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
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.