Texsox

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:30 PM) You must also be in favor of New York banning trans fats as well. It's your health and your liberty, but who cares about freedom? The Government always knows what's best for us Seatbelts, minimum safety standards, restaurant health inspections, product safety laws, OSHA, it's your health and liberty.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) Hell is getting colder, because I agree with that. It seems like an obvious concept to me. But I don't demand perfection. I know that my impact will be less than most any politician running for office. When I had one of my businesses, I needed a huge, fuel guzzling 10 cylinder truck to tow my equipment. When I sold the business, I threw in the truck, as much as I loved that Texas size, get out of my way, hybrid threatening, truck, I couldn't drive it in good conscious. Was I less green before or after, I don't think so.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that second hand smoke is a problem. By eliminating it as much as possible we have a benefit to the health of everyone, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like and ashtray. Now let's say it isn't a health risk and we ban it in public places. We've helped the health of smokers, cleared the air, stopped people from going home smelling like an ashtray. If we don't ban it and it's harmful, we continue to harm our health.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Where have I ripped him for trying to be green? I said I thought his request that the secret service drive green to be a stupid one for safety reasons. Sure they make hybrid SUV's, but if my safety was an issue, i don't care how many damn dionasaurs they have to burn up to get me outta there, just do it! Tex brought up the question, 'should the government be driving green?'. Well, sure, why not? When the current vehicles are due for replacement, green should be a big consideration. But if the currently do NOT have armored hybrid SUV's to guard Obama with, will he pay for it, or should the taxpayers foot a special expense because he wants to look good? Hell, if the DO have armored hybrid SUV's, are they as good as the non-hybrid ones? Can they go as fast as they may need to with all that extra weight? Are they as safe? I think we are responding to different issues and getting mixed up. I believe we should be using existing vehicles as much as possible, and if we are buying armored vehicles, performance outweighs any green consideration. It is also not "green" to replace perfectly working vehicles and sending them to the masher. Postal vehicles, etc. should be as green as we can.

As long as we continue to hold all leaders accountable, that's a good thing. When they are on the correct path they should be praised, not condemned. Small steps by everyone makes a greater impact than one person being 100% green.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) For the final final time...I do not, nor have I EVER smoked. Now to russle me up some cattle. I know you don't smoke, but you have spent a lot of time making certain that people are given the choice to work and play in a safe, smoke filled, ashtray. I understand tobacco companies have an economic incentive to prove second hand smoke isn't a health risk. They also funded studies that "proved" smoking was actually good for you. But who has the economic incentive to proven it is a risk and get smoking banned? Off to rustle an engineer who knows how to use a spell checker . . . I do find it easier to side with people who wish to breath fresh air and not smell like an ashtray and potentially take better care of their health. You prefer to trust Penn and Teller's scientific expertise and have people work and play in an ashtray. I'll agree to disagree.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 12:50 PM) Ok I'm done. You are 100% right and I'm 100% wrong. FYI, there are "scientific" studies by the same "scientific" community that dispute second hand smoke studies, whether you accept them as existing or not, they do. Nice way to ignore the fact that cars are generally safer, after I pointed it out, which helped equate to less casualities due to drunk driving, too. And yes, they are magicians, quite the same as I'm a network engineer in the computer sector, but my knowledge or wisdom doesn't end there, either. Kinda like the same way I assume that just because you're from Texas, you're not automatically a cowboy rancher that knows nothing outside of that sector. Drunk driving fatalities have dropped further than overall. So vehicle safety, while helping, can not fully account for all the decline. But check with noted scholars Penn and Teller to see if they agree I hope you find a suitable smoke filled environment to satisfy your cravings. And the beauty of America is laws can be enacted when people create a public nuisance.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) But armored SUV's? I would assume that the secret service already has the current SUV's in available for use. So, would Obama be willing to pay for the new vehicle(s) for his detail, or is that an expense he wants to stick the taxpayers with?Better question, should the government be buying greener vehicles, buiildings, anyways?

Wow. I'm confused,. I thought Penn and Teller are magicians. You do know there have been hundreds of scientific studies, not just the EPA regarding second hand smoke. You may not understand this, but part of a study being accepted in scientific circles is it being repeatable. Peer review is a wonderful thing. When different scientists, in different experiments, come up with the same results, it is accepted as fact. Over the decades, with more and more studies and longer term research we are seeing all sorts of health issues with second hand smoke. Some of the studies take time because they are looking at long term exposure. But choose to believe the cigarette companies if you choose. Yes a determined person can drink until they are drunk. But bottom line alcohol related fatalities have been dramatically reduced over the past 25 years. Find a study that shows an increase over the same time period. There is a difficulty in comparing, the legal definition of drunk has changed, making people who were not deemed drunk under the old laws are now deemed drunk. This increases some of the stats. If we applied the same legal threshold, the results would be even more dramatic. (in many states, someone at .09 in 1990 wouldn't be listed as drunk driving, they would in 2007) Let's see, while complaining about apples and oranges arguments you bring in magicians, Yogi Berra, and global warming. QUOTE(vandy125 @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) The discussion seems to be narrowing it down to just bars. Isn't it more than just bars that are affected by this? Won't it also affect places like bowling alleys? I would love to be able to go out for a night of bowling and not have to breathe in that stuff as well as not end up smelling like smoke when I get home. It is not just the places that serve alcohol that are affected. It appears to be all public places.

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?