News

The Los Angeles Rapists miss the playoffs for the first time since 1994. Hehe! That’s what they get!!! Meanwhile the Miami Heat are the number one seed in the East.

Debating with this dude on INTJ-Open. He’s denouncing Ayn Rand’s ideas although he’s never read any of her works. When asked why he’s attacking works he hasn’t bothered to read, he said he hasn’t read them because they’re beneath contempt. This guy has the ability to “know” without knowledge. That’s pretty good. Burn the books! Knowledge is irrelevent because I know how I feel. HAHAHAHA!!

I say read everything. You won’t agree with everything you read but you will always learn something. Sometimes your knowledge base will cause your overall point of view to adjust and that’s not a bad thing. And what better way to attack an idea than to first understand it? You certainly wouldn’t enter a boxing ring against an opponent without first studying the film.

I smoked a cigar yesterday. There is legislation pending in Michigan that would prohibit smoking in all bars and restaurants statewide. This will fuck the restaurant and bar industry causing business to lose money and some will fold but that’s ok. What does the state care about the right of a property owner to allow smoking in his own establishment or whether or not his business turns a profit? The government is not about freedom, it’s about taking freedom away.

Some student got 8 years in prison for vandalizing hummers and other SUVs. Apparantly this guy didn’t know the difference between political protest and crime:

The slogans Cottrell spray-painted onto vehicles included “Fat Lazy Americans,” “No Respect for Earth” and “SUV Terrorism.”

No respect for earth? Try no respect for property rights. SUV terrorism?? What do you call spray painting somebody else’s stuff with the purpose of making people afraid to buy them? Terror! What makes this guy think he should be the final arbiter of what other people can buy with their own money???

Then the guy asked the judge for mercy. Ha! Vandalizing a vehicle is just as cowardly as burning a cross in someone’s yard. In fact, there’s not a substantial difference between the two. In both cases the person crosses the line between free speech and terror. The judge rightly decided that mercy was not warranted in this instance. He said the defendant’s intelligence (he’s a doctoral candidate) should count against him, not work in his favor. In short, he should have known better. And that wraps that up!

50 Responses to “News”

  1. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Where is your proof that bars and restaraunts will close if there is a smoking ban? Are you knee-jerking? Are you listening to talking heads on TV? Are you quoting a survey? Are you using specific economic data from areas currently with smoking bans?

  2. Mexigogue says:

    I read about the profits taking a dive in California shortly after the ban and it’s also happened in Dallas. It’s also logical. People who normally smoke when they drink will be more likely to go play cards at a friend’s house so they can smoke and drink.

  3. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Can you please provide the article? Are you going to stop going to Leroys? What about people who don’t go to bars because they are to smokey. I believe non-smokers out number smokers. Plus in California as well as here in Tempe there are always smoking areas outdoors so smokers can go outside and smoke like the dogs they are. :)

  4. Mexigogue says:

    Here is the link for one article discussing the effects. This jumps out at me

    Virtually all of the studies on economic impact have been conducted by anti-smoker groups, or governments justifying their laws. But in 2004 The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association funded a study that was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates. It concentrated on small, independent taverns. They found that bars and taverns in the state have lost about 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in salary payments and $37 million in gross state product. The response of the anti-smoker groups was predictable: they claimed that The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association was a front for the tobacco industry. This is a blatant lie.

    Predictably the studies conflict depending on who’s funding them.

  5. Mexigogue says:

    And even if I concede that non smokers outnumber smokers, no amount of numbers should outweigh the right of the property owner to do with his bidness as he sees fit.

  6. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Will you stop going to Leroy’s if there is a smoking ban?

  7. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Sounds like the studies are like “gay” studies. Depends on who is doing it. Or like Homer says “statistics can prove anything 79% of all people know that!”

  8. Mexigogue says:

    I’m conflicted. If I stop smoking because of the ban then Jennifer Granholm gets less of my tax money so that’s good. But then I let the government impose their bullshit on me so I lose. The only way I win is to smuggle cigarettes in from other countries avoiding the US taxes and I open up an illegal underground establishment where people can shoot pool, drink and smoke. When the law runs amok the only way to win is to become a criminal.

  9. rae says:

    Umm since I lived in New York City when the no smoking ban took effect AND I was running a bar then too- I think I can speak for the results there. YES at first I lost about 35% of my business. After a month, my number went back up steadily for a few months eventually surpassing the numbers during the smoking period. When we asked the customers-many of them never went to the bars before because they were non-smokers and hated all the smoke. NOW they frequent. For the record-NON-SMOKERS tip much better than SMOKERS.

    Out here in Cali-almost every bar has an outside area to smoke in-and I’m assuming that their business is just as good if not better than before based on the crowds I see.

    Being a reformed smoker- I think it’s the smartest thing to do-ban smoking in bars. When I smoked-I had to smoke outside when I was at work and I never smoked in my house so why should we be able to smoke in a bar and ruin it for the non-smokers? I’m just saying. It will improve most bars revenue in the long run because they can open up their demographics now.

  10. rae says:

    Oh yeah- I almost forgot quit being so selfish!

  11. Mexigogue says:

    Selfishness is a virtue. And if having non smoking bars is such a smart thing to do then bar owners are certainly able to prohibit smoking in their own bars. That is choice and that is freedom. But what you people are talking about is government taking freedom away, and that is a bad thing.

  12. Mexigogue says:

    Rae, the anecdotal evidence on ONE bar in NYC is not enough evidence to draw conclusion.

  13. rae says:

    Dude-did you complain when they banned smoking in the workplace, airports or other public buildings? Second hand smoke kills people-if you choose to kill yourself do it in the privacy of your own home or out in the open where it won’t affect others as much.

    Taking away freedoms? I’m not sure if you’ve heard of it-but there is this little document known as the Constitution and the Preamble clearly states our right to Welfare: Welfare
    welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. I have the right to be healthy and you don’t have the right to take that from me!!!

  14. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Taking freedom away from smokers who want to pollute everyone and everything in their path? What about the freedom of non-smokers who want to eat with their children and not be smoked out? Bars and restaraunts are considered public places, if bar owners want them considered private and to allow smoking then they need to charge a membership fee and only allow members in. Kind of like the swinger clubs do….I never told you guys about the swinger club me and my boy hit up in Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Now that was serious freaky shit!!!

  15. Mexigogue says:

    1. People HAVE to go to work and hospitals and stuff. You dont’ HAVE to go to Leroy’s Classic Bar and Grill so the only one who should be deciding whether smoking is permissible or not is Mr. Leroy.

    2. Haha you want welfare!

  16. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    You still haven’t answered the question of weather you will stop going or continue to go! Which is it?

  17. rae says:

    It wasn’t one bar. We were members a bar and restaurant association that produced statistics based on surveys of bar owners in NYC. They held meetings once a month prior to the ban and once a week after. The attitude before the ban was one of rebellion but when the numbers came out the owners changed their tune.

    The problem that most bar owners really have is that in NYC they said the ban was to protect employees from 2nd hand smoke-and the owners were saying that the employees chose to work there knowing the hazards of the field. They also argued that most waitresses, waiters and bartenders were smokers.

  18. Phelps says:

    I complained then, and I wasn’t smoking then. Second-hand smoke doesn’t kill ANYONE. The only study that found any evidence was the EPA study that was thrown out as trash in Federal Court under the Data Quality Act and has since had it result (that was within statistical error) exagerrated and in some cases flat lied about (I’m looking at the ACS in particular) until it is nothing resembling science.

    The fact is there is no scientific evidence that anyone has ever had a higher chance of getting cancer from second hand smoke. There is much, much more evidence for ESP and Global Consciousness than Second Hand Smoke Cancer, but one is held up by groups and the other dismissed as crazy talk. That isn’t science.

    You can be healthy all you want at home. If being in my business interferes with your health, stay the fuck out of my business.

    The fact of the matter is, if non-smoking taverns made more money, then taverns would be falling over each other to ban smoking and begging the cities not to put in bans (because it would give them more competition.) You want a case in point? Look at Vegas. At one time, some of the casinos went non-smoking. I know — I was there. If guy is correct, they have since gone back to smoker-friendly. There is only ONE way that would happen — if the casinos were making more money with smoking. Casinos are the smartest motherfuckers in the world when it comes to margins and profit.

  19. Mexigogue says:

    I don’t know if I’d stop going or not. I’m trying to imagine my reaction and I can’t.

  20. Phelps says:

    That should be Guy, not guy. Respect the caps.

  21. Phelps says:

    Oh, what I really wanted to post about — I was walking back from the courthouse and I passed a black dude at the bus stop, with a big ass boombox on his lap blaring out old school R&B.

    That was cool. The only way that dude could be cooler was if he grew out a Fro and started wearing shorty-shorts and striped white tube socks pulled up high.

  22. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    Casinos are different than bars. Every minute a smoker is outside smoking they arn’t gambling. In a bar the drinker can still drink outside in the smoking area. Mexi stop frontin. You will still go to Leroys smoking ban or not. Hell you’ll still go even if they have a Mexican ban!

  23. Mexigogue says:

    Willie the pool hustler lives about two door down from Leroy’s. Maybe I’ll shoot pool at the bar for a few games then spend the rest of the night playing cards at his house.

  24. rae says:

    Phelpsie-not ALL restaurants and bars had an increase in revenue-so let’s not use superlatives here. When speaking on the statistics I use words like “majority.” ;)

    Mostly, restuarants without acohol saw the largest increase. Bars that were more like “pubs” with no food saw slight decreases to slight increases.

    The point is – in NYC all the NYRBA members screamed “bullshit, it’s MY business” — well just like many other businesses you need permits to do things. Liquor permits to serve liquor-my solution was to issue X amount of smoking permits comparable to the Liqour ones.

    No one will ever be happy either way on this situation.

  25. Phelps says:

    Guy, it is real simple: the owner of the property has the right to say who can and can’t do whatever on his own property.

    You don’t have the right to be on private property. If you don’t like the rules at that property, you have the right (liberty) to get the fuck out. “But I really like this bar. Whaaa. Everyone else should stop smoking. Waaa.” Why don’t you try exercising your freedom and open a non-smoking bar? If it is such a good idea, you should do gangbusters.

  26. Mexigogue says:

    No one will ever be happy either way on this situation.

    Yes because you want to control everybody else and not everybody else wants to be controlled. Control freak!

  27. rae says:

    YES, yes I am. I have OCD what’s yer point?

  28. Mexigogue says:

    HAHA! The Los Angeles Rapists! Sheer genius! You rock Mexi!

  29. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    I agree with you but there are several court cases stepping into private property that are considered public places. Lots and lots of legislation and shit like that. Guys with policies like no niggers in my store/restaraunt have all been shot down and have to allow different kinds of people in their places of business. I see some slick lawyer pulling up the same kind of stuff when deciding that bars/ restaraunts are public places. Not to mention labor groups and the what not arguing a safe environment for workers. The list goes on and on face it smokers are on the losing end of this one……Until the revolution!!!

  30. Mexigogue says:

    Well I’m gonna start a revolt. I’ll have a place with ONLY n***s allowed. And in Russ Martin fashion, everyone will be REQUIRED to smoke! HA!

    (UNLV and the “D” get to say the n word but I can’t :-(

  31. Phelps says:

    Yeah, we need to get one of them to be our Black Eddie. That way we just put [beep] into our posts and then the designated Eddie can come in and comment “NI**A!” for us.

    And the funny part is that if you had a place where only black people were allowed, you would have rich white kids knocking down the door trying to get in.

  32. Phelps says:

    THAT BECOME THIRTY-FIVE!

    Laugh, motherfuckers! I command it!

  33. Mexigogue says:

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!

  34. Mexigogue says:

    One time I got into an argument over the phone with this white guy who thought he was black. He was cussing me out “MOTHAFUCKA YOU DON’T CALL OVER HERE TRYIN’ TO CHECK ME I’LL FUCK YOU UP!”

    I responded “Man, don’t you know you’re white? That’s not how you’re supposed to cuss me out. You’re supposed to be like “DUDE SHUTCHER PIEHOLE, I’LL KICK YOUR FREAKING HEAD IN!”

    He had to put the phone down and he got a belly laugh out of that one.

  35. rae says:

    Here’s another example: A farmer that owns their own land-it’s private property but is subject to certain regulations-regarding pesticides and what not to protect the welfare of the people. I’m just saying.

    http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/lcr/LGIEN2000-0006.html midway under “do private/public property rights get confused”- it’s pretty interesting.

    If I had a bar there wouldn’t be any Mexicans allowed.

    “Solamente Gringas” That’s what I’d call it.

  36. rae says:

    Wait Damnit- I think means “only foreigners” shit.

  37. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    They should ban Mexicans from the internet……….

  38. Phelps says:

    No, Guy, we can not get rid of all the Mexicans.

    And I’m familiar with the farmland regulation arguments, but even those are couched in the idea that the pesticides flow into the runoff of the land and into the water table, which contaminates other people’s real property. The concern isn’t that the farmer is doing something unhealthy that would be a danger to people on his land; the concern is that he is doing something that will cause an unhealthy situation on someone else’s land without the consent of the owner.

    And that article doesn’t even deal with that; it deals with common property (like the water table and general atmosphere.) It doesn’t deal with regulation of activities that solely impact private property and not common property, like the issue of smoking in businesses.

    So nice try, but no enchilada.

  39. rae says:

    I HATE enchiladas!! Give me time dear Phelpsie-if my OCD kicks in full gear-it will be over!!!

    Mwwwaaaaahahahaha!!!!

  40. Citizen Quasar says:

    Consciousness is that faculty which perceives that which exists. Consciousness does NOT create existence, it only perceives existence. It is up to the free will to focus on reality and to conceptualize the percepts of consciousness. Unfortunately, the anti-Rand asshole has decided that he does not need any sensory input to perceive existence. This is what I refer to as delusional thinking. He would prefer people to submit to his will and for us to conform to his twisted sense of reality.

    If a person owns a business establishment, it is up to that owner to decide what type of business will be conducted there and HOW that business will be conducted. If the owner wants to allow smoking in their business, then that is their right as a property owner. If they choose NOT to allow smoking in their business, then that is their right as a property owner.

    If a person does not like smoke then they may take their business elsewhere. If a person wants to smoke then they may patronize businesses that allow smoking. This is a manifestation of the Law of Gravity..uh..er..I mean Supply and Demand. Anything else is contrary to the laws of the universe.

    The stupid terrorist bastard who “just wants to be a physicist” should have had his ass in the lab and not out fucking with people’s property. He should have a heavier sentence due to his high education. He should have an even heavier sentence due to the fact that he tried to plead a mental illness.

    It would be nice if they taught some kind of course on Objective Morality in our schools….preferably begining at the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL level.

  41. Mexigogue says:

    These motherfuckers were not just spraypainting vehicles, they were setting them on fire. I think the real root of this is the hatred of success. That’s what a big vehicle symbolizes and the vehicle defacer gets mad thinking about how many homeless people could have been fed with that money. As if rewarding poverty were virtue, haha!

  42. Peggy says:

    Mexi, my BS meter is running over the red line with the “Ayn Rand is Bad” guy. There is something about him that makes me feel like he’s just playing the list, trying deliberately to provoke people, like someone else did not too long ago. That’s why I’ve stayed out of it so far. The word “troll” comes to mind.

  43. Mexigogue says:

    He’s accused her of having a ‘soft head and a hard heart.’ The first part is a baseless character attack (easier to attack the person than to defeat the idea). The 2nd part was a recurring theme for the protagonists in her novels, being accused of not having feelings. It’s hilarious. Don’t you ever feel anything? As if feelings trump logic! HAHA!

  44. Cosmic Siren says:

    No, not a troll. Evangelist is more like it. He’s not commenting on everything in sight. And he is actually being true to the Eastern Orthodox mindset on several matters, which is really what is tweaking some people.

    He does need a warning, though. We should see how he reacts to it before really deciding if he’s actually a troll.

  45. Cosmic Siren says:

    I guess it’s not bothering me because the guy was upfront about his philosophical leanings and is aware of them.

    It’s not like those claiming to be of the Aristotle deductive midset and not following that. Or claiming to always use the scientific method and then relying almost solely on deductive instead of inductive reasoning.

    I don’t expect others to be like me. I just think that they should be true to what they claim.

  46. TB says:

    like true pussies, CA restaurants just u”gayed” up their restaurants to appeal to a “new” type of man (metro, pussy-whipped) when they passed that ridiculous ban.

    I have metal without metalogy…

  47. Phelps says:

    Hell, it would almost be worth it to invite him to my list just so we could rip him apart like jackyls. (I miss those days.) Hell, I would probably argue Objectivism just for fun, even though I think that science supports him more. (The Observer quandry of quantum physics.)

  48. Phelps says:

    Hell, I’m saying hell a lot. I need to go find the boombox guy and jam with him.

  49. Cosmic Siren says:

    Wouldn’t work, Phelps. You would just get a fight between Walter and me. He’s taken it upon himself to abuse the guy and infer that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, when the guy is actually answering him in a way consistant with his faith.

    It’s like calling a sensai dishonorable because he speaks in Fortune Cookienese.

  50. Phelps says:

    Man who speak in Fortune Cookienese has hidden message.