For me, the best car speakers are neither too heavy on the bass nor too heavy on the treble….

csdeven = the stalker troll who will probably end up getting himself arrested before this election is over, assuming he doesn’t die from auto-erotic asphyxiation as soon as he sees Fred’s first campaign ad

Watcher on September 3, 2007 at 1:33 AM

I imagine Fred’s debate ad will be:

“Hi, I’m Fred Thompson and I will be running for President. My official, heavily scripted announcement will occur tomorrow. I’m afraid I couldn’t be here tonight because my constantly shifting staff said it wouldn’t look good if a fumbled the night before my announcement, so really I’m just here to make you aware of my existence.

Fred Thompson. The REAL conservative for 2008, who will take the battle to the Democrats and restore credibility to the White House.

This message paid for by Fred Thompson for President.”

Watcher on September 3, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Watcher = Douche bag that thinks saying something childish makes him look wise. School yard insults? WOW! How tough and brave are you?!

BWahahahahaha!!

fred? = the groupies non-candidate.
csdeven on September 3, 2007 at 12:00 AM

All that poll says to me is that Fred is the “hopes and dreams” candidate, and reality will come crashing down on him in the next 4 days.

BKennedy on September 2, 2007 at 9:29 PM

fred? = the groupie non-candidate

Rudy Giuliani 34%
Fred Thompson 18%
Mitt Romney 10%
I think this poll says it all. Run Fred run. Once he’s “all in” then we’ll have a better idea. I prefer Phred to the lib or the waffle.

Mojave Mark on September 2, 2007 at 8:28 PM

All that poll says to me is that Fred is the “hopes and dreams” candidate, and reality will come crashing down on him in the next 4 days.

Rudy Giuliani 34%
Fred Thompson 18%
Mitt Romney 10%

I think this poll says it all. Run Fred run. Once he’s “all in” then we’ll have a better idea. I prefer Phred to the lib or the waffle.

If someone wants to use lead, inhale diesel fumes, or smoke cigarettes as a matter of personal choice I’m fine with that and don’t want the government involved in private behavior. However, cities do have a the right to regulate commercial establishments and the elected officials have to balance the desire of smokers to smoke in a restaurant against non-smokers desire to not breath second hand smoke. My first post on the subject made the point that Bloomberg lead on an issue that public opinion has since come around to favor. Whether I agree with him or not, he does deserve credit for leadership. We’ll see if his efforts on the congestion plan have similar results.

As for your question about whether a business can screen for nicotine with its employees. I’ve heard about that. All I can say is that as an employer we never screened for nicotine or any other drugs. I think it is wrong of an employer to make judgments about employees based on behavior outside of work, but it is legal for them to do so and big businesses are spending more resources than ever before on screening employees.

Or maybe Fred’s commercial should show all the other candidates forming their exploratory committees in utero?
Watcher on September 1, 2007 at 7:01 PM

This is a perfect example of what ails the fred?heads.

NO SUBSTANCE. For the last month or so, since the rest of us have put up honest examples of freds? record against all others (and fred? is shown to be seriously wanting for experience, a history as a Washington outsider, and other “stuff”), the fred?heads have constantly bombarded these threads with their accolades for freds? “image”. His folksy colloquialisms and fake image is going to cut it outside Tennessee. The above post shows that even the fred?heads have nothing to brag on him about. Their total effort is towards tearing down those who have the experience and organization that fred? cannot hold a candle to.

All freddie boy can do is spout old ideas that have been rehashed over the years. And even if he did find something new to say, he has no credibility to implement it.

I just can’t believe the guy is this stupid. We know he is simply a slick Washington insider who funnels cash to his family, attacks free speech, and lobbies for scumbags. And he does try to obfuscate that history. Sometimes. The rest of the time he falls back to his natural personality, but strangely he does it in front of the cameras. WHY? The guys a lawyer, he SHOULD be smarter than that.

OH wait a minute! I remember that the lady I spoke to at the FEC said that fred? could run his campaign as stupidly as he wants AND collect contributions. In the end it he can commit a stupid “mistake”, drop out, and convert ALL that lovely, juicy cash into a PAC and then hire his family to “administer” it. What a great way to funnel cash back into your own pocket. Maybe “old fred?” isn’t so stupid?

He’s done it before.

The taxpayers get hit with the bills for the brain injuries and treatment of many of the survivors.

It’s wrong to suggest that if somebody utilizes government services and thus consumes tax dollars that they surrender their liberty, especially since there’s little doubt the injured party has also paid into the system. The argument is even weaker when you consider that there’s only the possibility that a person might be injured and require medical care.

I rode my BMX and 12 speed constantly all the time I was growing up and never had a bike helmet at any time. I also grew up riding snowmobiles and motorcycles and never consumed any tax dollars with injuries. In fact, my family was well insured. On what grounds should I have given up my right to take some risk in exchange for fun?

My rights stop where your rights begin

It’s a good saying and is the basis for everything I’ve been writing.

as far as one’s sex life there is really no way to enforce that.

Sure there is. Aids and other STD’s aren’t covered unless it’s congenital… but even then, if somebody already has an STD a corporation might not hire them in the first place and perhaps if they contract an STD during employment, they could be fired because they’re liable to miss some work. You’re right that it would be hard to monitor somebody’s sex life, but the consequences of it could be regulated. I don’t know if any of this is legal, I just assume it is because private behavior can be regulated in regard to smoking.

Skydiving and sex is done on the employee’s own time.

The company which we’re talking about doesn’t allow their employees to smoke either during work hours or “on the employee’s own time”. It’s a zero tolerance policy for nicotine. I saw this on a show a few years ago and don’t remember the name of the company. I’d try to look it up but it’s late and I’m trying to finish this up for the night.

Look at the helmet laws in many states.

I have. I’m totally against them even though unless I foget, I wear a helmet when I ride my bike. If adults want to ride their bikes or motorcycles without a helmet what business is it of ours? I can sort of understand the sentiment in relation to protecting children, but even then children should be allowed to play and have fun. What’s next, banning tag on playgrounds? When I was growing up, I fell once on my bike when I was about six, skinned my knee, and then rode my bike a few miles a day or more on average, and never once had another bike accident that resulted in injury. I’m sure as hell glad I didn’t have to wear a helmet. I also spent a lot more time than your average person in boats on large lakes and in the Puget Sound and although we had life preserves handy, I only had to actually wear them in rough seas and stormy weather. What a life! I feel sorry for kids now days. For one thing the helmets looks stupid, and maybe that’s why kids are getting so fat because they don’t want to look like dorks.

But to target one legal behavior while accepting all the others, and as a result intruding on the personal lives of their employees, I consider that un-American.

One last comment: The reason I hold this opinion is because otherwise, even in the absence of government intrusion, corporations could potentially dictate personal behaviors simply by fiat. If all the corporations in America disallow smoking or other personal behaviors in their employees “private” lives, either gradually or at once, then the populace would have little choice but to comply. It would create a condition of corporate fascism.

If only a few companies are doing it, it doesn’t really matter because the free market can handle it. My concern is that it could lead to abuse at some point in the future. Unfortunately I suspect that as usual, on any given issue a sizable portion of the “majority” simply won’t care, and in fact would consider the new collective limitations on our personal behavior a positive change. This is why although the government could be employed to prevent this scenario from occurring; it’s unlikely as long as the majority is compliant, which is usually the case with these things.

It concerns me because tyranny is tyranny regardless of its source and while some people are on the watch for it from the government, they may miss it from an alternate source.

FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 2:50 AM

I’m an ex-smoker and am sympathetic to some of the rules smokers have levied on them. I’m not a zealot telling smokers they should quit — tough to quit and nagging never motivates anyone.
I can see writing a clause for something like sky diving, much as life insurance policies do. But as far as one’s sex life there is really no way to enforce that, not to mention the numerous equal opportunity laws that would break. Smokers have more sick days and take more breaks than non-smokers. It is a productivity issue for some companies. They may use the health reasons as justification but they have the right to do that.
Skydiving and sex is done on the employee’s own time.

Look at the helmet laws in many states. The taxpayers get hit with the bills for the brain injuries and treatment of many of the survivors. So they pass a law making helmets mandatory for safety.

There is an old saying that goes along the lines of “My rights stop where your rights begin”.
To say it bites I can understand. But un-American? I disagree. Nothing in the constitution I am aware of makes this kind of issue a restriction of one’s freedoms.

Bradky on September 2, 2007 at 2:29 AM

That’s a good argument but still flawed, IMO. A company has a right to set standards that all their employees have to meet and then hold their employees to those standards. If somebody is sick too often for whatever reason, the employer has a right to terminate his or her employment. If a company doesn’t want to cover employees for a illnesses or injury caused by certain risky behaviors, such as smoking or skydiving or being gay and/or promiscuous, then it could be argued that they have a right not to offer health coverage on related illnesses and injury, and if employees don’t like it they can find work elsewhere. But to target one legal behavior while accepting all the others, and as a result intruding on the personal lives of their employees, I consider that un-American.

And when a company can fire employees for engaging in legal activates in their private affairs, yes, I call that un-American. Don’t you?

FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 2:23 AM

Not really. There are tons of stats that show that smokers have more health issues, sick time, and the like. If the employer is providing health insurance they have a right to dictate that they won’t shoulder the costs for smoking related illnesses. You don’t have to work there, you have the freedom as an American not to.

By the logic developing on the anti-smoking ban side of the discussion here, the company should be able to do what it pleases

When the employee is on the clock you could make that argument, but if you are suggesting that employers own their employees personal lives as well, this is just another extremist position similar to your “crushing oppression by a police state” comment. To suggest that unless something qualifies as “crushing oppression by a police state” it is not still a violation of a person’s liberty is ridiculous, as is your implication that if the government can’t dictate personal choices then as a result employees are virtual slaves.

I am not arguing that there is not cause for certain minimal regulations governing safety standards and the like, but when those standards dictate personal behavior it clearly is an intrusion on liberty that goes beyond the threshold where, for example, restaurants are required NOT to poison their patrons with E. coli.

For myself, I am not too concerned if smoking is outlawed in business offices, especially for companies above a certain size, but when those regulations extent to recreational locations like bars or when smoking is even prohibited outside were the risk to others is minimal, it goes too far. It’s an unwarranted intrusion on the minority by the majority.

And when a company can fire employees for engaging in legal activates in their private affairs, yes, I call that un-American. Don’t you?

There is at least one corporation in the USA that does not allow their employees to smoke even at home. Period. They are tested for nicotine just like illicit drugs. Does that sound American to you?

(Sorry for all of the rhetorical questions.)

FloatingRock on September 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM

By the logic developing on the anti-smoking ban side of the discussion here, the company should be able to do what it pleases, with each worker making the individual choice whether or not to remain in their position of employment. By asking the rhetorical question “Does that sound American to you?” you are implicitly acknowledging that society, by means of government, has an interest in defining the legal boundaries within which a company may operate, out of concern for its employees. I’d argue that this concern extends to a company’s customers and competitors as well; indeed, there are a large number of laws already on the books that specify these boundaries.

Y’all sound like liberals over abortion/Iraq…

HYTEAndy on September 1, 2007 at 11:34 PM

You quite literally sound like a liberal. Sorry, but on this issue it’s true.

except it’s conservatives over smoking, of all the issues.

Priorities!

Right: priorities. The very principle of conservatism is personal responsibility and the perpetuation of the conditions that allow it.

Cigarettes are just legal drugs with no medical benefit.

So?

Cigarettes are for fools.

Being foolish should be a crime, then? Who do you propose would be the arbiter of all things foolish, Hillary? Bloomberg? Rudy? What qualifies any of them for the role, do they have royal blood running through their veins or are they descendent from God?

not some crushing oppression by a police state.

You forgot “jack-booted”.

What if the employees are injured or killed by a collapsing structure?

I would suggest that there’s a difference between a collapsing structure and a personal choice. The lead paint ban is a closer approximation of the issue, but paint isn’t really a personal issue, other than when in the form of art, so if a particular ingredient is banned that is dangerous to children, people aren’t really giving up anything that is a part of their lifestyle. Should lead itself be banned? It’s a very useful element to say the least. If there are industrial applications for lead paint where children are prohibited without supervision and workers are instructed not to gnaw on the machinery, shouldn’t lead paint be allowed in certain environments? Do you have any idea how toxic bottom paint is for boats? What if somebody bought some lead and made their own lead paint for hobby purposes, like for restoring an antique?

After that we could discuss asbestos.

My point is that we can discuss extreme examples to make our points or we can examine the issue at hand, which is the matter of a personal choice. Unlike lead paint, it is difficult to expose somebody to tobacco smoke without their knowledge, so if they allow themselves to be exposed it is due to a conscious decision on their part.

Just how much risk is involved when you’re walking through a park and you notice a hint of tobacco smoke in the air for a moment? Is even a hint of tobacco smoke too much? How about on a sidewalk? Campfires produce lots of smoke and I don’t know about you, but the smoke seems to follow me regardless of where I sit around the fire. Campfire smoke is undoubtedly carcinogenic, as are diesel fumes. Most if not all of the school busses around my area are diesel. They don’t have seatbelts either. Imagine that.

Here’s an interesting question: should an employer be allowed to fire people who don’t smoke at all during working hours, but enjoy a good cigar in the privacy of their home each night? There is at least one corporation in the USA that does not allow their employees to smoke even at home. Period. They are tested for nicotine just like illicit drugs. Does that sound American to you?

(Sorry for all of the rhetorical questions.)

Bad Candy on September 1, 2007 at 8:11 PM

I see a difference between cigs and trans fats. Your eating trans fat doesn’t make me fat.