Smoking Ban

On top of that , you would think that being in the middle of the sub-prime/balloon loan/fraud mortgage crisis brought on in large part because Rand-ite Alan Greenspan's free market ideas might be enough to sway or cause a little reflection. Look, part of me thinks if someone is stubborn or dumb enough to smoke, eat, or drive themself to death, then so be it...

Uh, how about people who were "dumb" enough to buy more house than they could afford? Or, perhaps they were too "dumb" to read the mortgage contract. Personal responsibility? Anyone?

On top of that , you would think that being in the middle of the sub-prime/balloon loan/fraud mortgage crisis brought on in large part because Rand-ite Alan Greenspan's free market ideas might be enough to sway or cause a little reflection. Look, part of me thinks if someone is stubborn or dumb enough to smoke, eat, or drive themself to death, then so be it...

Uh, how about people who were "dumb" enough to buy more house than they could afford? Or, perhaps they were too "dumb" to read the mortgage contract. Personal responsibility? Anyone?

By the same token, how about those that were "dumb" enough to let their greed override their sense of fiscal and ethical responsibility long enough to facilitate and/or underwrite the loans, often misrepresenting themselves and their clients in the process?

By the same token, how about those that were "dumb" enough to let their greed override their sense of fiscal and ethical responsibility long enough to facilitate and/or underwrite the loans, often misrepresenting themselves and their clients in the process?

I completely agree about the ethical lapses by the mortgage writing/brokering firms in the past few years. I just tire of hearing about the poor people who just never stood a chance to say "no thank you" to a stupid deal that one could have drive a truck through at the time.

In many cases, yes, people were foolish or taking tremendous gambles. However, you can't overlook (and also realize the actual motivation for the bail-out of sorts) who is really benefiting (Wall Street) from these loans going through. Countrywide, for example, will likely face charges for fraud, as they were outright lying to customers and literally tricking people, senior citizens and otherwise. The worst thing for capitalism, in my opinion, is unchecked hands-off capitalism.

Wall Street, sure. Countrywide, sure. But how about the hundreds (thousands?) of small mortgage brokerage firms that sprung up, sold a bunch of home equity lines with six points of "fees" built in, and then disappeared when the market blew up? I can name a half dozen right here in Louisville that meet that description. Guys driving expensive cars at the expense of mom and pop trying to consolidate the credit cards. So, while the big guys certainly benefited from the whole mess, so did a whole lot of smaller players that are right around the corner from most of us here in the community. I'm just saying, there are lots of dirty hands in this blowing-out bubble, and both clients and companies share the blame. (And, that is not an indictment of all brokers or underwriters, only those who knowingly offered bad product.)

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that "what are they going to do next?" is ever an effective argument against what they are doing now. You got to fight what they are doing now on its own.

I will fight those laws that matter to me. I spend lots of time and money fighting proposed bills that will limit citizens ability to seek redress in the courts. I will fight any law to further restrict my freedom of speech, my right to privacy, and state supported religion. But, I truly do not believe that the smoking ban was a "moral" issue, as least it never was for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water.

Wall Street, sure. Countrywide, sure. But how about the hundreds (thousands?) of small mortgage brokerage firms that sprung up, sold a bunch of home equity lines with six points of "fees" built in, and then disappeared when the market blew up? I can name a half dozen right here in Louisville that meet that description. Guys driving expensive cars at the expense of mom and pop trying to consolidate the credit cards. So, while the big guys certainly benefited from the whole mess, so did a whole lot of smaller players that are right around the corner from most of us here in the community. I'm just saying, there are lots of dirty hands in this blowing-out bubble, and both clients and companies share the blame. (And, that is not an indictment of all brokers or underwriters, only those who knowingly offered bad product.)

absolutely. I saw one the other day. He drives a beautiful silver Porsche 911. I wonder how many of his clients are in foreclosure?

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that "what are they going to do next?" is ever an effective argument against what they are doing now. You got to fight what they are doing now on its own.

I will fight those laws that matter to me. I spend lots of time and money fighting proposed bills that will limit citizens ability to seek redress in the courts. I will fight any law to further restrict my freedom of speech, my right to privacy, and state supported religion. But, I truly do not believe that the smoking ban was a "moral" issue, as least it never was for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water.

So obviously, you did not read the article I sent you a link to. Probably a good idea because it may expose you to possibilities that discount your whole argument. We can't have that now, can we?

Wall Street, sure. Countrywide, sure. But how about the hundreds (thousands?) of small mortgage brokerage firms that sprung up, sold a bunch of home equity lines with six points of "fees" built in, and then disappeared when the market blew up? I can name a half dozen right here in Louisville that meet that description. Guys driving expensive cars at the expense of mom and pop trying to consolidate the credit cards. So, while the big guys certainly benefited from the whole mess, so did a whole lot of smaller players that are right around the corner from most of us here in the community. I'm just saying, there are lots of dirty hands in this blowing-out bubble, and both clients and companies share the blame. (And, that is not an indictment of all brokers or underwriters, only those who knowingly offered bad product.)

absolutely. I saw one the other day. He drives a beautiful silver Porsche 911. I wonder how many of his clients are in foreclosure?

Was it a turbo? That tells one everything about ethics ...

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that "what are they going to do next?" is ever an effective argument against what they are doing now. You got to fight what they are doing now on its own.

I will fight those laws that matter to me. I spend lots of time and money fighting proposed bills that will limit citizens ability to seek redress in the courts. I will fight any law to further restrict my freedom of speech, my right to privacy, and state supported religion. But, I truly do not believe that the smoking ban was a "moral" issue, as least it never was for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water.

So obviously, you did not read the article I sent you a link to. Probably a good idea because it may expose you to possibilities that discount your whole argument. We can't have that now, can we?

Ron, please tell me you did not just say you would fight any law that further restricts "state supported religion"??(maybe I am reading more into that statement than I need to but that separation of church and state thing looms omnipresent, or so I thought).......hope that is a typo! That slippery slope may just get real squirrely for the pagans and athiests out there......

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that "what are they going to do next?" is ever an effective argument against what they are doing now. You got to fight what they are doing now on its own.

I will fight those laws that matter to me. I spend lots of time and money fighting proposed bills that will limit citizens ability to seek redress in the courts. I will fight any law to further restrict my freedom of speech, my right to privacy, and state supported religion. But, I truly do not believe that the smoking ban was a "moral" issue, as least it never was for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water.

So obviously, you did not read the article I sent you a link to. Probably a good idea because it may expose you to possibilities that discount your whole argument. We can't have that now, can we?

I read the article, but it had nothing to say about my position that the smoking ban is constitutional and the outcome of a majority position. In all honesty this is not an issue that I give a shit about enough to respond to that kind of sarcasm. It's smoking cigarettes for christ's sake.

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

I agree with all of that, but I don't think that "what are they going to do next?" is ever an effective argument against what they are doing now. You got to fight what they are doing now on its own.

I will fight those laws that matter to me. I spend lots of time and money fighting proposed bills that will limit citizens ability to seek redress in the courts. I will fight any law to further restrict my freedom of speech, my right to privacy, and state supported religion. But, I truly do not believe that the smoking ban was a "moral" issue, as least it never was for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water.

So obviously, you did not read the article I sent you a link to. Probably a good idea because it may expose you to possibilities that discount your whole argument. We can't have that now, can we?

I read the article, but it had nothing to say about my position that the smoking ban is constitutional and the outcome of a majority position. In all honesty this is not an issue that I give a shit about enough to respond to that kind of sarcasm. It's smoking cigarettes for christ's sake.

Ron, what's up with you? You know I'm pretty tongue and cheek and I thought you were too. Obviously you "give a shit" enough to respond over and over on the subject and too take offense to a little ribbing. But to resort to profanity, I'm shocked! Yeah right.

This article is written by one of New York's most respected journalists and he simply shows the blind fervor behind the movement. You said "for me, it was simply a public health issue like clean water". This article brings up the possibility that we do not know for sure if that is a major issue and all of a sudden it's about whether it is constitutional or not and the the result of a majority position? I have four words for you...WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? Hey the majority voted that corrupt group back in. Does that mean it is ok? This is not about smoking and you know it. It is about standing up to any and every law that gets passed that puts government deeper into our lives and takes away our ability to make decisions for ourselves.

Take the last work after this because I'm done. Logic does not prevail in the face of zealots or addicts. Neither side will ever be satisfied with the results or listen to reason. So it is and always will be.

Happy New Years!

...This is not about smoking and you know it....

Actually, that's exactly what it's about. I don't believe in your "dominoes falling" theory.

[Robin Garr]

...This is not about smoking and you know it....

Actually, that's exactly what it's about. I don't believe in your "dominoes falling" theory.

Hear hear! Or here here! Whatever!

It IS about smoking.

...This is not about smoking and you know it....

Actually, that's exactly what it's about. I don't believe in your "dominoes falling" theory.

Hear hear! Or here here! Whatever!

It IS about smoking.

Big time! I've been nice about this and offered my empathy to all smokers, We can work this out..... Enough is enough, I'm tired of hearing these smokers who have no idea or care how smoking effects other people, rave on about how it's all about rights.

I'd love to turn the tables on them and let them feel what it is like not to be addicted to that crap and have to put up with it.

Like I said before, take it outside and let us all eat together.

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere and you smokers don't have a right to kill me and make me smell like a butt.

Does common sense have no hold in here?

It's sickening to have to fight for this.

I di-gress.