http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jun/12/senate-backs-limits-on-nicotine-levels-ads/

 

So they lower the levels of nicotine and smokers have to buy more cigarettes to get the same usual level...:thinking:

 

So if they were to cut the level in half, someone smoking 2 packs a day would need four, sounds like Tobacco companies and anyone who profits from them(government through taxes) will make a huge profit, while smokers pay a lot more and I would assume have more health problems from more cigarettes. Once again government saves the day!:rolleyes:

 

Cigarette foes said the measure would reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

 

Hahaha so by making people need more cigarettes they will make them healthier thus reducing costs? Maybe we could limit the amount of people who have heart attacks by making them eat more fast food?

Con-Choice Thanks to the president

 

"...But it's for the kid's protection..."

 

Um... It's a thing called responsibility. If people want to destroy their bodies then they can go ahead.

I'm waiting for the National Calorie Act to get proposed.

Yeah. I think that there is more important than this. And yet alcohol still isn't banned when it requires responsibility, yet they think lowering cigs is going to protect children. The president doesn't even get the concept of responsibility if he's doing it for children.

And Obama is a smoker himself.

 

How much more blatantly hypocritical can you be? Maybe once Kirstie Alley gets elected president she'll pass your National Calorie Act, Nick. ;)

 

Wait till the new mpg standards kick in and Americans aren't allowed to buy big trucks or fast cars anymore. I'm really crossing my fingers Obama gets some semblance of his healthcare ideas put into law, too. So much to do! So little time!

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94]YouTube - He's Barack Obama[/ame]

So much to do! So little time!

 

So much to Bankrupt so little time

Democrats don't do that good when it comes to health care.

So much to Bankrupt so little time

 

Ha I agree. We'll all be paying for this shit and the Bush Admin. is partying. People are going to hate democrats if things go bad.

Ha I agree. We'll all be paying for this shit and the Bush Admin. is partying. People are going to hate democrats if things go bad.

 

No, they won't. They'll forgive them in four years. That's the way America works, it's like a pendulum swinging between two really crappy political parties.

I thought Bush was bad...Obama is him on steroids. If it didn't work for Bush how is it going to work for Obama on a much larger scale? I just hope things fall through before 2012 so we don't re-elect him like we did Bush.

Then why not Independent?!?

I thought Bush was bad...Obama is him on steroids. If it didn't work for Bush how is it going to work for Obama on a much larger scale? I just hope things fall through before 2012 so we don't re-elect him like we did Bush.

 

Agreed.

Then why not Independent?!?

 

Its starting to get more popular along with other 3rd parties. The Ron Paul Revolution is just getting started....as more people wake up to realize what Democrats and Republicans are the more popular Libertarians and other parties will get. Maybe in 2012 Independents or Libertarians will get more popular and receive more votes, then in 2016 more votes and so on until someone besides a Democrat or Republican gets into office.

We've had Republican-Democrats since Polk

We've had Republican-Democrats since Polk

 

And that means its time to refresh the nations political party. Eventually they'll either really change or fade out once we have many more economic problems in the next 20 years.

Well the problem with Lobbyists though is that they focus on one idea and stick to it.

Its starting to get more popular along with other 3rd parties. The Ron Paul Revolution is just getting started....as more people wake up to realize what Democrats and Republicans are the more popular Libertarians and other parties will get. Maybe in 2012 Independents or Libertarians will get more popular and receive more votes, then in 2016 more votes and so on until someone besides a Democrat or Republican gets into office.

 

*facepalm*

 

Don't count on it. I don't think there's ever been a recorded incident where a government has ceded power back to the people... except via revolution, like in Iran.

Well It WILL happen if Obama screws up on several things, which he is now.

The only think keeping western democracies from turning authoritarian is a distant memory of World War 2 and Nazi Germany.

 

When the economy gets bad, people grant politicians more authority, because they think they can "fix" it like it's a machine. In fact Obama even uses that language: "The gears of our economy are slowly starting to turn again..." etc.

 

Look at FDR as an example. He devastated the US economy during his time in office, but he kept getting reelected with even greater majorities each time.

Obama's so cool he can fix it.

It's a load of horseshit.

 

But FDR literally set up the new deal in the FIRST DAY (not lying) and Obama still hasn't a clue for the banks. FDR is like God to Obama.

When the economy gets bad, people grant politicians more authority, because they think they can "fix" it like it's a machine. In fact Obama even uses that language: "The gears of our economy are slowly starting to turn again..." etc.

And unfortunately, I do believe that many politicians are to blame for making the people feel desperate by casting this fear upon them about how if they do not give up more freedom and power to the government, they will be left for dead. In a bad economy, this is especially prevalent as people begin lining up for whatever government assistance they can get. Unfortunately, nothing received from the government is actually free. Not even that pretty stimulus check. Even without touching upon the tax issue, a good example is this tobacco thing. While most people will not dispute the harmful effects of smoking, implementing something like this is only an interference in the basic freedoms people are entitled to. You are free to smoke, just as you are free not to smoke. And of course, there is the side-ramification that having to buy more cigarattes means more health issues regardless of the tobacco itself being reduced. Obama needs to start thinking before leaping in head-first. Then maybe some good will come, but this? Idiotic.