# Don't GO TO DALLAS



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I was watching the news and the police are arresting people for being drunk in a bar. They say they are doing this to cut down on DUIs. That is a bunch of crap. They were arresting people at a hotel bar that were staying in that hotel. They even arrested the bar tender for over serving them. Now just to make it clear the people who were arrested were not causing any trouble. They were randomly picking people and any person over the legal limite to drive were arrested. If I was a resident there I would be ticked off I could think of many more important tasks for the police to inforce. After all its our tax dollars paying them.

How would you feel if you were arrested for having a good time.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Any sources for this information? I'm not doubting it, I just don't take people at their word.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Dateline NBC


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I was hoping for a link.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I just watched it ten min. ago. check there web page. I will to. If I find it I will post it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Any sources for this information? I'm not doubting it, *I just don't take people at their word*.


WOW! :rollin: :bop: :drunk:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bush and Cheney must have been behind it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Do you really feel like you contribute to the board by posting smiles?


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

I saw it on the news also, it's a bunch of B.S. I think it's mostly a scare tactic.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Do you really feel like you contribute to the board by posting smiles?


A picture sometimes is equal to many words, sorry if you don't get it, it's an IQ thing!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/

This link is about san antonio doing the same thing I will keep looking for the one on dallas.


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

I look forward to the ACLU jumping all over this.

I'm sure a lot of you neo cons on this board hate the ACLU, but they make a lot of positive contributions to citizens' rights alongside some of the radical ideas they represent.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Joltin_Joe said:


> I look forward to the ACLU jumping all over this.
> 
> I'm sure a lot of you neo cons on this board hate the ACLU, but they make a lot of positive contributions to citizens' rights alongside some of the radical ideas they represent.


Don't know what we do without them, and the KKK/NAACP; I consider them ALL HATE groups.  Just my opinion!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Don't know what we do without them, and the KKK/NAACP; I consider them ALL HATE groups. Just my opinion!


How exactly are they similar?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Don't know what we do without them, and the KKK/NAACP; I consider them ALL HATE groups. Just my opinion!
> 
> 
> How exactly are they similar?


They are all hateful http://www.selfknowledge.com/43144.htm 
http://www.selfknowledge.com/43142.htm


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

What you just did is called a circular definition. How are they hateful?


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

So... the ACLU, the kkk, and the NAACP are similar because you can post links to the definition of the word hateful?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that is some solid logic.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> What you just did is called a circular definition. How are they hateful?


Here's all 3 of there sites and they all say they don't hate but they're charters are HATE!
See for yourself, below links, you be the judge.

http://www.kkk.com/
http://www.naacp.org/
http://www.aclu.org/


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't want the sites, I can judge for myself just fine. I want your opinion and the reason as to why you find them to be hateful. The KKK is rather obvious, I'm speaking of the other two.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I don't want the sites, I can judge for myself just fine. I want your opinion and the reason as to why you find them to be hateful. *The KKK is rather obvious*, I'm speaking of the other two.


It's not so obvious, go to the site, you would never guess they were a hate group!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want the sites, I can judge for myself just fine. I want your opinion and the reason as to why you find them to be hateful. *The KKK is rather obvious*, I'm speaking of the other two.
> ...


*NAACP* speaks for itself, very obvious, and the ACLU is as obvious as the KKK.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It really isn't obvious to me. You continue to give me circular definitions. Why exactly do you feel that they are hate groups? Can you provide some examples?


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

Bear Killer, It's pretty funny the way you post links and make up absurd lies trying to argue dim-witted points and theories. I mean that, it's entertaining.

Back to the matter at hand...I myself think the ACLU does some extremely radical things. E.G.-defending the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). Such acts are so wrong is every sense that it makes me sick.

However, anyone with any sense of reality realizes that they are a far, far left group that fundamentally defends the basic rights of citizens of the U.S. regardless of how insanely those rights are being exercised.

They are an idealistic organization that acts as a balancing act.

Most importantly, I hope like he11 that they defend the rights of Americans to become inebriated in bars. Because I enjoy getting drunk in bars occasionally. :beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Joltin_Joe said:


> Bear Killer, It's pretty funny the way you post links and make up absurd lies trying to argue dim-witted points and theories. I mean that, it's entertaining.
> 
> Back to the matter at hand...I myself think the ACLU does some extremely radical things. E.G.-defending the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). Such acts are so wrong is every sense that it makes me sick.
> 
> ...


http://www.newnation.org/NNN-bias-lawsuits.html
These are all lies too!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Back to the matter at hand...I myself think the ACLU does some extremely radical things. E.G.-defending the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). Such acts are so wrong is every sense that it makes me sick.


Becareful now, you might be offending someone here, MT will report you!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thus far you've given me circular definitions, and a site pointing out lawsuits involving race. Why do you feel that they are hate filled? It is a rather simple question.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Thus far you've given me circular definitions, and a site pointing out lawsuits involving race. Why do you feel that they are hate filled? It is a rather simple question.


They are simply trying to punish by blackmail, exstortion and lawsuits people or companies instead of the way the KKK used ropes and cross burnings.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed, because a lawsuit is equitable to lynching. I'm done with you here.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Indeed, because a lawsuit is equitable to lynching. I'm done with you here.


It's about terrorizing people thru differant tactics for change in behavior and beliefs.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, because a lawsuit is equitable to lynching. I'm done with you here.
> ...


So that makes the NAACP and the ACLU in my opinion just as hateful if not more so than the KKK.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

You could just not drink alcohol altogether or drink under the legal limit...


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Ranger_Compact said:


> You could just not drink alcohol altogether or drink under the legal limit...


You could, but last time I checked drinking was legal.

Im all for stopping drunks from driving, but arresting someone in the lobby of the hotel they are staying at? Would it be so much a stretch from that point to be arrested in your front yard or maybe your back alley when, after having a pretty good time with your buddies, you took some trash to the curb?

Or maybe someone calls in a noise complaint for a party at your house, and they arrest you for being drunk at home?

How they are getting away with this in Texas of all places is beyond me....


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Gun Owner

Thank you for responding to the post. Thats the kind of response I was looking for. I agree with you. My personal feelings is it started with smoking. For some reason it seems like there is some company out there trying to destroy the bar industry. To much of anything is bad for you. I wonder were this will go next. Are they going to limit the areas we can talk on our cell phones. I dont think the goverments to blame its outside groups bulling people into thinking there way of life is better.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is amazing how hard some people will fight for the right to drink and own a gun, but they are willing to hand over their right to privacy and free speech.


----------



## Ranger_Compact (Nov 2, 2005)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> My personal feelings is it started with smoking. For some reason it seems like there is some company out there trying to destroy the bar industry.


Because it's _really_ fair to allow smoking in public places, when people with asthma cannot go out anywhere without having an attack, or people with migranes to be in extreme pain. Why smoke, when there are much cooler ways to die?


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

We should outlaw rap because that gives me extreamly painful headachs, and driving cars because asthmatics have a hard time breathing in all this smog. :wink:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gunny said:


> We should outlaw rap because that gives me extreamly painful headachs, and driving cars because asthmatics have a hard time breathing in all this smog. :wink:


The difference with smoking Gunny is that smoking affects both the smoker and those around them. If you exhale your smoke in an *enclosed* environment, that smoke is not drifting over to me and I am being assaulted by a toxin that I don't wish to injest into my system. In a bar, the only way my drinking affects you is if I either puke or piss on you. I'll gladly allow you to smoke around me in a bar, if you allow me to puke/piss in your face. That is how a non smoker feels about having to induce the by product of your nasty habit.

I'm all for habits that don't affect another. I'm a huge believer in personal freedoms that don't physically harm another. Smoking crosses that line. Taking that logic further, I believe that this drinking in a private establishment is a protected right. This "interpretation" by Texas authorities is likely to be struck down by the courts. They cannot go into a commercial establishment to "pre-emptively" arrest based on future potential issues. That is clearly against the law, and likely to line some enterprising lawyers pocketbook. They could however have jurisdiction to sit outside a bar and arrest someone for public intoxication or disorderly conduct. It depends on a particular locales laws and criteria for those infractions.

In regards to your comparison of rap hurting your head, that depends on the way it is done. A style of music is protected free speech. However if the volume of ANY type of music is disturbing the peace you have an issue with noise ordinances. Good luck banning cars... unless you walk along a major highway to work, the open air of the "outdoors" provides ample opportunity for the concentration of CO2 to dissipate. If it did not, you wouldn't even have the opportunity to smoke ANYWHERE in public, let alone a closed off room.

Nice try at an apples to oranges comparison though....

Ryan

.


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

> Because it's really fair to allow smoking in public places, when people with asthma cannot go out anywhere without having an attack, or people with migranes to be in extreme pain. Why smoke, when there are much cooler ways to die?


I think he's referring to smoking in privately owned businesses. There's a lot of debate as to whether the govt. should be able to dictate whether or not business owners allow smoking in their establishments.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Exactly.

If non-smokers want a smoke free environment, they should find places that cater to them voluntarily. One good example is the forcing of cigar bars to go non-smoking. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you walk into a cigar bar, you're gonna see smoke.

AS for smoking outdoors, well I think citing somone for smoking anywhere outdoors is stupid. I find the urine-soaked smell of your average long term homeless person to be more offensive than cigarette smoke, but we dont arrest them. Or the guy in front of you at the grocery store that has enough cologne on for 50 people. That'll create breathing/headache problems the same way smoke will. I know because it happens to me.

What do I do about it? I move away from the source of the irritation!!! The only time I will harass anyone about smoking is when you have an idiot fire up in a specifically smoke free place, like the non smoking section of a restaurant.

For what its worth, I have a pretty good view on the situation because I happened to be one of the retards with mild asthma that smoked. I quit over a year ago though, because of my kids.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2005)

Ryan, I appreciate you wanting to piss in my face. That is a very classy thing to want to do to someone. :eyeroll: However I am not a smoker, and never said I was a smoker. And also if we wanted to compare apples to apples I would have had to blow smoke into your face, which I would not do to anyone since I don't smoke. Or you would have had to piss in a room, and I would have had to walk into it. Also if your health means so much to you than you wouldnt put yourself in the position of going into an enclosed smokeing environment. And yes, I was speaking of the volume. I chose the word rap because I'm not a big fan. I guess I should have said "we should outlaw (place your least favorite loud music here), because it gives me headachs." And as far as CO2 dissipating... I think that it is a major cause for smog. Which, and I could be wrong, makes it difficult for asthmatics to breath. And finaly. The little yellow guy at the end of my post ment that I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry that it wasn't obvious. I promise if I start smoking, I won't smoke while you are at the bar with me, as long as you promise to keep it in your pants and try not to piss in my face.

Thanks for keeping it civil,

Gunny


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

What about Methane gas, its harmful right, not to mention irritating. So if someone farts in an elevator, or small space they should be areested too. WE need more and more laws to protect us!! :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gunny said:


> Ryan, I appreciate you wanting to piss in my face. That is a very classy thing to want to do to someone. :eyeroll: However I am not a smoker, and never said I was a smoker. And also if we wanted to compare apples to apples I would have had to blow smoke into your face, which I would not do to anyone since I don't smoke. Or you would have had to piss in a room, and I would have had to walk into it. Also if your health means so much to you than you wouldnt put yourself in the position of going into an enclosed smokeing environment. And yes, I was speaking of the volume. I chose the word rap because I'm not a big fan. I guess I should have said "we should outlaw (place your least favorite loud music here), because it gives me headachs." And as far as CO2 dissipating... I think that it is a major cause for smog. Which, and I could be wrong, makes it difficult for asthmatics to breath. And finaly. The little yellow guy at the end of my post ment that I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry that it wasn't obvious. I promise if I start smoking, I won't smoke while you are at the bar with me, as long as you promise to keep it in your pants and try not to piss in my face.
> 
> Thanks for keeping it civil,
> 
> Gunny


Hey Gunny

Sorry to imply that you were the one I was referring to. I noticed you didn't use any possessive statements (me or I or my), so I figured you were talking in relative terms.

I didn't mean to directly offend either. I was just making a blanket statement to cover the context of the issue, as it was only a matter of time before someone did post that line of logic on this thread...

I was trying to convey that exhaled smoke is the by-product of smoking, while puking/piss was the by product of drinking. Not that I would actually do it to you or anyone else for that matter...just trying to make a point.

:beer:

Ryan


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

I think this thread begs this question...

Would you rather inhale the second hand smoke in a crowded bar with poor ventilation every time you go out...

or

have someone urinate on your face one time?

...and it has to be on of those smelly doses of liquid excretion that results from being extremely dehydrated after a night of drinking Windsor/Cokes and Jag bombs.

Just comparing apples to apples. :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You guys need to come up with better means to expess your thoughts or I will have to put my moderator hat on.

No more bodily function comments please.

Thanks


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

The point I was trying to make by bring up smoking is if your not mature enough or smart enough to leave a situation you dont want to be around you probably shouldnt be allowed out of your home with out being supervised. I think what they are doing in texas to drinkers and what they have done nation wide to smokers is an attack to the bar industry.

I dont smoke but sometimes when I am drinking I enjoy a smoke or a cigar every once and a while. And if some one is smoking around me and I dont like it I move away. There are plenty of places that a non-smoker can go. But a smoker cant go any were. And in texas a drinker cant go to the bar. Oh and yes all of these substances are legal. Your an idoit if you support any bans on our freedoms even if its something you dont participate in.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> *Your *an *idoit *if you support any *bands *on our freedoms even if its something you dont participate in.


I'm sorry but this is just too funny and ironic to not quote.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

My fault MT I forgot how perfect you are. I know how to spell it BAN does that make you feel better. Stick to the subject and stop trying to make everybody hate you.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> The point I was trying to make by bring up smoking is if your not mature enough or smart enough to leave a situation you dont want to be around you probably shouldnt be allowed out of your home with out being supervised. I think what they are doing in texas to drinkers and what they have done nation wide to smokers is an attack to the bar industry.
> 
> I dont smoke but sometimes when I am drinking I enjoy a smoke or a cigar every once and a while. And if some one is smoking around me and I dont like it I move away. There are plenty of places that a non-smoker can go. But a smoker cant go any were. And in texas a drinker cant go to the bar. Oh and yes all of these substances are legal. Your an idoit if you support any bans on our freedoms even if its something you dont participate in.


FlashBoom

I should not have to move away from someone infringing on my right not to be accosted by another's smoke. Before the ban on smoking in bars, EVERY bar had smoking in it, as they wanted to be INCLUSIVE to all types. The bars had such a culture of smoke/stench in them everywhere you went, that it didn't matter if you were staning near an active smoker. Their smoke wafted thru the bar and reached you.

Let's face it. Bars are for drinking. You buy alcohol there and consume it there. You can't buy a drink and take it outside to finish. Bars were established for the purpose of having a place to consume alcohol in a social atmosphere. A bar needed to purchase a _*LIQUOR LICENSE*_ to operate. They do not need a _SMOKING_ license. Now why do you think that is?

That is why the "cigar bar" started up. People went there to enjoy different types of cigars, smoke socially with friends, etc. Often most don't even have a _*LIQUOR*_ license!

So as a smoker if you aren't smart enough or mature enough to understand how your smoke intereferes with my right to breath fresh air in a LIQUOR establishment, maybe it is possible you need to go enjoy the foul smell with other inclined people.

You don't have a FREEDOM or RIGHT to SMOKE anywhere you'd like. Nor do you have a RIGHT to interfere with my health. I can destroy that on my own by my own methodolgies.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I lived in many different areas so I have a good prespective on the smoking ban.

I lived in NJ there was no smoking bans in the bar for the time I was there but the bars were split some were smoking and some were not. Others had split levels upstairs was for smoking and down stairs was not.

Pittsburgh was the same.

New York City has an out right ban and ever bar has a bunch of smokers standing out front. So when you walk in your walking through a cloud of smoke.

And now I live in ND were they have a ban on smoking in any establishment that serves food. But places that only served alcohol can have smoking if they choose.

I would have to say that Pittsburgh and NJ have it right. If you dont like smoking you dont have to be around it. But if your with a group that did smoke you can still go to the same bars and you both could have a good time. And if you dont have this in the area you live here is your chance to become rich open up a non smoking bar

But that wasnt my point of talking about smoking. I talked about it because I hope this isnt a start to a new trend. There is always going to be groups of people that dont like something that people have the right to do. So the people who dont like smoking won the battle in some states. Now in texas the people who dont like drinking are winning that battle. Whats next the people who dont like hunting. Are they going to win the battle in your state. Were does it end.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> I lived in many different areas so I have a good prespective on the smoking ban.
> 
> I lived in NJ there was no smoking bans in the bar for the time I was there but the bars were split some were smoking and some were not. Others had split levels upstairs was for smoking and down stairs was not.
> 
> ...


FlashBoomSplash,
Sad but true; pole smokers have more rights than cigarette smokers do in our society today :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Sad but true; pole smokers have more rights than cigarette smokers do in our society today


Yeah, screw muzzleloaders. Just kidding, you're a bigot.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Sad but true; pole smokers have more rights than cigarette smokers do in our society today
> 
> 
> Yeah, screw muzzleloaders. Just kidding, you're a bigot.


Oh, I forgot you have the ACLU. uke:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Its unconstitutional for the Goverment to make such non smoking laws in private buisness. They mask it with the "common good" rational whitch is bull!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ole staggered home very late after another evening with his drinking Buddy, Sven. He took off his shoes to avoid waking his wife, Lena. He Tiptoed as quietly as he could toward the stairs leading to their Upstairs bedroom, but misjudged the bottom step. As he caught himself by grabbing the banister, his body swung around and he landed heavily on his rump. A whiskey bottle in each back pocket broke and made the landing especially painful. Managing not to yell, Ole sprung up, pulled down his pants, and looked in the hall mirror to see that his butt cheeks were cut and bleeding. He managed to quietly find a full box of band-Aids and began putting a Band-Aid as best he could on each place he saw blood. He then hid the now almost empty Band-Aid box and shuffled and stumbled his way to bed. In the morning, Ole woke up with searing pain in both his head and butt and Lena staring at him from across the room.

She said, "You were drunk again last night weren't you Ole?" 
Ole said, "Why you say such a mean thing?"

"Well," Lena said, "it could be the open front door, it could be the broken glass at the bottom of the stairs, it could be the drops of blood trailing through the house, it could be your bloodshot eyes, but mostly... it's all those Band-Aids stuck on the hall mirror."


----------

