• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Turning this around, would the DNC agree to having their candidates on networks that produce fawning, glowing shows about of the likes of Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin?

Mike

NBC isn't Fox News. I would agree if you said MSNBC. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, are still news organizations not side shows like Fox and MSNBC.

Your more right leaning viewpoint is most likely not featured on NBC, but it isn't outright lied about like on MSNBC or Fox.
 
Well now we know!! :wall: :huh: :facepalm:

Liberal_media_sign.jpg
 
Fox and MSNBC are not information sources they are affirmation sources.

I am sick and tired if the Repbulican Party claiming bias against them. If there is something negative the media or the polls are biased and if its positive toward them then they just happened to get it right or they soft peddled the results.

Every hardcore R I knew was screaming that all of the national polls were wrong in 2012 and Romney was going to win...the companies and media were biased and the election would be the proof. When it turned out the Obama's re-election results showed more support than most polls then it was then it was Romney's fault for not getting people to the polls.

The RNC is the allegedly the party of personal responsibility but when it comes their recent failings they refuse to be accountable and prefer to blame others...just like Santorum blaming the "gays" for his failed marriage.
 
Last edited:
...just like Santorum blaming the "gays" for his failed marriage.

I assume you are saying this in jest, as the Daily Current is like the Onion. That was never a true story. Although the funny thing about the Santorum story was that everyone R or D believed it because he is that out there that he might believe that.
 
I assume you are saying this in jest, as the Daily Current is like the Onion. That was never a true story. Although the funny thing about the Santorum story was that everyone R or D believed it because he is that out there that he might believe that.

What do you mean the Onion is not real. Next think you are going to tell is the URban dictoionary definition of Santorum is not true either.
 
What do you mean the Onion is not real. Next think you are going to tell is the URban dictoionary definition of Santorum is not true either.

What?! Now what am I going to call it when I.... umm nevermind. ;)
 
Golf clap....

http://news.yahoo.com/carl-demaio-running-for-congress-in-california--220037721.html

It could get interesting for the D's if the R's actually figure out this stuff...

“We ought to take those divisive issues, particularly the social issues, and set them off to the side,” DeMaio told Yahoo News in an interview. “It’s not appropriate for the government to be making decisions for people in their private lives. Instead, we should demand that we look beyond labels to embrace common sense ideas on financial reform and holding these government programs accountable.”
 
I am not sure how accurate this Obamacare study is, but based on the information, that is a lot more than we pay right now. I will be interested to see what discounts we get... if any.


The biggest study yet of premiums posted by states finds that the sticker price for a 21-year-old buying a mid-range policy will average about $270 a month. That's before government tax credits that act like a discount for most people, bringing down the cost based on their income.
List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330, the study by Avalere Health found. For a 60-year-old, they were nearly double that at $615 a month.....

The bottom line is mixed: Many consumers will like their new options, particularly if they qualify for a tax credit. But others may have to stretch to afford coverage.
"We are seeing competitive offerings in every market if you buy toward the low end of what's available," said Pearson, a vice president of Avalere.
However, for uninsured people who are paying nothing today "this is still a big cost that they're expected to fit into their budgets," Pearson added.
 
I am not sure how accurate this Obamacare study is, but based on the information, that is a lot more than we pay right now. I will be interested to see what discounts we get... if any.

It looks A LOT more competitive than originally feared, and it covers A LOT more things and people.

I think it will be interesting to have this conversation in a year to see how over the next year this thing works out (if it does....:-|)
 
I am not sure how accurate this Obamacare study is, but based on the information, that is a lot more than we pay right now. I will be interested to see what discounts we get... if any.

As a 45 year old male, my premium is $437/mo. This is the most affordable group plan available through employers in my state that has a deductible of $1000 or less. My work pays 80 percent of this premium for me, but not for my dependents (they can be on my plan but I pay their entire premium).

For this same plan, a 56 year old female pays $809/mo. As you can tell, I was just looking at these numbers, so its all fresh on my mind.

I have no idea how my state compares to others or why it would be so much higher than m'skis', but the premiums cited here are a good deal less that we can get currently. I am also, sadly, no longer 21 so I have no idea how much someone of that age would pay on the plan we offer (nor what it would be like to be so young and not yet worn down by the world...)
 
I am not sure how accurate this Obamacare study is, but based on the information, that is a lot more than we pay right now. I will be interested to see what discounts we get... if any.

This is widely being considered the biggest and most accurate study to date.

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

Do you really pay less than 300 a month for insurance? Wow. My insurance is through my employer and I am responsible for about 40% of the premium they pay the rest. And my share is still more than 300.

Edit- that's with a dependent. Looking at my rates if i had no dependent it would be 641 a month and my share is only 188 a month.
 
The COBRA insurance in the state of WI requires the unemployed person to pay the total fee of the insurance and can stay on the business insurance for up to 18 months.

That fee for me and my family is $1,700 a month. Gee.... Thanks.

I bet that Obamacare will be a smashing success. using the example above of the $437 a month, that is 389% cheaper than the STATE COBRA Insurance.


Thanks governor PIG EYE's! $1,700 a month is the best you could do?
 
This is widely being considered the biggest and most accurate study to date.

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

Do you really pay less than 300 a month for insurance? Wow. My insurance is through my employer and I am responsible for about 40% of the premium they pay the rest. And my share is still more than 300.

Edit- that's with a dependent. Looking at my rates if i had no dependent it would be 641 a month and my share is only 188 a month.

Yep... wife is a OR room nurse at a regional heart center that is owned by a company that also owns our health insurance company and we are on a reduced family healthy lifestyles program since we are both extremely healthy, get regular check-ups and exercise. It is still going to be expensive because there will be 5 of us...


I was talking with my dad, and the rate for him and his wife will be about $1400 a month. I know guys his age and this would be 50% of their income.


On a side note, can someone explain to me why Congress and the Senate exempted themselves?
 
Yep...


On a side note, can someone explain to me why Congress and the Senate exempted themselves?


Cause they can.

They make the rules which everyone has to follow except for them. I'd love to have the health coverage and retirement package!
 
.


On a side note, can someone explain to me why Congress and the Senate exempted themselves?

They did not exempt themselves. You are getting your information from bad sources. Obamacare applies to people who do not have employer provided healthcare. Congress has employer provided health care. But an amendment from the gop required congress to lose their employer provided and have to go into the exchanges. The whole issue was whether congress would continue to get a subsidy to purchase it (subsidy equal to the previous allowance).

Here is some more detail

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

And really mskis, you are so full of misinformation on most political matters. Wherever you get your information from is just not accurate. You should consider getting information from other sources.
 
They did not exempt themselves. You are getting your information from bad sources. Obamacare applies to people who do not have employer provided healthcare. Congress has employer provided health care. But an amendment from the gop required congress to lose their employer provided and have to go into the exchanges. The whole issue was whether congress would continue to get a subsidy to purchase it (subsidy equal to the previous allowance).

Here is some more detail

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/

And really mskis, you are so full of misinformation on most political matters. Wherever you get your information from is just not accurate. You should consider getting information from other sources.

It appears that you are correct, and in 2014 they will have to participate. I was wrong and I admit it. I received that bit of information from an HR coordinator at a furniture plant... who is a democrat and being that they are always right, I did not question it. I will be sure to forward this information to her.
 
One of my goals is to go through life never being identified as a Democrat or Republican. I detest when people make politics a part of their daily lives. This will most likely preclude me from a career in politics.
 
One of my goals is to go through life never being identified as a Democrat or Republican. I detest when people make politics a part of their daily lives. This will most likely preclude me from a career in politics.

You can be a judge. They aren't partisan at all... :r:
 
On a side note, can someone explain to me why Congress and the Senate exempted themselves?

Not to pile on this comment since I know it has been addressed, but it was actually Tom Coburn (R Senator from OK) who suggested early this August that he would introduce legislation to allow Hill staffers and Congress to exempt themselves from participation in Obamacare and keep the coverage they currently have (the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country). I do not believe this is a popular position among Republicans, though. Coburn is a bit of a wild card on this one.
 
Not to pile on this comment since I know it has been addressed, but it was actually Tom Coburn (R Senator from OK) who suggested early this August that he would introduce legislation to allow Hill staffers and Congress to exempt themselves from participation in Obamacare and keep the coverage they currently have (the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country). I do not believe this is a popular position among Republicans, though. Coburn is a bit of a wild card on this one.

There are very few Republicans or Democrats that I trust. It does not surprise me that he would do something this stupid.
 
Wow... CA wants to ban any lead based ammunition because of environmental concerns. :-@

(LINK)

This is a roundabout way to ban hunting. One thing that is not clear however is will this be a ban on all lead ammunition or just lead based hunting ammo?

I am also happy to see that 2 of the anti-gun lawmakers in CO have been ousted. One of them said that his fight is not over, even though his voters are against it.
LINK
 
Wow... CA wants to ban any lead based ammunition because of environmental concerns. :-@

(LINK)

This is a roundabout way to ban hunting. One thing that is not clear however is will this be a ban on all lead ammunition or just lead based hunting ammo?

I am also happy to see that 2 of the anti-gun lawmakers in CO have been ousted. One of them said that his fight is not over, even though his voters are against it.
LINK



No, lead hunting ammo is a huge problem for wildlife. I am a hunter and I care about wildlife. Lead poisoning kills many non target species. Technology exists for non toxic projectiles to be just as effective for hunting and hunters should support using it. The claim that this is a move to ban hunting is an easy way for hunters to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the very real issue of lead poisoning.
 
No, lead hunting ammo is a huge problem for wildlife. I am a hunter and I care about wildlife. Lead poisoning kills many non target species. Technology exists for non toxic projectiles to be just as effective for hunting and hunters should support using it. The claim that this is a move to ban hunting is an easy way for hunters to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the very real issue of lead poisoning.

What about your second amendment right to own lead bullets? I believe the founders said once, "Lead bullets are the only way out of oppression." ;)
 
No, lead hunting ammo is a huge problem for wildlife. I am a hunter and I care about wildlife. Lead poisoning kills many non target species. Technology exists for non toxic projectiles to be just as effective for hunting and hunters should support using it. The claim that this is a move to ban hunting is an easy way for hunters to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the very real issue of lead poisoning.

Quit being so rational you tree hugger.
 
And stop ruining M'skiis the liberals and government are destroying America rant.

Nope, it is my "Stupid People" and"excess government regulation" are destroying America rant.

But if you want to call liberals stupid, that is your business.

Besides, the absence of all government results in chaos. I don't think anyone here wants that.
 
I am also happy to see that 2 of the anti-gun lawmakers in CO have been ousted. One of them said that his fight is not over, even though his voters are against it.
LINK

I saw this quote yesterday and it still hurts to read it again today, even more so since those who try to do something to prevent it are recalled....

While campaigning, Morse argued he doesn't have any regrets in his fight for tighter gun laws. Asked why he advocated for new regulations in the face of fierce opposition, he pointed to the real catalyst of the renewed firearm debate.

"The vision of 6- and 7-year-olds in Newtown being carted out on stretchers, with their Power Rangers T-shirts now covered by a white sheet," he said. "We can't continue to bury our children."
 
Without getting into the right and wrong of gun regulations and being a little idealistic on politics, recalls should be for when a politician does something seriously wrong, not just votes against what the public desires. Just wait until next election cycle, vote the guy out of office, and then propose revisions to whatever law was created. Recalls waste a lot of taxpayer money.
 
Wow... CA wants to ban any lead based ammunition because of environmental concerns. :-@

:r: Honestly mskis. Please inform yourself instead of taking the lazy mans way out on political topics and reflexively turning everything into some big government liberal conspiracy. If you want to be treated like an intelligent rational human being, act like one. Lead ammunition is a very serious problem in many areas.
 
I saw this quote yesterday and it still hurts to read it again today, even more so since those who try to do something to prevent it are recalled....

While campaigning, Morse argued he doesn't have any regrets in his fight for tighter gun laws. Asked why he advocated for new regulations in the face of fierce opposition, he pointed to the real catalyst of the renewed firearm debate.

"The vision of 6- and 7-year-olds in Newtown being carted out on stretchers, with their Power Rangers T-shirts now covered by a white sheet," he said. "We can't continue to bury our children."

What happened in Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, or at Virginia Tech are all tragic. But nothing in the new CO laws would have prevented it.
 
Nope, it is my "Stupid People" and"excess government regulation" are destroying America rant.

How was this particular regulation (lead based ammunition) destroying America?

But if you want to call liberals stupid, that is your business.

Who was calling liberals stupid?

A random side note, but at my last gig, we had to mitigate lead contamination impacts from a shotgun range. The mitigation was to address things passed by a republican president and a republican governor.... Regardless, I think there is some validity to the issue since lead has been contained in every other product within the state. I'm not sure what the success would be though, but I have never researched non-toxic projectiles either.
 
How was this particular regulation (lead based ammunition) destroying America?

Well, first of all, they are substantially more expensive than lead because most of the non-lead ammo rounds are actually copper. Additionally, a study from the US Department of Ag found that copper rounds are much more likely to cause fires. What has a bigger ecological impact, lead ammo or a forest fire?

A random side note, but at my last gig, we had to mitigate lead contamination impacts from a shotgun range. The mitigation was to address things passed by a republican president and a republican governor.... Regardless, I think there is some validity to the issue since lead has been contained in every other product within the state. I'm not sure what the success would be though, but I have never researched non-toxic projectiles either.

I think that shooting ranges should have a lead remediation plan. In that case, it is concentrated contamination as the percentage of lead within a given area is high enough to have environmental impacts.


On a side note, I am surprised there is not a gun thread...

As for the R's behind officials names, that does not mean anything. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats with stupid laws and wasteful spending.
 
Well, first of all, they are substantially more expensive than lead because most of the non-lead ammo rounds are actually copper. Additionally, a study from the US Department of Ag found that copper rounds are much more likely to cause fires. What has a bigger ecological impact, lead ammo or a forest fire?

Yes, because we all know that deer and ducks have steel plates for the copper bullets to hit. (did you even read the study?) Shooting a copper bullet into a deer is not going to start a fire. Remember I said lead should be banned for hunting not target shooting. The expense is a factor, but that is mostly a cop out.

I think that shooting ranges should have a lead remediation plan. In that case, it is concentrated contamination as the percentage of lead within a given area is high enough to have environmental impacts.

I agree, but target shooting wasn't my point.

Quit being so rational you tree hugger.

Why do you hate America?

9724712481_1460d7a1a8.jpg

lead-poisoning-eagle1 by cityplan_2000, on Flickr
 
Well, first of all, they are substantially more expensive than lead because most of the non-lead ammo rounds are actually copper. Additionally, a study from the US Department of Ag found that copper rounds are much more likely to cause fires. What has a bigger ecological impact, lead ammo or a forest fire?

I was not aware of the differences (materials, costs, etc), which is what I stated before. Thanks for the detail :)

I think that shooting ranges should have a lead remediation plan. In that case, it is concentrated contamination as the percentage of lead within a given area is high enough to have environmental impacts.

My point was more along the lines of how lead is fairly regulated within the state except for ammunition. I agree with the rest of what you said. I have no idea what the expected success of the proposed regulation would be since the given area would be much larger relative to the potential contamination. The dead Eagle photo and the like could garner enough support though, especially with environmental clubs.

As for the R's behind officials names, that does not mean anything. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats with stupid laws and wasteful spending.

Who said the laws I wrote about were stupid?
 
On a side note, I am surprised there is not a gun thread...

.

We don't do it because it's an asinine exercise in tail chasing. That horse has been beaten beyond mush. The only people who bring it up are those try to stir the pot or are seeking some degree of affirmation of their own set in stone beliefs.
 
:r: Honestly mskis. Please inform yourself instead of taking the lazy mans way out on political topics and reflexively turning everything into some big government liberal conspiracy. If you want to be treated like an intelligent rational human being, act like one. Lead ammunition is a very serious problem in many areas.

[ot]I am not sure what it is that I did, but it seems that you just attack almost every post that I make. If you post something that has merit to warrant a response, I will do so. Until then I am going to ignore your posts because they appear to be meaningless attempts to start an argument instead of have a discussion. [/ot]
 
Wisconsin outlawed lead shot for bird hunting many years ago. Steel shot pellets are the norm for that here now.

OTOH, rifle and pistol ammo is still lead and yes, I agree that efforts at outlawing the use of lead for that are more a backdoor attempt at gun control than as a legitimate environmental thing.

Mike
 
, I agree that efforts at outlawing the use of lead for that are more a backdoor attempt at gun control than as a legitimate environmental thing.

Mike

And you would also be wrong. Many informed hunters are getting on board. Hunters appreciate the resources they use. If you take the political bullshit out of it, the evidence is pretty clear that birds of prey are dying unnecessarily.
 
And you would also be wrong. Many informed hunters are getting on board. Hunters appreciate the resources they use. If you take the political bullshit out of it, the evidence is pretty clear that birds of prey are dying unnecessarily.

Yes. It's been a big problem. The recovery of the California Condor in particular has been very seriously threatened by contamination of prey animals. This could be a subject for cost-benefit discussion or whether preserving threatened and endangered species is or should be a goal of government, or maybe even discussing the studies behind the documentation, but instead we have peopleyammering about it all being a liberal conspiracy to ban guns. Just like any other topic its all a liberal conspiracy. Must be nice to be able to have no need to seek out information and just blame everything on those darn liberals and their conspiracies. I'm personally getting pretty fed up with that crap that prevents the public from having a rational discussion about any topic. I get to hear on a daily basis how not allowing wetland filling is a liberal conspiracy. I could do without that lazy and ignorant sentiment here on cyburbia.
 
Well, first of all, they are substantially more expensive than lead because most of the non-lead ammo rounds are actually copper. Additionally, a study from the US Department of Ag found that copper rounds are much more likely to cause fires. What has a bigger ecological impact, lead ammo or a forest fire?

I think that shooting ranges should have a lead remediation plan. In that case, it is concentrated contamination as the percentage of lead within a given area is high enough to have environmental impacts.

I think you should tell your wife, the nurse, that you intend to feed lead to your children. Even in, and to include small amounts. When she protests. Tell her that you don't mind if your neighbors feed lead in small increments to your children. See what she does. State in the local paper, that you encourage your children to eat lead in any form. See how long it takes before child services take your children away (and they SHOULD).

What get's me, is that you think it is ok to tell everyone around you, that you encourage and demand that their children be forced to eat lead. For that is EXACTLY what you are saying. If your kids are eating at a friends house, you have no idea what they are eating. If their friends parent(s) is a hunter, you will not KNOW. You are less than insensitive, you are belligerently ignorant of the effects of lead on the general development of life (TO ALL KNOWN VERTABRATES) to the presence of lead.

Your stance on lead is ignorant, and your basis for defending lead in any product is not only willfully ignorant, it is dangerously stupid.

Laws took decades to change in the US from the 1920's because of corporate lobbying, not poor understanding of what lead can do to people. Whole generations of Americans were uselessly exposed to lead poisoning. The effects are profound. It damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders. Excessive lead also causes blood disorders in mammals. Like the element mercury, another heavy metal, lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates both in soft tissues and the bones. Lead poisoning has been documented from ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and ancient China.

From Wikipedia
Lead poisoning (also known as plumbism, colica Pictonum, saturnism, Devon colic, or painter's colic) is a medical condition in humans and other vertebrates caused by increased levels of the heavy metal lead in the body. Lead interferes with a variety of body processes and is toxic to many organs and tissues including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys, and reproductive and nervous systems. It interferes with the development of the nervous system and is therefore particularly toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning and behavior disorders. Symptoms include abdominal pain, confusion, headache, anemia, irritability, and in severe cases seizures, coma, and death.

Routes of exposure to lead include contaminated air, water, soil, food, and consumer products. Occupational exposure is a common cause of lead poisoning in adults. According to estimates made by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), more than 3 million workers in the United States are potentially exposed to lead in the workplace.[1] One of the largest threats to children is lead paint that exists in many homes, especially older ones; thus children in older housing with chipping paint or lead dust from moveable window frames with lead paint are at greater risk. Prevention of lead exposure can range from individual efforts (e.g. removing lead-containing items such as piping or blinds from the home) to nationwide policies (e.g. laws that ban lead in products, reduce allowable levels in water or soil, or provide for cleanup and mitigation of contaminated soil, etc.).

Elevated lead in the body can be detected by the presence of changes in blood cells visible with a microscope and dense lines in the bones of children seen on X-ray, but the main tool for diagnosis is measurement of the blood lead level. When blood lead levels are recorded, the results indicate how much lead is circulating within the blood stream, not the amount being stored in the body.[2] There are two units for reporting blood lead level, either micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl), or micrograms per 100 grams (µg/100 g) of whole blood, which are numerically equivalent. The Centers for Disease Control (US) has set the standard elevated blood lead level for adults to be 10 (µg/dl) of the whole blood. For children the number is set much lower at 5 (µg/dl) of blood as of 2012[3] down from a previous 10 (µg/dl).[4] Children are especially prone to the health effects of lead and as a result, blood lead levels must be set lower and closely monitored if contamination is possible.[2] The major treatments are removal of the source of lead and chelation therapy (administration of agents that bind lead so it can be excreted).

Humans have been mining and using this heavy metal for thousands of years, poisoning themselves in the process. Although lead poisoning is one of the oldest known work and environmental hazards, the modern understanding of the small amount of lead necessary to cause harm did not come about until the latter half of the 20th century. No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known amount of lead that is too small to cause the body harm.

Wildlife and lead poisoning[edit source | editbeta]
A large tan bird of prey with dark brown neck feathers and a bare red head sits on a dead cow in a desert with dead grass and scrub

Critically endangered California Condor can be poisoned when they eat carcasses of animals shot with lead pellets.
Lead, one of the leading causes of toxicity in waterfowl, has been known to cause die-offs of wild bird populations.[2] When hunters use lead shot, waterfowl such as ducks and other species (swan especially) can ingest the spent pellets later and be poisoned ; predators that eat these birds are also at risk.[3] Lead shot-related waterfowl poisonings were first documented in the US in the 1880s.[4] By 1919, the spent lead pellets from waterfowl hunting was positively identified as the source of waterfowl deaths.[5] Lead shot has been banned for hunting waterfowl in several countries,[4] including the US in 1991 and 1997 in Canada.[6] Other threats to wildlife include lead paint, sediment from lead mines and smelters, and lead weights from fishing lines.[6] Lead in some fishing gear has been banned in several countries.[4]

The critically endangered California Condor has also been affected by lead poisoning. As scavengers, condors eat carcasses of game that have been shot but not retrieved, and with them the fragments from lead bullets; this increases their lead levels.[7] Among condors around the Grand Canyon, lead poisoning due to eating lead shot is the most frequently diagnosed cause of death.[7] In an effort to protect this species, in areas designated as the California Condor's range the use of projectiles containing lead has been banned to hunt deer, wild pig, elk, pronghorn antelope, coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife.[8] Also, conservation programs exist which routinely capture condors, check their blood lead levels, and treat cases of poisoning.[7]

Farm animals[edit source | editbeta]

Cows and horses[9] as well as pet animals are also susceptible to the effects of lead toxicity.[2] Sources of lead exposure in pets can be the same as those that present health threats to humans sharing the environment, such as paint and blinds, and there is sometimes lead in toys made for pets.[2] Lead poisoning in a pet dog may indicate that children in the same household are at increased risk for elevated lead levels.[4]

Your opinion has no basis in fact, science, nor logic. "Tradition" is no reason to allow an incredibly poisonous substance to be used for the cheap thrill of killing. Even if it is killing for food. Because that food could end up being fed to members of your own family. And even they don't deserve that. How many people have to be harmed before idiotic people like you don't get to harm the rest of us because you want to save a nickel? Do you understand the whole idea and back story to the "canary in a coal mine"? What don't you understand?
 
Last edited:
(snip) How many people have to be harmed before idiotic people like you don't get to harm the rest of us ......

Moderator note:

you were doing fine up to this point. I know Mskis well enough to know he isn't going to respond in kind, but please refrain from the personal attacks. Thank you.
 
And you would also be wrong. Many informed hunters are getting on board. Hunters appreciate the resources they use. If you take the political bullshit out of it, the evidence is pretty clear that birds of prey are dying unnecessarily.

And what is bad for them probably isn't good for people either. There, I was able to add to the discussion without getting red carded.
 
I think you should tell your wife, the nurse, that you intend to feed lead to your children. (Snip)

While she has never protested me feeding my family any deer, rabbit, or wild game bird that I have shot using a traditional lead based round. She has protested the idea of using GMO corn fed beef that is loaded up with antibiotics and harvested from feeding lots, or genetically modified tomatoes, or chicken raised in typical cage farms. In fact our pediatrician has agreed that wild game is healthier than almost any of the meats you buy in the supermarket.

I fully agree with your comments regarding the effects of lead and the development of children. That is why I am stripping all of the lead based paint on the exterior of my house (down to the wood) using EPA certified methods. Furthermore, because we live in a 120 year old house, we also have our kids tested for lead during their regular checkups. Thus far we have not had one test come back showing even slightly elevated lead levels.

I don' think anyone would question that. But given the chemicals and genetically modified foods that we commonly buy at the supermarket, you are getting angry about the mosquito on your arm while the wolf is eating your leg. When you become a vegan that only eats non GMO organic certificated foods, only uses power and transportation that does not burn fossil fuels, and lives a perfect life in total harmony with nature and society, then I will stand right by you and scream at the top of my lungs that we need to ban everything that is unhealthy.

Until then, I will shoot my lead based ammo at targets and wild animals.

On a side note, last fall I did help a buddy of mine develop a lead remediation and pollution prevention plan for the shooting range on his property. This summer he harvested over 120 pounds of spent lead out of the collection pits. I am going to join him tomorrow to set up our deer binds, and maybe out a few pounds of lead back lead back into the pits.
 
I think you should tell your wife, the nurse, that you intend to feed lead to your children. Even in, and to include small amounts. When she protests. Tell her that you don't mind if your neighbors feed lead in small increments to your children. See what she does. State in the local paper, that you encourage your children to eat lead in any form. See how long it takes before child services take your children away (and they SHOULD).

What get's me, is that you think it is ok to tell everyone around you, that you encourage and demand that their children be forced to eat lead. For that is EXACTLY what you are saying. If your kids are eating at a friends house, you have no idea what they are eating. If their friends parent(s) is a hunter, you will not KNOW. You are less than insensitive, you are belligerently ignorant of the effects of lead on the general development of life (TO ALL KNOWN VERTABRATES) to the presence of lead.

Your stance on lead is ignorant, and your basis for defending lead in any product is not only willfully ignorant, it is dangerously stupid.

Laws took decades to change in the US from the 1920's because of corporate lobbying, not poor understanding of what lead can do to people. Whole generations of Americans were uselessly exposed to lead poisoning. The effects are profound. It damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders. Excessive lead also causes blood disorders in mammals. Like the element mercury, another heavy metal, lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates both in soft tissues and the bones. Lead poisoning has been documented from ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and ancient China.

From Wikipedia
Lead poisoning (also known as plumbism, colica Pictonum, saturnism, Devon colic, or painter's colic) is a medical condition in humans and other vertebrates caused by increased levels of the heavy metal lead in the body. Lead interferes with a variety of body processes and is toxic to many organs and tissues including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys, and reproductive and nervous systems. It interferes with the development of the nervous system and is therefore particularly toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning and behavior disorders. Symptoms include abdominal pain, confusion, headache, anemia, irritability, and in severe cases seizures, coma, and death.

Routes of exposure to lead include contaminated air, water, soil, food, and consumer products. Occupational exposure is a common cause of lead poisoning in adults. According to estimates made by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), more than 3 million workers in the United States are potentially exposed to lead in the workplace.[1] One of the largest threats to children is lead paint that exists in many homes, especially older ones; thus children in older housing with chipping paint or lead dust from moveable window frames with lead paint are at greater risk. Prevention of lead exposure can range from individual efforts (e.g. removing lead-containing items such as piping or blinds from the home) to nationwide policies (e.g. laws that ban lead in products, reduce allowable levels in water or soil, or provide for cleanup and mitigation of contaminated soil, etc.).

Elevated lead in the body can be detected by the presence of changes in blood cells visible with a microscope and dense lines in the bones of children seen on X-ray, but the main tool for diagnosis is measurement of the blood lead level. When blood lead levels are recorded, the results indicate how much lead is circulating within the blood stream, not the amount being stored in the body.[2] There are two units for reporting blood lead level, either micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl), or micrograms per 100 grams (µg/100 g) of whole blood, which are numerically equivalent. The Centers for Disease Control (US) has set the standard elevated blood lead level for adults to be 10 (µg/dl) of the whole blood. For children the number is set much lower at 5 (µg/dl) of blood as of 2012[3] down from a previous 10 (µg/dl).[4] Children are especially prone to the health effects of lead and as a result, blood lead levels must be set lower and closely monitored if contamination is possible.[2] The major treatments are removal of the source of lead and chelation therapy (administration of agents that bind lead so it can be excreted).

Humans have been mining and using this heavy metal for thousands of years, poisoning themselves in the process. Although lead poisoning is one of the oldest known work and environmental hazards, the modern understanding of the small amount of lead necessary to cause harm did not come about until the latter half of the 20th century. No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known amount of lead that is too small to cause the body harm.

Wildlife and lead poisoning[edit source | editbeta]
A large tan bird of prey with dark brown neck feathers and a bare red head sits on a dead cow in a desert with dead grass and scrub

Critically endangered California Condor can be poisoned when they eat carcasses of animals shot with lead pellets.
Lead, one of the leading causes of toxicity in waterfowl, has been known to cause die-offs of wild bird populations.[2] When hunters use lead shot, waterfowl such as ducks and other species (swan especially) can ingest the spent pellets later and be poisoned ; predators that eat these birds are also at risk.[3] Lead shot-related waterfowl poisonings were first documented in the US in the 1880s.[4] By 1919, the spent lead pellets from waterfowl hunting was positively identified as the source of waterfowl deaths.[5] Lead shot has been banned for hunting waterfowl in several countries,[4] including the US in 1991 and 1997 in Canada.[6] Other threats to wildlife include lead paint, sediment from lead mines and smelters, and lead weights from fishing lines.[6] Lead in some fishing gear has been banned in several countries.[4]

The critically endangered California Condor has also been affected by lead poisoning. As scavengers, condors eat carcasses of game that have been shot but not retrieved, and with them the fragments from lead bullets; this increases their lead levels.[7] Among condors around the Grand Canyon, lead poisoning due to eating lead shot is the most frequently diagnosed cause of death.[7] In an effort to protect this species, in areas designated as the California Condor's range the use of projectiles containing lead has been banned to hunt deer, wild pig, elk, pronghorn antelope, coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife.[8] Also, conservation programs exist which routinely capture condors, check their blood lead levels, and treat cases of poisoning.[7]

Farm animals[edit source | editbeta]

Cows and horses[9] as well as pet animals are also susceptible to the effects of lead toxicity.[2] Sources of lead exposure in pets can be the same as those that present health threats to humans sharing the environment, such as paint and blinds, and there is sometimes lead in toys made for pets.[2] Lead poisoning in a pet dog may indicate that children in the same household are at increased risk for elevated lead levels.[4]

Your opinion has no basis in fact, science, nor logic. "Tradition" is no reason to allow an incredibly poisonous substance to be used for the cheap thrill of killing. Even if it is killing for food. Because that food could end up being fed to members of your own family. And even they don't deserve that. How many people have to be harmed before idiotic people like you don't get to harm the rest of us because you want to save a nickel? Do you understand the whole idea and back story to the "canary in a coal mine"? What don't you understand?

Wow.
 
If be ban lead, then maybe we should ban wind farms too. :r:

Wind farms have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in past five years
LINK

On a side note... (and as wrong as this is going to sound) I actually agree with more than half of what Putin wrote in the Times... LINK

How bad is it when a former KGB agent makes more sense than both John Boehner and President Obama?
 
Back
Top