Texsox

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. In some cases, such as public health and safety, I do agree...but in others, it just comes across as over-protection. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar, and just because you choose to do so, doesn't mean you should have the right to press your opinions on the owners. And although we regulate where and when and how much we drink...almost nobody enforces most of these until it's too late...which is why drunk driving is *still* a common occurance. So...so much for public protection, since it's such a HUGE killer of innocents. Bars have closing times. Bars are stopped from offering happy hour drink prices. Beers have alcohol content limits. So we do regulate before the fact. It is not an opinion that second hand smoke carries health risks, it is fact. Again, in America we draw the line when someones actions harm others, regardless of venue. You keep mentioning that the public *chooses* to go in bars. Are you claiming then that companies should not be required to have a safe workplace? That businesses should not be required to have a safe environment for customers? QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) That would be nice, but I don't see it cutting down on drunk driving accidents...at all. Considering bars are places we commonly have to drive too, in order to drink, the entire establishment is flawed in that when we leave...we're probably going to drive. Maybe they need to fix that fundamental flaw with "bars" too. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html Wow. You don't see it cutting down on drunk driving? You are kidding right?

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:34 AM) I just don't like big brother interfearance on things like this...it hurts the businesses, badly, and these smoking bans in the suburban areas have prooven that. I'm certain you can google some studies that show it hurts business badly. There are also studies that show larger bans are better than localized ones. For business, a citywide ban is better than a neighborhood ban. A county wide ban is better than a city wide ban. A statewide is better than a county wide. Best of all is a nationwide ban. Now that bar patrons do not have a choice, it becomes drink in a bar or not. Not between smoking and non smoking bars. All establishments in Illinois are now playing by the same rules. Will this discourage some people from drinking? Possibly, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Less drunk drivers on the roads.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) And allow me to reiterate. I do not, nor have I EVER smoked. I just don't like being told that because something is bad for me that it's banned. I hate the word banned. Alcohol is bad for me but I like my beer, and someone drinking until they can barely see is just as hazerdous to your life as someone else smoking, perhaps even moreso. They banned books back in the day due to the messages or stories in them. I disagreed with that, too. Because in the wrong hands, knowledge is even more dangerous as second-hand smoke. That is called a straw argument. No one is banning cigarettes. No one is stopping anyone from smoking in their homes, in their cars, etc. I believe: The government has an obligation to protect workers and regulate workplaces. The government has an obligation to protect the public health and safety Drinking? We regulate when, where, and how much you can drink. Books? We also regulate content in books, we regulate who can buy certain books and magazines.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) You misunderstand me, in everyway possible. I'm not mad in the least. I simply don't agree with the law they passed. They also passed the Patriot Act...which I don't agree with. Just because a law or bill is passed doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it, even if you do. You are wrong for claiming I said things that are legal should be legal everywhere. I never said that. I said that legal products should be allowed in private businesses/residences. That I said. Everywhere...I did not. So the fact it is legal has no bearing on this argument? That even though it is legal, the government does have the right to regulate when and where a legal product can be used? I thought you claimed that because it's legal, it should be allowed in the bar.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:18 AM) I never said products are legal and should be allowed *everywhere*. I said they are legal and should be legal in private homes/establishments. So again, apples and oranges. My business is mine. You don't have to come there nor do you have to work there. Apples and oranges again. I know...you want it your way, right away...so go work at Burger King. The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want. If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow it. But force banning them from allowing it is, as Penn and Tellar may say...is bulls***. Private homes, fine. No one disagrees with that. Private businesses have to comply with laws. You keep making this statement. Why should laws be suspended because it's private? Every business in America is regulated. Labor laws are everywhere. And OK, I will agree that private clubs should be exempt. But public bars should not. And they must be true private clubs, not public bars masquerading as private. And the world doesn't revolve around you and your cigarette, at least not anymore.

You are wrong when you misstate facts. (Unconstitutional) You are wrong when your analogies are inaccurate. (Legal here should be legal everywhere) You are wrong when there is objective evidence. (Your business doesn't need to conform with laws) You are not wrong by stating an opinion or conclusion drawn from facts, laws, accurate observations, etc.

We've been reducing emissions in cars. We've greatly improved mine safety. Both through government regulations. No one is forcing someone in a wheelchair to work someplace, yet the ADA regulates that most businesses must comply. You bring up unconstitutional (sic), I reply it isn't even in the Constitution, you say apples and oranges You say the products are legal and should be allowed everywhere, I show where we regulate legal products all the time, you say apples and oranges. You say you should be allowed to have smoking in *your business*, I show where your business is already regulated and must have safe working conditions, you say apples and oranges. We draw the line when your freedom causes harm to others.

I swallowed a larvae once, had butterflies in my stomach.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it. You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now. Drinking *and then* driving with a blood alcohol level under .08 is legal. Drinking *while* driving, regardless of BAC, is illegal. Apples and oranges? You said I was ignoring the fact that cigarettes are legal. I pointed out when and where we regulate legal products. Seems very point on. Your business must be safe for your employees. Or should you be allowed an unsafe workplace because it's private and people can choose to work there, or not? No one is arguing if you are over 18, that you can not smoke at home. YOUR business has to comply with US laws. YOUR business, must comply with ADA requirements, all license and regulatory issues. Why should smoking be different?

QUOTE(Heads22 @ May 7, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) My dad once had a cricket crawl into his ear, no joke. He was shaken by the incident. I swallowed a bee, was buzzed all day.

83 but I gave them all back . . .

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) You still haven't told me where in the Constitution is our right to eat. Comes to my attention that some of us need to be told how much we have the right to eat because some obese people are clearly over-eating and killing themselves in about the same life shortening way as smokers... In a private establishment, the government shouldn't interfear with the use of LEGAL products, that is the fundamental problem with this. You are choosing to ignore the fact that tobacco is LEGAL, and you seem content/ok with the government telling you when you can and cannot use said legal product in your OWN ***private*** establishment. I'm not buying what you're selling me here. Next thing we know, the government will tell us what times of the day or night we can eat LEGAL foods in our own homes. You may be ok with that...but I'm not. Because that's called Communism. *YOU* called it unconstitutional (sic) I thought for it to be Unconstitutional, it would have to actually be in the Constitution. We regulate legal products all the time. Liquor is legal, but you can't drink in your car. Guns are legal, but you can't take them into banks. Private airplanes are legal, but there is restricted airspace. Playing music is legal but you can't blare it at 3 am. Taking a crap is legal, but you can't take a dump in the middle of a bar. Well, at least not the bars I go to. Driving 65 is legal in some places, not allowed in others. Nude dancing is legal in some bars, not others. Just because a business is private, doesn't mean it can ignore laws. I'm not ignoring it's legal, I've pointed out we regulate legal products all the time. And where do your freedoms and rights come from? Are they different than the freedoms and rights of someone who lives in Canada or Cuba?

QUOTE(NUKE @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:05 AM) That was our assessment as well. I'm becoming convinced it doesn't matter if we leave in six months or six years, they will fall back to life as usual and what they are comfortable and familiar.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) First, hiding behind the 'literal' intrepretation of the constitution is a weak way to argue. Does the consitution tell us what's safe or unsafe to eat? And since it doesn't, do we have no right to eat anything? See the way that works? And if you have the right to clean air, shouldn't I have the inverse right to dirty air, if I so choose? Oh, wait...I need to be more open minded, right? And as long as I agree with everything you say, then I'm free to do it? That's not how freedom works. Oh, and before you say something insane to counterpoint me like, "Ok then, should I have the right to shoot people randomly on the streets", let me clear something up. I have no problem with them banning smoking outdoors or in publically owned places...but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but walking out in front of it to get from point A to point B is something different, entirely. I agree in that case you shouldn't have to deal with it...but nobody is forcing you to go inside, either. We protect workers and the public all the time from unsafe conditions. Asbestos, lead paint, lead in gas, auto emissions, etc. Why is smoking different? The evidence of health risks from second hand smoke has reached a critical mass where society can not ignore it anymore. Hiding behind a literal interpretation is weak? Objective evidence is far stronger than inference and freedoms by omission . And where in the Constitution is the right to smoke?

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:08 AM) I don't smoke and never have, and I don't like this law. Every freedom they take, even if they are freedoms we don't all agree with, is one we never get back. Think of it like the dominos of freedom falling. Next they will ban beer at the ballpark. Oh, and hotdogs are bad for you, too, let's ban those while we're at it. Meh. Don't we have a right to clean air? Did we take away the "freedom" of car owners to drive cars with poor emissions? Many parks already have non drinking sections. We have health inspectors to keep that hotdog safe. Should we have the freedom to make unsafe hotdogs? I don't understand the right to smoke anywhere, where is that in our constitution?

In judging GMs, trades are a big part. No GM is perfect, but what makes a great GM?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 07:01 AM) And this in a nutshell is why the rest of the world hates the New York Yankees. Everyone else has injury problems and they either dip into the minors or make a trade. The Yankees have injury problems and they spend $5 million A MONTH for a another pitcher. Be grateful they have to pay $5 mil for another pitcher. Let's pretend that all players were paid the same and could pick any franchise to play for. How many would like to play in Yankee pinstripes on the largest stage in the world? Hear the ghosts of a HoF lineup? Add to the 20 something WS titles? It would suck even more than it does now. Hell, the Cubs and their almost constant sell outs would attract more players than the Sox. And finally, isn't it cool when the greatest lineup money can buy loses? Look at wrestling, you need someone to be knocked off that perch. If baseball didn't have the Yankees, they would have to invent them.

If we waited to see what happens, this would be a very boring site. Part of being an avid fan is playing armchair GM, manager, hitting coach, etc. Like K-Dub, sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2007 -> 06:18 AM) So nobody still cares about the people who practically do... IE the employees? I do. But most are probably illegals, so who cares? BTW, that is the best argument I've heard for smoking bans, it is where people work.

I doubt the story is true, but I will speculate. If my kids were out with one of my co workers and they encouraged my kids to do something unethical, immoral, etc. I'd have a little problem with that. BTW, it is a theory, it's possibly true. Not all theories are correct.

Illinois WI MN IN Ky TN Mississippi Missouri Michigan OK TX CA NC SC Georgia NM OH Penn NY Maine Vermont Florida NH Mass KS Iowa LA Alabama I am probably forgetting some.

"Just" Illinois? Bunch of whiners. Say Illinois proud! Illinois, now I'm from Texas, what country y'all from?

Small steps by everyone makes more of an impact than nitpicking a few people. Let's all applaud Bush, on vacation he rides a horse. I believe the environmental impact on a horse is better than any hybrid.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 7, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) Honestly, so do I. Because I think it'd be a great thing for these gigantic media conglomerates to realize that there's a huge potential cost to putting people like this on the airwaves. But there are reasons that contracts are pages and pages long. I'm guessing Imus' lawyer failed to mentioned the various parts of the contract that are not helping his client's cause.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 8, 2007 -> 12:16 AM) Last time I checked, I don't live in a bar. Cheers!