Skip to comments.
SMOKE SCREENING
New York Post ^
| 5/13/04
| BROOKS BOLIEK and RUSSELL SCOTT SMITH
Posted on 05/13/2004 1:08:57 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:21:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
05/13/2004 1:08:57 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
2
posted on
05/13/2004 1:28:23 AM PDT
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: kattracks
390,000 smokers suffer an anxiety attack each time another crusading expert appears before the Senate and starts pulling statistics out of his (non-cigarette) butt.
3
posted on
05/13/2004 1:31:18 AM PDT
by
Fawnn
(Canteen wOOhOO Consultant and CookingWithPam.com person)
To: kattracks
I am against the Government telling film industry whether they can have someone in their movie smoke or not. It is a legal choice; it is a legal behavior.
Hard to say where this directive could go; though I doubt sleeze will ever be considered hazardous to young people.
That said, it is the Liberals themselves who support the worst of these who now sit before them; holding their rights; in their congressional hands. These Hollywood elite have only themselves to thank for empowering those people who believe they are in Washington for the express purpose of redefining the lives of every individual in America.
On this, Liberal Hollywood, may just have to dance with those they sent to Washington.
4
posted on
05/13/2004 1:37:01 AM PDT
by
cricket
(Liberals are a scourge . . .)
To: SheLion
ping
5
posted on
05/13/2004 1:41:23 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Oh no! Does this mean that 101 Dalmatians will be retroactively given an R rating?
To: farfromhome
I was just fearing the same thing. Cruella would not reek of evilness so strongly without those cigarettes.
7
posted on
05/13/2004 2:04:52 AM PDT
by
Ruth A.
To: kattracks
Valenti said that was ridiculous. Who would disagree, or more to the point, what is the agenda of those who disagree?
To: kattracks
What an unbelievable gang of social-authoritarian nitwits. You're not an artist, writer, producer, or director. So please, shut up.
Furthermore, no one cares about your pet prohibition as much as you do, nor does anyone take you quite as seriously as you do.
9
posted on
05/13/2004 5:48:20 AM PDT
by
tdadams
(If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
To: kattracks; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Madame Dufarge; MeeknMing; steve50; ...
~sigh..........
10
posted on
05/13/2004 5:53:46 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Please register to vote! We can't afford to be silent.)
To: tdadams
"Furthermore, no one cares about your pet prohibition as much as you do, nor does anyone take you quite as seriously as you do."
Some freepers do. They will be here shortly.
11
posted on
05/13/2004 6:09:54 AM PDT
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: endthematrix; kattracks
We all must remember that the
esteemed (cough) Dr. (gag me)Glantz has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, not in medicne.
He is a professor of medicine (gag again) at UC San Fran primarily because as an anti-smoker busy body he brings in MAJOR $$$$$$ in research grants from the grub-mint.
12
posted on
05/13/2004 6:11:34 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my second hand smoke.)
To: endthematrix
It appears to me that Dr Stan is just a tad pudgy. Do we get an O rating for obese?
To: kattracks
Thanks for the ping.
14
posted on
05/13/2004 6:12:25 AM PDT
by
SheLion
(Please register to vote! We can't afford to be silent.)
To: CSM; SheLion
>>Some freepers do. They will be here shortly.<<
Oh yes! And saying something like this....
I hate when I go into a movie and someone is smoking on the screen. I hate the smell and I have an allergic reaction every time!!!!
All of you smokers are sooo inconsiderate! Like these people on the screen can't give up smoking for 90 minutes!
15
posted on
05/13/2004 6:18:58 AM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(For Tali Hatuel, her son & daughters Tehila, 11; Hadar, 9; Roni, 7; and Meirav, 2 - Kill Arafat)
To: netmilsmom
Smoking on screen hurts my eyes and it is dangerous for the children. No matter that a major tool for visual symbolism will be lost, we must ban smoking on screen!
16
posted on
05/13/2004 6:23:08 AM PDT
by
CSM
(Vote Kerry! Boil the Frog! Speed up the 2nd Revolution! (Be like Spain! At least they're honest))
To: CSM
>>Smoking on screen hurts my eyes and it is dangerous for the children. No matter that a major tool for visual symbolism will be lost, we must ban smoking on screen!<<
LOL!
17
posted on
05/13/2004 6:29:20 AM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(For Tali Hatuel, her son & daughters Tehila, 11; Hadar, 9; Roni, 7; and Meirav, 2 - Kill Arafat)
To: netmilsmom; CSM
You 2 are just cracking me up!!!!!!
Too, too funny!!!!!
18
posted on
05/13/2004 7:42:08 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my second hand smoke.)
To: Gabz
Albert Einstein never smoked; you just imagined it.
Franklin D. Roosevelt never smoked; you just imagined it.
NASA Mission Control workers never smoked; You just imagined it!
You are getting sleepy... sleepy...
19
posted on
05/13/2004 7:47:50 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(I don't do diplomacy either.)
To: Publius6961
And I also only imagined Winston Churchill was smoking.
20
posted on
05/13/2004 7:54:58 AM PDT
by
Gabz
(Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my second hand smoke.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
