Posted on 12/06/2007 5:29:42 AM PST by ShadowDancer
Funny, you sound like every drunk I know.
Really? This guy would beg to differ.
Good post! I go to some of those bars they list as violaters. You will never see these gutless, smoke nazi wimps whine out loud at these bars as they are the ones in the minority.
What a bunch of Stalinists.
They make my skin crawl.
What's your screen name on the Ohio rat line SmokeChoke.com?
Never heard of the site until just now. All I said was that the restaurants in this area are fuller and seem to be doing a great business. In fact they are building more restaurants in our town.
No, the other bars were able to adapt and thrive, the incompetent businessmen blame the government for their own failings.
Here’s how every businessman works:
Success: I’m a genius!!! I work hard!!!
Failure: It’s somebody else’s fault!! The Government!! China!! Wal-Mart!!
What's your opinion on increasing the minimum wage by another 3 bucks? What about requiring all "big box" retailers to provide top-notch medical insurance to all employees? Neither of these ideas would completely destroy the economy, and at least some workers would be helped.
My guess is that as a conservative, you would not support these ideas, and with good reason. Just because a government intervention is not fatal doesn't mean it can't still be harmful and thus a bad idea.
Look at the debate over the increase in the minimum wage. Whenever the MW is increased, the economy does not spiral into a depression. In fact, sometimes the economy even improves (due largely to countervailing trends such as productivity gains or tax cuts). Even still, nearly every economist will tell you that increasing the minimum wage is a stupid, counterproductive idea...even if it isn't fatal.
As conservatives, I don't believe our mindset should be "let's keep burdening businesses with arbitrary government meddling to see how much they can withstand." Rather, our mindset should be "let's leave business alone to make their own decisions, and interfere only when it is absolutely necessary."
After all, if you keep piling on to private enterprises, eventually you'll get an economy like that in most European nations...functioning, but not nearly as vibrant and efficient as it could be.
It's gotten really old.
There's a tsunami of new businesses in town since the pencil-necked geeks have gained the ascendancy.
You are so bitter. I hope things get better and you have a Merry Christmas.
This is just the beginnging. Next is a ban of alhohol in bars and a ban on eatng in restaurants.
For some of us it is the smell of freedom.
I love to walk into a restaurant or bar and be met by the fragrance of first and second-hand tobacco smoke.
It is a sign that I won't be castigated for my choice of adult beverages or menu items.
Some people have a "live-and-let-live" mindset and some people don't.
No such word as "fuller", unless you are talking about the brush company.
You think things are going swimmingly for you right now, but you just might get caught up in the Stalinist purge.
I won't care.
By the way, children interpret disagreement as "bitterness."
Now you’re thinking!
You might just get it, and more.
I stand by my original statement. You are bitter because things are not going your way. Non-smoking restaurants are thriving and that is eating at you. Oh well. Go eat some fudge, and have a Merry Christmas.
Hello, Madame! Hope all is well with you. Yes, they got 100% of what they want and they are still whining like children. Unbelievable.
The intention of helping the poor, preserving the environment, or defeating some evil enemy, for example, is not enough. Questions would then need to be sufficiently answered before activities purporting to help the poor, preserve the environment, or defeat the evil enemy, should be instituted by the government, rather than by private organizations. Will the activities actually result in the poor being helped, the environment being preserved, or the evil enemy be defeated? How will the poor be helped, the environment be preserved, or evil enemy be defeated? Should the poor be helped, should the environment be preserved, or should the evil enemy be defeated? (These questions are not as stupid as modern conventional wisdom would seem to indicate.) Must the government help the poor, preserve the environment, or defeat the evil enemy, or can better results be obtained by private activities? Finally, are the peripheral or unintended results morally acceptable, and (not or) not too undesirable relative to the intended result? (for example, higher taxes, restriction of individual rights, interference in economic activity, destruction of property, injury or loss of life)?
If these answers cannot ALL be answered satisfactorily, then the activity should not be undertaken by the government, because, since freedom is such a high ideal, its restriction should be done with the greatest of care, and only for the most compelling of reasons.
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.