Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Do you guys even *attempt* to understand the position of your political opponents?

DA is far more interested in defeating the straw man world views he projects upon his opponents than actually dealing with other human beings. It is so much easier to score points on your own goal.

Originally Posted by The Roadrunner

Do you guys even *attempt* to understand the position of your political opponents?

DA is far more interested in defeating the straw man world views he projects upon his opponents than actually dealing with other human beings. It is so much easier to score points on your own goal.

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

We're glad you noticed.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

We're glad you noticed.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

I'll claim a hit on my 1 and 2 at least.

Feel free to claim a sweep.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Please review my DA-response prediction above, and note how well the 2nd and 3rd options seem to fit. QED

I'll claim a hit on my 1 and 2 at least.

Feel free to claim a sweep.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW!

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions.

I see you were opposed to taking out Bin Laden. I disagree, but then we have many differences on policy.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If Bush raises taxes, institutes a military draft, reads every email to and from Osama, creates massive WWII-era deficits, directs Rummy to kill enmasse, and, in general, acts like Lincoln or FDR, then Bush should be impeached NOW!

If bin Laden is killed then Bush is probably guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions.

I see you were opposed to taking out Bin Laden. I disagree, but then we have many differences on policy.

• PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.

Bush sucks. Go Hillary in '08!

• PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.

Bush sucks. Go Hillary in '08!

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

I didn't think you were interested in debating. You attack your perceptions of 'what all liberals think' rather than what your opponent is saying. You throw around insults and jokes rather than address what your opponent is saying. Debate is a two way street. Debate involves listening to what the other guy is saying, and understanding his perspective at least well enough to criticize it or provide constructive alternatives. Your whole persona and modus operandi is incompatible with 'debate.'

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

I didn't think you were interested in debating. You attack your perceptions of 'what all liberals think' rather than what your opponent is saying. You throw around insults and jokes rather than address what your opponent is saying. Debate is a two way street. Debate involves listening to what the other guy is saying, and understanding his perspective at least well enough to criticize it or provide constructive alternatives. Your whole persona and modus operandi is incompatible with 'debate.'

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

I didn't think you were interested in debating. You attack your perceptions of 'what all liberals think' rather than what your opponent is saying. You throw around insults and jokes rather than address what your opponent is saying. Debate is a two way street. Debate involves listening to what the other guy is saying, and understanding his perspective at least well enough to criticize it or provide constructive alternatives. Your whole persona and modus operandi is incompatible with 'debate.'

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Very diplomatic, but I prefer my snide remark. It's in keeping with the demeanor of the recipient. 8)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's way too obvious you folks are way too smart for me to debate.

I didn't think you were interested in debating. You attack your perceptions of 'what all liberals think' rather than what your opponent is saying. You throw around insults and jokes rather than address what your opponent is saying. Debate is a two way street. Debate involves listening to what the other guy is saying, and understanding his perspective at least well enough to criticize it or provide constructive alternatives. Your whole persona and modus operandi is incompatible with 'debate.'

I don't think intelligence is the problem.

Very diplomatic, but I prefer my snide remark. It's in keeping with the demeanor of the recipient. 8)

Back to smoking--

As Smoke Clears, Tobacco Maker Opens Lounge
By MONICA DAVEY
CHICAGO, Jan. 18 - The room is lined with vintage ashtrays, delicate lighters, matches and pens shaped like cigarettes. The scent, naturally, is of smoke.

Chicago's smoking ban took effect this week, but it was hard to know that from inside the gleaming lounge along Milwaukee Avenue in a hip neighborhood on the North Side. Here, under glass, are thick jars of tobacco - Oriental Rose, The Empress, The Earl - poured lovingly into white smoking papers by tobacco's answer to the coffee shop barista...

Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/national/19smoke.

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

Back to smoking--

As Smoke Clears, Tobacco Maker Opens Lounge
By MONICA DAVEY
CHICAGO, Jan. 18 - The room is lined with vintage ashtrays, delicate lighters, matches and pens shaped like cigarettes. The scent, naturally, is of smoke.

Chicago's smoking ban took effect this week, but it was hard to know that from inside the gleaming lounge along Milwaukee Avenue in a hip neighborhood on the North Side. Here, under glass, are thick jars of tobacco - Oriental Rose, The Empress, The Earl - poured lovingly into white smoking papers by tobacco's answer to the coffee shop barista...

Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/national/19smoke.

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Very diplomatic, but I prefer my snide remark. It's in keeping with the demeanor of the recipient. 8)

But then you are letting him win. You are reducing the level of conversation to his level. I confess, I fall into the same trap at times, but don't let it become a habit please?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Very diplomatic, but I prefer my snide remark. It's in keeping with the demeanor of the recipient. 8)

But then you are letting him win. You are reducing the level of conversation to his level. I confess, I fall into the same trap at times, but don't let it become a habit please?

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Obviously, having a Smoking Area immediately adjacent to a Non-Smoking Area, without even the minimal benefit of a buffer, was a pander to smokers and a bain to the rest of us. But making any accommodation illegal is merely the flip-side of the pander. I say, let smokers have facilties of their own (if they can make a go of them), and non-smokers can enter if they wish.

With so few smokers around these days, these clubs (or whatever they end-up being) should be few and far between. If they take-off, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by elilevin

They have done in Chicago what is happening in cities with smoking bans across the nation. This is not like prohibition. The Temperance weenies didn't want anybody to drink at all. Non-smokers just want to breath clean air. Smoking bans are not attempts to make society more moral. They are intended to protect the right to breathe of those with allergies and asthma.

I'm with you here. The first degree of change seems correct. A vice that may be harmful to the individuals practicing it is allowed, so long as others are not harmed.

I start to get a bit lost when I wonder if these smoking rooms should be allowed to serve food. If smoking bans include all restaurants, does this imply that while practicing one's vice, one cannot eat?

Not that there aren't other more dire difficulties facing our culture...

Obviously, having a Smoking Area immediately adjacent to a Non-Smoking Area, without even the minimal benefit of a buffer, was a pander to smokers and a bain to the rest of us. But making any accommodation illegal is merely the flip-side of the pander. I say, let smokers have facilties of their own (if they can make a go of them), and non-smokers can enter if they wish.

With so few smokers around these days, these clubs (or whatever they end-up being) should be few and far between. If they take-off, then so be it.

I think they have ceiling fans now that suck up something like 99.8% of all particles in the air, including cigarette smoke.