Desipio Message Board

We all recoil when someone uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively"... But what if they were just using "literally" figuratively... LITERALLY?

Don't look at me like that.

I've got a linguist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Nunberg) on my side...

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/CLliterally.pdf

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do (software engineers come in a distant second). And the dereliction that most often annoys my legal correspondents is the use of literally to intensify the force of an idiom, as in "She literally bit my head off" or "I'm literally starving."

Lawyers aren't alone in this, of course; critics have been condemning the usage for a long time. In 1909, Ambrose Bierce commented, "It is bad enough to exaggerate, but to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable." And two decades later, H. W. Fowler excoriated the hyperbolic use of literally with a rare show of indignation: "We have come to such a pass with this word that where the truth would require us to acknowledge our exaggeration with, 'not literally, of course, but in a manner of speaking,' we do not hesitate to insert the very word that we ought to be at pains to repudiate; such false coin makes honest traffic in words impossible."

False coin it may be, but the counterfeiters are in good company. Dickens used literally loosely, and so did Thackeray (who wrote in 1847, "I literally blazed with wit"). And you can find the construction in the works of James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Vladimir Nabokov. With such illustrious precedents to draw on, who can blame the football announcer who says "They literally hammered the quarterback into the ground"?

...

In the end, this is an eternal story of original sin and redemption. It's natural enough for us to use literally in a loose way to "affirm the truth of an exaggeration," as Bierce put it. If "I'm starving" is hyperbole, then "I'm literally starving" is simply more so. And when you think about it, the critics' objection to that use of literally is rather odd — it amounts to saying that literally is the only word in the language that can never be used in a figurative way. Even so, most of us come around once we become aware of the ridicule that we can come in for when we use literally loosely — "You don't mean you were literally floating on air?"

That's the moment when most of us get our first inkling of what literal is really supposed to mean. It can be a difficult notion to get a handle on — as linguists have been at pains to point out, our speech is shot through with dead metaphors, and the great body of them are so run-of-the-mill that we don't pay them any mind. (I count seven in the previous two sentences alone — eight if you include literal itself, which doesn't really have anything to do with letters.) Metaphor is so basic to our thought that it's impossible to tell where literality leaves off, nor is there usually any practical reason for trying to do so.

If anything, can we at least all agree that pissing off lawyers is good sport?

I take full responsibility for this thread's existence.

"Dude, it was so funny I literally shit my pants!"

"Well, what did you do?"

"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."

"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"

"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"

WWPD?

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

So I did.  I blame burnout.  Either that, or all the cat hair in this keyboard.

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I believe "Thorouging" is the rawness associated with frequent visits to Redtube.

Quote from: Jon on February 23, 2009, 11:59:12 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I believe "Thorouging" is the rawness associated with frequent visits to Redtube.

(http://www.foodmayhem.com/uploaded_images/Great-Burrito-705819.jpg)

Que Nao Bustamante?

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 12:27:09 PM
Que Nao Bustamante?

(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee209/jbdiablo/0303708_Tortuga_en_Sanitario.jpg)

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Quote from: Oleg on February 23, 2009, 12:47:51 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Fungi, mostly.

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 01:05:04 PM

Quote from: Oleg on February 23, 2009, 12:47:51 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Fungi, mostly.

Jesus, why don't you just buy him a plane ticket?

Quote from: Oleg on February 23, 2009, 12:47:51 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Probably not the plant-life you're looking for.

Quote from: Fork on February 23, 2009, 01:14:30 PM

Quote from: Oleg on February 23, 2009, 12:47:51 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Probably not the plant-life you're looking for.

Along with the droids...

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2377/2189968117_efa1a5ddde.jpg)

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 01:05:04 PM

Quote from: Oleg on February 23, 2009, 12:47:51 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 11:55:41 AM

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

He spent 7 years proofreading. As in, those days are gone. Besides he makes up half the words in his posts so how would anyone know? Thorouging might be a word on Planet Wheezer.

I wouldn't mind visiting that planet.  Is there atmosphere?  Plant-life?

Fungi, mostly.

Jesus, why don't you just buy him a plane ticket?

Did you just ask Jesus to buy me a plane ticket?  Cause if he does, THAT would LITERALLY blow my mind.

You're a good man, Wheezer. And thorouging.

Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

So lots of gay sex?

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Is that anything like "Warm Leatherette?

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:25:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

So lots of gay sex?

I could have sworn that there was more toenail clipping than gay sex in the latter.

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Does it involve any accidental bestiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(novel))?

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 05:10:50 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Does it involve any accidental bestiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(novel))?

I think we can get the religious right onboard if you photoshop a sideways virgin Mary statue in the middle of those two lines.

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on February 23, 2009, 05:16:23 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 05:10:50 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Does it involve any accidental bestiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(novel))?

I think we can get the religious right onboard if you photoshop a sideways virgin Mary statue in the middle of those two lines.

All they'll see is the reservoir tip of a rubber.

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 05:10:50 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 04:24:41 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

I do recommend Alan Dienstag's "The Money Tree."  It's like "My Beautiful Laundrette," but with grass.

Does it involve any accidental bestiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_of_Suburbia_(novel))?

No, but it's funny that you should mention that.  I once wound up sharing lab space with a Hungarian fellow who introduced himself with a joke from the homeland that had precisely that theme.  I wish I could remember the buildup, because the punchline was only the making of an odd, loud noise.

(At your own risk (http://www.sexiside.hu/google_trends_confirms_nations.html).)

Quote from: PenFoe on February 23, 2009, 11:48:26 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 23, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

QuoteTo judge from the number of letters and emails that I receive as chair of the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, no profession takes such a proprietary interest in English usage as lawyers do

That's a pretty odd assertion.  I had always assumed that a standard part of the legal curriculum was some sort of practicum dedicated to faulty parallelism, thorougoing misuse of relative pronouns, and whimsical punctuation, based on seven years' proofreading at SASM et Flom.

As usual, I have no idea what your post says.
However, I'm pretty sure you said you spent 7 years proofreading and then used the word "thorougoing"

But I'm not sure, your post could be about Mexican food for all I know.

I think flom is literally Cuban.  Made with eggs, milk, sugar, etc.

Quote from: CBStew on February 23, 2009, 06:06:18 PM
I think flom is literally Cuban.  Made with eggs, milk, sugar, etc.

Now this (http://141.161.16.100/career/pronunciations/skadden.mp3) is a curious resource.

(Et al. (http://141.161.16.100/career/pronunciations/))

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n133531S47.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteUnder Ammiano's proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, pot would be taxed at a rate of $50 per ounce and bring an estimated $1 billion into state coffers.

Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2009, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n133531S47.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteUnder Ammiano's proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, pot would be taxed at a rate of $50 per ounce and bring an estimated $1 billion into state coffers.

Forgive me as I have never dabbled in the realm of pot, but $50 an ounce? Isn't that higher than the normal going rate? And if so, wouldn't the ultimate price (to the consumer) be in the range of $75-100 an ounce? I would assume prices that increase that much would drive down the demand. Forgive me if I'm wrong though. My conservative *morals* keep me away from it.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 07:03:55 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2009, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n133531S47.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteUnder Ammiano's proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, pot would be taxed at a rate of $50 per ounce and bring an estimated $1 billion into state coffers.

Forgive me as I have never dabbled in the realm of pot, but $50 an ounce? Isn't that higher than the normal going rate? And if so, wouldn't the ultimate price (to the consumer) be in the range of $75-100 an ounce? I would assume prices that increase that much would drive down the demand. Forgive me if I'm wrong though. My conservative *morals* keep me away from it.

Make it too expensive for the market, and nobody will buy it.  They'll just go back to the same dealers as before; it would be a black market.  If they keep the price more in line with consumer expectations, they would make a lot of money off of it AND reap the potential benefit of lowered police costs, etc. 

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 07:03:55 PM
Forgive me as I have never dabbled in the realm of pot, but $50 an ounce? Isn't that higher than the normal going rate?

That depends on whether you get the rusty nail.

Re: that graph

Now, that is change that I can believe in.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 24, 2009, 07:03:55 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 24, 2009, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 23, 2009, 04:16:07 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 23, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
Laptop science a gnome can believe in...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

(http://i44.tinypic.com/ie3yvd.png)

And maybe even an Apex, too.

People are starting to see the dollar signs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n133531S47.DTL&tsp=1

QuoteUnder Ammiano's proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, pot would be taxed at a rate of $50 per ounce and bring an estimated $1 billion into state coffers.

Forgive me as I have never dabbled in the realm of pot, but $50 an ounce? Isn't that higher than the normal going rate? And if so, wouldn't the ultimate price (to the consumer) be in the range of $75-100 an ounce? I would assume prices that increase that much would drive down the demand. Forgive me if I'm wrong though. My conservative *morals* keep me away from it.

If 50 bucks for an ounce is high, it'd be because it would be some real low quality schwag.

This is a comedy routine along the lines of "how many joints are in a lid," right?

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 08:19:31 PM
If 50 bucks for an ounce is high, it'd be because it would be some real low quality schwag.

Depends heavily on where you are in the country.

I live in a country where it's fairly hard to buy weed ... because those who use it tend to grow their own supply. 

Quote from: Canadouche on February 24, 2009, 10:27:54 PM
I live in a country where it's fairly hard to buy weed ... because those who use it tend to grow their own supply. 

This reminds me of a story involving the Windsor border crossing, a large box, and a Mercury Lynx (which was really a tough little car).

Quote from: Pre on February 24, 2009, 10:09:48 PM

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 08:19:31 PM
If 50 bucks for an ounce is high, it'd be because it would be some real low quality schwag.

Depends heavily on where you are in the country.

Where in the country is an ounce of grass fifty bones?  1950landia?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here anyway.  The suggestion as cited by the article was a tax of $50 per ounce, not a purchase price.  Assuming an ounce of ordinary weed is, say, $250, then you're looking at a 20% tax.  Seems kind of high, but I'm sure most people would gladly pay that in exchange for the freedom to freely blaze up.  

I've long felt the government has been passing on a tremendous revenue stream here.  Combined with the decrease in expense for arresting, prosecuting and jailing said non-violent offenders--or, rather, reallocating those resources to more threatening societal dangers--and this would seem like the biggest no-brainer in the history of Earth.

Quote from: Wheezer on February 24, 2009, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 24, 2009, 10:27:54 PM
I live in a country where it's fairly hard to buy weed ... because those who use it tend to grow their own supply. 

This reminds me of a story involving the Windsor border crossing, a large box, and a Mercury Lynx (which was really a tough little car).

But no hydroponic lamp?

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 10:41:56 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on February 24, 2009, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 24, 2009, 10:27:54 PM
I live in a country where it's fairly hard to buy weed ... because those who use it tend to grow their own supply. 

This reminds me of a story involving the Windsor border crossing, a large box, and a Mercury Lynx (which was really a tough little car).

But no hydroponic lamp?

It was a goodwill mission.

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 10:40:00 PM

Quote from: Pre on February 24, 2009, 10:09:48 PM

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 08:19:31 PM
If 50 bucks for an ounce is high, it'd be because it would be some real low quality schwag.

Depends heavily on where you are in the country.

Where in the country is an ounce of grass fifty bones?  1950landia?

Also, I think there's a miscommunication here anyway.  The suggestion as cited by the article was a tax of $50 per ounce, not a purchase price.  Assuming an ounce of ordinary weed is, say, $250, then you're looking at a 20% tax.  Seems kind of high, but I'm sure most people would gladly pay that in exchange for the freedom to freely blaze up.  

I've long felt the government has been passing on a tremendous revenue stream here.  Combined with the decrease in expense for arresting, prosecuting and jailing said non-violent offenders--or, rather, reallocating those resources to more threatening societal dangers--and this would seem like the biggest no-brainer in the history of Earth.

$250 still seems a bit low. $40-50 for an eighth of mid-grade was pretty standard last time I bought a sack (although that was a while back). That would put the figure around $350, so the tax would be about 14%. Of course, the price of a bag might also drop through the floor without the need to be so discrete about growing or consuming.

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 10:40:00 PM

Quote from: Pre on February 24, 2009, 10:09:48 PM

Quote from: MAD on February 24, 2009, 08:19:31 PM
If 50 bucks for an ounce is high, it'd be because it would be some real low quality schwag.

Depends heavily on where you are in the country.

Where in the country is an ounce of grass fifty bones?  1950landia?

My bad, I was reading ounce but thinking 1/8th.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2009, 06:39:39 AM
I have no idea completely forgotten what any of you are talking about.

Truth'd.

How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Can you currently go out and slam a 40 of OE on your breaks?

Why would this be any different?

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Well, we drink our beers at home or in the bars.  We'd smoke our weed at home or in the cafes - like Amsterdam.  Up next, hookers in windows!

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 10:47:19 AM
Well, we drink our beers at home or in the bars.  We'd smoke our weed at home or in the cafes - like Amsterdam. 

In Canada?

QuoteUp next, hookers in windows!

Sounds awfully degrading to those women.

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 10:52:21 AM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 10:47:19 AM
Well, we drink our beers at home or in the bars.  We'd smoke our weed at home or in the cafes - like Amsterdam. 

In Canada?

Everywhere!

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 10:52:21 AM

QuoteUp next, hookers in windows!

Sounds awfully degrading to those women.

You're right.  Maybe they can set up a Bunny Ranch chain instead?

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

And then what?  We ban the Deep South?

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 11:07:13 AM

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

And then what?  We ban the Deep South?

Watch it, pal...

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government  is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

Better?

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

What Slakee said...are you really concerned about the smell of pot bothering you while you're walking down the street? The smoking ban was a public health issue, not an 'Ew, cigarettes smell gross!' issue. I'm just a simple caveman but I don't think the smell of marijuana on the street, where there are lots of ethers and evolved gay people farts in the air to soak it up, is a public health issue.

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

You can sue your neighbor for them creating noxious odors in some cases (under a tresspass theory), but its less for a Chinese restaurant and more for the hog farm that opens across from your subdivision.  As to the question at hand, the gubermit has little difficulty regulating and taxing cigarettes and alcohol (you may disagree with how they do so, but they do so), I would think that a hybrid of the two would work for teh cannibis.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 11:11:22 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

What Slakee said...are you really concerned about the smell of pot bothering you while you're walking down the street? The smoking ban was a public health issue, not an 'Ew, cigarettes smell gross!' issue. I'm just a simple caveman but I don't think the smell of marijuana on the street, where there are lots of ethers and evolved gay people farts in the air to soak it up, is a public health issue.

I think RV is giving Slakee a run for his money in "hilarious original expressions" department.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 11:10:29 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government  is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

Better?

No.  I still have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm also still betting you have no idea what the ACLU actually does.

I just find it funny that Mr. Bare Bones Libertarian is crying for a nanny state to protect him from the nefarious odor of some pungent, burning leaf.

What is an "evolved gay people fart"?

Quote from: CBStew on February 25, 2009, 11:30:20 AM
What is an "evolved gay people fart"?

If you have to ask...

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:29:25 AM
I just find it funny that Mr. Bare Bones Libertarian is crying for a nanny state to protect him from the nefarious odor of some pungent, burning leaf.

That's kind of what I was driving at above.

But, anyways... With Yeti safely out of the way:

What about the inevitable juicy Federalism showdown if California were to somehow pass such a law?

I'd guess the Federal regulators wouldn't look too kindly on such a thing.

Nor, I'd wager, would states like Washington, Oregon, or Arizona, considering the interstate trafficking involved in the importation of the BC bud and the Acapulco gold.

I, for one, am looking forward to all-out civil war. (Featuring motorcycle marauders, natch.)

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

Better yet, sue the Chinese!

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 11:34:38 AM

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:29:25 AM
I just find it funny that Mr. Bare Bones Libertarian is crying for a nanny state to protect him from the nefarious odor of some pungent, burning leaf.

That's kind of what I was driving at above.

But, anyways... With Yeti safely out of the way:

What about the inevitable juicy Federalism showdown if California were to somehow pass such a law?

I'd guess the Federal regulators wouldn't look too kindly on such a thing.

Nor, I'd wager, would states like Washington, Oregon, or Arizona, considering the interstate trafficking involved in the importation of the BC bud and the Acapulco gold.

I, for one, am looking forward to all-out civil war. (Featuring motorcycle marauders, natch.)

I realize this movie probably didn't get a ton of viewing consideration for most people - but check out Super High Me. It's pretty goddamn funny but they also delve into the history of pot in California and the problem that dispensaries face when it comes to dealing with federal raids. Very fascinating stuff.

Quote from: Oleg on February 25, 2009, 11:31:45 AM

Quote from: CBStew on February 25, 2009, 11:30:20 AM
What is an "evolved gay people fart"?

If you have to ask...

It's an Irish Yeti queef.

I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am (I know Tank will have no problem doing so), but my feeling is that where those stand on the War on Drugs has little correlation with party affiliation.

I don't smoke cigarettes but I think it's a little outlandish to ban smoking in restaurants and bars owned by private individuals. I think it's a lot outlandish to ban smoking in outdoor areas, like stadia. I don't see how pot should be any different.

Then again, I think people should pay for their own health care. Thus, other people's decisions to smoke shouldn't cost me money.

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am (I know Tank will have no problem doing so), but my feeling is that where those stand on the War on Drugs has little correlation with party affiliation.

The War on Drugs has been bipartisan, yes.  Libertarians on the right (no less conservative authorites than William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman were long-time advocates for legalization...well Buckely after his son got popped for possession) and the flag-burning granola-eatin' hippies on the life like Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich have been on record, but everyone else has been either too bought and sold by the religious groups and the alcohol and tobacco lobby or just plain chickenshit to speak to reason at the risk of losing votes from people who had been mobilized by the aforementioend groups to actually speak out in favor it.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:58:08 AM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am (I know Tank will have no problem doing so), but my feeling is that where those stand on the War on Drugs has little correlation with party affiliation.

The War on Drugs has been bipartisan, yes.  Libertarians on the right (no less conservative authorites than William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman were long-time advocates for legalization...well Buckely after his son got popped for possession) and the flag-burning granola-eatin' hippies on the life like Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich have been on record, but everyone else has been either too bought and sold by the religious groups and the alcohol and tobacco lobby or just plain chickenshit to speak to reason at the risk of losing votes from people who had been mobilized by the aforementioend groups to actually speak out in favor it.

Very much this. Sad.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:58:08 AM
... but everyone else has been either too bought and sold by the religious groups and the alcohol and tobacco lobby or just plain chickenshit to speak to reason at the risk of losing votes from people who had been mobilized by the aforementioend groups to actually speak out in favor it.

That, plus the fact that majorities of their constituents were probably against it.

When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn't work!

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 11:11:22 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

What Slakee said...are you really concerned about the smell of pot bothering you while you're walking down the street? The smoking ban was a public health issue, not an 'Ew, cigarettes smell gross!' issue. I'm just a simple caveman but I don't think the smell of marijuana on the street, where there are lots of ethers and evolved gay people farts in the air to soak it up, is a public health issue.

Public health issue? How is it that? Is our health care taken care of by the government? I'm thinking that's still a no at this point. Until that day comes, they don't really have a right to control what a private business allows in their restaurant, as long as it's within the confines of *real* laws and it doesn't pose a clear and present danger (to people who can't avoid the problem). The reason I put that clarification there is because going into a restaurant that allows smoking can cause things like lung cancer via secondhand smoke, as STUDIES have shown. However, *GASP* it's the consumer's choice to go in there! Holy hell, that's a novel fucking concept. People can make choices in this country. If the person doesn't want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking they don't have to. The restaurant owner can take on the consequences of the possible loss of business. Or the restaurant could have chosen to be a smoke-free restaurant, which some were doing. Long story short, keep decisions like these in the hands of the restaurant/bar owners. That smoking ban was as big of a cockshit law as the seatbelt law...

As a side note, I don't smoke at all, so this hasn't really affected me personally. I just think it's horseshit.

But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

If we're in the business of protecting public health, then how about we protect the health of the smokers? Sending those poor folks out into the cold could have damaging effects if the smoking has already fucked up their lungs and they can't breathe out there. Also, they could get sick easier being out in that weather. Or they could get frostbite. Slip on some ice and break a leg. I'm sure the IL government thought of that though because their smoking ban was very much a move to think about the future of this state.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
*real* laws

Oh, please do elaborate!

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 12:22:30 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
*real* laws

Oh, please do elaborate!

Real laws are ones that I decide are right or wrong

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:24:15 PM

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 12:22:30 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
*real* laws

Oh, please do elaborate!

Real laws are ones that I decide are right or wrong

So any law upon which you've made a decision is a real law? As you've decided that the smoking ban is wrong, does that not make it a real law? (Not a) LAWYERED!

Also, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power).

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMIs our health care taken care of by the government? I'm thinking that's still a no at this point.

Well that's kind of a separate issue, but you're wrong. Unless you consider 27.8% of Americans (http://www.hcpro.com/RHB-217826-882/More-Americans-receive-health-insurance-through-Medicare-and-Medicaid.html) to be an insignificant number.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMPeople can make choices in this country. If the person doesn't want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking they don't have to.

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM
Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

Depends.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

How does RV the waitress have so much time to be on the intraweb and the shoutbox if she's not taking smoke breaks....

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMIs our health care taken care of by the government? I'm thinking that's still a no at this point.

Well that's kind of a separate issue, but you're wrong. Unless you consider 27.8% of Americans (http://www.hcpro.com/RHB-217826-882/More-Americans-receive-health-insurance-through-Medicare-and-Medicaid.html) to be an insignificant number.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:11:32 PMPeople can make choices in this country. If the person doesn't want to go into a restaurant that allows smoking they don't have to.

What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's the restaurant proprietor who has the choice. Can he not move to an area without a smoking ban?

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.

I believe Kim du Toit* did.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/41/

*I like to think this is pronounced "doo twat"

Quote from: BH on February 25, 2009, 12:30:54 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM
Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

Depends.

Is this an adult diaper joke?

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

First of all, passing laws isn't a business. I know this because only businesses can create jobs, and the government doesn't create jobs, therefore the government and it's law-passing is not a business.

Second off, congratulations on your cute video game comparison, but I think there's a bit more laptop science behind the assertion that "secondhand smoke is bad for your health" than the assertion that "kids who play violent video games grow up to be Weebs or something else awful." Call me crazy but it's a bit of a reach to imply that someone who supports the smoking ban for health reasons, also supports the government regulating all sorts of other shit.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Rob Meier, from Indianapolis, puts the SMACKDOWN on smokers.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090224/OPINION01/902240313/1002/OPINION

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:36:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.

I believe Kim du Toit* did.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/41/

*I like to think this is pronounced "doo twat"

I'd be surprised if that phrase is even that recent, but ::shrugs::  

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

If we're going to start talking about anecdotal personal experiences here, my memory indicates that these voluntary bans were nonexistent until the subject of a smoking ban was broached by the gubment. Bars and restaurants only instituted these voluntary bans in anticipation of an eventual law.

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 12:44:53 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

It means he gets results, you stupid Chief!

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 12:44:53 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

Just get another bitch for your waitress job you stupid restaurant.

Get another restaurant job for your bitch you stupid waitress.

Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 12:42:46 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

Just get a waitress job at another restaurant you stupid bitch!

I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:46:22 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:38:44 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:34:18 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:30:28 PM
What if I'm a waitress who doesn't want to inhale secondhand smoke? Should my employment choices only be limited to restaurants with a voluntary smoking ban?

If that's what you prefer, yes. I don't know if you noticed but before these bans went into place there were more and more restaurants moving towards this. So your idea that very few restaurants have a voluntary ban would probably have been wrong because many changed to non-smoking

My head is spinning right now.

If we're going to start talking about anecdotal personal experiences here, my memory indicates that these voluntary bans were nonexistent until the subject of a smoking ban was broached by the gubment. Bars and restaurants only instituted these voluntary bans in anticipation of an eventual law.

Well I guess my life experiences are inadequate then.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

I don't think I'd realized until today how many people on this messageboard were capable of writing sentences that, while technically grammatically correct, don't make a lick of sense.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

I really didn't want to wade into the middle of this shitstorm but...

I'm going to bet that most restaurants do not in fact own the buildings that they operate out of.

As for smoking being legal, have you ever heard of zoning laws?  Liquor is legal, but you can't sell it without a license.  In Oak Park, only restaurants can sell it.  

I own my house, and recently had some plumbing work done.  You know what I had to do?  Have it inspected by the City to make sure it was done to code.

This argument is bad.  Take another tack.

Quote from: CT III on February 25, 2009, 12:51:55 PM
As for smoking being legal, have you ever heard of zoning laws?  Liquor is legal, but you can't sell it without a license.  In Oak Park, only restaurants can sell it.

And in Wheaton, you can only buy 3.2 beer if you have a signed note from your pastor.

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:38:35 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

First of all, passing laws isn't a business. I know this because only businesses can create jobs, and the government doesn't create jobs, therefore the government and it's law-passing is not a business.

Second off, congratulations on your cute video game comparison, but I think there's a bit more laptop science behind the assertion that "secondhand smoke is bad for your health" than the assertion that "kids who play violent video games grow up to be Weebs or something else awful." Call me crazy but it's a bit of a reach to imply that someone who supports the smoking ban for health reasons, also supports the government regulating all sorts of other shit.

I'll take it a step further to say that it's a more complicated situation than my green-font post implied.  It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution, and any law which tells me what I can't do on radio, TV, or in video games is restrictive.  However, I actually do think that an inherent jorb of the government is to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic.  Large, profit-driven corporations that would cut our throats if it was profitable enough should be seen as a domestic threat.  I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make a profit, but if a corner you cut jeopardizes the health of your workers and neighbors, then fuck you and your business.  

Tobacco companies for decades have tried to deceive the populace in order to sell more ciagrettes.  I support penalizing them for that.  Personally I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't miss that the restaurants in NY are, by law, smoke free.  But I support exceptions to the rule, and that's what NY has done.  If a bar, restaurant, or business can prove that the loss of smoking has damaged their business, then they have the chance to receive an exemption.  Makes sense to me.  

Regardless of all that, it becomes a slippery slope issue.  It's not ok to smoke in establishments.  Well, I go for walks with my kids at night and I don't want to walk by a group of idiots smoking outside a bar.  So let's ban smoking in public -- make smokers keep their habits at home.  At that point, are we honestly sure that nobody would ever try to ban smoking at home?  Hasn't that already been talked about?  Aw, fuck it.  I really only care that my precious first ammendment not be toyed with and I'll gun down anybody who tries.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

Again, it's not the smoking itself that's a problem - it's the byproduct of the smoking that's the problem. Because the byproduct can result in harm to others. This probably isn't the best comparison, but here goes anyway: you're allowed to shoot a gun at a firing range - that's legal. But if you point that gun at someone else and fire, it's not legal. Because it can result in harm to others.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PMWell I guess my life experiences are inadequate then.

OK, I was being a dick there. But my point is that I'm dubious of using anyone's personal experiences (yours or mine) as evidence of some sort of trend. Honest question - in states without talk of a smoking ban, have there been significant numbers of restaurant owners voluntarily instituting such a ban?

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:01:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

...socialism?

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:50:39 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

I don't think I'd realized until today how many people on this messageboard were capable of writing sentences that, while technically grammatically correct, don't make a lick of sense.

If it's that hard to understand, maybe my assessment of your intelligence, which I thought was very high, was wrong.  I would suggest actually moving away from the notion of "It's Yeti and I disagree with his radical viewpoint, therefore, none of it can make sense."

Quote from: CT III on February 25, 2009, 12:51:55 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
Fuck it. If you're going to tell me that the state has the right to tell a business it can't allow smoking (WHICH IS LEGAL) within the confines of the building they OWN, then there is no point in discussing this. It just seems like it'd be a waste of time.

I really didn't want to wade into the middle of this shitstorm but...

I'm going to bet that most restaurants do not in fact own the buildings that they operate out of.

As for smoking being legal, have you ever heard of zoning laws?  Liquor is legal, but you can't sell it without a license.  In Oak Park, only restaurants can sell it.  

I own my house, and recently had some plumbing work done.  You know what I had to do?  Have it inspected by the City to make sure it was done to code.

This argument is bad.  Take another tack.

I speculated that someone may argue this but I figured they'd understand that if a lessor doesn't want it they can prevent the smoking, but the point was that the owner of the building allowed it. I guess that wasn't clear.

Liquor licenses. Those are the same as smoking bans? Smoking bans were done under the premise (or so I'm told) of public health. I would think the whole idea of a liquor license is to have the sale of alcohol go through fewer avenues and the likelihood of foul play (selling to minors) would be cut down a bit. Or it could be used to keep bars out of town, if you're a dry town like Rochester IL (a local town) is.

Your plumbing around your house? Protecting the city's pipelines from people drilling into them and breaking them would fall under the idea of protecting the infrastructure of the city.

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 01:02:48 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:01:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

...socialism?

I don't get this conversation at all.

I liked this thread better when it was about the benefits of legalizing weed, although it's still better than when it was about some linguistic asshat who had the nerve to rape the English language by disengeniously justifying the use of the word "literally" in a figurative sense.

Yeti, (I think) you're making the point that if governments are so eager to protect the public health of residents, they should outright ban the sale of tobacco within their boundaries. I can kind of agree with you on that being the more logical approach.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
I liked this thread better when it was about the benefits of legalizing weed, although it's still better than when it was about some linguistic asshat who had the nerve to rape the English language by disengeniously justifying the use of the word "literally" in a figurative sense.

Agreed. I could literally care less about the original topic.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
I liked this thread better when it was about the benefits of legalizing weed, although it's still better than when it was about some linguistic asshat who had the nerve to rape the English language by disengeniously justifying the use of the word "literally" in a figurative sense.

HUEY IS ANGRY RIGHT!

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 01:04:19 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:50:39 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

I don't think I'd realized until today how many people on this messageboard were capable of writing sentences that, while technically grammatically correct, don't make a lick of sense.

If it's that hard to understand, maybe my assessment of your intelligence, which I thought was very high, was wrong.  I would suggest actually moving away from the notion of "It's Yeti and I disagree with his radical viewpoint, therefore, none of it can make sense."

Okay.

I'll bite.

Please explain what it would mean to "think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life" and who you feel thinks this.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 01:04:19 PM
Your plumbing around your house? Protecting the city's pipelines from people drilling into them and breaking them would fall under the idea of protecting the infrastructure of the city.

Municipal sanitation is not about protecting public health?

Well, if that's not a humdinger.

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 01:08:34 PM
I could literally care less about the original topic.

I see what you just did there, you sly dog.

This thread sucks more than JOn at a dick farm.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread is more tired than Fork's jokes.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:17:31 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread is more tired than Fork's jokes.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Fork's jokes are as reliable as Jon at a dick farm. Oh, and he's sucking dicks there. At the dick farm.

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 01:02:48 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:01:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

...socialism?

I don't get this conversation at all.

Bewbies?

(http://www.mathies.com/blog/evangeline-lilly-esquire02.jpg)

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread sucks more than JOn at a dick farm.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Check out these tits.
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8829/080205191210large.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

This chick is smoking.
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4074/provencalroastedchicken.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Here's a nice ass.
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9291/donkey2o.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 01:19:40 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:17:31 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread is more tired than Fork's jokes.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Fork's jokes are as reliable as Jon at a dick farm. Oh, and he's sucking dicks there. At the dick farm.

In a world of uncertainty, you should kiss my fucking ass for the stability I provide, kid.

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:13:47 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 01:04:19 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:50:39 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 12:47:25 PM
I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life.

I don't think I'd realized until today how many people on this messageboard were capable of writing sentences that, while technically grammatically correct, don't make a lick of sense.

If it's that hard to understand, maybe my assessment of your intelligence, which I thought was very high, was wrong.  I would suggest actually moving away from the notion of "It's Yeti and I disagree with his radical viewpoint, therefore, none of it can make sense."

Okay.

I'll bite.

Please explain what it would mean to "think that people making personal choices is actually a process of life" and who you feel thinks this.

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 01:04:19 PM
Your plumbing around your house? Protecting the city's pipelines from people drilling into them and breaking them would fall under the idea of protecting the infrastructure of the city.

Municipal sanitation is not about protecting public health?

Well, if that's not a humdinger.

Ok. So I looked back and noticed that the sentence *should* have been "I don't think I've ever realized until today that so many people in this world *don't* think that making personal choices is actually a process of life.

My apologies. I thought I included that word but apparently I didn't.

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:21:05 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 01:19:40 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:17:31 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread is more tired than Fork's jokes.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Fork's jokes are as reliable as Jon at a dick farm. Oh, and he's sucking dicks there. At the dick farm.

In a world of uncertainty, you should kiss my fucking ass for the stability I provide, kid.

Don't I?

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 02:05:09 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:21:05 PM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 01:19:40 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:17:31 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread is more tired than Fork's jokes.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Fork's jokes are as reliable as Jon at a dick farm. Oh, and he's sucking dicks there. At the dick farm.

In a world of uncertainty, you should kiss my fucking ass for the stability I provide, kid.

Don't I?

Not enough. I want chapping back there, goddamnit.

While we discuss marijuana legalization, smoking ordinances, plumbing codes, alcohol controls and other things that help push us towards a nanny-state rest assured that the beloved political apparatus that many of our President's foot soldiers helped put into place are right now debating a much-needed ban on aluminum bats within the city. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/pair-of-aldermen-come-out-against-metal-baseball-bat-ban-idea.html)

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 02:26:20 PM
While we discuss marijuana legalization, smoking ordinances, plumbing codes, alcohol controls and other things that help push us towards a nanny-state rest assured that the beloved political apparatus that many of our President's foot soldiers helped put into place are right now debating a much-needed ban on aluminum bats within the city. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/pair-of-aldermen-come-out-against-metal-baseball-bat-ban-idea.html)

Quote"There's no data that shows an aluminum bat is any more dangerous than a wooden bat," Beale added.

That seems incorrect.

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 02:28:39 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 02:26:20 PM
While we discuss marijuana legalization, smoking ordinances, plumbing codes, alcohol controls and other things that help push us towards a nanny-state rest assured that the beloved political apparatus that many of our President's foot soldiers helped put into place are right now debating a much-needed ban on aluminum bats within the city. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/pair-of-aldermen-come-out-against-metal-baseball-bat-ban-idea.html)

Quote"There's no data that shows an aluminum bat is any more dangerous than a wooden bat," Beale added.

That seems incorrect.

Anyone know any legal-minded bloggers with opinions on oak bats?

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 02:26:20 PM
While we discuss marijuana legalization, smoking ordinances, plumbing codes, alcohol controls and other things that help push us towards a nanny-state rest assured that the beloved political apparatus that many of our President's foot soldiers helped put into place are right now debating a much-needed ban on aluminum bats within the city. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/pair-of-aldermen-come-out-against-metal-baseball-bat-ban-idea.html)

Intrepid Reader:  Powen

If you can't git 'er done with a Louisville Slugger, you're a pussy.

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 02:30:21 PM

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 02:28:39 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 02:26:20 PM
While we discuss marijuana legalization, smoking ordinances, plumbing codes, alcohol controls and other things that help push us towards a nanny-state rest assured that the beloved political apparatus that many of our President's foot soldiers helped put into place are right now debating a much-needed ban on aluminum bats within the city. (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/pair-of-aldermen-come-out-against-metal-baseball-bat-ban-idea.html)

Quote"There's no data that shows an aluminum bat is any more dangerous than a wooden bat," Beale added.

That seems incorrect.

Anyone know any legal-minded bloggers with opinions on oak bats?

I DO!

It is as simple as this:  By ending prosecution, we would see all those funds labeled under "expense" move under the "balance" label.  Instead of hemorrhaging cash, we'd be keeping it.  On top of that, legalization would give us one of our highest yielding natural resources.  That multiplies the profits you rake from not prosecuting it. 

It really seems elementary on paper.  Now, if somebody would just roll that paper, then we would be set.

Joe Biden likes where this thread started... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/25/Dont-mess-with-Joe-and-others/)

Quote
"This is a monumental project, but it's doable...It's about getting the money out in 18 months, to literally dropkick us out of this recession."

Well, with all due respect to old Joe, I think Barack has the wrong guy as his "Recovery Czar."  The right guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Jsz-fSNd4) was just what Washington needed back on January 3, 1987. (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198701030chi.htm)

By the way, all those that mocked me for suggesting that the Cubs would beat the Dodgers back in October, who's laughing now?

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 04:43:08 PM
Joe Biden likes where this thread started... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/25/Dont-mess-with-Joe-and-others/)

Quote
"This is a monumental project, but it's doable...It's about getting the money out in 18 months, to literally dropkick us out of this recession."

Well, with all due respect to old Joe, I think Barack has the wrong guy as his "Recovery Czar."  The right guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Jsz-fSNd4) was just what Washington needed back on January 3, 1987. (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198701030chi.htm)

By the way, all those that mocked me for suggesting that the Cubs would beat the Dodgers back in October, who's laughing now?

You're forgetting John Bulldog Drummond's postgame from that abortion of a Bears game (which I, sadly, attended). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8clmLk_SeOA)

I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
This thread sucks more than JOn at a dick farm.

Someone bring some tits up in this bitch.

Couldn't do this at work earlier today...

(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k41/littleryan420/1036541262_l.jpg)

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am (I know Tank will have no problem doing so), but my feeling is that where those stand on the War on Drugs has little correlation with party affiliation.

I don't smoke cigarettes but I think it's a little outlandish to ban smoking in restaurants and bars owned by private individuals. I think it's a lot outlandish to ban smoking in outdoor areas, like stadia. I don't see how pot should be any different.

Then again, I think people should pay for their own health care. Thus, other people's decisions to smoke shouldn't cost me money.

I think anybody who smokes anything in an eatery should have his lungs ripped out through his anus and fed to him. What party am I in?

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:48:38 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 11:49:09 AM
I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am (I know Tank will have no problem doing so), but my feeling is that where those stand on the War on Drugs has little correlation with party affiliation.

I don't smoke cigarettes but I think it's a little outlandish to ban smoking in restaurants and bars owned by private individuals. I think it's a lot outlandish to ban smoking in outdoor areas, like stadia. I don't see how pot should be any different.

Then again, I think people should pay for their own health care. Thus, other people's decisions to smoke shouldn't cost me money.

I think anybody who smokes anything in an eatery should have his lungs ripped out through his anus and fed to him. What party am I in?

Whig?

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

I also strongly positive the pre-replay NFL. The man said it was a touchdown, it's a fucking touchdown. That's it, right then and there. None of this cocking around for 10 minutes watching replays. I can't fucking stand that shit for some reason. Win or lose it eventually kills the game for me. Yeah, I know, I know "they get the calls right..." They still fuck that up sometimes with their interpretations of what they saw or didn't see in those 10 minutes under the hood. They should at least take all replays to the booth. Don't make the field officials have to worry about it. Take challenges out of the coaches hands in the entire fourth quarter. Fire Hillary Clinton. Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude. Give me a thousand dollars. Read Hockee Night.

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

I also strongly positive the pre-replay NFL. The man said it was a touchdown, it's a fucking touchdown. That's it, right then and there. None of this cocking around for 10 minutes watching replays. I can't fucking stand that shit for some reason. Win or lose it eventually kills the game for me. Yeah, I know, I know "they get the calls right..." They still fuck that up sometimes with their interpretations of what they saw or didn't see in those 10 minutes under the hood. They should at least take all replays to the booth. Don't make the field officials have to worry about it. Take challenges out of the coaches hands in the entire fourth quarter. Fire Hillary Clinton. Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude. Give me a thousand dollars. Read Hockee Night.

Wait, what?  They had replay in '87.  They had it in that game, in fact.  On Payton's first carry, he leapt over the pile and the ball popped out.  They stopped the game and reviewed it.  It did seem to be quicker.  They didn't have the ref go to stick his head in a glory hole to look at the replay; the call came from a replay official upstairs and didn't completely stop the game.  Wait, you actually kind of suggested that, didn't you?  But now I'm confused.  Did you not notice that they had replay officials upstairs?  I'm really confused.  Thanks alot, asshole.

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:25:03 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

I also strongly positive the pre-replay NFL. The man said it was a touchdown, it's a fucking touchdown. That's it, right then and there. None of this cocking around for 10 minutes watching replays. I can't fucking stand that shit for some reason. Win or lose it eventually kills the game for me. Yeah, I know, I know "they get the calls right..." They still fuck that up sometimes with their interpretations of what they saw or didn't see in those 10 minutes under the hood. They should at least take all replays to the booth. Don't make the field officials have to worry about it. Take challenges out of the coaches hands in the entire fourth quarter. Fire Hillary Clinton. Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude. Give me a thousand dollars. Read Hockee Night.

Wait, what?  They had replay in '87.  They had it in that game, in fact.  On Payton's first carry, he leapt over the pile and the ball popped out.  They stopped the game and reviewed it.  It did seem to be quicker.  They didn't have the ref go to stick his head in a glory hole to look at the replay; the call came from a replay official upstairs and didn't completely stop the game.  Wait, you actually kind of suggested that, didn't you?  But now I'm confused.  Did you not notice that they had replay officials upstairs?  I'm really confused.  Thanks alot, asshole.

Eidetic memory, thy name is MikeD.

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 11:43:16 PM

Quote from: MAD on February 25, 2009, 11:25:03 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

I also strongly positive the pre-replay NFL. The man said it was a touchdown, it's a fucking touchdown. That's it, right then and there. None of this cocking around for 10 minutes watching replays. I can't fucking stand that shit for some reason. Win or lose it eventually kills the game for me. Yeah, I know, I know "they get the calls right..." They still fuck that up sometimes with their interpretations of what they saw or didn't see in those 10 minutes under the hood. They should at least take all replays to the booth. Don't make the field officials have to worry about it. Take challenges out of the coaches hands in the entire fourth quarter. Fire Hillary Clinton. Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude. Give me a thousand dollars. Read Hockee Night.

Wait, what?  They had replay in '87.  They had it in that game, in fact.  On Payton's first carry, he leapt over the pile and the ball popped out.  They stopped the game and reviewed it.  It did seem to be quicker.  They didn't have the ref go to stick his head in a glory hole to look at the replay; the call came from a replay official upstairs and didn't completely stop the game.  Wait, you actually kind of suggested that, didn't you?  But now I'm confused.  Did you not notice that they had replay officials upstairs?  I'm really confused.  Thanks alot, asshole.

Eidetic memory, thy name is MikeD.

Now you're giving me too much credit. I just happened to notice the non-fumble in TJ's YouTube clip #1.

To make up for it, I can tell you that Lawrence Taylor did not record a sack of a Bears quarterback until his final play against the Bears in 1993, when he effectively ended the Bears first Opening Day loss since 1983 by hammering Jim Harbaugh on the Bears' last possession.

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 10:39:40 PM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: Brownie on February 25, 2009, 05:31:05 PM
I think they came back to Drummond, who had to emphasize that his hat was a Minnesota Gophers hat, not a Redskins hat. Great stuff though

A few (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXidIrr9RZo) related videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldG2F-fgRjA) might (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey6aBUvi6NU) be something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lv4wVTWnDU) Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQCY5SSu1Y) would be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixQGjhjkt7I) interested in. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=883Kr40Lsds)

I'm sure that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YlZ-W6qe2Y) Mike D. and Apex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkXI1doBcDA) would surely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TkzDiUATHs) urge Forklift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKsCBA-8-v8) to watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cG1gfJVtPk) these videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw0gcrn62PQ) to their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAtnYyqxGk) conclusion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruULBn0CCu8)

Not much other football played during the 1987 calendar year was worth a damn however. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJcz86aKWQA)

Watching Walter Payton get knocked down harder than shit, get up before his tackler does and look back at the dude on the way to the huddle... almost as good as boobs.

Watching Jimbo Covert literally[/i ]manhandle a coked-up LT is awfully close as well.

I also strongly positive the pre-replay NFL. The man said it was a touchdown, it's a fucking touchdown. That's it, right then and there. None of this cocking around for 10 minutes watching replays. I can't fucking stand that shit for some reason. Win or lose it eventually kills the game for me. Yeah, I know, I know "they get the calls right..." They still fuck that up sometimes with their interpretations of what they saw or didn't see in those 10 minutes under the hood. They should at least take all replays to the booth. Don't make the field officials have to worry about it. Take challenges out of the coaches hands in the entire fourth quarter. Fire Hillary Clinton. Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude. Give me a thousand dollars. Read Hockee Night.

HIRE THIS MAN!

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/1sgv12.jpg)

(http://i40.tinypic.com/2s8sfiq.jpg)

(http://i42.tinypic.com/33oqhqg.jpg)

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

<some awful, awful pictures of Michelle Malkin>

And, playing the part of IAN today...

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/1sgv12.jpg)

This picture literally made me laugh out loud.

Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

<some awful, awful pictures of Michelle Malkin>

And, playing the part of IAN today...

I dunno.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but the middle picture has a certain je ne sais quoi.

Quote from: Tonker on February 26, 2009, 09:46:57 AM

Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

<some awful, awful pictures of Michelle Malkin>

And, playing the part of IAN today...

I dunno.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but the middle picture has a certain je ne sais quoi.

Huh?  There's not even any visible bacon on that samich.

Quote from: Oleg on February 26, 2009, 09:55:17 AM

Quote from: Tonker on February 26, 2009, 09:46:57 AM

Quote from: morpheus on February 26, 2009, 09:39:50 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

<some awful, awful pictures of Michelle Malkin>

And, playing the part of IAN today...

I dunno.  I can't quite put my finger on it, but the middle picture has a certain je ne sais quoi.

Huh?  There's not even any visible bacon on that samich.

There's bacon inside.  I can feel it.

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 09:46:14 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/1sgv12.jpg)

This picture literally made me laugh out loud.

I guess it really was a hard ball.

Quote from: Fork on February 26, 2009, 11:28:49 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 09:46:14 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2009, 09:25:04 AM

Quote from: Eli on February 26, 2009, 08:48:15 AM

Quote from: ~Apex on February 25, 2009, 11:18:18 PM
Show me some decent photoshops of Michelle Malkin nude.

Gross.

The stuff of nightmares.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/1sgv12.jpg)

This picture literally made me laugh out loud.

I guess it really was a hard ball.

Really?

(http://i42.tinypic.com/1sgv12.jpg)(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c102/DEEPFISH55/VisitorDining.jpg)

Those photoshops suck. I'm already on the payroll at Hockee Night. My fee is a shower.

Just to get back to a topic from a while back...looks like Obama is much more conservative than we all thought, what with the whole state's rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL) thing and all...

Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Just to get back to a topic from a while back...looks like Obama is much more conservative than we all thought, what with the whole state's rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL) thing and all...

How pathetic is it that when you see something proposed by the federal government that makes this much sense and your first reaction to it is to be surprised?

I wonder if that means that Pennsylvania will get to have bong shops again, too.

Quote from: flannj on February 27, 2009, 10:03:26 AM

Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Just to get back to a topic from a while back...looks like Obama is much more conservative than we all thought, what with the whole state's rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL) thing and all...

How pathetic is it that when you see something proposed by the federal government that makes this much sense and your first reaction to it is to be surprised?

Blame Bush?  Muahahahaha!!!!

Quote from: flannj on February 27, 2009, 10:03:26 AM

Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Just to get back to a topic from a while back...looks like Obama is much more conservative than we all thought, what with the whole state's rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL) thing and all...

How pathetic is it that when you see something proposed by the federal government that makes this much sense and your first reaction to it is to be surprised?

My first reaction was that Oleg might need to start calling moving companies.

Quote from: Fork on February 27, 2009, 11:39:13 AM

Quote from: flannj on February 27, 2009, 10:03:26 AM

Quote from: Oleg on February 27, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Just to get back to a topic from a while back...looks like Obama is much more conservative than we all thought, what with the whole state's rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/26/MN2016651R.DTL) thing and all...

How pathetic is it that when you see something proposed by the federal government that makes this much sense and your first reaction to it is to be surprised?

My first reaction was that Oleg might need to start calling moving companies.

My first reaction was to wonder how you were going to make the Oleg joke.

The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on March 03, 2009, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

How about a little warning on those?

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 12:27:35 PM

Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on March 03, 2009, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

How about a little warning on those?

"cock-smoking-bong.jpg" wasn't enough?

Your status bar is a friend.

Quote from: Tank on March 03, 2009, 01:35:24 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 12:27:35 PM

Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on March 03, 2009, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

How about a little warning on those?

"cock-smoking-bong.jpg" wasn't enough?

Your status bar is a friend.

My decrepit eyes are my enemy.

http://literally.barelyfitz.com/

Quote from: Tank on March 03, 2009, 01:35:24 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 12:27:35 PM

Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on March 03, 2009, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

How about a little warning on those?

"cock-smoking-bong.jpg" wasn't enough?

Your status bar is a friend.

http://tinyurl.com/yedm4bs

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 12:27:35 PM

Quote from: MidgetSellingWater on March 03, 2009, 12:17:52 PM

Quote from: Fork on March 03, 2009, 10:54:39 AM

Quote from: Oleg on March 03, 2009, 10:36:47 AM
The Cat In a Hat. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/cat-in-bong-man-arrested_n_171373.html)  If the hat is a bong.

Is there anything you CAN'T turn into a bong?

Apparently not. (http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/cock-smoking-bong.jpg)

How about a little warning on those?

LEAVE OLEG OUT OF THIS!

Holy shit, thank you Thrill. 

Now  find me a blog that tracks people who say "I could care less" when they mean they couldn't care less and I can die a happy man.

Quote from: MAD on March 25, 2010, 02:26:21 PM
Holy shit, thank you Thrill. 

Now  find me a blog that tracks people who say "I could care less" when they mean they couldn't care less and I can die a happy man.

don't let lack of happiness stop you.

Quote from: Fork on March 25, 2010, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: MAD on March 25, 2010, 02:26:21 PM
Holy shit, thank you Thrill. 

Now  find me a blog that tracks people who say "I could care less" when they mean they couldn't care less and I can die a happy man.

don't let lack of happiness stop you.

Seems to me that would be a motivation