Wiki info may be incomplete, anonymous cowardice

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010116571175249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 16:12:08 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Of course one never knows what really went on in another's house. My
point is these guys have no business trying to dictate to me how I
should conduct my family life. How many of these "family value"
preachers turn out to be drug abusers, adulterers and closet gay.
Think attempted pick ups in a bathroom. True one pixel does not make a
picture, but multiple pixels certainly do. (Hadda get back to
photography.)

--
Peter

weg9 says: I agree, but if you don't think the liberals tell me how
to live, then you haven't tried on a pair of my shoes.....How about
their helmet laws? It isn't their business what I want to do to my
head, but they are quick to make laws governing it. And their tobacco
taxes that run the price of a pack of cigs to nearly $10? No, it isn't
just the religious right that sticks its nose into other people's
business.......
Let's take things one at a time:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do with
the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the people,
does it?

Smoke if you care to, but do it where those who have chosen not to smoke
are safe from your addiction and its resulting fallout. As far as $10 a
pack goes, I could care less if it were $20.


Now let's look at a helmet law. If you brain damage yourself, it would
seem like your business. But, who is going to support you if you can't
work, if you don't have the means to support yourself. Why should you
force me to take care of you in that circumstance. Come to think of it,
why should I pay for your lung disease recovery, simply because you want
to smoke?

Do you also object to DUI laws?



--
Peter

The DUI laws affect other people on the road.....If you are drunk, you
could drive across the double line and hurt me. But why would you care
whether or not I wear a helmet? As a matter of fact, your chances of
surviving an accident with me are better if I am NOT wearing a helmet.
Also, my chances of getting in an accident in the first place are greater
when I am wearing a helmet, which restricts my ability to see and hear.
And, while we are on the subject, I carry a full boat of health
insurance, so you don't have to pay anything to fix me, buddy.....I pay
for my own repair. But this is typical of you liberals. first, you make a
law that steals my tax dollars and uses them to pay for someone else's
health insurance, than you use that as an excuse to make laws that govern
how well I take care of my self so I don't incur an expense to
YOU.....Give me a break! First, just leave my money alone, and let me
take care of myself with it, and then leave my lifestyle alone, so I can
break my own head if I want to. If you can't see that there is a
difference between DUI laws and helmet and seat belt laws, then there is
no way that we can have any sort of rational discussion on this subject.

Bill, speak to a fully alert, helmetless motorcyclist who was hit in the
face by an unidentified bug at 60 MPH. The resulting accident left him
brain damaged and paraplegic. No amount of insurance is ever going to
repair the life he now leads. No other vehicles involved, just impact with
pavement.
Speak to Gary Busey and see how he feels about helmets now.

...and certainly you are more than free to make all the lifestyle choices
you care to, just consider that the stories you might have heard from
those opposed to helmet and seat belt laws are myths. Seatbelts and
helmets do actually save lives.


--
Regards,

Savageduck


The point isn't whether they save lives or not, it's that the only life they
save is your own, and not those of the rest of the society, so the rest of
the society should just "bug out" If I am allowed to make laws that save
YOUR life, then I will make a law that forces you to live in a padded cell,
so my insurance rates will go way down to rock bottom.....Is that OK with
you? I think not. So, I should only be allowed to make laws that protect ME
from YOU. And, if that is the case, then Helmet and seat belt laws are, and
should be unconstitutional. Just use simple logic, my friend, and you too,
might become a libertarian.....:^)

"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2010-01-01 16:12:08 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do with
the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the people,
does it?

Smoke if you care to, but do it where those who have chosen not to smoke
are safe from your addiction and its resulting fallout. As far as $10 a
pack goes, I could care less if it were $20.

It's not morality, it's making the idiots who smoke pay for the damage they
cause. The medical care for smokers for diseases that wouldn't have occurred
otherwise is incredibly expensive, and everyone else in the insurance pool
has to pay for it. So $20 a pack is still way too low.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:



If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased and
badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking any
factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off in
exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and exploit
a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now using
that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation tactics
for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
could.

Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks' paranoid
nonsense and stupidity.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010117015150073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 16:41:55 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Of course one never knows what really went on in another's house. My
point is these guys have no business trying to dictate to me how I
should conduct my family life. How many of these "family value"
preachers turn out to be drug abusers, adulterers and closet gay.
Think attempted pick ups in a bathroom. True one pixel does not make
a picture, but multiple pixels certainly do. (Hadda get back to
photography.)

--
Peter

weg9 says: I agree, but if you don't think the liberals tell me how
to live, then you haven't tried on a pair of my shoes.....How about
their helmet laws? It isn't their business what I want to do to my
head, but they are quick to make laws governing it. And their tobacco
taxes that run the price of a pack of cigs to nearly $10? No, it isn't
just the religious right that sticks its nose into other people's
business.......
Let's take things one at a time:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do
with the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the
people, does it?


Now let's look at a helmet law. If you brain damage yourself, it would
seem like your business. But, who is going to support you if you can't
work, if you don't have the means to support yourself. Why should you
force me to take care of you in that circumstance. Come to think of it,
why should I pay for your lung disease recovery, simply because you
want to smoke?

Do you also object to DUI laws?



--
Peter

The DUI laws affect other people on the road.....If you are drunk, you
could drive across the double line and hurt me. But why would you care
whether or not I wear a helmet? As a matter of fact, your chances of
surviving an accident with me are better if I am NOT wearing a helmet.
Also, my chances of getting in an accident in the first place are
greater when I am wearing a helmet, which restricts my ability to see
and hear. And, while we are on the subject, I carry a full boat of
health insurance, so you don't have to pay anything to fix me,
buddy.....I pay for my own repair. But this is typical of you liberals.
first, you make a law that steals my tax dollars and uses them to pay
for someone else's health insurance, than you use that as an excuse to
make laws that govern how well I take care of my self so I don't incur
an expense to YOU.....Give me a break! First, just leave my money alone,
and let me take care of myself with it, and then leave my lifestyle
alone, so I can break my own head if I want to. If you can't see that
there is a difference between DUI laws and helmet and seat belt laws,
then there is no way that we can have any sort of rational discussion on
this subject.

You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will (and
should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will charge you
more for endangering your life and health.But when the government just
insures everyone automatically, then there is no individual
responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live generally
like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and that's the
way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that you will fully
realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself. It's the same old
argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility, and this also
takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay your own way.
I have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is one of the
reasons why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I
didn't need any laws to convince me of this.....It was my own choice.

You no longer smoke tobacco!!

Then why even bitch about what a pack might cost you? Thinking of slipping
back into the ranks of the puffers?


--
Regards,

Savageduck


Surely you're not serious? Do you think that we should all only take care of
ourselves, and not pay any attention to the constitutionality of our laws.
How about a law that takes all of Bill Gates' money away from him and
distributes it to the rest of us? We would all vote for it, (except Bill
Gates) because we would all gain from it. That's what the US Constitution is
for.....To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's why
we don't live in a Democracy, but rather in a Constitutional Republic. If
they can control smoking by simply taxing the hell out of a pack of cigs,
then they can control anything I might like to do by taxing the hell out of
it.....And pretty soon they will....Tell me, Sduck, what is it you like to
do?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...



You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the Obama
health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people paying
for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers) pay for
it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will (and should)
affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will charge you more for
endangering your life and health.But when the government just insures
everyone automatically, then there is no individual responsibility, and
people will drive, eat, drink, and live generally like there's no
tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and that's the way it ought to
be. By costing you money, it insures that you will fully realize the cost
of not taking good care of yourself. It's the same old
argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility, and this also
takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay your own way. I
have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is one of the reasons
why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I didn't
need any laws to convince me of this.....It was my own choice.

Your statement has nothing to do with the reality of insurance. At the
present time there is no firm "Obama health plan." However, the gut of the
Senate plan is that insurance companies will be prohibited from denying
coverage based upon pre=existing conditions. Don't confuse life with health.
e.g. There may be an exclusion from coverage for scuba or stunt driving
accidents on a life policy. On a health policy, they don't do it,unless you
get into the catastrophic coverage area.




--
Peter

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Savageduck" wrote:
On 2010-01-01 16:12:08 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do
with the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the
people, does it?

Smoke if you care to, but do it where those who have chosen not to smoke
are safe from your addiction and its resulting fallout. As far as $10 a
pack goes, I could care less if it were $20.

It's not morality, it's making the idiots who smoke pay for the damage
they cause. The medical care for smokers for diseases that wouldn't have
occurred otherwise is incredibly expensive, and everyone else in the
insurance pool has to pay for it. So $20 a pack is still way too low.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I these, "diseases" you speak of affect me, then you are right, but then
cigs should be outlawed altogether. If they only affect the ones who smoke,
then I could care less, and no laws should be made against them, and
certainly they shouldn't be taxed.....How do you think I feel, knowing that
My Government is making money off of the sale of drugs to poor people who
have become hooked on nicotine? This forces me, as a taxpayer, into an
immoral position as a drug dealer! Can you justify being a drug dealer and
making scads of money off of the sale of drugs, by saying that, "Well, the
more money I make the more people will try to quit, so I am really trying to
help society by eliminating all the druggies from it.....I am helping them
starve to death!"

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010010117015150073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-01-01 16:41:55 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Of course one never knows what really went on in another's house. My
point is these guys have no business trying to dictate to me how I
should conduct my family life. How many of these "family value"
preachers turn out to be drug abusers, adulterers and closet gay.
Think attempted pick ups in a bathroom. True one pixel does not make
a picture, but multiple pixels certainly do. (Hadda get back to
photography.)

--
Peter

weg9 says: I agree, but if you don't think the liberals tell me how
to live, then you haven't tried on a pair of my shoes.....How about
their helmet laws? It isn't their business what I want to do to my
head, but they are quick to make laws governing it. And their tobacco
taxes that run the price of a pack of cigs to nearly $10? No, it isn't
just the religious right that sticks its nose into other people's
business.......
Let's take things one at a time:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do
with the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the
people, does it?


Now let's look at a helmet law. If you brain damage yourself, it would
seem like your business. But, who is going to support you if you can't
work, if you don't have the means to support yourself. Why should you
force me to take care of you in that circumstance. Come to think of it,
why should I pay for your lung disease recovery, simply because you
want to smoke?

Do you also object to DUI laws?



--
Peter

The DUI laws affect other people on the road.....If you are drunk, you
could drive across the double line and hurt me. But why would you care
whether or not I wear a helmet? As a matter of fact, your chances of
surviving an accident with me are better if I am NOT wearing a helmet.
Also, my chances of getting in an accident in the first place are
greater when I am wearing a helmet, which restricts my ability to see
and hear. And, while we are on the subject, I carry a full boat of
health insurance, so you don't have to pay anything to fix me,
buddy.....I pay for my own repair. But this is typical of you liberals.
first, you make a law that steals my tax dollars and uses them to pay
for someone else's health insurance, than you use that as an excuse to
make laws that govern how well I take care of my self so I don't incur
an expense to YOU.....Give me a break! First, just leave my money alone,
and let me take care of myself with it, and then leave my lifestyle
alone, so I can break my own head if I want to. If you can't see that
there is a difference between DUI laws and helmet and seat belt laws,
then there is no way that we can have any sort of rational discussion on
this subject.

You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will (and
should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will charge you
more for endangering your life and health.But when the government just
insures everyone automatically, then there is no individual
responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live generally
like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and that's the
way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that you will fully
realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself. It's the same old
argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility, and this also
takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay your own way.
I have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is one of the
reasons why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I
didn't need any laws to convince me of this.....It was my own choice.

You no longer smoke tobacco!!


We really don't know what he smokes. :-)




--
Peter

"Gary Theilsen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:



If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
person
has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased
and
badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking any
factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off in
exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and exploit
a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now using
that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation tactics
for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
could.

Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks'
paranoid
nonsense and stupidity.

I suspected this years ago when the Telly told me that, "50 thousand people
die every year from second hand smoke." I immediatley asked, "How would they
know?" There is no way they could calculate a statistic like this. I would
sit on my front porch and see a bus go by, spewing diesel fumes into the
air, and wonder how many people die every year from diesel fumes.....:^)

On 2010-01-01 17:17:30 -0800, Gary Theilsen said:

On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:



If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
with your second hand smoke.

You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bull****!", the
episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased and
badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking any
factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off in
exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and exploit
a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now using
that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation tactics
for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
could.

Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks' paranoid
nonsense and stupidity.

So, second hand smoke isn't going to kill me. I'll buy that.

Now tell me how second hand smoke isn't going to make me choke & cough,
my eyes water, my clothes stink, and any other unpleasantness
non-smokers would have to endure so those addicted to a corporate drug
can indulge themselves.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


Of course one never knows what really went on in another's house. My
point is these guys have no business trying to dictate to me how I
should conduct my family life. How many of these "family value"
preachers turn out to be drug abusers, adulterers and closet gay.
Think attempted pick ups in a bathroom. True one pixel does not make
a picture, but multiple pixels certainly do. (Hadda get back to
photography.)

--
Peter

weg9 says: I agree, but if you don't think the liberals tell me how
to live, then you haven't tried on a pair of my shoes.....How about
their helmet laws? It isn't their business what I want to do to my
head, but they are quick to make laws governing it. And their tobacco
taxes that run the price of a pack of cigs to nearly $10? No, it isn't
just the religious right that sticks its nose into other people's
business.......
Let's take things one at a time:

If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
lungs with your second hand smoke.

Who said anything about your lungs? I would have to pay $10 a pack
whether your lungs were screwed up or not, so that has nothing to do
with the liberals using the tax laws to control the morality of the
people, does it?


Now let's look at a helmet law. If you brain damage yourself, it would
seem like your business. But, who is going to support you if you can't
work, if you don't have the means to support yourself. Why should you
force me to take care of you in that circumstance. Come to think of it,
why should I pay for your lung disease recovery, simply because you
want to smoke?

Do you also object to DUI laws?



--
Peter

The DUI laws affect other people on the road.....If you are drunk, you
could drive across the double line and hurt me. But why would you care
whether or not I wear a helmet? As a matter of fact, your chances of
surviving an accident with me are better if I am NOT wearing a helmet.
Also, my chances of getting in an accident in the first place are
greater when I am wearing a helmet, which restricts my ability to see
and hear. And, while we are on the subject, I carry a full boat of
health insurance, so you don't have to pay anything to fix me,
buddy.....I pay for my own repair. But this is typical of you liberals.
first, you make a law that steals my tax dollars and uses them to pay
for someone else's health insurance, than you use that as an excuse to
make laws that govern how well I take care of my self so I don't incur
an expense to YOU.....Give me a break! First, just leave my money alone,
and let me take care of myself with it, and then leave my lifestyle
alone, so I can break my own head if I want to. If you can't see that
there is a difference between DUI laws and helmet and seat belt laws,
then there is no way that we can have any sort of rational discussion on
this subject.


While you may have insurance, not everybody carries proper insurance, so
it it can very well hurt me if some guy without a brain bucket hurts
himself.

You see??? This is exactly the kind of thinking I was referring to
above....First, you make a law that takes my tax dollars away from me and
uses them to take care of thoise who are uninsured, then you use this as
an exdust to control my mofality......QED!!


Tell me, are you in favor of repealing the marijuana laws?

Bush ran up such a deficit with his lying inducement to war, that e will be
payinjg for it for years.




Even so, tell us are if you certain your insurance covers you for all
ventilator expenses? Incidentally, the last time I looked insurance
policies have limits on payments. Is there some rule in your state that
mandates the contrary?

No insurence can cover all possible expenses. that's because it is
impossible for modern medicine to keep everyone alive forever. "Rationing"
is necessary.....Always has been, and always will be in the future,
whether the government does it or not. I never complained that the Obama
Health plan has rationing.....I know that they all do, and always will.

Let's get back to the point. We were talking about how you riding a bike
without a helmet can cost me money. I have not heard a logical refutation of
that point.




IIRC the conservatives are uniformly against universal health care.

No. We are against government run health care. We believe that if everyone
wants health care enough to buy it and pay for it themselves, then it will
be, "universal" And if the insurance companies are forced to compete for
our money, then it will fall to it's lowest possible cost. The way it is
now, the government has gone to bed with the insurance companies so they
have made laws restricting free trade, and now the insurance companies are
making a bundle off of us. IOW, if the government just stayed out of our
faces, all would be OK. (Or, at least, all would stand some kind of a
chance, better than that of a snowball in hell, of being OK)

The exempton of insurance companies from the anti trust laws was done under
which administration?
Have there been any consertative adeministrations in office since then?





A tax is a legitimate way of keeping too many from getting me sick with
their smoke. BTW you do have the option of getting your cancer sticks
from the Indians and avoiding the tax.

Wrong! Taxes are not a legitimate way of getting rid of anything people
want to do. That's not the purposes of taxes. They are to pay for the
legitimate costs of government, and not to control the morality of the
people....Do you really want your government deciding whether what you do
is good or bad, and taxing it accordingly? And what clerk in what IRS
office should decide whether they like what you want to do? Maybe they
will decide that Coka Cola is bad for you, and decide to tax it a dollar a
can......Is that "OK" with you? Can't yopu see the endpoint of this? I see
a world where we are all living like ants in a colony.....Any time one of
us displays some individuality, the others will kill us for the "good of
the society".


We disagree!


Please don't pigeonhole me as a liberal. You don't even know me. Fight
your tendency to put labels on anyone who posts opinions contrary to
yours. Just because I think Rush and others are lunatic fringe
conservatives, doesn't automatically give you the right to pin a label on
me. I will tell you that I think members of society have a mutual
obligation to act responsibly toward one another. doing something for
pleasure and asking others to pay for it, is not responsible.

--
Peter

I only call it as I see it.....If you display liberal tendencies and ways
of thinking, then I will call you a liberal. - But its only for your own
good, sweetie.....:^)

So you try to win your arguments by labeling. I thought you smarter than
that. I admit to being wrong.


--
Peter