An honest assessment of Islam

[nyantler]

Yeah Joe was good... almost forgot about him

Then there was also Curly Joe Derita

[virgil]

  Gotta tell ya.. you guys are funnier than the stooges.... not quite as smart but definitely funnier    finally something clever from one of the 'cold dead hands' boys.  well done.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

  finally something clever from one of the 'cold dead hands' boys.  well done.

Virgil,

There is nothing that would make me happier than to find out you are right about them not wanting to do an end around on the Constitution. I just can't seem to bring myself to trust our elected officials given their past track record (and I am talking both sides) They seem self serving and given our current election set up are too beholding to special interests. You can't serve two masters and when you are looking out for the donors you can't whatch out for the American people.

[virgil]

I just can't seem to bring myself to trust our elected officials given their past track record (and I am talking both sides) They seem self serving and given our current election set up are too beholding to special interests.

I would agree that our political system is way too beholden to special interest groups.  But, careful what you wish for- the nra is one of the biggest.

[Doewhacker]

Yeah Joe was good... almost forgot about him

Then there was also Curly Joe Derita

I never cared for either one of the Joe's, I think cause they seemed like cheap Curley knock offs. Shemp was original and different.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I would agree that our political system is way too beholden to special interest groups.  But, careful what you wish for- the nra is one of the biggest.

I thoroughly understand that. And I would like for them to not have to exist to balance the other side. If we follwed a strict interpretation of our founding documents and went at any changes in the correct way, the country would be a much better place.

[virgil]

<blockquote>I would agree that our political system is way too beholden to special interest groups.  But, careful what you wish for- the nra is one of the biggest.

</blockquote>     

I thoroughly understand that. And I would like for them to not have to exist to balance the other side. If we follwed a strict interpretation of our founding documents and went at any changes in the correct way, the country would be a much better place.

Fair enough.  but, if changes to the gun laws were attained via 'the correct way', how would you handle it?  And, for the sake of comparison, how would you compare the NRA's 'need to exist' to protect the rights of gun enthusiasts with the Tobacco lobby's need to exist to protect smokers and the companies who profit from poisoning them- can't help it, i work in healthcare.

[arrowflinger]

Wayne La Pierre makes like $900,000 a year.

That gives me about 800,000 reasons to tell him to get bent when he asks me for money 200 times a year.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Fair enough.  but, if changes to the gun laws were attained via 'the correct way', how would you handle it?  And, for the sake of comparison, how would you compare the NRA's 'need to exist' to protect the rights of gun enthusiasts with the Tobacco lobby's need to exist to protect smokers and the companies who profit from poisoning them- can't help it, i work in healthcare.

Mixed feeling on tobacco topic. Smoking is not a constitutionally protected right. if the Govt deemed it a public health risk they should pass legislation on it. We both know they won't. States like NY have a higher vested interest to maintain smoking than the companies do. If I can go into a store in SC and buy smokes for $3 a pack and then come to NY and pay$ 9.50, who has the vested interest...lol

If we take that route with tobacco we have to be prepared to apply the same principle to all aspects of our lives. A part of my job is personnel...so I can't help myself either. a policy must be inforced evenly and without prejudice.

tobacco does kill many. how about alcohol...cars capable of driving over 65..on and on....what ever standard we set we should be prepared to apply it across the board and while you probably don't smoke a time may come that the same principle is apply to an aspet of your life.

Did I make sense?

[steve863]

If we take that route with tobacco we have to be prepared to apply the same principle to all aspects of our lives. A part of my job is personnel...so I can't help myself either. a policy must be inforced evenly and without prejudice.

tobacco does kill many. how about alcohol...cars capable of driving over 65..on and on....what ever standard we set we should be prepared to apply it across the board and while you probably don't smoke a time may come that the same principle is apply to an aspet of your life.

Did I make sense?

This is interesting actually.  I don't know what someone can call the need for tobacco or alcohol consumption, but cars in general probably don't need to go faster than 65 if 65 is the maximum speed limit allowed anywhere in this country.  Now if we were to apply some of these theories to guns, what can we say guns were originally invented for?  Whether it's for war, hunting, self-defense, I think it's primary objective is to stop or kill something, be it human or animal.  If government feels a need to put restrictions on tobacco, alcohol, fast cars, (who's main purposes are not killing) why would someone think that guns should get an easier pass and be allowed to just anyone who wants one??  Now I surely am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed, only saying that if people have a beef with tobacco, alcohol, fast cars, it's only natural that more than a few would have a beef with guns and their easy availability.  That is my only point here.  Just trying to make some people see some light on how and why the other side might view guns the way they do.  In my opinion it is a good thing to try to understand why other people think the way they do.  Just thinking that ones way can be the ONLY right way is really not a productive way to go about things.

[Doewhacker]

"States like NY have a higher vested interest to maintain smoking than the companies do."

Well I would be willing to bet that the cost of the health care to those who smoke and drink to much far exceed the money the State makes from taxing such things. And I'm not talking about my health insurance cost, although it is affected, I am reffering to the ones who pay not a dime for theirs. We the tax payer foot the bill for the portion of society that does not see a reason to work and is more likely to abuse smoking and alcohol. That may be a reason why smokers get the short end of the stick overall, illness cost's the state more than they can redeem in taxes.

[virgil]

If we take that route with tobacco we have to be prepared to apply the same principle to all aspects of our lives. A part of my job is personnel...so I can't help myself either. a policy must be inforced evenly and without prejudice.

tobacco does kill many. how about alcohol...cars capable of driving over 65..on and on....what ever standard we set we should be prepared to apply it across the board and while you probably don't smoke a time may come that the same principle is apply to an aspet of your life.

Did I make sense?

Another slippery slope.  The only reaistic way to address an issue like tobacco is via tax- not that raising the tax has had any major impact on the number of smokers.  My reason for bringing it up is that it's another area where people(smokers) want to protect their rights, but do not want to consider the impact that exercising that right has on the public- second-hand smoke, astronomical tax-supported healthcare costs, etc.  Part of your job is personnel, how about the expense to your company to insure smokers.  Does an employer have the right to not hire smokers, as is becoming the trend?  Again, my point is that some of our rights impact not only ourselves- these are the situations when i feel it is reasonable to consider whether these rights need to be reassessed.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

"States like NY have a higher vested interest to maintain smoking than the companies do."

Well I would be willing to bet that the cost of the health care to those who smoke and drink to much far exceed the money the State makes from taxing such things. And I'm not talking about my health insurance cost, although it is affected, I am reffering to the ones who pay not a dime for theirs. We the tax payer foot the bill for the portion of society that does not see a reason to work and is more likely to abuse smoking and alcohol. That may be a reason why smokers get the short end of the stick overall, illness cost's the state more than they can redeem in taxes.

I understand what you are saying, Doe. why don't they just legislate them out of existence then? I can't imagine NY gets much lobby money if they lobbed a 5-6 buck tax on them...lol, but I am sure it is there some where.

[virgil]

What was the original title of this thread?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

What was the original title of this thread?

LOL.... well it started out as an assessment of Ilslam---then to a comparison to other religions...thent he liberal view of it all...then questioning the education value of the system for forstering and pusing certain views...then a slide into the Constitution and it's application and modification...then back to education...then a few sidelines into government encroachment and that led to tax issues....couple more pages and it will hit Islam again....OH SHit ...wait...was that this thread or the other 12 that are running now

[Doewhacker]

I understand what you are saying, Doe. why don't they just legislate them out of existence then? I can't imagine NY gets much lobby money if they lobbed a 5-6 buck tax on them...lol, but I am sure it is there some where.

Well it seems like they are certainly on the way to that doesn't it? I don't smoke but it keeps getting harder and more exspensive to have a habbit.

[nyantler]

If we take that route with tobacco we have to be prepared to apply the same principle to all aspects of our lives. A part of my job is personnel...so I can't help myself either. a policy must be inforced evenly and without prejudice.

tobacco does kill many. how about alcohol...cars capable of driving over 65..on and on....what ever standard we set we should be prepared to apply it across the board and while you probably don't smoke a time may come that the same principle is apply to an aspet of your life.

Did I make sense?

Another slippery slope.  The only reaistic way to address an issue like tobacco is via tax- not that raising the tax has had any major impact on the number of smokers.  My reason for bringing it up is that it's another area where people(smokers) want to protect their rights, but do not want to consider the impact that exercising that right has on the public- second-hand smoke, astronomical tax-supported healthcare costs, etc.  Part of your job is personnel, how about the expense to your company to insure smokers.  Does an employer have the right to not hire smokers, as is becoming the trend?  Again, my point is that some of our rights impact not only ourselves- these are the situations when i feel it is reasonable to consider whether these rights need to be reassessed.

You're kidding right? If what you say is true.. we better start considering reassessing our right to eat fatty foods, use fertilizer, drive vehicles, own a woodstove, use a barbeque grill.... how about my right not to take a shower until the bacteria on me grows so bad that it becomes harmful to others... or not brush my teeth... all those things have been considered also to be harmful not only to the user but to other people and the environment. and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. and If I didn't smoke at work and never told my employer I smoked how would he know not to hire me? Why wouldn't a person try to protect his right to do something that is entirely legal?

These are the troubling points about your way of thinking... you want something for some but not for others.. you have made up YOUR mind as to what YOU deem as harmful, unhealthy, necessary, unnecessary. Some of us are fighting to keep the RIGHTS that we have already been given... you are looking for what rights you can change based on YOUR notion of what is good and what is bad.. scary how people fight harder for illegal things to become legal.. than fight to maintain the legal rights that we have had for over 200 years

[Doewhacker]

"but to other people and the environment. and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. "

No it cost's the insurance company more to insure them because of the related problems it causes. Last year my company sent out questionaires asking if we smoked or not, I'm guessing if you said no and they found you did it would nullify their responsibility to cover your claims.

"we better start considering reassessing our right to eat fatty foods, use fertilizer, drive vehicles, own a woodstove, use a barbeque grill"

They already have statred all of this...no transfat in foods went into effect over a year ago, they want to ban outdoor woodstoves,..see where I'm going with this?

[HectorBuckBuster]

Its almost to the point now matter what you do, you will end up breaking some law. I am guessing just about everyone breaks alteast one or two different laws in a day and probably does not even know it. I sure hope our country's initials don't change to the USSR anytime soon. The way it is going this won;t be far from the truth. I waiting for the day we are taxed on how many lung full's are air we used in a day. You laugh but there is already a Stock Market type business set up on the trading of green house gases. http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/  . Look into it was setup by members of Goldman Sachs and a lot of the other big crooks in the Financial business.

[nyantler]

"but to other people and the environment. and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. "

No it cost's the insurance company more to insure them because of the related problems it causes. Last year my company sent out questionaires asking if we smoked or not, I'm guessing if you said no and they found you did it would nullify their responsibility to cover your claims.

"we better start considering reassessing our right to eat fatty foods, use fertilizer, drive vehicles, own a woodstove, use a barbeque grill"

They already have statred all of this...no transfat in foods went into effect over a year ago, they want to ban outdoor woodstoves,..see where I'm going with this?

I'm pretty sure nobody has not been hired because they eat fatty foods or barbeque... as for the insurance thing.. show me any studies that say that insurance has risen based on people smoking. That is just the insurance company's way of justifying cost increases... more people smoked 50 years ago than todayless than half of the American people smoke yet somehow smoking is still the great American insurance problem.. thats Bullshit.

[Doewhacker]

nyantler you are missing the point I am making, I never said anything about not hiring people and I'm not sure where you came in with that. The point is, there are already regulations in place that are meant to limit the choices you want to protect like freedom to eat fatty foods and so on.

And if you can't understand why it would cost an insurance company more to carry a smoker you are out of it, smoking leads to health issues, insurance co's need to pay out on claims for those issues. So therefore smokers cost more than non-smokers, and no its not the main reason the insurance industry is messed up, that has more to do with medicare and or welfare abuse. They only pay back a portion of what a hospital or dr charges, so we the general public pay the difference.

[virgil]

and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. and If I didn't smoke at work and never told my employer I smoked how would he know not to hire me?

you're right, but you're completely missing the point.  yes, health INSURANCE does cost the same for smokers and non-smokers.  but, health CARE does not.  the costs of providing care for the people who smoke costs exponentially more than for non-smokers.  and, that's what drives up the cost for everyone else. (Same reason why 'insurance fraud' raises everyone's premiums).  and, that's the point.  it's different in automotive insurance where the user's cost is reflective of how 'risky' they are to insure- speeding tickets, etc.  As an employer, the cost for insuring smokers is coming out of your pocket.  and, as far as your last question, that's simple.  employers today are asking prospective employees to sign a statement attesting that they are non-smokers.  during their initial 'employee health screen', a simple blood test is done along with standard blood testing.  if it comes back positive, they don't get hired.  if they pass the test, and then start smoking after completing probation, nothing the employer can do.

[nyantler]

nyantler you are missing the point I am making, I never said anything about not hiring people and I'm not sure where you came in with that. The point is, there are already regulations in place that are meant to limit the choices you want to protect like freedom to eat fatty foods and so on.

And if you can't understand why it would cost an insurance company more to carry a smoker you are out of it, smoking leads to health issues, insurance co's need to pay out on claims for those issues. So therefore smokers cost more than non-smokers, and no its not the main reason the insurance industry is messed up, that has more to do with medicare and or welfare abuse. They only pay back a portion of what a hospital or dr charges, so we the general public pay the difference.

You aren't addressing what was said about employers paying more for health insurance for smokers.. and I was addressing the issue of attacking smoking versus any other thing that has been proven to be a high risk health issue... its as simple as that

[nyantler]

and last I knew.. health insurance for smokers cost the same as non-smokers so how does the company (careful because I'm a business owner) have a greater insurance expense for a smoker.. and If I didn't smoke at work and never told my employer I smoked how would he know not to hire me?

you're right, but you're completely missing the point.  yes, health INSURANCE does cost the same for smokers and non-smokers.  but, health CARE does not.  the costs of providing care for the people who smoke costs exponentially more than for non-smokers.  and, that's what drives up the cost for everyone else. (Same reason why 'insurance fraud' raises everyone's premiums).  and, that's the point.  it's different in automotive insurance where the user's cost is reflective of how 'risky' they are to insure- speeding tickets, etc.  As an employer, the cost for insuring smokers is coming out of your pocket.  and, as far as your last question, that's simple.  employers today are asking prospective employees to sign a statement attesting that they are non-smokers.  during their initial 'employee health screen', a simple blood test is done along with standard blood testing.  if it comes back positive, they don't get hired.  if they pass the test, and then start smoking after completing probation, nothing the employer can do.

Legally an employer would have a problem  not hiring someone because they are a smoker.. they could refuse to pay for their health insurance maybe, but to not hire them for smoking would be discrimination...but putting that all aside... as an employer health insurance costs the same for every employee regardless of whether they smoke or not... we can debate whether smoking increases health care costs, but hiring a person that smokes has no impact on the cost of health insurance.

[Doewhacker]

You aren't addressing what was said about employers paying more for health insurance for smokers.. and I was addressing the issue of attacking smoking versus any other thing that has been proven to be a high risk health issue... its as simple as that

I didnt address it because I don't feel that anyone was trying to say that. Perhaps you and I read the same sentence two different ways?