<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Judge to rule on political T-shirts at Michigan polls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/6353.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/6353.html</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:42:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blair</title>
		<link>http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/6353.html/comment-page-1#comment-337646</link>
		<dc:creator>Blair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:52:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.murdoconline.net/?p=6353#comment-337646</guid>
		<description>I wonder if AFSCME attorney Herbert Sanders would also argue that not allowing guns (ccp or open) within government buildings abridges our right to keep and bear arms?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if AFSCME attorney Herbert Sanders would also argue that not allowing guns (ccp or open) within government buildings abridges our right to keep and bear arms?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Murdoc</title>
		<link>http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/6353.html/comment-page-1#comment-337633</link>
		<dc:creator>Murdoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.murdoconline.net/?p=6353#comment-337633</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Vitor&lt;/b&gt;: In fact, I do have veto rights over those particular ads. Some of the others served by Google, not so much without a lot of hassle. But I have to approve Blogads before they run and I approved this one.

I&#039;ve only vetoed three ads ever in four years of Blogads, and I&#039;ll totally admit it&#039;s a complete judgment call on my part about what runs and what doesn&#039;t. As long as I don&#039;t think it&#039;s offensive, it runs. I&#039;d run ads from the Obama campaign, though I doubt they&#039;d get their money out of them here.

I don&#039;t smoke. I&#039;ve never smoked. I think smoking is dirty and smelly and unhealthy. I also think that people who want to smoke should be allowed to and that if cigarette sellers want to advertise to them they should be allowed to.

For the record, I don&#039;t really agree with government bans on smoking in privately-owned businesses. I prefer businesses to ban smoking, but I don&#039;t approve of governments banning it for them. Different issue.

So while I don&#039;t agree with smoking and with that everyone would just quit, I also don&#039;t really have an issue with running ads for it. If it was a borderline-tasteless ad, combined with a product I disagree with, I might not have approved it. But it&#039;s a decent ad and the product is not only legal but generally socially acceptable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Vitor</b>: In fact, I do have veto rights over those particular ads. Some of the others served by Google, not so much without a lot of hassle. But I have to approve Blogads before they run and I approved this one.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve only vetoed three ads ever in four years of Blogads, and I&#8217;ll totally admit it&#8217;s a complete judgment call on my part about what runs and what doesn&#8217;t. As long as I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s offensive, it runs. I&#8217;d run ads from the Obama campaign, though I doubt they&#8217;d get their money out of them here.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t smoke. I&#8217;ve never smoked. I think smoking is dirty and smelly and unhealthy. I also think that people who want to smoke should be allowed to and that if cigarette sellers want to advertise to them they should be allowed to.</p>
<p>For the record, I don&#8217;t really agree with government bans on smoking in privately-owned businesses. I prefer businesses to ban smoking, but I don&#8217;t approve of governments banning it for them. Different issue.</p>
<p>So while I don&#8217;t agree with smoking and with that everyone would just quit, I also don&#8217;t really have an issue with running ads for it. If it was a borderline-tasteless ad, combined with a product I disagree with, I might not have approved it. But it&#8217;s a decent ad and the product is not only legal but generally socially acceptable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vitor</title>
		<link>http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/6353.html/comment-page-1#comment-337631</link>
		<dc:creator>Vitor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.murdoconline.net/?p=6353#comment-337631</guid>
		<description>Hey Murdoc, I know you dont have much (or maybe any) control over the ads that appear on your site, but this one of the cigarette that &quot;supports the troops&quot; is a bit...hipocritic, as a healthy runner you are Im sure you are not a big fan of it either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Murdoc, I know you dont have much (or maybe any) control over the ads that appear on your site, but this one of the cigarette that &#8220;supports the troops&#8221; is a bit&#8230;hipocritic, as a healthy runner you are Im sure you are not a big fan of it either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

