Politicians and smoking ...

[titsrock]

Re: Sorry, I must be stupid, but all this seems "subjective," not "objective" ...

Oh you didn't just say that! Could you open that door for me any better?! Seriously!

You just made my point!

Puritans claimed prosecution by established religions they were trying to escape. What are leftists claiming of righties? Yeah, you didn't think that through now did you?

GOP Wackoes believe in "modernizing" Puritanism in this county. I am against that. I think I thought that through.

All Puritans did was end up creating a new set of "rules" that were very "subjective" and they impressed them on everyone else and, worse yet, judged others who did not follow them.

I see people with "rules" that they "believe" they "must follow" or "else."

Hmmm, can you take me through this "religion but not religion but made up religion" stuff again? I'm sorry, I must be stupid, but all this seems "subjective" and not "objective."

Our Gov't is a representative Democracy. It is not a set of "fables" written down in a book. So the creation of the rules is an all-encompassing process--we all get a chance to take part. Or we don't have to take part. I realize the Constitution was written by a small group of elite men, but, it served the interests of the wealthy and the poor, at the same time.

The Puritans had a bifurcated process--a small group of power brokers deciding everything for the masses based on an interpretation of a book of fables. To me, that sounds very short-sighted:dunno:

Or maybe, just maybe, the only way we can be "objective" is by ...
- Protecting individual rights, and
- Prosecuting those individuals who do not respect the rights of others

Everything else is "subjective."

Here's my "religion" ...
- Stop blaming others for your problems
- Start blaming yourself
- Do what you want
- But don't let that affect others

That means ...
- Individual choice of assembly, press, speech, etc...
- Individual choice of defense (including guns), property, etc...
- Etc...

I guess I'm a "right-winger."

You're not a right-winger in this passage. You're just an apologist for Corporate America. All of this part of the post sounds nice but it is merely a call for Big Gov't to enforce the things that the Corporations have taken away.

If you start adding in anti-Corporation rhetoric to your main message, you might be on to something.:thumbsup:

 

[Member2019]

Can we move beyond a 4th grade level understanding of the world?

You don't seem to understand this, so let's try a different approach.
Bad things that harm people--are not good. People create bad things all the time--for profit, for glory, or by mistake. Just because something BAD exists doesn't mean it should.
While this bill doesn't remove smoking--it takes a lot of the "oversight" away from Big Tobacco, which is a helpful start.

"Smoking is bad" -- Mr. Mackey

Seriously, alcohol is so abused in this country, we could go there. Same deal with so many other things. Where does it stop?

Ben Franklin certainly wouldn't be a Libertarian. He argued for the Turkey as the National Bird and Symbol of the U.S. Perhaps that fact blows away any illusion to Founding Father Libertarianism.:dunno:

Do you even remotely understand that history? If so, make your point. I don't remotely see it.

Many Libertarians associate themselves with the Rattlesnake and other, select animals. The "Don't Tread On Me" represents what America was all about. That the US was an experiment in self-governance, and one the British fostered only to later step on when they decided to seek new taxes to pay off debts.

Until the Suez Incident of 1956, the US limited its treading largely to the Americas. As a Libertarian, I am a strong proponent of staying out of European affairs, and remaining solely in the Americas.

The basic structure of our Gov't--3 branches --is great. Nobody wants to change that. But there is too much population and too much technological progress for a lot of the "freedoms" that originally existed. We are not under threat from Indian attacks, we don't use muskets and cannon anymore, etc.

Oh the irony there!

Indians considered the concept of individual property to be foreign. Some took it as an insult to nature. New Americans felt the right to protect their property, including those that did not respect it.

Is that not much of what we are arguing today? The rights to individual property and the defense of it? The police don't do that. My family members in law enforcement are the first to point this out to my liberal friends (who mistakenly claim to "speak for law enforcement" on gun control).

I have a right to defend my home. So far, I have not chosen to own a firearm, or even use it for any recreation for that matter. Yet every single person I know that owns a gun are not only the most responsible individuals I know, but the ones that regularly hunt are some of the best authorities on conservational and environmental matters.

I think your use of Totalitarism is limited. Totalitarian gov't "make it up as they go along." Our Gov't is Representative Democracy--we elect people to make decisions and carry out the functions of gov't.

Oh give me a break! Totalitarianism is defined by the laws, not the form. There are many Democratic-Republics that are representative and committee-ruled (even by more than our Legislative and Executive at times) that enact all sorts of laws that lead to totalitarianism.

Any populous can vote away its rights if it so does. In the US, this is a little more difficult to do than some others because we A) have the "Supreme Law" of the US (and state) Constitutions and B) it takes a supermajority to Amend them for those changes of such "Supreme Law." But it can still happen.

Other Democratic-Republics have had similar requirements. Again, any population can stupidly vote away its rights if it so desires. Americans just tend to have a very, very strong sense of civics and seem to prevent such. We debate and differ, and it serves us well.

Maybe our positions can be comprised by the elimination of all Political Parties and all forms of Lobbying.

How do you "eliminate" Political Parties? What world do you live in? Do you even remotely understand what a "political party" is?

E.g., Adams, Hamilton and Washington never called themselves a political party. They were quickly labelled "Federalists" by Thomas Jefferson and others. In fact, the "party politics" actually hurt their deep relationship (Adams and Jefferson) until well after both left politics.

In other words, even if you aren't trying to found a platform, people will rhetorically claim your platform. In fact, is that not what Democrats are claiming of Rush Limbaugh for the Republicans right now?

Surely those two things conform to Libertarianism, right?:thumbsup:

I would love to see the end of political parties. Just one problem.

If two people create a platform, that's consider a political party. So how do you "outlaw" that?

Same thing with lobbying. If one person who is not a constituent (or possibly even a constituent under a context) engages a representative and makes a case for a change, that's "lobbying." So how do you "outlaw" that?

Again, you have this 4th grade view of what "political parties" are and what "lobbyists" are.

 

[member979979]

Why is it that we scrutinize cigarettes so much, but we glorify alcohol?

 

[Member2019]

Remember ...

Why is it that we scrutinize cigarettes so much, but we glorify alcohol?

Remember, we used to glorify cigarettes in the US as well.

The irony of anything on this board, or in the public "there outta be a law" attitude for that matter, is that too many people always want to prove that some things are bad and you cannot have them, and it's never done in an "objective" way, only "subjective." And by that I mean people don't apply the same principles equally and to everything.

I have continually noticed time and time and time again that people avoid my analogies to alcohol. They purposely avoid them. Why? Ask them.

 

[Dawn]

I would dare to say that lobbyists are part of the explanation.

 

[titsrock]

Re: Can we move beyond a 4th grade level understanding of the world?

"Smoking is bad" -- Mr. Mackey

Seriously, alcohol is so abused in this country, we could go there. Same deal with so many other things. Where does it stop?

Those secondhand smoking statistics I posted awhile back, which you immediately dismissed as lacking any substance, correlate to a dollar sum cost for which alcohol abuse doesn't come close to. I know you've tried to introduce alcohol into a discussion on tobacco, I've ignored it hoping you'd catch on:thumbsup:.

Do you even remotely understand that history? If so, make your point. I don't remotely see it.

The advocating of NATIONAL symbols to represent Individuality seems like a contradiction.

Many Libertarians associate themselves with the Rattlesnake and other, select animals. The "Don't Tread On Me" represents what America was all about. That the US was an experiment in self-governance, and one the British fostered only to later step on when they decided to seek new taxes to pay off debts.

Actually, the first use of the rattlesnake was the 8-sectional cut snake with the text "JOIN OR DIE." It was a national political cartoon, created by, interestingly enough, Ben Franklin. Again, it appears a unified America seems to be his direction all along...:wave2:

Until the Suez Incident of 1956, the US limited its treading largely to the Americas. As a Libertarian, I am a strong proponent of staying out of European affairs, and remaining solely in the Americas.

Nice anecdote, Prof. And it bears significance to the discussion because...:dunno:

Oh the irony there!

Indians considered the concept of individual property to be foreign. Some took it as an insult to nature. New Americans felt the right to protect their property, including those that did not respect it.

Is that not much of what we are arguing today? The rights to individual property and the defense of it? The police don't do that. My family members in law enforcement are the first to point this out to my liberal friends (who mistakenly claim to "speak for law enforcement" on gun control).

I have a right to defend my home. So far, I have not chosen to own a firearm, or even use it for any recreation for that matter. Yet every single person I know that owns a gun are not only the most responsible individuals I know, but the ones that regularly hunt are some of the best authorities on conservational and environmental matters.

I'm going to just copy/paste my earlier response..Nice anecdote, Prof. And it bears significance to the discussion because...:dunno: Other then to slip in and digress into your gun rights rant...

Oh give me a break! Totalitarianism is defined by the laws, not the form. There are many Democratic-Republics that are representative and committee-ruled (even by more than our Legislative and Executive at times) that enact all sorts of laws that lead to totalitarianism.

Any populous can vote away its rights if it so does. In the US, this is a little more difficult to do than some others because we A) have the "Supreme Law" of the US (and state) Constitutions and B) it takes a supermajority to Amend them for those changes of such "Supreme Law." But it can still happen.

Other Democratic-Republics have had similar requirements. Again, any population can stupidly vote away its rights if it so desires. Americans just tend to have a very, very strong sense of civics and seem to prevent such. We debate and differ, and it serves us well.

The Super Majority is what's holding California back. It may be harmful in the Senate, today. Again, I said the basic American system is fine. All I want is tweaks.

Are you suggesting that all countries around the world and throughout history have all had the same basic rights, but that some countries have dumb populations or "simple gov'ts" which allow them to vote away their rights? If you think all countries have always had the same rights--it's time for YOU to do some reading, Prof!!!

How do you "eliminate" Political Parties? What world do you live in? Do you even remotely understand what a "political party" is?

I do. A political party is an organization which exists to consolidate power for itself. The way to eliminate political parties is to eliminate lobbying. I didn't say it would be an easy thing to do!

E.g., Adams, Hamilton and Washington never called themselves a political party. They were quickly labelled "Federalists" by Thomas Jefferson and others. In fact, the "party politics" actually hurt their deep relationship (Adams and Jefferson) until well after both left politics.

Another irrelevant anecdote....how many times have I said in various responses in this thread, and others, about how irrelevant the Powdered Wig and Musket days of yore are for Contemporary, mass populated, mass technology America!

In other words, even if you aren't trying to found a platform, people will rhetorically claim your platform. In fact, is that not what Democrats are claiming of Rush Limbaugh for the Republicans right now?

I would love to see the end of political parties. Just one problem.

If two people create a platform, that's consider a political party. So how do you "outlaw" that?

Same thing with lobbying. If one person who is not a constituent (or possibly even a constituent under a context) engages a representative and makes a case for a change, that's "lobbying." So how do you "outlaw" that?

Again, you have this 4th grade view of what "political parties" are and what "lobbyists" are.

It's not 4th grade at all. It's just not stuck in the stone age, like your views appear to be, Prof.

Again, I didn't say that outlawing political parties or lobbyists would be easy. But it's worth a start. We could start by re-organizing some existing Federal Agencies to closely monitor political candidates' finances. More loopholes need to be closed, Prof. We could allocate a public access television and radio station for political ads--thereby alleviating some of the cost/need for money in political campaigns. We could set up *New* election rules which limit the size of a candidate's campaign committee and how they promote their candidates. We could enact provisions which restrict people from working for a candidate/elected official and then "transitioning" into Gov't work and vice versa, when the candidate gets voted out. And we can standardize term limits too, across the board.:thumbsup:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Can we move beyond a 4th grade level understanding of the world?

Those secondhand smoking statistics I posted awhile back, which you immediately dismissed as lacking any substance,

As usually, you take my points completely out-of-context. For once I honestly wish you would stop, read and get my point (especially after I explain it in detail after you don't), instead of finding and fixating on what you want to disagree with by

correlate to a dollar sum cost for which alcohol abuse doesn't come close to. I know you've tried to introduce alcohol into a discussion on tobacco, I've ignored it hoping you'd catch on:thumbsup:.

Dude. It all depends on the study and the focus.

If you want to compare primary, plus secondary, plus tertiary statistics on smoking versus only primary alcohol, I'm sure you can find all sorts of statistics in your favor. But when you start adding in all of the secondary and tertiary statistics on alcohol, the countless alcohol-induced domestic calls to police, the alcohol impaired judgement at work, in vehicles, etc... not to mention the repeat, long-term effects of abuse, it gets rather interesting.

Because where people can only draw an "educated guess" on what second-hand smoke does to others, there is no "guess" in what alcohol does to others. It is far more discrete and well defined.

But that's not even my argument!

My argument continues to be that anything that violates the individual rights of others is wrong. That includes alcohol, smoking, firearms, etc... You seem to want to "pick'n choose" or play some "this is worse" game. You seem to want to pin on me that I'm "defending smoking" when I'm defending individual rights!

I cannot stand smoke! I hate it! I honestly do! I'm so tired of the ordinances and statues not being enforce for non-smoking sections in restaurants. That's the problem! That and irresponsible smokers, let alone the ones that get upset if you mention that they are being irresponsible.

But is that any different than alcohol abusers? Or those who binge drink or do all sorts of other things? The women I helped when they were drunk, didn't take advantage of, only for their "memory" to not remember, and then make an issue of something.

My continued point is that irresponsibility itself is the problem!

I haven't "dismissed" anything. You keep having this argument with someone who doesn't exist! You want to paint me as the "guns and smoking right-winger" or something. But you don't want to look at all the rights I say we should continue to have. And I say that as someone who does none of them!

That's the difference between a Libertarian and a Democrat or Republican. A Libertarian recognizes all individual rights are not defined by preference or political alignment. Individual rights do not exist because of taste or individual decision. They exist so an individual may choose them, regardless of taste or the decision of others.

And with that becomes the responsibility to not make it an issue for the individual choices of others. When alcohol, firearm and tobacco users make that an issue for others, then we have a problem where the government should step in on an individual basis. But before that? Sorry. And never should the government step in general.

We've seen one right lost lead to another. It happens over and over and over again. One of my recent favorites was the "Male Roe v. Wade" case, where the denial of paternal rights by the state, and the fiscal responsibilities impaired upon him, may eventually cause the material rights to be lost, when she does have choice. It's one of those classic, "but my view is correct."

No, your view is subjective. I believe in the objective, which protects all rights.

The advocating of NATIONAL symbols to represent Individuality seems like a contradiction.
Actually, the first use of the rattlesnake was the 8-sectional cut snake with the text "JOIN OR DIE." It was a national political cartoon, created by, interestingly enough, Ben Franklin. Again, it appears a unified America seems to be his direction all along...:wave2:

This is what I love. You will not give any context! I have to stab-in-the-dark what context you're making a statement under. Then you go, "ah ha, I was talking about this!"

I lose! You win! Okay? If that is your goal, then you can catch me out-of-context regularly, especially if you're quoting me out-of-context, or questioning me without giving one!

You referenced the Bald Eagle. So I tried to figure out what context you were referring to. I understand where the eight colonies came. But you were referring to the national animal, in a context that came later. I merely used the Rattlesnake as an example, and explicitly said, "Rattlesnake and other, select animals", because they varied over time.

Nice anecdote, Prof. And it bears significance to the discussion because...:dunno:
I'm going to just copy/paste my earlier response..Nice anecdote, Prof. And it bears significance to the discussion because...:dunno: Other then to slip in and digress into your gun rights rant...

What "guns rant"? Dude, why is my speaking up for various rights a "rant"? I am not "show preference." But apparently you're all about making it a "smoking rant" or a "guns rant" or whatever, then ignoring my support of alcohol as well. I'm trying to warn you that if you start eliminating some vices, they will all go!

It would bother me none, personally. But civics-wise, I know what comes next. It's no longer just alleged "vices," but how I live my life at all.

The Super Majority is what's holding California back. It may be harmful in the Senate, today. Again, I said the basic American system is fine. All I want is tweaks.

No, you want preference, not tweaks. Preference is for individuals, to decide for themselves, not a group to enact their will on others.

Are you suggesting that all countries around the world and throughout history have all had the same basic rights, but that some countries have dumb populations or "simple gov'ts" which allow them to vote away their rights?

I wouldn't call them "dumb populations," but "a significant enough majority or supermajority that pissed away their individual rights."

If you think all countries have always had the same rights--it's time for YOU to do some reading, Prof!!!

When did I say all countries had the same rights? I said countries have had similar Democratic-Republic designs, some modelled after the US or UK or others. Apparently you still can't maintain context.

Take Chavez for example. When a nation decides to grant sweeping powers to one individual, to enact change, do people honestly realize what they are doing? What about allegiances to one person specifically, instead of an institution or at least the position?

I do. A political party is an organization which exists to consolidate power for itself. The way to eliminate political parties is to eliminate lobbying. I didn't say it would be an easy thing to do!

At this point, I'm rolling my eyes. Again, when you want to stop talking at a 4th grade level, I'm all ears. Until then, it's all politics.

Another irrelevant anecdote....how many times have I said in various responses in this thread, and others, about how irrelevant the Powdered Wig and Musket days of yore are for Contemporary, mass populated, mass technology America!

Again, have you read Franklin? The man was one hell of a designer. You keep talking about the late 18th Century being some musket-only state, but we had explosive fragmentation for over a century, repeater designs and several ball+powder concepts that were known to be on-the-horizon. In fact, the modern, rifled cartridge was invented not much later. So when you argue about it being "a long time ago," it was closer chronologically to the modern, rifled cartridge than today by twice over!

So that argument is getting so old. You act like people in the 18th Century didn't know what the future would hold, and yet, not only did their entire design for the foundation of government, balance and due process hold true. But the states who refused to pass on the US Constitution to their constituents because it was "too powerful of a federal entity" forced them to add a Bill of Rights. And that Bill of Rights guaranteed 9 individual freedoms, and then a catch-all for the states of their people. Written by the people, submitted by the states, added by the federal legislators so the states would agree to a more powerful federal, with limited powers.

The same concepts of due process, personal property, individual freedoms are still just as relevant.

Take electronic/photo traffic enforcement for example. Giving out so many citations that the judicial system cannot provide due process in review and challenges violates that very aged principle.

I am shocked how many people are so willing to give up their basic rights!

It's not 4th grade at all. It's just not stuck in the stone age, like your views appear to be, Prof.

Then I'm "stuck in the stone age." If that's your attitude of my view, then so be it. I'm a man out-of-touch with the present, and cling to hokie concepts of American civics that have no place today. I am stupid to believe that things that were important to those before me should make me reconsider how we should change them, even when I disagree, to respect that it was important enough to them.

Again, I didn't say that outlawing political parties or lobbyists would be easy. But it's worth a start.

Outlawing political parties is impossible because it would require you to remove the First Amendment. The government cannot outlaw the rights of individual citizens to assembly.

What is a political party? It is an assembly! It is an assembly by ... tada ... individual choice! What don't you get here?

Again, you continue to think like a 4th Grader without an ounce of adult-level civics. It's classic. "Oh, well we'll just outlaw the 'bad' political parties." It's like Fox's old, "oh, we'll only allow 'real' minorities" -- how do you define that? It's 100% subjective!

Otherwise only people like Ross Perot, on their own dollar, could run for office. Unless, of course, you want to really make it really complicated to even "distribute public funds" to run for office. And how would you manage that?!

Same goes for lobbyists. Anyone who talks to a representative is a lobbyist! If they didn't pay for their own travel, expenses, etc..., then it's something that has to be accounted for as lobbying! So if someone who can't afford to do it themselves, then we have that issue.

So now we're back to only people who can afford to travel to DC, on their own dollar, can lobby. How does that serve the poor?

"Oh, we'll have 'real' lobbyists who are allowed and we'll stop those 'evil' ones from being able to lobby." It's just like the "blame" non-sense in other threads. Who is "real" and "good" and who is "bad" and "evil"?

Again, can I get some arguments that are higher than 4th grade level? That's what even South Park goes after, that 4th grade level argument Matt and Trey see in politics as well.

We could start by re-organizing some existing Federal Agencies to closely monitor political candidates' finances.

Dude, this is beyond what is already done. There are politics that go on in the committees and sub-committees on what is right/wrong, and its typically "okay, we'll give you Democrats this for allows us Republicans to do this." It's bullshit, over and over.

More loopholes need to be closed, Prof.

"Loopholes" to who? Every time we allegedly have "campaign finance reform," there are new loopholes. The reality? It's just more political rhetoric.

Libertarians have argued from Day 1 that it's impossible. The only possibility is to account for all contributions, publicly. That has worked far, far better when implemented. Because when someone fails to disclose something, it's a direct accounting error, no excuses.

We could allocate a public access television and radio station for political ads--thereby alleviating some of the cost/need for money in political campaigns.

And who decides who gets those? That's the problem! Who decides who runs? That's the problem!

And if you ask your friends to help you get signatures ... guess what ... they are now part of "your political party!" This is the type of things you're not thinking through.

We could set up *New* election rules which limit the size of a candidate's campaign committee and how they promote their candidates.

Which is more sub-committees and more give/take politics, etc... And who says they are remotely going to agree with you?

Fox had this problem as well. You think everyone will agree your way is the correct way. In reality, it's just going to boil down to different individuals bargaining with other individuals, then people "grouping" (I won't call them a "party" for your sake ), etc...

Hello ... ?!?!?! Democracies are largely built on consensus, majorities, etc... That's why "assembly" aka "groups" aka "parties" come about.

Again, would you like to revisit these basic concepts beyond the 4th grade level?!?!?!

We could enact provisions which restrict people from working for a candidate/elected official and then "transitioning" into Gov't work and vice versa, when the candidate gets voted out.

Ahhh, a reversal of the "spoils" system. Yeah, they've been working on that for ... oh, forever?!

Hmmm, how many countries in the world with Democratic-Republics? How many have figured out how to fix that one? None.

And we can standardize term limits too, across the board.:thumbsup:

I totally agree with term limits. No argument there.

Of course, the problem with term limits is that people tend to switch to lobbyist or other positions that are available for their expertise.

Again, I really think you haven't thought this remotely through past a 4th grade level. I'd love to live in the world Fox and you do, but I am either just too stupid (stone age?) or just too much of a realist.

Individual freedoms exist for a reason. You prosecute those who don't use them responsibly. You don't take them away from everyone. Otherwise we're just fucked.

 

[Dawn]

Re: Can we move beyond a 4th grade level understanding of the world?

Individual freedoms exist for a reason. You prosecute those who don't use them responsibly. You don't take them away from everyone. Otherwise we're just fucked.

I like the way you phrased this, Prof. Aint it nailing the essence of libertarianism? :thumbsup:

 

[TwatDetective]

I think we should ban all bad things for people such as cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, etc.

Drugs should stay illegal of course.

Also, exercise should be mandatory. Why should I have to pay for your fat ass to have medical care.

I'm not really sure about soda or chewing tobacco (since theres no second hand smoke), but I guess the health effects would warrant a ban.

Also, I'm infavor of a government ban on political parties. There could be like a council or something that decides if one candidate is too connected to a certain group they cant run.

Also, too much money is spent on campaigns. Leads to corruption. There should be a government run channel that delivers honest reviewed ads to the public. Like NPR stuff.

Also didnt one of the founding father of America say that someone gives up security for a little bit of freedom deserves neither? Or was it give up a little bit of freedom for security gets free stuff? Or something? Anyway I think the point was if the government had a little more power freedom wouldn't matter at all, because we would be happy forever.

 

[Member2019]

Also, I'm infavor of a government ban on political parties. There could be like a council or something that decides if one candidate is too connected to a certain group they cant run.

That's one hell of a circle jerk, no?

I.e., do you honestly think a council could be impartial? Or don't you think it would come down to politics as well? I mean, just look at any committee in Congress.

You can't get elected by 100M people if you don't make some connections with various people to help you campaign. And try as You Might, there are linked organizations upon linked organizations and you will run into various ties and interests and what not. You don't have to go deep at all. Everyone has an agenda.

The "agendas" are that people differ on things. Some people think their "agenda" is "more righteous" than others. So, again, this is absolutely 100% subjective, 0% objective. Which is why all of these things are always a "circle jerk" -- where people give/take and politics happen. It's the reality.

I mean, have you watched Survivor? The whole premise of that is politics. Reality following function. Sad, but true, it's how humans operate.

Also didnt one of the founding father of America say that someone gives up security for a little bit of freedom deserves neither? Or was it give up a little bit of freedom for security gets free stuff? Or something? Anyway I think the point was if the government had a little more power freedom wouldn't matter at all, because we would be happy forever.

You had the first statement transposed and then BAM! Wow! That got lost in the translation. Wow! Geez, never see that before!

It's "gives up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither." The idea is that more power to government is not what you want. I would almost pay real money here on FreeOnes if people would go read what lead to the creation of the Bill of Rights. It wasn't just a much of legislators and slave owners in Philly.

 

[Facetious]

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

* an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
* about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
* other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
* increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
* more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

How many jobs did obama "save" ? :1orglaugh
Seriously, there is no possible way to quantify nor validate these statistics, besides, the American Cancer Society is political, so there you go. :dunno:

Make no mistake about it, when or if obama and his commy czars sieze
America's private sector health care system, all of our liberties will vanish. You see, healthcare is finite and therefore it will be rationed. As a means of rationing, the president must then taketh away all of the things that he thinks are dangerous and unhealthful.
No candy, no gum, no guns, no red meat, no mountain biking in the . . well . . mountains :o, no skiing, no watersports, no free press, no secret ballot etc. ad nauseam.

You watch, if this healthcare confiscation somehow passes, this once orphaned, anti American valued, Chicago corrupted, revolutionary dictator along with his kiss ass praising media are going to take it to u.s. and when they do, we will find ourselves at a crossroad : will you decide to take the path of a dictatorship and put every fiber of your being at the peril of a centralized government like this nation has never seen in it's relatively short 233 year history ? Or will you take the path of proven self sufficiency (not perfect by any means) in that of a limited / representative type of govt. that has served it's people better than any other nation has, even in down economic times.

As stale as it sounds - Pick a country where you would rather reside, but do so knowing that there is no coming back. That is what the obama plan offers - no return.
Isn't it prudent to hedge your bet instead of investing the rest of your life in some guy (obama) that you know so little about and knew nothing of as little as 4 years ago ?

Side note - If history is any indication, all attempts to develop a radically engineered perfect society have always ended up as bloodbaths.

America is not the same country it was in 1770. We have roughly 349.5 million more Americans today than what the Founding Fathers envisioned given life expectancies of people in the 1770s versus where they are today.

Yea, and nowhere in the Constitution United States, The Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of any of the 50 independent States is there mention of any such democracy.
So, your point is what, we deserve a dictatorship given the shortcomings of the envisions of our forefathers ?
Would you like a side order of a Constitutional Convention with that ?

Tits, somewhere along the line, either because of educational indoctrination, family troubles or both, you have essentially become a far left wing apologist with nothing to lose, almost as if you are a man without a country. I'm sorry that you feel this way, it's just that most Americans feel like they have a stake in this nation and consequently, they aren't as hungry for a dictatorship as yourself. I don't even think that a majority of left most leaning democrats, if confronted to ultimatum would choose the path of security via a dictatorship. Oh sure maybe some of 'em romanticize over the thought of a tyrannical dictator reigning down over Evil & Greedy America, but they know the alternative.

 

[Facetious]

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

* an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
* about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
* other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
* increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
* more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

How many jobs did obama "save" ? :1orglaugh
Seriously, there is no possible way to quantify nor validate these statistics, besides, the American Cancer Society is political, so there you go. :dunno:

Make no mistake about it, when or if obama and his commy czars sieze
America's private sector health care system, all of our liberties will vanish. You see, healthcare is finite and therefore it will be rationed. As a means of rationing, the president must then taketh away all of the things that he thinks are dangerous and unhealthful.
No candy, no gum, no guns, no red meat, no mountain biking in the . . well . . mountains :o, no skiing, no watersports, no free press, no secret ballot etc. ad nauseam.

You watch, if this healthcare confiscation somehow passes, this once orphaned, anti American valued, Chicago corrupted, revolutionary dictator along with his kiss ass praising media are going to take it to u.s. and when they do, we will find ourselves at a crossroad : will you decide to take the path of a dictatorship and put every fiber of your being at the peril of a centralized government like this nation has never seen in it's relatively short 233 year history ? Or will you take the path of proven self sufficiency (not perfect by any means) in that of a limited / representative type of govt. that has served it's people better than any other nation has, even in down economic times. As stale as it sounds - Pick a country where you would rather reside, but do so knowing that there is no coming back.
Isn't it prudent to hedge your bet instead of investing the rest of your life in some guy (obama) that you know so little about and knew nothing of as little as 4 years ago ?

If history is any indication, all attempts to develop a radically engineered perfect society have always ended up as bloodbaths.

America is not the same country it was in 1770. We have roughly 349.5 million more Americans today than what the Founding Fathers envisioned given life expectancies of people in the 1770s versus where they are today.

Yea, and nowhere in the Constitution United States, The Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of any of the 50 independent States is there mention of any such democracy.
So, your point is what, we deserve a dictatorship given the shortcomings of the envisions of our forefathers ?
Would you like a side order of a Constitutional Convention with that ?

Tits, somewhere along the line, either because of educational indoctrination, family troubles or both, you have essentially become a far left wing apologist with nothing to lose, almost as if you are a man without a country. I'm sorry that you feel this way, it's just that most Americans feel like they have a stake in this nation and consequently, they aren't as hungry for a dictatorship as yourself. I don't even think that a majority of left most leaning democrats, if confronted to ultimatum would choose the path of security via a dictatorship. Oh sure maybe some of 'em romanticize over the thought of a tyrannical dictator reigning down over Evil & Greedy America, but they know the alternative.

 

[Facetious]

Sorry :o Time ran out on my proofread.

I forgot to mention that Obama's smoking seems to be the coolest thing about the guy. I mean, who doesn't have their vices ?