3,500 civilians and 1,500 servicemen and women were killed... on George Bush's watch.

and right on cue, the Left reminds us that they can only view the world in negative terms so long as their not in power. The funny thing is they're still wondering why they keep losing elections while the rest of us can see the obvious.

Keep up the great work, Oliver.

3,500 civilians and 1,500 servicemen and women were killed... on George Bush's watch.

Hey, fatboy, its called war. What do you think is going to happen? Here are some other unfortunate things that happened on George Bush's watch:

1. You probably gained 100 lbs.

2. The web has become polluted with your moonbat ravings via your worthless blog.

3. You and Michael "the white whale" Moore probably had a liaison.

4. Against all odds, you have gotten dumber.

5. Your doctor talks about your tare weight.

6. Republicans kicked donk asses across the board in every election.

7. The only person anyone can find nuttier than you is Barbara Boxer.

Dayum!! Smack that Willis down!!

ZING!

PS: Scar watch what you say, ODub might dub you a racist.

Liberals don't really care about the casualty numbers. if they were truly so concerned with life they would oppose abortion and stop smoking so many damned cigarettes. More U.S. citizens have died in the past 2 days from smoking cigarettes than have died in the entire Iraq War. Almost 500,000 have died from smoking related illness since the start of the war. But try and tell a liberal to stop smoking in the cafe or restaurant and see what they tell you. Where are the protests against smoking?

Rich, your comparison between deaths during war with deaths from smoking seems inapt, to me.

Surely smoking is an issue related to personal right/responsibility. Deaths during war are hardly in that category. Hence there is no conflict whatsoever between concern about civilian deaths during war and a refusal to protest against smoking. It is not necessarely death, per se, that Mr. Willis objects to but Civilian deaths during a war, the legitimacy of which he does not recognize.

I tend to agree with Scaramonga: deaths, including unfortunate deaths of civilians, occur in war and I, for one, definitely recognize the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

It just seems to me that the smoking issue is a red herring here. Personally, I am a personal rights/responsibility sort of person. I don't smoke (although I once did) and I do not care to smell other peoples' smoke but I am not about to protest smoking. If people want to off themselves in long-term very nasty ways, that's up to them, I say.

second hand smoke kills 30,000 Americans every year- including my cousin who was 25 years old who never smoked a day in her life but was a waitress in a very trendy bar. She didnt sign up to serve her country, she simply signed up to serve martinis. My parents are now taking care of her two kids. surely you think that is bad. i guess she is just a red herring-

second hand smoke kills 30,000 Americans every year-

Please provide evidence that the number you quote is accurate. And don't bother with any source that is campaigning against smoking, they lack credibility. Show an impartial study by the AMA or some such source. I am not saying you are wrong, I just would like to see your source(s).

including my cousin who was 25 years old who never smoked a day in her life but was a waitress in a very trendy bar.

I am sorry to hear about your cousin, but there are a couple of things I need to know, since you brought it up. First, how does a 25 year old die from second-hand smoke? Did she have some pre-existing condition like acute asthma? If so, why in the world would she take a job where she knew there was smoking going on?

She didnt sign up to serve her country, she simply signed up to serve martinis.

She also did not die for her country.

My parents are now taking care of her two kids.

That is very kind of them.

surely you think that is bad.

It is unfortunate that your cousin died at such a young age and that her relatives now are saddled with raising her children. No one I know would think that is a good thing.

i guess she is just a red herring-

Here is the definition:

red herring: a distraction used to lead the receiver to focus on an irrelevant issue

The red herring reference by Craig Harmon was totally accurate and on point. This thread is not about smoking and the damage it does to peoples' health. So your attempt to drag the discussion in that direction is precisely a red herring. Craig was not referring to your cousin, but your attempt to bring the focus to an irrelevant issue.

3. The Palestinians freely elected a leader.



Bush was responsible for Arafat dying?

Heres my info. Im not sure if Scaramonga is going to accept it or not, but this is the best I have, and who am I to guestion the American Lung association. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 I'm not going to try and argue with scara because I read his posts and know he would destroy me in 3 seconds flat. If I cam off as offensive it was not my intention, I just have very strong beliefs on the issue. My major point is that liberals point out the casualties of U.S. soldiers not because they care about their lives but because it is simply a hammer to bash Bush with. Our soldiers are volunteers and they know what they are getting into when they sign their names on the dotted line, the same as any other dangerous profession. The civilians killed in the war are tragic, but they are victims that have at least died during a struggle that will make their people much better off in the long run. People that die from second hand smoke are the ultimate victims because they are dieing slow and painful deaths because somone else has chosen that their own habit is more important than the well being of others. If liberals were so worried about untimely deaths, I'm simply saying they could put down their Marlboro Reds and call for more laws to curb smoking instead of gleefully updating us everytime the body count in Iraq goes up. I know Republicans most likely smoke just as much as Dems, and the same arguments can be made for them, but I don't see republicans having an orgasm every time an IED goes off and 100 civilians die.

Heres my info. Im not sure if...

I still question your data, since the numbers related to deaths from second-hand smoke have footnotes referring to the California EPA, a wacko, tree-hugging bunch of left-wing nannies. But I do thank you for at least trying to provide some statistical information, unlike most libs who make outrageous claims and never back them up with anything even resembling facts.

I'm not going to try and argue with scara because I read his posts and know he would destroy me in 3 seconds flat.

You should talk to my wife! She's not afraid to argue with me. But honestly, I only go after people who don't want to participate in honest debate - the grenade throwers. You are not in that category at all.

If I cam off as offensive it was not my intention, I just have very strong beliefs on the issue.

Given your anecdotal information, I can understand why you have such strong feelings. I quit smoking about 2 years ago after it nearly killed me so I too have strong feelings about it. I wish I never would have lit the first cigarette those many years ago. It has been two years and I am just now getting my health back to where I think it should be. And that doesn't account for the poor people who had to be around me and breath my second-hand smoke. I cannot make it up to them and I feel bad about that. But the facts are the facts, and the facts are that this thread is not about smoking, lung disease, or second-hand smoke. It is about the accomplishments of the Bush administration. One liberal (ODub) tried to derail the thread by pointing out US and Iraqi casualties as a means of minimizing the accomplishments. Several of us, me included, responded vigorously to his idiotic comment.

My major point is that liberals point out the casualties of U.S. soldiers not because they care about their lives but because it is simply a hammer to bash Bush with. Our soldiers are volunteers and they know what they are getting into when they sign their names on the dotted line, the same as any other dangerous profession. The civilians killed in the war are tragic, but they are victims that have at least died during a struggle that will make their people much better off in the long run.

All of this is true.

People that die from second hand smoke are the ultimate victims because they are dieing slow and painful deaths because somone else has chosen that their own habit is more important than the well being of others.

Not so fast. Many people expose themselves to second-hand smoke by choice. They choose to drink in a bar where there is a lot of smoke. The air inside any casino I've been to is almost like lighting up a cigarette yourself but people still go in and gamble in droves. Many people find themselves in situations where they must breath second hand smoke, e.g., as part of the family relationship or job, but in my mind, most are still choices. No one is forcing them to do it. Life is full of choices like that. People often suffer consequences of making bad choices and often the consequence is awful.

If liberals were so worried about untimely deaths, I'm simply saying they could put down their Marlboro Reds and call for more laws to curb smoking instead of gleefully updating us everytime the body count in Iraq goes up. I know Republicans most likely smoke just as much as Dems, and the same arguments can be made for them, but I don't see republicans having an orgasm every time an IED goes off and 100 civilians die.

Can't stay with you there. If people want to smoke they should be allowed to. If the majority of people want a smoke free workplace, dining place, and/or home, they should also have that. But the libertarian in me says it isn't the government's business unless someone is being forced into a dangerous situation. Smoking and breathing second-hand smoke are usually choices people make. They should be allowed to make them. And finally, see, you have managed to derail the subject of this thread and change it to one about smoking. That is the definition of a red herring.

Bush was responsible for Arafat dying?

No one has ever determined the cause of death for the child molester and Clinton buddy Yasser Arafat. Many still think he was poisoned. If he was, who would have done it? The Israelis? Not without a go-ahead from the US. Sharon wanted to kill Arafat for years but deferred to US judgment. If not Israel, who? The Palestinians? Arafat ruled with an iron hand, although he constantly whined about being powerless to stop the splodeydopes.

So what would inspire the Palis to take the child molester out? Here's a scenario that I happen to believe is possible: Israel, some time ago, decided that since Arafat would never keep his word or any agreement and since the US would not give the Israelis the green light to bulldoze the Arafat compound with him in it, they would build a wall to keep out the splodeydopes. You can bet your bippy that George W. Bush gave the OK to Israel to build their wall. As they continued to build the wall, the Palis started to realize that the end of the game was near. Should the wall be completed, they would be totally cut off from any economic support or jobs. Their inability to attack Israel with their suicide bombs would diminish their ability to get headlines. As they descended into irrelevancy, the area would explode into civil war. Since the US had announced to the world that they would NEVER deal with Arafat, and since the Palis could no longer attack Israel in any meaningful way, they had to do something. That something was to get rid of Arafat and replace him with someone the US would at least give a chance to eke out a deal. Suddenly, Yasser is ill and then is whisked off to France with a mysterious disease. Soon after, Arafat reaches room temperature. Then there are elections in Palestine. A new leader is chosen and starts working toward a peaceful agreement with Israel. Did Bush have a hand in this. I say definitely.

Interesting piece of trivia:

Question: Who is the most frequent overnight guest at the Whitehouse during the Clinton administration?

Answer: Yasser Arafat.

I was not trying to change the subject to smoking, i was just trying to show some liberal hipocracy on life and death issues and I must not have done a very good job of it. They are the same people that believe a featus in the third trimester should be able to be sucked out with a vaccuum and placed in a dumpster and self-confessed child-molesting murders types on death row should be able to enjoy a long life of reading books and free health care. And yes they seem quite pleased that our troops accidently shot up the italian hostage's car today, never mind the fact that warning shots were fired and the car sped up at a checkpoint.