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

[rightwinger]

Jefferson Memorial

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I doubt anybody here disagrees with that. What is your point?

My point is that Jefferson acknowledged that future generations would need the government that met the needs of their society and that attempting to restrict government to the mores of 1780 was futile

 

[rightwinger]

I will trade the gays and the womens thing to be able to smoke at work and at bars....

Your freedom to smoke ends at my nose

Not on someone else's private property where they own the place of business and can say what their patrons can and can not do on the premises.

It's an issue the government had no business being involved in, much less the authority to do so.

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

 

[Paulie]

I will trade the gays and the womens thing to be able to smoke at work and at bars....

Your freedom to smoke ends at my nose

Your freedom to sit smoke-free at a bar ends at my pack of cigarettes.

Your freedom to choose another establishment that better suits your desires is the preferred freedom.

There's no reason why your desire to sit at a bar without smoke is more important than someone else's desire to be able to burn a fucking cig.

When it's happening on public property, then come talk to me.

 

[Paulie]

Your freedom to smoke ends at my nose

Not on someone else's private property where they own the place of business and can say what their patrons can and can not do on the premises.

It's an issue the government had no business being involved in, much less the authority to do so.

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Not on someone else's private property where they own the place of business and can say what their patrons can and can not do on the premises.

It's an issue the government had no business being involved in, much less the authority to do so.

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

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

 

[Liberty]

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

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

subjected to? It's a choice...

 

[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

subjected to? It's a choice...

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

 

[Douger]

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

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

Why the Hell not ? The Nazi's that own your ass force whatever the they want on you every moment of your life. Tell that shit to the folks in Fukushima.
Think about that when you're brushing your tooth and swishing around Alcoa's left over byproduct from Aluminum refining.

P.S. Should meatheads be subjected to flying bullets and roadside bombs ? Of course. They voted(asked) for it.
Do the same the next time you get an urge to hit the bar.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

subjected to? It's a choice...

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

 

[rightwinger]

subjected to? It's a choice...

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

Nobody has a right to force their filth on other people.

 

[Oddball]

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

Nobody has a right to force their filth on other people.

Nobody has the right to come onto private property and dictate to the property owner which perfectly legal behaviors his guests may or may not engage in.

 

[Oddball]

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

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.

 

[Unkotare]

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

Nobody has a right to force their filth on other people.

Then why do you keep posting here?

 

[Borillar]

Yeah RW, and I know you are a fucking idiot so I am going to let you being too dumb to answer the question posed slide and simply restate it more simply for your pea brain:

How far would the government have to go in taking freedom AWAY before you say enough is enough? Would you let an agent of the government anally rape you? Or is that too much power? Where do you draw the line personally?

I think Bush's gestapo (DHS) was an overreach. I think extraordinary rendition is a step too far. Isn't this latest abortion law requiring intrusive ultrasound probes close enough to anal rape for you? And all of these and many more are courtesy of conservatives. Things are better today for gays, but overall we were better off pre Bush. Now we need passports to go to Canada. We have to be groped in order to board a plane. I think we have given up quite a bit for a false sense of security.

 

[FA_Q2]

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

Nobody has a right to force their filth on other people.

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. It is self righties bullshit when people demand that smoking be forced out of restaurants, bars ect. Because they don't like it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why can't the federal government just stick to the constitution? Since when has this become a bad thing? I don't understand...republicans complain, democrats complain, our whole system is just whiners with no real solution...when the solution is right in front of us. That's right. I am talking about the damn United States Constitution. All the rules are in place...but we don't follow them. The federal government grows and grows and grows, seizes power that by design the 10th amendment is supposed to protect, etc. etc. Maybe the reason why the country is declining economically, morally, etc. is because we strayed from our foundation...the foundation of liberty secured primarily by local government.

God help us.

This is just naïve and ignorant.

The Federal government is ‘sticking to’ the Constitution, there is no deviation or aberration. The Constitution is fully functional today just as the Framers intended, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Constitution states nothing about what the ‘size’ the Federal government should be. Congress is authorized by both enumerated and unremunerated powers to address matters both ‘necessary and proper.’ See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).

Since the First Quarter of the 19th Century it was understood and accepted that the 10th Amended merely acknowledged a ‘truism,’ and that it places no restrictions on the Federal government with regard to its supremacy over the states. See: US v. Darby (1941), Cooper v. Aaron (1958). States may not preempt, ignore, or otherwise ‘nullify’ Federal statutes. Whether or not a given Federal law is un-Constitutional is for the courts to decide, not the states.

If anything, since the early 1950s, we have moved closer to the original intent of the Framers, by abolishing segregation, discrimination, and anti-miscegenation laws, all Americans today realize actual freedom and individual liberty.

Indeed, during the 20th Century it has been state and local governments who were the greatest enemy of individual liberty: black codes, poll taxes, and ‘separate but equal’ were but a few of the instruments of injustice used by the states in violation of the Constitution.

Telling how libertarians and conservatives bemoan the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet embrace the tyranny of the states.

God protect us from the ignorant and reactionary right.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your freedom to smoke ends at my nose

Not on someone else's private property where they own the place of business and can say what their patrons can and can not do on the premises.

It's an issue the government had no business being involved in, much less the authority to do so.

I'm afraid it does. You have no right to force your smoke into my lungs

You have the freedom to take your lungs to another business more suitable to you sensibilities. You do not have the freedom to dictate to someone else On their own property what they can or can not do.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Afraid not

You dont have the freedom to choose what noxious chemicals your patrons can be subjected to. Just because you choose to smoke, you don't have the right to force others to breathe your filth

I have to disagree, just go to a different place. And if they all have smoking, then you can start a new bar with no smoking and get all the non smokers there (I'm a nonsmoker too)

Nobody has a right to force their filth on other people.

Why are you here? Your filth and obtuse stupidity is pretty repulsive.

 

[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.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, you are probably right, at least if the Statist Progressive Totalitarian Cock Suckers had their way. The first thing they would do away with is the concept of Unalienable Rights. You know, Life, Liberty, Property, the Pursuit of Happiness, Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Right to Dissent, Free Will, Original Thought. I mean, whats more important to people like you, the will of the Collective, Right or Wrong, or Liberty and Justice? The Will of the Collective, of course, demonstrated by the long list of those thrown under the bus, for questioning or challenging your will. You Statist Prick that you are, are as much a product of your Society, as Our Founders were to Theirs, in Colonial Times, as much as Anyone was throughout time. The Difference between them and you, other than they had Spinal Chords, was and is that, They Tried to break out of the mold, and establish Justice, maintain it, and create an environment that would serve it and maintain it, honoring Free Will and Liberty. You, you elitist slug seek to establish a Society, where everything is controlled cradle to grave, 24/7, with one set of arbitrary rules for us, designed to give you and your friends unfair advantage, while you exempt yourselves from adhering to those same rules. Fuck You and the disrespect you show for our founders. When you find an honest moment within yourself, ask your self where did Slavery start? Where does it exist today? What are you doing to make the world a better place? Time to stop with the Propaganda Comrade, and maybe trying to earn an honest living.

Wow, does your doctor know you are off your medication?

Not very big on Individual Liberty, Free Will, Independent Thought, are you Sparky. Picked that up loud and clear. I guess in your case , you could argue that you can't lose something you failed in having from the start, common sense, and reason. Hold that thought.

No, I just don't idolize the Founding Slave rapers as people who were more free than we are.

Women couldn't vote. People who didn't own property couldn't vote. The electoral college is actually a defense AGAINST the popular will. Thomas Jefferson was raping Sally Hemmings on daily basis because she happened to look like his dead wife, and because she was his property.

They built this country on the backs of disenfranchised slave and immigrant labor, until the point those folks demanded the same rights everyone else had, through the abolition, women's rights, civil rights and labor movements.

Whenever a "conservatard" talks about liberty, what he usually means is, "They shouldn't be able to do that to me, I'm white, male and privilaged!"