So my beloved grandmother didn't die from lung cancer or cigarette use huh? Dragging around tanks of oxygen because why not?
The people at my local high rise?
The people at the Elder's Home and local shelter? People in worse shape than her with the same story...at similar ages.
Yeah, this guy needs to walk into these shelters more often and observe. Ones in the big cities like Allentown, and ones in the small towns like Weatherly. This is part of the experiment.
No, you know what, he must test his statement personally. Just start chain-smoking like my dad and one cousin, be part of life's experiment too.
Its a sad day for sure. Trumps administration will be sad for us all. Thier "greater america" has the ideals and views that fit into the 1940's and 1950's. We are in for a nad trip for sure
If its okay to do what you will with your body, i.e. smoke, drink etc. Why is it wrong for a woman to choose to decide what to do with hers?
do whatever in the Hell you want, as long as you're not murdering your own unborn child.
Smoking is nasty I don't think that man is qualified to be in government at all, he must own tobacco farms.
My mother was a non-smoker, and she died of cancer at 65, so being a non-smoker plainly doesn't mean you won't die of cancer. Heck, little kids who don't even know what a cigarette is die of cancer. Yet, a considerable number of people who smoke live to be pretty old. So, I think the situation is a little more complicated than just "smoking kills".
If my mother had been a smoker, would she still be alive today? I assume not, but there's no way to know what might have been. What I do know is if she had been a smoker, they would have blamed her death on smoking. I wonder how many official "smoking related deaths" had nothing to do with smoking?
How unusual! A left wing commie reporting only 1/10 of a story! Here's a bit more of what Mike Pence said as a Senator addressing the matter of government stepping out of bounds again to punish selected people and business not to it's liking.
“Time for a quick reality check,” Pence wrote. “Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer.
This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. ...
The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric?....
Those of you who find the tobacco deal acceptable should be warned as you sit, reading this magazine, sipping a cup of hot coffee with a hamburger on your mind for luch; A government big enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you”
And what do you know? He was right!
In other words, Pence wrote that smoking (only) kills 33% of all smokers, and only 10% of them actually end up getting lung cancer.
I do agree though with his warning about having a government that wants to protect us from ourselves.
You're getting warm! In Pence's own words -
"The relevant question is, what is more harmful to the nation, second hand smoke or back handed big government disguised in do-gooder healthcare rhetoric?."
I do not have any problem with that statement.
However, you must admit that his initial reasoning.. that smoking doesn't kill, is deeply flawed. That was my point.
"2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer."
How is that flawed? It's simply a fact.
And to put it into further perspective he also said -
"This is not to say that smoking is good for you.... news flash: smoking is not good for you. ..."
And the context is also important - it was made as Congress contemplated punishing people and industries. Not for breaking any laws, but simply because they could. I believe his point and mind is that much bigger issue.
By deeply flawed, I meant deeply flawed logic. An argument based on true premises can still be wrong.
Using Pence's logic..
Despite the hysteria in the media and political class, terrorism didn't kill 99.99994% of Americans. This is not to say that terrorism is good for you... news flash: terrorism is not good for you.
That's a simple fact too.
OK Phil - don't smoke. I wouldn't suggest that anyone start smoking. Neither did Pence.
Your post is an attempt to paint him as some kind of dolt. He is anything but. He was putting it into perspective - a fact you are having a tough time grasping for some reason.
The comment and discussion was made was Congress contemplated punishing people and industries. Not for breaking any laws, but simply because they could.
You've resorted to a tactic that ended up burning the media to the ground. "He said the words!" Yes, Phil he said the words and many more that you have chosen to ignore. Why is that Phil?
I don't think Pence is a dolt. Far from it. I assume he's an intelligent person who knew exactly what he was saying.
If Pence was arguing that anti-tobacco legislation infringes on individual liberties, I agree. People can smoke as much as they want.
To me though, the first portion of his statement smacked as something a "tobacco denier" might say. Perhaps I misunderstood.
You know the real answer to your last question, right? Because most of our fellow countrymen don't give a flying squirrel.
We are so close, so very close. If you will allow it, rather than beating a suffering horse further, what do you say we step away from this one knowing that each of us has made his point, we still respect each other, and can bring that respect to our next discussion.
You're OK Phil. You're OK.
Trump selected him so that nutcase liberals would not get the idea of killing Trump, because then Pence would then be president and it would be disaster
Since everybody seems to think that anybody who disagrees must be mentally deficient, I decline to join this topic.