clarification...
if person A wants to kill person B it is not an infringement of person As rights to make a law against killing someone. why? because person A wants to infringe on the rights of person B

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

Ok cool. I never took offense to anything you said and you never pissed me off. I am all for a good debate and I am a strong believer of what I think is right and wrong. I just have so much going on I can't keep up with this. lol

Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

PuroFreak:

Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.

/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.

Luko:

PuroFreak:

Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.

/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.

Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too?
I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.

I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.

it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.

To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"

---

laker1963:

Luko:

PuroFreak:

Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.

/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.

Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too?
I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.

I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.

it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.

To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"

Not sure...I was kinda kidding. Duty did get pissed off about a thread and said he was going away for a while, never came back. Urbi kinda just faded away...told me at one point he was just extremely busy.

I agree with you, sometimes I enjoy reading the thread, but it's best for me not to comment other than to be a smartass. We all tend to suffer from know-it-all-itis when it comes to stuff like this. While some people can keep their emotions in check, I can't. I get pissed off and I don't want that, and I don't want to piss others offer. I like this forum and don't want to make a bad name for myself (or make it worse than it already is)!

Luko:

laker1963:

Luko:

PuroFreak:

Sometimes this thread can take a lot out of ya! lol As you can see from the number of posts and pages this has turned into. But I always love a good healthy debate and it helps to open minds. Thats why I love this group of people. Laker and I disagree on a ton of things, but I think he would be a hell of a guy to sit and have a drink and a smoke with. I felt the same way about Duty before he left here after a heated debate on this very thread.

/Pouring some of my Colt .45 40 oz on the ground in memory of Duty and Urbi...taken out by Puro's Rants.

Is that what happened to Duty? Urbi too?
I do tend not to comment too much on this thread just because it is so politically charged most of the time.

I have learned over a lot of time and many discussions that you can't judge people by their political views.

it is hard not to try and press your own beliefs on others when holding a good debate. Keeping it on a non personal level can be quite difficult.

To Duty and Urbi... I miss those guy's. "sniff"

Not sure...I was kinda kidding. Duty did get pissed off about a thread and said he was going away for a while, never came back. Urbi kinda just faded away...told me at one point he was just extremely busy.

I agree with you, sometimes I enjoy reading the thread, but it's best for me not to comment other than to be a smartass. We all tend to suffer from know-it-all-itis when it comes to stuff like this. While some people can keep their emotions in check, I can't. I get pissed off and I don't want that, and I don't want to piss others offer. I like this forum and don't want to make a bad name for myself (or make it worse than it already is)!

But you are a Steelers fan... How much worse could your name get around here?? haha Kidding Luko, but I enjoy this thread and I hope I don't ever piss anyone off. I try to keep things from getting personal and I know Kuzi does as well. I think a good healthy debate is good for everyone. Even if it doesn't change anyone's mind, which it normally doesn't, it does help people see the point of views of others.

I am not saying this thread is THE reason Duty left, but I'm pretty certain it has something to do with it. He got very mad over the healthcare debate and the fact that he couldn't make kuzi and me agree with him and he became very angry. I feel very strongly about my beliefs, but I honestly don't care if anyone else thinks the same way I do. I don't think any less of people who disagree with me, and I don't become angry with them for having their own thoughts on any and all issues. I like pretty much everyone on this board and feel very lucky to have found this place. I hope to some day get to light up a smoke with some of you guys!

As for the great Urbi, I'm not sure why he left, but I think I heard he is living very happily in a hut on the beach down in Mexico with Rosita the Burro...

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

kuzi16:

it seems that you have no idea what i mean by "individual rights" .

i was thinking about this post for a while last night.


its not so much that you dont get it... i think its more that i am not explaining it.


i went on to explain in the next post, but this was worded very poorly.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

A Dallas woman has filed a lawsuit seeking six figures from a former neighbor and landlord for damage she says was caused by cigarette smoke wafting through adjoining walls of her high-end townhome.


in short, a lady is suing her neighbor for smoking.
they live in town homes with a 2 hour fire wall between each one.

some people will say that the lady has a right to sue. some will say that the smoker has a right to smoke.

I say the complex as a privately owned company has a right to decide if smoking as aloud on their property. since it is aloud and the lady moved into the problem by living in those town homes, its her own damn fault.

like apples?
how bout them apples?

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

A Dallas woman has filed a lawsuit seeking six figures from a former neighbor and landlord for damage she says was caused by cigarette smoke wafting through adjoining walls of her high-end townhome.


in short, a lady is suing her neighbor for smoking.
they live in town homes with a 2 hour fire wall between each one.

some people will say that the lady has a right to sue. some will say that the smoker has a right to smoke.

I say the complex as a privately owned company has a right to decide if smoking as aloud on their property. since it is aloud and the lady moved into the problem by living in those town homes, its her own damn fault.

like apples?
how bout them apples?

I would LOVE to see the proof that cigarette smoke caused the damage. I wouldn't doubt that she somehow wins this case, no matter how outrageous or ridiculous the claims may be.

---

Only real men cut their cigars with the tusks of elephants.- Hugemoose

I have a feeling that because she re-signed her lease 6 months after she started complaining about the smoker next door that she screwed her claim. She had the opportunity to move then but decided not to. I think this says it right here...

Managers replaced air filters repeatedly, installed sealant-type electrical plates and – at the Daniels' request – used an industrial-grade roofing sealant to caulk pipes under their kitchen cabinet. When that didn't work, managers tried to negotiate a move for both tenants within the community.

Restraining order

Williams, the smoker, finally moved to another unit in June after a judge issued a temporary restraining order forbidding her from lighting up in her home. "We've done more for these people than we've ever done for anyone else," Lott said. "I don't think it's possible to satisfy them."

This woman figures it's alright to move into a smoking building and then have everyone around her not smoke so as not to interfere with HER rights. Sounds like she's the type that used to hold her breath until she got what she wanted.

On the other hand, doesn't look like common sense will prevail. I mean the judge had ordered the other woman to move from her place into another after being forbidden by the courts to smoke in her own unit.

While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands.
This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.

---

laker1963:

While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands.
This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.

I still think its actually about the rights of the owner of the apartment complex. its close to the smoking in restaurants issue. if the owner of the restaurant permits smoking in his establishment then the people who dont smoke that go there have no right to complain about the smokers. they should go elsewhere. if the owner of the establishment runs it as a smoke free establishment then the smokers have no right to complain. they should go elsewhere. it isnt their business, they dont run it, or own it. they patronize businesses they like. if you dont like the policy, go elsewhere.
its the right of the property owner to run his establishment the way he sees fit so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

in this case, if the lady applied to be a resident of the complex and told her it was a smoke free environment and then the guy was smoking, and they did nothing about it, then it would be a different story.

i think you are right though laker, her actions have screwed her. she re-signed the lease. she knew the smoke was there and stayed. she had the opportunity to move but didnt. it was her right to have the option to move at the end of her contract. she waved that right. i dont have any sympathy for her or her case.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

and ust a thought here...
laker, you said:

"...this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations..."


just how exactly would you regulate this situation?

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

laker1963:

While this is a great example of an individuals rights VS collective rights, and we can all agree that she seems to be in the wrong here... the courts have already forced the move of "the smoker" and I would not be surprised if they don't give in to her demands.
This may be a stretch but I also feel that this case demonstrates what happens in a system, with out proper (any) regulations, where you are free to sue someone over the most rediculous things... and win. In effect her rights as a non smoking person with a medical condition over rides the rights of smokers to live in their own home and smoke in a building where smoking is permitted. In this case it seems that at least up until now this individuals right are more protected then the rights of everyone else who lives in that complex.

I still think its actually about the rights of the owner of the apartment complex. its close to the smoking in restaurants issue. if the owner of the restaurant permits smoking in his establishment then the people who dont smoke that go there have no right to complain about the smokers. they should go elsewhere. if the owner of the establishment runs it as a smoke free establishment then the smokers have no right to complain. they should go elsewhere. it isnt their business, they dont run it, or own it. they patronize businesses they like. if you dont like the policy, go elsewhere.
its the right of the property owner to run his establishment the way he sees fit so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

in this case, if the lady applied to be a resident of the complex and told her it was a smoke free environment and then the guy was smoking, and they did nothing about it, then it would be a different story.

i think you are right though laker, her actions have screwed her. she re-signed the lease. she knew the smoke was there and stayed. she had the opportunity to move but didnt. it was her right to have the option to move at the end of her contract. she waved that right. i dont have any sympathy for her or her case.

I agree Kuzi, that it SHOULD be about the owner of the building and his right to allow or not allow smoking. However if that were true, and the case was about that then she would have been told to leave and that would have been that.

The fact that she stayed, went to court and even had the smoker moved from their home (if they wanted to continue to smoke) tells me that this is about her rights over the collective rights of the other tenants.

I totally agree that it should be the rights of the building owner, however considering what has already transpired... it looks like the building owner as well as the other tenants have had their rights relegated to somewhere below her rights. At least up until now. Have to see what the court decides.

Why do you think this is a case of the building owners rights? If it was that simple, would he not have just asked her to leave, or NOT allow her to sign another lease? I think his hands must be tied as well, or he could have just turffed her when he had the chance, and there wouldn't be a problem.

---

thanks for fixing that.... it was a ton of bold... ha!

i guess his hands had to have been tied at some point.

... though they shouldnt have been.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate