Posted on 11/27/2001 2:48:40 PM PST by Amore
NBC News is reporting that Sarah Brady has lung cancer because of her addiction to cigarettes. She earlier switched to low tar cigarettes on the theory they would be "healthier" but got lung cancer anyway.
Anyone who believes cigarettes are in any respect "healthy" is not too bright.
FP
Mine did too, as did my grandmother, and I would not wish that or lung cancer on anyone. I do however see some irony in the fact that she wanted to control my gun while she could not, or would not, control her own smoking.
This woman has to be the biggest threat to america.
Well, I just heard her on TV; she said she had quit, but started back -- guess when -- when he was shot.
So, it's about the guns after all.
Cigarette Control is on the way, no doubt!
Ewwwwwwww.........you got blood all over my monitor!
Someone who would equate Sarah Brady with our President and Attorney General regarding the subject of freedom is a sick SOB.
I was kinda of hoping for robbery stabed-to-death death.
Also the down side is that as head of HCI she has been so bad that anyone who replaces her will most likely advance their goals. Lets hope she sticks around for a few more years to mismanage the anti-gunners.
Sad. But we already knew that she wasn't too bright
This pretty clearly infers that one who smokes is not bright. Therefore it is you that is either the dim one in this dialogue or you're backtracking because you were busted.
I would be concerned with your statement if it came from somone whom I had any respect for.
Someone who thinks that Ms. Brady has had more affect on our freedoms than W and Ashcroft ain't dealing with a full deck anyway.
Not much for freedom are you? I usually like your posts because like me, you don't take any crap from the libertarians. However, I say live and let live on this one. Tobacco use goes back hundreds of years in this country. Its probably older than firearms. Either are fine with me.
What a coincidence! I always think that people who don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply" are not too bright.
Keep in mind that the new law's definition of "domestic terrorism" is so broad, as we shall see in future columns, that entirely innocent people can be swept into this surveillance dragnet. You are not immune.
As law professor and privacy expert Jeffrey Rosen points out in the October 15 New Republic, "If [unbeknownst to you] your colleague is a target of [the already in-place] Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Investigation [with its very low privacy standards], the government could tap all your [own] communications on a shared phone, work computer, or public library terminal."
Furthermore, all this vast "intelligence" data can now be shared with the CIA, which is again allowed—despite its charter forbidding it to engage in internal security functions—to spy again on Americans in this country, and without a court order. People of a certain age may remember when the CIA did spy here on law-abiding dissenters, mostly on the left, in total contempt of the Constitution.
I guess you don't appreciate, respect or care for the second amendment. She has had more effect and its been a very negative one.
ROTFLMAO, and I know exactly why it is so hard for you to control yourself. hehe.
1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises
I think infer is pretty accurate but if you prefer I'll change it to imply. Either way, can you dispute my opinion of the original posting?
This is the type of torurous logic the Left (including Sarah Brady) has been imposing on society. Save a life -- take away her cigarettes!
The title of this thread id "Sarah Brady has lung cancer and remains addicted to cigarettes". That's sad -- both having lung cancer and being addicted to cigarettes (or anything else for that matter).
The article states:
NBC News is reporting that Sarah Brady has lung cancer because of her addiction to cigarettes.
I ignored this. She obviously doesn't have lung cancer because of her addiction. The cause of her lung cancer may be cigarette smoking; it may not. Although it's quite likely, I've never heard anyone definitely state that anyone lung cancer has been caused by smoking. Saying it's caused by someone's addiction is silly.
She earlier switched to low tar cigarettes on the theory they would be "healthier" but got lung cancer anyway
She's obviously not too bright. Anyone who believes cigarettes are in any respect "healthy" is not too bright.
Hmmmmm, nope. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.
FP
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.