Ever since I started reading into the Mad Cow disease in America I have been staying away from red meat completely, well I might have a steak here and there but I make sure that it is prepared well done. Eat more Chicken. :)
<a href="http://jayfluck.com/">Jay</a>
"I challenge the appropriateness of "pinking" a product so closely associated with being used to purposefully wound and kill, and leveraging it supposedly to fight a disease that also wounds and kills."
Any cure for cancer would involve "killing" bad cells. In same same way as a woman would wield a pistol to kill a rapist or a murderer that would victimize her, doctor's would sight in on malignant cells and destroy them.
By your logic, because something living is killed in the process of purging disease, a cure for cancer is, as you put it, bizarre.
Rapists, murderers, and other predators that aim in on women are the life-sized versions of the cancerous cells that prey on an unfortunate number of females. You support a cure for cancer, something which only exists in theory and that we're desperately on the hunt for. However, we've had a publicly available cure to protect women from evil men for hundreds of years... Why are you so for one, but wish to victimize more and more women by taking the other out of their hands?
how about pink thermonuclear warheads from westinghouse? after all, nuclear bombs have killed on average fewer than 3000/year over the last half century, they saved the lives of thousands of GIs in WWII, and they kept the peace for decades through M.A.D. (although the jury is still out on whether The Bomb will get us all yet).
remember: handheld nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. but a nuke makes it really easy.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. "But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
[Likewise if cancer is trying to kill you one could also resist.}
"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." ~Unknown Author
Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
[Mass shootings occur in "weapon free" zones.]
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil. And while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
-Jeff Cooper
Whether it is the press focusing on the sensationalism or a politician the result seems the same--infantilism. Can use of guns lead to death--yes. Can use of cars lead to death--yes. Can use of vioxx lead to death--yes. But violence. . . Hey have you had a car aggresively pointed at you in a threatening manner? I have at least dozen times--as a pedestrian, a bicyclist, and as a motorist. Motor vehicles kill many more than guns, Cars pose a huge risk to me on my bicycle on a daily basis. If I am at the range I feel much safer than on a bike--because I am!!
Is the press reporting on the risk of cars to pedestrians and cyclists--not really. Are the dummycrats and the idiotcans calling for car control? Nope. In fact motorists can brandish an automobile in a crosswalk daily (not to defend their life but to expediently remove you as an impediment to their progress) and the cops do nothing, Motorists run people over and get away most of the time with no charges--unless they were drunk.
So for people like anne L where is the car ban proposal?
Cars (and local zoning ordinances) cause serious global warming which is in the process of indirectly and directly killing many many people and vast parts of the planet. Yet the party of gun control--the democrats--really dont give a damn. They are too busy subsidizing surplus car sales to the tune of 20k of taxpayer money per car so that certain people in the auto industry can pick up a few more shifts!
The democrats also did the stupidist political thing in the 20thc with the so called assault weapons ban. That misadventure in political thinking destroyed any possibility for health care "reform" for many years due to their wipeout in 1994. If the tale was told properly the democrats allowed many more women to die from cancer due to poor health care than were saved by the :"assault ban:"
There is no refuting that observation; assault ban=democrats loss of congress=no health care access progress.
Too bad third parties have no chance in america because anne l and the rest of the dummycrats need a lesson as bad as the power hungry idiotcans needed with the terry schiavo shenanigans.
Bottom line is I am a younger voter under 50 that cant be defined in any one set of cool aid policies of either party.
Anne, you stated
"I challenge the appropriateness of "pinking" a product so closely associated with being used to purposefully wound and kill, and leveraging it supposedly to fight a disease that also wounds and kills."
Any cure for cancer would involve "killing" bad cells. In same same way as a woman would wield a pistol to kill a rapist or a murderer that would victimize her, doctor's would sight in on malignant cells and destroy them.
By your logic, because something living is killed in the process of purging disease, a cure for cancer is, as you put it, bizarre.
Rapists, murderers, and other predators that aim in on women are the life-sized versions of the cancerous cells that prey on an unfortunate number of females. You support a cure for cancer, something which only exists in theory and that we're desperately on the hunt for. However, we've had a publicly available cure to protect women from evil men for hundreds of years... Why are you so for one, but wish to victimize more and more women by taking the other out of their hands?
how about pink thermonuclear warheads from westinghouse? after all, nuclear bombs have killed on average fewer than 3000/year over the last half century, they saved the lives of thousands of GIs in WWII, and they kept the peace for decades through M.A.D. (although the jury is still out on whether The Bomb will get us all yet).
remember: handheld nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. but a nuke makes it really easy.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. "But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
[Likewise if cancer is trying to kill you one could also resist.}
"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." ~Unknown Author
Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
[Mass shootings occur in "weapon free" zones.]
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil. And while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.
-Jeff Cooper
Peace.
Whether it is the press focusing on the sensationalism or a politician the result seems the same--infantilism. Can use of guns lead to death--yes. Can use of cars lead to death--yes. Can use of vioxx lead to death--yes. But violence. . . Hey have you had a car aggresively pointed at you in a threatening manner? I have at least dozen times--as a pedestrian, a bicyclist, and as a motorist. Motor vehicles kill many more than guns, Cars pose a huge risk to me on my bicycle on a daily basis. If I am at the range I feel much safer than on a bike--because I am!!
Is the press reporting on the risk of cars to pedestrians and cyclists--not really. Are the dummycrats and the idiotcans calling for car control? Nope. In fact motorists can brandish an automobile in a crosswalk daily (not to defend their life but to expediently remove you as an impediment to their progress) and the cops do nothing, Motorists run people over and get away most of the time with no charges--unless they were drunk.
So for people like anne L where is the car ban proposal?
Cars (and local zoning ordinances) cause serious global warming which is in the process of indirectly and directly killing many many people and vast parts of the planet. Yet the party of gun control--the democrats--really dont give a damn. They are too busy subsidizing surplus car sales to the tune of 20k of taxpayer money per car so that certain people in the auto industry can pick up a few more shifts!
The democrats also did the stupidist political thing in the 20thc with the so called assault weapons ban. That misadventure in political thinking destroyed any possibility for health care "reform" for many years due to their wipeout in 1994. If the tale was told properly the democrats allowed many more women to die from cancer due to poor health care than were saved by the :"assault ban:"
There is no refuting that observation; assault ban=democrats loss of congress=no health care access progress.
Too bad third parties have no chance in america because anne l and the rest of the dummycrats need a lesson as bad as the power hungry idiotcans needed with the terry schiavo shenanigans.
Bottom line is I am a younger voter under 50 that cant be defined in any one set of cool aid policies of either party.
Namaste (but packing) [not a contradiction]
Pages