PDA

View Full Version : No specific subject discussion



mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 11:09 AM
Hey I've noticed that no matter what topic is bought up on P&R it evolves into something completely different. So here is what I am proposing. Use this thread to talk about anything you like in politics and religion. Feel free to talk about your favorite politicians, political parties, religions or any of them that you don't like. Just please be respectful of others and try not to get too hot and bothered if someone says something that you don't agree with. Now who wants to post first? :winking0071:

habsheaven
08-26-2011, 11:43 AM
Good idea. To be fair, most of us do not intentionally sidetrack the threads. It just seems to happen in the "heat of the moment".

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 11:51 AM
Good idea. To be fair, most of us do not intentionally sidetrack the threads. It just seems to happen in the "heat of the moment".


Yeah I know, I'm just as guilty as everyone else. With this thread we can take it wherever it goes until it gets shut down. So does anyone have anything that they want to talk about? Anybody? How about our good buddies sanfran22 or mrtaxman? Where is their daily dose of obama bashing?

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Here's something that is going to get everyone real hot and bothered. Here's a quote from the bible that promotes violence. So now it's settled. Christanity is just as violent and extreme as ya'll say islam is.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 10:34

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 12:14 PM
I think any conversation naturally moves between topics that are related to some degree. It's frustrating when we have a good discussion going and get told to start a new thread. lol although I get the reasoning behind the rule.

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 12:15 PM
Here's something that is going to get everyone real hot and bothered. Here's a quote from the bible that promotes violence. So now it's settled. Christanity is just as violent and extreme as ya'll say islam is.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 10:34

maybe the sword is for decorative purposes only?

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 12:33 PM
maybe the sword is for decorative purposes only?


:sign0020:

Star_Cards
08-26-2011, 12:49 PM
here's a topic... not really political or religious but still...

Should men carry umbrellas?

habsheaven
08-26-2011, 12:53 PM
here's a topic... not really political or religious but still...

Should men carry umbrellas?

I don't (not that I have anything against others that do).:sign0020:

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 01:07 PM
I always mean to carry an umbrella but usually don't. I don't have a problem with anyone who does or does not. Whatever turns you on.

andrewhoya
08-26-2011, 01:53 PM
This needs to be stickied :winking0071:

pghin08
08-26-2011, 03:10 PM
here's a topic... not really political or religious but still...

Should men carry umbrellas?

Only if they're single. That way, if you get caught in rainstorm and see a cute girl who doesn't have one, you can swoop in and save the day. If you can keep a girl from getting their hair wet, you're a hero in their book.

mrveggieman
08-26-2011, 03:13 PM
Only if they're single. That way, if you get caught in rainstorm and see a cute girl who doesn't have one, you can swoop in and save the day. If you can keep a girl from getting their hair wet, you're a hero in their book.


What about a married guy who likes to run around on his wife? Jusk kidding. :sign0020:

pghin08
08-26-2011, 03:16 PM
What about a married guy who likes to run around on his wife? Jusk kidding. :sign0020:

Hopefully the girl would steal his umbrella and beat the guy with it.

duane1969
08-26-2011, 10:11 PM
Here's something that is going to get everyone real hot and bothered. Here's a quote from the bible that promotes violence. So now it's settled. Christanity is just as violent and extreme as ya'll say islam is.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matthew 10:34

Not really hot or bothered. You are attempting to take it out of context so...whatever. :confused0024:


here's a topic... not really political or religious but still...

Should men carry umbrellas?

Only if they don't like getting wet.

*censored*
08-27-2011, 12:50 PM
Men never carry umbrellas unless it's a massive golf umbrella and then ONLY if you have clubs. If it rains you either suck it up and deal with it or build a raincoat by ripping head and arm holes in a garbage bag.

#1 Broncos Fan
08-27-2011, 02:18 PM
Could you repsond to the PM I sent thanks Sean

Rockman
08-27-2011, 05:22 PM
http://talldarkandfashion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/fonzworth_bentley.jpg

Star_Cards
08-29-2011, 10:21 AM
great umbrella discussion, friends. Here are my thoughts.

No man should carry an umbrella unless...

He's with a girl and they are both using it

or

If he has a long commute of walking... say in any city living scenario

or

If he's standing outside for an extended amount of time.

=========
I see men that have to walk 40 feet from their car to the office building breaking out the umbrella. Definitely a man code violation in my book. Even worse is when you see a guy carrying a closed umbrella into work just because it may rain when he's leaving the office.

Star_Cards
08-29-2011, 10:22 AM
Men never carry umbrellas unless it's a massive golf umbrella and then ONLY if you have clubs. If it rains you either suck it up and deal with it or build a raincoat by ripping head and arm holes in a garbage bag.

trash bag poncho. I like it. Keep it classy.

mrveggieman
08-29-2011, 10:28 AM
What if the guy was recovering from an illness? Would it be ok for him to carry an umbrella?

mrveggieman
08-29-2011, 10:35 AM
Not really hot or bothered. You are attempting to take it out of context so...whatever. :confused0024:



Only if they don't like getting wet.


My point was that why is it ok for some religions to misquote another religions scriptures in attempt to prove the competing religion wrong but when someone does the same thing to them they have a problem with it?

Star_Cards
08-29-2011, 11:04 AM
What if the guy was recovering from an illness? Would it be ok for him to carry an umbrella?

Yews. It would be okay. Also if the man is older, that would be acceptable as well.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-29-2011, 10:37 PM
Did ya'll watch the 9/11 special on the National Geographic channel with George Bush . I thought it was outstanding .

mrveggieman
08-30-2011, 08:35 AM
Did ya'll watch the 9/11 special on the National Geographic channel with George Bush . I thought it was outstanding .


I sure didn't but I know that you are itching to tell us about it. :sign0020: Did he talk about his drunk driving arrest?

pghin08
08-30-2011, 10:31 AM
Did ya'll watch the 9/11 special on the National Geographic channel with George Bush . I thought it was outstanding .

Yeah, I did. I thought it was pretty good too. I was confused by one thing though. He mentioned that when he went to Barksdale AF base, he told his young driver to slow down by saying, "Son, al-Qaeda isn't here, slow down". Yet later, he said that the first time anyone mentioned to him that it could have been al-Qaeda and bin Laden was at Offutt AF base, which he went to after Barksdale.

Not trying to be conspiratorial, I just found it odd. I think he knew the second it happened that it was al-Qaeda.

Star_Cards
08-30-2011, 11:27 AM
Did ya'll watch the 9/11 special on the National Geographic channel with George Bush . I thought it was outstanding .

didn't catch it. I'll have to see if it's being replayed.

pghin08
08-30-2011, 11:31 AM
didn't catch it. I'll have to see if it's being replayed.

It was pretty good. I still couldn't imagine what he must have felt like that day. Probably like the world was coming down on him.

duane1969
08-30-2011, 01:54 PM
Saw this along the road a few days ago. It was early and very foggy but I managed to snap a pic in spite of cars whizzing by at 70+ MPH just feet from me.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/691/imag0095at.jpg

pghin08
08-30-2011, 01:59 PM
Saw this along the road a few days ago. It was early and very foggy but I managed to snap a pic in spite of cars whizzing by at 70+ MPH just feet from me.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/691/imag0095at.jpg

Geez. Crazy Democrats and their desire to breathe clean air. Good grief.

duane1969
08-30-2011, 02:17 PM
Geez. Crazy Democrats and their desire to breathe clean air. Good grief.

Last time I checked Dems like heat and electricity too.

There are over 600 coal fired electric plants in the U.S (compared to around 100 nuclear ones). Did the Democrats figure out a way to make them run without coal? It goes back to the same premise as alternative automotive fuels. Find a new one before you outlaw the old one.

Less coal = higher electricity production costs = higher electric bills. The next time your electric company notifies you that you rates are going up, take a deep breath of that fresh air and thank Obama and the EPA.

sanfran22
08-30-2011, 02:21 PM
Geez. Crazy Democrats and their desire to breathe clean air. Good grief.
Do you really think the purpose behind it is clean air?

pghin08
08-30-2011, 02:27 PM
Last time I checked Dems like heat and electricity too.

There are over 600 coal fired electric plants in the U.S (compared to around 100 nuclear ones). Did the Democrats figure out a way to make them run without coal? It goes back to the same premise as alternative automotive fuels. Find a new one before you outlaw the old one.

Less coal = higher electricity production costs = higher electric bills. The next time your electric company notifies you that you rates are going up, take a deep breath of that fresh air and thank Obama and the EPA.


It's not like they're outlawing coal. This is the same old song and dance. Government enforces new regulations, companies cry "waahhh, this is going to cost me billions, waaahhh!" and life goes on.

The regulations they speak of would help clean the air and put limitations on dangerous techniques (you know, like when they basically blow up mountains). It will improve miner safety, which these companies don't give a hoot about anyways.

I'm from Pittsburgh, rust belt all the way. Progress is tough, there are a lot of difficult times. But Pittsburgh was able to reinvent itself, and places dominated by coal need to start doing the same thing.

pghin08
08-30-2011, 02:27 PM
Do you really think the purpose behind it is clean air?

It's part of the Clean Air Act. So yeah.

Star_Cards
08-30-2011, 03:11 PM
can you imagine what some companies would still be doing if not for some government regulations? There are good examples where the government regulates certain industry to protect it's citizens. To lump all government regulations into a fail bucket is hardly fair.

sanfran22
08-30-2011, 03:50 PM
It's part of the Clean Air Act. So yeah.
Lol, yeah I'm sure that's what's behind it.

pghin08
08-30-2011, 04:00 PM
Lol, yeah I'm sure that's what's behind it.

What do you think is? If this is part of a Glenn Beck style socialist takeover of the US, it's a pretty weak one.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-30-2011, 05:08 PM
The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate (http://www.facesofcoal.org/index.php?about-us#) lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating half the electricity consumed in the United States today.

Straight from the website . I dont think they are talking about democrats in a good way . The program is to educate a goverment that's want to shut down the coal industry . Obama sais he would pretty much force coal companies out of businnes . This is not a part of the any clean air act its a slam aginst the epa destroying jobs .

habsheaven
08-30-2011, 06:18 PM
The Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (FACES of Coal) is an alliance of people from all walks of life who are joining forces to educate (http://www.facesofcoal.org/index.php?about-us#) lawmakers and the general public about the importance of coal and coal mining to our local and national economies and to our nation's energy security. In addition to keeping tens of thousands of people employed in good-paying jobs, coal is the lifeblood of our domestic energy supply, generating half the electricity consumed in the United States today.

Straight from the website . I dont think they are talking about democrats in a good way . The program is to educate a goverment that's want to shut down the coal industry . Obama sais he would pretty much force coal companies out of businnes . This is not a part of the any clean air act its a slam aginst the epa destroying jobs .

When and where did Obama say this?

INTIMADATOR2007
08-30-2011, 09:03 PM
When and where did Obama say this?
http://youtu.be/4aTf5gjvNvo

duane1969
08-30-2011, 11:13 PM
When and where did Obama say this?

Obama admits that under his "cap and trade" plan that electricity rates would skyrocket
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v16428009rDBSbTHy


Obama says that new coal plants will be bankrupted by new EPA laws and regulations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ


Joe Biden clearly states that he wants no coal plants in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ55UzAsp6M

Is that enough??? Obama and Biden clearly have an agenda against coal with no plan of how to deal with the fallout of the shutdown of 50% of our electric plants.

pghin08
08-31-2011, 09:26 AM
I have two thoughts on this:

1. I'm not a fan of doing something without a long-term plan in place (a la Bush/Iraq). So if the administration wants to invest in alternative energy sources, do it while we lessen our dependence on coal, rather than the other way around.

2. The regulations themselves will someday be necessary. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

Star_Cards
08-31-2011, 11:20 AM
I have two thoughts on this:

1. I'm not a fan of doing something without a long-term plan in place (a la Bush/Iraq). So if the administration wants to invest in alternative energy sources, do it while we lessen our dependence on coal, rather than the other way around.

2. The regulations themselves will someday be necessary. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

well said.

INTIMADATOR2007
08-31-2011, 03:32 PM
Hey lets try Solar power its great right , Obama says its the way to go right . Lets give them $535 million for the future . Solyndra a solar power company that Obama VISITED and spoke golden about the future of solar power and gave $535million tax dollars to last year has...wait for it .... went out of bussiness . I feel bad for the 1100 people that bought into the fraud and lost there jobs but some where somebody got $535 million in tax payer dollars in there pocket . Yeah solar is the future ...


The company received $535 million in taxpayer money from the U.S. Department of Energy and $1.1 billion in private venture capital funding.
President Barack Obama touted Solyndra as a poster child for clean energy after the company received the federal funds.
"Companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future," Obama said during a 2010 visit to the company's Fremont headquarters

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyndra-Shutting-Down-128802718.html

Star_Cards
08-31-2011, 11:34 PM
I wonder if a reason for these new energy options failing is partly because the old ways are just the standard. They are all just so entrenched into normal every day life it's hard to get switched over because products have yet to be switched. At some point it needs to be more affordable and more mainstream before it succeeds. I don't know if government backing is the key but at some point something has to spark it.

duane1969
09-01-2011, 08:14 AM
2. Coal is flat out dangerous, to those who mine it, and those who don't. To be fair, I know of zero energy sources that come with no dangers. However, we know coal's effects, and they suck.

Not like it used to be. Times have changed in mining.

*Ventilation is required and if the ventilation system fails then the miners are immediately pulled.
*They have developed catalytic burners that burn off a lot of the carbon that is produced by burning coal in electric plants.
*Black lung illness claims are down by 90% since 1969.

This isn't the mining industry of the 19th century. It's not perfect but it isn't the death sentence job that it was just 60 or 70 years ago.

Each year about 400 people die from lung related illnesses due to mining. Compare that to tobacco (443,000 deaths per year). If the government wants to regulate something that will clean the air, protect the environment and save people's lives then they need to start with Pres. Obama's favorite sin.

duane1969
09-01-2011, 08:18 AM
I wonder if a reason for these new energy options failing is partly because the old ways are just the standard. They are all just so entrenched into normal every day life it's hard to get switched over because products have yet to be switched. At some point it needs to be more affordable and more mainstream before it succeeds. I don't know if government backing is the key but at some point something has to spark it.

It is industry controlled, not government controlled. Oil became popular because cars, heaters and equipment use it. Start making heaters and equipment that burns alternative fuels and the alternative fuel will become more desirable.

All government involvment and regulation does is make everything more expensive and ultimately costs taxpayers more dollars.

----------------------------------

EDIT: As I said, government involvment just costs the taxpayers more money.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44350029/ns/business-going_green/

Over $500 million in Federal loans and all that is left is 1100 unemployed workers and a bankruptcy filing.

pghin08
09-01-2011, 10:01 AM
Not like it used to be. Times have changed in mining.

*Ventilation is required and if the ventilation system fails then the miners are immediately pulled.
*They have developed catalytic burners that burn off a lot of the carbon that is produced by burning coal in electric plants.
*Black lung illness claims are down by 90% since 1969.

This isn't the mining industry of the 19th century. It's not perfect but it isn't the death sentence job that it was just 60 or 70 years ago.

Each year about 400 people die from lung related illnesses due to mining. Compare that to tobacco (443,000 deaths per year). If the government wants to regulate something that will clean the air, protect the environment and save people's lives then they need to start with Pres. Obama's favorite sin.

Well now that's just funny.

And to your points about the mining industry: you're right, it's definitely safer than it was a few decades ago. But everything is. My dad works in a steel mill. Is it as dangerous as it was in 1970? No. Is it still a dangerous job though? You bet.

Though I will admit, since you're from West Virginia (if I remember correctly), I'll defer to your likely superior knowledge of the mining industry. My only experience in a coal mine comes from when I went down in one when I was 10. I'm sure you have family/friends in the industry (much like myself, being from Pittsburgh, I still know many in the steel industry).

Back to the point on tobacco, it's a little unfair to compare those two numbers in any light. There are a ton of smokers in this world (lawyers, accountants, whatever), but coal miners are a very limited group. I would bet that within the realm of mining, those 400 deaths, if extrapolated out to the entire smoking world, would be a similar percentage of their respective populations.

duane1969
09-01-2011, 11:46 AM
You are correct, I am from WV and know a lot of miners. Mining is by far the #1 industry in our state. If you take coal mining away it will essentially bankrupt our state.

Yes, it is a dangerous job, but they get paid well for it. Just like underwater welders and skyscraper steelworkers get big money because their job is risky, so do miners. Every miner does his job knowing that there are risks. But that is their choice and it certainly isn't the government's job to regulate them into the unemployment line "for their own good".

I would imagine that you may be right about the ratio of miners to deaths versus smoking. However, the fact remains, politicians will focus all of their energy on one microcosm of need while totally ignoring the big picture. The last thing I need is a politician telling me that the coal industry is bad for the environment and people when we have nearly a half million people dying every year from smoking tobacco.

Fix the big things, then the small things.

If you want to talk about impact on the environment then ignoring cigarettes while outlawing coal would be pretty narrow-minded.

pghin08
09-01-2011, 12:07 PM
You are correct, I am from WV and know a lot of miners. Mining is by far the #1 industry in our state. If you take coal mining away it will essentially bankrupt our state.

Yes, it is a dangerous job, but they get paid well for it. Just like underwater welders and skyscraper steelworkers get big money because their job is risky, so do miners. Every miner does his job knowing that there are risks. But that is their choice and it certainly isn't the government's job to regulate them into the unemployment line "for their own good".

I would imagine that you may be right about the ratio of miners to deaths versus smoking. However, the fact remains, politicians will focus all of their energy on one microcosm of need while totally ignoring the big picture. The last thing I need is a politician telling me that the coal industry is bad for the environment and people when we have nearly a half million people dying every year from smoking tobacco.

Fix the big things, then the small things.

If you want to talk about impact on the environment then ignoring cigarettes while outlawing coal would be pretty narrow-minded.


I agree, but only to a point. When you start getting into cigarettes, a CHOICE that is a part of many people's daily lives, you're getting into sketchy territory. What can and can't the government regulate? Outlawing cigarettes is just like prohibition, which if done today, I'm quite certain the world would explode.

And to be fair, we're not OUTLAWING coal. Plus, the harvesting of tobacco and coal are very different. And smoking itself doesn't leave a large carbon footprint. I think driving one mile in a car is equivalent to smoking 80 cigarettes. So why not outlaw driving? Even the most hardcore environmentalist would say that outlawing smoking wouldn't do a tremendous amount to help the environment.

duane1969
09-01-2011, 12:34 PM
I agree, but only to a point. When you start getting into cigarettes, a CHOICE that is a part of many people's daily lives, you're getting into sketchy territory. What can and can't the government regulate? Outlawing cigarettes is just like prohibition, which if done today, I'm quite certain the world would explode.

And to be fair, we're not OUTLAWING coal. Plus, the harvesting of tobacco and coal are very different. And smoking itself doesn't leave a large carbon footprint. I think driving one mile in a car is equivalent to smoking 80 cigarettes. So why not outlaw driving? Even the most hardcore environmentalist would say that outlawing smoking wouldn't do a tremendous amount to help the environment.

I know we are not "outlawing" coal but Obama's policy is to regulate it to the point that it costs more to use it than it is worth. I say outlaw, Obama says regulate, the end result is the same.

Smoke from cigarettes may not have a huge impact on the environment but everything else about cigarettes sure does...

*400 billion cigarettes per year equates to 400 billion cigarette filters releasing 600 different kinds of poisons and toxins into the environment every year (that is just in the U.S.)

While we sleep there are literally trillions of cigarette butts releasing heavy metals, pesticides, fungicides, and carcinogens into the soil and water. It takes approximately 25 years for a cigarette butt to fully decompose.

*Tobacco depletes the soil of nutrients more than any other plant, requiring heavy use of chemical fertilizers to produce crops every year. In some cases it takes 6 times as much nutrients as other crops for tobacco to grow. In certain areas where the soil is already depleted fertilizer may be applied up to 16 times in a single growing season.

*It takes one tree to produce the paper for 300 cigarettes. Multiply that by 400 billion and let me know how many trees are cut down just for cigarettes. Then factor in the CO2 that trees take from the environment and let me know if it is having an impact.

Brazil, which is the 3rd largest cigarette producer in the world, uses 60 million trees per year. A cigarette machine uses 4 miles of paper per hour to make cigarettes.

*Every year approximately 115,000 children are hospitalized with respiratory infections that are attributed to breathing second-hand smoke from their parent's cigarettes.

*And finally, cigarettes are the #1 cause of fatal house fires.

Tell me again how smoking isn't having much of a negative impact on our planet...

mrveggieman
09-01-2011, 12:50 PM
I know we are not "outlawing" coal but Obama's policy is to regulate it to the point that it costs more to use it than it is worth. I say outlaw, Obama says regulate, the end result is the same.

Smoke from cigarettes may not have a huge impact on the environment but everything else about cigarettes sure does...

*400 billion cigarettes per year equates to 400 billion cigarette filters releasing 600 different kinds of poisons and toxins into the environment every year (that is just in the U.S.)

While we sleep there are literally trillions of cigarette butts releasing heavy metals, pesticides, fungicides, and carcinogens into the soil and water. It takes approximately 25 years for a cigarette butt to fully decompose.

*Tobacco depletes the soil of nutrients more than any other plant, requiring heavy use of chemical fertilizers to produce crops every year. In some cases it takes 6 times as much nutrients as other crops for tobacco to grow. In certain areas where the soil is already depleted fertilizer may be applied up to 16 times in a single growing season.

*It takes one tree to produce the paper for 300 cigarettes. Multiply that by 400 billion and let me know how many trees are cut down just for cigarettes. Then factor in the CO2 that trees take from the environment and let me know if it is having an impact.

Brazil, which is the 3rd largest cigarette producer in the world, uses 60 million trees per year. A cigarette machine uses 4 miles of paper per hour to make cigarettes.

*Every year approximately 115,000 children are hospitalized with respiratory infections that are attributed to breathing second-hand smoke from their parent's cigarettes.

*And finally, cigarettes are the #1 cause of fatal house fires.

Tell me again how smoking isn't having much of a negative impact on our planet...


Can I get an amen!! :cheer2:

pghin08
09-01-2011, 12:54 PM
I know we are not "outlawing" coal but Obama's policy is to regulate it to the point that it costs more to use it than it is worth. I say outlaw, Obama says regulate, the end result is the same.

Smoke from cigarettes may not have a huge impact on the environment but everything else about cigarettes sure does...

*400 billion cigarettes per year equates to 400 billion cigarette filters releasing 600 different kinds of poisons and toxins into the environment every year (that is just in the U.S.)

While we sleep there are literally trillions of cigarette butts releasing heavy metals, pesticides, fungicides, and carcinogens into the soil and water. It takes approximately 25 years for a cigarette butt to fully decompose.

*Tobacco depletes the soil of nutrients more than any other plant, requiring heavy use of chemical fertilizers to produce crops every year. In some cases it takes 6 times as much nutrients as other crops for tobacco to grow. In certain areas where the soil is already depleted fertilizer may be applied up to 16 times in a single growing season.

*It takes one tree to produce the paper for 300 cigarettes. Multiply that by 400 billion and let me know how many trees are cut down just for cigarettes. Then factor in the CO2 that trees take from the environment and let me know if it is having an impact.

Brazil, which is the 3rd largest cigarette producer in the world, uses 60 million trees per year. A cigarette machine uses 4 miles of paper per hour to make cigarettes.

*Every year approximately 115,000 children are hospitalized with respiratory infections that are attributed to breathing second-hand smoke from their parent's cigarettes.

*And finally, cigarettes are the #1 cause of fatal house fires.

Tell me again how smoking isn't having much of a negative impact on our planet...


Wait. Before we go any further, I need to address something.

Did we switch bodies? Because I'm pretty sure that you sound like a liberal environmentalist, and I sound like someone who is a huge believer in deregulation.

Something is awry here.

duane1969
09-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Wait. Before we go any further, I need to address something.

Did we switch bodies? Because I'm pretty sure that you sound like a liberal environmentalist, and I sound like someone who is a huge believer in deregulation.

Something is awry here.

Oh darn, it is daytime. By day I am a raging conservative, by night a sly liberal militant. I just got my costumes mixed up :sign0020:

You would never know that I hate cigarettes, huh? :confused0024:

mrveggieman
09-01-2011, 02:39 PM
Oh darn, it is daytime. By day I am a raging conservative, by night a sly liberal militant. I just got my costumes mixed up :sign0020:

You would never know that I hate cigarettes, huh? :confused0024:


Duane is not such a bad guy afterall. :sign0020:

pghin08
09-01-2011, 03:18 PM
Oh darn, it is daytime. By day I am a raging conservative, by night a sly liberal militant. I just got my costumes mixed up :sign0020:

You would never know that I hate cigarettes, huh? :confused0024:

Hahaha, couldn't have guessed. I'm not a smoker, myself. But I'm supportive of their rights, and I truly feel as if they've been squashed as time goes on. If you're smoking within 10 feet of my building, guess what? I can walk 20 feet away. Problem solved.

pghin08
09-01-2011, 03:18 PM
Duane is not such a bad guy afterall. :sign0020:

Haha, Duane is a good dude.

mrveggieman
09-01-2011, 03:56 PM
Hahaha, couldn't have guessed. I'm not a smoker, myself. But I'm supportive of their rights, and I truly feel as if they've been squashed as time goes on. If you're smoking within 10 feet of my building, guess what? I can walk 20 feet away. Problem solved.


I was waiting at a bus stop a while back and I had my back turned and the lady behind me was smoking a cigeratte. It was raining outside and I shouldn't have to get wet just because someone wants to smoke a cigeratte and endanger all the rest of us who are inside a small bus shelter.

pghin08
09-01-2011, 03:58 PM
I was waiting at a bus stop a while back and I had my back turned and the lady behind me was smoking a cigeratte. It was raining outside and I shouldn't have to get wet just because someone wants to smoke a cigeratte and endanger all the rest of us who are inside a small bus shelter.

I'm sure all non-smokers have been in similar situations, I know I have. But still, for most of us, they happen on rare occasions.

mrveggieman
09-01-2011, 08:08 PM
Hey readers here is a random thought. Which is more hyprocritical? Eating a veggie burger with cheese made from cow milk and pork bacon or playing grand theft auto on the xbox while listening to gospel music that you downloaded on your hard drive?

*censored*
09-01-2011, 11:53 PM
Definitely the veggie burger. Unless the eater just happens to like veggie burgers. <br />
<br />
Iron Chef Michael Symon has a restaurant near Cleveland called The B Spot that served a veggie burger called the...

Star_Cards
09-02-2011, 10:14 AM
Hey readers here is a random thought. Which is more hyprocritical? Eating a veggie burger with cheese made from cow milk and pork bacon or playing grand theft auto on the xbox while listening to gospel music that you downloaded on your hard drive?

I consider neither to be hypocritical. Some veggie burgers are very good and not all people that eat them are vegetarians or vegans.

duane1969
09-02-2011, 08:34 PM
Hahaha, couldn't have guessed. I'm not a smoker, myself. But I'm supportive of their rights, and I truly feel as if they've been squashed as time goes on. If you're smoking within 10 feet of my building, guess what? I can walk 20 feet away. Problem solved.

I feel the same way! If I am in a small room with people and I have to fart I just go ahead and do it...but they might have to go farther than 20 feet. :party0053:

Seriously tho, I am not judging smokers from my Ivory Tower here. I used to have a 3 pack a day habit. I developed a true hate for smoking when I lost my favorite aunt and uncle to smoking related cancer. They were a 2nd family to me and seeing them slow waste away turned me militant against smoking.

Here is some perspective. In the last 8 years we have lost 4,474 troops in Iraq. In the last week approximately 8,500 people have died from tobacco related illnesses.

pantherfan82
09-02-2011, 09:36 PM
Last time I checked Dems like heat and electricity too.

There are over 600 coal fired electric plants in the U.S (compared to around 100 nuclear ones). Did the Democrats figure out a way to make them run without coal? It goes back to the same premise as alternative automotive fuels. Find a new one before you outlaw the old one.

Less coal = higher electricity production costs = higher electric bills. The next time your electric company notifies you that you rates are going up, take a deep breath of that fresh air and thank Obama and the EPA.

you can put filter type things on the smoke stacks of coal plants so that the only thing coming out of the stack is water vapor. its pretty neat

duane1969
09-03-2011, 12:50 PM
you can put filter type things on the smoke stacks of coal plants so that the only thing coming out of the stack is water vapor. its pretty neat

They use those on the DOW chemical plant in Charleston, WV. You see all of these huge stacks and all that is coming out is steam. 100 feet above them it just disippates into the atmosphere.

pghin08
09-06-2011, 11:59 AM
I feel the same way! If I am in a small room with people and I have to fart I just go ahead and do it...but they might have to go farther than 20 feet. :party0053:

Seriously tho, I am not judging smokers from my Ivory Tower here. I used to have a 3 pack a day habit. I developed a true hate for smoking when I lost my favorite aunt and uncle to smoking related cancer. They were a 2nd family to me and seeing them slow waste away turned me militant against smoking.

Here is some perspective. In the last 8 years we have lost 4,474 troops in Iraq. In the last week approximately 8,500 people have died from tobacco related illnesses.

I'm glad that you ditched the habit. My girlfriend and I have been working on getting her mother to quit for years now. In regards to the smoker's rights issue, I think you're spot on. We all have to live on this planet, and we all have to strike compromises. One side can't always be sacrificing, and that's how I feel about smokers. We're not far away from only allowing them to smoke at home or in their cars. It's a free country, and they have as much of a right to smoke as I have to not smoke.

sanfran22
09-06-2011, 12:08 PM
I'm glad that you ditched the habit. My girlfriend and I have been working on getting her mother to quit for years now. In regards to the smoker's rights issue, I think you're spot on. We all have to live on this planet, and we all have to strike compromises. One side can't always be sacrificing, and that's how I feel about smokers. We're not far away from only allowing them to smoke at home or in their cars. It's a free country, and they have as much of a right to smoke as I have to not smoke.

I actually agree with you. I'm against all this non smoking public place garbage unless it's a public entity....

duane1969
09-06-2011, 12:34 PM
I have no problem with someone smoking in the open air or in their own home/car. That is their business.

However, I have issue with smoking indoors where others have no opportunity to avoid the smoke. A person has no more right to sit at the table next to me in a restarant and smoke than I have to sit next to them and play a trumpet.

sanfran22
09-06-2011, 12:39 PM
I have no problem with someone smoking in the open air or in their own home/car. That is their business.

However, I have issue with smoking indoors where others have no opportunity to avoid the smoke. A person has no more right to sit at the table next to me in a restarant and smoke than I have to sit next to them and play a trumpet.

If the business wants smoking or trumpet playing, it's their choice. You don't have to frequent the business.

duane1969
09-06-2011, 12:45 PM
If the business wants smoking or trumpet playing, it's their choice. You don't have to frequent the business.

I don't. I left a bar just a few weeks ago because the people in there were turning the place into a death trap. My eyes were burning for 10 minutes after I left. I have no intentions of going back.

sanfran22
09-06-2011, 12:47 PM
I don't. I left a bar just a few weeks ago because the people in there were turning the place into a death trap. My eyes were burning for 10 minutes after I left. I have no intentions of going back.

And that is your choice. I don't think we have the right to tell that bar it has to be non-smoking (this coming from someone that has never smoked).

duane1969
09-06-2011, 12:54 PM
And that is your choice. I don't think we have the right to tell that bar it has to be non-smoking (this coming from someone that has never smoked).

I agree. But I also think that it would be unreasonable if evey establishment allowed smoking and there was no such place as somewhere to eat or have drinks without having to breathe smoke. A smoker's right to smoke should not override my right to breathe reasonably clean air. If I want to breathe cig smoke then I will start smoking.

And if we were talking about "just smoke" I would see it differently too. But we are not. Cigarette smoke is loaded with poisons and carcinogens. We are not talking about wood smoke or smoke from burning leaves. This is toxic smoke. If this same smoke was pouring out of a factory/plant exhaust stack then the EPA would regulate it out of business or fine them into oblivion or outright shut them down for pollution and health hazards...

sanfran22
09-06-2011, 02:21 PM
I agree. But I also think that it would be unreasonable if evey establishment allowed smoking and there was no such place as somewhere to eat or have drinks without having to breathe smoke. A smoker's right to smoke should not override my right to breathe reasonably clean air. If I want to breathe cig smoke then I will start smoking.

And if we were talking about "just smoke" I would see it differently too. But we are not. Cigarette smoke is loaded with poisons and carcinogens. We are not talking about wood smoke or smoke from burning leaves. This is toxic smoke. If this same smoke was pouring out of a factory/plant exhaust stack then the EPA would regulate it out of business or fine them into oblivion or outright shut them down for pollution and health hazards...
But it's not the smokers right in question. It's the business owners right to decide what kind of establishment he wants. Plain and simple. Believe me, I hate smoke and like that there is none, but I don't like it being mandated to private individuals how to conduct their business...

Star_Cards
09-06-2011, 02:27 PM
I'm glad that you ditched the habit. My girlfriend and I have been working on getting her mother to quit for years now. In regards to the smoker's rights issue, I think you're spot on. We all have to live on this planet, and we all have to strike compromises. One side can't always be sacrificing, and that's how I feel about smokers. We're not far away from only allowing them to smoke at home or in their cars. It's a free country, and they have as much of a right to smoke as I have to not smoke.

they have the right to smoke, but they don't have the right to make others sit in their smoke. I get both sides argument of the debate and you can easily say that no one makes the other person sit in a restaurant next to a smoker. I guess my thing is one compromise effects everyone health and the other compromise doesn't. Forcing places like restaurants to be non smoking though isn't needed in my opinion.

Star_Cards
09-06-2011, 02:29 PM
If the business wants smoking or trumpet playing, it's their choice. You don't have to frequent the business.

I agree that a businesses should be able to allow smoking or not. If they want to they should have every right. As a non smoker I can decide if I want to eat in a place that will have a guy smoking right next to me. When I go to bars I know it's going to be there so I make the choice if I want to go or not.

sanfran22
09-06-2011, 02:31 PM
I agree that a businesses should be able to allow smoking or not. If they want to they should have every right. As a non smoker I can decide if I want to eat in a place that will have a guy smoking right next to me. When I go to bars I know it's going to be there so I make the choice if I want to go or not.
This is the problem I have with the law.

habsheaven
09-06-2011, 03:21 PM
I agree that a businesses should be able to allow smoking or not. If they want to they should have every right. As a non smoker I can decide if I want to eat in a place that will have a guy smoking right next to me. When I go to bars I know it's going to be there so I make the choice if I want to go or not.

What else should a business be able to allow? Does it apply to topless waitresses or strippers? Is there a line to be crossed, or none at all?

mrveggieman
09-06-2011, 03:46 PM
What else should a business be able to allow? Does it apply to topless waitresses or strippers? Is there a line to be crossed, or none at all?


I wouldn't be mad if the made all strip clubs non smoking well at least the dancers. :sign0020:

duane1969
09-06-2011, 05:30 PM
What else should a business be able to allow? Does it apply to topless waitresses or strippers? Is there a line to be crossed, or none at all?

Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.

But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable. :smokin:

andrewhoya
09-06-2011, 05:41 PM
Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.

But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable. :smokin:

You must have the good employees. We have all of the old retired guys.

duane1969
09-06-2011, 11:30 PM
You must have the good employees. We have all of the old retired guys.

It would still be interesting. :confused0024:

tutall
09-07-2011, 12:02 AM
Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.

But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable. :smokin:

How do you make that connection? Those are still laws.. There is still the ADA for handicapped access, and the codes and labor laws apply to each business across the board where smoking is only regulated in some industries....

duane1969
09-07-2011, 09:24 AM
How do you make that connection? Those are still laws.. There is still the ADA for handicapped access, and the codes and labor laws apply to each business across the board where smoking is only regulated in some industries....

If the government has no right to tell a business that it has to be a non-smoking establishment (a health issue) then the government also has no right to tell them that they have to provide access to the handicapped, pay employees a minimum wage or prepare food in a clean environment.

It is a simple connection. Either the government has the right to dictate aspects of business to business owners or it does not.

Just because smoking laws do not affect everyone that labor laws or health codes affect does not change the argument of whether or not government can dictate what goes on inside of their establishment.

habsheaven
09-07-2011, 09:29 AM
And this is a perfect example of why some government regulation is a good thing. A patron can readily tell if he enters an establishment that allows smokers. Not so easy to determine what the kitchen looks like until it is too late and you are vomitting on the sidewalk on the way to your car.




If the government has no right to tell a business that it has to be a non-smoking establishment (a health issue) then the government also has no right to tell them that they have to provide access to the handicapped, pay employees a minimum wage or prepare food in a clean environment.

It is a simple connection. Either the government has the right to dictate aspects of business to business owners or it does not.

Just because smoking laws do not affect everyone that labor laws or health codes affect does not change the argument of whether or not government can dictate what goes on inside of their establishment.

Star_Cards
09-07-2011, 10:17 AM
What else should a business be able to allow? Does it apply to topless waitresses or strippers? Is there a line to be crossed, or none at all?

if a business wants to allow topless waitresses or strippers then they should be allowed to. They'd have to follow adult entertainment codes. Then if a person didn't want to go there they wouldn't have to.

Star_Cards
09-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.

But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable. :smokin:

I'm not saying that businesses should be the wild west and decide whatever they want when it comes to labor laws, safety codes, and handicapped access. I can see allowing smoking or not can fall into this range, but I think it's a little different.

In my opinion a business would be doing itself a huge disservice if it was a restaurant and it allowed smoking. It probably wouldn't be in business all that long as it would cut out a lot of potential clientele.

Star_Cards
09-07-2011, 10:25 AM
If the government has no right to tell a business that it has to be a non-smoking establishment (a health issue) then the government also has no right to tell them that they have to provide access to the handicapped, pay employees a minimum wage or prepare food in a clean environment.

It is a simple connection. Either the government has the right to dictate aspects of business to business owners or it does not.

Just because smoking laws do not affect everyone that labor laws or health codes affect does not change the argument of whether or not government can dictate what goes on inside of their establishment.

I don't see that as being black and white. The government has to have some set of regulations, but just because there are some doesn't mean it shouldn't still be limited.

personally I love that almost everywhere I go is non smoking, but if a bar is smokey I make the choice to go there or not.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 11:41 AM
The simple reality is that if given the choice 99.9&#37; of smokers will choose to smoke and force the non-smokers to tolerate it. Smokers do not care that they are poisonng themselves, why should they care if they poison strangers? That is the #1 reason that I support anti-smoking laws.

I also support strict application of littering laws for people who toss out their cigarette butt. I am not allowed to throw my gum wrapper or candy bar wrapper out the window, why are they allowed to toss smoldering cig butts out?

theonedru
09-08-2011, 12:31 AM
If the government has no right to tell a business that it has to be a non-smoking establishment (a health issue) then the government also has no right to tell them that they have to provide access to the handicapped, pay employees a minimum wage or prepare food in a clean environment.

It is a simple connection. Either the government has the right to dictate aspects of business to business owners or it does not.

Just because smoking laws do not affect everyone that labor laws or health codes affect does not change the argument of whether or not government can dictate what goes on inside of their establishment.

So by that standard then they have no right to dictate health codes for restaurants? No health codes for eating establishments, imagine the implications there....................

duane1969
09-08-2011, 10:22 AM
So by that standard then they have no right to dictate health codes for restaurants? No health codes for eating establishments, imagine the implications there....................

That was my point. I don't advocate that tho. I was trying to point out that we can not pick and choose which aspects of business that we want the government to regulate. We can't say that the government has no right to tell a business that they can not allow smoking and then expect the government to regulate other aspects of business like health and safety. It would be a double-standard.

sanfran22
09-08-2011, 10:26 AM
That was my point. I don't advocate that tho. I was trying to point out that we can not pick and choose which aspects of business that we want the government to regulate. We can't say that the government has no right to tell a business that they can not allow smoking and then expect the government to regulate other aspects of business like health and safety. It would be a double-standard.

How is making sure someone doesn't get ecoli the same as allowing smoking? Selling tainted food is wrong in all instances, is that the same for smoking?

theonedru
09-08-2011, 12:11 PM
How is making sure someone doesn't get ecoli the same as allowing smoking? Selling tainted food is wrong in all instances, is that the same for smoking?

So in what instance is smoking right?

I love it here in Seattle where they ban smoking as much as they can but they want to decriminalize marijuana which is just as unhealthy and dangerous as smoking cigarettes. That's true hypocrisy for you

duane1969
09-08-2011, 12:13 PM
How is making sure someone doesn't get ecoli the same as allowing smoking? Selling tainted food is wrong in all instances, is that the same for smoking?

I didn't say any of it is the same. I said that people can not pick and choose what regulations they want enforced. Many people have asthma. Being around smoking, even just a little bit, can be deadly. It is a public health issue, like it or not.

Let me see if I understand your position correctly. I have the right to eat clean food and the government should protect that right. However, I do not have the right to breathe clean air while I eat and the government should mind it's own business. Is that about right?

Star_Cards
09-08-2011, 01:57 PM
So in what instance is smoking right?

I love it here in Seattle where they ban smoking as much as they can but they want to decriminalize marijuana which is just as unhealthy and dangerous as smoking cigarettes. That's true hypocrisy for you

that's a pretty good point. If they legalized marijuana they'd have to restrict it more than they do smoking in my opinion. People would be allowed to have a certain amount but wouldn't be able to just smoke it where ever even if they were outside. Second hand smoke from marijuana needs to be controlled much more than tobacco second hand smoke.

duane1969
09-08-2011, 02:20 PM
that's a pretty good point. If they legalized marijuana they'd have to restrict it more than they do smoking in my opinion. People would be allowed to have a certain amount but wouldn't be able to just smoke it where ever even if they were outside. Second hand smoke from marijuana needs to be controlled much more than tobacco second hand smoke.

If there is a second-hand smoke that I am OK with breathing, that would be it :whistle:

sanfran22
09-08-2011, 02:25 PM
I didn't say any of it is the same. I said that people can not pick and choose what regulations they want enforced. Many people have asthma. Being around smoking, even just a little bit, can be deadly. It is a public health issue, like it or not.

Let me see if I understand your position correctly. I have the right to eat clean food and the government should protect that right. However, I do not have the right to breathe clean air while I eat and the government should mind it's own business. Is that about right?

The business has the right to determine if they want the legal act of smoking in their establishment. You do not have to patronize them. They do not have the right to serve tainted food. I don't know how you can draw the same comparison. You are talking about poisoning the masses via food vs second hand smoke which has not been proven to poison anyone. So in this instance you can pick and choose. They have no right to limit smoking to private businesses. Maybe they should stop allowing alcohol because someone may drive drunk.

razzamaztaz
09-08-2011, 02:31 PM
New topic: explain to me why men (on boats) always walk around without life jacket while the wife and kids got them on. I just took a walk by the water and saw three families, same scenario. Stupidity, or has the wife talked him into it and got a good life insurance?

duane1969
09-08-2011, 02:33 PM
The business has the right to determine if they want the legal act of smoking in their establishment. You do not have to patronize them. They do not have the right to serve tainted food. I don't know how you can draw the same comparison. You are talking about poisoning the masses via food vs second hand smoke which has not been proven to poison anyone. So in this instance you can pick and choose. They have no right to limit smoking to private businesses. Maybe they should stop allowing alcohol because someone may drive drunk.

No, what I am talking about is whether or not the govt. has the right to control one aspect and not another.

As far as I am concerned, my right to breathe clean air and be healthy supercedes any smoker's right to pollute the air and environment and kill themselves. Obviously if smoking is bad for them then it is bad for me too but their right to their choice is taking away my right to choose, so they lose their right to choose.

duane1969
09-08-2011, 02:35 PM
New topic: explain to me why men (on boats) always walk around without life jacket while the wife and kids got them on. I just took a walk by the water and saw three families, same scenario. Stupidity, or has the wife talked him into it and got a good life insurance?

Because the wife and kids are aware that dad is driving the boat and they know there is a chance that they will need the lifejackets. It's called learning from experience.

The dad however thinks that he will never wreck and therefore will never need the lifejacket. It's called machismo.

:smokin:

sanfran22
09-08-2011, 03:19 PM
No, what I am talking about is whether or not the govt. has the right to control one aspect and not another.

As far as I am concerned, my right to breathe clean air and be healthy supercedes any smoker's right to pollute the air and environment and kill themselves. Obviously if smoking is bad for them then it is bad for me too but their right to their choice is taking away my right to choose, so they lose their right to choose.

We will never agree. You chose to eat at that restaurant. That is your only valid choice. The business should have the choice of weather to allow smoking or not.

Star_Cards
09-08-2011, 03:22 PM
If there is a second-hand smoke that I am OK with breathing, that would be it :whistle:

lol. All joking aside, you'd have underaged people effected by the smoke as well as potential people that are required to be in a certain state of mind to perform a job and such. They'd definitely not be allowed to smoke marijuana where every they want if it became legalized.

Star_Cards
09-08-2011, 03:25 PM
The business has the right to determine if they want the legal act of smoking in their establishment. You do not have to patronize them. They do not have the right to serve tainted food. I don't know how you can draw the same comparison. You are talking about poisoning the masses via food vs second hand smoke which has not been proven to poison anyone. So in this instance you can pick and choose. They have no right to limit smoking to private businesses. Maybe they should stop allowing alcohol because someone may drive drunk.

well said.

habsheaven
09-08-2011, 03:28 PM
lol. All joking aside, you'd have underaged people effected by the smoke as well as potential people that are required to be in a certain state of mind to perform a job and such. They'd definitely not be allowed to smoke marijuana where every they want if it became legalized.

Unless you are in a confined space (last time I checked, outdoors doesn't qualify as one) the second hand smoke from a joint is not going to have any affect on you. Even in a confined space, the smoke would have to be "bingo hall" thick to affect you.

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 03:34 PM
Unless you are in a confined space (last time I checked, outdoors doesn't qualify as one) the second hand smoke from a joint is not going to have any affect on you. Even in a confined space, the smoke would have to be "bingo hall" thick to affect you.

Same with second hand smoke from cigs.

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 03:35 PM
The business has the right to determine if they want the legal act of smoking in their establishment. You do not have to patronize them. They do not have the right to serve tainted food. I don't know how you can draw the same comparison. You are talking about poisoning the masses via food vs second hand smoke which has not been proven to poison anyone. So in this instance you can pick and choose. They have no right to limit smoking to private businesses. Maybe they should stop allowing alcohol because someone may drive drunk.

Well said. Don't like all of these anti-smoking ordinances popping up.

Star_Cards
09-08-2011, 03:47 PM
Unless you are in a confined space (last time I checked, outdoors doesn't qualify as one) the second hand smoke from a joint is not going to have any affect on you. Even in a confined space, the smoke would have to be "bingo hall" thick to affect you.

If you are a guy that gets drug tested for his job... say a pilot or something would you feel comfortable being around second hand marijuana smoke and taking a test? I'm not an expert by any means and maybe that small of an amount won't show up but it would be a concern for me in that manner.

I'm assuming that even if it's legalized that there would be certain professions that would still get tested.


Overall, I'm not a smoker and love that there are limited spaces where I have to be around smoke. However I think a business shouldn't be forced to ban smoke if they don't want to.

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 03:49 PM
If you are a guy that gets drug tested for his job... say a pilot or something would you feel comfortable being around second hand marijuana smoke and taking a test? I'm not an expert by any means and maybe that small of an amount won't show up but it would be a concern for me in that manner.

I'm assuming that even if it's legalized that there would be certain professions that would still get tested.

That's why even if it is legalized, it would only be permitted in certain places. That way you could avoid it if you wanted to.

*censored*
09-09-2011, 08:22 AM
That's why even if it is legalized, it would only be permitted in certain places. That way you could avoid it if you wanted to.

I'm in favor of full drug legalization. I'd be perfectly okay with tsomething like this as a happy medium. Allow it in private places-- in your home, certain "pot approved" smoke houses or something of the sort, places like that. But keep ripping off bong hits on the corner of First and Main illegal.

And before someone says I'm just some hippie pothead who just wants his grass, no. I don't do any drugs, smoke, or drink. I just think people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, and if they screw up, oh well, it's their fault. The problem is that people don't want the responsibility that comes with a right. They always want someone else to blame if they make the wrong choice.

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 09:11 AM
I'm in favor of full drug legalization. I'd be perfectly okay with tsomething like this as a happy medium. Allow it in private places-- in your home, certain "pot approved" smoke houses or something of the sort, places like that. But keep ripping off bong hits on the corner of First and Main illegal.

And before someone says I'm just some hippie pothead who just wants his grass, no. I don't do any drugs, smoke, or drink. I just think people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, and if they screw up, oh well, it's their fault. The problem is that people don't want the responsibility that comes with a right. They always want someone else to blame if they make the wrong choice.


+1:cheer2:

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 09:19 AM
Here's something that I always thought of when it comes to personal health and safety as well as public accomodations. What do ya'll think about writing tickets and handing out fines to people who don't flush the toilet or wash their hands when using public restrooms. I find it utterly disgusting whenever I see someone not doing that and you can never really be too sure if the person who is fixing your food has washed your hands after using the bathroom. I know that this would be hard to enforce but if you are caught then you are imposed with hefty fines. What are your thoughts?

Star_Cards
09-09-2011, 09:46 AM
the idea of fining people who don't wash their hands or flush a toilet is absurd. There's no real way to police it even if it were finable. As for restaurant workers it's something that you really can't know for sure. Even in that I'm not sure how you police it.

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 09:52 AM
the idea of fining people who don't wash their hands or flush a toilet is absurd. There's no real way to police it even if it were finable. As for restaurant workers it's something that you really can't know for sure. Even in that I'm not sure how you police it.


Yeah I know it's a longshot to enforce but if it were on the books and a police officer would happen to catch someone leaving the restroom without washing their hands at least that person would be taught a lesson. Also with all the publicity this law would bring it may just encourage more people to wash up and flush the toilet after using the restroom.

AUTaxMan
09-09-2011, 09:54 AM
I'm in favor of full drug legalization. I'd be perfectly okay with tsomething like this as a happy medium. Allow it in private places-- in your home, certain "pot approved" smoke houses or something of the sort, places like that. But keep ripping off bong hits on the corner of First and Main illegal.

And before someone says I'm just some hippie pothead who just wants his grass, no. I don't do any drugs, smoke, or drink. I just think people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves, and if they screw up, oh well, it's their fault. The problem is that people don't want the responsibility that comes with a right. They always want someone else to blame if they make the wrong choice.

I'm totally with you on this issue. You could tax it and it would end the drug wars in Mexico.

AUTaxMan
09-09-2011, 09:55 AM
Here's something that I always thought of when it comes to personal health and safety as well as public accomodations. What do ya'll think about writing tickets and handing out fines to people who don't flush the toilet or wash their hands when using public restrooms. I find it utterly disgusting whenever I see someone not doing that and you can never really be too sure if the person who is fixing your food has washed your hands after using the bathroom. I know that this would be hard to enforce but if you are caught then you are imposed with hefty fines. What are your thoughts?

No.

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 10:22 AM
No.


You got any better ideas or are you completly ok with someone preparing your food or prehaps even looking after your family members who has not washed their hands?

AUTaxMan
09-09-2011, 10:27 AM
You got any better ideas or are you completly ok with someone preparing your food or prehaps even looking after your family members who has not washed their hands?

Of course I'm not ok with it, but it should not be a crime.

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 10:46 AM
Of course I'm not ok with it, but it should not be a crime.

So what's the difference between a restaurant being fined for not keeping its food prep up to par than from a restaurant employee being fined for not washing his hands? Or are you also against health code regulations in restaurants?

Star_Cards
09-09-2011, 10:49 AM
I'm totally with you on this issue. You could tax it and it would end the drug wars in Mexico.

there's a difference between legalizing pot and legalizing all drugs. No way all drugs are ever legalized recreationally and even if they were they would be controlled substances. If pot was legalized it wouldn't eliminate the drug wars in mexico. They would just focus on the harder drugs that would still be illegal.

I do agree that if pot was legalized it would be taxed probably more than any other item.

AUTaxMan
09-09-2011, 10:50 AM
So what's the difference between a restaurant being fined for not keeping its food prep up to par than from a restaurant employee being fined for not washing his hands? Or are you also against health code regulations in restaurants?

You said that everyone should get fined, not just restaurant employees.

AUTaxMan
09-09-2011, 10:51 AM
there's a difference between legalizing pot and legalizing all drugs. No way all drugs are ever legalized recreationally and even if they were they would be controlled substances. If pot was legalized it wouldn't eliminate the drug wars in mexico. They would just focus on the harder drugs that would still be illegal.

I do agree that if pot was legalized it would be taxed probably more than any other item.

The drug wars are primarily about marijuana because of the high demand. There isn't nearly the demand for harder drugs.

Star_Cards
09-09-2011, 10:52 AM
So what's the difference between a restaurant being fined for not keeping its food prep up to par than from a restaurant employee being fined for not washing his hands? Or are you also against health code regulations in restaurants?

If a health inspector caught an employee returning to work without washing their hands I'm sure that would go on their violation report. The odds of this happening is pretty low.

I assume he's not against health codes. Employees washing hands is up to the restaurant owner/manager to instill in their employees. An outside entity can't effectively police this sort of thing.

Star_Cards
09-09-2011, 10:56 AM
The drug wars are primarily about marijuana because of the high demand. There isn't nearly the demand for harder drugs.

would there be demand for black market marijuana that is cheaper and not taxed?

sanfran22
09-09-2011, 11:01 AM
If a health inspector caught an employee returning to work without washing their hands I'm sure that would go on their violation report. The odds of this happening is pretty low.

I assume he's not against health codes. Employees washing hands is up to the restaurant owner/manager to instill in their employees. An outside entity can't effectively police this sort of thing.

Maybe he's for putting camera's in the bathrooms? Aside from that how could you enforce it?

Star_Cards
09-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Maybe he's for putting camera's in the bathrooms? Aside from that how could you enforce it?

I don't see a way. Bathroom attendant/police in every bathroom?

Do you have to tip them?

mrveggieman
09-09-2011, 12:06 PM
Obviously no one wants cameras in bathrooms and it would be hard to enforce without someone watching but if someone happens to get caught by a police officer not washing their hands or flushing the toilet then make an example out of them. Obviously you cant catch everyone just like you cant catch everyone who runs a stop sign but those who get caught get dealt with.

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 09:20 AM
Hey ya'll I'm curious. For anyone one who went to a religious service over the weekend (btw it dosent matter which religion it was) what did your preacher talk about? Any and all feedback is encouraged.

Star_Cards
09-13-2011, 09:46 AM
Obviously no one wants cameras in bathrooms and it would be hard to enforce without someone watching but if someone happens to get caught by a police officer not washing their hands or flushing the toilet then make an example out of them. Obviously you cant catch everyone just like you cant catch everyone who runs a stop sign but those who get caught get dealt with.

I'm trying to think of a time that I've been in the bathroom the same time a uniformed officer was also in there. I'm sure the police would jump at the chance to be the bathroom police.

Will they hand out tickets if I use my salad fork for my entree? lol

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 09:56 AM
I'm trying to think of a time that I've been in the bathroom the same time a uniformed officer was also in there. I'm sure the police would jump at the chance to be the bathroom police.

Will they hand out tickets if I use my salad fork for my entree? lol

It would be the equivilant of a cop seeing a guy walking down the street and drinking a beer. I'm sure that cops don't go out searching for petty stuff like that but when they see them they like to write tickets for it.

duane1969
09-13-2011, 09:59 AM
I'm trying to think of a time that I've been in the bathroom the same time a uniformed officer was also in there. I'm sure the police would jump at the chance to be the bathroom police.

I bet that job would stink...get it? I made a funny!!! :pound:


Will they hand out tickets if I use my salad fork for my entree? lol

No but you get a warning citation and lose your salad fork priveledges on your next 3 visits. :sign0020:

Star_Cards
09-13-2011, 10:04 AM
It would be the equivilant of a cop seeing a guy walking down the street and drinking a beer. I'm sure that cops don't go out searching for petty stuff like that but when they see them they like to write tickets for it.

I can see that. a lot of differences in my opinion.

If you write tickets for people not washing hands you have to do the same for people coughing or sneezing and not covering their mouth.

As much as washing hands after using the bathroom should be done, it's not something that should be finable. If it was the snowball effect to fining people for hygiene would be unreal.

Star_Cards
09-13-2011, 10:06 AM
Here's a topic to discuss. Name your most hated eating or cooking utensil.

duane1969
09-13-2011, 10:08 AM
Here's a topic to discuss. Name your most hated eating or cooking utensil.

Meat tenderizer hammer. I hate that thing. :rant:

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 10:13 AM
Meat tenderizer hammer. I hate that thing. :rant:


I never really thought about that but I do have a pet peeve about people who don't clean out the microwave after using it. :rant:

Star_Cards
09-13-2011, 10:20 AM
Meat tenderizer hammer. I hate that thing. :rant:

dude, I love the meat tenderizer. I don't have one, but whenever I see one I think I should get it. I never do but they just usually look cool.

I think I hate the tea bag press. I don't get it. Do you really need every last drop out of the dang tea bag?

duane1969
09-13-2011, 10:31 AM
dude, I love the meat tenderizer. I don't have one, but whenever I see one I think I should get it. I never do but they just usually look cool.


I make chicken marsala a lot and I always tenderize the chicken breasts beforehand. I have a big family so I make quite a bit when I make it. Hammering out 20 pieces of chicken with chicken juice splattering everywhere and your arm wore out from swinging that thing...I hate it.

theonedru
09-13-2011, 12:21 PM
I make chicken marsala a lot and I always tenderize the chicken breasts beforehand. I have a big family so I make quite a bit when I make it. Hammering out 20 pieces of chicken with chicken juice splattering everywhere and your arm wore out from swinging that thing...I hate it.

" chicken juice splattering everywhere and "

This just reminded me.. You ever see those cooking shows where the person will handle the chicken, remind us how nasty raw chicken is for salmonella or whatever else bacteria then...

Go to the sink

turn on the water with their bacteria covered hands

wash their hands

then grab the tap they touched with their chicken juiced covered hand to turn off the water thus reinfecting themselves with the bacterium

then having the nerve to wipe it on their towel that they use throughout the show.......

Disgusting

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 12:29 PM
" chicken juice splattering everywhere and "

This just reminded me.. You ever see those cooking shows where the person will handle the chicken, remind us how nasty raw chicken is for salmonella or whatever else bacteria then...

Go to the sink

turn on the water with their bacteria covered hands

wash their hands

then grab the tap they touched with their chicken juiced covered hand to turn off the water thus reinfecting themselves with the bacterium

then having the nerve to wipe it on their towel that they use throughout the show.......

Disgusting

And this is the exact reason why I am a vegetarian. Hence the name mrveggieman. :party0048:

duane1969
09-13-2011, 02:22 PM
And this is the exact reason why I am a vegetarian. Hence the name mrveggieman. :party0048:

Are you vegan or vegetarian? I used to think it was the same thing but was educated recdently that there is a difference.

Personally I am a meatitarian :)

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 02:34 PM
Are you vegan or vegetarian? I used to think it was the same thing but was educated recdently that there is a difference.

Personally I am a meatitarian :)

I am a vegetarian (one that consumes some foods with dairy/ and or eggs but no animal flesh or fish) working on becoming vegan (one who does not consume any meat, fish, eggs, milk or any animal by products) :party0053:

pantherfan82
09-13-2011, 02:37 PM
I'm a meatitarian also! Well maybe a meat&potatotarian



Are you vegan or vegetarian? I used to think it was the same thing but was educated recdently that there is a difference.

Personally I am a meatitarian :)

theonedru
09-13-2011, 03:13 PM
I'm a meatitarian also! Well maybe a meat&potatotarian

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I hate plants

mrveggieman
09-13-2011, 03:27 PM
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I hate plants

:sign0020:

INTIMADATOR2007
09-13-2011, 05:31 PM
I love eating animals of all kinds ,Just wish it was a little cheaper , ahhh deer season is here . Yum, Yum !

razzamaztaz
09-13-2011, 06:49 PM
I so wish more wild animal meat were available in the stores for many reasons.

1) Would be more fair, there are hunted and shut, and I would love to make a choice where I don't have to eat animals living in factories.

2) Obviously incredibly more yummy, anyone tasting boar, moose, deer etc knows this

3) a LOT more healthy, without antibiotics and other crap stuff that is in the normal beef and pork. Would even help reducing antibiotic-resistent bacterias.

4) Stop spreading of salmonella and other dieseases

5) Would reduce the number of ticks, the more deer etc we have the more ticks and tickborne diseases. I've had 30 ticks on me this summer and Lyme's disease twice already.

Now I live in Sweden, perhaps you guys in USA eat wild meat all the time! But my idea would be a whole retailer who makes business on wild meat. Screw it if it's cute Bambi, rabbits or whatever, it's more healthy for us, the animals, and the planet on a whole.

andrewhoya
09-13-2011, 07:20 PM
I haven't had wild meat in 6 years, so you aren't alone ;-)

tutall
09-13-2011, 08:38 PM
I haven't had wild meat in 6 years, so you aren't alone ;-)

man you guys are missing out... I hope to have at least 6-7 deer in the freezer this year... we can shoot 13 int he county I live in plus another one at my moms if I wanted too... Hope to get a turkey this year too but those rascals are a lot harder to bag than they would appear

razzamaztaz
09-14-2011, 08:01 AM
For people who don't hunt, or know hunters, it's nearly impossible to get hands on wild meat, here anyway. I so wish they could sell some in the stores. Do you get any pheasant or grouse? So tasty!

duane1969
09-14-2011, 08:45 AM
man you guys are missing out... I hope to have at least 6-7 deer in the freezer this year... we can shoot 13 int he county I live in plus another one at my moms if I wanted too... Hope to get a turkey this year too but those rascals are a lot harder to bag than they would appear

You just have to know how to talk to them :) My wife got tired of me hanging animal parts on the wall so I am not allowed to get any more turkeys fans/beards mounted. I have 4 on the wall and several others stored away.

tutall
09-14-2011, 08:49 AM
I don't hunt birds mainly because of the cost. I do hunt turkeys but in Indians you have to buy all the federal stamps and steel shot which isn't cheap. I mainly hunt deer turkey rabbit squirrel. Every once n a while though I ge a pheasant with my truck

habsheaven
09-14-2011, 08:57 AM
Did anyone here watch the Tea Party debate on CNN the other night? I am curious to hear how the Ron Paul supporters thought he did. And what you thought of him trying to set the record straight on WHY 9/11 happened, and the boos he recieved for doing so.

mrveggieman
09-14-2011, 09:04 AM
Did anyone here watch the Tea Party debate on CNN the other night? I am curious to hear how the Ron Paul supporters thought he did. And what you thought of him trying to set the record straight on WHY 9/11 happened, and the boos he recieved for doing so.


Ron Paul dosen't blindly follow republican policy that is why he get's no love from his own party. He might as well go independent.

mrveggieman
09-14-2011, 09:05 AM
With all the rotten carnage that you guys like to eat why eat the guy who drops dead walking down the street? Or why not eat someone's dog or cat?

duane1969
09-14-2011, 09:34 AM
With all the rotten carnage that you guys like to eat why eat the guy who drops dead walking down the street? Or why not eat someone's dog or cat?

I don't eat anything rotten. No idea what you are talking about.

With all of the weeds and stubble that you eat why don't you just pluck some grass from the sidewalk or catch a leaf as it falls off a tree? In fact, if you want I can have my lawn guy bag my grass cuttings and have them sent to you.

And dog is good, don't knock it until you have...oh, wait, nevermind

duane1969
09-14-2011, 09:38 AM
Ron Paul dosen't blindly follow republican policy that is why he get's no love from his own party. He might as well go independent.

Paul doesn't get much love because he has always been that guy that is trying to get elected but never does. He has been trying to get the Republican nomination since 1974.

If he hasn't been able to win a Republican nomination in nearly 40 years then common sense says that he will not win a presidential race.

mrveggieman
09-14-2011, 09:57 AM
Paul doesn't get much love because he has always been that guy that is trying to get elected but never does. He has been trying to get the Republican nomination since 1974.

If he hasn't been able to win a Republican nomination in nearly 40 years then common sense says that he will not win a presidential race.


He wont win not because he's not an interesting canidate but because this country is not ready for a 3rd party canidate. People either lean republican or democrat and depending on paul's campaign platform he will either steal votes from one side or another. If he does run independent I hope for our country's sakes that he steals votes from the republicans and not the dems.

Star_Cards
09-14-2011, 10:04 AM
Ron Paul dosen't blindly follow republican policy that is why he get's no love from his own party. He might as well go independent.

sick reminder how much control the two parties have. They both have all of the power and they control who we get to pick from. If they don't toe the party line they get axed and we get the typical politician in the white house performing the status quo.

Star_Cards
09-14-2011, 10:05 AM
He wont win not because he's not an interesting canidate but because this country is not ready for a 3rd party canidate. People either lean republican or democrat and depending on paul's campaign platform he will either steal votes from one side or another. If he does run independent I hope for our country's sakes that he steals votes from the republicans and not the dems.

I think the people are ready, but it's not the "way things are done" so it will never happen. They two parties are too cemented into the political culture.

mrveggieman
09-14-2011, 02:00 PM
hey all i'm curious about what advertisement is on your browser. I actually saw interesting one for what I believe is an atheist group that calls themselves reformed fundelmentalist. I'm sorry that I forgot to get the link but if anyone wants to see it google it. What ad are you currently looking at?

Star_Cards
09-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Mine is Farm Bureau Financial Services

theonedru
09-14-2011, 06:24 PM
With all the rotten carnage that you guys like to eat why eat the guy who drops dead walking down the street? Or why not eat someone's dog or cat?

Nothing wrong with people eating meat other animals are carnivours are you going to tell them to go eat a strict veggie diet? You do have a valid point with the dog or cat thing though, its a huge social stigma for it to be allowable to eat some forms of meat but not others.... And this is coming from a vegtabletarian ...........

marekschwarz33
09-14-2011, 06:52 PM
Did anyone here watch the Tea Party debate on CNN the other night? I am curious to hear how the Ron Paul supporters thought he did. And what you thought of him trying to set the record straight on WHY 9/11 happened, and the boos he recieved for doing so.

I loved his response. Thought he pretty much nailed it. Some people just believe that America can do no wrong I guess and that's why they booed.

mrveggieman
09-29-2011, 07:52 AM
Why do women who are well over 6 feet tall wear high heels?