EL-DUDERINO

[quote]I believe it lasted just a tad more than 48 hours & I believe the 'loyal opposition' was given ample time, not only to read it, but to raise objections & offer amendments.[/quote] The problem was that the country and our elected officials were all scared and wanted to something, anything, to make themselves feel safer. Enter the Patriot Act. There really wasn't much opposition to it as a result of this, I still maintain that many didn't actually read the thi

[quote]I'll respectfully disagree on the Patriot Act (I'm not sure about the Immigration Reform Act). The PA was a truly bi-partisan issue, both the 2001 and 2006 votes (that included Biden twice and Obama, due to length of time in the Senate, once).. LINK IMO they had plenty of time, unlike the stimulus bill, to examine it.[/quote] I will concede that with the 2006 renewal of it they all had time to know what was in it, but in 2001 it was a rush job and Bush and his cronies did

[quote]Actually I have no issue with government owned buildings banning smoking. I feel that's really the only place where they really do have the right to do so. They aren't privately owned businesses and do fall more into the realm of a "public place". It's actually sensible for them to do so because, as you pointed out, you often have no choice with regard to going to them.[/quote] I agree 100% here. The government can ban whatever they want from government buildings. B

[quote] Obama went to Williamsburg before his Democrat congress members and trashed the Republicans for wanting to look at the bill. He used what he refered to during the campaign as the "politics of fear" to scare folks into supporting the bill, sight unseen, without debate or input. Does that sound responsible to you? This bill needed to be passed so quickly, why? It didn't save my job, are you seeing a benefit? It was just to push an agenda through without questions, plain and simple.[/quo

[quote]It is perfectly legal to throw a bottle at yourself, and the whole point is that those things are illegal when they harm others. Please provide examples of legal actions that individuals can commit which harm others.[/quote] Smoking!!!! It is a legal activity that potentially harms other people. Loud music is another. Sure throwing a bottle at yourself is legal but throwing them at other people is called assault, hitting someone with a thrown bottle is batte

[quote]That's kinda hypocritical (which was my what I wanted some people to do) considering Bush was criticized and scorned for everything he did, even when the results were positive, such as the surge.[/quote] To be fair some of the criticism of Bush over the surge was that we should have sent more troops over for the initial invasion and occupation as more than a few generals and officials had recommended, all of which were quickly put out to pasture. That kind of criticism of

[quote]Either way, the example fails. In the one case the business is providing the activity which is harmful, and people pay for that activity (hence giving explicit consent). In the other case an individual is providing the harmful activity, and people aren't paying for it (hence any consent is presumed or non-existent).[/quote] huh? Just because the business isn't producing the smoke doesn't mean that the patrons haven't given consent. The patrons know before entering t

In fairness the nationalization of banks was started by Bush. Granted Obama has plans to increase the amount of nationalization over the next year or so. I don't know about you but I don't have much "hope" for America at this point.

[quote]Some people INSIST that prohibiting smoking in businesses is the same as prohibiting smoking per se. That is clearly wrong.[/quote] Who is stating this? I have never intentionally made that statement and I don't think anyone else on here has either. [quote]Both are strawmen and deliberate misunderstandings of my position. [/quote] Please see my last post for how I am not making strawman arguments. [quote]I also don't appreciate any argument startin

[quote]Ok. That does it. I am out of here. You win.[/quote] Look I'm not in this to win or lose, I am merely debating with you. The reason that I keep saying I'm not making a strawman argument is that I'm not arguing against whether smoking should be made illegal. If I were to say that banning smoking in private businesses is equal to making smoking illegal and that's wrong then that would be a strawman argument, but that's not what I'm doing. Let's try this

[quote]So I have the same rights as a smoker but only if I am a smoker?! Talk about a circular (and self defeating) argument. Smokers get to harm non-smokers, but non-smokers don't get to harm smokers as far as I can tell (it's impossible for a non-smoker to be a smoker, since a non-smoker by definition doesn't smoke).[/quote] But no one is taking away your right to smoke. If you don't want to be around smoke that is your choice just as if you want to enter an establi

[quote]You can drive (and you can drive, crash into your house, and injure yourself), but you can't drive into someone else.[/quote] Nope, if you crash into your house or if you have an accident where you are injured and are found at fault for the accident (ie drunk driving, excessive speed, etc) then you are charged with reckless endangerment among other possible crimes. Similarly if you crash into someone elses house and injure someone else and you are found to be at fault (sa

[quote]My house is neither a public place (like a bar or "public house" as we call them) nor a place of business (and my guests are not employees).[/quote] Again here is our disconnect. A bar or restaurant may be open to the public but it is still a privately owned building and so the same rules should apply to it that apply to your own home.

[quote]Smoking privately is not the same as smoking in a private establishment [/quote] It is the same thing. If you own your home would you be ok with the government telling you that you can't smoke, or play loud music? I know I wouldn't, so why should it be different just because you own a business? [quote]This has nothing to do with American law or European law and everything with the basic principle that NOONE, not even a smoker, has the right to harm other peo

Leauki, here is my disconnect with what you are saying: you appear to be contradicting yourself over and over again. Just from your last post (#220) take a look at the examples: [quote]having to explain again and again that nobody here advocated making smoking per se illegal.[/quote] Then in the next block you make the following statement: [quote]Bottles are legal substances and throwing bottles is a legal activity but throwing bottles AT people is not. I think smok

[quote]Which is exactly what the issues are about. Also the topic is weather or not it should be legal, saying that it should be legal because it is legal is a fallacy.[/quote] You may need to re-read the original post. The issue that is being discussed is whether the government should be allowed to ban a legal substance from privately owned businesses. There is a difference between a law and a regulation. [quote]THAT is the strawman Taltamir was referring to. Some

[quote]But I don't think smoking next to other people (unless they agree with it) should be legal, because it is an action that harms others.[/quote] But it is legal and this entire discussion hasn't been about whether or not we think smoking should be illegal, it has been about whether we agree with government telling privately owned businesses whether or not they can allow legal activity to occur within their establishment. If you think smoking should be illegal that is a co

[quote]Excuse me, but what exactly is "socialist" about banning smoking? I don't see how it has anything to do with socialism. Banning murder is not more "socialist" than not banning murder. And banning smoking is not more "socialist" than not banning smoking. EVERY regulation is not harmful. Making murder illegal is not "harmful". And I find the excuse that prohibiting harming other people is some sort of regulation of business and "socialism" quite laughable. It's avoiding the is

[quote]First of all, all bars you'd want to go to allow smoking. Otherwise they won't get the young people who think it's cool. So there really isn't any choice for the non-smoker who wants to avoid smoke, you can just pick between levels of haze. Since smoking in bars was banned in my town a few years back, I've spent drastically less on dry-cleaning bills and haven't lost a single piece of clothing to cigarette burns. I also haven't had a cigarette burn on my face, neck or arms f

[quote]If somebody lights up next to you, you could simply throw a bottle at him and claim that the restaurant owner didn't put up a sign forbidding the act. If he complains that causing him harm is forbidden anyway and that he doesn't see a need for a specific sign about it; apologise, tell him you didn't know, and remind him not to pollute the air you are breathing. I realise of course that you wouldn't do that. Neither would I. And that's the difference bet

Raising taxes (on the rich or otherwise) during a recession is NEVER a good idea. You need to wait until the economy recovers before you even consider raising any taxes. The first thing that we need is a solid plan from the administration. We need a strict set of rules that outline when the government will and will not get involved in "bailing out" companies. Part of the reason the economy is continuing to tank is because no one knows what the government plans to do.

Even thought I know that there is no way that Obama will get anywhere close to cutting the deficit in half, hell I'll be impressed if he is able to cut the deficit at all, I am interested in hearing how he plans to do it. There are basically only two ways to cut the deficit: 1) Raise Taxes or 2) Cut Spending. The last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes, especially in light of the various bailouts trying to sell any kind of tax increase when tax payer money

[quote]May I point out a flaw in your example? Once I pay for rabbit ears for my TV I pay one time only and no one can ever take my TV signal away (except now of course because of the change to digital but that's not the point). With a phone, you have monthly payments with multiple fees and taxes which will make the initial price higher once you get the first bill, not to mention it requires to make an appointment in most cases to have it installed. And once you miss payments you lose the ser

[quote]I'll have to disagree with you there buddy. The free dail-up internet would require people to have a phone line and with cell phone services being so cheap these days, many people probably don't even have phones at home. I didn't have one till a few months ago and mine is VoIP. Besides, dail-up is not slow, it's like going in reverse. That's like putting a Ferrari in the middle of New York traffic. Dail-up should go away like movies on VHS have.[/quote] I will use broadcast tv

[quote]The concept of individual responsibility for one's actions is really difficult for you to understand, isn't it? I see you cannot differentiate between tools and the actions they are used for and between actions and genetics.[/quote] No I understand personal responsibility. My examples were extremes of how far your argument could be taken by the government if we ignore the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions and that each person assumes a certain amo