Obama - Worst President Ever?

[underdog]

What are you, some kind of unamerican traitor who hates their country?

Holy shit, that IS fun.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, BROTHER.

THESE colors don't run.

What are you, some kinda academic elite!??!

Republican Mojo is my new favorite character.

[Gvac]

Khruschev said the commies would take over America from the inside, without firing a shot.

Guess he was right.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Republican Mojo is my new favorite character.

Not fooled! Throwing him back.

[keithy_19]

Khruschev said the commies would take over America from the inside, without firing a shot.

Guess he was right.

And then communism fell in Russia...and then Putin was Bush's best friend...

[Gvac]

And then communism fell in Russia...and then Putin was Bush's best friend...

See?

[TheMojoPin]

And then communism fell in Russia...and then Putin was Bush's best friend...

Who wouldn't want to be Pootie's special friend?!?

http://www.siberianlight.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/putin-man-boobs-fishing.jpg

http://rachelmarsden.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/putin.jpg

http://rachelmarsden.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/putin1.jpg?w=602&h=1250

http://rachelmarsden.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/putin2.jpg

http://www.acc.umu.se/~kalinda/putin/putin1.jpg

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/political-pictures-vladimir-putin-russia-president-assassinates-you.jpg

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/01/putin_tiger_2.jpg

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Interesting/Putin-knows-karate.jpg

What a man's man!

He's like Gvac if Gvac wasn't all talk.

[Gvac]

I will break you.

[HBox]

Today there was a gay pride march in Moscow. Putin sent the police to beat them up and arrest them. Why did he not do this himself you might ask? Because he was out in the woods taking care of all the gay bears BY HIMSELF.

[keithy_19]

Today there was a gay pride march in Moscow. Putin sent the police to beat them up and arrest them. Why did he not do this himself you might ask? Because he was out in the woods taking care of all the gay bears BY HIMSELF.

I would love to see the hunting trip that Putin and Cheney go on together.

[TheMojoPin]

I would love to see the hunting trip that Putin and Cheney go on together.

Putin would emerge from the woods with a lovely new flabskin coat.

[keithy_19]

Putin would emerge from the woods with a lovely new flabskin coat.

Would Bush be his friend after this?

[TheMojoPin]

If he knows what's good for him.

[Recyclerz]

Because he (Putin) was out in the woods taking care of all the gay bears BY HIMSELF.

But I thought Fezzie's new beau was Swedish, not Russian. :innocent:

Either way, Godbless.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow, if Putin was Fez' secret...that would be so great.

[keithy_19]

It has begun.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_obr5EgSPKWQ/SaV5kN65cdI/AAAAAAAAAK0/RSyWoAgl3Zk/s400/Big_Black_-_songs_about_fucking.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

I wish you had actually listened to that album at some point.

Poor keithy.

You were an old man before your time.

[keithy_19]

I wish you had actually listened to that album at some point.

Poor keithy.

You were an old man before your time.

It's a pretty damn good album. Noise-art isn't really my thing, but it's a real solid release.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes!

I interviewed Steve Albini for this local music project I'm doing. What a grump.

[keithy_19]

Yes!

I interviewed Steve Albini for this local music project I'm doing. What a grump.

I wish I could interview influential people.

[TheMojoPin]

Just go after the influential people who most people have no clue as to who they are.

[Liverspot]

Putin is like A-rod, he has "bitch tits"

[keithy_19]

Just go after the influential people who most people have no clue as to who they are.

That's some pretty good advice. Get at those who are influential but forgotten.

I'll call my piece, 'Lest We Forget: Featuring (whoever I'm speaking with),

[TheMojoPin]

That's some pretty good advice. Get at those who are influential but forgotten.

I'll call my piece, 'Lest We Forget: Featuring (whoever I'm speaking with),

He's less forgotten and more of just a creep. The dude is definitely still in demand as a producer.

[keithy_19]

He's less forgotten and more of just a creep. The dude is definitely still in demand as a producer.

That's true. To both things.

Granted, I don't see why people would expect him not to be a creep.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Obama prods Netanyahu, Iran in Mideast foray

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_israel;_ylt=AvooVYcifem6hdvfK7uhLD0DW7oF

Much more momentous that it might first appear. bho actually did stand up to bn on some of the issues, but by seeming to put a timeline on Iran coming around while actually sitting there with bn….may prove to be very counterproductive. Tough stage to set with the Egyptian speech coming up in few weeks, also. While some say it’ll be “years” before Iran can produce a nuke – can anyone really think Israel will wait that long before striking? They have made clear signals as to their intentions, and we “kindof” support that. The shortcoming is in the lukewarm support, Iran clearly CANNOT be allowed any sort of nuke, and that needs to be made explicitly clear very soon that whatever means necessary will be used.

Watch the clerics: they just might have a moderate win in the upcoming elections to buy more time. What do they have to lose? An invasion is not likely, so they wouldn’t lose power, but a military strike to remove the nuke capability is. So what’s it to them if they keep going until the last day of the last month of the last “year” that it’s going to take for them to get a nuke? They simply cannot be allowed to get there and the US, and bho, like it or not, will be a hugely deciding factor.

[Syd]

Why can't Iran have nukes? Both Israel and Iran call for the destruction of the other, just because Israel is being coy about it doesn't mean that they should keep their nukes.

[Zorro]

Why can't Iran have nukes? Both Israel and Iran call for the destruction of the other, just because Israel is being coy about it doesn't mean that they should keep their nukes.

Because Bibi is a mensch

[west milly Tom]

Why can't Iran have nukes? Both Israel and Iran call for the destruction of the other, just because Israel is being coy about it doesn't mean that they should keep their nukes.


Just plain wrong. Iran dosent recognize Israel's right to even exist. If they Hey a bomb they will use it, Iran has repeated this many times. Israel has proven itself a responsible part of the international community, while Iran practices barbery and terrorizes its neighborhood. Be careful in your evaluation as you seem to have missed the point of what Iran is doing entirely.

[Zorro]

Just plain wrong. Iran dosent recognize Israel's right to even exist. If they Hey a bomb they will use it, Iran has repeated this many times. Israel has proven itself a responsible part of the international community, while Iran practices barbery and terrorizes its neighborhood. Be careful in your evaluation as you seem to have missed the point of what Iran is doing entirely.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Chas4604/barber_lg01.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Just plain wrong. Iran dosent recognize Israel's right to even exist. If they Hey a bomb they will use it, Iran has repeated this many times. Israel has proven itself a responsible part of the international community, while Iran practices barbery and terrorizes its neighborhood. Be careful in your evaluation as you seem to have missed the point of what Iran is doing entirely.

Way to buy the hype.

Iran isn't goign to use a nuke because using a nuke = Iran (or at least the people in charge there now) no longer exists. It's really not difficult to seperate the showboat rhetoric of a puppet leader (Ahmadinejad) whose only job is to get up there and yell and say outrageous things from the actual intentions of Iran's government. I know you'd never do it, but if you looked into the demographics of Iran most of the population is very young and very Westernized. The post-revolution figures who have been holding power are going to basically die off and a "velvet revolution" will take place. Pushing for a war with Iran is about as counterproductive a thing that can be done with them at this point.

Iran wants nuclear weapons for leverage, not war or terrorism.

[west milly Tom]

Way to buy the hype.

Iran isn't goign to use a nuke because using a nuke = Iran (or at least the people in charge there now) no longer exists. It's really not difficult to seperate the showboat rhetoric of a puppet leader (Ahmadinejad) whose only job is to get up there and yell and say outrageous things from the actual intentions of Iran's government. I know you'd never do it, but if you looked into the demographics of Iran most of the population is very young and very Westernized. The post-revolution figures who have been holding power are going to basically die off and a "velvet revolution" will take place. Pushing for a war with Iran is about as counterproductive a thing that can be done with them at this point.

Iran wants nuclear weapons for leverage, not war or terrorism.



Is Iran sanctioned by the UN or is Israel? Has Iran not been identified as the region's number one stumbling block to peace? Is it Iran or Israel who's Quod force trains and leads and funds Hezbollah?

[west milly Tom]

Also I don't support war with Iran, I similarly believe that the moderate majority will one day take over. Then, mabye, Iran will be responsable enough to have nuclear technology.

[underdog]

I know you'd never do it, but if you looked into the demographics of Iran most of the population is very young and very Westernized.

People cannot separate the people from the government. The majority of people in Iran do not like their government at all.

[west milly Tom]

People cannot separate the people from the government. The majority of people in Iran do not like their government at all.



Read Countdown To Crisis, its a great read and illustrates the distinction between the politics and the population of Iran. Although you're both clearly so well read you probably already have.

[Zorro]

Way to buy the hype.

Iran isn't goign to use a nuke because using a nuke = Iran (or at least the people in charge there now) no longer exists. It's really not difficult to seperate the showboat rhetoric of a puppet leader (Ahmadinejad) whose only job is to get up there and yell and say outrageous things from the actual intentions of Iran's government. I know you'd never do it, but if you looked into the demographics of Iran most of the population is very young and very Westernized. The post-revolution figures who have been holding power are going to basically die off and a "velvet revolution" will take place. Pushing for a war with Iran is about as counterproductive a thing that can be done with them at this point.

Iran wants nuclear weapons for leverage, not war or terrorism.

...and you know this how?

[underdog]

Read Countdown To Crisis, its a great read and illustrates the distinction between the politics and the population of Iran. Although you're both clearly so well read you probably already have.

I'm not very well read, I just know Iranians. They share stories with me of their people.

[TheMojoPin]

...and you know this how?

Common sense. Logic.

[TheMojoPin]

Is Iran sanctioned by the UN or is Israel? Has Iran not been identified as the region's number one stumbling block to peace? Is it Iran or Israel who's Quod force trains and leads and funds Hezbollah?

Nowhere did I say the current government and policies of Iran are good for anyone else, but there's a huge difference between what they're willing to engage in and leaping all the way to them being willing to use atomic weapons and all but ensure their own destruction. Besides, even the most Western of Arab nations is going to hate Israel. There's really no way around it given the circumstances of Israel's creation. The key is recognizing who is using that hate mostly for rhetoric and those that are willing to go all out. Iran has done nothing to indicate they're actually willing to die to destroy Israel outside of Mahmoud throwing his tantrums.

[Syd]

Is Iran sanctioned by the UN or is Israel? Has Iran not been identified as the region's number one stumbling block to peace? Is it Iran or Israel who's Quod force trains and leads and funds Hezbollah?

Israel isn't in trouble with the UN because the US consistently vetoes anything that is remotely anti-Israel. Otherwise, they'd be embargo'd twice over for human rights violations and their long-running genocide programs against the Palestinians. Both Israel and Iran aren't good for Middle East peace which is why they both should be armed with nuclear weapons. Cancel each other out and such.

[TheMojoPin]

Israel isn't in trouble with the UN because the US consistently vetoes anything that is remotely anti-Israel.

Excellent point.

[Zorro]

Common sense. Logic.

Naïveté, wishful thinking

[TheMojoPin]

Naïveté, wishful thinking

Not at all. It's simply examining the reality of the region's politics and Iran's actions over the last 30 years. If they were actually run by ready to die fanatics we would have seen some major actions due to that mindset. Obviously, Iran has and does provide support for terrorist groups that strike at Israel, but it's a simple matter to seperate that, which is relatively removed from direct involvement and very low-level and comparatively low-tech, from leaping all the way to be willing to die in the course of a nuclear strike. They haven't been biding their time for 30 years waiting to go out in a blaze of glory. That's a ridiculous notion.

[Syd]

Let's look at in practical terms: nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive to research, build and maintain.

Only a scant few countries, say, Russia and the USA have any usable offensive nuclear arsenals. They're the countries with the ability to take out other people's arsenals, defend their borders and still have some left to go around though they're both rapidly reducing that because hey, they're expensive to maintain.

Everyone else basically has defensive weapons that aren't going to give them enough to keep people out if they were to launch any sort of attack against someone else. Britain, France, former Eastern bloc'ers fall into that category.

Whats left over are countries like North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel/South Africa etc that have a negligible nuclear arsenal that aren't anything more than set pieces to use for diplomatic posturing. They don't have the money nor technology to have any sort of actual threat going.

Ultimately Iran having nuclear weapons upsets the balance in the region by having Persians becoming involved in the Arab region. They become a wildcard that Saudi Arabia and the US can't control. It sort of throws a wrench into the imperialist/neo-imperialist gears that run the region.

[The Jays]

...and you know this how?

Do you understand that nuclear destruction is not in the best interest of any particular state? If Iran was to develop a nuclear weapon, and they did proceed to blow up Israel, do you think the rest of the world would just sanction them as a punishment? No, at that point, the rest of the world would invade the country, kill every member of the government and military of Iran, and then proceed to choke off every single aspect of their economy, and would probably cause a world war which the Arab world would not win.

[Gvac]

This prick is STILL president?

WTF?

[SonOfSmeagol]

Proclaiming “they won’t use it anyway” is absolutely no reason to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability of any kind. Not the point. There are way too many unknown consequences – all very bad - involved in allowing it to happen. The apologetic tone of so much on this page is that it’s just not a big deal, and the undertone – between the lines and sometimes the lines themselves - is that people actually think that it’ll balance the power of US and Israel and that somehow that’s a good thing. Somehow. Some have said it directly, why don't the rest just come out and say it outright if that's the belief?

The notion that “the US and Israel have them why shouldn’t Iran” is truly unfathomable. Really – wake the fuck up - it would be a huge deal. There is no good to allowing Iran a nuclear capability, and it doesn’t have to come to an actual invasion war to stop it, but it simply cannot be allowed to happen. I will say that it will be one of the 3-5 measures of success of this administration. I really, really hope he keeps this promise:

"We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table….Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences."
--BHO, Second Debate

[A.J.]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for leverage, not war or terrorism.

...and you know this how?

People tend to listen to you more when you're brandishing a loaded gun.

[Syd]

Proclaiming “they won’t use it anyway” is absolutely no reason to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability of any kind. Not the point. There are way too many unknown consequences – all very bad - involved in allowing it to happen. The apologetic tone of so much on this page is that it’s just not a big deal, and the undertone – between the lines and sometimes the lines themselves - is that people actually think that it’ll balance the power of US and Israel and that somehow that’s a good thing. Somehow. Some have said it directly, why don't the rest just come out and say it outright if that's the belief?

The notion that “the US and Israel have them why shouldn’t Iran” is truly unfathomable. Really – wake the fuck up - it would be a huge deal. There is no good to allowing Iran a nuclear capability, and it doesn’t have to come to an actual invasion war to stop it, but it simply cannot be allowed to happen. I will say that it will be one of the 3-5 measures of success of this administration. I really, really hope he keeps this promise:

"We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table….Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences."
--BHO, Second Debate


Remember, the US is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in anger. We ignore the UN regularly and hold other countries in disdain. We've invaded and eradicated the leadership of a country on the basis of lies to either plunder it or impress the parent of our leader. Human rights violations exist within our borders and territories. Some of our very own population believe our leader is a Muslim bent on destroying America.

Why exactly again is it that Iran having nuclear weapons is dangerous? Is it because they believe in the wrong version of God?

[keithy_19]

Remember, the US is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in anger.

I find something fundamentally wrong with this statement, or rather the tone of this statement. The United States did indeed use nuclear weapons on Japan. By using those weapons the world saw millions of lives saved. Japan was not going to give up that fight. They dropped the second because they planned to fight on after the first. The military saw this war ending sometime around 1953 if it continued as it had been. It would take an insanely large deployment of troops to win. Thousands of US soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians would be dead. Using the atomic bomb saved more lives then it took.

It is also important to mention we did things before dropping the bomb to show the power we had to the Japanese government. They ignored it. We told them it was coming. Flyers were circulated. Cake was served.

Why exactly again is it that Iran having nuclear weapons is dangerous? Is it because they believe in the wrong version of God?

1. Iran has created/funded terrorist organizations.

2. That statement is a foolish way to try to make people who are against Iran aquiring a nuclear weapon seem racist.

[TheMojoPin]

I find something fundamentally wrong with this statement, or rather the tone of this statement. The United States did indeed use nuclear weapons on Japan. By using those weapons the world saw millions of lives saved. Japan was not going to give up that fight. They dropped the second because they planned to fight on after the first. The military saw this war ending sometime around 1953 if it continued as it had been. It would take an insanely large deployment of troops to win. Thousands of US soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians would be dead. Using the atomic bomb saved more lives then it took.

It is also important to mention we did things before dropping the bomb to show the power we had to the Japanese government. They ignored it. We told them it was coming. Flyers were circulated. Cake was served.

Oh my.

Oh dear.

[SonOfSmeagol]

It comes down to what is best for this country and allies. Not what’s best for Iran and the rest of the world. It’s not an academic exercise, it’s reality. I didn’t say overrun anyone who gets on our way and do whatever we need to do to get ahead. That in fact would not be in our best interests. But the bottom line is that We Come First. I like our position in the world pecking order and I’d like it to stay that way.

There are many many reasons Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuke: arms race, proliferation in the middle east, Iran’s state sponsored terrorism, etc etc. And it’s good to see that this administration seems to hold to the policy and goal of prevention. But, if for no other reason, there’s the easy one that Iran is not a friend of this country by any means, some would even say they’re our enemy. We have no defense against a nuclear weapon, and I don’t want anyone else having nuclear weapons, let alone our enemies. More than reason enough in my view.

[Syd]

I find something fundamentally wrong with this statement, or rather the tone of this statement. The United States did indeed use nuclear weapons on Japan. By using those weapons the world saw millions of lives saved.

That's white-washed history. The Emperor was ready for a conditional surrender soon after the Tokyo firebombings and it isn't a leap of faith to say that an unconditional surrender was far behind it -- his conditional surrender essentially would have been the same sort of conditions that MacArthur had in place. Most military leaders in Japan were prepared for defeat and surrender in 1942 after Midway.

1. Iran has created/funded terrorist organizations.

2. That statement is a foolish way to try to make people who are against Iran aquiring a nuclear weapon seem racist.

1. So has the US in South America.

2. Its hyperbole because any argument against Iranian nuclear weapons is hyperbole leveled against them.

[Coach]

I don't hate the guy..but after talking to my parents and older relatives, and granted that the ability was not out there to be heard...a load of them are worried about all of his broadcasts...5 of them called it reminiscent of Hitler.

[west milly Tom]

It comes down to what is best for this country and allies. Not what’s best for Iran and the rest of the world. It’s not an academic exercise, it’s reality. I didn’t say overrun anyone who gets on our way and do whatever we need to do to get ahead. That in fact would not be in our best interests. But the bottom line is that We Come First. I like our position in the world pecking order and I’d like it to stay that way.

There are many many reasons Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuke: arms race, proliferation in the middle east, Iran’s state sponsored terrorism, etc etc. And it’s good to see that this administration seems to hold to the policy and goal of prevention. But, if for no other reason, there’s the easy one that Iran is not a friend of this country by any means, some would even say they’re our enemy. We have no defense against a nuclear weapon, and I don’t want anyone else having nuclear weapons, let alone our enemies. More than reason enough in my view.


Agreed. Well put sir. It makes no sense for the world community or the us to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

[keithy_19]

1. So has the US in South America.

2. Its hyperbole because any argument against Iranian nuclear weapons is hyperbole leveled against them.

1. Has. I don't agree with everything the US has done. I don't agree with some of the things that we do now. Still, the attitude of "we've done bad things so we shouldn't stop others from doing them" isn't the best philosophy,

2. They've said they want to destroy an entire nation as well as an entire people. Hot air or not, the world shouldn't stand for that talk.

[Syd]

1. Has. I don't agree with everything the US has done. I don't agree with some of the things that we do now. Still, the attitude of "we've done bad things so we shouldn't stop others from doing them" isn't the best philosophy,

So, the US has done bad things but has stopped. Iran has done bad things and it won't stop. Thus, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That isn't a great philosophy either considering there are more reckless nations in the world with nuclear weapons.

2. They've said they want to destroy an entire nation as well as an entire people. Hot air or not, the world shouldn't stand for that talk.

Words aren't deeds, hoss. There's a difference between sabre rattling and action -- Iran has the ability now to wipe Israel off the map but they don't.

[west milly Tom]

So, the US has done bad things but has stopped. Iran has done bad things and it won't stop. Thus, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That isn't a great philosophy either considering there are more reckless nations in the world with nuclear weapons.



Words aren't deeds, hoss. There's a difference between sabre rattling and action -- Iran has the ability now to wipe Israel off the map but they don't.



So Syd, boil it all down for me. What is your theory for why Iran should be allowed to develop and posess nuclear technology? And again dumb it down for me.

[Syd]

it's been awhile since I have been in school but the last I remember from my geography class is that Iran isn't the United States so the US shouldn't really have any say in what another sovereign country does, especially when there's absolutely no threat to the US or any of its allies. One thing to remember is Israel is not part of any defense pact or otherwise agreement with the US. Nor is it a member of NATO -- why again should we be interested in spilling American blood for a country that has absolutely no diplomatic need to shed its blood for the US?

Hell, even by the loosest definitions Israel isn't even under our sphere of influence as dictated by the Monroe Doctrine or the Roosevelt amendment. Israel has its own nuclear weapons from South Africa. If they feel threatened, they can defend themselves.

[Dude!]

Israel has its own nuclear weapons from South Africa.

i thought it was
the other way 'round

[Syd]

i thought it was the other way 'round

Maybe, there was certainly collaboration between the countries. Given what happened it's more logical that Israel bought SA's nuclear weapons after the fall of apartheid but it is certainly reasonable to assume that Israel put its scientific efforts into the development of South Africa's nuclear weapons with the understanding that SA would help produce and provide nuclear weapons for Israel.

edit:
there's also the other possibility that both countries independently developed nuclear weapons albeit only Israel to fruition and afterward bought SAs fissile material or SA completed its nuclear weapons, tested it as recorded in the Vela incident and after the fall of apartheid Israel bought their weapons.

[keithy_19]

So, the US has done bad things but has stopped. Iran has done bad things and it won't stop. Thus, Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That isn't a great philosophy either considering there are more reckless nations in the world with nuclear weapons.



Words aren't deeds, hoss. There's a difference between sabre rattling and action -- Iran has the ability now to wipe Israel off the map but they don't.

So because other reckless nations have nukes another should be allowed to have them?

Words are indeed not deeds. And hey, Hitler just used words at first and nothing bad came of that...

[Syd]

Words are indeed not deeds. And hey, Hitler just used words at first and nothing bad came of that...

I know Hitler gets thrown around a lot by conservatives in arguments but you might want to check out a history book that hasn't been abridged by Hannity. There was this little thing called the Spanish Civil War that was basically Nazi Germany establishing its military. Then there was the whole leibensraum thing as well. The Bismarck, the Luftwaffe -- it goes on and on. There were plenty of warning signs, the issue was that a significant portion of Europe had died in World War 1 and no one really wanted to go to war.

So because other reckless nations have nukes another should be allowed to have them?

yes, it's called parity

[keithy_19]

I know Hitler gets thrown around a lot by conservatives in arguments but you might want to check out a history book that hasn't been abridged by Hannity. There was this little thing called the Spanish Civil War that was basically Nazi Germany establishing its military. Then there was the whole leibensraum thing as well. The Bismarck, the Luftwaffe -- it goes on and on. There were plenty of warning signs, the issue was that a significant portion of Europe had died in World War 1 and no one really wanted to go to war.

First of all, I'm not a fan of Hannity nor am I a republican. There were warning signs that Germany was to be a problem. I also understand that everyone was so reluctant to war after the massive destruction and loss of life after the first world war. I am also aware that Hitler spelled out what he planned to do once in power. No one took the time to notice.

[angrymissy]

First of all, I'm not a fan of Hannity nor am I a republican. There were warning signs that Germany was to be a problem. I also understand that everyone was so reluctant to war after the massive destruction and loss of life after the first world war. I am also aware that Hitler spelled out what he planned to do once in power. No one took the time to notice.

Again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[TjM]

Here's another interesting article on the $250,000 threshold


http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/106934/Wealth-Less-Effect-Earning-Well-Feeling-Otherwise



Mr. Duran said he and his wife earn about $400,000 annually, but "I'm barely getting by." They have high property and state taxes, as well as college tuition and savings to cover. "I'm an Obama man, but this side of him is a difficult pill for me," he said.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/228_violin.gif

[beachbum]

If you make $400,000 per year and are "barely getting by" you might just be living beyond your means.I can't muster alot of sympathy.

[angrymissy]

Her family of five would like more room than they have in their 2,500-square-foot home, yet they can't afford anything larger.

Only 2,500 sq ft, cry me a river!

the vacation home in Sandestin, Fla., comes at a moderate weekly rate because members of Ms. Parnell's extended family own it

Oh my, the horror of downgrading to a discounted vacation home!

[TjM]

Only 2,500 sq ft, cry me a river!



Oh my, the horror of downgrading to a discounted vacation home!

For the Parnells, their perception of themselves is based on the math. The value of their house is down $60,000. Ms. Parnell says the couple's gross income last year was about $260,000. Taxes, premiums for medical care and deductions for Social Security and their 401(k) contributions cut the gross to about $12,000 per month. The family tithes $1,300 a month at their church. Their mortgage, second mortgage and payment on land they bought is nearly $4,000 a month. Other expenses, including their family car payment, insurance and college funds, as well as basics like food, utilities and donations to charities, leave them with about $1,200 left over each month.


Lemme guess before everything burst they took out a second mortgage to build up and flip some land

Also if times are a tough stop fucking tithing and donating. Or is "charities" golfing events and 1000 a plate dinners

[Syd]

No one took the time to notice.

Everyone noticed, no one had the ability to do anything about it. The Bolsheviks fought Germany by proxy in the Spanish civil war but found out quickly they wouldn't be able to contain Germany. France built its fortifications along its borders such as the Maginot Line. Britain was still war-weary and was concentrating on its colonies. The US was not a world power. China was not a world power. As far as eastern Europe goes, well, balkanization was coined during this time period.

[Raskolnikov]

He's already run the nation's deficit up to an INSANE number which it will NEVER be able to pay back ..... so ..... yeah ..... he's on his way.

I don't know. Obama hasn't really done anything much yet to really evaluate his worth as a President -- but that's just it! He hasn't really done ANYTHING. So, why has the media been treating him like the Messiah since he started running? You'd think that Obama has already saved the world before he was even elected! Why has everyone been treating him this way when he's just started out?!

I really don't know. I just know that I don't trust him. I never have, and I don't even know why. Something about him just seems suspicious to me.

[west milly Tom]

He's already run the nation's deficit up to an INSANE number which it will NEVER be able to pay back ..... so ..... yeah ..... he's on his way.

I don't know. Obama hasn't really done anything much yet to really evaluate his worth as a President -- but that's just it! He hasn't really done ANYTHING. So, why has the media been treating him like the Messiah since he started running? You'd think that Obama has already saved the world before he was even elected! Why has everyone been treating him this way when he's just started out?!

I really don't know. I just know that I don't trust him. I never have, and I don't even know why. Something about him just seems suspicious to me.



So far his major accomplishments include making himself the ceo of a private company, running up a deficit that is impossible to ever repay, get nothing that he's asked from the Europeans, and bumbling an attempt to close guantanamo. He's appointed lobbiests to his cabinet and somehow never broke a campaign promise along the way. The list goes on and on. I just pray that my tax projection for next year is wrong.

[TheMojoPin]

So, why has the media been treating him like the Messiah since he started running?

Where is this happening?

[Syd]

I just pray that my tax projection for next year is wrong.

For income above $250k you'll be taxed an additional 3%, from 36% to 39%. Otherwise your taxes on all brackets below $250k will progressively be lower than what they were for the previous year.

[HBox]

Where is this happening?

Obama is the messiah. May the blood of the nonbelievers run in the streets.

[Furtherman]

So, why has the media been treating him like the Messiah since he started running? You'd think that Obama has already saved the world before he was even elected! Why has everyone been treating him this way when he's just started out?!

I really don't know. I just know that I don't trust him. I never have, and I don't even know why. Something about him just seems suspicious to me.

You see, the problem with this is that the media has NOT been treating him like the messiah. I dare you to give an example that would be considered "messiah-like".

But maybe there are a few people, citizens, who are... but they are the exact opposite of the people who tell you lies such as... well, the media is treating him like the messiah!

You need to think in moderate, much like a majority of Americans, rather than extremes, which is just a dim-witted minority and conservative radio and TV.

[The Jays]

For income above $250k you'll be taxed an additional 3%, from 36% to 39%.

As it would have been anyway because the Bush tax cuts would have expired.

[The Jays]

Here's another interesting article on the $250,000 threshold


http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/...ling-Otherwise

All of those people just sound like they are stretched thin because they are making poor financial decisions and overspending for their life needs. And really, 2500 SF is not enough for a family of five?

[SonOfSmeagol]

You need to think in moderate, much like a majority of Americans, rather than extremes, which is just a dim-witted minority and conservative radio and TV.

He “needs to think” however he damn well pleases. Such as the approx 60,000,000 voters, or 46%, who chose the other guy in the last election.

Dim-witted minority, thinking in extremes, indeed.

[Gvac]

Monday morning (June 1st, 2009) all General Motors dealerships will be closed for business as the company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and receives yet ANOTHER 38 billion dollars from the Fed.

Way to go, Obama.

[Dude!]

Monday morning (June 1st, 2009) all General Motors dealerships will be closed for business as the company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and receives yet ANOTHER 38 billion dollars from the Fed.

Way to go, Obama.

i read yesterday
that there is a suspicion
that obama is closing all the
GM dealerships that contributed
heavily to republicans
and keeping the democrat ones open

i hope that is not true
that would be really wrong

[angrymissy]

i read yesterday
that there is a suspicion
that obama is closing all the
GM dealerships that contributed
heavily to republicans
and keeping the democrat ones open

i hope that is not true
that would be really wrong

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/29/128777714835949870.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

i read yesterday
that there is a suspicion
that obama is closing all the
GM dealerships that contributed
heavily to republicans
and keeping the democrat ones open

i hope that is not true
that would be really wrong

Where did you read this? On the wall at LordJezo's gym?

[Dude!]

Where did you read this? On the wall at LordJezo's gym?

i don't shower with men
i don't know

it was all over the internets yesterday
here is a sample: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html

[The Jays]

i read yesterday
that there is a suspicion
that obama is closing all the
GM dealerships that contributed
heavily to republicans
and keeping the democrat ones open

i hope that is not true
that would be really wrong

What you read
yesterday
was bullshit
that Michelle Malkin tried to stir up
because wackos, like her, hate Obama
and the majority of this country. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/yet-another-intrepid-malkin-investig)

Did someone in the Obama administration force Chrysler, as part of its reorganization, to order the closure of auto dealerships mostly among Republicans, while leaving Democratic-owned dealerships intact?

Naaaah. What, are you kidding me? But, you know, it sounded really good to Michelle Malkin. Mostly because she loves to fancy herself an "investigative journalist" and these kinds of "scoops" entrance her on a regular basis. Of course, the fact that none of them ever pan out seems not to deter her in the slightest.

Malkin, along with her intrepid pals at Newsbusters and a variety of other right-wing blogs, were all over it yesterday. Malkin appeared on Fox and Friends in the morning to tout her latest liberal-perfidy theory.

Too bad it took only a flick of Nate Silver's wrist to blow it all to smithereens. Seems that when you go looking at political donations by occupation, people who list "auto dealers" or some variation thereof are Republican by about an 8-1 margin:
It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while we are still a nation of drivers, we are not a nation of dealers.

[Dude!]

What you read
yesterday
was bullshit
that Michelle Malkin tried to stir up
because wackos, like her, hate Obama
and the majority of this country. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/yet-another-intrepid-malkin-investig)

i am very concerned
about your virulent
anti-asian woman attitude

[angrymissy]

Yeah, if 75% of dealership owners are Republican donors, and then 75% of closed dealerships end up being owned by Republican donors, big conspiracy there, right?

[TheMojoPin]

i don't shower with men
i don't know

it was all over the internets yesterday
here is a sample: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html

That is fucking hysterical.

If this were actually true, it just might go down as the most retarded and pointless evil plan in history.

"Good news, gentlemen. I have made history and entered the White House. I can now enact our master plan to close Republican car dealerships and make us all SEVERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RICHER. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

[angrymissy]

Although the idea of Obama sitting in the Oval Office with a list of donors, crossing names off of a list while laughing manically is pretty funny.

Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates. By comparison, the list of dealers on Doug Ross's list (which I haven't vetted, but I assume is fine) gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans -- not really a significant difference.

[The Jays]

From what I read, it's like at 8 to 1 margin of dealers who donate to Republicans vs Democrats.

i am very concerned
about your virulent
anti-asian woman attitude

I said nothing negative about
Asian women.
I will always say
negative things
about Malkin
because
she's a crazy loon
who once posted
college students phone numbers and addresses
and
told her readers
to harass them
because
she didn't agree
with their protests.

[The Jays]

Overall, 88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates. By comparison, the list of dealers on Doug Ross's list (which I haven't vetted, but I assume is fine) gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans -- not really a significant difference.

Isn't Doug Ross a former doctor at County General?

[Dude!]

From what I read, it's like at 8 to 1 margin of dealers who donate to Republicans vs Democrats.



I said nothing negative about
Asian women.
I will always say
negative things
about Malkin
because
she's a crazy loon
who once posted
college students phone numbers and addresses
and
told her readers
to harass them
because
she didn't agree
with their protests.


maybe you just took that
the wrong way

maybe she was just
trying to get them all
to hook up

the malkin dating service

i always look
for the best in people

[The Jays]

maybe you just took that
the wrong way

maybe she was just
trying to get them all
to hook up

the malkin dating service

i always look
for the best in people

Yeah.

No. (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12/seditious-santa-cruz-vs-america/)

They asked
her
to
take
the
numbers
down
and
she didn't
because she's a evil cunt
and
she looks like a duck.

[Gvac]

she's a crazy loon
who once posted
college students phone numbers and addresses
and
told her readers
to harass them
because
she didn't agree
with their protests.

That sounds like something Jim Norton would do to a 20 year old college girl writing for her school newspaper who happened to give an unfavorable (and deservedly so) review to that God awful show "Lucky Louie."

Obviously I still haven't gotten over that.

[epo]

What you read
yesterday
was bullshit
that Michelle Malkin tried to stir up
because wackos, like her, hate Obama
and the majority of this country. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/yet-another-intrepid-malkin-investig)

The best thing about Malkin is watching her and O'Reilly fight now over the Sotomayor pick. They are on the verge of the public civil war we've been waiting for.......

[SonOfSmeagol]

So because other reckless nations have nukes another should be allowed to have them?

yes, it's called parity
:laugh:
:laugh::lol:
:laugh::lol::lol:

[SP1!]

I hate to be the one to even say I told You So (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=adfv4RHV3Kmk), just like every other politician he is paid off by the corporations he said were killing the underclass.

I actually hoped he would be better, but the first few months have shown me that the nation may be done as a super power in under a decade and we will be nothing more than canada, and I hate those friggen canucks.

Oh and all of you quit lying, every single one of you would do malkin if she was offering it up, dont act like shes that repulsive.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Yep. The only thing that’s “changed” is who gets rewarded – that and the truly astounding amount of borrowing, spending, and soon-to-be taxing ("keeping the change") on your behalf. But don’t look for too many hard looks, from the House Favorites here, at what’s going on. Just the same old tired (yawn) jokes.

And on the superpower thing, so sad, but I could not agree more. But hey! At least France, and if we’re real lucky – Iran, will like us! Cool!

[Serpico1103]

I hate to be the one to even say I told You So (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=adfv4RHV3Kmk), just like every other politician he is paid off by the corporations he said were killing the underclass.
I actually hoped he would be better, but the first few months have shown me that the nation may be done as a super power in under a decade and we will be nothing more than canada, and I hate those friggen canucks.
Oh and all of you quit lying, every single one of you would do malkin if she was offering it up, dont act like shes that repulsive.

First, of course I'd F malkin. A nice "I hate your guts" fuck is always memorable.

Second, what benefits do we get for being a super power that Canada does not enjoy?

Third, us no longer being a "super power" is not exactly news. Terrorism and nuclear profileration grants even the smallest bunch of wackos a shot at the title.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Dammit! If only we’d taken Canada in the 1812 War like we should’ve we’d be a superpower and have excellent skiing, nice beer, and lots more moose.

And last I looked, say Jan 19, 2009, we were still a superpower. Sadly, it remains to be seen how long that will last.

[Furtherman]

He “needs to think” however he damn well pleases. Such as the approx 60,000,000 voters, or 46%, who chose the other guy in the last election.

Dim-witted minority, thinking in extremes, indeed.

Thank you.

No further questions Your Honor.

[SonOfSmeagol]

aren't you aware of the penal code in this state?

[TheMojoPin]

aren't you aware of the penal code in this state?

Denial?

[A.J.]

aren't you aware of the penal code in this state?

Are we talking about legalizing gay marriage?

[SonOfSmeagol]

Nah, just John Landis' early (somewhat forgettable) film "Kentucky Fried Movie"

[zildjian361]

gas has already gone up in 45cents in the last month. it' a start.

now it's over a dollar inthe last year even the black guys at work want their rebate , what happend:help::flush:

[A.J.]

Obama to sign anti-smoking bill in Rose Garden. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_tobacco)

The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

Why aren't crappy foods required to have similar warnings?

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Of course not. Smokers are worse than Hitler, but they pay more in taxes. Can't get rid of that can we!

[led37zep]

Obama to sign anti-smoking bill in Rose Garden. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_tobacco)



Why aren't crappy foods required to have similar warnings?



Of course not. Smokers are worse than Hitler, but they pay more in taxes. Can't get rid of that can we!

Did Hitler Smoke? I'd also like to see Hitlers Tax records before I make a decision.

[~Katja~]

Obama to sign anti-smoking bill in Rose Garden. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_tobacco)



Why aren't crappy foods required to have similar warnings?



Of course not. Smokers are worse than Hitler, but they pay more in taxes. Can't get rid of that can we!

honestly, these warnings and regulations already exist in Germany/ Europe and it does not stop smokers from smoking... they also JUST started smoking bans in bar and restaurants about 1-2 years ago and are now surprised the expected losses did not come true...
In comparison, food did not have nutritional values on them and are just now being labeled the way they are here, yet it seems many people don"t read the labels here anyway.
But I have seen places like DD & McD where each crappy food item had the calories and fat right on the menu... and if that is not warning enough...or help a person to know how much they are actually eating then nothing will.

[~Katja~]

Did Hitler Smoke? I'd also like to see Hitlers Tax records before I make a decision.
yes

[led37zep]

yes

Well then I'd have to say Smoking Hitler is worse than smokers or even plain ol boring Hitler.

[A.J.]

Did Hitler Smoke? I'd also like to see Hitlers Tax records before I make a decision.

He was in his youth then became vehemently anti-tobacco. He didn't drink either.

See what people are capable of when they don't smoke and drink?

[A.J.]

honestly, these warnings and regulations already exist in Germany/ Europe and it does not stop smokers from smoking... they also JUST started smoking bans in bar and restaurants about 1-2 years ago and are now surprised the expected losses did not come true...
In comparison, food did not have nutritional values on them and are just now being labeled the way they are here, yet it seems many people don"t read the labels here anyway.
But I have seen places like DD & McD where each crappy food item had the calories and fat right on the menu... and if that is not warning enough...or help a person to know how much they are actually eating then nothing will.

I had an 8 hour layover at the Istanbul airport. Smoking was entirely banned there. Not even a smoking room. Yet the duty-free shop had all kinds of tobacco products for sale with the giant warning labels on them. I thought the irony was delicious.

Oh, I know that food has the nutritional labels on them. I just want to see a Big Mac have "this can clog your artieries" or "eating these will make you a fat tub of shit" labels on them the way cigarettes have those graphic images and warnings.

[keithy_19]

He was in his youth then became vehemently anti-tobacco. He didn't drink either.

See what people are capable of when they don't smoke and drink?

I feel awful for laughing as loudly as I did from reading this.

[Dude!]

He was in his youth then became vehemently anti-tobacco. He didn't drink either.

See what people are capable of when they don't smoke and drink?

yeah
he gave up smoking cigarettes
for smoking jews!

[HBox]

Smokers should just be happy that this time when they pass some anti-smoking legislation they won't have to pay a couple bucks more per pack.

[keithy_19]

Smokers should just be happy that this time when they pass some anti-smoking legislation they won't have to pay a couple bucks more per pack.

If you know where to go, you can still get a pack for 6 bucks. Marlboro Smooths. The first smoke from a fresh pack is the best.

But I've decided to quit smoking. As of yesterday. I'll go a week most likely.

[TripleSkeet]

I just wish I could understand why so many people give a fuck if someone else smokes or not.

[TheMojoPin]

I just wish I could understand why so many people give a fuck if someone else smokes or not.

Because depending on where they smoke it doesn't just effect the person smoking.

[TheMojoPin]

I had an 8 hour layover at the Istanbul airport. Smoking was entirely banned there. Not even a smoking room. Yet the duty-free shop had all kinds of tobacco products for sale with the giant warning labels on them. I thought the irony was delicious.

Oh, I know that food has the nutritional labels on them. I just want to see a Big Mac have "this can clog your artieries" or "eating these will make you a fat tub of shit" labels on them the way cigarettes have those graphic images and warnings.

While I see your point, even fast food isn't necessarily "bad for you" if eaten in moderation or as part of a balanced diet. Same with alcohol. Both can be abused or overdone very easily, but they're not inherrently bad for you (or the people around you) like a cigarette is. Cigarettes and their ilk are very unique in that regard in terms of mass consumed products.

[The Jays]

I am a former smoker. I fiend for one whenever I drink, and I do my best to not give in. I've been off of smoking for over two years, but I will have a cigarette maybe twice a year.

I loved smoking. Loved it. It made me feel at ease to smoke. It gave me an excuse to go outside and reflect. In college, I got so many ideas about architecture by going out for a smoke and talking to others out for a smoke.

But, cigarettes are at like 10 bucks a pack. On top of that, I have to think about cancer kazoos, finger amputations, fat deposits in my arteries, emphysema from the moment I first started smoking, mouth cancer, suppression of appetite, in addition to foul smelling cloths and ashes all over the place.

[Dude!]

I am a former smoker. I fiend for one whenever I drink, and I do my best to not give in. I've been off of smoking for over two years, but I will have a cigarette maybe twice a year.

I loved smoking. Loved it. It made me feel at ease to smoke. It gave me an excuse to go outside and reflect. In college, I got so many ideas about architecture by going out for a smoke and talking to others out for a smoke.

But, cigarettes are at like 10 bucks a pack. On top of that, I have to think about cancer kazoos, finger amputations, fat deposits in my arteries, emphysema from the moment I first started smoking, mouth cancer, suppression of appetite, in addition to foul smelling cloths and ashes all over the place.

yes but there is some evidence
that smokers are less likely
to get alzheimers

i could go either way
on this

[The Jays]

I'd rather be old enough to get Alzheimer's than to die at 50.

[keithy_19]

I am a former smoker. I fiend for one whenever I drink, and I do my best to not give in. I've been off of smoking for over two years, but I will have a cigarette maybe twice a year.

I loved smoking. Loved it. It made me feel at ease to smoke. It gave me an excuse to go outside and reflect. In college, I got so many ideas about architecture by going out for a smoke and talking to others out for a smoke.


Fucking enabler.
:smoke:

[keithy_19]

I had an 8 hour layover at the Istanbul airport. Smoking was entirely banned there. Not even a smoking room. Yet the duty-free shop had all kinds of tobacco products for sale with the giant warning labels on them. I thought the irony was delicious.

Oh, I know that food has the nutritional labels on them. I just want to see a Big Mac have "this can clog your artieries" or "eating these will make you a fat tub of shit" labels on them the way cigarettes have those graphic images and warnings.

I remember going to a Fridays in Manhattan where they listed all the calories. Funny enough, you could know what you were eating but you didn't know how much it cost. What a world.

[Gvac]

I'd rather be old enough to get Alzheimer's than to die at 50.

Why?

You value quantity over quality?

I'd rather live 50 awesome, pleasure filled years than 90 painful and miserable ones.

[TheMojoPin]

Why?

You value quantity over quality?

I'd rather live 50 awesome, pleasure filled years than 90 painful and miserable ones.

So the difference between an awesome life and a miserable and painful one is cigarettes?

You're so weird.

[Gvac]

So the difference between an awesome life and a miserable and painful one is cigarettes?

You're so weird.

Weird...or eerily brilliant?

[TheMojoPin]

Just eerie.

What with the lurking and looming and all.

[The Jays]

Why?

You value quantity over quality?

I'd rather live 50 awesome, pleasure filled years than 90 painful and miserable ones.

Why have 50 awesome pleasure filled years when I might have 70, and then 20 miserable ones.

Plus I also plan on designing a residence for myself that, upon my senility, my house will begin to actively seek to kill me.

[HBox]

It's not like smoking lets you many incredible, pleasurable years until one day it strikes you dead. It's usually a fairly slow and miserable decline.

[The Jays]

I'd only go back to smoking if I started up on heroin or meth, just like on Intervention.

[keithy_19]

Plus I also plan on designing a residence for myself that, upon my senility, my house will begin to actively seek to kill me.

I want to live there now.

[Gvac]

Plus I also plan on designing a residence for myself that, upon my senility, my house will begin to actively seek to kill me.

Awesome!

I guess that settles it and we can all agree - Obama blows!

[The Jays]

Bush sucks, Obama blows. That's how the left-right relationship works.

[Serpico1103]

I'd rather be old enough to get Alzheimer's than to die at 50.

Actually I think smokers don't live that much of a shorter life, but it is of much lower quality.

Smoking, and all unhealthy habits, should be heavily taxed. They are a burden on society. Smokers are less productive and use more insurance. Smoke if you want, but pay the actual cost, not just the retail price. The same goes for junk food and alcohol. I don't care what you do, just don't burden the rest of society.

[TheMojoPin]

Plus I also plan on designing a residence for myself that, upon my senility, my house will begin to actively seek to kill me.

Knives taped to everything?

[The Jays]

Actually I think smokers don't live that much of a shorter life, but it is of much lower quality.

Smoking, and all unhealthy habits, should be heavily taxed. They are a burden on society. Smokers are less productive and use more insurance. Smoke if you want, but pay the actual cost, not just the retail price. The same goes for junk food and alcohol. I don't care what you do, just don't burden the rest of society.

I don't know about all unhealthy habits, besides, who is the Supreme judge of what is unhealthy?

You can make the case that the unhealthy will die quicker, thus, helping to lessen the burden of health care costs which get taken up by the elderly. If you want to extend the idea of taxing those that burden the health care system, we should tax all people over 65.

Also, smoking has zero benefits for the human body, which makes the case for it being taxed heavily. But with junk food and alcohol, those aren't as damaging in moderation as cigarettes. Of course you can't eat McDonald's cheeseburgers everyday and expect to live a healthy life, but one cheeseburger every once in a blue moon is not on par as having a cigarette. And, there are studies that say a glass of wine is good for heart health.

[The Jays]

Knives taped to everything?

Nah, I'd like to have a take on the Smart House, except mine would be smart in an evil way. It would monitor my mental state throughout the years, and once it senses a pattern consistent with Alzheimer's or dementia, it would maybe push walls towards each other for a room I'm in, it might open up holes in the floor, maybe make the steps of the stairs at uneven heights to induce tripping; the house would create hazards for me to kill myself with, thus, making sure my life insurance still goes to my kids.

[Serpico1103]

I don't know about all unhealthy habits, besides, who is the Supreme judge of what is unhealthy?

You can make the case that the unhealthy will die quicker, thus, helping to lessen the burden of health care costs which get taken up by the elderly. If you want to extend the idea of taxing those that burden the health care system, we should tax all people over 65.

Also, smoking has zero benefits for the human body, which makes the case for it being taxed heavily. But with junk food and alcohol, those aren't as damaging in moderation as cigarettes. Of course you can't eat McDonald's cheeseburgers everyday and expect to live a healthy life, but one cheeseburger every once in a blue moon is not on par as having a cigarette. And, there are studies that say a glass of wine is good for heart health.

I didn't say ban them. I said tax them to internalize the costs that the rest of society is forced to bear because you made a "bad" decision.

Yes, someone will have to decide what is healthy and what is not. The same people that decide the speed limits, tax breaks to encourage certain behavior, criminal laws, etc.

If you call in sick- drain on employer, health insurance, productivity. Smokers and poor eaters call in sick more than other people.

The choice is make people pay for what they are using, instead of shifting the burden to other people, or ban the items. I prefer to make people pay the true costs of their habits.

If you want a cheeseburger, have one, just pay the extra 10 cents, or whatever, to cover the extra burden on society. Sort of a luxury tax for food.

Besides, food companies have been getting away with murder by giving us worse and worse food. Maybe this would encourage them to make healthy food, making it cheaper to buy real food, not synthetic reproductions.

[keithy_19]

Actually I think smokers don't live that much of a shorter life, but it is of much lower quality.

Smoking, and all unhealthy habits, should be heavily taxed. They are a burden on society. Smokers are less productive and use more insurance. Smoke if you want, but pay the actual cost, not just the retail price. The same goes for junk food and alcohol. I don't care what you do, just don't burden the rest of society.

I disagree with this so much. Why do we need to have the government decide what's a burden on society? And where does it end?

[Serpico1103]

I disagree with this so much. Why do we need to have the government decide what's a burden on society? And where does it end?

Actually medical science decides what is a burden. They do it already.

It ends when you pay for yourself. If you eat poorly do you pay higher insurance rates than me? No, than you are free riding on my good habits.

There would be no health care crisis if people ate properly. How much does obesity and diabetes cost? Because people can't get enough high fructose corn syrup in themselves.

The tax is merely a disincentive. The same way they give a tax break for capital gains, home ownership, etc. These things are viewed as good (by those people who you distrust to make decisions) so you get a tax break. I don't think a tax break on healthy food would work, at least not to the consumer. But, it would be basically the same as a tax on unhealthy food.

[The Jays]

Yeah, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with a supreme leader deciding on what's good for me and what's bad. People in government might be in bed with producers of, let's say beets, and encourage a broad switch to beets in food, even though they might not be good for you, but because the politicians have been bought by the beet industry, what's to stop them from issuing the decree to tax everything except beets?

Smoking is damaging, no matter what, it's a useless habit that has no positive effect, so I can see a vice tax on it. Junk food is damaging if consumed in large doses regularly. I don't want to be nudged into eating the right way, I would like the freedom to do that myself. I don't want a supreme decider that I have to pay to figure out which items on the McDonald's menu need to be taxed and which don't, when I can figure that out myself by their published calorie and nutrition material.

[Serpico1103]

Yeah, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with a supreme leader deciding on what's good for me and what's bad. People in government might be in bed with producers of, let's say beets, and encourage a broad switch to beets in food, even though they might not be good for you, but because the politicians have been bought by the beet industry, what's to stop them from issuing the decree to tax everything except beets?

Smoking is damaging, no matter what, it's a useless habit that has no positive effect, so I can see a vice tax on it. Junk food is damaging if consumed in large doses regularly. I don't want to be nudged into eating the right way, I would like the freedom to do that myself. I don't want a supreme decider that I have to pay to figure out which items on the McDonald's menu need to be taxed and which don't, when I can figure that out myself by their published calorie and nutrition material.

I would hate to burst your conspiratorial bubble, but the SUPREME RULER is already deciding what is good for you and what is bad for you. Look into what gets government subsidies and how it has changed our eating habits.

It is not a matter of what you want, that is not the concern of the government, never has been. It is what is good for society. You don't have any rights because they are good for you as an individual. You have rights because they protect and promote a productive society. Unfortunately, too many people can not decide what is good for themselves and they then burden the rest of us.

[The Jays]

I would hate to burst your conspiratorial bubble, but the SUPREME RULER is already deciding what is good for you and what is bad for you. Look into what gets government subsidies and how it has changed our eating habits.

It is not a matter of what you want, that is not the concern of the government, never has been. It is what is good for society. You don't have any rights because they are good for you as an individual. You have rights because they protect and promote a productive society. Unfortunately, too many people can not decide what is good for themselves and they then burden the rest of us.

Yes, and I do not like that food prices fluctuate with what the government subsidizes and what they don't. I don't want the government to take it a step further and decide for me what is in my best interest and what's not.

Just because people can't read a nutrition label doesn't mean I deserve to get taxed when I choose to have a Big Mac every once in a while. I already pay a sales tax on that already. I am an individual. I can choose what's good for me and what's not. I don't need government doing that for me. I can read a medical journal. I can listen to Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

[Serpico1103]

Yes, and I do not like that food prices fluctuate with what the government subsidizes and what they don't. I don't want the government to take it a step further and decide for me what is in my best interest and what's not.

Just because people can't read a nutrition label doesn't mean I deserve to get taxed when I choose to have a Big Mac every once in a while. I already pay a sales tax on that already. I am an individual. I can choose what's good for me and what's not. I don't need government doing that for me. I can read a medical journal. I can listen to Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

But, you don't pay your own medical costs. You act as if you are self-contained. Your bad choices affect others. Have your Big Mac, just pay 2.10 instead of 2. The .10 representing the costs that you and McDonald's have externalized.

It is similar to pollution, in that, it is cheaper for a company to dump waste into a river. Then let the state pay for the clean up, so the company can offer its costumers a cheap product. That is externalizing the true cost of that product, just as McDonald's does with its Big Mac.

[The Jays]

Why is my eating a cheeseburger a bad choice? Because I might have to go to the doctor more often? What about people who don't use computer keyboard correctly, or who play video games a little too much? Should they be taxed more for their equipment because they are most likely to get carpal tunnel?

What about peanut butter? Should we tax that because people have peanut allergies, and the peanut companies are just externalizing their costs when kids have to go to the doctor to be treated for an allergy they didn't know they had?


I just don't want a government entity telling me what I should be eating, when I can figure that out on my own. Find another way to fix the health care industry other than taxing the foods a government agency thinks is bad for me.

[HBox]

This is all akin to auto insurance. We allow insurance companies to account for all sorts of factors when deciding how much to charge people for premiums. They know people with a history of accidents or violations are more costly as a group than those without so they get charged more.

Why do people get so defensive when talk of doing this for health insurance, especially when we do it already in unfair ways, ie pre-existing conditions. You get a chronic condition as a child through no fault of your own and you are hamstrung for the rest of your life trying to get and keep insurance. Are you 300 pounds and a 2 pack a day smoker? No problem at all, and you'll pay just as much as your neighbor who runs marathons. There's no sense to that at all. If this were instituted you'd take a lot of argument away from people trying to legislate against this stuff. If you are paying for the consequences of your own actions who has any right to butt in on your life?

[The Jays]

So charge the 300 pound smoker more for insurance, and give the kid a break, because his medical records ought to show that it's no fault of his own, but the records of the smoker do show that.

Why can't I have a glass of wine for my heart without being charged a health tax because some people have an alcohol addiction?

I'm really against being told by my government what I can and can't put in my body, and if I have to have that happen for the sake of insuring everyone for health coverage,then no thank you.

[Serpico1103]

Why is my eating a cheeseburger a bad choice? Because I might have to go to the doctor more often? What about people who don't use computer keyboard correctly, or who play video games a little too much? Should they be taxed more for their equipment because they are most likely to get carpal tunnel?
What about peanut butter? Should we tax that because people have peanut allergies, and the peanut companies are just externalizing their costs when kids have to go to the doctor to be treated for an allergy they didn't know they had?
I just don't want a government entity telling me what I should be eating, when I can figure that out on my own. Find another way to fix the health care industry other than taxing the foods a government agency thinks is bad for me.

Should the government encourage ergonomics? Yes.

Yes, companies may have to start to pay more to separate their peanut products from their products may "may have come in contact with equipment that may have come in contact with a peanut."

I would prefer the government subsidize healthy food. But, you are still unhappy that someone will decide what they are. It is not perfect, nothing is.

[Serpico1103]

This is all akin to auto insurance. We allow insurance companies to account for all sorts of factors when deciding how much to charge people for premiums. They know people with a history of accidents or violations are more costly as a group than those without so they get charged more.

Why do people get so defensive when talk of doing this for health insurance, especially when we do it already in unfair ways, ie pre-existing conditions. You get a chronic condition as a child through no fault of your own and you are hamstrung for the rest of your life trying to get and keep insurance. Are you 300 pounds and a 2 pack a day smoker? No problem at all, and you'll pay just as much as your neighbor who runs marathons. There's no sense to that at all. If this were instituted you'd take a lot of argument away from people trying to legislate against this stuff. If you are paying for the consequences of your own actions who has any right to butt in on your life?

I agree. I would prefer to tax unhealthy choices, but if "Jays" would prefer we could just charge insurance based on a scale of how healthy you are; near ideal weight, blood pressure, pulse, lung capacity, bone density, etc.
This would "punish" people who have inherent weaknesses, whether or not they make poor choices. I would only punish people making poor choices.

[The Jays]

I would prefer the company subsidize no food, because the market should determine that. If we all have doctors from health coverage, those doctors should tell us what we should be avoiding, steering us in the right way, and the markets react by showing more demand for healthy food, and low demand for shit food.

We're taxing for cap and trade, we tax gasoline, we're taxing the rich to pay for old deficits, now we're gonna tax french fries because they've been determined to be unhealthy, are we going to get a better working government for all this money we're paying?

[The Jays]

I agree. I would prefer to tax unhealthy choices, but if "Jays" would prefer we could just charge insurance based on a scale of how healthy you are; near ideal weight, blood pressure, pulse, lung capacity, bone density, etc.
This would "punish" people who have inherent weaknesses, whether or not they make poor choices. I would only punish people making poor choices.

Don't put words in my mouth, "Serpico". I'd prefer to charge the person who's actively choosing to damage his body, but distinguish between that and the person who has the preexisting condition. I feel we could do that with medical records, and doctors who can figure out the difference between a smoker and a boy with asthma. I don't need to government to tell me what's bad for me.

[HBox]

So charge the 300 pound smoker more for insurance, and give the kid a break, because his medical records ought to show that it's no fault of his own, but the records of the smoker do show that.

Why can't I have a glass of wine for my heart without being charged a health tax because some people have an alcohol addiction?

I'm really against being told by my government what I can and can't put in my body, and if I have to have that happen for the sake of insuring everyone for health coverage,then no thank you.

There are certain things you can tell. You can tell if someone is obese and since you know that being obese likely leads to all sorts of medical conditions and that the obese as a group spend more money in health care than the non-obese you charge them a higher insurance premium. The same goes for smoking. You can find out if people smoke, you know it leads to increased insurance costs so why not charge higher premiums? It makes sense.

And this isn't anything that comes with health reform. I haven't heard anyone seriously talk about it, and it's not something that would necessarily come with more government involvement in health care. If insurance companies could legally do this they likely would.As it is some employers have taken it upon themselves to offer incentives for healthy living to the employees to help defray their insurance costs.

[TooLowBrow]

i would tax poor peoples things more, like fast food, because they are a burden on the govt and therefore on me

food at high end grocery stores shouldnt have any tax, cause rich people buy them and rich people are less needy towards the govt

[TheMojoPin]

i would tax poor peoples things more, like fast food, because they are a burden on the govt and therefore on me

food at high end grocery stores shouldnt have any tax, cause rich people buy them and rich people are less needy towards the govt

Now this is how one digs a sarchasm.

[TooLowBrow]

there are a lot more poor people than rich people, im sure that all of them could pay more in taxes than the relatively few rich people could

and letting the rich people not pay taxes will help the economy

[Serpico1103]

i would tax poor peoples things more, like fast food, because they are a burden on the govt and therefore on me

food at high end grocery stores shouldnt have any tax, cause rich people buy them and rich people are less needy towards the govt

While you are trying to be funny. I agree. They should tax fast food, give poor people more of an incentive to buy healthier foods.
And rich people need the government more. Do you think someone who has kids they are struggling to feed needs to worry about terrorism?

[TooLowBrow]

While you are trying to be funny. I agree. They should tax fast food, give poor people more of an incentive to buy healthier foods.
And rich people need the government more. Do you think someone who has kids they are struggling to feed needs to worry about terrorism?

terrorism effects us all equally

and i woulnd want the poor to have the healthy foods. if we did that we would lose the 'fast food tax' revenue

also then the poor might live longer, increasing the burden on the rest of us. unless they could be made to contribute more they cannot be able to survive longer.

[The Jays]

While you are trying to be funny. I agree. They should tax fast food, give poor people more of an incentive to buy healthier foods.
And rich people need the government more. Do you think someone who has kids they are struggling to feed needs to worry about terrorism?

They do if their spouses work in target-rich environments as janitors, mail clerks, entry level positions. We all need to worry about terrorism.

The problem in taxing fast food is, one of the reasons the poor rely on fast food because they work many jobs to get by and don't have time to make dinner and eat healthy.

[Serpico1103]

terrorism effects us all equally

and i woulnd want the poor to have the healthy foods. if we did that we would lose the 'fast food tax' revenue

also then the poor might live longer, increasing the burden on the rest of us. unless they could be made to contribute more they cannot be able to survive longer.

Terrorism effects us all equally? Naive at best.

I bet you think that invading Vietnam was necessary to protect blacks as much as whites from communism. After all, blacks were treated equal... oh wait they weren't.

Poor people have less to lose, so they are not effected equally by a threat to our society. If the dollar becomes worthless overnight, who loses more? Rich people need a stable society. That is why we fight wars, not for democracy, but for stability. We don't care if governments kill their people, but threaten the stability of commerce and growth- you will see our troops.

[TooLowBrow]

T

Poor people have less to lose, so they are not effected equally by a threat to our society. If the dollar becomes worthless overnight, who loses more? Rich people need a stable society. That is why we fight wars, not for democracy, but for stability. We don't care if governments kill their people, but threaten the stability of commerce and growth- you will see our troops.

poor people have less to lose, so its easier for them to lose it.

poor people are already a drain on our society, do you want them to be more of a drain?

ask poor people if they want to be taxed to pay for anti terrorism and they will be for it as much as rich people

[Crispy123]

ask poor people if they want to be taxed to pay for anti terrorism and they will be for it as much as rich people

While poor people do tend to be dumber, Serpicos points are still valid.

[Serpico1103]

They do if their spouses work in target-rich environments as janitors, mail clerks, entry level positions. We all need to worry about terrorism.

The problem in taxing fast food is, one of the reasons the poor rely on fast food because they work many jobs to get by and don't have time to make dinner and eat healthy.

We do not need to worry about terrorism. I don't worry about a safe falling on my head, I won't worry about terrorism.
The safe is probably more likely.

[keithy_19]

We do not need to worry about terrorism. I don't worry about a safe falling on my head, I won't worry about terrorism.
The safe is probably more likely.

...really? Is this how you honestly feel?

[Serpico1103]

...really? Is this how you honestly feel?

Yes. How many people died from terrorism in this century? How many people died today from car crashes?

I am not afraid of another attack occurring, and if one did what would be the odds that I was killed by it.

[keithy_19]

Yes. How many people died from terrorism in this century? How many people died today from car crashes?

I am not afraid of another attack occurring, and if one did what would be the odds that I was killed by it.

When you drive, it's your responsibility to drive safely. Unfortunately, people suck and are assholes on the road. If everyone just followed standard procedure, it would be fine.

Your second statement, however, really really bothers me. Such a selfish thing. Whatever if another 9/11 happens as long as I'm not involved. Wow.

[Serpico1103]

When you drive, it's your responsibility to drive safely. Unfortunately, people suck and are assholes on the road. If everyone just followed standard procedure, it would be fine.

Your second statement, however, really really bothers me. Such a selfish thing. Whatever if another 9/11 happens as long as I'm not involved. Wow.

I was talking about my fear of dying from a terrorist act. Not the impact it might have on the country.

I know people feel safe on the road, because they feel in control. But, that is an illusion. You are moving a 2 ton object at 50 mph, what real control do you have. Feeling safe and being safe are two different things.
People worry about locking their front doors. How many burglars even try to see if the front door is locked? They go to the back, where no one can see them, pry a window, or push in a door. But, a locked front door makes people feel safe.

I am safe, I am not afraid of terrorism. It makes good news, but is not a real threat to me or to the country.
Bad managing of credit and lending practices have done more to destroy our way of life than terrorism could have hoped. But, I didn't see people afraid of banking like they are of terrorism.

[keithy_19]

I was talking about my fear of dying from a terrorist act. Not the impact it might have on the country.



Well then we agree. I'm not afraid of dying due to a terrorits attack, and I'm not worried about dying in a car accident. I don't really have any fear of dying though.

[Gvac]

We still agree that Obama blows though...right?

[keithy_19]

We still agree that Obama blows though...right?

Ron Paul is still my guy.

So yes. Obama blows. Blows the big one.

[TheMojoPin]

Ron Paul is still my guy.

So yes. Obama blows. Blows the big one.

It's like you skipped your youth entirely and just jumped right to being a crazy, maudlin old man.

[keithy_19]

It's like you skipped your youth entirely and just jumped right to being a crazy, maudlin old man.

No way MANNNNN.


Better?

[TheMojoPin]

No way MANNNNN.


Better?

That just makes you sound even older before your time.

Oh, keithy.

[TripleSkeet]

Because depending on where they smoke it doesn't just effect the person smoking.

I assume you mean like a bar or somewhere that allowed smoking.

My response to that would be instead of barring the smoking, wouldnt it just be easier to go somewhere that doesnt allow it? But thats not even what I mean.

Im starting to see people give dirty looks now when they walk outside now and see people smoking. Walking past someone thats having a cigarette isnt going to give you cancer. These people are standing outside in the open air, why is that still not good enough for people?

I just think its pretty funny how the convenience for the non-smokers is all that matters anymore without any regard to how inconvenienced it makes the smoker. And thats just fucked up.

[TripleSkeet]

terrorism effects us all equally


I dont know if I agree with that. Im as worried about dying in a terrorist attack as I am excited about spending all the money Im gonna win with the Powerball. Difference is I have a better chance of winning the Powerball.

[HBox]

I assume you mean like a bar or somewhere that allowed smoking.

My response to that would be instead of barring the smoking, wouldnt it just be easier to go somewhere that doesnt allow it? But thats not even what I mean.

Im starting to see people give dirty looks now when they walk outside now and see people smoking. Walking past someone thats having a cigarette isnt going to give you cancer. These people are standing outside in the open air, why is that still not good enough for people?

I just think its pretty funny how the convenience for the non-smokers is all that matters anymore without any regard to how inconvenienced it makes the smoker. And thats just fucked up.

People talk like these non-smoking bars and restaurants existed when they didn't. There was no choice if you wanted to go to a restaurant or bar. You'd have to put up with smoke or not go.

As far as inconvenience goes think of it this way: non smokers had to sit through their entire meal or entire night drinking in smokey air. Now smokers have to walk twenty feet however many times they want to smoke for a couple minutes. For the vast majority of their night smokers are not inconvenienced.

[The Jays]

I remember when I was a kid when people smoked in the mall and in the bank... I recall looking at the marble floors and seeing cigarette butts stamped out.

Ah, those are the good ol days, when you can go down the street and expect to get mugged. When blow jobs cost a dollar, and they didn't have to use a condom. When you bought a dime bag and had to pick the seeds out of it. Ah, memories.

[TheMojoPin]

I assume you mean like a bar or somewhere that allowed smoking.

My response to that would be instead of barring the smoking, wouldnt it just be easier to go somewhere that doesnt allow it? But thats not even what I mean.

Im starting to see people give dirty looks now when they walk outside now and see people smoking. Walking past someone thats having a cigarette isnt going to give you cancer. These people are standing outside in the open air, why is that still not good enough for people?

I just think its pretty funny how the convenience for the non-smokers is all that matters anymore without any regard to how inconvenienced it makes the smoker. And thats just fucked up.

Mostly I just echo HBox's response to your post, but I just wanted to add that you can't look at smokers and non-smokers as being equally inconvenienced in this. A non-smoker's inconvenience means their night out has to involve breathing in secondhand smoke, getting smoke in their food, clothes, hair, etc., facing aggravation of colds, allergies, sinuses, etc. all when they've made the choice to not smoke to avoid those things. The smoker's "inconvenience" is that they have to step outside if they cannot control their urge to smoke for a few hours. The smokers can still easily smoke if they wish and the nons-smokers avoid being surrounded by smoke in a bar or restaurant. It's win-win.

The long and short of it is is that the wishes of the non-smokers are not detrimental to the health of smokers wheras that is not true vice-versa.

[TheMojoPin]

People talk like these non-smoking bars and restaurants existed when they didn't. There was no choice if you wanted to go to a restaurant or bar. You'd have to put up with smoke or not go.

As far as inconvenience goes think of it this way: non smokers had to sit through their entire meal or entire night drinking in smokey air. Now smokers have to walk twenty feet however many times they want to smoke for a couple minutes. For the vast majority of their night smokers are not inconvenienced.

Plus the desires of the non-smokers to avoid the health issues of cigarette and cigar smoke don't detract from the mutual "goal" of smokers and non-smokers going to bars and restaurants. Smoking is incidental to going there to drink and eat and socialize. Non-smokers aren't keeping smokers from enjoying those things. If smokers can't experience all of that without cigarettes, that's the fault of their own addictions, not non-smokers.

[The Jays]

Pfft, next you're gonna tell me it's my own fault that I break into people's houses and rob them, rather than the fault of my addiction to speedballs.

[TripleSkeet]

If you look at my post I say after the non-smoking bars thats not what I meant. Although if people were so keen on non-smoking I dont understand why the fuck someone didnt just open a no smoking bar. Youd think it would just be natural instead of having the state force it on you.

Secondly, Im talking about trhe non-smokers that arent satisfied with smokers just going outside. The ones that give dirty looks to people who have come outside, even in the cold, to have a cigarette. I know some people whose work now has them having to walk 20 feet away from the building. At what point is enough enough?

The health and smell arguments pretty much dont stand up if people are smoking outside. Especially now when just about everywhere is smoke free. If you dont like being around it you can just walk inside. I just think its crazy how non-smokers think a smoker shouldnt have any rights to smoke if the non-smoker doesnt want to be anywhere near it.

Im not even a big smoking person. Im just not keen on people being able to inconvenience others for their own personal reasons.

[TheMojoPin]

If you look at my post I say after the non-smoking bars thats not what I meant. Although if people were so keen on non-smoking I dont understand why the fuck someone didnt just open a no smoking bar. Youd think it would just be natural instead of having the state force it on you.

Secondly, Im talking about trhe non-smokers that arent satisfied with smokers just going outside. The ones that give dirty looks to people who have come outside, even in the cold, to have a cigarette. I know some people whose work now has them having to walk 20 feet away from the building. At what point is enough enough?

The health and smell arguments pretty much dont stand up if people are smoking outside. Especially now when just about everywhere is smoke free. If you dont like being around it you can just walk inside. I just think its crazy how non-smokers think a smoker shouldnt have any rights to smoke if the non-smoker doesnt want to be anywhere near it.

Im not even a big smoking person. Im just not keen on people being able to inconvenience others for their own personal reasons.

Well, we can't police people's thoughts. I personally enjoy smoking when I go out, so I feel no need to give a dirty look to anyone doing the same. If someone does...eh, big deal. People flash dirty looks all the time. Maybe they just hate your haircut or you have really ugly shoes.

[HBox]

If you look at my post I say after the non-smoking bars thats not what I meant. Although if people were so keen on non-smoking I dont understand why the fuck someone didnt just open a no smoking bar. Youd think it would just be natural instead of having the state force it on you.

There's a few reasons. Sometimes the market just fails to meet demand. The free market is not flawless. Whatever the reason we had the entire history of the country before the bans started being instituted and it didn't happen. I think owners just didn't want to risk shutting out a large group of people from their business when everyone had at the very least grudgingly tolerated that smoke would fill the air. Everyone was used to it whether they liked it or not.

Secondly, Im talking about trhe non-smokers that arent satisfied with smokers just going outside. The ones that give dirty looks to people who have come outside, even in the cold, to have a cigarette. I know some people whose work now has them having to walk 20 feet away from the building. At what point is enough enough?

The health and smell arguments pretty much dont stand up if people are smoking outside. Especially now when just about everywhere is smoke free. If you dont like being around it you can just walk inside. I just think its crazy how non-smokers think a smoker shouldnt have any rights to smoke if the non-smoker doesnt want to be anywhere near it.

Im not even a big smoking person. Im just not keen on people being able to inconvenience others for their own personal reasons.

Those people are douchebags. There are a lot of them unfortunately.

On you last point: When a smoker's smoke gets breathed in by someone else that's an inconvenience for personal reasons. But we all inconvenience everyone else at some point.

[TripleSkeet]

Thank you. That was my point. See during the summer I work at a bar with an outside deck. Now I bartend the deck and thats where everyone comes to smoke. The inside is completely smoke free yet I had to argue with a woman that didnt like the smoke outside.

Her: "Ugh I hate this smoke. Why do you guys let people smoke out here?"
Me: "Because they cant smoke inside."
Her: "Well they shouldnt be allowed to smoke out here either. Why should I have to breathe in their smoke."
Me: "But you can go inside. They cant smoke in there."
Her: I shouldnt have to go outside. If I want to enjoy the deck I should be able to."
Me: "I dont know what to tell you then. Either go inside or put up with it."

[TheMojoPin]

Thank you. That was my point. See during the summer I work at a bar with an outside deck. Now I bartend the deck and thats where everyone comes to smoke. The inside is completely smoke free yet I had to argue with a woman that didnt like the smoke outside.

Her: "Ugh I hate this smoke. Why do you guys let people smoke out here?"
Me: "Because they cant smoke inside."
Her: "Well they shouldnt be allowed to smoke out here either. Why should I have to breathe in their smoke."
Me: "But you can go inside. They cant smoke in there."
Her: I shouldnt have to go outside. If I want to enjoy the deck I should be able to."
Me: "I dont know what to tell you then. Either go inside or put up with it."

I thought you wre talking about people given smokers shit who had gone outside of the establishment to smoke, which is just a dick move on the part of the non-smoker. You're talking about people still smoking in part of the business. Yes, the deck is outside, but it's par of the bar/restaurant where business takes place. If it's the only option for outside dining and drinking there, the smokers are potentially denying it for the non-smokers. The non-smokers aren't denying the smokers the option of dining and drinking on the patio, which are usually the reasons such an establishment has a patio. Smoking is incidental to that.

[TooLowBrow]

I dont know if I agree with that. Im as worried about dying in a terrorist attack as I am excited about spending all the money Im gonna win with the Powerball. Difference is I have a better chance of winning the Powerball.

the difference is that you can choose not to be a part of powerball

with terrorism, you might not be hit, but you cant evade it without govt $ from poor people eating fast food

Nassau county is turning to the fast food industry to help fill its budget gap.

Lawmakers have introduced a two percent fast food tax.

Nassau officials estimate the tax would bring in more than eleven million dollars in revenue next year.

The tax would only apply to franchised fast food chains and would need to be approved by Albany. (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/new_york_state/090621_LI_Fast_Food_Tax)

[A.J.]

We still agree that Obama blows though...right?

He blows sweet Carolina smoke.

[keithy_19]

That just makes you sound even older before your time.

Oh, keithy.

I'm just a walking fuck up huh? My stars.

[silera]

I just briefly read the last page re: smoking and this may be not pertinent but I think the reason no one was offering smoke free bars & restaurants is that smokers tend to drink more when they get to smoke at the bar.

I'm used to it either way. They should just ban it already and stop making me feel like a fucking asshole for smoking with these dumb laws. They should also ban liquor, tighty whiteys and sweatpants with provocative words sewn onto the ass.

[keithy_19]

I just briefly read the last page re: smoking and this may be not pertinent but I think the reason no one was offering smoke free bars & restaurants is that smokers tend to drink more when they get to smoke at the bar.

I'm used to it either way. They should just ban it already and stop making me feel like a fucking asshole for smoking with these dumb laws. They should also ban liquor, tighty whiteys and sweatpants with provocative words sewn onto the ass.

Worse than Stalin you are.

[mikeyboy]

Much better looking though.

[underdog]

Much better looking though.

Stalin had the best ass in the biz.

[mikeyboy]

I guess I've never seen any pics of him backing that thing up.

[TheMojoPin]

Much better looking though.

*AHEM*

Young Stalin was a fox.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/Stalin_1902.jpg

[A.J.]

I just briefly read the last page re: smoking and this may be not pertinent but I think the reason no one was offering smoke free bars & restaurants is that smokers tend to drink more when they get to smoke at the bar.

I'm used to it either way. They should just ban it already and stop making me feel like a fucking asshole for smoking with these dumb laws. They should also ban liquor, tighty whiteys and sweatpants with provocative words sewn onto the ass.

I agree.

As an aside, I have a special hatred for "non-smokers" who, after a few drinks, want to keep bumming smokes off of me. (Except you Tub.)

[TripleSkeet]

I thought you wre talking about people given smokers shit who had gone outside of the establishment to smoke, which is just a dick move on the part of the non-smoker. You're talking about people still smoking in part of the business. Yes, the deck is outside, but it's par of the bar/restaurant where business takes place. If it's the only option for outside dining and drinking there, the smokers are potentially denying it for the non-smokers. The non-smokers aren't denying the smokers the option of dining and drinking on the patio, which are usually the reasons such an establishment has a patio. Smoking is incidental to that.

I was talking about both actually. Other bars I go to dont have patios so you smoke outside the building and if someone happens to walk through it you always get the "just ate a lemon" face and the wave of the hand like they are swatting a fly.

The outside bar is like this, you guys didnt want people smoking in the building, so now you have EVERY smoker at the place sitting outside in one place so the smoke is gonna be alot worse.

Heres the thing, some people smoke, some people dont, you cant just cater to one of them. Smokers can go inside and drink, but they will have to not smoke to do it. Non smokers can go outside and drink, but they will have to deal with smoke to do it. Its only fair. Non smokers just seem to have this attitude that they should be able to go wherever they want without having to encounter someone with a cigarette and dont seem to understand it doesnt fucking work that way.

[TheMojoPin]

Heres the thing, some people smoke, some people dont, you cant just cater to one of them. Smokers can go inside and drink, but they will have to not smoke to do it. Non smokers can go outside and drink, but they will have to deal with smoke to do it. Its only fair. Non smokers just seem to have this attitude that they should be able to go wherever they want without having to encounter someone with a cigarette and dont seem to understand it doesnt fucking work that way.

Why not?

Again, I'm an on again/off again smoker. I enjoy smoking when I'm at a bar or a club, but I understand that it's not my right to be a smoker anywhere I want. It's something I choose to do when I can, where I can. The overall tone of your statemen ts is that smokers NEED to be able to smoke in more places. There is no need. The only need involved is if someone is addicted to smoking. If smokers cannot go a few hours without smoking, that's their problem, not a problem that everything and everyone else needs to conform to.

Not smoking in a bar or restaurant is essentially along the lines of them syaing you can't bring in inside food: you may love a certain food, but if you choose to go to a restaurant you can't just bring it with you and eat it there if they don't have it. Same with cigarettes: just because someone loves to smoke doesn't mean they should be able to do it anywhere. It's something that smokers can do in their own time where they can. There's zero reason why the world around us should be catering to epopel choosing to do something that's guarenteed to be harmful to themselves and very likely to the people around them. Smoking is a luxury, not a right.

[TripleSkeet]

Why not?

Again, I'm an on again/off again smoker. I enjoy smoking when I'm at a bar or a club, but I understand that it's not my right to be a smoker anywhere I want. It's something I choose to do when I can, where I can. The overall tone of your statemen ts is that smokers NEED to be able to smoke in more places. There is no need. The only need involved is if someone is addicted to smoking. If smokers cannot go a few hours without smoking, that's their problem, not a problem that everything and everyone else needs to conform to.

Not smoking in a bar or restaurant is essentially along the lines of them syaing you can't bring in inside food: you may love a certain food, but if you choose to go to a restaurant you can't just bring it with you and eat it there if they don't have it. Same with cigarettes: just because someone loves to smoke doesn't mean they should be able to do it anywhere. It's something that smokers can do in their own time where they can. There's zero reason why the world around us should be catering to epopel choosing to do something that's guarenteed to be harmful to themselves and very likely to the people around them. Smoking is a luxury, not a right.

Thats complete bullshit. You know why? A restaurant that says you cant bring in food are placing rules on THEIR OWN establishment. The state is not stepping in and telling the restaurant that you cannot bring in food.

Personally I dont think a bar owner should have to not allow smoking if he doesnt want to. If its his establishment, and smoking is not illegal, he should be able to allow if it if he sees fit.

So when a bar owner is forced by the state to not allow smoking inside, he sets up a deck bar or patio to help ease the inconvenience of their smoking patrons. So now if the non-smokers dont like it, they once again go to the state and have them force this bar owner to change his rules again to appease them? Smoking is as much a luxury as drinking soda or chewing gum. Its something thats not illegal and therefore should be allowed or disallowed by each business owner at their own discretion. I dont smoke all the time, but if Im at a bar I see no reason why I shouldnt be able to. And if Im outside, then I definitely see no reason why I shouldnt be able to.

You still havent explained to me why non-smokers should be the ones that set up the rules everyone else has to live by. Its fucking ridiculous.

[Serpico1103]

Thats complete bullshit. You know why? A restaurant that says you cant bring in food are placing rules on THEIR OWN establishment. The state is not stepping in and telling the restaurant that you cannot bring in food.

Personally I dont think a bar owner should have to not allow smoking if he doesnt want to. If its his establishment, and smoking is not illegal, he should be able to allow if it if he sees fit.

So when a bar owner is forced by the state to not allow smoking inside, he sets up a deck bar or patio to help ease the inconvenience of their smoking patrons. So now if the non-smokers dont like it, they once again go to the state and have them force this bar owner to change his rules again to appease them? Smoking is as much a luxury as drinking soda or chewing gum. Its something thats not illegal and therefore should be allowed or disallowed by each business owner at their own discretion. I dont smoke all the time, but if Im at a bar I see no reason why I shouldnt be able to. And if Im outside, then I definitely see no reason why I shouldnt be able to.

You still havent explained to me why non-smokers should be the ones that set up the rules everyone else has to live by. Its fucking ridiculous.

A bar or a restaurant is still a workplace. So, while the patrons are there voluntarily, the workers are "not."
If you want to smoke, get organized and turn this tide around.
But, realize what you are fighting for. An addiction. It is not a luxury for most smokers, it is a sad addiction.

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

And now Obama wants to tax health care benefits....surprise, surprise

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-leaves-door-open-to-tax-apf-646498215.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

He doesn't like taxing us, he LOOOOOOVES it!

:thumbdown:

[red_red_red]

A bar or a restaurant is still a workplace. So, while the patrons are there voluntarily, the workers are "not."
If you want to smoke, get organized and turn this tide around.
But, realize what you are fighting for. An addiction. It is not a luxury for most smokers, it is a sad addiction.
I don't feel sad :smile: nope, i'm smoking and i like it!

[TheMojoPin]

You still havent explained to me why non-smokers should be the ones that set up the rules everyone else has to live by. Its fucking ridiculous.

I have. Smoking is a personal luxury that smokers opt to do that effects and often harms the people around them regardless of whether those people choose to smoke or not. It's not like smokers are doing something that only effects them. You're arguably forcing non-smokers around smokers to become smokers themselves, especially if they are employees in those establishments.

[TripleSkeet]

A bar or a restaurant is still a workplace. So, while the patrons are there voluntarily, the workers are "not."
If you want to smoke, get organized and turn this tide around.
But, realize what you are fighting for. An addiction. It is not a luxury for most smokers, it is a sad addiction.

Im not trying to turn anything around. I just feel, ok, the non-smokers won their battle and they got the inside of the bars, (For the record, I dont have that much of a problem with this because of the employees) but the outside should be for either smokers or non smokers, the way it is now. Non-smokers shouldnt have control of outside bars where the smoke simply blows away. Even waitresses or bartenders, of which I am one, shouldnt be able to stop people from smoking in an area like that.

And like everything, its an addiction for some people, an enjoyment for others. By your logic, I shouldnt try to fight if the states decide to start prohibition back up because drinking is "an addiction".

[TripleSkeet]

I have. Smoking is a personal luxury that smokers opt to do that effects and often harms the people around them regardless of whether those people choose to smoke or not. It's not like smokers are doing something that only effects them. You're arguably forcing non-smokers around smokers to become smokers themselves, especially if they are employees in those establishments.

The effects of second hand smoke have never been proven.

Edit* And I did mention employees when I said I didnt have as big a problem with them smoking inside, because they do have to deal with it night after night. But when it comes to outside establishments, no the convenience of the smoking customers should come first.

[TheMojoPin]

The effects of second hand smoke have never been proven.

Edit* And I did mention employees when I said I didnt have as big a problem with them smoking inside, because they do have to deal with it night after night. But when it comes to outside establishments, no the convenience of the smoking customers should come first.

"Smoking customers" is redundant. We're all just customers. Customers should not be accorded special areas that are effectively denied to other people because of a personal luxury like smoking. Before you flip this towards non-smokers, "non-smokers" is also a redundant term in this regard because non-smokers aren't doing anything "different." We all start as "non-smokers." It's smokers that are breaking from the mold, as it were, by choosing to smoke. The only "special interest" group here are the smokers.

And the addiction/enjoyment argument doesn't seem to have too much weight. If it was just an enjoyment, then so many smokers wouldn't be up in arms about being able to do it for a few hours. There's scores of things we'd enjoy doing in a bar that we can't do. If addiction wasn't at the heart of this it wouldn't be nearly the big deal that it is. So many smokers are looking at this as something they NEED to do as opposed to just something they WANT to do. I'm not sying that this should be banned because people are addicted to it: I just understand the push to keep it out of public places since smoking is an activity that cannot be isolated in public places. It's something that the people around the smoker HAVE to take part in and experience and suffer ill effects from even if they have zero desire to smoke.

[Serpico1103]

Im not trying to turn anything around. I just feel, ok, the non-smokers won their battle and they got the inside of the bars, (For the record, I dont have that much of a problem with this because of the employees) but the outside should be for either smokers or non smokers, the way it is now. Non-smokers shouldnt have control of outside bars where the smoke simply blows away. Even waitresses or bartenders, of which I am one, shouldnt be able to stop people from smoking in an area like that.

And like everything, its an addiction for some people, an enjoyment for others. By your logic, I shouldnt try to fight if the states decide to start prohibition back up because drinking is "an addiction".

I said you should fight it if you wanted. But, be honest about what you are fighting for. An addicting substance that causes more harm than the retail price covers.

[keithy_19]

I said you should fight it if you wanted. But, be honest about what you are fighting for. An addicting substance that causes more harm than the retail price covers.

But it's so cooooool...

[A.J.]

I have. Smoking is a personal luxury that smokers opt to do that effects and often harms the people around them regardless of whether those people choose to smoke or not. It's not like smokers are doing something that only effects them. You're arguably forcing non-smokers around smokers to become smokers themselves, especially if they are employees in those establishments.

Not necessarily. Back in the day people smoked in bars. If that was going to be a problem for you as a non-smoker, perhaps working in a bar was not the right career choice for you.

[Crispy123]

The effects of second hand smoke have never been proven.


**Bullshit Statement Alert**

Second hand smoke facts (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp)


Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

[TheMojoPin]

Not necessarily. Back in the day people smoked in bars. If that was going to be a problem for you as a non-smoker, perhaps working in a bar was not the right career choice for you.

That's because back in the day more people were ignornant (willfully or otherwise) to the effects of smoking, especially in regards to secondhand smoke. The policies have evolved as medical understanding and public awareness have evolved. Just because we've tolerated or allowed or been ignorant to poor workplace conditions in the past doesn't mean that it was right at the time.

[TripleSkeet]

I said you should fight it if you wanted. But, be honest about what you are fighting for. An addicting substance that causes more harm than the retail price covers.

Im not addicted to smoking. I smoke when I drink because I enjoy it. And I also smoke sometimes at work when I need a break. But thats it. Im in the process of taking 3 weeks off of smoking because I have to get a blood test. Im not jonesing at all. But I enjoy a smoke when Im drinking and if Im at an outside bar I dont see why I shouldnt be allowed to have one. Im not arguing about the fact you cant smoke inside anymore, Im cool with that. IThis whole thing started because I mentioned a woman who felt that giving them the whole inside of the restaurant wasnt enough.


**Bullshit Statement Alert**

Second hand smoke facts (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp)

I can do research too. Dont believe everything the government tells you.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

[TheMojoPin]

I can do research too. Dont believe everything the government tells you.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Your link is mostly based off of information from the early 90's. The link you were responding to is mostly based off of information from the last 3-4 years and is also from the American Cancer Society and has been repeatedly medically reviewed and revised. Your link is the result of this:

The Hittman is a cranky bastard with more opinions than he knows what to do with, so he dumps some of them here, in The Hittman Chronicle. Otherwise, they tend to spill out in everyday conversation, which can be embarrassing.

Some sites occupy huge globs of your valuable time by presenting a fistful of new articles every day. The Hittman Chronicle is far more considerate and only posts a few new articles every year, and a couple of new blog entries every month. This can make web surfing much more leisurely.

I created THMC to practice writing editorials and articles, learn some HTML tricks and generally amuse myself. That’s all – it’s not here to express some higher truth or be the most popular site on the net or make money or change the opinions of the masses. It’s just for fun. If it's not fun, I don't do it.

I actually agree with some of his conclusions from the old EPA reports from the early 1990's, but he's ignoring almost all research from the last 10 years.

[TripleSkeet]

Your link is mostly based off of information from the early 90's. The link you were responding to is mostly based off of information from the last 3-4 years and is also from the American Cancer Society and has been repeatedly medically reviewed and revised. Your link is the result of this:



I actually agree with some of his conclusions from the old EPA reports from the early 1990's, but he's ignoring almost all research from the last 10 years.

I was actually just going by the report and not really paying attention to his opinions. The obvious truth is if you sit in a cloud of smoke for hours everyday, of course your going to develop smoking related problems. But sitting outside for a few hours while people smoke around you isnt going to do any damage.

Thats why I said I had no problem with the laws because of the employees. They are in those places 5 nights a week, all night. While customers that complain about 2nd hand smoke usually dont deal with it enough to be harmfull. Its really simple logic.

[TheMojoPin]

I was actually just going by the report and not really paying attention to his opinions. The obvious truth is if you sit in a cloud of smoke for hours everyday, of course your going to develop smoking related problems. But sitting outside for a few hours while people smoke around you isnt going to do any damage.

Thats why I said I had no problem with the laws because of the employees. They are in those places 5 nights a week, all night. While customers that complain about 2nd hand smoke usually dont deal with it enough to be harmfull. Its really simple logic.

Those few hours really start to add up given the number of smokers out there acting like they have to be able to smoke when at a restaurant or bar.

[TripleSkeet]

Today Ronnie summed this up better then I ever could. Im done.

[Gvac]

Today Ronnie summed this up better then I ever could. Im done.

Now now! Your government has to look out for you!

It must tend to each and every need of its citizens and micromanage the personal affairs of said citizens!

It's what we want!

We're too feeble and stupid to live without our great government! We'd be lost without those amazingly brilliant people in Washington!

[zildjian361]

gas has already gone up in 45cents in the last month. it' a start.

try $1.95 since then::smoke::drunk:

[Serpico1103]

Now now! Your government has to look out for you!

It must tend to each and every need of its citizens and micromanage the personal affairs of said citizens!

It's what we want!

We're too feeble and stupid to live without our great government! We'd be lost without those amazingly brilliant people in Washington!

No, you would be even more at the mercy of corporations. Next thing you know, you are eating and drinking pesticides, hormones, plastics, petro-based chemcials, and other delicious entrees.
Want freedom, live on an island by yourself.
Want to be part of a society, expect the occasional jolt to keep you inline.

I think everything (almost) should be legalized. But, make sure there is more information about true costs, and force corporations to internalize their costs.

[Dude!]

and force corporations to internalize their costs.


what were you
trying to say
with that non-sequitor?

[HBox]

Today Ronnie summed this up better then I ever could. Im done.

One thing about that whole thing set me off today (other than the latest example of Americans having no idea what the Boston Tea Party was really about). Yet gain another smoker bringing up personal responsibility. And yet smokers NEVER show responsibility when it actually matters. I've never read about a smoker saving their money so that when they get heart disease or lung cancer or emphysema or whatever they get from smoking they can pay for their treatment BY THEMSELVES, and show, you know, actual tangible responisibilty for their own actions.

No. What happens is they smoke, keep smoking, get sick, and run to their insurance companies for treatments which costs will very likely outstrip every cent they have paid into the system. And then the rest of the money comes from the rest of us. So if you are going to have our money, and you will because 1. Very few people have the income to save up for these kind of costs even over many years and 2. We generally don't let people die without treatment for any reason, then shut up about personal responsibility. It's a meaningless line. There's nothing true about it. We have enough sick people in this country who require expensive treatment and did nothing to cause their own sickness to add on top of it not just avoidable illness, but knowingly self-inflicted illness.

People give about as much a shit about the well being of smokers as they do anyone else. That is: not much. But if smokers going to cost us so much forgive the rest of us if we try and get you to stop. From the actual act to the consequences smoking affects all of us.

[TooLowBrow]

One thing about that whole thing set me off today (other than the latest example of Americans having no idea what the Boston Tea Party was really about). Yet gain another smoker bringing up personal responsibility. And yet smokers NEVER show responsibility when it actually matters. I've never read about a smoker saving their money so that when they get heart disease or lung cancer or emphysema or whatever they get from smoking they can pay for their treatment BY THEMSELVES, and show, you know, actual tangible responisibilty for their own actions.

No. What happens is they smoke, keep smoking, get sick, and run to their insurance companies for treatments which costs will very likely outstrip every cent they have paid into the system. And then the rest of the money comes from the rest of us. So if you are going to have our money, and you will because 1. Very few people have the income to save up for these kind of costs even over many years and 2. We generally don't let people die without treatment for any reason, then shut up about personal responsibility. It's a meaningless line. There's nothing true about it. We have enough sick people in this country who require expensive treatment and did nothing to cause their own sickness to add on top of it not just avoidable illness, but knowingly self-inflicted illness.

People give about as much a shit about the well being of smokers as they do anyone else. That is: not much. But if smokers going to cost us so much forgive the rest of us if we try and get you to stop. From the actual act to the consequences smoking affects all of us.

but doesnt the govt make a lot of money for us from taxes on cigarettes? the govt can use this money to pay the hospital bills for these people.

[HBox]

but doesnt the govt make a lot of money for us from taxes on cigarettes? the govt can use this money to pay the hospital bills for these people.

OMG SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! OMG NANNY STATE!

Even if that were the case that's not personal responsibility. That's asking the government to take care of it.

I'd be happy if smokers just paid higher insurance premiums. But that will not happen. Neither will the above. They've already spent that money on god knows what.

[TooLowBrow]

I'd be happy if smokers just paid higher insurance premiums. But that will not happen. Neither will the above. They've already spent that money on god knows what.

nah, cause theyd just lie about smoking, tax the cigarettes and you hurt the smoker
you just have to get that tax money to the non smoker

[HBox]

nah, cause theyd just lie about smoking, tax the cigarettes and you hurt the smoker
you just have to get that tax money to the non smoker

I believe there are some blood tests that can tell if you have been smoking in the last 3 months. I'll have to check again on that but I'm pretty sure there ways that you can tell.

[TooLowBrow]

I believe there are some blood tests that can tell if you have been smoking in the last 3 months. I'll have to check again on that but I'm pretty sure there ways that you can tell.

then why not just make cigarettes illegal?

[HBox]

then why not just make cigarettes illegal?

How did the argument turn this way? Anyway, prohibition failed and banning cigarettes would have likely the same fate. It doesn't mean that smoking doesn't have huge societal costs and should be discouraged. By this logic we shouldn't have campaigns against drunk driving and instead just make alcohol. But of course that didn't work.

[foodcourtdruide]

It has been raining in nyc for 6 weeks and this weeks forecast is all rain. Thank you Obama!

[Gvac]

It has been raining in nyc for 6 weeks and this weeks forecast is all rain. Thank you Obama!

It's because he turned his back on God/Jesus and chose Allah/Muhammad.

[Recyclerz]

It's because he turned his back on God/Jesus and chose Allah/Muhammad.

Sssshhhh! Don't make him mad or we might get frogs, locusts, fire, etc. instead of regular rain.





Hey, what am I worried about? I voted for him and kicked in some cake to his campaign so I get a pass from all the bad stuff and also get a permit to detain two dozen conservatives, free thinkers or really anybody on Obama's enemies list and subject them to enhanced interrogation techniques in my back yard, but we're not supposed to talk about this until after he gets re-elected in 2012 so keep it under your hat.

[Gvac]

Hey, what am I worried about? I voted for him and kicked in some cake to his campaign so I get a pass from all the bad stuff and also get a permit to detain two dozen conservatives, free thinkers or really anybody on Obama's enemies list and subject them to enhanced interrogation techniques in my back yard, but we're not supposed to talk about this until after he gets re-elected in 2012 so keep it under your hat.

I KNEW IT!!!

Vast Left Wing Conspirator!!!

[epo]

I KNEW IT!!!

Vast Left Wing Conspirator!!!

You wouldn't believe the shit I have planned for you buddy!

[nukinfuts]

It's a slippery slope you start with smoking and move on to alcohol then to doughnuts and cupcakes..greasy burgers. All of these things can lead to poor health and higher insurance costs due to heart problems, diabetes, and the overall issues that come from being a smoker, a drunk, or being obese. They didn't tax the hell out of cigarettes to deter people from smoking they did it to help pay for their shitty health program when they realized that taxing the shit out of the wealthy wasn't going to cut it. If we want to go a step further how about going into reproductive rights. How about taxing the shit out of people that are taking assistance from the government that continue to pop out babies even though they have no job, no health care, and no motivation to do anything other than live off of the social programs that allow them to live such a wonderful lifestyle? That's right you can't tax them because they don't work but you could refuse to support them past having X number of children. I have a huge problem with government run health programs that are going to tax me for doing the right thing which is having a job, supporting my children, and paying for my health insurance. The unions/collective bargaining units will be exempt from this tax on health care insurance under one of the great Dem's plans if the contract was negotiated prior to start of this welfare health program. Does that seem fair? I have a health savings account that is pre tax right now...it's something that saves my company money and makes me rethink my overall health since it's a high deductible plan but it's my money and when I retire the money in that account can be used to purchase a private insurance plan. I don't understand why more people aren't upset about this unless they just aren't paying attention to all sides of the issue. You can't allow people to get something...like insurance..for nothing at the expense of those who are supporting themselves and their famililes by working. What do the people who sit on their asses contribute to the economy and the overall well being of this country? I understand that not everyone on welfare is just a system sucking pig but there are those who strive to do better that yes do deserve a hand to pick themselves up but there are a lot that are second and third generation welfare families that don't see the point in doing anything when they are living in government assisted housing, using medicaid, and getting food stamps.

[TheMojoPin]

That's a big block of text.

Welfare doesn't work like that.

[A.J.]

It's because he turned his back on God/Jesus and chose Allah/Muhammad.

No shit. Did you see him when he was in Saudi Arabia? I think he had a hard on.

[HBox]

It's a slippery slope you start with smoking and move on to alcohol then to doughnuts and cupcakes..greasy burgers. All of these things can lead to poor health and higher insurance costs due to heart problems, diabetes, and the overall issues that come from being a smoker, a drunk, or being obese. They didn't tax the hell out of cigarettes to deter people from smoking they did it to help pay for their shitty health program when they realized that taxing the shit out of the wealthy wasn't going to cut it. If we want to go a step further how about going into reproductive rights. How about taxing the shit out of people that are taking assistance from the government that continue to pop out babies even though they have no job, no health care, and no motivation to do anything other than live off of the social programs that allow them to live such a wonderful lifestyle? That's right you can't tax them because they don't work but you could refuse to support them past having X number of children. I have a huge problem with government run health programs that are going to tax me for doing the right thing which is having a job, supporting my children, and paying for my health insurance. The unions/collective bargaining units will be exempt from this tax on health care insurance under one of the great Dem's plans if the contract was negotiated prior to start of this welfare health program. Does that seem fair? I have a health savings account that is pre tax right now...it's something that saves my company money and makes me rethink my overall health since it's a high deductible plan but it's my money and when I retire the money in that account can be used to purchase a private insurance plan. I don't understand why more people aren't upset about this unless they just aren't paying attention to all sides of the issue. You can't allow people to get something...like insurance..for nothing at the expense of those who are supporting themselves and their famililes by working. What do the people who sit on their asses contribute to the economy and the overall well being of this country? I understand that not everyone on welfare is just a system sucking pig but there are those who strive to do better that yes do deserve a hand to pick themselves up but there are a lot that are second and third generation welfare families that don't see the point in doing anything when they are living in government assisted housing, using medicaid, and getting food stamps.

http://entases.com/files/entases.com/EnterKey.png

It's your friend.

[epo]

Indiana is weird.

[TripleSkeet]

OMG SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! OMG NANNY STATE!

Even if that were the case that's not personal responsibility. That's asking the government to take care of it.

I'd be happy if smokers just paid higher insurance premiums. But that will not happen. Neither will the above. They've already spent that money on god knows what.

I dont know about medical but I know they pay higher life insurance. I know because right now I am in the process of getting new life insurance.

And for the record it takes about 2 weeks to get the nicotine out of your blood so they cant tell if you smoke.

And in all honesty, you talk about personal responsibility, but what is the reason that 60 years of paying medical insurance isnt enough to cover someone that gets lung disease? Is it really because its such an expensive treatment? Or is it because the American health system is so corrupt they ridiculously overcharge for EVERYTHING. I know someone whos kid had to go to Childrens Hospital for some sort of test. At one point she saw a specialist who was in the room no more then 3 minutes. Her insurance was billed $1,000 for that "visit".

Im sorry youre pissed about your insurance premiums, but the real reason they are so high is because the medical profession and the insurance profession is filled with legal fucking thieves.

[HBox]

I dont know about medical but I know they pay higher life insurance. I know because right now I am in the process of getting new life insurance.

And for the record it takes about 2 weeks to get the nicotine out of your blood so they cant tell if you smoke.

And in all honesty, you talk about personal responsibility, but what is the reason that 60 years of paying medical insurance isnt enough to cover someone that gets lung disease? Is it really because its such an expensive treatment? Or is it because the American health system is so corrupt they ridiculously overcharge for EVERYTHING. I know someone whos kid had to go to Childrens Hospital for some sort of test. At one point she saw a specialist who was in the room no more then 3 minutes. Her insurance was billed $1,000 for that "visit".

Im sorry youre pissed about your insurance premiums, but the real reason they are so high is because the medical profession and the insurance profession is filled with legal fucking thieves.

Those prices are high for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is that hospitals and doctors have to over charge insurance and the few people who can pay out of pocket to compensate for all the people they treat who have no insurance and can't pay.

And yes, any one of the serious illnesses that smoking can case whether it be cancer or something else can easily outstrip every penny that someone would contribute to the insurance system. And that is mainly because these illnesses that smoking cause aren't one time instances. It causes chronic illnesses which needs to be treated regularly. And a ridiculous percentage of our health care spending goes towards end of life care, care that is very expensive and often has microscopic chances of success (which is another issue entirely). And all but the very luckiest smokers aren't paying 60 years into the insurance system and then starting to feel the bad effects of smoking. That person would be 80 years old. Most smokers who get sick start getting sick much younger than that.

And as for blood testing for smoking there are other tests they can do besides nicotine. They can also check for carbon monoxide levels in blood and other ways.

[TripleSkeet]

Those prices are high for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is that hospitals and doctors have to over charge insurance and the few people who can pay out of pocket to compensate for all the people they treat who have no insurance and can't pay.

And yes, any one of the serious illnesses that smoking can case whether it be cancer or something else can easily outstrip every penny that someone would contribute to the insurance system. And that is mainly because these illnesses that smoking cause aren't one time instances. It causes chronic illnesses which needs to be treated regularly. And a ridiculous percentage of our health care spending goes towards end of life care, care that is very expensive and often has microscopic chances of success (which is another issue entirely). And all but the very luckiest smokers aren't paying 60 years into the insurance system and then starting to feel the bad effects of smoking. That person would be 80 years old. Most smokers who get sick start getting sick much younger than that.

And as for blood testing for smoking there are other tests they can do besides nicotine. They can also check for carbon monoxide levels in blood and other ways.


Im just going by the life insurance place that is testing me. Its 2 weeks.

And I actually have known a few people, including my grandfather, that smoked heavily for most of their lives and wound up dying of cancer....yet every one of them was over 80. Not saying it doesnt kill younger people, obviously it does, Im just saying alot of people live their whole lives and dont come into any problems until they are so old that if it wasnt cancer, it would be something else killing them.

[Serpico1103]

what were you
trying to say
with that non-sequitor?

if you didn't
write your
post like a
3rd grader's attempt
at a haiku, I
would explain cost
internalization to you

[A.J.]

While Obama targets evil smokers, he turns a blind eye to another problem:

Health economists once made the harsh financial calculation that the obese would save money by dying sooner, notes Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust, a nonprofit public health group. But more recent research instead suggests they live nearly as long but are much sicker for longer, requiring such costly interventions as knee replacements and diabetes care and dialysis. Studies show Medicare spends anywhere from $1,400 to $6,000 more annually on health care for an obese senior than for the non-obese. (http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/us_med_obesity_rankings.html)

But my sin taxes will help these poor souls!

[Dude!]

While Obama targets evil smokers, he turns a blind eye to another problem:



But my sin taxes will help these poor souls!

and people having 'unprotected sex'
how much do AIDS victims cost us?
obama needs to start knocking
on the bath house doors

and jezo's gym too

[Furtherman]

Kill the fatties!

[A.J.]

Kill the fatties!

They're killing themselves with each morsel of crappy food.

[KatPw]

While Obama targets evil smokers, he turns a blind eye to another problem:



But my sin taxes will help these poor souls!

And yet I constantly come across comments from obese people saying they are just as healthy as thin people or more so. Obesity is the number one factor in the big three of health problems: Diabetes, Heart Disease, and cancer (hormones associated with obesity increase cancer risk). There was even a resent study that suggests there is a connection between obesity and periodontal disease.

[A.J.]

There was even a resent study that suggests there is a connection between obesity and periodontal disease.

Maybe it's the result of the poundfuls of sugar they shovel into their mouths.

[KatPw]

Maybe it's the result of the poundfuls of sugar they shovel into their mouths.

It's probably multi-factoral. Especially if the patient already has Type II (aka adult onset) Diabetes. Diabetes is a disease of connective tissue (your blood is a connective tissue). Poorly managed diabetes leads to tooth loss very quickly.
Maybe we need to start some type of mandatory candy-striper program for adults. That way they can see what it's like for the people who have these diseases. After you see a nurse have to pack a necrotic leg wound that is the result of unregulated diabetes they may think twice about having another cookie. It's amazing how much gauze you can pack into one of those.

[underdog]

They're killing themselves with each morsel of crappy food.

Hey, I got fat eating good food.

[El Mudo]

It's a slippery slope you start with smoking and move on to alcohol then to doughnuts and cupcakes..greasy burgers. All of these things can lead to poor health and higher insurance costs due to heart problems, diabetes, and the overall issues that come from being a smoker, a drunk, or being obese. They didn't tax the hell out of cigarettes to deter people from smoking they did it to help pay for their shitty health program when they realized that taxing the shit out of the wealthy wasn't going to cut it. If we want to go a step further how about going into reproductive rights. How about taxing the shit out of people that are taking assistance from the government that continue to pop out babies even though they have no job, no health care, and no motivation to do anything other than live off of the social programs that allow them to live such a wonderful lifestyle? That's right you can't tax them because they don't work but you could refuse to support them past having X number of children. I have a huge problem with government run health programs that are going to tax me for doing the right thing which is having a job, supporting my children, and paying for my health insurance. The unions/collective bargaining units will be exempt from this tax on health care insurance under one of the great Dem's plans if the contract was negotiated prior to start of this welfare health program. Does that seem fair? I have a health savings account that is pre tax right now...it's something that saves my company money and makes me rethink my overall health since it's a high deductible plan but it's my money and when I retire the money in that account can be used to purchase a private insurance plan. I don't understand why more people aren't upset about this unless they just aren't paying attention to all sides of the issue. You can't allow people to get something...like insurance..for nothing at the expense of those who are supporting themselves and their famililes by working. What do the people who sit on their asses contribute to the economy and the overall well being of this country? I understand that not everyone on welfare is just a system sucking pig but there are those who strive to do better that yes do deserve a hand to pick themselves up but there are a lot that are second and third generation welfare families that don't see the point in doing anything when they are living in government assisted housing, using medicaid, and getting food stamps.



Mmmmm....suckling pig

http://www.chow.com/assets/2008/12/suckling_pig_header.jpg

[keithy_19]

http://www.breitbart.tv/white-house-reporters-grill-gibbs-over-selected-questions-for-obama/