Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A biblical understanding of God was and is the only thing that made us stand out from all other nations.
Come on Nipps.....
Even you don't believe that one
I do believe this. Americans have been involved in more mission work, more humanitarian effort, more siding with those oppressed than any nation I can think of. And I feel it is because we at one time believed that God wanted the US to be His embassabor to the world. I feel that this is exactly what God expected of the nation of Israel. But they too feel short.
My rights end at your nose
Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar
Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.
My rights end at your nose
Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar
Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.
WTF? Seems like you all have a concept of freedom based on being able to kill yourself with cigs while hanging out in a bar.
Gee, lucky us eh? Now why is it so important that you be able to do that?
What can't you do anymore?
Pray out loud in a Public School. Say bang, bang, your dead in public. Wish out loud that someone should tar and feather the President... Describe scientific principles behind Creationism without being blocked by the government. The reinstating of parental concented corporeal punishment in public school (or any school for that matter).
My rights end at your nose
Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar
Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.
WTF? Seems like you all have a concept of freedom based on being able to kill yourself with cigs while hanging out in a bar.
Gee, lucky us eh? Now why is it so important that you be able to do that?
It was the influence of the Moravians. You've never indicated that you are a Christian. If you are not a Christian, then it is impossible for me to be a better Christian than yourself. I would be a Christian and you would be a non-believer.Come on Nipps.....
Even you don't believe that one
I do believe this. Americans have been involved in more mission work, more humanitarian effort, more siding with those oppressed than any nation I can think of. And I feel it is because we at one time believed that God wanted the US to be His embassabor to the world. I feel that this is exactly what God expected of the nation of Israel. But they too feel short.
Come on Little Nips....
Where do you think Americans learned to be missionaries? Your attitude is why people hate the overtly religious. The condescending.......Im a better Christian than you are and god likes me best
But only one meaning under the law, the only relevant meaning.
Under the law equality means a consistent application of public law and policy, regardless race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It means a particular class of persons cannot be singled-out by law to sustain a specific disadvantage unique to that class of persons.
It has nothing to do with earning anything or equal shares.
You then contradict yourself in your last paragraph: if one has an unqualified right to do as he wishes, then the state has no authority to place restrictions on a right even when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.
Therefore rights are not unqualified, they are not absolute, and are indeed subject to restriction.
The question then becomes what restrictions are appropriate and legal. Laws banning smoking in public places are Constitutional, for example, because theyre applied to everyone equally no particular class of persons is singled out. (No, smokers do not constitute a class of persons.) Laws banning smoking in public places are also legal as they are predicated on objective, documented evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking to society as a whole.
One does have the right to do as he wishes, until such time as society per the authority of government determines such actions to be in conflict with the best interests of society as a whole. One can either accept a given restriction or seek relief on court if he believes the restriction violates his civil liberties, either as an individual or as a member of an adversely effected class of persons.
You have the liberal/socialist concept of freedom down pat, but you have left out the one element that freedom applies to, and that is the individual. Classes of people do not have freedom, individual citizens do. Nor does equality apply to classes of people, it applies to individual citizens. An individual, regardless of his class or economic condition is entitled to the same freedoms and equality as any other citizen.
Laws banning smoking in public places may be legal, but that does not make them moral, proper, or equal. We are discussing freedom here, not what the government can do, or cannot do. You have the freedom to avoid public places that you consider hazardous to your safety or health. You do not have the freedom to demand that other citizens curb their otherwise legal activities to your convenience or desire for fresh air.
Equality has many meanings and equality under the law is only one of those meanings. One that has been pretty well universally accepted as a good thing. Consequently, it is not part of any real debate over freedom. Equality of outcomes is the current theme in our political world, and its application to personal freedom is what that equality means to different people.
Before you attempt to lecture me on eighth grade civics, make sure you understand the lesson yourself. The fact that government has the power to limit my freedom does not make it automatically right that the government does limit my freedom.
BTW, equality under the law is not the only relevant meaning to equality, in a discussion about freedom. Under the law, we already redistribute wealth. We have equal pay laws, and we have affirmative action laws. We have numerous tax laws and regualations that discriminate among citizens. All of these laws limit the freedoms of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens.
Nowhere in the Constitution do you have the freedom to force your personal filth on other people. Other people have the freedom to breathe clean air. YOU have the option of avoiding public places if you must indulge in your filthy habit
You have the liberal/socialist concept of freedom down pat, but you have left out the one element that freedom applies to, and that is the individual. Classes of people do not have freedom, individual citizens do. Nor does equality apply to classes of people, it applies to individual citizens. An individual, regardless of his class or economic condition is entitled to the same freedoms and equality as any other citizen.
Laws banning smoking in public places may be legal, but that does not make them moral, proper, or equal. We are discussing freedom here, not what the government can do, or cannot do. You have the freedom to avoid public places that you consider hazardous to your safety or health. You do not have the freedom to demand that other citizens curb their otherwise legal activities to your convenience or desire for fresh air.
Equality has many meanings and equality under the law is only one of those meanings. One that has been pretty well universally accepted as a good thing. Consequently, it is not part of any real debate over freedom. Equality of outcomes is the current theme in our political world, and its application to personal freedom is what that equality means to different people.
Before you attempt to lecture me on eighth grade civics, make sure you understand the lesson yourself. The fact that government has the power to limit my freedom does not make it automatically right that the government does limit my freedom.
BTW, equality under the law is not the only relevant meaning to equality, in a discussion about freedom. Under the law, we already redistribute wealth. We have equal pay laws, and we have affirmative action laws. We have numerous tax laws and regualations that discriminate among citizens. All of these laws limit the freedoms of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens.
Nowhere in the Constitution do you have the freedom to force your personal filth on other people. Other people have the freedom to breathe clean air. YOU have the option of avoiding public places if you must indulge in your filthy habit
Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to breathe clean air? And, if it did, where in the hell would you find some clean air to breathe? You have the right to avoid polluted air, if you can. But, you and others, who believe that other people have an obligation to cater to your perceived freedoms are misguided and self centered.
You are no different from the other yahoos who believe they have a right to have their ears protected from speech that they don't like, or have a right not to be subjected to the sight of others practicing their right of freedom of religion. Self centered asses that really believe the world revolves around them.
BTW, I don't like my air fouled by the stench of barbeque fumes every weekend, but I believe my neighbors also have the right to their pursuit of happiness.
My rights end at your nose
Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar
Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.
WTF? Seems like you all have a concept of freedom based on being able to kill yourself with cigs while hanging out in a bar.
Gee, lucky us eh? Now why is it so important that you be able to do that?
Go back and read the entire thread before posting your idiotic reply. Find where I said that the FREEDOM being taken away is mine. THE FREEDOM being removed is that of the BAR OWNER. I have no more freedom to smoke in a bar than that that the BAR OWNER grants me.
But Zeke, you go on killing yourself with the POISON the bar owner is legally allowed to sell. The substance that causes drunk driving deaths and hundreds of thousands of spousal abuse cases. BUT HEAVEN FORBID you allow a bar owner the right to allow smoking in his place of business.
Do you get it now?
WTF? Seems like you all have a concept of freedom based on being able to kill yourself with cigs while hanging out in a bar.
Gee, lucky us eh? Now why is it so important that you be able to do that?
Go back and read the entire thread before posting your idiotic reply. Find where I said that the FREEDOM being taken away is mine. THE FREEDOM being removed is that of the BAR OWNER. I have no more freedom to smoke in a bar than that that the BAR OWNER grants me.
But Zeke, you go on killing yourself with the POISON the bar owner is legally allowed to sell. The substance that causes drunk driving deaths and hundreds of thousands of spousal abuse cases. BUT HEAVEN FORBID you allow a bar owner the right to allow smoking in his place of business.
Do you get it now?
WTF?? Do I get what? I am free to go to a bar. I am free to drink in a bar. And my buddy who owns a bar is free to allow his patrons to smoke in his bar. Even though in the state of Ohio, smoking in a bar is illegal. But smoke they do. Freely.
Just what point are you trying to make? No one is "allowing" patrons to smoke in my friends bar except the owner. Does that make the bar owner more "free"?
Go back and read the entire thread before posting your idiotic reply. Find where I said that the FREEDOM being taken away is mine. THE FREEDOM being removed is that of the BAR OWNER. I have no more freedom to smoke in a bar than that that the BAR OWNER grants me.
But Zeke, you go on killing yourself with the POISON the bar owner is legally allowed to sell. The substance that causes drunk driving deaths and hundreds of thousands of spousal abuse cases. BUT HEAVEN FORBID you allow a bar owner the right to allow smoking in his place of business.
Do you get it now?
WTF?? Do I get what? I am free to go to a bar. I am free to drink in a bar. And my buddy who owns a bar is free to allow his patrons to smoke in his bar. Even though in the state of Ohio, smoking in a bar is illegal. But smoke they do. Freely.
Just what point are you trying to make? No one is "allowing" patrons to smoke in my friends bar except the owner. Does that make the bar owner more "free"?
Not sure how Ohio smoking bans, but from what I see in your post they are free to smoke in the bar illegally. Fair enough, but I also assume they are free to smoke until ticketed. paid freedom is not freedom. According to the government they are breaking the law. Your friend should be able to choose whether a legal product is consumed in his business without the risk of fine.
Now, when was the last time you were forced to enter a bar? Why is that such a tough question for people to answer? It's like pulling teeth.
WTF?? Do I get what? I am free to go to a bar. I am free to drink in a bar. And my buddy who owns a bar is free to allow his patrons to smoke in his bar. Even though in the state of Ohio, smoking in a bar is illegal. But smoke they do. Freely.
Just what point are you trying to make? No one is "allowing" patrons to smoke in my friends bar except the owner. Does that make the bar owner more "free"?
Not sure how Ohio smoking bans, but from what I see in your post they are free to smoke in the bar illegally. Fair enough, but I also assume they are free to smoke until ticketed. paid freedom is not freedom. According to the government they are breaking the law. Your friend should be able to choose whether a legal product is consumed in his business without the risk of fine.
Now, when was the last time you were forced to enter a bar? Why is that such a tough question for people to answer? It's like pulling teeth.
You have yet to answer the question of who is forcing you to smoke. Why is it such a tough question?
Not sure how Ohio smoking bans, but from what I see in your post they are free to smoke in the bar illegally. Fair enough, but I also assume they are free to smoke until ticketed. paid freedom is not freedom. According to the government they are breaking the law. Your friend should be able to choose whether a legal product is consumed in his business without the risk of fine.
Now, when was the last time you were forced to enter a bar? Why is that such a tough question for people to answer? It's like pulling teeth.
You have yet to answer the question of who is forcing you to smoke. Why is it such a tough question?
Where was I asked the question?
But I will answer. The product is legal. I grew up and made the decision on my own. No one forced me to smoke. Yet I never claimed to be entitled to a bar that allowed smoking. That would be the freedom of the bar owner
Why do you feel your freedom should be greater than the person who's investment is at risk?
It was you who claimed my freedom ends at your nose, yet you claim a right to freedom beyond the bar owners door?
Proceed with your justification or admit the hypocrisy.
Your first point is mute. A simple sign on the front door makes it so. Assumed risk is the legal principle that allows a boxer to be hit once he enters the ring without a crime being committed.
The codes you reference are also mute as they protect against latent defects caused by the business owner, not the customer. If you equate these to the way smoking bans are handled a bar would not be allowed to sell booze, it would be banned.
Your third point, once again proves the OPs point. Freedom is abridged.
Nowhere in the Constitution do you have the freedom to force your personal filth on other people. Other people have the freedom to breathe clean air. YOU have the option of avoiding public places if you must indulge in your filthy habit
Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to breathe clean air? And, if it did, where in the hell would you find some clean air to breathe? You have the right to avoid polluted air, if you can. But, you and others, who believe that other people have an obligation to cater to your perceived freedoms are misguided and self centered.
You are no different from the other yahoos who believe they have a right to have their ears protected from speech that they don't like, or have a right not to be subjected to the sight of others practicing their right of freedom of religion. Self centered asses that really believe the world revolves around them.
BTW, I don't like my air fouled by the stench of barbeque fumes every weekend, but I believe my neighbors also have the right to their pursuit of happiness.
Congress has a constitutional role to provide for the General Welfare of We the People including protecting oor air and water
Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to breathe clean air? And, if it did, where in the hell would you find some clean air to breathe? You have the right to avoid polluted air, if you can. But, you and others, who believe that other people have an obligation to cater to your perceived freedoms are misguided and self centered.
You are no different from the other yahoos who believe they have a right to have their ears protected from speech that they don't like, or have a right not to be subjected to the sight of others practicing their right of freedom of religion. Self centered asses that really believe the world revolves around them.
BTW, I don't like my air fouled by the stench of barbeque fumes every weekend, but I believe my neighbors also have the right to their pursuit of happiness.
Congress has a constitutional role to provide for the General Welfare of We the People including protecting oor air and water
So, in your humble opinion, your right to breathe clear air and drink clean water is up to the whims of politicians catering to the general welfare? How many of your other rights are you willing to place on the same plate?
Your first point is mute. A simple sign on the front door makes it so. Assumed risk is the legal principle that allows a boxer to be hit once he enters the ring without a crime being committed.
The codes you reference are also mute as they protect against latent defects caused by the business owner, not the customer. If you equate these to the way smoking bans are handled a bar would not be allowed to sell booze, it would be banned.
Your third point, once again proves the OPs point. Freedom is abridged.
No, they are not MOOT
A smoker has no rights to force his filth on to other people. As such, there is nothing to defend. A smoker choosing to spread his filth onto other people is indefensible
A business operates to the laws of the community. Putting up a sign does not exempt you from those laws. He cannot put up a sign that says "My building is a firetrap, but the beer is cheap, You decide whether you want to enter" and expect to be exempt from any responsibility
A business is responsible for its own actions and those that it allows on the premise.
Your first point is mute. A simple sign on the front door makes it so. Assumed risk is the legal principle that allows a boxer to be hit once he enters the ring without a crime being committed.
The codes you reference are also mute as they protect against latent defects caused by the business owner, not the customer. If you equate these to the way smoking bans are handled a bar would not be allowed to sell booze, it would be banned.
Your third point, once again proves the OPs point. Freedom is abridged.
No, they are not MOOT
A smoker has no rights to force his filth on to other people. As such, there is nothing to defend. A smoker choosing to spread his filth onto other people is indefensible
A business operates to the laws of the community. Putting up a sign does not exempt you from those laws. He cannot put up a sign that says "My building is a firetrap, but the beer is cheap, You decide whether you want to enter" and expect to be exempt from any responsibility
A business is responsible for its own actions and those that it allows on the premise.
They are all mute as you defend your position simply by denying reality
Why am I not surprised
