July 22, 2007

The one thing that is most likely to turn the American voter against a candidate.

The answer is clear.

96 comments:

Mindsteps said...

G*d D**n! Now I know why I lost that election for president of my state association. I actually ran unopposed and lost!

Internet Ronin said...

Interesting graphics. Wonder why they chose the 1964 election for comparison and what the breakdown of religious affiliation by party was in both 1965 and 2007. 295 Democrats and 140 Republicans were elected to the House at the time of the Johnson landslide, while the Senate had 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans after the election. The 1964 election was the post-Depression high-water mark for the Democratic Party.

Cedarford said...

Ha! That was just the "tame" questions the NYTimes posed.

How about:

1. Candidate revealed as enjoying attending pit bull fights, betting, and watching the losing dog be executed.

More likely to vote for them?
Less likely?
Neutral?

2. Candidate engaged in homosexual extramartial affairs.

3. Photo of candidate hugging Castro or Iman later connected to terrorist activities uncovered.

4. Candidate wakes up to read Bush unexpectedly endorsed them as a "great person", a "friend", capable to "doing a great job". And they are a Democrat.

Slim999 said...

How does that graphic explain Barack Hussein Obama?

Muslim (-46)
Black (-4)
In his 40s (-8)
Used drugs in past (-45)
Harvard Law grad (-5)

AJD said...

Wrong again, professor.

This poll does not indicate "the one thing that is most likely to turn the American voter agaisnt a candidate." It indicates what people say in answer to a question about that. The two are quite different.

Come on, Annie! One more and you've struck out for the day!!

Daryl said...

ajd: This poll does not indicate "the one thing that is most likely to turn the American voter agaisnt a candidate." It indicates what people say in answer to a question about that. The two are quite different.

ajd, I think you're unclear as to the meaning of the word "indicate"

Hint hint: it's not the same as "imply."

The results of a poll INDICATE (i.e., EVIDENCE) what the underlying reality might be. That much is true and simple and straightforward enough--only a disagreeable, caviling idiot could fail to see as much.

One more troll post today and the sneer on your face will get stuck that way forever.

Dick Eagleson said...

Gee, I have four of the top 10 "ick factors." Looks like the stray dogs hereabouts are safe after all.

Palladian said...

Slim999, don't forget to subtract another 18 from Obama's score for cigarette smoking.

dmfoiemjsof said...

Reminds me of what Nabokov wrote in Lolita "..there are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as for as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at the age of 106."

Peter Palladas said...

Not keen on Muslims eh? No surprise perhaps, if a trifle sad. But if so many people are prepared to say so makes you wonder how much higher the true figure will be.

Sloanasaurus said...

Slim999, don't forget to subtract another 18 from Obama's score for cigarette smoking.

Do we want a President during these times who is unable to quit smoking? Doesn't the fact that Obama cannot quit smoking prove that he does not have the will power to do hard things? We need a President that has proven in the past he can do hard things. Obama can't point to anything.

In these times, with everything we know about smoking, there is absolutely no reason to be doing it regularly unless you
are addicted.

michael farris said...

"How does that graphic explain Barack Hussein Obama?

Muslim (-46)"

He's not Muslim as far as I know. I know there are some conspiracy theories that he's an undercover (stealth) Muslim, but I can't imagine who believes them.

Slim999 said...

"He's not Muslim as far as I know."

He is not an avowed Muslim at this point, but he was raised a Muslim and his father was a Muslim Kenyan.

The fact that he is now not a Muslim, but claims to be a Christian, makes him an apostate, marked for death according to many who practice Islam.

So, either way, he loses points, methinks.

shigashide said...

Slim, you didn't include the "more likely" results.

Muslim (-46 + 1) = -45
Black (-4 + 7) = +3
In his 40s (-8 + 18) = +10
Used drugs in past (-45 + 2) = -43
Harvard Law grad (-5 + 22) = +17

amba said...

Did anybody else notice that they asked about absolutely everything except being Jewish? That is an astounding omission!

Luckyoldson said...

Sloanasaurus said..."Do we want a President during these times who is unable to quit smoking?"

How about a President who is unable to admit a mistake or take the blame for making the wrong decision?

With Bush the buck stops...elsewhere.

*I think I'll take the smoking thing.

Gahrie said...

In these times, with everything we know about smoking, there is absolutely no reason to be doing it regularly unless you
are addicted.


We could say the same thing about many activities. We could condemn Clinton for liking cheeseburgers. Or Kerry for enjoying skiing.

I see no problem with people enjoying pleasurable activities that are entirely legal.

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said...
Do we want a President during these times who is unable to quit smoking? Doesn't the fact that Obama cannot quit smoking prove that he does not have the will power to do hard things?"

Please please please stop making an ass of yourself. Eisenhower smoked til it killed him...or does your thesis exempt him from "do hard things"? Roosevelt too? Truman drank before breakfast. Carter and Bush did non of the above except for Bush drinking.

Honest to God Sloanasaurus you say the goddamnest stupid things every once in a while. Do you really believe the shit you write?

Gahrie said...

And there you see Althouse in a nutshell. Sloanasaurus makes a controversial post. Rather than address the substance of the post, luckyioldson turns it into a chance to attack Bush, and hdhouse uses it to attack sloanasaurus.

tc said...

My dear Ann,

See below as to why feminism must go.

Tom Courtney

[jewsyonkersislamiii-tc] jyi #403; Al Sharpton meeting in Yonkers Inbox jewsyonkersislam speeches

Reply
Reply to all Reply to allForward Forward Print Add tc to Contacts list Delete this message Report phishing Show original Message text garbled?
tc

show details
Jul 21 (16 hours ago)
jewsyonkersislam #403; Al Sharpton meeting in Yonkers

On Saturday,7-21-07, I went to Messiah Baptist Church at 76 Warburton Ave (north of Getty Square),prepared to deliver the address below before a conference on Police brutality in Yonkers at which the Rev. Al Sharpton was supposed to speak. But my friend Karen Edmonson (pres. of the Yonkers branch of the NAACP) -outside the church- told me that the venue had been moved,to a park a few miles north and west. And I would have gone except that she could no longer guarantee that I would be one of the first to speak (and I would have missed the 5PM mass at St. John the Baptist). So I left. However,what I would have said is below:

" Lets take a look at what police brutality is. Lets frame it in terms of "disrespect",a lack of understanding on the part of the police as well as minorities here in Yonkers.
And lets look at it in terms of crime,who is doing what to whom,who is most hurt by crime and who commits the most crime. And lets look at it in light of the three young black men who shot and killed a young NYPD cop last week during a traffic stop.
And lets look at all this in terms of my past. For I spent nearly 20 years as a criminal and family court defense attorney for the same minorities complaining about police brutality here. And I worked in the south Bronx,Yonkers,Mount Vernon,White Plains and elsewhere.
For 45 years I've been trying to find out what happened to me while I was dead for 40 days when I was 13. As part of my effort it became necessary to find out what happened to society and what is wrong with it. That was not an easy job. But having been dead allows me to speak with authority about how things really are and should be today.
I was taught to help the little guy,the underprivileged. So I was happy to be a defense attorney. But I found that it was not just poor black people who needed help but most people who are trapped by what I later came to realise was feminism,its debased morality and its childish idea that men and women,boys and girls are equal.
Because I care,I worked for you -the underprivileged and minorities. And nobody liked me for that. In all my jury and other trials,I blamed society,maintaining that my client,even if he com-
mitted the charged crime,was not guilty and that the real culprit was the society that made him do what he did. The first time I did this,the DA's voice shot up like a girl's as he squealed "You cant do that". But I did and my client walked on the serious charges -as my clients usually did. Yet I could see that much more was involved than just my client and society as I then saw it. So I studied hard and engaged in quite legal but somewhat questionable activities to learn more. I opposed Judge Sand's desegregation activities here in Yonkers NOT because I am a racist -after all,70% of black people in America have white ancestors and many whites have black ancestors-
but because whatever he could or would do would not work,was just not working.
But then I did not know exactly why. Because of my activity here in Yonkers,the City Council then -25 years ago- tried to ban me from speaking before that Council (just like the present Council is). Then NYCLU president Norm Siegel even came to my defense against that Council. And it was at a NYCLU dinner in his honor that I first met the Reverend Al Sharpton. As I shook his hand I said "I think you're full of shit,but I like you". And I still feel the same way. Black leadership is abysmal in the USA today. But so also is white leadership. And the reason for this is our nation's feminist mindset. And I was thrown out of the legal profession 15 years ago because I refused to back away from this point of view.
Feminism has condemned poor black boys and men to wasted lives of crime,drugs and prison and girls and women to the permanent status of single mothers of child after child,all by different fathers -an unforseen application of the law of unintended consequences.
In 1940,more than 80% of all black children were born to married couples. But today,less than 30% are -and in the inner cities like Yonkers,less than 10%. And white illegitimacy is nearly 50%. How,when and why did this occur ? It began in the 1960s when feminism became the national orthodoxy of the USA -and the more feminism triumphed,the worse it became.
As the feminist mindset took over poor black people did worse and worse. Yonkers schools are 80% minority now and the YFT cant teach because it is hobbled by that feminist nonsense that boys and girls are equal -the same.
For poor black people to succeed,for misunderstandings resulting in police brutality complaints to lessen,the US must abandon its current feminist national orthodoxy and allow,encourage -even compel- boys and men to be men.
As for you in the NAACP,Civil Liberties and feminist groups,you have to realize that white people are becoming a minority in the USA and that majorities of minorities are not going to allow affirmative action -as it is today- to continue much longer. In addition,the US can no longer afford such largess,however minimal it may seem to you rich white women.
Moreover,if you do not change and destroy feminism,you will be responsible for imminent civil war in these United States of America.

--
Posted By tc to jewsyonke

EnigmatiCore said...

"How does that graphic explain Barack Hussein Obama?

Muslim (-46)"

Er, he's a Christian. His *dad* **was** a Muslim, but then an atheist by the time he had kids.

Sloanasaurus said...

Please please please stop making an ass of yourself. Eisenhower smoked til it killed him...or does your thesis exempt him from "do hard things"?

Sorry Hd, that you never come up with anything but hate Bush.

When Ike smoked, smoking was not really known to cause early death. Thus, people were not actively trying to quit. Also, Ike was able to prove his leadership in other ways.

Today it is different. Smoking is bad, and anyone who smokes is only doing it because they do not have the will power to quit. Maybe you are one of them.

Anyone who has quit smoking or given up addictive drugs knows how difficult it is. It says something about someones character when they have been successful at giving it up. It also says something about someones character when they are unable to give it up.

Sloanasaurus said...

How about a President who is unable to admit a mistake or take the blame for making the wrong decision?

True. Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for 9-11. Sandy Berger saw he would never have to admit it.

Sloanasaurus said...

We could say the same thing about many activities. We could condemn Clinton for liking cheeseburgers. Or Kerry for enjoying skiing.

I see no problem with people enjoying pleasurable activities that are entirely legal


True, when I refer to smoking I mean when people are no longer doing it for pleasure... when they are doing it because they are addicted. No one smokes a pack a day for pleasure.

James said...

Sloanasaurus said...

How about a President who is unable to admit a mistake or take the blame for making the wrong decision?

True. Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for 9-11. Sandy Berger saw he would never have to admit it.

Ok, I'm curious since I always see the blame Clinton for 9/11 thing on here: If Clinton is to blame for the attack on the WTC and Pentagon 9 months into W's presidency, is George H.W. Bush to blame for the bombing on the WTC about a month into Clinton's?

Revenant said...

Did anybody else notice that they asked about absolutely everything except being Jewish?

They left out "white" and "Asian", too.

What's really surprising, given that both Congress and the Presidency are only slightly more popular than rectal surgery these days, is that being a long-term Washington politician is apparently a net positive!

Luckyoldson said...

Good God...Sloan's back on the Berger thing...and thinks that if you smoke...you're weak. (He also can't understand why he would consider giving his sandwich to someone who is poor and hungry...'cause it's HIS sandwich.)

As for smoking, I guess he also considers House Minority Leader John Boehner to be weak...because he's evidently been sneaking over to the National Democratic Club to smoke.

If Sloan is a lawyer...he's the kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name.

*I still don't believe it.

Too dumb.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Do we want a President during these times who is unable to quit smoking?"

Dear lord.

While there is a certain logic to your point, it is undermined by the fact that some of the best people I know, the wisest and the most kind and the most diligent, have been smokers.

So who should a person like me believe? You, or my own eyes?

EnigmatiCore said...

"The fact that he is now not a Muslim, but claims to be a Christian, makes him an apostate, marked for death according to many who practice Islam."

Actually, that makes him sound pretty brave to me.

Sloanasaurus said...

Ok, I'm curious since I always see the blame Clinton for 9/11 thing on here:

Look, I don't blame Clinton directly for 9-11. No rational person does. You can argue that policies he imposed led to 9-11, but you can also argue that policies he imposed had prevented 9-11s. But, since the irrational leftys on this board blame bush for everything, blaming Clinton is merely using the same tactics (attack irrationally rather provide a reasoned debate).

Sloanasaurus said...

As for smoking, I guess he also considers House Minority Leader John Boehner to be weak...because he's evidently been sneaking over to the National Democratic Club to smoke.

I think it would be a fair point to bring up if he were running for President. However, being minority leader isn't quite the same job, it does not require the same level of moral courage.

Sloanasaurus said...

it is undermined by the fact that some of the best people I know, the wisest and the most kind and the most diligent, have been smokers.

Very true if you have first hand knowledge about a person. However, it is also true that things have changed. Most people who now smoke in our society are not successful people. Therefore, if you don't know much about a person it is something you can use to form an opinion about someone.

Sloanasaurus said...

The more I think about it now, I bet it will be near impossible to be elected president today if you are a smoker (meaning you have a habit). There is just too much hypocricy and role model type criticisms that one would have to endure. Further, what would happen if someone like Obama tried to quit during the campaign and failed to quit.

Luckyoldson said...

Sloan,
Are you on some kind of meds??

If so...try to quit.

Palladian said...

Lucky,

Are you on some kind of meds??

If not...try to get some.

Anyway, back on planet earth:

I like the idea that nobody is actually qualified to be president.

Luckyoldson said...

This should tell everybody how popular our current President is:

Apparently President George W. Bush is now so unpopular that some lawyers believe the mere mention of his name in front of a jury could tip the scales against them.

Attorneys are defending Upper Darby Township, Pa., in a civil rights suit brought by Harold Lischner, an 82-year-old doctor who claims he was falsely arrested for displaying an anti-war sign at a Bush campaign event in September 2003.

With the case set to go to trial on July 23, the defense lawyers recently filed a flurry of motions, including one that asked Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter to prohibit the plaintiff from mentioning Bush’s name.

Balfegor said...

With the case set to go to trial on July 23, the defense lawyers recently filed a flurry of motions, including one that asked Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gene E.K. Pratter to prohibit the plaintiff from mentioning Bush’s name.

I've not heard of motions to prohibit mentions of the President as prejudicial before, but this kind of motion in limine is not unusual at all -- people do it all the time, and often for ridiculous things, just in case it turns out some juror somewhere might end up swayed by that fact, more than by the facts that are actually legally relevant. After all, you might get someone like Luckyoldson on the jury.

Usually, though, these are things like the fact that some party is rich, or that some party is connected to some powerful corporation, or even just leading remarks about how guilty someone is, whether or not there's evidentiary support.

Balfegor said...

RE: sloanasaurus:


Today it is different. Smoking is bad, and anyone who smokes is only doing it because they do not have the will power to quit. Maybe you are one of them.


Anyone who has quit smoking or given up addictive drugs knows how difficult it is. It says something about someones character when they have been successful at giving it up. It also says something about someones character when they are unable to give it up.

Honestly, I think this ignores the fact that plenty of people are still choosing to smoke cigarettes for the first time, with full knowledge of the health risks. Some people smoke because they can't bring themselves to quit. But I'd venture that most people smoke because they like it, and they're willing to bear the risk.

David53 said...

OK, who is impersonating LOS? This poser is using capital letters to begin his/her sentences.

Zeb Quinn said...

There was a day when smoking was regarded as cool, and beyond hipness a smoker could strike a pose as urbane, wise, and contemplative. But those days are gone. We know too much about tobacco now. The only ones still smoking nowadays are losers.

Luckyoldson said...

Gee, Dave, I didn't realize you cared.

Thanks for paying close attention.

By the way...anybody here smoke cigarettes?

*You'll never be President.

zzRon said...

zeb quinn said..."The only ones still smoking nowadays are losers."


Wow, talk about broad generalizations! You have your nose sticking up in the air higher than most. I know more than a few people who still smoke cigarettes on a regular basis, and trust me, most of them are NOT losers. Obama is not a "loser" either. In fact, if we put politcs aside for a moment, I would classify him as a genuine winner - or at least a bigger winner than you will ever be.

Luckyoldson said...

Do you idiots realize how many of your posts are directed at ME or represent some kind of disagreement you have with ME or are just some kind of slam on ME?

I appreciate the attention, but c'mon...give somebody else some love...I'm proud of my apparent ability to drive you people crazy, but, geeeeee...get lives of your own.

EnigmatiCore said...

It could just be that you are a dick, and people get some joy out of expressing simple truths such as that.

Daryl said...

Gahrie: We could say the same thing about many activities. We could condemn Clinton for liking cheeseburgers. Or Kerry for enjoying skiing.

I see no problem with people enjoying pleasurable activities that are entirely legal.

How do you feel about Clinton's adultery?

Daryl said...

Obama is not marked for death as an apostate for one of two reasons:

1: he converted away at a young age, such that he's safe (the Christians who converted him, of course, are not)

OR

2: he's a secret undercover Muslim, so he's not an apostate at all! Oh noes!

Mindsteps said...

Sloanasaurus said...

In these times, with everything we know about smoking, there is absolutely no reason to be doing it regularly unless you
are addicted.

Most people who now smoke in our society are not successful people.

Some research has suggested that addiction to tobacco can be stronger and more tenacious than heroin or alcohol for some individuals. It is a pretty a good bet that Obama is probably addicted to something(s) in the cigarette.

I don't know the data on the relationship between smoking and success in the U.S. I am reluctant to make generalizations. The survey suggests that most people don't see smoking as a deal breaker.

Luckyoldson said...

Sloan or Mind...I don't know who...said this:

"It is a pretty a good bet that Obama is probably addicted to something(s) in the cigarette."

My God...have either of you ever heard of...nicotine?

Luckyoldson said...

EnigmatiCore,
You just can't resist...can you?

Moron.

Mindsteps said...

Luckyoldson said...

My God...have either of you ever heard of...nicotine?

I said it. Obviously I have heard of nicotine. When I write, I tend to be enslaved by my obsessive focus on exactness. Actually, with all of the additives introduced into the tobacco for commercial cigarettes, nicotine may not be the only physically addictive component.

EnigmatiCore said...

LOS,

What I can resist are your pitiful attempts to make people not slam your sorry ass by making it sound like you are just hanging around begging people to slam your sorry ass.

You better be getting paid for doing what you do; it's the only way you could get me to play the fool as often as you do.

peter hoh said...

Two more categories I'd like to see polled: bald and obese.

Luckyoldson said...

EnigmatiCore,
Yeah, I've noticed the high degree of intellect you exhibit with your inane postings.

Now, if you could just get away from Rush and the gang and come up with something of your very own.

*And we both know the primary reason for most of the attacks on me are politically based. This isn't the kind of blog for anyone who doesn't think G.W. and his cadre of neocons aren't geniuses.

Don't believe me?

Read a few of Fen's, Sloan's, Seven's, Daryl's and a number of other comments regarding Iraq, health care, Muslims, Hillary, Obabma, Democrats, lefties, un-American critics of Bush, etc. (Now it's smoking no less...duh.)

I do this because it's fun to fuck with these idiots...pure and simple...and believe me, I do think most of them are "simple."

Luckyoldson said...

mind,
I think nicotine is the primary focus when it comes to the addictive nature of tobacco. there are scientist that say it's even more addictive than heroin.

Gahrie said...

Daryle:

How do you feel about Clinton's adultery?

Adultery? I could give a shit. That's between Clinton, his family and his god.

The sexual harassment and the perjury?

I think he should have been impeached.

The probable rape of Juanita Brodderick?

I think he should have gone to jail.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I've noticed the high degree of intellect you exhibit with your inane postings."

The sad part is that you will never comprehend why your insults don't work.

I lied. It's not sad. It's really funny, especially since everyone knows you know, deep inside, that the joke is on you.

Invisible Man said...

The probable rape of Juanita Brodderick?

I think he should have gone to jail.


Uh, oh, the tin foil gang is invading your internets. Gahrie, after you find the evidence of Clinton raping someone, you should concentrate on finding Nessie or if Cheney is truly the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Justin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin said...

Revanant said...

What's really surprising, given that both Congress and the Presidency are only slightly more popular than rectal surgery these days, is that being a long-term Washington politician is apparently a net positive!

This is what I found most disturbing. Especially considering how much campaign rhetoric is spent on trying to convince us the candidate is Not A Washington Insider.

Really, what is it about being a career politician that makes a candidate more qualified? I don't get it.

Fen said...

Lucky: This should tell everybody how popular our current President is:

Poor Lukcy. He still thinks leadership is about being popular.

Fen said...

The probable rape of Juanita Brodderick?

Invis: Uh, oh, the tin foil gang is invading your internets.

Tin foil? Its a legal fact that Clinton DID sexually assault Kathleen Wiley. I don't know about Brodderick, but its hardly an unreasonable accusation.

Gahrie said...

Invisible Man:

Uh, oh, the tin foil gang is invading your internets. Gahrie, after you find the evidence of Clinton raping someone, you should concentrate on finding Nessie or if Cheney is truly the Dark Lord of the Sith.

I'm going to assume you have no knowledge of Juanita Brodderick and her case.

There is strong credible evidence that Clinton raped Brodderick while he was governor of Arkansas. Unfortunately she never went to the cops (although she did tell several others of the rape at the time of the rape.) The behavior she described is entirely consistent with the way Clinton treated Willey and others.

Fen said...

Lucky: I do this because it's fun to fuck with these idiots...pure and simple...and believe me, I do think most of them are "simple

How ironic. I always feel guilty after one of our tussles, like I've been picking on a cripple.

The Mechanical Eye said...

Poor Lukcy. He still thinks leadership is about being popular.

Being thoroughly disliked isn't the goal either. It is possible to be unpopular due to poor leadership -- examples abound in the upper reaches of today's Executive branch.

DU

LoafingOaf said...

I think nicotine is the primary focus when it comes to the addictive nature of tobacco.

As someone who kicked smoking and had been smoking since I was 16, my opinion is that what makes it hardest to stop is the psychological aspect and the oral fixation, and missing smoking in situations or moments of the day where you used to smoke the most. I'm long past any physical addiction and wasn't all that aware of a physical addiction to begin with (certainly nothing like heroin addicts). But I still feel weird to this day in certain situations that were when I'd usually smoke the most.

Nicotine withdrawal happens fast -- just a few days. Maybe it varies from person to person though. I wasn't a chain smoker and never went over a pack of "lights" in a day, which is a lot less than some of smokers.

I didn't want to quit, and sometimes I'll still have a couple smokes when I'm out drinking, or if I'm working on something at home that requires a lot of concentration. But, unfortunately, cigs got waaaay too pricey, and employers raise eyebrows when you take smoking breaks. :( They don't know it helped me do a better job even though it looked like like a waste of time.

Naked Lunch said...

Tin foil? Its a legal fact that Clinton DID sexually assault Kathleen Wiley. I don't know about Brodderick, but its hardly an unreasonable accusation.

Citation please.

TMink said...

For the record, I used to smoke cigarettes, and the things were very difficult to stop. I am more concerned with a person's policy and character than their addiction to nicotine.

Someone (sorry, I forgot who, maybe mindsteps) wrote: "there is absolutely no reason to be doing it regularly unless you
are addicted."

Well, some people just do not give a duck. Nhilists I guess, or very copious denial.

Trey

Sloanasaurus said...

Honestly, I think this ignores the fact that plenty of people are still choosing to smoke cigarettes for the first time, with full knowledge of the health risks. Some people smoke because they can't bring themselves to quit. But I'd venture that most people smoke because they like it, and they're willing to bear the risk.

I oppose the so-called smoking bans. I think they are un American, although I enjoy the results the of the ban.

I think people who smoke, but don't have a habit do it because they like it. However, most people who smoke cigarettes have a habit. They don't smoke for enjoyment.

Further most people don't pick up a smoke with the idea that they are going to develop a habit. They start doing it for the enjoyment aspect and it turns into a habit.

In today's world having a smoking habit is a blot against ones character - there is no getting around that.

Sloanasaurus said...

How ironic. I always feel guilty after one of our tussles, like I've been picking on a cripple.

Interesting, I feel more parinoid than guilty... that after an exchange with Lucky, DateLine NBC will be there waiting at my door with a hidden camera to ask why I am conversing with 13 year olds on the internet.

Sloanasaurus said...

I am more concerned with a person's policy and character than their addiction to nicotine.

I agree. However, having a habit can say a lot about a person. It generally means that person has been unable to quit. Most people with a smoking habit want to quit, but they have failed.

Gahrie said...

Naked Lunch:

Citation? Just how old are you? Anyone old enough to watch the news or read a paper knows Clinton assaulted Willey. And if most of the MSM hadn't refused to cover the case (except Lisa meyers from NBC), you'd know the truth about Broddrick too.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/10/2/43829

peter hoh said...

Where does smoking cigars figure into this discussion?

Mindsteps said...

Someone (sorry, I forgot who, maybe mindsteps) wrote: "there is absolutely no reason to be doing it regularly unless you
are addicted."

I was quoting sloan.

amba said...

Revenant:

They left out "white" and "Asian", too.

White is the default, and Asian is almost white these days. Don't you think? That of all minorities in America, Asians are the most easily assimilated? Interesting to think about why. Jews can be less physically visible, but arouse more hostility. And this in spite of war with Japan 65 years ago. In fact, my father's generation who fought in the Pacific don't feel quite as easy with Japanese people. But that was forgotten in a generation, while the resentment of Jews seems to be permanent though no one can quite explain it.

If an Asian-American ran for president, if he or she was second- or third-generation and culturally completely American, I suspect people would hardly notice. Agree?

amba said...

Peter Hoh: Ike was bald, right?

But I'd like to see a runoff between atheists and the obese.

The puritanism (mostly on the left, I think) about smoking is overdone. However, that said, if your president smoked you'd want him to be as young as Obama. Just about all the male heavy smokers I've known who didn't quit before age 60 died in their 60s. (The women, maybe early 70s.) Those who quit, even in their 50s, often live on into their 80s.

Revenant said...

White is the default

So is "Christian" and they left that in. There are more churchgoers in America than there are white people.

and Asian is almost white these days.

Jews are much more mainstream than Asians these days, and shock was expressed that "Jewish" didn't make the list.

Emy L. Nosti said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Emy L. Nosti said...

Meh, this is old news.

Oh, and regarding Jews:
The August 8 [2000] survey results show that 92% of respondents said they would vote for a "generally well qualified person for president" who happened to be Jewish, with only 6% saying they would oppose such a candidate.

Now that's some serious anti-semitism thar. They just beat out people who wouldn't vote for someone with brown hair. (On the other hand, people lie to make themselves look better and I haven't looked at the methodology.)

I already know I'm hated for a completely ridiculous reason. It's one reason I don't advertise my atheism (well, offline anyway). I'm not going to put my neck on the chopping block to be discriminated against for something that I rarely think about and that's only indirectly a part of my life...I don't mind discussing/debating religion, but I'd be deluded to think I have a good chance of changing someone's belief. And I'd have absolutely no interest in depriving someone of the comfort and support religion gives some people, provided they don't try to make my moral decisions for me that are based on their own dubious, arbitrary dogma and evidence or at least an attempt at reason.

Roger said...

Cigars--JFK smoked cigars; Bill Clinton smoked cigars; but only one public servant has had a cigar shape named for him: Winston Churchill (I suppose we could count the Baron Rothschilde, but thats a stretch)

Fen said...

"Its a legal fact that Clinton DID sexually assault Kathleen Wiley. I don't know about Brodderick, but its hardly an unreasonable accusation."

Naked: Citation please.

Utterly amazing.

Naked Lunch said...

Citation please for the legal fact Bill Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley.

Newsmax, Frontpage, or any other gossip wingnut rag doesn't count. Seems to me we've been thru this Fen. Have you finally come up with a source?

PunditMom said...

Where's the entry for "Liar?"

Original Mike said...

"There is strong credible evidence that Clinton raped Brodderick while he was governor of Arkansas."

He was Attorney General of Arkansas at the time of the alledged incident, IIRC.

Modern Otter said...

In today's world having a smoking habit is a blot against ones character - there is no getting around that.

Too true, and as evidenced by this posting, we who smoke are members of the only population group I can think of whose vilification is not only permitted, but in many ways encouraged, in polite society.

Now I'm aware that there are logical distinctions between smoking status and, say, race or religion that justify different treatment. Still, I figure we, the 20-25% of adult Americans who smoke, are performing a vital public service as a kind of safety valve for otherwise repressed intolerance.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen said...with a straight face: "Poor Lukcy. He still thinks leadership is about being popular."

It's spelled "Lucky."

And boy, that Bush certainly is quite the leader. Probably why his approval is at about 30%...because Americans recognize real "leadership."

C'mon, Fen-Fen...get off Pogo's ass and think for a change.

Luckyoldson said...

Naked Lunch said..."Newsmax, Frontpage, or any other gossip wingnut rag doesn't count. Seems to me we've been thru this Fen. Have you finally come up with a source?"

GFL.

Fen said...

Naked Lunch [and Lucky]: Citation please for the legal fact Bill Clinton sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley.

You really need a citation for that? What part are you clueless about? That 1) reaching out and grabbing a woman's breast is sexual assualt or 2) that Clinton did so to Wiley while she was interviewing for a job?

Sexual Assault: Sexual assault - A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/definitions.htm

Or do you think that a registered Democrat and campaign volunteer was lying? Lemme guess, her skirt was too short?

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
If Clinton was actually "charged" with a crime, provide the evidence.

Blathering on about how he did this or hat...because of some bullshit from newsmax.com means nada.

Lying isn't pretty.

Fen said...

Lucky: If Clinton was actually "charged" with a crime, provide the evidence.

Silly Strawman. I never said Clinton was "chaged" with a crime. I said that since Clinton sexually assualted Kathleen Wiley, the charge that he raped Broderick is not unreasonable.

I've given you the legal definition of sexual assualt. And Wiley's accusations are part of the public record, google them. Clinton reached out and grabbed her breast [try that at work and see what it gets you]. Really, your only out is to question whether a democrat campaign volunteer made it all up.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen says: "Silly Strawman. I never said Clinton was "chaged" with a crime. I said that since Clinton sexually assualted Kathleen Wiley, the charge that he raped Broderick is not unreasonable."

Are you daft??

If he wasn't charged or convicted of either...where do YOU come off saying he did anything? (Being accused means nada.)

You're a lying sack of shit...and think about kicking that SpellCheck into gear.

Revenant said...

He was Attorney General of Arkansas at the time of the alledged incident, IIRC.

Yes, he was AG, not governor, when the rape allegedly occurred. This was one of the reasons cited by Broaddrick for not pursuing the charges.

Fen said...

If he wasn't charged or convicted of either...where do YOU come off saying he did anything? (Being accused means nada.)

It does when it becomes a pattern. I believe Wiley's account. It dovetails with the accounts of Jones [another Democrat] and Broaddrick.

You're a lying sack of shit...and think about kicking that SpellCheck into gear.

But I haven't lied about anything, and you've been reduced to flaming typos. Pathetic troll.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
If he wasn't charged or convicted all you're doing is throwing the same shit against the wall as your gurus, Rush and company.

This is the same bullshit we heard for eight long years.

You're nothing but a liar.

Fen said...

Lucky: You're nothing but a liar.

Again, I haven't lied about anything. Otherwise, be specific - what is the lie?

If he wasn't charged or convicted all you're doing is throwing the same shit against the wall as your gurus, Rush and company...

...including Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers, Jauntia Brodderick - all democrats. You really are an idiot Lucky. Just because Clinton wasn't charged with sexual assault doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you even know why Jones, Wiley, and Brodderick refused to file charges against Clinton?

Luckyoldson said...

Fen,
You're a liar...as in: "I said that since Clinton sexually assualted Kathleen Wiley, the charge that he raped Broderick is not unreasonable."

Was Clinton ever charged and convicted of assaulting Kathleen Wiley?

Emy L. Nosti said...

Do I need to separate you children? Good god, if you guys are going to continue fighting, at least make it interesting!

LOS: We both know you're not dumb or delusional enough to think that every person who does something illegal is charged and convicted. He may be guilty, he may not be, it doesn't really matter anymore. You only need to make that point once.

Fen: Pattern or no (never mind I could continue the "pattern" myself by claiming Clinton assaulted me in similar ways...it'd give me my 15 minutes of fame and is far more palatable than Fear Factor), you weren't there, the case has not been made and evaluated w/o bias; you are not qualified to act as judge and jury. You're just inciting argument...and it's as lame as Dems who still b1tch about Al Gore winning the 2000 election. Get over it--we know your concern is political and not for the women, so stop making a mockery of sexual assualt (if your true concern is for the women, I apologize, but then please let me point you to some organizations where you can actually make a difference).

Now, have at it, or have at me, or drop it, but say something new and/or interesting if you do continue. Pretty please?