ThinkFast: May 17, 2006
ThinkFast: May 17, 2006
The White House reversed its position yesterday and “agreed to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees†on their warrantless domestic spying program, “just as the architect of the program is facing a contentious confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill.†The administration is backing away from its claim that the “decision to restrict these briefings to a select group of members of Congress is in keeping with longstanding tradition when dealing with matters of extreme sensitivity…and it’s perfectly legal.”
The National Climatic Data Center found that last April “was the hottest ever in the United States, according to records going back to 1895.â€
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) accused Bush’s choice for deputy CIA director, Stephen Kappes, of “gross insubordination.†Hoekstra claimed former Director Porter Goss had “real concerns” about Kappes, whom he once fired, because he asked him to “do certain things or to stop from doing certain types of things, and the guy refused.”
“Seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus were arrested at the Embassy of Sudan on Tuesday while protesting conditions in the nation’s Darfur region.†“Enough is enough,†said Rep. John Lewis, (D-GA). “We must do all we can to stop the violence.†Click here to see video of the protest.
Despite the anti-lobbyist rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill, lawmakers continue to ask lobbyists for money. “The Speaker [Dennis Hastert (R-IL)]…said we need to minimize our contact with lobbyists, implying something is not right,” said one lobbyist. But just this week, he received a fundraiser invitation from Hastert where the “suggested minimum contribution” was $2,500. “How dare he ask us for money.”
33: Bush approval rating according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, another record low. 66 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq, a record high. 69 percent believe the nation is on the wrong track.
President Bush plans to sign a bill today extending $70 billion in tax cuts. “It is the latest — and perhaps finest — example of the perpetual motion machine that passes for tax policy in Congress and the Bush administration: making the tax code ever more complex and easier for those with squadrons of tax lawyers to exploit.â€
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) said yesterday that he would get the Senate to waive the penalty for the elderly adults and Americans with disabilities who missed the May 15 deadline to sign up for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. (President Bush has come out against this measure.)
A day after BellSouth denied it helped the NSA compile a phone records database, Verizon Communications Inc. claimed it also did not give the government records of millions of phone calls. Meanwhile, BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon that alleges the companies illegally participated in an NSA domestic surveillance program.
And finally: flashcards designed to help applicants for U.S. citizenship learn basic civics fails to mention a fundamental First Amendment freedom — the freedom of the press. Alfonso Aguilar, director of the office of citizenship at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, said, “The person who developed the test was not necessarily a civics or constitutional scholar.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow lots of problems to discuss today on this TP thread, but most of them can be solved by impeaching Bush and Cheney!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:13 amAlfonso Aguilar, director of the office of citizenship at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, said, “The person who developed the test was not necessarily a civics or constitutional scholar.â€
Is anyone who works for the Federal Government? Sheesh…
May 17th, 2006 at 9:14 am“A day after BellSouth denied it helped the NSA compile a phone records database, Verizon Communications Inc. claimed it also did not give the government records of millions of phone calls. Meanwhile, BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon that alleges the companies illegally participated in an NSA domestic surveillance program.”
I bet verizon’s stock rebounds and some after that anouncement
May 17th, 2006 at 9:18 amI’d like to know what happens to U.S. students that move to other countries. Otherwise this really doesn’t tell us much about things we can control (our system).
U.S. immigrants lag behind in school
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Posted: 10:45 a.m. EDT (14:45 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Immigrant 15-year-olds in the United States don’t do as well in math, reading or science as native-born children, and many have only basic skills, a study finds.
But immigrants aren’t as far behind in the U.S. as they are in some other major nations.
The findings are based on the Program for International Student Assessment, a test that measures the literacy of 15-year-olds and how well they apply skills to the real world. It is given to students in many industrialized countries and considered an international benchmark.
In the United States, first-generation immigrants, who were born outside the country just like their parents, are almost a year behind in math.
Second-generation immigrant kids — who were born in the United States but whose parents were not — are about a half-year behind, a smaller deficit.
Similar but slightly larger performance gaps exist in reading and science, according to an analysis released Monday of how immigrants performed on the most recent test in 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/immigration.education.ap/index.html
May 17th, 2006 at 9:19 amThe genocidal fighting in the Darfur region, of the Sudan, is a very difficult thing to solve because Oil deposits have been discovered there and China has been given drilling rights by the government of the Sudan, while the westerns nation arm rebels! It is a fight over petroleum, so that most stop first to halt the slaughter of civilians!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:20 amStephen Kappes seems to be extremely qualified. I’m sure if he was resisting what Goss was telling him to do that he was right and Goss was wrong.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:20 amcorrection > western nations not westerns nation > typo!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:21 amThis is far higher than the ‘death by terrorism’ rate. Why isn’t the Right protesting Big Tobacco for killing people who don’t even smoke (a.k.a. innocents) and badgering Congress to ban cigarette smoking then?
Cancer death rate higher in nonsmoking men
Study contradicts conventional wisdom about gender
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Posted: 4:12 p.m. EDT (20:12 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lung cancer isn’t common in people who never smoked. But when they do get it, doctors have long thought that women were more likely to die than men. New research suggests the opposite.
Analyzing medical records of nearly 1 million people, American Cancer Society researchers reported Tuesday that men who never used cigarettes actually had slightly higher death rates from lung cancer than women who never smoked.
Lung cancer is the world’s and the United States’ most common and deadliest malignancy. Smoking cigarettes is the main cause.
But about 15,000 of the deaths will occur in people who never used cigarettes. Other known causes: breathing secondhand smoke; exposure to radon and asbestos; smoking other tobacco products; and high-dose radiation.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/05/16/lung.cancer.ap/index.html
May 17th, 2006 at 9:23 amBush majority dwindles down to three western states.
Bush supporters are holed up in the Rockies like the Osama supporters are holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan. Birds of a feather…
They both have a tenacious grip on the rest of the hapless, sorry souls who must endure the encumbrances of madness.
The killing just doesn’t stop.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:25 amSpongeBob,
In another thread you said that you thought that Kerry, had he been elected Predient in 2004, would have cut and run from the war in Iraq. How so? Because he DIDN’T cut and run from Vietnam when he could have, but actually served? Because both Bush and Cheney DID cut and run from their call to duty in Vietnam? Really, what logically gives you the notion that Kerry was the actual coward here?
May 17th, 2006 at 9:32 amUnbelievable,
May 17th, 2006 at 9:38 amGood post…
In fact, what are your military service credentials, SpunBob?
Isn’t it remarkable that people like Kerry, Cleland, et al
are trivialized for serving our country while the Dicks’s & Bush’s
of the world claim they’re the only ones who understand National
Security?
What they understand is how to avoid serving our
country while selling our souls to CORPORATE GREED!
Yesterday, according to some Democrats in DC, President Bush’s stupid speech on the Mexican border problems are supported by them? Lol some phony Dems always try to rescue Bush when he is down for the count > we the voters will remember in November who the traitors are in the Democrat party! Dubya Dunce Decider has NO intention of securing the Mexican border > he wants drugs to flow across just like Lou Dobbs of CNN inferred!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:39 amWhat they understand is how to avoid serving our
country while selling our souls to CORPORATE GREED!
Comment by Zimzone — May 17, 2006 @ 9:38 am
I still resent Nathan Deal for his campaign against Max Cleland. Even as a Republican in my earlier voting years, I voted for Max in local races because he was one of those rare politicians who was there for the right reasons – the People.
All I get from Mr. Deal is condescending form letter sthat don’t actually address my concerns, and treat me like an idiot. At least Isakson and Chambliss just ignore me.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:43 am#8
The study has nothing to do with cigarette smoking, only that lung cancer in non-smokers kills more men than women. And because there are other ways to develop lung cancer than cigarettes they can’t be unilaterally blamed for these (innocents) deaths.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:44 am“How so? Because he DIDN’T cut and run from Vietnam when he could have, but actually served?”
Things like, Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place, and he has the personal experience of ‘Nam to color his perceptions, which might make him think leaving ASAP is the best choice, as opposed to staying if it dosn’t have a rosy outlook.
“Really, what logically gives you the notion that Kerry was the actual coward here?”
I don’t think he’s a coward, but I think his equations for the cost/benefits assessments are more skewed to the costs side, where as Bush’s are obviously skewed to the benefits side.
Your starting to capitialize some of your words, something bothering you today?
May 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amPost 13 Max Cleland did NOT lose that election for the Senate > the Diebold machines were rigged for Chambliss > exit polls showed Max winning by about 5%! Everyone must demand that verifiable voting systems are in place in Georgia this November!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amGo read another blog over at ABC News concerning the Air Marshall’s. Look at the comments section for those claiming to be or are former Marshalls. Ouch
May 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amif you take a gander at those flashcards, you’ll notice question 16: Who becomes President if the President Dies?
Notice that there’s no mention of the other conditions of Presidential succession, ie Impeachment.
;)
May 17th, 2006 at 9:52 amI have to go write my opinion article for the day > I will be back later!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:54 amThe study has nothing to do with cigarette smoking, only that lung cancer in non-smokers kills more men than women. And because there are other ways to develop lung cancer than cigarettes they can’t be unilaterally blamed for these (innocents) deaths.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 9:44 am
Do you live in a plastic bubble? For years now the medical association has been been warning us that second hand smoke is the major contributor to lung cancer in non-smokers.
I understand it requires critical thinking skills on your behalf to link these related bits of information together, and that you’re not capable, but really – it’s not that difficult to understand.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amThings like, Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place, and he has the personal experience of ‘Nam to color his perceptions, which might make him think leaving ASAP is the best choice, as opposed to staying if it dosn’t have a rosy outlook.
And you came to this conclusion after your many years of psychological study of war veterans?
Your starting to capitialize some of your words, something bothering you today?
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 9:47 am
No, but thanks for asking. Everything is great. Was just emphasis – not yelling. I know how easily you get distracted or confused :). Would you prefer bold or italics instead?
May 17th, 2006 at 9:59 amUB, I had an uncle that didn’t smoke cigarettes at all. Hated smoking, couldn’t understand why people smoked tobacco, and died of lung cancer.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:00 amMax Cleland did NOT lose that election for the Senate
Comment by Jay Randal — May 17, 2006 @ 9:47 am
Jay – I only mentioned Nathan Deal’s campaign. Said nothing about the election. I wasn’t living here at the time, so I won’t speculate.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:00 amDo you live in a plastic bubble? For years now the medical association has been been warning us that second hand smoke is the major contributor to lung cancer in non-smokers.
I understand it requires critical thinking skills on your behalf to link these related bits of information together, and that you’re not capable, but really – it’s not that difficult to understand.
You’re drawing a connection from a study that had nothing to do with smoking. Whether second hand smoke is harmful or not has NOTHING to do with the study. The only thing it attempts to show is that lung cancer is more lethal to non-smoking men than it is to non-smoking women. Your ‘critical thinking skills’ are leading you to conlcusions that are not supported by this study.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amHere’s my closer look at the list of detainees at Guantanamo released by the Pentagon. Just examining the detainee information from one country demonstrates how inaccurate the information the Pentagon has is. Does anyone have any confidence that these detainees are the worst of the worst and “hard core”, as Cheney claims? They are more likely to be poor people sold for bounty to the United States.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amSqueege – maybe if you answered reasonably asked questions, you might get a conversation or at least a debate.
Fact is, Kerry served 2 terms in the navy During Vietnam. One in a ship patrolling the S & N Vietnam coast & one in a river boat. Deny all you want. You and the swishyboatvets.
Fact is, Cheney had “other priorities” (his words, not mine) during Vietnam.
Fact is, dumbya went AWOL & did nothing but snort coke & swill liquor during Vietnam.
These are the twits you look up to? & you compare their “heroics” to guys who actually took their life in harms way?
Any REAL leader of this country would have gone after Osama after 9/11 & not gotten us involved in this cesspool in Iraq. Where is a 6′4″ arab hiding in a nation of 5′6″ people anyhow?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amRon,
I worked with a woman whose younger sister developed throat cancer in her early-twenties. She didn’t smoke either, but worked in a restaurant at the time you could smoke in them.
Sorry to hear about your uncle. My father died from colon cancer and used to actually believe that it was not related to his cigarette smoking because it wasn’t in his lungs (which was what his mother died from – but she did smoke also). And people wonder why I go out of my way to avoid being around the toxic things. Cancer is a horrible way to die.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:06 amYour ‘critical thinking skills’ are leading you to conlcusions that are not supported by this study.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Nonsense. But I suppose you’re another one of those geniuses who sees no correlation between the severity of the hurricane season and Global Warming. Or between girls doing poorly in math and the fact that our culture significantly markets dolls for them to play with as children. Or between your heart burn and the food you ate the previous meal.
Good thing for the world you don’t control anything of significance.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:10 amUsing an unrelated study to push your personal agenda is just propoganda. Cigarettes are bad, cancer is bad. The study posted has nothing to do with supporting either, it’s a gender study.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:15 amKindness
“Fact is, Kerry served 2 terms in the navy During Vietnam. One in a ship patrolling the S & N Vietnam coast & one in a river boat. Deny all you want. You and the swishyboatvets.”
Fact is, Kerry has admitted to commiting war crimes, and accused basically everyone he knew in ‘Nam of the same basic crimes. Deny that all you want. Instead of Bush, someone large portions of the left decry as a war criminal, you would have elected anouther war criminal instead?
Am I grateful Kerry served his nation in ‘Nam? No. Because anyone who commits warcrimes in the course of serving his country only hurts the honor of the military, and the United States.
“These are the twits you look up to? & you compare their “heroics†to guys who actually took their life in harms way?”
May 17th, 2006 at 10:16 amI don’t look up to Bush, I think he’s made a mess with many of his decisions, but I stand by my opinion that for as F’ed as he is, he’s still better then Kerry would have been.
Using an unrelated study to push your personal agenda is just propoganda. Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 10:15 am
And your inability to understand a basic premise shows that you would sooner shoot yourself in the foot than admit you are arguing an absurd point.
The point is that you neocons would rather waste billions of dollars fighting a minimal risk than a major one. Try to keep up.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:23 amThe point is that you neocons would rather waste billions of dollars fighting a minimal risk than a major one. Try to keep up.
When the ‘minimal’ risk is foreign and a national security issue then absolutely. You can’t compare spending on defense and spending on protesting big tabacco or whatever it is you are pushing.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:27 amYou can’t compare spending on defense and spending on protesting big tabacco or whatever it is you are pushing.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 10:27 am
I was comparing the cost of the Iraqi War, which was supposed to be an assault on terrorism (WMDs pointed at us) with the lack of an attack on cigarette smoking that demonstrably exhibits a far higher risk to the average person – including those who don’t smoke – than terrorism. You awake yet?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:32 amUnbelievable
Ha, I love it
“But about 15,000 of the deaths will occur in people who never used cigarettes. Other known causes: breathing secondhand smoke; exposure to radon and asbestos; smoking other tobacco products; and high-dose radiation.”
You mean that I have to give up cig’s and Cigars? I thought just loosing the first would do it.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:33 amWhen the spectacular new prescription drug debacle made it’s debut in January 06, it was a disaster, utter chaos!! And the BushCo response? Hey states, we need you to cover the costs here, while we try to figure this mess out. And they even tried to get out of reimbursing them for the millions of dollars they were forced to come up with, due to yet another bungled program. But did anything happen to them? Were they penalized for not being prepared? Of course not!! But they are threatening all of these seniors they claim they are trying to help. But if they make the wrong choice, they are stuck for an entire year. It is not possible to ‘help’ people, when you are threatening them at the same time. Grrrrrrr. I am going to go curse now.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:33 am#1 Jay, Yep! All we need to do is light a fire under a good politicians ass to get this job done. I’ve got the match, any sugesstions on who we can start the fire under.?
Good posts, Unbelievable……It appears we only have a couple of bottom feeders today. No matter, I’ve signed all my patitions and checked out what is and is not going on so I am off to hugging trees……Blessings to all
May 17th, 2006 at 10:38 amYou mean that I have to give up cig’s and Cigars? I thought just loosing the first would do it.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 10:33 am
This is what they put in cigarettes:
The List
May 17th, 2006 at 10:44 amAcetanisole
Acetic Acid
Acetoin
Acetophenone
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine
2-Acetylpyridine
3-Acetylpyridine
2-Acetylthiazole
Aconitic Acid
dl-Alanine
Alfalfa Extract
Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
Allyl Hexanoate
Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil
Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
Ammonium Sulfide
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate
Amyl Formate
Amyl Octanoate
alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil
trans-Anethole
Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
Anise
Anise Star, Extract and Oils
Anisyl Acetate
Anisyl Alcohol
Anisyl Formate
Anisyl Phenylacetate
Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
1-Arginine
Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil
Ascorbic Acid
1-Asparagine Monohydrate
1-Aspartic Acid
Balsam Peru and Oil
Basil Oil
Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil
Beeswax White
Beet Juice Concentrate
Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal
Benzoic Acid, Benzoin
Benzoin Resin
Benzophenone
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl Benzoate
Benzyl Butyrate
Benzyl Cinnamate
Benzyl Propionate
Benzyl Salicylate
Bergamot Oil
Bisabolene
Black Currant Buds Absolute
Borneol
Bornyl Acetate
Buchu Leaf Oil
1,3-Butanediol
2,3-Butanedione
1-Butanol
2-Butanone
4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One
Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil
Butyl Acetate
Butyl Butyrate
Butyl Butyryl Lactate
Butyl Isovalerate
Butyl Phenylacetate
Butyl Undecylenate
3-Butylidenephthalide
Butyric Acid]
Cadinene
Caffeine
Calcium Carbonate
Camphene
Cananga Oil
Capsicum Oleoresin
Caramel Color
Caraway Oil
Carbon Dioxide
Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
Carob Bean and Extract
beta-Carotene
Carrot Oil
Carvacrol
4-Carvomenthenol
1-Carvone
beta-Caryophyllene
beta-Caryophyllene Oxide
Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract
Cassia Bark Oil
Cassie Absolute and Oil
Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
Cedar Leaf Oil
Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana
Cedrol
Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
Cellulose Fiber
Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract
Chicory Extract
Chocolate
Cinnamaldehyde
Cinnamic Acid
Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract
Cinnamyl Acetate
Cinnamyl Alcohol
Cinnamyl Cinnamate
Cinnamyl Isovalerate
Cinnamyl Propionate
Citral
Citric Acid
Citronella Oil
dl-Citronellol
Citronellyl Butyrate
itronellyl Isobutyrate
Civet Absolute
Clary Oil
Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract
Cocoa
Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
Coconut Oil
Coffee
Cognac White and Green Oil
Copaiba Oil
Coriander Extract and Oil
Corn Oil
Corn Silk
Costus Root Oil
Cubeb Oil
Cuminaldehyde
para-Cymene
1-Cysteine
Ooops, here’s the link….
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm
May 17th, 2006 at 10:45 amThanks Sharon – hug a few for me! :)
May 17th, 2006 at 10:47 amNothing from Bulaga Whales? Thats a shame.
I’ve had 1/2 a cig in my life, and I almost threw up all the shots I had just put down, that said, I do enjoy a cigar roughly once a month, with a nice brandy or some such thing.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:47 amSqueege – Kerry said he WITNESSED war crimes in Vietnam. He never claimed to have perpetrated them. Now if you are referring to returning fire indescriminately firing into a village along a river, yea, they all did that. That isn’t a war crime. That is a tragedy of war.
So, your a huge asshole today. Suck it up bro. Your boys are finally going down. The republicans of today, won’t be the ones to write the history books. Your defended boys will WIN the War Crimes Olympics. So sad your fighting for losers. I’d cry for you, but assholes are a dime a dozen.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:51 amNothing from Bulaga Whales? Thats a shame.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Beluga Whales? They are rare. They don’t use rare ingredients. They use cheap ones that are addictive. Understand?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:52 amBenzoin Resin
But I can never give this up!
Haha, some of that stuff sounds healthy…Alfalfa Extract…funny the list stuff like CO2 and Coffee too hehe.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am#37- Ms.Unbelievable, that is an amazing list! With all of that, where do they put the tobacco? Or do they even use it anymore? Scary stuff. Chocolate and caffeine? No wonder they are so addictive. Sheesh.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:59 amKindness
“Kerry said he WITNESSED war crimes in Vietnam. He never claimed to have perpetrated them.”
Refer to this article]
But here’s the important part:
“There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.”
Now try and tell me he hasn’t admitted to commiting war crimes.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:01 amHaha, some of that stuff sounds healthy…Alfalfa Extract…funny the list stuff like CO2 and Coffee too hehe.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 10:56 am
Not all surprising that you wouldn’t notice ammonia, citric acid, benzyl alcohol, ammonium sulfide or any of the really nasty A-C only carcinogins which completely void the cinnamon and coconut oil.
You do realize there are D-Z ingredients also, right?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amChocolate and caffeine? No wonder they are so addictive. Sheesh.
Comment by Cyra Brown — May 17, 2006 @ 10:59 am
Incredible isn’t it? And yet the neocons scream ‘the terrorists wanna kill me and my kids’ ‘the terrorists wanna kill me and my kids’ while smoking in a closed car with their children.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:08 amNot all surprising that you wouldn’t notice ammonia, citric acid, benzyl alcohol, ammonium sulfide or any of the really nasty A-C only carcinogins which completely void the cinnamon and coconut oil.
You do realize there are D-Z ingredients also, right?
No, maybe you can post a study about breast cancer to show me where I missed the part about cigarette incredients.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:08 amNo, maybe you can post a study about breast cancer to show me where I missed the part about cigarette incredients.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:08 am
I would but you’re not smart enough to see the correlation. You must smoke.
Besides this is a little more fitting with the discussion:
In order to understand how cigarette smoke components cause lung cancer and other smoking-related cancers, it is necessary to understand the sequence of events that leads from smoke inhalation to formation of a tumor many years or decades later.
One of the initial crucial events is most likely damage of the genetic material (DNA) by a cigarette smoke carcinogen. This damage can, under certain circumstances, be repaired by cellular DNA repair mechanisms. However, if not repaired, cells will attempt to duplicate their DNA during normal cell division, but are impeded by the damage and will carry out an error-prone duplication process leading to gene mutations (changes in the gene).
One of the cigarette smoke carcinogens that is implicated in the development of lung cancers is benzo[a]pyrene.
http://www.trdrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_id=443
May 17th, 2006 at 11:14 amThe study has nothing to do with cigarette smoking, only that lung cancer in non-smokers kills more men than women. And because there are other ways to develop lung cancer than cigarettes they can’t be unilaterally blamed for these (innocents) deaths.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 9:44 am
like asbestos, carbon monoxide, (sulfur, coal), asbestos (straight to the lungs!), DDT, should I go on????
May 17th, 2006 at 11:14 amlike asbestos, carbon monoxide, (sulfur, coal), asbestos (straight to the lungs!), DDT, should I go on????
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:14 am
It’s head is thick… Good luck getting it to understand two-syllable words and greater :)
May 17th, 2006 at 11:17 amunbelievable — I understand your argument, but as a smoker I take offense. You have gotten what you want in Washington state. Okay. Bars are off limits to smokers now. So the bar owners are ALL HURTING. Tobacco sales are UP not DOWN. To enforce the law, the health department hires grunts to cruise around these businesses. So where are all the nonsmokers? They certainly don’t frequent BARS!
And by the way I roll my own 100% organic tobacco.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:21 amI find Shareholder activism really important news. And you hardly ever hear about it, unless you go out of your way to find it or something so terrible happens that it can not be ignored by anyone with a conscience. In a way, it is at least equal to political activism because corporations have so much influence and power in our Democracy. Our politicians listen to money, corporations have that in spades, and it affects every aspect of our lives from retirement, clean air, water, & soil, energy, worker safety, healthcare, etc.
The Enron fraud trial is going to deliberation. Everyone should watch the movie, “The Smartest Guys In the Room”. Remember Enron is very close with the Bush family. Ken Lay was considered at one time to be the Secretary of Energy.
Everyone was complicit in the Enron debacle: the bankers, accountants, lawyers, the board, media, regulators and overseers. Fastow told Merrill Lynch to get rid of an analyst who was negative on Enron. Merrill fired the analyst and Fastow gave Merrill millions in contracts.
Corporations control our lives almost more than our government, with less accountability. If we were an agrarian society, then industrial, then information processing, then service, and if we outsource our production, information processing, services, what type of economy will we be. Will it be Enron-ish with what Skilling jokingly called in an Enron skit from mark-to-market accounting to hypothetical future value accounting, everything is a commodity, a derivative of the real thing, few own the parts and manipulated for their gain. We’ll be the vaporous economy.
Corporate Governance is as important as political finance reform and improving our politics. MegaTrends 2010 talks about value-driven consumers, socially responsibile investing, and conscious capitalism.
“Hundreds Gather in Duncan Oklahoma to Protest Outside Halliburton Shareholder Meeting”
May 17th, 2006 at 11:22 amNo, maybe you can post a study about breast cancer to show me where I missed the part about cigarette incredients.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:08 am
I would but you’re not smart enough to see the correlation.
No, but I’m sure you could draw a correlation between any unrelated things.
like asbestos, carbon monoxide, (sulfur, coal), asbestos (straight to the lungs!), DDT, should I go on????
That’s right, all things that aren’t in cigarettes but can cause lung cancer.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:25 amTo all traped in the past. ” We did then what we knew how to do, now we know better, we can do better”. Mia Anjelou…….History should be studied, losses and bad choices should get a real hard look and the mistakes acknoledged and changed. To repeat mistakes time and again shows a lack of study, cause and affect. Large case and point bush/ cheney and this entire administration. Both sides.
I personaly am totaly turned off and pissed off at all the crap thrown out by both sides on what a Kennedy did or didn’t do or how bad Regan or the right wings did in the past. Study it, learn from it, stop the stupid mud slinging. We are in the shitter, bush doesn’t know how to flush and clean up america, run a war or anything other than giving our country away to the bloated big business elite….The Dems have no more leadership than the the repugs now, the people who we put into office are nearly all corrupt………Let’s stay in the here and now while we study what has not worked for either party…..Our country and constitution is being taken over from with in and with out……… Get off your butts, sign patitions, march for change, massive phone calls and letter writings…What ever your intrests are get to it, never mind the trivial. We are in the year 2006 and yes this is a life or death issue..People are dieing in an unjust war……..When you have done all you can…..Hug a child, friend or a tree…….Blessings
May 17th, 2006 at 11:28 amNo, but I’m sure you could draw a correlation between any unrelated things.
Probably. But I don’t. Just because you’re not bright enough to see the correlation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in this case.
That’s right, all things that aren’t in cigarettes but can cause lung cancer.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Actually, they are in cigarettes. Forget about the D-Z ingredients already? And the fact that second-hand cigarette smoke is number one?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am#52 madashell
“I understand your argument, but as a smoker I take offense. You have gotten what you want in Washington state. Okay. Bars are off limits to smokers now. So the bar owners are ALL HURTING.”
It happened here in NY also, but I don’t think it’s had any noticable effect on the bars. As a non-smoker(except for the occasional cigar) I was against the ban, if I didnt want my clothes reaking of smoke, I just went to a bar that didn’t allow smoking inside, it’s personal choice, you can choose to be near people who are smokers, or choose to not be near.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:29 amTo all traped in the past. †We did then what we knew how to do, now we know better, we can do betterâ€. Mia Anjelou…….History should be studied, losses and bad choices should get a real hard look and the mistakes acknoledged and changed. To repeat mistakes time and again shows a lack of study, cause and affect. Large case and point bush/ cheney and this entire administration. Both sides.
it’s called WILLFUL IGNORANCE!
May 17th, 2006 at 11:29 amunbelievable
Quite honestly what I fear most is the exhaust coming out of super SUV’s and the stink that comes out of our local paper mill.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:31 amunbelievable — I understand your argument, but as a smoker I take offense.
That is laughable. You can be offended that I don’t want cancer, but I can’t be offended that you’re polluting my air?
I’ve watched too many family members rot away from cancer. I can live with you being offended.
You have gotten what you want in Washington state. Okay. Bars are off limits to smokers now. So the bar owners are ALL HURTING.
Again, no sympathy for those who make money from a product that kills people. Including those who don’t use it. Just like DDT and asbestos.
Tobacco sales are UP not DOWN. To enforce the law, the health department hires grunts to cruise around these businesses. So where are all the nonsmokers? They certainly don’t frequent BARS!
Nonsense. I lived in San Francisco and on Fridays after work, we had a hard time finding a place to have a drink they were so crowded.
And by the way I roll my own 100% organic tobacco.
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:21 am
So? I’m sure DDT and asbestos manufacturers make similar claim similarly. I can’t believe you can scold them and not Big Tobacco.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:33 am“Actually, they are in cigarettes. Forget about the D-Z ingredients already?
Asbestos, Carbon Monoxide, Coal, all A-C, and not there.
Sulfur, Nope, DDT, unless its under a different name (and I tried these, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) nope.
I don’t think anyones arguing that second hand smoke is good, or at least not bad, but that there are other causes for lung cancer beyond tobacco products.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:34 amyou can choose to be near people who are smokers, or choose to not be near.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 11:29 am
No, you don’t always have a choice. That’s the issue.. This is a very assinine statement. Even from you.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:36 amWell, if you believe those polls…
May 17th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Quite honestly what I fear most is the exhaust coming out of super SUV’s and the stink that comes out of our local paper mill.
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I think this is a hypocritical thing to say. You can’t be for one type of pollution that you use and against all others you don’t.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:37 amProbably. But I don’t. Just because you’re not bright enough to see the correlation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in this case.
Another attempt.
The study: Of people who don’t smoke, more men than women die from lung cancer. Your conclusion: Cigarettes killed 15,000 people.
Once again, for the most part we agree, smoking, second hand and otherwise cause lung cancer. Lung cancer kills. Killing is bad. Therefore cigarettes are bad. None of this has any relation to the original study, to make one is to degrade the scientists who set out to find gender differences in people with lung cancer.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:38 amNonsense. I lived in San Francisco and on Fridays after work, we had a hard time finding a place to have a drink they were so crowded.
I am from San Francisco, dear, born and raised. Even my sisters, who don’t smoke, did not believe in the ban. Its called LIBERTY. Like squegee said, don’t go where there is smoke then. as for the bar scene in SF, you may think they’re crowded, but they all go OUTSIDE to smoke. And quite frankly, it’s fun – you meet people you probably would never have being inside….
what I don’t do is buy corporate food.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:40 amI don’t think anyones arguing that second hand smoke is good, or at least not bad, but that there are other causes for lung cancer beyond tobacco products.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Are you not capable of using Google?
Asbestos used in filters:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/mod/comments/display/1045/index.php
DDT was sprayed on tobacco crops and still lingers in the soil today:
May 17th, 2006 at 11:42 amhttp://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2003/Philip-Morris-DDT-Tobacco04nov03.htm
unbelievable
like I said before, you have gotten what you want, and every city is following suit. We, as smokers, concede. What do you want? Our souls?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:43 am“No, you don’t always have a choice. That’s the issue.. This is a very assinine statement. Even from you.”
When don’t you? Planes you can’t, public transportation you can’t, movies, you can’t. Restaurants, in some areas you can’t, in the ones where you still can, their are restaurants that ban it. At some point it goes from removing secondhand smoke from places that make sense for the public safety, such as planes, to removing it from ridiculous places, such as all bars and restaurants within a state.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:43 amI think this is a hypocritical thing to say. You can’t be for one type of pollution that you use and against all others you don’t.
I disagree(suprise), while you may not be ‘for’ some types of pollution they could be seen as a necessary evil, while others may not be.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:43 amNone of this has any relation to the original study, to make one is to degrade the scientists who set out to find gender differences in people with lung cancer.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Yes it does. Try to follow. People get cancer from second hand smoke. The study shows that people get cancer who don’t smoke cigarettes. One of the causes is second hand smoke.
You’re just being contentious for the sake of it. http://www.dictionary.com
May 17th, 2006 at 11:44 amunbelievable
Not arguing with you there. But like I said, I personally smoke 100% organic tobacco.
and though it may be true filters themselves had fiberglass in them, that is NO longer the case.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:46 amWhat do you want? Our souls?
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Stop chiding us for speaking out against something we find harmful. THAT is liberty, not the other way around.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:47 amto removing it from ridiculous places, such as all bars and restaurants within a state.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Will of the majority. The only ones who aren’t happy about this are those who have to go outside to smoke.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:48 amAre you not capable of using Google?
Asbestos used in filters:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/ mod/ comments/ display/ 1045/ index.php
DDT was sprayed on tobacco crops and still lingers in the soil today:
http://www.mindfully.org/ Industry/ 2003/ Philip-Morris-DDT-Tobacco04nov03.htm
Comment by unbelievable — May 17, 2006 @ 11:42 am
You have a problem with recognizing two things can be true at once. Just because these things exist in cigarettes does not mean they don’t exist in other mediums.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:48 amunbelievable
Look, I just had a dear friend die of lung cancer. Never smoked a day in his life. What he did do was inhale a lot of saw dust from his job in construction, and inhaled smoke from a house fire.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:49 amI disagree(suprise), while you may not be ‘for’ some types of pollution they could be seen as a necessary evil, while others may not be.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am
So, Einstein, tell me the necessary evil of cigarettes… since we are talking cigarette smoke, DDT and asbestos in this context (and teh context of my post you’re trying to spin into something that has to do with nothing here).
May 17th, 2006 at 11:50 amThe only ones who aren’t happy about this are those who have to go outside to smoke.
where I come from the bar owners aren’t happy. We smokers still go, and we are FINE with going outside. And when we do – THE BAR IS EMPTY. Like I said before, where are the nonsmokers? And believe it or not, the nonsmokers always come out to JOIN US!
May 17th, 2006 at 11:51 amWhat he did do was inhale a lot of saw dust from his job in construction, and inhaled smoke from a house fire.
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:49 am
But he wasn’t in the majority. The majority is from second-hand smoke. That’s a side point. My main point is that neocons are more likely to die from smoking or second-hand smoke than a terrorist attack, yet they scream about the lowest risk.
Sorry to hear about your friend.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amYou have a problem with recognizing two things can be true at once. Just because these things exist in cigarettes does not mean they don’t exist in other mediums.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:48 am
The only problem I have is you.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amThe study shows that people get cancer who don’t smoke cigarettes. One of the causes is second hand smoke.
This study does nothing to show that second hand smoke causes lung cancer. It is widely accepted from other studies and certainly not a point of contention, but it has nothing to do with this study. There are other causes of lung cancer also, but that too is not what this study is about. To use one of your examples from earlier, people who eat spicy foods are more prone to heartburn, but there are other causes of heartburn as well.
You’re just being contentious for the sake of it.
You’ve got me there.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:56 amHastert is my representative — he is a fat pig in every sense.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:56 amAnd when we do – THE BAR IS EMPTY. Like I said before, where are the nonsmokers? And believe it or not, the nonsmokers always come out to JOIN US!
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 11:51 am
I’ve never seen this happen in San Francisco and we went out every Friday to a different place.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:56 amThis study does nothing to show that second hand smoke causes lung cancer.
You’re not spinning this very well.
“But about 15,000 of the deaths will occur in people who never used cigarettes. Other known causes: breathing secondhand smoke; exposure to radon and asbestos; smoking other tobacco products; and high-dose radiation.”
You’ve got me there.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Of course.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:59 am“And believe it or not, the nonsmokers always come out to JOIN US!”
If your cute enough we do.
“Will of the majority. The only ones who aren’t happy about this are those who have to go outside to smoke.”
May 17th, 2006 at 11:59 amI wasn’t happy about it, and like I said above, beyond a cigar a month or so, I don’t smoke.
unbelievable
I get your point. I really do. And for the most part I will agree with you. But I resent being seen as a pariah. The pub I go to, set up a place outside where us, their patrons, can go. They own their business and are being told what to do and are not happy about that. I have NEVER smoked around anyone who doesn’t like it, I always go away somewhere else. Before the ban I NEVER smoked in a restaurant where someone was eating near me. I am used to going somewhere else to smoke. I really have no problem with that.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI wasn’t happy about it, and like I said above, beyond a cigar a month or so, I don’t smoke.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Yes, but you voted for Bush in 2004. You’re not exactly demonstrative that you look out for your own best interest.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmSo, Einstein, tell me the necessary evil of cigarettes
Liberty.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#87 Thats just cold :)
But I’m sticking with the I’d rather vote for the possible war criminal then the self-admitted war criminal reasoning.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmI really have no problem with that.
Comment by madashell — May 17, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
I would guess that you are an exception. Everyone I am related to whines that they can’t smoke wherever whenever.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmLiberty.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
So by your premise we should also allow drunk drivers and mass murders to roam at will… Astounding. Really.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmThats just cold :)
I don’t make the facts, I just point ‘em out :)
But I’m sticking with the I’d rather vote for the possible war criminal then the self-admitted war criminal reasoning.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Experience over ineptness? Well, fopr my response to that, simply re-read my post #87 then.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmBoys and girls, the word for today is: intransigent
May 17th, 2006 at 12:10 pmSo by your premise we should also allow drunk drivers and mass murders to roam at will… Astounding. Really.
Comment by unbelievable — May 17, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
You know you’ve lost when you resort to telling other people what their premise is.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmMexican Border Must Be Secured!
Wednesday 17th of May 2006
by Jay Randal
The government of Mexico wants the border wide open to allow the poor of their nation to seek jobs in United States!
Mexico’s vile elite do not want to employ them, so they force them in desperation across the border to be exploited by vile US corporate elite, who desire an influx of low-paid workers, which causes wages for Americans to decline and not increase!
The Mexican border has to be secured to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, and to halt drugs flowing into American cities, as well as to prevent potential terrorists sneaking in!
Every Senator and Representative in Washington, DC, has been elected to represent the citizenry of the United States, and NOT to kowtow to the corporate elite, NOR to the elite of Mexico, so we the people demand our borders be secure!
It’s the responsibility of the Mexican government to employ its citizens, to give them affordable healthcare, and a decent environment to survive in, and NOT force them into the US!
The Bush Regime is playing games on border security, and is trying to divide this nation by racial groups fighting each other over employment, so bickering over securing borders, but everybody should be fighting against Pres. Bush and Fox!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmYou know you’ve lost when you resort to telling other people what their premise is.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Then you lost with your first post today. I am still far ahead.
Lemme show you your fallacy here:
Liberty to smoke (which kills people) is equal to liberty to drive drunk (which kills people). Care to retract your previous ‘liberty’ premise?
May 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pm“Boys and girls, the word for today is: intransigent”
Isn’t that when boys and girls dress up like each other?
May 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pmBoys and girls, the word for today is: intransigent
Comment by Zookeeper — May 17, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
Pretty much. But as long as logic is on my side, (and it is here) I’ll keep going :)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI did a little more research into the medicare drug plan and not only is it complex and frustrating; the loopholes, donut holes and sinkholes built into the plan are such that only a statistical actuary with a law degree could have conceived such an idea.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmThe “donut hole” will increase annually.
The monthly premium will increase annually.
The government will not price shop or obtain volume discounts.
The covered drugs can be changed monthly.
Every month’s delay will add 1% to the premium – forever.
And those are only a some of the details.
Liberty to smoke (which kills people) is equal to liberty to drive drunk (which kills people).
Your words not mine. It’s stupid and can be used both ways.
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning driving (which kills people)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmIsn’t that when boys and girls dress up like each other?
Comment by squegeeboo
Yes. Very good, Squeegy. Now, use it in a sentence. ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmBTW, does everyone know that Hastert’s son is a lobbyist?
May 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmLet’s try something new:
Town won’t let unmarried parents live together
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 11:41 a.m. EDT (15:41 GMT)
BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) — The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.
Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.
The town’s Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/unmarried.ap/index.html
May 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pm#101 Yes. Very good, Squeegy. Now, use it in a sentence. ;)
Sometimes, when my brother was little he used to dress up like an intransigent in my mothers sundresses.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pmI found a study on tennage depression, it shows that fat people get diabetes.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pmBanning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning driving (which kills people).
I would argue this:
You shouldn’t tell someone they can’t drink. But you can tell them they can’t drink and then drive.
You shouldn’t tell someone they can’t smoke. But I believe you should be able to tell them not to smoke around others.
If people want to drink and smoke in the privacy of their own home, fine. But if they want to do either destructive behavior that may impact the quality of my life, I think there should be laws against that.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pmBut I’m sticking with the I’d rather vote for the possible war criminal then the self-admitted war criminal reasoning.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 12:04
The old “I’d rather vote for someone who demonstrably IS a war criminal than someone who just CLAIMS to be a war criminal” ploy. Maxwell Smart would be very proud.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmBanning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning driving (which kills people)
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
You forgot the word ‘drunk’ in front of driving. I did say drunk driving. You can’t parse the argument.
The correct statement would be:
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning drunk driving (which kills people).
I agree.
Okay, next…
May 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmBanning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning driving (which kills people)
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
You forgot the word ‘drunk’ in front of driving. I did say drunk driving. You can’t parse the argument.
The correct statement would be:
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning drunk driving (which kills people).
I agree.
Okay, next…
May 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI find it amazing that Kerrys service in Vietnam is still fodder for right wing hate, yet Bush non-service is off limits other than to say it was distiguished. Face it one was there and one was here, period.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pmPresident Bush plans to sign a bill today extending $70 billion in tax cuts.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pmThe first estimated cost of the national guard at the border will be about $1.5 Billion over the first two years.
I never thought I would wish my life away, but Bush is so horrible; is it January 2009 yet?
If people want to drink and smoke in the privacy of their own home, fine. But if they want to do either destructive behavior that may impact the quality of my life, I think there should be laws against that.
Comment by bobcat_grad — May 17, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Seems logical – but bhealy will find a way to turn it into something obscure and unrelated. Such is the neocon brain. Devoid of reason. Just emotion and contention.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#103
That’s pretty crazy but it looks from reading the article that the city council’s hands were tied, changing the law would have meant changing the definition of family. Without having more information who knows the problems causing the definition of family could cause.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:31 pmFace it one was there and one was here, period.
Comment by Mark — May 17, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
The neocons think you can compare an apple to a pineapple just because they share the letters ‘apple’ in their names…
May 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pmMark
“I find it amazing that Kerrys service in Vietnam is still fodder for right wing hate”
Kerry has admitted to commiting war crimes in Vietnam, that is why it is still fodder.
Barfly
May 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pm“The old “I’d rather vote for someone who demonstrably IS a war criminal than someone who just CLAIMS to be a war criminal†ploy. Maxwell Smart would be very proud.”
Bush dosn’t claim to be a war criminal, portions of the left claim he is. Great reference though, did you know that show has a display at the Reagan Library?
Smokers have the right to pollute their own bodies all they want, more power to ya. But they do not have the right to pollute my body as well. You can choose where you smoke, I cannot choose where I breathe. If I don’t breathe, I die. If you don’t smoke, you get bitchy. Not exactly comparable results. But addicts are not rational about their addictions.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmWithout having more information who knows the problems causing the definition of family could cause.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Ramifications over the definition of family? That’s the best argument you can invoke?
One valid definitionfrom http://www.dictionary.com: “All the members of a household under one roof.”
May 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pmKerry has admitted to commiting war crimes in Vietnam, that is why it is still fodder.
I’m calling you on this one. Please show me where Kerry said “I committed war crimes.”
May 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmWell said Cyra!
May 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmSometimes, when my brother was little he used to dress up like an intransigent in my mothers sundresses.
Comment by squegeeboo
Very good. So your brother looked like a hobo in a pretty dress? Sweet.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmI’m for it being a business owners choice. If I have a bar that allows smokers and you don’t want to walk in the door, don’t. If you feel the area would be better served by a non-smoking bar, then open one and compete.
The New York non-smoking law hurt small bar owners/waitresses/bartenders a whole lot. I know a few people in such professions and they maintain that they cannot bring in the same number of people or get the tips they use to get.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmYou forgot the word ‘drunk’ in front of driving. I did say drunk driving. You can’t parse the argument.
The correct statement would be:
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning drunk driving (which kills people).
I agree.
No I meant driving. The examples are endless.
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning eating chicken (which kills people).
Remember this is your example not mine.
bhealy will find a way to turn it into something obscure and unrelated.
This seems to be your MO.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmI thought you meant this definition:
“Refusing to compromise”
May 17th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#117
Are the purchasing, or renting the home? Because there are rules about what kind of people you can rent to in some residential areas, that can range from only single familes, to a gaggle of roomates. For example, where I rent with my roomates is technically not allowed, because it is only supposed to allow single family residence, but instead there are 4 people unrelated in the house.
Is the town being jerks about it? Yes, but thats why it’s a Bureaucracy
May 17th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#119- Gee… thanks. :)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pmRamifications over the definition of family? That’s the best argument you can invoke?
One valid definitionfrom http://www.dictionary.com: “All the members of a household under one roof.â€
Legal definition. If the legal definition were to change it may have ramification to other laws. You would have to think there’s a reason the city council voted down the change, we just need to hear from them why.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pmbobcat
I’m calling you on this one. Please show me where Kerry said “I committed war crimes.â€
I posted it above somwhere, comment #45 I think, copied the important part into the post, and provided a link.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmNo I meant driving. The examples are endless.
Then your statement above is fallacious. Driving does NOT kill people. Irresponsible driving (breaking laws, speeding, drinking while, ignoring stop signs) kill people. Not an equal comparision.
Do you see the difference? Of course not.
Banning smoking (which kills people) is equal to banning eating chicken (which kills people).
Remember this is your example not mine.
No it’s not mine. It’s your ‘liberty’ premise. Show me how eating chicken kills people other than the one eating it.
You really are falling apart here.
This seems to be your MO.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Nope. I was a debater in high school and college. I understand logic. It is you who is deficient.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmOne valid definition (of family) from http://www.dictionary.com: “All the members of a household under one roof.â€
Comment by unbelievable — May 17, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
There you go using logic and reasoning again. Don’t you realize that neo-conservatives don’t use those when discussing ‘moral’ issues. They use feelings, instead.
You know those moral Republicans. Like Four-term Republican Rep. Don Sherwood who acknowledged last year an extramarital affair with a young woman — and the settlement of a civil lawsuit leveled against the congressman by the woman. She alleged that Sherwood was physically abusive.
People like them get to define what the moral definition of a family is. They own Jesus, after all.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmBush dosn’t claim to be a war criminal, portions of the left claim he is. Great reference though, did you know that show has a display at the Reagan Library?
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 12:33
“Demonstrably” doesn’t mean “claim”, Squeege.
Kerry claimed these things, Bush DID these things – while we witnessed it on TV (remember the buck stops with the commander-in-chief and his minions for actions taken under his orders – well, at least it did for the Nazi’s).
Haven’t you seen pictures of the carnage Bush has wrought?
Max (Mel Brooks) is one of the great philosophers of our time.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmIf the legal definition were to change it may have ramification to other laws.
Such as?
You would have to think there’s a reason the city council voted down the change, we just need to hear from them why.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Like all the other 100% perfect reasons bureaucrats have for doing anything?
May 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#103 – The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.”
unbelievable, how is this family affected by that asinine law? They are apparently a mother, father and 3 children related by blood.
Why do I think this is a way to keep gay families out of town, and this family happened to get caught up in the fray? When will people learn to mind their own business? Arrghhh!
May 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pmAnouther valid definition from dictionary.com
A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.
So mobsters are allowed to live under the same roof too? It really boils down to finding out what the municipality has on the books for the definition of a family which is this:
May 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm“The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.” The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.”
Sort of dastardly of them to not change it though, to allow for the social trends towards commonlaw marriage as opposed to priest marriage(sorry to use such a technical term).
Squeege:
Okay, here’s what Kerry said:
“There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.”
Okay, so far, he’s admitted to ‘atrocities.’ Not war crimes. And I would argue that most soldiers would qualify what they have done in war as atrocious. Unless you’re psychotic.
“I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.”
Ordered. Military law dictates that subordinates must follow the orders of their superiors.
“I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.”
Is that a horrible thing to do? Sure. But he was ordered to do so.
“All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.”
So, the policy of the country was to do this. Not the decisions of a single soldier.
“And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.â€
If the US Army was following US policy in committing these acts, using your logic, EVERY single soldier is guilty of committing war crimes.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmThey own Jesus, after all.
Comment by bobcat_grad — May 17, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
How could we forget ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#121 – I’m for it being a business owners choice. If I have a bar that allows smokers and you don’t want to walk in the door, don’t. If you feel the area would be better served by a non-smoking bar, then open one and compete.
Comment by Tundra
I’m with you, Tundra. I absolutely hate going into places where people smoke, so I don’t, but I don’t think the bar owners should be told what to do in this area. A smart business owner would open a smoke-free bar or restaurant and advertise it as such. I would go there, and so would most of my friends.
May 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm#115 Bush and his Ilk have claimed that he served honorably when in fact he did not. Bush has tried to equate Guard service then with Guard service now, when in fact there is no comparison. Guard service then was known as a way to dodge the draft yet not break the law you served or tried to serve in the guard in order to avoid Vietnam. Anyoen who claims they were willing to go but were not called is full of shit because the military was more than willing to send everyone who wanted to go.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#123 – I thought you meant this definition:
“Refusing to compromiseâ€
Comment by unbelievable
I did. I’m just messing with Squeegy as much as he’s messing with me. ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pmWhy do I think this is a way to keep gay families out of town
Comment by Zookeeper — May 17, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Because you actually use your brain (and not as a beer coaster or door stop :)
May 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmTake a look at USA Today Page 8a. Go figure flash cards designed to assist new immigrants learn about the laws of our land omit at least one freedom…freedom of the press. Card #80 omits freedom of the press from its list of responses. If this were a private fox based company I could see the point, but these cards are being manufactured by the government and sold by the government printing office.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmThen your statement above is fallacious. Driving does NOT kill people. Irresponsible driving (breaking laws, speeding, drinking while, ignoring stop signs) kill people. Not an equal comparision.
Do you see the difference? Of course not.
Your grasping at straws. By being this specific drunk driving does not kill people either, crashing does. Plus I would argue it is possible to kill or be killed even when being a responsible driver.
Nope. I was a debater in high school and college. I understand logic. It is you who is deficient.
Says the person who believes a study about gender differences in lung cancer equates to cigarettes killing 15,000 non-smokers.
If the legal definition were to change it may have ramification to other laws.
Such as?
We don’t know but shouldn’t rush to judge. Thinking off the top of my head let’s try car insurance. If any number or group of people can be called a ‘family’ by living together then they can all be covered by the same car insurance policy. Thus negating the need to have seperate policies. The situation in the article sounds bad and makes the law seem pretty stupid. I’m just more optomistic that there was a legitimate reason for the council to not overturn it.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#136
“Ordered. Military law dictates that subordinates must follow the orders of their superiors.”
Worked so well in Nuremburg, but they told me to.
“the men who ordered us”
Kerry was in control of a boat, that means he ordered his men to do the things that he did. By his own logic, he is included in the people who ordered other people.
I know it dosn’t have the flat out “I commited war crimes” but he admits he commited atrocities that are against the geneva conventions, and the us rules of warfare. Maybe I’m missing a subtle nuance, but how do you admit to going against the geneva conventions with out implicitly admitting to commiting war crimes?
“If the US Army was following US policy in committing these acts, using your logic, EVERY single soldier is guilty of committing war crimes.”
May 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmAnd if you use your logic, then you chain all the way up to the top, then only the lowest level person isn’t guilty of war crimes because he never sends the orders down one more level, but Kerry wasn’t the lowest level.
Ordered. Military law dictates that subordinates must follow the orders of their superiors.
Sorry Bobcat the use of a .50 Calibur machine gun against personnal is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. It is completely irrelevant who “ordered” you to do it. There is such thing as a lawful order and a unlawful order, you are required to disobey an unlawful order (Taught in basic training)
May 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pmBecause you actually use your brain (and not as a beer coaster or door stop :)
Comment by unbelievable
I only use my brain as a door stop if I’ve had too much beer. Coaster? What is this thing called a coaster? ;)
I think I’m channeling Squeegy. I feel a little sick.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm“They own Jesus, after all.
Comment by bobcat_grad — May 17, 2006 @ 12:47 pm”
We picked him up at bargin basement prices, now were keeping an eye out for yahweh on the cheap.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pm“I only use my brain as a door stop if I’ve had too much beer. Coaster? What is this thing called a coaster? ;)”
The first part happened to a roomate,multiple times, he had quite the bump the next day, the second part? I think its anouther term for arm of the chair, or coffee table.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmYour grasping at straws.
That would be you. I’m just using logic.
By being this specific drunk driving does not kill people either, crashing does. Plus I would argue it is possible to kill or be killed even when being a responsible driver.
Now that is REALLY grasping. You could use that logic to say that not everyone dies from second-hand smoke either.
The reason that the two are related is because they are arbitrary actions with potentially grave consequences to other people againt those people’s will. Eating chicken does not fall within those parameters.
Says the person who believes a study about gender differences in lung cancer equates to cigarettes killing 15,000 non-smokers.
That is not what I said. What I said was, in reference to the words in the article that people die from lung cancer – a larger portion from second hand smoke than from terrorism. Stop twisting my words to allude something I never said or meant.
You left out your answer to your chicken argument. How come?
We don’t know but shouldn’t rush to judge. Thinking off the top of my head let’s try car insurance. If any number or group of people can be called a ‘family’ by living together then they can all be covered by the same car insurance policy. Thus negating the need to have seperate policies. The situation in the article sounds bad and makes the law seem pretty stupid. I’m just more optomistic that there was a legitimate reason for the council to not overturn it.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Not equal. You have to use an equal scenario in order to use it as an analogy. This is not an apple. It’s a mango. Red perhaps, but still not an apple.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#115 Hitler and his group never claimed to be war criminals either though. Neither have too many people in prison ever claimed to be criminals or guilty of anything. WHen you comitt crimes the inclination is to deny you ever did it.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmto allow for the social trends towards commonlaw marriage as opposed to priest marriage(sorry to use such a technical term).
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Common law marriage is not new social trend, it has existed as long as man has. The Catholic church tried to ban it by making marriages legal only if performed under the auspices of the Church in the 1500s.
In the US, many states banned the pratice in the 1800s -which goes to show this is most definitely not a new trend. Many others still permit it.
Also, marriage does not have to be religious -you can also “tie the knot” in a civil marriage performed by a government official rather than a priest. Good option if you are an atheist.
Finally, the city’s legal definition is asinine and rooted in Puritan morals. The rationale behind common-law marriage provisions is precisely to protect the family unit, mostly the children who would otherwise not enjoy the rights and benefits given to children born within civil or priest marriage -health insurance, and claim to inheritance quickly come to mind.
Changing the definition to include common-law marriages is not the end of the world, but a recognition that a family can exist perfectly well outside the boundaries of a religious framework.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmMark,
Once(if) you guys retake congress, start up the trial, and once it ends, then we’ll know if he did or not. Until then, my point still stands.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmSqueege and Tundra:
Now we get into a very grey area: war crimes and responsibility.
There is a definite question as to who is responisible and who isn’t within the chain of command. In US Army policy during the Vietnam war was to order all of its officers to order all their men to use .50 caliber machine guns and to burn innocent people’s villages to the ground, who gets the blame?
Who are you to define where the buck stops? For that matter, who am I?
Until we can come to an agreement to who is absolved of responsibility at what point, I contend that either you blame every single soldier for following the orders of his immediate superior OR you blame the single guy at the top who initiated the policy.
You can’t pick who’s responsible when it’s conveinent for your claim that a veteran is a war criminal.
At least you’re safe from me claiming Bush was a war criminal in Vietnam. Unless being AWOL from the National Guard is a war crime.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI think its anouther term for arm of the chair, or coffee table.
Comment by squegeeboo
You must be right. ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pm152
they are arbitrary actions with potentially grave consequences to other people againt those people’s will.
Like your carbon monoxide spewing car filling MY lungs against my will?
May 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmOkay bhealy, let’s see you defend this one:
Youths torn from camps, forced to fight
From Nic Robertson
Wednesday, May 17, 2006; Posted: 12:35 p.m. EDT (16:35 GMT)
N’DJAMENA, Chad (CNN) — Children as young as 13 are being forced into combat by Sudanese rebels who take the youngsters from squalid refugee camps in neighboring Chad, CNN has learned.
In some cases, Chadian guards look the other way as rebels make children join their ranks, local people say.
Abdul, 16, told CNN he had no choice: “When I saw them beating some of the people, I was afraid. That’s why I couldn’t refuse to go.
“I’m not a volunteer — I was forced,” the boy said, visibly scared.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/17/chad.recruitment/index.html
May 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmLike your carbon monoxide spewing car filling MY lungs against my will?
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Yep.
And you know why that’s still legal, don’t you?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
May 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmNow that is REALLY grasping. You could use that logic to say that not everyone dies from second-hand smoke either.
Exactly correct, which is why your statement in #96 holds no water. You cannot say liberty for one action is the same as liberty for another, just as you cannot say that banning one action correlates to the banning of another. Each situation is seperate.
What I said was, in reference to the words in the article that people die from lung cancer – a larger portion from second hand smoke than from terrorism. Stop twisting my words to allude something I never said or meant.
The problem is that the article makes no attempt to quantify how many people die from second hand smoke. Only that more non-smoking men than women die from lung cancer.
What you have tried to do is announce that all 15,000 non-smokers that died of lung cancer got it from second hand smoke. The article offers nothing to support that.
Not equal. You have to use an equal scenario in order to use it as an analogy.
What the heck are you talking about there’s no analogy here. Just acknowledgemeant that allowing anyone who lives under the same roof to legally be a family can have originally unseen consequences.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm“who gets the blame?”
Every one who was involved, from the guy making the initial order, all the way down to the bottom level soldier who didn’t refuse the order.
“You can’t pick who’s responsible when it’s conveinent for your claim that a veteran is a war criminal.”
May 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmI can when he says he commited acts that are war crimes.
156
Let me say first off that I have never accused anyone of being a war criminal. My statement is that if you fired a .50 calibur machine gun into personnal you have violated the geneva convention.
It does not matter who told you to do it. It would be considered an unlawful order to follow. It is irrelevant what policy says, you are breaking international laws by performing that action. There is not a defense against it that is viable. The president of the United States cannot order you to do that lawfully, hence no other officer can either. If someone tells you to do it and you follow through with it, it is a free action.
That being said I would not call anyone that has not been convicted a war criminal. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmI can when he says he commited acts that are war crimes.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
No, you can have an opinion if he did. I get have an opinion he didn’t. An international military tribunal gets to decide if they are war crimes.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmOkay bhealy, let’s see you defend this one
My only position on this is that it’s not for the US to interfere with. Right up the UN’s alley though.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmas several tp-ers expected, arlen specter bent over and took it in the hiney on the proposed nsa legislation…
i apologize for my comments the other day suggesting that arlen was not a putz….he is.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmYou cannot say liberty for one action is the same as liberty for another, just as you cannot say that banning one action correlates to the banning of another. Each situation is seperate.
You can if they are the same. In this case you have two different apples. Ones a Granny Smith and the other a Golden Delicious.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e13.htm
“The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more things are similar in some respects and concludes that they are probably also similar in some further respect. Not every analogy is an argument; we frequently use such comparisons simply to explain or illustrate what we mean. But arguments by analogy are common, too.”
The problem is that the article makes no attempt to quantify how many people die from second hand smoke. Only that more non-smoking men than women die from lung cancer.
Neither did I. But it did say that 15,000 die annually from lung cancer not related to smoking. Since it listed second hand smoke, and second-hand smoke it the major contributor to non-smoking lung cancer, I could logically deduce that more people die annually from second hand smoke than terrorism. Get it yet?
What you have tried to do is announce that all 15,000 non-smokers that died of lung cancer got it from second hand smoke. The article offers nothing to support that.
No I did not. I included the quote that lists the numerous factors.
What the heck are you talking about there’s no analogy here. Just acknowledgemeant that allowing anyone who lives under the same roof to legally be a family can have originally unseen consequences.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
You tried to use your insurance example as an analogy. http://www.dictionary.com
May 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm“Had it ever dawned on you that Kerry was right? And that his honesty is what you can’t tolerate? Compare that to George who no one remembers seeing in his squadron. You have an honest man with regrets, compared to a criminal who didn’t serve because he was too chicken. Yeah, you must be proud.”
I have no problem holding my head up. How does it feel to vote for a man who’s admitted to war crimes, atrocities, and violating the geneva conventions? I didn’t know being honest about horrible things suddenly make them ok.
Does that mean that every pedohile who has admitted to guilt is suddenly a great person you’d love to meet?
“Bush said Kerry was innocent. Vietnam wasn’t a declared war, just like the war on terrorism – and Bush and your fellow republicans say that the Geneva Conventions and therefore war crimes don’t exist.”
Bush says they don’t apply because they arn’t fighting a uniformed opposition, Kerry’s statements don’t make a distinction between the people he commited these acts on as VietCog, NVA, or innocents, so we don’t know if Bush’s statements have exhonerated him or not.
“How does it feel to know Bush has exhonerated Kerry?”
May 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pmHow does it feel to try and defend a self-admitted war criminal? Does it feel good? Does it make you proud?
My only position on this is that it’s not for the US to interfere with. Right up the UN’s alley though.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
But not Iraq? I have to hear this… How so?
May 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm169
be careful you’re being anti-republican at the moment, they’re going to revolk your play nice card
That’s OK, I’m more of a Libertarian, They took away my play nice with Bush card along time ago :)
May 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmSponge bob So your point is that Kerry is a war criminal because he has stood trial and been found guilty? By your logic OJ is nota criminal and neithe is Joseph Stalin because one was found not guilty and the other was never tried.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmFrom the article – since it is long proven that neocons can’t follow links:
A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of heart attacks in a US town by almost a half, a new study has revealed.
The researchers attribute the dramatic drop to the “near elimination” of harmful effects of “second-hand” smoke – passive smoking. A smoke-free environment also encourages smokers to reduce smoking or quit altogether, the team adds.
Statistician Stanton Glantz, at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues studied diagnoses of heart attacks in the town of Helena, Montana, where the ban was imposed.
“This striking finding suggests that protecting people from toxins in second-hand smoke not only makes life more pleasant, it immediately starts saving lives,” Glantz says. The researchers claim the study is the first to show that smoke-free policies rapidly reduce heart attacks, as well as having long-term benefits.
“This clearly shows the great need for controls on smoking in public places,” says Amanda Sandford of UK pressure group Action on Smoking and Health. “Passive smoking is a killer. The public certainly underestimates the impact of passive smoking on the heart.”
May 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmEasy part first I guess:
You tried to use your insurance example as an analogy.
I’m not making any comparison. Hence no analogy.
You cannot say liberty for one action is the same as liberty for another, just as you cannot say that banning one action correlates to the banning of another. Each situation is seperate.bhealy
Have it either way you want. if the analogy you first made (liberty of smoking to liberty of drunk driving) is valid then so is any other analogy made that has the same similarities. Banning of smoking to banning of driving. Both can kill yourself and others, we can include the exhaust from driving here.
If on the other hand you want to say that you cannot compare banning of smoking to banning of driving then your original analogy between liberty of smoking and liberty of drunk driving is also not valid.
But it did say that 15,000 die annually from lung cancer not related to smoking. Since it listed second hand smoke, and second-hand smoke it the major contributor to non-smoking lung cancer, I could logically deduce that more people die annually from second hand smoke than terrorism.
You cannot get a reasonable range of how many of those 15,000 cases can be attributed to lung cancer without knowing how many other ways lung cancer can be contracted and how often they occur. I’m sure this is known but the article doesn’t mention it. It could be as 1,000 of these people or as much as 15,000.
Second hand smoke being the major contributor to lung cancer is non-smokers does not mean it is the majority contributor (as in not over 50%) For example, hypothetically let’s say there are 30 things that can cause lung cancer, second hand smoke being number 1. Then second hand smoke could account for 5% of all cases while the other 29 causes account individually for around 3.3% of all cases. It still accounts for 100% of all cases and second hand smoke is still the major contributor but it would only attribute 750 cases to second hand smoke.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmMark
My point is that Kerry has admitted to commiting war crimes through his admission of committing atrocities and violations of the geneva convention, and us war rules, and thru him stating anyone who orders someone to do the above is a war criminal.
Or better yet, qoutes from him like this from Kerry “”However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty.”
May 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmhttp://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml
My only position on this is that it’s not for the US to interfere with. Right up the UN’s alley though.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
But not Iraq? I have to hear this… How so?
You don’t know my position on the war, don’t classify me as a neo-con…I wouldn’t classify myself as one. That said I originally supported war on Iraq with the biggest reason being that I thought the US was in danger from Iraq. That by itself was not quite enough because of the possiblity that it wasn’t true, but combined with other reasons I supported the war.
May 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmI’m not making any comparison. Hence no analogy.
Go read your post 146.
You cannot say liberty for one action is the same as liberty for another, just as you cannot say that banning one action correlates to the banning of another. Each situation is seperate.bhealy
Oh, I see – you’re an absolutist. Ugh. No wonder you don’t understand the many shades of grey. I get it now.
Have it either way you want. if the analogy you first made (liberty of smoking to liberty of drunk driving) is valid then so is any other analogy made that has the same similarities. Banning of smoking to banning of driving. Both can kill yourself and others, we can include the exhaust from driving here.
No. You do not understand basic logic. Try again when you’ve caught up.
If on the other hand you want to say that you cannot compare banning of smoking to banning of driving then your original analogy between liberty of smoking and liberty of drunk driving is also not valid.
It was YOUR premise. I was simply giving it a real world application. You might try to do the same before you use that ideology to argue an issue.
You cannot get a reasonable range of how many of those 15,000 cases can be attributed to lung cancer without knowing how many other ways lung cancer can be contracted and how often they occur. I’m sure this is known but the article doesn’t mention it. It could be as 1,000 of these people or as much as 15,000.
Of course you can. Even if it’s as low as 500 a year (which it’s more like 5,000 and up), that’s still MORE than are being killed annually by terrorists. Any bells ringing?
Second hand smoke being the major contributor to lung cancer is non-smokers does not mean it is the majority contributor (as in not over 50%)
I never said that either.
For example, hypothetically let’s say there are 30 things that can cause lung cancer, second hand smoke being number 1. Then second hand smoke could account for 5% of all cases while the other 29 causes account individually for around 3.3% of all cases. It still accounts for 100% of all cases and second hand smoke is still the major contributor but it would only attribute 750 cases to second hand smoke.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Yep. And it’s still more people dying from second hand smoke than terrorism. Which was my initial point. You just tried to convolute my original argument into something I neither said nor meant.
I gotta run at 2:20. In case I don’t respond until later.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pmYou don’t know my position on the war, don’t classify me as a neo-con…I wouldn’t classify myself as one. That said I originally supported war on Iraq with the biggest reason being that I thought the US was in danger from Iraq. That by itself was not quite enough because of the possiblity that it wasn’t true, but combined with other reasons I supported the war.
I’m usually a strong isolationist, btw. Although that’s been changing with the more global world.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmDuring 1995–1999, smoking caused an annual average of 264,087 deaths among men and 178,311 deaths among women in the United States (Table 1). Among adults, most smoking-related deaths were attributed to lung cancer (124,813), ischemic heart disease (81,976), and chronic airways obstruction (64,735). Smoking during pregnancy resulted in the death of 599 male and 408 female infants annually. Total annual SAM estimates include the deaths of 589 males and 377 females by residential fire during 1994–1998 (5), and the deaths of 15,517 males and 22,536 females from lung cancer and heart disease attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke (6).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm
Knowledge really is power…
May 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pm“Knowledge really is power…”
Sure, it lets you build guns.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pmDuring 1997–2001, smoking resulted in an estimated annual average of 259,494 deaths among men and 178,408 deaths among women in the United States (Table). Among adults, 158,529 (39.8%) of these deaths were attributed to cancer, 137,979 (34.7%) to cardiovascular diseases, and 101,454 (25.5%) to respiratory diseases. The three leading specific causes of smoking-attributable death were lung cancer (123,836), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)†(90,582), and ischemic heart disease (86,801). Smoking during pregnancy resulted in an estimated 910 infant deaths annually during 1997–2001. An estimated 38,112 lung cancer and heart disease deaths annually were attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm
May 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pmSure, it lets you build guns.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
That’s not real power. Gandhi defeated the British without them.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmKnowledge really is power…â€
Sure, it lets you build guns.
Comment by squegeeboo
It also helps you build gummy worms and computer games.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmYou don’t know my position on the war,
I supported the war.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
‘nough said…
May 17th, 2006 at 2:14 pmSeeing as once you are backed into a wall you belittle or insult the other person I’ll take this one opportunity to do the same.
Oh, I see – you’re an absolutist. Ugh. No wonder you don’t understand the many shades of grey. I get it now.
You’re dumb.
No. You do not understand basic logic. Try again when you’ve caught up.
You’re dumb.
It was YOUR premise. I was simply giving it a real world application. You might try to do the same before you use that ideology to argue an issue.
It was yours in #96
Of course you can. Even if it’s as low as 500 a year (which it’s more like 5,000 and up), that’s still MORE than are being killed annually by terrorists. Any bells ringing?
I’d rather die to lung cancer than terrorism anyways. And terrorism should be something the government is focused on, smoking should be handled at state and/or local levels.
I never said that either.
It’s in your post #170
Yep. And it’s still more people dying from second hand smoke than terrorism. Which was my initial point. You just tried to convolute my original argument into something I neither said nor meant.
Your original argument included a study suggesting men die more often than women from lung cancer
I gotta run at 2:20. In case I don’t respond until later.
Bye, probably see ya tomorrow.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pmStaes can’t sue or we can’t have class action?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pmStates can’t sue or we can’t have class action?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:18 pm(…)I thought the US was in danger from Iraq. That by itself was not quite enough because of the possiblity that it wasn’t true, but combined with other reasons I supported the war.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
The US in danger from Iraq? The first military, economic power in the world in danger from a fifth-rate military, with no capacity to launch an attack? Not to mention there was not connection between the WTC attacks and Hussein’s regime… wow… were you suckered…
I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you. If that is beyond your budget, I have got a steel tower for sale cheap in France.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm176
By your logic OJ is nota criminal and neithe is Joseph Stalin because one was found not guilty and the other was never tried.
Actually that would be my point more than Squegee and Yes OJ is not a criminal because he was not convicted. Bill Clinton did not lie under oath. Stalin was not an American so he wasn’t protected under our constitution.
Kerry is not a war criminal because he was not found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise I guess we could start running around handing out prison terms to whoever we felt like. Personally I think that right is not one I am prepared to give up yet.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pmSeeing as once you are backed into a wall you belittle or insult the other person I’ll take this one opportunity to do the same.
I wasn’t backed into a wall or name calling. Just stating the obvious.
You’re dumb.
You’re dumb.
That’s not even remotely equal. And wrong.
It was yours in #96
No it wasn’t. It was a demostration of yours.
I’d rather die to lung cancer than terrorism anyways. And terrorism should be something the government is focused on, smoking should be handled at state and/or local levels.
Fcats? None. Just your egocentric opinions and ‘feelings’. Reality does not revolve around you or your feelings.
It’s in your post #170
Not even remotely
Your original argument included a study suggesting men die more often than women from lung cancer
That wasn’t ALL it included. You’re missing the rest of it, and tehrefore the point.
I gotta run at 2:20. In case I don’t respond until later.
Bye, probably see ya tomorrow.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Probably not.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pmZookeeper
“It also helps you build gummy worms and computer games.”
MMMM, gummy Mona Lisa.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pm192
The US in danger from Iraq? The first military, economic power in the world in danger from a fifth-rate military, with no capacity to launch an attack?
Sort of like those yahoos who were living in caves in Afganastan with no ability to launch an attack?
wow… were you suckered…
You really underestimate motivation
Note: I didn’t support going but not because I felt they were incappable of hurting us.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmMMMM, gummy Mona Lisa.
Comment by squegeeboo
Incorrigible ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmTundra
“Kerry is not a war criminal because he was not found guilty by a jury of his peers.”
So a man who admits to murder isn’t a murderer until his trial is complete?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pmSo a man who admits to murder isn’t a murderer until his trial is complete?
Yes, If you would like I can find “Innocent until PROVEN Guilty” written somewhere if I really look.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:30 pmactually the number one killer right now is WAR…
May 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmThe same thing happened yesterday when I quoted you verbatim you deny what you wrote. I mean it’s written down it’s not like there isn’t proof. Is someone else posting under your name sometimes?
May 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pmSort of like those yahoos who were living in caves in Afganastan with no ability to launch an attack?
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
This is poor logic Tundra -the people responsible for the WTC attacks were not living in caves and/or in Afghanistan. You know that.
bhealy said “the US was in danger from Iraq”, echoing the Bush administration claims that Hussein’s Iraq (as a nation, not a terrorist group) was a pending danger to the region and the world, thanks to the WMD and the nuclear program Hussein supposedly had.
That was the way the invasion was sold: Iraq was a gathering threat. Remember those famous 45 minutes?
You really underestimate motivation
I don’t. Hussein was, is many things -but above all, he is a survivor. Launching an attack on American interests (let alone on the US itself) is suicidal. Hussein knew that from his reality check in 1991.
Note: I didn’t support going but not because I felt they were incappable of hurting us.
You are using the preemptive strike logic. What is wrong with it is that it can be applied to anyone in the world: Any country can potentially, maybe, perhaps, could be, have intentions of acquiring WMD and use them against the US. Why, those who already possess them could use them too.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pm“actually the number one killer right now is WAR… ”
I always thought it was death. My mistake.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmUnderstand that when I say I believed the US was in danger from Iraq it doesn’t have to mean a direct or obvious assault. I believed it to be a hotbeat for terrorism and that 9/11 was linked to Iraq. Was I wrong? It would seem so.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pmbhealy said “the US was in danger from Iraqâ€,
True he said that and you responded saying they couldn’t attack. My only point was I think anyone CAN attack us at anytime. I’m not calling it a justification for the war. I was disputing your claim that they had no capacity to attack (Sending a few people over with box cutters is an attack in my book).
I don’t. Hussein was, is many things -but above all, he is a survivor. Launching an attack on American interests (let alone on the US itself)
May 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWhich is why I didn’t advocate the war, besides the fact that I live in a smaller town outside a midsize city. The odds of it effecting me are pretty slim if he did. My immediate family are all out in suburbs or further in the country like me. If a tactical nuke does go off, odds are the people I really care about wouldn’t be effected either. That being said I didn’t see a reason to attack Iraq.
So anyone care to tackle this issue:
I’ve seen all sorts of talk on Posse Comitatus and the National Guard at the Mexican border. wikipedia has a list of exceptions(which TP won’t let me post a link to, stupid spam filter):
1. National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state
and then several others.
Bush’s speech said the NG would be under the control of the states, not the feds, so is wikipedia wrong, am I missing something, or is their nothing illegal at all about the NG helping out, even if it invloves direct front line assistance, instead of just as data gathers etc.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI believed it to be a hotbeat for terrorism and that 9/11 was linked to Iraq. Was I wrong? It would seem so.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Correction: It is obviously so.
Now, why would you have believed that? Let me answer for you: The war was sold with a very well designed marketing campaign; the wording was crafted carefully enough to give people the impression that Hussein’s regime was, indeed, linked to 9/11, even though the Bush administration never actually said it. They also led the American public to believe that Hussein had close ties to Bin Laden.
The Bush administration launched an attack against a nation that posed no threat, and they knew it. They were so aware of this reality, that they had to fix the facts around the policy.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pmMy only point was I think anyone CAN attack us at anytime.
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Anyone can attack the US at anytime. True. But your argument borders on the silly, because it does not reflect Pres Bush’s argument that Iraq was a “gathering threat”.
You had to stretch the boundaries of logic to refure my argument.
I’m not calling it a justification for the war. I was disputing your claim that they had no capacity to attack (Sending a few people over with box cutters is an attack in my book).
Again, it does not reflect Pres Bush’s argument that Iraq wasa threat to the region and the world, or that Hussein was a “madman” trying to take over the world. Remember the comparisons to Hitler?
That being said I didn’t see a reason to attack Iraq.
I am a little at odds to try to understand your reasoning. But, hey, I am happy you opposed the invasion. Such a waste of valuable human lives. On both sides…
May 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe US in danger from Iraq? The first military, economic power in the world in danger from a fifth-rate military, with no capacity to launch an attack? Not to mention there was not connection between the WTC attacks and Hussein’s regime… wow… were you suckered…
I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you. If that is beyond your budget, I have got a steel tower for sale cheap in France.
You basically mocked bhealy for believing that the U.S could possibly be under any threat from Iraq (Even offered to sell him a bridge for entertaining the thought). My point was against yours that yes they could be a threat and I could see how someone would perceive them that way.
The entire Bush said argument is irrelevant. My point was yes Iraq had the potential to hurt us.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pmBringing up John Kerry or Bob Kerry and their war records does not in any way absolve Bush for what he is. He is 1) a thus far un repenatant un tried war criminal who has ordered the violation of the geneva convention and 2) a traitor of the worst kind. After all it was he himself who said AlQueda hates our freedoms and wants to destroy our freedoms, yet I only see the Bush administration taking down those freedoms here in the US that makes GW an acomplice to Al Queda in their quest to destroy our freedoms (his words not mine) and it puts him in direct violation of his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. But you go right ahead an continue to bring up Kerry and YOUR interpretations of what he said almost 40 years ago. While you are at it why not toss in a few Chappaquiddick references and note how many times John John failed the bar. Heck why not bring up the CLinton blow job too, bring it all up but isolated events years apart are a far cry from the organized plundering of our national treasury and the organized shredding of our constitution occuring these day.
In short your point on Kerry has no bearing on the argument, and only chnages the subject for yourself to give you a smug sense of self satisfaction while it completely ignores the crimes of the present.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:19 pmunbelievable could be onto something. My grandfather succumbed to lung cancer at the tender age of 96. He smoked two cigars per day from age 16 on. His daughter, who never smoked herself, passed away at 98 just this year which was probably due to second hand smoke. She experienced heart failure.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:21 pmOn the burg with restrictions on the number of unrelated people under one roof – how do they handle apartment buildings?
“In short your point on Kerry has no bearing on the argument, and only chnages the subject for yourself to give you a smug sense of self satisfaction while it completely ignores the crimes of the present.”
49% of the nation voted for a self-admitted war criminal, I think that helps turn a light on the American Left and what they stand for, which is basically anything that isn’t to the right.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pmThe entire Bush said argument is irrelevant.
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
No, it isn’t, because that is the way the invasion was sold: Iraq, as a nation, posed a threat.
bhealy even mentioned he believed Iraq was tied to 9/11 -another argument that was used to sell the war.
My point was yes Iraq had the potential to hurt us.
From your perspective, any nation in the world has the potential to hurt the US -even Haiti can send a few men with box cutters. Again, you are stretching the boundaries of logic.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:24 pmThere is no interpretation to his wording when you look at a qoute such as the one I posted above
â€However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty.â€
In his own words, he says anyone who took part in those actions is guilty, right after admitting to taking part in the actions.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pmOh, and Tundra, it would be helpful if you read by bhealy said -which is what I was replying to:
That said I originally supported war on Iraq with the biggest reason being that I thought the US was in danger from Iraq.
Comment by bhealy — May 17, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
Who presented the idea of invading Iraq to the American public originally? The Bush administration. That’s why what Pres Bush said is relevant.
What were the original reasons argued by Pres Bush for the invasion? Iraq posed a threat to the region and the world due to its WMD and nuclear program. It also posed a threat due to its ties to terrorists who could use those weapons. Hussein was a mad man poised to take over the world.
That is what I was replying to, not some ethereal argument built in the vacuum by you.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pmIn the early 90s, we had a city-wide smoking ban in restaurants, etc. Many restaurants and bars complained. The state overturned the smoking ban in the late 90s because it was deemed to go against the state constitution for some obscure reason. There are efforts to reinstate the smoking ban state-wide by amending our constitution.
Studies have shown that there was no difference in revenue for restaurants and bars during the years of the smoking ban. These studies are being used both in our state and other states to prove that restaurant owners cannot use an excuse of lost revenue to be against the ban. The truth is, the owners just smoke, I bet. :-)
And to the people that say “go to a restaurant that doesnt allow smoking.” Okay that’s fine in theory, but there is only one in the entire city that I know of — Sweet Tomatoes. But you see I don’t feel like having a salad bar for dinner every single time I go out to eat. I like variety.
Fact is that people want to eat out, smokers and non. Smokers will leave the restaurant sooner to go have their afterdinner smoke, instead of lingering inside. The restaurant will smell MUCH better. Greater profits may even occur because the smokers are leaving the restaurant earlier and the restaurant can seat the next in line sooner (I know of no study to prove this however). Also, those (like me) who are extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke and get asthmatic at the smell of smoke can now enjoy dinner in peace. Heck, I’ll probably go out to eat more for that very reason! The lack of having a partition of “smoking or non” also is beneficial since restaurant seating can be maximized for everybody, instead of having to wait for your particular section to open.
May 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmunbelievable could be onto something. My grandfather succumbed to lung cancer at the tender age of 96. He smoked two cigars per day from age 16 on. His daughter, who never smoked herself, passed away at 98 just this year which was probably due to second hand smoke. She experienced heart failure.
Comment by WaltTheMan — May 17, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Walt stop being an ass because I didn’t agree with you on genetic intelligence. You keep using isolated instances to try to argue ALL. You wanna argue what I posted above, go argue it with the CDC, it’s their statistics from their website – not mine.
Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. No one said that. My mother smokes and is healthy as a horse. But a lot of people also die from it.
You’re normally above such petty arguments. What gives?
May 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pmYou are not reading what I have said. You keep going back to trying to blame somebody somewhere etc.
bhealy said: I THOUGHT WE WERE IN DANGER FROM IRAQ
you said (paraphrased): HAHA WHAT AN IDIOT, THERE IS NO WAY THE U.S. COULD BE HURT BY LITTLE OLD IRAQ, WANT A BRIDGE
I said (paraphrsed): IT MAKES SENSE WHY SOMEONE WOULD FEEL THAT WAY TO ME.
you are saying: BUT BUSH SAID THIS AND HYPED PEOPLE UP AND JUSTIFIED THAT AND PEOPLE FELT THAT HERE ARE THE ORIGINAL REASONS ETC. YOU FEEL HAITI COULD HURT US, YOU JUSTIFY PREEMPTIVE STRIKES BLAH.
All I was saying, is Yes Iraq could hurt us. That is all I have said, that is all I am saying. I am not justifying anything except for bhealy feeling that they could be a threat. You keep building this into something more. You are manufacturing a “deeper” meaning here.
208:
May 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pmI am a little at odds to try to understand your reasoning.
Pretty simple really, If Saddam did send someone with a dirty bomb over, odds are it’s not going to be hitting my little community. So why pay that much of my money to help defend San Francisco or New York (If the threat was real, I was playing the odds and well, didn’t see a reason to go over.)
“actually the number one killer right now is WAR… â€
I always thought it was death. My mistake.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
So when the coroner fills in “cause of death”, he just writes “death?”
A sad example of republican thought (or of republican humor – which makes it more pathetic).
.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pm219
“actually the number one killer right now is WAR… â€
Do you honestly believe that?
May 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmbarfly
It would make his work load a lot lighter, more time to spend with the family and other such things.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmFreedom is on the march!
Full Story – Reported by the AP
May 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pm“actually the number one killer right now is WAR… â€
I always thought it was death. My mistake.
Comment by squegeeboo
Actually, everyone dies of cardiac arrest…
May 17th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#217 – unbelievable,
May 17th, 2006 at 5:35 pmI am only trying to illustrate that the world is not all black and white. We as humans are not all susceptible to the same risks. Since your mother is healthy as a horse and smokes, you may not be at risk for second-hand smoke. You may have inherited that horse gene. In any case, encourage your mother to give up the weed. Cold turkey is the best way. Every person who I know who tried patches or gum just used them to up their nicotine input, and the gum people smelled like a wet ashtray to boot (Non-smokers tend to be very sensitive to the odor of tobacco.).
On the genes vs. intelligence, please refer to the following:
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html
#210 mark
May 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pmgood post.
You are not reading what I have said. You keep going back to trying to blame somebody somewhere etc.
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
I a reading and still think it is BS. Nobody woke up one day feeling threatened by Iraq. There was a reason for that fear.
Once again, bhealy said “I originally supported war on Iraq with the biggest reason being that I thought the US was in danger from Iraq.” Ask yourself, what would that “originally” mean? When did that “originally” happen?
Anyone who originally bought into that fear, did so because 1) certain group was making sure everyone else got the message and 2) people were gullible enough to believe it. Hence my reply: “You were suckered”.
All I was saying, is Yes Iraq could hurt us. That is all I have said, that is all I am saying.
My argument has never been whether Iraq had the potential for hurting the US, but whether it was a real threat.
I am not justifying anything except for bhealy feeling that they could be a threat.
bhealy didn’t say “I thought Iraq could be a threat” but “I felt the US was in danger from Iraq”. For him, the threat was real. No hypotheticals. Not potentially. No “could be”. It was real.
At this point, I will repeat myself: If you believed Iraq was a threat (not “could be” like you say but an actual, real threat as bhealy said he felt), I have a bridge to sell to you too, Tundra.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:08 pmAnd all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare.
Comment by squegeeboo — May 17, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Try readingand you would see that Kerry is stating that the actions were found out later to be in violation not at the time he was ordered to and did them, thus you argument that you keep making to feel so smug and safe while in you cocoon, but try reality not your made up slant on the facts.
BTW the military did not focus on teaching the Geneva convention until AFTER vietnam because of some of the war crimes that wetre proven…LIKE My Lai
May 17th, 2006 at 6:11 pmActually, everyone dies of cardiac arrest…
Comment by Zookeeper — May 17, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
Just being facetious but there were some people who happened to live in two Japanese cities named Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were literally vaporised, not enough time for the cardiac arrest, other examples could be found, but that would be more facetious
May 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pmWow, it took so long for me to go through all these comments, I need a cigarette! How ’bout you, Madashell?
May 17th, 2006 at 6:23 pm#228 – Clif, as soon as I posted it, I knew that one was going to come back and bite me in the ass.
May 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pm#229 – No, Jane! Think of the kitties! ;)
May 17th, 2006 at 6:54 pmNo problem Zookeeper, but having seen a few too many death by explosives pictures in my training, I had to comment, and that was the easiest to illustrate so the argument crowd here would not try and drag it out
May 17th, 2006 at 7:02 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
May 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pmTundra – want to see????
Iraq War Images Uncensored
May 17th, 2006 at 10:46 pmTundra -
ONE MORE THING – NEARLY 2400 DEAD US SOLDIERS, MORE THAN 250,000 DEAD IRAQIS.
NOW TELL ME I’M WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pmmadashell,
What in the world are you talking about? I allready said that I did not want the war on numerous occasions.
I simply have empathy for others, unlike alot of people here. If someone is scared of spiders, snakes, terrorists I tend to be understanding. Other people would take their fear of spiders and instead of saying I understand and let’s discuss spiders, they would say “hahaha, the spiders in your area don’t kill people, Would you be interested in buying a bridge in brooklyn? You are a fool for believing they are scarry”.
I just guess I have a little more compassion for my fellow man than some :)
As far as the images I’ve seen them, I have a pretty strong stomache and “well it’s not me so the poor shleps most likely deserved it”
(Hypocritical slant noted and giggled over)
May 17th, 2006 at 11:33 pm235
MORE THAN 250,000 DEAD IRAQIS.
NOW TELL ME I’M WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where did you get that figure? Last I heard they were 95% sure that the number was between 6,000 and 196,000 which is how most people got 86,000 (gotta love such accuracy)
May 17th, 2006 at 11:37 pmTundra – remember our government doesn’t do BODY COUNTS OF DEAD IRAQIS – so what the hell do you really know anyway??
Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America’s War? As Many As 250,000
——————————————————————————–
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America’s War 2450
——————————————————————————–
Cost of America’s War in Iraq
$281,385,241,678
May 17th, 2006 at 11:46 pmTo see more details, click here.
“actually the number one killer right now is WAR… â€
Do you honestly believe that?
Comment by Tundra — May 17, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
and those were the answers to your question…
May 17th, 2006 at 11:48 pmI simply have empathy for others, unlike alot of people here
empathy? even for the poor iragis?
PROGRESSIVES ARE HUMANITARIANS – WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU?
May 17th, 2006 at 11:50 pmso what the hell do you really know anyway??
Wow always so angry with me, we have to work on that a little. I will honestly say I do not know how many dead Iraqi citizens there are due to this violence. I didn’t want the U.S to go so I don’t know why you are on me about it. If you would like a list of congressmen who authorized the use of force with Iraq I could get that for you. Granted some of them needed to throw pork onto that resolution to sign it (we’ll keep them silent though)
Granted now that we are there I figure we should stay and finish it.
If you would like my opinions on U.S troops outside the states so you can at least be upset with me for a valid reason here goes.
Iraq: Should have never went/Should stay until they are able to defend themselves or the international community is prepared to protect them.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:00 amIran: Screw them, don’t go over there. Let them build a missile I don’t care. Let them nuke 2 million Isreal citizens then let someone else worry about it. If they attack the U.S it will be a big city, quite frankly I don’t know anyone even around a really big city.
North Korea: See Iran
Dufar: Sorry but let them figure it out, no risking soldiers or spending any more cash
PROGRESSIVES ARE HUMANITARIANS – WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU?
There is that anger again, why don’t you try and “Buck up a little trooper”. I lean toward Libertarian. I would prefer to have my few acres here and you stay the heck off it. I pay taxes on it to keep the schools up, police and fire available and roads clean. I believe I should be able to protect my family and what’s mine to the best of my ability, no offense but I have seen several “wonderful protection” ideas brought up from the government/humanatarians who feel I should be required to flee as a first option so the poor burglar doesn’t get hurt.
I believe the only reason our country should send troops to war is with congressional approval. The cases for this should be extremely sparce.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:18 amI believe if you want to have an abortion/get married to a person of the same sex, have fun, but stay off my land.
I believe that if I want to chop a tree down on my land and you want to chain yourself to it or claim that I can’t knock down some old barn on my property because of “Historical” reasons, I should be able to shoot you for being on my land.
I believe that the government assistance programs are needed to help people who are down. I also think they should do what they can to prevent abuses of the system.
I believe that I should be able to own a gun and if you step on my land you will get to see the business end.
I believe if you have a firearm and it is used in a crime you are liable.
I believe that he death penalty saves money and is fair.
I believe if you need my help and I know you, I will do everything I can. If I don’t know you go ask a liberal and they will find a way to make me help you.
I was too a libertarian – for about a year. I believed for a time that government regulations were hampering business. And that the basic credo is “one can do whatever one wants to do as long NO ONE in the process gets hurt”. But as far as corporations “policing” themselves?
As far as “owning” land. I too am a land “owner”, but have come to the realization that I really “own” nothing. This is NOT MY land to degrade. I believe I am merely a steward.
May 18th, 2006 at 12:21 pm