Posted on 05/21/2010 10:10:09 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Gotta love doctors: 10−4 per what per year, and how do they define "background" exposure?
Which cancers?
[I have a friend who used to do statistics at Mayo Clinic, poking holes in clinical studies' statistics. He taught me to snark ;-) ]
In the meantime, you may enjoy this, from the (I think) August 1984 Chemical & Engineering News:
A mosquito was heard to complain
'I fear they have addled my brain!
The cause of my sorrow
is para-dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane!'
Cheers!
Bush is an abject failure.
He had everything - both houses of Congress, a neutral to friendly Supreme Court, and the good will of the People.
He threw it all away to no effect in eight short years, putting utopian globalism ahead of American sovereignty, and mojados ahead of low skilled and entry level Americans.
To Bush Mk. II’s marginal credit, he was not wrong all the time, and did not oversee the butchery of American citizens in cold blood as did his father at Ruby Ridge, nor his predecessor at Waco.
He is a loser, but less malignant than his loser father.
Between them, they have undone ALL of the work of real conservatives - unhyphenated conservatives - from Goldwater to Reagan.
Neo-cons are neither thing; they are neither new nor are they conservative. They are as old as the Tower of Babel, their first botch job. Good riddance to them all - and good riddance to their Trojan horses named Bush.
Meanwhile we have had 21 years of wretched and bumbling governance at the highest level.
Notice how you cannot discuss policies you have to engage in God like arrogant assertions about the totality of who President Bush is.
He is AN ABJECT FAILURE.
The resistance to Bush is an abject failure but President Bush is not an abject failure. President Obama is your President. He is the simply premise of Bush rejectionism which is exactly what you have to offer.
This thread is a discussion of a media misrepresentation of his daughter and you don’t care. In fact, you are happy to digest any negative thing about Bush and his family so long as it fits your reactionary view of President Bush.
Bush was much more conservative and successful than President Reagan. He appointed two solid supreme court justices that were conservative— unlike Reagan with Sandra Day O Connor.
Bush defended the nation against its enemies. He defeated those enemies. He built alliances that are decisive in preserving the future of the nation. He brought the nation back from a recession given by Clinton and enhanced by the 911 attacks.
Your post is indicative of the ungrateful nation he lead. We collectively deserve President Obama for all the irrational rejectionism found in highly personal and unChristian attacks in your post against President Bush and his family.
you know, that stuff was like reading a hybrid of greek and latin. But I just know it said something bad somewhere in there.
Why don’t these children of p[oliticians get married have kids and STFU.
I’m available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.