This is the thread for the Fox News "Daily Show for conservatives" thing

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (369 of them)
I think the GZeus is a Libertarian because he wants to buy Japan-only hentai PS2 games and the modchips to play them from Lik Sang.

jw (ex machina), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:23 (seventeen years ago) link

Also -- why are most Libertarians male (aynrandorly.jpg)?

jw (ex machina), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:23 (seventeen years ago) link

"Citizenship is for suckers."

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:25 (seventeen years ago) link

jon http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=93

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:28 (seventeen years ago) link

WTF: Brian Unger is on this thing?!

He's a whore on the level of Mo Rocca, this is not that surprising.

The Many Faces of Gordon Jump (Leon), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:29 (seventeen years ago) link

thanks for killing thread, defensive libertarian man.

Dethrone the dictaphone, hit it in it's funny bone (kenan), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:40 (seventeen years ago) link

things that make me sad:

1. that people really believe jimmy fallon brought the roffles over tina fey
2. bhopal
3. smart people wasting their time arguing with the funtionally retarded.

urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:50 (seventeen years ago) link

1. that people really believe jimmy fallon brought the roffles over tina fey

SRSLY. The only thing he ever did on that show is giggle and bat his eyes coyly at the camera.

The Many Faces of Gordon Jump (Leon), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Gosh that article pretty much sums it up. I'm considering printing it in pamphlet form.

Shadowcat (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 15 February 2007 15:57 (seventeen years ago) link

guys seriously

1. do not EVER contest anything The GZeus says (cf. IMM, ILG, countless examples)
2. I will teach anybody how to install and run the killfile in firefox ok? I should write up a howto and post it to a thread.

TOMB07 (trm), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:00 (seventeen years ago) link

I still want Negative Zone capability

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Ok, I'm not agruing a slippery slope argument. I'm arguing an open door argument.
The anti-smoking legislations(I DON'T SMOKE) open a door that later a lawmaker COULD walk through.
I simply don't want that option there. The 20 year journey was intended to be the minimum time to get there. Honestly sorry I didn't specify that.

"WOW you don't know anything about international economics or the realities of global trade."
So the complete debasement of the manufacturing base in the USA has nothing to do with everything saying "made in china" on it?
I thought people in this thread would be against big busiess CEOs getting richer as they lay off their union workers to put shildren to work.

"I think the GZeus is a Libertarian because he wants to buy Japan-only hentai PS2 games and the modchips to play them from Lik Sang."
Buh?
I don't have a PS2(kinda want one, but only for Katamari) and I was against Sony's actions because they(I believe unlawfully) interfered with free trade.
I don't buy from china if it's reasonably possible, in fact.
H-games are boring as hell, dude. I used to hit keys at random to 'play' one of them yars back before I could read japanese. Once I could read the dialogue I realised that the story I thought it in had was false and it was in fact retarded. (stunted, emotionally and socially, but I won't get into why)
Please excuse this rambling bumbling post but I don't like walking away from misunderstandings or weird slander.

Geza T iz tha Rainy G. Toronado (The GZeus), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:53 (seventeen years ago) link

oh yeah, and MY BEAUTIFUL THREAD LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO DO NOOOOO THEY BE STEALIN' MY BUCKET etc etc etc

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:54 (seventeen years ago) link

how do anti-smoking regulations open a door for tyranny in a way that any other regulation dont?

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:56 (seventeen years ago) link

other regulations

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Weird slander is the worst kind of slander there is.

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Government shouldn't be telling restaurants what to do. Fuckin' health code is a sham. If I want to get poisoned at Chevy's by all rights I should be able to chose to do so.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 16:59 (seventeen years ago) link

they be stealin' kingfish's bucket. :(

METAL ROBOTIC HEAD FACE (scarymonster), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Can we outlaw the wearing of those stupid Chevy's sombreros by office mates? I normally support the rights of hat-wearers, but we all must have limits.

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:01 (seventeen years ago) link

THAT'S AN OPEN DOOR TO FACISM KINGFISH!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:02 (seventeen years ago) link

I know I shouldn't but:

GZeus, do you know that modern anti-smoking legislation - in every municipality and country where it's been adopted - has its foundation and justification in workplace health and safety? The "door" that was left open for this legislation to walk through was won over the last century in a disparate, gruelling set of battles to secure the right of workers to not be driven to an early grave simply because of the place they work.

What kind of door does it open, what kind of PRECEDENT does it set, to say that some lines of work are simply not deserving of workplace health safeguards? Because they are "dives", or unsavoury, or whatever other reason, big or small?

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Moussilini woulda made those sombreros run on time, i tells ya!

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:04 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm sorry about that, but while my posts are larger than the sophooric attacks on my character/ideas they are outnumbered.
All I said was "I;m a libertarian' and then I get called a republican in denial.
I don't care if that's supposed to be a joke\, it's not funny.

Republican=insult right there.
denial=lieing to oneself. I don't take well to being called a liar.

/\that's a list. They should be seperated by enter keys. Would you like me to add the HTML code to put bullet points? Wait, I suck at HTML...


Name other regularions that prevent people in a private establishment from doing something legal just because other people don't like it.
It gives a little wiggle room for crazy people to argue things like no gay kissing in public(this was argued somewhere in the USA a few years ago, I think). Such things wouldn't pass in the current political environment, but it would caus more mudslinging, erbal battles, and trench digging on both sides.
In the future that sort of thing might pass in some city, on the grounds it's bad for these good christian children as it;s against their relgion, and it impedes on their rights to live in a sin-free environment.

I'm going a bit far, but it's intentional and done to make a point.

Have you seen the filtration systems in current restaraunts? The distance between smoking and non? The fact the cigars and 'aromatic'(fucking vague enough to include about anything strong) cigarettes were already banned by the restaraunts and bars themselves?

And yeah, the audience a dive bar caters to smokes.
If you don't want to be around smoke don't work in a place that caters to smokers. That's basic logic, that.
People are also more prone to smoke when the drink(many theories as to why, I'm sure) so ...repeat.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.
This is not legislation of employees/workers in a workplace, it's legislation of CUSTOMERS.
Of THE PUBLIC.
There is a difference, though not enough for me to back the anti workplace smoking laws. Why not repeal them? What company's workers would allow their company to go back? What company would be crazy enough?


Basically the motivation I see is that anti-smokers got impatient and couldn't wait for the eventuality of restaraunts doing this themselves and decided to force the issue.

Water G Wiz Changes his username regularly already (The GZeus), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:13 (seventeen years ago) link

"Name other regularions that prevent people in a private establishment from doing something legal just because other people don't like it."

Um you don't think it has more to do with established health risks of second hand smoke more than "just not liking it"?

To be fair some people may think that watching same-sex kisses causes cancer though.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:16 (seventeen years ago) link

This is not legislation of employees/workers in a workplace, it's legislation of CUSTOMERS.

Read the legislation. It has nothing to do with customers. It has to do with workers and their right to have a full career in their place of employment without going to an early grave. It's that simple and yes, there is a difference between that and legislating what customers can or can't do with their own bodies. Because that's not the point. Note that cigarettes remain legal.

Don't get in a boxing ring if you don't want to get hit.

And don't smoke in a New York restaurant, bar or club if you don't want to get thrown out. When in Rome...

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:22 (seventeen years ago) link

Does he not understand the idea of precedent?

jw (ex machina), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:24 (seventeen years ago) link

BTW I just watched these two clips and this show is painfully painfully unfunny. I can't believe that this will really be aired.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:25 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not 100% against government involvement in things like pollution(dumping, factory emissions, things that affect large areas) or fair labor practices(minimum wage, required to carry workers comp).

^^ whats your take on workers comp for employees who get cancer which couldve been easily prevented with a regulation of cancer-causing substances in their place of employment?

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:25 (seventeen years ago) link

That sets a dangerous precedent that will lead to the government aborting all black babies.

jw (ex machina), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:29 (seventeen years ago) link

Or his take on people who work the concession stand at a boxing match. Maybe their bosses should be able to just hit them as hard as they can, from time to time.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:30 (seventeen years ago) link

hahahaha actually i support that

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:35 (seventeen years ago) link

"Um you don't think it has more to do with established health risks of second hand smoke more than "just not liking it"?"
That's why yu don't like it, fine, but it's legal, and you CAN walk away.
Second-hand smoke has some corellary relationships with certain health contitions.
Thus it's shown to increase risks. it doesn't cause anything, and alot of those studies are tennuous.

Futhermore: auto shop. Tell me how to get the work needed to get done there done in the winter without getting even more carcinogen exposure.
Workplace hazard. Goes with the territory.

I've already said this isn't a slippery slope argument.

The boxing RING analogy is an exageration to make a point.

In Japan there are no smoking bans, to my knowledge, other than on the trains. The shinkansen has a few smoking cars, though.
Thing is, more and more places have either no smoking at all, or a seperate room.
Still more smoking there than here, but it's not in style any more, and is just fading out.

Ya couldn't wait?

Water G Wiz Changes his username regularly already (The GZeus), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:36 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/film/2002/Aug02/Enough.jpg

urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:37 (seventeen years ago) link

Second-hand smoke has some corellary relationships with certain health contitions.
Thus it's shown to increase risks. it doesn't cause anything, and alot of those studies are tennuous.

wow

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:38 (seventeen years ago) link

it's legal, and you CAN walk away.

Not if you work there! Unless you're ready to get fired. And then go work at one of those non-smoking bars that you have already said don't exist.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:39 (seventeen years ago) link

i feel like we're witnessing the finale of some flowers for algernon scenario here

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link

This guy must work for Phillip Morris.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:43 (seventeen years ago) link

You know, I think Some People just can't get their heads around the idea that some people are bartenders and actually like it, and are proud of it, and probably if they thought about it enough don't want to die 15 years before their spouses do. It reminds me a lot of the NYC transit strike, when people were like "wait a minute, these drivers make $65,000 a year??!" as if that was some ridiculously inflated salary for what they do. As if people doing these "dirty" jobs are just not entitled to expect what others expect for similar work.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:43 (seventeen years ago) link

The air in bars is crappy enough without having to breath cigarette smoke frankly.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:45 (seventeen years ago) link

i feel like we're witnessing the finale of some flowers for algernon scenario here

-- and what (an...), Today. (later)

lol

a mediocre black-and-white cookie in a cellophane wrapper (hanks1ockli), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:46 (seventeen years ago) link

There's that, and also the lowest common denom or deflation of salaries. I.e. people getting all mad at folks who actually make a good living when they themselves work at a place with shit wages.

The anger gets redirected towards the people making a living wage, not at the companies lowballing the pay rates(and supporting politicos and pundits who go on about how the min.wage will destroy business, bring on communism, violate your daughters, etc)

xp

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:48 (seventeen years ago) link

ok, it's already been established you have a CHOICE of workplace and if you chose to work in a bar, that's YOUR problem.
Other place doesn't pay as much? Suck it up or start a business.

Know why non-smoking bars didn't exist? people didn't want them.
However, non-smoking restaraunts that sevre liqour did.

Oh, and yes, I do just want the last word at this point. I can agree to disagree, but not to people calling me stupid because they disagree.
63k is actually a barely managable wage for people who actually want to retire, and I think the fact that people somehow still think 30k a year will cut is really sad.
No one saves money ay more, we're all in debt up to our eyeballs, and we still can't see something that simple...

I know some people who are bartenders and like it.
They knew the industry they were getting into, and half of them already smoked. The other half were annoyed at the drop in cigarettes sales and number of customers.

Water G Wiz Changes his username regularly already (The GZeus), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:51 (seventeen years ago) link

GZeus I could count the number of bartenders in New York who are really fed up about the smoking ban on one hand. The vast, vast majority love it.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:53 (seventeen years ago) link

my only thing with the smoking ban is that I think it should legislated differently. Like, fuck a ban, and fines that go to the city. Send the atty generals of a few states after some places that are going out of business anyway - set a precedent for later class-action civil suits, put the liability on the bars, but let them take their chances. Most places would self-enforce. Smoking bars would be staffed by smoking bartenders. The End.

TOMB07 (trm), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:54 (seventeen years ago) link

"They knew the industry they were getting into, and half of them already smoked. The other half were annoyed at the drop in cigarettes sales and number of customers."

I call bullshit.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:55 (seventeen years ago) link

What is the Idolatry of the Market?

kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:55 (seventeen years ago) link

How would you assess liability for somebody who worked for a place for like, a year and a half before moving on to another bar, though?

I would totally be in favor of places being able to apply for hugely expensive smoking licenses, in the same way dance clubs or carnivals have to get extra permits. And the establishment would be obligated to pay for really good health-care (the same way other high-risk workplaces do). You could have these, like, smoking EMPORIA.

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:58 (seventeen years ago) link

"GZeus I could count the number of bartenders in New York who are really fed up about the smoking ban on one hand. The vast, vast majority love it."
I don't live in New York.

I would have been fine with tax breaks for non-smoking bars.

Water G Wiz Changes his username regularly already (The GZeus), Thursday, 15 February 2007 17:59 (seventeen years ago) link

I would totally be in favor of places being able to apply for hugely expensive smoking licenses, in the same way dance clubs or carnivals have to get extra permits. And the establishment would be obligated to pay for really good health-care (the same way other high-risk workplaces do). You could have these, like, smoking EMPORIA.

-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...)

this is otm

and what (ooo), Thursday, 15 February 2007 18:01 (seventeen years ago) link

So uh, that clip is really amazingly unfunny.

METAL ROBOTIC HEAD FACE (scarymonster), Thursday, 15 February 2007 18:06 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.