Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17055 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not ask the better question which is out of all the things to tax, why tanning salons? Can any liberal come up with the logic behind that?
maybe a 40% tax on high top sneakers is in order?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#17056 Jan 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, Pops. You brought it up. It is strange to bring things up and then declare they have no relevance.
What I brought up has Relavence, your response does not. It ignores the point & the facts.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#17057 Jan 1, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe a 40% tax on high top sneakers is in order?
Exactly. Far leftists like Che Che only see the world in one way--the liberal way. They can't put the shoe on the other foot and then ask how they feel about something. It's impossible when you're that far gone.

So lets say that we had a white President with a suspected racist in a key position who placed a tax on basketballs. Che Che would be the first here to scream racism. And if we pointed out that white people play basketball too, it would fall on deaf ears and he would continue to scream racism.

This is the party that includes members who frequently hinted or openly said that if you disagree with DumBama, it's because of race. The very same people who claim that harsher prison sentences for crack users than cocaine users is racist. What? White people don't use crack?

See what I mean? But a tax on tanning salons or skis racist? How could anybody think that way? LOL!
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#17058 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have a conspiracy to expose?
Check the ceiling fixture in the kitchen.
woof
yeah. But its been in the news for almost a year. 7trillion given out in secret loans uncovered by an audit on the fed and using FOIA. At zero percent interest.
" To place $7 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $7,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world."

"This is a clear case of socialism for the ri
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#17059 Jan 1, 2013
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#17061 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have a conspiracy to expose?
Check the ceiling fixture in the kitchen.
woof
I told you your light bulb is probably out. Check that first and if that's not it , post back to me.
Narcissism amoung males until 1970 huh? Nice to see you cows at least find it liberating. George cloony still isn't going to come along though, so don't get your hopes up.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#17062 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not ask the better question which is out of all the things to tax, why tanning salons? Can any liberal come up with the logic behind that?
A. Using one is not a necessity, its an activity driven by vanity.

B. Using one is is unhealthy, and raises health care costs over time with increasing use.

C. Because its not a necessity, its an activity almost exclusively engaged in by those with expendable income.

D. The people who would oppose the tax are not likely to effectively organize to achieve defeating its passage in the legislature.

See how easy that is?

woof
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#17063 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
Am I the only person here who actually goes to salons?
How does everyone think tanning is only for white folks?!
LOL! At least you have a sense of humor..

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#17064 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not ask the better question which is out of all the things to tax, why tanning salons? Can any liberal come up with the logic behind that?
It seems to have been placed as a deterrent to consuming a dangerous product while working to offset some of the healthcare costs associated with it. It's a fairly common practice with items like alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs where legal and etc.

The two stated goals of the tax are to reduce the use of tanning services due to the associated rise in cancer risks and to offset some of the costs of the affordable care act.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#17065 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Far leftists like Che Che only see the world in one way--the liberal way. They can't put the shoe on the other foot and then ask how they feel about something. It's impossible when you're that far gone.
So lets say that we had a white President with a suspected racist in a key position who placed a tax on basketballs. Che Che would be the first here to scream racism. And if we pointed out that white people play basketball too, it would fall on deaf ears and he would continue to scream racism.
This is the party that includes members who frequently hinted or openly said that if you disagree with DumBama, it's because of race. The very same people who claim that harsher prison sentences for crack users than cocaine users is racist. What? White people don't use crack?
See what I mean? But a tax on tanning salons or skis racist? How could anybody think that way? LOL!
It is amazing that you believe you have the ability to speak for other people.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#17066 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Far leftists like Che Che only see the world in one way--the liberal way. They can't put the shoe on the other foot and then ask how they feel about something. It's impossible when you're that far gone.
So lets say that we had a white President with a suspected racist in a key position who placed a tax on basketballs. Che Che would be the first here to scream racism. And if we pointed out that white people play basketball too, it would fall on deaf ears and he would continue to scream racism.
This is the party that includes members who frequently hinted or openly said that if you disagree with DumBama, it's because of race. The very same people who claim that harsher prison sentences for crack users than cocaine users is racist. What? White people don't use crack?
See what I mean? But a tax on tanning salons or skis racist? How could anybody think that way? LOL!
Ummmm..yes Virginia...since its invention, crack cocaine has always been more popular in urban areas, specifically because of its low cost. The disparities in sentencing impacted those using crack rather than powder: mostly poor, minorities in urban areas. This isn't mere speculation...its fact.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

woof
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#17067 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems to have been placed as a deterrent to consuming a dangerous product while working to offset some of the healthcare costs associated with it. It's a fairly common practice with items like alcohol, tobacco, recreational drugs where legal and etc.
The two stated goals of the tax are to reduce the use of tanning services due to the associated rise in cancer risks and to offset some of the costs of the affordable care act.
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.

WHO IS AT RISK?

Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#17068 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.
WHO IS AT RISK?
Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
You really are dense, aren't you?

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#17069 Jan 1, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a lot of bull to me. It may cause skin cancer, but so can the natural sun. Why didn't they put a tax on beaches?
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Long-term exposure to artificial sources of ultraviolet rays like tanning beds (or to the sun's natural rays) increases both men and women's risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal. Women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop malignant melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
According to the National Cancer Institute, more than one million people are diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States every year. In fact, non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the country. Forty to 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have this form of skin cancer at least once. These are startling statistics for a cancer that can, for the most part, be prevented.
WHO IS AT RISK?
Almost everyone who frequents a tanning salon or exposes themselves to the sun is putting themselves at risk for skin cancer. The risk is greatest for people with fair skin; blonde, red, or light hair; and blue, green, or gray eyes. Artificial tanning can also be more dangerous for those who burn easily, have already been treated for skin cancer, or have a family member who has had skin cancer. In addition, women have a higher risk of contracting skin cancer on their legs, and men have a higher risk of getting it on their backs.
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/entertainmen...
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?

This seems fairly easy to understand.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#17071 Jan 1, 2013
Go Away Che wrote:
BTW, you can get your own Mensa card. Just do the following:
"Membership of Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised."
You forgot "Pay the money"
They only require a 140 IQ, XX. That is not a genius. Oh, and pay the money. ;-)

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#17072 Jan 1, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A. Using one is not a necessity, its an activity driven by vanity.
B. Using one is is unhealthy, and raises health care costs over time with increasing use.
C. Because its not a necessity, its an activity almost exclusively engaged in by those with expendable income.
D. The people who would oppose the tax are not likely to effectively organize to achieve defeating its passage in the legislature.
See how easy that is?
woof
Yep. Like Smoking, XX.
Woof, woof.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#17073 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
Oh really?

http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/no...
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17074 Jan 1, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing that you believe you have the ability to speak for other people.
why not...you do it daily.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#17075 Jan 1, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
we need to tax spoons 4000% because they make people fat raising the healthcare costs for the rest of us, by having to have fattie on all kinds of medication.
swxxxt

Rochester, PA

#17076 Jan 1, 2013

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.

Cleveland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Latest Road Closures - Tampa Bay Area 3 hr Doc 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 15 hr Oh well 20,085
HEY HEROIN USERS! You ruin more lives than your... Mon Thank you 2
Prediction: Browns to go 4-12 Jul 31 Warrior pride 1
Hogan bad rap good Jul 31 Aunt T Histimine 1
News Cleveland RTA video shows Movement for Black Li... Jul 29 Walkin Boss 1
News Cleveland woman dies at Cleveland Heights Jail Jul 29 come on man 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cleveland Mortgages