Testing Democrat Honesty

[Uncensored2008]

Well, it didn't take long to completely divert the topic from Islamic terrorism to Christian bashing did it?

If a Christian group organized to set off bombs in crowded places or machine gun innocent people or fly airplanes into large buildings with the intent of murdering as many people as possible and instilling terror in the hearts of everybody, we would not hesitate to call such a group "Christian terrorists." It would be absurd not to.

It is also an almost absolute certainty that such activity would be immediately and soundly condemned by Christians in the media, from all or most pulpits of the land and around the world, and by every valid Christian organization out there all proclaiming such to be an evil and viscious act and unjustifiable in any way as a Christian act. Much as we Christians uniformly condemn the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church that are not terrorism but are definitely nonChristian, indefensible, and reprehensible. Their behavior is against all that Christianity stands for.

And nobody with a brain worries about offending Christians when they condemn the Westboro Baptist activities.

How can anybody with a brain NOT call the terrorists in France Islamic terrorists when they identified themselves as such? And where are all the Muslim groups condemning that act as against all the Islam stands for?

The desire of the left is to excuse the acts of Muslim terrorists by creating a false equivalence.

The initial claim of "Christians shooting up abortion clinics" is simply the bigoted stupidity of the demagogues. The reasons the demagogue party has chosen to ally itself with Islamic terrorism is interesting in it's own right, but the subject of another thread. Rudolph used bombs - 20 years ago. His acts were rare to the point of unique. Far from a daily occurrence, as the Islamic terrorism that the left promotes is, the acts of Rudolph were unheard of.

Far from silence and muted support, as we see from Muslims and there demagogue supporters, Rudolph was loudly condemned by all pro-life groups.

But more than this, Rudolph belonged to a cult that is not recognized as "Christian" by anyone. The "Christian Identity" movement that Rudolph follows is a bizarre, racist cult that has no ties to any Christian community. It is more Aryan Nations than it is a church.

NYC simply wants to excuse the acts of the terrorist allies of his filthy party - but his argument is laughable.

Christianity is not a terrorist religion, no matter how badly the hate-filled left wishes that it was.

 

[Clementine]

Do the whack jobs who shot up abortion clinics in the name of God represent Christianity when they call themselves Christian and say they act in the name of God?? No, they do not. Political diplomats are merely trying to draw the same sort of distinction out of respect for peaceful Muslims..

This is along the same means as what Dean was talking about, and of course he knew the partisan sycophants like the OP would take it and sprint with it. Played her like a trollup fiddle that she is, Dean did.

This distinction will be far above your ability to comprehend...but my partisanship is based on a love and desire to protect this nation.

The Dean-Obama partisanship is based on lying to the American people, thereby making them more vulnerable to the evil we saw played out in Paris this morn.

In my mind, that's a significant difference....but, with your gerbil-level intelligence, you probably can't see that/

Wanna carrot?

Obama and most on the left are blaming the victims instead of the guilty. The message is that if you joke about Allah or insult Islam in any way, you can expect to be murdered. It's all designed to shut people up and slowly force people to accept Islam without questioning all the negative aspects of it. That is the plan of the extremists and our own leaders are playing along.

While Christians, Jews and all others are criticized and lampooned daily and shrug it off, Muslims kill over the slightest offense. And instead of condemning them, the administration points fingers at the victims and more or less say, "Well, what did you expect?" Muslims kill because they cannot tolerate infidels. Period.

It's like saying that if you tease that rattlesnake, you deserve to get bit. Of course, Muslims are human and should be capable of reason, unlike animals. The left seems to consider them animals who cannot respond to anything in a rational manner. It's an admission that we are dealing with evil and instead of fighting against it, the whackos want us to accept it, humor them and allow them to hold death threats over our heads when we speak out against them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, it didn't take long to completely divert the topic from Islamic terrorism to Christian bashing did it?

If a Christian group organized to set off bombs in crowded places or machine gun innocent people or fly airplanes into large buildings with the intent of murdering as many people as possible and instilling terror in the hearts of everybody, we would not hesitate to call such a group "Christian terrorists." It would be absurd not to.

It is also an almost absolute certainty that such activity would be immediately and soundly condemned by Christians in the media, from all or most pulpits of the land and around the world, and by every valid Christian organization out there all proclaiming such to be an evil and viscious act and unjustifiable in any way as a Christian act. Much as we Christians uniformly condemn the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church and others of that ilk that are not terrorism but are definitely nonChristian, indefensible, and reprehensible. Their behavior is against all that Christianity stands for.

And nobody with a brain worries about offending Christians when they condemn the Westboro Baptist activities.

How can anybody with a brain NOT call the terrorists in France Islamic terrorists when they identified themselves as such? And peaceful Muslims too are condemning it:
Local Muslim organizations condemn Paris attack - City Region - The Buffalo News

But for heaven's sake, we have to call such things what they are or political correctness is going to be the death of us all.

If you can call Christians terrorists non-Christians, why can't Muslim terrorists be similarly condemned as non-Muslims?

I didn't say they couldn't be. But to refuse to acknowledge that they identify themselves as Muslims is short sighted and silly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So a whackjob who openly condemns Christians in his confession, over 20 years ago, is your defense for your terrorist buddies engaging in murder and mayhem every single day, with the approval and praise of the majority of Muslims,

Amazing.

That's not what he did. Do you need more?

This is verbatim from one of Rudolph's writings:

"Rooted in the Christian teaching against killing the innocent, and the traditional respect for motherhood, Western conservatives have consistently opposed abortion and infanticide."

"Conservatives believe childbirth is central to a women’s role in life. For the most part they derive their values from the Christian ethic. To these people abortion is murder."

"More than any other issue abortion reveals the basic conflict between conservatives and
egalitarians that centers on this question: Is America an identity born of the Western Christian Culture, or is it a pile of culturally neutral abstractions derived from the Enlightenment?"

Eric Rudolph Book Introduction

"Rooted in the Christian teaching against killing the innocent,..."

Amen.

Ah, see, a concession that Rudolph was in fact a Christian terrorist.

No prob....as soon as you admit that Jared Lee Loughner was a product of Liberal indoctrination.
After all.....he was a grad of the school created by the investment that Barack Hussein Obama, peace be on him, provided.

1. Then there was left-wing pot-head Jared Loughner. As soon as he shot up the Gabrielle Giffords political event, Paul Krugman wrote his column, “Climate of Hate,” announcing that the cause of the shooting was “toxic rhetoric” coming “overwhelmingly from the right.” This was followed by the usual torrent of exactly zero examples.
   1. Sadly, for the Left, lots of Loughner acquaintances chimed in: “left-wing,” “political radical,” “quite liberal,” AZ SHOOTER Left-Winger JARED LOUGHNER 8211 He Likes Watching US Flags Burn Favorite Book is Communist Manifesto The Gateway Pundit One friend said Loughner never listened to talk radio, of watched TV news. Throw in “never read books” and you have the dictionary definition of a liberal.
   2. 2. Research turned up an Obama-Loughner link: Obama and Ayers shunted funds to support Maoist Michael Klonsky. In 1991 Klonsky and Ayers co-founded a project known as the "Small Schools Workshop" (SSW); the teacher preaching the “social justice” gospel that American capitalism is a racist, materialist, imperialist cauldron of injustice can have greater impact on the students he seeks to mold into his conception of the “good citizen” — and on the teachers he is teaching to be preachers. Another Communist in Obama’s Orb - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online . 3. During his formative high school years, Jarod Lee Loughner attended the Mountain View High School, in Arizona…a school whose curriculum was designed by Mike Klonsky, friend and associate of Bill Ayers and Barack Obama… Shooting suspect?s nihilism rose with isolation - Herald News

Deal?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do the whack jobs who shot up abortion clinics in the name of God represent Christianity when they call themselves Christian and say they act in the name of God?? No, they do not. Political diplomats are merely trying to draw the same sort of distinction out of respect for peaceful Muslims..

This is along the same means as what Dean was talking about, and of course he knew the partisan sycophants like the OP would take it and sprint with it. Played her like a trollup fiddle that she is, Dean did.

This distinction will be far above your ability to comprehend...but my partisanship is based on a love and desire to protect this nation.

The Dean-Obama partisanship is based on lying to the American people, thereby making them more vulnerable to the evil we saw played out in Paris this morn.

In my mind, that's a significant difference....but, with your gerbil-level intelligence, you probably can't see that/

Wanna carrot?

Obama and most on the left are blaming the victims instead of the guilty. The message is that if you joke about Allah or insult Islam in any way, you can expect to be murdered. It's all designed to shut people up and slowly force people to accept Islam without questioning all the negative aspects of it. That is the plan of the extremists and our own leaders are playing along.

While Christians, Jews and all others are criticized and lampooned daily and shrug it off, Muslims kill over the slightest offense. And instead of condemning them, the administration points fingers at the victims and more or less say, "Well, what did you expect?" Muslims kill because they cannot tolerate infidels. Period.

It's like saying that if you tease that rattlesnake, you deserve to get bit. Of course, Muslims are human and should be capable of reason, unlike animals. The left seems to consider them animals who cannot respond to anything in a rational manner. It's an admission that we are dealing with evil and instead of fighting against it, the whackos want us to accept it, humor them and allow them to hold death threats over our heads when we speak out against them.

Nobody expects to be or risks being murdered when they offend a Christian or a Jew. How much more would Christians and Jews be branded as evil if they routinely did militantly retaliate against anybody who dared insult a prophet or made an unkind comment about God via word, film, cartoon etc? Would those who insulted them be blamed? Or would the Christians and Jews be condemned?

Why should we have to accept that Muslims can be expected to violently retaliate when they are offended and therefore it is our fault and we are responsible if we offend them? Why should it be politically incorrect to offend a Muslim more than it is politically incorrect to offend a Christian or a Jew?

Yes it is a fact that those who offend a Muslim put themselves at risk in a way that offending those of other religions does not. Hell, in some parts of the world just not BEING a Muslim puts people at risk. That is the reality. We are wise to acknowledge it. But we sure as hell don't have to accept it as okay.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In responding to questions about the horror that took place in Paris earlier today, Democrat/Liberal Howard Deans revealed the sort of honesty that many have come to expect from folks of his political persuasion.


"Howard Dean: Don’t Call Paris Attackers ‘Muslim Terrorists’

... former Gov.Howard Dean (D-VT) immediately dismissed the idea that Islam would be to blame for the attack.

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists,” Dean said on Morning Joe. ”They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

He also said he does not believe ISIS is an “Islamic cult” and thinks it would be unwise to “accord [the gunmen] any religious respect.”

Despite Dean’s early assertions, though, one of the gunmen purportedly said ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in a videothat was released after the attack, and another was reportedly heard shouting “we have avenged the prophet.”
Howard Dean Don 8217 t Call Paris Attackers 8216 Muslim Terrorists 8217 Mediaite




And, in an earlier tale, equally reality-based...
"OBAMA: ISLAMIC STATE 'IS NOT ISLAMIC'

In his prime-time speech to the nation on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, President Obama vowed to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq and Syria with airstrikes and 475 U.S. boots on the ground – but he also made a particular point of declaring that the Islamic State terrorists “are not Islamic.”
Obama Islamic State 8216 is not Islamic 8217


And, let's remember...."you can keep your doctor," and the ever-popular "you didn't build that!"

Sorry. I couldn't help but laugh. FYI - Honesty and politics mix like water and oil. The header "Testing Democrat Honesty" is really stretching the meaning of honesty, to the nth degree. Professional politicians and the word "honesty" do NOT belong in the same sentence, nor in the same breathe.

Saying politicians are as dishonest as used car-salesmen is an understatement.

Democrats give car-salesmen a bad name.

Maggots complained, too.

 

[BluesLegend]

Testing Democrat Honesty

I laughed right out loud

 

[PoliticalChic]

In responding to questions about the horror that took place in Paris earlier today, Democrat/Liberal Howard Deans revealed the sort of honesty that many have come to expect from folks of his political persuasion.


"Howard Dean: Don’t Call Paris Attackers ‘Muslim Terrorists’

... former Gov.Howard Dean (D-VT) immediately dismissed the idea that Islam would be to blame for the attack.

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists,” Dean said on Morning Joe. ”They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

He also said he does not believe ISIS is an “Islamic cult” and thinks it would be unwise to “accord [the gunmen] any religious respect.”

Despite Dean’s early assertions, though, one of the gunmen purportedly said ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in a videothat was released after the attack, and another was reportedly heard shouting “we have avenged the prophet.”
Howard Dean Don 8217 t Call Paris Attackers 8216 Muslim Terrorists 8217 Mediaite




And, in an earlier tale, equally reality-based...
"OBAMA: ISLAMIC STATE 'IS NOT ISLAMIC'

In his prime-time speech to the nation on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, President Obama vowed to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq and Syria with airstrikes and 475 U.S. boots on the ground – but he also made a particular point of declaring that the Islamic State terrorists “are not Islamic.”
Obama Islamic State 8216 is not Islamic 8217


And, let's remember...."you can keep your doctor," and the ever-popular "you didn't build that!"

"....a twisted cultish mind" was Dean's conclusion. I watched the whole video on that link. There was nothing dishonest in his presentation.
You've got a twisted cultish mind, too, PC. You see boogeymen behind every tree and lurking under your trailer.

There are 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world, SuperTwit. The percentage of them that can be ascertained as ISIS/radicals/jihadists who murder is roughly 30,000.
That's .0020% of the total population of the Muslim faith.

The U.S. sends 2.5 million soldiers to the Middle East and kills 206,000 civilians for a phony war that even our POTUS finally admits was founded on faulty intel. Now who's the twisted cult? We are a much more dangerous bunch of people than a mere handful of radical Islamists.

If you don't possess critical thinking skills, then just do the math.

Speaking of 'doing the math,' you dunce:
40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
Support for Suicide Bombings and Bin Laden Still High Among Some Muslims CNS News(Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

 

[BluesLegend]

Still waiting for someone to provide example of honest politician...I hear crickets..a 76 year old male is now kicking all of your butts.... cowards.

The old 'they all lie' defense, pathetic. "If you like your plan and doctor, you can keep your plan and doctor, period" go ahead top that whopper.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, it didn't take long to completely divert the topic from Islamic terrorism to Christian bashing did it?

If a Christian group organized to set off bombs in crowded places or machine gun innocent people or fly airplanes into large buildings with the intent of murdering as many people as possible and instilling terror in the hearts of everybody, we would not hesitate to call such a group "Christian terrorists." It would be absurd not to.

It is also an almost absolute certainty that such activity would be immediately and soundly condemned by Christians in the media, from all or most pulpits of the land and around the world, and by every valid Christian organization out there all proclaiming such to be an evil and viscious act and unjustifiable in any way as a Christian act. Much as we Christians uniformly condemn the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church that are not terrorism but are definitely nonChristian, indefensible, and reprehensible. Their behavior is against all that Christianity stands for.

And nobody with a brain worries about offending Christians when they condemn the Westboro Baptist activities.

How can anybody with a brain NOT call the terrorists in France Islamic terrorists when they identified themselves as such? And where are all the Muslim groups condemning that act as against all the Islam stands for?

The desire of the left is to excuse the acts of Muslim terrorists by creating a false equivalence.

The initial claim of "Christians shooting up abortion clinics" is simply the bigoted stupidity of the demagogues. The reasons the demagogue party has chosen to ally itself with Islamic terrorism is interesting in it's own right, but the subject of another thread. Rudolph used bombs - 20 years ago. His acts were rare to the point of unique. Far from a daily occurrence, as the Islamic terrorism that the left promotes is, the acts of Rudolph were unheard of.

Far from silence and muted support, as we see from Muslims and there demagogue supporters, Rudolph was loudly condemned by all pro-life groups.

But more than this, Rudolph belonged to a cult that is not recognized as "Christian" by anyone. The "Christian Identity" movement that Rudolph follows is a bizarre, racist cult that has no ties to any Christian community. It is more Aryan Nations than it is a church.

NYC simply wants to excuse the acts of the terrorist allies of his filthy party - but his argument is laughable.

Christianity is not a terrorist religion, no matter how badly the hate-filled left wishes that it was.

And even if there WERE Christian terrorist groups, does that make Islamic terrorists somehow less reprehensible? How do the apologists for Islamic terroism think that way?

 

[Foxfyre]

In responding to questions about the horror that took place in Paris earlier today, Democrat/Liberal Howard Deans revealed the sort of honesty that many have come to expect from folks of his political persuasion.


"Howard Dean: Don’t Call Paris Attackers ‘Muslim Terrorists’

... former Gov.Howard Dean (D-VT) immediately dismissed the idea that Islam would be to blame for the attack.

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists,” Dean said on Morning Joe. ”They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

He also said he does not believe ISIS is an “Islamic cult” and thinks it would be unwise to “accord [the gunmen] any religious respect.”

Despite Dean’s early assertions, though, one of the gunmen purportedly said ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in a videothat was released after the attack, and another was reportedly heard shouting “we have avenged the prophet.”
Howard Dean Don 8217 t Call Paris Attackers 8216 Muslim Terrorists 8217 Mediaite




And, in an earlier tale, equally reality-based...
"OBAMA: ISLAMIC STATE 'IS NOT ISLAMIC'

In his prime-time speech to the nation on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, President Obama vowed to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq and Syria with airstrikes and 475 U.S. boots on the ground – but he also made a particular point of declaring that the Islamic State terrorists “are not Islamic.”
Obama Islamic State 8216 is not Islamic 8217


And, let's remember...."you can keep your doctor," and the ever-popular "you didn't build that!"

"....a twisted cultish mind" was Dean's conclusion. I watched the whole video on that link. There was nothing dishonest in his presentation.
You've got a twisted cultish mind, too, PC. You see boogeymen behind every tree and lurking under your trailer.

There are 1,600,000,000 Muslims in the world, SuperTwit. The percentage of them that can be ascertained as ISIS/radicals/jihadists who murder is roughly 30,000.
That's .0020% of the total population of the Muslim faith.

The U.S. sends 2.5 million soldiers to the Middle East and kills 206,000 civilians for a phony war that even our POTUS finally admits was founded on faulty intel. Now who's the twisted cult? We are a much more dangerous bunch of people than a mere handful of radical Islamists.

If you don't possess critical thinking skills, then just do the math.

Speaking of 'doing the math,' you dunce:
40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
Support for Suicide Bombings and Bin Laden Still High Among Some Muslims CNS News(Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

I wonder if Pew did a survey of Christians, what percentage of Christians would say that terrorist or suicide attacks against civilians (or anybody else) in defense of Christianity are justified? .000,000,000,1 percent?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes. It's why you didn't have a link to what Rudolph really said. Do you actually think you're not an idiot?

You're a desperate little idiot.

{You so-called "Pro-Life," "good Christian people" who point your plastic fingers at me saying that I am a "murderer," }

You actually don't grasp what a fool you are making of yourself, do you?

Do you know what the meaning of the word so-called is? Let me help you.

so-called
adjective
adjective: so-called; adjective: socalled

1. used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified.
   "next on the list are so-called “soft” chemicals like phosphorous acid"
   synonyms: inappropriately named, supposed, alleged, presumed, ostensible, reputed;More
   nominal, titular, self-styled, professed, would-be, self-appointed, soi-disant
   "your so-called dream date is hitting on our waitress"
   
   -used to express one's view that a name or term is inappropriate.

Get it? He's saying it is inappropriate to call them Christians.

Rudolph, a lone maniac who struck over 20 years ago, lashed out at Christians. Hardly the representative of Christians that you terrorist supports seek to make him.

He lashed out at those who weren't Christian enough for him. You lose.

1. 'Under the heading “political violence,” we find regular reference by liberals to the killing of abortionists. For those keeping score at home, in the past four decades, abortion foes have killed eight abortion clinic workers, and abortion supporters have killed 53 million unborn babies. In addition to the numbers, another difference is that fans of unborn babies don’t praise the murders of abortionists, or call the attacks a “constitutional right.” In fact, those associated with the pro-life movement roundly condemn all abortion clinic violence.
   1. Let’s remember that liberals invented a constitutional right to abortion out of thin air, and then made certain that abortion policy was surgically removed from all democratic processes.
   2. The first abortion doctor was killed, not after Roe, but 20 years later, after the 1993 Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld Roe. Then, shortly thereafter, six more killing. It is difficult to suggest any legal steps that the pro-life folks could have advanced. Most abortionists were shot, or, depending on your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle.' Dennis Prager

So...in four decades, fewer abortion workers killed by anyone than the number of innocents killed by Muslim's YESTERDAY!

 

[ogibillm]

Im n

you cannot be serious.

Of course I am both serious and correct.
The 'second hand smoke' ploy is just one more of the lies that keep you Chicken-Littles quaking in your pajamas.

And, the fact that you are a moron helps, too.


1. Among the Left is a group of anti-smoking activists for whom abolishing tobacco use is a religious calling. When Americans did not respond as totally, nor as quickly, as the activists wished, they devised a new strategy: they told nonsmokers that the smokers were killing them!

Since it was nearly impossible to point to people who died as a result of secondhand smoke, they use epidemiological studies, defined by the WHO as “the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events including disease” to “prove” their contention. 50,000 Americans a year, we are told, are killed by secondhand smoke.
Hysteria masquerading as science.


2. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal: “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer.” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians 1960-98 The BMJ



But, it being a bogus crisis never stops you Liberals from mandating, passing laws and regulations...no matter how stupid.

3. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted. “But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage…. To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html


Now that I've educated you....again.....tell me this:
Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

You realize none of that makes the claim that there are no negative effects on health from second hand smoke, right? They only question the degree

Good to see I've made you back down already.

Im not backing down. There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, and have in fact backed my claim.

1. Let's begin with the important stuff: I proved that you are a lying low-life, and an idiot.

2. Now, let's include the fact that there is no science behind the fake hand-wringing second hand smoke crisis....as posited by the Liberal Washington Post...

“Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location….

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime.

No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory….

More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. …

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus Science of Secondhand Smoke



3. "There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health."
So....you got that from the Magic 8-Ball?

Get it, you dunce????

" It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, ...."

...so that we can keep the dunces voting Democrat.


Worked with you, huh?


Now wipe that egg off your face.....or is that drool???

1. no you haven't. you keep presenting the idea that second hand smoke may not be as dangerous as suspected. you have one source for that claim, whereas i have the cdc, american heart association, american cancer society, the american red cross, and pretty much every other public health organization on my side that says that second hand smoke is a real health hazard.

2. have you told any fatherless children that god is happy their soldier dad is dead? that's what christians do, and you are a christian, aren't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Im n

Of course I am both serious and correct.
The 'second hand smoke' ploy is just one more of the lies that keep you Chicken-Littles quaking in your pajamas.

And, the fact that you are a moron helps, too.


1. Among the Left is a group of anti-smoking activists for whom abolishing tobacco use is a religious calling. When Americans did not respond as totally, nor as quickly, as the activists wished, they devised a new strategy: they told nonsmokers that the smokers were killing them!

Since it was nearly impossible to point to people who died as a result of secondhand smoke, they use epidemiological studies, defined by the WHO as “the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events including disease” to “prove” their contention. 50,000 Americans a year, we are told, are killed by secondhand smoke.
Hysteria masquerading as science.


2. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal: “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed…. Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer.” Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians 1960-98 The BMJ



But, it being a bogus crisis never stops you Liberals from mandating, passing laws and regulations...no matter how stupid.

3. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted. “But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage…. To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html


Now that I've educated you....again.....tell me this:
Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

You realize none of that makes the claim that there are no negative effects on health from second hand smoke, right? They only question the degree

Good to see I've made you back down already.

Im not backing down. There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, and have in fact backed my claim.

1. Let's begin with the important stuff: I proved that you are a lying low-life, and an idiot.

2. Now, let's include the fact that there is no science behind the fake hand-wringing second hand smoke crisis....as posited by the Liberal Washington Post...

“Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location….

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime.

No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory….

More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. …

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus Science of Secondhand Smoke



3. "There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health."
So....you got that from the Magic 8-Ball?

Get it, you dunce????

" It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, ...."

...so that we can keep the dunces voting Democrat.


Worked with you, huh?


Now wipe that egg off your face.....or is that drool???

1. no you haven't. you keep presenting the idea that second hand smoke may not be as dangerous as suspected. you have one source for that claim, whereas i have the cdc, american heart association, american cancer society, the american red cross, and pretty much every other public health organization on my side that says that second hand smoke is a real health hazard.

2. have you told any fatherless children that god is happy their soldier dad is dead? that's what christians do, and you are a christian, aren't you?

You lying sack of drool, you've been dissed and dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about we define Muslims by how 99.9% of them act, instead of how the rest act?

Now, if you promise to go away quietly, I have a friend who can get you a job in Tehran at the ‘Century Seven’ realtors.

Intellectual cowardice is why you ignored the content of this post you quoted

But its what the board has come to expect from you, less the sycophants.

Cookie?

Cowardice????

Do you have any idea the contumely I've taken from gerbils because I associated you with them?????

Carrot?

 

[ogibillm]

Im n

You realize none of that makes the claim that there are no negative effects on health from second hand smoke, right? They only question the degree

Good to see I've made you back down already.

Im not backing down. There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, and have in fact backed my claim.

1. Let's begin with the important stuff: I proved that you are a lying low-life, and an idiot.

2. Now, let's include the fact that there is no science behind the fake hand-wringing second hand smoke crisis....as posited by the Liberal Washington Post...

“Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location….

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime.

No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory….

More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. …

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus Science of Secondhand Smoke



3. "There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health."
So....you got that from the Magic 8-Ball?

Get it, you dunce????

" It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, ...."

...so that we can keep the dunces voting Democrat.


Worked with you, huh?


Now wipe that egg off your face.....or is that drool???

1. no you haven't. you keep presenting the idea that second hand smoke may not be as dangerous as suspected. you have one source for that claim, whereas i have the cdc, american heart association, american cancer society, the american red cross, and pretty much every other public health organization on my side that says that second hand smoke is a real health hazard.

2. have you told any fatherless children that god is happy their soldier dad is dead? that's what christians do, and you are a christian, aren't you?

You lying sack of drool, you've been dissed and dismissed.

are you dismissing me so you can go cheer at military funerals and harass the grieving families like a christian?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Im n

Good to see I've made you back down already.

Im not backing down. There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary, and have in fact backed my claim.

1. Let's begin with the important stuff: I proved that you are a lying low-life, and an idiot.

2. Now, let's include the fact that there is no science behind the fake hand-wringing second hand smoke crisis....as posited by the Liberal Washington Post...

“Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location….

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime.

No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory….

More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. …

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. “ Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus Science of Secondhand Smoke



3. "There is no question that second hand smoke is harmful to people's health."
So....you got that from the Magic 8-Ball?

Get it, you dunce????

" It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, ...."

...so that we can keep the dunces voting Democrat.


Worked with you, huh?


Now wipe that egg off your face.....or is that drool???

1. no you haven't. you keep presenting the idea that second hand smoke may not be as dangerous as suspected. you have one source for that claim, whereas i have the cdc, american heart association, american cancer society, the american red cross, and pretty much every other public health organization on my side that says that second hand smoke is a real health hazard.

2. have you told any fatherless children that god is happy their soldier dad is dead? that's what christians do, and you are a christian, aren't you?

You lying sack of drool, you've been dissed and dismissed.

are you dismissing me so you can go cheer at military funerals and harass the grieving families like a christian?

So....repeating the lie makes it true?

This is your inspiration?
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels

 

[mudwhistle]

Political correctness is the essence of dishonesty.

We can't admit that Muslims are terrorists
We can't admit that 90% of blacks are killed by other blacks
We can't admit that illegals are here illegally
We can't admit that Global Warming is a fraud
We can't admit that homosexuality is not natural
We can't admit that the current administration considers America the greatest threat to world peace on Earth, just like your average college student thinks
We can't admit that America is the least racist country today. Can't say the same for 50 years ago, but today it's true

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it didn't take long to completely divert the topic from Islamic terrorism to Christian bashing did it?

If a Christian group organized to set off bombs in crowded places or machine gun innocent people or fly airplanes into large buildings with the intent of murdering as many people as possible and instilling terror in the hearts of everybody, we would not hesitate to call such a group "Christian terrorists." It would be absurd not to.

It is also an almost absolute certainty that such activity would be immediately and soundly condemned by Christians in the media, from all or most pulpits of the land and around the world, and by every valid Christian organization out there all proclaiming such to be an evil and viscious act and unjustifiable in any way as a Christian act. Much as we Christians uniformly condemn the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church that are not terrorism but are definitely nonChristian, indefensible, and reprehensible. Their behavior is against all that Christianity stands for.

And nobody with a brain worries about offending Christians when they condemn the Westboro Baptist activities.

How can anybody with a brain NOT call the terrorists in France Islamic terrorists when they identified themselves as such? And where are all the Muslim groups condemning that act as against all the Islam stands for?

The desire of the left is to excuse the acts of Muslim terrorists by creating a false equivalence.

The initial claim of "Christians shooting up abortion clinics" is simply the bigoted stupidity of the demagogues. The reasons the demagogue party has chosen to ally itself with Islamic terrorism is interesting in it's own right, but the subject of another thread. Rudolph used bombs - 20 years ago. His acts were rare to the point of unique. Far from a daily occurrence, as the Islamic terrorism that the left promotes is, the acts of Rudolph were unheard of.

Far from silence and muted support, as we see from Muslims and there demagogue supporters, Rudolph was loudly condemned by all pro-life groups.

But more than this, Rudolph belonged to a cult that is not recognized as "Christian" by anyone. The "Christian Identity" movement that Rudolph follows is a bizarre, racist cult that has no ties to any Christian community. It is more Aryan Nations than it is a church.

NYC simply wants to excuse the acts of the terrorist allies of his filthy party - but his argument is laughable.

Christianity is not a terrorist religion, no matter how badly the hate-filled left wishes that it was.

No he wasn't condemned by all anti-abortionist groups. The Army of God reveres him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now here's a little more from Eric Rudolph, in an astonishing channeling of PoliticalChic:

"I too believe Barack Obama might be the "One."

He might be the one who finally forces you to acknowledge that this country is no longer yours. It belongs to the Marxist politicians, the abortionist, the pornographer, the homosexual, the feminist college professor, the activist liberal judge, the ACLU lawyer, the New York Times editor, the atheist Hollywood filmmaker, the left-wing social activist, the bi-sexual movie star, the hip-hop gangsta rapper, the brainwashed masses who gathered for the Inauguration ceremony on Washington Mall, January 20, 2009 to worship at the feet of their Marxist Messiah.

And the new owners will not tolerate your presence in their America. They intend to wipe you off the planet and co-opt your children as their own. Educated in their value system, your grandchildren will forget that you had ever existed. That's the future. Only you can change it."