All Hank, all the time.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Spanky
[Driving is safer.....]This will only be true when the terrorist start taking out a least twenty planes a year.

Or when people stop driving with Penske at the wheel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
which tribe are your people from? oh. you're not Jewish? I'm afraid you wouldn't understand then.

You are an idiot, and you assume things you shouldn't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are an idiot, and you assume things you shouldn't.

maybe. but at least I'm not a retard.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Vanity and stress release.

The devil's in the details. My problem with these studies is they all fail to tell people how very little being around second hand smoke, or drinking four cocktails a night, raises their risk. The people who put out these studies want them to be read, so they say "Second Hand Smoking Causes Cancer!"... and in the fine print, you read, "in one out of 3,000,000 people, 79% of whom have a mutation at gene CDK9."

A person who just reads headnotes (most of the press) takes the ball and runs with it. Then some idiot on a city planning board holds it up at a metting and says "We must ban smoke everywhere!"

And so misiniformation spreads further...

And you dont' think this is all just a pretext for (1) trying to make it less convenient to smoke in the hope that fewer people will do it (you do agree that actually smoking increases cancer risk, right?), and/or (2) getting rid of an otherwise annoying and impolite behavior (i.e. smoking indoors and around others)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe. but at least I'm not a retard.

So there's hope for you, eh? Good.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe. but at least I'm not a retard.

All available evidence suggest to the contrary.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Vanity and stress release.

The devil's in the details. My problem with these studies is they all fail to tell people how very little being around second hand smoke, or drinking four cocktails a night, raises their risk. The people who put out these studies want them to be read, so they say "Second Hand Smoking Causes Cancer!"... and in the fine print, you read, "in one out of 3,000,000 people, 79% of whom have a mutation at gene CDK9."

A person who just reads headnotes (most of the press) takes the ball and runs with it. Then some idiot on a city planning board holds it up at a metting and says "We must ban smoke everywhere!"

And so misiniformation spreads further...

Why do you think I sent you to Medline and the actual Surgeon General's report instead of some reporter's synopsis of the same studies? At the very least, read the conclusions at the end of each chapter of the Surgeon General report (hint: especially adult respiratory) to bolster your own position instead of shouting back that science is wrong. Scientific study is all about the fucking details, trying to parse which of a gazillion different factors is likely to lead to a specific result.

And you're so hyped up on lung cancer that you're forgetting all of the other health problems that have an association with tobacco smoke, including environmental tobacco smoke, like asthma, COPD, CHD, a variety of other cancers and reproductive problems. I'll talk to your oncologists if you talk to my pulmonologists. If a person doesn't have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, he or she may very well have a predisposition to one of the other nasty, expensive to treat diseases that tobacco smoke exacerbates. And then I have to pay for his or her healthcare costs through increased insurance premiums or Medicare / Medicaid, and that's when it becomes a problem that I care about.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
All available evidence suggest to the contrary.

Bunifa told me he is smart enough to lube up before the pegging.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
And you dont' think this is all just a pretext for (1) trying to make it less convenient to smoke in the hope that fewer people will do it (you do agree that actually smoking increases cancer risk, right?), and/or (2) getting rid of an otherwise annoying and impolite behavior (i.e. smoking indoors and around others)?

not intentionally. the party of interference subliminally wants there to be no smoking for those reasons, but truly believes its laws are justified for the stated reasons. it's like how you say Israel shouldn't defend itself so much, but your real motivation is that you subliminally hope everything will get better if we just go back to ignoring everything.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not intentionally. the party of interference subliminally wants there to be no smoking for those reasons, but truly believes its laws are justified for the stated reasons. it's like how you say Israel shouldn't defend itself so much, but your real motivation is that you subliminally hope everything will get better if we just go back to ignoring everything.

There is nothing subliminal about it. Things do not get better by carrying out war on people that aren't at war with you, even if they are sympathetic with those that are.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
There is nothing subliminal about it. Things do not get better by carrying out war on people that aren't at war with you, even if they are sympathetic with those that are.

No, but they do by continuing to let those people who aren't doing anythng to you aid and support and host an enemy and its ever growing armaments that are intended to do a lot of harm to you. Keep thinking from a college sophmore;s perspective. Luckily there are intelligent world wise adults in charge in Israel. And trhe White hOuse.

[Shape Shifter]

What is farsi for "sock"?

Ahmadinejad's blog




Sample poll: "Do you think that the US and Israeli intention and goal by attacking Lebanon is pulling the trigger for another word war/"

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
As it happens, Dingell was quoted out of context by PowerLine, Rush Limbaugh and others in a way that made him sound more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Amazingly enough, Victor Davis Hanson has managed to quote selectively from a lengthier statement Dingell made to address the earlier smear to again smear Dingell as being more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Bewildering? Hardly. Instructive? Yes, but not in the way he meant. What a hack.

Read it again:

DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.

ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?

DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.

What is instructive is that he was unable to state the simple fact "No I happen to be against Hezbollah." - the words appear to fail him.

Within the next sentence, he tosses off the "I condemn them" but then immediately wraps them into a conversation about both sides, and talks about "both sides coming together"

Which sides - a terrorist organization occupying another country and the Nation which it unilaterally attacked.

You're right about one thing - Dingell's comments are bewildering.

As to who is the hack, well....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What is farsi for "sock"?

Ahmadinejad's blog

Off my corner, ho.

[SlaveNoMore]

Diane_Keaton
Which apparently means he isn't against Hezbollah's goals and any actions it takes that aren't "violent." Which, basically, means Dingell is retarded for trying to make this distinction. Hezbollah has engaged in horrific violence in the past (before the most recent Lebanon skirmish) so Dingell should flat out say he is against the terrorist organization. That he didn't out and out condemn this violent organization is just splitting hairs. He needs to retire.

It appears DK has my proxy.