Here We Go Again

Here we go again. This one is titled “Only 2 ½ Years to Go”. I wish I had a dollar for every false Republican anti-Obama, anti-health care type forward I’ve seen. My first impression was, “Gee, ya suppose any of this is true? I smell insurance company money all over this.”

What do you think the chances are that there was no such article from “Investor’s Business Daily”, or that there’s no such organization as the “United Nations International Health Organization”? No article is linked and none could be found. There’s UN World Health Organization, but not a “United Nations International Health Organization”. They made that one up.

As I’ve asked before, if Obama and the Democrats are so bad, who do Republicans have to make up LIES about them? The brainwashing of America is amazing to behold. Now a fifth of Americans believe Obama is Muslim. He is not, of course, but the radical right wing propagandists are spreading every possible lie they can hoping something will stick. They are desperately doing everything they can to retake control of our government. They have no morals, honesty or decency to hamper their campaign of disinformation and outright LIES.

Since the year 2001 we have seen the results of Republican liars running our country. They left us a collapsed economy, debt, unending war, unemployment, increased poverty, and a vanishing middle class.

Here’s the truth. There is no such article. There is no such “survey”. And there is no such organization.

As urged by the radical Right Wing propagandist, please “Read to the end”.

******

READ TO THE END.........IT GIVES PERCENTAGES OF ALL PRESIDENT'S CABINETS .......THOSE WHO ACTUALLY HAD REAL JOBS............REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE........


EYE OPENING STATISTICS A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71%
England 14%
Canada 18%

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada . Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age." SHIP HIM OFF TO CANADA OR ENGLAND He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-end coverage. He will never have to learn to accept "inconveniences."

AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING! The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is...a real life business, not a government job.

Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt........38%
Taft................... 40%
Wilson .............. 52%
Harding.............. 49%
Coolidge.............48%
Hoover............... 42%
F. Roosevelt....... 50%
Truman.............. 50%
Eisenhower..........57%
Kennedy............ 30%
Johnson.............. 47%
Nixon................ 53%
Ford.................. 42%
Carter............... 32%
Reagan.............. 56%
G H Bush............51%
Clinton ............. 39%
G W Bush........... 55%

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is: Obama................. 8% That's right .. Only Eight Percent .. the least by far of the last 19 presidents. And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me? How can the president of a major nation and society .. the one with the most successful economic system in world history .. stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one .. or about jobs when he has never really had one? And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers. They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs .. or as "community organizers" when they should have been in an employment line. GOD HELP US

*********

Of course, the whole point of this dishonest piece of crap is this: “I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada”. I don’t know about you, but I bet this person works for an insurance company. Two things are for certain: He is a liar and he is a Republican. “Universal Healthcare" is not likely to happen here. That is what most civilized countries have. This is America, where Big Money buys the politicians. Combine this with ill-informed right wing ideologues like Sarah Palin frightening Americans about non-existent “death panels” and we will never adequately take care of our sick people.

It is clear that this propagandist wants us to think businessmen should be running our government. As I said, we saw how well that worked out with the oil twins Bush and Cheney. Big Oil, Halliburton and all their cronies made lots of money. How about you?

I have to wonder what orifice this Republican propagandist pulled his “private sector” percentages from.

Although there is no factual evidence of these percentages; I guess if we measure the greatness of a president by the number of businessmen in the cabinet, GWB was one of our Three Greatest Presidents of all Time!

Funny, apart from Eisenhower, who at least warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, all the other Big Business Boys were the LEAST fiscally responsible, and expanded our debt. George W. Bush left us with our largest debt ever. Is this what “real life business” has to offer? Bush was notorious for putting Big Money company men into positions of regulatory oversight. He put the foxes in the henhouse.

Even Obama is guilty of having Wall Street insiders as his economic advisors.

When Big Business runs government it is no longer democracy; it is corporatocracy. “These people” are not “trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business”. That is a lie. We’ve seen the consequences of de-regulation on Wall Street.

Could this possibly be true? “...or about jobs when he has never really had one? And neither has 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers” They never had jobs? That is plainly another lie.

Some of us think a big part of the problem is this. Americans are being lied to. They are being deceived by powerful Big Money voices. Corporate/Right Wing media have always valued dishonesty, and will continue to, because it is necessary for their mission towards political dominance.

Glenn Beck is telling us Obama is a “racist who has deep seated hatred for white people.”

Throwing more gas on the fires of racism, Limbaugh said on May 29, 2009: “How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do or that they‘re not good or put down ‘em, whatever. Make white people the new oppressed minority and they‘re going right along with it because they‘re shutting up. They‘re moving to the back of the bus. They‘re saying, “I can‘t use that drinking fountain.” OK. “I can‘t use that restroom.” OK.”

After FOX, Andrew Breitbart and Limbaugh took their turn sliming the reputation of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, Rush adds, “"the NAACP is as racist an organization as there has been and is in this country." I bet the KKK agrees with him.

Limbaugh is also telling us Obama is destroying America and “actually wants his nation to fail".

This is all about inciting fear, anger and hatred, folks. But most of all, we are lied to in order to help Republicans take control again.

Look what has happened lately to our national image. We have full time propagandists telling America, and the world, that the only racists we have in America are black people.

Some of us also think a big part of the problem is this. Our democracy’s biggest roadblock is too much corporate cash used as legal bribery in election campaigns and lobbying. It is corrupting our politicians. What do you think?

Besides “God help us”.

Changed

I must really not be getting around much anymore. It seems all of a sudden, something has changed. White Christian Americans have suddenly become a victimized minority. They are being persecuted and abused to the point where they are frightened for their lives. Have we awakened into a different world, as Glenn Beck says, a “planet of the apes”?

FOX has Americans terrified of New Black Panthers out to stop us from voting. They warned us about some evil communist convict named Van Jones and forced him to resign his job as an advisor to the Obama Administration.

FOX has also exposed the treacherous racism of one USDA employee Shirley Sherrod oppressing a white farmer. They alerted us to devious plots by a subversive group called ACORN who, while committing election fraud to elect Obama, were also scheming to import sex slaves from Mexico.
Help! Those black people are out to get us! I want my country back! Thank God we have an honest news organization to say “we report you decide” on their self proclaimed “fair and balanced” programming.

All of these are, of course, pure race-baiting, fear-mongering LIES by the radical right wing in America. In a just society FOX would be sued out of business for slander and libel.

Ever since Obama won the presidency, FOX and its fellow republican thugs have been inciting hatred and anger against blacks like nothing seen since before the civil rights movement and after Emancipation. What we are witnessing is the rise of fascism in the United States. The radical Right used to limit their hateful propaganda to demonizing and scapegoating liberals. Then they campaigned to blame all the nation’s woes on illegal immigrants. This was not enough. They’ve expanded their campaign of fear and smear to every minority, and to any political perspective to the left of George W. Bush.

Now that a moderate Muslim wants to build an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan, the group targeted for hatred and anger are Muslims. Bush quickly backtracked from his call to “crusade” when he was advised not to alienate all Muslims when ginning up war fever for his invasion of Iraq. The fascists held their fire for their leader’s cause. But no longer, it’s open season on Muslims, all Muslims. They are the dark ones with the non-Christian religion shared by the 9-11 terrorists.

We now have a dark skinned president with an Islamic sounding name. And he is the enemy of American fascists. In fact, all of us who care about democracy, equality, truth and justice are enemies to American fascists.

As important as it is for the fascists to associate Obama with scary black people, it is even more important to connect him to Muslim terrorists. It wasn’t enough for Sarah Palin, the Twit-Of-The-Tundra, to accuse him of “Pallin’ around with terrorists”. No, Obama must be painted as an enemy of America.

Fascist Minister of Propaganda Limbaugh has been busy. First up we have his words from May 29, 2009: “How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do or that they‘re not good or put down ‘em, whatever. Make white people the new oppressed minority and they‘re going right along with it because they‘re shutting up. They‘re moving to the back of the bus. They‘re saying, “I can‘t use that drinking fountain.” OK. “I can‘t use that restroom.” OK.”

And here a few more samples from the Grand Imperial Wizard of radio this summer:

June 30, 2010: Rush said, Obama is "the first president in history -- to my knowledge, anyway -- who actually wants his nation to fail"
July 12, 2010: Limbaugh says "this is the Democrats' economy -- Obama didn't inherit anything. This is not Bush's economy"
July 13, 2010: "Liberals are like Muslim extremists" because "they want to be told how to live" and also "can't stand freedom"
July 20, 2010 "...the NAACP is as racist an organization as there has been and is in this country."
July 22, 2010: "Andrew Breitbart was exactly right," Sherrod is "racist -- the NAACP is racist"
August 19, 2010: "There might be reasons why some people think" Obama is a Muslim. "Obama says he's a Christian but where's the evidence?"

The fascists are succeeding. America is changing, but it is not the change the majority voted for in 2008. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll:

“A substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined.”

“A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama’s recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center."

“The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points).”

Oh... my... God... Are there any Americans left who are more frightened by this level of fascist indoctrination than are terrified by the “New Black Panthers,” both of them?

So the Big Issue from the Reich Wing’s Big Lie factory is the proposed Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan, only because it is the closest of several to the World Trade Center site. In a nation of Constitutional religious freedom, this would be no issue at all. But this is post-Bush America, or perhaps as it may appear to the rest of the world, AmeriKKKa.

Social Security Deception

One of the few comforts and victories we the people can claim from the years of George W. Bush’s presidency was his admitted failure to privatize Social Security. It has long been the goal for the Radical Right and economic elites of the Republican Party to demolish public services and benefits provided by government. Fortunately most Americans want to keep such programs as Social Security and Medicare. People have an innate understanding of our Constitution’s intent to “promote the general welfare”.

However we’re facing increasing hostility from the Radical Right towards these programs, and the Democratic Party in general. I opened my email this morning to find another Radical Right internet propaganda virus.

The struggle for truth, justice, freedom and democracy would need to be waged before breakfast. Even my coffee would have to wait.

A buddy of mine forwarded me a message about Social Security authored by another Radical Right Wing operative. I swear the Republicans must be hiring an army of hacks to write these lies to pollute the nation’s email network with their propaganda. Well, count me as a member of the opposition army. I shall defend the truth and attack the campaign of deceit perpetrated by the American Fourth Reich Wingers.

Why do I call them Reich Wingers? For one thing, they are NOT conservative. The Amish are conservative. And it saves me from having to always type “Authoritarian Radical Right Wingers”. And I am NOT calling them Nazis. They were the Third Reich. Although the fascists of the Third Reich were defeated in World War II, Fascism still thrives.

Like the fascists of last century's Germany, Reich Wingers accuse their political adversaries of being Marxist/Commies and other mortal enemies of the state. Reich Wingers instigate and support unprovoked war. Reich Wingers believe in warrantless surveillance of citizens. Reich Wingers imprison without charges or access to counsel. Reich Wingers accuse black presidents of "hating white people". Reich Wingers say Obama was not born in the US and wants to destroy America. Reich Wingers inflame racism, anger and hatred for political opposition. Reich Wingers wear hoods and robes.

Reich Wingers are liars and deceivers. Reich Wingers coldly calculate how to make you hateful and angry towards their opponents.

Reich Wingers are also murderers. Jim David Adkisson slaughtered Unitarians in Knoxville, Scott Roeder murdered a doctor in Topeka, and Richard Poplawski gunned down policemen in Pittsburgh. They all killed innocent Americans out of anger and hatred fueled by the propagandists of the Radical Right. All of these killers listened to, read, and even credited the propagandists of Fox and talk radio.

American fascists are out to take power no matter what the tactics, no matter how dishonest, and no matter who gets hurt.

We see in this morning’s message the deliberate and dishonest incitement of anger at Democrats. I, for one, don’t need lies to make me angry with Democrats. The truth is enough sometimes. This goes beyond that. This is designed to make you want to vote for the party that wants to eliminate Social Security and other public programs.

It didn’t take long to find the truth that disproves the “myths” in the message.

Here is what I replied to the senders of the Social Security deceptions:

****
“Myths” is a polite term for Right Wing Propaganda. Truth is not on the side of the American Radical Right. Limbaugh (“Obama wants to destroy America.”) and Beck (“Obama is a racist who hates white people.”) are more than enough proof of this. But they have a lot of help in spreading disinformation to get people to vote for Republicans and the interests of the economic elite. If Obama and the Democrats are so bad, why do the Right Wingers need to LIE about them?

Please send this to anyone who received the following false (and Republican as usual) “seed of deceit” message of “what isn’t so”.

The truth is presented after the false message.
****
Your Social Security:
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary


2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000


3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible


4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent


5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

----

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

----

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

---

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
The worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it and believe that the Democrats are "for the people."

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
****
This is what the Radical Right Wing deceivers do not want you to know: (Emphasis added)

From Social Security Online:

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;

2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;

3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;

4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary.

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.

Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $1,400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department.


From:

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Questions:

Q1: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

----

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.

The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972.

An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website.
-----

Other FAQs


Q: Is it true that life expectancy was less than 65 back in 1935, so the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would not live long enough to collect benefits?

A: Not really. Life expectancy at birth was less than 65, but this is a misleading measure. A more appropriate measure is life expectancy after attainment of adulthood, which shows that most Americans could expect to live to age 65 once they survived childhood.

Q: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972.

Q: Did President Franklin Roosevelt make a set of promises about Social Security, which have now been violated?

A: This question generally refers to a set of misinformation that is propagated over the Internet (usually via email) from time to time.

Q: I have seen a set of questions and answers on the Internet concerning who started the taxing of Social Security benefits, and questions like that. Are the answers given correct?

A: There are many varieties of questions and answers of this form circulating on the Internet. One fairly widespread form of the questions is filled with misinformation.

***

For more on why Americans want Social Security, and would benefit by keeping Republicans out of power, see:

Social Security Keeps 20 Million Americans Out of Poverty:

Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty. Without Social Security, according to the latest available Census data (for 2008), 19.8 million more Americans would be poor. Although most of those kept out of poverty by Social Security are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children...

Actions Speak...

Mrs. Dubya and I were only a few blocks from the restaurant when I started to change my mind about getting the gumbo. It was raining heavily and for some reason that triggered my appetite for some good New England clam chowder. That sounded like a good starter for my plate of spicy Buffalo shrimp.

By the time we entered the place and were waiting to be seated, I was more than ready for some lunch. Suddenly Mrs. Dubya stepped into the bar area and shot a glance up at the TV. The bar was open to the dining room, and we often like to check in on the ballgame while dining.

She came back to where the host was preparing to walk us to our table and said, “I’d like to speak to your manager, please.” I looked over at her and quickly saw my shrimp and gumbo, or chowder, vanish. “You have the FOX “News” channel on,” she said with a distinct chill to her tone.

By the time the poor host stammered something about changing the channel, Mrs. Dubya had already gone in to find the manager. “I’ve asked you before to please not have that hateful propaganda on within hearing distance of the dining room. It’s the most unappetizing thing you could possibly do in this restaurant.”

I began to think about pizza for lunch.

The host was nervously casting his eyes about, wondering what he should do. I told him, “It’s not your fault. Someone should have known better.” Still the guy was clearly confused. I explained to him, “FOX is the right wing channel that pretends to be news while its characters accuse the president of being a racist who hates white people. You’ll understand if some of us really don’t find that very conducive to the enjoyment of your fine food.”

As we stepped out onto the sidewalk, I embraced my wife and gave her a long passionate kiss. “I’m proud of you,” I said. “That was heroic. And it turns me on.”

We decided to go home first and get some lunch later.

Smoke And Mirrors

There’s something we all know about the radical Reich Wing. They lie. Yes, we all know they lie about Bush, Cheney, Obama, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Democrats, Liberalism, and everything else in the political spectrum. They also lie about other things. And they go to great lengths to propagate those lies. Here’s an entertaining, well for me anyway, exchange with one of them. I dearly love exposing their lies and they really hate it when I do just that.

On July 29, our friend the Gun Toting Liberal posted a video clip he called, "SHOCKING VIDEO: President Obama Smoking On Gulf Coast Beach With [Former] BP CEO Tony Hayward."
It was a “funny” animated clip of Obama tossing a cigarette on BP’s oil, destroying the world. Our old radical right wing adversary who calls himself F&B was highly amused, and left an idiosyncratic teleprompter reference in his comment.

I couldn’t resist taking him out for a spin.

Note: Forgive my omission of all the links. My points were explained and his were debunked. You can find all of F&B's referenced articles if you want to waste the time.

---
F&B:
Dang. LMAO. According to Obama’s teleprompter, it’s still all Bush’s fault.
---
DD:
Ah, but that was Bush’s teleprompter Obama inherited. No wonder it malfunctions…

I’m surprised conservatives are not happy with Obama smoking. That means more money goes to the republicans’ tobacco lobby. And this brings up a question. Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?
---
F&B:
“Do more Americans die from terrorism or tobacco?” — The question is irrelevant. People can choose to smoke or not, but those who died from terrorism did not make a decision to do so.
Tobacco provides income to many low income farmers. In some cases, tobacco is the only crop they can grow. It provides a large share of support to many regions in this country. It has a downside, obviously, but it also has an upside.
Terrorism has no upside.
---
DD:
Ah, the cold heart of an authoritarian speaks. American deaths from tobacco are irrelevant. Tell that to the families.So it would also provide good jobs to grow weed and opium, too, right? Are Americans entitled to pick their own poison or should government decide for them?

"Terrorism has no upside" Oh come on, how do you think Bush/Cheney frightened enough voters to re-elect them? Terror, terror, terror. You'll die from terrorism if you vote for democrats. Do you really think we have no memory?? Cheney said, "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Terrorism was very good for the Republicans. They had no qualms of using such scare tactics for divisive vote pandering.United we stand, my ass.
---
F&B:
Sure Dubya, and you go ahead and tell the families who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attack that their deaths are no different than someone who dies from tobacco use. You really are heartless, aren’t you.
Well, y’see, tobacco is legal. Opium and pot aren’t. If they were then yes, growing them legally would provide jobs and income to the farmers. And again, yes, the people should decide what drugs are legal and which are not. We have a system in place to handle that sort of thing.
Correct, I said that Terrorism has no upside. If you think it does, that’s your issue, not mine.
Bush and Cheney may have frightened you, but they never frightened me. I was not unhappy with their administration. I did very well during the Bush years. (And the Clinton years, and Bush 41, and Reagan, but not Carter, and I’m hoping I survive the Obama Regime, time will tell.) (It sounds like your family isn’t doing all that well under the Obama Regime. How did you do under Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter (if you’re old enough to remember)). I don’t mean to be callous, but that is a fact you have shared with the internets. I deal with what is, not what I want to be.
You really need to do something about your BDS, it clouds your judgement. … Oh, I almost forgot … you’re a TRUTHER! You actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack. That explains a lot. I have to remember that you’re not just a closet liberal progressive, you’re also a Truther
---
DD:
Poor F&B seems sleep deprived. I asked a simple question that can be answered with reasonable estimates in numbers. He decides the question is irrelevant and proclaims, “Terrorism has no upside”. So far, he only displays a little confusion.

Then I had to think. If terrorism really had no upside, why would it exist? Somebody must think they benefit from it. Who? First I think maybe some terrorists (apart from the suiciders) gain some popularity with fringe members and possibly financial support. They it occurs to me there are some American mercenaries who are getting very rich on our tax dollars because of terrorism. Perhaps there are a few other corporate war profiteers as well. Then it occurred to me, wait a minute. Didn’t one certain American political party frequently invoke the words associated with terrorism during an election? Wouldn’t it frighten someone to hear the Vice President warning us about the danger we’ll get hit again if we don’t vote for him? You know, it sure does look like terrorism had an upside for certain cultural, economic and political interests. Yes, I would say so.

So, anyway, all I did was point this out to F&B, and he concludes I want to tell 9-11 families some crazy “heartless” nonsense from F&B’s wild imagination. Then we are reassured by F&B that he was never frightened by his Big Dick’s talking points.

Quickly he changes to one of his favorite subjects, money. We’re happy F&B has done well since Reagan, apart from his sad misfortunes (that were not his fault) in the Carter years. I’d like to thank F&B for kindly asking me how I did through the past years. I’m happy to say I was lucky enough to see steady employment since before Reagan. In fact I got a nice job back in the Carter era. I’m sure F&B would have done as well if he had maybe only worked a little bit harder. Some of us found our “bootstraps” before Reagan urged us to pull them up.

But then the dark days of George W. Bush came over the land. We were caught with someone sleeping at the switch. We were attacked AFTER being warned by a Presidents Daily Brief in August of 2001. More darkness followed. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act all clamped down on our civil liberties and Bill of Rights. Wars were launched. One was initiated by fear mongering through terrorizing words from Bush and his Big Dick. WMD’s and scary “nukular” aluminum tubes were falsely linked to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Very frightening images of mushroom clouds were seeded into the public’s anxieties.
Then the economy was devastated by labor and market manipulation, a Big Money casino mentality, and financial shell games. My wife saw her job go to Asia. The Bush era was very bad, but not as bad for us as for the uncounted thousands of human beings lost in their war for power and profit.

So here we are, trying to recover from the devastation brought upon us by the Bush era.
This is how we “deal with what is”. And unfortunately “what is” has nothing whatsoever to do with F&B’s next wild delusion. Poor F&B leaps to the conclusion (from what, I cannot tell) that I “actually think Bush and Cheney were involved in the 9-11 attack”.

I guess somehow F&B is disturbed so deeply about what I said about his Big Dick, that he needs to rush to protect his Big Dick from what he calls a “closet liberal progressive”. Please take your meds and get some rest, F&B. I hope you feel better in the morning.
----
F&B:
Don't worry about me Dubya, I feel great. I do regret that anyone has to suffer the paranoid delusions that you exhibit Dubya. But I'm sure that explains why you attack me for saying things that I didn't say. More voices in your head, eh? Too bad.
I could be wrong about Terrorism having no upside. If people with your mentality were in charge, Terrorists would be able to gain a great deal of control by frightening them. I am thankful that is not the case.
Just a couple of little hints Dubya, in spite of what your BDS forces you to think you believe, the economic issues that led to the current financial situation did not just manifest themselves during or as a result of the Bush Administration. You have to look deeper, farther back, like try the Carter years. Very important note: The President does not pass legislation, he can only approve or veto the bills sent to him by Congress. The current recession is not just a U.S. problem, it is global (not entirely, but I don't want this to get too complicated for you to follow). Another hint: President Bush had little to do with European economic policies, and their recession is worse than ours. I could go on, but I won't. I know these facts don't fit neatly into your BDS mentality, but they are facts nonetheless.
We've been down the Truther path before Dubya. Just admit who you are. You have revealed yourself as a Truther before, and you are again now. For you, everything leads back to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Admit who you are and maybe you can begin the slow path to recovery.
If you want to equate Terorism and tobacco in your little world, that's your issue, as I said before. It is a foolish assessment, but it is your assessment. Don't be such a coward. Own up to what you said without trying to backpedal and change the subject as soon as someone challenges it.
---
DD:
Now there you go again with that famous right wing projection. Of course you feel “great” and want to project delusions unto me. Those mood swings have their highs, don’t they?

Unfortunately your thinking is still quite detached from reality. You see, you can’t reasonably accuse poor Carter of all your past woes along with the present financial picture. Really, that is quite a symptom of paranoia.

Hint: I know corporate dems are also responsible for the mess we’re in. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. Another hint: Unlike poor Americans, not one European is bankrupted by health care costs. I imagine you are proud of the fact that not only do we pay more for pharmaceuticals; we have more bankruptcies due to medical conditions. That is the stunning measure of success for your beloved insurance corporations. We do know whose side you are on.

I understand when we give factual information, your duty is to deny such facts and launch into accusations and reframe the issues completely out of perspective. Hench, you call me a truther and imply I am so frightened of terrorism I will give them “control” and somehow I “equate” terrorism with tobacco. This is either pure fabrication or mental illness. It matters not, because it’s the cult indoctrination that is important. Instead of simply calling you a liar, I leave open the option you are brainwashed.

Final hint: If tobacco was “equated” with terrorism, we would be seeing politicians telling us the tobacco corporations win unless we invade the South. Or I would be demanding the imprisonment of tobacco farmers. I’m not, of course, but you will likely want to accuse me of that, anyway, so go ahead. Make your accusations. I know it makes you feel better. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.
---
F&B:
You can't admit that people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so, but those who have died in terrorist attacks did not. For this reason alone, they cannot be compared in the manner in which you want to compare them.
But go ahead, indulge yourself, tell us what the numbers are. Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.
And again, you still can't manage to read what is actually written. You always try to spin everything. It is sad really that you are incapable of conversing without inserting this very disturbed aspect of your "personality". I'll clarify, and I will try to use small words for you. I did not blame Carter. I said the policies go back to Carter. That means policies that have been in place for over 30 years. Even with your full blown BDS you can't blame President Bush for policies enacted 25 years before he was elected.
Hint: Correct on Europeans not being bankrupted by their own health costs. They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.
---
DD:
It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception.

You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.”

Now for a couple of your lies:
“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done
“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.
“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.

Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it. I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.
---
F&B:
It isn't a matter of admitting that tobacco contributes to more deaths than are caused by terrorism, but I have no problem acknowleding it. It is still like comparing apples and oranges. In the case of tobacco deaths, they are willing participants - i.e. they know the risks of tobacco but use it anyway. In the case of terrorism, they are not willing participants.
bub.
---
DD:
The issue becomes making those deaths preventable or aggravating them. It is possible in both cases. Bush/Cheney manipulated fears of terrorism into a war that has needlessly killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians. Just sayin. Unfortunately certain corporate profits are enhanced by those deaths. That is the tie in to this “apples and oranges” thing. Human life is human life, and dead people are dead people.
---
F&B:
On a slightly different subject, Dubya... You often whine about legalizing marijuana so it can be taxed, etc. Not the governments business, blah, blah, blah. Here's a couple of little factoids you can roll up in your next doobie. There are more carcinogenic chemicals in pot smoke than in tobacco smoke. If legalized, it is probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes. And yet, in your blind hatred and ignorance, you want pot legalized and tobacco to be made illegal. You are one serious piece of work, bub.
---
DD:
There you go again with the “blind hatred and ignorance” projection. Just because what I say upsets you, it does not mean it is out of hatred.

“Deaths from marijuana?” Hoo, boy. That sounds like old fashioned “reefer madness” fear mongering. You guys do love to fear monger. So what tobacco/liquor funded study did you get those “factoids” from? Or did you just pull that one out from where you pull your other crap like, I want “tobacco to be made illegal”? I never said that, now did I, You made that part up and only wish I said it.

I certainly would never advocate for anyone to smoke anything, except maybe a peace pipe, but you authoritarians don’t particularly care much for peace.

I have a request. Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? It won’t be easy, since marijuana is the safest drug in the world. But have fun! In the meantime here’s something for any reader interested in the reality based world.

From Web MD: Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer
Study Shows No Increased Risk for Even the Heaviest Marijuana Smokers

From Drug Policy Alliance:
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

And, gasp! This one is from your favorite propaganda source, FOX:

I wonder what motivates a person to so passionately deny the truth as much as you Righties do. I think our pal Weaseldog is onto something when he calls you a paid shill. Yes, I am “one serious piece of work” if you say so yourself. Isn’t it interesting how pot smokers like Willie Nelson are so much more grounded in reality than people in your cult?

---
F&B:
As I have said here many times before, Dubya, but you are just too dense to comprehend, I am not opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
That being said, you constantly dig up whatever data you can find to support your idiotic opinions, regardless of the plethora of contradictory evidence that is staring you right in your contorted little face. You present obsolete, outdated information and expect me to believe it? Get real dude.
"Marijuana Smoke Linked to Cancer" This is a NEWER article in WebMD, from 2009, contradicting the 2006 article you quoted from.
In addition, marijuana smoke has beenn added to Califormia's Proposition 65 list of known carcinogens. "A California state board called marijuana smoke a health hazard and has added it to the state's list of environmental hazards, placing the drug alongside other carcinogens like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT, the San Jose Mercury News

'Nuff said bub.
---
DD:
Yes, F&B, you’ve said “nuff”.
Your about.com article was unsourced. Your webmd article says, “"These results provide evidence for the DNA-damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers write, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development." Notice the words “potential” and “may be detrimental”. Is this your conclusive “evidence”?

Did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco damaged a piece of lung tissue. Then you added the utterly hysterical comparison made by a “California state board” that marijuana is similar to toxins like arsenic, asbestos, and DDT. You failed totally in providing any conclusive medical evidence.

Now just for argument’s sake, because you know I love to argue, if marijuana was legal, it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize. So even if it were actually dangerous to smoke, there would be no need for smoking it at all.

So get real dude, you can’t come up with one human case of cancer, let alone one fatality, from marijuana. I asked, “Why don’t you show us medical evidence of all those “deaths from marijuana”? You failed completely, pal.

Not only did you fail in showing one death from marijuana, you pronounced a plague of deaths to come, “probable that deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes.” Wow. And then you cold bloodedly seemed to not care about those deaths by saying you are “not opposed to the legalization of marijuana”. Trying to have it both ways again, eh? Nothing new there.

I may be dense, but nowhere near dense enough to fall for your wild accusations, shoddy reasoning and factually impaired arguments. I wonder if anyone else notices the pattern where after I totally debunk your claims you quickly change subjects. You really do fit the pattern of right-wing discourse. First you lie or make an outrageous claim, then you throw unfounded accusations at your adversary after they counter it with facts, and finally you change the topic to further muddy up the discussion. We see this formula at work throughout all these exchanges.
Well done, my little right wing propagandist. You do your job quite well. I wonder how much you are paid for pushing this BS.
__

F&B:
The about.com article was written by a physician and peer reviewed by 12 other doctors before being published.
The WebMD article was from the same source that you cited but is 3 years more recent. WebMD was willing to modify their position based on new information. Something that you, sadly, are unable to do Dubya. Your article focused on a group of people from the LA area who had consumed varying amounts of pot during their lives, many of whom had not smoked for decades. The study was not controlled. The article was written by a WebMD reporter, not by a doctor. Etc.
Bandolier (a group of Oxford University scientists) - “6 studies with 494 participants undergoing bronchoscopy” – “Increase in abnormal and precancerous findings in marijuana smokers compared with tobacco smokers. Surrogate markers for lung malignancy more often found in marijuana smokers”
“ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) — Using a highly sensitive new test, scientists in Europe are reporting "convincing evidence" that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.” … “Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” … “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”
Reuters: “The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption. In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.”
There is much more available, thus constituting a “plethora”. And the most recent evidence (as long as you avoid studies sponsored by High Times magazine) indicates serious health effects, including various cancers, from marijuana use.
So, Dubya, this is your idea of “marijuana is the safest drug in the world”?
Dubya’s psychotic personality actually allows him to ASSume that I am against legalization and he clumsily tries to call me out on that in one comment. Then after I explain that I am not opposed to legalization he tries to spin that to mean I don’t care if people die from smoking pot, even while claiming that marijuana is the “safest drug in the world”. Dude, get help, before the neighborhood dogs start talking to you.
Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.
---
DD:
So, which way do you want it, Prohibition leading to destruction of civil liberties, or legalization leading to tax revenue and your imaginary “deaths from marijuana would eventually surpass deaths from cigarettes”? For someone so politically impassioned against something you don’t seem to mind all the “deaths from marijuana”. You still have NOT shown one case of cancer from weed. You have failed again.

These are “studies” sponsored by agenda driven factions.

Bandolier is not a medical journal. They are clearly biased: Note the terms they use.
“So our starting point is to expect marijuana smoking to cause cancer, by simple analogy... ...This allows us to be even more certain of a probable link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer, and not to be too hung up about wanting more evidence.” Sounds like FOX’s fair and balanced “Obama hates white people” BS. No need to be “too hung up about wanting more evidence”. Now there’s real science, eh?

Science Daily was the same “study” from the first article. Why do you keep referencing the same study for your “plethora”? And again, here’s their agenda, “"The data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes...”

Again, did you know your “plethora of contradictory evidence” comes from one, and only one, “study” that artificially created conditions in a lab where a chemical common to both marijuana and tobacco smoke damaged a piece of lung tissue. Did you read this the first time? This is not a human medical study, it is lab conditions. Again, NOT a medical journal.

The Reuters article was about a New Zealand “study” that was by Richard Beasley and funded by GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals. Not exactly a void of conflict of interest there. Interestingly that same study showed cannabis to be less likely to cause emphysema than tobacco.

And this bit, “Dubya said “…it would be cheap enough for people to eat or vaporize” – Not the same thing, when it is smoked, a “freebase” form of THC is inhaled and absorbed directly into the blood through the lungs. It is a different “high” than obtained from ingesting pot, e.g. pot brownies contain THC but not the extremely reactive freebase form. This is similar to the reason why Nicotine gum or pills do not really satisfy a cigarette smoker’s craving for the freebase nicotine obtained from smoking.” This is proof you don’t know what you are talking about. Many cancer patients get relief from vaporizing and eating it, and those who smoke it know it will not give them the cancer they already have.

You like to show off stats like this: “The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day”, but you CANNOT show me ONE person with cancer caused by weed. Why do you insist on fighting the truth with your fringe agenda driven studies? What is your agenda? Is it just to prove me wrong? You can’t. Nice try.

Do you even read this crap? I asked you to find real cases of humans with cancer caused by marijuana. You failed.

This is like debating someone who STILL believes Dick Cheney and George Bush about WMD’s, “nukular” aluminum tubes, and Saddam’s connections with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Oh...That’s right. You ARE a true believer. Your mind is made up. Well, there you go. The neighborhood dogs are starting to make a lot more sense than you.

---
Note:
By this point F&B is completely frustrated and fires his last salvo of lies. Instead of posting his tirade first and adding my response, I'll just fill in my replies line by line.
---
DD and F&B:

Okay, here’s one last quick summation just for you.

Frankly, Dubya, I don't care what you believe. And there you go again, trying to change the subject to emphyzema.

(LIE. Topic was always about smoking and health hazards. Death in particular from F&B. Emphysema has lead to death.)

Notice how Dubya accuses me of trying to change the subject, then he tries to change it in his next post. Lame.

(LIE. My “accusation” was”Reframe the issues completely out of perspective”, AFTER he started reframing the issue calling me a “truther”. Next, did I change the subject in my next post? No. Here’s the post:

“It goes without saying people who use tobacco make a conscious choice to do so. See I can admit it. I have no problem agreeing with reality. You still cannot admit the true fact that Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. That must be against your programming somehow. Maybe you can get permission to make an exception. You may avert your eyes for a minute, because here comes some truth that you refuse to acknowledge. Here are facts from the CDC: “Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.” Now for a couple of your lies:“Try to make the (nanny state) case that you believe tobacco is worse than terrorism.” - Done“You always try to spin everything.” - Nope. Just giving you the facts.“They are bankrupted by the expense (taxes) of paying for everyone else's health care costs.” – Nope again. If they can pay taxes they are not bankrupt.Tobacco kills more Americans than terrorism. Fact, Deal with it, bub, I am right and you refuse to admit it.I repeat. You cannot admit more Americans die from tobacco than from terrorism. Go ahead. I dare you. Bet you can’t.”

There you have it, TWO LIES from F&B in one sentence.)

Even the link you posted indicates lung damage from smoking pot – And this is what you call “the safest drug in the world?”

(Yes, we know smoke makes you cough, but “lung damage” does NOT mean death. And yes, when eaten or vaporized it is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Wrong Dubya, - the Oxford meta-analysis used 6 studies composed of 464 people, the Science Daily report was from work done by Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Reuters report came from interviews with 79 lung cancer patients.

(Wrong about what? So? None of this provided ONE CASE of cancer from marijuana. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

Face it Dubya, you latched onto one study from 2006 that said what you wanted to hear and you ignored everything else.

(First LIE: Projection. YOU referred to the same lab study using no human beings twice. Second LIE: I “ignored everything else”.)

The Reuters report includes people with lung cancer that appear to have contracted it as a result of smoking pot.

(LIE: No, that’s what you “appear” to see. Note the words: “small group”, “cancer risk”, “could be” and “may see” Not one established case of cancer caused by marijuana was presented.)

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley." Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added."In the near future we may see an 'epidemic'.

(Said the man taking a pharmaceutical corporation’s money for his “research”.)

And yet Dubya thinks this is the "safest drug in the world".

(It is the safest drug in the world. No deaths. Zero. Got a problem with that? Zero lung damage when not smoked. Zero. Got a problem with that?)

So, really, there is no debate. It is like arguing with a child who refuses to accept the truth and will counter every argument with groundless denial.

(LIE: It is debated, lopsided as it is. Funny part: If I had made that comment, it would’ve been more truthful and made sense.)

Dubya even stopped trying to offer proof and is relying on lying about my sources and trying to change the subject.

(First LIE: YOU were the one asked for evidence, and you provided sources that FAILED to prove deaths occurred from marijuana. Second LIE: F&B is relying on lying about me relying on lying.)

Dubya again tries to use Alinsky tactics, he just isn't very good at it.

(What does Alinsky have to do with this? Oh, I forgot you’re probably under contract to mention him.)

Lastly Dubya, not giving you what you want hardly constitutes “failure”. But surrendering to the urge to throw a little hissy fit, as you did in your last post, is a sure sign of Failure.

(I agree. Not giving me what I want hardly constitutes failure. Your FAILURE started with your ridiculous claims. After that, your FAILURES were in reasoning, facts, and assumptions. You even FAILED in lying. Nobody believes you.)

As usual, I'll let you take the last jab, otherwise this will go on forever and you are becoming quite, uhhhh, tedious.

(Too bad you find this tedious. I’m still quite amused calling out your lies and watching you lose your temper. Tedious... yet you continue. So, how much are you paid to do this, again?)