Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1251066 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810602 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
An exhaustive long-running study on second-hand smoke and death could find no connection.
The British Medical Journal conducted a 39 year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." (They also noted "a small effect" can't be ruled out.)
It's all hype perpetrated politically correct bozos. They can produce no study proving their claim that second-hand smoke leads to death.
You just believe whatever they say. And why you're amongst the easily fooled. And why Obama was reelected. And why we're screwed.
Second-hand smoke study sparks controversy

Kabat and his co-author acknowledge the study was largely funded by the tobacco industry.

Some say the source of the funding is enough reason for the British Medical Journal to refuse to publish the paper. Two other journals turned it down.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/05/16/smoki...

You show up here before the election with your right wing BS that carried not near that weight that you had wished for, and you're going to try to say that I'm easily fooled?

Well guess what women. I'm going to continue to be 'fooled' for the next four years whilst I continue to remind you of it for the next four. Put that in your FOXbot pipe and smoke it! Just wait until I leave the room.
Nightchalker

Lansing, MI

#810603 Nov 24, 2012
Impeach Obama wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't be bitchin' about low pay.
I never bitched about low pay!!

What are you?

Some kinda failed SVENGALI?

Lost your psychic powers?

You don't know EVERYTHING!!!!!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810604 Nov 24, 2012
Impeach Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
Planned Parenthood kills 300,000 nonsmoking babies a year in the U.S.
Michigan Republicans Offer a Tax Credit for Fetuses After Cutting Tax Credits for Children

Tax cuts and anti-choice nonsense -- a perfect policy for today's Right.

http://www.alternet.org/gender/michigan-repub...

See? Only before they're born do You care. After that: let them die of second hand smoke.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810607 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
A small part of me is glad he won a second term. It makes the unstable happy another four years and also gives conservatives another four years to prove we were right all along.
The bozos are driving the bus and you're sitting in the front row enjoying the ride. Sonicfilter is in the back doing the same. But he's doing crude hand gestures to passing cars.
you're not far from wrong. i bought an old bus and painted on the sides: Obama won you stupid FOXbots! Deal with it!!!

the middle finger is painted on the back door.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810608 Nov 24, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but FOX says....
Secondhand smoke kills 42,000 nonsmokers a year in US
The UCSF researchers took a fresh approach by basing their numbers on a chemical called cotinine in the blood, which is a byproduct of smoking proportional to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke. Most of us have cotinine in our blood; but those who are exposed to lots of secondhand smoke at home or, for example, at a bar, will have higher levels.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/01/seco...
But if you need to, just deny the science. Everyone will understand why.
The influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger were completely misled by the EPA and, of course, so was main street American public opinion.

Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its "junk science" and its irrational environmental zealotry.

The EPA "cherry picked" its data and grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusions.

The EPA's analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

The EPA simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and defied all scientific standards by simply changing the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis.

The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk.

Congress should pull the plug on any EPA regulation that cannot be justified by evidence that is demonstrable, compelling, unequivocal and significant. None yet exists with respect to passive smoking.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

In short, you've been duped again by Big Brother...uh, I mean, Big Government.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810609 Nov 24, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
you're not far from wrong. i bought an old bus and painted on the sides: Obama won you stupid FOXbots! Deal with it!!!
the middle finger is painted on the back door.
Well, let me say I'm not surprised. You liberals are such gracious winners, after all. And unstable losers.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810610 Nov 24, 2012
Republicans Melt Down and Slip into Total Denial on Taxing the Rich

http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-melt-...

Conservative denial will soon become a concern for the CDC.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810611 Nov 24, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Second-hand smoke study sparks controversy
Kabat and his co-author acknowledge the study was largely funded by the tobacco industry.
Some say the source of the funding is enough reason for the British Medical Journal to refuse to publish the paper. Two other journals turned it down.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/05/16/smoki...
You show up here before the election with your right wing BS that carried not near that weight that you had wished for, and you're going to try to say that I'm easily fooled?
Well guess what women. I'm going to continue to be 'fooled' for the next four years whilst I continue to remind you of it for the next four. Put that in your FOXbot pipe and smoke it! Just wait until I leave the room.
The EPA manipulated data in order to dupe the public.

You fell for it.

Case closed.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810612 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger were completely misled by the EPA and, of course, so was main street American public opinion.
Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its "junk science" and its irrational environmental zealotry.
The EPA "cherry picked" its data and grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusions.
The EPA's analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.
The EPA simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and defied all scientific standards by simply changing the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis.
The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk.
Congress should pull the plug on any EPA regulation that cannot be justified by evidence that is demonstrable, compelling, unequivocal and significant. None yet exists with respect to passive smoking.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
In short, you've been duped again by Big Brother...uh, I mean, Big Government.
One has to really wonder about the insistence of those who try to fight for a lost cause.

I won't even mention 'duped'. Everyone gets it.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#810613 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
If the "boogey man" had killed 3000 people by flying jet airplanes with families and children as passengers into buildings, you'd have a point.
Please don't tell me you believe Obama's hype that he single-handedly got rid of the "boogey man". It's what got him in trouble right before the election when the "boogey man" killed our ambassador and he tried to convince us it wasn't the "boogey man" but just a figment of our imagination.
President Obama has never claimed that he single handedly killed Bin Laden.
That's republican hype and it's a lie.

“Time For Your Medicine.... heh”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#810614 Nov 24, 2012
Carol,

The more the Tea Party talks, the less seats they have. So please talk more and recruit people such as Akin into your ranks.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810615 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The EPA manipulated data in order to dupe the public.
You fell for it.
Case closed.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
1998.

So now even FOX tells you something different and you still live in the past just so you can get some small childish satisfaction in telling me I'm 'wrong'.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#810616 Nov 24, 2012
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>There are nearly 9,000 too many WalMarts.
WalMart sucks more government tit per store, than the entire state of New Jersey per Snook-alike.
Ever since Sam's kids took over, the chain's been a repository for poisonous Chinese offal,and minimum-wage part-time jobs WalMart today is a complete parody of what Sam Walton built.
You know it as well as I do.
Thank you Sister

“Time For Your Medicine.... heh”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#810617 Nov 24, 2012
Carol,

saying Obama did not get Osama is like saying Osama is not responsible for 9/11.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810618 Nov 24, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but FOX says....
Secondhand smoke kills 42,000 nonsmokers a year in US
The UCSF researchers took a fresh approach by basing their numbers on a chemical called cotinine in the blood, which is a byproduct of smoking proportional to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke. Most of us have cotinine in our blood; but those who are exposed to lots of secondhand smoke at home or, for example, at a bar, will have higher levels.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/01/seco...
But if you need to, just deny the science. Everyone will understand why.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

"Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine and is currently regarded as the best biomarker for exposure to tobacco; exposure of both active smokers and of nonsmokers to ETS. Cotinine measurement is preferred over measuring nicotine because, although both are specific for exposure to tobacco, cotinine is retained in the body much longer than nicotine. Cotinine can be measured in blood (i.e., in serum), urine, saliva, and hair. Nonsmokers exposed to typical levels of ETS have cotinine levels less than 1 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), with heavy exposure to ETS producing levels in the 1 to 15 ng/mL range. Active smokers almost always have levels higher than 15 ng/mL, sometimes over 500 ng/mL."

..."less than 1 nanogram per milliliter"...

Are you old enough to remember the scare about sugar substitutes causing cancer? As it turns out, a human would have to consume the equivalent of a car full compared to the amount tested in rats.

Sugar substitutes are used everywhere now.

Same with eggs and high cholesterol. People were afraid to eat eggs like the plague for a long time. Until another study came out and said, "Oops, we were wrong about that."

The moral of the story: Don't believe everything big government agencies tell you. They are often wrong and exaggerate the data.

Just like "less than 1 nanogram per milliliter..."
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810619 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let me say I'm not surprised. You liberals are such gracious winners, after all. And unstable losers.
oh yeah, Karl was so gracious on election night. what was it the FOX talking head said?

"Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?"

and why was it Mitt lost? the list of the conservative's unstable excuses is way to long for me to post. maybe you can sum them up for us?
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#810620 Nov 24, 2012
MixedandProud6663 wrote:
Carol,
The more the Tea Party talks, the less seats they have. So please talk more and recruit people such as Akin into your ranks.
This was interesting to note:

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks party representation in the country’s 50 state governments, Democrats now control all three bases of power — the governorship and both houses of the state legislature — in 14 states and Republicans in 23, with only 12 states sharing power. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is considered nonpartisan.

Read more: Rising number of states seeing one-party rule - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#810621 Nov 24, 2012
Tweet of the Day:

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store.

—@ClintonMath via web
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#810622 Nov 24, 2012
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810623 Nov 24, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
"Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine and is currently regarded as the best biomarker for exposure to tobacco; exposure of both active smokers and of nonsmokers to ETS. Cotinine measurement is preferred over measuring nicotine because, although both are specific for exposure to tobacco, cotinine is retained in the body much longer than nicotine. Cotinine can be measured in blood (i.e., in serum), urine, saliva, and hair. Nonsmokers exposed to typical levels of ETS have cotinine levels less than 1 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), with heavy exposure to ETS producing levels in the 1 to 15 ng/mL range. Active smokers almost always have levels higher than 15 ng/mL, sometimes over 500 ng/mL."
..."less than 1 nanogram per milliliter"...
Are you old enough to remember the scare about sugar substitutes causing cancer? As it turns out, a human would have to consume the equivalent of a car full compared to the amount tested in rats.
Sugar substitutes are used everywhere now.
Same with eggs and high cholesterol. People were afraid to eat eggs like the plague for a long time. Until another study came out and said, "Oops, we were wrong about that."
The moral of the story: Don't believe everything big government agencies tell you. They are often wrong and exaggerate the data.
Just like "less than 1 nanogram per milliliter..."
you can post whatever you want. won't change the reality.

Many US local and state governments, and even federal governments in some other countries, have decided that protecting the health of employees and others in public places is of the utmost importance. Many have passed clean indoor air laws. Although the laws vary from place to place, they are becoming more common. Detailed information on smoking restrictions in each state is available from the American Lung Association.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tob...

so whine about smoking and big government while you nutjobs try to control the lives of everyone who won't follow conservative ideology.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Coffee Party 192,131
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 min Red_Forman 6,143
Word (Dec '08) 9 min Red_Forman 5,324
Eats shoots and leaves... 19 min Bear feeds on Cou... 2
News She Lost Three Kids to ChiraqBy Michael Daly 22 min Much Ado Bout Nada 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 27 min Sublime1 99,890
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr No Warming 53,946
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages