Let's see...you expect a bunch of goons who lied us into this retarded, Iraqi quagmire to then take even more of our money and then use it to help sick children. Sheesh! Stop being suckers. If we had a lick of sense we'd withhold all tax money until those goons can progress beyond the amoral crackhead type of integrity they currently possess and demonstrate a realistic adherence to their oath to defend the Constitution. Why do people making over $80,000 a year need help paying for their children's insurance? That's how the left compensates for their lack (or at least being behind the right) when it comes to charitable contributions. So, they figure let everyone pay, but they will 'feel' good that they did something 'good'. One catashtropic illness could bankrupt them Sooners. I was talking to a guy in the gym the other day who just had a knee replacement surgery and he is doing physical therapy on it. He said that surgery cost more than 60 grand. He told me if he wasn't covered by LTD then he wouldn't have had the money to pay for it. And if one's child had a pre-existing condition the insurance company wouldn't insure them even if they were able to afford some sort of medical care. We are talking children here! Children. And Record, I don't understand your comment in the context of the clip. All I hear you saying is some kind of liberal-bashing comment and that's fine, but I don't know how you ... @debbyski, first problem with this article is this woman talks as if she knows what Bush feels or doesn't feel about kids... I'll bet she doesn't. That aside, mixing various expenditures to make the point makes no sense. You could say that welfare payments to bums are way too high... and the cost of war is nothing in comparison. That's not how things are compared. You always have some thing costing this and others costing that, it's useless to dump everything in one basket, regardless of how unrelated one is to another. As for tobacco, I'll preface my comment by saying that I've never smoked in my life, I can't stand the smoke and never will smoke. With all of that - I think it's total... ... law suits, when there's real merit... but what we have is criminal. I spoke to a guy who has a friend who's a judge. This judge told him that in the last month he had 190 medical law suits on his desk and he had to dismiss 170 of them! Can you believe this? 90% - garbage. This is why the insurance for doctors is through the roof, which winds up trickling down to you and I and it shouldn't be like that. Passing some sort of semi-socialist approach isn't the way to fix these problems. That's why I agree with Bush on this veto. Back to war... the cost of the war is the amount of money spent on our troops, equipment etc. - if we say 'we support the troops' - it needs to be more than ... RS - you aren't paying the taxes to "support" the troops in Iraq. Those deficits, and interest payments to China, will be paid by our grand children. Clarification, Bush's funding of Schip has the same age eligibility status as the bipartisan legislation passed by Congress and supported by Democratic and Republican governors. The difference, Bush underfunds the Schip program by $9 Billion dollars, as determined by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Love that compassionate conservatism. Let's talk tobacco, taxes and education - http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/4947.html Guess which strategy is more effective in preventing kids from smoking -- education or taxes? The surpr... Well, if increasing prices is so effective - why not just go to $100/pack right now and be done with it. Heck, why not do the right thing and ban the damn lung killers? No, the bill clintons and john edwards of the world don't want that, for reasons that aren't so difficult to figure out. The bottom line is no matter how expensive you make something - people will find the way to get it if they want it bad enough. It's true of illegal drugs and just about anything else. But if you look at demographics of people who get slammed the most with these outrageous, mafia-like extortion rackets on the tobacco industry, it's the low-income folks and that's why it makes no sense to blow smoke, as ... What a bunch of garbage. By your logic if Democrats cared about poor people they would dole out free cigarettes to everyone. Your a moron. I would have never guessed you had such a warm fuzzy for the tobacco industry. You probably aren't even aware (but when have you ever been) who is proposing increases in federal tobacco taxes. http://www.upi.com/Health_Business/Analysis/2007/06/20/analysis_burning_smokers_to_help_kids/5283/ A proposal by Sen. Gordon Smith, REPUBLICAN-Ore., would increase the federal tax by 61 cents per pack, a move the Congressional Budget Office estimates would raise $35 billion over five years.Now let's see who supports tobacco taxes: They ... You might take some English & history classes, then you'd learn a few more words... although based on your comments & therefore size of your brain, that's not a given.... and might learn that clinton instituted the takedown of the tobacco industry. Let's have a History lesson, you could use one. On November 23, 1998 the Attorneys General and other representatives of 46 states. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the District of Columbia signed an agreement with the five largest tobacco manufacturers (Brown & Williamson Tobacco corporation, Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris Incorporated, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Commonwealth Tobacco, and Liggett & Myers), ending a four-year legal battle between the states and the industry that began in 1994 when Mississippi became the first state to file suit. Four states (Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas) had previously se... just because you put a few details out - doesn't mean it changes the facts. clinton did attack that industry, regardless of how you want to look at it, if you don't buy that argument - your 'research' is worthless... All I was saying was that he did it, with most of states, including our esteemed Patty Murray, who doesn't give a sh*t about one of her constituents writing about an emigrant family with serious health issues, but certainly dedicated considerable time and effort to stand next to clinton when this shakedown took place. It doesn't matter whether they're 'hurting' or not, what matters is that this was misplaced, unfair attack, just as their attack on Microsoft was, again doing ... No you are trying to obfuscate facts. The fact is everybody, except you and some other screwballs, has deemed the tobacco industry as a terrible drain on our economy and the health of our citizens. You want to ignore reality and try to attack Clinton. Your motives are as evident as the clear blue sky. You might tell us why this was an unfair attack. And while your doing it supply us some facts backed up with references and not just your beliefs. I already stated why it was unfair.... simply look to what was done to the liquor industry. I also stated why not just ban the damn thing. Obviously, you somehow missed those... very strange for someone foaming at the mouth about research... one'd think one that does careful research would be at least somewhat detailed oriented and have some memory, but perhaps you don't, which is ok - that's still legal. If you're still looking for 'facts' - look at the dates... you do understand the dates right? Clinton ran the show 1992-2000. If you didn't remember things but had an ounce of logic even you should be able to figure out that if the settlement was reached in 1998 - the debacle occurred ... Equating alcohol and tobacco as equally detremental is foolish. Alcohol in moderation provides health benefits. There is no known health benefit for tobacco use, period, end of story. You can try prohibition on tobacco but then it would end up unregulated, increase criminal activity, and require costly police enforcement. The war on drugs has been an outright failure. One major thing you could do is prohibit the marketing of tobacco. No more advertising. No giving away of items and prizes with logo images. No more colorful packaging (white boxes, same black print, same font and character). Another thing you could do is prohibit the inclusion of additives. Just raw tobacco. No more poison... Tobacco may not have medical benefits (although some forms of smoking, like marijuana arguably do... at least according to a number of people), if you talk to any smoker and ask them why they smoke - it's very unlikely that they do so because they love the smell of cigarettes or because they love the way they smell or the way it gives this nice coloration to their teeth... no, it's because it calms them down, or so they think. Actually the way they breathe is what creates the effect, but they achieve the effect through smoking. So, medically speaking - yes, there aren't any benefits, but no smoker would EVER agree with you that they do it for no reason. There are definitely reasons. It's... When did I ever say that tobacco smokers never smoke for different reasons then addiction. But to be accurate you should say that individuals don't begin to smoke due to addiction. Most begin for image and social acceptance reasons. They continue to smoke, predominantly, because of addiction. Nicotine being more addictive then heroine and the tobacco industry manipulating the nicotine uptake in the body by modifying it's acidic qualities. Do a search on "crack nicotine". Don't know where you get the idea that to have an addiction means you are forever incapable of breaking your addiction. Thanks for the article, it's refreshing to see you supplying some reference to back up your comments.... More: If you are looking to make one person accountable then you really need to be talking about Representative Henry Waxman (who ought to be raised on a pedestal and praised for his efforts). From 1979 through 1994, Rep. Waxman served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (now the House Commerce Committee). During those years, the Subcommittee had legislative and oversight jurisdiction over a wide range of health issues. Rep. Waxman used that opportunity to conduct scores of hearings on tobacco and to investigate the tobacco industry.He began way before Clinton ever showed up. [url=http://www.house.gov/w... You're changing the subject. Clinton certainly get the credit (i.e. blame) for that entire situation... the article clearly points it out. And this fact has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, at least not from my perspective. It's not like one side smokes and the other doesn't. I don't even know why you bring it up. You're trying desperately to pin a nation's efforts against the tobacco industry on one man, Bill Clinton. You're whole basis comes from one sentence in a 3 page article and that sentence is: "The Justice Department, which began investigating the tobacco industry three years ago, has in recent months expanded the criminal and civil inquiries, making them the Clinton Administration's most aggressive prosecutorial effort against the makers of a single consumer product, Government and private lawyers following the issue say." And from that sentence you make it sound as if Clinton was the instigator but he was not. The Justice Department is free to act on illegalities on it's own accord. The ... Look, I'm not a judge or jury so I'm not 'indicting', and regardless of how many Republicans you throw in the mix that doesn't change what was stated in the article mentioned. It's pretty clear from the article, although initially I was simply going based on what I remembered at the time, that this was one of Clinton's endeavors. I'm not saying he was the only one involved, but he certainly gets the red card for the deed. Don't bother with minutia of exactly who was involved or not, the article makes it pretty clear. End of story. You are so wrong. The article never, ever, ever, mentions Clinton on his own. The article uses the word Clinton once, as I pointed out. All the article says is that the Justice Department is part of the Clinton administration. Big Deal. That's not earth shattering news. Every President appoints an Attorney General. The Attorney General does what they have to do to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and signed by the President. I have shown that the States were involved. All of them, conservative, liberal, Democratic, and Republican. That Congress was involved. Republican and Democrat alike. Heck even city municipalities had lawsuits against the tobacco industry at this time... Epilogue: While Clinton praised the work of state attorneys general in working out the settlement, some of them voiced frustration with how long it has taken the White House to react.
Bobby, I am proud of you for being so passionate on this subject. RS is so inaccurate as to characterize the nation's effort against the tobacco industry as being driven top down from the White House. He has been successful in redirecting our energy, however, which needs to be brought back to the Bush Administration's protection of the tobacco industry. Shameful. From 1999: Twenty-six thousand Texans will die this year from smoking-related illnesses. That's a fact that seems lost on Governor George W. Bush, whose presidential bid is being greatly assisted by money and manpower intimately associated with the tobacco industry. And if Bush's record in Texas is any indication, should he make it to the White House the industry can feel certain tha... A survey conducted this summer by the Mellman Group shows broad support across the nation, in every demographic and ethnicity, for an increase in tobacco taxes. The results: Support for a 75-cent tobacco tax increase to expand health coverage for children is overwhelming irrespective of party affiliation, gender, race, age, and other demographic factors. The favorable-unfavorable ratio for different groups includes:
* Republicans: 67-27 percent * Independents: 61-34 percent * Men: 66-30 percent * Women: 68-26 percent * Non-Hispanic whites: 68-27 pe... |
View the Top Clips from October 4, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
