onto other people

Bullshit....The bar is private property.

If you don't like the air, go somewhere else.

You are correct

If smokers don't like the clean air, they are free to go somewhere else.

They are free to smoke on their own private property, not a public accommodation

Privately owned businesses and clubs are not "public accommodations".

 

[tjvh]

The electoral college is not a defense against the popular will, you idiotic coward. It is a means of balancing the interests and influence of states with large and small populations in our electoral system.

Open a book sometime, you fucking moron.

Why do we need to do that? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming count more than mine?

That's kind of stupid, when you think about it. (Oh, wait, you aren't into the whole "thinking" thing, are you?)

Two things we ought to chuck. The Senate and the Electoral College.

If we didn't have the Electoral College... New York, Chicago, and LA would be deciding our future Presidents. And we DON'T want that. The vote in Wyoming doesn't "count" more than yours, but the State of Wyoming's vote isn't negated by a State with a higher population. It's hardly "kind of stupid"... It prevents densely populated area's from maintaining a lock on who gets elected, by giving FAIR representation to States where fewer people reside.

 

[Mac1958]

That's the thing though. No one is forcing jack shit on you. YOU, on the other hand, are calling to force your crap on the owners and patrons of businesses. It is logical back flips and pretzels that you call such 'freedom.' It is simple concept; owners of private property and businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they are going to allow smoking in their facility. You do not have the right to that businesses product no more than you should have the right to decide what legal devices they allow there.

Yep.

The reason a person goes to a bar or a restaurant is that they want to. They have looked at the positives and the negatives of visiting that establishment and made up their mind that the good outweighed any bad.

Part of the "bad" for some is the smell of cigarette smoke. Okay, that goes into the equation. If that smell is enough of a negative to make you decide not to go there, that's the risk the business owner is willing to take. If the amount of business he loses as a result of allowing smoking outweighs the amount of business he adds or retains, he may choose the change his mind.

He can't make you go there, he can't make you stay there.

It's his call.

Not yours, unless you own more than 50% of that business, or unless you're chained to a chair.

Freedom has to be a two way street, or it ain't freedom.

.

You do not have the freedom to force noxious chemicals down another persons lungs any more than you have the freedom to dump noxious chemicals down a river.

If you don't like it, find another river

Nothing is being "forced down your lungs" when you can (1) choose to get up and leave, or (2) choose not to be there in the first place.

Do you really not see the distinction?

.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep.

The reason a person goes to a bar or a restaurant is that they want to. They have looked at the positives and the negatives of visiting that establishment and made up their mind that the good outweighed any bad.

Part of the "bad" for some is the smell of cigarette smoke. Okay, that goes into the equation. If that smell is enough of a negative to make you decide not to go there, that's the risk the business owner is willing to take. If the amount of business he loses as a result of allowing smoking outweighs the amount of business he adds or retains, he may choose the change his mind.

He can't make you go there, he can't make you stay there.

It's his call.

Not yours, unless you own more than 50% of that business, or unless you're chained to a chair.

Freedom has to be a two way street, or it ain't freedom.

.

You do not have the freedom to force noxious chemicals down another persons lungs any more than you have the freedom to dump noxious chemicals down a river.

If you don't like it, find another river

Nothing is being "forced down your lungs" when you can (1) choose to get up and leave, or (2) choose not to be there in the first place.

Do you really not see the distinction?

.

Or I could Choose to have the person who is fouling the air go outside......I like that idea better

 

[Pho_King]

You do not have the freedom to force noxious chemicals down another persons lungs any more than you have the freedom to dump noxious chemicals down a river.

If you don't like it, find another river

Nothing is being "forced down your lungs" when you can (1) choose to get up and leave, or (2) choose not to be there in the first place.

Do you really not see the distinction?

.

Or I could Choose to have the person who is fouling the air go outside......I like that idea better

What a pompous, selfish fuckstain...

I am willing to bet Rdean would love to see the US contemplate a law making it illegal for a man to stand up and urinate. After all, since she squats to pee, so should everyone else....

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing is being "forced down your lungs" when you can (1) choose to get up and leave, or (2) choose not to be there in the first place.

Do you really not see the distinction?

.

Or I could Choose to have the person who is fouling the air go outside......I like that idea better

What a pompous, selfish fuckstain...

I am willing to bet Rdean would love to see the US contemplate a law making it illegal for a man to stand up and urinate. After all, since she squats to pee, so should everyone else....

Yes....wanting to breathe clean air is so selfish

 

[Oddball]

Nobody's stopping you from breathing clean air....Stay home.