"Overstating the case"
Shouldn't that read more correctly as
"LIEING, CHEATING, and DECEIVING the public, the government, and anybody too stupid to turn away in order to justify the rush toward Socialism"
Here Here
"No longer can we rely on the public-health establishment for scientifically accurate information."
+++++++++
Boy, has he got that right.
+++++++++
"They'll fudge the numbers if they have to, so long as it promotes their overall agenda - in this case, the drive to outlaw smoking in all public places."
And fudge they do, with a captial F as Si said, and public health, charlatans, various grant junkies and all the rest are dictating HOW WE ARE GOVERNED. A shame in this once great country.
Any outsiders looking in: with this dangerous anti-smoking movement they have made it possible to promote a hate campaign with very little objections by the 'majority'. Well congratulations to those of you that cheered them on. You have stripped property owner of their right to conduct their business as they wanted, and pushed the smoker into a criminal corner of the world.
Just remember with this model YOU WILL BE NEXT. I hope you enjoy the ride.
I agree with Michelle too little too late.
.
While I am tickled pink that Dr. Siegel is getting ink about the lies of the anti-smoker cartel cultists, he still remains in the ranks of the anti-smoker cartel cult, because he insists on spouting many of their same lies on a regular basis.
"[B]ecause he insists on spouting many of their same lies on a regular basis."
Gabz, shame on you! They're not lies; they're metaphysical inexactitudes.
Please get a hold on your language!
.
They're not lies; they're metaphysical inexactitudes.
Harry ROFLMAO. Very good.
However, I prefer calling a spade a spade; and in my world, a lie IS a lie, no matter what you choose to call it or how you try to dress it up.
Isn't lying to the public a criminal offense? If not, then there ought to be a law making it so.
I wouldn't make lying to the public a criminal offense, except in the cases of public health or any government authority. If the government supports them and backs their findings, THEN I'd make THEM liable for lying to the public.
However, if Joe Blow stands in the middle of the street and lies that's his business and those stupid enough to believe him.
Jalestra, Thanks for the clarification. I should have added in that I was talking about those in the seat of any authority over the public.
Well I knew you were, but you know how some people are, just take the idea as is and run with it. If some people are too stupid to read a sign I could see many of those being stupid enough to violate the First Amendment because THEY are gullible.
Commenting by HaloScan
