coComments related to Pro Patria

Alaskancamel; Heres one clip.

2008-01-05T03:38:51.119+01:00

Alaskancamel; Heres one clip. It was Huckabee and Paul that got into it as well as Giuliani and Paul. In this one it shows the beggining of the “unhingement” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVlG-FsL-7I&feature=related The first half of this clip shows his demeanor as very emotional. Hands flailing , veins bulgung and the tone of voice. Its all vey scary to me.

As far as Paul goes the one th

2008-01-05T03:38:08.453+01:00

As far as Paul goes the one thing that actually concerns me the most was his temperment at the first debate. He appeared off keel. A tempermental little bitch in my vocabulary. This of course would be tied to decision making under pressure. He looked like Barney Fife taking a constipated dump. I dont want him anywhere near the button. Also , I have a computer and use it quite well for the tech ignorant 50 year old fart that I am. So the mainstream media is only a part of what I throw in my blender. For the last 15 years I’ve lived by the saying, “dont believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see”. You can tell alot about a man by the company he keeps. I’ve debated and seen his company, no thankyou.(“As for our safety as a nation, think about how safe we would be if our military was here protecting us? Let them be the TSA…no bad guys would get through then. Let them guard the border and watch the immigrant problem go away.”)Thats not going to help us in Pakistan when Al Queada steals it nukes and fires them at will. If our oil interests are attacked it will cripple the country to the point of ruins. The Arabs need us to help guard against terrorists attacks on them for doing business with us and the oil they sell to us. If terroristic elements get ahold of Iraqi oil the product of there fortune will be the death of alot of people. I believe that we are not in the middle east for any other reason than to establish bases in which we can monitor these assholes and protect the oil we absolutly need. Hearts and minds ? My ass ! I agree with you on the border, you cross the line, you get shot.

I think religion and governmen

2008-02-05T10:41:39.702+01:00

I think religion and government can exist side by side so long as they don’t cross. Government’s role should be to ensure that people have the right to worship or believe as they see fit – even if that belief is in nothing (a belief in itself). Government should not endorse or encourage any particular faith, nor should it discourage nor specifically stand against a belief.The first amendment was put in place to ensure religious rights, not to protect one person from another’s religion. That is a personal issue, not an issue for government.

objectivelyspeaking,I’m not go

2008-01-25T00:24:14.695+01:00

objectivelyspeaking,I’m not gong to repeat myself as I think addressed some of your points in my response to Camel above. But I will address some of your points head-on.“…all troops must be pulled out from all of the world.”As you can read above, I think we can withdraw some – if not most – of our troops from abroad. I agree, we should not be the world’s police, nor should we be in the business of being the great protectors. I’m the least compassionate person you’ll ever meet, save for maybe Camel, but I still feel that we need to perform threat management operations.“The death penalty – barely an issue…”To you, but not to me. It’s awfully narrow-minded of you to say something like that. I cannot stand behind a political leader who doesn’t support capital punishment. This is something I feel passionately about, so for you to minimize it is somewhat insulting.“According to your quote, Ron Paul is not as annoyed as you when a Mexican is speaking Spanish. WHO CARES?”I do. i would like to see a president who is interested in fostering an American culture. I don’t like this “anything goes” mentality. I don’t like the fact that it’s becoming difficult to define America because we have been losing our culture. A president should not project to the world that they can come here and not have to become Americans. that’s not how you build a strong nation.“The FBI? I know very little about it’s efficiency and effectiveness”The FBI is charged with investigating federal crimes and interstate crimes where local jurisdiction is irrelevant. Perhaps they have extended their bounds too much in recent years, but the fact remains that we need a federal law enforcement agency that deals with crimes that are above the jurisdiction of local police.“How can an unfeasible idea be great.”There are many great ideas that simply won’t work. Bear in mind that I say won’t, not can’t. There’s a difference. I would love to see an abolition of income taxes and the IRS, but that would take an act of Congress and ratification by the states, which I don’t see happening so long as there are liberals in power anywhere. So what needs to be done is a severe rework of things to avoid the headaches and red tape that would trip up any attempt at total abolition if not halt it completely.“You need to begin to get philosophically into the ideas that, as a “conservative” you must support. Capitalism, freedom, blah blah blah. These principles are worthless if you don’t believe in them FULLY.”Don’t insult me. I can fully believe in these things philosophically and idealistically, but you always have to face reality when dealing with the philosophical and ideological roots of things like these. If you can’t get the people on board, if you can’t get Congress on board, if you can’t get the states on board to ratify things… You can be as ideological as you want, but what good does it do if it won’t accomplish anything in the real world?So with that in mind, you have to stay true to your ideals but temper them with the reality of the world around you.Furthermore, I have been a rabid follower of Ayn Rand for years and believe in freedom and capitalism to the fullest extent, but never to the point of absurdity.

Camel, I’ll address these thin

2008-01-23T20:17:30.962+01:00

Camel, I’ll address these things one point at a time.“RP doesn’t necessarily think that the gold standard is the way to go, but thinks we should have something resembling it. Our deficit spending is out of control.”You are right, our deficit spending is way out of control and the fed just keeps exasperating the problem by thinking that they can create money out of thin air. But, Glenn Beck had Ron on his show last night and he once again talked about the gold standard and his support for reverting back to it or something similar. While idealistic, it’s not terribly realistic in this day and age.“He believes in vigorous trade and in relations with other Nations as long as there is something in it for us.”I agree with him on that point. A good trade system is great for a country and the economy, and I vehemently disagree with giving to countries out of the kindness of our hearts or because it is our responsibility. It’s for much of the same reasons that I think we should tell the UN where to stick it.“he said we exacerbated the situation with our foreign policies.”Yeah, but it’s a narrow view of things. Did we exacerbate the situation? Probably, but no matter what we do there will always be people who get pissed off and want to take some sort of action against us. If we start trying to manage our nation by weighing everything we do against how much it will piss somebody off, we’re really going to be in trouble.“If we pulled out of the world militarily (not economically…trade is good) and brought our troops home, what do we really care what the nut jobs do in the rest of the world?”I think we can pull back a lot, but we still need forward deployed bases in some areas. But again, I’m ex-military so I probably have differing views than you do. Personally, I feel that global security is the best answer to our national security. We should not be in the business of policing the world. If the UN wants to do that then so be it. Civil wars, localized conflicts, whatever.. Should have nothing to do with us. But we should be in the business of threat management, and that’s where top-notch intelligence and analysis should come into play.“Again I am going to sound cold, but I think our joining WW2 was a colossal waste.”I don’t see it. Europe would never have survived without our help. By the time we came into the war, England was pretty much the only force standing against the Nazi regime. Besides, don’t forget that we were attacked first and I just can’t see turning the other cheek over something like that.“I will have to find the actual quote from him, because that doesn’t sound like his usual logic.”From Meet the Press 12/23/07: Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous. “The unions have jacked rates up so high that many companies will hire illegals to cut their bottom line.”I agree that we provide too many incentives for illegals to come here and for people to hire them, and I certainly agree that it has much to do with government over regulation and interference with the markets. But, don’t be too idealistic here… many people will still try to save a buck wherever they can and go with the lowest cost/lowest bidder etc.“The amount of waste and the reams of red tape are a huge drain on our Country.”Agreed. We waste more than we legitimately use most of the time. And I would certainly like to see frivolous spending reigned in. Yes, if we cut spending and streamlined the tax system, the IRS would be obsoleted and hopefully be phased out or reduced to a small entity that manages the flow of tax revenue.“The unintended consequences of these actions will, however, make the unemployment rate shoot through the roof.”That is true, but that may not be a bad thing. Government is too big. It should never be the largest employer in an area. I don’t know about Wisconsin, but government is the largest industry in Minnesota encompassing 1/6th of the total workforce in itself… And since government doesn’t actually produce or contribute to society, I just can’t see that as beneficial in any way. Plus, it continues to grow because they lure people into jobs with the best benefits out there – and all on the taxpayer’s dime. I would have no hurt feelings over a drastic cut in government.

Everyone must stop saying libe

2008-01-22T16:10:47.229+01:00

Everyone must stop saying libertarian is different from conservativism. The term exists only to separate unyeilding conservatives from those who use the word “conservative” loosely. Ryan must check his premises and perhaps re-evaluate his views on “practicality” and “reality”. Idealism is not unreasonable. It is most reasonable.Ryan, you seem like a quote guy. Based on my extensive objective research and observation of Ron Paul, some seem irrelevant, and many seem out of context. I will try to explain myself further momentarily. I will begin by saying that compromise is what has ruined this country from the inside out. Ryan, all troops must be pulled out from all of the world. No compromise. A government has no business being everywhere. Even if it did, IT CANNOT BE AFFORDED, and that cannot be denied by you. As a conservative, you must be against welfare on principle. It is no different than our babysitting the world. How do you relieve your shoulders of the weight of the world? Put it down. Then, if it attacks you, kill it without mercy.The death penalty – barely an issue, not something Ron Paul is running on, with issues of such greater significance facing us. To use this seems a cop-out.Be careful what you say. Ron Paul does not advocate the gold standard, but rather hard assets. Oil has not increased in price relative to hard assets. Everytime anyone complains “oil is just so expensive”, they don’t know that what they mean is “our dollar just buys nothing these days”. This is inflation, directly caused by the abandonment of hard assets and irresponsible goverment. NOT ARGUABLE.Ron Pauls attitude is not “blame america” in the slightest. He knows americans have nothing to do with it. He’s blaming the government which has been involved in there forever. Yes Muslims are insane regardlessly, but to deny antagonism and adding fuel to their religious fire is absolutely irrational. It seems most “conservatives” are uncomfortable with straying from the standard war stance. I was there. Then I took my blinders off and faced reality. Please follow suit.Why has U.S. goverment ever been there? Is it oil interests? Alliance with Isreal? Neither are anything our gov has any business being engaged in. Thomas Jefferson sum it up well when he advocates commerce and honest frienship with all nations, but entangling alliance with none.According to your quote, Ron Paul is not as annoyed as you when a Mexican is speaking Spanish. WHO CARES? What might a president ever do regarding something that can only be classified as subjectively annoying? Government can’t protect your comfort zone. Let’s talk relevant. I couldn’t agree more with getting rid of nearly all federal organizations. The FBI? I know very little about it’s efficiency and effectiveness, so I will leave that one for further analysis, as the only government functions I support are military and justice functions.Elimination of IRS, income tax, spending are “a great idea but not feasible”. How can an unfeasible idea be great. You sound like the people who use “idealism” as a negative word…Are you then an anti-idealist? Furthermore, NONE of it is too extreme, and it is all imperative. You need to begin to get philosophically into the ideas that, as a “conservative” you must support. Capitalism, freedom, blah blah blah. These principles are worthless if you don’t believe in them FULLY. If you did, RON PAUL WOULD BE YOUR SOLE OPTION. All the candidates talk the talk. Ron Paul walks the walk. You proabably talk about Capitalism and Freedom. I BELIEVE and put absolute trust in them. I will not waver. We can’t work with liberals. They must be defeated. If you are willing to settle, I encourage you to leave, so you won’t hinder our struggle for pure, unadulturated excellence.For more on convictiction, idealism, the failure that follows compromise, and capitalism/freedom, see Ayn Rand. most inportantly…WAKE UP

Ryan, Sorry it took so long to

2008-01-21T12:04:03.496+01:00

Ryan, Sorry it took so long to get back to you. My travel schedule has been a bitch lately.Issues….I agree with you on the death penalty. His point may be correct that it has errors, but I feel it is a deterrent as long as it is carried out in less than 30 freakin years.Gold Standard…RP doesn’t necessarily think that the gold standard is the way to go, but thinks we should have something resembling it. Our deficit spending is out of control. We are constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul (no pun intended) and it has gotten beyond scary. Something has to be done about it and soon.As to the war and other international interventions. I have posted somewhere else here that he really is not an isolationist. He believes in vigorous trade and in relations with other Nations as long as there is something in it for us. That may sound cold, but I couldn’t agree with it more. He never said that we were to blame for terrorists attacking us, he said we exacerbated the situation with our foreign policies. If we pulled out of the world militarily (not economically…trade is good) and brought our troops home, what do we really care what the nut jobs do in the rest of the world? Again I am going to sound cold, but I think our joining WW2 was a colossal waste. Don’t take that as anti American or anti Military…it is anything but that. We need to take care of our own before we try to fix the worlds problems. Our military is the strongest in the world and would do a hell of a lot better job protecting us here than abroad. Not to mention, all of the money we are borrowing from countries that hate us is just putting us in their debt. Immigration. I agree and disagree with RP on this one. I will have to find the actual quote from him, because that doesn’t sound like his usual logic. I personally think that if we got rid of stupid laws like the child labor laws the problem would be minimalized. I have a 16 year old that cant get a job in construction because it is against the law for him to use a power tool. The unions have jacked rates up so high that many companies will hire illegals to cut their bottom line. We start taking away these things and more Americans will be willing to work for the low wages and be able to get the jobs. Then, fewer people will come across the border because the jobs wont be here for them. (sorry, that was sort of a side rant…been a long week.)IRS…That is something we can do away with. Its really not too extreme. The amount of waste and the reams of red tape are a huge drain on our Country. If we stop giving to the UN, stop supporting other countries monetarily, pull our military back home to protect us here, cut government handouts, either cut or reduce our intelligence agencies, and basically get the government out of our pocket books there would no longer be a need for the IRS.To be fair, here is my one major concern with the whole thing. I agree with everything he wants to do in these arenas. The unintended consequences of these actions will, however, make the unemployment rate shoot through the roof. In Alaska, more than 50% of the jobs are government jobs. That’s a lot of people looking for something to do. For this, I honestly don’t have an answer.Thank you again for all of your insight and questions. It really made me think. I still stand by my decision though. I am supporting Ron Paul in 08.

Camel, I have to admit that th

2008-01-18T10:58:33.789+01:00

Camel, I have to admit that there are many things I like about Ron Paul. As for the racist/anti-semetic thing, I think much of it is here say and rumors. The only thing I have heard for sure is that his old newsletters had some questionable content, but they were written by staff, not him. Does that mean he’s racist? Dunno.As for the issues…First off, he opposes the death penalty which I am a strong advocate for.Second, the talk about reverting back to the gold standard – while an interesting idea – is not at all practical in this day and age.Third, and most importantly:We don’t need any troops abroad–they don’t help our defense. (Dec 2007)Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)This is not true. While we may have more than we need, having forward operating bases is important – not only for us but to our allies (i.e. NATO). There is a certain degree of security that comes from having forward deployed troops because it is a threat of force that comes from presence. Can we pull back some? Yes, but not all.9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia. (Dec 2007)Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands. (Sep 2007)I don’t agree with his “blame America” attitude for 9/11. 9/11 didn’t happen because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. Radicals kill because they are radicals. Some kill because their lands are occupied, but thje whole point of radical extremism is that it is generally not provoked – or it is provked because your views and beliefs are different than theirs. Rememeber, radical Islam is in a war against the Western culture, not our bases in Saudi Arabia.Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)This is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Fundamentalist extremisim happens regardless of what we do.We have a de-facto draft; we can achieve more in peace. (Dec 2007)I’m sorry, but we don’t have a de facto draftEliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently. (Sep 2007)DHS is unmanageable bureaucracy–eliminate it. (May 2007)Why? last time I checked, the FBI was a useful organization, and while the DHS may need some reforming I wouldn’t suggest eliminating it completely.Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)Non-intervention means Congress declares war when threatened. (Dec 2007)It’s not? Maybe it should be. Pre-emptive war could have saved many lives in the past had we not tried to uphold this non-interventionist philosophy. Look at WW2. Had we stepped in to help early on, things would have been much different.If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)I just don’t see it. I thought people were coming here because we have a good economy and opportunity???Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)No, we like to hear English in our own country and don’t like to feel like outsiders in our own towns.Get rid of IRS; get rid of income tax; get rid of spending. (Dec 2007)Too extreme. While a great idea, it’s not feasible. Reform, trim, reduce. But you can’t simply wave your hand and make these things disappear.

“I don’t see it – for instance

2008-01-14T12:51:10.570+01:00

“I don’t see it – for instance, the D’s made attempts at universal health care before, it isn’t new. I’m curious what evidence suggests to you that the D’s have moved closer to socialism than their historic positions.”These socialist tendencies may not be new, but they are certainly becoming much more mainstream than they have been in the past. Every time we turn around, we’re being inundated with new entitlement or welfare programs. People are losing their ability to function without a government handout. Look at any of the recent disaster events. The first thing people do is stick out their hand, and when they don’t get what they are expecting, they complain that the government isn’t giving them enough. All you have to do is go through a larger city area to see the welfare queens and kings, living off the government dole while also collecting charity. And yet, the constant rhetoric from the left is “we need to tax everybody who can afford to be taxed and redistribute that money down to everybody else.” Look at SCHIP (one of my personal favorite chunks of legislative lunacy). It’s nothing more than a de facto attempt to open up more people to government entitlements and breeds a whole new generation of people who will be dependent on government handouts.And should we get into global warming? It would seem that every so-called “solution” to global warming is right out of the socialist playbook… And the Dems are gleefully jumping on board. Again, maybe not new ideas, but definitely going much more mainstream and accepted as standard Democrat ideals. And yes, you can argue that Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon as well, which is part of my overall complaint. The GOP is straying to the left as the Dems are shifting further to the left.“I can’t find anything that sounds angry (at you) in my comments, unless it is the suggestion that an evidence-free assertion that the D’s are shifting toward socialism is an ad hominum attack.”Perhaps “angry” was the wrong choice of words. I just found it curious as to why it is that you would home right in on something that you would consider an “ad hominum” attack on Dems when all I was doing was stating that there was a vacuum to be filled and pointing out where it was. But I guess that is neither here nor there.“It is only through a structuring that allows other forms of power, like democracy, to balance economic power that a political process escapes financial domination.”I’m not sure that I can put my finger on what you’re advocating for here. Further government control of the market? If that is what you’re saying, I would strongly disagree with you there because the government cannot objectively control a market. Inevitably, they turn to market manipulation which is the wrong way to do things and actually breeds more corruption in government. For example, look at the ethanol debacle. The government is trying to force things that the market doesn’t want. If the market wanted it, they would go that route. Instead, the government is disrupting a number of elements within the market as they try to manipulate things to their own benefit. If allowed to work, the free market will work and will do so without killing us all. There is no need to babysit.I guess where we differ is that you believe that an economy, left unchecked, will run us all into the ground while I feel that government rule over an economy will drive us into the ground. Is there a happy medium? Perhaps, but where is that? You make the mistake of citing the ozone “crisis” which was much less of a crisis than it was DOW chemical lobbying to replace R12 with the much more expensive R134 (which also happened to be manufactured by DOW). Ethanol is the same thing. If ethanol could stand on its own, it might succeed, however it is not something that is really feasible which is why the government has gotten involved and has not only propped them up, but is now trying to force mandates to boost sales. But why? Examine the money trails. The legislation is steeped much deeper in money (and power) than environmentalism. If allowed to function, the free market would not touch ethanol with a 10 foot pole until it was adequate to the market’s needs.I firmly believe that the government should exist simply to protect our freedoms and to gently guide things if things get too horribly off track. What we have no is absurd because we have people who are no more “experts” on topics than you or I, yet they are trying to control and manipulate things as if there are no repercussions to their actions. I just don’t rightly see how anybody could believe that “government knows best.”

On January 13, 2008 at 6:33 pm

2008-01-14T09:41:15.856+01:00

On January 13, 2008 at 6:33 pm arclightzero Said: … “I absolutely believe that the democratic platform is edging further to the left and hence closer to socialism.”I don’t see it – for instance, the D’s made attempts at universal health care before, it isn’t new. I’m curious what evidence suggests to you that the D’s have moved closer to socialism than their historic positions.“I’m just not sure why you’re taking an angry rhetoric with me …” I can’t find anything that sounds angry (at you) in my comments, unless it is the suggestion that an evidence-free assertion that the D’s are shifting toward socialism is an ad hominum attack. And if that sounds angry to you, perhaps it is you who are over-sensitive. But I really don’t want to divert into literary criticism.” “how to prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power”The best way to accomplish this is by truly allowing for free market rule with a limited government that adheres to the principles of existing to protect freedom, not rule the population.”Her is the crux of the problem – “free market rule” alone will not, ever prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power. It is only through a structuring that allows other forms of power, like democracy, to balance economic power that a political process escapes financial domination. Mere formal structures of democracy won’t get you there, you have to explicitly counter-balance economic power. Even in societies that are more homogenous and less competitive, part of that balancing role is carried ot by government. Perhaps I short-change libertarians and conservatives, but I can’t find that they regularly recognize this problem, nor that solving it logically comes prior to unleashing the free market.Lastly, reliance on the “rule of the free market” leaevs unresolved the very real economics of externalities and public goods. If the carbon dioxide-global warming causation turns out to be true – or take the ozone hole problem which apparently was real- the rule of the free market has only the terribly inefficient ways of dealing with these problems. So my critique remains that neither libertarians nor traditional conservatives appear to have a workable answer to the problem of preventing economic domination of the political process – and libertarians (more arguably conservatives also) appear to have no answer for problems of externalities and public goods.

I’m for Fred. I’ve read all hi

2008-01-13T21:37:54.493+01:00

I’m for Fred. I’ve read all his position papers and believe he has the best points on prevailing issues. He also has the best understanding of fundamental conservative principles.Fred got in late. He made some early mistakes, had to reorganize his campaign management and raise money to get started. Before he formally entered to race, all the pundits were impatient with him to get in.When he finally hit the ground the punditry acted so appalled that his campaign was not perfect and dissed him for Huck’s empty yet entertaining rhetoric.And so-called conservatives were so concerned about finding “the one” to beat Hillary they may have almost wrecked, in their impatient zeal, the conservative fusion of social, fiscal and defense conservatives needed to beat the liberals.At first Rudy was all the rage. But Rudy is a liberal republican with little depth beyond NYC and 911. He’s fading. Huck is a shallow, religious populist who hurt Mitt because of his church affilliation (“don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”). Disgusting and classless. McCain, a gift to our nation, has a liberal “X” factor and a poor history on taxes and immigration. He deserves credit for his criticism of Iraq and for promoting The Surge but his ego driven obstenance has left conservatives frustrated time and again.Mitt may have flip-flopped on social issues but at least he’s flopped on the right side of things.I hope folks in MI vote for Mitt on Tuesday. And McCain needs to beat Huck.Then they can come down to SC and get whipped by Fred. That will be something the pundits can’t ignore.How about a Fred/Mitt ticket in November?

On January 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm

2008-01-13T09:55:59.599+01:00

On January 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm Connie Said: –> “BDS is BDS no matter which side of the aisle it emanates from. You don’t solve problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”+++ Bush is the bathwater; our Constitution is the baby. Believe me, BDS is about saving the beautiful baby from the deadly bathwater. Ask Ron Paul. Sometimes I think RP is the only Republican who has actually read the Constitution. Does “Provide for the common defense” equal “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” as far as you are concerned, Connie?–> “Paulites have fallen for the anti-America propaganda that leftists worked so hard to build.” –> “Even Huckabee has fallen for it – or is disingenuously using it to garnish votes.”+++ Connie, don’t you find it even the least bit interesting that Paulites are generating the most money for their candidate, and Huckabee-ites have given their candidate a historic leap to the front of the GOP pack?Again, are you telling me that about 30-40% of the GOP is completely wrong? Because that’s about the percentage that is solidly supporting Paul + Huckabee, and they are not going away.For those of you who keep repeating the talking points for Fred, here’s my advise: Fred Thompson needs to stop laughing, because no one but his supporters (maybe 10% of the GOP?) is taking him seriously.

I’m a socially liberal type wh

2008-01-13T06:44:33.719+01:00

I’m a socially liberal type who is in favor of small government, federalism, less “entitlements”, and lower taxes. But I’m also in favor of keeping America safe with a strong, non-isolationist military strategy, and can’t accept the Ron Paul line that says essentially that Islamism is “all about us”.So, my best candidate, at least philosophically, is Fred.But I have to admit that politics is as much about leadership and management skill as it is about a good philosophy. Here, unfortunately, Fred has been wanting. And the excuse that the Party is to blame doesn’t fly; major political parties are multi-constituency electoral machines. Every politician knows this. Major political parties have no more connection to “standalone” political philosophies than corporations have to their “mission statements”; to the extent that there’s an overarching philosophy in political parties, it’s the least common denominator across their various constituencies and interest groups.If there’s a Fred constituency and coalition in the GOP – and I think there is – he has to find it, organize it, and lead it, and make his stamp on the current leadership of the GOP.

Jan said:“There is no way I wi

2008-01-13T01:20:57.113+01:00

Jan said:“There is no way I will vote for any Republican, until Bush Republicans are humiliated.”BDS is BDS no matter which side of the aisle it emanates from. It is a juvenile and irrational temper tantrum. You don’t solve problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Paulites have fallen for the anti-America propaganda that leftists worked so hard to build. It was their long-term strategy to create the illusion of global American hatred so they could convince us we needed saving from ourselves and that they would be the ones to do it. Even Huckabee has fallen for it – or is disingenuously using it to garnish votes.

arclightzero Said: “void that

2008-01-12T23:58:54.593+01:00

arclightzero Said: “void that the Dems are leaving as they move closer to socialism”Did you over-abbreviate and mean the Dems are moving the country closer to socialism? Or do you have an argument that the D’s domestic policy “platform” is closer to socialism now than in the past? I see no evidence for the latter, and the language sounds like an ad hominum attack on the D’s rather than an explication of political difference.From my view, the problem with the R’s is what it has been since Nixon (at least) – it can’t figure out how to be a party of conservatrive economic principle without also operationally becoming the party of financial privilege – and financial privilege has no political principles: it cares only about narrow corporatist economic policies – and about winning. As campaign donations this cycle demonstrate, they will also buy futures in the D’s any time it looks like the R’s will lose. One fundamental challenge to libertarian principles (and many other principles as well) is how to prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power. And neither the libertarians nor the traditional conservatives have it figured out – and as a result pretend the problem isn’t there, and keep looking for other explanations for why things are the way they are.

I’m a Democrat who used to be

2008-01-12T22:36:52.073+01:00

I’m a Democrat who used to be a Republican. If you’d like my take about the GOP’s problems, read on:You say: “I don’t mean to insult the GOP too much here, but look at Fred and Ron Paul. Fred broke, Paul broke even further – but they didn’t break for the worst. They strayed from the Republican path and tried to come in line with the Conservative path – and both have been punished severely despite the fact that both have ferocious support from the Conservative base.”The problem with you lumping Fred thompson in with Ron Paul as the ones with “ferocious support from the Conservative base is this:Fred Thompson looked over at Ron Paul and literally laughed in his face. If Fred’s going to do that, you are being dishonest to lump them together, instead of comparing them. If you really want to compare their support, Fred Thompson has no support from anyone, compared to Ron Paul. ~Fred bragged about raising $200,000 in one day. Ron Paul raised more than any candidate in either Party last quarter, and he raised over a million dollars in one day. ~Ron Paul bragged about having more donations from the military than any other candidate and not one candidate has challenged him. ~Charlie Gibson questioned every candidate about a flip-flop. Charlie didn’t have a single flip-flop to bring up for ron Paul. ~On the day that GWB announced arm sales to the Saudis, only Ron Paul was questioning why we are arming Arab countries AND the Israelis. Why ARE we? ~Only Ron Paul was willing to reflect on GWB winning in 2000 by ridiculing Democrats for nation-building, while Fred Thompson is a Bush Republican. ~And Fred is not a Reagan Republican, as he did not support Reagan in 1976 or in 1980. He hopped on the bandwagon afterwards. ~Only Ron Paul recognizes that the war in Iraq is breaking our fiscal back and our military’s back. ~Ron Paul has been pro-life ALWAYS; Fred after he saw a sonogram of his 4-yr-old.You spent most of your time advocating for Fred, not Ron Paul. There is no way I will vote for any Republican, until Bush Republicans are humiliated. But if someone MADE me vote for a Republican, the only one that I would even consider is Ron Paul.You’ve spelled out the problems with the GOP, not me. I’m only telling you that Fred Thompson is part of the problem, not the solution. He’s been a part of the DC crowd since the 1970’s.My point is, those of us who DON’T laugh at Ron Paul (like Fred did) KNOW that Fred Thompson is NOT the “true conservative” in the race. Ron Paul is the TRUE conservative in the race, but the GOP has shown us for the last seven years that, given the opportunity, they are longer conservative about anything. Thus, another Thumpin’ in 2008.My advice to the GOP: Stop laughing in Ron Paul’s face and start listening.

Thompson needs to articulate s

2008-01-12T21:14:49.553+01:00

Thompson needs to articulate some difference from the other main candidates, much as Huckabee has done (by branding the Bush White House as arrogant etc. And we all know how Ron Paul has staked out his own path) I’ll be honest, I can’t name one issue on which Thompson differs from the others (and don’t say ‘Federalism’ because they all profess to believe in that).

Guilty ? How the fuck are we s

2008-01-12T19:52:47.033+01:00

Guilty ? How the fuck are we supposed to know if you dont tell us ? Dude, you gotta get your shit out there, its great. Be shamelees man , get busy !

I could swear to God there was

2008-01-12T16:13:02.219+01:00

I could swear to God there was request to vote for you here just a minute ago. might be the wrong thread. Anyway, now you’re only one vote away from the front page

an aside, if you’re interested

2008-10-21T11:26:12.036+02:00

an aside, if you’re interested, this blogger had a post up on smoking bans. Summary: he doesn’t like

But don’t worry, because other

2008-01-01T22:23:17.130+01:00

But don’t worry, because others are starting to get agitated by the anti’s, as people are speaking out against the anti-smoking nanny state from everywhere from Utah to Germany regarding the anti’s going too far. This war is just beginning… You can only piss off the people so much before they strike back… And smokers have been getting screwed for a long, long time now.From the blogs: Pro Patria

Lets say a pack of smokes cost

2008-01-01T18:54:09.442+01:00

Lets say a pack of smokes cost 5 bucks and you smoke two packs a day. Thats about one cigarette every 20 minutes in a day, assuming you sleep about 7 or 8 hours a day. You can get a cheap bottle of vodka for about 10 bucks and do a shot every 20 minutes a day assuming you sleep about 7 to 8 hours a day. Which do you think would kill you first ? If you start the vodka when you’re 15, you’ll be dead by 35, just from the booze. Thats if you dont die of collateral effects like walking in front of a train. And you’re a hell of alot more likely to kill someone else by getting behind the wheel or operating in a capacity such as a surgeon, heavy machines, pilot or dropping your kid on his head. Liver scars, hardning of the arteries and brain damage from alcohol are permanent. Lungs if not cancerous can heal.

“Bar and restaurant owners hav

2009-03-29T21:02:21.663+02:00

“Bar and restaurant owners have to follow a ton of other regulations in order to keep their licenses so adding one more doesn’t seem out of the ordinary or against their rights.” The Dept. of Public Health is in place to protect the public from unseen dangers. Last time I looked, I could see smoke from a cigarette. I wouldn’t know if there were rats in the basement and expect the DPH to make sure. I do not want them to “protect” me from something I can clearly see for myself and act accordingly!

Alaskanspawn stated: In any ca

2008-01-18T00:52:21.632+01:00

Alaskanspawn stated: In any case, those that work with plutonium are well aware of the risks.This is surely the case with those who work around smoking. Every bartender or waiter has no doubt been bombarded with all the warnings we’ve all heard. Ignorance is impossible here.Anyway, that, out of this whole debate so far, caught my attention. I’d like to put out some facts that I think are undeniable. They won’t rely on statistics or opinion. I will start with this:Everyone in the world ought to live in freedom. The U.S.A. came closest to that ideal. We are one country on this planet. If you have an issue with something we do and can justify on the principle of freedom, there are plenty of places for you to go. Don’t try to alter this place. Maybe freedom isn’t for you. If America is not the right fit, try somewhere else. If you buy a sweater, and it won’t fit, you don’t sit down with a sewing kit and modify it. You return it for something different. Is it the wrong color? Don’t try to dye it in the sink! That’s foolish. You will have wasted time and probably ruined the garment. Do you see what I am getting at?Consider that bars are not necessary. They do not satisfy a natural demand. They create a demand and subsequently satisfy it. The difference between a natural demand and created demand is the difference between need and want. I’d like you to realize that there is not much that we NEED. NOBODY ever needs to be at a bar. The owner doesn’t need to create it. the patrons need not go. Each person involved in the bar is there as a result of wanting. If you want to sit around people smoking or you want to smoke, then go to the smoking bar. If you don’t then DON’T. You must all realize that NOBODY has the right to say that a man cannot allow smoking in the little box that he has set up for human beings to drink and smoke in. Also, NOBODY has the right to be there. Therefore, it cannot be demanded that it be comfortable for you. One cannot even demand that it be SAFE, because you know what the bar entails. Is this making sense? If Alaskaspawn regrets not being able to enjoy a bar or restaurant because of the smoke, then that is a fact and should not be considered any further because IT DOES NOT MATTER if going to bars or restaurants sucks for him. Who cares? Look at it from another angle. I love the atmosphere of a bar and smoking with my friends, but darn it all, I hate drunk people. Can we just pass a law that makes it better for me? Not only that, but alcohol results in so many auto deaths and broken homes and liver disease and brain cell loss and rapes and blah blah blah, so It will be good to remove it from bars anyway. GET THE POINT?You can’t close rollercoasters because they make people puke. You can’t shut down highways because people die on them. You can’t close beaches because people get skin cancer from sun!WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS. Let’s take some responsibility for our actions and admit that yes some of them will speed up the dying process that we all embark on at birth, but we do them anyway because they make life nice, and because nobody can tell us not too.Now, people are telling us not to. It’s madness, and the only person responsible for your health is you. This is so much bigger than health stats or anything of the sort. Realize what’s really being given up.

Those of you in Minnesota who

2008-01-18T00:50:59.966+01:00

Those of you in Minnesota who are serious about stopping the ban, please check out the following letter sent to the American Lung Association regarding the Illinois smoking ban. If you like it, use something similar to stomp your ban.Illinois Smokers Rights Post Office Box 408 Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044 December 12, 2007Open Letter to the American Cancer Society Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Illinois Health ClaimsDear American Cancer Society, a.k.a. Smoke Free Illinois; cc: Senators and Representative for Illinois General Assembly, Illinois News Media The Smoke Free Illinois Act (SB500) for Illinois has been based upon health claims from the American Cancer Society. On behalf of Illinois Smokers Rights, the two million eight hundred thousand smokers and the thousands of small businesses who will be affected, I am requesting clarification and validation for those health claims. To institute this invasive and extreme smoking ban, the public needs to learn if any concrete evidence can be provided to validate these claims. A law of this magnitude, with wide-spread social impact and based upon ACS epidemiological studies, needs to be documented for public review and shared in understandable format. Reports containing computer generated statistics of mortalities and illness are not sufficient. Also insufficient are the previous Surgeon General Carmona’s 2006 Press Release, Executive Summary, or quotes which did not reflect the contents of his 700-plus page smoking report. Dr. Carmona’s report simply rehashed previous Surgeon General claims and republished previous Tobacco Control studies which had never been able to document any conclusions more definite than finding a “casual relationship” between Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and health threats. One particular abuse example for this fully justifiable request to require accurate documentation for Illinois tobacco-smoke-health-threats, claimed by the ACS, tobacco control agencies and our Illinois elected representatives, is the currently distorted Sixteen Cigarettes claim: Smoke Free Illinois at http://www.smokefreeillinois.net/info.php “One eight hour shift in a smoky workplace is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes.” (In actuality, the equivalent is approximately 1/5 cigarette.) Why the need to be deceptive? An in-depth study analyzing the dangers from ETS was published to help fuel the promotion of smoking bans in all enclosed establishments, including bars and restaurants. That study proved that measurable amounts of n-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) could be found in side stream smoke from cigarettes and was published, not identifying the offending carcinogen or placing it in proportion with similar amounts also contained in our water, food, and other common substances. “The poison is in the dose”! The American Cancer Society has implied through incomplete references that breathing in an environment containing (or that has contained) second hand smoke, is the same thing as actively smoking. This leaves 98% of those who have listened to current ETS health dogma misinformed. While the scientific community defends themselves by saying that even Open Letter to ACS Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Illinois Health Claims Page 1 of 8 http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/acs_letter_07.html 12/17/2007 attempting to explain the epidemiology of second hand smoke would not be practical for public consumption. (From Dr. Stanton Glantz [ANR]: “…We cannot include the caveats because the public cannot understand them…” ) The bulk of blame still remains upon the manner in which ETS statistical findings have been originally presented and manipulated. Most were intended to create smoking bans. This distortion has been perpetrated by tobacco control with full intention of deceiving and creating false health claims. Until a public statement or press release making visible and crystal clear the distortions of “16 cigarette” claims to laymen, elected officials and the news media, the intentionally deceptive damage cannot even begin to be reversed. The public is being terrorized by phony health claims, and needs clarification that n-Nitrosodimethylamine is the referenced element for the “16 cigarette” media blitz, and that NDMA is another common carcinogen and threatens us most seriously in our drinking water and food supply. Solid proof is required for Illinois (or any other US governing body) to justify bending our US Constitutional Republic’s governmental framework and dismissing the protected liberties in several of its Amendments. The Smoke Free Illinois Act basically ignores our First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Considering the serious state-wide repercussions from this law, justification is required, not vague interpretations of “casual association” health threats. In addition, ACS financial ties with nicotine replacement products manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, who hope to increase sales because of this ban, should also be published to avoid misrepresentation of charitable interests and to supply full and honest disclosure to interested parties. Therefore, Illinois Smokers Rights, Illinois residents and the Illinois news media need to be supplied with actual documented identities of those injured or killed for The Smoke Free Illinois Act to be legitimately recognized. Sincerely, Garnet Dawn Scheuer Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044

If anyone would like further r

2008-01-18T00:50:52.466+01:00

If anyone would like further research materials, I suggest the following. http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.phpandhttp://www.heartland.org/(do a search for tobacco)One final comment about the FDA… “Legislation is necessary if FDA is to regulate tobacco, since in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled FDA lacks authority to regulate tobacco. FDA’s main concerns are keeping America’s food and prescription drugs safe. Tobacco is not a “drug” (for FDA regulatory purposes) as it offers no therapeutic benefits, nor is tobacco a food product.”Sorry Alaskaspawn, it looks like the FDA is out of it for now.

The battle has been going on h

2008-01-18T00:50:38.299+01:00

The battle has been going on here if you would like to read up (it’s long though, so beware): http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/minnesota-smoking-ban-moves-forward-is-there-any-limit-…I would like some more input on this. Even if you don’t want to read the banter, I would like

Well, here’s how I look at it.

2008-01-18T00:50:19.966+01:00

Well, here’s how I look at it. There is no denying that secondhand smoke is a health risk. I mean, it’s certainly not healthy. But the question is just how much of a health risk is it? I mean, in the end there are lots of health risks out there that aren’t under such scrutiny as tobacco smoke. Breathing diesel fumes is probably none too healthy. Spray paint fumes will kill you if you’re not careful. Most household cleaners have highly toxic fumes. So is tobacco smoke worse? I don’t know. What I do know is that we have been exposed to second hand smoke for years and years… Much worse back decades ago when yo could smoke everywhere – including airplanes… And yet our life expectancy has never been greater. If environmental tobacco smoke is as toxic as its portrayed, I have yet to see any compelling empirical evidence.As for your FDA argument, that hasn’t passed yet and has been dropped from the congressional agenda until next year. As for now, the bans are based solely on flimsy “public health” claims and politically correct rhetoric. If the FDA gains jurisdiction of tobacco, it will be a different story, but for now they’re still in a holding pattern.http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4799

So not to beat a dead horse he

2008-01-18T00:50:12.466+01:00

So not to beat a dead horse here but there was a program on PBS last night titled “tobacco vs. Minnesota”. They cited a recent Surgeon General report http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm#highlights that clearly labels second hand smoke as dangerous at any level.This is the most recent report I’ve found on this subject. I’m curious to hear your arguments against this report.Correct me if I’m wrong but your 3 main arguments against smoking bans are: 1. unconstitutional 2. establishment owners should have the right to run their businesses as they see fit 3. second hand smoke is not really a health riskIs this correct? If so then I offer these short rebuttals. 1. FDA has full regulatory power over tobacco via the US Supreme Court = constitutional to regulate tobacco 2. establishment owners must follow certail rules and regulations in order to serve the public. If they fail to follow these (again) FDA regulations then they get shut down. 3. 2006 Surgeon Generals report says second hand smoke is dangerous at any levels.Very short rebuttals but I haven’t heard any good rebuttals for the first 2 (I expanded on them in previous posts) and the 3rd is new evidence to me.

I agree with you 100%. Ventila

2008-01-18T00:49:41.632+01:00

I agree with you 100%. Ventilation should be required. I have read studies that show that god ventilation systems reduce second-hand smoke to almost nothing – leaving only the irritation of smell.However, I will say this much: I question how much of the problem was smoke as opposed to simply overexposure to noxious fumes. Would the reaction be the same if you were overwhelmed with perfume or hairspray? I know that overexposure to any fumes make me feel ill. I’m just not rightly sure that the problems that you and your wife experienced were tobacco related.Here’s an interesting study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory regarding environmental tobacco smoke.http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00It’s an interesting read if you consider the fact that they are using OSHA standards for inhaled particles.Either way, I do agree that small areas should not be allowed to sit without adequate filtration and circulation. I’m not sure that it will give you lung disease, but the exposure will certainly make you sick if you’re not used to it. But as I said, that can be applied to any fumes – toxic or not.And yes, there should be some consideration with smokers too. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should. There’s a time and a place for everything.

By the way, I would, as most p

2008-01-18T00:48:59.966+01:00

By the way, I would, as most places do. Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who does not smoke. Private property, private club. The only requirement for membership is that you dont complain about the smoke.

suppose I wanted to open a res

2008-01-18T00:48:52.466+01:00

suppose I wanted to open a restaurant that served only pork and beans. And the person who farted the loudest and smelliest would not have to pay his tab.People like Alaskanspawn would probably want to eat there just to see if they could get away with changing my theme and policies. They would probably claim that the government has the right to inact a law to prevent an unhealthy risk to themselves. Seeing as how the fumes from my stinky methane would clearly burst a number of brain cells in anyone sitting within a few feet. And then theres the smell that they would have to put up with while they were eating their beans. Maybe if we all purchased a carbon credit or two after blowing out our asses they would let us off the hook ?Alaska said; “From Wikipedia: According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city’s smoke-free policy.[58] A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review[59] of studies suggests that business may actually improve.Wikipedia is not a reliable source anymore, you could of put that in yourself. And then theres always those tricky little words “suggest” and ” may”The bottom line is this Alaska. My restaurant is my property as much as my house is. If I want to shit in the middle of my floor , its none of your business, you’re welcome to come in and sit next to me and crap away, if you dont like shitty friends then dont come inside.

Excellent arguments, I apologi

2008-01-18T00:47:49.966+01:00

Excellent arguments, I apologize for not being more analytical in my opinion but it was an opinion rather than evidence.“But where do we draw the line? Should the government be in the business of enacting nanny state laws that take away our decision making processes?”That argument is somewhat circular in that it will always be there. For instance, setting the speed limit to xx infringes on my right to drive faster. Forget that studies show that driving xx saves lives, what next? Will the government take away my right to own that car or govern it’s speed to xx so that I can’t drive over the speed limit? There are so many examples of “where do we draw the line” that I can’t really deny the validity nor claim you have a point.“But what about the places that are banning smoking outdoors too? How do you justify that? Besides, other than the annoyance, where is the proof that second-hand smoke harms anybody?”Well as far as I know those countries that do ban smoking outdoors is, currently, on a voluntary basis. As far as “evidence” for second hand smoking is concerned, well that’s an argument that makes no sense. For reference only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking . Now whether you think the article is biased or not it raises food for thought. Please examine the following video http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-tar-extracted-from-400-cigarettes . While this is not, by any means, definitive proof it certainly will show that harmful chemicals exist in cigarette smoke and you can not tell me that those same chemicals are not in second hand smoke and are therefore dangerous. Of course this presumes you think that smoking is inherently dangerous in the first place. Now I’m no scientist but I used to be an EMT working in a hospital where I had the opportunity to help with an autopsy of an emphisema patient. It was fact that this person was a lifelong smoker and that it was a direct cause to his disease and subsequent death. I saw his lungs, disgusting to say the least.“So you’re admitting that it’s a nuisance issue? If it bothers you that much, eat places that don’t allow smoking period. There are more smoke-free establishments than restaurants with smoking areas.”Oh, by the way, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t know how to properly quote each argument so hopefully this is readable. By all means this is a nuisance issue for me but it’s also somewhat personal as I have known people who are sick and dying from first hand smoke and who are chronically ill from second hand smoke. To redirect to the bar owner who wrote this forum. I do sympathize with the loss or perceived loss of business and hope that it picks up again as the initial shock wears off. As I previously stated I was only giving my money to establishments that did not allow smoking and was happy doing so. Now, though, I am pleased to say that I have no problem going to Anoka and spending money at some of the establishments known for their good wings and not having to worry about getting sick (it’s happened in the past, which is why I mention that).“How do you figure? I would have thought that bars/pubs/taverns were there for people to relax and indulge – and smoking is an indulgence.”Yes, you are correct but I guess it’s really more opinion based on historical evidence that makes me think that bars, pubs, etc… were originally designed for drinking. I guess considering all bars sell alcohol but not cigarettes (in general, there are always exceptions to the rule) that I make this judgement. Smoking is an indulgence – agreed, but not the original indulgence for bars….you know what, let’s not go into a historical debate on which came first the beer or the cigarette. “Then go to a wine bar or a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. There are plenty of very nice restaurant bars that don’t allow smoking. Why should your supposed right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a smoke free environment trump a smoker’s right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a beer and a cigarette?”Well, as I already stated, I DID go only to bars and restaraunts that did not allow smoking. Believe me it was quite the effort to figure that out every time someone wanted to do happy hour. Let’s not “suppose” rights. Let’s say that it is my right to “belly up to the bar for a drink” and that it is not the right for a smoker to do the same with the addition of smoking. By that argument, and I hate to sound childish here, I should be allowed to spit my beer at the person next to me. There’s really no proof that second hand beer hurts anyone, aside from being wet and sticky (analogous to smelling like smoke). That’s really an absurd thing to imagine but no one would think twice about telling me I can only spit beer outside. Add that to the arguable fact that second hand smoke does cause health issues and you can start to understand the ease at which many states and countries are banning smoking.“But it’s a de facto ban. By continuing to put limits and absurd rules on smokers, the government is trying to take away the right to smoke via a back door. Remember, this is much less an issue of public health than it is an issue of personal agendas set forth by people who personally don’t like smoking. The people who push the bans would like to see smoking eradicated, period.”Yes, I have to concede that the government and advocacy groups are trying their hardest to seemingly ban smoking altogether. That obviously equates to personal agendas but good or bad that’s government today, nothing but personal agendas. What ever happened to “for the people, by the people”? I still think that, if voted upon, that the ban would still exist. Now, personally, I could care less if smoking gets banned seeing that I don’t smoke but I do concede that that would be taking it too far. Besides, there are financial factors to consider. The tobacco industry is a huge economy unto itself and for better or worse I have no problem with that. Look how much money the governments around the US are making from taxation of cigarettes, do you really think they would completely ban that windfall of money? I think they might try to take it to the limits but as soon as the money starts drying up they will reconsider. As my names suggests I’m originally from Alaska where they have one of the largest taxes on cigarretes in the US. This is a huge amount of money that is being used for various other projects in the state.“Is that their right? What about the rights of the bar and restaurant owners? Set aside smoker’s rights for a moment and just consider the rights of the business owners. You do not have the right to patronize them. They afford you the privilege to do so. Don’t ever think that you have greater rights than the business owners. To enjoy places is your choice, and to take away smoking rights in lieu of your own selfish feelings on the subject.”Well, if you put the debate in this light, then it does become a public health issue and as such should be treated as health issue. I agree that business owners have given me the right to eat/drink/whatever at their establishments but that does not give them rights over and above my own. I would say we are equal when such establishments are public. Now, that being said, I’m not completely up on the wording of the law here in Minnesota but I do not think that the law prohibits private clubs from allowing smoking. Is that correct? I would think that if Utah can ban hard alcohol in bars and subsquently allow said bars to privatize and sell memberships (for like a dollar) then the same could be done here. This may have a detrimental affect though so I would be careful with that idea, if indeed it is allowed.“Do your homework. It is harming small businesses all over the state. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your arguments here are all flawed. You are fighting for your own personal agenda at the expense of other people’s rights. You are telling business owners that they should not have the right to run their own businesses on their own property as they see fit because you think that you have the right to go there and not have to deal with smoke. Sorry buddy, it just doesn’t work like that. Well, it shouldn’t anyway. The fact that it is just proves that the laws are agenda driven.”Do my homework? Hmm, let’s try to avoid antagonistic arguments and stick to the facts. From Wikipedia: According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city’s smoke-free policy.[58] A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review[59] of studies suggests that business may actually improve.[60] Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban .Believe me, I’m all for idealistic government where we should vote on every issue but I have come to the realization that we just wouldn’t get anything done if that were the case. Can you imagine how long it would take to change anything? I applaud your beliefs and I agree with you at the fundamental level of civil liberties but some things (case by case) need to be evaluated and acted upon. I will be right there with you if they start putting cameras in everyone’s back yard hoping to catch a terrorist but in the same light I would welcome cameras on certain street corners to curb some of the violent crimes that happen in Minneapolis. Again, I apologize for not being clear earlier and hopefully the way I quoted you was acceptable. Oh and if my spelling was less than admirable, my bad.By the way this debate can go on and on so I will accept your rebuttal and call it a day .[formatting edited for readability by Arclightzero. NO content was changed or edited]

First off, read this comment f

2008-01-18T00:47:42.466+01:00

First off, read this comment from a bar owner on one of my other posts:http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/smoke-em-if-you-got-em-minnesota-gets-set-to-go-smoke-free/#comment-7725I do believe that government is necessary and has the power to enact certain lawsOf course government should have the power to enact certain laws. That is what government is for. But where do we draw the line? Should the government be in the business of enacting nanny state laws that take away our decision making processes?No one is saying you can’t smoke, just take it outside where you can only hurt yourself.But what about the places that are banning smoking outdoors too? How do you justify that? Besides, other than the annoyance, where is the proof that second-hand smoke harms anybody?Invariably I am always sitting next to the most inconsiderate smoker who insists on blowing smoke over to the non-smoking area.So you’re admitting that it’s a nuisance issue? If it bothers you that much, eat places that don’t allow smoking period. There are more smoke-free establishments than restaurants with smoking areas.Now, as far as bars, pubs, taverns go, they were intended for drinking originally not smoking.How do you figure? I would have thought that bars/pubs/taverns were there for people to relax and indulge – and smoking is an indulgence.Personally, I would rather go belly up to the bar and have a drink and not have to worry about the person next to me blowing smoke in my face.Then go to a wine bar or a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. There are plenty of very nice restaurant bars that don’t allow smoking. Why should your supposed right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a smoke free environment trump a smoker’s right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a beer and a cigarette?Government is not trying to take away your right to smoke, though it might seem as such, but rather it’s just limiting where you can smoke.But it’s a de facto ban. By continuing to put limits and absurd rules on smokers, the government is trying to take away the right to smoke via a back door. Remember, this is much less an issue of public health than it is an issue of personal agendas set forth by people who personally don’t like smoking. The people who push the bans would like to see smoking eradicated, period.everyone can enjoy the different establishments in the stateIs that their right? What about the rights of the bar and restaurant owners? Set aside smoker’s rights for a moment and just consider the rights of the business owners. You do not have the right to patronize them. They afford you the privilege to do so. Don’t ever think that you have greater rights than the business owners. To enjoy places is your choice, and to take away smoking rights in lieu of your own selfish feelings on the subject.Wouldn’t you expect that to help business rather than hurt it?Do your homework. It is harming small businesses all over the state.I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your arguments here are all flawed. You are fighting for your own personal agenda at the expense of other people’s rights. You are telling business owners that they should not have the right to run their own businesses on their own property as they see fit because you think that you have the right to go there and not have to deal with smoke. Sorry buddy, it just doesn’t work like that. Well, it shouldn’t anyway. The fact that it is just proves that the laws are agenda driven.

Who ever you are, I thank you

2008-01-18T00:46:31.632+01:00

Who ever you are, I thank you very much for some support. I am very concerned for the American people. With the exception of the communistic liberals, I can not find a person who agrees with this ban on smoking. But, when I ask people how they feel about it, they have this blank look in there eyes and say, “What can I do about it?”. What is scarey is that they do not agree with the law, but they are not angry. They just except it. This whole thing about not being able to smoke in public is feeling really creeping. What’s next? These half-witted liberals say, “It’s for the people”. Sound familiar? Is’nt that what Hitler and Stalin use to say in their speeches? The goverment says it’s for our own health that they have these communistic laws on smoking. They do not care about the American people’s health! If they did they would stop putting cancerous chemicals in our food and water. I think the goverment is testing the American people to see just how far they can go to control them. And guess what? They are winning! Americans are numb to their rights slowing being taken from them. Please tell me what I can do to help fight this lack of American freedom?

I feel your pain. I’ve been bl

2009-07-04T06:34:50.567+02:00

I feel your pain. I’ve been blogging for two months and I don’t know if I can keep going. I’ve started blogs several times in the last eight years but this is the longest I’ve been able to keep going. I keep asking myself why bother? I’ve got nothing new to say. I’ll just be ignored like everyone else. Our competition is subsidized about a trillion dollars a year. How do you compete? I was an anti-environmentalist activist in the 80’s and 90’s. I got no support from anyone. I spent a lot of my own money. I was on a first-name basis with most of the Minnesota House and Senate. To them, I was a Kook. Everyone was (and is) afraid to jeopardize their own position and/or subsidy. I got a lot of words of agreement (just don’t tell anyone) but no support. Supposed allies would use data I provided to further their own self-serving agenda. Anymore, the conversation is not whether government should control and direct, just how it will do it. I’m now off the grid. I’m broke and live in a cave (almost). Have no income and little hope of getting one. I refuse to support the machine any longer. If it kills me, or gets me jailed, so be it. If you’ve got nothing worth dying for, then what are you living for. If you really want to win this war, you too will have to do the John Galt. There is no other way. Defund them and they’ll tear themselves apart like starving rats in a cage.Phil

Hi You really do write right f

2009-03-25T20:43:36.923+01:00

Hi You really do write right from your heart. If people like you, who really care give up – who is going to see that things go in the right direction? You will probably never be happy with our politicians, and Yes, this is probably the best we can do – because sadly – the really best don’t go into politics. Keep on speaking up. Its how you can fight the fight.

Ryan Evans, had a great post o

2008-10-06T14:54:30.509+02:00

Ryan Evans, had a great post on his blog today that I totally relate to. The title is "Why it’s Hard", and I feel his

Boy, do I know how you feel!!!

2008-09-01T15:55:34.127+02:00

Boy, do I know how you feel!!! Maybe that’s why I’m so pissed off all the time! That would explain it wouldn’t it?

I know exactly how you feel. D

2008-07-28T16:56:37.745+02:00

I know exactly how you feel. Defeated is the perfect word. As the nomination of McCain became more and more likely I also felt defeated. I don’t know any other way to carry on the fight other than to keep exposing the candidates for who they are. I think the best thing to do is to fight for every issue on an individual lbasis. No matter who is the president we can let our voices be heard, one issue at a time. It worked on illegal immigration the last time, and God knows that battle will have to be fought again no matter who the next president is. We need to keep voicing our positions and concerns, it may feel like we aren’t getting anywhere sometimes, but people read and people hear what we say. It is going to be a long fight, but it is a fight that must be waged. I hope that you will find yourself rejuvinated, and I hope that you will find your voice again. We need you.

We are not defeated. Undoubted

2008-06-23T17:57:41.363+02:00

We are not defeated. Undoubtedly we were handed some poor choices. But in being able to choose or not to choose is already one thing we have to remember to always celebrate. Lets not slip into the leftist mentallity that all is wrong with America. Are we bitter ? yea.Lets take our lumps like the warriors we are with the inspiration of knowing that we are afforded the rights and abilities to return and fight another day. Its just been a real crappy year for America. We,ve had worse happen to us and come back far over and above what the original problems were. We need all the moral and motivation we can come up with for the next round in 4 years so pull your heads out of your rumps and take a look around and realize that if you carry this attitude into the future it will snowball and effect all your efforts and everything you touch. We will create and feed our own defeatest mentallity if we sit around and cry about it. As Ryan has told me many times; ” Keep up the good fight”

Oh shit. I just wrote a post a

2008-05-19T18:58:44.981+02:00

Oh shit. I just wrote a post about feeling defeated. I can over here to see if you were feeling the same. And behold…you are in the same feelings (well, sort of) as I am. Just damn tired of all of it.

I hate to think of what would

2008-04-14T19:59:28.599+02:00

I hate to think of what would happen if we had one dems in the white house and in congress. McCain is the lesser of three evils. But we should be happy that even a guy with only a few lib positions is standing a good chance of beating two truly incapable candidates. The middle east is my biggest concern. And in that department McCain gives me no worries. In the next 4 years the other issues can get hammered and wrangled out with the checks and balances we have in place. And with the shittiest congress we have ever seen in our lives looking more and more like the people will tire of them it looks like the odds are good that we will see a con majority on the hill in a couple of years. So try to cheer up buddy

I feel your pain and it may no

2008-04-14T19:59:18.599+02:00

I feel your pain and it may not seem as so, we are winning this thing here at home. When I came back from the war, I was appalled at the stupidity and ignorance of the morons spouting that which they were.I have seen a near 180 degree turn around and now more than ever, we must turn up the heat.My son is now fighting the war and we cannot turn our backs on him or his comrades in arms embracing the suck for us. McCain ain’t the best but the alternative in unthinkable.The Battleground is in the Lower House for the next two cycles. This is where the Conservative Movement will reassert itself.Carry on. Ruck up.http://www.anewtone.com/2008/04/global-cultural-jihad-rise-of-renewed.html

You can smoke at M on the bund

2008-06-27T14:43:51.890+02:00

You can smoke at M on the bund at shanghai , Don’t care, food is not good , OK I will eat elsewhere, prefer smoking

Hurray for the creative folks

2008-02-19T10:43:42.728+01:00

Hurray for the creative folks in northern Minnesota who found a loophole. What an utterly ass-inine and stupid law anyway. If you don’t like the “rules of the restaurant/bar’, don’t go there. Duh! Oh, and by the way, the truth is out. A British health official has admitted what we really all know—second hand smoke is a smoke screen–a rube—to get laws passed to get people to quit smoking. He admits the fraud!!!! It may take a while and create a lot of angst but the truth will prevail!! The second hand smoke hoax will go down in history alongside Witchcraft in Salem and the Jews being resposible for all of Germany’s problems in the last century.

By the way here is the first c

2008-02-16T10:00:38.044+01:00

By the way here is the first comment that the article rcvd. Smoke at home–Submitted by rocketman–on February 14, 2008–3:17am.“You filthy butt puffers,you stink and your killing yourself, so do it in your own inviroment”this was my response…Submitted by freedomlover on February 15, 2008 – 10:00am.For one rocketman, you are a prime example of what is wrong with today’s society…“You filthy butt puffers,you stink and your killing yourself, so do it in your own inviroment.”Your entitled to your opinion because this is America, but you have offered nothing by your post and you should value education over opinion…Environment, YOU ARE (you’re not your) and it is just as much a smoker’s outdoor environment as it a non-smoker’s…secondly only 17% of Washington residents smoke, so by definition they are a minority group (smokers vs. nonsmokers) entitled to same equality , furthermore, if smokers are killing themselves why is the life expectancy like 78 years of age? How do some people smoke 3 packs a day and live beyond 78? Why is it not completely banned or deemed an illegal activity? Why does do politicians jump on the “good for you” band wagon? The fact is smoking is a risk factor, just like drinking, driving, not eating healthy meals, it is not a certainty for ill health. BUT if in fact it were SO bad, why then is not all of the states tobacco taxation going to healthcare? Currently, the state gets just over two dollars per pack of cigarettes from taxes, over $425 million in 2006 from only 17 percent of the population, (of which not all are on state aid). “Yet, only half goes to health care ($1.01). The rest of the revenue goes to the “general fund” ($0.23), programs to stop youth violence ($0.105), water quality ($0.08), and education programs ($0.60)” (Washington State Liquor Control Board). It’s not about healthcare!! “The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” - Thomas JeffersonAs far as role models go, take a look around as Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, and countless others plug up the airways. If you’re a sports fan…how about those performance enhancers! You have every right to make decisions regarding how you live your life…but if you think just a little you will see that you haven’t always been right and really you don’t have the right to use extortion, and coercion tactics to force people to think like you do or live the way you think they should. Smokers gave up the right to smoke in public buildings…taking it to the outdoors goes WAY TOO FAR!and here was the following comment…wow freedomlover–Submitted by JODILUDWIG–on February 15, 2008 – 3:22pm.“I couldn’t have said that better – really I couldn’t. Well said and I agree… illiteracy is not a good thing rocket man….per Webster….”How about that, huh?

Ryan, Thanks for turning me on

2008-02-16T04:29:56.332+01:00

Ryan, Thanks for turning me on to that tribune article! Of course I had to register to remark and remark I did.Man do people really not see this madness? It hurts me! Really, has our great country reduced itself to this low of a level that we are again destine to create like a 3rd Great Awakening or Prohibition movements which the 1st and 2nd Awakenings were not so hot, and Prohibition was obviously not successful, so what was it, just the wrong cause and this time everything will be all hunky dory cause its the mortal sin of smokers?I DONT GET IT!!

The ban is wrong from a capita

2008-02-14T21:34:51.075+01:00

The ban is wrong from a capitalist point of view, and socially as well. Any business owner should be able to determine who he/she wants to service. In stead of all or nothing, business owners could hang simple signs…Welcome All, Smokers, Clean Air, or whatever…look an example is this…a dinner or cafe owner has the right to have a bum removed, or refuse service right…public places often say no shoes no shirt no service, so if they can post that why not publicly display smoker friendly or clean air?Oh yeah cause the hard core anti’s dont want to be inconvienced because non smokers make up the majority. So only the minority should sacrifice. Check it out, Spawn, I’ve given you props on at least understanding the point of taxation, and further legislation regarding the movement…but I need you to clarify something for me…I am a fisherman, love camping and such. I also smoke. so if I go camping or fishing in a state park, should I not be allowed to smoke because it is a public place? I ask this because I was reading a thing from AZ were they wanted to ban smoking at some beach (I am assuming off a lake) and a big portion of the ban support was not from safety or health standpoints but from the a-hole smokers who through butts all over, which I have to say as a smoker just irks the crap out of me because it is one of the reasons people think it is a filthy habit…whats your take?

Alaskaspawn; “As far as paying

2008-02-14T12:33:07.112+01:00

Alaskaspawn; “As far as paying a fee, I think that’s a little absurd and would be surprised if that passed. It seems like they wouldn’t even need the bill since I’m sure they could just pay the fine every month.”Like I said Spawn, its start. You might be be surprised at what passes here. It involves more than just paying a fine every month if you circumvent the law. At least someone is looking in another direction besides totalitarian methods.