ladiesbballcoach

Okay but it is to YOUR point that smoking is illegal so you shouldn't be allowed to make it illegal in certain places. The exact thing that is done with alcohol. You can't drink while driving, in certain places, etc, etc, etc.

Your argument makes no sense especially when YOU bringing drinking into it. Drinking is legal. Can you legally drink anywhere you want? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! There are places that it is illegal to drink probably for health and safety issues. No difference than the smoking issue here.

Your drinking next to a person does not make them sick. Your smoking standing next to a person who is allergic to smoke does make them sick. Big difference.

Someone mentioned earlier that Florida did this in 2002 or so. Not 100% sure but I am pretty sure that there are restaurants still in business in Florida. Maybe swamprat can confirm that for us.

:thumb:

So, the law is changed that it is illegal to smoke in a restaurant and you have no problem with it based on your argument. Glad to see we have you in agreement now that there is no problem with banning smoking in restaurants.:thumb:

And there are several state mandated spending issues that the state does not fund. You are required to do it but they give you no funds to do it with. And then cut the other monies too. School districts across the state are in severe binds.

The bottom line is that smoke free laws does not prevent anyone from a health reason to not choose a restaurant. Allowing smoking DOES prevent people for health reasons to choose a restaurant. A smoker's choice DOES infringe on the rights of others to eat a meal without getting sick from the air while a nonsmoker's does not. If the debate is on the infringement on individual rights, smoker's lose that battle.

That last argument does not hold water as society has made a decision that if you are inviting the public onto your private property for business reasons than there are certain health and safety guidelines that you must abide by. As we move along in time, we find out issues that arise and those health and safety guidelines change. Bars, I don't think should be considered in this because that is the nature of the bar business. But restaurants where families, people want to have a meal, that is all, should.

I found the bill proposed by Congressmen King to be almost ironically frustrating. His bill says would make it illegal to have a gun within 1000 feet of a Congressmen. Does he actually think that a person like this madman who is willing to KILL a Congressmen would stop and say, well I best not take this gun because it is illegal to have a gun within 1000 feet of a Congressman. All that is doing is adding another charge to put on them instead of preventing anything.

The bolded is the ironic part of one side of the argument. How dare you ask us to give up our freedom to go to a restaurant and smoke but we will easily ask you to do the same. Smoke free restaurants does NOTHING to prevent smokers from going to a restaurant and eating a meal. But the opposite is not true. Smoke DOES PREVENT non-smokers who are allergic to it from going to a restaurant and eat. One side's position DOES infringe on the other's ability to go out to eat. The other side's position DOES NOT infringe on the other's ability to go out to eat.

Used to be allowed. And hopefully, both smokers and nonsmokers will have the FULL choice of where they choose to go eat. Both will now be able to go out and eat at any restaurant they choose without health consequences.

I disagree. I don't want smoking outlawed. I would just prefer to be able to take my family out to a dinner without my wife and daughter not being able to breath when we leave because they are allergic to smoke. Would also prefer that they have the opportunity to go shopping without the same issues. If they want to kill themselves, so be it, but don't force that illness on others with their behavior.

Saw last night where death threats against Sarah Palin have spiked since last Saturday.

Heard a little snippet of Stumbo being interviewed on WLW 700 today. He said we have to protect the most vulnerable who have no other choice but to sit in a car and breathe in the smoke. Made me think, wow, right to protect their air and it is not right for the mom to make them breath cigarette smoke but acceptable in this country and the Democrat party for the mom to take the baby's life in an abortion. Breathing in smoke bad and needs to be outlawed and not the mother's choice. Taking theiir baby's life while in the womb, her choice and legal.

Using your logic, who says the vitriol is worse. So, the person who is being interviewed is at the mercy of the person asking the questions and has to address anything and everything they ask?

There were many, many conservatives that had a problem with No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. Alot on here had issues with both. So, Pawlenty's first answer to the question would have had to lead to an argument denying Stewart's first point that there was no vitriol (I have never typed or said that word ever before now) with No Child Left Behind nor Patriot Act. And The Tea Party was just a move by Fox News, remember? It had no real meaning according to everyone when they first started.

So, if it is a bad question for an interviewer, they have to answer it because the host posed the question? So, when Obama goes on Bill OReilly on Super Bowl Sunday, if Oreilly asks, "President Obama why do you hate rich people and want all their money?" President Obama is forced to get into a stupid argument that he does not hate rich people because OReilly posed the question? No, Obama would do as he should and ignore the part of the question that is asked to try and paint him a certain way and talk about the importance, in his mind, of everyone doing their part to support the economy.

Because as I said early, the answer had no positive reprecussions. It was either he admits that it is worse for Obama than it was for Bush or he gets into the fight that the political rhetoric is appropriate.

A good number of times that rural schools are out is because of the bus turnarounds, not necessarily the roads. Buses going down dead end roads have to have a place to turn that bus around. When the roads are scraped, that piles up in the turnarounds and prevents the buses from being able to turnaround. Instead they get stuck. The county road crews are not responsible for cleaning out the turnaround. Instead, the county maintenance crews of 5-6 guys are responsible for cleaning out the 60-80 turnarounds in the entire county. That takes some time just to drive to all of them let alone clear them all out for an ENTIRE BUS (those things are long) to turnaround. And lastly, you have the mindset of our society. Why risk a bus wreck, major lawsuit and increase/cancelled insurance when you know you can do that date in May/June and there won't be any snow/ice risk.

Campbell, Scott, Bishop Brossart, Calvary Christian and Silver Grove. 5-team district. Teams are allowed somewhere around 24 games in a season. You are asking them to commit 1/3 of their season to playing only the teams in their district. That very well may mean they are either a) removed from the NKY league as they would not have enough games to play in it; b) not play teams in their region because they are committed to the NKY league and the district; c) not able to play in downstate tournaments that provide valuable exposure for the team and players because of the commitment to the district seeding games.

I thought you wanted #1 and #2 teams to play in the finals. For the region, the #1 and #2 teams might very well come from the same district.

That is great news.

Stewart's point was not that it occurs the same on both sides but rather it is happening MORE now than when Bush was President. He continued with that point that it is WORSE now on the right than it was from the left with GW. Pawlenty even tried to answer that by pointing out that the left was creating an unsafe area around the Republican National Convention and Stewart interrupted him by saying that "college students with their lawyer's number written on their arms" is not a problem.

As it became painful obvious that Stewart's sole purpose of the interview was to try and "get him" with an answer that was going to do nothing positive for Pawlenty but paint him into a position that Stewart wanted to paint him.