It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





I demand that CVS sell me smokes! (yes, I know, I can always go somewhere else, but the gay couple could have also)



Logic disconnect... CVS isn't selling cigarettes to straight smokers and not to gay smokers. They aren't selling cigarettes to anyone, period.




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





As far as what should or shouldn't be legal, that's not just a progressive thing, its a liberty thing..libertarians also don't want to be told what they can and cannot take in their home or places designed for that.


A liberty thing eh?

Tell that to the evil rich, and gun owners, and religious people in this country.

Given the fact that the two still exist for me to tell, then it sort of invalidates your hysterical point of view that somehow those two groups have been eliminated.





As far as "sin" tax, smokers tend to be low financial brackets,


Hating on the poor now are we ?


No, that is a statistical fact.
Source 1
Source
And no, not hating on the poor, because I don't hate smokers..I was one for the longest time and have always hated smoking even as one..and I don't hate the poor.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 


Haha that is an awesome but asinine argument.

So what you're saying, is that CVS has a duty to smokers to purchase in bulk, and sell cigarettes to smokers?
And not fulfilling that duty to smokers, is discrimination and therefor against the law.

So by your logic... ALL store should sell cigarettes because if they don't, it's discrimination against smokers.

Got it.


Nope.

Guess it only counts as 'discrimination' when it fits the progressive agenda.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


So by your logic, religion trumps beliefs, rights and laws.

In my understanding of the English language... Rights ARE Freedoms.
So my right to refuse business to people of my choosing, is my freedom to do so.
Therefor my freedom should have as much weight against the law as any religious belief/right/freedom.

And my argument wasn't against Freedom by the way... As stated before and now above.
I believe I have the right/freedom to refuse service in my business to anyone I choose.

So... Not sure what you argument is?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 


Haha that is an awesome but asinine argument.

So what you're saying, is that CVS has a duty to smokers to purchase in bulk, and sell cigarettes to smokers?
And not fulfilling that duty to smokers, is discrimination and therefor against the law.

So by your logic... ALL store should sell cigarettes because if they don't, it's discrimination against smokers.

Got it.


Smokers are discriminated against.

We are told where to smoke, we can't smoke in many places.

It is a discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion


/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/


noun

noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
sexism, chauvinism, misogyny, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, casteism;

historicalapartheid

"racial discrimination"
antonyms: impartiality
2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

"discrimination between right and wrong"



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I can pour over useless laws for hours! Every jurisdiction has antiquated laws that make no sense. Legislators bow to populist frenzies all the time. I'm sure there are still laws on the books making it illegal to eat a sandwhich on your front porch after midnight or some such dumb stuff


The constitution is there to prevent populist insanery (is that a word?) from prevailing rights.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





A large chain is taking a huge income cut in order to remove something wholly unhealthy from their stock, with absolutely no enforcement, but voluntarily



Yep and after 'noticing the irony'.


You are the one who claimed that a business should be able to do what it wants. So they have decided to NOT sell something. I fail to see the problem here.




Perhaps you should go to CVS and get some Xanax and Lithium, because hating them just because POTUS gives them a thumbs up and you have this irrational, rabid, hate towards POTUS for 24/7. I still want to know how much you get paid because no one could possibly be on this campaign constantly for free unless there is something really wrong with you.



Sorry unlike Mr. and Mrs. Obama I do not get paid for my opinions.


You don't need to keep improving your obsession with the Obamas to me.


That is rather insulting by the way.


I find your constant stream of bad information to be insulting.




The people who scream about freedoms the most, know the least about it.



Indeed.


Glad you understood your failure here and acknowledged it.




Funny how people always bring this particular point up, but never get their panties in a bunch over the residents of DC being taxed without representation.



Like gun owners being 'taxed without representation', them evil rich people being 'taxed without representation'. and the millions who were 'taxed without representation' via the Care Act ?


And here we have the infamous stream of Neo nonsense. You don't fire on all pistons, do you? You just demonstrated that not only do you not understand what taxation without representation means, you are a "freedom fighter" who only cares about a few infractions, but not all of them. If it doesn't affect you personally, everyone else be damned.
Maybe somehow you can get this hot mess you just made to make sense without your usual tactic of circular reasoning.





"Freedom of...." Does not equate to being able to do whatever the hell you want.



True there is no 'freedom' in this country.

Only people who don't know what is going on in the rest of the world, say things like that. But since you don't even know what taxation without representation means, it doesn't surprise me. considering no taxation without representation was one of the leading causes for the American Revolution.
For someone who claims that there is no freedom in this country, how would you know? You don't even know what the most basic freedoms that are listed, are.
BTW, it was the esteemed George Bush that while in office, removed "not taxation without representation" from DC license plates. When President Obama took office, he put it back.



But what the hell did all that have to do with E-cigs ?


I have to quote your own material to you??



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



neo96
Yeah what it does boil down to is CVS is discriminating against smokers.

Your own words.

Business has to serve ALL people.


You just said that because CVS has stopped selling cigarettes that it is now discriminating against smokers.

So are you just arguing for the sake of it?
Or trolling for the lulz?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


So by your logic, religion trumps beliefs, rights and laws.

In my understanding of the English language... Rights ARE Freedoms.
So my right to refuse business to people of my choosing, is my freedom to do so.
Therefor my freedom should have as much weight against the law as any religious belief/right/freedom.

And my argument wasn't against Freedom by the way... As stated before and now above.
I believe I have the right/freedom to refuse service in my business to anyone I choose.

So... Not sure what you argument is?


Freedom of religion.

My rights stop where yours begin.

Who infringed n who?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 



neo96
Yeah what it does boil down to is CVS is discriminating against smokers.

Your own words.

Business has to serve ALL people.


You just said that because CVS has stopped selling cigarettes that it is now discriminating against smokers.

So are you just arguing for the sake of it?
Or trolling for the lulz?


A little of both, but I'm having fun regardless.

They are not catering (pun) to my needs simply because I am a smoker.

Bunch of haters.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





Given the fact that the two still exist for me to tell, then it sort of invalidates your hysterical point of view that somehow those two groups have been eliminated.


Not for long. They are fighting for their lives every single day.




No, that is a statistical fact. Source 1 Source And no, not hating on the poor, because I don't hate smokers..I was one for the longest time and have always hated smoking even as one..and I don't hate the poor.


Don't hate either.

Not fond of progressives though.
edit on 5-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't deny that smokers are discriminated against and I am all for that discrimination because of my belief that I have the right to fresh clean air.

I don't agree that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke at or in their own private property.
Only where it intersects with the public that do not have a say in inhaling your secondary smoke.

But are you now trying to argue as well that a companies choice to stop selling cigarettes is a discriminatory act against smokers?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Goldcurrent
reply to post by beezzer
 


I can pour over useless laws for hours! Every jurisdiction has antiquated laws that make no sense. Legislators bow to populist frenzies all the time. I'm sure there are still laws on the books making it illegal to eat a sandwhich on your front porch after midnight or some such dumb stuff


The constitution is there to prevent populist insanery (is that a word?) from prevailing rights.


I just wish more people realized that.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't deny that smokers are discriminated against and I am all for that discrimination because of my belief that I have the right to fresh clean air.

I don't agree that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke at or in their own private property.
Only where it intersects with the public that do not have a say in inhaling your secondary smoke.

But are you now trying to argue as well that a companies choice to stop selling cigarettes is a discriminatory act against smokers?


So you're okay with some discrimination.

Just not other discrimination.




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

beezzer

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 


Haha that is an awesome but asinine argument.

So what you're saying, is that CVS has a duty to smokers to purchase in bulk, and sell cigarettes to smokers?
And not fulfilling that duty to smokers, is discrimination and therefor against the law.

So by your logic... ALL store should sell cigarettes because if they don't, it's discrimination against smokers.

Got it.


Smokers are discriminated against.

We are told where to smoke, we can't smoke in many places.

It is a discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion


/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/


noun

noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
sexism, chauvinism, misogyny, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, casteism;

historicalapartheid

"racial discrimination"
antonyms: impartiality
2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

"discrimination between right and wrong"

It is not discrimination as a smoker is a habit of choice, not a natural situation such as gender, age, orientation, etc.
Its about as much a discrimination as horse riders not being allowed in a restaurant riding horses, or any other hobby. Stop that nonsense, its damn insulting when you compare your hobby restrictions to someone elses history of actual discrimination and persecution..people have died and killed over a natural look or gender, and you are belittling that with a hobby?
No...and shame on you.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sovaka
 





You just said that because CVS has stopped selling cigarettes that it is now discriminating against smokers.


Yeah and ?

CVS is discriminating against smokers.




Or trolling for the lulz?


The 'trolling' began way back when someones reading comprehension failed with this comment:




While it is their perogative to sell what ever they want. They are not fooling anyone with this 'statement'.


Which someone was arguing for the 'sake of arguing.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The infringement comes from those that attempt to trump the other.

reply to post by beezzer
 


Just as long as we are all on the same page that your aren't sincere in your arguments regarding discrimination against smokers, because a company has chosen to no longer sell cigarettes.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

SaturnFX

beezzer

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 


Haha that is an awesome but asinine argument.

So what you're saying, is that CVS has a duty to smokers to purchase in bulk, and sell cigarettes to smokers?
And not fulfilling that duty to smokers, is discrimination and therefor against the law.

So by your logic... ALL store should sell cigarettes because if they don't, it's discrimination against smokers.

Got it.


Smokers are discriminated against.

We are told where to smoke, we can't smoke in many places.

It is a discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion


/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/


noun

noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
sexism, chauvinism, misogyny, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, casteism;

historicalapartheid

"racial discrimination"
antonyms: impartiality
2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

"discrimination between right and wrong"

It is not discrimination as a smoker is a habit of choice, not a natural situation such as gender, age, orientation, etc.
Its about as much a discrimination as horse riders not being allowed in a restaurant riding horses, or any other hobby. Stop that nonsense, its damn insulting when you compare your hobby restrictions to someone elses history of actual discrimination and persecution..people have died and killed over a natural look or gender, and you are belittling that with a hobby?
No...and shame on you.


It's a habit. A drug dependency. I have a disability.

So now you're discriminating against the disabled???

O.M.G.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Yay! That's the spirit! Stick it to those stinky, evil and funny looking smokers with their illogical habit. They should need a permit to buy them! Yeah....or at least limited to state stores! Yup! Stop Smoking! Stop Smoking Stop Smoking! Uncle Sammy is such a wise, caring and ....... heyyyyyyy... wait a minute..



Don't states depend on tax revenue to downright absurd levels of money per pack at this stage? Missouri doesn't, since we require voter approval to raise that tax and voters don't approve ..but we're almost unique in not NEEDING smokers to remain solvent and it's dollars per 20 cigarette pack of nothing BUT tax in most states.

When they really DO finally do what they've given lip service to, which I like seeing happen for survivor stats if nothing else (lower smoker numbers) ...Will the Feds be replacing the crash of that BIG tax money?

State Government quite literally requires smokers, to make ends meet, and some of us have seen this day coming for a long time...while noting how BAD an idea behavior manipulation through taxes really has been. (sigh)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


The infringement comes from those that attempt to trump the other.




So infringing on anyone's rights is wrong, or is it sometimes ok?


Just as long as we are all on the same page that your aren't sincere in your arguments regarding discrimination against smokers, because a company has chosen to no longer sell cigarettes.


Dunno. Interesting argument. I suppose one could be made.




top topics



 
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join