The Left Loses Ground...

[NYcarbineer]

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You stated a list of opinions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There would not be more...there would be more that are comfortable with their sexuality. You won't have gay men marrying (becoming evangelical self hating preachers), having kids AND a Grindr account.

We will have more people who are comfortable coming out as gay, bisexual, asexual, monosexual, transexual, transgendered and on and on.

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

Not to someone who knows right from wrong.

So right and wrong are independent of popular opinion?

You tell me. 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks for gun purchases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You stated a list of opinions.

Of course I didn't, NYLiar.


1. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in unincorporatedDeKalb County, Georgia, a few miles northeast of the Atlanta city limits.[1][2][3]"
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual."


3. "The clear impact of these figures have led some leaders among homosexual activists to acknowledge the truth. Brad Sears, of the Williams Institute (a “gay think tank” well respected among homosexual activists) said that homosexual leaders should “let go” of the inflated figures quoted in the past. He continued to say that, “with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don’t question whether there are too many or too few.”
In the News One Point Four Percent Sound Teaching

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You stated a list of opinions.

Of course I didn't, NYLiar.


1. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in unincorporatedDeKalb County, Georgia, a few miles northeast of the Atlanta city limits.[1][2][3]"
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual."


3. "The clear impact of these figures have led some leaders among homosexual activists to acknowledge the truth. Brad Sears, of the Williams Institute (a “gay think tank” well respected among homosexual activists) said that homosexual leaders should “let go” of the inflated figures quoted in the past. He continued to say that, “with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don’t question whether there are too many or too few.”
In the News One Point Four Percent Sound Teaching

Are you committing to the idea that the results of all polls should be treated as fact?

 

[Seawytch]

Bingo! Human sexuality is more fluid than our society currently allows. Sexuality is a scale...with some people way over on the right or left of the scale...and everyone else somewhere in between.

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

 

[NYcarbineer]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

Koreans are about .6% of the population. I have no idea why we give that tiny minority equal rights.

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You stated a list of opinions.

Of course I didn't, NYLiar.


1. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in unincorporatedDeKalb County, Georgia, a few miles northeast of the Atlanta city limits.[1][2][3]"
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual."


3. "The clear impact of these figures have led some leaders among homosexual activists to acknowledge the truth. Brad Sears, of the Williams Institute (a “gay think tank” well respected among homosexual activists) said that homosexual leaders should “let go” of the inflated figures quoted in the past. He continued to say that, “with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don’t question whether there are too many or too few.”
In the News One Point Four Percent Sound Teaching

Are you committing to the idea that the results of all polls should be treated as fact?

The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

· The total population of the U.S.is 285,230,516.

· The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.

· The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!
Science vs. the Gay Gene


If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

Koreans are about .6% of the population. I have no idea why we give that tiny minority equal rights.

lol

Pretty much your signal of defeat, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You stated a list of opinions.

Of course I didn't, NYLiar.


1. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services and is headquartered in unincorporatedDeKalb County, Georgia, a few miles northeast of the Atlanta city limits.[1][2][3]"
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


2. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual."


3. "The clear impact of these figures have led some leaders among homosexual activists to acknowledge the truth. Brad Sears, of the Williams Institute (a “gay think tank” well respected among homosexual activists) said that homosexual leaders should “let go” of the inflated figures quoted in the past. He continued to say that, “with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don’t question whether there are too many or too few.”
In the News One Point Four Percent Sound Teaching

Are you committing to the idea that the results of all polls should be treated as fact?

The 2000 census sheds even more light on the subject. The overall statistics from the 2000 Census Bureau revealed:

· The total population of the U.S.is 285,230,516.

· The total number of households in the U.S. is 106,741,426.

· The total number of unmarried same-sex households is 601,209.

Thus, out of a population of 106,741,426 households, homosexuals represent 0.42% of those households. That is less than one half of one percent!
Science vs. the Gay Gene


If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Again, are you committing to the idea that the results of all polls should be treated as fact?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

Koreans are about .6% of the population. I have no idea why we give that tiny minority equal rights.

lol

Pretty much your signal of defeat, huh?

Defeated at what?

In post 300, you tried to ridicule liberals with this:

"....it was more than convenient for the Left to claim the Pew Poll as the fact."

Now it's become convenient for you to claim polls as fact. I guess that puts the ridicule shoe on the other foot doesn't it?

lol

 

[Jroc]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

In you leftists world there are 5 sexes

 

[bripat9643]

Then you admit that society doesn't approve of homosexuality?

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

Not to someone who knows right from wrong.

So right and wrong are independent of popular opinion?

You tell me. 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks for gun purchases.

I'm asking you. I already know what I think. I want to know what you believe.

 

[bripat9643]

98% of the population is heterosexual, just as more than 98% of the population doesn't suffer from autism.

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

So you think there are a lot of people who are secretly part of some giant conspiracy to conceal the number of gay people?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope...that's just what our puritanical roots will allow.

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

Koreans are about .6% of the population. I have no idea why we give that tiny minority equal rights.

lol

Are Koreans trying to make it legal to marry other Koreans?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, that's right, in this country, no one has died from air pollution in decades, not in forever.

Care to prove me wrong, asshole?

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

Yea, all these scientists and doctors are just making this shit up pea brain. As I said, you are a retard.

Coal's Assault on Human Health
Home > Resources

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHA Scientific Statement
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association

1. Robert D. Brook, MD;
2. Barry Franklin, PhD, Chair;
3. Wayne Cascio, MD;
4. Yuling Hong, MD, PhD;
5. George Howard, PhD;
6. Michael Lipsett, MD;
7. Russell Luepker, MD;
8. Murray Mittleman, MD, ScD;
9. Jonathan Samet, MD;
10. Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD;
11. Ira Tager, MD

Abstract
Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to address a number of remaining scientific questions.


F.A. Hayek had you pea brains pegged way back in 1960...

An excerpt from
The Constitution of Liberty
The Definitive Edition
F. A. Hayek

Why I am Not a Conservative

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

All their "results" are based on a faulty theory. First prove the theory is true and then perhaps rational people might accept your claims. Oh. . . . . . I forgot, the empirical evidence has already shot your bogus theory full of holes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you disputing his number...98%?

Studies put homosexuals at 1.4%


"A new Gallup Poll shows Americans grossly over-estimating the percentage of homosexuals in the population. Most people assume that gays and lesbians represent more than 25% of adults. Among young people aged 18 to 29, only one percent—one percent!—correctly identified the real percentage as less than 5%. Actually, best estimates from a new federal study suggest only 1.4% identify as homosexual.

The wildly mistaken idea that one of four Americans pursues same sex relationships and, therefore, traditional marriage is dead, falsely suggests that the old American dream of mom and dad and kids is no longer widely desired. If a quarter of all adults can’t embrace that dream because they’re gay, that explains the desire to radically redefine marriage. But the truth is that not even the 1.4% who identify as gay would all require that redefinition."
Michael Medved - Political Conservative News Blog

I don't dispute that you believe that gays only make up 2% of the population.

I quoted a fact.

Deal with it.

You provided a link to a RW Nutblog and then claim "facts"?

There is nothing to "deal" with. I understand you believe gays only make up 2% of the population. That is your "deeply held belief" and you're entitled to it.

I also understand that it's only 2% of the population that recognizes their sexuality and is comfortable declaring it to pollsters.

Jews only make up 2% of the US population. And?

Koreans are about .6% of the population. I have no idea why we give that tiny minority equal rights.

lol

Are Koreans trying to make it legal to marry other Koreans?

Too busy building Hyundai and Kia cars.....

 

[Bfgrn]

Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.

Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

In a state-by-state analysis, the researchers found that California suffers the worst health impacts from air pollution, with about 21,000 early deaths annually, mostly attributed to road transportation and to commercial and residential emissions from heating and cooking.

The researchers also mapped local emissions in 5,695 U.S. cities, finding the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.

“In the past five to 10 years, the evidence linking air-pollution exposure to risk of early death has really solidified and gained scientific and political traction,” says Steven Barrett, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. “There’s a realization that air pollution is a major problem in any city, and there’s a desire to do something about it.”

Barrett and his colleagues have published their results in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

Data divided

Barrett says that a person who dies from an air pollution-related cause typically dies about a decade earlier than he or she otherwise might have.

MIT

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

Yea, all these scientists and doctors are just making this shit up pea brain. As I said, you are a retard.

Coal's Assault on Human Health
Home > Resources

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHA Scientific Statement
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association

1. Robert D. Brook, MD;
2. Barry Franklin, PhD, Chair;
3. Wayne Cascio, MD;
4. Yuling Hong, MD, PhD;
5. George Howard, PhD;
6. Michael Lipsett, MD;
7. Russell Luepker, MD;
8. Murray Mittleman, MD, ScD;
9. Jonathan Samet, MD;
10. Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD;
11. Ira Tager, MD

Abstract
Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to address a number of remaining scientific questions.


F.A. Hayek had you pea brains pegged way back in 1960...

An excerpt from
The Constitution of Liberty
The Definitive Edition
F. A. Hayek

Why I am Not a Conservative

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

All their "results" are based on a faulty theory. First prove the theory is true and then perhaps rational people might accept your claims. Oh. . . . . . I forgot, the empirical evidence has already shot your bogus theory full of holes.

"Faulty theory"??? We KNOW the toxins by name. We KNOW the adverse effects those toxin have on humans. The only thing "faulty" is your brain being the size of a pea...

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, they can't name a single person who had "air pollution" listed as the cause of death on his death certificate. These so-called "studies" are based on the premise that if a massive amount of a substance is known to cause X number of deaths per million people, then X/10,000 will cause X*100 deaths per million people. Of course, that theory is entirely unsupported by the empirical evidence. In fact, if it shows anything, it shows that a substance will cause absolutely no mal effects if the concentration goes below a certain point.

Your "study" is nothing more than eco-commie-propaganda funded by the EPA.

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

Yea, all these scientists and doctors are just making this shit up pea brain. As I said, you are a retard.

Coal's Assault on Human Health
Home > Resources

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHA Scientific Statement
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association

1. Robert D. Brook, MD;
2. Barry Franklin, PhD, Chair;
3. Wayne Cascio, MD;
4. Yuling Hong, MD, PhD;
5. George Howard, PhD;
6. Michael Lipsett, MD;
7. Russell Luepker, MD;
8. Murray Mittleman, MD, ScD;
9. Jonathan Samet, MD;
10. Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD;
11. Ira Tager, MD

Abstract
Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to address a number of remaining scientific questions.


F.A. Hayek had you pea brains pegged way back in 1960...

An excerpt from
The Constitution of Liberty
The Definitive Edition
F. A. Hayek

Why I am Not a Conservative

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

All their "results" are based on a faulty theory. First prove the theory is true and then perhaps rational people might accept your claims. Oh. . . . . . I forgot, the empirical evidence has already shot your bogus theory full of holes.

"Faulty theory"??? We KNOW the toxins by name. We KNOW the adverse effects those toxin have on humans. The only thing "faulty" is your brain being the size of a pea...

You obviously believe playing stupid is a good debate strategy. As I already explained, we don't know that if a substance is toxic in large concentrations, that it is equally toxic in small concentration. I already explained this in excruciating detail in my previous post, but you are pretending that it wasn't mentioned.

Either address the point I made or just shut the fuck up. You're a dishonest piece of crap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Society has a way of being wrong.

Oh, so when it decides to make gay marriage a right, it could be wrong?

Not to someone who knows right from wrong.

So right and wrong are independent of popular opinion?

You tell me. 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks for gun purchases.

I'm asking you. I already know what I think. I want to know what you believe.

Nice dodge, Cletus.

 

[Bfgrn]

Exactly the ignorant reply I expected...EXACTLY.

I proved you wrong with facts, you continue to emote with ZERO evidence...ASSHOLE

You posted no facts. You posted a myth and a bogus theory.

Yea, all these scientists and doctors are just making this shit up pea brain. As I said, you are a retard.

Coal's Assault on Human Health
Home > Resources

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHA Scientific Statement
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association

1. Robert D. Brook, MD;
2. Barry Franklin, PhD, Chair;
3. Wayne Cascio, MD;
4. Yuling Hong, MD, PhD;
5. George Howard, PhD;
6. Michael Lipsett, MD;
7. Russell Luepker, MD;
8. Murray Mittleman, MD, ScD;
9. Jonathan Samet, MD;
10. Sidney C. Smith Jr, MD;
11. Ira Tager, MD

Abstract
Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to address a number of remaining scientific questions.


F.A. Hayek had you pea brains pegged way back in 1960...

An excerpt from
The Constitution of Liberty
The Definitive Edition
F. A. Hayek

Why I am Not a Conservative

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it—or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life simply because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irreverent or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would be hardly moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

All their "results" are based on a faulty theory. First prove the theory is true and then perhaps rational people might accept your claims. Oh. . . . . . I forgot, the empirical evidence has already shot your bogus theory full of holes.

"Faulty theory"??? We KNOW the toxins by name. We KNOW the adverse effects those toxin have on humans. The only thing "faulty" is your brain being the size of a pea...

You obviously believe playing stupid is a good debate strategy. As I already explained, we don't know that if a substance is toxic in large concentrations, that it is equally toxic in small concentration. I already explained this in excruciating detail in my previous post, but you are pretending that it wasn't mentioned.

Either address the point I made or just shut the fuck up. You're a dishonest piece of crap.

No, I PROVIDED "excruciating detail"...NOTHING you EVER provide has ANY "details"...just dogma, doctrinaire, propaganda, and EMOTIONS

AHA Study

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both short- and long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis.