None of those groups are regularly involved in political discussions; you'd have to be blind to think that homosexuality isn't still an issue in contemporary American politics. That's what makes your argument ridiculous.
Also, saying "this Muslim guy committed an act of terrorism against gays" is about as far from an "SJW excuse" as you can get, considering how many members of the Regressive Left are trying to ignore the role Islam played in this.
Well, sort of. There's one budget, but it's split into two categories, mandatory spending (which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and discretionary spending (military, small social programs, research, NASA, etc.). You said "entire budget", so that would include both categories, in which case military spending is proportionally small (but yes, still too high); you also said "ALL American social programs", but your numbers exclude the largest social programs in America. It's certainly sometimes appropriate to compare the military budget to just the discretionary spending, but I don't think it's ever appropriate to exclude the large social programs from discussions about American spending on social programs.
This is pretty accurate, but whenever you tell a Democrat (or a Republican, actually) that Obama is pretty much like Bush on a lot of levels, they get really mad.
You know the DEA and FDA aren't the same thing, right?
Some traditional medicine has merit, to be sure - but we only know that because we tested it the same way we test medicine. And standardized dosing of drugs is a lot safer than herbs, where the amount of active ingredients can very substantially between plants.
Funnily enough, before most drugs were illegal, the majority of addicts actually had stable jobs and lived relatively normal lives. Drugs were cheap enough that they didn't have to turn to crime, and so most people were doing okay. The book Chasing the Scream talks a lot about the drug war and is a really good read.
Victim-blaming much? It's the same situation as that time a bunch of female celebrities had their iCloud account hacked and nude pictures stolen and leaked; Gawker was very much against it then, but for some reason decided it was okay to do it to Hogan. Those celebrities were all public figures, and just as much in the public interest as Hogan's video (which is to say, not at all).
That only really works if the lawsuit has merit, so any good news outlet would be fine, while sites like Gawker that post revenge porn should worry. It's not a dangerous precedent unless you think all news outlets are guilty of the same shit Gawker is.
It's really funny how the story of "multimillion dollar corporation outs gay man, publishes revenge porn of working class hero" ended up with "progressives" siding with the corporation.
Does he work specifically against gay rights, or does he just support the Republicans? Those are two different things; look at the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans, for example. Regardless as to whether it's valid journalism or not, he has every right to help someone else (Hulk Hogan) get justice from Gawker.
The COMBINED cost of ALL American social programs is less than 5% of the entire budget.
Only if you don't count Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as social programs. Democrats like to complain about military spending - rightly so, I might add - but then often lie about how much of the budget it is. The military is a huge part of discretionary spending, and other social programs are very little of that, but the entire budget devotes far more than 5% to social programs.
If all they had done was piss Thiel off, they'd still be around. However, they compounded that bit of jackassery (outing a gay man isn't exactly cool, and it goes very much against their "progressive" image) with posting revenge porn - which they said was terrible when female celebrities were affected by it, but it's okay if it's a man, according to them. I really don't think this is a dangerous precedent, as anyone who doesn't fuck up this badly needn't be worried.
We could, but the FDA and EMA both don't want to cede control; they put slightly different emphasis on safety/efficacy, there's different regulations on how clinical trials must be run, individual data protection, etc. We probably should standardize it to some extent, but nobody wants to change that much.
There are times, however, where the FDA will look at the trial that approved something in the EU and just say "good enough", but it's on a case by case basis.
The medical regulatory agency in Japan makes it hard to do that though, since they require anything that's approved in Japan to be tested on people of Japanese heritage, so if you wanted to do a joint Japan/EU approval, for instance, you'd have to find enough Japanese people in the EU, or run the trial in Japan and hope you have a big enough sample size for the EMA.
Spending money on election advertisements is speech. I fail to see how anyone could disagree with that.
It has also ruled corporations are not only people
False. Citizens United merely said that because people individually have freedom of speech, people working together in a group (in this case, a corporation - interesting fact, the ACLU and many unions are nonprofit corporations as well) should also have it. Corporations do not, however, enjoy protections under the Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination in particular).
We don't have a cure for polio; we have vaccines that prevent it. New vaccines are still being developed, and some are even anti-cancer.
There are lots of people working to create helpful drugs; what the article is about is testing existing drugs to see if they might do other things, and clinical trials are expensive. Talk to Congress and get them to fund the NIH more if you want them to do that.
Clinical trials are fucking expensive, man. Somewhat less expensive if the drug is already approved for other uses, but you're still talking probably upwards of $100M per drug to show that it works. The NIH budget isn't big, especially if you want them to keep funding basic and translational (not clinical) research at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama, despite his promises to be a transparent administration, has been kind of the opposite of that. Neither Red nor Blue respect rights.
None of those groups are regularly involved in political discussions; you'd have to be blind to think that homosexuality isn't still an issue in contemporary American politics. That's what makes your argument ridiculous.
Also, saying "this Muslim guy committed an act of terrorism against gays" is about as far from an "SJW excuse" as you can get, considering how many members of the Regressive Left are trying to ignore the role Islam played in this.
Well, sort of. There's one budget, but it's split into two categories, mandatory spending (which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and discretionary spending (military, small social programs, research, NASA, etc.). You said "entire budget", so that would include both categories, in which case military spending is proportionally small (but yes, still too high); you also said "ALL American social programs", but your numbers exclude the largest social programs in America. It's certainly sometimes appropriate to compare the military budget to just the discretionary spending, but I don't think it's ever appropriate to exclude the large social programs from discussions about American spending on social programs.
This is pretty accurate, but whenever you tell a Democrat (or a Republican, actually) that Obama is pretty much like Bush on a lot of levels, they get really mad.
You know the DEA and FDA aren't the same thing, right?
Some traditional medicine has merit, to be sure - but we only know that because we tested it the same way we test medicine. And standardized dosing of drugs is a lot safer than herbs, where the amount of active ingredients can very substantially between plants.
Funnily enough, before most drugs were illegal, the majority of addicts actually had stable jobs and lived relatively normal lives. Drugs were cheap enough that they didn't have to turn to crime, and so most people were doing okay. The book Chasing the Scream talks a lot about the drug war and is a really good read.
I thought we were talking about "average users", not technicians.
Victim-blaming much? It's the same situation as that time a bunch of female celebrities had their iCloud account hacked and nude pictures stolen and leaked; Gawker was very much against it then, but for some reason decided it was okay to do it to Hogan. Those celebrities were all public figures, and just as much in the public interest as Hogan's video (which is to say, not at all).
The settlement was huge. Why do you think Hogan won't get much of that?
They do terrible reporting on video games, that's what's not to like.
That would cover Gawker saying the video existed, not showing footage of it.
That only really works if the lawsuit has merit, so any good news outlet would be fine, while sites like Gawker that post revenge porn should worry. It's not a dangerous precedent unless you think all news outlets are guilty of the same shit Gawker is.
It's really funny how the story of "multimillion dollar corporation outs gay man, publishes revenge porn of working class hero" ended up with "progressives" siding with the corporation.
Does he work specifically against gay rights, or does he just support the Republicans? Those are two different things; look at the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans, for example. Regardless as to whether it's valid journalism or not, he has every right to help someone else (Hulk Hogan) get justice from Gawker.
The COMBINED cost of ALL American social programs is less than 5% of the entire budget.
Only if you don't count Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as social programs. Democrats like to complain about military spending - rightly so, I might add - but then often lie about how much of the budget it is. The military is a huge part of discretionary spending, and other social programs are very little of that, but the entire budget devotes far more than 5% to social programs.
If all they had done was piss Thiel off, they'd still be around. However, they compounded that bit of jackassery (outing a gay man isn't exactly cool, and it goes very much against their "progressive" image) with posting revenge porn - which they said was terrible when female celebrities were affected by it, but it's okay if it's a man, according to them. I really don't think this is a dangerous precedent, as anyone who doesn't fuck up this badly needn't be worried.
You do have the ability to help fund lawyers going after a media outlet you don't like.
I'd argue that torture is already prohibited by general bodily integrity rights, so no, we don't need them specifically.
We could, but the FDA and EMA both don't want to cede control; they put slightly different emphasis on safety/efficacy, there's different regulations on how clinical trials must be run, individual data protection, etc. We probably should standardize it to some extent, but nobody wants to change that much.
There are times, however, where the FDA will look at the trial that approved something in the EU and just say "good enough", but it's on a case by case basis.
The medical regulatory agency in Japan makes it hard to do that though, since they require anything that's approved in Japan to be tested on people of Japanese heritage, so if you wanted to do a joint Japan/EU approval, for instance, you'd have to find enough Japanese people in the EU, or run the trial in Japan and hope you have a big enough sample size for the EMA.
Targeting a specific class of people (in this case, gays) makes it a political statement. He was angry they were allowed to be openly gay.
It has also ruled corporations are not only people
False. Citizens United merely said that because people individually have freedom of speech, people working together in a group (in this case, a corporation - interesting fact, the ACLU and many unions are nonprofit corporations as well) should also have it. Corporations do not, however, enjoy protections under the Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination in particular).
We don't have a cure for polio; we have vaccines that prevent it. New vaccines are still being developed, and some are even anti-cancer.
There are lots of people working to create helpful drugs; what the article is about is testing existing drugs to see if they might do other things, and clinical trials are expensive. Talk to Congress and get them to fund the NIH more if you want them to do that.
Clinical trials are fucking expensive, man. Somewhat less expensive if the drug is already approved for other uses, but you're still talking probably upwards of $100M per drug to show that it works. The NIH budget isn't big, especially if you want them to keep funding basic and translational (not clinical) research at the same time.
So if I find a way to cure cancer, I beat God? Well that's pretty neat.
Yeah, and I agreed with that; if we aren't using the laws, why have them?