PDA

View Full Version : Bravo FDA!


46zilzal
06-12-2009, 11:19 AM
A step in the right direction in new federal DRUG guidelines to moderate a drug in what Dr. Jeffrey Wigan (main character in the movie The Insider) called a "nicotine delivery device" a.k.a. a cigarette. Long ago physiologists understood the medical effects of nicotine when discovering how it worked in the sympathetic nervous system with both nicotinic and mucarinic adrenergic nervous receptors.

Having to watch a person slowly fall apart and die as a direct result of this crap and all the attendant chemical poisons added to make it burn faster and have a fancy fragrance makes one stop and think about just how widespread this un-regulated DRUG is in the population.

About time and I hope it is a step that will be strengthened over time to make these 'cancer sticks' even harder to attain.

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 11:27 AM
Breaking News: Zilzal celebrates another erosion of liberty. :eek:

dvlander
06-12-2009, 11:30 AM
This is a first but I agree 100% with 46zilzal. The tobaccco industry has received a free lunch from the Feds for way too long.

I cringe every time I see a teenage girl smoking and this is one of the only times I like to see government protect idiots from themselves.

Dale

Tom
06-12-2009, 11:43 AM
If it is a dangerous product, outlaw it all together. They do it for pot, heroine, etc.

If it is not, then get the hell out of it's business.

Ciggy taxes are paying for child health care and Obama must be opposed to child health care by attacking the source of their funding.

Obama is against children.:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

Lefty
06-12-2009, 11:46 AM
yes, just what we need, the govt protecting us from ourselves. Information about how bad this product is, has been out there for years. If people choose to smoke, so be it. Hey, fat people need help too. Let's tax fatty foods, and sugar. Oh, that's started already. And what can the govt do for YOU, to protect you from yourself. It's coming...

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 12:34 PM
My master's thesis was in toxicology and it is well known how toxic nicotine is.
http://www.nicotinevictims.com/poison.htm

Tom
06-12-2009, 12:43 PM
Wasn't one of Hitler's goals to create a master race?
Where doses this end?
First, cigarettes, then what, booze?
Fatty foods, candy, cakes, cookies, mandatory exercise?
Hey, you softball players are getting hurt, costing the health care system, no more softball.

Where do we end it?

If our goal is a healthier population, should we stop at targeting the +/- 5 and 6 sigma groups? Should we target the +/- 1/2 sigma groups as the only ones we support?

Do we legislate you body mass index, your weight, your lung capacity?


This is not the government's business.

jballscalls
06-12-2009, 12:47 PM
people know cigarettes are bad, if they want to smoke them thats fine. the only time i think government should be involved is policing that people don't smoke inside where it can directly effect others, especially employees of establishments.

Each state i've worked in has smoking bans inside and everyone, even most smokers i talk to are happy with it.

Warren Henry
06-12-2009, 01:02 PM
If it makes sense for the government to protect the smokers from themselves, why not have the government protect the problem gamblers from themselves too.

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

jballscalls
06-12-2009, 01:05 PM
If it makes sense for the government to protect the smokers from themselves, why not have the government protect the problem gamblers from themselves too.

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

actually in Oregon the government does pay for Problem Gambling treatment and rehab. They say it's free because "you've already paid" by losing LOL

BombsAway Bob
06-12-2009, 01:06 PM
If it is a dangerous product, outlaw it all together.
They do it for pot, heroine, etc.
If it is not, then get the hell out of it's business.
Ciggy taxes are paying for child health care and Obama must be opposed to child health care by attacking the source of their funding.
Obama is against children.:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:
Let's Review: Deaths from Alcohol (Legal)??
Deaths from Tobacco (Legal)??
Deaths from Donuts (Legal) ??
Deaths from Heroin (Illegal) ??
Deaths from "Pot" (Illegal, Decriminalized) ??
As an Indecratarian, I find it offensive that The Govt. is now officially "Big Brother".
A 15-year-old smoking a cig.."Tsk,Tsk".. Same 15YO with a Beer.. "Call the cops"
Minors shouldn't Drink Alcohol,Smoke Tobacco,or Experiment with drugs. Period.
Information on all 'vices' are now easily available~let Adults decide! Free America!

Warren Henry
06-12-2009, 01:07 PM
My master's thesis was in toxicology and it is well known how toxic nicotine is.
http://www.nicotinevictims.com/poison.htm

So, we know about the toxicity of nicotine. How about the effects of alcohol? ETC.

It is also well known that problem gamblers can destroy the lives of their families.

The question is whether or not it is the business of the government to regulate these activities to protect us from ourselves.

Or, was your point to further impress us with your education/experience?

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 01:51 PM
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

an astounding list provided by the manufacturers of just what is in them.

boxcar
06-12-2009, 01:56 PM
My master's thesis was in toxicology and it is well known how toxic nicotine is.
http://www.nicotinevictims.com/poison.htm

Tell it to the Marxists in D.C. Get them to outlaw tobacco, since these two-bit tyrants claim they're so interested in protecting the public health. If they are, why don't they just outlaw it once and for all? Funny how you champion the money-hungry hypocritical feds and you can never see how they're worse than even the capitalists you despise. There are none so blind who will not see!

Boxcar

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every
year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Warren Henry
06-12-2009, 02:34 PM
Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every
year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

How does this statistic compare to the number of deaths caused by overeating?

So, the government should tell us how many calories we may consume per day and what the makup of those calories will be?

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 02:34 PM
That should read, "400,000 kill themselves every year by smoking cigarettes..."

Warren Henry
06-12-2009, 02:39 PM
According to the World Health Organization, there were at least 170 million people with diabetes around the world in the year 2000. Seven and a half million people with diabetes died that year but deaths directly caused by diabetes were estimated to be 2.9 million, or 5.2% of total deaths.

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 02:44 PM
In 2005, researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Centre identified one ingredient in smoke, nicotine, that delays bone growth by influencing gene expression in the two-step bone healing process: stem cells become cartilage; cartilage matures into bone. In the current study, some of the same researchers found that a second smoke ingredient, the polyaromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), also slows bone healing, but in a different way.

Smoking has been shown to delay skeletal healing by as much as 60 percent following fractures. Slower healing means a greater chance of re-injury and can lead to chronic pain and disability. The obvious solution is for smokers to quit when they get hurt, but studies show that just 15 percent can.

'Our results provide the first evidence that BaP prevents stem cells from becoming cartilage cells as part of healing,' said Regis J. O'Keefe, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation at the Medical Centre and a study investigator. 'These findings extend our understanding of the impact of cigarette smoke on a process that is critical to fracture repair.

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 03:06 PM
Very interesting.

So what?

Marshall Bennett
06-12-2009, 03:18 PM
I smoke less than a half pack a day . I know its dangerous to my health but choose to do it anyway . Last year a woman nearly killed me pulling out of a Walmart talking on her cell phone . I walk 3 miles every morning in my subdivision . Two years ago an elderly woman nearly killed me less than a mile from home with her car , talking on her cell phone . If my state would ban the use of cell phones in cars I'd gladly throw away the smokes , as a token of thanks and for my health as well . I'm sure of one thing , its a lot easier dodging second hand smoke than some nut yakking away on their cell phone driving a car .

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 03:19 PM
Large cell, small cell, oat cell, adenocarcinoma...take your pick..usually once the primary cell type is diagnosed there are already metastases in the brain.

COPD, loss of cillia to move the mucous out...list just goes on and on

It will never happen to ME!

RaceBookJoe
06-12-2009, 03:37 PM
That should read, "400,000 kill themselves every year by smoking cigarettes..."

Thats more like it :ThmbUp: rbj

46zilzal
06-12-2009, 03:37 PM
Correlation is fairly obvious

and not to be left out, we have cardiovascular disease as a result, peachy
http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/heartdiseases.htm

Lefty
06-12-2009, 08:22 PM
46, your stats are irrelevant. people that smoke, know the risks and take them anyway. It's not your business nor the govts. Casse closed. What's your favorite thing to ingest? The govt will soon be after that too.

RaceBookJoe
06-12-2009, 09:33 PM
46, your stats are irrelevant. people that smoke, know the risks and take them anyway. It's not your business nor the govts. Casse closed. What's your favorite thing to ingest? The govt will soon be after that too.

Well there is the great Paradox....think about how many things the FDA HAS approved that are bad for you.....aspertame for one, which has over 80 FDA-admitted health risks, one of which is death. hmmmm rbj

Lefty
06-12-2009, 09:53 PM
joe, you're sooo right. How many prescription drugs have the approved and had to taken off the mkt later? Lots and loads and many many...

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 10:00 PM
and yet marijuana -- one of the least toxic substances around, remains illegal. Sort of. Ok, I guess it's pretty much legal here in CA.


Wait, what was I talking about?

Lefty
06-12-2009, 10:14 PM
it remains illegal because it's a Gateway drug. It's quasi legal in Ca because it's supposed to be given for medicinal purposes. A much abused concept.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:19 PM
it remains illegal because it's a Gateway drug. It's quasi legal in Ca because it's supposed to be given for medicinal purposes. A much abused concept.
And nicotine isn't a Gateway drug? What is your definition of a gateway drug?
I know quite a few people who smoke marijuana, and won't touch hard drugs.

One could easily argue that smoking cigarettes leads to marijuana to a much greater degree than marijuana leading to coke or heroine.

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 10:21 PM
It's a gateway to Captain Crunch.

Lefty
06-12-2009, 10:25 PM
No, chick, it's a gateway to stronger, more devastating drugs. The last 30 yrs or so in Vegas, I've met a lot of Marijuana smokers and EVERY one graduated to Cocaine, Heroin and even Acid. I've also met Cocaine and Heroin users that admitted they started with Marijuana.

Lefty
06-12-2009, 10:28 PM
My dad and mom smoked, my brother smokes and my wife smokes. I've know hundreds of nicotene smokers that never went beyond that particular drug. I've yet to meet a marijuana smoker that I can say the same about
BTW, definition of a gateway drug is a drug your body builds a resistance too, and you lose the effect that was craved. Then the addicted one seeks a stronger drug.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:31 PM
My dad and mom smoked, my brother smokes and my wife smokes. I've know hundreds of nicotene smokers that never went beyond that particular drug. I've yet to meet a marijuana smoker that I can say the same about.
I know many. And almost every marijuana smoker started with cigarettes.

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 10:34 PM
Oh, come on, Lefty. You usually stripe 'em right down the middle, but this shot is slicing way out of bounds.

And cangamble's assertion is equally ludicrous.

Marshall Bennett
06-12-2009, 10:35 PM
No, chick, it's a gateway to stronger, more devastating drugs. The last 30 yrs or so in Vegas, I've met a lot of Marijuana smokers and EVERY one graduated to Cocaine, Heroin and even Acid. I've also met Cocaine and Heroin users that admitted they started with Marijuana.
... and those that didn't graduate , many of them , are simply potheads . The brain welcomes you , and delivers . Just pull over on the shoulder and let me by , you're road-kill I don't have time for . :D

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 10:36 PM
Lefty=Hypocrite

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:37 PM
Oh, come on, Lefty. You usually stripe 'em right down the middle, but this shot is slicing way out of bounds.

And cangamble's assertion is equally ludicrous.
Studies back up my "ludicrous" assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory
Two thirds of hard drug users smoke cigarettes regularly. And recent studies have quashed the gateway drug theory that marijuana leads to hard drug use.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:39 PM
Lefty=Hypocrite
That is the reality. If cigarettes are not the governments business, neither is marijuana.

Lefty
06-12-2009, 10:41 PM
chick, wtf makes me a hypocrite?
cangamble, I say the studies are B.S. My experiences with MJ smokers say the opposite.

Lefty
06-12-2009, 10:44 PM
rasta, If we're taking opposite positions, how can we both be wrong?
MB, who are you calling roadkill?

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 10:48 PM
Well if it's wikipedia, it must be true.

CanMan, read your own link: "Some research suggests that some serious drug abusers have used other drugs before using cannabis or alcohol." What is that saying? Next to nothing. What's the next sentence? "Individual drug-abuse histories show that "hard drug" users do progress from one drug to another, but the research is not clear enough to confirm the gateway theory."

This thread is drifting like wafting ciggy smoke. :cool:

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:48 PM
chick, wtf makes me a hypocrite?
cangamble, I say the studies are B.S. My experiences with MJ smokers say the opposite.
I know 5 regular pot smokers, and I know they don't use hard drugs. Sure, many people have experimented, but that is just a fact of life.

Do the people you know who are hard drug users smoke, or were they addicted to nicotine first? Be honest.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:50 PM
Well if it's wikipedia, it must be true.

CanMan, read your own link: "Some research suggests that some serious drug abusers have used other drugs before using cannabis or alcohol." What is that saying? Next to nothing. What's the next sentence? "Individual drug-abuse histories show that "hard drug" users do progress from one drug to another, but the research is not clear enough to confirm the gateway theory."

This thread is drifting like wafting ciggy smoke. :cool:
Read the actual studies that they linked to. I have.

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 10:54 PM
It's correlative, or correlational, or whatever the proper form of the word is. But it's not cause and effect.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 10:58 PM
It's correlative, or correlational, or whatever the proper form of the word is. But it's not cause and effect.
And marijuana smoking doesn't cause someone to do hard drugs. But someone with an addictive personality may be prone to first get hooked on cigarettes, and then graduate to other forms of addictive drugs.

I also highly doubt that marijuana is as addictive as heroine or coke.

rastajenk
06-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Now we're gettin' somewhere. :ThmbUp:

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 11:00 PM
I only brought up dope because it's one of those fracture points, you can separate the real libertarians from the fake real easy.

Cangamble
06-12-2009, 11:04 PM
I only brought up dope because it's one of those fracture points, you can separate the real libertarians from the fake real easy.
Exactly, for some reason marijuana doesn't qualify to be legal by some so called libertarians.
Booze ruins way more homes than are ruined by hard drug users. That is because there are a lot more boozers out there than hard drug users, but still.
I don't know of one home that got wrecked where parents were casual pot smokers.

Lefty
06-12-2009, 11:21 PM
Millions of cig smokers just remain cig smokers. MJ smokers graduate.
And every libertarian I know of, wants MJ to be made legal.

chick, i'm waiting to find out why you called me a hypocrite.

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 11:24 PM
chick, i'm waiting to find out why you called me a hypocrite.

=

yes, just what we need, the govt protecting us from ourselves. Information about how bad this product is, has been out there for years. If people choose to smoke, so be it. And what can the govt do for YOU, to protect you from yourself. It's coming...

Lefty
06-12-2009, 11:32 PM
chick, better read my quote again. The govt should not be interfering in our lives. That includes smokers. Tobacco is legal, MJ is not. It leads to hard drug use, tobacco does not. if you think i'm a hypocrite, it's your dumbass opinion and you're welcome to it.

chickenhead
06-12-2009, 11:34 PM
The govt should not be interfering in our lives. That includes smokers. Tobacco is legal, MJ is not.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lefty
06-12-2009, 11:50 PM
you're gettin as silly as zilly.

chickenhead
06-13-2009, 12:02 AM
Seriously Lefty, SERIOUSLY. Listen to me, big fella.

It's ok to be a hyprocrite, almost everyone is about some things. I know I am. OWN it, it's alright. I'm not going to get on you for not being ideologically pure. Thats Boxcars job anyway.

I do think you hold a poor opinion on this one, though.

Lefty
06-13-2009, 12:04 AM
ok, chick. we'll leave it there. and i'm sorry about the zilly crack.

boxcar
06-13-2009, 12:06 AM
Large cell, small cell, oat cell, adenocarcinoma...take your pick..usually once the primary cell type is diagnosed there are already metastases in the brain.

COPD, loss of cillia to move the mucous out...list just goes on and on

It will never happen to ME!

Maybe not from smoking but surely the Disease of Liberalism has ravaged you already.

Boxcar

boxcar
06-13-2009, 12:11 AM
Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people in the United States every
year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

All the more reason for the government to outlaw it, right? Again, I ask you: Since the government claims it has the welfare and best interests of The People in its [stone-cold, calculating, greedy, power-hungry] little heart, then why doesn't it outlaw tobacco and be done with it?

Boxcar

boxcar
06-13-2009, 12:13 AM
Lefty=Hypocrite

The Nanny State you love = Hypocrite

Boxcar

newtothegame
06-13-2009, 12:14 AM
Well I read earlier in this post about alcohol...and "Big Brother"....
Government intervention...etc.....
Check out this article......
Here are my questions......How do they know the guy didnt come into the park intoxicated???
What happens to "tailgating after or before a game??
What happens to a guy or gal who frequents several establishments in a day?
Who is responsible then???
IT LEADS ME TO SELF RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!
The same could be applied here...a smoker who choses to smoke knowing the effects...well its his body. For those who argue about insurance cost...well just look at what diabetes cost us? How about those McDonalds burgers which I am sure cant be good for the arteries?????



Minute Maid Park at Risk for Losing Liquor License

Katishia Cosley KIAH

June 11, 2009


Imagine going to Minute Maid Park and not being able to drink a nice cold beer. That could happen if the park loses it's license to sell alcohol. The Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission or TABC confirms it does have an ongoing administrative investigation against Aramark. Aramark is a vending company that supplies alcohol to Minute Maid Park during the Astros games and at many other venues around the city.

The case may have been opened after a fatal crash last August, involving an Aramark employee. According to HPD, Ray Wilson left an Atros game at Minute Maid Park, August 30 after having several drinks. As he was leaving the park, he hit and killed a TXDOT worker and then tried to leave the scene. An off-duty officer saw the crash and stopped Wilson. "Safety is number one, so if you don't have a way of checking everyone's inebriation during the game, maybe you should get rid of it," said Clint Morris as he was leaving the Atros game Thursday.

Other fans said baseball wouldn't be the same without alcohol. "What's baseball without beer, it just doesn't work," said one fan who calls himself Kaz. "I would not want to go to a game if you couldn't buy beer, " said Pat Leonard.
more at the link....www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-minute-maid-liquor-license-story,0,1114613.story

Tom
06-13-2009, 10:31 AM
All cigarette smokers started out with milk.:rolleyes:

Gateway, smateway, same arguments apply here - ciggy's, pot, heroine, .......personal choice. You can't argue the FDA's right on one and do a 180 on the others. Either they have the right or they don't. If they do, then they get to decide what they use it on.

Cangamble
06-13-2009, 11:43 AM
All cigarette smokers started out with milk.:rolleyes:

Gateway, smateway, same arguments apply here - ciggy's, pot, heroine, .......personal choice. You can't argue the FDA's right on one and do a 180 on the others. Either they have the right or they don't. If they do, then they get to decide what they use it on.
I agree with you up to a point. I admit I'm not a true libertarian because if it was up to me, I would up the fines and jail times for coke and heroine.
There still should be a line drawn (not a coke joke). For instance, importing plutonium for personal use should never be allowed.

Tom
06-13-2009, 11:57 AM
Here is where it goes to.......

boxcar
06-13-2009, 12:13 PM
And I have another question for all you Nanny State lovers -- for those of you who need the State to wipe your delicate, little heinies because you're not old enough, big enough or smart enough to take care of even that for yourselves -- would it not behoove Nanny to outlaw tobacco just on the grounds of the huge liability smokers, as a group, pose to society in terms of its medical costs?
I find it very odd that Nanny, who is this quintessential collectivist at heart, suddenly is interested in an individual's right to smoke!? This must be; for why else wouldn't Nanny outlaw this terrible stuff? Do smokers also have the right to impose their liability upon society? One would think that Nanny would step up to the plate to do the right thing in this situation by protecting society from undue risk exposure, which in turn would lower everyone's medical costs.

Meanwhile, while waiting on Nanny to get her act together and get her girdle on straight -- maybe some statist out there would care to to step up to explain Nanny's incongruous attitude and behavior on this important issue.

Boxcar

Warren Henry
06-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Box, You know that Nanny isn't going to ban tobacco because a huge amount of tax revenue is derived from its use.

All the crapola put out by the left about protecting us from ourselves has nothing to do with legitimate care for our welfare - it has to do with who gets to have control.

Very few of our current political "leaders" (right or left) get a pass on this.

boxcar
06-13-2009, 02:29 PM
Box, You know that Nanny isn't going to ban tobacco because a huge amount of tax revenue is derived from its use.

All the crapola put out by the left about protecting us from ourselves has nothing to do with legitimate care for our welfare - it has to do with who gets to have control.

Very few of our current political "leaders" (right or left) get a pass on this.

Hah....drats! You're rainin' on my parade. I know folks like you get it, but I wanted to see the statist morons on this board squirm and try to come with an excuse as to why the government doesn't just outright ban tobacco since it's a known killer? I mean after all...we know BO is just itching -- he's dying to find a way to outlaw private ownership of guns...because "guns kill", right? (Well, not really but that's the stupid argument the left would use.) So, if they want to ban guns because supposedly they kill, how could they not ban tobacco which really and truly does kill in greater numbers!? :bang: :bang: Guns have legitimate, redeeming value and uses to them, whereas tobacco does not!

The left wing whackos don't want to own up to their Nanny's hypocrisy because then they'd have to concede that Nanny really doesn't give a good flip about The People. Dear ol' Nanny is in it for herself! It really is all about Power and Money -- the very same things the Left is always accusing
Evil Capitalists of pursuing and for which they supposedly have this insatiable lust!

Boxcar

Warren Henry
06-13-2009, 04:45 PM
Hah....drats! You're rainin' on my parade. I know folks like you get it, but I wanted to see the statist morons on this board squirm and try to come with an excuse as to why the government doesn't just outright ban tobacco since it's a known killer? I mean after all...we know BO is just itching -- he's dying to find a way to outlaw private ownership of guns...because "guns kill", right? (Well, not really but that's the stupid argument the left would use.) So, if they want to ban guns because supposedly they kill, how could they not ban tobacco which really and truly does kill in greater numbers!? :bang: :bang: Guns have legitimate, redeeming value and uses to them, whereas tobacco does not!

The left wing whackos don't want to own up to their Nanny's hypocrisy because then they'd have to concede that Nanny really doesn't give a good flip about The People. Dear ol' Nanny is in it for herself! It really is all about Power and Money -- the very same things the Left is always accusing
Evil Capitalists of pursuing and for which they supposedly have this insatiable lust!

Boxcar


Sorry, Didn't mean to screw up your jab.

The only problem is that you were being too subtle. The left does not understand subtle, irony, or humor in general. The exception being humor used to trash someone's image.

chickenhead
06-13-2009, 05:48 PM
Boxcar and Warren = A Real Life Holmes and Watson.

boxcar
06-13-2009, 11:11 PM
Far better to be either one of those than a helpless and clueless, Brown Shirt drone, Mr. Chick.

Boxcar

BenDiesel26
06-14-2009, 12:48 AM
Isn't it odd how the bill does not ban the masking agent menthol as an additive to cigarettes while banning most others? Well apparently 75% of African American smokers prefer menthols. I guess you have to protect the people, unless of course it might cost you votes in the next election.

dav4463
06-14-2009, 01:06 AM
We now need to ban fast food, alcohol, sugar, roller coasters, automobiles, skiing, guns, hunting, swimming pools, airplanes, motorcycles, pit bulls, rattlesnakes, vegetable oil, chimpanzees, and how many more? All of these have killed and can kill again!

boxcar
06-14-2009, 01:24 AM
Sorry, Didn't mean to screw up your jab.

The only problem is that you were being too subtle. The left does not understand subtle, irony, or humor in general. The exception being humor used to trash someone's image.

Let's dwell on "subtle" for a while since you brought it up, Warren. Here's something that's goes beyond Ironic that probably has never entered any pea-brained, mentally-myopic leftist either on this forum or anywhere else. Consider this: The liberals in this country love to portray themselves as champions of The Minorities, most especially blacks who this evil, wicked country at one time enslaved. Do not the liberals decry slavery at every opportunity? Has not the Left managed to get legislation passed that gives preferential treatment to "descendants" of slaves? Do they not, even to this day, belittle conservative blacks with such disparaging characterizations as "uncle Toms" or as ones who "haven't left the plantation, yet", etc.? My point being to this line of questioning is that the Left will never allow the Slavery issue to die, no matter how many more decades or even centuries this nation survives. And this brings me to the point of this post.

Despite the Left's incessant anti-slavery vocalizations, no one on the Left finds it the least bit ironic that it is they who want all Americans to become Slaves to the State through a socialist form of government! We Americans, according to the Left, are incapable of taking care of ourselves. We're incapable of making even the most rudimentary decisions about our lives. According to them, we need the State's help and guidance at nearly every turn. We need to be protected from ourselves and from the Evil Forces of Capitalism. Do we not find striking parallels here with this kind of mentality that permeated the thinking of most slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries -- both in this country and abroad? Think about this for a moment.

Slave Masters considered their Slaves to be unequal to Whites, for starters. Blacks weren't as smart as Whites. They weren't capable of surviving in a White Man's world apart from the White Man's aid. Moreover, Blacks were morally inferior to White's. Blacks' morals and scruples and ethics weren't nearly as refined as Whites', etc., etc., etc. The bottom line was White Slave Owners are Superior in every way. Black Slaves are Inferior in every way. Now fast forward to the Present.

Let's look at this dumb thread and how many leftists are absolutely ga ga over the prospect that the State is going to intrude itself again into the Private Sector to "regulate the tobacco industry" in the name of Whom? In the Name of the Masses who are Asses because we're not capable of handling the tobacco situation. That's way over the Individual's head. The State is going to try to con The People into believing that it is for our own good -- for our protection -- for our own welfare. We're simply incapable of figuring these things out for ourselves.

Next up to bat is Health Care. We're no longer capable of caring for ourselves either. After all, health care is too complex, too expensive. The people need the elitist bureaucrats in D.C. to call the shots on our personal health issues. And to ensure that all The People arrive together at the Helpless state, BO plans on punishing private insurance policy holders by taxing their benefit premiums. This will be his way of forcing compliance. After all...Socialism will not work unless Everyone is on the State's Plantation.
Can't have any stragglers or dissidents.

The dynamics of Socialism demand a perverse symbiotic relationship be established between the State and The People -- two very different entities with a wide range of dissimilarities. How the State will try to establish its tie with the masses will be with promises that it can do things for us that we cannot do as well for ourselves. One of these things that we can't do, incidentally, is something as fundamental as thinking for ourselves. (Recall Larry King's remarks a few months back about this very issue!? He surely does not believe the State is The People's Equal! He believes the State is superior to the Masses!) If anyone doubts this, what do you think Hate Crime legislation is all about? Hate Crime laws are all about controlling our thoughts.

In Socialism, the State is, in essence, the all-powerful White Landowner who needs to fill his plantation with American Slaves -- slaves of every color, every ethnicity, every religion because for this system of government to work efficiently and effectively, it cannot allow anyone to stray very far away from that plantation. Of course, the State will do all in its power to make Slavery 21st Century style as palatable and pleasant as possible, which it will attempt to do with its many promises of rewards and a better life for our service on the plantation.

Very often on this forum it has been rightfully and accurately pointed out for various reasons that the real bigots in this country are the Leftists. And these bigots are so incomprehensibly self-deceived, they are so hopelessly stuck in the muck and mire of their own blind ignorance, they cannot come to see that the bigotry and slavery they decry with their lips in one breath is the essentially the same thing they champion out of the mouths in the next whenever they voice support for Socialism and the Welfare State.
They quickly forget and wrongly dissociate any and all parallels between the "welfare policies" of White Slave Owners and their Black "welfare recipients" who lived and worked on their plantations. After all, on most plantations, slaves were usually afforded some rights -- just not very many. There really is no difference between the 19th Century plantation-type tyranny and what we'll soon be experiencing here in the 21st Century under Socialism -- unless this nation wakes up before it's too late.

Boxcar

slewis
06-14-2009, 01:48 AM
Let's dwell on "subtle" for a while since you brought it up, Warren. Here's something that's goes beyond Ironic that probably has never entered any pea-brained, mentally-myopic leftist either on this forum or anywhere else. Consider this: The liberals in this country love to portray themselves as champions of The Minorities, most especially blacks who this evil, wicked country at one time enslaved. Do not the liberals decry slavery at every opportunity? Has not the Left managed to get legislation passed that gives preferential treatment to "descendants" of slaves? Do they not, even to this day, belittle conservative blacks with such disparaging characterizations as "uncle Toms" or as ones who "haven't left the plantation, yet", etc.? My point being to this line of questioning is that the Left will never allow the Slavery issue to die, no matter how many more decades or even centuries this nation survives. And this brings me to the point of this post.

Despite the Left's incessant anti-slavery vocalizations, no one on the Left finds it the least bit ironic that it is they who want all Americans to become Slaves to the State through a socialist form of government! We Americans, according to the Left, are incapable of taking care of ourselves. We're incapable of making even the most rudimentary decisions about our lives. According to them, we need the State's help and guidance at nearly every turn. We need to be protected from ourselves and from the Evil Forces of Capitalism. Do we not find striking parallels here with this kind of mentality that permeated the thinking of most slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries -- both in this country and abroad? Think about this for a moment.

Slave Masters considered their Slaves to be unequal to Whites, for starters. Blacks weren't as smart as Whites. They weren't capable of surviving in a White Man's world apart from the White Man's aid. Moreover, Blacks were morally inferior to White's. Blacks' morals and scruples and ethics weren't nearly as refined as Whites', etc., etc., etc. The bottom line was White Slave Owners are Superior in every way. Black Slaves are Inferior in every way. Now fast forward to the Present.

Let's look at this dumb thread and how many leftists are absolutely ga ga over the prospect that the State is going to intrude itself again into the Private Sector to "regulate the tobacco industry" in the name of Whom? In the Name of the Masses who are Asses because we're not capable of handling the tobacco situation. That's way over the Individual's head. The State is going to try to con The People into believing that it is for our own good -- for our protection -- for our own welfare. We're simply incapable of figuring these things out for ourselves.

Next up to bat is Health Care. We're no longer capable of caring for ourselves either. After all, health care is too complex, too expensive. The people need the elitist bureaucrats in D.C. to call the shots on our personal health issues. And to ensure that all The People arrive together at the Helpless state, BO plans on punishing private insurance policy holders by taxing their benefit premiums. This will be his way of forcing compliance. After all...Socialism will not work unless Everyone is on the State's Plantation.
Can't have any stragglers or dissidents.

The dynamics of Socialism demand a perverse symbiotic relationship be established between the State and The People -- two very different entities with a wide range of dissimilarities. How the State will try to establish its tie with the masses will be with promises that it can do things for us that we cannot do as well for ourselves. One of these things that we can't do, incidentally, is something as fundamental as thinking for ourselves. (Recall Larry King's remarks a few months back about this very issue!? He surely does not believe the State is The People's Equal! He believes the State is superior to the Masses!) If anyone doubts this, what do you think Hate Crime legislation is all about? Hate Crime laws are all about controlling our thoughts.

In Socialism, the State is, in essence, the all-powerful White Landowner who needs to fill his plantation with American Slaves -- slaves of every color, every ethnicity, every religion because for this system of government to work efficiently and effectively, it cannot allow anyone to stray very far away from that plantation. Of course, the State will do all in its power to make Slavery 21st Century style as palatable and pleasant as possible, which it will attempt to do with its many promises of rewards and a better life for our service on the plantation.

Very often on this forum it has been rightfully and accurately pointed out for various reasons that the real bigots in this country are the Leftists. And these bigots are so incomprehensibly self-deceived, they are so hopelessly stuck in the muck and mire of their own blind ignorance, they cannot come to see that the bigotry and slavery they decry with their lips in one breath is the essentially the same thing they champion out of the mouths in the next whenever they voice support for Socialism and the Welfare State.
They quickly forget and wrongly dissociate any and all parallels between the "welfare policies" of White Slave Owners and their Black "welfare recipients" who lived and worked on their plantations. After all, on most plantations, slaves were usually afforded some rights -- just not very many. There really is no difference between the 19th Century plantation-type tyranny and what we'll soon be experiencing here in the 21st Century under Socialism -- unless this nation wakes up before it's too late.

Boxcar


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We're feeling extra, extra, EXTRA grumpy this evening Boxcrap, are we?

All this typing and true feelings pouring upon our new Obama led socialist nation...:lol: :lol:

Get off the Socialist nonsense.... you're boring everyone to death with it... and we are no closer to being a socialist society today then we were when either Bush was in power, including the one that didn't set the country back 25 yrs.
We're just a whole lot poorer.

Go light up another smoke and watch some reruns of Hannity, you'll feel a lot better.

Marshall Bennett
06-14-2009, 09:20 AM
and we are no closer to being a socialist society today then we were when either Bush was in power, including the one that didn't set the country back 25 yrs.

No closer to socialism ? Where have you been for the past 5 months , in a closet ?

Tom
06-14-2009, 09:39 AM
Boxcar and Warren = A Real Life Holmes and Watson.

And we all remember that famous line of Sherlock...."Quick, Watson, the needle!" :lol:

Tom
06-14-2009, 09:49 AM
No closer to socialism ? Where have you been for the past 5 months , in a closet ?

We used to connect the dots to come to conclusions.
Today, we connect the czars.

jballscalls
06-14-2009, 10:39 AM
No closer to socialism ? Where have you been for the past 5 months , in a closet ?

honestly, i haven't noticed one single difference in my life to make me feel like things have changed to socialism. I went to the doctor, got great care, and even though i'm insured, still paid my co-pay and a little bit that insurance didn't cover.

Gas is a little more expensive than in the winter, but cheaper than last summer. my power bill has been the exact same as it was this time last year. I own a chevy that was built by GM and i just had it serviced by GM and everything was fine, the world didn't fall down.

Maybe the socialism is all coming down the pike, but don't know about you, but my life has been just as capitalistic as it always has, and i'm enjoying it.

And if things do turn to Socialism, if a majority of americans don't like it, then we'll act accordingly at the polls and get someone who will change it back to capitalism. And if a majority of americans like it, then we will become a socialist country.

Marshall Bennett
06-14-2009, 11:03 AM
It hasn't changed my life either , so far . When I see our government gradually but surely taking not only a vested interest , but control of our financial wheels , I see that as a move towards socialism . As you say , the voters may ultimately decide whether this last , but how much damage may be done in the mean time ?

boxcar
06-14-2009, 11:25 AM
honestly, i haven't noticed one single difference in my life to make me feel like things have changed to socialism.

When you get in your automobile to take a road trip and you turn on the ignition and the car starts moving in the direction in which you're pointing it, do do you say, "I honestly haven't noticed one change in the scenery around here, because everything still looks the same"? Such thoughts would not enter most people's minds because they know they're just getting started on their little jaunt -- they haven't arrived to their intended destination, yet. Likewise, why would you expect to see or sense drastic changes in your personal life just 6 months after BO is in office? The man and his administration is just getting started in mapping out America's road trip; therefore, at this point in time, there's no appreciable or substantive change in the political landscape that would touch most people's personal lives -- yet. But even so, if we liken the political machinery in this country to an automobile, can you not recognize that is has changed course since he took office -- that BO is steering the nation on a different course with that machinery even though it hasn't arrived yet at its intended destination? Are you unaware that BO's platform revolved around "hope and CHANGE"?

Are you unaware that the U.S. government, in an unprecedented move, has seized control of GM by becoming the majority share holder in the company?

Are you unaware that the U.S. government now plans to seize control of the 7th largest industry in the country, which is the Health Care industry? The U.S. government wants (and this is the operative term at this POINT in TIME) to dictate to The People its limited health care options, which would severely limit our own personal options.

If you aren't aware of these kinds of things (and many others!), then this tells me that you're along just for the ride. You're not in the driver's seat. You're the State's sleeping passenger. Have a nice snooze. I hope you thoroughly enjoy your new digs -- when you finally find out that you have arrived.


Boxcar

boxcar
06-14-2009, 11:36 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We're feeling extra, extra, EXTRA grumpy this evening Boxcrap, are we?

All this typing and true feelings pouring upon our new Obama led socialist nation...:lol: :lol:

Get off the Socialist nonsense.... you're boring everyone to death with it... and we are no closer to being a socialist society today then we were when either Bush was in power, including the one that didn't set the country back 25 yrs.
We're just a whole lot poorer.

Go light up another smoke and watch some reruns of Hannity, you'll feel a lot better.

Well then, Oh, wise one :rolleyes: , please enlighten us all with the kind of CHANGE you think BO promised to deliver during his campaign? Surely, such an enlightened, highly educated, well-informed individual such as yourself must have had some idea of what he was talking about when he promised the nation that he would CHANGE things. After all, you did vote for him on the basis of his "hope and change" platform, didn't you? What kind of changes do you think he had in mind?

Boxcar

jballscalls
06-14-2009, 11:56 AM
When you get in your automobile to take a road trip and you turn on the ignition and the car starts moving in the direction in which you're pointing it, do do you say, "I honestly haven't noticed one change in the scenery around here, because everything still looks the same"? Such thoughts would not enter most people's minds because they know they're just getting started on their little jaunt -- they haven't arrived to their intended destination, yet. Likewise, why would you expect to see or sense drastic changes in your personal life just 6 months after BO is in office? The man and his administration is just getting started in mapping out America's road trip; therefore, at this point in time, there's no appreciable or substantive change in the political landscape that would touch most people's personal lives -- yet. But even so, if we liken the political machinery in this country to an automobile, can you not recognize that is has changed course since he took office -- that BO is steering the nation on a different course with that machinery even though it hasn't arrived yet at its intended destination? Are you unaware that BO's platform revolved around "hope and CHANGE"?

Are you unaware that the U.S. government, in an unprecedented move, has seized control of GM by becoming the majority share holder in the company?

Are you unaware that the U.S. government now plans to seize control of the 7th largest industry in the country, which is the Health Care industry? The U.S. government wants (and this is the operative term at this POINT in TIME) to dictate to The People its limited health care options, which would severely limit our own personal options.

If you aren't aware of these kinds of things (and many others!), then this tells me that you're along just for the ride. You're not in the driver's seat. You're the State's sleeping passenger. Have a nice snooze. I hope you thoroughly enjoy your new digs -- when you finally find out that you have arrived.


Boxcar

i'm aware of all of it. but for some reasons, americans elected this guy and want his brand of change. and if he does things a majority disagrees with then we'll get him out of there. He campaigned on health care for everyone, and guess what, many people want health care and can't afford it, so they voted for someone who they thought would get that for him. I'm not for socialized medicine, but there are a ton of people in our country who are for it, so many people like that he wants to do this.

And your just as much along for the ride as I am or anyone on here. Simply complaining about it anonymously on a horse racing board does nothing, except for pass some time for entertainment. I know it probably makes you feel better to rant anonymously on a horse racing board and spew your knowledge, much of which is insightful, but your still just along for the ride.

boxcar
06-14-2009, 12:49 PM
i'm aware of all of it. but for some reasons, americans elected this guy and want his brand of change.

Forget about what you think everyone or anyone else, for that matter, wants. What do YOU want? Do you want the State to limit your free choices? Are YOU okay with that? You say you're not for socialized medicine, but you seem to be ready to resign yourself to whatever shift the political winds take? Yes?

and if he does things a majority disagrees with then we'll get him out of there. He campaigned on health care for everyone, and guess what, many people want health care and can't afford it, so they voted for someone who they thought would get that for him. I'm not for socialized medicine, but there are a ton of people in our country who are for it, so many people like that he wants to do this.

Many people are also quite comfortable with getting on the welfare rolls, too. So what? Should I resign myself to that fact, too? Or better yet...should I join them because after all...if the majority thinks it right, it must be so?

And your just as much along for the ride as I am or anyone on here. Simply complaining about it anonymously on a horse racing board does nothing, except for pass some time for entertainment. I know it probably makes you feel better to rant anonymously on a horse racing board and spew your knowledge, much of which is insightful, but your still just along for the ride.

But there's a difference between you and me and the Chickenheads of the world -- I won't go along for the ride quietly, willingly or without a fight. I won't roll over for the U.S. government. I won't play dead. I won't pretend that all is well, when it isn't.

And so what I post "anonymously"? Judge me on the content of my posts not on my identity. Truth is truth. Facts are facts. No matter who speaks these things. And moreover, political dissent (which you so glibly dismiss as "ranting") is a fundamental right of the The People. But since you apparently never lower yourself to "rant" against the government -- since you're above all that "childish nonsense" -- I suppose in your mind the politically correct thing we should all do with respect to public policy issues is to post either nothing at all or to post only our approvals of state policies? Which is it, sir: Shut up completely or become a state puppet (or better yet...slave) and post only admiration and approval for state policies? Which is it with you? It must be one or the other because you evidently, disapprove of my "rants" against the state, so this only leaves you with these two alternatives.

Boxcar

46zilzal
06-14-2009, 12:57 PM
Paranoia is on steroids THRIVING on things that don't exist, but then COULD be of you listen to FAUX

boxcar
06-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Paranoia is on steroids THRIVING on things that don't exist, but then COULD be of you listen to FAUX

I knew I could count on a post by you that would be as intelligent, insightful and informative as one written on the level of an amoeba. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

RaceBookJoe
06-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Paranoia is on steroids THRIVING on things that don't exist, but then COULD be of you listen to FAUX

Does that mean that you dont believe taxes and inflation will be going up, or that with the stimulus the unemplpyment lever will go over 8%, or that this country is not headed for increased government control of things??? Sometimes you post things that are intelligent, and other times like Boxcar says...very "amoeba-like".

PaceAdvantage
06-14-2009, 06:43 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

We're feeling extra, extra, EXTRA grumpy this evening Boxcrap, are we?

All this typing and true feelings pouring upon our new Obama led socialist nation...:lol: :lol:

Get off the Socialist nonsense.... you're boring everyone to death with it... and we are no closer to being a socialist society today then we were when either Bush was in power, including the one that didn't set the country back 25 yrs.
We're just a whole lot poorer.

Go light up another smoke and watch some reruns of Hannity, you'll feel a lot better.Didn't you once proclaim yourself "sideless?" As in, you're not a man of the left or the right? Or you're right on some things but left on others...

Just checking to make sure I have my bios straight...:lol:

Marshall Bennett
06-14-2009, 07:44 PM
If it sounds like a liberal ... its usually a liberal .:)

boxcar
06-14-2009, 08:12 PM
If it sounds like a liberal ... its usually a liberal .:)

...especially when it also walks like one and types like one. :lol:

Boxcar

Pell Mell
06-23-2009, 06:48 PM
There are a few things I find strange about the tobacco bill.
Before this bill the first thing the king did was to raise the tax on cigarettes by .60 and this is supposed to go for health care for kids. I found it odd that the cigarette companies raised their prices by .60 about a month before the bill was signed.
Now the FDA bill gets signed and one of the things banned is light cigarettes. The companies stopped making lights, at least I was told that by several retailers, a couple of months before the bill was signed. Quite evident they knew what was going to be in the bill from jumpstreet.
Common sense says if you increase the tax and put tobacco in the hands of the FDA that there are going to be a lot more that quit smoking. It also says this would reduce the tax revenues needed for the health plan. How to get around that? Easy, reduce the nicotine so that in order to satisfy the craving the smokers smoke twice as much.
The tobacco companies are probably writing the bills or have a lot of say in it. Money talks and bullshit walks and the companies and the govt. are all in cahoots and selling the public a line of crap that would put a snake oil salesman to shame.
Every damn thing the govt. does is either for your own good, or it's for the kids, and all the goofs swallow it.
If the govt. said it was going to nuke NJ but said it was for the kids the public would say Oh, that's ok then...it's for the kids.
Do they really think that everyone is like Zilly & Co?

Tom
06-24-2009, 07:28 AM
Conclusion - Obama is against healthy kids.

BenDiesel26
06-24-2009, 11:06 AM
There are a few things I find strange about the tobacco bill.
Before this bill the first thing the king did was to raise the tax on cigarettes by .60 and this is supposed to go for health care for kids. I found it odd that the cigarette companies raised their prices by .60 about a month before the bill was signed.
Now the FDA bill gets signed and one of the things banned is light cigarettes. The companies stopped making lights, at least I was told that by several retailers, a couple of months before the bill was signed. Quite evident they knew what was going to be in the bill from jumpstreet.
Common sense says if you increase the tax and put tobacco in the hands of the FDA that there are going to be a lot more that quit smoking. It also says this would reduce the tax revenues needed for the health plan. How to get around that? Easy, reduce the nicotine so that in order to satisfy the craving the smokers smoke twice as much.
The tobacco companies are probably writing the bills or have a lot of say in it. Money talks and bullshit walks and the companies and the govt. are all in cahoots and selling the public a line of crap that would put a snake oil salesman to shame.
Every damn thing the govt. does is either for your own good, or it's for the kids, and all the goofs swallow it.
If the govt. said it was going to nuke NJ but said it was for the kids the public would say Oh, that's ok then...it's for the kids.
Do they really think that everyone is like Zilly & Co?

Don't forget also that the bill excludes banning menthol as an additive, since the vast majority of African American smokers prefer menthols (75% last I heard). Obama wants to protect Americans but not at the expense possibly outraging any of his potential voters.

BenDiesel26
06-24-2009, 11:11 AM
Link (http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1256senateamendments)

Product Standards; Menthol Loophole: The bill prohibits most flavor additives in tobacco products following enactment, and gives the FDA the authority to adopt additional standards for tobacco products through a notice-and-comment process. However, the bill expressly prohibits FDA from banning whole classes of tobacco products, or "requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero...because of the importance" of such decision. As noted above, the bill prohibits most tobacco flavor additives but expressly excludes menthol as the only "FDA approved" additive permitted to remain in tobacco products. Some Members may echo the concerns of then-Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, who last year pointed out that this provision-by prohibiting the sale of clove and other flavored cigarettes manufactured overseas, while permitting the continued sale of menthol cigarettes manufactured in the United States-could violate international trade commitments, potentially sparking trade disputes and retaliatory action during a recession.

Studies confirm that African-Americans and other racial minorities comprise a disproportionate number of menthol smokers; Centers for Disease Control data indicate that 75% of African-American smokers use menthol cigarettes. Some Members may also note that seven former Health and Human Services Secretaries wrote to Congress to criticize a menthol "loophole" that "caves to the financial interests of tobacco companies" by "send[ing] a message that African-American youngsters are valued less than white youngsters."

RaceBookJoe
06-24-2009, 12:58 PM
Has the FDA ever been sued?? I always found it strange how the FDA can approve something, then after things go wrong they tell people to stop using whatever it is. The latest is a nasal spray that the FDA approved, but now come to find that the spray can cause loss of smell. rbj