Barack Obama, our next President

"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 ... Full Story
gun nut

United States

#810947 Nov 25, 2012
Impeach Obama wrote:
<quoted text>Be a greeter. What could be easier? All you have to do is display a fake smile, say "Welcome to Walmart" and give people bad shopping carts. If a customer asks you a question, simply refer him to the second most braindead person, the person at the customer service desk.
ok I'll give it a try but only if I get $25 an hour and they pay for my birth controll and abortions.
What's a service desk? Is that where they make my meals?
RUSH10ME

Gloucester, VA

#810948 Nov 25, 2012
Obama 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>You gun nuts would be no match against Homeland Security and U.N. forces, but it would be fun to watch you try. Imagine a bunch of alcoholic tobacco-chewing deer hunter wannabes against some of the best trained and armed forces in the world. Like I said, it would be fun to watch you shoot at something that could actually shoot back. You guys better get rid of those beer guts, get in shape and learn to run like hell!!
U.N forces you say , do you even know what homeland security consists of , no ofcourse you don't , I guess you think homeland security are a well trained fighting unit in fact they are anything but , the VMRC [oyster inspecters] are homeland as are anyone else the goddamned govt. wanted to give tons of fed. dollars and limited training to , you know nothing about it , the US armed forces will not fire on their countrymen by order of a wanna be dictater , thats a fact. Here is another one for ya anyone with a TWIC credential can axcess secure airport and marine terminals , so don't act like homeland is some elite force when in fact they are closer to being nothing more than people who were rejected from the reserves or waiting retirement from almost any law enforcement or rent a cop job out there .
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#810949 Nov 25, 2012
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Kinda like how the democrat potus campaign of 2008 was in largest part supported by record levels donations, namely, big pharma?

OZOMBIETics really is rather appropriatly applied, eh Dupont?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#810950 Nov 25, 2012
gun nut wrote:
<quoted text>ok I'll give it a try but only if I get $25 an hour and they pay for my birth controll and abortions.
What's a service desk? Is that where they make my meals?
Yew went to thuh same public school as the airhead in the sparkle sparkle glitter glitter cheapo-space kiosk , didn't yewwww
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810952 Nov 25, 2012
How John McCain Humiliated Himself on Susan Rice

A new report appears to exonerate Susan Rice for public statements following the Benghazi attack. Will John McCain apologize for his reckless crusade against her? Don’t bet on it.

....There’s one bit of irony introduced to the saga by all these details, which is that this report crystallizes the fact that Rice did indeed hide some information from the public on Sept. 16—but it’s the kind of information that has always been concealed from public consumption, for the kinds of national-security-related reasons that the Washington establishment has always agreed upon. Historically, of course, if any person or persons have objected to this kind of filtering, they’ve typically been on the left. Think Daniel Ellsberg first and foremost. The right always defended this practice, on the grounds that making possibly sensitive information public too soon without the proper running of all the intelligence traps could only provide aid and comfort to the commies or the terrorists, as the case may be.

McCain certainly comes from this school. But this, you see, was different. Different from what, and different how, are both good questions. Different from those dozen or so attacks on American embassies while George W. Bush was president? It’s true that no Americans died in those raids, let alone an ambassador, and that obviously does raise the stakes. But it hardly means that our intelligence agencies should alter their procedures to meet the political demands of one party, or one senator, or one cable “news” channel. If anything, it means dramatically the opposite, and one has no trouble at all picturing, if Benghazi had happened in the heat of a presidential campaign in which a Republican president was seeking reelection, an unctuous McCain standing before the cameras and lambasting Democrats in highly moralistic language for politicizing such a sensitive tragedy.

Well, live by the moral sword, die by it. In the same way conservatives couldn’t see that Mitt Romney was going to lose because they believed only themselves and their own self-reinforcing propaganda, I think McCain probably isn’t aware right now of what a joke he’s becoming. He probably only goes to constituent meetings where they cheer on his desperate antics. I notice from cruising the Arizona papers that they’re not really laying into him yet—just a few guarded criticisms and expressions of disappointment in the letter columns and such. Most importantly of all, establishment Washington has adored him. As long as those shields are there, he can ignore people like me and the MSNBC crowd.

But how long will they be there? McCain, because of what he endured 45 years ago, is permitted more than three strikes. But how many more? In 2008, he foisted Sarah Palin upon an unsuspecting nation. After losing that race, he then turned his back on legislating as he faced a primary challenge from his right in 2010, switching from being one of the few senators who actually took his work seriously enough to try to be a leader on compromise to becoming one of the body’s chief obstructionists and windbags across a range of issues. And now, 2012, has found him slandering his country’s ambassador to the United Nations on the basis of no evidence, creating circumstances that have forced U.S. intelligence agencies to defend their usually private methods in public, and of course laid the groundwork for future and wholly spurious impeachment proceedings. So this last one alone is three strikes, plus probably a couple others I’m not remembering.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11...
dem gun nut in training

United States

#810953 Nov 25, 2012
I'm still confused, the prozac or the crack wich one first ???? Dangnabit.I want to be a smart lib.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810954 Nov 25, 2012
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
lol
carol

Orlando, FL

#810955 Nov 25, 2012
Obama 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>Image that! A Federal Court Judge from N.C., a staunch Republican in the pockets of N.C.'s tobacco industry, strikes down part of a report from an environmental group. Say it ain't so!
Federal Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases. In 1997, Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810956 Nov 25, 2012
Obama 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>So you want millions of people to die from poison air, poison water and radiation from nuclear power plants, just so giant corporations like Wal Mart and BP can make even more obscene profits on the backs of their slave workers? That's exactly what would happen if not for the EPA and other environmental watchdog groups. Look at what's happening in China.
You might find this article interestig written by a physician. Although he does not advocate smoking, he also examined the evidence and, from his own experience as a physician, drew the same conclusion there is no evidence concluding second-hand smoke is harmful.

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth...

This physician pointed out that data is often overlooked by the press. A recent example is a group of radiologists noted one-third of patients who were exposed to "high levels" of second hand smoke showed MRI changes similar to smokers.

What the press failed to report was that two-thirds of patients listed as non-smokers but exposed to "high levels” of second hand smoke had lower diffusion through the lungs than the "low exposure" group. That is, paradoxically, they showed the opposite of changes seen with heavy smokers.

I type many reports that are lung cancer related. You'd be surprised how many people get lung cancer who have never smoked or have even been exposed to second-hand smoke.

Smokers do get lung cancer. But I have yet to type a report where someone got lung cancer by exposure to second-hand smoke.

This physician stated the same.
carol

Orlando, FL

#810958 Nov 25, 2012
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Yes Carol, I read the article you cited and it reveals that the study in question was financed by the tobacco industry. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Medical scientists are not influenced by government bias or industrial bias. The medical data simply doesn't support the EPA's claims.

The hysteria is based on nothing but hype. Nonsmoking activists went to the EPA to take up the gauntlet against second hand smoke when initial studies didn't give them a sufficient enough leg to stand on.

It's the annoyance of smoke that took away the rights of smokers to smoke by nonsmokers based on a government report that was debunked by scientists.

Wonder what annoyance will be next? Will you be banned from buying a Big Mac? You aren't allowed to buy a large-sized drink in New York. And California is trying to ban meat once a week. But San Franciscans can run around the city butt naked.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810959 Nov 25, 2012
Fewer Heart Attacks Seen After Smoking Bans

Some groundbreaking research out of the Mayo Clinic shows that when cities and counties ban smoking in public buildings, the rate of heart attacks in the area drops dramatically.

Researchers mined the data from tens of thousands of medical records from every hospital and medical clinic in Olmsted County, and the findings are eye-opening.

In the 18 months before the county banned smoking in restaurants in 2002, there were 212 heart attacks per 100,000 residents. In 2007, the comprehensive smoking ban was put in place, and heart attacks dropped to 102 per 100,000 residents in the 18 months after the ban began. That marks a 45 percent decline.

"We were quite surprised," said Dr. Richard Hurt. "We thought we'd see a reduction, but until now, the highest reported reduction in heart attacks was 47 percent but most were around 17 percent or so."

Furthermore, when the smoking bans began, the number of sudden deaths from heart attacks dropped from 152 per 100,000 to 76, which is a 50 percent drop.

Hurt said the research forms one of the most definitive links yet between second-hand smoke and heart disease.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2011/...
carol

Orlando, FL

#810960 Nov 25, 2012
See, this is the problem some refuse to see or recognize.

Researchers write in the Canadian Medical Association Journal despite media reports to the contrary, there is no evidence to support the assertion that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments.

The authors say citing the inaccurate statistic has the potential to turn the public against efforts to ban smoking in automobiles. And If you're going to dictate to people how they should behave, not making things up is an important precursor.

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/resear...

The 6 important words: "Dictate to people how to behave."
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810961 Nov 25, 2012
Second-hand smoke at 5 major airports puts flyers at risk, CDC says

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/11/21/seco...
carol

Orlando, FL

#810962 Nov 25, 2012
I'd rather stand outside by a smoker any day than sit anywhere in the city of San Francisco. Butt germs are much nastier than a faint smell of smoke.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810963 Nov 25, 2012
Alarming new study on effects of second-hand smoke
Advertisement

Research says over 42,000 Americans die each year

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1871307769001/alar...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810964 Nov 25, 2012
A new government study reports that while fewer kids and teens are getting exposed to secondhand smoke while riding in the car, rates of exposure are still high enough to warrant concern.

The authors recommend that more parts of the country ban smoking in cars carrying kids—laws that are on the books in four states.

Researchers said parents and other drivers may not realize that even when the windows are down, smoking in a vehicle can create toxic levels of circulating smoke.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/02/06/many...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810965 Nov 25, 2012
Smoking ban linked to drop in preterm births, small babies

The health of pregnant women and babies improved after smoking in public places was banned in Scotland, a new study says.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/07/smok...
carol

Orlando, FL

#810966 Nov 25, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
Second-hand smoke at 5 major airports puts flyers at risk, CDC says
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/11/21/seco...
Car fumes in cities aren't healthy either. Are you going to ban cars?

If second hand smoke was the culprit government agencies suddenly profess them to be, everyone over 50 would have lung cancer.

Smoking was once allowed everywhere - even inside of an airplane and inside a movie theater.

If you can show me a scientific study (not a government agency claim) confirming a significant number of people over the age of 50 now have lung problems or lung cancer from exposure to second hand smoke, I'll recant my assertion that government is just trying to dictate our behavior.

But you won't find one. It doesn't exist.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#810967 Nov 25, 2012
Secondhand smoke tied to more health effects

People regularly exposed to secondhand smoke may have increased risks of dying from various causes, a long-term study from China suggests.

Researchers found that compared with adults who lived and worked in smoke-free environs, those exposed to secondhand smoke were more likely to die of heart disease or lung cancer over 17 years.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/15/seco...
carol

Orlando, FL

#810968 Nov 25, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
Fewer Heart Attacks Seen After Smoking Bans
Some groundbreaking research out of the Mayo Clinic shows that when cities and counties ban smoking in public buildings, the rate of heart attacks in the area drops dramatically.
Researchers mined the data from tens of thousands of medical records from every hospital and medical clinic in Olmsted County, and the findings are eye-opening.
In the 18 months before the county banned smoking in restaurants in 2002, there were 212 heart attacks per 100,000 residents. In 2007, the comprehensive smoking ban was put in place, and heart attacks dropped to 102 per 100,000 residents in the 18 months after the ban began. That marks a 45 percent decline.
"We were quite surprised," said Dr. Richard Hurt. "We thought we'd see a reduction, but until now, the highest reported reduction in heart attacks was 47 percent but most were around 17 percent or so."
Furthermore, when the smoking bans began, the number of sudden deaths from heart attacks dropped from 152 per 100,000 to 76, which is a 50 percent drop.
Hurt said the research forms one of the most definitive links yet between second-hand smoke and heart disease.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/health/2011/...
Was the data showing the decline in heart attacks from 212 to 102 per 100,000 residents due to smoking bans among smokers only? What percentage of that decline were people merely exposed to second hand smoke?

Because no one is arguing smoking isn't harmful.

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 min Eric 71,118
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 36 min Rogue Scholar 05 181,872
The truth regarding Ebola 48 min STORY NOW ON TV 3
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 52 min KiMare 51,264
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 58 min Earthling-1 49,238
The Violence in Chicago is from Gangs and Not t... 1 hr joey 2
women are so shallow these days (Nov '11) 4 hr Mover 88
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:21 pm PST

Bleacher Report 5:21PM
Trestman's QB Change Fails to Provide Spark
Bleacher Report 5:38 PM
Indianapolis Colts vs. Dallas Cowboys: Video Highlights and Recap from Week 16
Bleacher Report 6:00 PM
Colts Have Puncher's Chance in Playoffs Despite Flaws
Bleacher Report 7:50 PM
Colts Collapse Around Andrew Luck in Another Prime-Time Blowout
NBC Sports 1:03 AM
Romo, Cowboys are in after 42-7 rout of Colts - NBC Sports