Skip to comments.
U.S. Shocks with Promise to Back Anti-Smoking Pact (Tommy Thompson told journalists (WHO))
)
reuters ^
| 5/18/2003
| Karen Iley
Posted on 05/18/2003 11:41:47 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator
To: Just another Joe
It seems you will find only a minority here on FR that find anything wrong with any laws, or treaties, against smoking, smokers, or any type of legislation against these.
It is sad that as we try to hold to the Constitutional Republic, others don't care that the creeping crud of socialism, straight democracy, and global government are coming to our shores at an ever increasing pace.
Amen, brother, say it again.
42
posted on
05/18/2003 1:06:19 PM PDT
by
metesky
(My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can)
To: Gabz; Just another Joe
They refuse to see the big picture that this is much, much more.You got that right. I ditto everything you and JaJ are saying. Some people are frogs in cold water that's slowly heating up on the stove of socialism....very sad indeed.
FMCDH
To: EGPWS
Don't focus on "the crap". Keep a keen eye on the overall issues. Leave the crap for the Dimecrats to focus on while Dubya' keeps his focus on the overall gains to personal freedoms we all hold dear. LOL! You forgot the sacasm alert; many here won't realize you joking.
Save the Elephants from the Rhimos!
44
posted on
05/18/2003 1:10:21 PM PDT
by
suijuris
To: TLBSHOW
From,
anti smoking treaty"
The text requires signatory parties to implement comprehensive tobacco control programmes and strategies at the national, regional and local levels. The text also explicitly recognizes the need to protect public health, the unique nature of tobacco products and the harm that companies that produce them cause"
The propoganda will be stepped up, the un will have to get a cut of taxes...
To: Gabz
As I said, you have me confused, could you please clarify a bit?Sure. What I mean to say is,(as a smoker I might add) that as our freedoms are being taken away, they are being so because,IMHO, people are focusing on issues I.E. smokers rights and making emotional decisions on them when the focus should be on overall human rights granted by the constitution. (the Oprah Winfrey syndrome)Dubya' has the political saavy to understand this and is taking it apart piece by piece. If he were to try and make things better overnight he knows he would follow in his fathers footsteps and be a 1 term President through votes of emotion. This would not be helpful at all is the way I see it. He has done a fabulous job of playing the Dim's game and he is winning it politically, don't you agree?
46
posted on
05/18/2003 1:15:35 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
47
posted on
05/18/2003 1:25:05 PM PDT
by
jmc813
(After two years of FReeping, I've finally created a profile page. Check it out!)
To: EGPWS
Maybe it is the stress I have dealt with today with an overly obnoxious 4 year old on a rainy day - but I still really have no clue what you are talking about.
I'm not looking at smokers rights or even making emotional decisions here.
This, IMHO, is just another nail in the coffin of having the God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights of Americans of free speech, free association, and personal property being tossed down the hopper and flushed along with the same rights of every residents of every other socialist nation on this planet.
48
posted on
05/18/2003 1:26:08 PM PDT
by
Gabz
(anti-smokers = personification of everything wrong in this country)
To: EGPWS
Dude, what are you smokin?
In case you haven't noticed. GWB is a Republican. That makes him quite hostile to the idea of actually following the Law of the Land. If you want the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and respect for basic first principles like personal responsibility and private property then it is simply impossible to be a Bushee.
49
posted on
05/18/2003 1:38:20 PM PDT
by
FreeRadical
(GunDealers.com -- Because Some people are Marxists)
To: A. Pole
I would enjoy if you gave some examples of those "gains to personal freedoms", please?1) Tax cuts and forcing government spending closer to the home of each tax payer
2) Stiffeling terrorism in our country
3)Giving the market a jolt which I am very pleased to see.
4)Increasing Federal spending, which was cut by previous administrations, on defense which is the biggest reason for Federal Government spending.
5)His nominee's for the court's which are being held back because of another party's stiffeling of our personal rights through government.
6)His lack of concern for stating religious beliefs while holding office.
7) He prevented, through his hard efforts, a Dimocrat from holding the POTUS position.
8)He Commanded the troops who ousted a known tyrant, which never would have come about if he were to have been defeated in his run for president.
9)Whether you want to believe it or not, he has started the ball rolling to make the U.N. irrelevant.(this is a definite boost to our personal freedoms)
10)He has given us our respect back as United States citizens as percieved by the rest of the civilized world.
50
posted on
05/18/2003 1:40:31 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
To: Gabz
I still really have no clue what you are talking about. I think it is because you do not see the larger picture. EGPWS points to the need to keep Democrats out of power.
He wrote:
"If he were to try and make things better overnight he knows he would follow in his fathers footsteps and be a 1 term President through votes of emotion. This would not be helpful at all is the way I see it. He has done a fabulous job of playing the Dim's game and he is winning it politically, don't you agree?"
I understand that he means, that if Bush did the right on the particular issues, he and Republicans would be penalised by losing power. But by clever embracing of Democrats agenda he can take the votes away from them.
51
posted on
05/18/2003 1:40:34 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: EGPWS
52
posted on
05/18/2003 1:45:32 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(the gift is to see the truth)
To: TLBSHOW
OK, some explain to me what exactly is the use of a 'global treaty' on smoking and how would US participation help? Why can't these countries simply pass the smoking restrictions themselves? Right or wrong, the US already did that themselves, what's stopping those morons from doing the same. I would think that it would be less trouble than formulating an international treaty and getting all those countries to ratify it. This seems to be almost as big a waste of time as the UN.
To: FreeRadical
Dude, what are you smokin?Carlton's...and I can now see why you carry the screen name you do!:)
54
posted on
05/18/2003 1:47:45 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
To: Great Dane
"70% of the population in the third world, dies whether they smoke or not."
I think this stat is a little low unless you mean die before some sort of nominal average life span.
To: A. Pole
I understand that he means, that if Bush did the right on the particular issues, he and Republicans would be penalised by losing power. But by clever embracing of Democrats agenda he can take the votes away from them.Well said, A. Pole! We could use more of your kind of "visionary thinking" here at FR!
Have you considered a professional life on broadcasting?
56
posted on
05/18/2003 1:56:04 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
To: pragmatic_asian
it is all about socialist and their socialism.......
57
posted on
05/18/2003 1:57:25 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(the gift is to see the truth)
To: EGPWS
Have you considered a professional life on broadcasting? Yes. Do you know about some openings for me?
58
posted on
05/18/2003 1:58:17 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: Just another Joe
We need to get a letter writing campaign to the White House going on this. *******************************
Legally, President Bush isn't allowed to do this. He's not allowed to make treaties that effect the internal laws of our nation.
What's next? This is no more a legal act it than it would be if President Bush promoted an international treaty banning private ownership of handguns.
59
posted on
05/18/2003 1:59:26 PM PDT
by
exodus
To: A. Pole
But by clever embracing of Democrats agenda he can take the votes away from them.
.....
lol
yep run with their issues and expand them even more, what a plan.........
here is a good one from the nanny govt.
The Presidents Recommendations for Avoiding Risky Behaviors
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/fitness/chapt6.html
60
posted on
05/18/2003 2:01:25 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(the gift is to see the truth)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 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