I was a passenger in a car that got rear ended. When the cops showed up, the first one took my drivers license. A minute later another cop walked up and demanded I give him my license. I told him I had already given it to the first officer and I got the "if you dont give me your license right now you are going to jail" routine. I pretty much laughed in his face which pissed him off to no end. Don't laugh, just write down his badge number and tell him you'll get him a nice vacation from his work if he insists on trampling your rights. Be very calm and polite, no threatening attitude, no sudden movements. Do what the guy with the gun tells you to do, but tell the officer of the law that if a crime is commited here, it will be prosecuted, no matter what uniform was worn by the one who broke the law.
What's the big deal with giving the government all your usernames and passwords and allowing them to record you in your house 24/7 in addition to letting them implant a transponder/recorder in your jaw bone?
I find it hard to believe that there are so many people out there who would willingly bend over and spread their cheeks for anyone in authority who asks for whatever reason. George W. Bush Republican(a) Texas 62,040,610 votes 50.7%
Is it really an essential liberty to not have to show your receipt as you exit a store? I think not. 'Gimme your reciept... ah, you've stolen from us, I'll tie you up in the basement now'
You didn't steal anything, but now HE has your reciept, how will you prove it?
There is a long standing Supreme Court of Canada decision that determined that citizens are not required to identify themselves to police simply because it is demanded. I don't know about the 'simply if it is demanded', there might be a probable cause clause, but you are obligated to tell them your name and adress. Just your name and adres. The same way that a POW has to say his name and unit.
Here in Canada, the police can arrest you for refusing to identify yourself. A driver's license does that, but any other way would work. You must have a similar law down there, too. It sounds like the guy was being a jerk, and the cop used that excuse. You are legally obligated to tell an officer your name and adress. THAT IS ALL.
in this case, it seems as if the cop just decided to exercise their power for no reason, and then punish the victim when it became apparent that the cop was in the wrong. The guy was arrested because he did not RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAY!
'Doesn't he know that 9-11 changed everything? He no longer has rights! There could be a bomb in that bag? It's a police state for his own good, how dare he refuse to submit? '
At least he'll get a few people to read this story and learn their rights. Good for him/us.
...you very likely would have passed by a sign indicating that your entry serves as your consent to having your bags (and often other personal belongings) searched. The wonderful thing about rights is that they can be so quickly and easily be surrendered. By reading the first word of this sentence you have granted me the right to harvest any and all of your organs at my discretion.
Lucky for you, that's not how the world actually works. WTF do people think that entering a store makes you the ownser's slave? Sheesh.
Resturants have *always* had large no-smoking sections And magical force fields that kept the smoke from crossing the invisible line btween the smoking section and teh non-smoking section right next to it, with MAGIC! Weee, magic!
Why should I be forced to act a certain way just because they decided to make me inhale poison?
I'll think about that the next time I'm walking down the street and you pass me in your pollution-belching SUV... There should be a law against automobiles because I don't like the pollution.
Ah, another imbecile!
A car outside is the same as a cigarette indoor to idiots, anyone with an IQ above 80 instantly knows that these things are like apples and sedimentary pebbles.
The point still stands, if you've chosen to go to a restaurant where smoking is permitted rather than to one in which it's banned There were pretty much none of the latter, so hurrah for the law that made sure there are now none of the former!
I used to think that there was just NO WAY that R2D2 could take the kind of crap he took and still survive... who'd of thought. Those robots are completely amazing to me. Designed for a 90 day mission, and here we are at over 13 times that number of days. You do know that this was the estimate of the time it would take for the dust to cover the solar panels to the point where they ould be inoperable? Turns out wind clears up dust on Mars AND on Earth! Whowouldathought?
I believe that anyone who became addicted to cigarettes in the last 30 years (which includes myself) has no-one but themselves to blame. Prior to that, the tobacco industry bears a large part of the responsiblity. I started getting addicted to second hand smoke in college, that wasn't my fault, that was because I couldn't go in or out of the damn place without passing through the crowds of smokers. I knew plenty of students who weren't smokers going in, but became smokers after hanging out in smoky bars all the time. That's the thing about addictive substances, getting them in your system will get you addicted no matter how much you've been warned.
And I'm starting to think that the summary had a point about geeks and libertarians, because the idiots that keep defending the right of others to poison me are always bringing up the 'give up your social life' argument in support of their delusions of freedom.
Listen, you idot: What you did with nicotine and 'that's exactly what you said' is exactly what I was saying people were doing with 'doctors smoke more'.
Get it now? I got you doing exactly what you said was not happening, so no, I have no respect for you when you keep not getting it over and over again.
How could I make this more clear? They were misleading people into thinking that doctors were saying it's healthy, and you reply by a) proving my point by exhibiting that exact behavior and b) insisting that it didn't happen.
Use all the big words you want, vocabulary is no replacement for actual intelligence.
"And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?"
I apologise. I remembered it in the singular, second-person form, but your quote was in the plural, abstract form. Your claim was not phrased the way I remembered it, but [...]
Maybe if you achieved a high enough level of literacy to read what people have actually written, rather than what you think they have written
They avoided the word nicotine. Never mentioned it. They avoided talking about lungs, they knew that the black and pink side by sides would show up if people asked.
They went on full blast, drowning out the science, with claims countering what was medically known and immediatly noticable about cigarettes. They never flat out say anything they can sued under, you dishonest jerk, they always say things that induce the thought. They throw "MORE", "SMOKE", and "DOCTOR" in your face until it sounds like doctors want you to smoke more. They tell you their brand is a breath of fresh air, their brand is easy on the throat, that some women might want smaller babies, and they spend millions to make sure the truth is drowned out by the lies, because the lies will bring millions in their pockets.
In fact, small doses of nicotine have been found to have some positive benefits. It's the other components of cigarette smoke that do the physical damage. The fact that you claim that nicotine does no physical harm tells me that you are beyond ignorant, you are so stupid as to be a danger to yourself and to others. Tell you what, go buy a pack of smoke, extract 3 milligrams of nicotine from the cigarettes, and inject them in your bloodstream. disclaimer: Doing so is a suicide, do not actually do this, nicotine is one of the most violent poisons known to man.
'And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?'
That is and always has been ridiculous. I refuse to believe that anyone ever actually believed that something that irritated your lungs and makes you cough, gag, breath more shallowly and causes your lungs to hurt or even bleed when you exert yourself is good for you. It really doesn't matter what the tobacco companies said. You greatly underestimate the effects of a well run propaganda campaign.
if they wanted to allow smoking, they had to separate rooms for smokers, or go non-smoking completely. Many restaurants complied, and installed expensive, separately ventilated, enclosed smoking rooms. But this wasn't good enough for the anti-smokers; they continued arguing, and now smoking rooms are not permitted at all. Too bad for the spots who spent all the money on the smoking room. That is indeed uncool. They should have left the existing smoker's aquariums alone.
And if one doesn't, you or anyone else is free to start one... It always come back to "why don't YOU become a completely different person and pursue a career in which you have 0 interest?" If your only argument is this tired nonsense, why don't you just keep it to yourself?
Sheesh, Oh, you have slain me with your argument, I'm dropping my whole life and career and I'm throwing my hat in the organized crime arena of bars in my city! Weee!
I specifically said I did not want this redundant argument. It's always the same empty "points", ignoring any new data that doesn't fit your agenda.
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance? It'll better for everyone.
It's his choice whether he likes people smoking in his bar or not Is it? Or is the choice of the corporation that added cyanide to his cigarettes so that he could not choose to give up smoking because of the augmented addictive qualities this lent to their product?
P.S. Not libertarian because I want a system that keeps food safety inspectors around to make sure no one is running a get-rich-quick scheme involving tainted food and an open ticket to Aruba for when the bodies start piling up.
Libertarianism generally regards fraud as equivalent to force, as both effectively negate an individual's ability to make choices.
They still want to abolish regulatoy bodies, and a high and mighty principle on fraud won't bring anyone back to life.
you are free to accept or reject those terms. And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?
There is an illusion of choice when addiction is in play.
the first man in space was Yuri Gagarin Corerction: The first man in space that survived the landing in good enough shape to be paraded in public afterwards was Yuri Gagarin.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the big deal with giving the government all your usernames and passwords and allowing them to record you in your house 24/7 in addition to letting them implant a transponder/recorder in your jaw bone?
Baby steps, baby steps.
62,040,610 votes
50.7%
Sad, huh?
You didn't steal anything, but now HE has your reciept, how will you prove it?
No 'papers, please' in canada, you gorram sheep.
'Doesn't he know that 9-11 changed everything? He no longer has rights! There could be a bomb in that bag? It's a police state for his own good, how dare he refuse to submit? '
At least he'll get a few people to read this story and learn their rights. Good for him/us.
...you very likely would have passed by a sign indicating that your entry serves as your consent to having your bags (and often other personal belongings) searched. The wonderful thing about rights is that they can be so quickly and easily be surrendered. By reading the first word of this sentence you have granted me the right to harvest any and all of your organs at my discretion.Lucky for you, that's not how the world actually works. WTF do people think that entering a store makes you the ownser's slave? Sheesh.
Ah, another imbecile!I'll think about that the next time I'm walking down the street and you pass me in your pollution-belching SUV... There should be a law against automobiles because I don't like the pollution.
A car outside is the same as a cigarette indoor to idiots, anyone with an IQ above 80 instantly knows that these things are like apples and sedimentary pebbles.
Turns out wind clears up dust on Mars AND on Earth! Whowouldathought?
The nifty dirt devil helped, too.
I knew plenty of students who weren't smokers going in, but became smokers after hanging out in smoky bars all the time. That's the thing about addictive substances, getting them in your system will get you addicted no matter how much you've been warned.
And I'm starting to think that the summary had a point about geeks and libertarians, because the idiots that keep defending the right of others to poison me are always bringing up the 'give up your social life' argument in support of their delusions of freedom.
Listen, you idot: What you did with nicotine and 'that's exactly what you said' is exactly what I was saying people were doing with 'doctors smoke more'.
Get it now? I got you doing exactly what you said was not happening, so no, I have no respect for you when you keep not getting it over and over again.
How could I make this more clear? They were misleading people into thinking that doctors were saying it's healthy, and you reply by a) proving my point by exhibiting that exact behavior and b) insisting that it didn't happen.
Use all the big words you want, vocabulary is no replacement for actual intelligence.
Quote me, jackass.
"And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?"
I apologise. I remembered it in the singular, second-person form, but your quote was in the plural, abstract form. Your claim was not phrased the way I remembered it, but
[...]
Maybe if you achieved a high enough level of literacy to read what people have actually written, rather than what you think they have written
'Do as I say, not as I do'This is what science knew at the time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jAf46x7u8g
You saw what the overwhelming propaganda of the combined tobacco advertising claimed.
They avoided the word nicotine. Never mentioned it.
They avoided talking about lungs, they knew that the black and pink side by sides would show up if people asked.
They went on full blast, drowning out the science, with claims countering what was medically known and immediatly noticable about cigarettes. They never flat out say anything they can sued under, you dishonest jerk, they always say things that induce the thought. They throw "MORE", "SMOKE", and "DOCTOR" in your face until it sounds like doctors want you to smoke more. They tell you their brand is a breath of fresh air, their brand is easy on the throat, that some women might want smaller babies, and they spend millions to make sure the truth is drowned out by the lies, because the lies will bring millions in their pockets. In fact, small doses of nicotine have been found to have some positive benefits. It's the other components of cigarette smoke that do the physical damage. The fact that you claim that nicotine does no physical harm tells me that you are beyond ignorant, you are so stupid as to be a danger to yourself and to others.
Tell you what, go buy a pack of smoke, extract 3 milligrams of nicotine from the cigarettes, and inject them in your bloodstream. disclaimer: Doing so is a suicide, do not actually do this, nicotine is one of the most violent poisons known to man.
That is and always has been ridiculous. I refuse to believe that anyone ever actually believed that something that irritated your lungs and makes you cough, gag, breath more shallowly and causes your lungs to hurt or even bleed when you exert yourself is good for you. It really doesn't matter what the tobacco companies said. You greatly underestimate the effects of a well run propaganda campaign.
If your only argument is this tired nonsense, why don't you just keep it to yourself?
Sheesh, Oh, you have slain me with your argument, I'm dropping my whole life and career and I'm throwing my hat in the organized crime arena of bars in my city! Weee!
I specifically said I did not want this redundant argument. It's always the same empty "points", ignoring any new data that doesn't fit your agenda.
Medical study says "Chesterfield cigarettes are not harmfull" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyhvHB62ph8
And I'm sure the kids were making perfectly informed choices in the 60's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAExoSozc2c
But if these old commercials don't convince you, why not someone claiming TODAY that nicotine is good for you? http://ezinearticles.com/?Smoking-Facts---Nicotin
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance? It'll better for everyone.
P.S. Not libertarian because I want a system that keeps food safety inspectors around to make sure no one is running a get-rich-quick scheme involving tainted food and an open ticket to Aruba for when the bodies start piling up.
Libertarianism generally regards fraud as equivalent to force, as both effectively negate an individual's ability to make choices.
They still want to abolish regulatoy bodies, and a high and mighty principle on fraud won't bring anyone back to life.There is an illusion of choice when addiction is in play.