I came across this on another board where I am also considered a troll

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Monday, June 18, 2007 00:58
VIEWED: 10040
PAGE 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:03 PM

Any thoughts? I promise not to tell you to stick a fork in your ass or fuck your mother, because of your response....

1st poster...."The Constitution is not a legal code. It doesn't enumerate specific powers. It enumerates specific *categories* of powers. Even Scalia and Thomas, insane originalists and textualists agree on that point."

2nd poster's response...."Legal code" can kiss my ass, because the Constitution is still the law of the land, and according to the very clear intent spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, and according to the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, it DOES enumerate specific, limited powers the government is NEVER meant to overstep. Any power not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved to the states and/or to the people.

Those of you who still believe in elements of the welfare/warfare state, get it through your heads: Government is no more or less than a bludgeon. Government is force. Government is a gun. That is all it is and all it can ever be. Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master. If you do not believe in initiating deadly force in order to make sure a person doesn't smoke in a restaurant that isn't yours, you cannot support a smoking ban without living a delusion.

Bigger federal government is ALWAYS bad.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Thursday, June 7, 2007 4:54 AM

However the Constitution gives one the right to life without due process of law, and as the overwhelming medical evidence shows that second hand smoke is carcinogenic, that would mean Joe Smoker is violating my constitutional and Natural right to life ((We Hold these truths to be self evident and whatnot)) which is tantamount to murder. Additionally considering the death involved with Lung Cancer, he would be violating my Eighth amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

I personally hold that the Government should only enforce the rights given or implied by the constitution, and thusly should also give everyone a fair start and equality in relation to things necessary to live a productive life, namely -
Good Healthcare
Good Education ((Which we really don't have))
Good Housing
A Good Job
Apart from these, government funded programs simply tend to encourage inequality. Granted, numerous government programs exist beyond these simple things that do need to exist like NASA, the postal service, Park Rangers, the National Weather Service, but these tend to inderectly be supporting our constitutional rights. Oil Company Subsidies, Subsidies for Mega-Conglomerates, et al. however do not relate to our constitutional rights and are a waste of our money. If we wanted to support those things we'd pay for them ourselves.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

GORBISHUN

Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
However the Constitution gives one the right to life without due process of law, and as the overwhelming medical evidence shows that second hand smoke is carcinogenic, that would mean Joe Smoker is violating my constitutional and Natural right to life ((We Hold these truths to be self evident and whatnot)) which is tantamount to murder. Additionally considering the death involved with Lung Cancer, he would be violating my Eighth amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

I personally hold that the Government should only enforce the rights given or implied by the constitution, and thusly should also give everyone a fair start and equality in relation to things necessary to live a productive life, namely -
Good Healthcare
Good Education ((Which we really don't have))
Good Housing
A Good Job
Apart from these, government funded programs simply tend to encourage inequality. Granted, numerous government programs exist beyond these simple things that do need to exist like NASA, the postal service, Park Rangers, the National Weather Service, but these tend to inderectly be supporting our constitutional rights. Oil Company Subsidies, Subsidies for Mega-Conglomerates, et al. however do not relate to our constitutional rights and are a waste of our money. If we wanted to support those things we'd pay for them ourselves.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

Amen!

_________________________________________
«°-:-°»Also... I can kill you with my brain.«°-:-°»

REAVERMAN

Friday, June 8, 2007 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
However the Constitution gives one the right to life without due process of law, and as the overwhelming medical evidence shows that second hand smoke is carcinogenic, that would mean Joe Smoker is violating my constitutional and Natural right to life ((We Hold these truths to be self evident and whatnot)) which is tantamount to murder. Additionally considering the death involved with Lung Cancer, he would be violating my Eighth amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

True, but a simple solution to that is to make special outdoor/indoor smoking areas, so us non-smokers can go about our lives. There is no need to ban smoking. In fact, though I don't smoke, and I despise what the tobacco companies have been doing, I support a person's right to smoke.

We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To some people, self destructive behaviors bring HAPPINESS. So, they should have the LIBERTY to smoke, and to decide what to do with their LIVES.

As far as I'm concerned, a persons life is jut that: Their life. I don't have the right to interfere, you don't have the right to interfere, and the Government certainly doesn't have the right to interfere.

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

HERO

Friday, June 8, 2007 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master.

You know what's even more like fire? Fire. So we have a fire department and they put the fires out. Good thing we have government.

H

HERO

Friday, June 8, 2007 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
True, but a simple solution to that is to make special outdoor/indoor smoking areas, so us non-smokers can go about our lives. There is no need to ban smoking. In fact, though I don't smoke, and I despise what the tobacco companies have been doing, I support a person's right to smoke.

I agree. But what about waitresses? Should they be forced to work in an unsafe enviorment? I think folk should be allowed to smoke in designated public areas and in any private area.

Ohio's gone over the bend on this one, no smoking anywhere with very few exceptions. As a Prosecutor I will not enforce it if I can avoid it.

H

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 8, 2007 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
However the Constitution gives one the right to life without due process of law...

I personally hold that the Government should only enforce the rights given or implied by the constitution...

The government doesn't "give" us rights, or "enforce" them - whatever that means. The Constitution is a set of rules for government. That's a point most people miss these days. Regular laws, which are intended to be primarily handled by the states, apply to citizens. The Constitution applies to the government. It outlines the responsibilities and limitations of government. Apart from the Bill of Rights, it doesn't really address individual rights.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:02 PM

I consider, for these purposes, the bill of rights to be within the constitution as they are amendments to said constitution. As to the government giving and enforcing rights, I don't think I said that the government gives us rights, the Constitution does. I also feel that the government should primarily work to enforce those rights as opposed to giving Oil Companies subsidies and the like. That is a big problem in America today in my opinion. Also, "regular laws" as you put it are subject to the laws set down by congress due to the supremacy clause, which means that congress is also putting down laws as to the behaviours of citizens.

As to the individuals right to smoke, I would agree that they have the right to kill themselves with their cancer-sticks, but they don't have the right to kill//harm me with them too. Same goes for the waitress who serves them. I think that there should be dedicated smoking lounges for institutions that wish to allow smoking, but those customers and employees who don't want to work in them shouldn't have to on the grounds of possible damage to their health. I don't know the specifics of the law in Ohio, but if they limit a person's right to smoke in their own home or on their property, then I would applaud your decision not to prosecute them on those grounds. However, smoking in public places which are not designated as "Smoke Friendly Areas" should be limited.

My question to you Hero, Reaverman, et al. is what do you feel about the legalization of currently illegal narcotics such as MDMA ((Ecstasy)) or Cannabis? Neither of these are killers like cigarettes and alcohol, and can be used in certain situations for medicinal purposes ((Though the medicinal value of Cannabis is disputed by the federal government.)) I personally feel that they should be made legal, firstly to improve safety with them by guaranteeing their purity, and secondly because they have a limited ((Read: Possibly Negligible)) negative affect on others around the user. People shouldn't be allowed to drive on these two substances, just like alcohol, but neither of them are nearly as damaging to the user as cigarettes ((Yes, MDMA Linked deaths do occur, however they are rare and with proper precautions could be eliminated)). Also, at least with MDMA but I think cannabis as well, carcinogenic smoke and other detritus is not released, which places the aforementioned limited negative affect on others. Some drugs, like Heroin, Methamphetamine, and Cocaine, should remain illegal in my opinion because they are dangerous to people other than the user and each has been related to crime with the intent to gain money to buy more.

Just so you know, I'm straight edge and do not use any of the drugs mentioned above. I'm just a socialist leaning libertarian ((Odd as that sounds)) and therefore feel that the illegality of certain things is morally and ethically wrong.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

KELKHIL

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
However the Constitution gives one the right to life without due process of law, and as the overwhelming medical evidence shows that second hand smoke is carcinogenic, that would mean Joe Smoker is violating my constitutional and Natural right to life ((We Hold these truths to be self evident and whatnot)) which is tantamount to murder. Additionally considering the death involved with Lung Cancer, he would be violating my Eighth amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

True, but a simple solution to that is to make special outdoor/indoor smoking areas, so us non-smokers can go about our lives. There is no need to ban smoking. In fact, though I don't smoke, and I despise what the tobacco companies have been doing, I support a person's right to smoke.

We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To some people, self destructive behaviors bring HAPPINESS. So, they should have the LIBERTY to smoke, and to decide what to do with their LIVES.

As far as I'm concerned, a persons life is jut that: Their life. I don't have the right to interfere, you don't have the right to interfere, and the Government certainly doesn't have the right to interfere.

I partially agree with this. But there is one thing that is missing.

If I was a business owner say of a Pub (

) and I was "Told" that I was to no longer allow smoking in my business I would be upset. It is MY BUSINESS and I should be the one to choose if I want to ban smoking or not. I started it with money I earned or had to borrow and am paying back with my hard earned money.

If I allowed smoking and you do not smoke and do not want to be around it Don't Come In. That is pretty simple (the reverse works as well) but it is your choice to not come in, as it is my choice to allow smoking.

The whole rule of "the customer is always right" only goes so far. It is after all MY BUSINESS and I will be damned if I am going to let some one who thinks that just because they have spent some money in my establishment they have a right to dictate to me how it should be run. Go start your own Pub and stay the

out of mine!

Kelkhil

The Shirtless Forsaken

LEADB

Saturday, June 9, 2007 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master.

You know what's even more like fire? Fire. So we have a fire department and they put the fires out. Good thing we have government.
H

Our Fire department does work very well. Of course... it's a volunteer fire department. Funded by folks they help out, donations, etc. So, government does what there for me?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE