The Left hates cigarettes & call them cancer sticks, while trying to legalize hard drugs.
So lets get the facts straight when it comes to the Left's screwed up priorities concerning cigarettes and hard drugs...For decades now, the Left has done everything possible to put tobacco companies out of business. They hate the companies, they hate their products, they call their products cancer sticks, and blame them for the people who die from cancer. (not the fault of the person who chose to smoke of course. The Left hates any notion of person accountability for one's choices in life)Now lets use our brains and see that these cancer sticks take many decades to claim their victims. It most times takes forty years or longer before the onset of cancer.These same people who so hate cigarettes, are cheer leading the legalization of even hard drugs. Maybe you have listened to the news where some people die from hard drug use the very first time they tried it. Hard drugs are much more dangerous than cigarettes, in the short & long term, yet many on the Left want to legalize it.What are we missing here? Why is the Left all over the place when it comes to common sense? One would think if they hate cigarettes with such a passion, because it might kill you in 40 years, that they would be terrified of hard drugs becoming legal.Another thing the Left does to make you fear cigarettes, is to push out false claims of the high cost of healthcare from smoking related illness.So lets do the numbers....lets say a person starts smoking at 20 years of age, and dies from cancer at 60. Now if he was working most of those years, and insured, the insurance companies would have bared the brunt of the cost of his health problems.Ok, so lets use the ludicrous logic of the Left, and calculate the cost for healthcare of a person who never smoked. Lets say he never dies at 60 and lives to be 85 years old. He has now lived off medicare or medicaid, for some 20 years, with the many many age related healthcare costs. We have all heard that the most expensive times of a person's life, is their last few years of life in primary care, old age homes, etc.So lets use our brains, and see for ourselves if the results of smoking is a higher cost to society. Does the person living for many more years on Government healthcare, cost society much more? I say yes! I suggest that any person who dies in their 60's (from whatever illness) will have saved the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars.If people want to use the cost of healthcare in their discussion over cigarettes, they should be applauding what cigarettes do to reduce the cost of healthcare on Government. The earlier a person dies will save on the cost of his healthcare.Just to be clear, I have never smoked or taken drugs, and believe it to be one of the dumbest choices a person could ever make when lighting up that first cigarette, or using that first drug.
What is the explanation of what Nirvana or Heaven is like?
I describe Heaven or Nirvana or Utopia as a place where money is totally archaic and unnecessary. Just imagine a group so pure at heart that you would all work together to accomplish what needed to be done to sustain the group with no money.
Just curious. Of course, the stereotype is to lump atheists, anti-gunners, pro-choice folks, and SJWs into an unformed single mass of mostly college kids commonly referred to as socialists or leftists. But if you're also godless and pro-2A, let me know. Wondering if the stereotype holds up at all.
Judge dismisses Stormy Daniels’s defamation suit against Trump, requires her to pay his legal feeshttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17983002/stormy-daniels-defamation-trump-legal-fees
On the TV show "The Voice", a Gay singer thanked the show for letting him use his platform
I don't know about you, but I am sick of the radical Left using our entertainment shows as platforms for their political agendas. Just last night, one of the many Gay singers was going to be eliminated from the show, and used his final words to thank the show for allowing him a platform to cheer lead Homosexuality.There you have it folks, proof that our TV shows are actively pushing LGBTQRSUVWXUZ agendas and indoctrinating our children.It's called identity politics and if you are of the correct activist group, you get to use national TV shows to indoctrinate our children.I remember the days of shows like Ed Sullivan, where a parent could watch shows with our children, and not worry about groups pushing their unnatural sexual orientation of the month on our children's ears.How would you hypocrites like it if these shows allowed contestants to use the national exposure to speak out on Pro Life issues?These are suppose to be talent shows, and their ability to sing! Not some PC brainwashing.I for one will stop watching this show. It Is too blatantly in your face with their political agendas.I have no problem with Gay singers as long as they don't turn it into a platform for conditioning our children to yet one more unnatural sexual orientation. Get over yourselves and stop looking like such insecure cry babies. People might have more respect for you if you did not constantly play the victim.By the way, the singer was not eliminated from the show. They also have the first Gay couple doing a duet on the show, and another Gay singer. You do the percentages of who makes the show and tell me that they are not pushing an agenda.If they just sang without giving their Pro Gay political speeches, no one would care what they do behind closed doors.