Perhaps environmentalists should instead say "when oil becomes extremely scare", but that doesn't have quite the same emotional effect.
That's the principle reason environmentalists have poor credibility: they're more interested in manipulating the emotions of people than being rational, telling the truth, offering scientific evidence, or otherwise communicating information in a trustworthy fashion.
The sky is always falling. The future is always about to end. There's always only one solution. (This time, it's wind power. Next time, it'll be solar.)
Usually, the "solution" isn't really in most people's best interest. If some action is clearly in your interest, you don't need to be tricked, scared, or otherwise manipulated into doing it, do you?
Incidentally, I hope wind power is actually getting cheaper (and this isn't just another bunch of manipulative hype) because cheaper power is better for everyone.
Bush talked about Social Security reforms at the convention.
The rest of the Federal debt is constantly overhyped. I remember in the 80s it was going to kill us all, and in 2000 we were going to pay it off on 10 years. Now it's going to kill us all again.
The solution is very simple: cut spending, grow the economy, reform Social Security into private accounts. Bush is saying he'll do all those.
The Social Security "obligations" can be retired by selling government land. The Federal government owns most of the land west of the Mississippi.
Please explain the precise benefits of the UN-involvement you propose. It might also help to cite examples of similar endeavors where the UN's involvement has proved beneficial.
This question is genuine. A lot (a majority?) of the American people are sceptical of the UN, including myself. Here's an opportunity to show how the UN can help with something.
(It might also help to show what the benefit is to the United States. It's easy to show that one side benefits in a completely one-sided arrangement.)
The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.
Name calling. That didn't take long.
I guess you're a bigot if you want people to be able to live their lives the way they want.
I guess you're a bigot unless you acknowledge there's only one set of acceptable thoughts and no others will be tolerated.
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
I guess "live and let live" is bigoted now, and "you will think what we tell you and do what we tell you" is the only way to avoid this evil bigotry.
But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal.
It's so normal that you have to have a book depicting it as normal. It's so normal that you have to mount feverish activist campaigns to push it as normal.
It's so normal that you have to reach children at a young age so they have the mental discipline to fight the constant, nagging tug of reality -- lest they think it might not be perfectly normal.
Why not just live your life the way you want and leave the rest of us out of your wish to be considered normal?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps environmentalists should instead say "when oil becomes extremely scare", but that doesn't have quite the same emotional effect.
That's the principle reason environmentalists have poor credibility: they're more interested in manipulating the emotions of people than being rational, telling the truth, offering scientific evidence, or otherwise communicating information in a trustworthy fashion.
The sky is always falling. The future is always about to end. There's always only one solution. (This time, it's wind power. Next time, it'll be solar.)
Usually, the "solution" isn't really in most people's best interest. If some action is clearly in your interest, you don't need to be tricked, scared, or otherwise manipulated into doing it, do you?
Incidentally, I hope wind power is actually getting cheaper (and this isn't just another bunch of manipulative hype) because cheaper power is better for everyone.
Bush never promised you personally would be satisfied. The fact that you're not has little bearing on whether he kept his campaign promises.
He also more-or-less kept his campaign promises from last time. He did most of what he said he'd do.
Bush talked about Social Security reforms at the convention.
The rest of the Federal debt is constantly overhyped. I remember in the 80s it was going to kill us all, and in 2000 we were going to pay it off on 10 years. Now it's going to kill us all again.
The solution is very simple: cut spending, grow the economy, reform Social Security into private accounts. Bush is saying he'll do all those.
The Social Security "obligations" can be retired by selling government land. The Federal government owns most of the land west of the Mississippi.
The guy you pepper spray can get pissed off and come back and kill you tomorrow. (What's the worst you can do to him? Pepper spray him again?)
The intruder you shoot in your hallway won't be bothering anyone ever again.
Pepper spray is a useful weapon. It's an incomplete substitute for a gun though.
The rule of equations (at least in school) is:
The more complicated the equations for the math problem looks, the more likely the answer is 1.
My tax money. My research. My cure.
I know. You guys care who gets the money.
When the next drug isn't developed because there's less money in it, the patients will die instead of being cured by that drug.
But at least you'll have your money. (Or the government will, or someone besides the drug company anyway.)
I hear battlefields in general are sometimes hazardous.
Also worth noting:
The draft hasn't been reinstated.
If a company wants to rake in huge profits off of something, then they should spend their money to develop it, not mine.
They just won't bother developing at all and the people will die of the disease instead of being cured.
What percentage of the new, life-saving drugs come from research primarily done in Canada?
A signifiant number per capita
What number? More than in the other systems you dislike so much?
All this "thieving tyrant" talk isn't really curing anyone of cancer, is it?
No but it might help bring thieves to account and discourage further thievery.
I think people with the cancer would rather have the cure.
What percentage of the new, life-saving drugs come from research primarily done in Canada?
All this "thieving tyrant" talk isn't really curing anyone of cancer, is it?
What is wrong with having the company who gets an exclusive license to the research pay back what the research cost?
It could (will almost certainly) lead to fewer cures.
Emphasis on profit. Deemphassis on cure.
I think the people who didn't die of cancer would argue with your emphasis.
If you have a less-expensive model that has a long term track-record of producing more and better drugs, let's see the link.
I'll take the cures, even if someone makes some money on it.
The drug companies then use this research for next to nothing and reap most, if not all, of the rewards.
The people who didn't die of cancer reaped most of the rewards.
I don't believe in making it harder (or less financially attractive) for drug companies to cure diseases.
Either the cure is worth the money or it isn't. If it isn't, then you're saying you'd rather have the money than the cure.
The type of advocacy you're engaged in -- if it were turned into action -- would result in fewer cures.
That's what drug companies do: cure people for a profit. You might want to make that harder for them. I don't.
Please explain the precise benefits of the UN-involvement you propose. It might also help to cite examples of similar endeavors where the UN's involvement has proved beneficial.
This question is genuine. A lot (a majority?) of the American people are sceptical of the UN, including myself. Here's an opportunity to show how the UN can help with something.
(It might also help to show what the benefit is to the United States. It's easy to show that one side benefits in a completely one-sided arrangement.)
What a ripoff. A company gets almost 2 billion dollars and all their customers get is "not dying from cancer"?
I'm outraged.
I'm glad you caught them so that this kind of thing won't happen again.
It has to be Professor Farnsworth
I hope you guys know you're supposed to declare the value of barter and in-kind services as income and pay taxes on it.
If these types of things get popular, the IRS will find you.
Yeah, we wouldn't want talking to interrupt the blissful quiet and plush comfort of airline travel.
And why would anyone want to talk on the phone when they can watch the riveting in-flight entertainment?
The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.
Name calling. That didn't take long.
I guess you're a bigot if you want people to be able to live their lives the way they want.
I guess you're a bigot unless you acknowledge there's only one set of acceptable thoughts and no others will be tolerated.
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
I guess "live and let live" is bigoted now, and "you will think what we tell you and do what we tell you" is the only way to avoid this evil bigotry.
But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal.
It's so normal that you have to have a book depicting it as normal. It's so normal that you have to mount feverish activist campaigns to push it as normal.
It's so normal that you have to reach children at a young age so they have the mental discipline to fight the constant, nagging tug of reality -- lest they think it might not be perfectly normal.
Why not just live your life the way you want and leave the rest of us out of your wish to be considered normal?
(Watch this post get "banned" now.)
It ain't God.
Yes it is.