Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

Ok, anti-smoking has literally zero to do with taking fireplaces away from people, so the connection you tried to make was stretching to the point of breakage. Now, should fireplaces be taken away from people? Absolutely not, this is supposed to be the US, home of the free and land of the brave or some such jargon I was indoctrinated with as a child. Cigarettes kill, plain and simple, anyone who chooses to smoke is a complete retard as far as I'm concerned, but still, it is a personal choice and if you choose to be broke and kill yourself at the same time, have at it. Noting should be banned, as far as substances go, if people want to do it they will find a way to do it. We are becoming Nazi 'Merikuh. Welcome.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by timetothink

 

Absolutely they can decide what form of fuel people can use. It is not your air, it is everyone's air. Just like it isn't your road, it is public roads, and it is not your water, it is everyone's water. And they can dictate what pollutions you release and when.

Right, but you will allow some other nobodies in high places to determine everything for you and me? That is the fallacy of all this Collectivism and Communism. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is nothing but Communism in sheep's clothing. They put some pretty Green ribbons around the sheeps' collars for posterity.

edit on 2-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Yea I don't buy into the whole world is against us..bs.

First off, this is socal. Not the whole nation. But many atsers can't seem to comprehend the different levels of government.

If you actually followed the news instead of trying to throw words around like communism, and thinking that some UN council would ever have a say against the mighty timber industry in the US, you would know that Obama has actually opened up millions of acres of forest in the northwest for logging.

If it were a communist agenda, communism only forms when capitalism secedes. So therefor, giving private timber companies the rights and wealth of national forests, is NOT communism.

Anyone who knows the history of the NPS, knows that it was not developed for sustainability, but as a cover for resource extraction.

reply to post by AnnKoontz


Because liberal=hypocrite The 60s thought us this lesson.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I think you forgot to add something there.

reply to post by mac420


I wasn't linking to smoking damage to fireplaces.

I was linking banning things and making criminals of people for personal choices.

It always comes down to them coming after you next.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Big things always start small, look back at all the things that started with one small community and spread like a cancer. You just are not getting the point.

reply to post by timetothink


But they take away smoking because of the damage, blah blah it doesnt ever matter, the point is, none of that should be taken away. Also, your argument has a logical fallacy:

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by timetothink

 

Absolutely they can decide what form of fuel people can use. It is not your air, it is everyone's air. Just like it isn't your road, it is public roads, and it is not your water, it is everyone's water. And they can dictate what pollutions you release and when.

Right, but you will allow some other nobodies in high places to determine everything for you and me? That is the fallacy of all this Collectivism and Communism. Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is nothing but Communism in sheep's clothing. They put some pretty Green ribbons around the sheeps' collars for posterity.

edit on 2-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Yea I don't buy into the whole world is against us..bs.

First off, this is socal. Not the whole nation. But many atsers can't seem to comprehend the different levels of government.

If you actually followed the news instead of trying to throw words around like communism, and thinking that some UN council would ever have a say against the mighty timber industry in the US, you would know that Obama has actually opened up millions of acres of forest in the northwest for logging.

If it were a communist agenda, communism only forms when capitalism secedes. So therefor, giving private timber companies the rights and wealth of national forests, is NOT communism.

Anyone who knows the history of the NPS, knows that it was not developed for sustainability, but as a cover for resource extraction.

Well first off, it is not a "whole world against us" thing. It is UN Agenda 21 in disguise. You apparently do not know a lot about UN Agenda 21 or how it works on the local level. Please see my post to TimeToThink on that so I don't have to retype everything.

From website
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com...

The following is from ICLEI's website:
At Rio+20 we launched the GreenClimateCities initiative and, together with partners, the Global Initiative on Urban Resilience. We have been encouraged by Rio+20 to continue driving the sustainable cities agenda. Rio+20 has reinvigorated our strategy of supporting cities on the pathway to becoming resilient, resource efficient, biodiverse and low-carbon, to turn their urban economy green and build smart infrastructure, with the ultimate goal of ensuring a healthy & happy community.

But you are right, I didn't see much news the last four days, and I was not aware that the almighty Obama admin has opened up national forests to the timber industry. I would like to see a link or something on that. The Obama admin is tied in with Agenda 21 as much as any prior POTUS, including Bush Sr. Bush Jr, and Clinton. I'll believe Obama is for private companies providing lumber when I see it. Perhaps it is just so they can build homes for Habitat I under their sustainable models for Sustainable Development of urban areas. After all, Prez O did sign an EO and establish the White House Rural Council

theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

Maybe it is you who needs to do some research.

Here is something else for you on private property, which apparently is something you do not believe in.

www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by nixie_nox

If inhaled second hand, wood smoke causes damage 40 times longer than cigarettes.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of second hand wood smoke and to figure out what dumb sap would agree to be a lab rat for such a test.

Maybe he was one of those old England small child chimney sweeps who got shoved up the chimney to scrape out the sludge for their masters? Yeah, that probably resulted in a 100% death rate.

reply to post by AnnKoontz


This is about southern California, the only place in the country right now warm enough to have an ozone day.

No one needs to burn a fire in order to warm themselves, it is 65 degrees there today.

Liberals are like modern medicine... Example: I have high blood pressure so I am prescribed a Statin. The statin has horrible side effects; sleeplessness and arthritic inflammation. So I take Cymbalta for the arthritis and Lunesta for the sleeplessness. Now I'm having side effects from those; Stomach issues and diarrhea from Cymbalta and anxiety and skin rashes from Lunesta. Now I'm prescribed new medication to address those problems and so on and so forth...

The reality is a that a little PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY on MY part would have probably just fixed the first problem, perhaps a change in diet. But no, the liberal mindset is fix it now and fix it at any cost, consequences be damned - we'll fix those later.

The problem is once you've entered the slippery slope, you cannot go back. And each "Fix" makes things worse than before. The greater problem is that liberals aren't "mature" or logical enough to see this. They are emotionally driven to "Fix" everything right now without recognizing that most things can only be fixed via PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - something that they are NOT willing to demand of others. In fact, they enable the opposite - endless welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, section 8, HUD, Medicaid, etc... and create restrictive laws against those of us who are productive to make everything more "fair" for everyone.

It happens in school - participation trophies, can't fail students who are failing, no grading in red marker because it's offensive and scary, no corporal punishment, etc... So we can clearly expect the next generation of liberal whiners to be far worse than this one.

God help us all!

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.

edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)

im sure the hot air coming from the liberals will be plenty to keep them warm. note to self. banning something does not make the problem go away.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by winofiend

 

Yeah and the population of those areas was.... Nothing like the population we have today. By a number of billions.

Maybe we should make sure people have a proper education and can grasp simple logic before sending them out into the world with a piece of paper saying they are capable of living in a world full of other people.

I agree. We should make sure people have the correct facts before they make fools of themselves. The US is not filled, not by any stretch of the imagination

States With the Most Land Owned by the Federal Government

Nevada 84.5%

Alaska 69.1%

Utah 57.5%

Oregon 53.1%

Idaho 50.2%

Arizona 48.1%

California 45.3%

Wyoming 42.3%

New Mexico 41.8%

Colorado 36.6%

Washington 30.3%

Montana 29.9%

Hawaii 19.4%

Then if you really wanted to nitpick, we could go into how much of the BALANCE of land in those states is owned by the individual state governments. Then subtract and you'll know how little is privately owned.

Ok then fool.

The reason the federal government owns 85% of Nevada is because nobody wanted it.It doesn't have water. They had to give parts of Arizona to Nevada to give it access to water. That is why area 51 is there, because they had nothign else to do with it. Same with Utah and New Mexico.

The states with the majority of ownership that is Federal, are in the west, is because they were purchased by the Feds, as opposed to the thirteen colonies that came into being before the government did.

The Feds own Alaska because they purchases Alaska from Russia.

Where will it end? It won't until the people stand up and we're a nation of lazy cowards.

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke
I guess the lawmakers would have had a serious problem with all the burnt offerings that were being made, way back when. Not sure how smoke is the cause of something...considering things like forest fires. But hey, these days...people will believe ANYTHING the lawmakers tell them!

America needs to stop calling itself: "the Land of the Free". Y'all ain't "free". You live in a dictatorship. How come generations past, never had a problem with "smokers".

"Not sure how smoke is the cause of something...considering things like forest fires."

The thing is, forest fires have a negative impact on air quality - but it's a natural event, it's going to happen. For people in a densely-populated area, prone to terrible air quality, purposely causing drastic reductions in air quality is a bad idea.

The fact that fires happen in nature doesn't negate the fact that some areas cannot support high numbers of people adding burning wood, leaves, etc., to the equation of already poor air quality.

reply to post by frazzle


I think it was the poor rat.

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke
I SERIOUSLY doubt...smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. My mom was a chain smoker...practically all her life...and she never got lung cancer. She did, however, get breast cancer...but it had NOTHING to do with cigarettes! It was more of a result from a poor lifestyle and unforgiveness in her heart. Some things...she just couldn't let go of. Those things...eventually eat you til you die!

WOW! So you seriously doubt that smoking causes cancer (because it doesn't happen to everyone) but you have no problem believing that an inability to forgive causes breast cancer? Smoking alone might not cause cancer, but it's much more likely to do so than a bad attitude causing cancer...

Every time you think you've heard it all!

reply to post by timetothink


No, you are not getting the point. You and the other republicans who can't wrap your simple, brain washed minds around the fact that your rights end where other's begin.

You can't get past the grade school rhetoric of " I can do whatever I want, you are not the boss of me."

You don't have the right to release dangerious pollutions into the air because the air belongs to everybody, not just you.

The air, the water, the Sun, the roads, all belong to the public, which means you can't screw it up for the public. It is plain and simple.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by LEL01

 

I tried the e ones, need to research some more, find one that satisfies. Right now I keep myself to 3or 4 a day unless its a night out..

I keep trying, but I just love it so much!

I'm using 10 motives, it might have a different name in your country. I don't think anything will work unless you want to stop, trying to force it when you're not ready will just make it harder to do.

I'm getting a bit confused by the fire thing now, if it's warm enough there for people to not need a fire then why did they need the ban on fires?
Is that where agenda 21 comes into it?

reply to post by nixie_nox

The reason the federal government owns 85% of Nevada is because nobody wanted it.It doesn't have water.

No water? There are over 100 water well drilling companies currently operating in Nevada.

yellowpages.aol.com...