Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...

I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are so
bitter. There must be little joy in your life.

--
Peter
There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of that
poor
bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any lack
of
joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders of
asses like you.


I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your
constant
name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.

--
Peter
My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a bar
and
operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined it
for
him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you to
turn
your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who worked
and
slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and then
have
the dumb liberal government take it away from him.

The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a bar.
There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.

He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted by
the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
signs he can use to advertise his business.

He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.

You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.


The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
who disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.

--
Peter
His patrons can't smoke inside his bar. But they can go 10 feet outside
on the street and smoke. If you can't see the idiocy in that, then I have
every right to call you a "stupid liberal". You and Cooper both have the
same dumb mindset. If the government does it, then it must be right.


Just when did I ever say that?
Don't you ever dare misquote me. Your postings are that of a selfish, self
centered who has no regards for the rights of others. I would never equate
you with a true libertarian. True libertarians have enormous feelings for
the rights of others.
OTOH you refuse to give up one of your perceived rights, to accommodate
the rights of others. What a sad life you must lead. You may have the last
word as I will not reply. There is no need to and quite frankly, you bore
me.

--
Peter
weg9 says: I didn't say you said it......I am saying it. In Palo Alto,
California, you can't smoke inside any bar, but you can smoke on the street.
That's a fact. So, if the guy can't have his patrons smoke, but they can
smoke out on the street, that's not the same thing as naked dancing, or
selling booze after hours or other laws that the city/state makes to
regulate bars. I am just pointing out your stupidity.......But I really
don't have to, do I? The liberal position is stupid on the face of it.
That's why I left that state, and moved up here to Oregon......But the
liberals are infiltrating here too.......

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote:

The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
who
disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.

I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.
He objects to everything.

As someone who listened to Ayn Rand's yearly lectures on the Boston
lecture circuit back in the 60s/70s, and read everything she wrote, I
think that Bill captures the unbridled selfishness of true libertarianism
perfectly. You guys don't understand how horrifically bad libertarianism
really is.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California. Smoking is legal on the street. You can go to other, non-smoking
bars if you don;t smoke. Why can's a smoking bar owner put a sign on his
door that says, "Danger. - This is a smoking bar. If you come in here you
will be subjected to second hand smoke. If that is unacceptable to you, then
please go down the block to Mike's place and drink there......His bar is
non-smoking"

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:04:28 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:31:59 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:10:39 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
d-secrets.com...

I see no further point in continuing this. It's sad that you are
so
bitter. There must be little joy in your life.

--
Peter
There is a lot more joy in my life that there is in the life of
that
poor
bartender whose property rights you insist on taking away. Any
lack
of
joy that either he or I have can be put directly on the shoulders
of
asses like you.


I ended this earlier, but can't resist pointing out that your
constant
name calling clearly shows the shallowness of your argument.

--
Peter
My argument is only "shallow" to someone who didn't buy himself a bar
and
operate it for his own enjoyment until some stupid liberals ruined it
for
him.....That's the problem you refuse to address. It's easy for you
to
turn
your back on him......It's not your bar. You are not the one who
worked
and
slaved for years until he had the money to buy his own place, and
then
have
the dumb liberal government take it away from him.

The man made the decision to open a bar fully cognizant of the fact
that he would be subject to the laws governing the operation of a
bar.
There are myriad laws determining what he can and cannot do.

He can't serve minors. His opening an closing times are restricted
by
the law. The law determines what type of entertainment he can offer.
The law deals with noise levels, food service, and even the type of
signs he can use to advertise his business.

He was also aware that new laws could be passed that would further
restrict him. He assumed the risk. There's no unfairness involved.

You claim that "liberals" are at fault here. However, every bar in
every city and state in the US is subject to laws that restrict what
the owner can and cannot do. If the bar owner wanted to increase
business by providing nude dancers as entertainment, it would be the
conservatives who would be slamming the lid down on him.


The man is a libertarian, not a conservative. He thrives by calling all
who
disagree with his lack of logic, the equivalent of a stupid liberal.
I take that statement from him as a badge of honor. Although, in most
business matters I am considered somewhat conservative.

I don't think he's a libertarian. He's an anti-establishmentarian.

You are probably right

He objects to everything.


Unless it benefits him.

Provided that he understands that it benefits him. Many things that
he objects to do benefit him, but he doesn't see that.



How can that be?
According to his postings, he is a mega genius. therefore, he must
understand everything.

--
Peter


weg9 says: I can certainly understand that you liberals refuse to address
my point. That operating a smoking bar doesn't take away anybody else's
rights, but the law that prevents it takes away the rights of the bar owner
who smokes and wants to operate a smoking bar. You guys skirt around the
issue, but can't explain to me (and the others on this forum) why there
should be such a discriminatory and unfair law. This is the kind of law that
flies in the face of the US Constitution, one of whose purposes is to
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is no different
from a law that takes all of Bill Gates' money away from him and distributes
it to the rest of us. It is just like the law that prevented a guy back in
the 60's from starting a cable TV business.....The dumb California liberals
voted for that one too, and the guy had to take it to the California Supreme
court in order to get it overthrown. Today, he would have to take it to the
US Supreme court, and even there, he might lose. That's because the
Constitution had become a near dead document, and the socialists are the
ones who have caused that......I speak of you guys. You are the socialists
who have caused it. "Liberals" is far too nice a word for you. You are, and
will be, the death of freedom in this country, and you are too dumb to even
know it.

Bill Graham wrote:
Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California.

Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.

Smoking is legal on the street.

The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.

The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
important than the rights of anybody else.

--
Ray Fischer

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:41:46 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:

Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...


Fascists hate liberalism.

Deranged Liberals

Fascists hate liberalism.

Strange thing is that liberals call conservatives or anyone else
they hate Fascists. Trouble with that is that consevatives don't
ruin people's lives by taking away their freedoms through big
government, big spending and big taxes. Far Left Loons like to brag
about the Bill of Rights until somebody criticizes them, then they
use vitriolic adjectives to describe them. For liberals, it seems
that freedom of speech only goes as far as agreement.


so happy to see that "Ray Fischer" is still a stupid ****.

In message , Ray Fischer
writes
Bill Graham wrote:
Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California.

Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.

It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.

We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
environment.

We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.

Everyone has equal rights.

Smoking is legal on the street.
The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.

That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.

The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
important than the rights of anybody else.

The problem is Bill is NOT an American.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2010-01-08 01:33:50 -0800, Chris H said:

In message , Ray Fischer
writes
Bill Graham wrote:
Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California.

Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.

It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The problem
is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.

We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
environment.

We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol drinkers
to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.

Everyone has equal rights.

Smoking is legal on the street.
The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.

That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.

The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
important than the rights of anybody else.

The problem is Bill is NOT an American.

You may be correct. It seems Bill is a product of the planet Graham
(located somewhere in Oregon), where any foreign thought is declared
liberal or socialist regardless of the actual political bias of the
originator of those foreign thoughts.

Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be written
by conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money, and to control
his life.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message 2010010801530050073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2010-01-08 01:33:50 -0800, Chris H said:

In message , Ray Fischer
writes
Bill Graham wrote:
Easy to generalize, isn't it? Why don;t you address the central point? Why
can't a bartender operate a "smoking bar" in the city of Palo Alto,
California.
Because cigarette smoke is poisonous.
It is not the bar tender who decides it is the bar owner... The
problem
is the staff. They have rights too. Unless *all* the staff (bar staff,
cleaners, cloakroom staff, security, kitchen staff, waiters etc and the
owner want to smoke you can not inflict it on them.
We discussed this in a private club I attend. As it is private we
reasoned it was up to us not the law to decide. However the problem is
not all the staff were smokers. Some would prefer not to work in a smoky
environment.
We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol
drinkers
to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.
Everyone has equal rights.

Smoking is legal on the street.
The open air doesn't concentrate snoke.
That is the excuse for putting a lot of pollutants into the air. :-(

It is the libertarian view that this should be the law, and that to
force
all bars to be non-smoking is a transgression of the owner's property
rights.
The libertarian view seems to be that one's own rights are more
important than the rights of anybody else.
The problem is Bill is NOT an American.

You may be correct. It seems Bill is a product of the planet Graham
(located somewhere in Oregon), where any foreign thought is declared
liberal or socialist regardless of the actual political bias of the
originator of those foreign thoughts.

Exactly to be an American (or a member of any *society* ) one has to be
part of that society of people. If you want to be completely
individual and only have allegiance to your own family and few
neighbours rather than an imposed state Bill should move to a place
where they do that sort of thing for example

Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Africa etc in those areas they work locally
in village groups without any artificial "country" imposed upon them
where ever possible.

They like Bill do not like gays, sex outside wedlock, theft, taxes other
than local ones etc... of course most are Islamic :-)

Bill is also immune to historic fact,

We know that but there is no need to tell him...

and finds all Laws to be written by conspiratorial liberals trying to
steal his money, and to control his life.

SO only Liberals are law makers?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Bill is also immune to historic fact, and finds all Laws to be
written by conspiratorial liberals trying to steal his money,
and to control his life.

The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.
And Yes, liberals DO think the government should control your life
which is always curious since they scream freedom of speech until
someone disagrees.


--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich

Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

They like Bill do not like gays, sex outside wedlock, theft,
taxes other than local ones etc... of course most are Islamic

What's wrong with that? Yes, keep the money at the local or better
yet,the people level. Yes, marriage is between one man and one woman,
not two queers. Try reading the Bible occasionally. And, stop using
euphemisms to cover up what you really mean. There is nothing "gay"
about two guy porking each other. It always has been and always will
be a queer way to act, condemmed by the Bible as aginst God's law,
and just plain wrong.

--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices
and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich