Put that in your pipe and smoke it

Post #46,377 by boxley 7/22/02 11:54:02 AM Reply	Put that in your pipe and smoke it [link\|http://www.reason.com/0207/ci.js.less.shtml\|link] "Counting forgone income as a "cost to society" suggests that every individual has an obligation to work for the highest possible wage until he drops dead. According to this view, anyone who chooses to trade income for leisure, better working conditions, or early retirement imposes a burden on society for which he ought to be taxed" ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,386 by orion 7/22/02 12:53:51 PM Reply	Not quite who would want to hire us at $100,000USD a year? Are there enough jobs to give every citizen, green card holder, H1B Visa Worker, etc jobs at $100,000USD a year? Who will dig ditches, flip burgers, operate cash registers, work as a DJ, for $100,000USD a year? I'd bet they would pay less for that. What about people who have no marketable skills or college degrees? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #46,413 by tuberculosis 7/22/02 5:10:23 PM Reply	I hate stuff like that Personally, I don't think people should habitually smoke - and cigarette smokers are to tobacco what sterno drinkers are to fine vintners and distillers. If you're going to smoke - smoke something decent and try to enjoy it fer crissakes. I'm also struggling a little with the ubiquity of smoking in France - almost everybody smokes and I don't much care for the whiff of tobacco smoke hitting me in the face as I'm trying to enjoy the bouquet of my rather expensive and impeccably executed meal. That said - using stupid home made financial models as motivation is a dumb idea. Why don't we just point out that they'll feel better, smell better, enjoy their food more, have whiter teeth, and save money if they can give up their dirty little sterno habit. While we're at it, lets lift the Cuban embargo so people can get something decent to smoke. (Not that it affects me here - but I'm sensitive to your needs). Its writing like that that gives liberals a bad name. The average hunter gatherer works 20 hours a week. The average farmer works 40 hours a week. The average programmer works 60 hours a week. What the hell are we thinking?
Post #46,415 by jb4 7/22/02 6:12:20 PM Reply	Who said that that was written by a 'librul'? jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #46,475 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 3:09:03 AM Reply	Just a guess 'cause conservatives generally support big tobacco. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,500 by wharris2 7/23/02 11:25:49 AM Reply	Hate places where half the crowd puffs up Back in the 70's and early 80's, every chess tournament you went to was held in a murkey eye-watering room that would leave me stinking like a weed for weeks. Sometime in the later 80's, the U.S. Chess Federation started a "no smoking at national tournaments" policy. Oh, the smokers screamed and howled. But as more tournaments adopted it, playing became more enjoyable. I haven't played competitively for years, but I would guess that 95% of the tournaments held nowdays are non-smoking. And I enjoy that. And I'm pretty conservative. What I tend to do is vote with my feet. Restaurant "X" is full of puffers and restaurant "Y" (perhaps less quality) is smoke-free? I go to restaurant "Y". I don't see the need of government regulation, such as that law they passed in California a couple of years ago. I appreciate that someone who smokes two packs a day is in the grip of an addiction that I can only imagine. I'm not going to call them stupid or weak-willed; true addiction doesn't work that way. But I don't have to be in the same place at the same time as them. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #46,575 by tuberculosis 7/23/02 5:17:24 PM Reply	So you hate France? ;-P I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,629 by wharris2 7/23/02 10:00:52 PM Reply	Re: So you hate France? I don't hate France, or if I do it is for other reasons. They light up and puff, as a 2-pack a smoker would in the U.S., especially with unfiltered cigarettes I understand they have there, they'll (statistically) die before they're 60. That's worth pity, not hate. The sneer down the nose superiority complex, won by losing two World Wars and at least one other war with Germany, that I hate. It exists, and is as bad as the "Ugly American" syndrome - which is, itself, worth their own dislike, but at least the Germans laugh with us at our attempts to speak German rather than (real or pretend) not understand our attempts to speak French. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #46,664 by tuberculosis 7/24/02 4:36:54 AM Reply	Complex While I'm certain it must exist - I haven't encountered it and am finding Parisians are quite friendly and pleasant and know a lot more english than their reputation implies (although friends say this is a recent phenomenon). My French must be awful as most local shopkeepers are answering my poor attempts at french in equally minimal english. But they're trying as hard as I am. I'm also here with my 18 month old daughter and am finding french people are much more indulgent and tolerant of children than americans (who constantly give you dirty looks when your kid drops into the inevitable tantrum at this age). I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #46,708 by deSitter 7/24/02 11:15:40 AM Reply	Re: So you hate France? Why do some people simply mouth the idiocy "France lost two wars"? They soundly defeated the von Schliefen plan. In 1914 France had 10 times as many men in uniform as did the US. 8 and a half million men served in the French Army in the first war. Total casualties for the French from 1914-1918 were 4 and a half million wounded including more than 1 million dead - 50% battle casualties. By comparison, the US suffered about 180,000 battle deaths from 1917-1918. France lost as many men in WW1 as the US has lost in all its wars combined. This may be why in 1940 they were simply exhausted as a people and unprepared to deal with Germans again. And oh, they don't sneer at anyone except self-righteous yokels like some people from that Ohio river city where it's all but illegal to be black after dark. France is a wonderful, tolerant place filled with smart, courageous people, and thankfully will stay that way regardless of what Americans think about it. They are rightfully contemptuous of a government that touts itself a defender of freedom and then installs congential idiot/tinhorn tyrants like Bush at the helm. -drl
Post #46,741 by pwhysall 7/24/02 1:57:25 PM Reply	WW2. France and the UK both lost about 10% of their populations to the war. Think on that. America has NEVER been in a conflict that cost it one in ten of its people. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,743 by Arkadiy 7/24/02 2:12:51 PM Reply	Russia lost 20 millions out of 180 million population. 20 is the old official number, now they think it was more like 25-30.
Post #46,749 by pwhysall 7/24/02 2:44:40 PM Reply	No doubt. When you see the cenotaphs and memorials that are present in most British towns, each covered in the names of hundreds of men who gave their lives in two world wars, one tends to become a little sensitive to glib statements about "losing two world wars". Russia paid a high price for victory on the Eastern Front. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #46,782 by wharris2 7/24/02 9:50:15 PM Reply	Higher prices Russia (USSR) paid a higher price for Lenin and Stalin than all the wars it has fought, combined. (Some estimates of Stalin's excesses are upwards of 50 million.) Certainly his purges of the armed forces increased their casualties and civilian casualties manyfold. I sympathise with the Russian people, but not with Russia. It sounds cruel, but they deserved Hitler's surprise attack and it was only luck (likely the Italian's incompetance at conquering Greece) that delayed the Germans long enough to keep the Germans out of Moscow. (You can guess this or that, but that's my opinion - the guns were heard in the playing hall of the USSR Chess Championship, still being held for morale reasons despite any danger.) And I shudder at the results of THAT possibility. With Russia conquered, or at least crushed as a fighting power, the Germans could have poured lots of resources into France, Italy, North Africa, or anywhere else they wanted. D-Day certainly would not have occurred. The only real question is whether they would have been able to occupy England. Probably not, given England's command of the seas, but even that was close. The most stupid thing the Germans ever did was declare war on the USA; if they hadn't done that, we'd have concentrated on Japan, Britain would have had less help. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #46,818 by boxley 7/25/02 10:42:12 AM Reply	Eh? Where did you study history? "I sympathise with the Russian people, but not with Russia. It sounds cruel, but they deserved Hitler's surprise attack and it was only luck (likely the Italian's incompetance at conquering Greece) that delayed the Germans long enough to keep the Germans out of Moscow" Well I dont know where the "deserved" came from, the only reason Hitler attacked east was in the best estimation of the time the Russians were going to go west in the following spring. As for the luck of Moscow, it was not luck. Dumass wanted Steeltown more than Moscow where it would have made more sense. As for defeating the Russians, it couldnt be done. All the sacrificing at st petes, steeltown and moscow was to but time to get heavy industry behind the urals where all the germans to the last man wouldnt have been enough to take and hold the land. No supply lines, train track guage different, crap roads. As it was it took 7-11 soldiers to keep one in the front lines. Not enough people. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,846 by Arkadiy 7/25/02 1:22:27 PM Reply	I don't think so. First, I believe Stalin was preempted by a few weeks. If Hitler had waited a month more, it would have been a Russian blitzkrieg all the way to France. The maps of Germany were already delivered to the troops, not quite distributed tohough. Second, Germans went after Moscow with full force in 1941, and then after Stalin City, with full force, in 1942. In both cases, they were fended off, just barely. Going after Stalingrad made more sence than simple propaganda: it was on the way to Caspian Sea, Russia's only oil source back then (Siberia oil was not developed yet). As to heavy industry - total agreement. By mid-42, it was already at Urals, quite out of reach of Germans. (BTW, I checked the range of American bombers at the end of the war... America _could_ thrash all those plants behind Ural Mountains, at least theoretically, flying from England. That would be something to see.)
Post #46,863 by boxley 7/25/02 3:18:16 PM Reply	Stalingrad Could have been bypassed and mopped up later at lesure. Surround, block the river and keep reinforcements out. It was only the insistance of hitler to "take" the city and stalins order to kruschev not to allow it to be taken that was the downfall of the wermacht and signalled the end of the war for germany. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #46,876 by Arkadiy 7/25/02 4:33:30 PM Reply	Here, you may be right.
Post #46,769 by jb4 7/24/02 6:10:51 PM 7/25/02 8:59:33 AM Reply	Oh, I do... I don't see the need of government regulation, such as that law they passed in California a couple of years ago. Then you clearly don't understand how radio works...(to quote a phrase). Restauranteurs are perhaps the most pandering group in the world. They are so afraid of pissing of the 1/3 of the restaurant-going population that smokes, that they will not, unless cajoled with a cattle prod, do anything to reduce smoking in their "establishments". But wait, you protest, all you have to do is "vote with your feet"; simply go to another restaurant. Yes, another restaurant...that also doesn't outlaw smoking. Where do you go when there is no choice? No pandering restauranteur is going to outlaw smoking in his/her placeif the guy down the street won't do it. And the guy down the street won't do it if the first pandering restauranteur won't... So how do you get this thing off of TDC, and provide a place where we can go and actually taste our food? Tha's right...the bad ol' Gub'mint! jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch Edited by jb4 July 25, 2002, 08:59:33 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #46,507 by orion 7/23/02 12:26:56 PM Reply	How did you know they weren't a moderate? Moderates usually don't support big tobacco either. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*

Welcome to IWETHEY!