Y2HH

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ May 11, 2007 -> 01:45 AM) I haven't been able to edit any of my posts for like a week now. Anybody else having this problem? Probably because you have an AAAnderson avatar, and now you can't do anything right? Edit. It's your web browser...something is messing it up -- reboot. ;D

Sweeney > AAAnderson.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 11, 2007 -> 02:10 AM) Sox lose 4-2. Who let the Cubs fan in here? I thought we traded this Rowand44 guy...who brought him back?

31, 5'7"

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) Bottom line, nice arguments, I hope you find a nice smoke filled environment, too bad it won't be in Illinois public places.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) Fair enough. How do you answer those studies that show a significant health risk? Are you dismissing those as well? Show me the correct way to respond when statistics show something that goes against your point? Since you asked how I respond to studies that show a significant health risk, I answer by researching it for myself, checking for counter studies that show little to no heath risk and then questioning both sides. Blindly following the one side that makes our life more convienent is NOT the answer, because it may be a decided inconvienence to others, even if you disagree with their stance. I don't smoke, but I still don't believe some cherry-picked data study that shows a clear agenda to ban smoking, researched and funded by people who hate smoke/smokers. A few questions you need to start asking are why were these studies made? Who made them? And is it possible that these "health risks" are only going to affect people who have a family history or faulty gene that allows it to affect them?! And furthermore, to get the data to support the arguement, did they flood the pool of people with those that show such a family history?! I bet you believed every word Michael Moore said in his movies, too...because you never bothered to see if there was another side to the story. You see, I can do that to you too...you know, just make totally ignorant assumptions like you keep doing in response to me? I'd appreciate it if you'd stop if you want to have an intelligent conversation, whether we agree or not. Because our government has nothing better to do than inspect the multitude of bars and other public places 24/7, nevermind the endless amounts of crime in the streets that they already don't have time for -- we have to make sure people are leaving the bars on time and not getting happy hour prices@!#$@!@! Yea...right. We all want to live in a utopian society, but that's not reality, nor will it ever be in our lifetimes. There you go again, taking personal, and quite ignorant shots at "my convoluted logic" and "my world". Not the best way to argue a point. Moving on. When it comes to complex issues, it often takes multiple GOOD solutions working together to solve them, not just multiple solutions, even if those "solutions" aren't good ones. Yes, in my world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference...and why?! Because it HAS NOT. Since this was your second "shot" at me, time to return fire by prooving you wrong on this once again, just so you stop trying to lean on this WEAK arguement over and over. Tex (the law) limits alcohol content in beer to 5%. Fine. Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 beers instead of 2. So much for your 5% limit. Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 shots of Everclear, completely EVADING your stupid beer law. So much for your 5% limit...again. Now, do you see where YOUR convoluted, and frankly, short-sighted logic fails?! First, the limit on alcohol content is only for imported and MACRO brew beer. Second, you can't limit how much a person can or will drink. PERIOD. For further proof, go to any brewhouse and you can get beer with 8+% alcohol content, so again...stop making up "facts" to support your bias, and frankly condescending method of argument, because you are simply WRONG in this case. These are not "good" solutions, they are stupid government mandated "bad" solutions so a bean-counter can sit behind a desk and say "we are doing all we can" when a mother asks WHY her son was killed by a drunk driver. Also, you seem to be forgetting there is much more available in terms of alcohol than beer. Tell me, since you seem so good at making up statistics on the spot -- whats the U.S. alcohol limit on Everclear? And since we all know the answer is NONE, because it's 100% pure grain alcohol...what stops me or someone else from going to a bar and drinking 5 shots of that, and then driving? Answer? Nothing, other than my own self control to NOT. Takes that same self control to not walk into a privatly owned business where smoking is permitted.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:27 AM) That is the only even closely related to the second hand smoke and trans fats debates. Finally another voice of reason. I stopped trying in this conversation because any statistics they post are 100% accurate, and anything you say to dispute those claims, such as scientific studies that have prooven second hand smoke has almost a negligible effect, they will dismiss by saying those studies are "backed by big tobacco and other companies that want to proove smoking is safe", when they aren't. Have there been studies backed by big tobacco? Yes. Are these those same studies? No. But that doesn't matter, because it doesn't back their argument, so it CANNOT be true. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's freedom as long as "they" agree with it, and only IF "they" agree with it. Otherwise they hide behind public safety laws and other such nonsense. Who are they? The majority that can be convinced to think exactly how the government wants you to think. Heaven forbid someone question these "stats" and "laws"...if they do that, suddenly they go from, "I don't agree with non-smoking or non-trans fat laws" to "orphanage burning toxic waste dumping criminals". What a way to dismiss someone who is a skeptic of big brother invading everything in our lives. Same with drunk driving. They'll post stats that proove "drunk driving related deaths have lowered because less people are drinking". Uh...well, I have eyes...and less people are NOT drinking. My brother is a cop in Chicago -- and he says DUI's are so common that most cops don't care. Fact of the matter is, now, versus in the 80's, cars are about 5000% safer to drive and crash, because of airbags, side airbags, crumplezones and various other breaking and safety features. None of which have ANYTHING to do with controlled alcohol content in beer (simply drink more), closing times (simply show up earlier), or non happy hour prices (joke -- just at a bar the other day and beer was like 1$, kthanks). Bottom line is...there is MORE too these stories than they'd like to admit. Yes, perhaps those laws DID contribute to drunk driving casulaities going down -- but they are NOT the only factor. Same for second hand smoke...I'm sure there is somewhat of a contributing factor, but how much? And which studies do we believe? QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 07:51 AM) But how can you call a bar "private"? That is the biggest misnomer in all this. Bars are public places and subject to laws. I will agree that a true private club should be exempt from this. Perhaps the definition is public/private has become convoluted here. That bar is owned by a person, making it privatly owned. It's not publically traded, the government doesn't subsidize it, and the tax-payers aren't helping pay the rent, expenses, licensing fees or employment costs. That, to me, is PRIVATE. What you're saying is that a business that services the "public" is therefore "public"? Sorry, but I'm not buyin' your brand.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) Drunk driving fatalities have dropped further than overall. So vehicle safety, while helping, can not fully account for all the decline. But check with noted scholars Penn and Teller to see if they agree I hope you find a suitable smoke filled environment to satisfy your cravings. And the beauty of America is laws can be enacted when people create a public nuisance. For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked. Now to russle me up some cattle.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) Wow. I'm confused,. I thought Penn and Teller are magicians. You do know there have been hundreds of scientific studies, not just the EPA regarding second hand smoke. You may not understand this, but part of a study being accepted in scientific circles is it being repeatable. Peer review is a wonderful thing. When different scientists, in different experiments, come up with the same results, it is accepted as fact. Over the decades, with more and more studies and longer term research we are seeing all sorts of health issues with second hand smoke. Some of the studies take time because they are looking at long term exposure. But choose to believe the cigarette companies if you choose. Yes a determined person can drink until they are drunk. But bottom line alcohol related fatalities have been dramatically reduced over the past 25 years. Find a study that shows an increase over the same time period. There is a difficulty in comparing, the legal definition of drunk has changed, making people who were not deemed drunk under the old laws are now deemed drunk. This increases some of the stats. If we applied the same legal threshold, the results would be even more dramatic. (in many states, someone at .09 in 1990 wouldn't be listed as drunk driving, they would in 2007) Let's see, while complaining about apples and oranges arguments you bring in magicians, Yogi Berra, and global warming. It appears to be all public places. Ok I'm done. You are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong. FYI, there are "scientific" studies by the same "scientific" community that dispute second hand smoke studies, whether you accept them as existing or not, they do. Nice way to ignore the fact that cars are generally safer, after I pointed it out, which helped equate to less casualities due to drunk driving, too. And yes, they are magicians, quite the same as I'm a network engineer in the computer sector, but my knowledge or wisdom doesn't end there, either. Kinda like the same way I assume that just because you're from Texas, you're not automatically a cowboy rancher that knows nothing outside of that sector.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) Bars have closing times. Bars are stopped from offering happy hour drink prices. Beers have alcohol content limits. So we do regulate before the fact. It is not an opinion that second hand smoke carries health risks, it is fact. Again, in America we draw the line when someones actions harm others, regardless of venue. You keep mentioning that the public *chooses* to go in bars. Are you claiming then that companies should not be required to have a safe workplace? That businesses should not be required to have a safe environment for customers? http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html Wow. You don't see it cutting down on drunk driving? You are kidding right? 90% of baseball is half mental, too. 90% of stastics are made up or fixed to proove a point. Statistics are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate, depending on whos taking them. A person that wants to proove that drunk driving related accidents are down can do a number of things to support his or her viewpoint. Also, cars are simply SAFER now than they were in the 80's, so although drunk driving related deaths have fallen, which I take with a grain of salt, it may not be because less people are driving drunk, but simply because survival of car crashes is better now than back then. You can regulate how much alcohol is in a beer, but you can't regulate the fact I can simply drink more. And bars not having happy hour prices?! That's the BIGGEST load of crap I've EVER heard...because bars do it all the time here in Chicago...and other places I've been too. And closing times?! Another joke. People simply show up earlier to counteract such things. And depending on the study you read, second hand smoke does nothing...or something -- like I said, based on which study you choose to believe. There was an entire episode of Penn & Tellar on this very subject, where they exposed the second-hand smoke myth, since it's based on an EPA study that the EPA admits is completely fabricated, yet doesn't pull... I just did a quick search on second hand smoke, and a ton of website says its BS while a ton of others say that the websites that say it's BS are BS. The world is full of lies. So color me cynical for questioning you or these "stats" or "studies"...since for every one, there is one that argues counter. In the 70's it was global cooling, now it's global warming. Smoking bans and studies on them mean you can get funding for your science projects, weather they actually be about second hand smoke or not...same goes for the hype surrounding global warming. So of course there are a billion studies supporting these things -- they're being funded with endless amounts of cash to do so.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) I'm certain you can google some studies that show it hurts business badly. There are also studies that show larger bans are better than localized ones. For business, a citywide ban is better than a neighborhood ban. A county wide ban is better than a city wide ban. A statewide is better than a county wide. Best of all is a nationwide ban. Now that bar patrons do not have a choice, it becomes drink in a bar or not. Not between smoking and non smoking bars. All establishments in Illinois are now playing by the same rules. Will this discourage some people from drinking? Possibly, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Less drunk drivers on the roads. That would be nice, but I don't see it cutting down on drunk driving accidents...at all. Considering bars are places we commonly have to drive too, in order to drink, the entire establishment is flawed in that when we leave...we're probably going to drive. Maybe they need to fix that fundamental flaw with "bars" too.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) That is called a straw argument. No one is banning cigarettes. No one is stopping anyone from smoking in their homes, in their cars, etc. I believe: The government has an obligation to protect workers and regulate workplaces. The government has an obligation to protect the public health and safety Drinking? We regulate when, where, and how much you can drink. Books? We also regulate content in books, we regulate who can buy certain books and magazines. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. In some cases, such as public health and safety, I do agree...but in others, it just comes across as over-protection. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar, and just because you choose to do so, doesn't mean you should have the right to press your opinions on the owners. And although we regulate where and when and how much we drink...almost nobody enforces most of these until it's too late...which is why drunk driving is *still* a common occurance. So...so much for public protection, since it's such a HUGE killer of innocents.

And allow me to reiterate. I do not, nor have I EVER smoked. I just don't like being told that because something is bad for me that it's banned. I hate the word banned. Alcohol is bad for me but I like my beer, and someone drinking until they can barely see is just as hazerdous to your life as someone else smoking, perhaps even moreso. They banned books back in the day due to the messages or stories in them. I disagreed with that, too. Because in the wrong hands, knowledge is even more dangerous as second-hand smoke. QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) So the fact it is legal has no bearing on this argument? That even though it is legal, the government does have the right to regulate when and where a legal product can be used? I thought you claimed that because it's legal, it should be allowed in the bar. I feel smoking and drinking go hand in hand. Bars aren't the place to be if you're looking for good health, if that's what you looking to do, go work at a health club or go work out at one. It's like baseball and hot dogs and beer...not always the best/most healthy combination, but they belong together...IMO. I just don't like big brother interfearance on things like this...it hurts the businesses, badly, and these smoking bans in the suburban areas have prooven that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Pollution standards on cars are regulated by the local, state, and federal governments. Bad choice of arguement if you want to say legal things shouldn't be regulated. I guess we should get rid of all of the regulations that make business run safely then? No pollution controls on steelmills, no protections against unsafe working conditions for people etc? After all they chose to work there. Heck while we are at it, let's put asbestos back into schools, along with lead paint, because people choose to go to school, right. Talk about a weak arguement. OSHA regulated OSHA regulated The right to swing your arms, ends at the tip of my nose. Nah, your arguement has bigger holes than the Titanic. That's why people disagree with you. So are you taking your ball and going home now? Then by all means disagree, but don't get mad when people don't agree with you. You misunderstand me, in everyway possible. I'm not mad in the least. I simply don't agree with the law they passed. They also passed the Patriot Act...which I don't agree with. Just because a law or bill is passed doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it, even if you do. QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) You are wrong when you misstate facts. (Unconstitutional) You are wrong when your analogies are inaccurate. (Legal here should be legal everywhere) You are wrong when there is objective evidence. (Your business doesn't need to conform with laws) You are not wrong by stating an opinion or conclusion drawn from facts, laws, accurate observations, etc. You are wrong for claiming I said things that are legal should be legal everywhere. I never said that. I said that legal products should be allowed in private businesses/residences. That I said. Everywhere...I did not. I never said businesses don't have to conform to laws. Ever. I simply said and I disagree with the law they passed. Going back to my original point, one less right we have, even if we don't all like it. Perhaps I did misstated the unconstituional thing...for that I apologize. Forgive me for not wanting/liking the idea of big brother government regulating everything and anything that is legal but prooven to be bad for us. I like a big mac once in a while, and I don't want them telling me I can't eat one when I want too.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) We've been reducing emissions in cars. We've greatly improved mine safety. Both through government regulations. No one is forcing someone in a wheelchair to work someplace, yet the ADA regulates that most businesses must comply. You bring up unconstitutional (sic), I reply it isn't even in the Constitution, you say apples and oranges You say the products are legal and should be allowed everywhere, I show where we regulate legal products all the time, you say apples and oranges. You say you should be allowed to have smoking in *your business*, I show where your business is already regulated and must have safe working conditions, you say apples and oranges. We draw the line when your freedom causes harm to others. I never said products are legal and should be allowed *everywhere*. I said they are legal and should be legal in private homes/establishments. So again, apples and oranges. My business is mine. You don't have to come there nor do you have to work there. Apples and oranges again. I know...you want it your way, right away...so go work at Burger King. The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want. If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow it. But force banning them from allowing it is, as Penn and Tellar may say...is bulls***.

Wow does the modern state of pro-wrestling absolutly SUCK.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) And even if it is "your business" you still have provide reasonable working conditions to your employees. Introducing known cancer-causing agents into the enviornment isn't tolerated anywhere else, I don't know why smoking is supposed to be different. Our cars introduce known cancer-causing agents into the environment everyday, and it IS tolerated to certain sustainable levels. So I feel we should ban cars, too...because I shouldn't have to breath their exhaust because I choose to ride bikes. Oh wait...that's different, right, because you don't agree with it? Just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't make it right or wrong. Nobody is forcing you to go to a privatly owned bar/establishment, just as nobody is forcing employees to have to work at one. These are weak sauce arguements. QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:46 AM) Drinking *and then* driving with a blood alcohol level under .08 is legal. Drinking *while* driving, regardless of BAC, is illegal. Apples and oranges? You said I was ignoring the fact that cigarettes are legal. I pointed out when and where we regulate legal products. Seems very point on. Your business must be safe for your employees. Or should you be allowed an unsafe workplace because it's private and people can choose to work there, or not? No one is arguing if you are over 18, that you can not smoke at home. YOUR business has to comply with US laws. YOUR business, must comply with ADA requirements, all license and regulatory issues. Why should smoking be different? Right. Work somewhere else. We still have coal miners, and breathing the air in such mines is hazerdous, but people still choose to do these things. Maybe we should ban coal mines. Oh wait, let's ban all fossil fuels, including charcoal used for BBQ's, becuase that spews chemicals I have to breath, too. The point is...where do we draw the line between freedom and lack thereof? You ARE arguing apples and oranges, you simply disregard doing so because you disagree with me. I know how to solve this. I agree with everything you said. So now I'm right, right? Wrong. The issue with this arguement stems from political debate. I'm wrong until I agree with your view. And you're wrong until you agree with mine. Only I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm simply saying I disagree with you. That's kinda my right.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:03 AM) *YOU* called it unconstitutional (sic) I thought for it to be Unconstitutional, it would have to actually be in the Constitution. We regulate legal products all the time. Liquor is legal, but you can't drink in your car. Guns are legal, but you can't take them into banks. Private airplanes are legal, but there is restricted airspace. Playing music is legal but you can't blare it at 3 am. Taking a crap is legal, but you can't take a dump in the middle of a bar. Well, at least not the bars I go to. Driving 65 is legal in some places, not allowed in others. Nude dancing is legal in some bars, not others. Just because a business is private, doesn't mean it can ignore laws. I'm not ignoring it's legal, I've pointed out we regulate legal products all the time. And where do your freedoms and rights come from? Are they different than the freedoms and rights of someone who lives in Canada or Cuba? Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it. You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now.

I love it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) We protect workers and the public all the time from unsafe conditions. Asbestos, lead paint, lead in gas, auto emissions, etc. Why is smoking different? The evidence of health risks from second hand smoke has reached a critical mass where society can not ignore it anymore. Hiding behind a literal interpretation is weak? Objective evidence is far stronger than inference and freedoms by omission . And where in the Constitution is the right to smoke? You still haven't told me where in the Constitution is our right to eat. Comes to my attention that some of us need to be told how much we have the right to eat because some obese people are clearly over-eating and killing themselves in about the same life shortening way as smokers... In a private establishment, the government shouldn't interfear with the use of LEGAL products, that is the fundamental problem with this. You are choosing to ignore the fact that tobacco is LEGAL, and you seem content/ok with the government telling you when you can and cannot use said legal product in your OWN ***private*** establishment. I'm not buying what you're selling me here. Next thing we know, the government will tell us what times of the day or night we can eat LEGAL foods in our own homes. You may be ok with that...but I'm not. Because that's called Communism.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) I guess I am still in the old Harshbarger (an old college prof of mine) mode of answering questions, where you give the best answer, not necesarily a "correct answer". A weak dollar as a negative isn't the best answer, because there are a lot of positives to it as well. I guess it depends on who you are trying to educate. If you want to try to give that answer in a high school intro class, you might be able to get away with it, depending on how much the teacher hates his life. In college, they would mark it wrong everytime. Actually, I find it weird that the question we are discussing was on a college exam. I've never taken a college exam where it didn't require you to explain the answer you give.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:16 AM) Don't we have a right to clean air? Did we take away the "freedom" of car owners to drive cars with poor emissions? Many parks already have non drinking sections. We have health inspectors to keep that hotdog safe. Should we have the freedom to make unsafe hotdogs? I don't understand the right to smoke anywhere, where is that in our constitution? First, hiding behind the 'literal' intrepretation of the constitution is a weak way to argue. Does the consitution tell us we have the right to eat food? And since it doesn't, should we be eating at all?! See the way that works? There are things that don't need to be in our "constitution" that are simply "human rights". Like breathing, eating and sleeping -- because nowhere in the constituion does it give us explicit rights to do those things. And if you have the right to clean air, shouldn't I have the inverse right to dirty air, if I so choose? Oh, wait...I need to be more open minded, right? And as long as I agree with everything you say, then I'm free to do it? That's not how freedom works. Oh, and before you say something insane to counterpoint me like, "Ok then, should I have the right to shoot people randomly on the streets", let me clear something up. I have no problem with them banning smoking outdoors or in publically owned places...but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational. Tobacco is a LEGAL product. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but passing by this establishment, say to get from point A to point B, on public property, that is absolutly your right, and in that right you shouldn't have to deal with smoke. If that is the case, I agree with you. There is a time and a place for certain things. Drinking in bars, not on the streets. Smoking in bars, not on the streets. I can deal with that. But when the government begins to tell us, yes, although this product is LEGAL, it's ILLEGAL for you to use it in your own private establishment...then I have to question freedom as a whole.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) That isn't totally right, and it isn't totally wrong. Trades doesn't have a negative effect on the dollar, it is a trade imbalance that moves the value of the dollar. You also can't necesarily call a weak dollar a negative. It is so much more complex than that. But the question was open ended...and although a weak dollar isnt always a negative, in some cases...it is. So in response to the question, "What is a negative effect of foreign trade?", a weaker dollar isn't wrong, simply because the question never asked for any explaination. If the question was re-worded, "What is a negative effect of foreign trade and why?" Then he or she would have to give reasons why they find the weaker dollar negative, but as worded, that answer isn't wrong, simply because that question can be answered in 50000 ways and none of them would be wrong.

I don't smoke and never have, and I don't like this law. Every freedom they take, even if they are freedoms we don't all agree with, is one we never get back. Think of it like the dominos of freedom falling. Next they will ban beer at the ballpark. Oh, and hotdogs are bad for you, too, let's ban those while we're at it. Meh.

Arguing politics is a pointless endevor. Those who believe need no explaination, those who disbelieve, no explaination will do. Period. War is war. It's ugly, it's brutal, and it's reality. It's not pretty because it's not supposed to be. People die, and often for no reason. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it always will be. The world is an unfair place, feel blessed you have it as easy as you do. You could be starving to death in an African jungle right now, or dodging bullets in Iraq or in many of the other wars that are going on (that our media doesn't report). It's your right to disagree with the war. Just like it's another mans right to agree with it, even if you don't like it. My problem with both Dems and Reps (those who lean TOO far to the point they vote party and throw out all of their wisdom and knowledge), is both love the words "open minded", while neither are open minded at all -- unless you agree with everything they say.