Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
issue.
http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
issue.
http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On 03 Jul 2008 18:30:45 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
>Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
>member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
>Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
>some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
>forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
>intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
>fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
>issue.
>
> http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
Thanks for the link to an interesting article. I've spent time in Clinton IA. Most
Mississippi River towns are full of low class trash. Clinton isn't so bad in that regard.
Van Roekel is correct when he says smoking bans violate property rights, but incorrect
when he says, "the Supreme Court has issued previous rulings siding with property owners
regarding personal property issues." Sadly, the Supreme Court failed to support property
rights in Kelo and Lucas.
One would expect a conservative Supreme Court to support property rights and a liberal
Supreme Court to support government rights. Ironically, we have the opposite. Would a more
liberal court appointed by President Obama be more likely to support property rights?
Short answer: No.
If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk science to be a
fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily turn it into
swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to defend it. When
the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science quickly.
On 03 Jul 2008 18:30:45 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
>Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
>member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
>Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
>some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
>forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
>intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
>fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
>issue.
>
> http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
Thanks for the link to an interesting article. I've spent time in Clinton IA. Most
Mississippi River towns are full of low class trash. Clinton isn't so bad in that regard.
Van Roekel is correct when he says smoking bans violate property rights, but incorrect
when he says, "the Supreme Court has issued previous rulings siding with property owners
regarding personal property issues." Sadly, the Supreme Court failed to support property
rights in Kelo and Lucas.
One would expect a conservative Supreme Court to support property rights and a liberal
Supreme Court to support government rights. Ironically, we have the opposite. Would a more
liberal court appointed by President Obama be more likely to support property rights?
Short answer: No.
If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk science to be a
fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily turn it into
swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to defend it. When
the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science quickly.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
> science to be a
> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily
> turn it into
> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
> defend it. When
> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science
> quickly.
After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something? It
tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
unhealthy is genuine. You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
just do not play out well in court.
In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
> science to be a
> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily
> turn it into
> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
> defend it. When
> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science
> quickly.
After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something? It
tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
unhealthy is genuine. You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
just do not play out well in court.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
y.
>
> After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
> tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
> science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
> failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something? It
> tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
> unhealthy is genuine. You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> just do not play out well in court.
Clown.
Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
y.
>
> After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
> tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
> science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
> failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something? It
> tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
> unhealthy is genuine. You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> just do not play out well in court.
Clown.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:57:37 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>> science to be a
>> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily
>> turn it into
>> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>> defend it. When
>> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science
>> quickly.
>
>After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
>tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
>science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
>failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something?
It tells me they're amateurs.
>It tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
>unhealthy is genuine.
Have you read it? I mean primary sources, not press releases ABOUT it.
>You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
>others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
>have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
>side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
>just do not play out well in court.
The battleground is the court of public opinion. Courts of law are not the only way to win
in that arena.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:57:37 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>> science to be a
>> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could easily
>> turn it into
>> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>> defend it. When
>> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk science
>> quickly.
>
>After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
>tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
>science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
>failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something?
It tells me they're amateurs.
>It tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
>unhealthy is genuine.
Have you read it? I mean primary sources, not press releases ABOUT it.
>You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
>others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
>have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
>side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
>just do not play out well in court.
The battleground is the court of public opinion. Courts of law are not the only way to win
in that arena.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On Jul 4, 7:53 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> >others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> >have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> >side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> >just do not play out well in court.
>
> The battleground is the court of public opinion.
Glad to hear it, asswipe. The Anti Smoker Illuminati has been kicking
your ass in the court of public opinion for the past 15 years. We'll
keep on kicking your ass, too.
On Jul 4, 7:53 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> >You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> >others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> >have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> >side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> >just do not play out well in court.
>
> The battleground is the court of public opinion.
Glad to hear it, asswipe. The Anti Smoker Illuminati has been kicking
your ass in the court of public opinion for the past 15 years. We'll
keep on kicking your ass, too.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
In article <vvnt64lpipfnnm1hqhs856hd0m1lok6nu5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:57:37 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> >In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
> > Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> >
> >> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
> >> science to be a
> >> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
> >> easily
> >> turn it into
> >> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
> >> defend it. When
> >> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
> >> science
> >> quickly.
> >
> >After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
> >tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
> >science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
> >failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something?
>
> It tells me they're amateurs.
The tobacco industry should have hired professionals than.
> >It tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
> >unhealthy is genuine.
>
> Have you read it? I mean primary sources, not press releases ABOUT it.
Not all studies, but some.
> >You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> >others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> >have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> >side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> >just do not play out well in court.
>
> The battleground is the court of public opinion. Courts of law are not the
> only way to win in that arena.
Fine. Public opinion sides with public smoking bans. Either way works
out well for us anti-smokers illuminati.
In article <vvnt64lpipfnnm1hqhs856hd0m1lok6nu5@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:57:37 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> >In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
> > Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> >
> >> If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
> >> science to be a
> >> fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
> >> easily
> >> turn it into
> >> swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
> >> defend it. When
> >> the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
> >> science
> >> quickly.
> >
> >After numerous hearings and trials at state and local levels, the
> >tobacco industry has failed to get across your claim that anti-smokers'
> >science is invalid. Representatives of the bar and restaurant owners
> >failed too, as have the casino owners. Does that tell you something?
>
> It tells me they're amateurs.
The tobacco industry should have hired professionals than.
> >It tells me, they are all wrong. The science claiming second hand smoke is
> >unhealthy is genuine.
>
> Have you read it? I mean primary sources, not press releases ABOUT it.
Not all studies, but some.
> >You nicotine addicts and the folks in Clinton and
> >others who would take advantage of nicotine addicts just to make a buck
> >have a tough goal to meet; proving valid science is junk. Thus far, your
> >side has failed and I would be surprised if that changes. Your fantasies
> >just do not play out well in court.
>
> The battleground is the court of public opinion. Courts of law are not the
> only way to win in that arena.
Fine. Public opinion sides with public smoking bans. Either way works
out well for us anti-smokers illuminati.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
.
Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> Either way works out well for us anti-smokers illuminati.
You seem to enjoy your self-assigned moniker of "illuminati". Of
course your own understandable lack of literacy and sophistication
probably blinds you to the fact that such a name is often assigned to
lunatics, zealots, conspiratorial organizations and other similar nut-
jobs. Seems that even through your own ignorance you've hit the nail
on the head.
In rarer cases, the Illuminati may refer to an elite set of
enlightened individuals which, of course, is light-years away fom a
lock-step moron like yourself.
Stick to what you know best, pea-brain, addicted superfluous trolling
and pursuit of your junkfood diet. LOL! Whadda doofus.
TBN - enjoyin' the show
.
Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> Either way works out well for us anti-smokers illuminati.
You seem to enjoy your self-assigned moniker of "illuminati". Of
course your own understandable lack of literacy and sophistication
probably blinds you to the fact that such a name is often assigned to
lunatics, zealots, conspiratorial organizations and other similar nut-
jobs. Seems that even through your own ignorance you've hit the nail
on the head.
In rarer cases, the Illuminati may refer to an elite set of
enlightened individuals which, of course, is light-years away fom a
lock-step moron like yourself.
Stick to what you know best, pea-brain, addicted superfluous trolling
and pursuit of your junkfood diet. LOL! Whadda doofus.
TBN - enjoyin' the show
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 18:30:45 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
>>Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
>>member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
>>Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
>>some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
>>forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
>>intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
>>fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
>>issue.
>>
>> http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
>
>Thanks for the link to an interesting article. I've spent time in
>Clinton IA. Most
>Mississippi River towns are full of low class trash. Clinton isn't so
>bad in that regard.
>
>Van Roekel is correct when he says smoking bans violate property rights,
>but incorrect
>when he says, "the Supreme Court has issued previous rulings siding with
>property owners
>regarding personal property issues." Sadly, the Supreme Court failed to
>support property
>rights in Kelo and Lucas.
>
>One would expect a conservative Supreme Court to support property rights
>and a liberal
>Supreme Court to support government rights. Ironically, we have the
>opposite. Would a more
>liberal court appointed by President Obama be more likely to support
>property rights?
>Short answer: No.
I hope they contact NYCCLASH to find out how futile their effort will be.
>If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>science to be a
>fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
>easily turn it into
>swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>defend it. When
>the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
>science quickly.
When people find out they've been lied to about the shape of
the earth (it's actually flat), the law of gravity will be repealed.
In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2008 18:30:45 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>During a recent meeting of the Clinton Organized Bar and Restaurant
>>Association, COBRA President Jon Van Roekel noted that he and COBRA
>>member Gary Sawyer met with "key players" on June 11 in Grinnell. Van
>>Roekel said several states are actively fighting the ban, but said
>>some are "coming to a wall." He said COBRA officials have decided to
>>forgo attempting to gain a level playing field at the state level and
>>intend to create a unified front against smoking bans by taking the
>>fight nationwide and declaring the matter a personal property rights
>>issue.
>>
>> http :// www .clintonherald,com /local/local_story_173010202.html
>
>Thanks for the link to an interesting article. I've spent time in
>Clinton IA. Most
>Mississippi River towns are full of low class trash. Clinton isn't so
>bad in that regard.
>
>Van Roekel is correct when he says smoking bans violate property rights,
>but incorrect
>when he says, "the Supreme Court has issued previous rulings siding with
>property owners
>regarding personal property issues." Sadly, the Supreme Court failed to
>support property
>rights in Kelo and Lucas.
>
>One would expect a conservative Supreme Court to support property rights
>and a liberal
>Supreme Court to support government rights. Ironically, we have the
>opposite. Would a more
>liberal court appointed by President Obama be more likely to support
>property rights?
>Short answer: No.
I hope they contact NYCCLASH to find out how futile their effort will be.
>If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>science to be a
>fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
>easily turn it into
>swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>defend it. When
>the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
>science quickly.
When people find out they've been lied to about the shape of
the earth (it's actually flat), the law of gravity will be repealed.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On 04 Jul 2008 15:30:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>>science to be a
>>fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
>>easily turn it into
>>swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>>defend it. When
>>the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
>>science quickly.
>
>When people find out they've been lied to about the shape of
>the earth (it's actually flat), the law of gravity will be repealed.
Your reply demonstrates the nescience of the antismoking movement.
On 04 Jul 2008 15:30:03 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <46br64tmjoof9bk53b5q5vmg0kh5v5csod@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>If antismokers are to be defeated, it must be done by proving their junk
>>science to be a
>>fraud. If an amateur like me can poke holes in it, professionals could
>>easily turn it into
>>swiss cheese. With pharma gone, no one has the money nor inclination to
>>defend it. When
>>the people catch a hint they were lied to, they'll turn against junk
>>science quickly.
>
>When people find out they've been lied to about the shape of
>the earth (it's actually flat), the law of gravity will be repealed.
Your reply demonstrates the nescience of the antismoking movement.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On Jul 3, 10:36 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> If antismokers are to be defeated,
Wrong again, asswipe. It's "Anti Smoker Illuminati" (ASI), not
"antismoker". You're a slow learner.
On Jul 3, 10:36 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> If antismokers are to be defeated,
Wrong again, asswipe. It's "Anti Smoker Illuminati" (ASI), not
"antismoker". You're a slow learner.
Re: Here you go, Robert, some leadership for a change.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:
>On Jul 3, 10:36 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>
>> If antismokers are to be defeated,
>
>Wrong again, asswipe. It's "Anti Smoker Illuminati" (ASI), not
>"antismoker". You're a slow learner.
ASSHOLE: Anti Smoking Supporter Hassling Others with Lies and Euphemisms
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm <rbronews2@broughton.ca> wrote:
>On Jul 3, 10:36 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>>
>> If antismokers are to be defeated,
>
>Wrong again, asswipe. It's "Anti Smoker Illuminati" (ASI), not
>"antismoker". You're a slow learner.
ASSHOLE: Anti Smoking Supporter Hassling Others with Lies and Euphemisms
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 05 Jul 2008, 08:02
-- deleted messages --
