Gore's consumption news

#105
#105
He is the Chief Executive. His job funtion is not as an executor. So, to me it matters none what he does with his time, as long as he has provided his subordinates with his plan.
 
#110
#110
StunnA N' Orange said:
You seem like a very bitter man.. How are you going to feel when a republican no longer leads our country in 2008?? Democrats are already taking the majority in the house and senate back, it's also not looking for America's view on this absurd war that Bush got us in.. The Republican Party will be on an all-time low next year.
Click to expand...
Which democrat is capable of winning and following that up by actually leading something? Surely you don't view Hillary as the answer to this question. Obama can't win and the others have already lost to the worst candidate the republicans could field.
 
#111
#111
If his plan sucks, then what difference is it going to make if he is off chopping wood or riding bikes?

Sounds like your gripe is off target.

Anyway, close of business, I'm out.
 
#118
#118
Well, they were going out in 09 but I guess Bush signed something this past week stating that reserve units are only going to be gone for a year and that includes training before heading over. So instead of training for 3 months and going out they are only getting a month before going out.
 
#119
#119
therealUT said:
First, you don't know me. You have no idea of who I have lost in my life through drunk driving, drugs, chemical induced suicides, etc. So, don't try to conquer the "moral high ground" through playing to emotions. If you are afraid of the effects of alcohol, drugs, etc. then stay away from them and do not be at "the wrong place at the wrong time." It is really that simple.
Second, if a restaurant chooses to be smoke-free I am fine with it (I am not a smoker.) If a restaurant chooses to cater solely to smokers, I most likely will not eat there. However, I believe that people should have the right to make that decision. If you don't, there are plenty of countries in the world whose foundation is not based on personal liberty.
Click to expand...
You also have no idea who or what I've lost , so what's the point. If you are driving down the highway or your way to work and get T-boned by some drunk driver how are you suppossed to stay out of the "wrong place"? We are gauranteed freedoms by the Constitution but with freedom there also has to be responsibilty . The Constution gives us the right to bear arms , but not to go out and shoot someone. You have the right to buy and consume alcohol but not to get plastered and then get behind the wheel. You have the right to buy and smoke cigarettes and destroy your lungs but not to destroy other peoples lungs. Personal liberty ceases to be when it endangers the "life , liberty and the pirsuit of happiness" of others.
 
#120
#120
Pursuit of happiness includes the right for smokers to congregate at a local eating establishment friendly to their lifestyle choice. Telling me I cannot have a business that allows smoking is restricting my pursuit of happiness. Telling me I cannot allow a legal choice of smoking is restricting my pursuit of happiness.

Your pursuit of happiness is quite fine on your own property. But you've become what you say you're against when you use the power of government to restrict legal behavior on my property.
 
#121
#121
Actually, In the case or resteraunt smoking, I'm more for enforcing better separation of the smoking crowd from the non-smokers, as I said before a lattice work partition just doesn't cut it. Smokers can congregate at a bar (where you are suppossed to smoke, but have a designated driver please) after they eat. Yes, as the consumer I can choose to go elsewhere , but as a good neighbor I can also choose not to force my smoke on someone else's lungs.
 
#122
#122
...I also feel that life was listed before pirsuit of happiness for a reason.
 
#123
#123
If the restaurant owner wants to put a smoking table adjacent to a non-smoking table, HE SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT! The government should not come in to his restaurant and partition it how they see fit.

As for the drinking and driving problem, send them off to jail for manslaughter or aggravated assault if and when they cause an accident. Do the same thing for people who fall asleep at the wheel, talk on their cellphone, eat and drive, read and drive, apply make-up and drive, etc. when their actions cause an accident. If someone is drunk and they navigate the roads safely, then what harm have they caused? Can their be a crime without a victim?
 
#124
#124
therealUT said:
If the restaurant owner wants to put a smoking table adjacent to a non-smoking table, HE SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT! The government should not come in to his restaurant and partition it how they see fit.

As for the drinking and driving problem, send them off to jail for manslaughter or aggravated assault if and when they cause an accident. Do the same thing for people who fall asleep at the wheel, talk on their cellphone, eat and drive, read and drive, apply make-up and drive, etc. when their actions cause an accident. If someone is drunk and they navigate the roads safely, then what harm have they caused? Can their be a crime without a victim?
Click to expand...


Ok, shoot a gun into a crowd and kill no one and you can just go on your merry way? No victim no crime?
 
#125
#125
volmanjr said:
[/b]

Ok, shoot a gun into a crowd and kill no one and you can just go on your merry way? No victim no crime?
Click to expand...
Was there an intent to harm, or was the shooter simply popping a shot off in celebration, carelessness, etc? If there is intent, there is always an 'intended victim.' So, if no one was harmed and/or there was no 'intended victim' then why would you prosecute someone?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top