The "I disagree with Ron" thread

[beachbum]

I never have understood the J.Geils love Ron is filled with.I've always been a pretty informed guy musically and they never did it for me.We went to a show when I was in high school where U2 opened for them and we left 20 minutes into their set.Of course,the after show plans were most promising.

[Ritalin]

Yo, Ronnie B.

Walk on the left, stand on the right.

[ToiletCrusher]

During a panic attack, there is also an strong physiological response.

That response typically presents as a racing heart beat, blurred vision, sweating, etc.

That in turn fuels the psychological response, which then only intensifies the physiological response.

If a panic attack comes on and the person is not in a place where they can perform calming techniques effectively, that panic attack can lead to the body's natural response of shutting itself down to prevent any potential harm.

Organ failure can be caused by severe panic attacks.

There is real danger in situations that can cause a panic attack.

[SinA]

Ronnie B said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-a is a lunatic.
For shame Ronnie, for shame.

Chick-fil-a is the bestest thing ever. I've been to the original location in Hapeville, Georgia, and I LOVED IT!

[instrument]

You shouldve just added this to the I disagree with rom thread.

[mikeyboy]

here comes the merge

[SinA]

You shouldve just added this to the I disagree with rom thread.

I don't have any disagreement with rom. Ron Bennington is the one I have an issue with.

[red_red_red]

Ronnie B said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-a is a lunatic.
For shame Ronnie, for shame.

Chick-fil-a is the bestest thing ever. I've been to the original location in Hapeville, Georgia, and I LOVED IT!
it really is the shit...they even sell the breakfast biscuits @ the local high school. when my relatives fly down, that's the first place we gotta stop.

[mikeyboy]

Ronnie B said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-a is a lunatic.
For shame Ronnie, for shame.

Chick-fil-a is the bestest thing ever. I've been to the original location in Hapeville, Georgia, and I LOVED IT!

I avoid fast food like the plaque, but my weakness is that original Chik-fil-a chicken sandwich.

[ChrisTheCop]

I avoid fast food like the plaque,

Your dentist would be so proud.

[booster11373]

Ronnie B said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-a is a lunatic.
For shame Ronnie, for shame.

Chick-fil-a is the bestest thing ever. I've been to the original location in Hapeville, Georgia, and I LOVED IT!

how would the original branch of any fast food be any different the any other branch?

[TheMojoPin]

Ronnie B said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-a is a lunatic.
For shame Ronnie, for shame.

Chick-fil-a is the bestest thing ever. I've been to the original location in Hapeville, Georgia, and I LOVED IT!

Ron is nuts.

Yeah, we're talking in terms of fast food, but CFA is awesome.

[El Mudo]

Ron is nuts.

Yeah, we're talking in terms of fast food, but CFA is awesome.



That chicken, egg, and cheese breakfast bagel sandwich they have is absolute heaven. Not to mention the fantastic honey barbecue sauce.

[SinA]

how would the original branch of any fast food be any different the any other branch?

it's been added onto, but the right side is the original "dwarf house"
it's a chick-fil-a, but they still have the full diner menu, fries and gravy, open-faced turkey, etc.

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles32257.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/36/107241612_cb60145d5f.jpg

[instrument]

I like how ron points out when fez says something funny when fez says he hates when people do it.

[Hithead]

I disagree with Ron because he never speaks to Iris.

[disgruntledsherpa]

I'm sure this won't go over well, but his unbelievable worshipping of Tarantino I can't stand. I hate that film hack and his stupid hipster movies. I can see how people would like some of his work but for Ron to talk about Tarantino like he's in this exclusive upper echelon of great directors baffles me.

[danner1515]

I'm sure this won't go over well, but his unbelievable worshipping of Tarantino I can't stand. I hate that film hack and his stupid hipster movies. I can see how people would like some of his work but for Ron to talk about Tarantino like he's in this exclusive upper echelon of great directors baffles me.

I like Tarantino, but while we're talking movies, I've never understood everyone's love for True Romance and Natural Born Killers.

[disgruntledsherpa]

I like Tarantino, but while we're talking movies, I've never understood everyone's love for True Romance and Natural Born Killers.

True Romance was very good, not this cinematic classic some people make it out to be. Natural Born Killers was awful.

[Korda]

Hating Tarantino is soooo hipster...

[Mr.Misery]

Ron's excessive Tarantino love annoys me sometimes. He's a good director--he made one of the best movies of the 90's--but the body of work is just not there aside from Pulp Fiction. Again, where is the love for foreign films? I don't think you can rightly call yourself a film buff if you don't have the love for films that are other than American. That's like saying you love food, but all you ever eat is lettuce...there's a whole world out there to enjoy for yourself.

I do agree with Ron getting pissed at callers asking "how you doing", though. I love how he impatiently says "what can I do for you?" like he wants to punch them in the face.

[Slumbag]

True Romance was very good, not this cinematic classic some people make it out to be. Natural Born Killers was awful.

That's Oliver Stone's fault, not QT.
He wrote the script, and Oliver Stone hacked it up cause he can't handle his fucking mushrooms.

I still hope one day Quentin can get the rights to it and film it the way he wanted.

[CruelCircus]

I don't have any disagreement with rom. Ron Bennington is the one I have an issue with.

http://www.popculturemadness.com/Entertainment/News/Images/Rom.jpg

[realmenhatelife]

Ron just implied that The Fifth Element isn't an awesome movie.

[Ritalin]

Ron's excessive Tarantino love annoys me sometimes. He's a good director--he made one of the best movies of the 90's--but the body of work is just not there aside from Pulp Fiction. Again, where is the love for foreign films? I don't think you can rightly call yourself a film buff if you don't have the love for films that are other than American. That's like saying you love food, but all you ever eat is lettuce...there's a whole world out there to enjoy for yourself.

I do agree with Ron getting pissed at callers asking "how you doing", though. I love how he impatiently says "what can I do for you?" like he wants to punch them in the face.

You know, I was listening to yesterday's show and kind of thinking the same thing - Ron and Dave's Tarantino gushing - but then I realized that there's nothing wrong with really liking something. Why shit on it?

Sometimes I personally fall into the trap of thinking that I'm too cool to really like anything, but what's the point of that? There's nothing wrong with really enjoying something.

[brettmojo]

Ron just implied that The Fifth Element isn't an awesome movie.
The fifth element is love...

Love.

Why not puppies?

[foodcourtdruide]

You know, I was listening to yesterday's show and kind of thinking the same thing - Ron and Dave's Tarantino gushing - but then I realized that there's nothing wrong with really liking something. Why shit on it?

Sometimes I personally fall into the trap of thinking that I'm too cool to really like anything, but what's the point of that? There's nothing wrong with really enjoying something.

This is a really good point. What's wrong with them really liking Tarantino? I personally checked out half-way into Kill Bill.

[ToiletCrusher]

Sorry, Ron.

I have to disagree with you on the wrestling thing.

Children who watch or attend the events at a young age and cannot tell the difference between real and fake are not pretending to participate.

They can not know otherwise until they learn if it is fake.

It's the same principle behind believing in Santa.

[Ritalin]

yo, Ronnie B. Audible listener here. Two things.

Way off base on deep dish pizza, and

John DeLorean? How old ARE you?

[hanso]

I hear Ron say that the Beatles were the only band out of Liverpool.
Although I thought bigger bands were also from there.
There are some that are notable.
Badfinger
Echo & the Bunnymen
Elvis Costello
A Flock of Seagulls
Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Rick Astley Himself my god man!
other on list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bands_from_Merseyside

[Aqualad]

I disagree everytime Ron shits on comics or cartoon network shows. They used to devote show time to topics like "What religion is Aquaman" and have Cow and Chicken as their theme music. Come on, Ronnie, you know you love that stuff. We won't think less of you.

[Cranky Guy]

Lets all disagree with Ron now, this place is great

[Freakshow]

Ron is wrong about Paterno. He's not just a figurehead of the program. Last year before the season he injured his leg doing onside kicks at practice. And if you have any indication just talk to a Penn State fan after they lose. It's all Paterno's fault--if they win it's because he's delegating to his assistants...

[epo]

I disagree with Ron, Jim Bruer isn't funny.

[booster11373]

I disagree with Ron, Jim Bruer isn't funny.

I agree with you

[Cranky Guy]

I agree with you

OK, I concur :annoyed:

[realmenhatelife]

Yesterday Ron implied that a real man wouldn't wear chap stick, or carry a hand bag, and yet Ron wears scarves. SCARVES!

Or as they call them in Europe, the male tampon.

[tileslinger]

Yesterday Ron implied that a real man wouldn't wear chap stick, or carry a hand bag, and yet Ron wears scarves. SCARVES!

Or as they call them in Europe, the male tampon.


Douglas MacArthur, Mick Jagger, Steven Tyler, Teddy Roosevelt...

Ronny B's not just a man he's "The Man".

[sailor]

Douglas MacArthur, Mick Jagger, Steven Tyler, Teddy Roosevelt...

Ronny B's not just a man he's "The Man".

jagger and tyler are your go-to masculine guys?

http://justwilliam1959.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mick_jagger.jpg

http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/uploaded_images/2008-American-Music-A_Corm-705930.JPG

[realmenhatelife]

Douglas MacArthur, Mick Jagger, Steven Tyler, Teddy Roosevelt...

Ronny B's not just a man he's "The Man".

A quarter of your examples has had sex with a man.

[earthbrown]

A quarter of your examples has had sex with a man.

LOTD

[underdog]

A quarter of your examples has had sex with a man.

I'm pretty sure Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler have, as well.

[TheMojoPin]

Why the hell would a man not use chapstick? Flaking, cracked and bloody lips in the winter is manly?

[PapaBear]

Why the hell would a man not use chapstick? Flaking, cracked and bloody lips in the winter is manly?
Maybe he doesn't like that it's shaped like lipstick. Did he come out against lip stuff that's in a little jar?

[Ritalin]

Why the hell would a man not use chapstick? Flaking, cracked and bloody lips in the winter is manly?

Let him spend a winter in Chicago. By January he'd be begging for chapstick like a thirsty man in the desert.

[foodcourtdruide]

I'm so far behind on my audible. Ron just said releasing the two korean journalists had nothing to do with diplomacy.

[Willi Cicci]

"Harry Connick Jr is a great musician"

"The NFL owner/player relationship resembles a plantation"

"Susie Essman is attractive"

Am I the only person that would love to see Ron get called on his bullshit just once?

[PapaBear]

"Harry Connick Jr is a great musician"

"The NFL owner/player relationship resembles a plantation"

"Susie Essman is attractive"

Am I the only person that would love to see Ron get called on his bullshit just once?
Welcome to our newest member, Willi Cicci

You signed up to the board just to say that?

I actually had a problem with Ron's statements about the Balloon Boy thing on Monday. At least two callers called in to say that the family incurred costs to the taxpayers, and Ron implied it's no different than people who do things that result in them needing to be rescued. If it's no different, then that implies it's no different than people who make 911 calls to report fake fires.

[TripleSkeet]

Yesterday Ron implied that a real man wouldn't wear chap stick, or carry a hand bag, and yet Ron wears scarves. SCARVES!

Or as they call them in Europe, the male tampon.

I agree with the handbag. Fuck that. No real men carry handbags.

[TripleSkeet]

Sorry, Ron.

I have to disagree with you on the wrestling thing.

Children who watch or attend the events at a young age and cannot tell the difference between real and fake are not pretending to participate.

They can not know otherwise until they learn if it is fake.

It's the same principle behind believing in Santa.

Not sure what your point was here.

Are you saying that kids dont know wrestlings fake until their parents tell them? Or that when they imitate wrestling they dont think it will hurt because they assume the wrestling they see on tv is real, and doesnt hurt?

[PapaBear]

Not sure what your point was here.

Are you saying that kids dont know wrestlings fake until their parents tell them? Or that when they imitate wrestling they dont think it will hurt because they assume the wrestling they see on tv is real, and doesnt hurt?
He's saying they don't know it's fake, but not in any context of them imitating it. The conversation was about all of the fans being part of the "play", because they know what they are seeing is fake.

[Willi Cicci]

You signed up to the board just to say that?

I actually had a problem with Ron's statements about the Balloon Boy thing on Monday. At least two callers called in to say that the family incurred costs to the taxpayers, and Ron implied it's no different than people who do things that result in them needing to be rescued. If it's no different, then that implies it's no different than people who make 911 calls to report fake fires. Sorry, I'll make sure to check in with you before I post something in order to make sure it's a valid subject to post on.

Yea, Ron's "balloon boy" defense was another dumb use of logic on his part. He kept comparing what balloon boys dad did, to some guy who takes his boat out too far in bad weather, and then needs to be helped by rescue crews. As if it's the same thing! That guy who takes his boat out and gets stuck made a simple human error, and ran into bad luck. But he didn't intend to deceive anyone, and his actions weren't premeditated. Balloon boys dad purposely deceived the police, the media, and rescue crews the whole time. His intentions were selfish, and he had a preconceived notion to deceive everyone. It comes down to INTENT, and the fact that it was PREMEDITATED.

It's just mind blowing how dumb some of the shit Ron says is!

The statement I'd love to see Ron defend is his "The NFL players/ownership relationship resembles a plantation, and the owners wanna keep that hidden" bullshit. Because plantations are famous for making it's workers work 4 months a year, for millions of dollars!:huh:

Someone needs to explain to Ron what plantations were. Someone also needs to explain that plenty of white people play in the NFL, and are huge parts of the team. These men(both black and white) are paid MILLIONS of dollars to play a sport. With the money they are paid, they are allowed to be set financially for the rest of their lives, and make a difference in heir communities. Oh, and they aren't forced to play in the NFL. IT'S A FREE CHOICE!

It seems like white people have to apologize for their success. Because the owners are white, someone just had to bring up some kinda racial element in to the equation. If a black person wanted to buy a team that was for sale, and he was qualified, he would get the team. It's as simple as that!

[instrument]

Willi, I think sometimes ron argues a side he doesn't believe in an attempt to get his poor excuse for a supporting cast to SPEAK.

Have you heard the show previously? It's kinda one sided...

[instrument]

I wish ron would shut the fuck up with the fez saying "mothia" shit when he says it the exact same way.

Get fucking over it, how about if fez brings up the fact that you struggle to find the proper word at times and mocked you for it?

Do any of you actually hear a difference?

[Willi Cicci]

Willi, I think sometimes ron argues a side he doesn't believe in an attempt to get his poor excuse for a supporting cast to SPEAK.

Have you heard the show previously? It's kinda one sided...

Ron does speak from the contrary very often. So at times he does just take on one side of an argument in order to garner a response from both the callers, and Fez and Dave. But you can usually tell when he resorts to that tactic. The topic I brought up(The NFL/plantation reference) was one he made very quickly, and he didn't get in depth with it, so you know it's something the he personally believes. But the balloon boy BS could have been just a contrary approach since he did go in depth with it.

He just says a lot of stupid shit. I mean he once actually said that Margaret Cho was attractive, Seriously!

[danner1515]

I wish ron would shut the fuck up with the fez saying "mothia" shit when he says it the exact same way.

Get fucking over it, how about if fez brings up the fact that you struggle to find the proper word at times and mocked you for it?

Do any of you actually hear a difference?

Yeah, Ron struggles with way too many words to pick on anyone else for misspeaking. Then again, I don't guess anyone else in that studio has the balls to call him out whenever he says "drownding."

[TjM]

I do wish Dave would disagree with Ron more often. It only seems to happen when Ron lets Dave answer first

[Willi Cicci]

I wish ron would shut the fuck up with the fez saying "mothia" shit when he says it the exact same way.

Get fucking over it, how about if fez brings up the fact that you struggle to find the proper word at times and mocked you for it?

Do any of you actually hear a difference?

What do you expect? It's Fez's "role" to be the one made fun of. I mean does it make sense for Ron to make fun of Fez's weight? Not really. But they each have their "roles" on the show. It's wrestling.

[spainlinx0]

The Bubble Boy argument was terrible, and I hope Ron was only playing devil's advocate because if he doesn't see the difference I am going to have to start questioning his sanity along with the rest of the staff.

Also Ron has that, let's add a "d" wherever we feel like it way of talking that I think is funny.

DrownDing.
StoleD.

[instrument]

Well I wasn't talking about the plantation thing, he discussed that at length a while ago when warren sapp got in trouble for bumping into that referee, that seemed to be something he believed.

I was referencing your balloonboy statement.

[realmenhatelife]

Married With Children is great, cmon.

[TjM]

Married With Children is great, cmon.

Agreed

[mikeyboy]

No

[realmenhatelife]

No

I disagree with Mikeyboy

[TjM]

I don't care what they say MWC was a damn fine show

[sailor]

i completely disagree that email is too informal. can it be? sure, but that's more dependent on the message than the medium used.

[Devo37]

friday's "why can't people cheer for whatever team is in first place" bit was driving me nuts, especially since we all know that Mr. B didn't believe the things he was saying it for a single second.

he's said in the past that you have to live in a new city for 10 years before you can start calling the local team 'your team', then yesterday he's advocating "cheer for the first place team" angle.

sometimes the taking a contrary point just for the sake of discussion bit is maddening, since he brings up opinions he doesn't even believe, then won't accept anyone's answers when they argue the opposite side!

[IamFogHat]

friday's "why can't people cheer for whatever team is in first place" bit was driving me nuts, especially since we all know that Mr. B didn't believe the things he was saying it for a single second.

he's said in the past that you have to live in a new city for 10 years before you can start calling the local team 'your team', then yesterday he's advocating "cheer for the first place team" angle.

sometimes the taking a contrary point just for the sake of discussion bit is maddening, since he brings up opinions he doesn't even believe, then won't accept anyone's answers when they argue the opposite side!



I get that, but a lot of times the man is truly trying to inspire people to fucking think for a change, and a lot of times that means we get annoyed or pissed, but more often than not its a successful exercise.

[foodcourtdruide]

I get that, but a lot of times the man is truly trying to inspire people to fucking think for a change, and a lot of times that means we get annoyed or pissed, but more often than not its a successful exercise.

For whatever reason fez/dave are very quick to agree with him. No one wants to hear a show about a bunch of guys agreeing with eachother.

[sailor]

I get that, but a lot of times the man is truly trying to inspire people to fucking think for a change, and a lot of times that means we get annoyed or pissed, but more often than not its a successful exercise.

For whatever reason fez/dave are very quick to agree with him. No one wants to hear a show about a bunch of guys agreeing with eachother.

but then last week he ripped into fez for taking contrarian positions just for the sake of stirring up debate.

[IMSlacker]

but then last week he ripped into fez for taking contrarian positions just for the sake of stirring up debate.

There's a difference between taking a contrarian position that you think has a legitimate argument that you can defend and just taking a contrarian position for the sake of doing it.

[foodcourtdruide]

There's a difference between taking a contrarian position that you think has a legitimate argument that you can defend and just taking a contrarian position for the sake of doing it.

Like when Ron plays devils advocate? I really hate that:

A. Its scary.
B. It sounds like the devil is in the room!

[sailor]

in the discussion on there will be blood, i think whiskey goes great with a steak.

[Ritalin]

Actually drinking whiskey while you eat a steak? I don't know about that. Whiskey's a cocktail, before dinner. With the meal, that would be a little harsh.

What kind of whiskey are we talking about, anyway?

[sailor]

Actually drinking whiskey while you eat a steak? I don't know about that. Whiskey's a cocktail, before dinner. With the meal, that would be a little harsh.

What kind of whiskey are we talking about, anyway?

don't know what he had in the movie. maybe i have a problem?

[toolshed]

I disagree with Ron everytime he picks up a Blowhard phone call.

[fezident]

One thing that really bothers me is when Ron says "10 years ago... people didn't wave their hand in front for their face whenever they smelled cigarette smoke. That's shit didn't exist 10 years ago. Ya just didn't see it!"

That is compete and total bullshit.
This is a true case of someone seeing what they WANT to see.


People have ALWAYS hated cigarette smoke. Always. Nonsmokers have always complained about it. And always thought it was unfair that their clothes/hair/car smelled of smoke DAYS after a smoker enjoyed a cigarette for just a few minutes.

Smoking was absolutely, 100%, and totally hated by nonsmokers. I worked the bar scene in when smoking was permitted. And I distinctly recall how ELATED nonsmokers were when indoor-smoking was banned.

When Ron says that nobody hated smokers... he's definitely choosing to (re)write his own history.

[TripleSkeet]

One thing that really bothers me is when Ron says "10 years ago... people didn't wave their hand in front for their face whenever they smelled cigarette smoke. That's shit didn't exist 10 years ago. Ya just didn't see it!"

That is compete and total bullshit.
This is a true case of someone seeing what they WANT to see.


People have ALWAYS hated cigarette smoke. Always. Nonsmokers have always complained about it. And always thought it was unfair that their clothes/hair/car smelled of smoke DAYS after a smoker enjoyed a cigarette for just a few minutes.

Smoking was absolutely, 100%, and totally hated by nonsmokers. I worked the bar scene in when smoking was permitted. And I distinctly recall how ELATED nonsmokers were when indoor-smoking was banned.

When Ron says that nobody hated smokers... he's definitely choosing to (re)write his own history.

Hes actually right. Yea theyve always hated it, but they werent always such vocal pussies about it. Ive seen people walking OUTSIDE right past someone smoking a cigarette and they have to do this whole fucking dramatic routine where they wave the smoke away before it hits their nostrils like its fucking toxic fumes. They look ridiculous. Ive actually yelled at my wife before for doing such stupid bullshit.

People never used to do that. Yea non-smokers didnt like it but they lived with it and werent such crybabies about it.

[TheMojoPin]

They "lived with it" because seemingly there was no chance any sanity would come regarding policy towards such a powerful industry.

Thankfully that's no longer the case.

[sailor]

Hes actually right. Yea theyve always hated it, but they werent always such vocal pussies about it. Ive seen people walking OUTSIDE right past someone smoking a cigarette and they have to do this whole fucking dramatic routine where they wave the smoke away before it hits their nostrils like its fucking toxic fumes. They look ridiculous. Ive actually yelled at my wife before for doing such stupid bullshit.

People never used to do that. Yea non-smokers didnt like it but they lived with it and werent such crybabies about it.

it's not?

[TripleSkeet]

it's not?

No its not. Walking through a strand of cigarette smoke isnt going to hurt you. Really.

[TheMojoPin]

Neither will smoking outside.

EVERYBODY WINS! HAPPY PARTY TIME FOR ALL!

[PapaBear]

Neither will smoking outside.

EVERYBODY WINS! HAPPY PARTY TIME FOR ALL!
Not so. What Ron complains about is people who act like you're a pariah for smoking OUTSIDE. I totally agree with him. It's ridiculous.

[TheMojoPin]

Not so. What Ron complains about is people who act like you're a pariah for smoking OUTSIDE. I totally agree with him. It's ridiculous.

Well, that is ridiculous.

That said, it's not the end of the world if someone gets some smoke in their face and acts like it smells bad. People do the same thing if someone busts ass in a public place and they get a whiff. Or if you're driving down the road and get caught driving through a tunnel of skunk funk. A bad smell is a bad smell.

[TripleSkeet]

Well, that is ridiculous.

That said, it's not the end of the world if someone gets some smoke in their face and acts like it smells bad. People do the same thing if someone busts ass in a public place and they get a whiff. Or if you're driving down the road and get caught driving through a tunnel of skunk funk. A bad smell is a bad smell.

I was talking about outside. And Im not saying people cant act like something smells bad to them, its just the whole overdramatic waving of the hands back and forth like they just walked into a swarm of bees. And its usually accompanied by a dirty look like the smoker is doing something wrong by having the audacity to smoke a cigarette outside in a public place where they happen to be walking by. Just a big way of letting people know they dont like smokers. Its so fucking childish and annoying.

[TheMojoPin]

I was talking about outside. And Im not saying people cant act like something smells bad to them, its just the whole overdramatic waving of the hands back and forth like they just walked into a swarm of bees. And its usually accompanied by a dirty look like the smoker is doing something wrong by having the audacity to smoke a cigarette outside in a public place where they happen to be walking by. Just a big way of letting people know they dont like smokers. Its so fucking childish and annoying.

Yeah, but who cares? People pull that shit in public over a ton of things. People give dirty looks or drop pithy comments for any number of inane reasons. It's not like someone doing what you described is actually doing something that effects anything and if they don't like it, so what? A lot of people really just don't like walking through smoke since it sticks to your clothes and hair. Plenty of smokers think hanging out RIGHT next to a door where everyone is coming in and out is fine for them to smoke, or smoking anywhere outside is fine regardless of who is around. It's not like the non-smokers are the only ones being inconsiderate pricks or stubborn assholes in these scenarios.

[TripleSkeet]

Yeah, but who cares? People pull that shit in public over a ton of things. People give dirty looks or drop pithy comments for any number of inane reasons. It's not like someone doing what you described is actually doing something that effects anything and if they don't like it, so what? A lot of people really just don't like walking through smoke since it sticks to your clothes and hair. Plenty of smokers think hanging out RIGHT next to a door where everyone is coming in and out is fine for them to smoke, or smoking anywhere outside is fine regardless of who is around. It's not like the non-smokers are the only ones being inconsiderate pricks or stubborn assholes in these scenarios.

I personally dont care. If Im outside smoking a cigarette it doesnt bother me if people do a fucking cartwheel to blow the smoke away.

My only point was 10-15-20 years ago you never saw people doing that. Even if they didnt like being around the smoke.

[TheMojoPin]

I personally dont care. If Im outside smoking a cigarette it doesnt bother me if people do a fucking cartwheel to blow the smoke away.

You should at least applaud if they do something as epic as a cartwheel over cigarette smoke. Personally, I do a shoryuken.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

You should at least applaud if they do something as epic as a cartwheel over cigarette smoke. Personally, I do a shoryuken.

Fantastic imagery.

[sailor]

Well, that is ridiculous.

That said, it's not the end of the world if someone gets some smoke in their face and acts like it smells bad. People do the same thing if someone busts ass in a public place and they get a whiff. Or if you're driving down the road and get caught driving through a tunnel of skunk funk. A bad smell is a bad smell.

also note ron gets offended if someone farts at a urinal. no word on troughs.

(and yes, it is toxic. no one thinks they'll get cancer that moment, but you chose your words poorly, ts.)

[TjM]

One thing that really bothers me is when Ron says "10 years ago... people didn't wave their hand in front for their face whenever they smelled cigarette smoke. That's shit didn't exist 10 years ago. Ya just didn't see it!"

That is compete and total bullshit.
This is a true case of someone seeing what they WANT to see.


People have ALWAYS hated cigarette smoke. Always. Nonsmokers have always complained about it. And always thought it was unfair that their clothes/hair/car smelled of smoke DAYS after a smoker enjoyed a cigarette for just a few minutes.

Smoking was absolutely, 100%, and totally hated by nonsmokers. I worked the bar scene in when smoking was permitted. And I distinctly recall how ELATED nonsmokers were when indoor-smoking was banned.

When Ron says that nobody hated smokers... he's definitely choosing to (re)write his own history.

It's true non-smokers have always been whiny bitches

[TjM]

They "lived with it" because seemingly there was no chance any sanity would come regarding policy towards such a powerful industry.

Thankfully that's no longer the case.

True thank god we're slowly taking away rights

[Ritalin]

Only a fool would argue in favor of cigarrette smoke, in my opinion. Even when I smoked two
packs a day I knew it was pretty gross, I just didn't care. And the majority of the people
who hate cigarette smoke - I don't care for it, but I don't hate it - and wave their hands around in front of their faces are annoying on multiple levels. It's not just the smoke.

Like, you know that lady doctor who narc'ed on the Irish tenor for making that stupid joke? I picture her as a face waving smoke hater.

Aside: listening to Carton and Boomer this morning, and two of Carton's buddies got booted from
Yankee Stadium last night for trying to sneak a smoke on a ramp on the concourse, in the third inning. No "put em out boys". Gone. Zero tolerance. Kicked out of a World Series
game. Bummer.

[fezident]

Smokers are the ones who are addicted but, NONsmokers are pussies.

Love it.


Oh... and by the way.... you're wrong. Non smokers always waved. Always. We always hated it. We always said shit about you after we walked away. We never didn't do that.

[realmenhatelife]

Ron's smoking thing is complete bullshit. It seems like nothing to him, but thats because his sense of smell and taste buds (which is ironic considering how into food he is) are all burnt out from the smoke. I grew up with smokers and never noticed the smell, now when I go home I can tell how bad and how quick it gets into your clothes. And cigars? I can smell a guy smoking a cigar, with his windows up, two cars in front of me.

I'm 100% in favor of a bar or restaurant having the right to allow smoking, I dont think smoking should count against you in any way, but it undeniably stinks and always has.

[TjM]

Ron's smoking thing is complete bullshit. It seems like nothing to him, but thats because his sense of smell and taste buds (which is ironic considering how into food he is) are all burnt out from the smoke. I grew up with smokers and never noticed the smell, now when I go home I can tell how bad and how quick it gets into your clothes. And cigars? I can smell a guy smoking a cigar, with his windows up, two cars in front of me.

I'm 100% in favor of a bar or restaurant having the right to allow smoking, I dont think smoking should count against you in any way, but it undeniably stinks and always has.

The other thing I hate (At least in Mass) Is the state made all these Bars spend alot of money to separate the bar from the restaurant to allow smoking. Then one year later they ban it outright

[A.J.]

Smoking was absolutely, 100%, and totally hated by nonsmokers. I worked the bar scene in when smoking was permitted. And I distinctly recall how ELATED nonsmokers were when indoor-smoking was banned.

And I take pure joy when they have to go through the nebula-like cloud from Smokers' Alley in order to enter bars now (especially in the city where there's limited outdoor space). You forced us outside, so suck it up.

[TripleSkeet]

Smoking is just like everything else, people are intolerant of it if it goes against what they think. Instead of trying to work out a solution where everyone can enjoy themselves, most non-smokers just want to do away with it everywhere. Of course, they dont give a fuck, it doesnt concern them.

Typical selfish attitude seen everywhere else. Just like people that want shows off tv that they dont like....even though they dont watch it. And people that want radio jocks fired for saying something even though they didnt hear it directly because they dont listen. Its the "As long as it doesnt effect me fuck everybody else" attitude thats prevalent in the country these days.

And 20 years ago people werent waving their arms around and making a big deal because they knew they looked like an ass and the smokers would just laugh at them. Thats why now people are trying to pass laws where you cant smoke in your own fucking car or right outside a building. Thats what happens when you give assholes an inch.

[TheMojoPin]

True thank god we're slowly taking away rights

Oh, look, another "they're taking away our RIIIIIIIGHTS!" argument that completely ignores that the same argument can be applied to the people who want the "right" to not have to be around cigarette smoke in public. The "rights" argument can easily go either way, which is why it's silly to argue about smoking vs. non-smoking under the umbrella of rights as we know them.

[TheMojoPin]

Smoking is just like everything else, people are intolerant of it if it goes against what they think. Instead of trying to work out a solution where everyone can enjoy themselves, most non-smokers just want to do away with it everywhere. Of course, they dont give a fuck, it doesnt concern them.

Typical selfish attitude seen everywhere else. Just like people that want shows off tv that they dont like....even though they dont watch it. And people that want radio jocks fired for saying something even though they didnt hear it directly because they dont listen. Its the "As long as it doesnt effect me fuck everybody else" attitude thats prevalent in the country these days.

And 20 years ago people werent waving their arms around and making a big deal because they knew they looked like an ass and the smokers would just laugh at them. Thats why now people are trying to pass laws where you cant smoke in your own fucking car or right outside a building. Thats what happens when you give assholes an inch.

You seem to be approaching this as if it's impossible for smokers to be "selfish" or "assholes" in this equation.

Plus it's hard to find ways for "everyone to enjoy themselves everywhere" with smoking since it's impossible for it not to also effect the people around the smoker. The radio analogy doesn't work because you can't just "change the channel" with the smoker next to you. If the response to that is, "well, they can go somewhere else," then doesn't that also apply to the smoker?

[sailor]

And I take pure joy when they have to go through the nebula-like cloud from Smokers' Alley in order to enter bars now (especially in the city where there's limited outdoor space). You forced us outside, so suck it up.

yeah, much worse than the entire bar being like that.

For the record, I am opposed to a smoking ban.

[A.J.]

yeah, much worse than the entire bar being like that.

For the record, I am opposed to a smoking ban.

I don't understand why we just can't make smoking and non-smoking bars.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't understand why we just can't make smoking and non-smoking bars.

That I agree with.

[sailor]

I don't understand why we just can't make smoking and non-smoking bars.

Agreed.

[~Katja~]

I don't understand why we just can't make smoking and non-smoking bars.
PA is pretty much like that but it depends on the percentage of foods prepared at the bar

[A.J.]

PA is pretty much like that but it depends on the percentage of foods prepared at the bar

I'm not eating scrapple.

[Hottub]

Fuck Ron Bennington.
I gave up some guaranteed ass to watch this game.

Yeah, I know. I will die with one less pork.

Sun Zsu trumps Ronnie here.

[Jughead]

Fuck Ron Bennington.
I gave up some guaranteed ass to watch this game.

Yeah, I know. I will die with one less pork.

Sun Zsu trumps Ronnie here.

Just sing to her later wake her up with some led....:smoke:

[led37zep]

Just sing to her later wake her up with some led....:smoke:

I'm way to far to show up at this hour.

[Hottub]

Just sing to her later wake her up with some led....:smoke:

I'm way to far to show up at this hour.

Juggy with the double, and Chad with the clutch RBI!:thumbup:

Well played.

[TripleSkeet]

You seem to be approaching this as if it's impossible for smokers to be "selfish" or "assholes" in this equation.

Plus it's hard to find ways for "everyone to enjoy themselves everywhere" with smoking since it's impossible for it not to also effect the people around the smoker. The radio analogy doesn't work because you can't just "change the channel" with the smoker next to you. If the response to that is, "well, they can go somewhere else," then doesn't that also apply to the smoker?

It absolutely applies to the smoker, the problem is, because of the non-smoker, there is no place else to go!

That I agree with.

I agree with this 100%. That was my point. Its a solution to make both smokers and non-smokers happy. And smokers arent the ones against this. Thats why I compared the non-smoker agenda to those of the intollerant tv watcher and radio listener. Its their camp that wants EVERY bar and restaurant non-smoking. Smokers would happily go to smoking only bars if thats where they had to go. I dont know one smoker that would disagree with that.

[TheMojoPin]

It absolutely applies to the smoker, the problem is, because of the non-smoker, there is no place else to go!

There's plenty of places people can smoke. Besides, smoking ultimately amounts to nothing more than a hobby. There's zero obligation that people need to be able to do it wherever they want.

[BlackFan]

While i agree with Ron, i don't agree with what you say but i'll defend your right to say it, and all that jazz,but i do not want to smell your shit. sorry.

Its not just something people do "now a days" to put their sleeve over their face. the shit stinks. i don't want to smell it,and i don't want my stuff smelling like smoke. it doesn't come out of clothes. I know cuz my dad smokes in my room all the time and when i come home from work there's a thick haze in my room and my clothes smell like cigs. it sucks.

if you wanna get blind drunk smoke some weed or do an 8 ball idc its all personal to you but when you bring me into your activity just cuz i happen to be standing by,then its kinda fucked up.

[TripleSkeet]

There's plenty of places people can smoke. Besides, smoking ultimately amounts to nothing more than a hobby. There's zero obligation that people need to be able to do it wherever they want.

So wait, thats what you consider fair? To me, fair would be bars you can smoke in and bars you cant. Not "Well you cant smoke in a bar but you can smoke in a park, go there." Thats like me saying "Well if you dont like smoke go hang out in church. You cant smoke in there."

The part I really dislike is that the state gets to have say in what bars can allow as far as legal activity. Its legal to smoke inside, so why cant the decision to be smoking or non-smoking be up to the bar owners? With all the outcries of non-smokers Id think it would be great business for a non-smoking bar to compete with a smoking one. Unfortunately we allow the government to make decisions on what private business owners have to do. It reeks of "big brother" saying they know whats good for you.

[TheMojoPin]

So wait, thats what you consider fair? To me, fair would be bars you can smoke in and bars you cant. Not "Well you cant smoke in a bar but you can smoke in a park, go there." Thats like me saying "Well if you dont like smoke go hang out in church. You cant smoke in there."

The part I really dislike is that the state gets to have say in what bars can allow as far as legal activity. Its legal to smoke inside, so why cant the decision to be smoking or non-smoking be up to the bar owners? With all the outcries of non-smokers Id think it would be great business for a non-smoking bar to compete with a smoking one. Unfortunately we allow the government to make decisions on what private business owners have to do. It reeks of "big brother" saying they know whats good for you.

Again, I think it's an issue of perception. This isn't some necessary function that people are being deprived of here. It's ultimately only a luxury that has been proven time and time again to be one of the most damaging things we can do to ourselves and there's a pretty good chance that it's also damaging to the people around the person choosing to do it. I don't think smoking should be outlawed, but it makes sense as to why it would be limited as it has: it's a non-essential luxury that negatively effects and potentially seriously harms the people around a smoker. Smoking isn't something that anyone actually needs to do. I understand why smokers want to be able to smoke all over the place, but they really don't have a leg to stand on in arguing to do so given the nature of the product. Nobody needs "big brother" to tell us smoking is bad for us and is likely bad for the people around the smokers. The only thing it "reeks" of is people with a toxic luxury are no longer able to engage their luxury wherever they want to. Look at alcohol regulations: we have rules and laws telling us where we can and can't drink because it's a harmful product. Is that unacceptable as well?

[TripleSkeet]

Again, I think it's an issue of perception. This isn't some necessary function that people are being deprived of here. It's ultimately only a luxury that has been proven time and time again to be one of the most damaging things we can do to ourselves and there's a pretty good chance that it's also damaging to the people around the person choosing to do it. I don't think smoking should be outlawed, but it makes sense as to why it would be limited as it has: it's a non-essential luxury that negatively effects and potentially seriously harms the people around a smoker. Smoking isn't something that anyone actually needs to do. I understand why smokers want to be able to smoke all over the place, but they really don't have a leg to stand on in arguing to do so given the nature of the product. Nobody needs "big brother" to tell us smoking is bad for us and is likely bad for the people around the smokers. The only thing it "reeks" of is people with a toxic luxury are no longer able to engage their luxury wherever they want to. Look at alcohol regulations: we have rules and laws telling us where we can and can't drink because it's a harmful product. Is that unacceptable as well?

No thats my point though! When you let the government start deciding whats good for you wand what isnt you open a dangerous door.

Your point about smoking being a luxury you dont need can also be said about drinking, gambling, eating red meat, eating sugar...the list goes on and on.

There are restaurants that dont serve alcohol because they choose not to. Thats the restaurants decision not the state. And there are laws about where you can drink because it alters behavior.

And Im not saying people should be allowed to smoke wherever they want to. Im saying, as a private business owner, if I want to allow people to smoke in MY bar, I should be allowed to.

[sailor]

There are restaurants that dont serve alcohol because they choose not to. Thats the restaurants decision not the state. And there are laws about where you can drink because it alters behavior.

i'd bet the vast majority of those places simply couldn't get/keep a liquor license.

[TripleSkeet]

i'd bet the vast majority of those places simply couldn't get/keep a liquor license.

More like afford one. But still its their choice. They arent ordered not to serve liquor.

[TheMojoPin]

No thats my point though! When you let the government start deciding whats good for you wand what isnt you open a dangerous door.

The government isn't "deciding" that smoking is bad for us. Smoking is bad for us regardless of what the government says or does.

Your point about smoking being a luxury you dont need can also be said about drinking, gambling, eating red meat, eating sugar...the list goes on and on.

You're lumping together disparate issues. Drinking is regulated because it's a proven dangerous activity that needs to be regulated. The litany of reasons as to why gambling is regulated should be obvious. Smoking is nothing like eating red meat and sugar because ingesting the latter two is not damaging or harmful to the people around you as you eat them as smoking is.

There are restaurants that dont serve alcohol because they choose not to. Thats the restaurants decision not the state. And there are laws about where you can drink because it alters behavior.

And because it's easily very dangerous to the person drinking as well as the epeople around the person drinking. The latter part is especially critical when discussing smoking regulation. There should be laws regulating it since it is damaging and harmful to the people around the smoker. It's a non-essential luxury that is nothing but detrimental health-wise.

And Im not saying people should be allowed to smoke wherever they want to. Im saying, as a private business owner, if I want to allow people to smoke in MY bar, I should be allowed to.

Private business owners here do not have now, nor have they ever had, carte blanche to allow whatever behavior they want in their businesses.

That said, I think smoking will eventually settle into a system similar to what you have with alcohol consumption. You'll see more variations on cigar bars and smoking lounges to fulfill the desires of smokers.

[TripleSkeet]

That said, I think smoking will eventually settle into a system similar to what you have with alcohol consumption. You'll see more variations on cigar bars and smoking lounges to fulfill the desires of smokers.

I hope so. In all honesty what they should do is offer licenses just like liquor licenses. If the states find a way to make the money off of smoking, theyll let it come back. Just like anything else.

And to be honest, Im sorry but I feel that just like anything else, smoking is bad for you if you abuse it. In moderation, smoking is no more harnful then liquor, pot, gambling or anything else. I think people just always abused smoking more then the rest and the damage it would do was much less immediate then the others.

I also feel the only reason the government is so anti smoking now is because they finally found a way to replace the money cigarettes brought in from taxes and lobbyists. And they replaced them with the pharmaceutical companies.

[TheMojoPin]

I hope so. In all honesty what they should do is offer licenses just like liquor licenses. If the states find a way to make the money off of smoking, theyll let it come back. Just like anything else.

Agreed. There's no need to totally outlaw it and I think we'll settle into a middle ground that ultimately works out. It'll be a pain in the ass until then, but smoking is too profitable to go away or to be totally marginalized.

And to be honest, Im sorry but I feel that just like anything else, smoking is bad for you if you abuse it. In moderation, smoking is no more harnful then liquor, pot, gambling or anything else. I think people just always abused smoking more then the rest and the damage it would do was much less immediate then the others.

Well, technically that's not true. Smoking is indeed "bad for us" in any amount. Again, they key is that it's also likely unhealthy for people around the smoker as well. The damage caused by smoking is indeed immediate. Again, I'm not saying that it should be outlawed because of this, but any serious discussion of smoking cannot downplay or minimize the damage it causes to the smoker and especially to the people around the smoker. Smoking "in moderation" is far more damaging than actually drinking or gambling in moderation.

I also feel the only reason the government is so anti smoking now is because they finally found a way to replace the money cigarettes brought in from taxes and lobbyists. And they replaced them with the pharmaceutical companies.

They could have always taxed cigarettes as they do now if they truly only wanted to make money that way. The "money juggling" as you're describing is not the easily organized financial monolith as you seem to be presenting it as. The primary reason is that the general perception of cigarettes has shifted dramatically over the last several decades as it became clearer just how damaging they were to both smokers and people around smokers and the public's reactions to these findings. In short, it's not just about the money.

[TripleSkeet]

They could have always taxed cigarettes as they do now if they truly only wanted to make money that way. The "money juggling" as you're describing is not the easily organized financial monolith as you seem to be presenting it as. The primary reason is that the general perception of cigarettes has shifted dramatically over the last several decades as it became clearer just how damaging they were to both smokers and people around smokers and the public's reactions to these findings. In short, it's not just about the money.

Well lets just say I believe that if the politicians didnt have the money flowing in from pharmaceutical companies like they do now, laws like the whole "you have to put pictures of damaged organs on your cigarettes and pay for the whole thing" wouldnt be passing as easily as they are. I think the fact that they have a new cash cow makes it alot easier for politicians to target cigarette companies in order to look like they care about the publics health.

I mean honestly, if the rules (labels, warnings, etc.) and prices for cigarette companies hadnt changed in 10 years, would there really be a public outrage? Or would the majority of Americans feel it was sufficient?

[A.J.]

Fuck Ron Bennington.
I gave up some guaranteed ass to watch this game.

What was his name? :tongue:

[TheMojoPin]

Well lets just say I believe that if the politicians didnt have the money flowing in from pharmaceutical companies like they do now, laws like the whole "you have to put pictures of damaged organs on your cigarettes and pay for the whole thing" wouldnt be passing as easily as they are. I think the fact that they have a new cash cow makes it alot easier for politicians to target cigarette companies in order to look like they care about the publics health.

I mean honestly, if the rules (labels, warnings, etc.) and prices for cigarette companies hadnt changed in 10 years, would there really be a public outrage? Or would the majority of Americans feel it was sufficient?

Money was "flowing in" from the pharmaceutical lobby well before the push against smoking and cigarettes. If anything, turning on the tobacco industry has only cost people money and political clout.

I think the main change with cigarettes was simply time. You had generations growing up where everyone thought cigarettes were fine or just a way of life and it took finally having a generation grow up with the knowledge of just how bad they are for you for enough public support and outcry to arise to shift the pendulum the other way. It was simply the larger public perception shifting from one that accepted smoking without question to one that felt it didn't have to just accept people doing something frivilous that's so destructive to everyone around.

[GregoryJoseph]

There is a difference between being a "simple man" and being a "simpleton."

[TheMojoPin]

There is a difference between being a "simple man" and being a "simpleton."

You coulda fooled us.

[Ritalin]

There is a difference between being a "simple man" and being a "simpleton."

your life is like one long folk song, you know that?

[TripleSkeet]

Money was "flowing in" from the pharmaceutical lobby well before the push against smoking and cigarettes. If anything, turning on the tobacco industry has only cost people money and political clout.

I think the main change with cigarettes was simply time. You had generations growing up where everyone thought cigarettes were fine or just a way of life and it took finally having a generation grow up with the knowledge of just how bad they are for you for enough public support and outcry to arise to shift the pendulum the other way. It was simply the larger public perception shifting from one that accepted smoking without question to one that felt it didn't have to just accept people doing something frivilous that's so destructive to everyone around.

See I just dont get that. When I was growing up everyone knew cigarettes caused cancer. It wasnt a big secret. Our parents knew. It wasnt like the 40's. People made their own choices.

I get the whole secondhand smoke thing, I just dont understand why smokers cant have bars that cater to them, thats all.

The funny thing is around here there are so many small local bars that just ignore that law and let people smoke anyway. If someone doesnt like it they just dont go there.

[TheMojoPin]

See I just dont get that. When I was growing up everyone knew cigarettes caused cancer. It wasnt a big secret. Our parents knew. It wasnt like the 40's. People made their own choices.

It wasn't just an issue of cancer, and even that wasn't as clearly understood as it's come to be over the last 20 years or so. It's been an ever increasing area of knowledge for the public, both in terms of the wide-ranging health impacts as well as the practices of the tobacco companies in how they marketed and produced their cigarettes and purposely suppressed critical information. It's not like it only boils down to an issue of "cigarettes are great...oh no, cancer!" like a light switch was turned on.

I get the whole secondhand smoke thing, I just dont understand why smokers cant have bars that cater to them, thats all.

It's pretty much inevitable that they will.

[TripleSkeet]

It's pretty much inevitable that they will.

You think so? I see it more going the other direction where its getting even less tolerable in other places. There have been news reports about trying to get people not to smoke in cars, and even further away from buildings. I worked for one company that you couldnt just smoke outside, you had to literally walk 100 yards away to this grassy little field across the parking lot. It just seemed insane.

One thing I have noticed is that alot of bars, around here anyway, have started adding outdoor decks to their place. So that kinda helps out alot for people that want to smoke while theyre drinking.

[TheMojoPin]

You think so?

Sure. It's all about perspective. It's the wrong route for people to approach it like, "oh, when we'll just have to have our OWN bars! Nyaaaaaaaah!" It would be much more productive if people just wanted to set up locations similar to cigar bars and smoking lounges as opposed to just "regular" bars and restaurants where smoking is allowed. Those are much more likely to succeed since it's critical that they hinge their marketing on how people can come there and smoke.

Again, this is a luxury. I understand that smokers like their smoking, but you guys aren't doing something that has to be catered to. It's not something that anyone has to be able to do, thusly there's no obligation to make sure people can do it anywhere or even conveniently since it's a harmful activity to people and the surroundings around the smoker. If smoking only effected the smoker, this wouldn't be an issue, but that's not the case.

[TjM]

Some towns will ticket you if you smoke in your car. I think that's going too far

[TheMojoPin]

Some towns will ticket you if you smoke in your car. I think that's going too far

For just smoking in the car or for smoking while driving? If it's while driving then it's along the lines of ticketing people for talking on their cell phone while driving.

[TripleSkeet]

For just smoking in the car or for smoking while driving? If it's while driving then it's along the lines of ticketing people for talking on their cell phone while driving.

Im pretty sure theres not one state that has a law that says you cant smoke while you drive.

[TjM]

Not a state but a town or 2 in Mass has that.

[TjM]

Then you have shit like this

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional/12137150-1.html

[TheMojoPin]

Eh, if it's for doing it while driving I'm not gonna lose sleep. If they're getting tickets for just sitting in their car lighting up that's fucked up, but otherwise I don't think people get ticketed enough for shit while they're driving.

[TripleSkeet]

Then you have shit like this

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional/12137150-1.html

Thats what Im talking about when I say, you give an inch, and they use it to just keep taking and taking and taking.

[TheMojoPin]

Thats what Im talking about when I say, you give an inch, and they use it to just keep taking and taking and taking.

There are aspects of that ruling that are ridiclous (surveillance? Come on), but in the end it's not all that different than apartment complexes or condos or other rented properties that don't allow smoking because they don't want the property damaged or destroyed. That's nothing new.

[fezident]

To me... the health-issue of 2nd hand smoke is a non-issue. I don't care. I live in NYC... I'm exposed to all kinds of air pollution.
For my money... it's the fact that I'm FORCED to experience YOUR cigarette.

As I stated earlier, it lingers for a looooong time. Certainly longer than any non-smoker wants it to.

Smokers:
If you walked into a department store, and some Revlon lady was standing in the entrance spraying perfume samples, and she sprayed a sample directly on you, wouldn't that bother you? Now you smell like fucking perfume! FUCK, right?
Well that's perfume. Now imagine it's that gross-ass cigarette smell. Now imagine that you had to deal with it time and time again. During meals... movies... social events... etc.

Wouldn't you be glad when perfume spraying was banned? I think you would.

I'm not being a dick. Nor am I being a pussy. But... if you're gonna tell me that "it wouldn't bother me", you're definitely lying. You would hate that you weren't given the choice, chance, or opportunity to avoid that perfume blast. And you would hate that it was guaranteed to happen again tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that.


The ban IS fair. Until they design some kinda air filtration/seperation system in a public place... the ban can only be considered fair.

[TjM]

To me... the health-issue of 2nd hand smoke is a non-issue. I don't care. I live in NYC... I'm exposed to all kinds of air pollution.
For my money... it's the fact that I'm FORCED to experience YOUR cigarette.

As I stated earlier, it lingers for a looooong time. Certainly longer than any non-smoker wants it to.

Smokers:
If you walked into a department store, and some Revlon lady was standing in the entrance spraying perfume samples, and she sprayed a sample directly on you, wouldn't that bother you? Now you smell like fucking perfume! FUCK, right?
Well that's perfume. Now imagine it's that gross-ass cigarette smell. Now imagine that you had to deal with it time and time again. During meals... movies... social events... etc.

Wouldn't you be glad when perfume spraying was banned? I think you would.

I'm not being a dick. Nor am I being a pussy. But... if you're gonna tell me that "it wouldn't bother me", you're definitely lying. You would hate that you weren't given the choice, chance, or opportunity to avoid that perfume blast. And you would hate that it was guaranteed to happen again tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that.


The ban IS fair. Until they design some kinda air filtration/seperation system in a public place... the ban can only be considered fair.


First they came for the communists,

[TheMojoPin]

First they came for the jews

Har-har.

It's a destructive, non-essential luxury that effects and harms people besides the smoker.

[TjM]

Har-har.

It's a destructive, non-essential luxury that effects and harms people besides the smoker.

Sure. Keep letting them slowly take away shit though. Like a good sheep

[TheMojoPin]

Sure. Keep letting them slowly take away shit though. Like a good sheep

Again, you keep glossing over just what kind of activity this is. It's not like chewing gum is being banned. Like I said, it's a non-essential luxury activity that is detrimental to the people and the environment around the smoker. This isn't something that needs to be or even should be catered to. Why should people be able to do something non-essential that harms other people and their surroundings whenever and wherever they want? It would be one thing if the detrimental effects were offset by something useful, like exhaust pollution, etc. from cars vs. a society reliant on motorized transportation, but they're not.

[biggestmexi]

Har-har.

It's a destructive, non-essential luxury that effects and harms people besides the smoker.

so is driving...whats your point

[TheMojoPin]

so is driving...whats your point

As I just pointed out in the post above yours, driving is something essential that we need for our society to function.

Let's approach it this way...how does the desire to smoke outweigh the detrimental effects of smoking to the people and surroundings around the smoker? How do the pros negate the cons?

Personally, I like smoking, but there's really no way to objectively argue that it's something that NEEDS to be done and that the pros outweigh the cons.

[biggestmexi]

As I just pointed out in the post above yours, driving is something essential that we need for our society to function.
.

not everyone....especially big city where these rules are the most stringent.

and everyone doesnt need to drive.

driving is a privilege.

[TheMojoPin]

not everyone....especially big city where these rules are the most stringent.

and everyone doesnt need to drive.

driving is a privilege.

I didn't say that everyone needs to drive. The basic act of driving itself, however, is necessary. Driving is also a practice that is heavily regulated. Smoking is, in no meaningful way, a necessary function. It really cannot be compared to driving at all in terms of necessity.

[biggestmexi]

I didn't say that everyone needs to drive. The basic act of driving itself, however, is necessary. Driving is also a practice that is heavily regulated. Smoking is, in no meaningful way, a necessary function. It really cannot be compared to driving at all in terms of necessity.

its not necessary. there is plenty of people that dont drive due to mass transit. a ton of people. smoking is regulated as much as driving....granite there is more rules but you can have only so many rules on one thing or another.

you dont need to drive and you dont need to smoke....

[TheMojoPin]

its not necessary. there is plenty of people that dont drive due to mass transit. a ton of people.

Again, you're twisting what I've said. I never stated that everyone needs to drive. I'm saying that the function of driving is necessary for our society to survive. You still need people to drive the trucks, buses, trains, etc. even if you elmintaed all "optional" driving. Someone has to be driving something for our society to function. Nobody has to be smoking.

smoking is regulated as much as driving....granite there is more rules but you can have only so many rules on one thing or another.

Why?

To use an extreme example, why could we only have "so many rules" about something like murder?

you dont need to drive and you dont need to smoke....

Somebody needs to drive. Nobody needs to smoke.

[TripleSkeet]

The ban IS fair. Until they design some kinda air filtration/seperation system in a public place... the ban can only be considered fair.

So why cant there be smoking bars where you, as a non-smoker, can choose to not go to because you dont like smoke? Why does EVERY bar have to be non-smoking? Thats my point. Why cater to only one side of the argument. There are plenty of smokers that dont care about the smoke, the smell or anything else. They just want to have a cigarette while they drink. Why can those people not have a place for them?

[sailor]

its not necessary. there is plenty of people that dont drive due to mass transit. a ton of people. smoking is regulated as much as driving....granite there is more rules but you can have only so many rules on one thing or another.

you dont need to drive and you dont need to smoke....

Leave Vince Lombardi out of it.

[TheMojoPin]

So why cant there be smoking bars where you, as a non-smoker, can choose to not go to because you dont like smoke? Why does EVERY bar have to be non-smoking? Thats my point. Why cater to only one side of the argument. There are plenty of smokers that dont care about the smoke, the smell or anything else. They just want to have a cigarette while they drink. Why can those people not have a place for them?

It doesn't seem economically feasable to only cater to smokers if one is attempting to run a full bar/restaurant. That's why the cigar bar/smoking lounge model seems so much more realistic.

[biggestmexi]

Again, you're twisting what I've said. I never stated that everyone needs to drive. I'm saying that the function of driving is necessary for our society to survive. You still need people to drive the trucks, buses, trains, etc. even if you elmintaed all "optional" driving. Someone has to be driving something for our society to function. Nobody has to be smoking.

im not twisting you words....you said it was necessary to drive. and we are working on way to make it so no one does. then whats your argument?



yeah nobody has to smoke. so what



Why?

are you going to speed limits on smoking? you cant put all the rules on smoking. there is rules on smoking. and there is rules on driving. the reason driving has more is because there is more to it than smoking

Somebody needs to drive. Nobody needs to smoke.

only some poeple, so lets get rid of all the cars and small passenger vehicles in chicago. there is no reason for them as long as theres someone driving a bus

[TjM]

It doesn't seem economically feasable to only cater to smokers if one is attempting to run a full bar/restaurant. That's why the cigar bar/smoking lounge model seems so much more realistic.

How do those places get around the smoking ban? Private club? (I know sometimes I'll go to meet a friend at the local VFW which allows smoking because it's considered a private club)

[biggestmexi]

It doesn't seem economically feasable to only cater to smokers if one is attempting to run a full bar/restaurant. That's why the cigar bar/smoking lounge model seems so much more realistic.

right now there is millions of smokers....out on the street....if some one opens a rest that allows smoking it would be packed all the time even if it has shitty food.

[TheMojoPin]

im not twisting you words....you said it was necessary to drive. and we are working on way to make it so no one does. then whats your argument?

Because you were repeatedly stating that I was saying that everyone needs to drive. I never said that. I said that the basic function of driving was necessary in our society. Those are two very different things.

yeah nobody has to smoke. so what

So it's not analogous to driving.

are you going to speed limits on smoking? you cant put all the rules on smoking. there is rules on smoking. and there is rules on driving. the reason driving has more is because there is more to it than smoking

I don't understand what you are saying here. What are "all the rules" that can be placed on smoking? You seem to be implying there's some set limit of rules for everything. What is that limit?

only some poeple, so lets get rid of all the cars and small passenger vehicles in chicago. there is no reason for them as long as theres someone driving a bus

Sure, but you still need people to be driving in that scenario. That's why driving is a necessary function. That's what I've been saying.

[TheMojoPin]

How do those places get around the smoking ban? Private club? (I know sometimes I'll go to meet a friend at the local VFW which allows smoking because it's considered a private club)

I'm not sure, but however they can do it that's likely the best route to getting a number of places that would have comfortable smoking settings in a bar-type atmosphere.

[TheMojoPin]

right now there is millions of smokers....out on the street....if some one opens a rest that allows smoking it would be packed all the time even if it has shitty food.

That's doubtful. It's not like all the smokers everywhere are always going to flock to where there's smoking. Smokers aren't all defined by their smoking. They're not all ONLY going to go to a place that has smoking.

Look at it this way: a restaurant without smoking is still going to get a ton of smokers to patronize it. A restaurant filled with smoke is likely not going to get very many non-smokers as customers. What business owner is going to willingly chop out a massive segment of their potential consumers in that way?

[biggestmexi]

Because you were repeatedly stating that I was saying that everyone needs to drive. I never said that. I said that the basic function of driving was necessary in our society. Those are two very different things.

Driving itself might be but the act of isnt. A computer can drive and it has no society ..... maaaaaan.

soon enough everyone will forget about driving themselves.

and at that point in time people will still be smoke....thats all.


So it's not analogous to driving.

it is they are both privileges

don't understand what you are saying here. What are "all the rules" that can be placed on smoking? You seem to be implying there's some set limit of rules for everything. What is that limit?

you said there is more rules on driving....what other rules can you impose on smoking?

Sure, but you still need people to be driving in that scenario. That's why driving is a necessary function. That's what I've been saying.

Only a few people and those people have to work harder at that privilege than you

[biggestmexi]

That's doubtful. It's not like all the smokers everywhere are always going to flock to where there's smoking. Smokers aren't all defined by their smoking. They're not all ONLY going to go to a place that has smoking.

Look at it this way: a restaurant without smoking is still going to get a ton of smokers to patronize it. A restaurant filled with smoke is likely not going to get very many non-smokers as customers. What business owner is going to willingly chop out a massive segment of their potential consumers in that way?

an owner that smokes and understands the fact that this is the only place like this in the city....fuck the non-smokers...lets make a change.

i would have to say there is about an equal amount of people who smoke and dont smoke.

out of those people who do smoke there will be at least 25% that "HAVE" to smoke (you know those people) and if you get those people your business will be profitable.

[biggestmexi]

I'm not sure, but however they can do it that's likely the best route to getting a number of places that would have comfortable smoking settings in a bar-type atmosphere.

i think they pay the fines.....or they would have to go "private" with something like a cover charge to "join"

[TheMojoPin]

Driving itself might be but the act of isnt. A computer can drive and it has no society ..... maaaaaan.

soon enough everyone will forget about driving themselves.

and at that point in time people will still be smoke....thats all.

OK, I don't know how much more clear I can make this: we need people to be driving for our society to function. We need people to drive the public transportation. We need people to be able to drive to ships goods across the country. We cannot do away with driving altogether. It's one of the functions our society is hinged on.

it is they are both privileges

Driving is both a privilege and a necessity.

you said there is more rules on driving....what other rules can you impose on smoking?

You could impose a variety of different rules and regulations on smoking. It's not like we've hit some kind of ceiling in that area. I'm not saying we necessarily should, be we certainly could.

Only a few people and those people have to work harder at that privilege than you

But even that relative few HAVE to be driving. Somebody has to be driving. Nobody has to be smoking. The two are not comparable at all.

[TheMojoPin]

an owner that smokes and understands the fact that this is the only place like this in the city....fuck the non-smokers...lets make a change.

This is basically saying that smokers are a slave to their smoking and could only go out to a place that allowed smoking. Sure, there'd be regulars, but very few people would make it the ONLY place they went to.

i would have to say there is about an equal amount of people who smoke and dont smoke.

Perhaps, but again, if you're opening a business like a full bar/restaurant you're going to want to draw in everyone, not just one side. Many smokers will still go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. The majority of non-smokers would not go to to a place that is fileld with smoke. One option provides far more potential customers than the other.

out of those people who do smoke there will be at least 25% that "HAVE" to smoke (you know those people) and if you get those people your business will be profitable.

Sure, if they set up the right business. That's why the cigar bar model makes much more sense.

[biggestmexi]

This is basically saying that smokers are a slave to their smoking


there is a lot of people that are.

[TheMojoPin]

there is a lot of people that are.

Well, tough shit for them.

[biggestmexi]

Well, tough shit for them.

exactly

i could care less that people smoke.

id like to see laws like this on alcohol as well.

[TjM]

id like to see laws like this on alcohol as well.

I will hunt you down!

[TheMojoPin]

exactly

i could care less that people smoke.

id like to see laws like this on alcohol as well.

There already are.

[biggestmexi]

There already are.

really where?

every where you go you can drink. Even fucking pizza hut.

there is no rules on it other than age really.

[TheMojoPin]

really where?

every where you go you can drink. Even fucking pizza hut.

there is no rules on it other than age really.

In terms of there being strict regulations that keep you from drinking anywhere. It's not like Pizza Hut can just serve alcohol if they want to without getting the proper license and such. They can also keep it out with a simple "no outside food or drink" policy. You can't just be out in public drinking if you want. Alcohol is very heavily regulated.

[biggestmexi]

In terms of there being strict regulations that keep you from drinking anywhere. It's not like Pizza Hut can just serve alcohol if they want to without getting the proper license and such. They can also keep it out with a simple "no outside food or drink" policy. You can't just be out in public drinking if you want. Alcohol is very heavily regulated.

why cant places do that with smoking then? with adequate ventilation and such?

all you need to do is get a license that is not hard to get.

you can go anywhere and drink...not strictly beer but wine and what not.

and you would have less people complaining about someone drinking on the street then smoking.

alcohol is as easy to buy has smokes. its regulated worth shit.

what has worse side effects? and is socially acceptable everywhere. Alcohol!

[TheMojoPin]

why cant places do that with smoking then? with adequate ventilation and such?

It would be nice, but such precise ventilation systems don't exist. Hopefully they will someday.

all you need to do is get a license that is not hard to get.

Who said that such a license needs to be hard to get?

you can go anywhere and drink...not strictly beer but wine and what not.

You can't go and drink "anywhere." You can drink on private property if it's allowed by the owner. You can drink in establishments or at public gatherings that serve alcohol if they are licensed to do so.

and you would have less people complaining about someone drinking on the street then smoking.

So?

alcohol is as easy to buy has smokes. its regulated worth shit.

I don't understand why you think that one should be harder than the other to get, or that either should be difficult to purchase.

what has worse side effects? and is socially acceptable everywhere. Alcohol!

Well, that's simply not true at all. From a personal health standpoint smoking is a far more harmful activity than drinking.

[biggestmexi]

It would be nice, but such precise ventilation systems don't exist. Hopefully they will someday.

Who said that such a license needs to be hard to get?

You can't go and drink "anywhere." You can drink on private property if it's allowed by the owner. You can drink in establishments or at public gatherings that serve alcohol if they are licensed to do so.

So?

I don't understand why you think that one should be harder than the other to get, or that either should be difficult to purchase.

Well, that's simply not true at all. From a personal health standpoint smoking is a far more harmful activity than drinking.

nice vent systems are around in kitchens.

well then its not as regulated. one you can do and one you cant. its simple

you can drink more places than you can smoke

and i dont think one should be regulated more. they should be regulated the same and equal.

I bet there are more alcohol related deaths in US than smoking.

thats including excess drinking, car accidents, people left to die cause they choke to death

smoking is a personal health problem, they choose to smoke. if you dont like it stay awat from them.

you cant always hide from a drunk driver.

and i take it you drink and not smoke?

[underdog]

you cant always hide from a drunk driver.

I would just hide under my bed.

[TripleSkeet]

It doesn't seem economically feasable to only cater to smokers if one is attempting to run a full bar/restaurant. That's why the cigar bar/smoking lounge model seems so much more realistic.

I actually disagree with that. For a restaurant maybe, but not a bar. Theres plenty of bars around here. If 1 or 2 opened up that allowed smoking while the rest werent those two places would do WAY more business then the others.

For two reasons actually.

1. I dont think as many people are intollerant as being around smoke in bars as people believe.

2. Smokers are more willing leave some of their friends and say "Im going to the smoking bar. You can go wherever the fuck you want" then a non-smoker is to say "I wont go to a smoking bar".

If Im wrong then why, for all those years when people were bitching to the state to ban smoking in bars, didnt one bar owner open a non-smoking bar and just make a fortune?

[TheMojoPin]

nice vent systems are around in kitchens.

You can't use what essential amounts to industrial ventilation systems on the floor of a bar or restaurant. Too noisy, too uncomfortable.

well then its not as regulated. one you can do and one you cant. its simple

you can drink more places than you can smoke

and i dont think one should be regulated more. they should be regulated the same and equal.

Why should smoking and drinking be regulated exactly the same?

I bet there are more alcohol related deaths in US than smoking.

thats including excess drinking, car accidents, people left to die cause they choke to death

The CDC estimates that around 440,000 deaths in the U.S. each year are smoking associated (400,000 of those are caused directly by cigarette smoking).

Approximately 85,000-100,000 people die each year due to alcohol. (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30)

smoking is a personal health problem, they choose to smoke. if you dont like it stay awat from them.

That implies that smokers have "the right of way," as it were.

you cant always hide from a drunk driver.

Never said you couldn't.

and i take it you drink and not smoke?

I enjoy both, but neither typically to excess.

[TheMojoPin]

If Im wrong then why, for all those years when people were bitching to the state to ban smoking in bars, didnt one bar owner open a non-smoking bar and just make a fortune?

Plenty of people opened no-smoking establishments before the bans. You really think that that never occured before then?

[TripleSkeet]

Plenty of people opened no-smoking establishments before the bans. You really think that that never occured before then?

I had never seen or even heard of a non-smoking bar anywhere near the Philly/South Jersey area. Not one.

[TheMojoPin]

I had never seen or even heard of a non-smoking bar anywhere near the Philly/South Jersey area. Not one.

I think we were talking about two different things. You were talking only about bars and I was thinking of bars/restaurants.

[TripleSkeet]

I think we were talking about two different things. You were talking only about bars and I was thinking of bars/restaurants.

Oh yea, I know plenty of restaurants that were non-smoking or had smoking areas away from the dining area. I just meant regular bars.

[Enabler]

Schindlers List is "overrated" but Hot Fuzz is "brilliant"...........:huh:

I disagree. Im hoping Ron was only kissing ass because the Simon Pegg Unmasked was coming up or some shit. Because that movie blew.

[realmenhatelife]

Schindlers List is "overrated" but Hot Fuzz is "brilliant"...........:huh:

I disagree. Im hoping Ron was only kissing ass because the Simon Pegg Unmasked was coming up or some shit. Because that movie blew.

I haven't had the desire to watch Schindlers List since the first time I saw it, so I wont comment on that, but Hot Fuzz is definately brilliant. Or brill, as the english would say.

[Furtherman]

We know you're not a drinker anymore Ron, but there is no reason for those of us who are, should be looked as some kind of failure because we like to tailgate.

Nothing wrong with having some beers before a game or concert.

I do agree about having some before a movie though... that's just silly, as you'll have to get up to go to the bathroom during the movie. There's no breaks in a movie.

[biggestmexi]

We know you're not a drinker anymore Ron, but there is no reason for those of us who are, should be looked as some kind of failure because we like to tailgate.

Nothing wrong with having some beers before a game or concert.


Yes it does.

get a life you alky!

Drink before you get to the game!

[Enabler]

We know you're not a drinker anymore Ron, but there is no reason for those of us who are, should be looked as some kind of failure because we like to tailgate.

Nothing wrong with having some beers before a game or concert.

I do agree about having some before a movie though... that's just silly, as you'll have to get up to go to the bathroom during the movie. There's no breaks in a movie.

My feelings about this are fairly well documented. Ron's hatred for tailgating is senseless and hurtful.

[underdog]

I do agree about having some before a movie though... that's just silly, as you'll have to get up to go to the bathroom during the movie. There's no breaks in a movie.

They put a bar in the Loews in downtown Boston.

They had to close it after 2 weeks.

I still get pretty hammered before I see movies.

[SinA]

I disagree with Ron's dislike of this board, and of this thread.

[K.C.]

Yes it does.

get a life you alky!

Drink before you get to the game!

Exactly!

I drink while driving to the game...drinking in the parking lot is just low rent!

[spainlinx0]

Ichiban is not part of the "asian" language. It's Japanese. That's like saying uno is number one in the European language.

[instrument]

i know she isn't 120lbs, but ron seriously made it sound like Mariah Carey is a pig.
http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/images3/fp_3981135_small.jpg

wtf? i seriously searched to see some pics just to see how huge she'd gotten.

ron's wife must be seriously young and tiny if he considers that huge.

[PapaBear]

Ichiban is not part of the "asian" language. It's Japanese. That's like saying uno is number one in the European language.
You're joking, right?

[spoon]

We know you're not a drinker anymore Ron, but there is no reason for those of us who are, should be looked as some kind of failure because we like to tailgate.

Nothing wrong with having some beers before a game or concert.

I do agree about having some before a movie though... that's just silly, as you'll have to get up to go to the bathroom during the movie. There's no breaks in a movie.

I thought the same thing on this when I heard this show. I've often gone tailgating as the away team fan (just recently at the Chargers/Giants game) and had a blast with not a single problem. Sure the Giant fans ripped my SD gear, but it was all in good fun. Also, kids were also playing catch, eating and basically having a good time all over. I'm not so sure what the hell the issue is bc it's a great fucking time with great food and drink.

On a side note, Udog cracked me up with his drunk movie watching post.

[underdog]

On a side note, Udog cracked me up with his drunk movie watching post.

What?

[sailor]

Almost every aspect of the tiger woods story.

[GregoryJoseph]

Almost every aspect of the tiger woods story.

Such as...?

[sailor]

Mostly the "it's not a crime unless they want to report it"

poor guy's gonna end up shot

[K.C.]

i know she isn't 120lbs, but ron seriously made it sound like Mariah Carey is a pig.
http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/images3/fp_3981135_small.jpg

wtf? i seriously searched to see some pics just to see how huge she'd gotten.

ron's wife must be seriously young and tiny if he considers that huge.

She looks like she's wearing a girdle.

Yeah, she's not gigantic, but she's put on weight.

Still hit it....TWO times!

[midwestjeff]

I disagree with Ron because I think it is possible for two people to be lifelong friends.
It doesn't mean the two friends never grew up or changed,
it just means that they remained friends, unconditionally.

Hmm, when I put it that way it sounds a little gay.
Still, I disagree with Ron.

[dommer]

Not so much a disagreement, but Ronnie's definitely a lot more loyal to his partner than I'd be.

One other thing, Ronnie once tore apart a caller for saying "Lou UH Vull" for Louisville, yet he always WAY overpronounces New Orleans as "Naaaaaahluns". People from there don't overdo it that much.

[sailor]

Greece is not a good soccer team. Ivory coast is favored to advance, they're no upset special.

[SinA]

It doesn't bother me that much that there's an effort to reduce consumption of sugary sodas, by taxing them or portraying them as bad for your health.

They're bad for your health. So are cigarettes. It doesn't bother me that smoking isn't "cool."

[happytypinggirl]

It doesn't bother me that much that there's an effort to reduce consumption of sugary sodas, by taxing them or portraying them as bad for your health.

They're bad for your health. So are cigarettes. It doesn't bother me that smoking isn't "cool."

but here's the problem. if it goes too far, this is how a government can control all morality. by taxing things they dont want you to do, and giving 'benefits' for people who do what they want. it happens already, and it makes me really nervous. ultimately, it can become almost the same as outlawing something if you make it too expensive for most people to do.

[JerseyRich]

Don't worry, Ron won't run out of cigars.

[biggestmexi]

Don't worry, Ron won't run out of cigars.

Cigars have had the SCHIP on them now for a few months

[Serpico1103]

but here's the problem. if it goes too far, this is how a government can control all morality. by taxing things they dont want you to do, and giving 'benefits' for people who do what they want. it happens already, and it makes me really nervous. ultimately, it can become almost the same as outlawing something if you make it too expensive for most people to do.

They have always done it.
A tax deduction for mortgage payments is an incentive to buy a house, a disincentive to rent.
Capital gains tax rates are an incentive to invest, a disincentive to save.

As part of a society you must live a certain way that does not slow its growth. If you do, than you must pay a premium. I think taxing is a much better approach than outlawing. If smoking increases health insurance premiums, lowers productivity, etc than have those that choose to smoke pay society back through taxes. It is a way of internalizing costs. Companies too often externalize costs making everyone pay for things that only a few enjoy.
Example. Wal-mart preventing employees from obtaining health insurance requires the rest of society to pay for their employees health costs. So, while the person who buys the cheap walmart products makes out, the rest of society has to pay the externalized costs.

[happytypinggirl]

They have always done it.
A tax deduction for mortgage payments is an incentive to buy a house, a disincentive to rent.
Capital gains tax rates are an incentive to invest, a disincentive to save.

As part of a society you must live a certain way that does not slow its growth. If you do, than you must pay a premium. I think taxing is a much better approach than outlawing. If smoking increases health insurance premiums, lowers productivity, etc than have those that choose to smoke pay society back through taxes. It is a way of internalizing costs. Companies too often externalize costs making everyone pay for things that only a few enjoy.
Example. Wal-mart preventing employees from obtaining health insurance requires the rest of society to pay for their employees health costs. So, while the person who buys the cheap walmart products makes out, the rest of society has to pay the externalized costs.

its absolutely done. and it is better than outlawing. but it would be a mistake to look at it like its always ok or to be completely comfortable with it being extended further and further.

[Serpico1103]

its absolutely done. and it is better than outlawing. but it would be a mistake to look at it like its always ok or to be completely comfortable with it being extended further and further.

Agreed.
But to not appreciate the negative impact that HFC and other low quality food has on society on whole is not an intelligent approach either.
We need to encourage food producers to make healthy food cheaper, the way we are currently encouraging them to make unhealthy food.
To what degree and how that is done is up for debate, but to ignore the situation is foolish.

[SinA]

but here's the problem. if it goes too far, this is how a government can control all morality. by taxing things they dont want you to do, and giving 'benefits' for people who do what they want. it happens already, and it makes me really nervous. ultimately, it can become almost the same as outlawing something if you make it too expensive for most people to do.

i'll walk back from what i said a bit on taxes, because i think you have a point. i wouldn't want government controlling morality through taxation. i don't think i should pay more just because i use so many extra large condoms.

on the other hand, the idea that "the "free market" will establish the perfect balance because a company won't make harmful products" (which would ultimately reduce the number of consumers) hasn't held true. tobacco is the easiest example to pick on, but they knowingly sell a product that has serious negative health effects and is addictive. also, and still related to tobacco but to some extent other "unhealthy" habits, there should be a method of having people with habits that are known to cost more of the system pay more into the system. that's just my opinion.

smokers and bad drivers pay already more for their private insurance. that's not the government doing it and it's not enforcing morality, its a valid response to the real difference in the costs different people impose on others.

a paradox of capitalism and democracy is that we want to believe that everyone should be treated as equals, but in reality people have different abilities and make different choices, and there may be justification for some people contributing more or receiving more of the government.

i still disagree with ron about ads on tv against sugary products. if starburst can have commercials that make eating candy look like having an lsd orgasm in your mouth, the other side can tell you that it will make you fat.

[happytypinggirl]

Agreed.
But to not appreciate the negative impact that HFC and other low quality food has on society on whole is not an intelligent approach either.
We need to encourage food producers to make healthy food cheaper, the way we are currently encouraging them to make unhealthy food.
To what degree and how that is done is up for debate, but to ignore the situation is foolish.

i'd vote for educating consumers so that they want to choose the better option. remember that guy who made you hanker for a hunk of cheese when you were a kid? :-D and make wagon wheels? and ice pops made from juice in your ice cube tray? yea...if you dont know what im talking about...its cause im old.

[Serpico1103]

i'd vote for educating consumers so that they want to choose the better option. remember that guy who made you hanker for a hunk of cheese when you were a kid? :-D and make wagon wheels? and ice pops made from juice in your ice cube tray? yea...if you dont know what im talking about...its cause im old.

Maybe I am just young, but I don't think so.

Yes. A free market depends on perfect knowledge (a main component that the right wing likes to ignore).
However, we currently subsidize and incentivize poor food choices. Maybe stopping that will be enough to help encourage better food choices.
But, I also think we should incentivize healthy food choices. Healthy people better serve society. Hospitals won't be burdened by people who ate their way to health issues. Heart disease and diabetes are largely a part of poor food choices.
Red meat was healthy until corporations decided to change a cow's diet. Now, red meat is not the red our parents ate. Does the average consumer know the micronutrients in red meat?

[GregoryJoseph]

Ask any doctor who knows what he's talking about and he'll tell you that 90% of our health problems are due to genetics.

By eating "properly" (which changes every few years) and exercising, you just MIGHT be able to control that other 10%.

Just look at the amount of vegans and marathon runners who have had high cholesterol and heart disease.

Saying that "healthy people serve society better" is a crock, especially if you think it comes from eating the government approved diet.

[JerseyRich]

Saying that "healthy people serve society better" is a crock, especially if you think it comes from eating the government approved diet.

Now we know what you have against cheese!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H4MJ8o_h7VM/R-Hli5_TOqI/AAAAAAAAAC0/tsW9fAfGunE/s320/cheese.jpg

http://www.homotron.net/images/homotron/cheese.jpg

[TripleSkeet]

To what degree and how that is done is up for debate, but to ignore the situation is foolish.

I agree.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4702/70256364.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/70256364.jpg/)

i'd vote for educating consumers so that they want to choose the better option. remember that guy who made you hanker for a hunk of cheese when you were a kid? :-D and make wagon wheels? and ice pops made from juice in your ice cube tray? yea...if you dont know what im talking about...its cause im old.

I remember those. :clap:

[Serpico1103]

Ask any doctor who knows what he's talking about and he'll tell you that 90% of our health problems are due to genetics.

By eating "properly" (which changes every few years) and exercising, you just MIGHT be able to control that other 10%.

Just look at the amount of vegans and marathon runners who have had high cholesterol and heart disease.

Saying that "healthy people serve society better" is a crock, especially if you think it comes from eating the government approved diet.

Being a vegan and running a marathon is not a healthy lifestyle. Neither of those activities are what we were designed to do.

So, unhealthy people better serve society? Rethink your "crock" statement. How we get healthy may be up to debate, but to argue that a healthy society is less efficient is idiocy.

Oh yeah, and I would recommend finding another doctor. If you don't think sleep patterns, eating habits, smoking habits, alcohol and drug consumption have more than 10% of an impact on your health, good luck with that early death.

[underdog]

Ask any doctor who knows what he's talking about and he'll tell you that 90% of our health problems are due to genetics.

By eating "properly" (which changes every few years) and exercising, you just MIGHT be able to control that other 10%.

Just look at the amount of vegans and marathon runners who have had high cholesterol and heart disease.

Saying that "healthy people serve society better" is a crock, especially if you think it comes from eating the government approved diet.

Just look at Ron & Fez. They're both overweight and radio hosts, Ron smokes a lot, did a ton of drugs, and it's Fez who has a heart attack.

[GregoryJoseph]

Being a vegan and running a marathon is not a healthy lifestyle. Neither of those activities are what we were designed to do.

So, unhealthy people better serve society? Rethink your "crock" statement. How we get healthy may be up to debate, but to argue that a healthy society is less efficient is idiocy.

Oh yeah, and I would recommend finding another doctor. If you don't think sleep patterns, eating habits, smoking habits, alcohol and drug consumption have more than 10% of an impact on your health, good luck with that early death.

I recommend you talk to one who will be honest with you.

If your great grandfather, grandfather, and father all died of heart attacks chances are you're going to have heart disease, regardless of how much you sleep, how little you smoke, and how "healthy" you eat.

[Serpico1103]

I recommend you talk to one who will be honest with you.

If your great grandfather, grandfather, and father all died of heart attacks chances are you're going to have heart disease, regardless of how much you sleep, how little you smoke, and how "healthy" you eat.

I know genetics play a role. But so does a healthy lifestyle. And I am not just referring to eating habits and exercise.
OSHA regulations have extended our life expectancy. Many factors do. But, one that is a simple individual choice is a healthy diet. I don't mean nuts and berries.
I mean meat that isn't from a cow force fed corn and diseased cow parts while being giving steroids and antibiotics so it can endure the torture. More fruit and vegetables instead of nutritionally empty rice and pasta. Limiting high fructose corn syrup.

[GregoryJoseph]

More fruit and vegetables instead of nutritionally empty rice and pasta.

That's funny.

Due to a medical condition I cannot eat most fruits or vegetables. My diet consists of mainly rice and pasta.

I guess I should be penalized for eating "unhealthily."

I could always eat what YOU say is healthy and put myself in the hospital, I suppose.

But then I'd be covered for following the government's orders, right?

[TripleSkeet]

Im with Gvac on this one.

[JerseyRich]

I eat my own poo.

[Ritalin]

I eat my own poo.

That's really bad for you. You shouldn't do it.

[JerseyRich]

That's really bad for you. You shouldn't do it.

It's ok. I come from a long line of poo eaters.

My father's in his 60s...My grandfather's in his 90s.

[Ritalin]

It's ok. I come from a long line of poo eaters.

My father's in his 60s...My grandfather's in his 90s.

You're like the Wallendas.

[TripleSkeet]

I mean meat that isn't from a cow force fed corn and diseased cow parts while being giving steroids and antibiotics so it can endure the torture. More fruit and vegetables instead of nutritionally empty rice and pasta. Limiting high fructose corn syrup.

Then go after the production and stop taxing the people that enjoy it. If they want them to serve the public healthier food, then go after THEM. But if youre going to allow them to make it, stop taxing the people that enjoy it.

Im sorry, Id love to get all my groceries at Whole Foods and eat everything fresh. But I dont have the budget to spend that kind of money on groceries every month. So either cheapen the healthier stuff or lay the fuck off.

[Serpico1103]

That's funny.

Due to a medical condition I cannot eat most fruits or vegetables. My diet consists of mainly rice and pasta.

I guess I should be penalized for eating "unhealthily."

I could always eat what YOU say is healthy and put myself in the hospital, I suppose.

But then I'd be covered for following the government's orders, right?

You're right. Lets base science on anomalies.

I have never said you have to eat what is considered healthy. I have said that what is now considered a healthy diet (contrary to the nonsense of the 70's and 80's that low fat and high carb is good for you diet) should be encouraged.
That encouragement will come through stopping government incentives on unhealthy food and increasing government incentives on healthy food.

If the price of pasta and rice rose by 20% would you starve. Would your life actually change in any meaningful way? 50%, 100%, 1000%.

[Serpico1103]

Then go after the production and stop taxing the people that enjoy it. If they want them to serve the public healthier food, then go after THEM. But if youre going to allow them to make it, stop taxing the people that enjoy it.

Im sorry, Id love to get all my groceries at Whole Foods and eat everything fresh. But I dont have the budget to spend that kind of money on groceries every month. So either cheapen the healthier stuff or lay the fuck off.

So we sort of agree.
The reason healthy food is expensive is because the government has created a system that encourages unhealthy food production. Attacking the producers directly is probably the right way to go. Give tax credits and subsidizes to healthy food producers. Take away the tax incentives and subsidizes from unhealthy producers and the other incentives that encourage them to pollute us and the earth.

We have drastically changed our diet in the last century. Our bodies do not adapt that quickly. We were designed to hunt and gather. Even farming is a giant leap ahead of our evolutionary development.

[sailor]

i disagree with ron regarding his views on parenting. it's not the 1950s and most fathers i know are very involved with their kids' lives now-a-days.

[sailor]

i never heard the original discussion of the stewardess and the possible bomb, but i think fez is right in his view on the matter, even if it turned out he was wrong (if that's what the airline policy dictated). if it's a suspicious package on a plain i wouldn't want a stew shaking it and then opening it, even if it turned out to be nothing.

i also disagreed with ron's analogy saying it was like fez thinking dave stole his wallet, then holding the grudge after it turned out he hadn't. i think the better version of this analogy would be fez thought dave stole his wallet, reported it to the police who then said they weren't going to investigate it. even though it turned out dave didn't steal the wallet, fez should still be pissed at the police for not doing their jobs correctly.

[K.C.]

I've been listening to some old clips from the WNEW/WJFK days and one of the things that stands out to me, is that Fez didn't really say anything more or less crazy then, than the nonstarters he tries to use on the show now...

The biggest difference is that Ron used to engage the crazy Fez stories.

For instance, in one clip I just heard from 2002, Fez brings up a story about the the American Cancer Society coming out with a character for an ad campaign named Polyp Man.

Ron and Fez go back and forth and basically turn an idiotic story into a mini-comedy pyramid.

If Fez brings up a story like this on the show now, you hear dead air....followed by a last ditch attempt by Fez to spark some type of conversation...followed by Ron completely ignoring what was said and starting an entirely different topic.

It's not that the stories are particularly worth talking about, but when that happens (and it happens quite frequently), those are the instances that are followed by Fez sitting quietly for an hour and panicking on-air, after being thrown under the bus like that.

[The Ogre]

There you go. The main reason why the show stinks lately is because Ron has become a total cunt towards Fez and coddles ESD. This leads to Fez getting shut down constantly and Dave becoming an obnoxious fuck. Ron and Dave remind me of the goth kids on South Park.

[A.J.]

Gotta disagree with Ron about radio not wanting to play live tracks. That's not always true. For example, they always "Frampton Comes Alive" (I never hear studio Frampton), certain tracks from Cheap Trick at the Budokan as well as the live version of "Statesboro Blues" by the Allmans.

[Furtherman]

Gotta disagree with Ron about radio not wanting to play live tracks. That's not always true. For example, they always "Frampton Comes Alive" (I never hear studio Frampton), certain tracks from Cheap Trick at the Budokan as well as the live version of "Statesboro Blues" by the Allmans.

Gimme Shelter from Get Yer Ya Yas is another live staple.

[foodcourtdruide]

K-Rock played live Jane Says by Jane's Addiction all the time.

[JerseyRich]

K-Rock played live Jane Says by Jane's Addiction all the time.
New version with Flea on bass...

Doesn't count.

[Devo37]

When they were talking about youtube and other sites charging for content, ESD and ChriStanley were pissed that they may have to pay for web content. Ron took the side that that the sites have to make money in order to stay in business and keep providing their services.

But then Ron bitches about every live read and talks over Fez and plays songs over the ads so that the advertisers get pissed. Doesn't XM/Sirius, which signs Ron's paycheck, have to make money in order to stay in business and keep providing their services???


the whole thing seems pretty contradictory and inconsistent on Mr. B's part.

[Furtherman]

But then Ron bitches about every live read and talks over Fez and plays songs over the ads so that the advertisers get pissed. Doesn't XM/Sirius, which signs Ron's paycheck, have to make money in order to stay in business and keep providing their services???

I think you've missed the humor in those spots. If the advertisers were pissed, they would have pulled them long ago.

[realmenhatelife]

K-Rock played live Jane Says by Jane's Addiction all the time.

I dont think I've ever heard Jane Says on the radio where it wasn't live.

[Serpico1103]

But then Ron bitches about every live read and talks over Fez and plays songs over the ads so that the advertisers get pissed. Doesn't XM/Sirius, which signs Ron's paycheck, have to make money in order to stay in business and keep providing their services???
the whole thing seems pretty contradictory and inconsistent on Mr. B's part.

I don't know that Ron hates live reads altogether. He seems to hate the way Fez manages them. Mainly waiting until the end of the show to unload them all. And that Fez doesn't care about the content of the show the way he cares about reading the live read scripts.

Also, ESD and Pepper didnt want ads or to pay a subscription, XM uses both to generate revenue. You can prefer one to the other (Ron prefers to pay, as he said about cable TV), but you have to choose one.

[booster11373]

Ron's take on Atheism was so off the mark

[underdog]

Ron's take on Atheism was so off the mark

I actually just finished listening to that segment. But how so?

[booster11373]

I actually just finished listening to that segment. But how so?

Equating Atheism with Fundamentalism is so incorrect. Atheism rejects supernatural forces as what made or govern our universe to say that is the same as fundamentalism is crap. Atheists would adjust their stance with new evidence

You might argue with an atheist but he ain't going to strap a bomb on himself and blow your house up

[sailor]

i didn't hear the segment, but i've said on here most atheists have the same 100% faith they're right, with no possible thought they might be wrong, that most fundamentalists have.

[Recyclerz]

i didn't hear the segment, but i've said on here most atheists have the same 100% faith they're right, with no possible thought they might be wrong, that most fundamentalists have.

Hey, this isn't the "I agree with Ron" thread. :wink:

In addition to Sailor's point, Ron was calling out both sides for hubris - the religious zealots for claiming to know God's mind and the atheists for not considering the spiritual or even logical question as to why anything exists at all if not for some prime moving force.

Anybody, regardless of what they suspect, who claims they understand the infinite with their decidedly finite mind is showing a distinct lack of humility.

[hydee]

I've been listening to some old clips from the WNEW/WJFK days and one of the things that stands out to me, is that Fez didn't really say anything more or less crazy then, than the nonstarters he tries to use on the show now...

The biggest difference is that Ron used to engage the crazy Fez stories.

For instance, in one clip I just heard from 2002, Fez brings up a story about the the American Cancer Society coming out with a character for an ad campaign named Polyp Man.

Ron and Fez go back and forth and basically turn an idiotic story into a mini-comedy pyramid.

If Fez brings up a story like this on the show now, you hear dead air....followed by a last ditch attempt by Fez to spark some type of conversation...followed by Ron completely ignoring what was said and starting an entirely different topic.

It's not that the stories are particularly worth talking about, but when that happens (and it happens quite frequently), those are the instances that are followed by Fez sitting quietly for an hour and panicking on-air, after being thrown under the bus like that.

I actually agree with this. Fez brought up a very good point last week about how if people were to be charged for the internet they would go back to the papers because people don't mind the ads in papers they just turn the page and read what they want. It was a very valid point, and could have lead to a deeper discussion of the topic but there was dead air and Ron went to something that Dave said.

[underdog]

Equating Atheism with Fundamentalism is so incorrect. Atheism rejects supernatural forces as what made or govern our universe to say that is the same as fundamentalism is crap. Atheists would adjust their stance with new evidence

You might argue with an atheist but he ain't going to strap a bomb on himself and blow your house up

There are a lot of hardcore atheists that I have come across that are very similar to fundamentalists, mainly in their annoyingness and self righteousness. I felt that was the way Ron was trying to explain them as similar, along with both KNOWING their right.

[booster11373]

There are a lot of hardcore atheists that I have come across that are very similar to fundamentalists, mainly in their annoyingness and self righteousness. I felt that was the way Ron was trying to explain them as similar, along with both KNOWING their right.

Once again that's just silly who cares if an atheist is arrogant what will happen? kids might get taught some more science in school? Fact might have a place in governmental planning?

Take a look at the arrogant religious and what they have accomplished.

If one arrogant or annoying atheist manages to just get someone to re-examine their faith or question why they might be against gay marriage or re-think climate change then thats good.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

[underdog]

Once again that's just silly who cares if an atheist is arrogant what will happen? kids might get taught some more science in school? Fact might have a place in governmental planning?

Take a look at the arrogant religious and what they have accomplished.

If one arrogant or annoying atheist manages to just get someone to re-examine their faith or question why they might be against gay marriage or re-think climate change then thats good.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

I agree that they are not the same, but they can act like it sometimes, in a strictly personality sort of way. I'm not saying they both have the same effect on our society at all.

[Serpico1103]

If one arrogant or annoying atheist manages to just get someone to re-examine their faith or question why they might be against gay marriage or re-think climate change then thats good.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
Nothing is the same as any other thing. But things can be similar in material aspects. Did stalin hurt anyone based on his atheism?

[booster11373]

Nothing is the same as any other thing. But things can be similar in material aspects. Did stalin hurt anyone based on his atheism?

Stalin killed millions of people because he was a crazy fuck Atheism nothing to do with it.
Stalin actually studied to be a priest in the Russian Orthodox church maybe some of the things he learned there helped him take over and kill millions of people?