HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING

   

I'm having a debate with a fascist, imperialistic pig...

that I work with.

We've been going back and forth for weeks talking about the freedom that I want vs. whatever the hell it is that he wants.

It started like this today...

I sent him a copy of the article, "Bush Power Grab Since 911
Scholar Urges Candidates Debate Role of President's Usurpation of Power"

As a joke, he replies saying that I can't send him any more e-mails about the government unless I can be more positive. He knows that will never happen.

But it did...



I sent him this...

"OK, here's a positive one for ya....

In Oregon, Barack Obama had 75,000 people show up to his rally. McCain already has enough delegates to has cinched the nomination. Most people think he's the only republican left in the race.

Ron Paul still got 15% of the votes in the republican primary in Oregon.

That's positive. There are some freedom-lovers left in this country."


He replied...

"A few dissidents does not count as a movement, or even reality.

The reason people think McCain is the only Republican candidate is because he is. Ron Paul's 15% is nothing more than the Prince Mongo vote. Prince Mongo is a gentlemen who runs for mayor of Memphis every election. He is a certifiable nutcase and gets 15 - 20% of the vote each election. This proves ANYBODY can get 15 - 20% of the vote just by staying in the race.

Sorry to be the bearer of reality."



I sent this back...

"Ron Paul has over a million votes, even though the nomination was decided on Super Tuesday... and with a virtual corporate media blackout of his campaign.

He got an avg of 9 minutes speaking time out of 90 in most of the debates... still won all of them. Text polls and internet polls.

He got hardly any money from corporations, only from individuals for the most part, and he still raised more money than any other republican candidate with the exception of McCain.

He raised $6 million in one day over the internet, without his campaign lifting a finger... the avg donation was $114. That's over 50,000 donors in one day.

His book has been #1 on the NYTimes and Amazon Best Seller Lists.

Over 40 "Ron Paul Republicans" are running for office all over the country. The new Senator in New Jersey, typically a dem... will be Murray Sabrin... a libertarian endorsed by Ron Paul.

That's a movement."



His reply...

"This just shows that when people need change they will go after it, no matter how poorly thought out that change is. As I have said before: Ron Paul has good ideas until you see how he would implement those ideas, then they just fall apart.

The Libertarians frighten me. Many of their views would make sense if the US was the only country on earth. As it is NOT the only country (just the best) many of their ideas make no sense at all."



Me...

"You have a twisted view of libertarians in my opinion. Just an opinion.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution from a very libertarian point of view... to limit the size and scope of government.

I we aren't going to do that... we might as well throw away the Constititution and start over.

We had a FREE country, a free market, a capitalist society where the government left people alone.

Slowly but surely, as it always happens, the government has encroached upon our lives and dug into our wallets.

Freedom is what made this country great.

Now it is a over-regulated, fascist/socialist police state over-taxed and overrun by beauracrats. The libertarians are the only ones who want to change that."



Him...

"Ok, I'll agree we disagree..."



Me...

"I had a job, that paid decent... doing what I love to do... managing/hanging out in the pool hall.

Good looking waitresses and bar tenders. Pool players. Hanging out around my hobby.

They enacted a smoking ban in the city or Auburn and the Bumper's Billiard in Aubrun had to shut it's doors... they lost too much business after the smoking ban to operate at a profit.

I got replaced by the manager from the Auburn store because he had seniority. All the people in Auburn lost their jobs. The owner lost one of his stores.

This is just one tiny example of the government stifling freedom and creating unnecessary problems for business owners and citizens.

This guy owns a business, catering to people who, for the most part, smoke cigarettes. The gov said he can't cater to those people in his own business.

What's next, we can't drink in the bar either?"


Him...

"The habit and the friend are the minority. The program is designed to protect the non-smoking majority from the negative health effects caused by the choices of the smoking minority. Your friends business is an unfortunate consquence of catering to the minority."



Oh boy, did this one get me going!



Me...

"WRONG!!

#1, I don't believe 2nd hand smoke is that hazardous. You might can show me studies, but I can show you studies too.

#2, This is exactly the problem with our country. Everyone thinks we're supposed to be a democracy, because the corporate media keeps beating that in everyone's head... and just because all the brainwashed idiots vote for something, that's the way it should be.

The business is owned by someone... who caters to who he wants to cater to. If you don't want to go in a business that allows smoking, then you don't have to go. That's how a truly free country works. Individual rights. Property rights. Control and ownership by the individual... not by the state. Control by the state is FASCISM.

Every seen those signs that say a business owner can refuse service to anyone for any reason? Then shouldn't he also be able to serve anyone he wants? It's his business, after all.

If the business owner would rather cater to the minority... then he is FREE to do so. In fact, in his particular type of business, he's catering to THE MAJORITY. The majority of people who go to pool halls and bars smoke cigarettes. It's not a restaurant... it's not a doctor's office... it's a BAR. Just like you're free to choose whether to go there or not, he's free to allow anyone in that he wants. The bar in Auburn had to close down because all his customers decided to play pool league in a bar just outside the city limits where they could smoke. They ruined a man's business by forcing his patrons to go elsewhere. Patrons that had been going there for years. What kind of free country is that? What kind of property rights are those?

Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

It's like having 4 wolves and 3 sheep sitting at the dinner table voting on what's for dinner.

This is not what our Founder's envisioned. They hated the idea of pure democracy. They hated the idea of political parties. They wanted a Constitutional Republic with the rule of law being the Constitution... not the beauracrat.

There are 5 types of governmental systems... monarchy (rule by one), oligarchy (rule by a group), democracy (rule by the majority), republic (rule by law), and anarchy (no rule at all).

Monarchy is not really a true system because the king always has his court... that makes it an oligarchy. Anarchy is only good for transitions from one to the other, such as in a coup or overthrow of a government by it's citizens. That leaves a republic or a democracy. The Founders gave us a republic because a democracy always stifles freedom for the individual.

A woman asked Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention, "What have you given us, Mr. Franklin?" He said,

"A republic ma'am... if you can keep it."

We've lost it. We're now a pseudo-democracy that's really an oligarchy."



That prompted a discussion out loud that got half the people in the office involved. I think I won the debate because no one could explain to me how it was right that a business could refuse service to anyone but at the say time not have the right to choose to serve anyone they wished.

Hey, I may have a bunch of sheep in my office... but at least I'm getting the conversation going in the right direction. Maybe I can wake one or two of them up.

Just wanted to share and get any comments that might be helpful.

output

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In addition to debating fascist pigs, why not

sue them too?

Add one dollar to this fund to pay the attorney representing challenged Missouri delegates. We're taking legal action against the Neo-Con-Horde.

I challenge Missouri delegates to add $10.

We're only $980 from our national goal.

http://revolutiondefense....

Oh geez...

Keep it up! And show him this:

FBI files indict Bush, Cheney and Co. as war criminals

http://www.wsws.org/artic...

If you haven't yet....

....watch the video that RacerTim linked to below....excellent tool for inteligent conversation!
Having grown up as an asthmatic child, I really cannot stand to go to a restaurant or pub or bar where people smoke...so, I am VERY, VERY happy about the ban..it's a nasty habit that I wish everyone could kick...but, as RP has stated over-and-over, the federal government has no business sticking its nose in there...that should be states' rights...like abortion, gambling, etc.
For what it's worth, I have been stone-walled by some illogically-thinking folks as well...a few I have been able to get them to "put on the glasses" (John Carpenter's, "They Live"), others are happy to keep their horse blinders on and go straight down the path...."stay between the lines...the lines are our friends...".
------------------
BC
Recently awakened, always vigilant.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!

ha! you crack me up!

i'm starting to learn to live 'outside the lines'!! :)

I think it might be useful to point out

that one need not want to follow Ron Paul all the way to his destination to realize that, nonetheless, it is urgent that we start to move in that general direction

Yeah...

I have a liberal friend of mine that agrees that fascism is sneaking it's way into the U.S. due to the corporate influence on our government. Like a typical liberal, he wants to blame capitalism. I naturally blame big government and the fact that they are involved in EVERYTHING. The more things the gov is involved in, the more the corporations and special interests can take control of our laws.

Anyway, he's a big Bush-hater, as are most, so he thinks we need a dem in there to fix things. I tell him he's crazy if he thinks that the dems aren't bought and paid for too.

He mentions Bush is a fascist all the time, and so I explain that in order to counteract that... we need to go in a direction of less government intervention like Ron Paul advocates. Ron Paul couldn't get rid of the government overnite... he might not even be able to do anything with the Congress we have... but at least he would stop the bleeding and get us moving in the right direction.

The others are just leading us to some form of socialist/fascist/communist type bs government.

And...

"Democracy is the road to socialism."

Karl Marx

Right on!

Democracy is lame!
Anyone read Hoppe's book called "Democracy: The God that Failed"?

Great comments

Great comments! I just wanted to clarify one of your points.

Anarchy is rule by the individual, or self-rule under law. It is not the absence of rules (or disorderliness). It is the shifting of political power from the center to the edge. A truly competitive and free market is an anarchic system as it is shaped by the voluntary interaction of *all* market participants.

Historically, the international community is an anarchy (organized under international law and treaties to which sovereign nations voluntarily agree). This is why treaties and voluntary alliances are so important.

This is also why the Uniparty wants managed trade agreements and organizations such as the United Nations. They hate the concept of anarchy/soveriegnty under the rule of law because there are no inherent mechanisms for control.

-LF

That's a very good point

Those that are opposed to the principle of a-narchy should want a world government if they are being consistent.

It would follow

It would follow that a person opposed to individual sovereignty (a form of anarchy), would be opposed to national sovereignty.

debate with a "troll"

wpsmithjr,

You sound like an intelligent and well infomed advocate for the Ron Paul movement. You are of course free to spend your time any way that you wish, but it may be more worthwhile to communicate with the many people who are willing, even eager, to hear what you have to say. Arguing with a fool is not the best use of your time and intelligence.

It is probably as difficult for this :"mainstreamer" to come around to agreeing with you as it would be for you to agree with and campaign for McCain, Giuliani, or Hillary...

Why not plant the seeds of liberty in more fertile soil? There are MILLIONS of people who are still waiting to hear what Ron Paul and his supporters, including yourself, stand for.

Inform them!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

That's what I'm (trying) to do with...

these people in my office. I was hoping to get some more ammunition by posting my battle here. If we don't try to convert the fascists... we'll be overrun by them.

At least I'm getting some debating practice!

BTW...

For all you non-smokers out there, this same establishment had already started a pool league on Sun. evenings that was NON-smoking... to cater to the pool players who wanted to compete in a non-smoke environment. The owner realized that it would be a good way to keep the non-smokers coming to his establishment, so he wouldn't have to miss out on their business.

See how freedom works when you allow it to flourish?

I can't listen at work...

but from the beginning it looks like the "Americanism" video.

Is it?

That is a GREAT video.

In fact, if we showed everyone in the U.S. that video, and the one called "Washington You're Fired", we could turn this country around in one election cycle.

It is the Americanism video

In an attempt to reach millions, I have added the following to my email signature-

Do you think America has run off track? I think so. To get it back on track, this video is a must see. If you agree, add it to your signature line as I did so it may be passed on to millions. God Bless America!

http://video.google.com/v...

great video-----------------

HYDROMAN

Yeah...

It's a great vid. I think the "Washington You're Fired" vid is great too.

The both put forth the proper message without pushing a particular party or candidate. That way people won't have a preconcieved notion while watching it.

It's all about saving our country... not electing this person or that person, or this party or that party...

People will be much more open to listening, I think.

I honestly can't believe...

that any of us Paulites would side with the non-smokers on this one.

Anybody else agree with ME??

Limitations on public

Limitations on public smoking can actually fit quite well into a libertarian point of view, assuming that 2nd hand smoke is harmful to ones health. An individual's freedom is paramount, as long as it does not infringe on the freedom and rights of others. If I walk around with a spraycan and spray poison into the air, I can be arrested for infringing upon the rights of others. The question isn't whether or not smoking should be allowed... it is whether or not cigarette smoke is a poison to the people around it, and whether or not they'd like to challenge that in defense of their rights.

Not me!

I'm fully on the side of the smokers. Government smoking bans are in complete opposition to libertarianism. Probably unconstitutional as well.

ps. you're work friend sounds like a real douche.

No, the gentlemen abover is correct

I do side with smoker's because I think one can choose to remove oneself from any establishment.

I can see the above post as being a libertarian POV, not mine though.

If in fact the second hand smoke is harmful then of course it is infringing on someone's rights. To me that is not the problem.

Can't people make a rational decision to dine or not dine, party or not party with their best interets in mind? I think so. We don't need regulation or any type of enforcement on smoking, or not smoking. People need to buck up and get informed for themselves and make a decision. Its that easy.

Think for yourself. Question authority.

I'm really sorry for the

I'm really sorry for the loss of your job. I myself am out of work and just getting by doing whatever I can. For the most part, I agree with you. However, I disagree about the smoking ban issue. That is not government using a heavy hand. That is what happened when a majority of non-smokers decided to make a law. Unfortunately, some paid a hefty price in lost wages, business, and opportunity due to the wishes of others. I had a debate with a fellow over this. I asked him that since it is understood that air is a common good, and that it is no more just for him to pollute the air I breathe, than it is for me to pee in the water he drinks, that it might just be the right thing to forgo smoking indoors. He told me that if only one smoker sat in a restaurant and wanted to smoke, then all of the non-smoker's should stay home. Regardless. It was the voters in your area who outlawed smoking indoors. Not the Government.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

I agree with you in part...

I agree with you in part... but not because a "majority" of people decided to ban smoking. That is the defense of it from a democratic point of view... but since we live in a republic, I'd defend smoking limitations as a protection of individual rights. It doesn't matter of 60 out of 100 or 1 out of 100 people oppose smoking in a public place. What does matter is that the rights of the majority -and- the minority are protected.

Over 20 people...

lost their jobs... and several hundred people who patronized that business had to drive out of town to enjoy their hobby.

This didn't come about because the people who played pool there voted on it... this came about because a bunch of citizens who DIDN'T play pool there voted against smoking in that type of establishment.

The patrons were just as upset as the business owners and the people who worked there.

Not only that, but the city government of Auburn forced all those people to take their revenue outside the city... how is that good for the city?

Just to clarify my point. I

Just to clarify my point. I think that any establishment that requires a patron to be 21 or over the legal drinking age in that state should determine it's smoking policy as per the owners choice. But I do still steadfastly stand by my desire to protect children, those with respiratory difficulties, and anyone who simply thinks cigarettes stink from indoor smoking pollution. Especially in restaurants, hotels, theatres, and other such places. I think banning public smoking has largely been a matter of progress. I used to smoke. A lot! So I believe I have a qualified opinion on the matter.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

I agree with the first part...

I agree with your idea that owner's should be at the discretion of establishing guidelines for operation. And only the owner. Smoking can be decided by owner; patron can choose to occupy establishment. If patron decides it is in his best interest to go elsewhere, then that is their perogative. We do not need a law on this.

Think for yourself. Question authority.

That's exactly why the Founders...

Disliked pure democracy.

Allowing the majority to silence the minority is wrong.

This is a property rights issue. The business is the property of the owner. He decides the rules in his establishment, not the government, and not the majority... THE OWNER of the business is free to run his business how he sees fit, just like you as a patron are free to choose to patronize his establishment or not.

2nd hand smoke will not harm the people in the businesses next door... only the people in that particular business. Again, you a free not to go there.

The bill should never have come up for the citizens to vote on. That's the problem. It's the owner's business... not the citizens... and not the governments.

If the air is common good... then stop driving. That causes much more pollution than smoking cigarettes.

I don't necessarily agree.

I don't necessarily agree. What if we lived in a country where 90% of the populace smoked... and where all of the grocery stores decided to allow smoking in their establishments in order to attract this majority. The free market has prevailed... and the minority now has nowhere to buy food without their rights being infringed upon. I am of the opinion that yes, the grocery store is the property of its owner... but that the air we breath, whether it is inside or outside of that building, is nobody's property. If it were, the store would be within its rights to extract its property from my lungs after every breath I took in. We all know that that is ridiculous.

So someone could open a supermarket...

where there was no smoking. They would have the niche on that market.

If the niche wasn't big enough, then yes, you would have a problem... just like we used to have a problem with people smoking on airplanes. I always thought that was crazy, and I'm a smoker. The space is just too confined.

And I never really had a problem with no smoking establishments or buildings before... because I realize that smoking around someone who doesn't smoke, or who doesn't like smoke... is infringing on their rights. I don't think there should be smoking in the grocery stores. And I think since most people don't smoke, most grocery store owners wouldn't allow smoking even if it wasn't a law. That's the free market at work.

But, to reverse your question... in most bars and pool halls the situation is reversed. 80-90% of the people DO smoke. The business is made for people who want to eat, drink, smoke and shoot pool. Some people don't go because they don't like smoke, but it's not enough to shut the business down.

This isn't rocket science people... bars are smokey places because a lot, the majority, of people who drink at a bar also smoke cigarettes or cigars. Some people only smoke when they're drinking. The 2 just go together.

I don't go to bars that play country music because I don't like it. I don't petition the government to get the bar owner to change his music. If someone has a place and they allow smoking and you don't like it, don't go there.

It's somebody's business. There property. Their building. The business owner didn't smoke, and didn't really like smoke... but he didn't stop it because he knew his business was built around people who wanted to smoke. When the government passed a law against it, his business folded. What's a harder thing to swallow, you deciding not to go somewhere because it's smokey... or him, and all his employeeds, losing their livelihood?

Yep..and burning tobacco

Yep..and burning tobacco leaves are not nearly as bad for you as the pollution from burning coleman stoves, garbage, gasoline, or jeeze..even inhaling the methane when people pass gas! Especially the tiny amount in a cigarette..but Hucklebee banned smoking in businesses in AR, even after our city had voted NOT to have the ban just a year before. Those of us who own a business should be able to DO WHAT WE WANT! We pay and collect "their" taxes. We get "their" licenses, and inspections. We follow their safety and fire regulations and zoning..for crying out loud. If people do not want to work for us or patronize our establishment because we allow smoking, that is UP to US, not the state or federal government if you ask me.

I have to agree with

I have to agree with wpsmithjr "stop driving" take a bus carpool etc.. if you are really concerned about air quality. As for smoking around myself being a nonsmoker, I find most people are very polite smokers these days and do as wpsmithjr does and inquires if it's okay. Before the ban in our state I didn't have a problem with smokers, I didn't go to the places that were smoky and funny thing is I still don't even though they don't have smoking. The one thing I don't like now is that all the smokers stand right out front of the bars, theaters and restaurants in droves more than they ever did before . I don't really know why that is so in some of the places since they were were non smoking places before.(and some are bars and taverns I pass by). I think that smoking should definitely limited to smoke friendly places. I like the fact that public buildings are smoke free (libraries,court houses,etc) but small business should be able to do as they please. All of us smokers and non smokers would be just fine.
PS when we get to a place globally or even Nationally that we have no other polluting factors then I will stand beside you on the "polluting my air issue" till then it isn't enough to warrant blanket non smoking

Thank you...

A non-smoker with common sense... and a sense of the true definition of liberty and property rights.

Thomas Jefferson

didn't say that. That's a false quote that's been propagated.

Though he would probably agree with it.

Are you always negative

OR do you just aspire to be a troll.

Yeah...

that seemed a little too modern-sounding to be TJ, but it was very effective, so I used it.

Great Thread! You did

Great Thread! You did awesome!

Thanks...

And to think...

I was a neo-con loving war mongerer who voted for Bush both times (gag)!

Ron Paul really did cure my apathy.

I don't do much else now but read, learn and fight for liberty.

I've come a long way in the last 8-9 months. I feel like I could debate McCain and win.

Of course, I think most of us could!

I will say the only thing I

I will say the only thing I disagree with you on is second hand smoke. I don't need studies to prove or disprove, I am living the affect of it, BUT I still agree that all people who own their own business have a right to allow or disallow smoking in their own establishment. Opposite case in point. There is a great bar here in Bellingham that started off non smoking about 10 yrs ago. They did a great business but when the ban was implemented well his profits went up in smoke (sorry couldn't help it) He is now trying to sell his business and building. SAD. As far as your co-worker goes, unless you really enjoy the hamster wheel of going round and round with someone and never getting anywhere, I'd consider him a lost cause until he needs your libertarian ass to help him out in some way. And you will because we always thrive with good adversaries.

Second hand smoke...

http://www.cato.org/pub_d...

I always put my cigs out if it bothers someone. I always ask before I light up. I try to be considerate that way in most places because whether it's a health hazard or not, it's annoying to some.

But not in a bar.

You are a truly good person

You are a truly good person and I agree bars and any establishment should be able to make their own rules about smoking.

keep repeating: "this is a

keep repeating: "this is a republic not a democracy," challenge them to realize the difference. Also encourage them to PLEASE read the constitution and compare it to the patriot act!

This guy gets me mad...

But he can't debate me. He cannot win. It's not possible, because he is simply WRONG.

These people come up with their opinions on things out of thin air. With no thought about anyone but themselves.

Just wait til the gov'ment screws them over directly like they have me... then I don't want to hear any freakin' whining.