You're only required to have that sort of note when it's a political ad.
These are "news" sites, so they are technically not a political ad. And as long as a candidate or a PAC doesn't fund them directly, they can continue their claim to be a news site.
Tell me again about how they should have talked to the Republicans about the Republican implanted spying programs.
Have you been in a coma? Just because Republicans do something does not mean they will not attack Democrats for doing the same. See: Every scandal since at least the 1990s.
Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs.
Prove it.
Not the "both parties are the same!!!" thing. The domestic spying program part.
Because the actual documents Snowden leaked have all of 1 program that can collect on US persons, and that one was legal thanks to an over-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision (phone records were ruled standard business records and thus not private. Phone records grew in the age of cell phones to reveal....well really the same stuff they revealed back in 1979, since you knew the location of the call since it was a land line).
The very, very, very few documents that talk about targetting explicitly include steps to exclude US persons. The vast majority of Snowden's leaked docs were capabilities, with no description on how they are used.
Instead, it has been continuously asserted that the NSA must be doing massive amounts of domestic spying, on the assumption that that is the only possible use for those capabilities. Which is an incredibly dumb assumption, but it's also incredibly popular.
If you want to freak out about domestic surveillance, look at the FBI, your local police, and technologies like Stingrays.
They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.
Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge. Which, btw, can be done legally. And they will use their corrupt quest for power to expose it.
If you're as foolishly nihilistic as you are, and not actually in the military, then go the Ellsberg route.
If you're particularly dumb, you go the Snowden route and accept things from other countries for your leaks, thus planting yourself firmly on the wrong side of espionage laws. You also lie about what exactly you leaked, because few are going to look through the large volume of stuff and notice that the red meat you're talking about with your supporters isn't actually in the documents you leaked. 'Cause you leaked capabilities, and very few operational documents about how or where they're being used.
Those operational documents that were leaked showed they were not being used against US persons.
Your fans will assume they are so important that they must be the target of all of these capabilities, actual targeting documents be damned.
And then they post on Slashdot how the government is totally after them, despite their continued not-in-prison existence.
This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives
There are lots and lots of ways for a contractor to report illegal activities. And it is a requirement that contractors be briefed on those ways every year.
There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command. They also accept anonymous tips.
"I had nowhere to report it!!" is bullshit designed to make Snowden more appealing after-the-fact.
and the Volt simply died due to the colder weather fucking over their expected driving range by about 80 miles
Wow, considering the Volt had an electric range of about 50 miles, that's impressive! Negative 30 mile range!!
Or, alternatively, you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about. Which is quite likely since you don't seem to know the Volt has a gas engine too, and gets the vast majority of it's 300mi range from the 250 miles of gas in its tank.
If citizens in sparsely populated areas get left behind then that is a national issue
Nah. It's a local issue. The nation is in no way required to fix it. Just like the nation does not require, say, all vehicles to be 4x4s or otherwise have sufficient off-road capability to work where you life. You just don't buy the gas cars that were designed for commuters in a city.
There is a sufficient market for vehicles that run in sufficiently rural areas that there will always be someone making them. But that does not mean all vehicles must be able to do it.
Also, you're forgetting one advantage of EVs in your scenario: You don't stop to fill them up occasionally. You plug them in every night when you get home. Which means they have a "full tank" every morning. So as long as that fishing hole is 100mi or less from home, you're better covered day-to-day with that EV because it isn't getting left with a quarter tank in your driveway.
That system though is designed to limit your chances
Then sue the government instead. The existence of the vaccine injury program does not mean you are required to use it.
Safe overall is small comfort to a parent trying to minimize risk for their baby.
As the parent of two young children, no it really isn't. It's only difficult if you trust the people trying to sell you snakeoil instead of the scientists and doctors.
From what our doctor told us the vaccine schedule is strongly influenced by the fear that parents would skip or be unable to bring their child in for all the appointments of individual vaccination shots
Again, they don't just throw a new vaccine in for fun. They only give the vaccines at the same time when they've been given independently for a long time.
The schedule is also an age range, not a specific date. So if you don't understand how the immune system works and want to make extra trips to the doctor to alleviate your misinformation, go ahead. No one will stop you.
And that similarly the Chicken Pox vaccine was made mandatory simply to force insurance companies into covering it.
Well, chickenpox is actually not nearly as safe as we pretended when we were children. About 2 in 1000 cases require hospitalization, about 1 in 60,000 are fatal. And it confers immunity to shingles, which itself causes hospitalizations and death (about 1-4% of cases require hospitalization.)
Golly, what a terrible thing to include in the vaccine schedule!!!!:eyeroll:
There is a natural draw to this field for women and frankly it is more rewarding for someone that enjoys human interactions.
You apparently have not spent much time around people in medicine. There's not much human interaction, and massive pressure to eliminate as much as possible.
the Dems want to put the Internet back under control of the FTC (which is what Obama NN was) rather than FCC where it has always been.
Uh...no. "Obama NN" was making Internet Service Providers FCC Title II services.
ISPs are currently FCC Tittle III services, and the Republican plan is to let the FTC deal with blocking/fast-laning/zero-rating. However the Republicans have neglected to give the FTC any authority to do so.
The AT&T and Time Warner merger recently blocked by Trump's FCC is what Dems want to pass.
You mean the merger that Trump's administration just approved? Also, if the Democrats wanted that merger to go through, why did the Obama administration block it?
Under Obama's rules we saw massive monopolization of news networks, media and information distribution channels
You've got your timeline wrong here. The massive wave of mergers happened before 2008. And again, if the Democrats wanted these mergers, why did the Democrats block the AT&T/Time Warner merger?
Because violent crime actually hurts people, usually irreparably. Overstaying a tourist visa doesn't.
Because it's the one type of crime that is 100% preventable
The vast majority of undocumented people in the US are here because they stayed beyond the end of their perfectly legal and valid visa.
So it is not close to 100% preventable without a police state that you will find unacceptable. Police constantly saying "Papers Please!" is required to catch the majority. And even then, people will have false papers.
Skin color does not matter. Language does not matter
It matters when the people claiming it is "100% preventable" are only looking at people with one skin color and speak one language, and seek moronic solutions like a wall that only blocks one border.
and no illegal alien can possibly exist in the USA for long without comitting additional crimes like identity theft and welfare fraud.
Wow have no idea what you're talking about.
First, undocumented people don't make welfare claims. They are seeking to minimize interaction with the government, because interactions with the government is how they get caught. So no "welfare fraud" when you don't make any claims. Also, welfare doesn't exist anymore. It was eliminated in the 1990s. But it's still used as a boogeyman for people who want to demonize the poor because folks like you already bought into the lies about "welfare queens", so they're gonna keep running with it. Re-branding is so hard.
Second, there's plenty of employers who will happily pay in cash. If an employer insists on paying by check, you can take that check to the employer's bank to cash it for free. Or use a myriad of check-cashing places that will gouge the employee. Thus no false identity required.
One of the common complaints though is that the FDA seems to fail at its job disturbingly often.
That complaint comes from people who do not understand a study of a thousand people can not find all possible interactions with any new medication. The interactions that are found later involve a combination of drugs that just didn't happen in the initial study.....and result in the FDA ordering the drug pulled.
Just look at how many drugs end up being recalled because they do more harm than good
No, they still did plenty of good. And the vast majority who got the drugs did benefit. They had an interaction that didn't happen to occur in the human trials, because it is impossible to test every possible drug/medical condition interaction. That's why new drugs are prescription-only - your doctor is supposed to monitor for such interactions.
Literally every drug is a poison. Including the ones you think are "safe". It's just the dose that makes it "safe".
With vaccines this is exacerbated by the fact that you can't go after the company in civil court if it hurt your child.
You're misrepresenting the situation here. You can't go after the company because you can go after the government. The government claims liability for vaccine injuries and even has a special fund and claim program set up so you don't have to actually sue.
To make things more complicated doctors are pushed to administer vaccines on a short schedule with multiple shots per visit. In the event a child does react negatively to a vaccine trying to figure out which one caused the problem is complicated by the scheduling.
They're only given in the same visit after the vaccines have been proven safe in the overall population. They don't just throw a new one in when they feel like it.
And really, there's no reason to blindly assume that any NEW vaccines that come along will be as safe or effective to receive as the tried and true ones we've been collectively receiving for decades.
Except for several laws and FDA regulations that require any NEW vaccines to be as safe or effective.
But it is a very pretty strawman. I like what you did with the hat.
What happens if a dozen new vaccines are developed for other diseases, but we discover the human body can't create immunity for all of those things and maintain it at one time?
Then we'd already be extinct.
We're exposed to a truly unfathomable quantity of different pathogens every day, and our immune system just handles it. We vaccinate against a very, very small percentage of those pathogens because they are particularly bad when you are exposed to the full-strength virus. We are in no danger of "overwhelming" our immune system by exposing it to dead viruses, weakened viruses or bits of virus protein. Long-term immunity is not like a thumbdrive with a limited storage.
Facebook's algorithms feed anti-vaxx propaganda to parents, because they're designed to reinforce subjects you appear interested in.
So while Facebook didn't write the propaganda and the parents are the ones who fell for it, Facebook's delivery makes it far more likely parents will fall for it.
There's no particular reason Facebook has to send only anti-vaxx propaganda when you search for information about vaccines. Their algorithms could also choose to show you truthful articles or articles that debunk the propaganda.
Facebook's algorithms feed anti-vaxx propaganda to parents, because they're designed to reinforce subjects you appear interested in.
So while Facebook didn't write the propaganda and the parents are the ones who fell for it, Facebook's delivery makes it far more likely parents will fall for it.
Isn't this how a whole generation or three of kids were raised (Late-X, Millenials and Y?) I showed up! I got a trophy for showing up! Yay me! I'm thpecial! Look at me! Participation awards! I'm a thpecial and unique snowflake!
So, the massive stupidity on your talking point here is that the kids weren't giving themselves trophies. They were kids. The adults were the ones handing out the participation trophies. Because the adults couldn't handle their child not getting recognition.
If you think something is wrong with "the kids these days", you have to remember you raised them.
To the tune of 49,000 violent attacks on US citizens a year.
Boy that sounds bad. It's too bad you didn't provide enough context to actually evaluate the number. 'Cause our native-born population commits about 2 million "violent attacks" on US citizens a year. Also, that 2M statistic uses traditional definitions of "violent attacks", as opposed to property crimes that are included in your 49,000 statistic.
Meaning our native population causes violence at a higher rate than the immigrants you want to exclude.
So, when you say everyone should care about the violence of immigrants and ignore the actual rate of violence in the country, you demonstrate you don't really care about crime. You care about hurting brown people.
And to bring it back to the subject at hand, infectious diseases kill far more than 49,000 people per year, and death is a wee bit worse than the very loose definition of "violent" used to create that statistic.
So, when you constantly whine that people should care more about immigrants than deadly diseases, you don't really care about people dying. You care about feeding your racism.
Well, I'd suggest that Facebook would be an excellent place for some education campaigns, to help counter the anti-vaxx propoganda we now know is on Facebook.
Nope. People got paid differently based on their job. There were still rich and poor with wildly different incomes.
There has never actually been a socialist country. Largely because socialism does not scale well as a complete governing philosophy.
Which means saying "socialism always leads to _______ because ______" can't really be supported. We haven't tried, because it's just unworkable to try.
That being said, socialist policies seem to be extremely effective in some areas, and don't lead to the predicted disasters. Such as insurance, fire departments, police departments, military protection, roads, and so on.
It's hard to criticize Socialism when there are no actual Socialist countries.
No, it's very, very easy to do.
What's hard to do is make a statement like "socialism always leads to _______ because of _______". Because we lack any actual trials.
There's lots of individual socialist policies that have been proven extremely effective. Single-payer healthcare. Fire departments. Police departments. Military protection. Property insurance of all types. And so on. Those have not lead to the calamities predicted above.
So in the absence of any test cases, the claim that that previous poster made doesn't have any real-world support.
But as a SCIENTIST I was very fucking cautious from then on and he got no further vaccines containing thimerasol regardless of what happened to other peoples kids.
As a SCIENTIST, you would have found that thiomersal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2000. Also as a SCIENTIST, you would have noticed that there was no decrease in the rate of autism diagnoses after 2000.
Every toddler has symptoms of autism. That's what the "terrible twos" is about. What makes it diagnosed as autism is when they keep those symptoms when they are older. Which means autism can only be diagnosed as they get older. Which corresponds to the age at which they get a series of vaccines, including MMR.
Slashdot Mirror
You're only required to have that sort of note when it's a political ad.
These are "news" sites, so they are technically not a political ad. And as long as a candidate or a PAC doesn't fund them directly, they can continue their claim to be a news site.
Tell me again about how they should have talked to the Republicans about the Republican implanted spying programs.
Have you been in a coma? Just because Republicans do something does not mean they will not attack Democrats for doing the same. See: Every scandal since at least the 1990s.
Both major Parties have been the ones who oversaw the creation and expansion of these domestic spying programs.
Prove it.
Not the "both parties are the same!!!" thing. The domestic spying program part.
Because the actual documents Snowden leaked have all of 1 program that can collect on US persons, and that one was legal thanks to an over-broad 1979 SCOTUS decision (phone records were ruled standard business records and thus not private. Phone records grew in the age of cell phones to reveal....well really the same stuff they revealed back in 1979, since you knew the location of the call since it was a land line).
The very, very, very few documents that talk about targetting explicitly include steps to exclude US persons. The vast majority of Snowden's leaked docs were capabilities, with no description on how they are used.
Instead, it has been continuously asserted that the NSA must be doing massive amounts of domestic spying, on the assumption that that is the only possible use for those capabilities. Which is an incredibly dumb assumption, but it's also incredibly popular.
If you want to freak out about domestic surveillance, look at the FBI, your local police, and technologies like Stingrays.
They ultimately report to the same government run by the same corrupt elites responsible for the corruption in the first place.
Which is why you report it to Congresspeople of the party that isn't in charge. Which, btw, can be done legally. And they will use their corrupt quest for power to expose it.
If you're as foolishly nihilistic as you are, and not actually in the military, then go the Ellsberg route.
If you're particularly dumb, you go the Snowden route and accept things from other countries for your leaks, thus planting yourself firmly on the wrong side of espionage laws. You also lie about what exactly you leaked, because few are going to look through the large volume of stuff and notice that the red meat you're talking about with your supporters isn't actually in the documents you leaked. 'Cause you leaked capabilities, and very few operational documents about how or where they're being used.
Those operational documents that were leaked showed they were not being used against US persons.
Your fans will assume they are so important that they must be the target of all of these capabilities, actual targeting documents be damned.
And then they post on Slashdot how the government is totally after them, despite their continued not-in-prison existence.
This is different then Snowden who was a civilian consultant and wasn't given a way to report illegal actives
There are lots and lots of ways for a contractor to report illegal activities. And it is a requirement that contractors be briefed on those ways every year.
There are at least 3 paths of reporting that are independent of chain-of-command. They also accept anonymous tips.
"I had nowhere to report it!!" is bullshit designed to make Snowden more appealing after-the-fact.
and the Volt simply died due to the colder weather fucking over their expected driving range by about 80 miles
Wow, considering the Volt had an electric range of about 50 miles, that's impressive! Negative 30 mile range!!
Or, alternatively, you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about. Which is quite likely since you don't seem to know the Volt has a gas engine too, and gets the vast majority of it's 300mi range from the 250 miles of gas in its tank.
If citizens in sparsely populated areas get left behind then that is a national issue
Nah. It's a local issue. The nation is in no way required to fix it. Just like the nation does not require, say, all vehicles to be 4x4s or otherwise have sufficient off-road capability to work where you life. You just don't buy the gas cars that were designed for commuters in a city.
There is a sufficient market for vehicles that run in sufficiently rural areas that there will always be someone making them. But that does not mean all vehicles must be able to do it.
Also, you're forgetting one advantage of EVs in your scenario: You don't stop to fill them up occasionally. You plug them in every night when you get home. Which means they have a "full tank" every morning. So as long as that fishing hole is 100mi or less from home, you're better covered day-to-day with that EV because it isn't getting left with a quarter tank in your driveway.
That system though is designed to limit your chances
Then sue the government instead. The existence of the vaccine injury program does not mean you are required to use it.
Safe overall is small comfort to a parent trying to minimize risk for their baby.
As the parent of two young children, no it really isn't. It's only difficult if you trust the people trying to sell you snakeoil instead of the scientists and doctors.
From what our doctor told us the vaccine schedule is strongly influenced by the fear that parents would skip or be unable to bring their child in for all the appointments of individual vaccination shots
Again, they don't just throw a new vaccine in for fun. They only give the vaccines at the same time when they've been given independently for a long time.
The schedule is also an age range, not a specific date. So if you don't understand how the immune system works and want to make extra trips to the doctor to alleviate your misinformation, go ahead. No one will stop you.
And that similarly the Chicken Pox vaccine was made mandatory simply to force insurance companies into covering it.
Well, chickenpox is actually not nearly as safe as we pretended when we were children. About 2 in 1000 cases require hospitalization, about 1 in 60,000 are fatal. And it confers immunity to shingles, which itself causes hospitalizations and death (about 1-4% of cases require hospitalization.)
Golly, what a terrible thing to include in the vaccine schedule!!!! :eyeroll:
There is a natural draw to this field for women and frankly it is more rewarding for someone that enjoys human interactions.
You apparently have not spent much time around people in medicine. There's not much human interaction, and massive pressure to eliminate as much as possible.
Many who have privileges feel that equality looks like oppression.
the Dems want to put the Internet back under control of the FTC (which is what Obama NN was) rather than FCC where it has always been.
Uh...no. "Obama NN" was making Internet Service Providers FCC Title II services.
ISPs are currently FCC Tittle III services, and the Republican plan is to let the FTC deal with blocking/fast-laning/zero-rating. However the Republicans have neglected to give the FTC any authority to do so.
The AT&T and Time Warner merger recently blocked by Trump's FCC is what Dems want to pass.
You mean the merger that Trump's administration just approved?
Also, if the Democrats wanted that merger to go through, why did the Obama administration block it?
Under Obama's rules we saw massive monopolization of news networks, media and information distribution channels
You've got your timeline wrong here. The massive wave of mergers happened before 2008. And again, if the Democrats wanted these mergers, why did the Democrats block the AT&T/Time Warner merger?
Because violent crime actually hurts people, usually irreparably. Overstaying a tourist visa doesn't.
Because it's the one type of crime that is 100% preventable
The vast majority of undocumented people in the US are here because they stayed beyond the end of their perfectly legal and valid visa.
So it is not close to 100% preventable without a police state that you will find unacceptable. Police constantly saying "Papers Please!" is required to catch the majority. And even then, people will have false papers.
Skin color does not matter. Language does not matter
It matters when the people claiming it is "100% preventable" are only looking at people with one skin color and speak one language, and seek moronic solutions like a wall that only blocks one border.
and no illegal alien can possibly exist in the USA for long without comitting additional crimes like identity theft and welfare fraud.
Wow have no idea what you're talking about.
First, undocumented people don't make welfare claims. They are seeking to minimize interaction with the government, because interactions with the government is how they get caught. So no "welfare fraud" when you don't make any claims. Also, welfare doesn't exist anymore. It was eliminated in the 1990s. But it's still used as a boogeyman for people who want to demonize the poor because folks like you already bought into the lies about "welfare queens", so they're gonna keep running with it. Re-branding is so hard.
Second, there's plenty of employers who will happily pay in cash. If an employer insists on paying by check, you can take that check to the employer's bank to cash it for free. Or use a myriad of check-cashing places that will gouge the employee. Thus no false identity required.
One of the common complaints though is that the FDA seems to fail at its job disturbingly often.
That complaint comes from people who do not understand a study of a thousand people can not find all possible interactions with any new medication. The interactions that are found later involve a combination of drugs that just didn't happen in the initial study.....and result in the FDA ordering the drug pulled.
Just look at how many drugs end up being recalled because they do more harm than good
No, they still did plenty of good. And the vast majority who got the drugs did benefit. They had an interaction that didn't happen to occur in the human trials, because it is impossible to test every possible drug/medical condition interaction. That's why new drugs are prescription-only - your doctor is supposed to monitor for such interactions.
Literally every drug is a poison. Including the ones you think are "safe". It's just the dose that makes it "safe".
With vaccines this is exacerbated by the fact that you can't go after the company in civil court if it hurt your child.
You're misrepresenting the situation here. You can't go after the company because you can go after the government. The government claims liability for vaccine injuries and even has a special fund and claim program set up so you don't have to actually sue.
To make things more complicated doctors are pushed to administer vaccines on a short schedule with multiple shots per visit. In the event a child does react negatively to a vaccine trying to figure out which one caused the problem is complicated by the scheduling.
They're only given in the same visit after the vaccines have been proven safe in the overall population. They don't just throw a new one in when they feel like it.
How, exactly, does an ISP blocking your access to a new company improve "innovation"?
it gave exemption's to companies like google and Facebook which did exactly what they are claiming their rules are preventing.
Google and Facebook are not ISPs. Net Neutrality never applied to them in the past, and would not apply to them in the future.
Net Neutrality requires ISPs treat all similar packets similarly, regardless of origin or destination. That's it.
And really, there's no reason to blindly assume that any NEW vaccines that come along will be as safe or effective to receive as the tried and true ones we've been collectively receiving for decades.
Except for several laws and FDA regulations that require any NEW vaccines to be as safe or effective.
But it is a very pretty strawman. I like what you did with the hat.
What happens if a dozen new vaccines are developed for other diseases, but we discover the human body can't create immunity for all of those things and maintain it at one time?
Then we'd already be extinct.
We're exposed to a truly unfathomable quantity of different pathogens every day, and our immune system just handles it. We vaccinate against a very, very small percentage of those pathogens because they are particularly bad when you are exposed to the full-strength virus. We are in no danger of "overwhelming" our immune system by exposing it to dead viruses, weakened viruses or bits of virus protein. Long-term immunity is not like a thumbdrive with a limited storage.
Facebook's algorithms feed anti-vaxx propaganda to parents, because they're designed to reinforce subjects you appear interested in.
So while Facebook didn't write the propaganda and the parents are the ones who fell for it, Facebook's delivery makes it far more likely parents will fall for it.
There's no particular reason Facebook has to send only anti-vaxx propaganda when you search for information about vaccines. Their algorithms could also choose to show you truthful articles or articles that debunk the propaganda.
Facebook's algorithms feed anti-vaxx propaganda to parents, because they're designed to reinforce subjects you appear interested in.
So while Facebook didn't write the propaganda and the parents are the ones who fell for it, Facebook's delivery makes it far more likely parents will fall for it.
Isn't this how a whole generation or three of kids were raised (Late-X, Millenials and Y?) I showed up! I got a trophy for showing up! Yay me! I'm thpecial! Look at me! Participation awards! I'm a thpecial and unique snowflake!
So, the massive stupidity on your talking point here is that the kids weren't giving themselves trophies. They were kids. The adults were the ones handing out the participation trophies. Because the adults couldn't handle their child not getting recognition.
If you think something is wrong with "the kids these days", you have to remember you raised them.
To the tune of 49,000 violent attacks on US citizens a year.
Boy that sounds bad. It's too bad you didn't provide enough context to actually evaluate the number. 'Cause our native-born population commits about 2 million "violent attacks" on US citizens a year. Also, that 2M statistic uses traditional definitions of "violent attacks", as opposed to property crimes that are included in your 49,000 statistic.
Meaning our native population causes violence at a higher rate than the immigrants you want to exclude.
So, when you say everyone should care about the violence of immigrants and ignore the actual rate of violence in the country, you demonstrate you don't really care about crime. You care about hurting brown people.
And to bring it back to the subject at hand, infectious diseases kill far more than 49,000 people per year, and death is a wee bit worse than the very loose definition of "violent" used to create that statistic.
So, when you constantly whine that people should care more about immigrants than deadly diseases, you don't really care about people dying. You care about feeding your racism.
Facebook's algorithms show you articles on subjects you appear to be interested in.
If you start looking at articles about vaccines, Facebook's algorithms will feed you a large quantity of anti-vaxx propaganda.
While Facebook didn't write that propaganda, Facebook does intentionally deliver the propaganda to the people most open to believing it.
Well, I'd suggest that Facebook would be an excellent place for some education campaigns, to help counter the anti-vaxx propoganda we now know is on Facebook.
It used to be Venezuela
Nope. People got paid differently based on their job. There were still rich and poor with wildly different incomes.
There has never actually been a socialist country. Largely because socialism does not scale well as a complete governing philosophy.
Which means saying "socialism always leads to _______ because ______" can't really be supported. We haven't tried, because it's just unworkable to try.
That being said, socialist policies seem to be extremely effective in some areas, and don't lead to the predicted disasters. Such as insurance, fire departments, police departments, military protection, roads, and so on.
It's hard to criticize Socialism when there are no actual Socialist countries.
No, it's very, very easy to do.
What's hard to do is make a statement like "socialism always leads to _______ because of _______". Because we lack any actual trials.
There's lots of individual socialist policies that have been proven extremely effective. Single-payer healthcare. Fire departments. Police departments. Military protection. Property insurance of all types. And so on. Those have not lead to the calamities predicted above.
So in the absence of any test cases, the claim that that previous poster made doesn't have any real-world support.
But as a SCIENTIST I was very fucking cautious from then on and he got no further vaccines containing thimerasol regardless of what happened to other peoples kids.
As a SCIENTIST, you would have found that thiomersal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2000. Also as a SCIENTIST, you would have noticed that there was no decrease in the rate of autism diagnoses after 2000.
Every toddler has symptoms of autism. That's what the "terrible twos" is about. What makes it diagnosed as autism is when they keep those symptoms when they are older. Which means autism can only be diagnosed as they get older. Which corresponds to the age at which they get a series of vaccines, including MMR.