Only idiots smoke in perspective.....

If you smoke, or use tobacco in any form, you harm yourself more than those around you and are ridiculed by your fellow Americans and taxed to the hilt by your government.

If you are a religious person protesting at funerals, calling for the destruction of other religions, or even genocide of others races as Muslims, Jews, and Christians have done, you are not only protected by the government, but qualify for tax free status to spread your venom.

Smokers have died by the millions from self inflicted injuries and are punished by their government and fellow man for it.

Religious persons have killed hundreds of millions for their Gods and get tax free status.

Smokers are idiots huh?

this is closer to my life's experience

September 05, 2007
By Tom Hunter

THE smoking ban in bars and restaurants has uncovered an interesting insight into the minds of smokers, an Indian study has found.

University of Bangalore professor Nalini Satyr says a study by her psychology department has yielded surprising results about NZ smokers.

Professor Satyr says a national study of New Zealand's smokers has found they display various different qualities to their non-smoking counterparts.

Smokers were found to be more than eight times more interesting than those who do not smoke.

"It was very surprising," Professor Satyr explains.

"We believe the findings reflect the recent change in law concerning smoking inside restaurants.

"Those smokers who found they could not smoke inside would go outside.

"They formed groups of smokers who would debate thoroughly a wide range of social issues from evolution to abortion.

"We found non-smokers tend to sit inside and drink alcohol."

Smokers were found to be on average 76 percent smarter and 93 percent more socially confident than non-smokers.

Smokers also had a more thorough knowledge of current events both national and international.

"Aptitude tests found non-smokers to be generally slow. They almost showed signs of social retardation," Professor Satyr said.

"The risks of lung cancer in smoking cannot be denied," Professor Satyr said, "But it's interesting to point out that the study shows smokers are generally more likable and affable than non-smokers who came across as uptight and sexually frustrated."

The study has outraged anti-smoking lobby ASH.

ASH spokesman Paddy Krochrott said the study was a "joke".

"Who cares if smokers operate on a socially higher level than those of us who don't smoke," Mr Krochrott said.

"They will die of lung cancer and throat cancer and tongue cancer in the end.

"Being interesting and smart means nothing when you're dead."

Smoker William Hicks said he wasn't surprised with the results of the study.

"It's obvious isn't it," Mr Hicks said.

"When I go out for a smoke at the bar I sit and talk for hours with smokers.

"We talk about global warming, Kyoto, Maori land rights, the role of the United Nations - you name it, we talk about it.

"When I go back inside all I see is a bunch of non-smokers who can barely form sentences.

"They just grunt."

The study supported Mr Hicks observation.

It found non-smokers were 18 times more likely to look if you told them their fly was undone when it wasn't.
[AFP]

http://www.uthink.co.nz/Random/new-study-shows-smokers-are-smarter/106342.aspx

LMAO.. Hey EP your fly is open.

Actually robert, I've seen this in some cases. When I worked at Cross all the supervisors and leadmen on my shift were smokers. My shift had much higher quality than the shift ran predominately by non-smokers.

All of the worst dimwits at my current workplace are non-smokers. When the company that's now very successful began, the owner, his wife, three sons, administrative assistant, and shop supervisor were all smokers.

There are of course exceptions both ways, but labeling smokers as of lower intelligence is purely false propaganda.

Guarantee you that a higher percentage of trailer park residents smoke than MENSA members.

But like I said before, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for your treatment when you get cancer, and stay the hell away from my asthmatic kid and my diabetic wife.

The way the state law is right now regarding smoking in restaurants is just as it should be. The owners have the choice and the right to make their private property non-smoking if they want, and the state will back them up if some douchebag decides to light up in a non-smoking establishment.

And bobby, I fail to see the connection in your original post. Smokers are better than the Phelpsies? That's like saying that a Big Mac would make a better meal than a pile of dog crap. DUH!

The Other One wrote:

Guarantee you that a higher percentage of trailer park residents smoke than MENSA members.

But like I said before, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for your treatment when you get cancer, and stay the hell away from my asthmatic kid and my diabetic wife.

The way the state law is right now regarding smoking in restaurants is just as it should be. The owners have the choice and the right to make their private property non-smoking if they want, and the state will back them up if some douchebag decides to light up in a non-smoking establishment.

And bobby, I fail to see the connection in your original post. Smokers are better than the Phelpsies? That's like saying that a Big Mac would make a better meal than a pile of dog crap. DUH!

First off, I imagine there's about 1000 trailer park residents for each Mensa member. Though you have no idea where every Mensa member lives. Might be plenty in trailer parks. You also have no idea how many smoke.

Oh, and this wasn't bobby's post. Obviously you don't qualify for Mensa.

"people who live in glass houses should not throw stones"

The Other One wrote:

But like I said before, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for your treatment when you get cancer, and stay the hell away from my asthmatic kid and my diabetic wife.

The way the state law is right now regarding smoking in restaurants is just as it should be. The owners have the choice and the right to make their private property non-smoking if they want, and the state will back them up if some douchebag decides to light up in a non-smoking establishment.

I'm not sure why you are making these statements since they are off topic. The topic is about the intelligence level of a smoker. But as is expected, you avoid the issue at hand by attempting to gain points by pointing out how evil the habit is as if smokers are targetting your wife and child.

I havn't said that smoking bans in resturants were something I wanted to prevent. I understand resturants not allowing smoking. I understand lots of places not allowing it. But I do think business owners have the right to decide if their business will be smoking or non smoking.

I already agree and have for a long time that taxpayers should not be paying for smokers anymore than taxes should pay for anyones self inflicted illness. And if your asthmatic kid and diabetic wife don't come in my house or go to bars, which neither should be in, I don't think I'll smoke around them.

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Guarantee you that a higher percentage of trailer park residents smoke than MENSA members.

But like I said before, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for your treatment when you get cancer, and stay the hell away from my asthmatic kid and my diabetic wife.

The way the state law is right now regarding smoking in restaurants is just as it should be. The owners have the choice and the right to make their private property non-smoking if they want, and the state will back them up if some douchebag decides to light up in a non-smoking establishment.

And bobby, I fail to see the connection in your original post. Smokers are better than the Phelpsies? That's like saying that a Big Mac would make a better meal than a pile of dog crap. DUH!

First off, I imagine there's about 1000 trailer park residents for each Mensa member. Though you have no idea where every Mensa member lives. Might be plenty in trailer parks. You also have no idea how many smoke.

Oh, and this wasn't bobby's post. Obviously you don't qualify for Mensa.

I would guess that there's a lot more than 1000 trailer park residents for every MENSA member, but I said percentage. Do you understand what that means? Most fourth graders do.

And sorry about the mistake regarding the original post. It was so illogical that I connected it immediately with bobby. Maybe I gave you too much credit.

I understand percentage just fine. I pointed out that for all you know there could be alot of Mensa members living in trailers. You equate high intelligence with wealth and stupidity with poverty like a typical narrow minded republican.

A poll taken of Mensa members in Australia showed they had about half the rate of smokers in comparison to the average populace, yet that poll was not scientific and 298 of the 700 Mensa members they sent questionaires didn't send them back. Of the 402 that did reply, 61 males and 19 females did admit to being smokers.

Another variable that you, and the survey overlooked, is that not everyone of exceptional intelligence is a member of Mensa. I have never taken an official Mensa test and am not going to suggest I can pass one, but at age 17 I did score above average on an accepted IQ test and I did live in a trailer court.

And there is nothing illogical about the post. Smokers are the leper of the times when they harm themselves more than anyone around them, and taxes have been added to tobacco to pay for programs unrelated to smoking. Yet religion preaches hate and violence and they are given tax free status.

One other thing you don't equate into this is that when I first started to smoke I was 12 and like most 12 year olds had no real concept of addiction or health issues 30 or 40 years in the future. I was well hooked before any of those thoughts crossed my mind. There were already warnings on cigarette packs, yet at the age of 13 or 14 I could smoke in any public building, including hospitals and government buildings. Schools had smoking areas for kids.

Many of the smokers now dying from cancer and emphysema began the habit as kids under the watch of the adults paid by the government to teach and supervise us even though countless health warnings had already been issued to the public. And you call us the idiots.

The Other One wrote:

Guarantee you that a higher percentage of trailer park residents smoke than MENSA members.

But like I said before, I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for your treatment when you get cancer, and stay the hell away from my asthmatic kid and my diabetic wife.

The way the state law is right now regarding smoking in restaurants is just as it should be. The owners have the choice and the right to make their private property non-smoking if they want, and the state will back them up if some douchebag decides to light up in a non-smoking establishment.

And bobby, I fail to see the connection in your original post. Smokers are better than the Phelpsies? That's like saying that a Big Mac would make a better meal than a pile of dog crap. DUH!

Yay!! EP is back....

phelpsies... did i say all of that? oh... right... i didn't... you just like to say that stuff... its a tactic used when people got nothing like what is right on their side...

the average phelpsie is a lawyer and not employed in the food services industry...

nitromaxx98 wrote:

http://www.mensa.org/workout2.php

I tried it. Got 18 of 30. They said it was a little low but I might still pass a Mensa test. Might have fared better but I was already past the 30 minute mark and left 3 unanswered.

Oh, and I did not use calculator, computer, or paper. I figured all answers in my head.

Here's an online series of IQ tests for anyone interested. No signup or email required. Immediate results after each section. Not a complete test, but best I could find without giving them an email address. My overall average was 110. Test 2 I did in half the allotted time and was scored at 114. Not Mensa level, but I suppose ok for smoking idiot trailer trash.

http://www.mmm.pri.ee/iq/

I was tested by one of the grad students at fhsu. You don't even wanna know what my number was.

But all kidding aside, Ratz- in my professional opinion as a diesel mechanic, your IQ is definitely higher than 114. You're just as bright as most college kids that I deal with- at least in text form.

Thanks Bighead. My best subjects on the test I took in the 70's were science, spelling, word comprehension, and general world knowledge which covered anything from world leaders and history to geography. Not much of those in these online tests. I was good at abstract reasoning too, but I sucked at math.

I was below par in math because I didn't like it much then. My tester said I'd have scored alot higher if not for the bad math test. It'd be interesting to see what I could get on a full test now.

robert wrote:

the average phelpsie is a lawyer and not employed in the food services industry...

The Phelps family consists of:

•Pastor Fred Phelps: head of Westboro Baptist Church
•Marge Phelps, wife of Fred and mother of their 13 children. The children are listed as follows, from oldest to youngest.
•Fred Phelps Jr., staff lawyer at the Kansas Department of Corrections
•Mark Phelps, businessman in Southern California, estranged from the family
•Katherine Phelps-Griffin, law license was indefinitely suspended effective in August 1993 for 30 counts of giving worthless checks
•Margie Phelps, director of re-entry for the Kansas Department of Corrections and a lawyer
•Shirley Phelps-Roper, lawyer at Phelps-Chartered
•Nate Phelps, businessman in Southern California, estranged from family
•Jonathan Phelps, lawyer at Phelps-Chartered
•Rebekah Phelps-Davis, lawyer at Phelps-Chartered
•Elizabeth Phelps, lawyer, no longer in practice
•Tim Phelps, lawyer and employee of the Shawnee County Jail
•Dortha Bird (nee Phelps), lawyer practicing independently in Topeka, estranged from family
•Rachel Phelps, lawyer at Phelps-Chartered
•Abigail Phelps, works for the Topeka Juvenile Correctional Facility, part of the Juvenile Justice Authority
•54 grandchildren
•Five great-grandchildren

Source

So at least four of them are being paid with our tax dollars, one is no longer practicing and one has been suspended due to a criminal conviction. Most of them work at Phelps-Chartered, where their only clients are themselves. They live off of money collected by filing ridiculous lawsuits connected to their "religious expression" activities and receiving settlements that they don't pay taxes on.

Notice that Margie is Director of Re-entry for the DOC. Wonder how that works. She decides whether a prisoner is worthy of going back into society or needs to be put back into an environment where he/she may be raped by the very people that she and her family protest against?

But at least they're not pirates. They've never stolen a boat and sunken it in a local lake.

The Other One wrote:

But at least they're not pirates. They've never stolen a boat and sunken it in a local lake.

OUCH!!

Now that shit's funny.

The Other One wrote:

They live off of money collected by filing ridiculous lawsuits connected to their "religious expression" activities and receiving settlements that they don't pay taxes on.

sounds familiar....

http://www.adl.org/main_Religious_Freedom/default.htm

tort reform! tort reform!

The Other One wrote:

But at least they're not pirates. They've never stolen a boat and sunken it in a local lake.

LOL! I did what i believed was the right thing, i believe that still today. I sleep surprisingly well. As a firm believer in karma I am now enjoying the "blessings" given for standing up for what you believe in. I started out with a good person, ended up with a stronger, better one. I like me now better than ever EP and it's because everytime life throws a curve my way I am strong enough to take it. I realize you dont get it, I doubt you ever will. I am sad for you.

The Other One wrote:

They live off of money collected by filing ridiculous lawsuits connected to their "religious expression" activities and receiving settlements that they don't pay taxes on.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (508 U.S. 520 (1993)) This case involved a series of ordinances passed by the City Council of Hialeah, Florida which were specifically enacted for the purpose of halting the Church's practice of ritual animal sacrifices on special occasions of religious significance. ADL, together with a number of other organizations, successfully argued that the ordinances violated the Free Exercise Clause because they were not neutral and specifically targeted a religious practice. ADL's brief also maintained that there was no compelling governmental interest supporting the discrimination against religion in this case.

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/free_Exer.asp

Looks like the ADL is right up the Phelpsies alley... local ordinances have been passed to ban their religious practice of protesting funerals (not as sexxy as dead animals ) and since these ordinances don't stop people from speaking well of the dead too; they are not neutral. ( some peoples faith requires them to publicly hate homosexuals)

(475 U.S. 503 (1986)) This case was brought by a psychologist in the United States Air Force who was also an Orthodox Jew and an ordained rabbi. An Air Force headgear regulation did not permit the officer to wear his yarmulke while on duty and in Air Force uniform. ADL filed a brief and argued that the regulation was unconstitutional because as applied to the officer because it fails reasonably to accommodate the officer's Free Exercise rights. Unfortunately, the Court did not agree and held that First Amendment challenges to military regulations are examined with less scrutiny than similar civilian challenges. In 1987, however, Congress passed legislation which reversed this decision and allowed members of the armed forces to wear religious apparel in a "neat and conservative" manner.

So the guy signs up for a job that requires specialized headgear and then has a "tantrum" when the military says;"wear the uniform all others wear to do the job" nope, nothing frivolous in that. guess he should be allowed to display his religious symbolism all over his "military" uniform. wonder if he got a settlement he didn't pay taxes on?

Ten Commandments Controversies
Proposals to post the Ten Commandments often create wide divisions in communities that are already struggling with profound problems of their own. Opponents of these initiatives — many of whom are deeply religious themselves — are portrayed as being anti-religious freedom or even anti-God. School board meetings and local elections have become battlegrounds over religion rather than over practical issues such as juvenile crime and low test scores.

When an Illinois school board voted unanimously to post the Ten Commandments in public schools, the resulting controversy dominated local politics for months. After several months of acrimonious debate, the school board rescinded the decision in order to avoid a costly lawsuit. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore posted the Ten Commandments in the state courthouse and refused to remove them even when ordered to do so. In defiance of federal authorities, then-Governor Fob James threatened to use military force to prevent their removal. Moore was eventually removed from the Court for defying the order.

Since federal law allows for religious symbols to be posted on government property if that property is opened to all religious expression, posting the Ten Commandments can have unexpected results. After a Pennsylvania school district announced its decision to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in a display in school libraries, religious and non-religious groups began clamoring for an equal chance. In addition to the Biblical text, other documents chosen for the display included: a tract from the Wiccan religion; a document discussing gay rights; and an introduction to atheism.

Conclusion
Opposition to state-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments does not arise out of hostility to the timeless values conveyed in Exodus 20:1-17. Rather, it arises out of a profound respect for the diversity of religions in America today — those that embrace Biblical law and those that derive their ethics and values from other texts. By adhering to the principle and spirit of separation of church and state we best fulfill the Constitution’s legacy of religious liberty for all Americans.



When it suits them....

As usual, booby is making illogical leaps, comparing rituals practiced for thousands of years to a publicity grabbing scheme thought up by a hate-monger in the 90s. Comparing legitimate religious customs to the disruption of funerals of those who had nothing to do with homosexuals. Only booby or slimer would stand up on the side of Westboro. You really believe they should have tax exempt status? Would you defend child molesters like slimer does, too?

At least we know what you'd say about any Jew who would dare to show up in your nice town of Victoria: "Avast! Hoist that scurvy dog from the yardarm!"

The Other One wrote:

As usual, booby is making illogical leaps, comparing rituals practiced for thousands of years to a publicity grabbing scheme thought up by a hate-monger in the 90s.

The Mormon faith is a relatively "young" faith. You are unqualified to assess what does and does not qualify as religious practice.

Comparing legitimate religious customs (assumption) to the disruption of funerals of those who had nothing to do with homosexuals.

They have a multitude of reasons for hating soldiers...

Only booby or slimer would stand up on the side of Westboro.

My brother calls me "Boobert", I call him "Brother of Boobert"(shout out!), my aunt arlene (shout out!) calls me "little robby"... the rest of them a various sundry of other related possibilities... you sir; are gonna hafta try harder...

You really believe they should have tax exempt status?

if they meet the legal requirements then yes

Would you defend child molesters like slimer does, too?

I musta missed that one

At least we know what you'd say about any Jew who would dare to show up in your nice town of Victoria

no you dont. i would offer them safe haven from the germans.

: "Avast! Hoist that scurvy dog from the Cathedral!"

i stand on the side of free speech. and i dont care if you are offended. when i read the things you write i realize that if at some point you are offended by something; it's probably not that big of a deal in reality.

I have never understood tax free status for religion, other than it being a kiss ass policy set by those who worried they'd be condemned by their church and the invisible sky man. Religion is big business. Tax it.

One very interesting note here aside from this side argument. The smoking issue used to be the reverse politically. But now that EP and the rest of the republicans have seen Obama with a cigarette it's the conservative crusader verses the evil smoking liberal. Priceless.....

No EP, I'm not suggesting you were pro-tobacco before, just that until a photo of Obama smoking popped up I never saw you say much either way. You are now publically arguing on the side of the liberal anti-smoking propagandists. And you didn't believe that Obama would bring change.

Ratzilla wrote:

Priceless.....

No EP, I'm not suggesting you were pro-tobacco before, just that until a photo of Obama smoking popped up I never saw you say much either way. You are now publically arguing on the side of the liberal anti-smoking propagandists. And you didn't believe that Obama would bring change.

Ratzilla wrote:

You are now publically arguing on the side of the liberal anti-smoking propagandists.

The Other One wrote:

I don't give a flying Philadelphia fornication if you smoke.

Huh?

I know you said that, but you also suggested that I wanted your asthmatic kid and diabetic wife to be at the mercy of smokers. I have no problem with it if an establishment wants to be non-smoking and I think some places should be such as hospitals, resturants, stores, or other places frequented by kids or others with disabilities affected by smoke.

I just don't think a government enforced ban should play into this when places like bars whose customers do smoke want to allow it. From what I see there are bars that allow it, and alot that have stopped. That's the decision of the owners and it should stay that way.

I also find it very annoying that the laws are not requiring a place be provided where a smoker can be out of the elements while exiled to the parking lots. Seems to me that telling smokers that they only have the right to pursue their still legal habit is if they are willing to stand out in subzero wind chills, rain, snow, or oppressive heat is not only a discriminatory practice, it may also also be contributing to those illnesses you don't want any tax dollars paying for. Try on a pair of tired old smokers lungs and see what standing out in the cold does to you.

Ratzilla wrote:

I just don't think a government enforced ban should play into this when places like bars whose customers do smoke want to allow it. From what I see there are bars that allow it, and alot that have stopped. That's the decision of the owners and it should stay that way.

I recall several years ago when the smoking ban issue came up in Hays that one of the major business owners who was against it was the owner of Al's Chickenette who ran a non-smoking establishment.

From my observation, smokers in general, are far more courteous about their personal habits than those who don't smoke.

I never smoke in someone's car or home without permission and not always when they say I can. And only on the second floor of my own house so those on the ground floor don't have to be around it. And I run an exhaust fan upstairs so it won't travel down.

Now some smokers can be jerks, and chewers can be real pigs.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

I just don't think a government enforced ban should play into this when places like bars whose customers do smoke want to allow it. From what I see there are bars that allow it, and alot that have stopped. That's the decision of the owners and it should stay that way.

I recall several years ago when the smoking ban issue came up in Hays that one of the major business owners who was against it was the owner of Al's Chickenette who ran a non-smoking establishment.

From my observation, smokers in general, are far more courteous about their personal habits than those who don't smoke.

I wish I could agree with you but I'm always picking up numerous cigarette butts out of my yard. No smokers at my place either. I think most of them are tossed from moving vehicles.

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

I think most of them are tossed from moving vehicles.

Forgot about that. Pisses me off for several reasons to see people do that, and I'm a smoker.

I toss them down if there's no place to put them, but never where there's a fire hazard. If I'm out in a pasture I snuff them and put them in my pocket. I'll toss them on the ground at places like the fairgrounds and step on them good, but try not to on a nicely cared for lawn.

I throw them down in my own yard all the time, but they don't look any worse than the shit deposited by dogs, or the pop cans, cups, and other assorted trash that passing kids think belongs in my yard.

Ratzilla wrote:

I toss them down if there's no place to put them, but never where there's a fire hazard. If I'm out in a pasture I snuff them and put them in my pocket. I'll toss them on the ground at places like the fairgrounds and step on them good, but try not to on a nicely cared for lawn.

I throw them down in my own yard all the time, but they don't look any worse than the shit deposited by dogs, or the pop cans, cups, and other assorted trash that passing kids think belongs in my yard.

Do you live close to The Home?

No, but I'm on a street with lots of traffic down the sidewalks in nice weather. Caught a kid throwing a pop bottle back over his shoulder one day. He didn't see me, but he heard me. That bottle left with him, probably to land in another yard up the street.

Ratzilla wrote:

I never smoke in someone's car or home without permission and not always when they say I can. And only on the second floor of my own house so those on the ground floor don't have to be around it. And I run an exhaust fan upstairs so it won't travel down.

EXACTLY!!