Lies your Government Sponsored Abortion Counsellor Tells You (Trees And Things)

Iunebrave: Re: Lies your Government Sponsored Abortion Couns

Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:49:19 EST

pornstars chat radio blog clubs wetter osterreich vorarlberg radio shack trs 80

Nekiihrac: Re: Lies your Government Sponsored Abortion Couns

Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:25:05 EST

mcrae rally 2005 trainer flug von munchen nach radio recorder 1.0 airline tickets in United States web site hosting services web site design design hosting I have only read parts of the 'new' (meaning recycled old studies) EPA report, but they address the bogus statistical methodology used in the 1993 report in one paragraph which states, essentially, that the

nmiguy: Re: On second hand smoke

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:46 EST

Sue, I thank you for your reply. I was not entirely disagreeing with Thalia. My addition to the conversation was not to initiate name calling, but to try and provide facts to work with. But I also agree with you that there is a syst

ms sue: Re: On second hand smoke

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:59:13 EST

First of all, Thalia in no way said anything about abortion being 100% safe. So to begin your comment with that question is a bit disingenuous, if not straw-like.

I am not disputing that the government is "lying" to try and persuade young women to no

nmiguy: Re: On second hand smoke

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:28:37 EST
Thalia, are you claiming that abortions are 100% safe? I am curious about that. I am not disputing that the government is "lying" to try and persuade young women to not have abortions, but I want to be wary also of going in the other direction

marduk: Re: rudeness without facts != answers

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:13:58 EST
OK fine, I'll answer your questions even though they don't have much of anything to do with my point.
why do you think people (myself included) feel ill after short term exposure to second hand smoke (coincidence)?
Because cigaret

Steve Urkel: Re: $528 million dollars you didn't have to spend

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:25:06 EST
It's not an actual argument, your claim that smokers benefit from federal tobacco subsidies turns out to be false. You should acquaint yourself with the facts before making assertions.

maml: Re: $528 million dollars you didn't have to spend

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:13:34 EST
While the pointlessness of argueing with you is manifest, I'll leave you with this observation.
States are not supposed to handle foreign policy, that's one of the main jobs of the federal government.

shane: you can ignore other users!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:10:29 EST
You can still ignore other users. There just isn't any technology that will help you with that - yet. We need a process to keep track of requests. I don't have any right now but hopefully the board will help change that. You could p

Steve Urkel: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:09:59 EST
Yes, second hand smoke isn't deadly. First hand smoke, on the other hand, has the potential for serious health consequences. These statements are perfectly compatible. It's like how being exposed to automobile exhaust as you walk down the street isn't dead

koos: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:52:44 EST
QUOTE: "No, second hand smoke is not deadly."
QUOTE: "I'm not claiming smoking isn't bad..."
"It's harmful, sure, just not deadly, see? 'Cause, you know, you can get a lung transplant and live for a few more years. And then get hit by

Steve Urkel: Re: Oh. My. Dear. Lord.

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:51:05 EST
I was discussing relative risks, while making an allusion to my other comments. It's a rich tapestry I'm weaving. Some get it, some don't.
"You do know that most homophobes are gay"
Are they? Interesting. I'm not sure how that's relevant, as I don't

Steve Urkel: Re: $528 million dollars you didn't have to spend

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:44:28 EST
"in smoker's pockets from the taxpayers"
No money is going in smokers pockets from tobacco subsidies. The amount of money smokers just from California paid in taxes in the year 2000 alone was 2.2 times greater than total tobacco subsidies for the entire

koos: Oh. My. Dear. Lord.

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:36:00 EST

How dangerous is smoking compared to homosexual sex?
Dude? You and I have very little left to say to one another. Ever. I mean, I thought you were batshit before, b

Steve Urkel: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:28:10 EST
I'm not claiming smoking isn't bad, I'm observing how absurd it is for the government to claim there is no safe level of SHS while admitting there are safe levels of exposure to other harmful air pollution, such as toxic welding fumes or smog at concentrat

maml: $528 million dollars you didn't have to spend

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:26:11 EST
528,000,000 dollars in smoker's pockets from the taxpayers. Why can't I get my third world prenatal health care?

Steve Urkel: Re: Here to help

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:22:14 EST
The taxes on tobacco more than offset any subsidies. Tobacco subsidies for the entire United States in the year 2000 totaled $345,201,356.* In the year 2000 the state of W

koos: Okay, well

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:13:17 EST
Of course, Captain, anecdotal evidence only gets me so far, and I always hesitate to bring it up because of that very falability. But the post you were replying to is merely an easy experiment everyone can participate in. I have a theory as to what the

ms sue: Re: Can I make a suggestion, then?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:08:03 EST
I think koos may have rhetorically embellished his point -- but not by much. I envy you your lungs of steel and imperviousness to clouds of tobacco smoke, but I bet that the vast majority of nonsmokers do feel the effects, albeit in varying degrees. For ex

ms sue: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:39:57 EST
The author of the study to which you linked may or may not be right; he does have his critics, as shown by a quick google. I rather hope he's right because he claims that such overestimation actually keeps the number of smokers lower than it would be other

maml: Re: Here to help

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:33:45 EST
Production of cigarettes is federally subsidized, tobacco products are taxed differently in various states. Your cigs would cost more if they it weren't for government subsidies. Global health would be better funded if the Religious Right didn'

CaptainLiberal: Re: Can I make a suggestion, then?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:11:00 EST
Maybe you just have a sub-par bronchial system?
I started smoking when I was 19 (so much for the common wisdom that it's the kids who are getting hooked), but I'd been trawling bars and other smoky venues for some time before that. Not once

Steve Urkel: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:44:00 EST
See Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?
for example. While smokers think cigarettes are more dangerous than they are, I'm not claiming they don't think th

koos: Now who's the victim?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:39:24 EST
Dude, when I speak/type like a dockworker (e.g. "ya' lazy bastard") it's meant to be tounge-in-cheek. I am honestly sorry I didn't make that clear - I probably should have just left it out of the post altogether. I should have known better, and I appologiz

koos: Can I make a suggestion, then?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:21:00 EST
Try and not smoke for about two months. Not for quitting purposes, mind you (you have to want to do that and it doesn't appear you do), but just for a simple scientific experiment (it's objective AND repeat-able, making it fairly scientific in my book).

ms sue: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:13:03 EST
(did you know most smokers actually think smoking is more harmful than it really is?)
Granted that your punctuation clearly indicates that this statement posed as a question is irrelevant, I'd still be interested in how you arrived at this conclu

marduk: Re: rudeness without facts != answers

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:58:53 EST
You've got a lot of fucking gall calling me out for rudeness after the post I responded to.

Steve Urkel: Re: Here to help

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:28:14 EST
"your cancer sticks are subsidized"
No, some tobacco farmers are subsidized. Actual cigarettes are heavily taxed.
I'm glad you don't smoke around preggos and babies, neither do I. One of the ironies of banning smoking in bars is that has likely incre

Steve Urkel: Re: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:19:36 EST
I smoke. I don't deny it's bad for me (did you know most smokers actually think smoking is more harmful than it really is?). I don't deny a pregnant woman who smokes is harming her fetus (though it's not as harmful to fetuses as abortions). But the case ag

koos: Oops

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:58:15 EST
That may have been me. I was messing around with the modding feature yesterday... and I have to refresh the page everytime I press on a link... so I may have just gotten frustrated and started super up-modding, super-down modding to see if I could actually

koos: Thanks!

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:52:13 EST
That was all I was looking for. Now I can look into your source, see if I find it scientifically persuasive, and see if any data exists that refutes it. I can also compare your beliefs (i.e. "many in the government are zealots") and evaluate your su

maml: Re: Here to help

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:36:05 EST

"aid to NGOs that provide abortion"
Notice how something Leftists declare a 'right' always transforms into demands on others to pay for it. If you think it so important to kill unborn babies in the third world you pay for it with your own mo

shane: Re: Here to help

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:35:24 EST
Turns out 'trusted' users could down-mod comments to 0, at which point normal users couldn't see them. Last night Dan changed the settings so we won't have trusted users around for a while (short term solution). Today I modified the ratings in

Steve Urkel: Re: So...

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:04:08 EST
"WHY is the Government using all these resources lying to us?"
Many people in government are zealots. Also, extorting money from tobacco companies has been extremely profitable for the government.
"if you come to me with a reasoned argument (based on

koos: rudeness without facts != answers

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:15:29 EST

What the government does is take the (believable if not reliable) study showing that chronic long-term exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke presents a long term health risk and then disingenuously attempt to confuse people int

3fingerspointback: Re: Censorship or bug?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:56:05 EST
Now that I've come back to review this thread, I can see CTCKAF but I can't see "Here to Help" any more. I took another look at The Scoop Administration FAQ (a valuable read for all site members,

socky: Re: That's it?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:52:12 EST
The quantum of money's not really the point. The lying is despicable, and should appear so to people on both sides of the moral debate. The people working in these centres could be honest and say "here at [ ] centre, we think abortion is wrong, and we will

marduk: Chronic, acute; what's the difference, right?

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:08 EST
Sorry you wasted all that time writing. Maybe you should have read what I wrote. I have no idea what your point is or why you think I support smoking indoors in public places. Or smoking at all for that matter. Or why you keep referring to OBJECTIVE AND VE

koos: So...

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:17:59 EST
Basically what you're saying is that I make myself sick and uncomfortable subconsciously when I hang out around people who smoke? Because I'm obviously so stupid, and I don't know anything about that toxi-whatsamacologies? And, of course, you don't have to

marduk: Just because it's a lie you like...

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:33:46 EST
What the government does is take the (believable if not reliable) study showing that chronic long-term exposure to high concentrations of secondhand smoke presents a long term health risk and then disingenuously attempt to confuse people into believing tha

koos: BCBS calls you on it

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:22:54 EST
BlueCrossBlueShield of Rhode Island calls you on your second hand smoke jibberjabber, son. As does my own personal experience.
Insurance companies know that families of smokers are more likely to have asthmatic kids. Even if the smoking started AFTER th

Thalia: On second hand smoke

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:03:32 EST
I have asthma, and I can assure you that second hand smoke can be deadly, at least for the 10% of Americans with breathing issues. Maybe it won't give you a heart attack, but it will make breathing quite difficult. And that is enough negative e

ms sue: A troll by any other name

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:33:08 EST
I'm still unable to see any comment posted by a "Steve Urkel" entitled "Here to Help." But I surely am glad to know that such a post exists because it probably explains why I was experiencing a bit of deja vu reading the guy's comments in general.

Steve Urkel: Defund all lies

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:11:52 EST
No, second hand smoke is not deadly. You shouldn't believe everything your government tells you.
"failing to smoke does not cause any life changes, whereas deciding not to get an abortion based on false data certainly does"
I agree, not getting an ab

Thalia: Medicine & proper terminology

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:50:56 EST
A fetus is an "animal in the later stage of development before birth. In humans, the fetal stage is the from the end of the third month until birth." Whereas a baby is "a child under 24 months of age."
Medical dictonaries are fun. Trolling,

Thalia: Give me stats

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:46:57 EST
Or a study, or something. Last I checked, second hand smoke IS deadly. Last the medical community checked, abortions do not cause breast cancer, depression (any more than birth does, the hormones suck either way), infertility, etc. So, I

koos: I end up having to refresh

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:46:50 EST
pretty much every five seconds and every time I go to a new page, in order to see any kind of changes. That may just be me, though.
{ k }

Steve Urkel: I don't know

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:41:07 EST
I did the same thing and at it made no difference - and then all off sudden I could see them again. Either there is a delay before the settings changes take effect, or it's some kind of bug.

humorlesscretin: My turn to litter

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:06 EST
How'd you do that? I can't see "Here to Help". My settings: nested, display: all, sort by rating: ignore ratings, sort by age: oldest, rate: yes.

Steve Urkel: Now I can see them

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:07:25 EST
Now I can see them all. Apologies for littering on the thread.

Steve Urkel: Thanks

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:04:54 EST
I still can't see them. Oh well.

thefadd: I see five steve urkel comments

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:00:22 EST
even the ones modded to zero.

Steve Urkel: Huh

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:28:21 EST
Interesting. I guess for some reason I can't see comments that have been downgraded to zero (even after setting my preferences to view all comments). Oh well.
I would appreciate it if you or anyone else would let me know in the event they dissapear com

3fingerspointback: I can see your comments

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:21:58 EST
I can see a comment from you titled "Here to Help", and another titled "CTFKAF", both scored at 0. There's another one scored at 1.5. And the one I'm replying to. I don't know if you had others. Check your display preferences, maybe

Steve Urkel: Censorship or bug?

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:07:20 EST
Why have my comments on this thread been deleted?

Steve Urkel: CTFKAF

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:57 EST
There's no such thing as babies, just crying-things formerly known as fetuses.

Steve Urkel: Here to help

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:30:00 EST
"aid to NGOs that provide abortion"
Notice how something Leftists declare a 'right' always transforms into demands on others to pay for it. If you think it so important to kill unborn babies in the third world you pay for it with your own money.
"No

MayorBob: Technicality Time.

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:20:37 EST
They're not really unborn babies. They're called fetuses.

maml: "the political speculum"

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:09:14 EST
I haven't seen any ads about the damage of second hand smoke. The one's I see address first hand smoking.
Given that the government continues to subsidize the tobacco growning industry, while denying aid to NGOs that provide abortion and limiting

Steve Urkel: That's it?

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:51:48 EST
The money our government spends to exaggerate the risks of killing unborn babies is miniscule in comparison to the 100's of millions it has spent to exaggerate the risks of second hand smoke.
Which does not, of course justify lying about killing unborn

ms sue: Wait...

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:49:24 EST
let me get this straight: This administration, via its pregnancy crisis centers, is lying and misleading the public? That's gotta be a first.