Thread: This is Lame! More Neutering of the American Male!

.....................

Originally Posted by gugi

That's just because you're lacking a good training.
I stare my beliefs on a regular basis to line up with 37 facts each. Yes, 37, aka 36+1 is very significant

Is it me, or has this thread gone askew? Though I am enjoying the banter so far.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

Is it me, or has this thread gone askew? Though I am enjoying the banter so far.

it must just be you... lol...

it is taking the natural progression.....

but the simple fact of the matter is that the people we put in power *(both sides of the aisle... but the left side is much much much more so) are trying to become our parents.... with the whole "we know what is best for you... just do as we say not as we do" thing.......

my vote is for reinstatement of the guillotine and 536 wooden stakes on the white house lawn with 536 heads on top....... with little notes warning the future leaders to remember they are just representatives.... not our nannies...

Did anyone see a Titleist come through?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Did anyone see a Titleist come through?

Nope, maybe you got a hole in one...did you tee off from the beach?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Did anyone see a Titleist come through?

19th hole, into my drink, you owe me one. You can pic up the tab for the dry cleaning too.

Intrigue, banter, manifestos, passive-aggressive diction advice, golf humor. What's not to love!?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

the fat manila envelope stuffed with "soft money" I have already sent to Ivan?

no worries. he wouldn't recognize soft even if it stood up and slapped him in the mouth

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

19th hole, into my drink, you owe me one. You can pic up the tab for the dry cleaning too.

Sounds good, I'll just deduct it from gugi's account

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

Nope, maybe you got a hole in one...did you tee off from the beach?

No, I was at the indoor range. I would have hit at the beach, but the sea was angry that day my friend

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Sounds good, I'll just deduct it from gugi's account

hey you may be on my ticket, but that doesn't mean you just get access to my pac money!

Originally Posted by gugi

Now, only if you had provided any data that backs up your beliefs, I'd have been interested in your post. Everybody can make declarative statements, which is exactly what makes those pretty much useless for anything but than reinforcing an 'us' vs. 'them' mentality.

That's usually why threads get closed around here - the philosophy of this forum is the exact opposite i.e. to include and be helpful.

BTW, you may want to learn the meaning of the word 'exponentially', you are not using it properly.

Point 1 data: Nov. 13, 2008 -- The percentage of Americans who smoke cigarettes has fallen below 20% for the first time since at least the mid-1960s, according to a new report.
The CDC says in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that the prevalence of smoking fell in 2007 to 19.8%, nearly a full percentage point from 20.8% in 2006. The CDC says cigarette smoking prevalence has been dropping steadily among Americans 18 and older since it began keeping records in 1965, when 42.4% smoked. The proportion dropped below 30% for the first time in 1987, when 28.8% of Americans smoked.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessati...eclining-in-us

Point 2 data: CHILDREN WITH PARENTS WHO SMOKE ARE MORE LIKELY
TO PICK UP SMOKING

A study by researchers at Dartmouth College revealed that children with parents who smoked were 4 times more likely to purchase cigarettes, as compared to children with non-smoker parents.

2 The findings, acquired through a role play scenario involving a miniature grocery store, suggest that children are highly attentive to their parents’ smoking habits, and are more likely to regard smoking as appropriate and normal behaviour in social settings, thus resulting in a higher likelihood of them picking up the habit later on in life. An executive summary on the study is attached at Annex A for your information.

3 The results of the study appear to be congruent with the findings of the Student Health Survey 2006 conducted by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), which showed that a significantly higher percentage of youth smokers (59%) had at least one parent who smoked, as compared to the non-smokers (34%).
http://www.hpb.gov.sg/news/article.aspx?id=6028.
Also, since you called me out on it: Main Entry: ex·po·nen·tial
Pronunciation: \ˌek-spə-ˈnen-chəl\
Function: adjective
3 : expressible or approximately expressible by an exponential function; especially : characterized by or being an extremely rapid increase (as in size or extent)
— ex·po·nen·tial·ly \-ˈnench-(ə-)lē\ adverb
Perhaps I should have used "linearly more likely"? Would that have better suited your sensibilities? I should have cited exact numbers from the beginning, but I thought that most people would pick up on the meaning instead of quibbling over semantics.

Point 3 data:
BERNARDS — Ask Louie Lafakis about the influence tobacco-chewing baseball players have on adoring fans, and all the 11-year-old Basking Ridge boy has to do is point to his father.
John Lafakis was introduced to the world of dip in high school, where his baseball teammates told him he wouldn’t play on the varsity squad unless he dipped. It’s a habit the elder Lafakis has regretted ever since.

That second paragraph illustrates my point. The gentleman in question started chewing while playing baseball. In HIGH SCHOOL. Where did high schoolers get tobacco? Home? Also, why did he start? Not because he saw a pro do it, but because his buddies told him he "had to.". Now, I will admit that my argument is not logically sound, using one limited example to express an idea about the whole and drawing a conclusion to further another idea, but it shows what I'm trying to say. Do pro baseball players influence kids? Sure, they have to a little bit. But do you know what works great to counteract that influence? When on the way home from the game I say to my son or daughter, "Did you see that guy using tobacco? Isn't that gross? That could kill him, couldn't it?". Influence nullified.
Story URL: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...mobRedir=false

Point 4 data: Hell, I don't have any data, it's just my belief. I believe very strongly in a strong local government, one in which the elected don't rely on their positions for income, but rather use their offices to further the goals of the electorate.

It doesn't matter whether the politician is Republican, Democrat, Whig, Tea-party, Green, or Independent, at a certain level they all become corrupt. Tax and spend or tax and give it to their friends.

When politics becomes a profession, that where the problem starts. When a local township supervisor has to see his electorate in the grocery store or at the gas station every day, he tends to remember who put him in office and why he was put into office.