Owain, my youthfully blurred vision of the world made me squirm in my seat while reading your response. I'm not at all interested in the holy war we got ourselves into, and this has nothing to do with it. We're already fighting the war and the job has to be finished, one way or another. This is NOT me bitching about pushing our views on other nations, this is about making people aware of the fact that laws are being passed that are taking away little pieces of our freedom, an inch at a time. It's also about showing people that they CAN speak out when they feel a bill is being proposed that would jeopardize our freedoms even more.

The purpose of the movement is to educate people about the movement.

Go George Bush, go troops, go America. I can't help but secretly support the war we're in, because I'm American. I don't think we should have gone in the first place (and I'm not looking for discussion of that, in this thread at least), but since we're there, I just want the job finished; if we pull out like we did the first time around it could be even worse. Who knows, George Bush the Third could put a hole in the side of the Earth with a nuke if we don't get the job done now.

Crimthan, this is in no way an anti-America movement. I love America, and that's why I want to fix it. Honestly, I'm afraid that the course we're on now will have us nuked within 10 years, and before I was inspired to take action, I just wanted to leave the country. This is an attempt to battle politicians that threaten our freedom, not to remove them from power or make them look bad. These people were put in power to help us, and that's what they should do, but how can they if they are guessing about what we want?

My bluntness in choice of words was likely my blood pumping at 4am over this idea. It's not a political movement, it's not an overthrow of government. It's a free education system that will encourage and allow people to voice their opinions to the government in a way that makes people feel like it's useful.

Until I was inspired to do this my dad would ask me every night "Why don't you do something about the country? It's slowly going to shit and YOU'RE the youth, YOU'RE the next generation." My response was always similar; "I don't know how." or "Nothing I could do would change anything." But now I have an idea, and when I have ideas the answer is go big or go home. I'm not so interested in making small changes here in my home town, as they have so little to do with the way things actually work; I want to impact the entire country.

Here in NY they passed a law a few years ago that banned smoking from all public facilities, including restaurants and bars. Bars that didn't serve food and could prove that not having smokers inside was ruining business could get a special permit to allow smoking there again, but I specifically know about some local businesses that were not eligible for a permit that took a fair hit in their business. I didn't write about this in my original post because I had linked the article by Fred Reed that explained it very well.

It's problems like that that I want to fix; I want to prevent the loss of our freedom, and potentially reclaim some of what has been lost. First, though, the people of this country need to understand that our view on freedom is skewed. Non-smokers didn't gain the freedom to go to a smokeless bar, they always had that freedom, but now smokers have lost their freedom to go to a bar that they *can* smoke in.

Well, given the makeup of many KGBers, stating off a post with the phrase "A few of my friends and I have been discussing the problems with America" is enough to make quite a few of us to become completely unhinged. After devoting a good part of the last 35 years to defending the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I will charitably offer that you and your friends, in total, have insufficient insight to speak knowlegably on the subject.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think trivial things like a smoking ban in public places is the greatest threat to Western Civilization at the moment.

If you really want to make a difference, remember what Ronald Reagan said: "SOME PEOPLE SPEND AN ENTIRE LIFETIME WONDERING IF THEY'VE MADE A DIFFERENCE TO THIS WORLD...THE MARINES DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM."

Crimthan put it a different way, suggesting that perhaps if you were to have an opportunity to see how other countries and cultures operate, you might come away with a different outlook on things. I have traveled to many parts of the world in both Europe and Asia, and although it was always interesting, every minute I spent overseas was an "America Appreciation" event for me.

The US isn't perfect by any stretch, but it is light years ahead of just about everywhere else on the planet.

Sorry I let loose with both barrels on you, but I really had a RCB moment (Red Curtain of Blood), and lost it for a bit. I imagine that Raekwan, currently over in Iraq, would have a similar reaction, as would just about anyone who had any active duty military time.

It's just a viceral thing...

The thing is, I agree with you in a lot of ways. I get pissed off at some of the politically correct bullshit that is so common lately, but you need work on your approach. Starting off talking about how everything in America is fucked up is not the best way to make friends and influence people.

Now that I've calmed down, and blood has stopped squirting from my eyeballs, let me take a look at the stuff you linked to. It may be that we are in violent agreement on the things that are annoying you.

I, however, would look at it as an opportunity to make America better, rather than an example of what makes America such a bad place.

An important difference in philosophy...

Owain, this is exactly why I came here to the KGB forums with my proposal. I know that I already have many friends here and they vary from 16 year old, pot smoking skaters to wise military officers and soldiers to top members of companies, with everything else in between. I'm looking for insight, I have a vision, but I don't personally have the knowledge or the tools to achieve it myself, hopefully here I can find others who have the same vision, and have some more life experience under their belt.

OK, I read the editorial in the link you supplied. I think the guy overstates the case a bit, but on the whole, yeah, there are a lot of blue noses running around who want to try to live your life for you. Personally, I frequently adivise people to "Mind Your Own Goddamn Business" when they try to pull that crap on me, but when the local goverment writes it into the laws, you are kind of screwed.

This, however, is nothing new. The meddlers at one time were so influential that they managed to get a no kiddin' Amendment to the Constitution of the United States officially to sanction such foolish busy body meddling (prohibition). The fact that prohibition was such an abject failure, and a subsequent a Amendment was necessary to repeal it should serve as a case study advising these nanny-staters against further exercises in stupidity.

It could be worse. I could live in Massachusetts...

But it's a free country. If some folks want to indulge in self inflicted wounds like this, then that is my first clue that I don't want to live anywhere as screwed up as that. So, if the people of Illinios want to make owning firearms a crime, then I'll move out west where concealed carry is common and accepted. Maybe that's why I live in Utah, and not New Hampshire.

But far from a sign of what's wrong with America, that is a sign of what makes America great. People get to choose what they want, even if it's something stupid. Hopefully, sooner or later they will figure the stupid parts and keep the good parts, but if your local community wants to go 'San Francisco' on you, move to Texas. This is a big country, and no doubt there are parts of it where you and the folks that live there can see eye to eye, and you don't have to put up with too much nonsense like this.

On the whole, I'm far less worried about this than I am about Iran, and the whole Global War on Terrorism thing.

Gotta have priorities...

Cool Politics!

LOL, I made a long post and then when I hit the "Continue" button the oracle crapped out on me, forced me to use the "back page" and of course all my text was gone. Oracle pwnd me!

Oh well, to sum it up. We need to travel the world and live without the daily american lifestyle before we can truly appreciate it. And only after that can you make a realistic criticism about the US.

Raekwon is basically stating what I mentioned in my post. Once you've witnessed the rest of the world firsthand, it gives more perspective toward the US and how great it can be, but also more insight into seeing its flaws.

How that statement can possibly hold no water is ludicrous.

I believe that the Government in some areas telling us we can't smoke in bars or restaurants is a good thing for everyone. So is eliminating transfats and hydro or partially hydrogenated oils from restaurants. Personally I believe strongly against being "frogs in the boiling pot" but I can't see how not smoking in a restaurant or not being able to stop your heart with hydrogenated oil is infringing on your REAL rights. In fact, you're giving more rights to those who cherish better health, which can hardly be a negative thing, and you're giving people with bad health habits something to think about.

In most other circumstances, however, I believe the government should take a back seat and simply act as protector of our nation. That's just it; with each circumstance, a different viewpoint and code of conduct may be needed. The situation should dictate the resolution - comparing gun control to smoking control is like comparing Apples to Potatoes. Each situation need be handled differently.

I sooooo don't understand this "I've seen the rest of the world, this is good enough for me." mentality or how you can find the will to support the government taking away basic freedoms. I agree that a LOT of the freedoms they've taken away are trivial, but I don't like the fact that they're able to take them. With an uncontested pinch here and an overlooked poke there, our lawmakers won't be far from taking away some freedom that is trivial to most, but you cherish. For instance, I think that a small, backwoods-town tavern, with a small fireplace and an old wooden bar, that's run by a middle aged man and his family, is the perfect place to have a dog. However, there are laws preventing having a dog there. The reason dogs aren't allowed in restaurants is because they're apparently unsanitary. I don't know about you guys, but I grew up with dogs in my house, dogs that I rolled on the floor with, slept next to, ate my dinner with their eager faces popping out from under the table waiting for scraps, and all of the other fun things you do with dogs. My dogs have never made me sick or feel like I'm not in a clean place, and the same goes for any other healthy, loved dogs anywhere I go.

It is called political activism... get involved in the process... propose ballot issues etc.

It is so easy to knock this or knock that, but it is very true that until you have seen the rest of the world it is hard to appreciate all that we have here in the .

So playing devils advocate are you not in favor of health standards Slinger? What about seat belts? Drinking and driving? So where would you draw the line as a politician and why?

It is easy to say that certain basic freedoms have been taken away (smoking for instance) but in certain cases people are just to stupid for their own good... (that ought to stir things up). Why would anyone want to smoke based on the documented medical evidence?? Because it is their right to kill themselves from lung cancer if they wish... however it is not their right to kill me from second hand smoke...

This discussion could go on forever, but the important thing to remember is that you can actually discuss this and not end up in jail... one of the great freedoms of this country.

Actually, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of trivial freedoms have been taken away, and the right to not wear a seatbelt is one that I think is completely foolish. I wear my seatbelt, not only do I wear it, but I love it. Some people refuse to wear them, and they get pulled over and fined for it. Who's came up with that one? Seatbelt laws were not made to save lives, they were made to collect money; if someone is too stupid to wear their seatbelt, do you really acre that much? Call me insensitive, but all of these safety measures that the country puts into action for us are just making money for the government and preventing survival of the fittest.

I would rather insurance companies say "If you're in an accident and didn't have your seatbelt on, our contract is void."

But again, I love my seatbelt.

As for non-smoking laws, that's a highly debatable subject, and does lean in the favor of not allowing it in public places. However, I'm not a smoker, but I do feel that restaurant owners and the like should have the right to allow smoking in their bars and what-have-you. It's not like they lock the door behind you when you walk into a bar, you can walk right out if you don't like the smoke. Again, this promotes survival of the fittest. If it becomes unpopular to smoke and a restaurant owner is permitting his 3 smoking customers to smoke, and his 40 non smoking customers go somewhere else, he'll reconsider the policies of his establishment.

Oh, and drunk driving is a no-brainer. Restrictions here are completely legitimate in my opinion, as you can't say "Oh, look, that guy is obviously driving drunk, I think I'll just leave this road."

Health standards, this is a tricky one in my opinion. There are basic standards that should be set, like a clean work environment and fit conditions for people to spend their work day in. However, there are some regulations that I think are just a little over the top, and this brings me back to liking dogs when I go someplace like a small-town tavern. The question is then raised: "Are dogs sanitary, or unsanitary?" The answer is pretty simple, if you don't get all tied up in logistics. A clean, healthy, well-fed, friendly dog is really no threat to the cleanliness of a work place; neglected dogs, such as dogs who are underfed and are unhealthy because of it, or dogs that are vicious and bite, are obviously jeopardizing the cleanliness and safety of anywhere they go, public or private.

So the laws made in response to Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' are great, they keep large businesses from killing and injuring people who are thrust into shitty jobs because they have no where else to go. On the other hand, laws that keep lovable dogs out of restaurants because some insane mother was worried her child might die from being near a dog in public. (Okay, so that's probably not how anti-dog-restaurant laws came to be, but you get my point...)

Well, when you get right down to it, the 'government' isn't doing it at all. We are doing it to ourselves, based on who we elect to public office. Lawmakers don't come up with this stuff in a vacuum: they listen to a lot of people. Constituants, lobbyists, special interest groups, corporations, and so forth. They are passing these laws because there is widespread support for them in many areas. However, there have been several instances of laws here in Utah that faced vigorous push back on the part of voters when they were initially proposed, and the legislators who initially sponsored the bills dropped them like a hot rock once they figured out that, no, the people in my district really don't want that boneheaded idea made into law.

When it comes to anti-smoking legislation, you are barking up the wrong tree, because there is a VERY strong anti-smoking sentiment in society at large. That is democracy, bub, and in this case, you are swimming against the current.

In some cases I agree with you Slinger, seat belts and helmets for motorcycles are 2 of them. Don't want to wear them, fine, just sign this waiver declining all medical coverage if involved in an accident.

I love dogs also but I am afraid I disagree with you on having them in restaurants etc... just not the right thing to do...

And as I stated and Owain alludes to this is all about political activism... don't like what is going on then get involved. Putting ideas out for people to read is unfortunately not going to get much wide spread attention because there is a large percentage of America that does not give a shit and won't read jack... evidenced by voter turn out, or the lack there off... pathetic...

I don't expect to be able to make smoking legal in public places again, though I do expect to educate people as to what changes are being proposed so they can voice their opinions on them.

wasn't gonna get involved with this but something Slinger said didn't make sense to me. He said that dogs are not allowed in restraunts as a freedom that was taken away (way i phrased it doesn't make sense but you get the idea.) I was not aware of any Federal Law that states that dogs are not allowed in restraunts.

So I did some research and found out
- There are no Federal laws prohibiting dogs at restaurants. The FDA Food Code is a recommendation, not a law. Federal Law requires restaurants to allow service dogs for the handicapped both inside and outside.

- State laws govern the restaurant health codes. Not the Federal Government. Many States incorporate parts of the FDA Food Code into their laws.

- If a state doesn't allow dogs at outdoor restaurants then cities or counties in most states may allow it locally by issuing a variance (exception) to the state code. Cities may implement these variances through an ordinance or simply through the health department. Variances can be allowed for all restaurants or individually.

- Even if allowed by law the final decision is up to the restaurant owner who may choose to allow or not allow dogs.

Not sure if this is actully true but i will investiagte more to discover the truth of these statements ( taken from http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/newsletters/jul06.shtml )

Slinger, read my last post again thoroughly, especially the first sentence. You're drawing the wrong conclusions.

Chaulootz, you're correct that it isn't governed by federal law, and that not all states restrict such things, and that exceptions can be made. That's not exactly the point I was trying to get at though, I guess I never wrapped my point up.

The thing that really bothers me is that we aren't as free in this country as we were intended to be by our forefathers. While the dogs in restaurant ordeal doesn't apply to everyone, why should anyone require "the proper papers" to have their well behaved family dog at their restaurant?

Why should we be required to have papers for a number of things? I'll give some examples, and arguments for both sides so we don't have to argue over them, lol.

Airplane tickets: why are we required to verify our identity when boarding airplanes?

It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy, I don't care to have the government know exactly where I am or where I travel to. On the other hand, this is a good way to make sure criminals don't escape the law.

Setting up a charity: why do I have to set up or go through a not-for-profit organization (or equally qualified organization) to raise money for a charity or cause?

I don't want to pay the government a fee so that I can raise money for my local recreation center or to send financial support to a veterinary clinic that isn't able to save as many pets as need help in their very poor town in South America somewhere. On the other hand, if there were not laws regulating such things, what's to stop me from saying I'm raising money for a good cause then pocketing it?

There are a lot of situations that are similar, or can be looked at in similar ways at least. As it stands now, I have no radical ideas to go changing laws or fighting the man, only a desire to educate people on little freedoms that have been mangled with paperwork. I want a simpler world, I guess.

I think we have way more freedoms than our forefathers intended, I mean, Washington (while he was president) got arrested in... Connecticut I want to say, while riding to deliver some important document on a Sunday. Yeah, he got arrested for not obeying the sabbath. Freedom?

I want to say the document was a veto, and that's why the 10-day rule for a president to submit his veto doesn't count Sundays or something like that, but honestly I'm not 100% sure.

I don't want to get too involved in this, much like Chaulootz, although I have been reading all of your obscenely long posts, but all I wanted to say was that although it may seem like our Forefathers were for all sorts of freedoms, really they'd wig out if they saw the country in the state it was today (because of freedoms, not restrictions implemented; e.g. "What?! Women and Blacks actually VOTE?!")

Why verify our identity when boarding an airplane??? I do believe that is an incredibly bad choice of a situation you are using to try and prove a point in light of recent events...

Your intent is well meant and certainly some of your points are valid... the question is where is the line drawn in trying to impose some sort of law and order to this society vs. having a lawless society with no rules, regulations, or respect. Yes certain personal liberties/freedoms may have to be impinged on for a certain degree of safety i.e. showing a valid id when boarding a plane is one that I am not against.

I guess I am still struggling with your intent Slinger... if it is trying to educate the masses about what is considered lost liberties and freedoms then good luck because again unfortunately the average joe doesn't care. Those that do are informed and often quite polarized one way or another... this nation needs folks to move a little more to the middle...

To address 5050 and Crim, it comes down to property rights.
The basic question is if I own the bar, why do I not have the right to smoke in it, or allow others to smoke in it. Sure, its unhealthy. But its my bar. Not your bar. I am not forcing you to patronize my bar. If you dislike the smoke in my bar, you are more than free to not patronize my bar.

Either our bodies and property belong to ourselves, or they do not. I can see regulating things that may harm others without their consent. I can see regulating public property, for example I think the Govt has every right to eliminate smoking in a Courthouse. Many people may be required to visit the courthouse to do the publics business who dont like smoke. And after all, their taxes helped pay for it.

I'm also all for "truth in labelling", I think intentionally misrepresenting a business or product should be punishable according to the laws governing fraud. But I think having dogs or smoke is fine, as long as the establishment freely states that smoke and dogs are or may be present. Same goes for transfatty acids and all sorts of other unhealthy things.

And to Owain, you made the point Sling made I think- the Govt is elected by the people. Which is why if you really dislike it so much, and think its going down a terrible terrible path, I say its our responsibility- as in those who think so, to get involved.

5050, lets take another example then: Taking your shoes off at the airport. Do you really think that improves security in any meaningfull fashion?

I know we spend alot of time and money. I also know most of the measures in place are mere theatre. People need to learn to be less scared, and we need to spend our time and money more sensibly.

The reason there hasnt been another 9/11 style hijacking is because the terrorists now know that we know what theyre up to. They know that if they try and hijack another plane with boxcutters, we are all going to rise up and beat the shit out of them and crash the plane if necesarry.

It certainly has 0 to do with removing our shoes, or "no-fly" lists, or secret "terror rating" scores accumulated
in secret, or mass investigations of normal citizens.

Owain is absolutely right that it is American society at large that is to blame rather than the government (which the society places in power). In my original post I stated that we live in a bi-polar nation with only two reigning political parties. They are continuously playing tug of war with the nation, when they should be more focused on tackling and succeeding with the issues at hand. Unless a third party or more emerge, there will never really be much of a balance in American politics. My theory is that through balance the truth and fairness can be found; not in polar extremes.