Peggy Noonen: "Them" [one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all]

Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 15, 2002 | Peggy Noonen

[The Raven]

There's a lot to think about this week--the rise of Nancy Pelosi, the meaning of the Republican triumph--but my thoughts keep tugging toward a group of people who are abused, ostracized and facing a cold winter. It's not right what we do to them, and we should pay attention.

[Leisler]

I have to come to the defense of excrement. You ought not to have compared excrement to cinFla. Nightshade is natural,environmental, has many useful purposes still. Unlike cinFla.

[Just another Joe]

No. Black is the color of your lungs.

No, black is the color of your thoughts, trying to take freedoms and rights away little by little and give all power to the state or federal govt.

[Just another Joe]

Do you also inform them that smoking stinks, is socially unacceptable to most in the US, kills with various cancers?

They may not do that but they should inform their children to beware of people like you that would control every aspect of their lives for the state.

[Just another Joe]

The right is second to the state's right to control the smoking in their establishment.

Typical statist attitude.

[ODDITHER]

If a boss is a smoker, non smokers soon realize that their peers that smoke, know alot more about what is going on than they do. Deals are struck, information gleaned, friendships are made etc.

I don't smoke, but I go out and stand with those that do, I want to know what is going on.

[cinFLA]

Now a question for you. Do you truly not see the tyrannical nature of your position?

No. It is a position supported by the laws of our land. The tyrannical position is to insist on blowing smoke in others' faces.

[laredo44]

Do you truly not see the tyrannical nature of your position?

No.

I honestly find that unfortunate. Many would admit to at least some understanding.

The tyrannical position is to insist on blowing smoke in others' faces.

I agree that anyone asserting a right to blow smoke in the face of another favors the tyrannical.

[cinFLA]

Typical statist attitude.

Do you NOT believe in the US constitution?

[cinFLA]

No, black is the color of your thoughts, trying to take freedoms and rights away little by little and give all power to the state or federal govt.

Lest you forget, the US constitution assigns the powers and rights, not me. I am just using my right to voice my opinion that I have the right to a smoke free environment which trumps your right to blow smoke in my face.

[cinFLA]

Now one ever accused you, cinFla, of being sharp. Since there will always be irresponsible people, forever, and the legislature will continue with the assistance of people like you cinFla, therefore we can expect a steady march of freedom limiting laws into an ever more authoritarian state. But as Bernard Shaw said to your statist hero, Michael Dukakis, "You just don't get it."

Very interesting that you quote an evolutionary socialist. Reaffirms to me that you have no clue.

[Just another Joe]

Do you NOT believe in the US constitution?

Yes, I do. It is apparent that we do not agree on the interpretation of it.

[cinFLA]

Yes, I do. It is apparent that we do not agree on the interpretation of it.

Apparently. There is the accepted way and then there is your way. Unfortunately, for you, your way does not stand up in court.

[Just another Joe]

I am just using my right to voice my opinion that I have the right to a smoke free environment which trumps your right to blow smoke in my face.

You are using your voice to advocate the demonization of smokers, in general.
I will stand up for your right to punch anyone that actually blows smoke in your face. NOT someone that is smoking in an establishment that allows smoking that you happen to want to go into.
Florida did it correctly when they amended their constitution to DISALLOW smoking in a private business establishment. I don't agree with it but IMO that is what it takes. Short of an amendment in each states constitution, or an amendment in the US constitution, there should be no law/regulation/ordinance that restricts a business owner from allowing the smoking of tobacco in their establishment, IMO.

Of course Florida also put in an amendment to disallow the tethering of a pregnant pig. Which goes to show you why they call it Floriduh.

[Just another Joe]

Unfortunately, for you, your way does not stand up in court.

Sorry, you get a strike on that one.
I don't think that it has actually been TESTED in court yet.

[cinFLA]

You are using your voice to advocate the demonization of smokers, in general. I will stand up for your right to punch anyone that actually blows smoke in your face. NOT someone that is smoking in an establishment that allows smoking that you happen to want to go into. Florida did it correctly when they amended their constitution to DISALLOW smoking in a private business establishment.

I have no right to punch someone that blows smoke in my face. However, you still have a misunderstanding of Florida law if you cite the constitutional amendment as the "correct way".

[cinFLA]

Sorry, you get a strike on that one. I don't think that it has actually been TESTED in court yet.

Perhaps you should do less thinking and more reading.

[Just another Joe]

However, you still have a misunderstanding of Florida law if you cite the constitutional amendment as the "correct way".

Any other way IS mob rule.

[Just another Joe]

Perhaps you should do less thinking and more reading.

If you know of court cases, I would be interested in reading them. Or, at least, in articles about them.
I'm not one to stand on incorrect statements. I will look at ALL the evedence.

[laredo44]

Go ahead and smoke, smell up the office, my clothes, lungs, and my hair.

Whose office? By what right are you there? Are you compelled to be there?

Unless you own the office and desire that smoking not occur, you embrace the tyrannt. Perhaps others will appropriate your property without your consent. Perhaps you may learn.