March on Washington 07-04-2013

[Grapeshot]

Just makes me want to do my own video "in" the District.......cleverly blue screened to appear that I'm there and then let them find an empty safe, no drugs, etc. if/when they ever showed up. I don't think my safe would stand up to them for 4 hours though!!! It's good and solid but that's a hell of a safe when the assailant is prepared and need not be concerned with being discovered!!!!!

But would that not be lying or at best deceptive? That's the $64,000 Question.

 

[Gil223]

Despite countless scientific, peer-reviewed studies proving otherwise, people continue to make this ridiculous and long-debunked claim. :banghead:

Second hand smoke is harmful to people... but only when it's from a smoking gun barrel. Pax...

 

[backupid]

They knew they couldn't get him on a bogus law, again (Heller case) and they knew his history with drugs (videos, smokedowns, ect) So if they didn't find anything, they were prepared to plant something. One way or another, he was going to pay.

 

[We-the-People]

Despite countless scientific, peer-reviewed studies proving otherwise, people continue to make this ridiculous and long-debunked claim. :banghead:

I'm sorry but I've read these "peer reviewed studies" and applied scientific methodology to them. Many increase the margin of error (not allowed if you want to produce statistically relevant data), others report the upper limit of the Relative Risk (RR) (which is in the neighborhood of 1.16 to 1.9 with 3.0 the MINIMUM that the FDA will consider statistically relevant....and then only with a margin of error at 95% and an RR that does not include 1.0). And RR of 1.0 is NO DIFFERENCE and anything below 1.0 indicates reduced risk.

SO....when you read the headlines and it says something like "second hand smoke increases your risk of XXXX by 16 percent" it means that the upper RR was 1.16 (significantly below the threshold required to infer ANY additional risk. What they also won't tell you is that the RANGE of the RR is somewhere below 1.0 to the maximum of 1.16. This means there is NOTHING statistically relevant about the data.

Now, if you want to talk about FIRST HAND smoke (i.e. actual smokers) those numbers are also manipulated to tell the story the anti smokers are trying to tell. For instance, in 2005 the American Heart Assoc reported that 440,000 Americans died of "smoking related causes". What they don't tell you is that over 1000 of them were infants under the age of 6 months, that 70 percent were over the age of 65 (who had a life expectancy of 61 or less), or that some 1800 died in FIRES suspected of being caused by smoking. When it comes down to REAL statistics, smoking isn't good for you but it's WAY less hazardous than they want you to believe. WHY? Because the REAL stats wouldn't be so scary and wouldn't be effective in getting people to stop smoking.

How do I know all this? Because I researched it IN DEPTH at the scholarly level not too long ago. It really opened my eyes to the Samuel Clemmens (Mark Twain) saying "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics".

By The Way....there is statistically relevant data that shows:
1) Children of smokers who grow up to be non smokers have a PROTECTIVE factor against lung disease.
2) Smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's and Dementia.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Judge sentences Virginia gun-rights advocate, Adam Kokesh, to probation


“This has been a very successful period of activism, this particular gun rights activism. I have to admit it was a little naive of me not foresee the exact consequences,” Kokesh said. “It was a little more costly than I expected but it was very effective. It reached millions of people.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...one-year-jail-term-adam-kokesh/#ixzz2qll0bLYb
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter