Wake up, you stupid dumbass. You can't pass out after drinking that much until you floss and brush. The Gubmint says so. They have the power. You will obey or face incarceration.
Posted on 01/04/2008 6:23:42 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
The National Smoking Day went well in England as festive multitudes disobeyed fraud-based antismoking laws. More information is coming in as we write. We will keep you posted as we resume regular publication next week.
Of course, had Anti forces succeeded in quashing the British event, there would be press releases and coverage galore in the mainstream media. Instead, widespread disobedience was successful and vaunted attempts at a crackdown were not, thus Anti and her media minions have nothing to say. Kowtowing media must show that they are making their best effort to suppress any and all information favourable to smokers, they must not indicate that smokers are getting sufficiently organized to make prohibition fail, so their silence is indeed golden in our eyes. The people are awakening to the hateful menace of antismoking, they are disgusted, they are resisting. That is what is happening and this shall continue.
Anti calls on the press at her convenience but she can never resist plain raving. Our British friends have forwarded to us an item of hate mail we'll share with you here. This was sent to the National Smoking Day e-mail address by a “gentleman” (so to speak) at 11:00 PM on the 31st of December, while Brits throughout the nation proudly and happily broke the law by smoking in public places. The letter oozes with the "hate juice" that the “public health” scum has managed to distil in the most weak-minded members of the public, thanks to false information on the consequences of smoking on health. “Public health” delights in providing excuses for hatred.
The letter's juvenile title reads: What a bunch of retards you people are
And the author proceeds (including a web reference to FORCES):
"I guess what they say about smokers is right, smokers don't care about anybody except for their addictive drug. I hope you smokers end up in jail where you belong do you have at least any considerate for non smokers, why should non smokers have to breathe in your smoke it is your smoke and not theirs. You people are sad for sure and you will not get anywhere at all like you think you will. Also people making these laws are not Nazis like this website has but I guess smoker will call other people Nazis. Don't forget Nazis killed a lot of people and people making these laws are trying to protect non smokers. Smokers are the ones that are harming and killing people so you can actually say smokers are the ones closer to Nazis. This is a war against smokers and this will continue also like it or not smokers are losing this battle."
Naturally enough, all the stereotypes of the Nazi mind-set are present in this letter that says that “public health” does not take its ideology from the Nazi era, which it most certainly does, as a matter of well documented fact. First of all, “smokers don’t care”, very much as it was said that Jews “did not care” about using their capital to exploit people. Second, one can see that the freedom to choose between smoking and non-smoking places is not even considered, for this would remove the justification for hatred. Third is another essential element to justify hatred: the junk science, the same methods beloved of eugenic social engineers, past and present. It is crystal clear that the dangers of passive smoking are a fraud – but it is a fraud that this reader – and what he represents – desperately needs, the only alternative being realisation that he and his ilk are just a bunch of hateful bastards.
From that stems the accusation that “smokers are the ones that are harming and killing people” while not even one death can be demonstrated to be caused by active smoking, let alone "passive smoking," a prohibitionist device that puts the "fatal glass of beer" of America's alcohol prohibition era to shame. The writer then typically mixes up non-smokers with pathological antismokers like himself, while there is a profound difference between the two: the non-smoker is simply a person who does not smoke, while the antismoker is the fascistic bastard who hates. Then, in fact, comes the confirmation, and the only truthful thing in this letter: “This is a war against smokers and this will continue”.
We know that well – and we can reply that this is now also a war against antismokers and it will continue until their putrid species goes back into the social and ideological sewers where it has belonged since, during, and long before the era of the Third Reich. Hate-based campaigns have raged throughout history. Today fanatical antismoking, like the Nazis early in WWII, advances apace, this is surely true – but it is also true that, the more that troops advance, the more they need supply lines and force dilution to maintain the conquered territories.
Recall what happened to Hitler’s forces when they got close enough to Moscow to see its lights. Their support system collapsed, and we know the rest: the oh-so "pure" and "superior", racist and healthist Nazis were wiped from the face of the Earth. In a different kind of war, American alcohol prohibition expanded to total control – but after many decades of anti-alcohol proselytizing, fear-mongering, hate-mongering, indoctrination, lobbying, and tyrannizing, it was brought down in a short 14 years. Carrie Nation always was a sick joke. People came to see that, they resisted, they won.
So, bank on this, hateful antismokers: we will wear antitobacco out, we will keep resisting until the human and financial costs of oppressing us will be impossible to bear. The antismoking cartel can keep stealing public money but there will never be enough money, frauds, propaganda, or tyranny, to extinguish the human spirit. It is time to deal with the institutional problem and we will. Whatever it takes, we shall expose the frauds, and the fraudsters, we shall always smoke right in their faces, and when we have firmly and finally humiliated today's properly-called antismoking Nazis, we shall do to them what they are doing to us.
We gladly say to all antismokers who care to visit FORCES: what is rightfully ours will be legally ours again, and oh, just by the way – we hate you too.
Thanks for the ping!
I’ve been breathing every day of my life and I still refuse to suck in air with all the free oxygen removed; the day I can’t move about to find such air is the day I may break that habit.
Or are you talking about being immobile and allergic?
Wake up, you stupid dumbass. You can't pass out after drinking that much until you floss and brush. The Gubmint says so. They have the power. You will obey or face incarceration.
Close your matchbook, this is time for ranting, not choking.
Maybe this election cycle is a watershed event. Somebody has to go from the GOP big tent. Seems some “social conservative” Bible thumpers like this guy only heard the words of Jesus that he wanted to hear.
I’ll trade him for the devoted young Paul supporters who have heard the message of freedom and limited government for the first time and like it.
I have tried to find any real word that remotely matches or approaches “apiosis” to no avail, but after re-reading your posts and those to which you responded, I am encouraged to venture a wild guess - “antithesis?”
There is no 'clash'. Private property owners, bar owners, restaraunt owners, store owners, etc. etc. all have the right to decide whether or not they will or will not allow smoking on their property.
Patrons of these establishments also have the right to decide which establisments will enjoy the benefit of their patronage.
The State has no business inserting itself between business owner and prospective patron in this instance. Period.
If you wish to patronize a non smoking establishment, that is your right. Find one and patronize it. If a business owner wishes to cater to smokers, that is their right.
What the anti-freedom (read anti-smokers) want to do is to rob everyone of their God given right of free association and free use of their property as they see fit.
L
bumping that!
Have we now reached the nadir of name calling? Quick, light up? you may still find a self serving response which makes you feel good about yourself, even though it will hardly give true credit to this supurb conservative web site.
Nadir is the opposite of apex; supurb is a bastardization of superb and suburb, I still don’t know what apiosis is.
Private property owners, etc., SHOULD have the right to make the smoking/non-smoking decision. Sadly, that right is being denied by many state and city governments.
Anarchy is both the ultimate freedom and the sublime goal of the libertine.
It gets quite lonely, though.
USE THE DA**ED SPELL CHECK FEATURE!
You didn’t choke on apiosis?
Advanced Search
Preferences
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,810 for Lenard Skynard . (0.11 seconds)
Did you mean: Lynard Skynard
At least you have like-minded souls:
A6 1.8 Turbo - Audi Forum Audi Forums: covering the Audi TT, A4 ...On engaging reverse there is a distinct ckunk intermuttent and avouded by psaaing through neutral to drive and back to reverse. ...
Google response to avouded...
I have often wondered why we can’t have bars that openly advertise they are a smoking bar. People have the right to go in or not, as they see fit. The state dictating our freeedoms is just plain stupid.
Would you please talk in single syllables until you can get the errant letters under control?
Goodness, man, you read like a Thesaurus after a puppy got done scattering it about the floor.
Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. This is not about a contest between smokers and non-smokers. It's about whether or not the state should be able to dictate to a private property owner his policies with respect to smoking.
Conservatives agree that private property owners should generally be allowed to use and enjoy their property as they see fit, yes? That is, the default position is to allow the private property owner to establish all policies and settle all disputes according to his will, so long as the issue is on his property.
That's why conservatives defend the right of a businessman to set his own prices, to choose the products he wishes to sell, and to set the rules customers must abide by when visiting his property. Therefore, in applying this default conservative rule, we would say that neither the smoker nor the non-smoker has a right to their preferred environment on someone else's property, any more than the customer has the right to force a property owner to sell at a price lower than he is willing to accept. It is the decision of the property owner to decide whether or not he wishes to permit smoking on his property.
It is only the property owner who has rights at stake in this issue. Those rights are denied when the state overrules the property owner's decision and forces a no-smoking policy on private property.
I have more often wondered why some people insist on going to places they don’t like the way it is. It used to be a free country....no one forced anyone who disliked cigarette smoke to go into bars, or restaurants, where there’s cigarettes smoked.
Why didn’t these same people see fit to open their own establishments sans cigarettes for their like-minded nanny staters???? No money in it?
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.