YourMomsBox!

Quote:Bars under a 75 (or 200 in commercial) occupancy wouldn't be affected other than the fact the patrons would be allowed to dance.

IF YOU PEOPLE DON'T START DANCING THEY'RE GONNA SHUT US DOWN! DANCE YOU FUCKERS!!!

I think the problem lies in the fact that the bars close at 4, but Metro North doesn't start up until 7 and that GCT is closed from 2-6, so every drunk who missed the last train is forced to publicly urinate in midtown because everything is closed.

Gee, 1am? What shitty State does that? Imagine my shock when I first moved to CT.

Actually, this all sounds like a Bloomberg paper/process fee screw-over to bleed NYC business owners for more money. Why doesn't he just get a couple of punks to smash a couple of places and extort "protection" money?

Quote:Originally posted by Black Lazerus

Quote:Originally posted by diceisgod
People that drastically edit their posts are cowards.

it was edited for me

I edited it to exclude the entire text of what you had linked, leaving a pertinent quote, and I stated exactly what I did in your post.

Quote:Last Edited by Black Lazerus on 2/4/2004 at 11:29 PM.

You deleted your post.

Ha ha ha, New York sucks, ha ha ha! Ill be smoking in the bar till last call, which is 1:45AM.

Quote:Originally posted by IrishAlkey
I'd say that's a tad extreme.

Well, of course. What I wrote would be the final stages. But all these draconian rules begin <i>somewhere</i>, don't they?

<marquee><b><font color=red size=+1>WARNING!!11 Long post to follow... people with attention deficit disorder should read this in small doses.</font></b></marquee>

The Disney-fication of Times Square. New regulations and zoning laws on so-called XXX-businesses, even within respect to each other as opposed to residential areas, schools, or churches.

Banning smoking indoors, except for cigar bars and their ilk, or where the owner can prove that customers being allowed to smoke is vital for business, as opposed to a simple luxury... how soon before there is an attempt at outright prohibition on smoking?

Extremism does not occur overnight; there is a gradual process where government takes an inch, before realizing they can take the mile with it. The Prohibition amendment on alcohol was created to reduce crimes and corruption, and improve overall social conditions (sound familiar?). It was eventually repealed because it <i>increased</i> corruption, and worsened social conditions as people turned to harder, already illegal substances, bootlegging, and speakeasy bars.

But times have changed. We live in a more politically correct world, where someone's vices are treated in a clinic rather than accomodated. It's easier to close down strip clubs and peepshows today than the cabarets of yesteryear simply because people who attend such places can't (or won't) complain out of fear of embarrassment for perceived wrongdoing. You and I know there's nothing wrong with these places (hell, we've been in them on more than one occasion), but we don't make it a point to broadcast the fact around our neighborhoods, because it leaves us open to public scrutiny and possible ridicule. After all, who in their "right mind" would support such salacious activities as lap dances and public displays of nudity?

So lawmakers will continue to push, a bit at a time. The question is, where would it stop? How much vice will they allow us adults to maintain? Will New York eventually adopt <a href=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/11/04/dance.vote.ap/ target=new>Los Angeles' lap dance laws, which keep dancers <i>six feet</i> away from customers' laps?</a> Or would constant new wrinkles in re-zoning eventually lead to all the businesses being driven away or closing simply because they no longer have a legal spot to set up shop? Remember, this city does not have the luxury of Amsterdam's Red Light district, where people can go and accomodate their desires in one area, without have any outside affect elsewhere in the city.

Will people still be allowed to smoke outdoors, or will that eventually be banned as well? Would there even be any smokers left because they have all been inconvenienced into quitting, or resorting to smoke in the privacy of their homes, rather than going out and spending money, which is where the real focus should be?

Finally, if this basic "curfew" on bars is set at 1am now, how soon down the road before they try to push it up to midnight? If that succeeds, then when does the attempt to make NYC a "dry county" occur, because that's the inevitable next step.

Yes, I know, I know, it seems too drastic, right? Enough people don't mind these things, or find them offensive enough, to want them gone, do they?

But that's not the public who the government listens to. The public who, for example, weren't offended by Janet Jackson's nipple didn't call CBS to voice their concerns. In the end, CBS (and subsequently, the FCC) heard from the minute few who hated what occurred. Not from the thousands (or perhaps millions) who neither cared, or actually enjoyed witnessing that sort of spectacle.

Then take note of the draconian overreaction that followed: <a href=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/7877967.htm target=new>Jackson's banning from the Grammys</a>, <a href=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/7874910.htm target=new>NFL Commsioner Taglibue preventing Timberlake's N'Sync buddy from hosting the Pro Bowl halftime show</a>... and tell me where do you think it will end. At what point will the government believe they have stepped in far enough, and at what point will that decision already be too late?

YEAH!

Your word speaks so many more volumes than I could ever hope to duplicate.

Teach me.

Its all in the annunciation.

Incredible.

<font color=4f4f4f>How was that? Did I get it right?</font>

Put the emPHAsis on the right sylLAble.