RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 12:59:20 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

It's amusing to me how, in all nine pages of this thread, NO ONE has tried to counter the argument that second-hand smoke is a harmful chemical and the state has a right to regulate harmful chemicals.

All I've seen is a whole lot of rhetoric about how smokers are being discriminated against--oh, and Krispy Kreme donuts are dangerous too. Come on, people.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 161

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 1:01:55 AM

Lorelei115

Posts: 1933
Joined: 8/16/2006
From: Sin City
Status: offline

I actually looked that up wayyy back on like.. page 3 somewhere before I wandered off the thread... I had watched a show at one point that disproved the claim that secondhand smoke was dangerous. But, it turned out the show itself was later disproved. *shrug* Goes to show, I guess.

_____________________________

A sucessful life is not measured by what we do
But by the realization
Of who we are.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 162

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 1:30:28 AM

Zensee

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Actually that same company that handled the secondhand-smoke-is-harmless spin for the Tobacco Industry is handling the there's-no-such-thing-as Global-Warming-and-if-there-is-it's-good-for-us spin for Exxon; International Policy Network (IPN).

P.S. - Haven't heard about the Mexicans for a few days - are they all gone?

< Message edited by Zensee -- 11/18/2006 1:33:22 AM >

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Lorelei115)

Post #: 163

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 2:06:58 AM

adaddysgirl

Posts: 1093
Joined: 3/2/2004
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I would not mind that at all.

My only point is that most smokers I have met seem to think the world is their ashtray. Pontificating endlessly about ending pollution while they throw their cigarette butt in the street and blow toxic gas in my face.

The law states they cannot smoke in bars in the state of California. Dont like the law, get it changed.

Sinergy

When the law was first passed here in NY, i think a lot of smokers (including myself) were quite disgruntled. i think, though, that most have become acclimated over time.

When my son was stationed in CA, he said it was easier there than in NY because one, the weather, and two, a lot of places had attached areas that you could go sit out in and smoke....and still bring your drink. When i visited CA one Xmas, i did frequent a couple of bars that had an outer porch....the weather was still decent....you could bring your drink out there....so we spent most of our time out there. Most bars here would not go through that expense because it would still be no good in the winter.

But my main point is this. When my son was restationed in MD, he was shocked to find that smoking was still allowed in restaurants. Usually the bar area was the designated smoking area there. But he said it was really weird to smoke around others like that after he had been so used to not doing so.

When i visited him last Xmas, we went to one of those restaurants...and yes, it did feel weird. i kept thinking we had to go outside to smoke. BTW....we could not get a seat in the smoking section...it was too full.....so we sat in the non smoking section then went into the other side when we smoked.

i can't help to think that most smokers have become much more conscious of non smokers.....but perhaps this hasn't been your experience.

If i were to leave NY, i would not choose CA. i really do not have the energy to try to change a law. i would most likely go where the laws were more favorable to my situation and although i realize that someday, the law will most likely be nationwide, i would still go with the best bet. i imagine some day i will quit smoking....but i know for sure it won't be to-day.

DG

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 164

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 3:11:09 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

It's amusing to me how, in all nine pages of this thread, NO ONE has tried to counter the argument that second-hand smoke is a harmful chemical and the state has a right to regulate harmful chemicals.

I agree the state has a right to regulate harmful chemicals and I would acquiesce to my right to smoke being curbed if the state regulated other harmful substances in the atmosphere but it doesn't. Regulating smoking is an easy target and makes a government look like it is being radical when the government's behaviour shows it isn't. When I ride my bike through town I'm forced to inhale traffic fumes from cars people drive that they don't need to drive because there is an adequate public transport system and if there isn't one they should put one in place. The state or at least Britain and Holland have both admitted that car fumes are one of the major contributing factors to child asthma and not tabacco smoke. Traffic fumes also need to be curbed for their contribution to green house gases. The state can't even argue that tobacco smoke is the main cause of illness and other social problems, alcohol and obesity are (at least in Britain). The 'get the smokers' campaign is just a smoke screen (pun intended). If it is a person's right not to have smoke in their face (which I guess rarely happens with tabacco, I never go to restuarants or public buildings and get wafted with tobacco smoke) it is a person's right not to breath in traffic fumes, especially when the government's own report states that 60% of car journeys are unnecessary and could be walked, biked or taken on public transport.

Only smoking an occasional cigar either in the bar I frequent (which will carry on being a smoking bar, laws or not) or at home, I guess I am being bloody minded about this because such anti-smoking laws won't affect me. But if we are talking about people's rights to have clean air, OK, let's have clean air and get out of that fucking car.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 11/18/2006 3:27:43 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 165

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 4:54:45 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

Again meatcleaver

I do not smoke

I do not drive

I resent sucking up others fumes when I walk to get from point A to point B. You still are determined that I should have to suck in your fumes and the fumes of cars, and I resent both,

California is working on being a non-emissions state. They want to get away from fossils, and they have the most stringent smoking laws. In case you have not been here and are unaware of our climate, we have a high pressure system over the state of California much of the year. This acts as a lid keeping all the pollutants in the air a lot of the year. There are exceptions to this, but a lot of California is like this, add that to the number of cars on the roads and our strict emissions standards continue to be at war with the pollution being spewed into the air... so we are going to get even more extreme and get fossils off our roads. Now we as a state have decided this is a priority to us, we also do not want cigarette smoke in the air... guess what, it is easier to regulate where people smoke than it is is switch over to a non-fossil fuel economy.. but we work for both... tell me how this is hypocritical?

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 166

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 5:10:16 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Now we as a state have decided this is a priority to us, we also do not want cigarette smoke in the air... guess what, it is easier to regulate where people smoke than it is is switch over to a non-fossil fuel economy.. but we work for both... tell me how this is hypocritical?

Take readings of the outside air, I doubt you will find a trace of carcinogens from cigarette tobacco or at least that can be traced to cigarettes but you will find carcinogens and other pollutants from traffic and industry. Certainly that is the case in Holland. There is no smoking in public buildings here and restuarants make their own choices, most don't allow smoking so there is no problem there. Now we come to bars. What is the problem with owners choosing to allow smoking or not? No one is forced into the places against their will, no onbe is forced to work in a place against their will and many bars are run by the owners anyway, it seems more a case of none smokers being scared their missing something.

This reminds me of a story in London where the residents blocked a small side road to stop traffic taking a short cut between two main roads because of traffic pollution damaging thier children's health. The council got the police to reopen the road, saying the road had to be kept open because of traffic contingency reasons (whatever they are). However, next year radical Mr Blair is banning smoking in the Pub on the corner for the good of people's health. As one of the resident's pointed out, what good will that do for the children? That is how false this whole debate is, it is about radical posturing and puritanism.

Most car journeys could be stopped within months if a government was really radical but governments don't lead they follow the money and the cause of the day.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 167

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 5:58:07 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

I will reiterate

Californians (not only politicians) are trying to get fossils off the roads. It is hard to do when faced with big oil and big auto manufacturers.

Your argument does not make any sense, because cigarette smoke is not measurable in the outside air people should be allowed to smoke inside. I am looking for a job presently, I am trained as a bartender, I am applying for these jobs. The reason why we do not allow smoking in bars California is because of employees, not patrons. I should be able to work where I like and not breath toxins when they are so easily controlled. All it takes is a person takes their butt off the barstool and steps outside. It really is a simple thing, it is not that much to ask.

When this law first went into place in my state I was a smoker that liked to go to bars once in awhile, there were a couple of bars that had great outdoor smoking facilities, I went there. I have since been to places that allow smoking inside, and I have to tell you it is gross, even when I was a smoker it was nasty to think about smoking inside where I eat. I did not even do that in my own home (I smoked outside even at home). You have to understand not all smokers even want the "right" to pollute indoor air, I certainly didn't

BTW, if you were standing next to a smoker and taking those outdoor readings of cigarette pollutants they would be measurable. I am not advocating not allowing people to smoke outside because I can move aside, but I cannot move aside indoors.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 168

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 6:13:12 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

No one has to work where they don't want to work. Economies in the west are not so bad that if someone can't work in a bar they will never get another job and starve, the pay isn't that great anyway. People don't do a lot of jobs because they don't like the conditions of work and there is no law stopping bars from banning smoking. The argument is that none smokers want laws to ban smoking inside everywhere, places they frequent or not, it is their point of priniciple, their act of faith.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 169

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 9:12:55 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Why does second-hand smoke have to be regulated LAST? That makes no sense. Is it just because you happen to be a smoker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I agree the state has a right to regulate harmful chemicals and I would acquiesce to my right to smoke being curbed if the state regulated other harmful substances in the atmosphere but it doesn't.

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 11/18/2006 9:22:42 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 170

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 9:21:36 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

This need to control the habits of individuals that does no harm to anyone but themselves is very American, like the excessive intrusion into ones private life if one should want to go to America. Despite what Americans think, they are more controled and receive more state propaganda than Russians. I think this need some Americans have to control their fellow citizen's habits is the symptom of living in an ideological state and if you don't think you live in an ideological state read your constitution and analyse your media.

Unfortunately Blair is trying to import this sort of shit into Britain which is one of the reasons I'm glad I don't live there. Hopefully someone will assassinate the fucking war criminal.

What's up with you? I must have being dreaming about the times you felt the need to label others anti-American and self-loathing Brits. Now here you are saying you have reasons why you would not like to live in Britain and you're applying a broad statement to some Americans.

How does the saying go? When you point the finger at someone you're actually pointing the other three back at yourself.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 171

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 9:39:53 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Why does second-hand smoke have to be regulated LAST? That makes no sense. Is it just because you happen to be a smoker?

There are far more important things that should be occupying valuable legislation time, radical posturing which the anti-smoke lobby is is just a way of governments avoiding dealing with real issues like carbon emissions.

The British government spent days getting their anti-smoke laws through last year while carbon emissions were going up. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 172

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 9:41:31 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

What's up with you? I must have being dreaming about the times you felt the need to label others anti-American and self-loathing Brits. Now here you are saying you have reasons why you would not like to live in Britain and you're applying a broad statement to some Americans.

How does the saying go? When you point the finger at someone you're actually pointing the other three back at yourself.

What can I say? Guilty as charged.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 173

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 9:59:27 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

You're talking as though it's impossible to regulate second-hand smoke and carbon emissions at the same time. As I'm sure you know, I support regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions as much as the next guy--probably MORE than the next guy. But what this has to do with regulating second-hand smoke I'll never understand. Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Why does second-hand smoke have to be regulated LAST? That makes no sense. Is it just because you happen to be a smoker?

There are far more important things that should be occupying valuable legislation time, radical posturing which the anti-smoke lobby is is just a way of governments avoiding dealing with real issues like carbon emissions.

The British government spent days getting their anti-smoke laws through last year while carbon emissions were going up. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 174

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 10:15:26 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You're talking as though it's impossible to regulate second-hand smoke and carbon emissions at the same time. As I'm sure you know, I support regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions as much as the next guy--probably MORE than the next guy. But what this has to do with regulating second-hand smoke I'll never understand. Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

There is no smoking in any public building, none in restuarants or any other public establishment next year so smoking will be regulated. Meantime establishments will make temporary coverings for smokers such as marquees or buses outside a bar that will be legal. So it would have been just as easy in the first place to let bars make a choice as to whether they allow smoking or not because that is exactly what they are doing only from a different angle. Meantime the government postures about being radical when it is just being a bunch of vacuous arseholes.

Hopefully in Dutch government will be its traditional self and see that banning stuff is pointless and its better to police it with some common sense.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 175

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 10:20:44 AM

adaddysgirl

Posts: 1093
Joined: 3/2/2004
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

Nah....sounds more like a bunch of pouty non smokers who are sad because they can't go EVERYWHERE

50 bars in a city and not even 5 of those could be designated smoking bars? i don't think we're asking to smoke ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE

It does seem to be as MC described "The argument is that none smokers want laws to ban smoking inside everywhere, places they frequent or not, it is their point of priniciple, their act of faith."

DG

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 176

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 10:29:08 AM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You're talking as though it's impossible to regulate second-hand smoke and carbon emissions at the same time. As I'm sure you know, I support regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions as much as the next guy--probably MORE than the next guy. But what this has to do with regulating second-hand smoke I'll never understand. Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

There is no smoking in any public building, none in restuarants or any other public establishment next year so smoking will be regulated. Meantime establishments will make temporary coverings for smokers such as marquees or buses outside a bar that will be legal. So it would have been just as easy in the first place to let bars make a choice as to whether they allow smoking or not because that is exactly what they are doing only from a different angle. Meantime the government postures about being radical when it is just being a bunch of vacuous arseholes.

Hopefully in Dutch government will be its traditional self and see that banning stuff is pointless and its better to police it with some common sense.

*emphasis added*

Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

By Alexandra HudsonFri Nov 17, 1:58 PM ET

The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe's most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent's toughest laws against concealing the face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061117/ts_nm/dutch_burqa_ban_dc

It's not cig related, but an example of when enough people get fed up, the laws often shift, MC.

_____________________________

Fake the heat and scratch the itch
Skinned up knees and salty lips
Let go it's harder holding on
One more trip and I'll be gone

~~ Stone Temple Pilots

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 177

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 11:03:48 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

Nah....sounds more like a bunch of pouty non smokers who are sad because they can't go EVERYWHERE

50 bars in a city and not even 5 of those could be designated smoking bars? i don't think we're asking to smoke ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE

It does seem to be as MC described "The argument is that none smokers want laws to ban smoking inside everywhere, places they frequent or not, it is their point of priniciple, their act of faith."

DG

No, it's not as MC described at all. The argument for banning smoking in public places is sound for the following reason.

Democracy and civil liberties are not merely about establishing the right of every individual to pursue their beliefs. This is only half of the story. The other half, and equally important, democratic concept is that individuals' rights to pursue their beliefs is subject to the necessary protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Thus, if second hand smoke is proven to be harmful to others then individuals (in this case smokers) do not have the right to pursure their beliefs in public places.

It follows that if you are interested in democracy then the defining issue which should dictate a decision on smoking in public places is one of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful. It has nothing to do with petty arguments about the so-called PC brigade.

Democracy is a concept which you either believe in or you don't. You can't turn it on and off like a tap. Those who do turn attempt to on and off like a tap when the cap fits are conservatives not democrats.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to adaddysgirl)

Post #: 178

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 11:15:38 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Sounds like a bunch of pouty smokers who are sad that they can't smoke ANYWHERE.

Nah....sounds more like a bunch of pouty non smokers who are sad because they can't go EVERYWHERE

50 bars in a city and not even 5 of those could be designated smoking bars? i don't think we're asking to smoke ANYWHERE or EVERYWHERE

It does seem to be as MC described "The argument is that none smokers want laws to ban smoking inside everywhere, places they frequent or not, it is their point of priniciple, their act of faith."

DG

No, it's not as MC described at all. The argument for banning smoking in public places is sound for the following reason.

Democracy and civil liberties are not merely about establishing the right of every individual to pursue their beliefs. This is only half of the story. The other half, and equally important, democratic concept is that individuals' rights to pursue their beliefs is subject to the necessary protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Thus, if second hand smoke is proven to be harmful to others then individuals (in this case smokers) do not have the right to pursure their beliefs in public places.

It follows that if you are interested in democracy then the defining issue which should dictate a decision on smoking in public places is one of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful. It has nothing to do with petty arguments about the so-called PC brigade.

Democracy is a concept which you either believe in or you don't. You can't turn it on and off like a tap. Those who do turn attempt to on and off like a tap when the cap fits are conservatives not democrats.

Spare us the preaching NG. If you were right the government would ban cigarettes. The fact that they are legally on sale means they can be legally consumed.

The pub in my parents village are erecting a temporary building that will be heated and made comfortable for their clients. The building being temporary will get round the law introduced by the government. The government was aware that this sort of thing would happen but they did nothing to stop it nor did they make cigarettes illegal. They are merely posturing.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 179

RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in. - 11/18/2006 11:20:47 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

There is no smoking in any public building, none in restuarants or any other public establishment next year so smoking will be regulated. Meantime establishments will make temporary coverings for smokers such as marquees or buses outside a bar that will be legal. So it would have been just as easy in the first place to let bars make a choice as to whether they allow smoking or not because that is exactly what they are doing only from a different angle. Meantime the government postures about being radical when it is just being a bunch of vacuous arseholes.

Hopefully in Dutch government will be its traditional self and see that banning stuff is pointless and its better to police it with some common sense.

*emphasis added*

Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

By Alexandra HudsonFri Nov 17, 1:58 PM ET

The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe's most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent's toughest laws against concealing the face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061117/ts_nm/dutch_burqa_ban_dc

It's not cig related, but an example of when enough people get fed up, the laws often shift, MC.

Yes I heard about this on the radio. The government are trying to rush through the ban before the election. This government has been more draconian than anyone in modern history and what they are doing might be against the constitution. However, there is a real problem here with north African muslims, particularly Morrocans. There is a lot of feeling against north African muslims here because of the crime rate in that community and the refusal of their young men to work in jobs they claim are beneath them while being unable to speak the language.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: RANT, a big one ! Feel free to join in.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094