Jump to content

OMG this deserves a thread of its own. The NEW Supergirl

Guest touchofsable

Recommended Posts

okay okay so she ain't wearing fur yet. YET.


Comics have a way of defying and providing icons of rebellion.


Captain America was fighting the nazis before the US declared war on Germany.


The Teen Titans were decrying US involvement in Nam way before it became popular.


The X men celebrated individual difference at a time of conformity and the vileness of egalitarianism.


But what happens when Marvel buckle into Government pressure and stop Nick Fury and Wolverine smoking?


DC come up with something real special. The absolute incarnation of good starts having dounbts about superheroic master race "goody goodiness" and turns all "suicide girl". WHAT AN ICON FOR A NEW GENERATION


Supergirl SMOKES!!!!




(scroll down til you see her in the new black crop top smoking)


Hah ha hah ha he cries in his best evil laugh!!!! The absolute resistance to state control of morality!!!! KARA ZOR-EL is the ultimate Liberty leading the people for the suicide girl generation!!!!!!


All we need now is for her to team up with the gone bad Black Canary :




and the new bad girl manhunter:



(yes that is a cigarette in her mouth...she is Kate Spencer and she chain smokes)



Now all we need is for this these new three superheroines to do is to kill Barb Wire as a mtter of urgency (and if you are listening girls I can reveal her identity as PAM ANDERSON...go get her!!!), and then arrest Catwoman in the middle of a fur burglary but take a few hours to show catwoman she ain't the only bad girl in town before delivering her and errr...most of her proceeds...over to the law.



I love this; I can't tell you how important a symbol it is for liberty!!!

Supergirl smokes!!!!!! Ain't that just great?


Come on guys you are three months ahead of us there you could have told me about this!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smoking cannot cause her any harm . She like superman is indestructible.


Black Canary and Manhunter however are not indestructible but they look pretty damn fit to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know kryptonite is not one of the 69 toxic chemicals that the latest anti smoking witchunt ads claim. It will be now as soon as they find out Suprgirl smokes though no doubt.


The same carcinogenic chemicals incidentally are in far far higher qualtities in many processed foods..and we actually consume them! As usual the hysteria is unfounded.

So just for everyones information:

fluoride in drinking water is lethal in high quantities. Chlorine in swimming pools is carcinogenic too. Any burnt food is far more toxic than cigarette smoke. Household cleaning products have incredibly higher chemical levels than cigarettes.

It is so ridiculous it is laughable and only idiots will be fooled by it. It is a desperate attempt to demonise smoking at a time when science is proving that many diseases are not after all caused by smoking. Cervical and stomach cancers are already off the hook and lung cancer too will follow in the next few years. They are all caused by bacteria or virus...or extreme chemical/radiation exposure. Like x rays for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just for everyones information:

fluoride in drinking water is lethal in high quantities. Chlorine in swimming pools is carcinogenic too. Any burnt food is far more toxic than cigarette smoke. Household cleaning products have incredibly higher chemical levels than cigarettes.


Before I say this, I want to be perfectly clear: If a consenting adult knows the risks and want to smoke cigarettes, that is their choice.


But... Your comparisons are skewed and you know it.


People don't go around injecting fluorine into their circulatory systems. They dont' go inhaling chlorine gas. They don't chew up burned food and swallow the juice and they don't go around drinking bottles of drain cleaner.


You're comparing apples and oranges.


Yes, tobacco DOES contain carcinogenic chemicals. I have put tobacco through a mass spectrometer. I've seen the results. Those things are in there.


But there IS a grain of truth to what you say. Those chemicals come in very small amounts. One or two or even ten cigarettes worth of tobacco smoke won't kill you unless you have some underlying medical condition that contradicts it. However, this is like the point about radiation we talked about in the other thread. It is exposure OVER TIME that will kill you!


If you sprayed me in the face with chlorine gas and I inhaled a bunch of it, I probably wouldn't die from it. I'd probably end up in the hospital and would suffer serious medical effects from it but, if I got proper medical care, I would probably live. On the other hand, if I inhaled a 0.01 mg. of chlorine every day for a year I'd almost certainly be dead from it, if not very sick.


The thing is that most people don't stop at smoking just one cigarette or even ten. They smoke every 30 minutes for 8 to 12 hours per day over a period of 10 or more years. Taking in those chemicals in however small amounts over that period of time WILL have a statistically significant chance of causing health problems.


I smoked from the time I was 17 until I was nearly 40. It's been almost three years since I quit. I don't intend to start up again. On the other hand, if I was at a special occasion and they were passing out cigars I'd smoke one and I'd probably enjoy it. But I know the risks and I accept the consequences.


The problem is that MOST people who smoke is that they were LIED to, many years ago when they started. They were unfairly led to believe that smoking had few or no bad effects. If they knew then what they know today, they wouldn't have started in the first place.


I AGREE with you that there are too many alarmists who shout to the high heavens all these exagerated claims about the dangers of doing things like smoking cigarettes. Those people are doing JUST as much disservice to the public, at large, as those people who lied about the dangers of smoking all those years ago.


There needs to be a balance between the two sides but I don't know if that will ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your point worker...I realise that those chemicals are there. Howver we are neaither injecting them or eating them. Eating a cogar will probably kill a child. Smoking it will not.


However, the concentration of those chemicals in say canned foods is far higher and we eat those. And drink the fluoride in the water and even chlorine in the pool. Consumption of cehmicals is far worse than smoking them. By the time they are burned some are practically non existent, and what is there is diluted again on inhalation exhalation. Howver the chemical residues in say chargrilled steak are far more carcinogenic and we actually eat that.


The problem with balance is that nobody is warning us not to eat chargrilled steak or drink water.


It is like the latest evidence on breast cancer.


Surprisingly, despite the fact that smoking is way way down among older women 50 plus, breast cancer has risen dramatically in that age group. Why? Because of HRT. Yes HRT....while doctors are getting hysterical over smoking causing disease, the medical profession has been systematically giving women breast cancer...something that WAS KNOWN to happen in rats etc.


Maybe doctors should carry a government health warning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of chlorine in municipal drinking water is 0.5 ppm. (One-half part mer million.) That is equivalent to 1 liter of chlorine in 2,000,000 liters of water.


For scale, imagine putting an liter of chlorine into a tank of water 125 meters high, 125 meters wide and 125 meters deep. You're NOT getting a whole lot of chlorine in your system, drinking a glass of water from the waterworks, now, are you?


The average cigarette has 20 mg. of tar PER CIGARETTE.

(Tar being the conglomeration of resinous substances, other than nicotine, that make up cigarette smoke.)


A regular smoker consumes an average of 10-20 cigarettes per day. (Let's just make it a round number and call it 10.)


That would be 200 mg. of tar consumed PER DAY.


In 1 liter of water there would be 0.000005 liters of chlorine.


So, the concentration of chlorine in water is MUCH lower than the concentration of tar in a cigarette.


By the way, inhalation is the second most efficient means of getting a chemical into the bloodstream. The first being injection. One drag from a cig. and you're feeling the effects in under 15 seconds.


Drink a liter of water and it has to pass into the intestines to get absorbed into the bloodstream. Even then, a large fration of it is passed out again without being absorbed. Out of the fraction of that water that IS absorbed, the liver and kidney will start to excrete any foriegn substances within minutes.


So, neither are you drinking as much chlorine as you are inhaling tar but a much smaller fraction of it goes into your bloodstream compared to tar.


I reiterate: Chlorine is poisonous. VERY poisonous! But you're getting such small amounts of it that it hardly makes a difference.


Compare that to smoking where you take in anywhere from 200-400 miligrams of tar every day for 20 years!


Oh! And, YES! There IS somebody shouting to the heavens about eating chargrilled meat!


>> Center for Science in the Public Interest <<


Rember them? They're the crackpots who started all the crap about movie theater popcorn being bad for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust animals. Like the canaries they used to take down coalmines, to tell us when something is wrong.


When I use dilute household bleach to clean the floor my cats go besrek.

When I give them water from the tap after midnight they refuse point blank to drink it (that is when they put the chemicals in it so it comes through in greater concentration).

My horses have had burns on their mouths from tap water.


We both smoke and have an 18 year old cat. She hasn't any health problems yet is in the same room as us constantly. Her twin sister in another non smoking home died at 10 of cancer.


Tar is in the cigarette...most of it is not inhaled. I have never seen a cigarteet with 20 mg of tar and my marlboro lights have 5mg.


The British Medical Association briefing the commons and said that the average cigarette had far more dangerous carbon monoxide emissions than car exhausts, and all the politicians sat there and let them get away with it. They should have been ridiculed out of the commons.


Try this simple experiment. Use a rat if you think it more acceptable than a person.


Experiment One:Two subjects in a test sit in a closed garage for 24 hours with 20 people smoking cigarettes constantly. Record the results on the subjects.


Experiment two: Two subjects sit in the same garage with a car exhaust runing. Record the results on the subjects.


The anwsrers are clear. Th subjects in experiment one may have runny eyes, but little long term damage.


In experiment two the subjects are dead after 24 minutes let alone 24 hours.


Do you see what I am saying?


Not that smoking is not bad for you, but the claims are absurd beyond belief.


I worked out that my grandmother smoked about two million cigarettes in her life, many unfiltered. She died at 96, still smoking 60 a day. Her bucket must have overflowed hundreds of times!! Never even had a cough . Ever. She died of a virus related cancer and I had to ive the doctors hell for suggesting it was smoking. It cannot cause the cancer she had. Neither can it cause cervical cancer, the biggest cancer linked to smoking.


All that cervical cancer tells us about smoking is that smokers get more sex with more partners and are less likely to take precautions. Yet 80% of cervical cancer patients smoked. There are STILL quacks who claim it is linked. It isn't. Human papiloma virus is the only thing that causes cervical cancer. Smoking nuns do not get it.


All those deaths are entirely preventable if doctors told people a little more loudly that they needed condoms.


There is a wealth of evidence now appearing that may prove that smoking is actually unrelated to lung cancer. More research is being done on adeno viruses but it does appear that they are a prerequisite for lung cancer. Helicobactor pylori is the cause of 80% of stomach cancer.


There is also research being done about ethnicity/lifestyle and lung cancer and heart disease.


Posh people who smoke are three times less likely to get these diseases...so social class is a factor. But then it isn't social class as such, because the most startling findings are native americans. Lung cancer is very rare among them YET they are the ethnic group who smoke the most.


Something is wrong. Something is very very wrong. Not with smoking...which we all know isn't good for you....but the witchunt against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two liter automobile engine, idling at 1,000 RPM pumps out 2,000 liters of exhaust gas every minute it runs. If it runs for 20 minutes it creates 40,000 liters of poisonous gas.


One person's average tidal lung volume is about 0.5 liters. (More or less, depending on the person.) If 20 people expired one breath of cigarette smoke every second for 20 minutes that would be:


20 minutes * 60 sec/min * 0.5 liters * 20 smokers = 12,000 liters of smoke.


(But even Supergirl couldn't breathe out that much smoke so the real-world number would be much lower.)


To have the same toxic effect, those smokers would have to smoke at a rate of 1 half-liter drag every second for 66 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay now I am going to take a tongue in cheek flight of fancy which I hope you enjoy in the spirit intended.


Never trust a buddist. They are egocentric beyond belief, and believe in reincarnate elitism. They are an aryan religion. Himmler was A buddist ,

and a large amount of the Nazi GDP was spent on research into the origins of the master race, buddism, expeditionsto tibet and the search for the Arc of the Covenant and the Spear of destiny.

Reputedly, the nazis got the spear of destiny and it was taken to the south pole, before the end of the war:



Antarctica was Nazi sovereign territory during the war and They spent a fortune on claiming it and sending people there. It was renamed Newschwaubenland.The Nazis had a vast underground research station at the south pole and most of their flying disc and jet aircraft scientists were evacuated there from the two main factories in poland well bfore the allied breaktrough. 100 u boats remain unnaccounted for after the end of the war.


So far, all that is pretty much historical fact, as was the apprehending of two of those u boats loaded with a massive amount of supplies headed to Antarctica in 1946 from Argentina.


In 1946 Admiral Byrd, one of the people who took the Japanese surrender, allegedly was sent to the south pole on an "expedition". It remains to this day the biggest expedition ever to the south pole, to the extent where it is laughavble to suggest it was such a thing. Four and a half thousand troops and the principal aircraft carrier in the American fleet, rumoured to be carrying the US thrid nuclear device, set sail along with 13 othe ships 33 warplanes and reconnasisance planes and helicopters.


All that is undisputed fact.


Now is where it gets weird. There is a lasting rumour among British special forces that they battled an enemy at the south pole that defied belief, and recommended that an atomic bomb was dropped there:






So Operation Highjump, Byrd's Expedition if you wish . I call it an invasion force. The force retreated and this is what Admiral byrd himself reported;


"Admiral Byrd declared today that it was imperative for the United States to initiate defence measures against the possible invasion of the country by hostile aircraft operating from the polar regions. The Admiral stated, "I don't want to frighten anyone unduly but it is a bitter reality that in the case of a new war the continental United States will be attacked by aircraft flying in from one or both poles." As regards the recently terminated expedition, Byrd said that the most important result of the observations and discoveries made is the current potential effect which they will have on the security of the United States."




One thing for sure is the US forces lost at least two planes and possibly up to 15 reported. Here are some more official reports of one lost plane and casualties:





and more on the expedition....look at the ships, carriers and subs for goodness sake:



Here is the strange unexpected shangri la that is now accepted bbut was discovered to great surprise on the expedition:











Now it gets weirder:


First some background on Nazi neo Buddist mysticism and the swastika, leading thinkers behind it etc:




Now the possibility that the German flying discs saw action:





And now just some of the 46 000 net refrences to this:














here is wher it gets silly:








Now. There are several pieces of evidence that not only did the nazis get their saucer programme underway, but that also the US navy had these on board the carrier in Byrd's expedition; the XF5U1 :




So if the johnny come latelies to the flying disc world had these aircraft, the foreunner of stealth technology, then surely it is likely that the germans HAD in fact developed their JFM craft from 1922?




But here is the thing. That machine was designed as an inter dimensional machine....not a fighter plane. There are reports of pilots being hideously disfigured in flying them, and that they could not control them; and that they could fly a thousand miles in 12 minutes. And that they COULD be controlled under Antarcticas magnetic conditions. Certainly Admiral Byrd suggested they had something like this.


So where is this going? Well take it as far as you want. Whether the Nazis collude with a reptillian race, greys, or the fighting reptilian reports are merely the imagination after seeing these hideously disfigured pilots, make your mind up.


But there is a huge conspiracy theory that the "Illuminattii" are actually under the influence of the still operating Nazis at Antarctica.


Now I would think all this utter crap if it were not for two things.


The main focus of Nazi ideology focussed on Master race theory. This involved a massive amount of attention paid to :


1. Animal Rights (see the article under the tide is turning by professor Mark Almond in the den) and specifically the idea that the aryans were "enlightened" race that should be above the abuse of animals.

2. Health....especially anti smoking legislation.


And guess what? 60 years after the end of the war there are still bloody fascists trying to force this crap down our necks!!!!!!


About time we brought Captain America out of the deep freeze. In the meantime, a smoking supergirl does just fine!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A two liter automobile engine, idling at 1,000 RPM pumps out 2,000 liters of exhaust gas every minute it runs. If it runs for 20 minutes it creates 40,000 liters of poisonous gas.


One person's average tidal lung volume is about 0.5 liters. (More or less, depending on the person.) If 20 people expired one breath of cigarette smoke every second for 20 minutes that would be:


20 minutes * 60 sec/min * 0.5 liters * 20 smokers = 12,000 liters of smoke.


(But even Supergirl couldn't breathe out that much smoke so the real-world number would be much lower.)


To have the same toxic effect, those smokers would have to smoke at a rate of 1 half-liter drag every second for 66 minutes.



In other words Smoking is not as dangerous as breathing car exhaust fumes, despite the BMA's absurd claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, cigarette smoke and engine exhaust have similar toxicity. It's just that a machine can "breathe out" a whole lot more fumes, more consistently, over a longer period of time than 20 humans can.


Anti-smoking campaigns are Nazi propoganda?! That's a complete non sequitur!


But I will say that I find it ironic that the very same people who love to shout "Government Conspiracy!" are often the very same ones who like to point out stupid things like Bill Clinton getting caught with his pants down in the Oval Office.


If our government is so stupid that it can't keep it collective pants zipped up, HOW can it be smart enough to engineer a worldwide coverup on the scale you imagine so vividly?


The next thing you're going to be telling me is that astronauts were seen smoking on the moon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't need much covering up...especially if nothing was done after the invasion. We have evidence of the warning from the US most respected Admiral of the capabilities of the aircraft the nazis had there. Anyway, I only posted that as I said tongue in cheek as one thing for certain is nobody...even the Presidency....knows what exactly happened there.


Governments may well have nothing to do with it. Lobbies and illuminatii exist and governemnts are most answerable to them than individual voters.

We know for example that the illuminatii met in the 1960s in Brussels and talked about the new world order of egalitarianism, yet retaining power through increased markets and mass marketing, especially of petro chemical products. Senior British politicians were there and they were Labour, not Tory. The mosts senior leader of US companies, world bankers etc were there too. Denis Healey, a labour politician was one of them. He openly talked about it, and sees nothing wrong with such a vision as it fits socialist vision. They talked about a world which wouldn't have to exploit animals any more. Much like the nazis did. They talked about a world which would prevent disease rather than cure it, and especially about eventually banning smoking. much like the nazis did. They talked about developing the third world and getting rid of trade barriers, and the problems they would face with Islam. That meeting shaped the world we have today.


This illuminatii included most of the leaders of global industry, media moghuls, etc. I am not saying that they are lizard people or Nazis , or even satanists. BUT the effect in terms of how the world has become what they envisaged is frightening, and makes a mockery of democracy. As does the

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Actually, cigarette smoke and engine exhaust have similar toxicity. It's just that a machine can "breathe out" a whole lot more fumes, more consistently, over a longer period of time than 20 humans can.




So car exhausts are more dangerous then?


And a damn sight more damging to the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...