Political/Off-Topic sticky chat thread (Philadelphia, Scranton: debt, moving, buy)

[CHS89]

Using an example that Ed's sure not to get, back in the late 1700's, a group of farmers, land owners, and bankers formed a government and decided to do what they felt was right for their countrymen.

Was this government legal? Hell no. Was it GOOD? 200+ years later, it's still around, so something was right about it.

When the statewide smoking ban is passed, Erie and Scranton will have been shown to be in the right after all. It just took a little longer than it should have. Will the defeated laws be looked at as "bad laws"? Probably not. Whether or not state law superseded them, the overturned laws were still good laws.

My point is, laws (as well as governments) can be changed. It's not always as easy as signing your name to a document. Sometimes things are tried and don't work. But we keep trying. Unless you don't want your name attached to it because it might be defeated. That's just cowardly.

[NYRangers 2008]

Uh duh CHS89. I think that might be the creation of the US. You know the thirteen colonies. Why must you constantly put the little jabs in your posts. Like I'm some ignorant little kid that doesn't know what's going on. So yes, I GET IT.
Like a said before, the smoking ban would have been good if it was done legally. The way Scranton did it, not everyone was on a level playing field and some businesses in the city suffered. Like you said laws were made to be changed. But I think Scranton dropped the ball on this one. The city didn't have the power to supercede the federal government. They listened to some high school kids and thought they could pass the legislation when they knew they couldn't. I hate smoking and do not like to be around it, especially when I'm eating, but they should have waited for the statewide ban to come and then let everything else fall into place. Once again another bad decision by a mostly inept council.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by CHS89

Using an example that Ed's sure not to get

That was rude and uncalled for, in my humble opinion. I've been trying to stay out of the primary fray between you, Dan, and Ed (and Casper now it seems), but implying that Ed is more or less slow or stupid was a feeble attempt on your behalf to gain ground in this debate by belittling your opponent's intellect.

Originally Posted by CHS89

When the statewide smoking ban is passed, Erie and Scranton will have been shown to be in the right after all. Unless you don't want your name attached to it because it might be defeated. That's just cowardly.

To reverse the tables from above, I agree with you here 100%. I believe I'll live to see the day that public smoking everywhere is eventually banned for the negative health consequences it places upon society at large with no excuse other than the almighty dollar. I supported Scranton's smoking ban 100% from the very beginning, whether it was deemed legal by the inept officials in Harrisburg or not. While Scranton usually dawdles around when it comes to taking crucial actions, I was impressed by how swiftly this council passed the ban, showing that we disapproved of the unacceptable length of time Harrisburg has been taking in passing a similar ban. By passing such a ban, Scranton didn't showcase itself as being ignorant of the law---rather it displayed itself as being progressive and willing to take a bold leap in the best interest of its citizens. I think our city (and Erie) gained respect from other communities across the state who wish to enact similar legislation.

It has taken Harrisburg how many years to widen the I-81 (Beltway) between Waverly and Naticoke to six lanes? It has taken Harrisburg how many years to push for cleansing and renewal of the Susquehanna River? It has taken Harrisburg how many years to allow our bridges to fall into such a sad state of disrepair? It has taken Harrisburg how many years to put its money where its mouth is regarding the commuter rail line in Scranton? If our state leaders aren't acting in the best interests of the citizens, then why shouldn't cities such as Scranton make their voices heard? Are we also going to wait another thirty years until PA becomes the 50th state to ban cell phone usage while driving? Are we also going to wait until 2050 when PA finally becomes the 50th state after Alabama to approve same-sex civil unions? I should hope not. For a state with a wonderful history for many "famous firsts", PA is certainly now showcasing itself as being a laggard to the rest of the nation while Scranton has shown itself as being "with the times" in regards to its short-lived renegade smoking ban. Why are people in Scranton always afraid of their city taking the FIRST step in improving their quality-of-life?

If nothing else, think about the large number of non-smoking suburbanites, including myself and my friends, who voiced our support of the ban by making it a point to dine out in Scranton much more frequently. If Scranton's own residents were stupid and sought to see their restaurants and bars collapse just so they could "have a smoke" with their Jack Daniel's and triple bacon cheesburger at suburban restaurants, then good riddance. I've had enough of Scranton's poor excuses for "non-smoking sections' where the smoke scent still wafts on in, and I know many others who feel the same way.

[NYRangers 2008]

[quote=ScrantonWilkesBarre;1347804]That was rude and uncalled for, in my humble opinion. I've been trying to stay out of the primary fray between you, Dan, and Ed (and Casper now it seems), but implying that Ed is more or less slow or stupid was a feeble attempt on your behalf to gain ground in this debate by belittling your opponent's intellect.[/QUOTE}

Thank you for that Paul. This guy doesn't know how to debate without insulting people. At least go phillies is respectful when we disagree. Dan thinks it goes back years ago with CHS89 and he's holding some kind of grudge against Dan and doesn't like him. And since I side with Dan a lot, he doesn't like me either. That's cool though, let him keep going down this road.

[weluvpa]

Hey I am for a state wide ban. Come on at least admit that the ban was pushed forward at higher rate of speed to take the light away from the $44,000,000 that the mayor wanted. My friend teaches at WSH and he told me that the teacher was asked to get the kids on this and present it at council. This was a smoke screen and it was ILEGAL. When those farmers were framing our nation they were violating the laws of a oppressive gov't that was over taxing them. They were not trying to adjust it or correct or even pass new laws they were fighting for their freedoms and the birth of a new nation and new form of gov't so i do not see the analogy there. The council was passing a iilegal ban and they knew it was illegal and they still proceeded to do it, knowing that it was going to be shot down. They spent money on signs that were illegal to hang, they spent money on lawyers, they spent money and time on fighting it. Illegal is illegal, right or wrong, it is what it is.

[NYRangers 2008]

I agree with you Paul about Harrisburg. They should of had this ban in effect years ago. They are lagging behind on many things. But in the case of the local ban, which is a great idea in theory, Scranton should of waited a little while more on this one. I just don't think we needed this right now with the dark cloud hanging over Scranton. From crazy council meetings to the Doherty debt, if we in a better position as a city, I would say go for it and maybe be progressive. It made Scranton look more foolish knowing they couldn't really enforce it.

[CHS89]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

Dan thinks it goes back years ago with CHS89 and he's holding some kind of grudge against Dan and doesn't like him. And since I side with Dan a lot, he doesn't like me either.

I don't know either of you from Adam. And I'm certainly not holding a grudge from "years ago". Never even heard of the guy until this past February, to be honest. Dan's paranoid. I don't not like him, I don't even know him. If I sat next to him in a bar and watched a ball game, we might actually have a decent banter, provided it was about the game and not politics. I just think his constant bitching and moaning to council concerning things that obviously need to be bumped up to the state level is getting comical. Clearly Council can't or won't do anything, yet there he is, continuing to beat the ground where a dead horse used to be. Take it to the State. Let Council work on things they can work on.

[go phillies]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

When those farmers were framing our nation they were violating the laws of a oppressive gov't that was over taxing them.

And now we are trying to fight a government that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the big tobacco lobby. Big tobacco has lobbyists and a lot of money in both Harrisburg and Washington. When it all comes down to it, the crooked politicians know who butters their bread and they don't give a rat's arse about our health. The city government took a chance because they are not being paid off by the drug-peddlers from the tobacco companies. yes, I said drug-peddlers because that is what they are. Big tobacco is no better than a crack dealer in my book. Cigarettes are highly addictive (more so than heroin) and kill. I know this as an ex-smoker who tried for years to quit before I was successful, even though I despised my addiction and wanted to quit.

When you think about the hazard that smoking causes, there is no reason in the world that public smoking should be legal, nor should smoking in the presence of children be legal. But until these crooked politicians get a conscience and place health over money...the best we will get is a watered-down smoking ban.

Janet Evans voted against the ban, because for starters, she is a smoker, and she also did it purely to oppose Doherty, Fannucci, McGoff, and Gatelli.

[NYRangers 2008]

go phillies, it's the same reason the government does nothing to stop the rising gas prices. The crooked politicians let the gas companies raise and lower the prices because these companies don't want to be regulated by the government. And who gets screwed, US. The working middle class in this country. It's all a sham.

I'm sure if all of us sat in a bar somewhere in Scranton we would all get along. Even discussing politics. I have friends who I disagree with their political views, but yet we're still friends. We can all discuss topics and have opinions without it getting personal.

[weluvpa]

Again she is not the only smoker on council. I go to council because what they have to fix is their problem, the river bank or lack there of in my neighborhood is the cities responsiblity, period. The responsiblity of a local municipality is flood protection or prevention, the mission of the Army Corps. is flood control, period, thats right from the federal horses mouth. So yes as long as council refuses to take their responsiblity of the residents to task, I will be there to remind them that they are NOT doing their job. I am not going to get into this flood issue with you, your no different then thsoe that say "you bought a house in flood zone" folks, guess what I did not, my great grandfather built this house and it has not had one drop of water from flooding in over a hundred years until 2004 when they left the bank torn down to fix a floodgate form. 100 years +, its the cities resposibility. You know nothing about it and you have not been dealing with the fed or state gov'ts like I have. Do you honestly think that I am not on the phone with the army corps, state and fed reps from this area, and it all falls back on the city time and time again. I want council to work on things that are their resposiblity as elected officals and the protect of a entire neighborhood in their city is paramount in my book. Daron is also a city zoning issue because they have been fined repeatly by the DEP,EPA and OSHA but the zoning violations and misuse of a light industrial zone are the city problems, zoning and yet again that falls on council. See the funny thing is that I know what I am doing but you have no idea but you assume. These are their issues and they are important to alot of the residents of this city. Lower Greenridge and Greenridge are two neighborhoods and Greenridge is a large one at that, so these issues affect more than me and a few people, they are the cities responsiblity. Our zoning officer stated under oath in court that his only qualifiactions were "that he has read the zoning book". No background in any part of the construction or site planning fields, no experience in anyway shape or form, I wonder why the mayor would appoint such a unqualified zoning officer, could it be so that the contributors and their companies are able to fly under the radar in this city and operate the way they choose instead of the way they are required, its just to plain to be true. I cannot think of any other reason to appoint a idiot to a job that requires alot of experience in construction and municipal zoning. But then again a fashion merchandiser is out HR director and a gap girl is the director of OECD so I guess it makes sense, right?