EBSB52

Firsthand... is that like first person? If so, let me know when and where you're going to go in so I can go watch I won't read thru the entie thread, but to scoff at someone's religion or ploitics is one thing, but if you want to witness a fellow jumper dying you're all fucked up. To even infer that is sacreligious, so why do this? DO you want to be totally disowned by the community? This has got to be a joke.....

Gee. I always thought employers should be the ones controlling what work is to be done. If my employees decide what work my firm is supposed to be doing, I have a little chat with them. In fact, my clients decide what work I am to do for them, since I am their employee. My God. I want you to run a company someday to get a better idea about what employers deal with. A union is a corporation, ain't it? A fat bureacracy with wealthy men at the top and the little man at the bottom paying for the honor of having the wealthy and powerful on their side. Yep! A CORPORATION! Just because many/most US corps are codled with and essentially past of the gov doesn't mean it's exclusive. Not all corps suck and I've never stated that. Any group that fights for the the rights of the poor/miidle class starts at OK with me, and then Idecide what they're about based upon their deeds. Nice try to convolute all corps as having 1 agenda and to be Fascist. edited to add: Were you grateful to your union when you lost your job at Eastern? Did you think your union had anything to do with it? Or was it all, completely 100 percent Frank Lorenzo? I was just hired on into the 18%, so it wasn't as if I was vested all those years. They did voluntarily concede the 18% stock purchase, essentially an 18% pay cut, so what are they supposed to do - give the other 82%? As for Lorenzo's fault, since other airline survived, I blame it on some level of management. Having worked for Eastern, you'll probably remember that Eastern started its inverted dive with the deregulation Act of 1978, brought on by that champion Carter and those democrats in Congress, eh? Wait, I thought you were for derugulation. Was it you that gave the example of Ma Bell and the monopoly? Pick a side of the fence. I was never for dereg of the airlines. As for the Dems championing that, post some proof. My politicas aren't lock-steped as I've seen most Repubs. I am critical of Clinto for signing NAFTA, even tho Bush 1 started it, he signed it. Clinton pardoned SLimington and did a couple other things I disagree with, so I don't always agree with the Dem Party. I'm not convinced Derug was a Democratoc baby. Of course, he shares a lot of the blame, too. To keep Eatern afloat, he had to cut costs. If I recall it was the machinists who went on strike first when Lorenzo wanted you guys to take a cut in benefits. The pilots joined the strike. Eastern lost revenue and went belly up. Right, and the machinist's union conceded to 18% pay cuts, so where is your shining example? If they stood firm w/o concession you might have a point. So everyone lost their jobs with Eastern. Except the heads of the labor unions... They negotiated enough w/o giving everything away. They have a duty to work for and represent the workers that pay them dues, do yot think the union should have asked the workers to cinceed more? No, the union lost theri dues and likely furloughed, laid off members. Management has direct control of corps, not union orgs, but you will offload the blame to unions. Isn't that like blaming your parents when your kids turn out like crap? Gee. I always thought employers should be the ones controlling what work is to be done. If my employees decide what work my firm is supposed to be doing, I have a little chat with them. In fact, my clients decide what work I am to do for them, since I am their employee. Comparing a workforce of possibly 1000's of workers in a factiry to a 1 on 1 client-lawyer relationship isn't even apples and oranges. What you're missing is that employers will cut costs and exploit workers if it helps the bottom line, so federal laws and unions are supposed to balance the scales. If corps acted respeonsibly we wouldn't need OSHA, labor orgs or many other entities that are here to protect worker's health and rights. But we see large corps run amuck and exploit workers if they go unregulated. My God. I want you to run a company someday to get a better idea about what employers deal with. I can symathize with the headaches. I'm not slaming corps alltogether, I'm slamming US Fascist policies that side with corp at every level all the way to the courts.

And CEO's are still demanding huge bomuses and pay while bitching about worker's benefits. Like Fiorina's $21M severance package for her lousy job running HP? Precisely

And a glut of gas guzzling SUVs at dealers has zero to do with it.....

When I brought up Eastern Airlines, if you recall they tried to bust the union and could not. The end result was that the company went bankrupt, liquidated, sold routes and eventually closed up shop. All those workers lobbying for more pay and benefits ended up looking for work - this is anathema to worker protection. You talk about fascism and dictatorialism as if it is a bad thing. Then you implicitly laud the Air Traffic Controllers for going on strike - against their oath - attempting to hold the country's infrastructure hostage until they got their way. If I can look at a defining moment in the decline of unions in the US, that was one of them because it seemed the American people as a whole were fed up with union tactics like that. By the way, replacement ATC's quickly filled in and did an admirable job, too. The unions didn't think anyone else could do the job. They were wrong. Isn't it amazing how unions are supposedly for workers' rights, and yet they agree to collective bargaining agreements that benefit the established workers and screw the unestablished - those who need the most protection? When I brought up Eastern Airlines, if you recall they tried to bust the union and could not. The end result was that the company went bankrupt, liquidated, sold routes and eventually closed up shop. All those workers lobbying for more pay and benefits ended up looking for work - this is anathema to worker protection. Well I worked for Eastern in 84 for a short while and the union agreed to an 18% stock purchase. Of course I got pennies on the dollar by the time it sold, but the union did a lot to help the airline survive w/o the Fascist courts interveining. Any more shining examples? You talk about fascism and dictatorialism as if it is a bad thing. I'm sorry, the US doctrine about individual rights is all fucked up and Fascism is great. Then you implicitly laud the Air Traffic Controllers for going on strike - against their oath - attempting to hold the country's infrastructure hostage until they got their way. Yes, so their oath is license for the gov to pay them as they wish? W/o a strike possibility the gov will run amuck..... case in point, look at what we now have. If I can look at a defining moment in the decline of unions in the US, that was one of them because it seemed the American people as a whole were fed up with union tactics like that. You act as if the people have a say inthe least? Are you fucking serious? The decline in US organized labor was the start of the Reagan Admin when Fascist boy gave corps all the tools they needed to bust unions via federal judges. As for, "union tactics like that" address the 18% mandatory stock participation that was agreed to by the union for the good of the companies survival. Kind of let the wind out of your argument, counselor. By the way, replacement ATC's quickly filled in and did an admirable job, too. The unions didn't think anyone else could do the job. They were wrong. Absolutely, Fascist America 1/ workers 0 Now we have NAFTA and incentives to ship manufacturing to China at the expense of the US worker; are you going to applaud the US gov and US corps now? Of course you will silently, but not overtly. Isn't it amazing how unions are supposedly for workers' rights, and yet they agree to collective bargaining agreements that benefit the established workers and screw the unestablished - those who need the most protection? Really, they have apprentice programs that bring people into the franchise. Besides, counselor, you know about duty and collective barganing provides a direct duty to the people in the organization. Furthermore, labor unions want all labor to be organized, that way they can control the work being done - organized labor orgs hate unorganized labor.

Although your definition is corect, it only addresses a puny part of what Fascism is. Fascism, in the fiscal sense, is the marriage of corp and gov. Here's a great site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism Here's a general overview: The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition engages in severe economic and social regimentation engages in corporatism implements totalitarianism This is what I've said fro a long time: Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism, although some early Fascists were themselves former Marxists. In 1932, Mussolini declared in The Doctrine of Fascism: Fascism developed from Socialism and Coommunism, but soonafter rejected thise ideologies. Fascism is alive and well in the US.

Ya, like health care for their family..... the nerve of those motherfuckers.

And CEO's are still demanding huge bomuses and pay while bitching about worker's benefits.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that most unions would prefer to see United go the way of Eastern Airlines... And most rich elites see United go the way of Continental, busting unions, lowering wages, being a POS airline to work for. Where is that Fascist Reagan to help bust United as he did for Continental and the Air Traffic Controllers when you need him? The sides are obvious and defined, I don't think we need to reestablish them for everyone. Republicans/rich/elite - for - union busting and cheap labor Democrats/ACLU/poor - for - labor unions and worker rights, for the working people

There is always more where those came from.....China. Bahahahahaa..good one

I think that's the same article I posted. Ya, it's only gettin worse. I just can'tunderstand blue collar folks voting Repub and then complaining about stuff like this. The Dems reject this kind of stuff / Repubs promote it....

Me either... http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm Annually, exposure to secondhand smoke (or environmental tobacco smoke) causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults.4 Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease. Diseases Among Infants 1,711 All Causes 418,690 55,000 people per year die on our roads in the act of trying to transport to work, play, etc and we have strict driving laws. More than 7 times that die related to smoking and we complain about legislation that barely removes it from public exposure? What a joke to whine about it. Besides, you look cute and... http://www.craigentinny.co.uk/FreshBreath/index.htm http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/smoke_free/1.html Visible and Immediate Rewards of Quitting Quitting helps stop the damaging effects of tobacco on your appearance including: Premature wrinkling of the skin Bad breath Stained teeth Gum disease Bad smelling clothes and hair Yellow fingernails Do you think no one notices?

That's considerate and if all had attitudes like this these laws would probably never see ink.

Just a thought, not directing this at anyone, but you smokers should know and probably can't tell due to desensitization of smelling, but your breath smells like someone took a shit in your mouth. I say that with no vex, just the facts. Do you think other people, non-smokers, want to talk close up to you? If that chick inthe office is uninterested, think about that. Actually, don't change a thing - less comp

In a representative Democracy we have virtually zero choice in the matter, so there is no contradiction. If there was a vote on a measure to quit subsidizing tobacco farmers I'm betting it would pass. If it didn't it would be due to some other piggybacked legislation being attached. I like it (not really) when you guys throw in cell phone usage, autos and other neccessities with the use of cigs as dangerous medium. That's ridiculous. A drug addiction as compared to mass communication devices or mass transportation vehicles. Ya, ok.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/sports/article.adp?id=20031023224209990004 When was the last time a white guy won the MVP? Blacks represent 13% of the US, but 70 some % of the NFL last I heard and probably more of the NBA. WHat a joke. COuld it be that Nash was the only real substantial player added to the last place Suns this year and they won more games than anyone else? COuld it be that the 20 games they lost Nash was absent from many/most of them? Could it be that the Suns are 5-0 in post season and that Nash is the most unselfish player possibly in league history? This is an outright fucking joke.

The idea here is that it (allowing establishments to allow smoking) not only restricts non-smokers from patronizing some establishments, but it excludes some prospective employees from working in hazardous environments. Here's a thought. I'm an acft mechanic. At break time I go to the truck to get a bite and these inconsiderate asswipes are at the truck smoking. Maybe I should have prefaced this scheme by saying we are packed into the truck area trying to quickly get our food b4 we have to go back to work. Well, these inconsiderate jackoffs need to satisfy their drug addict behavior too, so they have cigs hanging out of their mouth while we are packed in. Get it. These inconsiderate druggies put their compulsions b4 the welfare of those that wish to not engage in that activity. I think legislation that addresses smoking realizes that smokers will satisfy their drug addiction regardless of others, so they are just tired of it and clamp down. Mesa Community college has a zero smoking law on campus - you see it all the time. One bright side, smokers generally age before their time and die much sooner than non-smokers.....

I suggest you look up the 21st Amendment....

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20050109083209990005&ncid=NWS00010000000001 ''We feel sold out,'' by the action, she said. Tamuk, 49, said her pension will be reduced from $1,700 a month to $800 a month by Wedoff's ruling. Gotta go, they're running out of US flags at Walmart....

2nd hand smoke is cummulative and intangible as a cause of death, but certainly contributory, right counselor? Or do we call it 'comparative?'

That's a good point from the worker perspective. Aside from the selective patronage perspective, workers would be limited to the places they could work unless they wanted to subject themselves to carcinogens.

Social engineering? Come on. That's reading quite a bit into it. It's simply legislation drafted by proponents of smoke-free environments who are members of the city council. The people voted and are for it. Remember, Austin is the liberal oasis of Texas, so who can be surprised? ... considering planes are tubes. Damnit, I'm a tube mechanic. I thought I was as aircraft mechanic Now it's moved to private businesses. Next step is on private property. It would be horrible if smoking in the presence of children in confined spaces was considered child abuse (sarcasm). You must understand that this is done for the children. Not entirely. I think irt was an overzealous non-smoker on the city council. It is a city ban, right? Bless him/her. Are you merely a paid tool of the tobacco companies? This is funny. WHat cracks me up is when Fascist interests collide. Tobacco companies are for smoking everywhere all the time, HMO's are for the prohibition of smoking; see the collision of Fasism here? Of course they didn't really have a say here I woyuld surmise.

Although I agree with you on this, aren't yopu being a little, "ends justifies the means?"

Yep, Palo Alto isn't too sparse and they've had these bans since the early 80's.

Are you serious? I can't find 1 argument to allow smoking in public places. Even from a utilitarian perspective, in fact especially due to utilitarianism (most good for most people), which the US is adopting and I dislike, smoking prohibition is long overdue. Since when is it a person's right to disperse/disseminate toxic/carcinigenic vapors? It isn't just social behavior as many people make it sound, it's lethal gas. If someone threw an acidic, carcinigenic substance on you as you walked by you would at the very least call the cops and file an asault charge; at most you might physically assault that person and justifyably so. But some smokers want an exception for emmiting cacinigens from ciggs..... hmmmmm. That's like making society pay for your compulsions. I know all the arguments for why it will be better but I CHOOSE WHERE TO WORK AND I DO I KNOW WHAT IT DOES TO MY HEALTH. But you can't chose for others and when you smoke in their vicinity that is what you're doing. Last year here in Austin you had to get a certain air filtration system put in and get a permit to have smoking. Ok, Fine. My club did that along with 200 other bars & restaurants. THIS LEFT SMOKERS AND NONSMOKERS A CHOICE OF WHERE TO WORK OR PATRON. And if you know anything about Austin, 200 bars and restaurants is MAYBE a third of what is here. BUT NOW IT IS BANNED!!!!! I think the material facts are 2-pronged: 1. Thee is no way to ensure 100% of the carcinigens will be filtered. 2. The rights and safety go to the side of caution, which is to be less offensive. I had a plan this year to pay off my credit card, buy a new rig, pay off my car early and get Lasik surgery and perhaps next year take some trips and go to school. How does the ban cost you money? Now because of stupid do-gooders... Ya, protecting the health of nonb-participants is over the tiop. ...that think they know what is best for me ... For you and the rest of the smokers? Screw that, you've chosen emphisema, cancer and what ever else, these lawmakers are chosing what's best for the other 80% that don't want those diseases. Do you really think the legislative intent was to protect smokers? I probably won't be able to get my eyes fixed, or persue my life in the way I had planned out for this year. HUH? WTF??? Quit smoking for a year and pay for your Lasik. Are you inferring that you are going to quit working so you can smoke yourself to death? If so........ HELP!!!! What right does the city have to even bring it to vote?????? It's called the Democtratic process. Please, in this age of American Fascism (corps writing laws) don't dissuade the right to vote measures/props. We lost by 2% or the vote. I think it was rigged. Let's see, 20% of the people in the US smoke, probably higher in TX, so ya, the vote likely was fixed - it was propbably inflated on the side of the smokers. What right does the city have to even bring it to vote?????? It's called the process of establishing city ordinances. I am going to fight this. It is smoking first, what is next alcohol??? Just 2 or 3 years ago they had the 21st Amendment, so I think we're ok there. Of course they could declare the county dry. What you're doing is convoluting various "sins." A person can drink in their own home and not bother a person. People cannot smoke alone. This is prohibition all over again! Prohibition was absolute dissolution of all alcohol, whereas these public smoking measures are about smoking in public; they don't affect your right to smoke in private. I am going to fight this. By what, smoke in violation of this new ord and get cited so you can spend your next 20 years of life and pay taking this to the US Sup Ct? So I guess if we have a vote that everyone should eat bananas on a Wednesday and it pass we need to eat bananas on a Wednesday. WTF????? Eating bannanas, spreading carcinigens... same thing. Our rights are slowly being taken away from us, everyone. We need to stand up and fight. Now you really are making sense, but the right to smoke isn't even inferred in the any state or federal constitution that I know of. But our rights, as enumerated and detailed by the 27 Amendments, are being erroded. Please establish where theright to smoke is somehow even indirectly inferred in any doctrine. This is America, Land of the Free! If I knew what you were about I could probably list several areas where you are for prohibition of rights/activities and for the revocation of rights, so let's not use to wide of a paint brush here in regard to rights.