Employer Tells His Employees That They Can’t Smoke – And Their Spouses Can’t Either

Okay, we all know that smoking is bad for you. And most of us agree that an employer who provides expensive health care benefits to their employees should probably be able to dictate whether or not those employees use tobacco products.
But this guy is taking his authority as an employer one giant step too far:

Howard Weyers tried the “carrot” approach by giving his employees incentives and encouragement to quit smoking. But when that didn’t work, he resorted to the stick. A big stick.
Weyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Lansing, Mich., gave his 200 employees an ultimatum in 2004: Quit smoking in 15 months or lose your job. He refused to hire smokers. Ultimately, he extended his smoking ban to employees’ spouses and monitored compliance through mandatory random blood testing.

He’s telling employees spouses, who do NOT work for him, that if they smoke their husbands/wives can’t work for him either. The self appointed health police like the idea, of course:

But participants in a smoking cessation forum hosted Monday by the Commonwealth Club of California found the idea nonetheless intriguing.
“We’re talking about ending an epidemic. This is a global pandemic,” said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, likening Weyers’ approach to controlling an outbreak of disease.

A little extreme?
You betcha.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – I don’t consider that request to be considerate at all; it is a game to try to manipulate the natural tolerance of non smokers…

    And this is where we come to a head. Because,…

    I know the truth hurts, but it’s the truth.

    Well, for the record, I will often ask if someone minds if I smoke a cigarette while they are in my vicinity. I do this out of consideration.

    Can you handle that truth or do you insist on denying it?

    *shrugs*

    This truth doesn’t have to hurt – we don’t all fit into a neat little monolithic box.

  • robert108

    He calls everybody he disagrees with a liar.

    Wrong. I call those who repeatedly lie “liars”. When someone tells one lie, I call it a lie, I don’t call them a liar based on one instance.

    Man is always the master of his own gluttony.

    I disagree; gluttony implies lack of control.

    I see you try to conflate smoking(a choice) with free speech(actually a right). That dog won’t hunt.

  • zakk

    pparets – for the record I just assumed that robbie108 and robert108 were the same person.

  • WhatTha?

    “Really, if smoking was that awful, why isn’t it against the law? Oh, that’s right, everyone loves the benefits of the tax dollars smoking generates.”

    Yup, the legislature had a proposal a few years ago to make tobacco products illegal in North Dakota. Guess who worked to kill it? The heart association, cancer society and lung association! Why…’cause their $$$ would have dried up.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – Wrong. The real asshat is the smoker who doesn’t know how offensive his addiction is to non smokers.

    Nothing wrong with noting that a considerate question posed to you unleashes a most inconsiderate response.

  • robert108

    I do this out of consideration.

    Why do you even ask, if you aren’t aware how offensive and harmful it is to those who choose not to smoke?
    If you really think it’s “a right”, why ask at all?

  • robert108

    Smoking is drug addiction.

  • Choices anyone?

    I don’t understand why the government feels they have the right to dictate to a business owner about what goes on in his own establishment. I think it should be the right of the restaurant/bar owner to allow smoking if they choose to. The only ‘regulation’ that should be put on the business is that they post very visable signs stating that ‘the establishment you are about to enter allows smoking. Smoking has been known to cause lung cancer (etc) and by entering you acknowledge that you may be subjected to second-hand smoke.’ Or something along those lines that would satisfy the lawyers.

    This gives the people entering the establishment the freedom to CHOOSE! What a novel concept! The business will not succeed if people decide not to risk it, but at least the choice is still there for those that do want a place to socialize and (gasp) smoke.

    And… I’m a non-smoker. Just one who believes in freedom.

  • ellinas

    I for one, not for a moment thought that robie108 and Robert108 are the same person. Do those of you bitching have a problem distinguishing between the two? Or is it you can’t see the satire/sarcasm deservedly heaped upon our beloved Robert108. Get over it,

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    Hey, cut out the sex, you’re showing up to work tired.

    Especially you women who get knocked up as a result of your sex, automatically ensuring a 6 week maternity leave as a result.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Says the lying sockpuppet.

    Perhaps the dimmest of lying sockpuppets! He fools no one, but manages to cast doubt on everything he says with his dishonesty. (I think he has lint for brains!)

  • kbiel

    Eh, I wouldn’t work for the guy, even though neither I nor my wife smoke. That being said, Mr. Weyers is perfectly within his rights to set a standard for his employees, no matter how unreasonable. I believe the market will take care of people like Mr. Weyers as it will eventually become more expensive for him to hire people.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Ken: I see him satirizing Leftist positions. Hell, Hannitized is a parody of Leftist positions. How would one tell the difference? Heh.

    I, myself, have called Hannitized “Olbermannized” in comments whenever he would channel the smarmy one excessively. But, I never resorted to sock puppetry!

    If “Olbermanized” was someone’s sock puppet, then shame on them! But, if someone decides to show up and call themselves whatever they choose, (like “Hannitized” when they clearly aren’t)…this is “Say Anything”!

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    I love the faux-outrage over someone satirizing r108. If I remember correctly someone did the exact same thing to Hannitized under the name “Olbermanized”. No one said dick about it then.

    Ken: You make the assumption that “Olbermanized” was satirizing the person of Hannitized. That’s not necessarily so. A person could imply “I am Olbermanized in the same that you are Hannitized”. The sock puppet named “Robbie 108″ has no such plausible explanation.

  • robert108

    Once again, you have no “right to smoke”; you have a right to choose to smoke, but then must accept the consequences of your actions, both in personal health consequences, and in the reactions of non smokers to you putting your shit in their lungs.

  • robert108

    zakk: BTW, thanks for asking, instead of putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say, or preaching to me or using stupid personal attack.

  • robert108

    Quite the Pandora’s Box.

    Only in your own mind. The reality is that smokers have brought this on themselves with their addiction and their arrogance. I’m tired of having toxic smoke forced on me.
    When a smoker asks me(which only rarely happens, btws) if I mind if they smoke, I ask them if they mind me taking a shit in their lungs.
    When the smoke goes away, the complaints will go away.
    BTW, this whole thing is meaningless unless toxic, health-threatening stuff turns up in the blood of the employees in question. No harm, no foul.

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    Not when it violates someone else’s right to not breathe your smoke.

    The owner’s not taking a stand against second hand smoke. He’s taking a stand against people even smoking within the confines of their own home in the name of healthcare expenses for his company.

  • robert108

    I believe the market will take care of people like Mr. Weyers as it will eventually become more expensive for him to hire people.

    On the other hand, with “clean employees”, he might get more productivity, due to less sick time being taken, and he might be more competitive due to lower overhead with healthcare cost. The market, indeed.

  • ec99

    “Only in your own mind.”

    Hardly. If you noticed, my point concerns the extent to which an employer can dictate a person’s private life. Smoking is just a part of that. What of the employer who says: Quit clogging your arteries with fast food? Don’t drive that sub-compact, you’ll get severely injured in a crash. And sell that motorcycle? You’re allowed one pregnancy? What do you mean you’re going sky diving? The Box is open. Just have to wait and see what all flies out.

  • robert108

    If you noticed, my point concerns the extent to which an employer can dictate a person’s private life.

    If you noticed, this all revolves around a blood test. As I said before, if the blood test doesn’t turn up any unhealthy effects on the employee from the spouse’s smoking, nothing happens. And if it does, then there’s a good reason for the test. Get it?

    “What if…” Pure hysteria.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    but I think most of the readers understood what was being communicated by “robbie108″

    That you did not have the wit or the intellect to defeat his argument directly, so you attempted to use second rate sarcasm and sock puppetry to mock him?

    Yeah. We got that!

  • robert108

    The self appointed health police…

    Another non-existent entity, like Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy”. The reality is that the 75% of American adults that choose to be smoke-free are just tired of having to breathe the toxic waste of arrogant smokers.

  • Fred

    Not when it violates someone else’s right to not breathe your smoke.

    If I want to smoke in the privacy of my own home or outside in a public area I think I are completely entitled to. You have the choice of not standing next to me. I am all about the smoking ban in restaurants and other enclosed public areas for obvious reasons but when it comes to being outside, I really don’t think second hand smoke comes into the equation. I am not even a smoker, in fact I hate smoking but I don’t think it isn’t anyone’s business what I do to my body unless you are paying for my health and or life insurance.

  • robert108

    “Hey President Roosevelt, what if we round up all the Japanese Americans and put them in camps?”

    Considering the intel capabilities at that time, it was the right thing to do; the bad thing was in not giving their stuff back after the war, with compensation for those who weren’t spies.

  • robert108

    Oh, that’s right, everyone loves the
    benefits of the tax dollars smoking generates.

    Bullshit. Smoking costs more than it generates, and only the political class benefits from taxes.

    Sparkie: Yet another invalid analogy from you. We won the war, so the strategy worked. I do think you could lock yourself in a padded room, though. It would probably improve the quality of life for the rest of us.

  • robert108

    *shaking my head in amazement*

    Might be Parkinson’s; you should get a checkup.

    I was replying to another commenter’s assertion of a “right to smoke”. Get it? You changed the subject.
    You know, they have drugs for that.

  • robert108

    The owner’s not taking a stand against second hand smoke.

    Yes, he is; that’s the point of the blood test.
    BTW, I notice you didn’t address the violation of non-smokers’ rights.

  • Bat One

    Amazed,

    You’ve got next to nothing straight!! If the employer is paying for health insurance coverage as part of an employee’s compensation, and making coverage available for family members as well, then almost any toad can see that the employer has a legitimate interest in behavior that bears directly on what he must pay to provide that coverage.

    Perhaps if you paid a bit more careful attention to what is, and what is not being said, and tried to be a bit less frantic in your comments, you might find yourself less “amazed” and more in tune with reality.

  • zakk

    Leave it up to “Fred” to turn this into a Dem\Rep issue. Since your jackass went there, isn’t it the Dems always preaching about ‘choice’ and ‘it’s my body’? Oh, I’m sorry does that only count if your killing an unborn child.
    As far as my “poor, or soon to be poor health status”, funny, my Aunt died of Lung Cancer and she never smoked nor did her parents. Now, my Grandmother (not my Aunts mother) smoked all her life and died from old age. By the way FRED does the name Jim Fixx mean anything to you? Look it up.
    As far as the argument that ‘non-smokers’ rights are being violated. How are you being violated when it was your lobby that first put us outside, then showed us where to stand. Best I can tell, we are playing by your rules. But I guess your just never going to be happy are you. Probably not, probably because you are just a miserable person and your using the fight against smoking to mask it.

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    BTW, I notice you didn’t address the violation of non-smokers’ rights.

    Uhh, because it’s impossible to smoke within the confines of your own home AND violate somebody else’s right to smoke free air?

    *shaking my head in amazement*

  • Fred

    Here’s what I think, I think everyone out there who bitches and complains about MY smoking, needs to walk up to me and shake my hand and thank me for smoking.

    Then they should also thank you for wasting thousands of our tax dollars on your poor, or soon to be poor health status due to the irresponsible decisions you have made in your life. Don’t republicans promote personal responsibility?

  • Amazed

    So… let me get this straight. You people are ok with an employer dictating what you do on your off-time? What if he decides alcohol is a danger to the liver and therefore is off limits? Or perhaps no more snow skiing because the insurance bills for broken legs are getting out of control. May sound a little extreme, but this is ridiculous! And I would bet that the same bunch of people saying this is ok are the same bunch of folks who scream at the Patriot Act, right?

    And… on a broader note… if anyone thinks the government is not going to be just as intrusive once we have socialized healthcare shoved down our throats, you are niave and dumb. Please continue to campaign for the marxist, socialist Obama. At least we know for sure where you stand on ‘Democracy’ and freedom of choice.

  • ec99

    The question then becomes How long is the reach of an employer into the private life of an employee? So he has gotten rid of all the smokers and thier spouses. Does he then monitor their diet? No Big Macs or Whoppers for you! Does he enter their bedrooms? Hey, cut out the sex, you’re showing up to work tired. Quite the Pandora’s Box.

  • zakk

    Bobby, this isn’t what you’ve been saying. You’ve been saying you want to “Shit Down Their Throats” I think that’s a pretty far cry from “All we want is some consideration from the tobacco addicts”.

    I also don’t know how you feel your not getting consideration, we are smoking next to the dumpster, or around the corner from the entrance of the buildings, or outside in the cold or heat.

    “This arrogance has consequences.” What are you Ming The Merciless? This arrogance has consequences, the only one who seems at all arrogant is you. We quietly go along with whatever the non-smoking lobby wants. You want us outside? BOOM we’re outside. You want us 20-50 feet away from the front door? – BOOM we are 20-50 feet away from the front door.

    I CHOOSE TO SMOKE – IT IS MY RIGHT TO SMOKE – UNTIL YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS AT THE HOLIER THAN THOU SOCIETY MAKE IT ILLEGAL, I WILL SMOKE.

    Bravo on ‘beneficent’ now THAT was used in the proper context. A total load of crap, but at least it made sense within your idea. Bobby gets a gold star!

  • zakk

    The last time I checked, MY employer takes money out of MY check for MY health insurance. Therefore, I think MY employer can ask me not to smoke, they can make me go outside to smoke, they can take away smoke breaks, but they sure as fuck can’t tell my wife she can’t smoke. Especially since she has her own insurance.
    Now, if MY employer paid for my insurance and I didn’t pay anything for it, sure, then they would have a leg to stand on. But until then, they can kiss my ass. The way I see it, we’re kind of in this 50/50.
    I’m so tired of being treated like a leper. Really, if smoking was that awful, why isn’t it against the law? Oh, that’s right, everyone loves the benefits of the tax dollars smoking generates.
    Here’s what I think, I think everyone out there who bitches and complains about MY smoking, needs to walk up to me and shake my hand and thank me for smoking. If it wasn’t for me and my ilk, there would be a lot less money to be wasted by useless politicians.

  • Chuck

    One more, then I have to get back to work. This is fun…you have alot of post here…ALOT of posts….you must be a very non productive, like one of those little girls who texts her friends 1000 times a week….your therapist is calling

  • kbiel

    So… let me get this straight. You people are ok with an employer dictating what you do on your off-time?

    No, I’m not. That’s why I wouldn’t work for such an employer. That doesn’t change the fact that Mr. Weyers has the right to conduct his business as he sees fit. So if he wants to ban alcohol use, skiing, et cetera, then he is well within his rights to do so, just as you and I are within our rights to not work for him.

  • robert108

    you proffer the non sequitor

    If you think that winning a war doesn’t make what you did a success, then you just aren’t in the real world. The only thing that matters in war is winning.
    It’s non sequitur, btw.

    “Don’t write naughty words on walls if you can’t spell…”

    Tom Lehrer, Be Prepared.

  • Chuck

    If we get rid of everything that is bad for us, quit driving the dangerous roads, eat only “APPROVED” healthy foods, eliminate everything, EVERYTHING, that can kill us or others, we would all be pretty miserable, and we would STILL DIE!! Do you people really think your risk from other people smoke is any more real than your risk of driving to work or gramma’s house on sunday afternoon? EVERYTHING involves risk, the rest is just some poeple trying to control what risks people take…that and a bunch of hypocrites who think only they have the right way…this is the same as any common religious nut who thinks only one viewpoint is the truth, and only they know what we all need.
    I would list all the things in our lives that kill us all the time, but that would take alot of work as the list would be 400 pages or more. I might collapse and die and then you smoke nazis’s would be one step closer to total world domination….cant have that just yet

  • Zakk

    robert108, do you own a car?
    Do you ride a Bus?
    Not to be gross, but do you ever release gas (fart)?
    Well, it looks like you are forcing people to breath your shit.
    How is it up there, you know, on your high horse.
    And, again, I have to ask – I’m in the area your side has designated for me to smoke that is a ‘safe’ distance away from you and your perceived clear lungs. What is your problem? The only way you can have to breath in my shit, as you so lovingly put it, is if you were to walk out and then around the side of the building or next to the dumpster…oh, I’m sorry, do you live in a dumpster?
    In other words, the only way your breathing in my smoke is if you are actively seeking it out. Getting back to my original point that you are looking for a reason to bitch and complain. Robert108 – you are a miserable person who thinks he is better than everyone else.

  • Amazed

    Thanks, Bat One. You actually made my point for me.

    “If the employer is paying for health insurance coverage as part of an employee’s compensation, and making coverage available for family members as well, then almost any toad can see that the employer has a legitimate interest in behavior that bears directly on what he must pay to provide that coverage.”

    Substitute ‘government’ for ‘employer’ and I’m sure you can understand my concerns.

  • Amazed

    I absolutely agree, kbiel. I may have been a little off in my points I was trying to make. I don’t think businesses should be required to provide health care to their employees. This is a ‘perk’ or benefit and should be an incentive to work hard and get employed with a successful company that does provide insurance. If you are unhappy with the company you are working for because they don’t offer insurance, find a new job. No one is forcing you to work there.

    I think I was probably projecting where I think the government will go if they are handed the reins. I feel like our freedoms are being eroded away by people doing what is “for our own good”. I just want to be left alone to decide what is in my own best interest. I am willing to accept the consequences of those choices.

  • robert108

    Best I can tell, we are playing by your
    rules.

    Hardly. However, you very clearly illustrate the arrogance of the smoker, which is why you are getting whacked. BTW, the real disease of smoking(and second hand smoke) is emphysema. I’m sure your Granny had it, although it is often not diagnosed. My mother died of emphysema(undiagnosed) when she had an operation and couldn’t come out of the anesthetic. Her lungs were too weakened from her lifetime cigarette addiction.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    108 is correct that nicotine is physically addictive, for what it’s worth. I don’t share his fairly harsh view of smokers, but he does have a point that it is addictive and poisonous.

    And while it can be argued (a la Woof) that the employee technically ends up paying his health insurance whether he knows it or not, the reality is that as long as smokers are grouped with nonsmokers, the latter are subsidizing the costs of smoking related illnesses. For that reason and a bazillion others, it’s a good thing to return direct responsibility for healthcare costs to the consumer.

  • robert108

    i thought it had to do with us wiping out those
    150,000 civilians in Japan.

    Or maybe it was the complete destruction of their Army and Navy…could be.

    Sparkie: a lack of education is a lack of education.

  • Bat One

    R108,

    An exquisitely well-timed interjection of the pertinently impertinent Tom Lehrer! Bravo!

  • Fred

    Bottom line, if you want to smoke you have every right to, however dont expect to have someone else pay your health bills when you are not being personally responsible. The amount of US healthcare dollars spent a year on smoking related illness’ is astronomical.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    Sparkie, being the janitor there for two days before being fired doesn’t count as attendance! Yeesh!

    And we could end this argument right now if we did the right thing and repealed the (1945?) law that allows employers to pay certain benefits tax-free. If everyone paid the weight of their own decisions, I bet you’d quickly find that some more intelligent decisions about smoking (and Big Macs) would be made.

    Mr. Weyers would have to change his business, of course, but it would be good for the rest of us.

  • robert108

    Substitute ‘government’ for ‘employer’ and I’m sure you can understand my concerns.

    There is a fundamental difference between the two; you can opt out of working for the employer.

    Bat:

    “When the shades of night are falling
    Comes a fellow everyone knows
    It’s the old dope peddler
    Spreading joy wherever he goes…”

    Reminds me of lefties in general, and Obama in particular.

  • Ken

    If you think that winning a war doesn’t make what you did a success, then you just aren’t in the real world.

    But did we win the war as a result of the internment camps? Just because you win the war doesn’t make all of your actions successful, effective, or right. If you can show me evidence that the interment camps themselves were beneficial I would appreciate it.

    When a smoker asks me(which only rarely happens, btws) if I mind if they smoke, I ask them if they mind me taking a shit in their lungs.

    You sure sound like a friendly guy.

  • chuck

    A glimmer if economic knowledge from a leftie. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.
    Under the present system, we all do; it’s in the price of everything we buy. Only a free market healthcare system based on fee for services is free of impact on the taxpayers.

    See, a reasonable statement, could be logical, but from you, it must be questioned….is he as unbalanced in his view here as he is in his other views? If I try to agree, will he ask to shit in my lungs? See, you put us all in a quandry….and alienate the very people you want to reach. your a funny guy…

  • Bat One

    Even more “intriguing” and perhaps more even-handed as well, would be for Mr. Weyers to eliminate those employees who smoke, especially if he is providing (paying for) health insurance, and deny family coverage for those employees whose spouses smoke.

    If an employee’s spouse chooses to smoke, there is no reason why the true long-term cost of that decision should not rest on those who make it.

  • zakk

    Actually, to be specific, my Grandmother passed away at age 88 and there was nothing wrong with her lungs she did have alzheimer’s and according to the doctor she just ‘forgot’ that she smoked. She also forgot that she loved a Gin and Tonic everynight. Are you up for outlawing that? Let’s get rid of the booze too. Should the employer be allowed to tell you when you get home from work, you can’t have a drink because it may lead to liver disease, or some other alcohol related problem?
    Way to prove your point that we are “Hardly” playing by your rules.
    Was it not the anti-smoking lobby that put the smokers outside?
    Was it not the anti-smoking lobby that put the smokers 20-50 feet away from the front door?
    But, good argument. No seriously, I expect to see you on Countdown later this week with those kind of strong arguments.
    Sorry to hear about your grand mother.
    “very clearly illustrate the arrogance of the smoker, which is why you are getting whacked.” not sure what you mean. How was what I said “arrogance”?
    Or is that just a new word you learned this year from your calendar of ‘big words’.

  • kbiel

    Wow, a moment of clarity of WOOF. Employers also don’t pay matching SS taxes and corporations don’t pay taxes.

  • robert108

    Employers do not pay for health insurance.

    A glimmer if economic knowledge from a leftie. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.
    Under the present system, we all do; it’s in the price of everything we buy. Only a free market healthcare system based on fee for services is free of impact on the taxpayers.

  • chuck

    I’m not real friendly toward people who want to put their shit in my lungs. I guess that point just went over your head.

    Big difference between not being friendly when someone offers a polite question and offering to shit in thier lungs…your a real piece of work. If you dont know the difference between “not friendly” and “rude and self important” you probably cant be trusted with any other observations either.

  • robert108

    Big difference between not being friendly when someone offers a polite question and offering to shit in thier lungs…your a real piece of work.

    It’s neither “friendly” nor “respectful” to put your shit in everyone else’s lungs, whether you ask or not.
    If you have enough awareness to ask, you should know better than to do it. Addicts really don’t care about others; they just have to have their drug.

  • robert108

    I think it’s inaccurate to frame this as a “rights” issue, when it’s really about choices. It’s funny how some folks support “choice” when it comes to killing innocent babies, and don’t speak about the babies’ “right to live”.

  • robert108

    Wow, a moment of clarity of WOOF. Employers also don’t pay matching SS taxes and corporations don’t pay taxes.

    Yes, the cost of all social engineering programs, including the present method of dispensing healthcare, is distributed among the taxpaying public. That’s what socialism does.

  • chuck

    “When a smoker asks me(which only rarely happens, btws) if I mind if they smoke, I ask them if they mind me taking a shit in their lungs.”

    Oh, forget…this guy is a real winner…someone shows him enough respect to ask, and his response is this? Not to many friends I betcha

  • ellinas

    Blood test you say? How about a monthly stool sample to screen for colon cancer. But that is not enough. I demand my employees have a colonoscopy every six months. I want to make sure I don’t pay extra for their reckless lifestyle. We know that meat consumption increases the risk for colon cancer. While we are at it we shall install a camera in your back yard to make sure you don’t grill or barbeque, because grilling and or barbequing meat adds carcinogens.
    You eat red meat…no job for you.

  • robert108

    …the term ADDICT can apply to everyone…

    Only if you change the definition of the word to suit your bullshit purposes. Smoking is an act of gross stupidity and rudeness.
    I see the addicts are getting very defensive here.

  • ec99

    “”What if…” Pure hysteria.”

    “Hey President Roosevelt, what if we round up all the Japanese Americans and put them in camps?”

  • ellinas

    I’m not real friendly toward people who want to put their shit in my lungs. I guess that point just went over your head.
    robert108 on June 17, 2008 at 02:54 pm

    So a coal burning electricity generating power plan,or a oil refinery in your back yard is out of the question?
    I guess that point did not go over my head.

  • ellinas

    You know exactly what I mean. Your fancy tirade is nothing but a distraction. You are one of those NIMBY people.

  • robert108

    …in your back yard is out of the question? My backyard is in a residential neighborhood.
    I guess that point did not go over my head. I guess it did, and you just proved it with your false analogy.

    Let me ‘splain it to you, troll: A person forcing their toxic smoke on those around him or her isn’t the same as a business that generates something people want. I know you are economically ignorant, so your foolish statement is no surprise here.
    With smoking, it’s all cost, with no benefit except for the addict. With a generating plant or a refinery(both of which we sorely need), the cost is mostly borne by the business, not the public, though the public benefits greatly. It’s also true that we have the technology to make both of those businesses quite “clean”, so you have no point at all.
    BTW, we don’t put them in anyone’s backyard, and they add jobs and revenue to our economy.

  • robert108

    Just so you know, e man: If I needed the money, I would love to get in on an investment in either a generating plant or a refinery, and would love to have it on property that I owned. You really are ignorant.

  • syn

    Bottom line, if you want to have sex unprotected you have every right to however, don’t expect to have someone else pay your health bills when you are not being personally responsible. The amount of US healthcare dollars spent a year on STDs and abortion is astronomical.

    Fred, is that about right?

  • robert108

    Just because you win the war doesn’t make all of your actions successful, effective, or right.

    Yes, it does.

    I’m not real friendly toward people who want to put their shit in my lungs. I guess that point just went over your head.

  • Chuck

    Do you even know the meaning of the word “addict” It is very under used, cuz almost everyone has an addiction of some kind. Some are worse than others, but the term ADDICT can apply to everyone, so why not climb off your holier than thou perch and admit you dont have many friends at all, addicts or not.

  • robert108

    Was it not the anti-smoking lobby that put the smokers 20-50 feet away from the front door?

    Make it a half mile, and you might have something.
    I see the addicts are screeching about being deprived of their “dope”.

  • Chuck

    robert108: I like you….you are a ice cream sundae w/cherry on top case study. Your ability to ignore anything that questions your belief system, glom onto any small bit that you think you can rebut while pretending all the other points arent really there, the blatent intellectual dishonesty you display, the rude, self important way you choose to communicate, the complete obtuse style you practice, it all adds up to one thing….you need to be saved from yourself….I know this is hard to hear, its hard to say cuz I really like you….but if you dont get the therapy you are in need of, you may force society to impose it on you.
    Again, I like you, your a fun guy…Anyone who gets the offer of a good lung shitting from you would be crazy to pass it up. OOOOO Im hysterical lol think I will smoke a cig.
    Your therapist is waiting for you. Dont let us down!!!!

  • robert108

    chuck: Not smokers, for sure. I don’t really like addicts all that much.

  • robert108

    Is anyone forcing you to walk around to the designated smoking area?

    Smoke travels in the air. Duh.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – …the pollution produced by driving and industry is the price we pay for mobility and valuable energy production, but what is the benefit to smoking?

    For the same reason as many of the factories and many of the miles driven – pure enjoyment.

    We live in houses full of goods that we could just as easily live without. We accept a certain amount of factory pollution that produce products that exist for no other reason than to provide us with ethereal pleasures.

    The two (actually many; tobacco, cars, factories, pleasure boats) are very comparable on that front. If your argument is that we should limit the smoke in the air because of some imagined “right” to breath smoke free air, than lazy Sunday drives off to nowhere also have to go. As are many factories that produce nothing but shits and giggles. You could also throw in barbecue grills, as some communities in your state of California have already done under similar logic.

    Now granted, “one source of pollution doesn’t justify or excuse another”, but then again – that was never anybodies argument.

  • Kansasgirl

    I want the same litmus test to apply to AIDS. We have now learned that heterosexuals are “not” affected by this disease. Surprise, surprise. Let’s see how the libs would spin this.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    I’ll smoke to that. The employer can hire whomever he damn well pleases and he also can set the demands for hire. The potential employee is, of course, free to decide whether or not these demands are reasonable.

    Freedom – some of us still cherish it.

    Next up, old lady perfume. That shit is just horrendous. It can and often does cause breathing problems to those around the stinkbags. Do we have a “right” to demand perfume free environments?

    The way it’s heading these days…

  • Neiman

    You can argue this issue until the cows come home, but it is beyond me how any American can tolerate or approve of this intrusion into the private lives of people in this country. Ban it at work, even violate the rights of businesses that want to openly cater to smokers, but to ban it at home, even by the employee or in public is just plain wrong. Anyone supporting this cannot, IMO, believe in liberty at all.

    There are all sorts of ways to encourage people to stop smoking through financial incentives, just one being lower employee contributions to health care plans, which savings stimulates voluntary cessation. But, this is a degree of invasion of privacy that, IMO, violates the very idea of personal liberty.

  • Zakk

    Thanks for the heads up, Chuck. I’ll keep an eye out.

  • Chuck

    Robby108
    If you walk into a room full of smokers, you might be able to survive if you are quick and have the will to live another day…you might just make it. If you choose to shit into someones lungs, that would be instant death for the person you have shit into. What is the real crime? hmmm?
    I heard that down in gitmo they like to shit down prisoners lungs as an interogation method. Hey!! I bet you could post almost 19000 times and still shit down the evildoers lungs at the same time! Thats what I call making lemonade out of lemons….or in this case, shitade out of shit!!
    Your therapist is still calling, dont make us do an intervention!!

  • Neiman

    Zakk, welcome to the wonderful world of Bob108.

    ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

    Robert108 is far from perfect, he would admit that; but he is very intelligent, and a very able debater and for you to offer an inane, assinine, meaningless comment as above only demonstrates that you are not his intellectual equal. Argue with him, show him he is wrong, use facts and reason, but this nonsense by rbb is just ridiculous, childsih and a wast eo space.!

  • Zakk

    Robert108, so in all your brilliance your telling me that it is a natural function to drive your car? It’s a natural function to heat your home? A natural function to ride mass transit? Not to mention, have you ever been to a rock show? Do you think the smoke/fog coming out of those machines is healthy? Or, should we ban that too. For your sake.

    Well, isn’t that the kettle calling the pot black.
    Once again, you have selected a small section of what I wrote and chosen to use that as your entire argument.

    Chuck was right about you, and I really like the way you wait until he signed off to even try to stir the pot with him.
    Sad.

    You know, I’ve noticed you’ve used the term ‘leftie’ a few times throughout this day. And, you’ve used this term in a derogatory manner. Here’s the funny part, you argue like a true leftie would. Avoid the issue and when it gets too deep for you, you change the subject.

  • robert108

    Fred: Your “right” to smoke(actually a choice), ends at the next person’s right to not be forced to breathe your smoke. It is bullshit(and territorial) to insist that anyone who doesn’t want your shit in their lungs “move away”. Your choice to smoke has consequences, and carries certain responsibilities.

  • Chuck

    too much fun for one day. Thanks robby108, you are very entertaining. bye

  • robert108

    zakk: You have smoking addiction confused with natural functions. Not so intelligent.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Robert,

    You really go off the deep end with smoking. Sorry, no other way to put it:

    1. The repeated point that many habits are addictive is absolutely true. People get dependant on alcohol and caffeine as well. With the massive ammounts of people who drink soda and coffee, the point that most of us can be called addicts is accurate.

    2. You do not have a right to go somewhere and not “have someone shit in your lungs” as you so charmingly put it. You know, going in, that the restaurant will have smoke in it. Your willingness to go in negates your “right” to not deal with smoke.

    3. The idea that there is some massive risk to you being outdoors in the vicinity of a smoker is ridiculous. Smoke dissipates rather quickly in the air. And with you breathing in car exhaust and other pollutants in the air, your “clean lungs” are anything but.

    4. Ellinas point about factories is well made. The counter idea that it’s any less nasty because the factory makes something is obscufication. The “shit in your lungs” is still just as nasty.

    5. Just because we won the war with Japan doesn’t mean that all of our ideas were good, or helped win the war. Sparkie has just made his first correct assessment EVER.

    I’m sure there’s more but that’s a good start.

  • robert108

    Your willingness to go in negates your
    “right” to not deal with smoke.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about; I don’t patronize anyplace that allows that filthy habit.

    …massive risk…

    You’re just making that up; I said no such thing.

    The counter idea that it’s any less nasty because the factory makes something is obscufication.

    I guess you don’t understand “cost/benefit” either. What is the benefit of smoking, to anyone besides the addict, who doesn’t really benefit from it, either.
    You are comparing apples and oranges. Don’t be stupid.

    Just because we won the war with Japan doesn’t mean that all of our ideas were good, or helped win the war. Sparkie has just made his first correct assessment EVER.

    So, you don’t understand the realities of war, either.

    Any more bullshit?

  • Ken

    Argue with him, show him he is wrong, use facts and reason, but this nonsense by rbb is just ridiculous, childsih and a wast eo space.!

    How can you argue with him if he’s so damn dishonest. He spins everything. He rarely includes links to back up his claims. Plus he manages to relate every discussion to socialism, even if its irrelevant or nonsensical.

  • Pilgrim

    The “random blood testing” thing gets me.

    We’ve apparently gotten to the point where nothing – NOTHING – will be left to personal choice.

    All you overweight people out there take note – you’ll be next.

    Or – have high cholesterol – can’t work here.

    Or – high blood pressure – get another job.

    Or – drink alcohol – can’t use you.

    Just be a nice little bunch of droids and you’ll be fine. There now…that’s a good little boy or girl.

  • Neiman

    Ken: Pay attention, I was talking to rbb about his childish response!

  • robert108

    Neiman: rbb is doing the best he can, and you know it. His best isn’t very good, of course.
    What everyone is forgetting here is that nobody has to work for this guy; if you don’t like the way he runs his business, don’t ask him for a job.
    If you don’t like this, how are you going to deal with govt healthcare, where you have no choice?

    e man, in his ignorance, has hit upon the perfect description of how Hillary and her minions wanted to run healthcare. All mandates, no choices. This guy is running his business the way he wants to, and he has a right to do that. Just don’t play if you can’t pay the price.

  • robert108

    Robert108, so in all your brilliance your telling me that it is a natural function to drive your car?

    No, moron; I was referring to your nonsense about belching and farting.
    Look, if you’re stupid enough to become addicted to tobacco, that’s your problem, but when you pick my pocket to pay for your stupid habit, I’m going to have some input. That’s reality. If you don’t like it, stop being stupid.
    If you want to keep on being stupid, expect consequences. Grow up.

    For the rest of your nonsense, look up the concept of cost/benefit, then get back to me on the benefits of smoking. Your smoking costs me, so what benefit do I get from it?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    Zakk, welcome to the wonderful world of Bob108.

    ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

  • Matt

    Bottom line is that smoking is not the most expensive habit to your health care insurance company – having children is. So I am going to start asking applicants if they have any children. Yes? Then get out. Are you a Catholic? Get out. Are you female? Get out. We could then start collecting numbers on the propensity of each race to having children and not hire them either.

    And I shouldn’t have to mention the fat people.

    Further to the point, if you want to expand the argument to medicaid – they should encourage people to smoke and drink heavily. What are the chances they will ever make it to retirement?

    So unless smoking is illegal, they cannot discriminate against you for doing it.

  • zakk

    Pilgrim said it best –
    “It’s similar to motorcycle helmet laws – wherever it’s not illegal any rider can choose not to wear one. Like smoking, it’s a stupid choice – but it’s your RIGHT to make that choice.”

    Robert108, do you get upset when the kid behind the counter asks you if you want fries with that. I mean, they are bad for you and you didn’t ask for them.
    So, really, that kid is trying to kill you with added trans fat. Do you grab the kid by the collar and threaten him/her with violence?

    As long as we all live by Robert108s’ rules we’ll all be better off. Kinda similar to the DNC. Do as I say, not as I do.

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • Bat One

    Blood test you say? How about a monthly stool sample to screen for colon cancer. But that is not enough. I demand my employees have a colonoscopy every six months. I want to make sure I don’t pay extra for their reckless lifestyle. We know that meat consumption increases the risk for colon cancer. While we are at it we shall install a camera in your back yard to make sure you don’t grill or barbeque, because grilling and or barbequing meat adds carcinogens.
    You eat red meat…no job for you.

    ellinas,

    Welcome! Now you know how many of us feel about the presumptuous intrusiveness of government on our finances (taxes) and our privately held small businesses.

    You don’t like being held to account for your bodily functions? Just like I don’t like having my personal and business finances examined, reported dissected and evaluated by nameless bureaucrats acting at the behest of self-serving liberals intent on doing good with other people’s money.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    If we don’t like your smoking around us, for any reason, we can vote it out. Grow up.

    …O’er the land of the free!…

    …And the home…

    …Of the…

    …uh…

    …The home…

    …Of the…

    …Voted oooooouut!…

    *bows*

  • zakk

    “Smoking is drug addiction.”
    So is Caffeine. What say you?
    And I for one, know that when I walk into my office all I smell is coffee. What I would like to see is a ban on coffee in the work place. For those of us who are prone to ADDICTION I think it’s only fair. All coffee should be consumed outside the work place. At least 20 – 50 feet away from the front door of any business. Coffee shops excluded, of course. When ever I smell coffee it makes me want to ‘shit down someones throat’. Why am I forced to breath in someone else’s addiction?

    “No, moron; I was referring to your nonsense about belching and farting. ”
    Well, moron, it looks like you ONCE AGAIN avoided the question.

  • robert108

    As far as the benefit of smoking, there’s the tax dollars that are raised from the sale of cigarettes. And considering the amount of tax dollars
    raised I’d say it’s a pretty substantial benefit that not only smokers but non-smokers get.

    Taxes represent money taken from the private sector and only benefit the govt and the welfare class. Even so, you missed it; does the claimed benefit cover the costs to all of us? The cost of the smoking and the cost of the taxation, of course.
    Your coffee comment was a distraction from the subject, which is smoking tobaccco. Sorry I had to ‘splain that to you. Addiction to caffeine doesn’t justify addiction to nicotine, btw.
    Try thinking logically, if you can.
    Smokers are 95% destined to have some degree of emphysema, although it does predispose to cancer, if the individual is already prone to it. It’s not a direct cause of cancer, but it is a direct cause of emphysema. Secondhand smoke is also an emphysema hazard to non smokers who are forced to breathe the smoke.

  • Nahanni

    I always have to laugh at the hysterical anti smoking nazis who come crawling out of the woodwork whenever something like this is posted.

    My father always said that “everything causes cancer, and nothing does” and “look at who paid for a ‘study’ in order to find the agenda behind it.”

    Now…

    My father smoked cigars, pipes and chewed tobacco since the time he was 14. He never had any major medical problems in his entire life and was healthy for his age when he died at 88. What did he die from? I can hear all the anti smoking nazis saying “he must of died from lung cancer”. Nope. The cause of death was old age.

    My mother smoked two packs of Salems every day since WWII. She was in good health for her age when she also died at 88. What did she die from? I can hear all the anti smoking nazis saying “she must of died from lung cancer”. Nope. She fell in the shower, hit her head and died from her injuries.

    They had four kids who grew up breathing more second hand smoke in one day then all of you anti smoking nazis get exposed to in 10 years. One would think that if what all the anti smoking nazis believe is true then we should’ve all died by now or at least have lung cancer or other health problems from our exposure. Nope. None of us have any respritory problems, no allergies, no asthma-nothing. All of us are in good health.

    That being said…

    They did a study in the UK that suprised many “health” nazis. The government found that it was not smoking or obesity which were the most costly behaviour caused illnesses to the NHS. Nope. Want to know what they were? Anorexia, STD’s and alcohol/drug addiction. The problem with those is that it is easy for health nazis to pick on smokers or fat people, but they don’t want anything done about the true expensive illnesses because those are activities that are considered “fashionable” and that they themselves participate in.

  • Bob

    What those employees impacted by workplace smoking bans need to do is switch to tobacco- and smoke-free electronic cigarettes such as those available from Crown7. Because they contain no tobacco or tars and do not generate smoke, they can be used anywhere traditional cigarettes cannot. More info at crown7 dot com.

  • robert108

    So is Caffeine. What say you?

    More off-topic distraction; which is what people do when they don’t have an argument. Again: What are the benefits of smoking? We know the cost, but what is the benefit? Is it worth the cost? That’s how adults make decisions in the real world.

  • zakk

    So only the govt and the welfare class drive on the highway? What is it that pays the salary of the police department, fire department and many other public services? I believe it’s taxes. Granted not all those tax dollars are from cigarettes, but some it does. Now let’s think about this logically, this may be a stretch for you, but if they stop taxing a minority (smokers) won’t the government just find another reason to tax the non-smokers?
    And I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was somehow saying caffeine justifies addiction to nicotine. It wasn’t a justification, it was an example of another type of addiction. Again, let me say this nice and slow so you can understand, It—Was—A—Reference—To—Your—Comment—
    About—Smoking is drug addiction.- Sorry I had to Splain that one to you…again.
    You see, and I’m sure you hear this all the time, you don’t listen. You hear what you want to hear, or in this case, read what you want to read. Ignore the rest of it, you know the supporting argument part, and cherry pick the part you need to make the same tired point over and over again.
    Again, how are you FORCED to breath in second hand smoke? Where are you going that people are FORCING you to breath in second hand smoke?

  • zakk

    I wouldn’t consider a DIRECT reference to a comment you made to be an “off-topic distraction”. You made a reference to smoking being an addiction and I made a point about…wait for it….addiction. Ta-Da!

    As far as the benefit of smoking, there’s the tax dollars that are raised from the sale of cigarettes. And considering the amount of tax dollars raised I’d say it’s a pretty substantial benefit that not only smokers but non-smokers get.

    Wait, let me guess, your going to tell me that all those tax dollars go to the rising cost of health care/insurance. But I thought the point of this thread was that employers pay the health insurance? So which is it? Is it tax dollars that pay for smokers health care/insurance or is it federal money that pays for smokers health care/insurance?
    Also, as I’m sure you know, smoking can kill you! And, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the majority of people who are killed by smoking are…wait for it…smokers. This is a little something I like to call ‘natural selection’. So, best I can tell, you get what you want. All smokers will die. And, from what I can tell this excites you. Some would say, gives you a special feeling down your leg.
    Speaking of “More off-topic distraction” what about the point that a car/bus/train/etc puts out toxic fumes that everyone is forced to inhale?

  • robert108

    likwid: This thread was about an employer setting the requirements for employment at his business, and you got that one right.
    My comment was to point out that we non smokers are being very beneficent here. We could vote all smoking out, but we don’t. All we want is some consideration from the tobacco addicts, but they throw a hissyfit whenever we ask for that consideration. This arrogance has consequences.
    It’s neither “freedom” issue, nor a “rights” issue; it’s a choice/responsibility issue.

  • zakk

    Well, Bobby –

    “mostly property taxes, ditto, and mostly local sales taxes” – Who pays these taxes ALONG with the tax on cigarettes? That’s right smokers do.

    “include cleaning up what you idiots consider your personal ashtray: our streets, buildings, beaches and parks. ” (Buildings? What the hell does that mean?) So the only thing on the ground is cigarette butts? All the trash from the water bottles, and snack food wrappers, fast food bags, etc. that doesn’t bother you, only the cigarette butts. I for one am a person who usually throws away my extinguished butt into a trash can.

    “Gasoline taxes pay for roads and traffic enforcement, which also taxes us through traffic fines. ” Who pays these taxes ALONG with the tax on cigarettes? That’s right smokers do.

    “As I have already ‘splained to you, taxation is only a benefit to the govt and the welfare class.” This defeats everything you just pointed out. And I quote: “taxes pay for roads and traffic enforcement” I think everyone uses these.
    “include cleaning up what you idiots consider your personal ashtray: our streets, buildings, beaches and parks. ” I believe everyone uses these if they choose.

    “The reality is that non smokers are about 75% of the adult population in this country, which constitutes an overwhelming majority. You do the math.” – No argument there, that’s why I said the government was taxing the MINORITY.

    “If we don’t like your smoking around us, for any reason, we can vote it out. Grow up.” Nice, except you haven’t done it yet. You’ve had plenty of opportunities and yet it doesn’t happen. Why do you think that is? Could it be because the government doesn’t want to give up the tax revenue? I understand you think it’s a small amount that only goes to the chosen few, but really if it was that awful, wouldn’t they just make it illegal?

    narcissism- inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. -or- Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one’s own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
    Once again, Bobby finds his way to his ‘calendar of big words’
    Bobby, that really doesn’t make any sense.
    Maybe tomorrow word will be applicable.

  • robert108

    That’s not consideration. That’s asshattery in response to consideration.

    Wrong. The real asshat is the smoker who doesn’t know how offensive his addiction is to non smokers. It’s not consideration, it’s arrogant ignorance.

  • robert108

    What is it that pays the salary of the police department, fire department and many other public services?

    This will be the last time I will feed your unintelligent narcissism. The answers are, in order: mostly property taxes, ditto, and mostly local sales taxes. The reality is that cigarette taxes don’t even pay for the damage done by cigarette smoking, which include cleaning up what you idiots consider your personal ashtray: our streets, buildings, beaches and parks.
    Gasoline taxes pay for roads and traffic enforcement, which also taxes us through traffic fines.
    Your argument is still nonsense. As I have already ‘splained to you, taxation is only a benefit to the govt and the welfare class. Govt takes the money from the productive, skims off most of it, and trickles some down to the welfare class.
    It still doesn’t excuse or justify the damages of tobacco addiction.
    The reality is that non smokers are about 75% of the adult population in this country, which constitutes an overwhelming majority. You do the math.
    If we don’t like your smoking around us, for any reason, we can vote it out. Grow up.

  • Chuck

    Robbie108,
    Right on brother, way to let it out. Im glad you decided take My advice and seek out your court ordered therapist. I can tell you have a long way to go. It will be a long hard road for you, and anyone you come into contact with before you are fully cured, but you have taken the first step! We are all proud of you!!!

  • robbie108

    i would like to clear the air about myself. i was raised with a very demanding mother. She was overbearing and although i loved her, she was a mean nasty person with alot of issues. my father was a drunk, he only came home once in a while, and when he did, i was beaten and degraded.
    i did well in school, but was never given positive reenforcement by my mommy and daddy. i assumed all women were like my mother, and all men were like my father.
    i became less social, grew critical of my friends cuz they wouldnt live the way i thought they should. my intellegence , while still evident, was overwhelmed by my need to control others. i used my intellegence to use big words and impress the many people i put off on a daily basis. i learned that you dont have to actually debate others, you just pick the small parts that fit the argument, then stick to those while ignoring all the valid hard to explain arguments i might come upon when i meet people who dont know me and try to communicate on a human level. After a while this became ingrained to the point where i no longer knew i was doing it.
    Some time later i quit the bad habit of smoking. When i saw another person smoking it made me feel as though i might like a to smoke again also. my natural reaction to this was to redirect all the darkness and hate i felt as a child, the whole mother and father thing, the self loathing i developed as my Subconscious tried to balance the way i treated other with my need to be loved, to the smokers who tempts me with thier vile drug. i also learned what fun it is to shit down other peoples lungs(you should try it sometime, its very fun).
    Later, i started staying home on the computer all the time, looking for threads to violate. i am proud that i have been able to post almost 19000 times on this site alone, venting my hatred of other thoughts and beliefs, masking my self loathing and dissapointments with my parents and people in general.
    Sometimes, late at night, i get this little tickle in the back of my mind…..am i really who i think i am? Am i working for the right side? Does everyone really need to be like me so i can feel better about myself? Am i hurting myself in the way i treat others? hmmmmm
    Then i get up, get dressed, and go find someone i can dominate(not easy let me tell you), and i shit down thier lungs! SELF AWARENESS NOT REQUIRED!!
    i hope this has helped you all understand me a little better. Now, who wants me to shit in thier lungs??

  • Chuck

    pparets,
    robbie108: Whoever you are: your plagaristic use of
    robert108′s name is neither clever or truthful. It is patently offensive

    I dont know…..could be robert108′s 3rd or 4th personality at work, trying to sabotage himself to somehow find enlightenment….could be a stranger, practicing the art of satire or paroty on someone who really deserves it(thats not plagerism)….or it could be someone just having fun……..but whatever it is, just cuz you find it offensive doesnt mean it doesnt have validity or is offensive to others….and so what if it is?
    Oh, also I have to wonder why, if robbie108 isnt also Robert108, why he or she hasnt mentioned it his or herself?? hmm??

  • zakk

    Let’s talk about Hippies too.
    Like they aren’t offensive enough on their own, they have that odor of either Petruli(sp) oil or underarm/feet funk. You know for a bunch of tree huggin earth nuts, they sure do fear water.

  • robert108

    You’ve been saying you want to “Shit Down Their Throats”…

    No, I haven’t. I said that when some unconscious, inconsiderate tobacco addict asks me; “Do you mind if I smoke?”(thus indicating that I might find it offensive, and he knows it), I occasionally say: “Do you mind if I shit in your lungs?” It is a question, not an action, and is designed to let the smoker know what his action is to me, in the hopes that he will become a little more considerate of those who choose not to smoke, and are offended by it.

    BTW, you have no “right” to smoke. You made a choice to become addicted to tobacco, and that choice doesn’t confer any sort of “right”.

  • robert108

    Sure you do. The principles of freedom dictate that everybody has a right to do whatever they want so long as those rights don’t infringe upon the rights of others. As long as smokers choose to smoke on private property,including businesses that allow smoking, it does not infringe on your rights. You can choose not to go there.

    You have it, you just don’t know it. If you think all smokers only smoked on private property, away from non smokers, so that they didn’t put their shit into the lungs of those who would like to choose not to breathe it, there would be no problem for the smokers. You’re not in the real world here.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – Why do you even ask…

    Because a lot of people don’t care and *surprise*surprise* many of them even smoke!

    If you really think it’s “a right”, why ask at all?

    I also sometimes ask if I’m allowed to be frank on one issue or another, even though free speech allows me to be frank all of the time.

    It is called consideration. There’s a time and a place for just about everything. When one isn’t sure, it’s okay to ask!

    likwid: I you think smoking is “freedom”, just try to quit doing it for a month. You will find out who is the Master and who is the slave.

    Man is always the master of his own gluttony.

  • robert108

    You can’t say I threatened you by asking if you minded if I smoked, because I was asking. If I just lit up, then you would have something to bitch about.

    Wrong. The fact that you asked reveals that you know what you propose to do is offensive to others, but you hope that we will be put in the position of being “assholes” if we say what we want, which is “no”. Telling the smoker that what he or she is really doing is just like taking a shit in our lungs is just being real, rather than being afraid to be thought intolerant by a desperate addict.

  • robert108

    robert108,

    Of course I do; I was talking about the Islamic countries.

    “Iraq is now the first democracy in the history of the ME, thanks to us.” ~robert108
    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/report_cooked_up_by_senate_democrats_accuses_the_bush_adminstration_of_lyin/#c298563

    BTW, I asked you about what you believe, not some dead philosopher.

    No. You asked a rhetorical question so you could then begin a rant of your assumptions of what you think I meant.

    You just picked the part that supported your lie.

    As ellians has shown, you have a serious problem with projection.

  • robbie108

    Chuck,
    I am trying, but the little girl in me just keeps popping up. The little girl who wants everyone to bow to my needs, ideas, my every whim. im just so weak! If I could just quit shitting down other peoples lungs, i think i could break free of this addiction to hatred i have built up over the years. im sure i will be back here, inching towards that 19000 post milestone( im so proud!!), and not all my posts will be asself aware as this one is. Wish me luck fella’s!!

  • Chuck

    robbie108,
    Your good name? Really?

  • robert108

    likwid: I you think smoking is “freedom”, just try to quit doing it for a month. You will find out who is the Master and who is the slave.

  • Chuck

    likwidshoe,
    No worries, if this is a cse of some of your posters here not seeing satire for what it is, I will make it more obvious.
    I am new to your site, and while I also like a good honest discussion of issues and ideas, I dont thing robert108 practises those ideals. You know what I mean. I was trying to make a bigger point, I think you get it, but I surly dont want to lead your thread down the path of anarchy. The bigger point will be missed as I will avoid robert108 in all ways(I hate getting shittted down my lungs), but I think most of the readers understood what was being communicated by “robbie108″
    Long live the right to make fun of people who ask for it!!!!

  • robert108

    Now granted, “one source of pollution doesn’t justify or excuse another”, but then again – that was never anybodies argument.

    Actually, it’s the only argument you smokers are making. You set up an invalid equivalence, and smear anyone who doesn’t like smoking on that basis. Non smokers are called “Nazis” for not liking to have tobacco smoke forced on us. You have it exactly backwards; smokers are the perps here.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Justin B. – That is absolutely disgusting to use someone else’s name.

    It was mock sarcasm with a similar, but easily discernible different name. Not exactly classy, but then again – not exactly out of the ordinary around these parts.

    That said, Chuck should know that it is probably not a good idea to screw around like that when there is someone here who pays attention to that sort of thing (that would be me).

    I wouldn’t have normally outed you Chuck, but you sort of crossed the line here. Naughty, naughty.

  • pparets

    robbie108: Whoever you are: your plagaristic use of robert108′s name is neither clever or truthful. It is patently offensive.

    robert108 and I frequently disagree on issues as he could attest to, but neither of us would stoop to your level of tasteless mockery.

  • robert108

    It’s similar to motorcycle helmet laws…

    Nope. If you’re standing next to me, wearing a helmet, it doesn’t do anything to me. Not so with smoking. Every smoker exercising his “right” violates the “rights” of those non smokers in the areas to be free of cigarette smoke. Their choice to not smoke is meaningless in the presence of a smoker. Get it?

  • Chuck

    robbie108,
    Well, looks like you are phasing back and forth between semi-awareness and your normal repugant personality again. Hang in there brother, it takes time!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – My comment was to point out that we non smokers are being very beneficent here.

    Oh yeah?

    Huh.

    Smokers aren’t a monolithic group who all litter their spent butts while violating your imagined right to breath smoke free air (factories and cars exempted for some reason, although some free bird hippie would probably disagree with those exemptions).

    You’re not beneficent on this topic, but rather a tyrant. You ask for consideration, but when a smoker considerately asks you if the smoke would be a bother, you say, and I quote, “I ask them if they mind me taking a shit in their lungs”.

    That’s not consideration. That’s asshattery in response to consideration.

  • zakk

    “Wrong. The real asshat is the smoker who doesn’t know how offensive his addiction is to non smokers. It’s not consideration, it’s arrogant ignorance.”
    HOW? How is it arrogant?
    If I were sitting next to you and I asked if you minded if I smoked and you replied with your, now famous, ‘shit down your throat’ line. Which one of us would look like the asshole? Is it the guy who asked in a very courteous manner if you minded if I did or did not smoke or would it be the guy who threatened me with shit?
    You can’t say I threatened you by asking if you minded if I smoked, because I was asking. If I just lit up, then you would have something to bitch about.

  • Pilgrim

    BTW, you have no “right” to smoke.

    Wait a minute….as long as tobacco is sold legally whoever CHOOSES to use it has the right to do so, like it or not.

    It’s similar to motorcycle helmet laws – wherever it’s not illegal any rider can choose not to wear one. Like smoking, it’s a stupid choice – but it’s your RIGHT to make that choice.

  • robert108

    “Chuck”: The liar always justifies his lies, and the addict always justifies his addiction. Good luck.

  • robert108

    “As I have already ‘splained to you, taxation is only a benefit to the govt and the welfare class.” This defeats everything you just pointed out.

    Nope. You claimed taxes paid on cigarettes(which would be directly attributable to smoking) were a “benefit” of smoking, and I pointed out that taxes aren’t really a benefit to anyone. The taxes paid for cigarettes probably doesn’t cover the cost of smoking to society in general.
    Whether or not a person who buys gasoline is a smoker or not is immaterial. He or she is paying taxes for road use and law enforcement, because he or she uses the roads.
    Cigarette taxes are certainly not a “benefit” of smoking. BTW, they are meant to reduce smoking(which practice I do not approve of), but the call of addiction is so strong that the smokers just pay up anyway. It’s meant to ultimately produce zero revenue. It’s incorrect to characterize cigarette taxes as a “benefit” to anyone except govt and the welfare class.

  • robert108

    So it IS my choice UNDER THE LAW.

    Yes, but you are squealing about the laws that restrict smoking. Hypocritical.

    You seem to want to group all smokers together in one lump. You have this impression that we are all inconsiderate. I think that’s a pretty big assumption on your part.

    Maybe it’s like the 10-20% of Islamofascists who give the rest a bad name, but it’s a real problem for non smokers, and you seem to be in denial of that reality.
    I think your presumption that you are victims here is very wrong; smoking addicts are the perps, and smoking laws are the sign that the rest of us are getting pretty tired of having you put your shit in our lungs. The real question is: how far will you push it before you wake up to the reality of what you are doing, drop all the excuses and rationalizations, and take responsibility for the consequences of your addiction?

  • Ken

    I love the faux-outrage over someone satirizing r108. If I remember correctly someone did the exact same thing to Hannitized under the name “Olbermanized”. No one said dick about it then.

    BTW, you have no “right” to smoke.

    Sure you do. The principles of freedom dictate that everybody has a right to do whatever they want so long as those rights don’t infringe upon the rights of others. As long as smokers choose to smoke on private property, including businesses that allow smoking, it does not infringe on your rights. You can choose not to go there.

    You keep arguing that smoking is wrong because the public has to foot the bill for the consequences. But the problem doesn’t seem to be the smokers; the problem really is a system where people are forced to pay for the healthcare of others.

  • robert108

    zakk: Since you don’t seem to be getting it; I’ll once again ‘splain the difference between a “right” and the right to make a choice. A real right, like free speech or freedom of religion, is almost unconditional, and is really based on the concept of preventing consequences from those who disagree with either your speech or your religious preferences.
    The right to choose, on the other hand, does not relieve one from the consequences of one’s actions.
    Get it?
    Yes, you have the right to choose to smoke, as well as the right to choose any number of foolish/dangerous activities, but you can’t escape the consequences of your choice. That’s the difference.
    The Constitution protects you from the consequences of your choices of speech and religion, but does not protect you from the consequenes of your choice to smoke, one of which is the disapproval from those who don’t want you to put your shit in their lungs.

  • robbie108

    my truth is the antidote to your facts.

  • robert108

    As long as we all live by Robert108s’ rules we’ll all be better off. Kinda similar to the DNC. Do as I say, not as I do.

    You have it backwards. I don’t want my air “ruled” by unconscious and inconsiderate tobacco addicts. You do whatever you want, but stop squealing when you get the consequences. You want to put out the fiction that there are “anti-smoking Nazis” that live to spoil your fun, but the reality is that you are reaping what you have sown. When you put your shit in our lungs, you don’t realize that we don’t want it there.
    You think you are being “considerate” by asking me if it’s OK for you to put your shit in my lungs, but cry like a little girl if I ask you the same thing.
    If smokers were really considerate, there would be no need for any such legislation. You have created this situation by your own actions.

  • zakk

    Thanks for finding the happy medium between one persons’ right to not smoke and on persons’ right to smoke.

    I don’t understand how you can deny the fact that if smoking is legal, then I have the right to do so. Makes you sound silly. Maybe you could support this theory with an example of something that is legal but no one has the right to do it.

    As I stated before, it you want to make it illegal, go for it! As I also stated, if it become illegal, then I will quit.

    “If you continue on your present path, we might establish something different.” There’s more of that God complex you have. “WE” in italics?

    Let’s be honest here, it’s all about you. Somehow I’m the selfish one, because I’m trying to find a way to make BOTH sides happy, but you only care about the non-smoking side. But I’M the selfish one?

    “As a corollary, stop acting as if the world is your ashtray. You have brought this upon yourselves.” Once again, you really shouldn’t group ME in personally with the other smokers who do throw their trash everywhere. Although, I know plenty of non-smokers who are litter bugs. And, a 1 inch filter that will eventually disintegrate compared to a plastic water bottle that will sit and be an eye sore for years to come, is not really that big a deal. But I’ve noticed you like to nit pick, so I’ll just ignore that one.

    “Do whatever it takes to accomplish that, and you will be able to continue your addiction in peace.”
    This is what I asked you to begin with. What is YOUR solution? Best I can tell, your solution is for all smokers to go to hell and that’s that. Well, that’s not to selfish now is it? I believe I asked in a very polite manner what would help us reach a happy medium. You followed that up with your normal rants about how we are shitting in your lungs, and then your veiled threats about something or other, and blah, blah, blah…
    You have no solution, you just want to bitch about it. I get it. That’s just your stance on this issue.
    I respect you for sticking to your guns, even if I totally disagree with you.

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • robert108

    I don’t understand how you can deny the fact that if smoking is legal, then I have the right to do so.

    No. You have the right to choose to do it. There is no “right to smoke” in the Constitution. I realize the lefties have so distorted the concept of “rights” that the general public has no idea what the word means, but I guess I expected better from you.

    I don’t see how you missed my solution, but I’ll repeat it one more time: Don’t put your shit in the lungs of people who don’t want it there, and you will have no problems with your addiction, and will be able to continue it in peace. Just be considerate of the peace of others.
    What part of that didn’t you understand.
    You seem to be back to the “making wild, false charges” mode again, after a brief interlude of being rational.

  • zakk

    Your solution:
    “Don’t put your shit in the lungs of people who don’t want it there, and you will have no problems with your addiction, and will be able to continue it in peace. Just be considerate of the peace of others.”
    Now, I thought we had already done this by smoking in designated areas. But you seem to have a problem with us smoking in designated areas. There are areas that are public and you are NOT allowed to smoke there, fine with me, I don’t smoke there. But if it is an area that is legal for me to smoke, and there aren’t any kids around then I’ll smoke there. To be honest with you, I usually look for an area that is off to the side anyway, because I like to smoke and drift off in my thoughts.

    Again, can you give me an example of something that is legal, that I don’t have the right to do. This is not a left or right issue, this is an issue of if it’s legal, I can do it. You may not agree with it, but it is legal it’s legal. Bottom line.

    I don’t believe the Constitution has every single right listed in it. Some of the rights are rather vague and open to interpretation. (which is why the left is able to run wild with it) But here’s the funny irony of it, I bet they were smoking while they wrote it.

    “You seem to be back to the “making wild, false charges” mode again, after a brief interlude of being rational.” Like what? Example please?

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • Hawk

    This kind of asshat tactic is completely dishonest and reprehensible at a site that prides itself on civil and respectful discussion of the issues.

    Oh come on, I’m not saying that I agree with Robbie108′s tactics, but this place pride’s itself on saying anything, not civil and respectful discussion. Robert108 is the last person who is either civil or respectful. He calls everybody he disagrees with a liar.

  • robert108

    “Chuck”: I know you’re easily confused, but there’s a sockpuppet here, trying to smear my good name.

    Likwid: You keep trying to conflate driving and energy production with smoking, but you are wrong on two fronts: One, one source of pollution doesn’t justify or excuse another, and Two, the pollution produced by driving and industry is the price we pay for mobility and valuable energy production, but what is the benefit to smoking?
    The two aren’t comparable.

  • robert108

    Now, I thought we had already done this by smoking in designated areas.

    I’m asking for personal awareness and taking responsibility for your actions, and you come back with rule-following. Don’t you realize why those rules are there in the first place? You addicts weren’t considerate of the rights of non smokers not to have your shit put in their lungs. And don’t try to muddy the issue; if you want to try to sell the idea that all smokers smoke only in “designated areas”, you are being dishonest. Once again, the problem is that smokers put their shit in the lungs of those who don’t want it there. Stop doing that, and stop treating the world as your ashtray, and your problems with others will fade away. Your personal problems with decreased health and addiction will remain, of course.

  • Ken

    but does not protect you from the consequenes of your choice to smoke, one of which is the disapproval from those who don’t want you to put your shit in their lungs.

    So by you’re logic here, I could say all the racist shit I want, but because free speech is in the Constitution I’m protected from the disapproval of those who don’t want me to make racist remarks.

  • robert108

    too much fun for one day

    A man has to know his limits.

  • Chuck

    Zakk,
    Robby108 will not answer direct questions or acknowledge counterpoints. He is a casestudy in the obtuse, and he wants to shit down your lungs, so for gods sake, be careful!

  • zakk

    “You don’t have a “right” to vote, either! You have to meet certain requirements”
    Would those be certain requirements UNDER THE LAW?

    “You can either be responsible, or get the consequences. Your choice.”
    So it IS my choice UNDER THE LAW.

    “You could simply be aware of the impact of your behavior on others, and take the appropriate steps, but you’re not doing it.”
    As I stated earlier (which you have ignored over and over and over again) I am fully aware of the people around me, hence why I don’t smoke around kids or people who aren’t smoking.

    You seem to want to group all smokers together in one lump. You have this impression that we are all inconsiderate. I think that’s a pretty big assumption on your part.

    “Instead, you are braying about “rights”.” I’m just pointing out that if it’s not illegal, it’s with in my rights UNDER THE LAW.

    “You don’t have a “right” to vote, either! You have to meet certain requirements, and you have to wait for an election in your area or a Federal election before you can vote in any meaningful way, and you can choose to not vote.
    You have a right to meet the eligibility requirements for voting, though, but it doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voting for the wrong person, though.” And all of these rights are protected UNDER THE LAW.

    Still waiting to see if you will take me up on the offer:
    Let’s run an experiment.
    I’m going to go out on the street, light a cigarette in plain view of a police officer. -NOW- Your going to shit down someones lungs in plain view of a police officer. Which one of us is going to get arrested.
    That my friend is the difference between legal and illegal. It’s legal and I’m within my rights as a citizen of the United States to smoke. Your idea, on the other hand, is NOT legal and is not your right as a citizen of the United States.

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • robert108

    Your therapist is waiting for you.

    I’m not the angry tobacco addict, “chuck”. Nice projection, though.

  • Ken

    R108′s whole littering angle is complete bunk. There are already laws against littering. Its like saying knives should be illegal because they can be used to kill people. There are already laws against murder.

    If you think all smokers only smoked on private property, away from non smokers, so that they didn’t put their shit into the lungs of those who would like to choose not to breathe it, there would be no problem for the smokers. You’re not in the real world here.

    Well I’ll agree that the one’s that smoke right next to you in public places are inconsiderate dicks. Most smokers I know however, smoke only on private property, in bars where smoking is allowed (again, private property), and in public areas that are a good distance from any non-smokers. And where are all these places you’re going where smoke is forced on you? Aside from bars, I rarely am forced to breath smoke. The problem is that you’re not in the real world. You somehow feel that you have the right to go any where you want and not be subjected to practices you find offensive.

    Show me evidence that second-hand smoke coming from 20-50 feet away from the front of a building is concentrated enough to have any significant health impact. There aren’t any publicly owned buildings where smoking inside is allowed (that I’m aware of anyway). If you go into a privately owned facility, then you have no right to expect it to be smoke-free. So show me the scientific data that second hand smoke outside (after all this is the only place you can argue that you have a right to smoke-free air) a reasonable distance away from you causes any measurable, significant health impact on you.

  • robert108

    r108
    you are having a bad day. that last comment is hardly coherent.

    Coming from you, Sparkie, that’s a compliment. As always, when you try to speak for me, you get it totally wrong. I’m having a great day, not that it’s any of your business.

    pp: You hit it right on the button.

  • Ken

    Yes, you have the right to choose to smoke, as well as the right to choose any number of foolish/dangerous activities, but you can’t escape the consequences of your choice. That’s the difference.
    The Constitution protects you from the consequences of your choices of speech and religion, but does not protect you from the consequenes of your choice to smoke, one of which is the disapproval from those who don’t want you to put your shit in their lungs.

    Bullshit. The Constitution protects you from governmental consequences. I have free speech, but if I say some really offensive or dumb stuff, I still have to live with the consequences. If my employer wants to fire me for saying inappropriate things, the Constitution doesn’t protect me from that consequence. The only difference you have identified is that one right is found in the constitution and the other is not. However, its foolish to believe that rights are derived solely from a document; they’re innate.

  • Zakk

    Again, I have to ask (knowing full well that you will never actually answer a direct question) how are you being ‘forced’ to breath in smoke? Is anyone forcing you to walk around to the designated smoking area?
    Ok- now, change the subject.

  • robert108

    At least you’re consistent, e man. You are consistently ignorant. You don’t know what “cost/benefit” means, either.

  • Nunez

    robert108,

    So, you claim there is no truth, then?

    Nietzsche was not talking about truth specifically, if your way is to be a doctor and that’s what you love doing, then that is your way and another’s it is not. There is no correct way. The rest of your comment is a red herring.

    As far as being “censorious” of others, that fits you pretty well. I, on the other hand, censor no one; I’m happy to refute their untruths.

    Censorious – Tending to censure; highly critical.

    Your ignorance is obvious to many here and unfortunately, my friend, you’re blind to it. For example, when you discuss foreign policy, censure others for their opinions, and you don’t know that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East.

  • robert108

    So by you’re logic here, I could say all the racist shit I want, but because free speech is in the Constitution I’m protected from the disapproval of those who don’t want me to make racist remarks.

    It’s not “my logic”; it’s actually in the Constitution. It’s called the First Amendment, and you really should read it before you start ranting.
    So-called “hate speech” is direct violation of the First Amendment. I realize your brain has been rotted by decades of Political Correctness, but that’s what the Right to Free Speech is. Personal disapproval isn’t under the purview of the Constitution, btw; only legal restriction. You really should read up on how our govt is supposed to be run. It might open your eyes.
    I’m talking about speech here, not hiring discrimination, for instance, so don’t try to distract with that.

  • ellinas

    This is why some of us worry about the “peaceful” Muslims; we don’t know to what extent they will defend their radical brethren, if it comes down to that. Truth is the antidote to propaganda.
    robert108 on June 19, 2008 at 02:15 pm

    Talk about changing the subject. I see smoke coming out of someone’s ass.

  • zakk

    Bobby my boy, you are missing my point over and over again. I’m going to put this in capital letters so maybe you’ll get it. IT’S LEGAL- YOU DON’T LIKE IT, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE, BECAUSE IT’S LEGAL. Until you show me an example of something that is LEGAL but I don’t have the right to do I’m going to consider this conversation over with you because you are only in this for your own selfish reasons. You don’t like smoking, I get that. That’s fine. You have to learn to live with those of us around you.

    It’s a legal choice, that you disagree with. TFB- like I said earlier, change the law and I’ll quit but as long as it’s legal, I’m doing it.
    And here’s the really fun part. If I get sick and die, guess who’s fault that is, MINE. And I’m ok with that.

    Take a lesson from Mrs. Garret – ‘You take the good, You take the bad, You take them both and there you have THE FACTS OF LIFE”

    You have been going on and on about how we are FORCING you, who is forcing you? Who is walking up to you, opening your mouth and blowing smoke down your pristine lungs? Who is grabbing you face and blowing smoke up your nose? I’m pretty sure that would be AGAINST the law. If your standing next to someone and they light up, you could very easily ask them to not smoke around you. But your solution would be to drop trow and leave a steamer in their lungs. That is a very mature way to handle a situation.

    Oh and one more thing.
    Let’s run an experiment.
    I’m going to go out on the street, light a cigarette in plain view of a police officer. -NOW- Your going to shit down someones lungs in plain view of a police officer. Which one of us is going to get arrested.
    That my friend is the difference between legal and illegal.

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • chuck

    robert108 will always get the last word cuz thats his/her job, to sit at his/her computer and tell everyone else what the truth is. This from a guy/girl who could not possibly be a productive member of society, judging from the almost 19000 posts he/she has placed just on this site alone. Get the picture?
    Ok, no satire, no parody, just the truth….
    robert108 is a zealot, a guy/girl who thinks he/she is always right, his opinions are truth, and is way is the only way. He/she thinks he/she knows more than everyone else, sees no room for debate, just the monolithic gigantism of his/her personal facts. A good example of a person comparable to robert108 would be a blatant racist, a holier than thou right wing jesus freak, or one of those people who drive like a maniac and think everyone else drives badly. To argue with a guy/girl like him/her is a act of futility, cuz in his mind he is not only perfect, but anyone who isnt like him/her is wrong and should be MADE TO COMPLY with whatever robert108′s personal
    view is on any given point. I am quite sure this is his/her tactics on the manymanymany threads he/she posts to. A non-productive telling productives how to live is like a welfare recipient complaining about having to walk to the mailbox for the monthly check…hmmmm
    robbie108 likely would have made a joke, had fun with robert108′s clear imbalance, but alas, robbie108 has been relegated to the land of NO HUMOR AND NO MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE WHO ASK FOR IT. I think they used to call that the U.S.S.R., but as Orwell once said, the east and the west will pass each other going in opposite directions sometime around the turn of the century. Authoritarianism has been with us for a while, and even if he/she doesnt know it, robert108 is a clear authoritarianist, but without the self awareness to know why he/she is that way.
    Ok, I didnt address this directly to robert108, as I have enraged him and hurt his/her feelings already this week, and I promised not to interact with him/her directly, as he/she was worried about his/her “good name” lol
    and directing satire towards him/her hurt his/her feelings. he/she is very emotional, easily bruised…the rest is cover for that fact.

  • robert108

    I’m sure you can’t go through life without
    running into a dick or two, but that’s when you can be dick back.

    Thus my comment to the smoker. Even though someone insists that when the smoker asks me if I mind if he puts his shit in my lungs is being “considerate”. When I say it back to him(even though I would never do it), I’m being an “asshat”. Double standard.

  • robert108

    zakk: Here’s the deal: you claim you are not one of the inconsiderate smokers, so my statements about them don’t apply to you!
    Why are you defending their thoughtlessness, if you don’t agree with them?
    This is why some of us worry about the “peaceful” Muslims; we don’t know to what extent they will defend their radical brethren, if it comes down to that.

  • robert108

    Bottom line, if you want to smoke you have every right to…

    Not when it violates someone else’s right to not breathe your smoke.

  • robert108

    TFB- like I said earlier, change the law and I’ll quit but as long as it’s legal, I’m doing it.

    If you addicts continue your arrogant and irresponsible ways, that might be necessary to get you to be responsible for your behavior. You can either be responsible, or get the consequences. Your choice.
    You seem to be ignoring the obvious trend toward more enforcement in this area. You are typical addicts; self-centered and generally ignorant of the impact of your behavior on others. If it takes laws to snap you out of your denial, so be it. You could simply be aware of the impact of your behavior on others, and take the appropriate steps, but you’re not doing it. Instead, you are braying about “rights”. Very sad.

  • robert108

    See, a reasonable statement, could be logical, but from you, it must be questioned…

    I agreed with him, “chuck”. Has your addiction made you that stupid? And yes, he almost always peddles leftie economic nonsense. This statement was a rare exception.

  • robert108

    I agree, “hate speech” is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

    If you mean defining some speech as “hate speech” and making it illegal, then you are right.
    I’m sorry if you misunderstood my mention of “disapproval”, so let me clarify: the disapproval of non smokers for their putting their shit into lungs that never wanted it is understandable, since it is a result of all sorts of violations. On the other hand, the disapproval of some people for what they erroneously describe as “hate speech” is only about the potential for imagined harm, not actual harm.
    See the difference?

    Also, how do you personally distinguish between rights and privileges?

    Again, I refer you to the Constitution: anything not in the Constitution is either a choice or a privilege, and is conditional; real rights are not conditional.
    If that is too hard to understand, try this: rights cannot be taken away by simple behavior. Privileges can be suspended for a wide range of behaviors.
    Before you try to distract with felons losing their rights, that is a matter of law, and requires some pretty objectionable behavior, not just saying something that offends someone. On the other hand, although smoking harms many people that don’t choose to smoke, you can’t lose your real rights as a consequence of that.

  • robert108

    R108′s whole littering angle is complete bunk.

    Wrong. I live in a beach town, and the taxpayers here pay in the neighborhood if $100,000 a year removing cigarette butts from our public beaches. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely ignorant. That’s no excuse for your false characterization of what I said, though.

    IT’S LEGAL- YOU DON’T LIKE IT, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE, BECAUSE IT’S LEGAL.

    Wrong! I have already ‘splained it to you multiple times, so you just don’t get it, apparently. I recommend you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution sometime, and educate yourself what a real “right” is.
    Here’s a surprise for you: You don’t have a “right” to vote, either! You have to meet certain requirements, and you have to wait for an election in your area or a Federal election before you can vote in any meaningful way, and you can choose to not vote.
    You have a right to meet the eligibility requirements for voting, though, but it doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voting for the wrong person, though.

  • robert108

    “IF” seems to me that you said you ‘DON’T favor legislation’ so which is it? You don’t favor legislation or only ‘if’ it works out for you? Do you do this deliberately? I said, if the behavior continues, then legislation might be necessary; I neither condoned or approved of it personally, but recognize that it might happen if present trends of arrogant smokers continues. Your spin is just nonsense.

    Question? Statement? I’m just pointing out that you said it. The punctuation is the only difference. Wrong. A question proposes a choice; a statement makes a promise, and neither of them are equivalent of action. When the smoker asks me “Mind if I smoke?”, he is giving me the option of saying “Hell, no!”. If I answer him by saying “Mind if I shit in your lungs?”, I’m giving him the choice of realizing what he is offering me, and then making a thinking choice to abstain. I’m not actually doing it. You are either confused, or are deliberately trying to prolong an argument by mischaracterizing what I said.

    I hope this clears things up for you, because I’m finding your constant bullshit on this subject very boring now. I have ‘splained my position to you multiple times, and it isn’t going to change, no matter what you make up.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – Yes, you have the right to choose to smoke, as well as the right to choose any number of foolish/dangerous activities, but you can’t escape the consequences of your choice. That’s the difference.

    That’s not a difference. Everything in life is that way.

    robert108, you have a habit of turning the personal pronoun of “I” into “you [all]“. For example, both zakk and I have repeatedly said that we’re not the litterbugs or the inconsiderate ones who force you to breath in smoke. What do you then lead into? “You have brought this upon yourselves.” and “you addicts”.

    So much for granting that we’re individuals.

    Whenever this is pointed out, you say something along the lines of “once again, you don’t get it”.

    Oh no, we get it alright. You treat smokers as if they are one monolithic block of people who all act and behave in the same manner.

    Every now and then for some reason unfathomable to even myself, I check my horoscope. Here is a portion of what it said:

    Libra (Sep 23 – Oct 22)

    Keep in mind that you don’t have to add anyone else’s discomfort to your own. If others attempt to lay a guilt trip on you, just remind them that you did the best you could — and then let it go.

    And with that, robert108, I bid you adieu.

  • Nunez

    robert108,

    chuck and Brandon: I see you continue your no-content personal attacks, so I will be ignoring you from now on. Good luck.

    You are kidding? If you ignore people that argue with ‘no-content personal attacks,’ instead of an intelligent discussion then you must be ignoring yourself. Why do you see the speck in another’s eye but do not see the log in your own?

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    Your ignorance will be mutually accepted as I tend to shy away from debating those who engage in rank hypocrisy and don’t know the meaning of the term, disagree without being disagreeable.

  • robert108

    As I mentioned above, I wasn’t smearing you.

    Yes, you were, and I countered you with the truth. Again, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I have no incentive or need to be dishonest, since I have no hidden agenda. I am upfront with my agenda, which is to support the Founding Principles and the Constitution. I want this country to return to those, and to reject the toxic fascism/socialism/communism of the lefties, who do have a need to be dishonest. If they revealed their true agenda, they would be rejected by the voters, and buying votes is their only profession, when it comes right down to it.
    I don’t pander to anyone, because I have no interest in anyone’s approval. I don’t care about your feelings, only your honest thoughts. I also don’t care what you think of me, so telling me anything in that vein is wasted effort. Put out your facts and logic(if you have any), and you will get either a counter-argument or agreement from me, with no bullshit. Be prepared to defend your position, and if you have nothing other than personal attack, I will expose you. If we disagree in one thread, but if you make sense in another one, I will still agree with you, and bear no animus toward you, no matter what kind of bullshit you might have been embracing on any other subject.
    Calling me dishonest is an obscene lie.

  • robert108

    Make no mistake, “chuck”, I’m very touched by your obvious obsession with me, but you have me confused with someone who gives a shit about what you think and feel; I’m not your Daddy, so it’s not my job to listen to you prattle on about your feelings, and I’m completely uninterested in what you seem to be driven to make up about me. I have a suggestion for you: Get a life.

  • robert108

    “chuck”: Your repugnant personal attack, with no basis in anything other than your malignant narcissism, is noted.

  • robert108

    What do you then lead into? “You have brought this upon yourselves.” and “you addicts”.

    If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. If you’re a reasonable smoker, why do you defend the other ones?

  • chuck

    ob·tuse /É™bˈtus, -ˈtyus/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-toos, -tyoos] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
    2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
    3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
    4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [Origin: 1500--10; < L obtūsus dulled (ptp. of obtundere), equiv. to ob- ob- + tūd-, var. s. of tundere to beat + -tus ptp. suffix, with dt > s]

    –Related forms
    ob·tuse·ly, adverb
    ob·tuse·ness, noun

    –Synonyms 1. unfeeling, tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, boorish; slow, dim.

  • pparets

    zakk: As a smoker, I can appreciate your umbrage over this issue. But, truth be told, a free society functions in thee modes: Rights, responsibilities and privileges.

    You have the right to worship as you wish, own a gun and not testify against yourself.

    You have the responsibility to pay your taxes, obey the speed limit and observe the law.

    You have the privilege to drive, smoke, own a boat, shop at a mall, watch TV, etc.

    The difference? Your rights are inalienable. All responsibilities and privileges can be regulated by law.

  • robert108

    I think, unlike robert, that a happy medium can be found.

    I don’t think that at all; as a matter of fact, I have repeated multiple times that I not only don’t I favor legislation, but I think it is in the hands of the smokers to solve. If they remove the irritating behavior, no one will even want regulate them.
    Other than the mischaracterization of what I think, I agree with you on the issue.
    BTW, the Parkinson’s comment was a joke, although I was guilty of not using a /humor tag. Since your physician doesn’t know me, he is the pompous ass here.

  • ellinas

    Bobby my boy, you are missing my point over and over again.
    zakk on June 19, 2008 at 11:02 am

    No. He is not missing your point. He is ignoring it.
    In his (Robert108′s) world only his (Robert108′s)points are worthy of consideration. And please make sure when you consider his (Robert108′s) points you arive only to a conclusion that he (Robert108) agrees with. Pity to those that don’t. Because after all only he (Robert108) matters.
    Because as you can see this is a Robert108
    world.

  • Ken

    Ken: I see him satirizing Leftist positions.

    In some responses he does, but here’s a direct parody/satire of Hannitized.

    Hannitized says:

    My counterparts are not intellectual enough to fathom the idea.

    Olbermanized in the next immediate post says:

    I’m soo amazingly more intelligent than everyone else. I must lower myself to a child’s level to deal with my betters. My self agrandizing preening makes it easier for me to have my ass handed to me intellectually on this board day in and day out.

    Either way, both “Olbermanized” and “Robbie108″ are kind of asshats. I may not agree with any of Hannitized stances and very few of Robert108′s (except for economics and defense), but both deserve to be debated in an honest manner (even if both aren’t always honest themselves).

  • chuck

    “Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population”
    Albert Einstein

  • robert108

    e man: Your irrelevant nonsense is noted(again).
    The reality here is that I didn’t “ignore” his point; I refuted it numerous times. After that, he tried the personal attack line that I “ignored” his point(like a squalling infant).
    His “point” was that if something is legal, that automatically makes it a “right”. This is false, and both pp and I refuted it.
    As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.
    BTW, I’m under no obligation to pay attention to you or anyone else. If you really need attention that badly, get a hooker.

  • Ken

    Ken: You make the assumption that “Olbermanized” was satirizing the person of Hannitized. That’s not necessarily so. A person could imply “I am Olbermanized in the same that you are Hannitized”. The sock puppet named “Robbie 108″ has no such plausible explanation.

    I don’t need to assume anything. The person using the name Olbermanized was satirizing the person of Hannitized. Look at the threads:

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_responds_to_quest_about_jimmy_carter_hamas_why_cant_i_just_eat_my_waf/

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/mccain_condemns_north_carolina_gop_ad_using_footage_of_obamas_pastor/

    The one using “Olbermanized” only comments after Hannitized has posted. Every single one of his comments directly parodies or satirizes the comments from Hannitized.

    Either way, I agree that its not in good taste, but I feel the differences between the two incidents are so insignificant that there is no way to justify being outraged at one but not the other.

  • robert108

    …as for the correct way, it doesn’t exist.

    So, you claim there is no truth, then? Thanks for being honest about your cynicism. I don’t share it. In every situation, there is one truth and many untruths. That truth can be known, if you are willing to make the effort, and once known, it doesn’t change.
    Sorry you don’t know that.

    As far as being “censorious” of others, that fits you pretty well. I, on the other hand, censor no one; I’m happy to refute their untruths.

  • zakk

    “IF” seems to me that you said you ‘DON’T favor legislation’ so which is it? You don’t favor legislation or only ‘if’ it works out for you?

    Question? Statement? I’m just pointing out that you said it. The punctuation is the only difference.

    “Good for you. Most smokers aren’t that conscious, thus the problem and the unfortunate need for legislation.”

    There it is again, that pesky Legislation that you are against, or are you for it? I can’t tell anymore.

    I believe you refered to me right here:

    “Yes, but you are squealing about the laws that restrict smoking. Hypocritical.”

    This is what you wrote refering to a quote from something I wrote. robert108 on June 19, 2008 at 11:51 am

    “You fooled me with all that stuff about “rights”, I guess. If that’s your real position, you agree with me; why do you continue to argue, then?”

    I do agree with you as far as your right to not have to breath it in, but you have to understand that I’m coming from the angel of the guy who plays by the rules set out by the non-smokers. That’s why I’m so perplexed by your feeling that we are somehow ‘forcing’ you to breath in smoke. I don’t see a lot of non-smokers hanging out in the smoking areas. And I don’t see any smokers out looking for non-smokers to chase down and force them to inhale smoke.

    “I’m a “leave me the hell alone” conservative.”

    Funny so am I. That’s why I keep saying you should leave me alone and let me smoke. I wont blow my smoke your way, and you keep your opinions about my smoking to your self. Live and let live.

    My Grandmother always told me that I was going to do, what I was going to do. “And when you die, we’ll bury you.” She was a very blunt woman.

  • Ken

    Nice try, but wrong.

    No, I’m not wrong. Notice I said “even if both aren’t always honest themselves”. Had I wanted to imply that you are dishonest, I would have said “even though both aren’t always honest”. I don’t know you well enough to make a firm judgement on your degree of honesty. According to others on this site you are frequently dishonest. I simply allowed for the possibility in my statement that they might be right. Whether you are honest or not, others should still enter a debate with you in an honest manner.

    I won’t allow you to smear me unopposed.

    As I mentioned above, I wasn’t smearing you.

  • chuck

  • Nunez

    robert108,

    My friend, you will come to the realization that there are many ways on the path of life. You have you way, I have my way, as for the correct way, it doesn’t exist. As you realize that when you undertake yourself to be the judge of Truth and Knowledge you’ll be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. What is tolerance? It is the consequence of reality. We are all formed of frailty and error; Remember that no talent, no self-denial, no brains, no character, are required to set up in the fault-finding business. Only God can shape a flower, but any foolish child can tear it to pieces.

    It’s a dogmatical spirit that inclines a man to be censorious of another. Everyone of his opinions seems to be written in stone and he grows angry that his fellow man does not see it in the same light. He is tempted to disdain his fellow men as men with a inferior intelligence than himself because they do not believe what he does.

    Remember: Contempt is like holding a hot coal to throw at somebody else, you are the one that’s going to get burned.

  • robert108

    even if both aren’t always honest themselves

    Nice try, but wrong. I always say what I mean, and mean what I say. The fact that you may disagree with me only matters if you can convince me with a logical or factual argument, based on valid premises.
    I won’t allow you to smear me unopposed.

  • robert108

    Lying Sockpuppet: While I realize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, if you have any integrity you will use your own name. Of course, maybe you lack the confidence to reveal yourself, which is understandable in light of your ideas so far.

  • robert108

    1: a judgment involving condemnation
    2archaic : opinion, judgment
    3: the act of blaming or condemning sternly
    4: an official reprimand

    Which is exactly what you deserve for your constant lying, e man! It is derived from the word “censor”, so you are merely lying again, as well as doing your usual stalking and circlejerking.

    The truth is, you lying leftie trolls hate me because of my honesty; it exposes your dishonesty.

  • Ken

    Calling me dishonest is an obscene lie.

    I left open the possibility that you might be dishonest in my statement. I never stated that you are dishonest. I don’t know you, so as I said before, I’m not willing to make a judgement on your honesty or veracity. If you can’t understand that I never called you dishonest, then that’s your problem I guess.

    I also don’t care what you think of me, so telling me anything in that vein is wasted effort.

    Good. There’s no need to ever care what some random person on the internet thinks of you.

    If we disagree in one thread, but if you make sense in another one, I will still agree with you, and bear no animus toward you, no matter what kind of bullshit you might have been embracing on any other subject.

    If that’s the truth, then I respect that. As I mentioned before, I don’t really agree with you on many issues, but on some key issues I think we see eye to eye, such as federalism, judicial conservatism, defense, and economics.

  • robert108

    For example, when you discuss foreign policy, censure others for their opinions, and you don’t know that Israel is a democracy in the Middle East.

    Of course I do; I was talking about the Islamic countries. You know that, and yet you lie; liars deserve censure, so you are wrong on that as well.
    BTW, I asked you about what you believe, not some dead philosopher. You are dishonest.

  • robert108

    Nobody cares enough to hate you. If anything, people in this blog get a laugh at your incompetence in
    constructing logical arguments without ad hominems.

    Says the lying sockpuppet. Actually, your attempts to post in my name affirm everything I have said; you are simply too dim to realize it.

  • robert108

    Your going to shit down someones lungs…

    Wrong again. What I actually said was that when a smoking addict asks me “Mind if I smoke?”(which is dishonest and manipulative way of saying “Mind if I shit in your lungs?”, I turn it back on them and give them an honest version of what they just asked me. “May I shit in your lungs?”. I know you have gotten a lot of emotional mileage out of this mischaracterization what I said, but you are really showing your inability to understand something very simple. BTW, in contrast to the smoker, who will actually put his shit in my lungs, I would never actually do that to another human being.
    Get it?
    If your argument requires this much mischaracterization, it should tell you something.

  • robert108

    …I don’t really agree with you on many issues, but on some key issues I think we see eye to eye, such as federalism, judicial conservatism, defense, and economics.

    Thanks for the implied compliment, but the issue of agreement is completely separate from the issue of honesty, at least for me.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 – I guess the lying sockpuppet is the liar who previously called himself “chuck”.

    No, it wasn’t. It was Nunez.

  • robert108

    There’s no need to ever care what some random person on the internet thinks of you.

    To the contrary; as an honest person, I am bound by principle to defend the truth, and to reveal lies and dishonesty.
    Those leftie trolls who influenced your thinking hate me precisely because of my honesty.
    You included me in a group that was dishonest, which impugns my honesty, no matter how much you deny it.

  • robert108

    robert108,

    Those leftie trolls who influenced your thinking hate me precisely because of my honesty.

    Stop with the narcissism and false pride. Nobody cares enough to hate you. If anything, people in this blog get a laugh at your incompetence in constructing logical arguments without ad hominems.

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    Well said, pparets.

    Even though I’m a non-smoker, I still favor a free market solution to this issue. To that end, I either frequent restaurants that don’t allow smoking or I ask to be seated as far away from the smoke as possible.

    I just don’t think it’s the responsibility of any government to regulate the practice and I think, unlike robert, that a happy medium can be found.

    Take my place of employment for example. When I first started working here, the landlord designated an area that everyone who parks in the side parking lot has to walk through as the smoking area. Needless to say, non-smokers complained and the smoking area was moved to another area with no pedestrian traffic.

    We didn’t need an ordinance to resolve the issue.

    Robert: My Doc did check for Parkinson’s.

    He said I don’t have it. He also said you’re a pompous ass.

  • chuck
  • chuck

    robert108 will always get the last word cuz thats his/her job, to sit at his/her computer and tell everyone else what the truth is. This from a guy/girl who could not possibly be a productive member of society, judging from the almost 19000 posts he/she has placed just on this site alone. Get the picture?
    Ok, no satire, no parody, just the truth….
    robert108 is a zealot, a guy/girl who thinks he/she is always right, his opinions are truth, and is way is the only way. He/she thinks he/she knows more than everyone else, sees no room for debate, just the monolithic gigantism of his/her personal facts. A good example of a person comparable to robert108 would be a blatant racist, a holier than thou right wing jesus freak, or one of those people who drive like a maniac and think everyone else drives badly. To argue with a guy/girl like him/her is a act of futility, cuz in his mind he is not only perfect, but anyone who isnt like him/her is wrong and should be MADE TO COMPLY with whatever robert108′s personal
    view is on any given point. I am quite sure this is his/her tactics on the manymanymany threads he/she posts to. A non-productive telling productives how to live is like a welfare recipient complaining about having to walk to the mailbox for the monthly check…hmmmm
    robbie108 likely would have made a joke, had fun with robert108′s clear imbalance, but alas, robbie108 has been relegated to the land of NO HUMOR AND NO MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE WHO ASK FOR IT. I think they used to call that the U.S.S.R., but as Orwell once said, the east and the west will pass each other going in opposite directions sometime around the turn of the century. Authoritarianism has been with us for a while, and even if he/she doesnt know it, robert108 is a clear authoritarianist, but without the self awareness to know why he/she is that way.
    Ok, I didnt address this directly to robert108, as I have enraged him and hurt his/her feelings already this week, and I promised not to interact with him/her directly, as he/she was worried about his/her “good name” lol
    and directing satire towards him/her hurt his/her feelings. he/she is very emotional, easily bruised…the rest is cover for that fact.

  • robert108

    I guess the lying sockpuppet is the liar who previously called himself “chuck”. Still jonesing for my attention, eh, “chuck”?
    Get help.

  • robert108

    Nothing wrong with noting that a considerate question posed to you unleashes a most inconsiderate response.

    I don’t consider that request to be considerate at all; it is a game to try to manipulate the natural tolerance of non smokers, and we are right to express the truth behind the smoker’s action. I know the truth hurts, but it’s the truth. Smoking around non smokers is taking a shit in their lungs. If you don’t like that reality, don’t do the action.

  • robert108

    If you are responsible…

    Aye, there’s the rub!(with apologies to Wm. Shakespeare)

    Again, zakk, the situation, despite what you believe, isn’t symmetrical; when the smoker puts his shit in my lungs, he harms me in multiple ways, but when I stop him from smoking in my presence, I don’t harm him at all; he is free to go elsewhere, where he won’t harm others, and smoke his head off. His way: harmful. My way: not harmful.
    This really isn’t rocket science. The problem is created by the smoker who doesn’t take responsibility for the consequences of his actions on those around him, which might include other smokers who don’t want to smoke at that particular time. Don’t they have the right to make that choice?

  • zakk

    “Your rights are inalienable. All responsibilities and privileges can be regulated by law.” and the LAW says I have the PRIVILEGE to smoke (in designated areas. when applicable), does it not?

    And our PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS are protected by our LAWS. If you are responsible, and don’t break the law, then my PRIVILEGES are protected.

    That being said, what gives someone the RIGHT to take away that PRIVILEGE from me?

    If I had broken the LAW then I could see that. But I’m well within the law. So why would someone be able to take that PRIVILEGE away from me? It is my RIGHT to have those PRIVILEGES protected?

    Robert108 has the RIGHT and PRIVILEGE to not have a smoker blow smoke in his face or in his general direction. I respect that. I just wish the feeling was mutual.

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • zakk

    he is free to go elsewhere, where he won’t harm others, and smoke his head off.

    - This is what I’ve been saying, smokers smoke in designated smoking areas. If you have smokers who are smoking in areas where they shouldn’t be, then those are the people who are giving us a bad name. I’ve told people on numerous occasions that they can’t smoke here or there. I’ve never had any of them give me any flack about it. It’s amazing when you are polite to people (rational people) they tend to be just as polite back. I’m sure you can’t go through life without running into a dick or two, but that’s when you can be dick back.

  • robert108

    Robert108, what is your solution?
    I have said it over and over again, but am willing to repeat it one more time: stop putting your shit in our lungs!!! Do whatever it takes to accomplish that, and you will be able to continue your addiction in peace. As a corollary, stop acting as if the world is your ashtray. You have brought this upon yourselves.

    Smoking IS legal. We have established that.
    If you continue on your present path, we might establish something different. As soon as you get your collective head out of your collective addicted ass, you might realize that there is a trend here, and it’s only happening because you guys aren’t paying attention to anything other than your own selfish needs.

  • Ken

    It’s not “my logic”; it’s actually in the Constitution. It’s called the First Amendment, and you really should read it before you start ranting.

    Where? Show me where in the Constitution it says that people cannot disapprove of your words. It says that you have the freedom of speech but does not say anything about others being denied the right to disapprove of what your say. In the text below you even admit that personal disapproval (which you stated was a consequence of smoking, that was not protected “unlike free speech and religion”) isn’t under the purview of the Constitution.

    So-called “hate speech” is direct violation of the First Amendment. I realize your brain has been rotted by decades of Political Correctness, but that’s what the Right to Free Speech is. Personal disapproval isn’t under the purview of the Constitution, btw; only legal restriction. You really should read up on how our govt is supposed to be run. It might open your eyes.
    I’m talking about speech here, not hiring discrimination, for instance, so don’t try to distract with that.

    I agree, “hate speech” is in direct violation of the First Amendment. But you said one of the consequences of smoking is “the disapproval from those who don’t want you to put your shit in their lungs.” You said the the Constitution protects people from the consequences of free speech. It protects people from governmental and legal consequences of free speech, but it does not protect one from other people disapproving of the person’s speech. The Constitution doesn’t protect anyone from disapproval, it gives them the right to do something despite any disapproval they may encounter.

    Here’s what you said:

    The Constitution protects you from the consequences of your choices of speech and religion, but does not protect you from the consequenes of your choice to smoke, one of which is the disapproval from those who don’t want you to put your shit in their lungs.

    See by saying that a consequence of smoking is the disapproval of others you imply that the Constitution can protect people from having their speech disapproved by others.

    Also, how do you personally distinguish between rights and privileges?

  • zakk

    “I not only don’t I favor legislation,”
    interesting because you also said –
    “If you continue on your present path, we might establish something different. ”
    Unless of course you weren’t talking about the law. In which case, what were you saying?

    “…asks me “Mind if I smoke?”(which is dishonest and manipulative way of saying “Mind if I shit in your lungs?”, I turn it back on them and give them an honest version of what they just asked me. “May I shit in your lungs?”.” And yet, you never said you would shit down someones lungs?

    Where was I: “…squealing about the laws that restrict smoking” I think I have been very clear that I have and will continue to abide by whatever laws are put forth for me to follow. Hell, that’s how I keep my PRIVILEGE to smoke. But way to put words in my mouth. Isn’t that what your always bitchin’ about people doing to you?

    “and you seem to be in denial of that reality.” How am I in denial. I’ve stated over and over again that I understand your issue with not wanting second hand smoke near you.

    “Maybe it’s like the 10-20% of Islamofascists who give the rest a bad name” with that can I assume that you are giving all non-smokers a bad name as intolerant pumpass asshats? It’s either Robert108s’ way or no way at all. Why do I imagine you as the kid throwing a tantrum in the ice cream isle until mommy bought you your drumstick?

    “The real question is: how far will you push it before you wake up to the reality of what you are doing, drop all the excuses and rationalizations, and take responsibility for the consequences of your addiction?” What Excuses have I given? I’m a smoker, I like smoking, I’m proud to be a smoker! I take full and total responsibility for my smoking! I fully understand the consequences of smoking. I’m not telling you to be a smoker, am I? (This is the part where you can begin to insert words that I never said).

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ sayanything-24

    That is absolutely disgusting to use someone else’s name. And it is so easy to fix. Rob can simply check the IP you are posting from and match it to all the IPs of the other posters on the site, figure out who you are, and ban your fucking ass from the site.

    And I would suggest exactly that. This kind of asshat tactic is completely dishonest and reprehensible at a site that prides itself on civil and respectful discussion of the issues. So to maintain the decorum of civility and class that I always maintain–you are a scumbag piece of shit lying fucking asshole and you should have your ass banned.

    And while I think Robert is wrong from time to time (though it is tough to find concrete examples of any time he is wrong, he usually is just a little more idealistic than I view the world), he is always honest and puts a lot of thought into his posts and his comments. You are a pimple on his ass to play high school kid games and try to steal his identity.

    Robert–get an avatar. It helps us identify you. But that is just me.

  • robert108

    “I not only don’t I favor legislation,”
    interesting because you also said -
    “If you continue on your present path, we might establish something different. ”
    Unless of course you weren’t talking about the law. In which case, what were you saying? Do you understand the meaning of “If”?

    “…asks me “Mind if I smoke?”(which is dishonest and manipulative way of saying “Mind if I shit in your lungs?”, I turn it back on them and give them an honest version of what they just asked me. “May I shit in your lungs?”.” And yet, you never said you would shit down someones lungs? It was a question, not a statement. Do you understand the difference between the two?

    Where was I: “…squealing about the laws that restrict smoking” I think I have been very clear that I have and will continue to abide by whatever
    laws are put forth for me to follow. Hell, that’s how I keep my PRIVILEGE to smoke. Good for you. Most smokers aren’t that conscious, thus the problem and the unfortunate need for legislation. But way to put words in my mouth. Isn’t that what your always bitchin’ about people doing to you? No, I never directly attributed it to you by name. Get real.

    “and you seem to be in denial of that reality.” How am I in denial. I’ve stated over and over again that I understand your issue with not wanting second hand smoke near you. You fooled me with all that stuff about “rights”, I guess. If that’s your real position, you agree with me; why do you continue to argue, then?

    “Maybe it’s like the 10-20% of Islamofascists who give the rest a bad name” with that can I assume that you are giving all non-smokers a bad name as intolerant pumpass asshats? Your words, not mine. It’s either Robert108s’ way or no way at all. See, you mentioned my name, and you are wrong to characterize me that way. I’m a “leave me the hell alone” conservative. Why do I imagine you as the kid throwing a tantrum in the ice cream isle until mommy bought you your drumstick? I don’t know; it’s your imagination, so you use your own perceptions there; it has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Very revealing of how you think, though.

    “The real question is: how far will you push it before you wake up to the reality of what you are doing, drop all the excuses and rationalizations,
    and take responsibility for the consequences of your addiction?” What Excuses have I given? I’m a smoker, I like smoking, I’m proud to be a smoker! I take full and total responsibility for my smoking! I fully
    understand the consequences of smoking. Then you are a rarity, in my experience. Good for you. I’m not telling you to be a smoker, am I? (This is the part where you can begin to insert words that
    I never said).

    Wrong again.

  • robert108

    pparets – for the record I just assumed that robbie108 and robert108 were the same person.

    What part of “sockpuppet” didn’t you understand?
    Why would I use another name, when I have used my own so many times?

  • robert108

    Thanks, Justin. I know we disagree on some things, but this kind of crap is just a narcissistic addict melting down. He isn’t secure in his own identity, and isn’t intelligent enough to make a real argument, so resorts to this kid stuff. By their fruits ye shall know them.

  • zakk

    OK. let me throw this out there.
    Robert108, what is your solution?
    Smoking IS legal. We have established that.
    What do YOU think should be done?
    If you say make it illegal, fine, when that happens I will quit smoking and the world will live in perfect harmony.
    But until then, what is YOUR solution?
    What do YOU want done?
    Because, like it or not, it IS legal and I do have the right to smoke, that being said you DO have the right to not have to inhale it. How can we find a happy medium?

    “You know, I rather like this Robert108 fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence … gotta get me some of that.”

  • ellinas

    I say lets all pitch in an get Robert108 an oxygen tank and some kind of breathing apparatus. This way he will step outside and this debate will end.

  • robert108

    You asked a rhetorical question…

    No, I didn’t, lying sockpuppet! It was a direct question in response to a directly-stated position that there is no “right way”.
    e man is a lying, ignorant troll. Nice to see who you think is any sort of authority on anything.

  • robert108

    No, it wasn’t. It was Nunez.

    Duly noted. I have no respect for either of those two little stalkers.

  • chuck

    havent posted a thing at all today until now asshole. Wrong again, but we are used to you being wrong. Who is obsessed with who robbie108/asshole. Feelings still hurt?
    Your barking up the wrong tree dickhead, go bark somewhere else.
    Chuck

  • chuck

    If the show fits……

  • robert108

    …one of which…

    That means there are others, understand? I just addressed the one you were whining about.

  • http://www.kneejerkcity.com/ Brandon

    I have a suggestion for you: Get a life.

    Quoth the poster with nearly 19,000 posts.

  • robert108

    chuck and Brandon: I see you continue your no-content personal attacks, so I will be ignoring you from now on. Good luck.

  • chuck

    “He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals”
    Ben Franklin

  • WOOFX

    Employers do not pay for health insurance.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    you proffer the non sequitor

    We won the war, so the strategy worked.

    oh. and i thought it had to do with us wiping out those 150,000 civilians in Japan. (speaking of Carrick’s definition of terrorism)

    low and behold it was the camps all along.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    Considering the intel capabilities at that time, it was the right thing to do; the bad thing was in not giving their stuff back after the war, with compensation for those who weren’t spies.

    BUllshit. Based on that logic we should all be locked in padded rooms until all potential avenues of peril are nailed down.

    Go sit with the Democrats.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    It’s non sequitur, btw.

    Oh, sorry about that old feller. They stopped mandating latin lessons at the Lyceum by the time I attended.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    r108
    you are having a bad day. that last comment is hardly coherent.
    zakk

    they’re innate

    what? genetic? you’re with HG on that one. couldn’t disagree more. can we get a list of innate rights? while your at it, explain the move from ‘is’ to ‘ought’. people been wracking their brains for years, but apparently… its innate! aha ha ha!

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development