Members tlbonehead Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane I believe they should be legal -- my point was that there's no backing to make them illegal, and this has been settled time and time again. Psycho Christians and bigots (usually one and the same) try to incorporate religion into law, disregarding the constitution's utter neglect to mention homosexuality, and say it should be illegal. And if you don't believe that carcinogens cause cancer, then you need science lessons. Yes,Captain Dipass:thu: I am well aware that cigarettes have carcinogens in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted June 8, 2006 Author Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead Yes,Captain Dipass:thu: I am well aware that cigarettes have carcinogens in them. I agree with you about the gay marriage deal. No reason for namecalling. You just said cigarettes don't cause cancer. Then you said you are aware cigarettes have carcinogens in them. Are you saying carcinogens don't cause cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 8, 2006 Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane I agree with you about the gay marriage deal. No reason for namecalling.You just said cigarettes don't cause cancer. Then you said you are aware cigarettes have carcinogens in them.Are you saying carcinogens don't cause cancer? No one said anything about smoking them. Your chances increase greatly if you actually light one,put it to your lips,and pull the smoke into your lungs. Seriously,what kind of idiot would not know that sucking any kind of smoke into your lungs can be anything but bad for you? Back on subject. People get lung cancer who don't smoke. People smoke yet never get lung cancer. I don't see how a sane jury or group can decide case by case that smoking caused the lung cancer in a person. I find these huge settlements disgusting. There are tons of other carcinogenic things in the world,especially in the time-frame of those who are in their later years or deceased. Any of them,or combinations of them could have caused the cancer. Of course,DDT or asbestos manufacturers ,etc,probably don't exist today so there isn't any money to go after in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted June 8, 2006 Author Members Share Posted June 8, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead No one said anything about smoking them. Your chances increase greatly if you actually light one,put it to your lips,and pull the smoke into your lungs. Seriously,what kind of idiot would not know that sucking any kind of smoke into your lungs can be anything but bad for you? Back on subject. People get lung cancer who don't smoke. People smoke yet never get lung cancer. I don't see how a sane jury or group can decide case by case that smoking caused the lung cancer in a person. I find these huge settlements disgusting. There are tons of other carcinogenic things in the world,especially in the time-frame of those who are in their later years or deceased. Any of them,or combinations of them could have caused the cancer. Of course,DDT or asbestos manufacturers ,etc,probably don't exist today so there isn't any money to go after in that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matt_plan-R Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by guitar shmoe Oh my goodness!....let me put it this way: I only 'tend' toward conservatism BECAUSE they are more in favor of letting ME make MORE decisions without INCREASING TAXES (ie: taking my wallet out of my back pocket and taking the bulk of my paycheck to pay for some 'entitlement' program that I disagree with...)...hey, if YOU want to advance some liberal agenda item, GET YOUR OWN WALLET OUT FIRST!!! then, go get Hollywood actors and the leftwing RICH to fund these programs...DONT come and FORCE me (and other UNWILLING taxpayers) to pay for it! As for 'Christian values' ...Jesus said there are more important things than simply helping the poor (though we should never leave that undone!) "The Poor you have with you always, yet I am here for a short time". That, on the surface seems to be a pretty 'selfish' statement coming from the CREATOR of our universe (ie: there is more to the Christian picture than SINGLE DIMENSIONALLY 'helping the poor'). Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24) enjoy that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane Serious,how can you prove on a case by case basis that cigarettes caused the person's lung cancer. You can't and that is the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Matt_plan-R Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)enjoy that one! Yes,we seem to have a closed-minded Christian hater on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -=MYK=- Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Matt_plan-R Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)enjoy that one! Jesus didn't say that. That's just what Mathew heard. There's a BIG difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by -=MYK=- Jesus didn't say that.That's just what Mathew heard.There's a BIG difference. Maybe he was trying to talk with a mouth full of Doritos or had just gotten back from the dentist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -=MYK=- Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead Serious,how can you prove on a case by case basis that cigarettes caused the person's lung cancer. You can't and that is the bottom line. You'd think that people would just not smoke if they were so worried about their health, as for telling others what to do, those people need to shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted June 9, 2006 Author Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead Maybe he was trying to talk with a mouth full of Doritos or had just gotten back from the dentist. Dental surgery? Hopped up on morphine and novicane. Uh oh. Maybe he meant "Hey, Matty-boy, let's go {censored} some camels and then poke them with needles." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -=MYK=- Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead Maybe he was trying to talk with a mouth full of Doritos or had just gotten back from the dentist. Who? JC or Matthew? I don't think they had Doritos back then, but if they had enough acid around to see JC walking on water then they must have had a lot more than we know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted June 9, 2006 Author Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by -=MYK=- Who? JC or Matthew? I don't think they had Doritos back then, but if they had enough acid around to see JC walking on water then they must have had a lot more than we know of. Couldn't he have just walked on ice? That's frozen water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -=MYK=- Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane Couldn't he have just walked on ice? That's frozen water. Everybody knows that JC walked on sandals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fxrs Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Matt_plan-R When a prop to create a state paid for pre-school program doesn't win in Cali, even though it would only be paid for by a 1.7% tax on 0.6% richest people in the state, you know there are problems...I think all this boils down to one absolute and ultimately inconvenient truth. People are stupid... The richest 1% create confict and infighting within the lower 99% to distract them while they pilage all the wealth... Why the {censored} should they pay? You're right, people are stupid...the people doing the "pillaging" are the people on the left who want only to tax every last cent out of my paycheck, such as "Meathead" and his lofty plans to pay for pre-school for every illegal alien child with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitar shmoe Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane No.. You are just objectively a moron. Have a nice day. In summary: moron and idiot = someone that disagrees with rememberduane...I get it! PS: I STILL like Duanne Allman! and, yes, I DO remember him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane Couldn't he have just walked on ice? That's frozen water. Ice was a little scarce back there in Jesusland,especially in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by tlbonehead Ice was a little scarce back there in Jesusland,especially in the sand. AAAAAaaaactually, I've heard of a meteorological theory whereby part of the Dead Sea turned into a sheet of ice as a result of some obscure phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -=MYK=- Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Loghead AAAAAaaaactually, I've heard of a meteorological theory whereby part of the Dead Sea turned into a sheet of ice as a result of some obscure phenomenon. Jesus had cold feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GnR102385 Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Isnt there too much salt in the Dead Sea for it to freeze over?? I am not supporting Jesus in anyway, I know he didnt walk on water, Im just sating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by GnR102385 Isnt there too much salt in the Dead Sea for it to freeze over?? I am not supporting Jesus in anyway, I know he didnt walk on water, Im just sating. Damned if I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JBecker Posted June 9, 2006 Members Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by GnR102385 Isnt there too much salt in the Dead Sea for it to freeze over?? I am not supporting Jesus in anyway, I know he didnt walk on water, Im just sating. Well, I the more solute there is in a liquid the more depressed it's melting point, it's called collagative properties. So the Dead Sea would have to get a few degrees colder than 0C probably to freeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.