Rubes Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 ...Money. There are other forms of experimentation with my body that I'd prefer...
Wacka Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 They want them to list effects on the human body, but not test them on humans to see what the effects are. Typical lib lahjick. You can be assure these people sign reams of paper before the testing is done. Lets test on lifers and death row inmates then.
Rubes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 They want them to list effects on the human body, but not test them on humans to see what the effects are. Typical lib lahjick. You can be assure these people sign reams of paper before the testing is done. Lets test on lifers and death row inmates then. 360232[/snapback] Should've known someone would turn this into a lib bashing topic.
TheMadCap Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 They need to find something else (which the will) to whine about. I breath stuff like that all the time. I got a lungfull of chloropicrin last year with no ill effects. Oh, except my wife just gave birth to wolverine.....
Wacka Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Should've known someone would turn this into a lib bashing topic. 360253[/snapback] Well, the two congresscritters mentioned in the article are Boxer and Waxman two uberlibs. It looks like Waxman was experimented on already, or he never took off his makeup from the remake of the original Phantom of the Opera! Waxman was one of the idiots trying to get tobacco execs to say that smoking is addictive and badat congresional hearings. Yeah a mental midget like him is really going to get those guys to do that.
Rubes Posted June 16, 2005 Author Posted June 16, 2005 It looks like Waxman was experimented on already, or he never took off his makeup from the remake of the original Phantom of the Opera! 360350[/snapback] That's actually really funny.
TheMadCap Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Waxman was one of the idiots trying to get tobacco execs to say that smoking is addictive and badat congresional hearings. Yeah a mental midget like him is really going to get those guys to do that. 360350[/snapback] You're being sarcastic, right?
Wacka Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 You're being sarcastic, right? 360481[/snapback] No, Im not. In the 90's his committee had the CEOs of the tobacco companies in for hearings on smoking. He kept asking each and every one if they thought smoking was bad for you and addictive. When of course they said no, he looked amazed and kept asking the same question over and over again, expecting a different answer.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 You're being sarcastic, right? 360481[/snapback] I think his point wasn't that smoking isn't bad for you, but that you have to be a certifiable dolt to think you can get tobacco execs to admit it in a congressional hearing.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 17, 2005 Posted June 17, 2005 I think his point wasn't that smoking isn't bad for you, but that you have to be a certifiable dolt to think you can get tobacco execs to admit it in a congressional hearing. 360660[/snapback] So, in other words... He was stupid and foolish for asking, knowing that they were gonna lie under oath? I think the point is that he knew they were gonna lie and by repeating the question over and over again would bring their answers more scrutiny? But, he is the fool for asking?
Recommended Posts