Dear Anonymous:
I reject your suggestion that my reference to the facts in Judge Feldman's investment portfolio is "cavalier" and "slanted." You also assume facts not in evidence about Judge Feldman's age being the determining factor in his investments. For over two decades he has sat as a judge in a part of the country that has substantial financial interests in the oil industry, with a high probability that those very interests will be at stake in litigation before the court on which he sits. And, then when the industry which enriches him appears before him he does not affirmatively disclose those interests to the parties in the case at hand. And we are to believe that he is not influenced at all by his long history of profitable investments in oil speculation, including deepwater drilling. It is too much.
As is your absurd suggestion that my recitation of the facts will win me a governmental post, I neither seek nor desire. If only your skepticism were directed toward where the facts point, a judge who has pre-judged the case before him and is pre-disposed to sympathy toward the industry he has invested in for many years.
But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your conclusions any time soon and be sure to assert that any facts you do not like are selective. It merely demonstrates how your reasoning and conclusions have likely been honed at the teat of Fox News.
And, as for the matter of oil rigs leased out years in advance, it does not make the judge's appearance of partiality stronger or weaker. But, it is an interesting fact.
Lisa Graves
This is a typical anti-smoking post, also fix it up.
Ammonia is mainly used as a fertilizer, not as a toilet cleaner. This is just telling part of the truth to get a negative association with cigarettes.
I would very much like to hear the argument which shows that cigarettes are the most highly engineered and studied product in history. The article compares them to cocain, meth and heroin (negative association again with illegal drugs this time) and even though there probably has been more R&D into cigarettes there is nothing to back up that claim.
Finally the main point of the article, cigarette companies manipulate your product so you get more nicotine from less smoking. I do not see how this is a bad thing, in any other industry efficiency is considered an improvement. Also smokers want the nicotine, so why would you smoke three unprocessed cigarettes if you can get the same effect from one?
Let's just suppose all your guesses are right (which they aren't). The point remains: if you don't want to pay this tax, all you have to do is not smoke.
lol what an imbecile.
Pages