Now the KS Supreme Court joins the state league of jackasses.

After a Newton VFW and American Legion post sued their city over a smoking ban, they are told by the KS Supreme Circus that they must obey their city government orders.

Here we have veterans that the government had no problem endangering in battle whether the troops wanted to be there or not. Those veterans and the countless innocent bystanders of war were exposed to threats far greater than a cigarette, but yet the same government thinks allowing veterans to smoke is too dangerous.

First the state bans private property owners from allowing their customers to smoke, while still allowing smoking in "state" run casinos. And now those who risked everything for this nation are told they aren't capable of making their own decision regarding smoking. The two faced idiocy of our legislators and courts is disgusting.

I know some just laugh because you don't like smoking, but if you do I hope the state decides something you like must be banned next.

Ratzilla wrote:

After a Newton VFW and American Legion post sued their city over a smoking ban, they are told by the KS Supreme Circus that they must obey their city government orders.

Here we have veterans that the government had no problem endangering in battle whether the troops wanted to be there or not. Those veterans and the countless innocent bystanders of war were exposed to threats far greater than a cigarette, but yet the same government thinks allowing veterans to smoke is too dangerous.

First the state bans private property owners from allowing their customers to smoke, while still allowing smoking in "state" run casinos. And now those who risked everything for this nation are told they aren't capable of making their own decision regarding smoking. The two faced idiocy of our legislators and courts is disgusting.

I know some just laugh because you don't like smoking, but if you do I hope the state decides something you like must be banned next.

Up yours communist. Or are you crying because some horrid 90 year old lady in a wheelchair got your precious parking spot again? May you be harrassed by a cop every time your LAZY ass pulls into a handicapped spot you socialist swine.

Many of our troubles are due to the fact that our people turn to politicians for everything."

"Good Conservatives always pay their bills. And on time. Not like the Socialists who run up other people's bills."

"We want a society in which we are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. That is what we mean by a moral society - not a society in which the State is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the State."

"...the unconditional supply of social benefits to those who were thought incapable of coping undermined the incentive to work and undercut the family unit. It promoted habits of idleness and delinquency. It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life. By undermining the self-respect of so many of the most vulnerable members of society -- the respectable poor struggling for decency against the odds -- the dependency culture weakened society as a whole."

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Quotes by Margaret Thatcher. Some are more relevant in other threads.

Ratzilla wrote:

Up yours communist. Or are you crying because some horrid 90 year old lady in a wheelchair got your precious parking spot again? May you be harrassed by a cop every time your LAZY ass pulls into a handicapped spot you socialist swine.

If this State upsets your little world this much then by all means .... leave!!
So the name calling begins once again, so now I'm a Communist as well?

Looks like the button got pushed once again, and no I let someone else use the
Handicapped Parking stalls today. I felt like walking the extra three stalls so I
parked in a regular stall. My God I must have lost my futhermucking mind today.
Another DISABLED PERSON thinking about the well being of a fellow CRIPPLE!!

There, I've added slider to my "foes" list so I no longer have to see the shit he spews. Ah, things are so much nicer now. I agree Rat, it is so screwed up anymore it isn't funny.

Margaret Thatcher wrote:

It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life.

What's wrong with single parenthood?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Margaret Thatcher wrote:

It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life.

What's wrong with single parenthood?

I would guess that they become a drag on society as a whole because most are Welfare.
Food Stamps, WIC etc ... you know those damn Socialist Entitlement Programs.

They will be the damn ruin of this Country.

slider wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Margaret Thatcher wrote:

It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life.

What's wrong with single parenthood?

I would guess that they become a drag on society as a whole because most are Welfare.
Food Stamps, WIC etc ... you know those damn Socialist Entitlement Programs.

They will be the damn ruin of this Country.

And if a single parent isn't on the Government teat and still able to provide a financially sustainable, alternative way of life?

slider wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Margaret Thatcher wrote:

It permitted single-parenthood to become a financially sustainable, alternative way of life.

What's wrong with single parenthood?

I would guess that they become a drag on society as a whole because most are Welfare.
Food Stamps, WIC etc ... you know those damn Socialist Entitlement Programs.

They will be the damn ruin of this Country.

Whather you like it or not,slimer, Margaret Thatcher was a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative. She may have been referring to the same trend in the 80s that Dan Quayle was ridiculed for pointing out in the "Murphy Brown" controversy - single women purposely getting pregnant out of wedlock with no intention of ever having the father be a part of the child's life. The difference in the UK, however, is that they legitimized, and even encouraged, this behavior much sooner than the US did by providing extra welfare benefits to these women. These days, in my home state of Maine, a single female resident who becomes pregnant can get a furnished, utilities paid apartment plus living expenses paid by the state until six months after the baby is born. However, any proof of a man living with her means she's out of there.

slider, as justoo pointed out quite well, if you expect the government to fix all your problems, then yes, you are a socialist. If you expect them to "force" others to obey rules that only you want, you are definitely communist.

Read justoo's post closely, it says alot. Now I don't agree that a single parent is always bad. One good parent beats two who aren't. But as has been pointed out, the minimizing of the family group among other things, has caused a government dependant culture.

Very nice that you let someone else have the parking spot. I'll retract that insult. But before you have so much fun with my post maybe you should think long and hard about veterans, some disabled in wheelchairs, being told by their government that they don't deserve a warm dry place to sit and smoke.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

And if a single parent isn't on the Government teat and still able to provide a financially sustainable, alternative way of life?

Then her quote does not apply to you. It was a statement on the entitlement mindset that government has caused.

Ratzilla wrote:

Very nice that you let someone else have the parking spot. I'll retract that insult. But before you have so much fun with my post maybe you should think long and hard about veterans, some disabled in wheelchairs, being told by their government that they don't deserve a warm dry place to sit and smoke.

Oh now let's get all "Tea Party" about the vicious Government forcing Disabled Veterans to sit in the rain to smoke a cigarette! Give me a break, that is a personal choice they made and they have to abide by the same rules as non disabled non smokers as well. When do they get assigned more rights just because they served in a War or Police Action? You simply amaze me, I bet you think the Americans With Disabilities Act is taking rights away from you?

Talk about your education going to waste, you take the cake. I'll bring up you "disabled veterans being forced to smoke in the elements" arguement up in my Government class today, I'd bet the Professor will get a good chuckle out of your position. Especially since he is a disabled veteran who smokes and has absolutely no problem doing what you are crying about. He does it out of common courtesy to those who do not share his "HABIT' oh yeah and he does it out of common sense!

Ask your professor why such a malcontented halfwit inhabits his class. I dare you to print off my complaint word for word and show it to him and not just give him your narrow minded impression of what I said.

Ratzilla wrote:

Ask your professor why such a malcontented halfwit inhabits his class. I dare you to print off my complaint word for word and show it to him and not just give him your narrow minded impression of what I said.

You are just as sour and bitter as this malcontented halfwit as you call me. You just point your dimwitted remarks in the polar opposite direction. So I will print off your retarded diatribe and present it to him. I'll still get the same reaction from him guaranteed.

Better yet, invite him to this forum. I'm sure he'd be delighted with how you show respect and curtesy to others. As far as this smoking ban being a curtesy issue, it's not. The government has not said out of curtesy to non-smokers that smokers have any options such as putting money in a pot to fund a smoke room to keep smoke away from those who don't want to be in it. They just banned it with a typical blanket policy with no consideration for compromise.

Go ahead, invite your professor here to debate. I'd like to see what he thinks of his "A" student's hostile posts full of profanities, grammatical errors, and piss poor spelling.

Ratzilla wrote:

I'd like to see what he thinks of his "A" student's hostile posts full of profanities, grammatical errors, and piss poor spelling.

He'd probably make slimer transfer to K-State, where he'd be considered a genius.

Ratzilla wrote:

After a Newton VFW and American Legion post sued their city over a smoking ban, they are told by the KS Supreme Circus that they must obey their city government orders.

Ratzilla wrote:

But before you have so much fun with my post maybe you should think long and hard about veterans, some disabled in wheelchairs, being told by their government that they don't deserve a warm dry place to sit and smoke.

So aren't the American Legion and the VFW considered to be private clubs? Doesn't the new state smoking law exempt private clubs? Doesn't it also specifically preclude all previous city and county smoking laws? If the answers to the first three questions are all yes, then this problem will disappear on July 1st.

The governor's take on this:

I don't know if there's any grandfather clause in the new state law allowing previous stricter city bans to stay in place. Oh, and I bet you enjoyed making that K-State post. A 2 fer 1 slam.

Ratzilla wrote:

I don't know if there's any grandfather clause in the new state law allowing previous stricter city bans to stay in place. Oh, and I bet you enjoyed making that K-State post. A 2 fer 1 slam.

Pretty sure that I heard on WIBW that the state law supercedes all city and county laws. But I don't see how a ban on smoking in public places could be applied to a club that isn't public. Hence the name, private club.

The Other One wrote:

The governor's take on this:

Ah, so the governor wants this as the first step to total prohibition huh? Well, let's see how much money the government blows in upcoming decades on this new drug war. Morons....

The governor says the state spends 900 million on smoking related illness. So don't. Lot's of money back in the state. And quit paying for gangbangers who shoot each other too. I doubt they have insurance. And don't pay for the medical costs of anyone who undertakes dangerous hobbies without insurance. And stop sending illegal immigrants through school and giving them state aid. There's lots more money back in the treasury.

He also says 1 in 4 heart attacks might be prevented if smoking stops. How bout the other 3 in 4? Maybe a ban on KFC, McDonalds, and rib shacks might drop the heart attack risk lower.

And lets see what else the studies show that patients with cancer allegedly caused by second hand smoke were exposed to. Were they exposed to asbestos? How about high levels of pesticide, or other household or industrial chemicals. I'd bet a $100 bill that they just find out someone lived or worked with a smoker and blame it on them. I once had a fire chief tell me that any fire he can't find a cause for automatically gets written down as a cigarette.

And I like the comment about high school students smoking. Hey Mr. dumbass governor, I got a hot tip for you. There already is a ban on that. There's also laws that ban illegal drug use for all of us. And bans that forbid drunk driving and minors consuming alcohol. They're working real good huh?

Oh and as far as smoking related illness causing lost work time goes, the guys who twist off from work claiming illness most often at my job are all non-smokers.

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

Wow, you mean little ole slider got the police state of Kansas and it's Supreme Circus to attack smokers?

Go have another cigarette, Ratz... it'll calm you down.

How bout that. slider has a brother.

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

The Other One wrote:

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

AKA slider has absorbed the socialist messages fed to him like a sponge. And I suggest if slider's professor actually was given my comments and said that, he is likely the highest form of coward since he has not come here to debate me himself. He knows I speak the truth or he would. Or does he just consider this forum an improper setting for a FHSU professor to debate because he can't moon me?

This is a perfect debate setting slider. No one to say "Your time is up" if they don't like the message. No biased judge deciding who got more brownie points by kissing up to an agenda. Just typical Kansas citizens reading and deciding for themselves.

Tell him if he feels it is right to punish one segment of society for using a product that the government allows the sale of and taxes heavily to come tell me. Tell him that if he believes it's right for government owned casinos to be exempt from the laws they force business owners to follow, to come and tell me.

Tell him if he thinks that businesses should be given no right to build a ventilated smoking room so that all patrons may be treated equal, to come tell me.

Tell him to come and tell us how prohibition has worked so well and stopped drugs and alcohol in this nation. Please do come and tell me some socialist dreams that we may laugh too.

The Other One wrote:

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

Wrong on both counts.

I just think it's funny that you guys are being successfully baited by the likes of Slider.

God, this is like shooting fish in a barrel!

Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

Wrong on both counts.

I just think it's funny that you guys are being successfully baited by the likes of Slider.

So you, like slimer, feel comfortable with the government telling private clubs what legal activities they can and can't allow in their club? I don't smoke and never have smoked cigarettes, so I have no problem with the ban on smoking in public places, although I would prefer that the business owners have the option to make their business smoking or non-smoking. Every business owner that I have talked to who voluntarily went smoke free experienced an increase in business because of it. Why do you think most restaurants in Hays went smoke free years ago, despite the lack of a city, county or state smoking ban?

Bighead wrote:

I just think it's funny that you guys are being successfully baited by the likes of Slider.

I think it's funny you havn't realized it's just the opposite. I wait with anticipation for slider's next idiotic comments as a base to put forth my opinions. I've done it to you too many times.

Hey Ratz, you know “There’s a thin line between positive thinking and denial.”

Please by all means let us know when you figure out the difference!

Ok slider, you are in denial. Think about it dimwit. I make these posts to put my message out to others. If a man stands in the town square and gives a speech it has minimal effect. If he gets an argument going he attracts attention. If it is a logical debate then he has to work to prove his points.

If an assclown (enter slider) comes along and thinks he's pushing buttons by making stupid remarks, then the party of the first part has an easier job. All he has to do is keep replying with logical thoughts while the other guy keeps making stupid remarks.

Thank you for being my assclown.

slider wrote:

Hey Ratz, you know “There’s a thin line between positive thinking and denial.”

Please by all means let us know when you figure out the difference!

If you tell slimer, then you'll both know.

The Other One wrote:

Every business owner that I have talked to who voluntarily went smoke free experienced an increase in business because of it. Why do you think most restaurants in Hays went smoke free years ago, despite the lack of a city, county or state smoking ban?

I agree with the non-smoking resturants. I also agree with non-smoking in alot of buildings, especially hospitals. But do you think bars who cater largely to smokers will see a boost in business? If so, why did California bars who catered to large numbers of smokers set contribution jars on the bar to pay fines with instead of going smoke free?

slider wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but I don't swing both ways...

Yeah, he only likes guys.

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Every business owner that I have talked to who voluntarily went smoke free experienced an increase in business because of it. Why do you think most restaurants in Hays went smoke free years ago, despite the lack of a city, county or state smoking ban?

I agree with the non-smoking resturants. I also agree with non-smoking in alot of buildings, especially hospitals. But do you think bars who cater largely to smokers will see a boost in business? If so, why did California bars who catered to large numbers of smokers set contribution jars on the bar to pay fines with instead of going smoke free?

There again, the owners, not the government, should have the right to make their business smoke-free if they so choose. From what I understand, though, a lot of bars are simply going to add outdoor patios where smokers will be free to light up and they will still be able to have their drink. I'm sure it will be a problem in the extreme cold, but there really isn't that much extreme cold in Kansas. And before anyone jumps on that, I know it seemed like it this winter. But there are places where lakes have been frozen since October and probably won't thaw until late April or May. Example: Here's a photo of one of my cousins ice fishing on Moosehead Lake in Maine this past weekend. It's a huge, deep lake, but the ice was three feet thick.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

Wrong on both counts.

I just think it's funny that you guys are being successfully baited by the likes of Slider.

So you, like slimer, feel comfortable with the government telling private clubs what legal activities they can and can't allow in their club? I don't smoke and never have smoked cigarettes, so I have no problem with the ban on smoking in public places, although I would prefer that the business owners have the option to make their business smoking or non-smoking. Every business owner that I have talked to who voluntarily went smoke free experienced an increase in business because of it. Why do you think most restaurants in Hays went smoke free years ago, despite the lack of a city, county or state smoking ban?

Well that makes two posts in a row where you've ascribed to me an opinion that I wasn't aware that I held.

Let's make it three... I know you can do it.

slider wrote:

There you go again Ratz, you sure like to use the word "ASS" and associate it with me,
must be some gay attraction you have towards others men. Maybe it's the screen name
"Slider" that brings out your feminine/gay side. Must be thinking of a devient sexual act
that fires you all up inside. HMMMM????

Hate to break it to you, but I don't swing both ways like you do!

And what a fine job of making yourself look like an assclown you do.

Bighead wrote:

Well that makes two posts in a row where you've ascribed to me an opinion that I wasn't aware that I held.

Wellman glow plugs out perform motorcraft in an 1986 Ford 6.9L Diesel.

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

slider wrote:

Bighead wrote:

I think I've been underestimating Slider all along. He's really got ya'll's tits in a wringer. I'm impressed.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get them titties in the old wringer either.

Ratz, I gave your little diatribe to my Professor after class, he read it laughed
and made the comment that you really can't see the forest for the trees. He said
your argument was seriously lacking a base in reality and that it would be totally
indefensible if it were put up to a real debate setting.

Nice try though

Translation: The guy agrees with slimer (or perhaps told slimer what to think) on this issue and refuses to accept that anyone would dare to disagree with his high and mighty position.

Wrong on both counts.

I just think it's funny that you guys are being successfully baited by the likes of Slider.

So you, like slimer, feel comfortable with the government telling private clubs what legal activities they can and can't allow in their club? I don't smoke and never have smoked cigarettes, so I have no problem with the ban on smoking in public places, although I would prefer that the business owners have the option to make their business smoking or non-smoking. Every business owner that I have talked to who voluntarily went smoke free experienced an increase in business because of it. Why do you think most restaurants in Hays went smoke free years ago, despite the lack of a city, county or state smoking ban?

Well that makes two posts in a row where you've ascribed to me an opinion that I wasn't aware that I held.

Let's make it three... I know you can do it.

No, I was asking if you held that opinion. And you failed to answer the question.

This doc agrees with the one who was kicked off of a KS news program after he said second hand smoke studies were biased. This doctor explains in detail why he says they are beyond biased and in some cases complete fabrications.

Quote :

The Surgeon General also stated that 49,000 deaths per year were caused by second hand smoke. As a surgeon, I was stunned, because I had never seen an autopsy report listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. Nor had I seen this as a secondary cause of death. So I asked six pathologists if they had ever listed second hand smoke as a cause of death – not one had. In my years of clinical practice, I have seen patients die from many devastating diseases, and yet I have never seen anyone who has been disabled by, or has died as a result of, second hand smoke. This was my first clue that perhaps there was more hyperbole than science involved in the reports issuing from the Surgeon General’s Office.

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/