Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Our voting system:
en.wikipedia.org...
Basically same as yours, except we don't have an electoral college so each seat = 1 seat in parliament.

Our parties:
en.wikipedia.org...
No good ones any more. Embarrassing really...

If an MP (elected) has a crazy idea:
en.wikipedia.org...
Some boring stuff comes out of that.

Then the rest of it is controlled by the national media. An issue comes to the front like genetic engineering, binge drinking, poor people, rich people, etc depending on the issues of the day.

The media whips us all in to a frenzy and we write strongly worded letters to our local MPs expressing our thoughts on the subject. Those letters are ignored and then the MPs all pretend to care about the issue, asking for more letters, visiting "the plebs" and so on, then our response is ignored and each MP votes how his or her party tells him to.

Same as your lot really.

(I'm probably not the best person to ask about politics)
edit on 3-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by frazzle
 


Funny how that works right?

Insurance goes up anyway, so we get obamacare to save us all from healthcare costs and bam, rates go up, taxes go up and more people loose their jobs because healthcare rates went up......genius!!!


The true believers just keep digging themselves (and us) deeper into the hole. And there's not much doubt they'll try to get a leg up out of that hole by stepping on us. Again.

I was hoping the whole 2012 thing was the Mayan maximum time limit on how long people would allow a bunch of control freaks to write up stupid statistics that somebody paid them to "find" so they could get government to write more laws and all the corpulents together could make even more money off us.

Guess the gun thing might still fit that bill, though.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink




Some particulates occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray.

Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of particulates. Coal combustion in developing countries is the primary method for heating homes and supplying energy.

Because salt spray over the oceans is the overwhelmingly most common form of particulate in the atmosphere, anthropogenic aerosols—

those made by human activities—currently account for about 10 percent of the total mass of aerosols in our atmosphere.[2] [edit]




Secondary particles derive from the oxidation of primary gases such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides into sulfuric acid (liquid) and nitric acid (gaseous). The precursors for these aerosols—i.e. the gases from which they originate—may have an anthropogenic origin (from fossil fuel or coal combustion) and a natural biogenic origin.

In the presence of ammonia, secondary aerosols often take the form of ammonium salts; i.e. ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate (both can be dry or in aqueous solution); in the absence of ammonia, secondary compounds take an acidic form as sulfuric acid (liquid aerosol droplets) and nitric acid (atmospheric gas). Secondary sulfate and nitrate aerosols are strong light-scatterers.[5] This is mainly because the presence of sulfate and nitrate causes the aerosols to increase to a size that scatters light effectively.



The composition of particulate matter that generally causes visual effects such as smog consists of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, mineral dust, organic matter, and elemental carbon also known as black carbon or soot. The particles are hydroscopic due to the presence of sulphur, and SO2 is converted to sulphate when high humidity and low temperatures are present. This causes the reduced visibility and yellow color.[8] [edit]



en.wikipedia.org...


I wonder why some people are so worried about lung cancer from cigarette smoke and fireplaces, but lung cancer from cars not so much. Is it really more important to have a car than to warm your house? Or enjoy a good burger?

I guess it just matters what's important to the loudest and most powerful.



edit on 1-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


I think one difference I can see, we have town or local levels, county levels and state levels. Our constitution was set up to protect states rights, very little such as defense was to be the domaine of the federal government. States on down to local levels are supposed to responsible for the rest of the lot. We vote on our local school budgets, town ordinances etc. But we are now dealing with a government gone wild.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


The problem with the illusion of local and state control is the BIG hitch and the long whip ~ federal funding. Everybody down to the dog catcher bends to that threat.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Yes, you are correct....it's the poison apple.....so pretty when you look at it.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I like this idea....incorporating towns....it's similar to the way things were at the beginning or our country into the 1800 your taxes were a fee for direct service....not just blindly pooled and passed on.


A Georgia Town Takes the People’s Business Private

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


The power to tax is the power to destroy. The founders gave themselves and their successors that power knowing full well that it would be abused, yet they made no limitations on it. That's why I became a fan of the antifederalists, they were terrified of the "implied powers" of a strong central government. Now we know why.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by frazzle
 


I like this idea....incorporating towns....it's similar to the way things were at the beginning or our country into the 1800 your taxes were a fee for direct service....not just blindly pooled and passed on.


A Georgia Town Takes the People’s Business Private

www.nytimes.com...


Towns are already incorporated and, TBH, I dislike that idea a lot, along with a city management style of governing. Mayors, who are elected by and answerable to the people are nothing but figureheads anymore. I also prefer sheriffs to city police chiefs for the same reason. But no matter who calls the shots, the people's money gets outsourced to international bankers and corporations and very little remains.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Here's the thing; it's not so much as we're losing our Rights it's more about conforming to change. Things are a LOT different than they were when things were considered 'okay'. We now have to deal with dense population for starters.

Rules and laws are meant to be modified. I for one am against all governments (hate them) but c'mon....you can't belly ache about every single adjustment. You don't like it? Become self-sustaining and get off the grid, build a log cabin with a fireplace and smoke all you want.

Fireplaces weren't for aesthetics and romance as they are mostly now. They were for heat and cooking. We've not only fixed that inconvenience but we now have indoor plumbing too. I don't hear too many people complaining about the extinction of outhouses and wells.

This is not the end of changes. No one with connective brain tissue can possibly think; what was good at one point of time will get frozen in time, for all of time. That is ludicrous. A LOT has changed and will continue to do so.

So get off your soapboxes and stop being victims, martyrs and kvetches.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


You got the politics right, you just missed out the part where when write to your MP, the MP is best mates with the person you're writing about or getting paid off by that person. I know this from bad experience, they only care about what money they can get.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 
Man, your right there is no such pollution in any comminust country, the air is pristene, the people all thrive and live happy freewill lives and have no one on their case. You are so transparent. It is about air quality, but freedoms are getting rare these days, I moved from the city just to get away from the sheer insanity, but if I am to breath clean air I must go to a true literal communist collective hive to be healthy, absolute BS.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


We are discussing the OP not the thread.
so....



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Thanks for an interesting and well thought out reply once again. I think you're absolutely right about cars being ok because they make the government and big business lots of money.. I just can't connect that up with the thibkibg behind banning smoking. A quick look around yields results that would indicate that smoking costs the NHS around 2 billion pounds per year in medical bills but they receive around 10 billion a year from revenue derived from tobacco products...

Also, recent figures suggest that alcohol related problems are costing the NHS around 25 billon, and that's not including the bill for policing and dealing with the societal damage caused by alcohol. So, why, if these policies (or lack of - in the case of vehicular pollution) are motivated by money alone, are they not pursuing alcohol use with the same aggression they did with smoking... I've never understood the motivation behind it.. We all seem happy to accept that government and big business are, at best, good buddies and, at worst, one in the same, but, attacking the tobacco companies (one of the biggest of big businesses, behind pharma and 'defence') doesn't fit with that picture... It's almost like someone pissed the wrong people off and got nailed as a result... not that I'm one for big conspiracies... It just doesn't make sense to me. Also, if you're thē kind of person who buys into the illogical NWO conspiracy to wipe us all out/break us down etc and use THAT as an explanation for them ignoring the alcohol issue then, why wouldn't they just let people keep on smoking? Hell, why not encourage people to smoke indirectly? The only reason everyone got so worked up over the smoking issue was because of the media hye they created to push their agenda.

Your assessment of our voting system is spot on, in particular the way in which the media drive politics and public opinion. I can hardly bring myself to think of it these days because I alternate between embarrassment at spcietal stupidity, disgust with the human race and anger with the mindless drongos that recite stupid fking phrases they heard on the latest car insurance advert....

Another big issue re: politics/voting is a complete lack of working class representation in the house of commons. They have systematically eliminated all working class representation, starting with the decimation of the unions (now tigers with no teeth and even less balls) by one M. Thatcher and continuing all te way to present day where we now have a Cambridge educated toff who's never known a hard day in his life making decisions that seriously affect the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society... One might begin to suspect that it's game, set and match...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Your pollies must have a direct line to our pollies in South Australia.

Lets tax the s@#t out of cigs to make them unaffordable. What was $6.00 a pkt is now $10.00 (example)and the price just keeps sky rocketing.

To make the price system fairer (tax wise) the gov decided that cigs will be costed per cig in a pkt, meaning if you buy 20 @ 40 cents each = $8.00 40cigs = $16 so eliminating buying in bulk.

As they did with Alcohol. (example) Beer gets a price hike two times each year. Their Logic, To make it unaffordable. (imo) They have achieved their goal. To catch up with friends and have a beer nowadays, it's not meet me at the local, it's come around to, meet me at mine or I'll meet you at yours, and don't think for one minute I'm throwing on a BBQ like I used to, I simply can't afford it like I used to. Which opens up another question, are they taxing the s@#t out of food to make it unaffordable so we can't eat and we die!!!

I have the solution. Lets ban the government. All in favour say I.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Wanted to stop by with some more madness from the king of bans, Michael Bloomberg.

I am sure somebody started a thread on this, if not.....you have my blessing.

Next on his list is pain medication!!!




Obamacare Preview: Nurse Bloomberg Ratchets Up Painkiller Ban in NY Hospitals


www.ijreview.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
reply to post by ANOK
 
Man, your right there is no such pollution in any comminust country, the air is pristene, the people all thrive and live happy freewill lives and have no one on their case. You are so transparent. It is about air quality, but freedoms are getting rare these days, I moved from the city just to get away from the sheer insanity, but if I am to breath clean air I must go to a true literal communist collective hive to be healthy, absolute BS.


What are you talking about? I never said that at all.

What "communist" countries are you talking about? Please be specific so we can discuss it eh?

I'm guessing you think your "freedom" means you don't have to have consideration or concern for the community you live in eh? Perfectly fine to pollute the air we all breath because it's your "freedom".

People who are not actually free will cling to the slightest excuse to convince themselves they are.

In a true communist economy we would all be using clean free-energy. Capitalism keeps clean free-energy stifled because it doesn't make profit for someone. If there are no laws against pollution my city would be like Mexico City. I would rather have the law, than your inconsiderate claim of "freedom", thank you. If your "freedom" effects me negatively, then you can keep your idea of freedom. You forcing pollution on others is no less oppressive than a government law.

edit on 1/15/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join