You might say smoke was coming out of my ears . . .
There was NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman this morning, arguing that the Pentagon should prohibit soldiers in combat zones from smoking.
Snyderman was a guest on Morning Joe for purposes of reporting on her interview of Pres. Obama yesterday on his health care plans. But along the way, she weighed in on the proposal that had been floated, then quickly snuffed, by the Defense Department to deny combat soldiers the right to light up.
Mika Brzezinski was grateful for an ally in the fight against letting warriors make their own choices. Joe Scarborough mocked the two Big Mommy Government-types, touting a tongue-in-cheek "cigarette drive" to provide soldiers with free packs of their favorite smokes.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Following up on a story from yesterday, the Pentagon says it has no plans to ban smoking --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Amen.
BRZEZINSKI: -- by U.S. troops. Dr. Nancy, you should have seen the gang-up on me yesterday.
NANCY SNYDERMAN: Today at 2 o'clock I will walk in the front door of a Veterans Administration hospital in Philadelphia. I will walk through a wall of cigarette smoke to see patients who have been diagnosed with cancer. You tell me. You tell me.
BRZEZINSKI: Thank you.
SNYDERMAN: This is crazy, to back off. If you love American servicemen and women, then you know what? Step up and get cigarettes out of their lives. At least say we give a damn enough to change policy.
BRZEZINSKI: Thank you!
If Dr. Nancy wants to preach the dangers of smoking to soldiers, be my guest. But prohibiting a guy who is putting his life on the line for his country from lighting up? Two words for the good doctor: butt out!
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
SNYDERMAN: This is crazy,
July 16, 2009 - 06:14 ET by motherbeltSNYDERMAN: This is crazy, to back off. If you love American
servicemen and women, then you know what? Step up and get cigarettes
out of their lives. At least say we give a damn enough to change policy.
This is just more of the liberals' view that our soldiers are not adults with brains but our "children" who are being "forced" to fight in George Bush's war!
Why doesn't Nancy Snyderman, who is concerned about Obama's smoking (she asked him about it in her UHC interview), go on a crusade to force the Secret Service and all the White House staff to stop supplying cigarettes to the President, get cigarettes out of his life...for his own good, you know!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Mental Illness
July 16, 2009 - 08:43 ET by nadadhimmiYou see, if people just shut up and do as Nancies Pelosi and Snyderman say, it will all be better. They think... These Demonrats are COMPELLED to seize control of others lives. It's an unquenchable compulsion they have, a mental illness. They have no control over NEEDING to control others.
"At least say we give a damn enough to change policy"
July 16, 2009 - 06:17 ET by SickofLibsWhat people choose to do on their own IS NOT POLICY, Snyderman. It's called freedom.
Dr. Quackette should stick to taking care of her patients - Obama can struggle through without yet another socialist water-carrier from the private sector.
Funny I don't remember
July 16, 2009 - 06:18 ET by George S PattonFunny I don't remember seeing any of these sniveling whiners when I was in Vietnam, Grenada, lebanon, or GW1. Nothing but a bunch od F^^%in cowards who want to control someone else's life. These people are shitheads!
Guess she should be Dr.
July 16, 2009 - 07:12 ET by irishguyGuess she should be Dr. Nanny instead of Dr. Nancy
Good one, IG!
July 16, 2009 - 07:13 ET by Mark FinkelsteinGood one, IG!
If I want an abortion, it's
July 16, 2009 - 07:16 ET by karelingIf I want an abortion, it's my body--and I am not to be exposed to any information about the hazards or complications, or any sonograms of the fetus, lest I be scared into changing my mind about aborting the baby.
But if I want to light up, then it becomes the government's body--and I am to be bombarded with all manner of information about the hazards and complications, to include being shown blackened lungs in jars (I remember seeing that in 4th grade) until I'm scared into changing my mind about smoking.
And as for "a wall of cigarette smoke" in a VA hospital--correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought smoking was no longer allowed inside any government buildings.
"If I want an abortion,
July 16, 2009 - 07:25 ET by Mark Finkelstein"If I want an abortion, it's my body--but if I want to light up, then it becomes the government's body."
Absolutely perfect illustration of the liberal mindset!
They are actually being
July 16, 2009 - 07:58 ET by motherbeltThey are actually being consistent, in their own twisted reasoning.
A soldier who gets lung cancer becomes a drag on the government medical system, and an unwanted baby becomes a drag on the social services system. So they are easing the burden on all of us.
Now when you consider that more blacks than whites smoke, especially those in the lower income brackets, doesn't it make sense to outlaw tobacco altogether? Aren't they being "targeted" by those evil tobacco companies? Or is it a "disparate impact" to deprive them of cigarettes?
Horns of a dilemma.... not even considering where they would then get the money for all their programs....
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
doesn't it make sense to
July 16, 2009 - 08:02 ET by Rupert Cadelldoesn't it make sense to outlaw tobacco altogether?\
Considering our nation's ass-backwards approach to drug policy, and that nicotine is more addictive and more damaging in and of itself than many hard drugs, yes, that would seem to be logical.
ORRRR
We could just take a pure libertarian stance on both the civil matter of what we wish to consume and the economic matter of healthcare. But that's surely just crazy talk.
Drugs
July 16, 2009 - 08:21 ET by UnsaneConsidering our nation's ass-backwards approach to drug policy, I for one do not need to see this country induce societal ROT by legalizing drugs.
We could just take a pure libertarian stance on both the civil matter of what we wish to consume Can you show me where it is illegal to consume drugs?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The rot is already there.
July 16, 2009 - 09:03 ET by Rupert CadellThe rot is already there. But I would prefer that cartels, dealers, gangsters and thugs not have dominion over it. That approach seems to work with cigarettes and booze, why not pot and cocaine? Plenty of people can lead productive lives with a dependence on those. As for the really serious, super-processed, not-one-natural-ingredient stuff that makes people useless? Let them kill themselves on the drug or in meth lab explosions. I can think of better ways to spend tax dollars on law enforcement than trying to make sure sub-literate morons don't smoke sudafed mixed with battery acid.
Drugs
July 16, 2009 - 10:37 ET by UnsaneI can think of better ways to spend tax dollars on law enforcement than trying to make sure sub-literate morons don't smoke sudafed mixed with battery acid. I can't. The Power Trippers need something to do. Not long ago the TX DPS whined to the Texas Legislature for them to make driving with cell phones illegal. Before the Power Trippers worry about that, maybe they ought to actually do their jobs and shut down the drug trade, which is fully within their abilities to do.
I'll go ahead and mark you down as someone who approves of losers and loser behavior, and one who wants American society to ROT COMPLETELY AWAY.
why not pot and cocaine? Plenty of people can lead productive lives with a dependence on those. Sort of like those harmless, wonderful, backbone-of-society druggies that have made downtown Oslo a wonderful place to visit?
Or, take the "needle park" experiment in Zurich, for another example, which the local citizenry put a stop to after some years. Why? Those harmless, wonderful druggies you think are so virtuous.
Another thing: for some odd reason, countries and societies that frown heavily on drug use such as ours tend to be on top of the game for some reason. The ones that are as permissive as you want them to be are adrift and are going absolutely nowhere.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
..me thinks you'd better recheck your numbers...
July 16, 2009 - 08:28 ET by onewiseguy"Now when you consider that more blacks than whites smoke, especially
those in the lower income brackets, doesn't it make sense to outlaw
tobacco altogether?"
Considering blacks are only approx 13% of the population, I think you're statement is a wee bit off base. Better recheck your numbers. Maybe you meant to say "as a percentage of their population..." but even then I would bet money that you're wrong and that whites smoke more, as a precentage of their population, that any other group.
I'm sorry I wasn't specific
July 16, 2009 - 09:00 ET by motherbeltI'm sorry I wasn't specific enough for you, but maybe you should do more than "think" and talk hypothetically about betting money on what you think. It's not smart to refute someone's argument with "I think" your numbers are wrong. You can look here and here.
So I should have specified "as a percentage" and you should be glad you didn't bet money on my being wrong.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Smoking and Government Tax Revenue
July 16, 2009 - 10:29 ET by nandrelli"A soldier who gets lung cancer becomes a drag on the government medical system..."
That's only partially true. Yes, there is an impact on the medical system, in that there is more work to do.
But there is not a negative impact on the FINANCES of the medical system. This came out during the Clinton administration, when Janet "Firestarter" Reno was going after the tobacco companies. I don't remember the numbers, but even the feds had to admit that the amount of tax revenue from tobacco sales far exceeds the amount of money spent on medical care for smokers.
So financially, tobacco usage has a net plus for the government. The argument (that Clinton / Reno used) that medical costs are the reason for banning smoking is fraudulent.
That's actually somewhat
July 16, 2009 - 07:59 ET by Rupert CadellThat's actually somewhat melodramatic.
First of all, civilian adults do have the unequivocal right to smoke. Does anyone, in an official capacity, tell you that you can't? No, only that there are certain places where you cannot.
And the difference between smoking and abortion is that unless you are smoking by yourself in an airtight room, the Carbon Monoxide and other poisons that you're enjoying are arguably affecting others as well.
As for soldiers, as employees of the armed forces, physical fitness is surely among their most important assets. I don't believe I've ever met a soldier who wasn't in sectacular shape, and I assume that this is considered paramount to the job. Smoking more than a few cigarettes a day would, undoubtedly take a toll on this. So again, I think that there is a legitimate interest in restricting cigarettes in this case.
To be truthful, I don't feel that cigarettes should be restricted. If they want to light up and can still adequately perform their jobs, then I say it's their business; just as I think drug testing in the private sector is foolish, as it eliminates perfectly competent people who happen to smoke the occasional joint. If someone can't cut it because of their smoking or whatever else, fire or discipline them for their inability to cut it, but don't preemptively tell him or her what to do. However, I find the abortion comparison to not really hold up.
Smoking
July 16, 2009 - 08:25 ET by UnsaneAs for soldiers, as employees of the armed forces, physical fitness is surely among their most important assets. I don't believe I've ever met a soldier who wasn't in sectacular shape, and I assume that this is considered paramount to the job. Smoking more than a few cigarettes a day would, undoubtedly take a toll on this. So again, I think that there is a legitimate interest in restricting cigarettes in this case. Then there is the case of my father, who is to this day in spectacular shape. He was in the military for 30 years. For all 30 of those years he was a chimney. (He quit smoking some time after retirement.)
I don't think you have any clue as to the lengths the military goes to in order to discourage smoking as it is. (At least these days.) It should be left at that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I don't think you have any
July 16, 2009 - 08:57 ET by Rupert CadellI don't think you have any clue as to the lengths the military goes to in order to discourage smoking as it is.
I'm sure I don't know the lengths, but I'm also not surprised to hear that it is discouraged in an unofficial way. And I agree it should be left at that, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as to the motivation or reasoning behind this story. And I also agree with probably everyone here that that "let's show we care about them by taking away their cigarettes" line is just vomit-inducing.
Damn straight Nan, and
July 16, 2009 - 07:23 ET by rimskyDamn straight Nan, and let's get those stinky al Qeada guys to stop smokin' too. I mean, if our guys have to be around them, fighting them and all, then they shouldn't smoke either. Right? sarc off
Second hand smoke
July 16, 2009 - 07:38 ET by Red JeepThis battle zone is smoke free.
Simple solution: tax the cigarrettes soldiers smoke. That will shut the liberals up.
Bottom Line the government ought to end its hypocrisy and make tobacco use in this country illegal.
You know, you're probably right....
July 16, 2009 - 08:00 ET by motherbeltSimple solution: tax the cigarrettes soldiers smoke
You know, you're probably right....that's probably the REAL reason they hate the fact that soldiers smoke...that they're not paying taxes on tobacco!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
There is nothing more
July 16, 2009 - 07:32 ET by ricklailThere is nothing more satisfying than a smoke after killing 7 or 8 Taliban.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
Smoke a Taliban..
July 16, 2009 - 07:43 ET by Red Jeep...then smoke his Camels.
Leave it up to liberals to
July 16, 2009 - 07:57 ET by USA4freedomLeave it up to liberals to cut military spending then tell the soldiers: don’t smoke its bad for your health..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
uh hu
July 16, 2009 - 14:32 ET by Kekela WardThere it is.
Good post.
Sam: "I hurt somebody's feelings once"
My two words to Dr.
July 16, 2009 - 07:59 ET by BennyMy two words to Dr. Snyderman .......F**K U!
Yeah, what Benny said!
July 16, 2009 - 08:20 ET by R D Helm:-)
-Dave
"...stimulus plan is 'working exactly as we had anticipated.'" - PrezBO
Piss off a bunch of Marines
July 16, 2009 - 08:17 ET by ricklailYesterday my daughter took lunch to my son-in-law at Cherry Point. When she drove up to his shop there were about 20 Mairnes outside smoking. Now if Obama and his crowd want a real revolt piss the Marines off and see what happens.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
Yeah O might slip and fall
July 16, 2009 - 08:46 ET by MightyMouthYeah O might slip and fall out of Marine One at about 100 ft. Oopps who left the door open?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Morning Joe:
July 16, 2009 - 08:51 ET by j. frank wilsonWe've already tried that.
During WW II how many folks in the US military got hooked on smoking because cigarettes were included in their field rations? I remember as a kid when airline meals included little boxes of cigarettes (I believe it was five at a time).
Tobacco companies figured out a long time ago the best way to create more addicts is to "give" away free samples. Just like a street corner pusher.
Tobacco
July 16, 2009 - 08:55 ET by UnsaneMany of those cigarettes in field rations date from before 1964, when the Surgeon General first alerted the public to the dangers of smoking. (No, I can't tell you off hand when they were removed from rations. They never appeared in the modern MREs IIRC.)
Today you don't even mention you smoke cigars in the military if you want to avoid a reaming from the docs.
But, as we know how consumed with hate you are at the notion that companies are out to make a profit, continue your anti-capitalist rant. (I for one think we have done enough in terms of discouraging tobacco use.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
After my 2 years in the
July 16, 2009 - 09:23 ET by ricklailAfter my 2 years in the regular Army I was in the National Guard until 1977. The C-rations still had cigarettes in them at that time. I went back into the Guard in 1981 and they were gone. So sometime between 77 and 81 is when they quit. Or we come have been eating C-rations from the '60s. Who knows for such.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
C-rations
July 16, 2009 - 09:26 ET by UnsaneNational Guard in the late 70s? Yeah, I bet those C-rations you ate were canned/packaged in the Kennedy administration. :-)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
ricklail
July 17, 2009 - 03:38 ET by well99Probably with your ham and lima beans.We got them in the mid 70s Crats but 78 in FRG I dont think we had them in the crats.Maybe that is why we got chocolate nut rolls to make up for it.Also worked well as a replacement for a track pad.
@DeRange'd:
July 16, 2009 - 17:53 ET by j. frank wilson"Hate?" You really are a textbook case.
As for capitalism, I think the US should try it, instead of the corporate welfare system we have today. Real capitalism would be a welcome change.
Riposte
July 16, 2009 - 20:24 ET by Unsane"Hate?" You really are a textbook case. How so? You have YET to prove me wrong in that regard. And let's not forget yesterday, where you stated that you saw racism and bigotry on NB. You have yet to back that accusation up still.
As for capitalism, I think the US should try it, instead of the corporate welfare system we have today. And you wonder why I say you hate capitalism. The United States has the second-highest rate of corporate taxes in the industrialized world. Only Japan's are higher. And you whine about "corporate welfare"? Real capitalism would be a welcome change. This sentence is laughable from one who worships His Majesty The Shahinshah as Christ. YOU are the one who said we should vote for the biggest Socialist to ever campaign for the White House if we wanted "positive change". And NOW you whine for "real capitalism"?
I'd say you are the textbook case of a whiny, spoiled brat who in truth might not know what the hell he wants after all.
By the way, with your subject lines as they are, don't ever come whining to me about how people are being rude to poor wittle frankie.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What kills me is how the
July 17, 2009 - 02:26 ET by G. MayWhat kills me is how the rabid leftists whined about so-called "corporate welfare" for years until the gubmint actually started giving out money to failed corporations. Then they called it stimulus.
ding ding ding....
July 17, 2009 - 02:40 ET by Timothy HWe have a winner!!!!!! Hit that one right on the nose, didn't you, G. May?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
@DeRange'd:
July 17, 2009 - 09:26 ET by j. frank wilsonYes, unfortunately there is hate, racism and bigotry on NB. And I did cite it.
You claim "The United States has the second-highest rate of corporate taxes in the industrialized world." Yet according to the GAO half the corporations in America pay no taxes at all. And the numbers clearly show that the percentage of Federal government income from corporate taxes has declined for years as the individual portion as risen.
Corporate welfare? Absolutely. The tax code is full of it. The examples are obvious. You can defend each and every one if you care to but it doesn't change the basic situation.
Not to mention the crazed notion that a corporation is entitled to all the benefits of a person. Eventually, if this trend continues, a corporation will run for President...and you'd probably vote for it!
@ the rude, hate-filled frankie:
July 17, 2009 - 20:14 ET by UnsaneYes, unfortunately there is hate, racism and bigotry on NB. And I did cite it. No you did not cite it. Shall I call you a liar now?
You claim "The United States has the second-highest rate of corporate taxes in the industrialized world." Yet according to the GAO half the corporations in America pay no taxes at all. And the numbers clearly show that the percentage of Federal government income from corporate taxes has declined for years as the individual portion as risen. Could that be because corporations are LEAVING the country and reorganizing elsewhere to take advantage of lower tax rates? For instance, Tim Horton's (IIRC) recently issued a statement saying that it was going to reorganize itself as a Canadian corporation to take advantage of Canadian corporate tax rates. Imagine that! Running from the United States to Canada to take advantage of Canadian tax rates!!!
Corporate welfare? Absolutely. The tax code is full of it. The examples are obvious. You can defend each and every one if you care to but it doesn't change the basic situation. Oh, I won't deny that, frankie, but they NEED that corporate welfare. Why is that? See, frankie, I realize you worship government. You can't imagine drawing a breath without government as completely helpless as you are. Hell, I bet you think that the government created the earth and the universe in six days. (You credit it with everything else.) But here is the cold hard truth: the government, as far as corporations are concern, runs something called a "protection racket". If the government didn't run a protection racket, and perhaps let business just do their thing, and not constantly interfere with every aspect of business, maybe those corporations wouldn't NEED tax breaks just to survive and to recoup the costs of excessive regulation and bureaucracy.
I bet if the government merely simplified the tax code for corporations and hit them all at a lower rate, then you would see those hated corporations pay more in taxes...and more would set up shop here in the United States. (Study something called "the Laffer Curve" sometime. That more than anything else leads to the situation you describe above.)
Not to mention the crazed notion that a corporation is entitled to all the benefits of a person. Eventually, if this trend continues, a corporation will run for President...and you'd probably vote for it! frankie, let us study some etymology...what does the word "corporation" come from?
And with that snide comment you let slip your Socialism and the fact you are completely, beyond perpetually enraged that corporations even exist at all. Here's what I really like about corporations: when the government does not interfere, or is not run by a tyrant who believes He should run entire industries Himself (banking, automotive, etc), bad corporations fail. They die and go away. Bad corporations just take money to make go away. If you have a bad government, most of the time you have to use BLOOD to make it go away. A lot of time LOTS of blood is necessary to make a bad government go away.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
@DeRange'd:
July 17, 2009 - 21:16 ET by j. frank wilsonYes, the GAO reported half the corporations in America pay no income taxes.
Your response? "Could that be because corporations are LEAVING the country and reorganizing elsewhere to take advantage of lower tax rates?"
No it couldn't. If they left they wouldn't be American corporations, would they?
Once again, a mad monkey pounding a typewriter for hours and nothing comes out.
If brevity is the soul of wit you're, well, a half-wit?
Gee Frank
July 18, 2009 - 09:30 ET by well99"Once again, a mad monkey pounding a typewriter for hours and nothing comes out."
Keep trying Frank.Eventually something will.
@ the rude, obnoxious, hate-filed frankie
July 19, 2009 - 19:38 ET by UnsaneWhat, you think that those corporations don't operate as subsidiaries? You think that reorganizing as a foreign corporation happens overnight?
Why can't you learn something about economics for once, you contemptuous, government-worshipping Socialist?
Once again, a hate-filled, EXTREMELY ANGRY, perpetually pissed off Socialist poster is here to toss grenades and pick fights.
Now, I want you to try again, frankie, to react to my proposal in an intellectual way: what say you if we decided to just close all the loopholes and complications on the books, and tax corporations at a rate of 17% across the board.
By the way, thanks for not even trying your hand at etymology. I didn't think you had the guts to do it. That's why I asked.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
@DeRange'd:
July 20, 2009 - 12:40 ET by j. frank wilsonThe Laugher Curve? You're not serious, are you?
HaHaHa...
As to the study of etymology, what do bugs have to do with it?
@ the rude, hate-filled, extremely angry frankie:
July 20, 2009 - 12:53 ET by UnsaneWhere did I mention the Laffer Curve? By the way, frankie, yet another cutesy name you doubtless lifted from someplace else does not an intellectual argument make.
I like the idea of taxing corporations at 17%, across the board, no loopholes, no breaks. I bet that more corporations would form here, relocate here, and otherwise do business in the United States, just because of that alone...thus more revenue to the Treasury. And even then, I do not understand your problem...that's still double-taxation, as corporations are owned by shareholders who derive the money with which they buy shares from personal income which is ALREADY taxed.
Etymology is the study of words and the history thereof. Once again public education has failed you. You are the one who whined about why corporations are taxed as a person is. Now, I am trying to force you to rub some brain cells together. Where does the word corporation come from?
By the way, coward, I notice that here you are making snarky replies with your cutesy names, when you could spend that time trying to prove how NB is a hotbed of racism and bigotry. That you have not done so shows me that either you are unwilling - or perhaps more accurately, unable - to do so. Sounds like you owe NB an apology in that case.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
@DeRange'd:
July 20, 2009 - 14:39 ET by j. frank wilsonYou don't even read your own replies? Not that I blame you for skipping them, of course. I would, too...
The bugs reference was a joke. Not only are you bereft of manners, logic and thought, but you have no sense of humor?
Wow!
Fat, dumb and drunk is no way to go through life, son.
@the rude, insulting, whiny frankie:
July 20, 2009 - 22:01 ET by UnsaneSo. Once again you show you are vastly intellectually lazy. This is the best you can come up with in response to my idea of taxing corporations at 17% across the board with no loopholes or breaks?
You are so vapid it is laughable.
You whine about my manners but refuse to participate in a civil discussion of ideas when the opportunity is presented to you on a silver platter. You instead go for insults and cutesy names. It must be easier on you than to actually come up with a counter-proposal and back it up.
As it likewise must be easier than backing your assertion that racism and bigotry is endemic here on NB.
P.S. You claim I am bereft of "logic and thought" and further attack my intelligence at the end of your post, but yet you have no clue that jokes are very difficult to convey properly on this medium? You know, the reason they invented emoticons? Perhaps you ought to look deeply into the mirror instead of projecting your problems and issues.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
@DeRange'd:
July 21, 2009 - 09:09 ET by j. frank wilsonYou really are a textbook case.
Your only opening is to be rude, loud, and repetitive:
Socialism - blah, blah, blah...
Hate America - blah, blah, blah...
Liberals - blah, blah, blah...
Insult the President of the United States? Show no respect for the office? Sure - you're on board with that.
My little joke was obvious. You are so blinded with hate and bile it went right over your pinhead.
Read your own posts? Nope. Under your name here at NB:
"Study something called 'the Laffer Curve' sometime." - 07/17/2009
"Where did I mention the Laffer Curve?" - 07/20/2009
Both replies are above. Why don't you read them - apparently for the first time.
Take your own advice and take a hard look in your own mirror. As our son reminds me, when you point a finger at someone else your other three are pointing back at you...
@ the rude, hate-filled, contemptuous frankie
July 22, 2009 - 23:53 ET by UnsaneYour only opening is to be rude, loud, and repetitive: You crying and pouting about me being rude, then lecturing me about being rude, carries about the same weight with me as a whore lecturing me on the virtues of chastity, or a drunk advising me to be a teetotaler. Let's get on with the rest of your childishness.
Socialism - blah, blah, blah... but you ARE a Socialist, frankie. Your blasting me for some of my ideas (without countering with any of your own, or intelligent rebuttals - typical for you) indicates this to me plain as day. Wasn't it you, when I insisted around last October or so on radical tax simplification and reform the following: "who do you think should pay taxes - poor folks?"
Hate America - blah, blah, blah... Oh, silly me, after seeing you for about the past two years or so blasting and badmouthing America at every turn, and taking every opportunity possible to brand America as an evil racist nation (see the Open Thread; I only give you half-credit for your closing statement), why and how would I come up with that?
Liberals - blah, blah, blah... Kind of funny how you blast me for not referencing my own posts below with an air of moral superiority and then post this. I cannot think of a time I used "liberal" in a post. I can think of another word I used instead. Care to take a stab at it? No, frankie, not "Socialist". Almost, but not quite...
Insult the President of the United States? Show no respect for the office? Sure - you're on board with that. Funny how all of a sudden this is all-important to you. Where was this deep concern for respect for the President and showing respect for the office from 2001 to January of this year?
You are too blind by your own hatred and overwhelming anger to know what the concept of satire is. So I won't waste my time explaining it to you.
My little joke was obvious. You are so blinded with hate and bile it went right over your pinhead. Um, no it wasn't. Discover emoticons. They are your friends! And here you are, frankie, bitching at me about being rude and you close your sentence with a childish insult.
Sheesh, project much? I have always found the Leftist penchant to accuse Rightists of what Leftists routinely do quite a fascinating phenomenon.
Read your own posts? Nope. Under your name here at NB:
"Study something called 'the Laffer Curve' sometime." - 07/17/2009
"Where did I mention the Laffer Curve?" - 07/20/2009 Both replies are above. Why don't you read them - apparently for the first time. Well, frankie, excuse the f*** out of me for not being as perfect as you are, or as perfect as your God, His Majesty The Shahinshah. May He forgive me for making this awful mistake.
Take your own advice and take a hard look in your own mirror. I never dispense advice I never take myself. I like mirrors. They help me from cutting myself when I shave. :-)
Now, frankie, are you going to be a man and answer some very basic questions? I am just going to keep reposting it until you man up and respond. Then maybe we can have a conversation on ideas. But that's your call, not mine. The only thing I can do is goad you into one.
I like the idea of having a flat corporate tax of 17% across the board. No breaks. No loopholes. No surcharges. Nothing. Out of every dollar in earnings, 17 cents goes to the Treasury. Do you like the idea or not? If not, why not?
By the way, I have yet to see you prove that NB is a hotbed of racism and bigotry yet. Are you willing to do so or are you too comfortable in the cocoon of intellectual cowardice?
Finally, my closing thought: I bet you thought this every ten seconds earlier this evening after sighting Him on television:
The Holy Shahinshah's, President Wonderful's, the Lightworker's, The One's keen eye is the astrolabe of the substantive sun - His truth-discerning heart is the celestial observatory of Attributes - He is of noble lineage, of joyous countenance - of the model, most loving marriage - of right disposition - of open brow - of well-proportioned frame - of magnanimous nature - the honey-tongued teacher of the English language - of lofty genius - the inciter of thrills and tingles - of pure purpose - of enduring faith - of perfect wisdom - emitter of the most fragrant, sweetest flatulence - begirt with varied talents - of wide capacity - of high honor - of the most masterful, soaring oratory - of splendid courage - He who becomes Death, the destroyer of flies - with the unimpeachable reputation for integrity - of the greatest political savvy - of right judgment - of choice counsel - of networked genome - of generosity unfeigned - the emblem of the American people - astonishingly ambitious, brave - of boundless forgiveness, abundant in graciousness - the most careful thinker - at peace with all-compendium of dominion - lucid, impeccably centered - of elegance unmatched by mere mortals - true American royalty - our own personal Jesus - of plenteous sincerity - multiple of single-minded warriors - of chiseled pecs - abounding in wealth - accumulator of the world's rarities - sophisticated - of pure heart - unspotted by the world - leader of the spiritual realm - elegant, articulate, Zen-like - of enduring alertness! How has He been gathered together into one place? Or how doth a single body upbear Him on the shoulders of genius?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
@DeRange'd:
July 24, 2009 - 11:30 ET by j. frank wilsonYour replies are much too short.
Next time, please don't spare us the long form...
BRZEZINSKI & SNYDERMAN
July 16, 2009 - 08:56 ET by grumpyoldbLet's send their butts into a hot combat zone for a few months and see if they want to have a smoke after being shot at for a few hours straight. As much as they would like to change it, smoking is not illegal in this, or any other country in the world. Our soldiers are defending their right to make stupid comments. I just think a little gratitude would be in order instead of dictating what they can and cannot do...
Seriously!
July 16, 2009 - 09:22 ET by ConservativeMissourianHow do you go about making it illegal for soliders in combat zones to smoke, when it is not illegal in this country, for people who aren't necessarily putting anything on the line for our country? Where is the justification for that?
She's worried about the health risk of smoking?
July 16, 2009 - 09:19 ET by katiejaneI'd think getting shot at is a bigger risk.
I can think of one reason
July 16, 2009 - 10:06 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI can think of one reason I'd not smoke if I where a soldier in a combat zone. The smell of cigarette smoke would/could give me away. I would not want an enemy knowing that I was there until they were hit with whatever weapon I had on me. But for a government official to prohibit a soldier from smoking is intrusive. Instead why not firmly encourage the soldier in a combat zone to stop smoking instead of prohibiting them from not smoking. I would think that there could be enough peer pressure to stop smoking in a combat zone, I would not want myself or others put in danger because “joe” had to have a cigarette.
ever been?
July 16, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Kekela WardWhich is why the high speed guys don't smoke on patrol. Back at the fire base or even further back is fine, but never on patrol.
PS There are a lot of other odors in the field...like your uniform that you haven't changed or washed for a month. My mentor was a LRRP in the 101 in the A Shau and he mentioned that you could smell the NVA due to the fish sauce they put on their rice to spice it up.
Sam: "I hurt somebody's feelings once"
July 16, 2009 - 09:28 ET by jessieHLiberals are communists. I dare them to prove me wrong.
Mark, the VA severely restricts smoking around the Hospitals.
July 16, 2009 - 09:30 ET by acaiguanaIt is sad that the MSM knows so little about the VA that they let this lie pass as truth:
"Today at 2 o'clock I will walk in the front door of a Veterans Administration hospital in Philadelphia. I will walk through a wall of cigarette smoke to see patients who have been diagnosed with cancer. You tell me. You tell me."
There is no smoking about the 'front door' of any VA hospital, regardless of its location. There is allowed smoking is very few restricted areas and the VA cops (security guards) prowl to catch our Vets and ticket them with expensive Federal Tickets that requires them to appear in a Federal Court.
So, don't whine to me about walking through a cloud of smoke. That is simply a lie.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA, give the VA cops a break...
July 16, 2009 - 11:18 ET by GilaMonsterAt the VA in San Juan, PR, (I lived out there for 12 years,) there are 5 designated smoking areas for the busiest VA in the entire system. Here in Albuquerque, I don't know exactly how many there are, but you can't smoke within 100 feet of the entrances to the hospital.
I do have to say, though, that I've always found the VA cops to be pretty cool about just telling you put the cig out rather than whipping out the ticket book if you're smoking close to an entrance, and they're not too persnickety if you're smoking somewhere other than a designated spot so long as you're not around a bunch of other people, (out in the parking lot, for example.)
But you're dead on about the BS about walking through a cloud of smoke to get through the entrance to the hospital...
(This being opposed to when I first entered the VA system 30 years ago when ashtrays were provided on our bedside tables and nobody found it offensive.)
Dave
The best I can remember
July 16, 2009 - 13:26 ET by ricklailThe best I can remember there was no smoking on the grounds of Naval Hosptial Pensacloa when I was there for the birth of my grandchildren.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
I would suggest then
July 16, 2009 - 10:57 ET by Jack Hermanthat "soldiers, sailors, and airman" defending our constitution, should be able to determine who gets to retain these liberties.
Dr. Snydermann should lose her freedom of speech. If she doesn't like that option, stop telling others what to do. I'm also curious, is she an abortion advocate? Does she believe abortion is a right?
I spent 26 years in the
July 16, 2009 - 11:29 ET by jdhawkI spent 26 years in the Army. I retired 15 years ago. I was in special forces and special operations units my entire career. Early in my career, the Army began discouraging smoking. Mid way through my career, it was rare to find a smoker in any elite combat units that I was a part of.
One of the reasons for this was the high degree of phyiscal fitness that was demanded of soldiers in these units. Rigorous physical exercise was a daily part of soldiers' duties while not deployed and encouraged, if possible, when deployed.
In fact, as a unit commander, I did not permit my soldiers to smoke at all while on combat missions. This was to help protect them from being detected by the enemy. Smoke can be smelled some distance from its source. Also, the refuse can help the enemy to track you.
Nevertheless, the use of snuff and chew tobacco products were quite common in these units. Like smoked tobacco products, snuff and chew tobacco products were permitted in garrison, but not while on a mission. So, at least so far as elite combat units go, Snyderman is misinformed. I can't speak for conventional combat units. That may be a different story.
Having said the above, this "proposal" is nothing more than a trial ballon to see what the federal government can "get away with" regarding stipulating what one can and cannot do with one's body. If the federal government manages to take over the other 50% of the health care industry that they don't already control, you can expect mandates like this and more if you want to be treated. And, restrictions on the level of treatment or treatment at all, if you do not comply.
Elections have consequences . . .
Well maybe JD
July 16, 2009 - 11:39 ET by general companyIf the federal government manages to take over the other 50% of the
health care industry that they don't already control, you can expect
mandates like this and more if you want to be treated.
But I am betting if you are a non-contributer or an illeagal this will not apply to you. I also bet they get better care then you and I. Are they not the reason Obama want to ruin heath care for the rest of us?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
jd
July 16, 2009 - 13:22 ET by ricklailWhen I started basic in June of '69 they didn't stop us from smoking. We weren't allowed to smoke in the barracks. We could not drink a cold for the first 4 weeks. I quit because of all the PT and running. When I got into AIT I started again. We could smoke in the dayrooms of our barracks but not the sleeping quarters. Because we were in infantry training we didn't do PT that much. All the "spoons" had PT every morning because we used to make fun of them.
There were a lot of guys that learned the hard way about lighting up in formation or while marching. The DIs would make them eat them, fire and all. If you got caught throwing down a butt then there was hell to pay. I never did but I watched a lot of guys dig a six foot deep hole and bury their butt.
You probably saw it all yourself.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
From an E-mail
July 16, 2009 - 13:55 ET by kilrodI wanted to give ya'll some disturbing information on our wonderful president. I work with the Catch-A-Dream Foundation (www.catchadream.org) which provides hunting and fishing trips to children with life-threatening illnesses. It is a great program needless to say. This past weekend we had our annual banquet/fundraiser event in Starkville. As part of the program, we had scheduled Sgt. 1st Class Greg Stube, a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret and inspirational speaker who was severely injured while deployed overseas and didn't have much of a chance for survival. Greg is stationed at Ft. Bragg and received permission from his commanding officer to come speak at our function. Everything was on go until Obama made a policy that NO U.S. SERVICEMAN CAN SPEAK AT ANY FAITH-BASED PUBLIC EVENTS ANYMORE. Needless to say, Greg had to cancel his speaking event with us. Didn't know if anyone else was aware of this new policy. Wonder what kind of news we all will receive next?
Charlie Stokes
Area Agronomy Agent/County Director MSU Extension Service
517 Hwy. 145 N. Ste. 1 Aberdeen, MS 39730
Phone: 662-369-8683 Fax: 662-369-3682
E-mail: charlies@ext.msstate.edu
"Remember, Freedom Isn't Free"
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
@kilrod: This Lie
July 17, 2009 - 12:12 ET by j. frank wilsonwas exposed two months ago. You wrote "this past weekend." Which weekend was that?
Why don't you speak with Dr. Marty Brunson, the Executive Director of Catch a Dream?
The US Military doesn't permit personnel to participate in fund raising activities. No new "Obama law."
Obviously your reply has nothing to do with smoking and the US Military. You're just trying to take a free swing at the President of the United States. And spreading a lie that was exposed two months ago.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/faithbased.asp
PS: For anyone else who jumped on this opportunity to believe one more lie about the President of the United States, 30 seconds on Google found the truth about this one.
Thanks
July 16, 2009 - 14:47 ET by Kekela WardThanks for your service.
Pretty hard core times you faced.
You made a difference even if the clowns in the MSM won't admit it.
Sam: "I hurt somebody's feelings once"
What happened to "don't ask, don't tell"?
July 16, 2009 - 21:35 ET by SkipperMLMLet me get this straight. You can puff on or an aids stick if you're gay in the military. But if you can't have a nice cigar now and again.
What f*cking VA hospital is
July 17, 2009 - 02:31 ET by G. MayWhat f*cking VA hospital is she going to? I'd really love to know. I know it's not in either Lake City or Gainesville, FL, or any of the other VA hospitals or clinics I've ever visited.
I love how it's ok for leftists to perpetuate stereotypes of folks not included in the protected classes.
She hasn't, and she proved it.....
July 17, 2009 - 02:46 ET by Timothy HI've been to VA hospitals in TX, AZ, MI and IN to deal with nerve damage in my arm. I have never seen one that didn't have no smoking signs. And believe me, I would if I could. Just another "journalist" blowing smoke up the collective third point of contact. Now I know she never set foot in a VA hospital. Thanks for proving that the msm doesn't actually need to be there if they think they can make it up.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
She is lying
July 17, 2009 - 03:51 ET by well99It is posted on entrance.I was at the VA yesterday but the fact is it has been that way for along time.They have a smoke area outside the hospital where you can light up.They have benches and a open door little building for when it turns nasty.No where inside the hospital can you smoke.I like to find a way to get ahold of Joe to have her back up her statements with filmed proof.
Well99 - I'll take...
July 17, 2009 - 04:00 ET by Timothy HI don't even need filmed proof. Just the name of the VA hospital she (supposedly) visited. I'm sure there's a member here who can go take pictures of the signs and horrors of which she speaks. She's obviously too busy to actually investigate to find and prove her point. Making it up seems so much easier.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
Timothy H
July 17, 2009 - 09:52 ET by well99That is true.It is just such a blatant lie it is pathetic.People like her believe that because they think it is true it must be.They dont let facts get in the way.