<blockquote>Too bad Prager didn&rsquo;t link to it, because it seems that the article he is citing might be this one titled &ldquo;New Evidence That Cigarette Smoking Remains the Most Important Health Hazard,&rdquo; and it says the exact opposite of what Prager is claiming.</blockquote>
That&#039;s clearly his source, and it doesn&#039;t say the exact opposite of what Prager is claiming, because it is in almost no way at all related to what Prager is saying. What it actually says is that if you smoke from youth, and <em>survive to give up in the 35-44 age bracket</em>, you only live one year less than if you had given up in the 25-34 age bracket.
That says very little about how much shorter your life expectancy is than if you had never smoked at all, equally little about what your odds of dying before you got around to quitting were. Because Prager is flat-out, bald-faced lying when he says smoking only kills old people.
It does say a great deal about how scientifically literate Prager is, though, the answer being &quot;not at all&quot;.
And instead of that cheap wine I suggest the youngins drop some windowpane.
1) Of course! That&#039;s why that fourth dude isn&#039;t seeking a sexual encounter. He&#039;s too baked!
Antici....pation.
One weird tip?
They&#039;re giving each other recreational embolisms, because stupid liberals.
smoke a bowl and think about it
What recreational drug is administered I.M.? Did I miss out on one of them?
where&#039;s Rachael Leigh Cook and her frying pan when you need her?
Innocence is pretty goddamned over-rated, if you ask me.
You need to move to NYC, where you can get rid of all that stuff and buy maybe a 1-BR apartment.
<blockquote>Too bad Prager didn&rsquo;t link to it, because it seems that the article he is citing might be this one titled &ldquo;New Evidence That Cigarette Smoking Remains the Most Important Health Hazard,&rdquo; and it says the exact opposite of what Prager is claiming.</blockquote>
That&#039;s clearly his source, and it doesn&#039;t say the exact opposite of what Prager is claiming, because it is in almost no way at all related to what Prager is saying. What it actually says is that if you smoke from youth, and <em>survive to give up in the 35-44 age bracket</em>, you only live one year less than if you had given up in the 25-34 age bracket.
That says very little about how much shorter your life expectancy is than if you had never smoked at all, equally little about what your odds of dying before you got around to quitting were. Because Prager is flat-out, bald-faced lying when he says smoking only kills old people.
It does say a great deal about how scientifically literate Prager is, though, the answer being &quot;not at all&quot;.
I&#039;mma let you finish, but Jim Hoft had one of the stupidest internet posts of all time. One of the stupidest internet posts OF ALL TIME!
I was planning on getting stoned, as soon as I come down a little bit from the acid...
as someone who lost his father primarily due to emphysema this clown can kiss my ass...
jeez, don&#039;t give him any more ammunition...
I want to know what it takes to turn an ordinary orgy into a &quot;weird&quot; one.