Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,850
28%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 28% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by realpatriot71

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • OPUS of realpatriot71

    03/15/2004 6:56:19 AM PST · 1 of 39
    realpatriot71
  • It's another world ... but is it our 10th planet?

    03/14/2004 12:35:03 PM PST · 38 of 125
    realpatriot71 to Chris Talk; Quix
    Any chance humans knew of this "10th planet" a looooooong time before now?
  • Missile incident rattles Canada - 'Nuclear fallout knows no border,' lawmaker says

    03/13/2004 9:09:24 AM PST · 12 of 45
    realpatriot71 to NormsRevenge
    Canada can kiss our ass! Just exactly who do they think will defend their country if it were ever to be attacked? Their own bankrupt few-thousands strong military?

    Canada needs to shut up and play nice or they might find themselves placed in the "US territory" category.

  • Entangled in a web of world government {Henry Lamb}

    03/13/2004 9:05:21 AM PST · 7 of 9
    realpatriot71 to hedgetrimmer
    The Rich get Richer, and the rest of us get to be their slaves . . .

    Welcome to the Brave New World

  • School board defying California rules on gender (rules let kids define if they're boy or girl)

    03/13/2004 8:41:07 AM PST · 13 of 53
    realpatriot71 to churchillbuff
    Sex is generally defined two ways (1) genotypically [ie. XX or XY] and (2) phenotypically - external manifestations of "femaleness" or "maleness," usually the sex organs, but also 2nd sex characteristics such as breast development, hair growth pattern, muscle mass, and bone development.

    If you're XX or XO - you're a woman genetically and will look like a woman on the outside (although XO females are distinct). If you're XY, you're a male, with the rare exceptions of genotypically XY men, who have a mutation in the SRY gene (on the Y) or who have a mutated testosterone receptor, these folks will phenotypically be women (and should be treated as such).

    You don't "change your mind" after the fact. People who want sex changes need a therapist, not a surgeon.

  • Steroid cloud over Arnold Classic

    03/13/2004 8:30:20 AM PST · 6 of 8
    realpatriot71 to NormsRevenge
    LOL! - NO ONE gets as big as the guys at the "Classic" unless they are on steroids (it also doesn't hurt to have an already pre-existing glandular problem either).

    Steroids at the Classis? You bet!

  • California: Hoax Soaks Aliso Viejo. Officials fall for 'dihydrogen monoxide' internet prank

    03/13/2004 8:27:32 AM PST · 26 of 45
    realpatriot71 to John Jorsett
    "It's embarrassing," said City Manager David J. Norman. "We had a paralegal who did bad research."

    Always someone elses fault - anyone doubt that the dumbing down of America is ticking along quite predictably?

  • Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

    03/13/2004 8:15:39 AM PST · 270 of 315
    realpatriot71 to Tumbleweed_Connection
    ?! - You can't make anyone undergo a surgical procedure, even if it save the life of another. I can't, and shouldn't, be able to force you to undergo surgery to give me a needed kidney or liver - to save my life - and neither should this woman had to of undergone any surgery, even to save the life or her children.

    With that said - what OB makes a cut from pelvic bone to sternum? Even major exploratory abdominal surgery uses a smaller cut. C-sections usually are able to pull the children from the mother through a small horizontal (as opposed to verticle pubic to sternum) incision (~6-8 inches) just superior to the pubic symphysis. Most women's pubic hair even covers the scar.

  • -"No Blood for Oil"- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories.

    03/12/2004 1:22:06 AM PST · 6 of 595
    realpatriot71 to backhoe
    A consumer-driven economy like ours is dependent on cheap, reliable energy. We had darn well better be ready to fight, or we'll fall back into a Dark Age.

    The way I see it, it's a race between us and China for the oil, and we're a few steps ahead. As for the rest of the world - they can kiss our a$$es - and buy the oil we control at double.

  • -"No Blood for Oil"- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories.

    03/12/2004 1:18:44 AM PST · 5 of 595
    realpatriot71 to Post5203
    How about if we save our blood and drill our own oil? Then we can put the terrorists money supply out of business. Seems too simple to me, but hey, who am I? Our wonderful senate blocks oil exploration of our land. They should be held responsible for the bloodshed.

    Yeppers - I love the Polar Bears and Carribou as much as the next guy, but they're just going to have to live with pumps and oil pipes. The animals have been getting along just fine for quite a long time without help, and if placing some oil exploration in their habitat kills them off, well, obviously, they were not the "fitest".

  • -"No Blood for Oil"- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories.

    03/12/2004 1:00:43 AM PST · 2 of 595
    realpatriot71 to backhoe
    People who say "no blood for oil" do not understand energy. Oil is the most precious commodity on the planet. Oil makes the world go round, and in order to keep our lifestyle in America, we better be willing to shed blood for oil.
  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/11/2004 10:32:01 AM PST · 244 of 244
    realpatriot71 to MEGoody
    But wrong? How does that fit with 'all things are lawful'?

    "Lawful" as in pertaining to the Law - that which is explicitly written in God's word. In this instance, since Christ's death removed any need for a sacrificial law - this is not what Paul speaks to, but rather God's "10 biggies" + Christ's new commandment ("A new cammandment I give unto you, That ye love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one to another" Jn 13:34,35). Basically, Paul is saying: God may not have a specific Law (Commandment) about an action - therefore such action is "lawful" - however, even if such is the case not all things are "expedient" - good - because they are NOT mentioned in the Law (Paul doesn't allow for an argument from silence). Paul implores the Church as Corinth not the "check it's brain at the door" - God's Law and moral behavior are based upon universal principles, and it is upon these principles that the Christian base his actions.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/11/2004 2:07:12 AM PST · 241 of 244
    realpatriot71 to MEGoody
    That should have read: addiction. I'm not sure "addition" has an moral implications . . .
  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/10/2004 11:55:54 PM PST · 240 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    25% of the population smokes. I say we must take actions and restrict the behaviour of the other 75% of the population that result in 75% of the deaths.

    (?) No you have it wrong. "25%" are the percentage of people who died last year from chronic disease related to smoking :-)

    Direct medical costs are paid for by the patient, or the patients insurance. Unless we have adopted a Nationalized health plan without my knowledge.

    LOL - yeah it's called medicare and medicaid, not to mentioned all the uninsured that county and VA hospitals take care off. If everyone, smoker or not, were paying their medical bills you might have a point, but they're not, so you don't. :-)

    This is a bogus number that can not be proven.

    LOL - Oooops cannot counter this one, so it must be "bogus" :-)

    Yes, but who defines a "bad" habit. You fail to address that. If it isn't you, who will you authorize to decide? The majorit? (Tyranny) Or a chosen group/individual decision maker? (Fascism)

    None of the above - objective medical science and risk/cost analysis have shown that it is completely stupid for the government to continue to pay for people who are willfully and selfishly self-destructive.

    You had not presented any actual data to "do the math".

    Smoking is the single biggest self-controlable(?) contributing factor to chronic dz - the same diseases that cost the most amount of money to care for and treat.

    (3/27/95)

    A lot has happened since '95

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/10/2004 11:35:21 PM PST · 239 of 244
    realpatriot71 to MEGoody
    1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

    Interesting. Furthermore, we can see from this passage, even aside from the health related issues of the Temple, Paul makes it quite clear at the end of this quote, that Christian liberty is under the principle of self-control. Forms of selfish indulgence become wrong when they bring a person into bondage - addition.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/10/2004 1:26:10 PM PST · 237 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Smoking costs more for HC (no data provided).

    More than 1.7 million Americans die of chronic disease every year (~70% of total deaths); of these people 2/3 of these deaths are due to 5 chronic diseases (1)heart disease, (2) cancer, (3) stroke, (4) COPD, and diebetes [1]. Is smoking related to these same chronic diseases? "As many as 30% of all coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths in the United States each year are attributable to cigarette smoking, with the risk being strongly dose-related. Smoking also nearly doubles the risk of ischemic stroke. Smoking acts synergistically with other risk factors, substantially increasing the risk of CHD. Smokers are also at increased risk for peripheral vascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and many other chronic diseases. Cigarette smoking is the single most alterable risk factor contributing to premature morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for approximately 430 000 deaths annually.[2]. Chronic disease accounts for more than 75% of the entire costs spent on medicine [1] - the same diseases caused by smoking! Direct medical costs of smoking alone are more than $75 billion, causing an additional $80 billion associated with lost production [1]. $33 billion is spent on heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabete (3/4 caused by smoking) [1].

    Japanese population suffers from other diseases (no info provided)

    "The improvement in the health situation has already been reflected in a reduction in mortality rates, which has contributed greatly to achieving the highest life expectancy in the world. Until the middle of this century, deaths caused by infectious diseases such as pneumonia, bronchitis, tuberculosis and gastroenteritis prevailed in Japan. However, since the end of the Second World War, these diseases have rapidly decreased and have been replaced by so-called life-style related diseases such as malignant neoplasms, and heart and cerebrovascular diseases. Cancer has ranked first in the cause of death since 1981. The number of cancer deaths in 2000 was 295 484, and the death rate was 232.80 per 100 000 population. While Japan has been traditionally characterized by a greater tendency for stomach cancer and uterine cancer deaths than deaths from other types of cancer, deaths from these types of cancer have been declining in recent years. They have been replaced by an increasing number of deaths from lung cancer, breast cancer and cancer of the large intestine among other types of cancer, showing a trend towards the "westernization of cancer"." [3]

    Increased costs for HC are acceptable if they are from behaviours approved by you

    It's not about my approval its about paying for a bad habit - disproprotionately.

    The extra taxes and premium costs directly funded by smokers doesn't keep up with actual costs (no actual costs provided)

    Do the math smart guy.

    Now, when exactly are you going to change your monikor?

    After you kiss my ass :-)

  • Residents may pay for unhealthy ways (Tax on pop......)

    03/10/2004 8:42:55 AM PST · 69 of 71
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    "Health problems caused by physical inactivity cost the state an estimated $8.9 billion a year. Smoking-related health problems cost $6 billion a year."

    NOT two mutaually exclusive groups, smoking just adds more cost to the laziness.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/10/2004 8:41:26 AM PST · 232 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world?

    You are correct about correlation, but I am not merely making a statistical pronouncement. It is quite clear, and has been for some time, just exactly what damage occurs at the cellular level in smokers in the lungs, and elsewhere in the body. Medicine knows exactly why smoking is bad and why is causes disease. The stats only back this up. Lung CA only hits about 13-14% of the poulation, but 80% of this cohort are smokers. Japanese, as a population, get hit with other disease due to smoking.

    The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet.

    You are right bad genes and diet do create health problems only to be exacerbated by other stressors such as smoking

    So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices.

    As I said before having a family and smoking are fundamentaly different, if you disagree, then I'm not going to convince you on a political forum. One produces a family, one produces harm.

    Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

    AND all this is still not keeping up with health costs for cigarette smoking realted illnesses - fact.

    The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

    Yes, you are correct.

    Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets?

    No I do not, but eating is fundamentally different than smoking - no equvalent. Furthermore, I would support not hiring obese cops as well because of the related costs. People who are obese - with a few notable exceptions (folks with metabolic abnormalities) - are lacking in self-control. Their eating is just as much an addiction as smoking, and shouldn't be rewarded.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/10/2004 8:05:32 AM PST · 231 of 244
    realpatriot71 to MEGoody
    In your view. . .but I challenge you to find one place in the bible that mentions smoking.

    (here it comes) - So, in your opinion then, unless a particular activity is specifically mentioned, one cannot make a moral judgement based up the principle found in the Word of God? I don't remember seeing the word "abortion," "cloning," nor the use of other intoxicants such as marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine - are all moral since not specifically mentioned? Is drinking the only immoral vice, then?

    You see in 1Cor. 6 Paul is speaking specifically to sexual morality and he gives the principle for such a judgement - eg. the Body if the Temple of the Most High God. Are you saying that this same Godly principle cannot be applied to other selfish acts that hurt the body? Hmmmm? Think about it.

  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/10/2004 7:57:52 AM PST · 131 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Let's try and wrap this up - point, counter point, is starting to take up too much time (it's my obsessive compulsive personality)

    I support an added tax on cigs and alcohol (other drugs as well, if made legal) to help financially support the healthcare problems that each toxin created. While I don't buy your slippery slope argument (taxation of cigs/alcohol will lead to a tax of haircuts and water), the argument is not without logic. I think you have a real concern here outside of having a "cheap habit" (although I don't think you would mind if smokes costed less either). The governmet's misuse of these funds is an entirely different issue IMhO.

    The reason gas prices are high in the first place is because of taxes and added extra ingredients, especially in Kali (I paid $2.22/gal when I filled up on Sunday). However, the current rise in gas prices more closely relates to increased demand, less supply, and a weak dollar. I don't expect gas prices to come down too much - we're running out.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/09/2004 9:38:32 AM PST · 221 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK.

    It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious. Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers. Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies. Families raise children to become responsible contributing adults. Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing.

    You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further.

    Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.

    Currently behavior is NOT controlled - you merely have to "pay to play". As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised.

    I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.

    Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country. So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke. In this case it's all business. Smokers and their illnesses cost too damn much!. You want to smoke - pay the entirety of your insurance. Smokers who do this have no beef with me.

    I say the same thing about having children.

    IMhO making you pay for the schools or other people's children is wrong. However, the choice to have chidlren and the choice to smoke are not ethical nor moral equivalents.

    Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands.

    Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so.

  • Scientists examine mysterious images for clues to fate of Beagle 2 [update]

    03/09/2004 9:02:21 AM PST · 6 of 19
    realpatriot71 to Chris Talk
    Thoughts?
  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/09/2004 8:53:50 AM PST · 129 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Theft is immoral, tax is theft!

    If I could live in a world without taxes that'd be great, but it's not realistic. The two certainties in life are death AND . . .

    Furthermore some taxes are moral - the ones you pay when you want to - (consumption taxes) because the government is the objective agency that sees that legal contracts between free moral agents are carried out in full. In order to act in this regard the government needs money, so consumption taxes - which are paid only when one makes a choice to buy said taxed product - provide the money necessary for the government to act in it's contract compulsatory role. Government, unfortunately, is a necessary evil in today's world (primarily because humans generally tend to be nasty creatures) to enforce contract, otherwise. Therefore not all taxes are immoral. We can agree that a direct tax of earned income is immoral.

    Your lack of logic is quite clear in this statement. The only way to avoid paying the tax is to no longer consume the service. If the tax is high enough, the number of consumers chosing to no longer consume the service will increase. That will directly result in a smaller market. The number of suppliers of the service will be smaller to meet the smaller market demands. That means people will lose their businesses and become unemployed. Therefore we create a new class of persons dependant on the government for handouts.

    Like I said it could happen - I admitted that - but currently . . . nada. I'll make you a deal, when they start taxing haircuts so bad that I can't afford to get my hair cuts anymore, I'll get back to you (we'll make signs and protest!). Remember a haircut is not a vice - this is the distinction. A haircut is not a habit. Haircuts do not contribute to healthcare costs of people who get haircuts. There's a difference.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/09/2004 8:39:22 AM PST · 217 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Why do you support hiring those individuals? Their personal choices are costing the taxpayers money.

    A family is NOT a nasty addictive habit - that's the difference. Having a wife and chidlren is not irresponsible, smoking is.

    When we start to advocate personal liberty limitations based on health problems we open the door for any behaviour to be monitored. How about increasing the cost of red meat, how about taxes on coffee, how about liscensing people to allow them to have children? If you take the stance that "those things will never happen" think about the current state of the homosexual marriage agenda. Things will move forward while you sit on your hands.

    Once again no one is restricting "liberty" - you can smoke all you want - it's a choice - just don't expect the rest of society to bend in the direction of a nasty habit. So if you want to smoke - your choice - then the consequence is that you cannot be a sherriff - or perhaps another option would be that the smoker pays for the entirety of their own insurance. Liberty is about choices - don't b!tch at me if you don't like the choices given. Furthermore if any comparisans can be made with homosexual marrige - people who do what they want without expecting consequences - then smoking - a selfish habit, where people don't want to deal with the consequences of their choices - would be a great example. BTW - last time I checked conservatives have NOT been sitting on their hand over the "gay marrige issue". Many state amendments have been changed to explicitly state that marrige is between a man and woman, and right now all the "gay marrige" in the news is nothing more than a temper tantrum. Homosexual marrige - will be nipped in the bud, probably sooner, rather than later.

  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/08/2004 4:49:29 PM PST · 127 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Yes, the tax on alcohol or a tax on water is morally equivilant. Any tax is immoral. The use of the products may have moral differences, but the tax on either is immoral. A tax is nothing more than theft of unearned cash. It is immoral. That seems to be the difference in our philosophies. You think a tax is acceptable as long as it is on a behaviour/product you find to be immoral.

    Consumption taxes are not immoral because one only pays when one choses. Don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the product. A tax of my income directly, that is immoral.

    Great response. What happens to the people that run those businesses? You just advocated the abolition of small service businesses. What a great thing, taxation drives people out of business, then we can grow government dependence via unemployment.

    No I advocated not paying a tax, not the abolition of small service. Perhaps the two could be related if there actually was a terrible tax on hair cuts, but there isn't. So your wild speculation here is rather moot. However, if there was a decline in business it would not be my fault that a business goes down the tubes. The market bears what it can.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/08/2004 4:39:51 PM PST · 204 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    By your same logic, we should ensure that they not hire people with wives or children.

    No - wives and children are not bad habits - not a vice.

    Now do you advocate price dictation by the government?

    That's not my position. Prices are dictated by the whatever the market will bear.

    Where do we give them the authority to "control" the prices of products they deem to be "not good behaviour"?

    There's no "price control," only a sales tax.

    You are either very simple minded or you are purposefully ignoring the oft quoted writing. I excerpted it. If you need the full text I will search for it and provide it. It is often used when discussing the, "it doesn't affect me so why should I care?" crowd of which you are a member.

    Actually, I was asking about your point with the quote to make sure you weren't simple. It's not about "this doesn't affect me, so I don't care" - It's a about a nasty addiction that causes more health problems by itself than any other known substance and when I have to pay for the expensive health care associated with smoking, then it does directly affect me. Your quote is irrelevant to my point.

  • Venezuela Leader Vows War if U.S. Invades

    03/08/2004 7:56:52 AM PST · 43 of 56
    realpatriot71 to EsclavoDeCristo
    Ok, I was unaware that the US was planning on invading S. America, but if we did . . .

    Didn't this guy watch the TV during the Iraq war. We'd have his ass kicked before putting any troops on the ground. This guy needs to play nice, the US has already made it quite clear that sovereignty doesn't matter anymore - welcome to the Brave New World

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/08/2004 7:46:55 AM PST · 195 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    I addressed this issue. The premiums are higher for smokers. Significantly higher, and if they are dishonest they lose coverage. I didn't say "just paying taxes". Take a hooked on phonics class.

    AND who pays the premiums of public servants? And the higher premiums of said civil servant smokers? Magic gnomes?

    If you truly feel this way, the consumption tax support you espouse wouldn't be so evidently the opposit of this statement.

    Wrong. You have no gaurantee to "reasonable prices" on bad habits. You want to smoke - fine - pay for it.

    When they came for the Jews, I didn't fight, when they came for me there was no one left to fight.

    Surely you're not equating the Holocaust with a sales tax on cigarettes, right?

    Your judgemental attitude is why I personally draw a MAJOR distinction between being a christian and being a church goer. Human beings are not in a position to judge other human beings with the eyes of God. Many forget that and think themselves spiritually "superior" to the rest of us.

    I'm not judging you, merely pointing out that the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit - God - hurting the Temnple of God is a sin - a spade's a spade - God judges, not me. I'm just pointing out His word. It's not my fault the body if the Temple of the Holy Ghost. If this "gores your ox" you can take it up with the "Big Guy". I am "spiritually superior" to NO MAN. In fact, if I am least in Everlasting, it would not surprise me.

  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/08/2004 7:34:34 AM PST · 125 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Wrong paste in 124 - I did have my threads mixed
  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/08/2004 7:33:16 AM PST · 124 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    So, by allowing the continued encroachment on our lives with government growth through taxation, we allow the government to become dependant on the revenues. They will never decrease and if the revenues are lost, they will find something else to tax. Now it is taxation of soda as a "sin tax". You support that and soon your ox will be gored. When all other substances are taxed out of existence, and the revenues are lost, water WILL be taxed.

    Pragmatically there is nothing I can do about this kind of taxation, except not buying said taxed item. Could the government get so large and rediculous they tax water - it a possibility - BUT a tax on water and a tax on alcohol (or tabacco) are not moral equivalents. You won't get any sympathy of consequences for bad health choices - BTW - isn't the "slippery slope" argument a fallacy . . .

    It has happened in my state. Tobacco and alcohol taxes have been increased to the point that both consumption and illegal purchasing is up

    Doesn't surprise me - notice these folks with their civil disobedience are NOT paying the tax.

    Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

    Cut your hair at home, wash your clothes at home, do your own home repairs - no ones forcing you to get haircuts, dry clean your clothes, or pay someone to fix your house.

    Now the state is looking to implement a "service" tax. Taxes on services are next, hair cuts, dry cleaning, home repairs, etc.

    Correct - my bad

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/08/2004 7:05:48 AM PST · 189 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Now a mere mortal can make personal judgements with more accuracy than the Holy Spirit. I submit that weather it is a sin or not is up to the personal guidance received by the Holy Spirit, not by guidance imparted by "realpatriot71".

    It's your temple, treat it how you will, but remember we will give account to God for every careless action and word.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/08/2004 7:03:34 AM PST · 188 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    Any government intrusion onto liberty or personal behaviour is done with the barrel of a gun! The only power the government has is with threats of enforcement, always aided by the use of guns! I would expect any "realpatriot" to know that!

    Know what? When the JBT's kick down your door and arrest you for smoking cigarettes get back to me. I don't have to support the consequences of bad habits. It's like fat people trying to sue McD's - no sympathy from me.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/08/2004 7:01:06 AM PST · 187 of 244
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    The smoker is paying for their own choice.

    LOL! Really? What do most people pay for insurance premiums? About $200-300/month for good health insurance coverage - more for kids and the wife - so at most $500 a month. 500 x 12 = $6000/year - that still less than one day in the hospital. Just paying taxes is NOT paying your "fair share" since smoking related health issues cost more per premium per smoker, than the non-smoker.

    However, you have given in to the socialist mindset. As a result of these socialistic tax practices, we now have the ability to dictate personal behaviour. Your dream comes true.

    I'm not trying to dictate anything - enjoy your smokes - just don't ask me to help with your healthcare. If you have your own insurance then I've got no problem with you or your smokes

    Once again, please change your monikor. Real patriots support personal freedom and less government. Obviously, you are in opposition.

    Kiss my ass - I have not advocating stopping your "personal freedom," nor have I increased the size of government. If anything I'm proposing making igovernment smaller. Don't hire public servants who smoke - less health problems - less paper work, etc.

  • Double drink prices, urges doctors -

    03/08/2004 6:52:08 AM PST · 120 of 131
    realpatriot71 to CSM
    When they finally get to taxing water consumption, will you take the same attitude?

    Water is a nutrient - a necessity - smoke is not. Try living without water, then try living without smoke . . . I'd be interested in your findings.

    "One of these things s not like other . . ."

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 6:31:30 PM PST · 170 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Would you treat your smoking patients with the same level of care that you would your non-smoking patients? If you would, I salute you.

    I course the same level of care is given to everyone - put a cop killer on my operating table and I'll make sure he lives to stand trial. It's the ethical duty of the physician to treat any and all patients without regard to their personal background. A patient is a patient.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:38:46 PM PST · 165 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Wouldn't it be more honest to let patients know up front that your opinion was influenced by your religious viewpoint?

    My opinion on smoking does not need any religious viewpoint - it's toxic - its bad for you. It demonstartably obvious.

    How would you know which patients would be receptive to your religious point of view unless you brought the subject up?

    Patients often bring it up, you'd be surprised.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:22:05 PM PST · 161 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Do you want to be a doctor, or a man of the cloth?

    Christ's ministry was two fold on this Earth physical and spiritual healing. A physician continues in the healing tradition of God.

    I think it's important that your patients know that the two are melded.

    Any discusions of a religious nature in the patient/physician relationship are brought up by the patient first.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:18:49 PM PST · 160 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Hmm, interesting, if this has nothing to do with SHS, then why would the "kids" be harmed in any way?

    I never said kids would be harmed by SHS - you need to get over it - I've never been talking about SHS.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:17:10 PM PST · 159 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Your quoting scripture to them is "injecting."

    I would not mention scripture in the physician/patient relationship unless the patient had let me know that was what he was interested in. I believe it is my obligation to help people in matters spiritual as well as physical, if they are so inclined. For some patients, they may never know that I'll be praying for them, religion will never be mentioned. Faith is an important part of integrative patient care, and for some patients - absence thereof is the correct response. I see myself as offering extra servies at no extra charge for those who are interested.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:09:22 PM PST · 153 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Hot Tabasco
    If you stand by your posted scripture then lets hear you decry the consumption of alcohol, the consumption of beef and the increasing numbers of atmospheric poluting SUV's......For that matter the increasing numbers of automobiles in general!

    Alcohol is not good for you, and being drunk is a sin, "beef" isn't bad for you, it's too much beef that's unhealthy, and there is nothing I can personally do about SUVs.

    I love it when you bible quoting thumpers attempt to impose your scriptures on those who do not conform to your own twisted ideals of what the rest of us should or shouldn't do

    I didn't try to "impose" scriptures on anyone. Smoking is NOT healthy, belief and faith have nothing do with that objective point. I was merely pointing out that smoking is immoral, a sin. I'm not trying to stop you, merely calling a spade a spade. If you don't like that, it's not my fault nor my faith's.

    Enjoy your smokes!

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 5:03:15 PM PST · 149 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Gabz
    You don't want to pay the alleged costs of smokers and I don't want to pay the definite costs of micromanaging people that have destroyed the immune systems of their children.

    Hmmm, interesting you'd have a problem with giving health care to kids who have no control over their health? Smokers have control over whether they smoke or not, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with SHS.

  • The Jews Who Cried Wolf (Hubbub over The Passion)

    03/07/2004 4:58:38 PM PST · 200 of 370
    realpatriot71 to cyncooper
    Actually St. Luke was not Jewish, he was Greek, and he never met Jesus during His earthly life.

    Ah! That is correct, excepting Luke and Acts, the entire Bible was written by Jews, no?

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 4:56:12 PM PST · 144 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    Your injecting your religious or personal philosophy into what should an arm's length, professional and science-based relationship diminishes your authority.

    I see . . . you have a problem with me telling people that smoking is bad for them at that they should quit as soon as possible. That's not "injecting anything" it's stating the truth.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 3:46:25 PM PST · 129 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    "There are people who strictly deprive themselves of each and every eatable, drinkable and smokeable which has in any way acquired a shady reputation. They pay this price for health. And health is all they get out of it. How strange it is. It is like paying out your whole fortune for a cow that has gone dry."

    nice quote - here's another one:

    "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20   For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
    1 Cor. 6:19,20.

    Cigarettes are NOT good for you - the case is closed. A doctor should be concernd with the whole person. Smoking is the single biggest controlable factor affecting health - in other words - if people would just quit smoking their symptoms would recede. The relationship between smoking and emphysema should give any smoker pause - you DON'T get better. Telling people to quit destructive health habits is most definitely in the purview of the physician. You can do whatever you want, but don't expect me to tell you its smart or "ok". Furthermore, if the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, perhaps we should not selfishly taint our bodies with "things" known to be harmful simply because "it feels good".

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 3:32:43 PM PST · 128 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Madame Dufarge
    You repeatedly imply that she's asking you to pay for her healthcare.

    No, I'm speaking in the context of publicly paid jobs. I shouldn't be expected to take care of the consequences of a smoker's bad habit. You want to smoke - fine. If you want to be a cop, don't smoke - or wave your healthcare. I'm not stopping anyone from smoking.

  • Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

    03/07/2004 1:25:59 PM PST · 114 of 244
    realpatriot71 to Gabz
    Increased with parallel smoking trends????? You're kidding, aren't you????

    Kidding? No. The increase in lung cancer, specifically brochiogenic carcinoma, in women has paralleled the increase in smoking in the same cohort.

    or the one about decreases in exposure to SHS for children yet a skyrocketing rate of asthma.........???

    Asthma is more related to an over active immune system, rather than smoking, kids with pets have lower incidence of asthma, but that's beside the point here, which is paying for smoking related healthcare. SHS probably diffuses enough in the air to be little more than an anoyance, excepting places where everyone is smoking (ie. bars).

    Look, it is obvious you do not like cigarette smoking and do not like to be around those that do, that's fine. However, imposing your own personal preferences upon those around you at gun point (use of government control) is not exactly the way to go about it

    Who's pointing a gun? Not me. Smoke! Just don't ask me to pay for your healthcare. We all make choices and some of our choices have consequences - can't have your cake and eat it to - you can, however, enjoy your cigs, I'm not trying to stop you.

  • The Jews Who Cried Wolf (Hubbub over The Passion)

    03/07/2004 1:14:25 PM PST · 183 of 370
    realpatriot71 to VRWC_minion; Inyokern
    You believe that if some Jew in Jesus's time called himself God he would not have been committing blasphemy ? You also believe there were no penalties for blasphemy ? Would Moses agree with you ? Please discuss.

    It is written: "And he that blaphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all of the congregation shall certainly stone him . . ." Lev. 26:16

    It is written: "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that shoul come upon him went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he." John 18:4,5

    It is written: "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To thing end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:35-37

    It is written: "Ans as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes cam together, and led him into thei council saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say what I am And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. Luke 22:66-71

    Everyone play nice.

  • Scientist Claims Proof Of Afterlife

    03/07/2004 12:43:02 PM PST · 171 of 271
    realpatriot71 to Rennes Templar
    If you don't mind? In your opinion, is there a heaven, and if so, how is heaven attained
  • Muted Vote....(YOUNGER Freepers....educate this guy, please!)

    03/07/2004 12:38:54 PM PST · 48 of 63
    realpatriot71 to realpatriot71
    pragmatism - pragmatism - pragmatism

    Can't spell today.

  • Muted Vote....(YOUNGER Freepers....educate this guy, please!)

    03/07/2004 12:37:52 PM PST · 47 of 63
    realpatriot71 to goodnesswins
    The problem with a two-party system is that voting for your conscience takes vote "away" from the "lesser" of two evils. For instance Bush is trying to opent he border with Mexico - are you honestly going to vote for Kerry instead? Of course not! Voting today is a tutorial in basic pragatism. Since a third party candidate cannot get elected (in theory, yes!, but in reality . . .) to vote for them only increases the chances of electing a really crazy eh-hole, rather than the normal crazy eh-hole.

    Hell, I'm not even convinced my point of view matters anymore because it probably doesn't.