Oh! Thank you!!!!
Posted on 03/04/2005 9:46:33 AM PST by SheLion
Well, I went and read the piece, and realized that the authors were idiots. So I decided to ask you, because you decided to bring it to our attention.
Why is it that you think that New York or Florida legal decisions somehow have bearing on the powers of municipalities under the Ohio Constitution?
What makes you think it doesn't? One judge in another state says something and it can't go any further? If a town can't force it's citizens to be police in one place, I bet they can't in another part of America either.
Let's take it by the numbers:
NUMBER ONE: It's a choice!
Got that one? Okay, now we can proceed.
NUMBER TWO: NO governmental agency has the right to tell ANY business owner how to run his business!
I think that's about enough for today. I can tell your brain is on overload.
A National challenge on a Federal level would cost a lot of money, more then we could ever raise. If a lawyer wants to take this on for the publicity we would be thrilled to give him or her all the information we have and stand with them.
Maine now has a proposed bill in the house to tax GUNS even more. They will get everyone sooner or later.
Okay. A state judge derives his power from the constitution of the state he's in, and a city similarly derives its powers from the constitution of the state it's in. A state judge in New York is interpreting New York law and the New York Constitution. This decision is not legally controlling on anyone or anything in Ohio.
The New York Constitution grants certain powers to cities. The Ohio Constitution grants certain powers to cities. These are not necessarily the same powers. Again, the decision of a New York judge about what a city in New York has the power to do doesn't tell us anything about what a city in Ohio has the power to do.
That is why petitioning members of the Ohio General Assembly and saying "look at how this foreign judge has interpreted foreign law" isn't going to accomplish anything. A city in Ohio may or may not have the power to enact a smoking ban. But New York and Florida law give us *no* information about whether or not an Ohio city has such a power. It is *entirely* up to Ohio law.
I'm sure you're well aware that that particular slogan is employed for all kinds of purposes. It doesn't mean anything.
NUMBER TWO: NO governmental agency has the right to tell ANY business owner how to run his business!
This is more than a little exaggerated. Government agencies have the power to tell you that you can't sell spoiled meat or cocaine.
That's pretty good. I don't think I have heard that one before.
IN THE FORUMS-- He lingers in the shadows like a Quake-playing camper, a witless coward waiting to shoot someone in the back with a half-conceived verbal sniper-shot. He hides behind ill-conceived pseudo-names, like W1NGNUT or LAM3R or PAUL, disguising his true identity in order to protect himself from the scorn of his Real Life peers. He roams from forum to forum looking for someone or something to denounce, because he's a bitter, frightened, nerd-of-the-ages. This creature is the farking troll.
Welcome to our continuing series on Internet Inhabitants. This week we look at the farking troll, a dimwitted loser that thrives on discord and discontent in online forums. fark troll flamer flamewar forum The farking troll tries to use his verbal diarrhea to impress other forum readers.
The farking troll is a less-than-fascinating creature, having nothing of value to contribute to society. Yet everywhere we surf, this vomit-writing forum-leecher is rampant, puking up words that add to the verbal sewage that purveys many online communities.
How does this bottom-dwelling scab-sucker thrive? His vocabulary and spelling are as weak as his under-developed muscles, and he thinks that "grammar" is the woman married to "grampar." It's surprising that this organic virus has enough brain power to maintain his own breathing.
Yet somehow, this bed-wetting boor consistently finds fodder upon which to feed on, and is able to spew out his dribble like a crack-induced soothsayer.
His critical attacks are simple but venomous, and his words are like a poisonous, hate-inducing propaganda, intended to disturb the shit upon which stands the frail structure of the online community. Too many times does the farking troll succeed in this, for his power grows from the ignorant, pre-teen community members who treat his ass-wiped, shit-smear postings like verses of gospel.
Never mind that the farking troll has absolutely nothing intelligent to say, and rarely knows anything about any of the subjects being discussed--those things matter not to the uneducated. His only goal is to insult, and then enjoy the attention he receives from his fatuous feedback, like the spoiled child who constantly yells "look at me!" to his tired mother.
Comment like "worst...link...ever" or "this sucks" or "where is the funny?" are the most common telling indicators of a farking troll. To him, these simple words are the throwing stones of a puerile youth who grew up in the school yards yelling out replies such as "oh yah?" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
But fear not, for these terse statements are about as inflammatory as the farking troll can get. Anything more spirited or preconceived would be beyond his comprehension. An when there is the rare example of a clever retort, it is usually found when the farking troll copies and pastes it from another forum member's valid critique.
These simplistic characteristics of the undersized brain of the farking troll are just its natural method of establishing a place within the forum hierarchy. This agonistic pattern of behavior is consistent with the farking troll's unsatisfactory sex-life (a direct result of his undersized genitalia), and mostly likely from childhood confusion arising from a long period of sexually satisfying his own step-father.
A problem with this sticks-and-stones behavior is that once the hierarchy is established, and an alpha farking troll is pronounced, immature challengers will learn to act imitate the leader using observational learning. They will copy and mimic the alpha farking troll by repeating his catch-phrases and posting their own foul fecal feedback. When the alpha puts down a particular comment, link, or story, the submissive forum posters will always follow, like ass-licking sycophants looking to impress their master.
We loathe the existence of the farking troll, but somehow we find a reason to pity this brain-damaged malcontent. Is it because this fat-fuck is only lashing out because his mother breast-fed him until he was nine, and now his misdirected anger is focused on the nameless, faceless individuals of the Internet who can't possibly fight back? Is he jealous of all others who can form complete sentences? Does he regret spending his teenage years playing Minesweeper and Tetris while his friends sought an education and pursued careers? Or is it because the farking troll cannot afford a decent computer, and is pounding away with his sweaty sausage-like fingers on the sticky keyboard of his pathetic Pentium-90 machine?
You can just imagine the farking troll in his own dirty environment, wallowing in his own sweat in a torn "Linux Sucks" t-shirt and soiled sweat pants, subsisting on a diet of Ding Dongs, Cheezies, and Red Bull. He probably hasn't seen an exercise bike in his life. It wouldn't be hard to conclude that he has never known the company of a woman, and the outside world frightens him like a child trying to cross the street for the first time. Of course he's unemployed, living off his parents' allowance or mooching off of his roommate. This unambitious financial freedom allows the farking troll those hours of extra time to post his empty opinions.
Should we condemn or pity the farking troll? Do we blame the mosquito for slowly sucking the life out of us, or do we just slap at it without giving it a second thought? Do we The farking troll deserves no more attention than the bubble gum that sticks to the bottom of your running shoe. But occasionally, that gum will get stuck in your hair and needs to be removed like a bad thread from a comfortable sweater.
(I have no fear of reprisal from this article, as it is unlikely the farking troll would have understood its retaliatory nature, and is probably still trying to figure what the word "fatuous" means--Ed)
LOVE IT :)
It doesn't mean anything because people like you have forgotten that this country was founded on freedom of choice.
Just because our freedoms are being stripped from us everyday doesn't make it right.
There is a VAST difference between the "right" to do something and the laws which prohibit you from doing it.
This acceptance of creeping socialism is what got us into the mess we're presently faced with.
Oh! Thank you!!!!
I LOVE it!
"You see, smoking bans are not legal. NY and FL judges have already agreed that bans are not enforceable. (Links at http://www.smokersclubinc.com ) This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State or town wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as police AND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty. Your 16-year-old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to the police academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Remove these un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid lawsuits. Every worker has the right to sue you when hurt; your ban opens you up for liability. There are already lawsuits started, check the newsletter and the Ban Damage and Ban Loss pages."
Huh? So they can't force you to enforce the law. That means they have to rely on people who enter the establishment and don't want people smoking to call the police, who will then enforce the law.
Whorkers have a right to sue when hurt. How is a smoking ban hurting workers? I don't get it.
I'm against public smoking bans, but the reasoning of this post baffles me.
I'm against public smoking bans, but the reasoning of this post baffles me.
I am thinking about this. Give me a few minutes. :)
While I'm against smoking bans, and I feel it should be up to the property owner, I do have a question for you.
Do you accept the responsibility for the results of your habbit?
Smoking does damage your health? Are you working hard and putting away money so that you'll be able to pay the medical costs your habbit will eventually result in, or are you planning on leaving those problems for our state taxes to cover?
I don't much care what you do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.
I don't think there's a single real, scientific study that has shown a real danger from second hand smoke. It appears the biggest danger of me going to a bar where people smoke is that my clothes will smell horrible.
Lying anti-smoking organizations like Stand disgust me.
However, health care costs are expensive, and I don't like having my hard earned money being taken in taxes to pay the costs to treat people for self inflicted harm.
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
God gave us freedom of choice, even the choice to make really bad decisions, who am I to try and take it away.
Logic + Smoker addicts = oil + water.
JUDGE CONCURS
Administrative Judge Michael Parrish agreed. His Sept. 24 opinion notes that there is no legal requirement for a bar owner to take ''specific action'' when someone is smoking in the bar. The judge also ruled that the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation is authorized to fine a ''person'' under the law, but not a business.
''The way it's written right now, there is no direction as to what a proprietor is specifically supposed to do,'' said Gregg Ormand, Pace's lawyer.
The legal opinion will not become final until the director of Business and Professional Regulation signs off on it. Lawyers for both sides have filed documents arguing their side, anticipating a ruling this month.
UNUSUAL CASE
Department lawyer Mike Martinez acknowledges that Pace's is the only case he knows of to win a positive recommendation from an administrative judge.
Martinez said the department feels it can still enforce the law because at least one other judge has upheld its right to fine restaurant owners who allow smoking.
''At the end of the day, we feel that there are other avenues that we can [use to] enforce it,'' Martinez said.
Still, he and others are watching the Raw Bar case closely. Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, who sponsored the smoking bill in the Florida Senate, said he and his staff plan to read Parrish's ruling this week. He says he'll move to amend the law if there are loopholes because Florida voters expect enforcement.
Andrew Cuddihy, South Florida program director for the American Lung Association, said the law is working well. But it has to hold restaurant owners responsible if it's going to be effective, he said.
Since the law went into effect, the department has opened 56 cases, assessing fines 29 times, either through orders or agreements. Two cases have been dismissed outright. Most of the other cases have yet to be resolved.
Statewide, the division of Alcohol, Beverage and Tobacco has 135 agents. But none is devoted solely to enforcing the tobacco ban, said Meg Shannon, spokeswoman for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Agents depend on customer complaints to find violators. Most restaurateurs are complying with the law, she believes.
Back at the Raw Bar, Julie Beltz is playing a video game at the bar and reminiscing. She calls the place the Cheers of Cutler Ridge. She was an employee for four years and a customer for the other 14 years she's been coming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.