Two types of people I can't stand

In God We Trust

 

Okay. Doesn't mean LGBT are not SUFFICIENTLY discriminated against as a group to merit protected-class status.

Smoking is a choice. Yes, I know it's addictive. But it is a choice. And your smoke has a serious negative health effect on those around you. It is not unreasonable to demand that you limit the damage caused by smoking to yourself.

Vaping could be a game-changer. Time will tell.

 

That phrase didn't come about until almost a hundred years after the founding of our country.

 

Was added in the friggin FIFTIES

 

Some don't consider Catholics to be Christians

 

And some catholics consider protestants to be heathens

 

I know that. But I'll stick with what I believe.

 

So will they

 

We are here to swap stories. You now can tell us your story.

 

= rights

Hard to persuade others we are all equal

 

Oh yes, like Trump for example.

I want the USA to be successful, but Trump is threatening it. He has to go.

 

Which religion does that represent?

 

It's a shame you belonged to such a tiny, soft-spoken group of Conservatives. The ones with all the microphones and the enthusiastic cheering sections made it abundantly clear early and often that the country's best interests were a trivial matter compared to undermining every aspect of the Obama Administration, at every opportunity.

The kind of folks that aggravate me, are the ones who demand their own facts, and party specific accountability for comparable actions.and behavior.

 

In the present context, it's a quality correctly attributed to a document which reflects with substantial accuracy the sentiments of those for whom it purports to speak.

Nevertheless, it has been part of what is now termed organic law from the beginning.

One could easily get the impression you see the Founders as sculptors answerable to none but themselves rather than executors of the will of the people, the effective majority of whom were neither ignorant of the role Divine Providence had played in the achievement of their independence nor under the illusion they could retain said independence for long in a hostile environment without it.

No, because the Constitution was drafted to define the responsibilities of a relative handful of people who were under a constitutional oath, not the responsibilities of the vast remainder of private citizens.

Where did I say there was anything in the USC about it?

 

So you think that it's legitimate when the founders wrote the DoI, but not when they defined the actual laws of the country, in which case it's some vague sentiment of the majority that was never measured in an election.

These are ridiculously contorted standards. Don't waste time pointing to founding documents if, at the base level, you're just going to define whatever you believe in as legitimacy.

 

Welcome to yguy's world, where his unsupported opinion trumps actual facts.

 

Ah, so you're a "sovereign citizen" type.

That claim is complete and laughable bullshit.

You didn't. But since it must necessarily be mentioned there to have the force of law, then your claim can't be true unless it is.

You are free to cite the DoI in court. But only in support of your actual legal argument, which must be based on statute or documents recognized as being part of the law, like the Constitution.

 

Choice is a valid distinction. But if one looks at just the pure science sans politics and agendas, second hand smoke causes zero health problems.

 

Er, what?
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/effects-of-secondhand-smoke
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/

The effects of second-hand smoke are well-established. Not "politics and agenda."

There is some question about whether second-hand smoke is a significant risk for lung cancer. But there is no question it is a significant risk for asthma, respiratory infections, SIDS and cardiopulmonary disease.

 

Just because it is very politically correct does not make it true. There have never been valid scientific studies that connect second hand smoke to bona fide health problems (which doesn't include bothersome and annoying) but many invalid studies that suppose to validate conjecture and supposition. Like the first EPA study that got thrown out of court and almost got the EPA guilty of contempt of court. Nobody has known what causes SIDS so a few years ago the 2nd hand smoke police decided to glom onto it and claim it all to themselves.
I do not dispute that one can find a ton of references showing the connection. They are all mostly hokey.
The CDC can be viewed as the CPA of country health and mortality. They lent their name to the claim the 50,000 people have died from 2nd hand smoke, much more that any other previous zealots have said. In fact there has not been one death clearly attributed to 2nd hand smoke. If the CDC was in the private sector their leaders, as CPAs, would be in jail for that misleading statement.

 

Undermining the Obama administration was good for the country.

 

Agreed.

That is simply untrue. The scientific data on this is vast and compelling.

Here's a 2006 metastudy of the literature:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/

The major conclusions:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/pdfs/6major-conclusions.pdf

The executive summary:
https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/executivesummary.pdf

The full report:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/

It's not a single study, or small group of studies. It is decades of research, by lots of different researchers and organizations.

If you're willing to call the CDC "zealots", I don't know what to say.

 

All those studies are mass hysteria from the herd if independent minds. [In fairness some studies have found a scientific correlation but nothing to prove cause and effect.]
I didn't call the CDC zealots. I was comparing their estimate to those of the zealots who never even got close to 50,000. I compared CDC to a CPA which is what would land them in jail for false accounting reporting.

 

How the hell you get that out of anything I said is a complete mystery, and until it is solved...

...none of this matters.

I wouldn't know, because I don't know how you define that - though presumably it's a box you find it convenient to imagine I fit into, reality be damned.

So the Constitution was drafted to define the responsibilities of private citizens?

Do tell.

This of course is nonsense, given that the Constitution would have the force of law whether it were mentioned in the USC or not...

...assuming, of course, that "force of law" even has anything to do with the legitimacy of any pronouncement issued under color of law, which federal courts have demonstrated is nonsense countless times. This being the case, your objection is irrelevant.

 

Ummm...no it was not and that's a lame excuse.

It cost jobs and all that entails