Barack Obama, our next President

[moshx]

Lily Boca Raton Fl wrote:

<quoted text>
What a load

check for yourself.

[sonicfilter]

UC Study Uncovers Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Secondhand Smoke Link to Cardiovascular Disease

The documents show how tobacco companies funded epidemiological and biological research that was designed to support claims that there was little or no harm from secondhand smoke. The Circulation article identifies a pattern within the studies of exposure misclassification for nonsmokers that biased results against finding an effect from secondhand smoke. Study results were then used to call into question evidence linking secondhand smoke to the increased risks of cardiovascular disease.

Such studies, the authors also say, were often published in scientific journals that had industry representatives on their editorial boards. In one case cited by Tong and Glantz, the manuscript for a manuscript by RJ Reynolds' scientists was reviewed for Inhalation Toxicology by an employee of RJ Reynolds before its publication in 1998.

"The process was presented to the outside world as having peer review," noted Glantz. "The true level of the tobacco industry's involvement in such studies was rarely disclosed in an adequate manner."

Unfavorable research results also were suppressed by the tobacco industry, according to Tong and Glantz. Their report cites a 1995 industry study that found nonsmokers exposed to more than seven hours of secondhand smoke suffered statistically significant changes in blood lipids, inflammatory markers, pulmonary function tests and urinary mutagenicity, all of which can be biomarkers for cardiovascular disease. Those findings, say Tong and Glantz, appear to have been briefly revealed at a conference and only partially published elsewhere.

The pair note in their report that when tobacco-funded studies in the early 1990s demonstrated that secondhand smoke increased atherosclerosis, the industry criticized the findings and withdrew funding. Tong and Glantz also point to several industry studies that attempted to provide alternative explanations for the direct cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke by attributing findings to an unproven "stress" response in individuals from the odor of smoke rather than its inherent toxicity.

Tong and Glantz suggest one of the key reasons why tobacco companies have hindered efforts to ban smoking in public places is to maintain corporate viability in the marketplace. They note that smoke-free workplace rules can reduce cigarette consumption among smokers by approximately three cigarettes per day, or about 30 percent.

"What the documents we reviewed show is an industry strategy that, in their own words, will continue to question the evidence about secondhand smoke as a way 'to keep controversy alive,'" said Tong. "Tobacco companies want to debate this forever because it helps challenge no-smoking policies. And since such policies diminish cigarette consumption, it obviously strikes at the heart of corporate revenue."

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2007/10/7345/uc-stud...

So some would have us believe that a government study is not a viable source, while an industry funded study is.

The thing is, every study that says that second hand smoke is not bad for you has been funded by big tobacco. Though it seems some that say the opposite were also funded by big tobacco. Imagine that.

[the_rac_on_teur]

Oracles on taxes...

"Warren Buffett: Hike tax on $500K earners"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/842...

[the_rac_on_teur]

the no-one under $250K a year will see a tax hike legend...

"ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/201...

[the_rac_on_teur]

Rich flourish thanks to Obama...

"Two-thirds of the wealthiest people in the U.S. added to their fortunes, boosting their average net worth by $400 million to a record $4.2 billion..."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

[nanoanomaly]

mr owl II wrote:

Talk a bout a war on women and their va J Js....
"They got her in the end: Mexico's fearless woman mayor who survived two drug gang assassination attempts is beaten to death and dumped by the roadside"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22385...

Yep. These are the people that Obama is handing the country over to. Betcha can't wait until we have a Mexican president.

[sonicfilter]

A must read....

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community

My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong.

By Bruce Bartlett

"I know that it’s unattractive and bad form to say “I told you so” when one’s advice was ignored yet ultimately proved correct. But in the wake of the Republican election debacle, it’s essential that conservatives undertake a clear-eyed assessment of who on their side was right and who was wrong. Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.

I’m not going to beat around the bush and pretend I don’t have a vested interest here. Frankly, I think I’m at ground zero in the saga of Republicans closing their eyes to any facts or evidence that conflict with their dogma. Rather than listen to me, they threw me under a bus. To this day, I don’t think they understand that my motives were to help them avoid the permanent decline that now seems inevitable."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articl...

"At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular."

[Chicagoan by Birth]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Marion County, Indiana's most populated county, supported the Republican candidates from 1968 to 2000, before backing the Democrats in the 2004 and 2008 elections.
the state's(Indiana) Democrats tend to be somewhat more conservative than their counterparts in the rest of the country, especially on social issues.
Politics of Indiana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Indi...

That's true. It's still the bluest county in the state, except Lake County? Who did Marion County support in 2012? Bet a dollar to a doughnut it was Barack Hussein Obama?

[the_rac_on_teur]

sonicfilter wrote:

UC Study Uncovers Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Secondhand Smoke Link to Cardiovascular Disease
The documents show how tobacco companies funded epidemiological and biological research that was designed to support claims that there was little or no harm from secondhand smoke. The Circulation article identifies a pattern within the studies of exposure misclassification for nonsmokers that biased results against finding an effect from secondhand smoke. Study results were then used to call into question evidence linking secondhand smoke to the increased risks of cardiovascular disease.
Such studies, the authors also say, were often published in scientific journals that had industry representatives on their editorial boards. In one case cited by Tong and Glantz, the manuscript for a manuscript by RJ Reynolds' scientists was reviewed for Inhalation Toxicology by an employee of RJ Reynolds before its publication in 1998.
"The process was presented to the outside world as having peer review," noted Glantz. "The true level of the tobacco industry's involvement in such studies was rarely disclosed in an adequate manner."
Unfavorable research results also were suppressed by the tobacco industry, according to Tong and Glantz. Their report cites a 1995 industry study that found nonsmokers exposed to more than seven hours of secondhand smoke suffered statistically significant changes in blood lipids, inflammatory markers, pulmonary function tests and urinary mutagenicity, all of which can be biomarkers for cardiovascular disease. Those findings, say Tong and Glantz, appear to have been briefly revealed at a conference and only partially published elsewhere.
The pair note in their report that when tobacco-funded studies in the early 1990s demonstrated that secondhand smoke increased atherosclerosis, the industry criticized the findings and withdrew funding. Tong and Glantz also point to several industry studies that attempted to provide alternative explanations for the direct cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke by attributing findings to an unproven "stress" response in individuals from the odor of smoke rather than its inherent toxicity.
Tong and Glantz suggest one of the key reasons why tobacco companies have hindered efforts to ban smoking in public places is to maintain corporate viability in the marketplace. They note that smoke-free workplace rules can reduce cigarette consumption among smokers by approximately three cigarettes per day, or about 30 percent.
"What the documents we reviewed show is an industry strategy that, in their own words, will continue to question the evidence about secondhand smoke as a way 'to keep controversy alive,'" said Tong. "Tobacco companies want to debate this forever because it helps challenge no-smoking policies. And since such policies diminish cigarette consumption, it obviously strikes at the heart of corporate revenue."
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2007/10/7345/uc-stud...
So some would have us believe that a government study is not a viable source, while an industry funded study is.
The thing is, every study that says that second hand smoke is not bad for you has been funded by big tobacco. Though it seems some that say the opposite were also funded by big tobacco. Imagine that.

"Marijuana Legalization Wins Solid Majority Support In HuffPost Poll"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/mari...

Since 1964 the Surgeon General has been against smoking...

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/tob...

[sonicfilter]

the_rac_on_teur wrote:

Rich flourish thanks to Obama...
"Two-thirds of the wealthiest people in the U.S. added to their fortunes, boosting their average net worth by $400 million to a record $4.2 billion..."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Then no need for them to complain about having to pay more taxes.

[the_rac_on_teur]

We have a winner!

Lucky 10K get to stay in Afghanistan...

http://www.france24.com/en/20121126-10000-us-...

[the_rac_on_teur]

Say no to Marinol...Legalize enhaled marijuana...

"Smoking 'rots' brain, says King's College study"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20463363

[the_rac_on_teur]

Congratulations pot smokers...

"Beginning with the first report in 1964, smoking has been the single most important issue for all the Surgeons General of the past five decades. The reports of the Surgeon General on tobacco have alerted the nation to the health risk of smoking and have transformed the issue from one of individual and consumer choice to one of epidemiology, public health, and risk for smokers and non-smokers alike."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/tob...

[the_rac_on_teur]

sonicfilter wrote:

<quoted text>
Then no need for them to complain about having to pay more taxes.

What will the idiot you voted for do with all that extra cash?

[the_rac_on_teur]

Yay!

More government...Obamacare WILL protect us from evil insurance companies but can it protect us from....

Water?

"Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

[sonicfilter]

the_rac_on_teur wrote:

<quoted text>
What will the idiot you voted for do with all that extra cash?

Probably something to do with deficit. It seems that it does matter.

And who was that idiot that said it didn't? Though I must admit, he did help Obama win 2 elections.

[Lily Boca Raton Fl]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
No one gets arrested for smoking cigarettes. But try and light up in a nonsmoking zone - which is almost everywhere - and see what happens.
People do get fired for smoking in their own car on their own time. Some companies now won't even hire people who admit to smoking. And smokers are labeled social misfits thanks to the politically correct hysteria.
Just doesn't seem fair. Or right. Especially in light of all the other crap that's going on that's deemed acceptable or at least tolerated.
Designated smoking areas should be everywhere for people who happen to like smoking. It's their right to do so.

I agree, what one does in his own time, car, home etc should not be grounds for firing.

[Lily Boca Raton Fl]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Yep. These are the people that Obama is handing the country over to. Betcha can't wait until we have a Mexican president.

Mitt was Mexican; Bush AG was Mexican wasn't he ? Or perhaps Guatamalen, anyway, we are All Americans!

Jeb Bush wife is Mexican, Rubio is Cuban, so? We are all Americans! It is ignorance like yours that caused you, in part, to lose the election.

[yepperz]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Yew musta went to one dem dar third world skewls like that bocaca rat on loonatic.
WTH kind of teacher smoked in a classroom.
Even 45 years ago, that was UNheard of, let alone ever seen-in CIVILIZED America anyway.

You are sadly mistaken. When I was in college the teachers/Professors smoked in the classrooms and at the lecterns. Students were also allowed to smoke in the classrooms. Lol,,,and it wasn't 45 years ago.

[mdbuilder]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>since you said that, I read that somewhere about Oregon and other states on how they were doing it so that way the Federal Government would allocate & distribute more Federal Dollars for Oregon and other states.

This exemplifies the whole federal system. When services are not only freely offered but actively given, people are going to sign up without the least hesitation. Then, the government construes these elevated numbers to manipulate public opinion. Our government is now running radio and TV adds in Mexico, informing prospective 'immigrants' how to take advantage of all the services we offer. What kind of sh!t is that? I think 49% of us know what it is, but 51% are already signed up.