For the Progressives in the forum ...

[PadawanBater]

Lol. I thought the same thing when I read those lame questions. Of course the antithesis would be:

1. According to a recent Harvard study, 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. As a country, what level should we strive for?

2. The United States enjoys the largest economic inequality in the industrialized world where the wealthiest 1% of the population enjoys more than the bottom 95%. What is a fair spectrum of wealth distribution we should strive for in our tax code?

Etc, etc.

Everyone knows liberty & equality are a game of give & take... Why doesn't anyone want to answer your questions ViRedd? I don't know... Maybe because they're so fucking banal?

lmfao, great post towlie, +rep

 

[ViRedd]

Lol. I thought the same thing when I read those lame questions. Of course the antithesis would be:

1. According to a recent Harvard study, 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. As a country, what level should we strive for?

2. The United States enjoys the largest economic inequality in the industrialized world where the wealthiest 1% of the population enjoys more than the bottom 95%. What is a fair spectrum of wealth distribution we should strive for in our tax code?

Etc, etc.

Everyone knows liberty & equality are a game of give & take... Why doesn't anyone want to answer your questions ViRedd? I don't know... Maybe because they're so fucking banal?[/QUOTE]

Nope, I think our friend WarLord hit the nail on the head. The lack of answers is due to intellectual laziness. Take away the feel-goodness of progressive ideas and there is no intellect.

And by the way ... you didn't answer either. So, how about giving us YOUR vision of our bright future of liberty and the enjoyment of freedom under a government that rules over every progressive plan desired by the totalitarians in our midsts? Come on ... I know you can do it.

 

[towlie]

Lol. You kill me dude.

With every post you become more transparent. Would someone like to enlighten Mr. ViRedd as to how the psychological community defines a person who continually performs the same task yet expects a different outcome?

Which leads us to either of two conclusions. 1) You are by definition insane. 2) You’re not really interested in any kind of intellectual discussion, but rather want to satisfy your ego by posting dumb questions formulated in an even dumber manner in order to claim that progressives are too intellectually lazy to respond.

Case in point:

How about giving us YOUR vision of our bright future of liberty and the enjoyment of freedom under a government that rules over every progressive plan desired by the totalitarians in our midsts?

The only intellectual discourse that could possibly spawn from the above idiocy would be a discussion about people who seek out news from forums that already agree with them (i.e. Glenn Beck.) It’s so one sided I can’t help but pity you.

I posted two examples of most disingenuous questions I could think of, and your response was to reply with an even more disingenuous question? Nice job by the way. If I ever need to write a seriously lame question, I’ll look you up… But I’m not your fucking monkey dude. If you want an honest discussion, ask an honest question. You’ll be out of luck with those of us who’ve previously been jaded wasting our time attempting an honest dialog with you… but maybe you can find some new blood.

If you can’t figure it out from that, have your mom explain why nobody likes to play with you.

 

[towlie]

"So I picked up some party balloons and a small tube of vaseline, then slippity slip it was in my ass."
-BongJuice

I literally spewed coffee when I read that!

P.S. Thanks for the rep Bro.

 

[ViRedd]

Lol. You kill me dude.

With every post you become more transparent. Would someone like to enlighten Mr. ViRedd as to how the psychological community defines a person who continually performs the same task yet expects a different outcome?

Which leads us to either of two conclusions. 1) You are by definition insane. 2) You’re not really interested in any kind of intellectual discussion, but rather want to satisfy your ego by posting dumb questions formulated in an even dumber manner in order to claim that progressives are too intellectually lazy to respond.

Case in point:




The only intellectual discourse that could possibly spawn from the above idiocy would be a discussion about people who seek out news from forums that already agree with them (i.e. Glenn Beck.) It’s so one sided I can’t help but pity you.

I posted two examples of most disingenuous questions I could think of, and your response was to reply with an even more disingenuous question? Nice job by the way. If I ever need to write a seriously lame question, I’ll look you up… But I’m not your fucking monkey dude. If you want an honest discussion, ask an honest question. You’ll be out of luck with those of us who’ve previously been jaded wasting our time attempting an honest dialog with you… but maybe you can find some new blood.

If you can’t figure it out from that, have your mom explain why nobody likes to play with you.

Well, Towlie ... thanks for being so kind, its much appreciated.

My Mom died in 1969, thank you very much, probably long before you were born.

As to my questions, to date there hasn't been one Progressive that has tried to answer the question, including you.

Would you like another stab at it? Do your best, dude. Think of all the proposals put forth by the Progressive movement over the years, put it all together, then tell us what the ultimate end would be. I mean ... that's a pretty simple question isn't it? Honest question too. Why are you finding it so hard to answer?

You think I'm trying to bait someone? No way ... I just want to challenge some of the Progressives who post in the forum to think about the consequences of their desires and actions. That's about it.

Now, I look forward to your honest, well thought out answer. Thanks ...

 

[doobnVA]

Well, Towlie ... thanks for being so kind, its much appreciated.

My Mom died in 1969, thank you very much, probably long before you were born.

As to my questions, to date there hasn't been one Progressive that has tried to answer the question, including you.

Would you like another stab at it? Do your best, dude. Think of all the proposals put forth by the Progressive movement over the years, put it all together, then tell us what the ultimate end would be. I mean ... that's a pretty simple question isn't it? Honest question too. Why are you finding it so hard to answer?

You think I'm trying to bait someone? No way ... I just want to challenge some of the Progressives who post in the forum to think about the consequences of their desires and actions. That's about it.

Now, I look forward to your honest, well thought out answer. Thanks ...

40 years ago, huh? The wound must still be so fresh.....




It's pointless to continue trying to debate further with you, when you liken progressive ideals to totalitarianism - which quite clearly displays your ignorance of the movement.

Enjoy the rest of your life inside the comfortable conservative bubble that insulates you from the real world.

 

[ViRedd]

40 years ago, huh? The wound must still be so fresh.....




It's pointless to continue trying to debate further with you, when you liken progressive ideals to totalitarianism - which quite clearly displays your ignorance of the movement.

Enjoy the rest of your life inside the comfortable conservative bubble that insulates you from the real world.

And again ... personal attacks instead of reasonable discourse. Typical.

Progressive ideals:

1. The progressive income tax. The more the better. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

2. 1.5 gallon flush toilets in every home. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

3. The California Central Valley's water shut off to save a small fish, while the Bread Basket of the nation is turned into a desert and 40% of the farming trade is put out of work. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

4. Home ownership for everyone, regardless of the ability to pay. The entire economy is brought to its knees as a result. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

5. Dictating to private businesses what they can pay, who they can pay, how they can pay and when they can pay. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

6. Over 20,000 gun laws on the books at present with few of them enforced and yet, progressives want even more gun laws. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

7. Taxing carbon emissions. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

8. C.A.F.E. standards that make cars lighter and less safe. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

9. Proposed VAT tax. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

10. A 58 TRILLION national debt that economically enslaves future generations.Nope, that's not totalitarian.

11. The dollar that was worth 100 cents in 1913 is now worth .04 cents. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

12. Hate crime legislation, that is no more than restrictions on thought and speech. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

13. Anti-smoking laws dictating what one can and cannot do in one's own private property. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

14. Economic controls under the guise of "money laundering" laws. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

15. A central bank that erodes the citizen's savings through the hidden tax of inflation. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

16. Failure/refusal to stop the illegal foreign invasion in order to garner the Hispanic vote. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

You fill in the blanks.

You fill in the blanks.

 

[towlie]

My Mom died in 1969, thank you very much, probably long before you were born.


Would you like another stab at it? Do your best, dude. Think of all the proposals put forth by the Progressive movement over the years, put it all together, then tell us what the ultimate end would be. I mean ... that's a pretty simple question isn't it? Honest question too. Why are you finding it so hard to answer?


You think I'm trying to bait someone? No way ... I just want to challenge some of the Progressives who post in the forum to think about the consequences of their desires and actions. That's about it.

I'm sorry ViRedd. I hope I didn't open any old wounds. I was only trying to be condescending rather than cruel.

Regarding your question. Yes. I do think you're trying to bait. As I said, I've been jaded by you before. About a year ago, you and several members repeatedly claimed to have compelling scientific evidence refuting climate change. I spent countless hours requesting links to your scientific evidence, stating what forums I (as well as the scientific community) would consider 'scientific'... This arduous exercise in futility dragged on well over 500 posts and not a single link to a single god damned scientific journal was provided. Lots of articles from pundits funded by the coal & oil industries. Now you want to waste more of my time answering really lame questions that don't even interest me? Fuck that.

I don't think you'd be terrible happy with my answers either. I'm hardly what you'd call a progressive. I'm more in line with the former self described moderate conservatives (David Frum, David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Colin Powell, etc.) who went into the voting booth, slit their throat & voted for Obama.

That said I'd be happy to discuss why I think the current conservative punditry modus operandi dressed as shitty journalism (i.e. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) are marginalizing conservatism while empowering liberalism similar to what conservatives did to FDR in the 40's. How'd calling Democrats the 'Democrat Socialist Party' or FDR a 'communist' work out for them by the way?

Regarding your question though. I already said I thought it was a lame question... I'm not really sure why you'd think anyone would want to answer it... I think it's quite clear, from this thread, that no one else is interested either... Personally, I'd work on my delivery.

P.S. I really am sorry about the mother thing.

Your stoner friend. Towlie.

 

[doobnVA]

And again ... personal attacks instead of reasonable discourse. Typical.

Progressive ideals:

1. The progressive income tax. The more the better. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

2. 1.5 gallon flush toilets in every home. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

3. The California Central Valley's water shut off to save a small fish, while the Bread Basket of the nation is turned into a desert and 40% of the farming trade is put out of work. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

4. Home ownership for everyone, regardless of the ability to pay. The entire economy is brought to its knees as a result. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

5. Dictating to private businesses what they can pay, who they can pay, how they can pay and when they can pay. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

6. Over 20,000 gun laws on the books at present with few of them enforced and yet, progressives want even more gun laws. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

7. Taxing carbon emissions. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

8. C.A.F.E. standards that make cars lighter and less safe. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

9. Proposed VAT tax. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

10. A 58 TRILLION national debt that economically enslaves future generations.Nope, that's not totalitarian.

11. The dollar that was worth 100 cents in 1913 is now worth .04 cents. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

12. Hate crime legislation, that is no more than restrictions on thought and speech. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

13. Anti-smoking laws dictating what one can and cannot do in one's own private property. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

14. Economic controls under the guise of "money laundering" laws. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

15. A central bank that erodes the citizen's savings through the hidden tax of inflation. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

16. Failure/refusal to stop the illegal foreign invasion in order to garner the Hispanic vote. Nope, that's not totalitarian.

You fill in the blanks.

You fill in the blanks.

You realize that "bread bowl" WAS ORIGINALLY A DESERT? It was that "totalitarian" government that brought water in so the people could FARM? And that those tiny little fish feed SALMON, and are an important part of the FOOD CHAIN?

THOUGHTS AND SPEECH are not "hate crimes". Bombing an abortion clinic is a hate crime. Burning down a jewish temple is a hate crime. Tying up a gay teenager and beating him to death is a hate crime. Are these crimes that shouldn't be prosecuted?

You're blaming progressives for INFLATION? REALLY? And the national debt (despite the fact that there's been no "progressive" administration since FDR?)? Really??! You're grasping at straws here.

The anti-smoking laws do not prevent you from smoking on your own property. That's absurd. Public smoking bans generally have bipartisan support, so again, blaming progressives is simply wishful thinking on your part.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

*laughs at ViRedd*

Faux news should hire this gimp.

 

[ViRedd]

THOUGHTS AND SPEECH are not "hate crimes". Bombing an abortion clinic is a hate crime. Burning down a jewish temple is a hate crime. Tying up a gay teenager and beating him to death is a hate crime. Are these crimes that shouldn't be prosecuted?

The anti-smoking laws do not prevent you from smoking on your own property. .

Bombing an abortion clinic is a bombing crime. Burning down a Jewish temple is an arson crime. Tying up a Gay teenager and killing him is a crime of murder. To prosecute anyone for what they think during those crimes is a thought crime. If they speak of that hate during the commission of the crime, it is a speech crime.


Calif. cities mull smoking ban for apartments

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY Lawmakers in two California cities are discussing unprecedented legislation this month that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos. Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on an ordinance that would ban smoking in apartments and condos. The measure, which won initial approval last week, could trigger fines and evictions if neighbors complain and smokers don't heed repeated warnings.

In Calabasas on Wednesday, the City Council discussed a proposal that would expand its anti-smoking law to bar lighting up inside existing apartments and most new condos. The council agreed to request changes to the measure that would exempt all condos and set aside a certain percentage of apartments for smokers, says city spokesman Michael Hafken. It is slated to consider the revised proposal next month.

The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members in both cities, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies.

Health officials in about 30 states promote the health and economic benefits, including reduced fire risk and lower cleanup costs for multiunit housing, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan group funded partly by the state.

Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, management companies and health activists say. Last month, Guardian Management began phasing in a smoke-free policy at 8,000 of its rental units, mostly in Oregon and Washington.
"We've proven the voluntary approach can work very well," Bergman says. He doesn't think legislative bans will work because of a "my home is my castle" philosophy.

"The time has come. The evils of smoking have been known for decades," says Barry Groveman, a Calabasas councilman who co-wrote the proposal.
Still, he knows he's struck a nerve. "I've gotten threats like you wouldn't believe," Groveman says.

"Fresh air should be breathed by everybody," Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach says. She cites a 2006 surgeon general's report that says no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free.
Critics say the bans violate civil and personal property rights. "You should be able to do as you wish in your own home," says Michon Coleman of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors.
Belmont's ordinance is "way over the top," because a smoker can be evicted simply for lighting up, says Warren Lieberman, one of two council members who oppose it.

Such criticism prompted Oakland last month to remove a ban on smoking in new apartments and condos from an ordinance that barred lighting up in public places.

Feierbach says she never intended to create a stir, but she expects other cities to follow Belmont. "We really broke ground," she says.

 

[PadawanBater]

Bombing an abortion clinic is a bombing crime. Burning down a Jewish temple is an arson crime. Tying up a Gay teenager and killing him is a crime of murder. To prosecute anyone for what they think during those crimes is a thought crime. If they speak of that hate during the commission of the crime, it is a speech crime.

Are you being serious with this?

You realize there are specific reasons why they call em ''hate crimes'', right?

It's got nothing to do with what a person is thinking while committing the crime.

 

[ViRedd]

Are you being serious with this?

You realize there are specific reasons why they call em ''hate crimes'', right?

It's got nothing to do with what a person is thinking while committing the crime.

Yes, I'm being serious. So called "Hate Crimes" are nothing but political correctness run amok. A crime is a crime. If a White guy kills a Black guy due to racism, the crime is homicide, not "hate."

If a person bombs an abortion clinic, the crime is arson, not "hate."

If a Straight guy beats the bejeezus out of a Gay guy, the crime is assault or mayhem, not "hate."

I'm telling you, hate crime legislation is nothing more than Progressive Feel-goodism.

You can change my mind on this if you can post one ... just ONE link depicting a Black guy being prosecuted for a "hate" crime against a White guy, or a Gay guy prosecuted for beating up a Straight guy.

 

[PadawanBater]

Yes, I'm being serious. So called "Hate Crimes" are nothing but political correctness run amok. A crime is a crime. If a White guy kills a Black guy due to racism, the crime is homicide, not "hate."

If a person bombs an abortion clinic, the crime is arson, not "hate."

If a Straight guy beats the bejeezus out of a Gay guy, the crime is assault or mayhem, not "hate."

I'm telling you, hate crime legislation is nothing more than Progressive Feel-goodism.

You can change my mind on this if you can post one ... just ONE link depicting a Black guy being prosecuted for a "hate" crime against a White guy, or a Gay guy prosecuted for beating up a Straight guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny

This little bit sort of swayed my opinion on the matter;

"Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the US Constitution."

Looks like the law is good on paper, but doesn't work very well in reality.

But people who actively seek out certain groups of people because of a specific difference should be charged with something other than simple assault, something more needs to be done, I'm not sure what, but one guy beating up another guy for random reasons isn't the same as one guy beating up a homosexual because he's homosexual. There is a distinction that has to be recognized. Would you agree with that Vi?

 

[ViRedd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Oliver_Denny

This little bit sort of swayed my opinion on the matter;

"Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the US Constitution."

Looks like the law is good on paper, but doesn't work very well in reality.

But people who actively seek out certain groups of people because of a specific difference should be charged with something other than simple assault, something more needs to be done, I'm not sure what, but one guy beating up another guy for random reasons isn't the same as one guy beating up a homosexual because he's homosexual. There is a distinction that has to be recognized. Would you agree with that Vi?

In principle maybe, but in the real world, no. What if a guy beats up a homosexual because he hates homosexuals and the homosexual dies from head trauma? What then? Do we double the death penalty? If the death penalty doesn't apply in that particular state, then do we sentence the guy to two life terms instead of one?

To date, I've not heard of a Black guy being prosecuted for a hate crime against a White guy, have you? The reason why is because hate crime legislation is politically biased and introduced to garner votes from those who think of themselves as victims.

 

[PadawanBater]

In principle maybe, but in the real world, no. What if a guy beats up a homosexual because he hates homosexuals and the homosexual dies from head trauma? What then? Do we double the death penalty? If the death penalty doesn't apply in that particular state, then do we sentence the guy to two life terms instead of one?

To date, I've not heard of a Black guy being prosecuted for a hate crime against a White guy, have you? The reason why is because hate crime legislation is politically biased and introduced to garner votes from those who think of themselves as victims.

What's the solution?

Should we not recognize any distinction between regular crime and hate crime?

Isn't the reason we have hate crime legislation in the first place because that system did not work?

Garnering the votes does make sense, just like with the illegal immigration debate, one side giving illegals citizenship will undoubtably gain votes for the side that did it, that's obvious, but what's also obvious is that we can't up and kick millions of people (with families) out of the United States at the drop of a hat. I bring that up because the situations are similar. So yeah, you're right there are politicians out there who try to pass this stuff only for the votes, but I think there are also legitimate reasons to differentiate between regular crime and hate crime.

If the victim dies in the attack, then of course you wouldn't give the suspect twice the sentence or double the death penalty. You'd tack that on his file "victim died as a result of a hate crime", then as the system went along, that person would remain behind bars longer than had the crime not been committed out of hate. He'd have much less of a chance of getting released, etc.

 

[UnkleFestis]

ear.......

 

[ViRedd]

What's the solution?

Should we not recognize any distinction between regular crime and hate crime?

Isn't the reason we have hate crime legislation in the first place because that system did not work?

Garnering the votes does make sense, just like with the illegal immigration debate, one side giving illegals citizenship will undoubtably gain votes for the side that did it, that's obvious, but what's also obvious is that we can't up and kick millions of people (with families) out of the United States at the drop of a hat. I bring that up because the situations are similar. So yeah, you're right there are politicians out there who try to pass this stuff only for the votes, but I think there are also legitimate reasons to differentiate between regular crime and hate crime.

If the victim dies in the attack, then of course you wouldn't give the suspect twice the sentence or double the death penalty. You'd tack that on his file "victim died as a result of a hate crime", then as the system went along, that person would remain behind bars longer than had the crime not been committed out of hate. He'd have much less of a chance of getting released, etc.

Well, I think here is where we differ. I think all violent crime, or crime against property is based upon hate of some sort. If a Homosexual, Hispanic, Jew, Muslim or Black guy attacks a White, Christian male and beats him to a pulp while shouting "Here's one for Jesus," do you think they would be charged with a hate crime?

If you want to hear hate speech spewed toward Christians, watch the Bill Maher show sometime.

Like I said ... "Hate Crimes" are political correctness nonsense.

 

[PadawanBater]

Well, I think here is where we differ. I think all violent crime, or crime against property is based upon hate of some sort.

I'd agree, but what makes it a ''hate crime'' as defined under the law is the victim is chosen specifically because of the difference the suspect opposes. Had the guy been straight and not gay, nothing would have ever happened to him.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario, say there was a guy who hated disabled people. He beat them up at every chance, put a few of them in the hospital, and served a few jail terms because of it. Say he had a rap sheet three pages long with incident after incident.. Should we just keep tackin up ''assault'' for his actions or should more extreme action be taken?

^totally exaggerated hypothetical, but just for the sake of this argument.

 

[doobnVA]

Bombing an abortion clinic is a bombing crime. Burning down a Jewish temple is an arson crime. Tying up a Gay teenager and killing him is a crime of murder. To prosecute anyone for what they think during those crimes is a thought crime. If they speak of that hate during the commission of the crime, it is a speech crime.


Calif. cities mull smoking ban for apartments

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY Lawmakers in two California cities are discussing unprecedented legislation this month that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos. Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on an ordinance that would ban smoking in apartments and condos. The measure, which won initial approval last week, could trigger fines and evictions if neighbors complain and smokers don't heed repeated warnings.

In Calabasas on Wednesday, the City Council discussed a proposal that would expand its anti-smoking law to bar lighting up inside existing apartments and most new condos. The council agreed to request changes to the measure that would exempt all condos and set aside a certain percentage of apartments for smokers, says city spokesman Michael Hafken. It is slated to consider the revised proposal next month.

The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members in both cities, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies.

Health officials in about 30 states promote the health and economic benefits, including reduced fire risk and lower cleanup costs for multiunit housing, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan group funded partly by the state.

Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, management companies and health activists say. Last month, Guardian Management began phasing in a smoke-free policy at 8,000 of its rental units, mostly in Oregon and Washington.
"We've proven the voluntary approach can work very well," Bergman says. He doesn't think legislative bans will work because of a "my home is my castle" philosophy.

"The time has come. The evils of smoking have been known for decades," says Barry Groveman, a Calabasas councilman who co-wrote the proposal.
Still, he knows he's struck a nerve. "I've gotten threats like you wouldn't believe," Groveman says.

"Fresh air should be breathed by everybody," Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach says. She cites a 2006 surgeon general's report that says no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free.
Critics say the bans violate civil and personal property rights. "You should be able to do as you wish in your own home," says Michon Coleman of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors.
Belmont's ordinance is "way over the top," because a smoker can be evicted simply for lighting up, says Warren Lieberman, one of two council members who oppose it.

Such criticism prompted Oakland last month to remove a ban on smoking in new apartments and condos from an ordinance that barred lighting up in public places.

Feierbach says she never intended to create a stir, but she expects other cities to follow Belmont. "We really broke ground," she says.

An apartment that you RENT is NOT your property. Notice they say condos are exempt, because people typically OWN condos instead of renting them.

Talk about an "entitlement mentality". I suppose next you'll be saying that landlords who won't let tenants paint the walls are curbing their "freedom", too? What about apartments that don't allow pets? Is that an infringement on our liberties, as well? Maybe I'm Hindu and I want a sacred cow to live with me.. freedom of religion is under attack, right?

Give me a break.