Re: NAR Board of Trustees

Chicken lover! ; )

Randy

Hooray for the kid if he really did it for his and his Mom's health. If he was put up to it by Dad...then they will likely reap what they sow someday.

thanks for the link

tim

Beating CT isn't much of a chess match.... he's no "Deep Blue". ;-) Shallow Pink, maybe.

-John

;O)

Hell, get an air compressor, then you can use it for airbrushing, too!

Yes, I know. That's what we've been talking about. I'm in favor of it, and someone else thinks it's somehow an abuse of government power.

I've heard that some cities in the PRK have banned smoking anywhere in "public areas", which means even smoking outdoors (sidewalks, streets, parks etc) is illegal.

I wonder how much longer it'll be before we start seeing lawsuits against homeowners who have fireplaces? Or cooks and waitresses at BBQ restaurants suing their employers?

You quit cigs, Tod? Good for you!

Doug Nicotine-free for 325 days today

Yep. Having a "do not call" list is no different than putting up a "no solicitors" sign on your gate -- and prosecuting violators of the do not call list is no different than prosecuting trespassers.

Yes, "opt-in" would be the best solution. Then only those who want to receive that junk would get it, and the rest of us wouldn't have to expend any time or effort to avoid it.

Who, me?

- Rick "Beat me to the punch is all..." Dickinson

One of the cross dresing guys. 8-)

Phil

Phil Stein

Damn commas...

Yeah, tastes like chicken..

Tod "Hi Kurt!" Hilty

Except we already know smoking kills the smoker.

the problem is it also kills the non smoker. You know the one who did NOT choose to smoke.

is cleaner than

I personally agree with it.

if their is one thing their should be laws for (SENSIBLE LAWS) it is to protect children who are overall UNABLE to protect themselves.

Nature and science say smoking AND second hand smoke is bad for you.

a child should be protected from such things that are harmful and provide ZERO benifit. (key factor their)

Cigarettes KILL but give NOTHING back to anyone.

its a lose lose scenario.

the trick is how to keep the government from ABUSING it and extending it to unjustly limiting peoples rights.

HOW do you draw the line.

a tough questi>

The Ultralight did not kill them. the CRASHING OF IT INTO THEM KILLED THEM.

the mere existance and use of it did not do that.

why do you people keep trying to make analogous comparisons with things that are simple NOT analogous to each other.

their is only one thing you can compare to cigarettes.

Find something that you can do that DIRECTLY affects others lives without ANY benifit (positive)

Fuel is out. its benifit are obvious.

vehicles do not count (counting seperate from fuel) as they can not directly kill people merely by existing (fuel can) they have to be USED to kill someone intentionally or otherwise.

lets see. Poison. Oh but thats already illegal.

Nukes (as in bombs) ? oh but thats already illegal.

Missles. Oh but thats already illegal.

Murder. oh but thats already illegal.

Stealing oh but thats already illegal.

Rape oh but thats already illegal

and to make it worse the above CAN have positive (although SICK) benifits to the users.

I can go on ?

Each of the above are analogous to cigarettes and all are illegal.

Cigarettes serve the same function AND THEY EVEN KILL THE USER.

What is the problem ?

Chris Taylor