This has NOTHING to do with whether you have sympathy for smokers or not.
Posted By: HomeAlone on 2009-04-01
In Reply to: I thought that the increased - Trigger Happy
There's a much more fundamental principle involved here.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Tell ya what. When I need your sympathy
Until then, save it for yourself.
with all the sympathy expressed
for the repub VP's daughter having a Down syndrome baby, reminded me about that mean joke McCain made about Chelsea Clinton. Touche.
Still trying to conjure up that sympathy
If you truly had a grasp of the disparities in wealth distribution in this country, how it concentrates 35% of ALL national wealth in the hands of less than 1%, 71% in the top 10% and leaves 1% in the hands of the bottom 40% of wage earners (individuals earning less than $51,253 annually....not welfare deadbeats), how it translates into ever diminishing or, in a best case scenario, stagnant wages, you would not be beating this dead horse. Do yu not understand just how angry and just how tired middle class people in this country really are?
Normally I would have sympathy for these people...(sm)
however, these people are also among those who thought it was okay to take away rights from the LGBT community. I say if you're willing to dish it out, then you might want to be prepared to take it.
Poor little christians. You want to preserve the right to preach and teach and have gatherings to promote your philosophy, but when it comes to someone else's rights it's different.
I've said this I don't know how many times. If christians don't want govt in their business, then they need to get out of the business of govt.
smokers
Do you know what? Aside from the retired who are drawing social security, I can name only 1 person I know who draws a monthly check from the government (and I know quite a few) who does NOT smoke. That is a lot of cigarettes being bought with tax dollars. It's disgusting and it is WRONG. I work VERY hard and even if I wanted to, I can't afford to smoke.
Elitist my a$$.
I read their posts with a little bit of humor and a whole lot of sympathy.
Humor because of the ridiculousness of it all, and sympathy because of the ridiculousness of it all!! 
regular pot smokers have less of every disease.
nm
But that still doesn't say WHY smokers should pay for this whole program?? sm
You are taxing 20% (at most) of the nation to pay for this program. IT'S NOT FAIR - tax junk food, soda, sugar products to spread it around.
And what happens when more smokers quit? Who is going to pay for the unfunded sm
mandate then? I say spread the pain around now and find a viable way of paying for the program.
The amount of $$ paid out in benefits to smokers
the amount of tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco. You don't seem to protest too loudly when it comes time to spend it and waste no time marginalizing and bashing people with an addiction. These are tired tactics designed to take the focus off of the REAL issues raised in this thread with regard to the economy and differences between party platforms, policies and plans. Just how long do ou think pubs can run and hide from the fact that what they have to offer is EXACTLY the same thing as what we all are running fast and far away from? Careful, your desperation is showing.
Early studies show that regular smokers of pot, (don't know...sm
how regular regular is), seem to have less incidence of Alzheimer disease. If true, an interesting tidbit I thought.
Actually I don't think it's fair that smokers bear the brunt of paying for children's healt
And no, I'm not a current smoker. It just seems unfair that a single group should pay for most of the costs. Why not tax soda pop or junk snack food? That's contributing to the childhood obesity episode - and poor health - so why not make those products pay for SCHIP?
|
