What happened to our Freedom?

[clevergirl]

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.

A smoker is doing nothing illegal. Allowing your private business to be a "smoke free", or a "smokers allowed" establishment ought to be the right of the private owner.

A business operates within the civil codes and local state and federal statutes. Just because laws were passed banning smoking (a lawful activity) in public places is not equal to being a good law or even a constitutional law.

Your analogy contradicts your other failed points..there are specific laws about fire hazards.

 

[Pop23]

I think you understood. Mute meant moot

Your argument is that you don't like it, are unable to understand it dangers and, as an adult, are unable to make an informed decision without the government stepping in to protect your right to not be able to make a decision on your own.

The sign on the door protects both your and the bar owners rights, that is unless you are forced into the bar.

Are incapable of making that decision?

Oh, you completely glossed over the fact that codes are put in place to protect the public from defects they could not possibly be aware of. A sign could not solve that problem.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

A smoker is doing nothing illegal. Allowing your private business to be a "smoke free", or a "smokers allowed" establishment ought to be the right of the private owner.

A business operates within the civil codes and local state and federal statutes. Just because laws were passed banning smoking (a lawful activity) in public places is not equal to being a good law or even a constitutional law.

Your analogy contradicts your other failed points..there are specific laws about fire hazards.

Drinking is a legal activity. Yet there are restrictions on a business for who, when and how much someone is allowed to drink. Same applies to smoking

There are specific laws on fire hazards because it is in the public interest. Same applies to smoking

 

[candycorn]

WE the people have exactly the government we want/deserve.

Congressional stagnation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we're $17T in debt and we send 90+% of the people responsible back to Washington every 2 years, at some point, you have to look in the mirror and blame yourself.

Yes, by that I mean you. You who is reading this. And I who is writing this.

There are things more important in our lives than governance, it's that simple. Should there be? No. Is there? Yes. Otherwise, incumbency would be in the mid to low teens--about where the approval rate for Congress is.

Care to discuss? No...there are more important things in your life I bet. See? Didn't think so.

 

[rightwinger]

I think you understood. Mute meant moot

Your argument is that you don't like it, are unable to understand it dangers and, as an adult, are unable to make an informed decision without the government stepping in to protect your right to not be able to make a decision on your own.

The sign on the door protects both your and the bar owners rights, that is unless you are forced into the bar.

Are incapable of making that decision?

Oh, you completely glossed over the fact that codes are put in place to protect the public from defects they could not possibly be aware of. A sign could not solve that problem.

I could put up a sign saying "This building is not in compliance with the fire codes, but our beer is cheap...Enter at your own risk" Patron is given the choice to risk his health or not

 

[Pop23]

And still you make no argument. The fire code, if administered in the SAME way smoking bans are, then NO ONE would be allowed in the building, occupation would be banned.

Fire related issues cannot be known easily by the customer. Smoking can.

If you care to EVER compare an apple to and apple, then please at least try.

Or simply admit that, as an adult you are incapable of making an informed decision.

Simple as that

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think you understood. Mute meant moot

Your argument is that you don't like it, are unable to understand it dangers and, as an adult, are unable to make an informed decision without the government stepping in to protect your right to not be able to make a decision on your own.

The sign on the door protects both your and the bar owners rights, that is unless you are forced into the bar.

Are incapable of making that decision?

Oh, you completely glossed over the fact that codes are put in place to protect the public from defects they could not possibly be aware of. A sign could not solve that problem.

I could put up a sign saying "This building is not in compliance with the fire codes, but our beer is cheap...Enter at your own risk" Patron is given the choice to risk his health or not

Honestly...I'd be fine with that.

And hey, news flash: plenty of older buildings AREN'T compliant! Many are grandfathered in, many others just wing it and fly under the radar.

 

[Desperado]

Come on. What s the OP's point?

We have lost no freedom. If you nutters understood how strongly liberals like me value freedom, you'd stop trying to claim the concept. If people like me have anything to say about it ( and we do ) you will not lose your freedom.

Stop it already!!!!!!!!

A Day Late and a dollar short.
There have been many freedoms lost.
Used to be a time when you could board a plane without being searched.
Used to be a time when women could go into an auditorium. arena or stadium without having their pursues searched.
Used to be a time in the United States that you were innocent until proven guilty. Now it is a fact that you are guilty until proven innocent

 

[AmazonTania]

Executive Orders to oppose martial law. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Being able to jail you for life without charges, without trail and without a lawyer.

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

Executive Order #11000 allowing government to mobilize civilians into work bridges under this sole supervision.

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

All this and more in the past 12 years, but I'm suppose to believe no one has lost any freedom simply because two women are allowed to rub vaginas together.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because they won't do it with me... I dunno.

 

[rightwinger]

Executive Orders to oppose martial law. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Being able to jail you for life without charges, without trail and without a lawyer.

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

Executive Order #11000 allowing government to mobilize civilians into work bridges under this sole supervision.

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

All this and more in the past 12 years, but I'm suppose to believe no one has lost any freedom simply because two women are allowed to rub vaginas together.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because they won't do it with me... I dunno.

Wow....some list

Even though it is heavily edited and mischaracterized. How many of those have ever been implemented?

 

[AmazonTania]

Executive Orders to oppose martial law. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Being able to jail you for life without charges, without trail and without a lawyer.

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

Executive Order #11000 allowing government to mobilize civilians into work bridges under this sole supervision.

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

All this and more in the past 12 years, but I'm suppose to believe no one has lost any freedom simply because two women are allowed to rub vaginas together.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because they won't do it with me... I dunno.

Wow....some list

Even though it is heavily edited and mischaracterized. How many of those have ever been implemented?

All of them.

 

[rightwinger]

Executive Orders to oppose martial law. Suspension of Habeas Corpus. Being able to jail you for life without charges, without trail and without a lawyer.

Executive Order #10999 allowing the government to take over all modes of transportation

Government has the power to seize all financial assets if they deem it an emergency. Under Executive Order #11921 the President can declare a state of emergency that is undefined and cannot be reviewed for 6 months.

Executive Order #11000 allowing government to mobilize civilians into work bridges under this sole supervision.

Senate Bill #1873 allowing government to vaccinate you with untested vaccines against your will.

HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

All this and more in the past 12 years, but I'm suppose to believe no one has lost any freedom simply because two women are allowed to rub vaginas together.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because they won't do it with me... I dunno.

Wow....some list

Even though it is heavily edited and mischaracterized. How many of those have ever been implemented?

All of them.

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on their neighbor?

 

[Pop23]

Wow....some list

Even though it is heavily edited and mischaracterized. How many of those have ever been implemented?

All of them.

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on heir neighbor?

What is a heir neighbor?

A neighbor that inherited something?

Turnabout is fair play aye?

 

[rightwinger]

All of them.

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on heir neighbor?

What is a heir neighbor?

A neighbor that inherited something?

Turnabout is fair play aye?

I fixed my typo

Your point is moot

 

[Pop23]

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on heir neighbor?

What is a heir neighbor?

A neighbor that inherited something?

Turnabout is fair play aye?

I fixed my typo

Your point is moot

5 line above your inheritance still exists!

 

[AmazonTania]

Wow....some list

Even though it is heavily edited and mischaracterized. How many of those have ever been implemented?

All of them.

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on their neighbor?

What? You're not aware of the See Something, Say Something campaign the DHS has been implementing? You're not aware of any drug bust regarding the War on Drugs?

 

[rightwinger]

All of them.

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on their neighbor?

What? You're not aware of the See Something, Say Something campaign the DHS has been implementing? You're not aware of any drug bust regarding the War on Drugs?

Show where someone has been forced

You are not lying are you?

 

[AmazonTania]

OK

Where has someone been forced to spy on their neighbor?

What? You're not aware of the See Something, Say Something campaign the DHS has been implementing? You're not aware of any drug bust regarding the War on Drugs?

Show where someone has been forced

You are not lying are you?

Show me a totally innocent American citizen -- not tied to terrorism or any radical groups -- who has had their phone calls listened in on under decree of the Patriot Act. You wouldn't be able to gather that information anymore than I would. And yet, we know that DHS are listening on the phone calls of American citizen.

Dismissing something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is fallacious reasoning. We already know there are laws which allows these sort of actions by our Federal Government.

 

[rightwinger]

What? You're not aware of the See Something, Say Something campaign the DHS has been implementing? You're not aware of any drug bust regarding the War on Drugs?

Show where someone has been forced

You are not lying are you?

Show me a totally innocent American citizen -- not tied to terrorism or any radical groups -- who has had their phone calls listened in on under decree of the Patriot Act. You wouldn't be able to gather that information anymore than I would. And yet, we know that DHS are listening on the phone calls of American citizen.

Dismissing something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is fallacious reasoning. We already know there are laws which allows these sort of actions by our Federal Government.

You are dodging

Here is what you posted

. HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

I called you a liar.
Show me where anyone has been prosecuted for refusing to wear a wire to spy on their neighbors. If the sentence is mandatory. How many Americans are serving prison terms?

 

[AmazonTania]

Show where someone has been forced

You are not lying are you?

Show me a totally innocent American citizen -- not tied to terrorism or any radical groups -- who has had their phone calls listened in on under decree of the Patriot Act. You wouldn't be able to gather that information anymore than I would. And yet, we know that DHS are listening on the phone calls of American citizen.

Dismissing something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is fallacious reasoning. We already know there are laws which allows these sort of actions by our Federal Government.

You are dodging

Here is what you posted

. HR #1528 forcing Americans to spy on their neighbors, including wearing a wire. Refusal to do so is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

I called you a liar.
Show me where anyone has been prosecuted for refusing to wear a wire to spy on their neighbors. If the sentence is mandatory. How many Americans are serving prison terms?

By what basis do you believe anyone has refused to do any of these things? And you assume a case incident where someone did refuse would automatically get some sort of media attention?

Again, fallacious reasoning.