Discussion:
Smoking bans hurt business
(too old to reply)
L Sternn
2005-05-10 02:00:28 UTC
Permalink
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3762692,00.html

In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.

There's Mugsy's and the Town Tavern, longtime watering holes near the
Rocky Mountain Steel Mill; Bruno's Beer Joynt downtown; Pepper's, a
northside dance club; and the Silver Saddle, a decades-old dance hall
on the south side.

"The smoking ban affected the bars in Pueblo quite drastically. We've
had six to 10 bars close since the smoking ban started," said Chuck
Chavez, owner of the Sunset Inn.

He said that his bar business dropped dramatically but that he has
survived on his restaurant trade.

"But if you're just a regular bar, that's where people go to have a
beer and relax after work before they go home; they don't want to do
that if they can't smoke," Chavez said.


....


"If you take Pueblo, Fort Collins and all of these cities, there are
places just outside the city limits that saw an increase in business,
especially the bar crowd," Meersman said.

....


The Restaurant Association of Maryland found that restaurant and bar
business fell by 11 percent in Talbot County during the year after a
smoking ban was enacted.

"We found that the economic damage to smaller independent restaurants
and bars was much more significant than large chain restaurants," said
Melvin Thompson of the Restaurant Association of Maryland.

"If you had a good bar business, where customers would sit and enjoy a
drink and sometimes a cigarette, those places suffered the most
because there's a huge correlation between smoking and drinking,"
Thompson said.

Meanwhile, restaurant and bar business in neighboring counties without
smoking bans "increased significantly," he said.

This year, the Maryland legislature defeated a proposed statewide
smoking ban.

...


But Thompson said simply measuring aggregate restaurant and bar
revenues is flawed since it "dilutes" pertinent findings with
statistics from fast-food chains, carry- outs, and other
establishments not dependent on smoking customers.


....


. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing field -
an equal law for everyone.

[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if they weren't
being hurt by the ban???]

.....
Bruce Watson
2005-05-10 02:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3762692,00.html
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
There's Mugsy's and the Town Tavern, longtime watering holes near the
Rocky Mountain Steel Mill; Bruno's Beer Joynt downtown; Pepper's, a
northside dance club; and the Silver Saddle, a decades-old dance hall
on the south side.
"The smoking ban affected the bars in Pueblo quite drastically. We've
had six to 10 bars close since the smoking ban started," said Chuck
Chavez, owner of the Sunset Inn.
Cheap foreign steel affected the bars in Pueblo.
Post by L Sternn
He said that his bar business dropped dramatically but that he has
survived on his restaurant trade.
"But if you're just a regular bar, that's where people go to have a
beer and relax after work before they go home; they don't want to do
that if they can't smoke," Chavez said.
....
"If you take Pueblo, Fort Collins and all of these cities, there are
places just outside the city limits that saw an increase in business,
especially the bar crowd," Meersman said.
....
The Restaurant Association of Maryland found that restaurant and bar
business fell by 11 percent in Talbot County during the year after a
smoking ban was enacted.
It's supposed to be 30%. Get with the tobacco-industry lie.
Post by L Sternn
"We found that the economic damage to smaller independent restaurants
and bars was much more significant than large chain restaurants," said
Melvin Thompson of the Restaurant Association of Maryland.
"If you had a good bar business, where customers would sit and enjoy a
drink and sometimes a cigarette, those places suffered the most
because there's a huge correlation between smoking and drinking,"
Thompson said.
There's a huge correlation between DUI and drinking at a bar.
Post by L Sternn
Meanwhile, restaurant and bar business in neighboring counties without
smoking bans "increased significantly," he said.
This year, the Maryland legislature defeated a proposed statewide
smoking ban.
...
But Thompson said simply measuring aggregate restaurant and bar
revenues is flawed since it "dilutes" pertinent findings with
statistics from fast-food chains, carry- outs, and other
establishments not dependent on smoking customers.
....
. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing field -
an equal law for everyone.
[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if they weren't
being hurt by the ban???]
.....
The tobacco industry has panicked them into fearing a nonexistent
nonlevel playing field.

It isn't smoking bans that hurt bars. It's the high
price of alcohol and the real threat of arrest while
driving under the influence.

People are getting their away-from-home drinks at a
restaurant, not bars.o

Bars don't sell cigarettes. They sell alcohol and people
aren't buying it at bars.
L Sternn
2005-05-10 02:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
The Restaurant Association of Maryland found that restaurant and bar
business fell by 11 percent in Talbot County during the year after a
smoking ban was enacted.
It's supposed to be 30%. Get with the tobacco-industry lie.
You never did come up with any cite that the tobacco industry's "lie"
is 30%. It's just more of your propaganda.

Do you think an 11% drop in business is insignificant?

Besides, this is not about the tobacco business it's about bar
business.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
"We found that the economic damage to smaller independent restaurants
and bars was much more significant than large chain restaurants," said
Melvin Thompson of the Restaurant Association of Maryland.
"If you had a good bar business, where customers would sit and enjoy a
drink and sometimes a cigarette, those places suffered the most
because there's a huge correlation between smoking and drinking,"
Thompson said.
There's a huge correlation between DUI and drinking at a bar.
So now that you've been proven wrong about it not hurting business,
you're actually going to claim that the loss of business is a good
thing.

That figures.
L Sternn
2005-05-10 02:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing field -
an equal law for everyone.
[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if they weren't
being hurt by the ban???]
.....
The tobacco industry has panicked them into fearing a nonexistent
nonlevel playing field.
No, seeing bar business fall off by 11% after a smoking ban in Talbot
County, MD and seeing so many bars close in Fort Collins is what has
brought home the point that the anti-smokers are lying.
Post by Bruce Watson
It isn't smoking bans that hurt bars. It's the high
price of alcohol
The price of alcohol has been relatively stable - more so than the
price of tobacco.
Post by Bruce Watson
and the real threat of arrest while
driving under the influence.
That threat has been increasing since the '80s, and most of the
significant "gains" in the likelihood of catching DUI suspects have
already been taken.

Probably the most significant gain is that cops are much less likely
to let a drunk go.
Post by Bruce Watson
People are getting their away-from-home drinks at a
restaurant, not bars.o
Only to the extent that bars have closed due to smoking bans.
Post by Bruce Watson
Bars don't sell cigarettes.
You've never seen a cigarette machine in a bar?

Granted, they are rarer these days, due to legislation as well as the
significant price increases in per-pack price
Post by Bruce Watson
They sell alcohol and people
aren't buying it at bars.
Hmmmm - to the extent that that is true, the evidence certainly points
to smoking bans being the culprit.

Fortunately, they still sell alcohol and allow smoking in most of the
US.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Bruce Watson
2005-05-10 03:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing field -
an equal law for everyone.
[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if they weren't
being hurt by the ban???]
.....
The tobacco industry has panicked them into fearing a nonexistent
nonlevel playing field.
No, seeing bar business fall off by 11% after a smoking ban in Talbot
County, MD and seeing so many bars close in Fort Collins is what has
brought home the point that the anti-smokers are lying.
Nothing to do with smoking but everything to do with
the way people are drinking (and not drinking) these days.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
It isn't smoking bans that hurt bars. It's the high
price of alcohol
The price of alcohol has been relatively stable - more so than the
price of tobacco.
I'll give you the price of tobacco has skyrocketed but the
price of a drink out is not cheap. 12 ozs of beer goes for
$4.00 to $6.00. That same amount taken home is $1.25.

People do their serious drinking at home. Two reasons: 1) high
cost, 2) real threat of DUI.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
and the real threat of arrest while
driving under the influence.
That threat has been increasing since the '80s, and most of the
significant "gains" in the likelihood of catching DUI suspects have
already been taken.
Probably the most significant gain is that cops are much less likely
to let a drunk go.
Like I said. People don't want to go out to drink.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
People are getting their away-from-home drinks at a
restaurant, not bars.o
Only to the extent that bars have closed due to smoking bans.
They haven't. They closed because of the high cost of
drinking and the threat of DUI.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Bars don't sell cigarettes.
You've never seen a cigarette machine in a bar?
Not lately. But the proceeds don't go to the bar.
Post by L Sternn
Granted, they are rarer these days, due to legislation as well as the
significant price increases in per-pack price
Post by Bruce Watson
They sell alcohol and people
aren't buying it at bars.
Hmmmm - to the extent that that is true, the evidence certainly points
to smoking bans being the culprit.
The culprit is the 1) the high cost of drinking out, and 2) the
real threat of DUI.
Post by L Sternn
Fortunately, they still sell alcohol and allow smoking in most of the
US.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Georgia just went today. Most could be under some kind
of comprehensive ban in 2 years of less.
L Sternn
2005-05-10 04:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing field -
an equal law for everyone.
[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if they weren't
being hurt by the ban???]
.....
The tobacco industry has panicked them into fearing a nonexistent
nonlevel playing field.
No, seeing bar business fall off by 11% after a smoking ban in Talbot
County, MD and seeing so many bars close in Fort Collins is what has
brought home the point that the anti-smokers are lying.
Nothing to do with smoking but everything to do with
the way people are drinking (and not drinking) these days.
If that were true, they would have been losing business before the
ban.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
It isn't smoking bans that hurt bars. It's the high
price of alcohol
The price of alcohol has been relatively stable - more so than the
price of tobacco.
I'll give you the price of tobacco has skyrocketed but the
price of a drink out is not cheap.
Not compared to drinking at home, but you've got the same situation
with restaurants.
Post by Bruce Watson
12 ozs of beer goes for
$4.00 to $6.00. That same amount taken home is $1.25.
Dunno where you hang out, but beer can be had cheaper than that in
many bar and retail outlets. A case of Heineken (I know, "Fuck that
shit! PBR!") can be had for $20 and there are plenty of friendly
neighborhood bars where you can get a draft for $1 during happy hour.

You're purposely exagerrating the cost and ignoring the obvious
reasons why people are willing to pay more for drinks at bars or food
at restaurants.
Post by Bruce Watson
People do their serious drinking at home.
Some people do their serious drinking at home - others can afford it
or go to inexpensive bars and have a designated driver, walk, take a
cab, or take their chances with a DUI.
Post by Bruce Watson
Two reasons: 1) high
cost, 2) real threat of DUI.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
and the real threat of arrest while
driving under the influence.
That threat has been increasing since the '80s, and most of the
significant "gains" in the likelihood of catching DUI suspects have
already been taken.
Probably the most significant gain is that cops are much less likely
to let a drunk go.
Like I said. People don't want to go out to drink.
But if that were true, the bar business would be suffering all over -
that simply isn't the case.

You want to have it both ways - bars are losing business because
drinking out is less popular, but they're doing just fine in areas
with smoking bans.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
People are getting their away-from-home drinks at a
restaurant, not bars.o
Only to the extent that bars have closed due to smoking bans.
They haven't. They closed because of the high cost of
drinking and the threat of DUI.
For the most part, the only closures have been in areas hit by smoking
bans.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Bars don't sell cigarettes.
You've never seen a cigarette machine in a bar?
Not lately.
Largely because of legislation banning them from businesses that allow
minors and also due to the high cost of cigarettes - smokers have
learned to avoid situations where they have to pay out the ass because
they ran out suddenly and pumping $5 in bills or change into a machine
is sort of a hassle.
Post by Bruce Watson
But the proceeds don't go to the bar.
I doubt the bar gets nothing from a cigarette machine.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Granted, they are rarer these days, due to legislation as well as the
significant price increases in per-pack price
Post by Bruce Watson
They sell alcohol and people
aren't buying it at bars.
Hmmmm - to the extent that that is true, the evidence certainly points
to smoking bans being the culprit.
The culprit is the 1) the high cost of drinking out, and 2) the
real threat of DUI.
Again, if that were true, bars would be hurting in areas without
smoking bans.

You want to have it both ways - bars are losing business because
drinking out is less popular, but they're doing just fine in areas
with smoking bans.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Fortunately, they still sell alcohol and allow smoking in most of the
US.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Georgia just went today. Most could be under some kind
of comprehensive ban in 2 years of less.
And Saddam Hussein could be back in power, but I seriously doubt it.

Maryland rejected their statewide ban after the Talbot County ban
wreaked havoc on business there.

At any rate, what do you mean "some kind" of "comprehensive ban"?

You're being deliberately vague. Is it "comprehensive" if it doesn't
include bars? Is it "comprehensive" if it allows businesses to apply
for waivers? Is it "comprehensive" if it exempts casinos? Even if
the state happens to be Nevada?
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-10 17:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
. The owners in cities with smoking bans want a level playing
field - an equal law for everyone.
[comment: Why would they want a "level playing field" if
they weren't being hurt by the ban???]
.....
The tobacco industry has panicked them into fearing a
nonexistent nonlevel playing field.
No, seeing bar business fall off by 11% after a smoking ban in
Talbot County, MD and seeing so many bars close in Fort Collins
is what has brought home the point that the anti-smokers are
lying.
Nothing to do with smoking but everything to do with
the way people are drinking (and not drinking) these days.
If that were true, they would have been losing business before the
ban.
They were, that's part of the Tobacco Co lie they don't tell you.
Let any of these whining loser businesses actually show their
accunting records for the last 24 months and you'll see these
were loser lowlife dive bars that are simply using the tobacco
ban as an excuse instead of confessing that they were loser
businesses before the tobacco ban.

No one is banning alcohol, and that is the business of bars/taverns,
not tobacco.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
It isn't smoking bans that hurt bars. It's the high
price of alcohol
The price of alcohol has been relatively stable - more so than the
price of tobacco.
I'll give you the price of tobacco has skyrocketed but the
price of a drink out is not cheap.
Not compared to drinking at home, but you've got the same situation
with restaurants.
Post by Bruce Watson
12 ozs of beer goes for
$4.00 to $6.00. That same amount taken home is $1.25.
Dunno where you hang out, but beer can be had cheaper than that in
many bar and retail outlets. A case of Heineken (I know, "Fuck that
shit! PBR!")
You show what a blue-collar lowlife you really are.
Post by L Sternn
can be had for $20 and there are plenty of friendly
neighborhood bars where you can get a draft for $1 during happy hour.
So pathetic tobacco addicts like you can't refrain for suck suck sucking
on a tobacco stick for one measely hour?
Post by L Sternn
You're purposely exagerrating the cost and ignoring the obvious
reasons why people are willing to pay more for drinks at bars or food
at restaurants.
Post by Bruce Watson
People do their serious drinking at home.
Some people do their serious drinking at home - others can afford it
or go to inexpensive bars and have a designated driver,
Yeah, riiiiight!
Post by L Sternn
walk, take a
cab, or take their chances with a DUI.
Post by Bruce Watson
Two reasons: 1) high
cost, 2) real threat of DUI.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
and the real threat of arrest while
driving under the influence.
That threat has been increasing since the '80s, and most of the
significant "gains" in the likelihood of catching DUI suspects
have already been taken.
Probably the most significant gain is that cops are much less likely
to let a drunk go.
Like I said. People don't want to go out to drink.
But if that were true, the bar business would be suffering all over -
that simply isn't the case.
Just the lowlife dive bars that cater to scumbag alkies and tobacco junkies.
Post by L Sternn
You want to have it both ways - bars are losing business because
drinking out is less popular, but they're doing just fine in areas
with smoking bans.
Yep
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
People are getting their away-from-home drinks at a
restaurant, not bars.o
Only to the extent that bars have closed due to smoking bans.
They haven't. They closed because of the high cost of
drinking and the threat of DUI.
For the most part, the only closures have been in areas hit by smoking
bans.
Good riddance.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Bars don't sell cigarettes.
You've never seen a cigarette machine in a bar?
Not lately.
Largely because of legislation banning them from businesses that allow
minors and also due to the high cost of cigarettes - smokers have
learned to avoid situations where they have to pay out the ass because
they ran out suddenly and pumping $5 in bills or change into a machine
is sort of a hassle.
Proof again -- smokers have NO loyalty to anyone or anything but
their wretched drug addiction.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
But the proceeds don't go to the bar.
I doubt the bar gets nothing from a cigarette machine.
Un-manned/monitored cig machines have been outlawed, yeeee haaaaaaa!
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Granted, they are rarer these days, due to legislation as well as
the significant price increases in per-pack price
Post by Bruce Watson
They sell alcohol and people
aren't buying it at bars.
Hmmmm - to the extent that that is true, the evidence certainly
points to smoking bans being the culprit.
The culprit is the 1) the high cost of drinking out, and 2) the
real threat of DUI.
Again, if that were true, bars would be hurting in areas without
smoking bans.
They are, they're just looking for an excuse to blame their
failures on.
Post by L Sternn
You want to have it both ways - bars are losing business because
drinking out is less popular,
Yep.
Post by L Sternn
but they're doing just fine in areas
with smoking bans.
Yep, cause when the loser bars close after the ban, the one's
still open get the residual customers, plus the non-smokers
who had avoided the stench pits in the past.
Post by L Sternn
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by L Sternn
Fortunately, they still sell alcohol and allow smoking in most of
the US.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Georgia just went today. Most could be under some kind
of comprehensive ban in 2 years of less.
And Saddam Hussein could be back in power, but I seriously doubt it.
Let him out of jail, and hold an election and see.

You forget that the Afghanis ELECTED the Taliban as
a welcome relief from the 15 years of murderous Warlordism.
Post by L Sternn
Maryland rejected their statewide ban after the Talbot County ban
wreaked havoc on business there.
At any rate, what do you mean "some kind" of "comprehensive ban"?
You're being deliberately vague. Is it "comprehensive" if it doesn't
include bars? Is it "comprehensive" if it allows businesses to apply
for waivers? Is it "comprehensive" if it exempts casinos? Even if
the state happens to be Nevada?
Complete bans on PUBLIC smoking, NO EXCEPTIONS. The ONLY
place you lowlife addicts will be able to smoke is in the privacy of
your own putrid abode -- got it?
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-10 02:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3762692,00.html
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
Yet absolutely not one shred of evidence that the smoking ban
caused the business failures, likely it is simply another case
of poor business management practices by the owners.
Post by L Sternn
There's Mugsy's and the Town Tavern, longtime watering holes near the
Rocky Mountain Steel Mill; Bruno's Beer Joynt downtown; Pepper's, a
northside dance club; and the Silver Saddle, a decades-old dance hall
on the south side.
"The smoking ban affected the bars in Pueblo quite drastically. We've
had six to 10 bars close since the smoking ban started," said Chuck
Chavez, owner of the Sunset Inn.
He said that his bar business dropped dramatically but that he has
survived on his restaurant trade.
So he's been able to adapt and survive. And now that his competition
is out of business, more customers for him.
Post by L Sternn
"But if you're just a regular bar, that's where people go to have a
beer and relax after work before they go home; they don't want to do
that if they can't smoke," Chavez said.
Lowlife smokers have ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except
their pathetic tobacco addiction.
-
2005-05-10 19:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by L Sternn
"But if you're just a regular bar, that's where people go to have a
beer and relax after work before they go home; they don't want to do
that if they can't smoke," Chavez said.
Lowlife smokers have ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except
their pathetic tobacco addiction.
That about sums it all up.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-11 15:06:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:19:52 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by L Sternn
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3762692,00.html
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of
businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
Yet absolutely not one shred of evidence that the smoking ban
caused the business failures, likely it is simply another case
of poor business management practices by the owners.
Post by L Sternn
There's Mugsy's and the Town Tavern, longtime watering holes near the
Rocky Mountain Steel Mill; Bruno's Beer Joynt downtown; Pepper's, a
northside dance club; and the Silver Saddle, a decades-old dance hall
on the south side.
"The smoking ban affected the bars in Pueblo quite drastically. We've
had six to 10 bars close since the smoking ban started," said Chuck
Chavez, owner of the Sunset Inn.
He said that his bar business dropped dramatically but that he has
survived on his restaurant trade.
So he's been able to adapt and survive. And now that his competition
is out of business, more customers for him.
Post by L Sternn
"But if you're just a regular bar, that's where people go to have a
beer and relax after work before they go home; they don't want to do
that if they can't smoke," Chavez said.
Lowlife smokers have ZERO loyalty to anything or anyone except
their pathetic tobacco addiction.
In other words, anti-smokers don't give a damn about business
failures.
Correct.
Why should they?
No reason.
It doesn't cost them anything.
Correct.
They didn't
spend twenty years nurturing a neighborhood bar.
Like John's Manville spent 50 years nurturing the Asbestos industry?
They just passed a law.
Yep.
If the bar caters to blue-collar workers, good riddence.
Even more so.
Antis' Gap clothing wasn't made in Peoria; it was made in Bangladesh.You're a
factory worker? Get an education and be like us.
If only you weren't a pig-ignorant tobacco addict you might have
that chance.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-12 14:28:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:06:31 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:19:52 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
Antis' Gap clothing wasn't made in Peoria; it was made in
Bangladesh.You're a factory worker? Get an education and be like
us.
If only you weren't a pig-ignorant tobacco addict you might have
that chance.
After reading your missives, I'm afraid to quit smoking. I might turn
into a peccatophobe or even a misocapnist.
Don't forget Bobby, we don't want *you* to quit smoking. I relish
the though of an ignorant jackass like you slowly poisoning yourself
into a painful cancerous death.

Just remember, it will no longer be legal for you to smoke in PUBLIC
places, you'll have to suck suck suuuuck your cancer sticks in the
privacy of your own wretched abode.

Any questions?
To save Google a millisecond --
peccatophobe: One who worries about having committed a sin or
imaginary crime. Has a strong sense of right and wrong, clean and
dirty.
misocapnist: A hand-waving hater of tobacco smoke.
Cirque
2005-05-18 21:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
I relish
the though of an ignorant jackass like you slowly poisoning yourself
into a painful cancerous death.
Everyone chuckles at the ongoing self loathing you evince here year
after year.

You're going to die a horrible cancerous death poxie as your own system
poisons itself under the direct orders of your poor addled self-hating mind.

Enjoy the pain, you've earned it!
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-19 14:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Cirque wrote:
<z3pie.18294$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
*plonk*
Cirque
2005-05-19 15:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
*plonk*
Get used to people knowing just what YOU are racist poxie!


<MNLie.32$***@news.uswest.net>

"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."


<9QLie.33$***@news.uswest.net>

"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."

"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-19 15:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Cirque wrote:
<z3pie.18294$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
plonk
Cirque
2005-05-19 15:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
*plonk*
<MNLie.32$***@news.uswest.net>

"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."


<9QLie.33$***@news.uswest.net>

"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."

"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-19 15:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Cirque wrote:
<z3pie.18294$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
plonk
Cirque
2005-05-19 23:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
plonk
Poxie says:

<MNLie.32$***@news.uswest.net>

"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."


<9QLie.33$***@news.uswest.net>

"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."

"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
"- Prof Jonez©"
2005-05-19 23:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Cirque wrote:
Cirque wrote:
<z3pie.18294$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
plonk
Cirque
2005-05-20 00:13:58 UTC
Permalink
"- Prof Jonez©" wrote:
Poxie says:

<MNLie.32$***@news.uswest.net>

"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."


<9QLie.33$***@news.uswest.net>

"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."

"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-20 06:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Cirque wrote:
Cirque wrote:
Cirque wrote:
<z3pie.18294$***@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
plonk
Cirque
2005-05-21 05:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
<MNLie.32$***@news.uswest.net>

"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."


<9QLie.33$***@news.uswest.net>

"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."

"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-21 06:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cirque
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."
Can't stand the ugly truth can you you bigoted
racist neo-con scumbag?

F. James Davis is a retired professor of sociology at Illinois State University.
He is the author of numerous books, including Who is Black? One Nation's
Definition (1991), from which this excerpt was taken.
To be considered black in the United States not even half of one's ancestry must
be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation's
answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person
with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long
experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it
became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black
blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor
rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and
anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed
persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition
emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally
accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this
American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by
judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux
Klansmen.

Let us not he confused by terminology. At present the usual statement of the
one-drop rule is in terms of "black blood" or black ancestry, while not so long
ago it referred to "Negro blood" or ancestry. The term "black" rapidly replaced
"Negro" in general usage in the United States as the black power movement peaked
at the end of the 1960s, but the black and Negro populations are the same. The
term "black" is used in this book for persons with any black African lineage,
not just for unmixed members of populations from sub-Saharan Africa. The term
"Negro," which is used in certain historical contexts, means the same thing.
Terms such as "African black," "unmixed Negro," and "all black" are used here to
refer to unmixed blacks descended from African populations.

We must also pay attention to the terms "mulatto" and "colored." The term
"mulatto" was originally used to mean the offspring of a "pure African Negro"
and a "pure white." Although the root meaning of mulatto, in Spanish, is
"hybrid," "mulatto" came to include the children of unions between whites and
so-called "mixed Negroes." For example, Booker T. Washington and Frederick
Douglass, with slave mothers and white fathers, were referred to as mulattoes.
To whatever extent their mothers were part white, these men were more than half
white. Douglass was evidently part Indian as well, and he looked it. Washington
had reddish hair and gray eyes. At the time of the American Revolution, many of
the founding fathers had some very light slaves, including some who appeared to
be white. The term "colored" seemed for a time to refer only to mulattoes,
especially lighter ones, but later it became a euphemism for darker Negroes,
even including unmixed blacks. With widespread racial mixture, "Negro" came to
mean any slave or descendant of a slave, no matter how much mixed. Eventually in
the United States, the terms mulatto, colored, Negro, black, and African
American all came to mean people with any known black African ancestry.
Mulattoes are racially mixed, to whatever degree, while the terms black, Negro,
African American, and colored include both mulattoes and unmixed blacks. As we
shall see, these terms have quite different meanings in other countries.

Whites in the United States need some help envisioning the American black
experience with ancestral fractions. At the beginning of miscegenation between
two populations presumed to be racially pure, quadroons appear in the second
generation of continuing mixing with whites, and octoroons in the third. A
quadroon is one-fourth African black and thus easily classed as black in the
United States, yet three of this person's four grandparents are white. An
octoroon has seven white great-grandparents out of eight and usually looks white
or almost so. Most parents of black American children in recent decades have
themselves been racially mixed, but often the fractions get complicated because
the earlier details of the mixing were obscured generations ago. Like so many
white Americans, black people are forced to speculate about some of the
fractions-- one-eighth this, three-sixteenths that, and so on....



Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American blacks,
but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in the United States
and not in any other nation in the world. In fact, definitions of who is black
vary quite sharply from country to country, and for this reason people in other
countries often express consternation about our definition. James Baldwin
relates a revealing incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of
Negro-African Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of
writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French
chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered himself Negro,
since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin wrote, "He is a Negro, of
course, from the remarkable legal point of view which obtains in the United
States, but more importantly, as he tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he
was a Negro by choice and by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."

The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other
countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans
say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has
previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that
someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much
concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry
with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much
more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique
definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the
one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on
biological or historical fact.

The black experience with passing as white in the United States contrasts with
the experience of other ethnic minorities that have features that are clearly
non-caucasoid. The concept of passing applies only to blacks--consistent with
the nation's unique definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less
American Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she
intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so the minority
ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that the key reason for this
is that the physical differences between these other groups and whites are less
pronounced than the physical differences between African blacks and whites, and
therefore are less threatening to whites. However, keep in mind that the
one-drop rule and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later
received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.

For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes
assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or
more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these
racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined
solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have
climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of
close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and
ultimately full cultural and social assimilation. Young people tend to marry
people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid
minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full
assimilation is slow but possible.

For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and
is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation
for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape
these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black
family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black
family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass
as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear
and distrust of the white world are also factors.

It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any
trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of
the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and
later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed
in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the
nation's social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to
the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is
wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific
sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the
society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.

The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States
by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice"
of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld
the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or
one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for
persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that
this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even
unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group
in a similar way. . . .

We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since they are so
often confused with each other. As defined in physical anthropology and biology,
races are categories of human beings based on average differences in physical
traits that are transmitted by the genes not by blood. Culture is a shared
pattern of behavior and beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social
communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural identity,
such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a racially distinctive
group. A group that is racially distinctive in society may be an ethnic group as
well, but not necessarily. Although racially mixed, most blacks in the United
States are physically distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic
group because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the general
American framework.
Post by Cirque
"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."
"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
Law banning Indians in Boston

Boston, MA, May. 20 (UPI) -- The Massachusetts Legislature has sent Gov Mitt
Romney a bill that would repeal a 1670s-era bill that bans American Indians from
entering Boston.

Romney is expected to sign the measure, removing a law from the state's books
that was enacted during a war between Massachusetts' European settlers and
American Indians, the Boston Globe reported Friday. Colony leaders in the 1670s
feared American Indians living in Boston would side with people fighting the
colonists during King Philip's War.

The newspaper said no one can recall the last time the law was enforced and some
state leaders believe it was overridden by the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution.

The law was brought up as a possible deterrent to Boston's efforts to convince
Unity -- a group of minority journalists that includes American Indians -- to
have its 2008 convention in Boston, the Globe said. Unity organizers are to
announce next month which of three cities -- Boston, Chicago or Washington --
will be the host for the 2008 convention of about 9,000 people.


begin 666 blank.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

begin 666 mix2c.gif
M1TE&.#EA^@`4`+,``/___V9F9M;6UH^/C[FYN?7U]8.#@W!P<.+BXGIZ>NSL
M[,S,S,+"PJVMK:.CHYF9F2'Y! ``````+ ````#Z`!0```3_$,A)J[TXZ\V[
M_V HCF1IGFBJKFSKOA6B3$*1U;"I$,0\[8N?8#A$`'"@!2%H(MI2"J+O]LRQ
M!H1)0)#96D>"0Z-QX$H2#\:$,1@$#(,&P/MY& B&A^GMEJ,(!VT!#U46=%\J
M6%IF%TB('PE9``0)BQ>'AQP,"38%"***@J1?P,2GI*7C(\GBA*9K"4*`4\%
M`3ZPKXRY&0Y^``T.)72;I1,$IAB\L2&N<UP,8P$#3P-&``[3!*#6``C)"PD!
MPMX## <)U^'CIVX&U^=B%>$4"0O?;[^6KY0'H/@#***@P``H``P/ESJ63L(Z<
M(3,(`DAH@,P4H .2&"!C5P'9,5/?_R1$***@0+8$JYAU<.:%0( %J$A2*H `
M(TD!$@L<"/(@"TXY#_3HY)G%@1X\`&8A\,1$@L<)6 K@)'"-`B9J@"3$F91L
MWQ&)/P$$+;E3;"JKN[BX\7F@@$XN@):2HO#4DQJ<3I.UI%:SD,H-+.$F<^7%
M%6$N> 4@!+ `(5ZN1Q8W%NLG2$0;,NAV!7!8E:7'M$J&]II8(F3%#!=7P*36
M#P%R#K(\?7HLT !Y7_.2',#$0-._@%/MU2K)"YW.>/$,<9D;LG(!S*=2&/#.
M`FW.Q5.2O EVRY!,ATKK?L[\H27#DCP^?7S,`/31CY\:)S#D#O"***@43)WD\
M>VY ;;31G/]***@G(V $&U/) ``7I!I5_YG'W58#=D-;=> 6:$L"&QNUB!'KC
M)<.>;K: $I]>7/#11H/W81 89-CQ9P9R$ETWH$6;35# `)5,L "#%(1!01G;
MK996;B-6X(Q')\+8A1F/@>B<B*9]),%8-\K8X@<O/M490?L]D]MD)?EDFD=D
M%I#%4J+5<$T#F]GBPRQ/\,):;K8\04 ***@2Y9IGK4/4C$"X\<8,![4$3BA
M-2FF;PQ5M>4%E(AT@(.=P5G27"\!(]$L,U3:)*B35&)?1 HLT)98#FD%6U=V
M'OG8)][<$N0!1M2$V)FFD%JI>><PX4HQ`- Z$V?Z..G/5VX9Z(6>`\+8-6D&
M.R9P&RA>^N>)`0;,188!***@5"*Y93C)***@D8< `YWY)+@0+<<CM%K)^9INJU
MUHTKB:,`NKO:AI"&R1FWR5#"+2>+^JD'`-***@6)2Z2;0ZK07(.!(!S4XD]F[
MVED0104""/0Q!@A(>H)4?NEX,08CEU#R1U*%L'*0`E%\A: VY[R"C3KW_*#/
30!L3]-!$%***@GK?2T$0``.P``
`
end
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-21 06:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Post by Cirque
Post by "- Prof. Jonez©"
Get used to the echo in here, dumbfuck.
"just one drop of "nigger" blood
makes anyone a "nigger"."
Can't stand the ugly truth can you you bigoted
racist neo-con scumbag?
F. James Davis is a retired professor of sociology at Illinois State
University. He is the author of numerous books, including Who is
Black? One Nation's Definition (1991), from which this excerpt was
taken. To be considered black in the United States not even half of one's
ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or
one-eighth, or less? The nation's answer to the question 'Who is
black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known
African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience
with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it
became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of
"black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one
black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable
amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule,"
meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the
subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to
become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and
blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American
cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by
judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by
Ku Klux Klansmen.
Let us not he confused by terminology. At present the usual statement
of the one-drop rule is in terms of "black blood" or black ancestry,
while not so long ago it referred to "Negro blood" or ancestry. The
term "black" rapidly replaced "Negro" in general usage in the United
States as the black power movement peaked at the end of the 1960s,
but the black and Negro populations are the same. The term "black" is
used in this book for persons with any black African lineage, not
just for unmixed members of populations from sub-Saharan Africa. The
term "Negro," which is used in certain historical contexts, means the
same thing. Terms such as "African black," "unmixed Negro," and "all
black" are used here to refer to unmixed blacks descended from
African populations.
We must also pay attention to the terms "mulatto" and "colored." The
term "mulatto" was originally used to mean the offspring of a "pure
African Negro" and a "pure white." Although the root meaning of
mulatto, in Spanish, is "hybrid," "mulatto" came to include the
children of unions between whites and so-called "mixed Negroes." For
example, Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass, with slave
mothers and white fathers, were referred to as mulattoes. To whatever
extent their mothers were part white, these men were more than half
white. Douglass was evidently part Indian as well, and he looked it.
Washington had reddish hair and gray eyes. At the time of the
American Revolution, many of the founding fathers had some very light
slaves, including some who appeared to be white. The term "colored"
seemed for a time to refer only to mulattoes, especially lighter
ones, but later it became a euphemism for darker Negroes, even
including unmixed blacks. With widespread racial mixture, "Negro"
came to mean any slave or descendant of a slave, no matter how much
mixed. Eventually in the United States, the terms mulatto, colored,
Negro, black, and African American all came to mean people with any
known black African ancestry. Mulattoes are racially mixed, to
whatever degree, while the terms black, Negro, African American, and
colored include both mulattoes and unmixed blacks. As we shall see,
these terms have quite different meanings in other countries.
Whites in the United States need some help envisioning the American
black experience with ancestral fractions. At the beginning of
miscegenation between two populations presumed to be racially pure,
quadroons appear in the second generation of continuing mixing with
whites, and octoroons in the third. A quadroon is one-fourth African
black and thus easily classed as black in the United States, yet
three of this person's four grandparents are white. An octoroon has
seven white great-grandparents out of eight and usually looks white
or almost so. Most parents of black American children in recent
decades have themselves been racially mixed, but often the fractions
get complicated because the earlier details of the mixing were
obscured generations ago. Like so many white Americans, black people
are forced to speculate about some of the fractions-- one-eighth
this, three-sixteenths that, and so on....
Not only does the one-drop rule apply to no other group than American
blacks, but apparently the rule is unique in that it is found only in
the United States and not in any other nation in the world. In fact,
definitions of who is black vary quite sharply from country to
country, and for this reason people in other countries often express
consternation about our definition. James Baldwin relates a revealing
incident that occurred in 1956 at the Conference of Negro-African
Writers and Artists held in Paris. The head of the delegation of
writers and artists from the United States was John Davis. The French
chairperson introduced Davis and then asked him why he considered
himself Negro, since he certainly did not look like one. Baldwin
wrote, "He is a Negro, of course, from the remarkable legal point of
view which obtains in the United States, but more importantly, as he
tried to make clear to his interlocutor, he was a Negro by choice and
by depth of involvement--by experience, in fact."
The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in
"Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is
white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as
black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is
one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much
concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid
ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize
that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological
one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person
black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on
folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or
historical fact.
The black experience with passing as white in the United States
contrasts with the experience of other ethnic minorities that have
features that are clearly non-caucasoid. The concept of passing
applies only to blacks--consistent with the nation's unique
definition of the group. A person who is one-fourth or less American
Indian or Korean or Filipino is not regarded as passing if he or she
intermarries and joins fully the life of the dominant community, so
the minority ancestry need not be hidden. It is often suggested that
the key reason for this is that the physical differences between
these other groups and whites are less pronounced than the physical
differences between African blacks and whites, and therefore are less
threatening to whites. However, keep in mind that the one-drop rule
and anxiety about passing originated during slavery and later
received powerful reinforcement under the Jim Crow system.
For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation
promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and
discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As
noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups
does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a
member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have
climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the
help of close personal relationships in the dominant community,
intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation.
Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal
social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than
blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation
is slow but possible.
For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is
blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full
opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a
fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without
passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and
community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black
family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who
could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the
minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also
factors.
It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as
one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably
woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs
once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike
Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the
definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the nation's
social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to
the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which
there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race
group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a
definite status position in the society it has become a
self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity.
The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the
United States by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have
taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge.
State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have
limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or
one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for
persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem
unaware that this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other
countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that
Americans define no other minority group in a similar way. . . .
We must first distinguish racial traits from cultural traits, since
they are so often confused with each other. As defined in physical
anthropology and biology, races are categories of human beings based
on average differences in physical traits that are transmitted by the
genes not by blood. Culture is a shared pattern of behavior and
beliefs that are learned and transmitted through social
communication. An ethnic group is a group with a sense of cultural
identity, such as Czech or Jewish Americans, but it may also be a
racially distinctive group. A group that is racially distinctive in
society may be an ethnic group as well, but not necessarily. Although
racially mixed, most blacks in the United States are physically
distinguishable from whites, but they are also an ethnic group
because of the distinctive culture they have developed within the
general American framework.
Post by Cirque
"And most of the "real" indians are loser drunkards stuck
on the reservation."
"Ward Churchill has done more for the Native Americans
than 1000s of "real injuns" combined."
Law banning Indians in Boston
Boston, MA, May. 20 (UPI) -- The Massachusetts Legislature has sent
Gov Mitt Romney a bill that would repeal a 1670s-era bill that bans
American Indians from entering Boston.
Romney is expected to sign the measure, removing a law from the
state's books that was enacted during a war between Massachusetts'
European settlers and American Indians, the Boston Globe reported
Friday. Colony leaders in the 1670s feared American Indians living in
Boston would side with people fighting the colonists during King
Philip's War.
The newspaper said no one can recall the last time the law was
enforced and some state leaders believe it was overridden by the 1780
Massachusetts Constitution.
The law was brought up as a possible deterrent to Boston's efforts to
convince Unity -- a group of minority journalists that includes
American Indians -- to have its 2008 convention in Boston, the Globe
said. Unity organizers are to announce next month which of three
cities -- Boston, Chicago or Washington -- will be the host for the
2008 convention of about 9,000 people.
Grass roots
2005-05-10 05:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DR
MN_37_3762692,00.html
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of
businesses that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was
passed two years ago.
There's Mugsy's and the Town Tavern, longtime watering holes
near the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill; Bruno's Beer Joynt
downtown; Pepper's, a northside dance club; and the Silver
Saddle, a decades-old dance hall on the south side.
Pure tobacco co mythology.
--
Grassroots
( no email - spoofed )
Dave Post
2005-05-10 06:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
I never understood why a bar/restaurant would lose business
after a smoking ban. Why wouldn't it be more attractive to
non-smokers?

I won't say that no bar/restuarant closed in Pueblo, but no
cause/effect has been established. Maybe those places were
going to close anyway or maybe the owners didn't want to
do business that way.

When Fort Collins implemented a smoking ban predictions were
dire and, in fact, they later reported a drop in business.

So now we just hear about them wanting a "level playing
field".

I wonder if an unbiased study would show any drop in business
at all.
--
David Post These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Question Authority, Nevermind Tibet, Free America!
dfpdvc at juno juno is a dot com
L Sternn
2005-05-10 13:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Post
Post by L Sternn
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
I never understood why a bar/restaurant would lose business
after a smoking ban. Why wouldn't it be more attractive to
non-smokers?
I won't say that no bar/restuarant closed in Pueblo, but no
cause/effect has been established. Maybe those places were
going to close anyway or maybe the owners didn't want to
do business that way.
When Fort Collins implemented a smoking ban predictions were
dire and, in fact, they later reported a drop in business.
So now we just hear about them wanting a "level playing
field".
I wonder if an unbiased study would show any drop in business
at all.
Why would a restaurant association be biased towards smoking?

They are pro-business, not pro-smoking.
"- Prof. Jonez©"
2005-05-10 16:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by L Sternn
Post by Dave Post
Post by L Sternn
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of
businesses that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was
passed two years ago.
I never understood why a bar/restaurant would lose business
after a smoking ban. Why wouldn't it be more attractive to
non-smokers?
I won't say that no bar/restuarant closed in Pueblo, but no
cause/effect has been established. Maybe those places were
going to close anyway or maybe the owners didn't want to
do business that way.
When Fort Collins implemented a smoking ban predictions were
dire and, in fact, they later reported a drop in business.
So now we just hear about them wanting a "level playing
field".
I wonder if an unbiased study would show any drop in business
at all.
Why would a restaurant association be biased towards smoking?
They are pro-business, not pro-smoking.
So was the Asbestos industry ...
Bruce Watson
2005-05-10 22:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Post
Post by L Sternn
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
I never understood why a bar/restaurant would lose business
after a smoking ban. Why wouldn't it be more attractive to
non-smokers?
It takes months for the stench of stale tobacco smoke
to abate to the point where it's barely tolerable.
Post by Dave Post
I won't say that no bar/restuarant closed in Pueblo, but no
cause/effect has been established. Maybe those places were
going to close anyway or maybe the owners didn't want to
do business that way.
People used to go to bars and drink the afternoon and
evening away. Not any more.
Post by Dave Post
When Fort Collins implemented a smoking ban predictions were
dire and, in fact, they later reported a drop in business.
There was a recession. It was in all the newspapers.
Post by Dave Post
So now we just hear about them wanting a "level playing
field".
More tobacco-industry propaganda.
Post by Dave Post
I wonder if an unbiased study would show any drop in business
at all.
Restaurants and bars go in and out of business all the time
for all sorts of reasons. The only business that suffers is
the tobacco business. They have the motive to lie.
L Sternn
2005-05-10 23:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by Dave Post
Post by L Sternn
In Pueblo, bar and restaurant owners tick off the list of businesses
that have closed since a nonsmoking ordinance was passed two years
ago.
I never understood why a bar/restaurant would lose business
after a smoking ban. Why wouldn't it be more attractive to
non-smokers?
It takes months for the stench of stale tobacco smoke
to abate to the point where it's barely tolerable.
And yet it must be tolerable to most non-smokers because they've been
going to smoking establishments for decades.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by Dave Post
I won't say that no bar/restuarant closed in Pueblo, but no
cause/effect has been established. Maybe those places were
going to close anyway or maybe the owners didn't want to
do business that way.
People used to go to bars and drink the afternoon and
evening away.
Only drunks ever did that.
Post by Bruce Watson
Not any more.
You think all the drunks suddenly got sober?
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by Dave Post
When Fort Collins implemented a smoking ban predictions were
dire and, in fact, they later reported a drop in business.
There was a recession. It was in all the newspapers.
That contradicts earlier reports here on this group, but then again,
you have never been consistent in your lies.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by Dave Post
So now we just hear about them wanting a "level playing
field".
More tobacco-industry propaganda.
Hmm - so we're back to restaurant associations being shills of the
tobacco industry?

You really ought to read the article before you comment on it and make
yourself look the fool.
Post by Bruce Watson
Post by Dave Post
I wonder if an unbiased study would show any drop in business
at all.
Restaurants and bars go in and out of business all the time
for all sorts of reasons. The only business that suffers is
the tobacco business. They have the motive to lie.
So why did the Maryland Restaurant Association (which has been around
since the 1930s) report that business was off by 11% in Talbot County
after the smoking ban was implemented while business in surrounding
counties was up?

Just another shill of the industry?

It was founded in the '30s. Do you really think the tobacco industry
had the foresight to start an organization 70 years ahead of time to
fight smoking bans?
~^ beancounter ~^
2005-05-10 16:52:07 UTC
Permalink
"smoking bans hurt business"....

no they don't....
Bruce Watson
2005-05-10 22:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~^ beancounter ~^
"smoking bans hurt business"....
no they don't....
They hurt the tobacco business.
~^ beancounter ~^
2005-05-11 15:38:27 UTC
Permalink
aka: "the drug business"...
just say no, right??
Loading...