Dec 10, 2007
Mechanic, did you read the link? It is a very powerful argument FOR gun rights written by a Koser. Yer average D, G or secular I will immediately notice the 'Just Facts' sites other positions (cultural conservative) and attack it. They will have a much harder time ignoring one of 'their own' making a strong and reasonable argument in teh affirmative. (Oct 30, 2010 | post #252)
What part of 'shall not be infringed' confuses people. http://www.dailyko s.com/story/2010/7 /4/881431/-Why-lib erals-should-love- the-Second-Amendme nt (Oct 22, 2010 | post #243)
There is a reason the Libertarian party isn't running a candidate. A large number of them support Ratowitz. I do as well. Wouldn't it be great to have another 'Ron Paul Republican' in the House? Matt Reichel is of course a bleeding heart proggie, but if he supports concealed carry, legalization of cannibis and wants to lower regressive taxes (alcohol, tobacco etc) he would be my second choice. Unfortunately even though he doesn't seem to actually be running Quigley will be 'given' this via incumbent inertia and 'the machine'. An 'agent of change'? When given an actual chance Quigley bailed on 'Audit the Fed'. 'Reformer' my a$$. So sad........... (Oct 19, 2010 | post #12)
Um, ok. It won't display me vote? GREEN, LEX GREEN (L). (Oct 19, 2010 | post #407)
Tweedledee or dumb. The lesser of two evils, still evil. The lesser being Brady. I highly doubt that a Gov will be able to overturn Roe. Still there is a slight, tiny possibility he would be better at stemming the bankrupcy of this once great state. If you're a bit more of a socialist that doesn't like 'social darwinism', there's always Whitney. Due to Quinn's incompetence and Obama backlash (like Bush in 2008) Brady would seem to have this one in the bag, though. (Oct 19, 2010 | post #406)
Oh and JDH ... Ahhhnold is a RINO. Take it from a libertarian (we tend to be VERY savvy politically) he wouldn't know what 'small government' was if it came up and bit him on his muscular gluteus maximus. I hope Barry Goldwater visits him in his dreams and kicks him in that ass. (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6146)
My 'feelings' about it are irrelavent. But i have a very good idea of what is fact, what is theory and what is BS. Hmmm, search my posts on here, i'm registered. I never said smoking is harmless, i've never even said that SHS is harmless either for that matter. Feel free to prove otherwise or STFU. FACT: The EPA's assesment in '93 is jacked. They did their meta analysis and couldn't prove it. So they dropped a 'problem' study (Brownson 92) included an incomplete one (Fontham 94), shifted the CI from 95% to 90% and still BARELY got it to sqeak through. This being in direct violation to their policies and standards. Not surprising at all, because the activists in the agency declared BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED in 90 or 91 that they were going to prove it. They had made up their mind what the result was going to be FIRST. You follow the data where it leads ... they led the data where they wanted it to go. Don't wanna take my word for it, fine, here's an MD, Harvard, with Honors who says exactly the same thing. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=aGoZ- b1OaW4 Or how bout Dr Dean Eddel http://www.scottho lleran.com/intervi ews/dr-dean-edell. htm "Secondhand smoke stinksbut is it killing people? There was a study of the wives of the smokersthey have crummy health habits. They eat terrible diets of meat and fat, they dont get any exercise, but when they show up with worse health statistics, its blamed on secondhand smoke, its not blamed on all the other factors. We dont even know how cigarettes affect us. We dont know what causes cancer. We dont know what causes the increase in heart diseaseits not nicotinenicotine gum actually helps heart disease patients. Carbon monoxide? Well, any kind of smoke has a lot of carbon monoxidethats a possibilitybut carbon monoxide has a temporary effect; it blocks the oxygen linking to your hemoglobin, then you take a breath of fresh air and it goes away. Is that the cause of chronic problems in smokers? We dont knownow were into secondhand smoke when we dont even know firsthand smoke does. I think were becoming a really, really neurotic, fearful people and politicians and the media love it and know how to feed that monster." Dr Doll, Dr Peto, Dr Kabat ... all of them point to this as PC hype. Lets just assume for a moment that it's still valid if exaggerated. The EPA estimates ~3000 deaths a year in the US from SHS due to cancer, that number SHOULD be 1000-1500 max. This will NOT be from occasional exposure, or even part time jobs, this will be from living or working with heavy exposure for DECADES. Please do NOT bring up CVD and SHS. It's an absolute JOKE, the post ban studies cherry pick time frames and/or have no control group and/or ignore changes in treatment and/or the availability of autodefibrilators (BTW, i'm certified for that and CPR). In fact the whole connection is still up in the air PERIOD with people like Dr Bailar III questioning it to this day. http://www.ajph.or g/cgi/ijlink?linkT ype=FULL&journ alCode=nejm&re sid=340/12/958 http://www.topix.c om/forum/health/sm oking/TFSI69I21USV 96ACF http://www.pubmedc entral.nih.gov/art iclerender.fcgi?ar tid=2164936 And guess what, there's scientists who buy this stuff hook, line, sinker and feel like me, that it's ridiculous and hypocritical to ban smoking in f-ing bars!! http://scienceblog s.com/purepedantry /2007/11/the_price _of_exaggeration_e xhi.php (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6144)
Know what JDH, forget it. You've descended into the ugliest of identity politics now. I'd love to see you try this: Walk up to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, General Tommy Franks or Jay-Z, and call them a 'loser' to their face. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Cigar_A ficionado Good luck with that. (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6135)
*Selfish Gene... Yeah, i know it's not that new, but DePaul Bio was more into SJ Gould school. The whole Intelligent Design controversy got me curious about all that stuff again. (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6131)
Double major Chemistry - Environmental Sciences with a minor in Bio. Almost applied to med school until some hospital experiences (older relatives) convinced me that our murrican medical system is pretty f-ed up. Plus, i can't stand golf, prefer auto racing and sailing. I've worked for the DOE, one of the top 5 environmental labs in the world and currently supervise a couple of departments for the largest waste water lab in the US. I've interviewed with the USEPA and the Chicago Dept o Water (to RUN their Chem lab). In both cases it was pretty clear by the end of the interview ..... they couldn't afford me. My boss calls me 'MacGyver' on a regular basis and can count on one hand the number of times a scientist/doctor/e ngineer has gone 'over my head'. I stay current like a fiend, Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' is on my nightstand right now. Please ... in a battle of wits your a$$ would be handed to you before you even open your mouth. (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6130)
Oh good grief. So u work for Abbott essentially. That explains everything. http://www.abbottl aboratoriescorpora tion.com/ http://blogs.jobdi g.com/diggings/200 6/04/11/corporate- anti-smokling-poli cies-raise-tough-q uestions/ How often do they do drug testing these days, monthly, LOL. Companies like that are as bad as old Henry Ford. Has management scheduled their 'in home' visit to make sure you live your life according to 'their' standards? It's only a matter of time before you'll have to start 'weighing in' at the start of the day. *shakes head* Just one more reason why you coulndn't pay me enough to work for these rent seeking corporate drug pushers. (Dec 23, 2009 | post #6125)
Ah, crap. Bad block quotes. Mine not GTW's. Also they can: not take the job, work with their employer to reduce the hazard (set up 'environmental controls') IE turning on a vent,'force' the employer by calling ... uh, OSHA, or strike. Again, linesmen, roofers, driving salespeople, welders, pilots, fisherman and lumerjacks all have jobs much far MORE hazardous than WORKING in SHS 40hrs a week. And that's IF the clearly jacked EPA-IARC numbers stack up. http://money.cnn.c om/2003/10/13/pf/d angerousjobs/index .htm And it's not as if these jobs aren't HIGHLY regulated already. (Dec 22, 2009 | post #6101)
Funny you should mention that. http://www.osha.go v/pls/oshaweb/owad isp.show_document? p_table=INTERPRETA TIONS&p_id=246 02 "Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS." OSHA HAS looked at SHS. Compared to REAL workplace 'risks' they don't bother. IF somthing bumps your chances of a serious disease from 1 to 10% they step in. If it bumps it up from 1 to 1.2% they understand there are too many other factors to say for sure in general and specifically with the job itself. Not to mention IF there is a big risk, they do a cost-benefit analysis and then institute exposure LIMITS. What's beyond ironic is the Fed was sued by ASH in teh mid 90s in fact which promted them to hold hearings on it. OSHA was about to SET an evidence based exposure limit and ASH dropped the suit cause they simply wanted a banAgain, great point. Asbestos isn't banned, simply regulated. OSHA, (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has set limits of 100,000 fibers with lengths greater than or equal to 5 µm per cubic meter of workplace air for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work weeks http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Asbesto s#United_States As for coal, that's the best example yet. If coal mining burning were banned, entire regions would be devastated by unemployment AND electric rates would skyrocket. Would you put up with your electric bill tripling for a few years while alternatives were constructed. Even with TONS of regulations and precautions, mining is dangerous regardless of what they're digging. So even IF they find jobs doing something else it's likely to be almost as risky. And it's all far more dangerous than the supposed 40hr a week risk of regular exposure to SHS. Which is far more hazardous than a couple of hours a week in a smoky bar. Not to mention a drop in the veritable toxin-carcinogen bucket you walk around in, all day, every day .(unless you live on a mountain top in alaska or something). http://upload.wiki media.org/wikipedi a/commons/7/79/Die sel-smoke.jpg Ah the semi, what modern american society would utterly collapse without. (Dec 22, 2009 | post #6100)
Q & A with PicassoIII
chi-town 'Inner City'
My bed, garage and kitchen ... Several places i can't mention ... don't wanna get the owners in trouble with the 'health police'.
I Belong To:
My girl, cats, cars and the Libertarian party. In that order.
When I'm Not on Topix:
Under my girl, cats or cars
Read My Forum Posts Because:
You slept though science class
I'm Listening To:
Juan MaClean/Future Will Come
Read This Book:
F1 racing, balsamic vinegar, aluminum, big red wines, a good sweat, music that makes u wanna MOVE & last but not least my girl's decadent lips...
On My Mind:
Why does the ACLU forget the 2nd Amendment? What's up with all the Bigots in the NRA?
Blog / Website / Homepage:
Pablo's garage .... looks like .... http://pavlo.interaccess.com/garage1.jpg
I Believe In:
Good people.... Reducing government to a controllable, accountable entity......The rights of the individual over the power of the mob.
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC