(Close Window)
Topic: How not to get elected . . .
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 19, 2010 10:37PM)
Banning happy hour:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/graysons-opponent-daniel-webster-ban-happy-hour/

:)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 19, 2010 10:58PM)
California got rid of happy hour (I looooved happy hour and also Sink or Swim Wednesdays in Florida) and also no real ladies nights allowed. Nice huh?

Landy, I wish you could come here for our election just for the attack ads.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 19, 2010 11:08PM)
Two years ago, the conservative (naturally) government where I live (in the traditionally Bible-belt part of Canada) tried its best to end Happy Hour in pubs here by issuing minimum prices that had to be charged on drinks.

Like the guy said:

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 19, 2010 11:12PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-19 23:58, MagicSanta wrote:

Landy, I wish you could come here for our election just for the attack ads.
[/quote]
Speaking of "How not to get elected ...", I hear that your gal is confusing ethnic groups. What's up with that?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Oct 19, 2010 11:21PM)
Hey, I've been known to tip a few.

But I never, ever, ever drive at all--at all--with any alcohol in my system whatsoever.

In the good ole USA, happy hour usually means having a drink or two between work and home, and the distance between work and home is covered by car. So happy hour actually means drinking and driving cheap. And that is a good thing?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 19, 2010 11:23PM)
We've got subways, buses, and cabs in my neck of the woods.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 19, 2010 11:34PM)
I'm not familiar with the drinking and driving cultural practices in the U.S. so I won't comment on them. I would agree that banning drinking games and overdone free dispensing of alcoholic beverages might make sense. When I think of happy hour, I just think of moderately discounted drinks.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 19, 2010 11:35PM)
People should never drink and drive.

My gal? I'm not voting for her, I can't believe she won the primary. Yes, she was speaking to Hispanic students and said they looked more Asian than Hispanic. She is such a train wreck that there is a tie between her and Harry Reid in polls and Harry Reid is freakin' hated in this state. I hear all the time "I hate Harry but...man, I can't see Angle in the senate". Those Tea Party types had a big rally for her yesterday in Reno and that hot lil' honey Palin showed up...Angle was a no show! She says things on the radio then they call her on it and she denies it then they play her saying it and she says 'oh, that was because I was talking to that audience not this audience'! Harry doesn't do anything, I'm not sure he can find Nevada on the map.

(We do have local tribes where the people look Asian in a good lovely way but I still don't know what she was talking about)
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Oct 20, 2010 09:31AM)
I can't believe that the MA Democratic party are running the same idiot who LOST Teddy Kennedy's seat to a republican in the special election.

Once, was arrogance-- the assumption that ANY Democrat would win.

Twice is just blatant stupidity.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 20, 2010 09:45AM)
Perhaps this time the good people of Mass will show up at the voting booth.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 20, 2010 09:48AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:
People should never drink and drive.
[/quote]

Except in Texas, where it's mandatory.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 20, 2010 09:51AM)
I never heard of "no real ladies night". Is that the women of Northern Nevada who drive John Deer tractors to the bar?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Oct 20, 2010 11:49AM)
Ca still has happy hour, went to one the other night.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 20, 2010 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 10:45, Al Angello wrote:
Perhaps this time the good people of Mass will show up at the voting booth.
[/quote]

I expect that lots and lots of good people will show up at the voting booths next month.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 20, 2010 02:48PM)
Lobo
We can only pray.

PS-How come you didn't answer the PM I sent to you, my feelings are hurt.
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Oct 20, 2010 03:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 00:34, balducci wrote:
When I think of happy hour, I just think of moderately discounted drinks.
[/quote]
I agree Baldcci. The mark up on drinks in a bar or restaurant is very high. So taking advantage of happy hour is my way of getting back at them.

PS I herd the democrats are calling for an all day happy hour across the US on Election day. They know its the only way they will get elected this year. :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 20, 2010 03:46PM)
Kev, they may call it happy hour but it ain't happy hour unless they are rebels.

Sec. 3-12.1. Same–”Happy” hours; jumbo drinks, two-for-one; etc. All on-premises licensees are prohibited from selling or giving away alcoholic beverages under the following circumstances: (a) Serving multiple drinks for a single price or offering all you can drink for a set price during a set time. (b) Making a single price the basis for a required purchase of two or more servings. (c) Selling or furnishing alcoholic beverages after 9:00 p.m. at “Happy Hour” or a price lower than the normal retail cost. (d) Offering free drinks or reduced-price drinks to any segment of the population for any period of time as an inducement to patronize the premises such as a “Ladies’ Night” or “Men’s Night.” (e) Selling alcoholic beverages for less than half ( 1/2) the normal retail price. (f) Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the dispensing of drinks in pitchers or in jumbo sizes, provided that such pitchers or jumbo sizes shall be available at all times that the licensee is open for business and the usual, customary or established retail price shall not be reduced; for the purposes of this subparagraph, a jumbo drink is defined as any drink containing more than 1 1/2 ounces of alcohol. (Ord. No. 84-121, § 1, 12-11-84)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 20, 2010 03:47PM)
Al, here in Nevada they give free booze if you gamble, bars are open all night and all day, and they have ladies night if they want.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Oct 20, 2010 03:58PM)
Happy Hour abounds all over California, follows the guidelines set forth in the code, and happy patrons enjoy discounted food and drinks, in some cases every day of the week. Furthermore, wines are more and more frequently sold at half price as an inducement to dine on slow nights like Wednesday. Argument there could be made it's still above retail.

Maybe Happy Hour shuts down when certain people walk in the door.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 20, 2010 04:25PM)
Ken
In Pennsylvania it is illegal to sell booz on election day until after the polls close. I thought that was a national law.
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Oct 20, 2010 04:43PM)
No, the booze flows freely in New Jersey on Election Day. Do you suppose that's how New Jersey ends up with a bunch of unqualified people in office?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 20, 2010 04:46PM)
There is no way another state has the nightmare choices we have here in Nevada. At least in California those running were not openly out of their league as they are here.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 20, 2010 04:56PM)
What about the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html]guy in Alaska[/url] who had his personal bodyguards handcuff and hold a journalist who asked embarrassing questions?

Heard an interview the other night. Bizarre.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 20, 2010 05:20PM)
Nice! Handcuffs....
I still don't know what Harry and Sharon stand for here, their commercials just tell ust he evil the other one believes in.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 20, 2010 05:40PM)
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/balducci/339796full.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Oct 20, 2010 05:49PM)
Santa
I had you figured to be a Sharon Angle supporter. I know you supported her primary opponent "chicken Lady".
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Oct 20, 2010 05:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 12:49, kcg5 wrote:
Ca still has happy hour, went to one the other night.
[/quote]

California ABC will not allow any "special" insurance claims (IE for policy holders who have the serving of booze as a special circumstance) under their license while an establishment has an advertised "happy hour" or "ladies night" running...
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Oct 20, 2010 05:58PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 17:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What about the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html]guy in Alaska[/url] who had his personal bodyguards handcuff and hold a journalist who asked embarrassing questions?

Heard an interview the other night. Bizarre.

John
[/quote]

I suspect this sort of behavior will become even more common in the USA...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 20, 2010 10:08PM)
Turns out the security guards were active duty military . . .
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 20, 2010 10:23PM)
Al, I vote for whoever is closest to my position on things, more often than not that is a democrate as long as they are moderate. I didn't support the chicken gal and you can check when you and I discussed this elsewhere that I said Harry was not to be counted out. I will admit I thought the chicken gal would win the primary.

I'll tell you exactly how you can lose my vote, there are three catagories:
1. Being actively against choice. I think that it is a sad situation but I have no desire to tell women what to do. Angle is militantly against choice to extremes that most wouldn't go near.
2. Anti-gay rights. If someone makes that an issue at any level I'm not voting for them.
3. If they are not compassionate toward illegal aliens. There is one thing about having a good policy it is another to try to hurt people.
4. If they are overly religious and talk about it publicly.

In this election I will vote for neither Harry or Angle, neither should be elected (to be honest I'll likely vote to keep Angle out).
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Oct 21, 2010 08:43AM)
So from your post I gather that you would instantly vote for a candidate who:

- divorces religion (at least Biblical religion) from their political policies
- would allow foreigners who have willfully broken our immigration laws to stay without penalty
- would allow an immoral minority to rewrite our traditional marriage laws through the courts
- would continue to allow unborn children to be killed for any reason

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/sharron-angles-advice-for_n_639294.html

God help us.

Carrie

P.S. For good information on why abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest, read this site: http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 21, 2010 09:29AM)
Carrie- you're turning his negatives into positives. Just because someone is against "A" does [b]not[/b] automatically mean they are [i]for[/i] "B".

That's one of the reasons why it's sad we only really have two viable political parties in this country- ones that don't necessarily represent anybody's best interests. Public funding of all candidates would help level the playing field and make third party candidates more viable. (And also go a long way towards removing corruption- when you don't need money from special interests to fund your campaign, you stop having to cater to them.) But that's another issue entirely.

(Yes, I'm not addressing your other points; they're old arguments that won't be settled here, certainly not with this thread intact.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 10:33AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 23:23, MagicSanta wrote:

3. If they are not compassionate toward illegal aliens. There is one thing about having a good policy it is another to try to hurt people.
[/quote]

That's a fine line, and for the most part, the devil is in the details. I will say, though, that as a general rule, things that reward past behavior (including illegal immigration) tend to encourage future behavior.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 21, 2010 11:49AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 17:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What about the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html]guy in Alaska[/url] who had his personal bodyguards handcuff and hold a journalist who asked embarrassing questions?

Heard an interview the other night. Bizarre.

John
[/quote]

How do you charge someone with "trespass" on public property?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 12:49, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 17:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What about the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html]guy in Alaska[/url] who had his personal bodyguards handcuff and hold a journalist who asked embarrassing questions?

Heard an interview the other night. Bizarre.

John
[/quote]

How do you charge someone with "trespass" on public property?
[/quote]

Public property doesn't mean that anyone can be there at any time (another example might be posted hours at a park). At a school in California, for instance, apart from some specifically defined people (students, district officers, employees, etc.), the principal and/or his/her designee and/or security cards can bar people's presence on a variety of bases.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 13:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 12:49, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 17:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
What about the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guard_n_766010.html]guy in Alaska[/url] who had his personal bodyguards handcuff and hold a journalist who asked embarrassing questions?

Heard an interview the other night. Bizarre.

John
[/quote]

How do you charge someone with "trespass" on public property?
[/quote]

Public property doesn't mean that anyone can be there at any time (another example might be posted hours at a park). At a school in California, for instance, apart from some specifically defined people (students, district officers, employees, etc.), the principal and/or his/her designee and/or security cards can bar people's presence on a variety of bases. In short, the public has assigned representatives who are authorized to make decisions about physical presence.
I expect that most people who have children in elementary school are probably glad although those schools are "public," not everyone who is free during the day and has an interest in elementary school children is allowed to walk onto the campus and mingle with them.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 12:24PM)
Oops, I quoted instead of edited. Anyway, I don't have children, but if I did, I'd be glad for provisions barring trespassing on school property.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 21, 2010 03:31PM)
My compassion I mean to treat them as animals. If a family drags their children here those children should be allowed to attend school and then depart with their families if that comes to pass. If someone comes over and is injured they need medical treatment, they need access to food, they do not need to be driven into caves to hide. I want an intelligent and realistic solution which allows the valuable farm workers in to do their jobs and then allows them to return to Mexico for their crop cycle.

I also do not consider gays to be immoral, they are a component of the human experience and being hostile toward people for being gay is wrong.

as for choice I wish it wouldn't happen and personally have problems with it. BUT I am not living the life these women are and thus they need to decide for themselves. I also do not believe forcing victims of rape or incest to have children to suit YOUR desires.

As for religion I want representatives to represent, not make decisions because of their religious beliefs.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 03:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 16:31, MagicSanta wrote:
My compassion I mean to treat them as animals. If a family drags their children here those children should be allowed to attend school and then depart with their families if that comes to pass. If someone comes over and is injured they need medical treatment, they need access to food, they do not need to be driven into caves to hide. I want an intelligent and realistic solution which allows the valuable farm workers in to do their jobs and then allows them to return to Mexico for their crop cycle.

I also do not consider gays to be immoral, they are a component of the human experience and being hostile toward people for being gay is wrong.

as for choice I wish it wouldn't happen and personally have problems with it. BUT I am not living the life these women are and thus they need to decide for themselves. I also do not believe forcing victims of rape or incest to have children to suit YOUR desires.

As for religion I want representatives to represent, not make decisions because of their religious beliefs.
[/quote]

I totally get and respect where you're coming from on the compassion issue. Having said that, I also kind of feel that's like letting a kid keep a bike that his dad stole and gave to him, on the grounds that the kid did nothing wrong.

As for representing, everyone makes choices based on his or her personal moral beliefs, whether they derive from religious or secular morality, and I think everyone's entitled to do so. I imagine there are Café members who would love a country where only atheists got to vote, but I'm not one of them. I can just imagine a legislator abstaining on a vote to make murder illegal because his opposition is rooted in the Ten Commandments.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 21, 2010 05:27PM)
From that perspective you are correct Lobo (dang your mind!). I believe that leaving children uneducated really leaves them behind the eight ball and to not allow them education of some sort smacks of the old slavery days when teaching reading and writing to slaves was not done in most cases.

Hey, they can make up their minds anyway they want, but if you stand up and say "My votes will all be bible based" then I'm not going to vote for them. They can pray all they want just don't tell me about it. I believe murder is considered wrong in most cultures, religious or not.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 18:27, MagicSanta wrote:
From that perspective you are correct Lobo (dang your mind!). I believe that leaving children uneducated really leaves them behind the eight ball and to not allow them education of some sort smacks of the old slavery days when teaching reading and writing to slaves was not done in most cases.
[/quote]

I agree with your points here...how about a compromise - let them get educated in their home country!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 21, 2010 06:48PM)
That is fine, they can deport them and I have no problem with that. Just treat them with some humanity while doing so. If they really want to stop illegal entry then stop allowing money to be sent to Mexico...no mas illegal entry. We do need to do something about the farm worker issue, seasonal entry allowed with request of specific farm.
Message: Posted by: Cyberqat (Oct 21, 2010 06:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 18:27, MagicSanta wrote:
From that perspective you are correct Lobo (dang your mind!). I believe that leaving children uneducated really leaves them behind the eight ball and to not allow them education of some sort smacks of the old slavery days when teaching reading and writing to slaves was not done in most cases.
[/quote]

And here Santa and I agree.

[quote]
Hey, they can make up their minds anyway they want, but if you stand up and say "My votes will all be bible based" then I'm not going to vote for them.
[/quote]

And I second that because they don't represent me.

if they follow that up with not even knowing that separation of church and state is guaranteed by the first amendment (like someone did recently) then they outright scare me and are by definition unqualified for the job.

IMHo if you want me to vote for you because of your stances and beliefs, tell me what those are. Just telling me you think you are a "good christian" tells me nothing, since you and other people who say they are "good christians" can't even agree on what that means.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 21, 2010 06:54PM)
Jeff and I, we be mates.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 21, 2010 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 19:51, Cyberqat wrote:
if they follow that up with not even knowing that separation of church and state is guaranteed by the first amendment (like someone did recently) then they outright scare me and are by definition unqualified for the job.
[/quote]

Sort of depends how you define "separation of church and state." Are people who think that phrase appears somewhere in our founding documents qualified for the job?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 21, 2010 08:20PM)
No! Cuz it doesn't!
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 21, 2010 11:12PM)
It is, however, expressly implied. Despite the fervent wishes of "rules lawyers" looking for and failing to find the exact phrase.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 21, 2010 11:40PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-21 13:24, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Oops, I quoted instead of edited. Anyway, I don't have children, but if I did, I'd be glad for provisions barring trespassing on school property.
[/quote]

Do you just mean during school hours? Because lots of adults play basketball on school grounds in the evening. My girlfriend and I use the running track and run the bleachers at the high school.
I used to have a neighbor who did bodyweight exercises every day on the playground.
Just a couple of examples of perfectly harmless use of school property by non-students.
I can understand not wanting strange adults there during school hours though. That would be awkward for everyone.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 21, 2010 11:50PM)
[quote]
...abortion should be illegal in cases of... incest...
[/quote]

Products of incest:

[img]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0911/incest-incest-baby-screwed-up-demotivational-poster-1257809349.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.badmovies.org/movies/tromeo/tromeo6.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 22, 2010 10:32AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-22 00:12, EsnRedshirt wrote:
It is, however, expressly implied. Despite the fervent wishes of "rules lawyers" looking for and failing to find the exact phrase.
[/quote]

I don't even know what it means. There are two specific provisions in the First Amendment that pertain to religion - the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause. They've been kind of mushed into a general anti-religion vibe. I suspect that most people (Cafe regs excluded; we're a sophisticated bunch) don't know that the phrase isn't mentioned, and probably don't know that God is mentioned a couple of times in the Declaration of Independence. Despite the fervent wishes of many atheists wishing the opposite.

Or to put it another way, if by "separation of church and state," you mean precisely 1) Free Exercise + 2) No Establishment of a State Religion, then yes, it's in the First Amendment. If you mean anything else, then no, it's not.

p.s. I'm not a theist.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 26, 2010 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-20 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:

My gal? I'm not voting for her, I can't believe she won the primary. Yes, she was speaking to Hispanic students and said they looked more Asian than Hispanic. She is such a train wreck that there is a tie between her and Harry Reid in polls and Harry Reid is freakin' hated in this state. I hear all the time "I hate Harry but...man, I can't see Angle in the senate". Those Tea Party types had a big rally for her yesterday in Reno and that hot lil' honey Palin showed up...Angle was a no show! She says things on the radio then they call her on it and she denies it then they play her saying it and she says 'oh, that was because I was talking to that audience not this audience'! Harry doesn't do anything, I'm not sure he can find Nevada on the map.
[/quote]
Hey, hey. Apparently, Harry is pulling the old "food for votes" ploy.

[url]http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/26/angle-campaign-attorney-reid/[/url]

So says Sharron Angle's campaign attorney, in any case.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Oct 26, 2010 09:00PM)
God help us... if there is an ad for either of those two that isn't an attack I've yet to see it. We have some guy running for District Attorney or something and the other guys commercial is a photo of the first guy in biker garb and it says he's a 'California criminal'.