In the case of Stanislaw Burzynski, no one does this. Read up on the reports and find that no one addresses the evidence directly: it's all ad-hominem attacks ("he's not a real doctor, he's not a cancer researcher"), indirect rationalizations ("it can't work because it doesn't fit my model", he doesn't have an explanation for *why* it works, it must be bunkum because it's too good), administrative accusations, and so on and so on.
Short excerpt from a large word salad, but I'm not seeing the words "peer-reviewed research" or "clinical trials" anywhere.
Miss the days of players deliberately making helmet-to-helmet tackles without penalty? If you want to have the brain of an 80 year old Alzheimer's patient before you can run for the Senate, go volunteer yourself, Sparky.
I'm actually surprised that you even went there...but hey, too fucking lazy to go Google it for yourself.
Except that's fucking bullshit. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up with evidence, not the audience. Otherwise I'll casually assert that you like have sex with goats. Is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it?
Oh please, the government isn't putting nearly as much criminals away as necessary.
If you're referring to corrupt politicians, white collar crime, and war criminals, then no, we aren't putting enough people away. If you're referring to poor and blue collar crime, you're a moron, as the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population.
Almost all of which is made up of poor and blue collar offenders.
Did MI6 really blow sources in both China and Russia just so they could make Snowden look bad? Why would they do that?
Wouldn't be the first time. Panetta bragged about listening on an Al Queda conference call, after the USG spent years demonizing whitsleblowers for revealing intelligence capabilities. It's not like Churchill ran around publicly boasting that Bletchley had cracked the Enigma.
All major countries spy on all other major countries, friend or foe. They would be negligent of their duties to their own citizens to do otherwise.
Horsefuckery. Spying on government actions is not the same thing at all as spying on entire civilian populations. And to pretend that everything is equal here is as stupid as saying the Vatican is a military power on par with the entire U.S. military, as they both have guards with guns.
Because even if some other countries politicians are as keen on spying on every communication from every person on the planet as the NSA, they are as much in a physical or financial position to challenge the U.S. as the Vatican has in defeating the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Because he is the one that arrogantly ignored the democratic process
Fortunate for us that your boot-licking fascism is only exceeded by your stupidity. Because that's what it takes to mouth the words "democratic process" in a sentence, when the topic is massive (unconstitutional) programs set up entirely outside of the "democratic process".
A certain amount of income is assumed to be dedicated to necessary expenses like food, shelter, and clothing (at least in some states).
But it's not close to what you can deduct as a company, where you can write of just about any item as a cost of doing business. Corporate retreat in Hawaii? Business expense! Private gym and sauna next to the private parking garage for upper management? Business expense!
You can't do the same thing as an individual, writing off your every purchase as your cost of living.
But why should you even tax a business?
My Spidey sense is detecting an ascent into the wingnutosphere....
If you tax the business, the money just comes from the employees (lower wages) and customers (higher prices).
Trite nonsense, if it's a tax on profit. Such a tax could be 95% or.005%, and it would result in neither of the above options. Because prices are always set to maximize profits, and wages are always set to minimize payroll. If companies could jack up prices without losing too many customers, or cut wages without losing too many employees, they would go ahead and do it, not wait for a tax.
"I didn't know that Honduras prohibited transporting lobsters in clear containers, rather than opaque ones." That's not at all ridiculous. And someone was convicted for that and sentenced to jail.
Or not so much? The other side of the story is that the case was based on under-sized lobsters (i.e. overfishing), not the packaging. Sounds like one of those fables cooked up by dishonest right wingers to be repeated in spite of the facts. Like Clinton being responsible for Ruby Ridge (happened before he was elected president much less took office) or banning DDT from agricultural use causing millions of people to die from malaria.
Prosecutors insist the packaging issue is misleading at best, in part because the primary basis of the prosecution was on the size of the lobster tails, not on the packaging.
As McNab's own brief in the 11th Circuit noted, "the principal charge against McNab was that some of his crew kept some percentage of lobsters with a tail length shorter than 5.5 inches."
It's true that violations also included packaging the lobsters incorrectly, but that was not the key part of the prosecution, Webb said.
"The notion the case was about packaging is incorrect," he said. "Packaging was the means by which the crime was concealed. It was the mechanism to conceal the extent of overharvesting."
Otherwise he wouldn't be in the UK in the first place, because the UK, too, has an extradition treaty with the US.
The UK has more qualms about openly handing people over to regimes fond of torture and execution than Sweden does. Regimes like the United States, which spent a year and half torturing Manning with solitary confinement before trial.
Assange is in that embassy by choice. He could clear this all up by going for questioning, and possibly trial. If he is not guilty, then he goes free.
Repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar. Before ever seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - something they have done before - an offer that has been ignored.
Clown shoes. Has the grown of almonds or the ranching of cattle been banned? Nope. How about reigning in farms using 15th century flood irrigation to grow rice? Also nope. You can't grow tomatoes in Wisconsin in December, but you can during the summer - has California made any moves to encourage seasonal farming, and save the thirsty crops for when they can't be grown elsewhere?
None of the above. Which means their actions are not being regulated. Pointing to ineffective and unenforced laws does not change that fact.
You're conflating a war that turned out to have bad intelligence
You're going to put on those clown shoes in public? After whining about 20 year old Clinton Chronicle horseshit, you're going through a marthathon session of Twister to excuse the Bush Administration's constant, bald-faced lying on Iraq?
Really?
Well, thanks for making it clear you're as much of a drooling, brain dead partisan tribalist as an Obamabot who spent years railing against the Patriot Act only to snooze when Obama pushed the far more odious NDAA into law.
Could you guys all move out to Political Hack Island and fight it out, leaving the rest of us in peace?
It actually matches what he's said for a long time.
You mean it matched the rest of his false campaign promises.
Iraq was the 'bad' war
More campaign rhetoric - and they were both bad wars. If Obama had been president in 2003, he might not have launched a full scale invasion. Instead, he might have spent 7 months bombing the country in full violation of both the Constitution and the War Powers Act, as he did with Libya. Fun fact: Obama's own vice president vowed to support Bush's impeachment in 2007 if he had done the same thing with Iran. And instead of kidnapping innocent targest and torturing them, he would have simply murdered them with drones. And he could have funded extremists from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to come in as "freedom fighters", and we'd have had ISIS a decade early - fun for everybody.
But Obama's extension and expansion of the occupation of Afghanistan is a complete and utter debunking of the notion that he wanted to 'cut and run' from Iraq, and that's a fact that you and the Obamabots are just going to have to deal with. Do you guys meet for coffee on Tuesdays to discuss talking points?
That's the problem for you: I did read your posts. All of them in the thread. The notion that Obama was a cut-and-run peacenik who couldn't wait to get out of Iraq - at the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan and extending that occupation another 15 years - requires a level of willful ignorance that goes far beyond 11.
He's a nightmare rightwing freakshow. The greatest farce of our time is the battle between the Obamabots, who think he's a helpless bystander constrained by Republicans, and the wingers complaining about Obama being soft when he's the worst Dem warmonger since LBJ.
1) Facebook and Twitter are not school websites. What happens on them is not the school's business. Someone threatens another student, or you have some Steubenville-style jocks bragging about sexually assaulting someone? Turn it over to the police.
2) You have control over what you say. You don't have control over Billy Bob's Facebook postings, where he claims to have shared a bong with you at a party (that you didn't even attend)
3) Yes, people should be able to socialize without the state snooping on them without probable cause.
It looks like Obama merely grabbed onto that as an excuse to leave.
At the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan and arranging them to stay there till the mid twenty twenties? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Obama was as serious about withdrawing from Iraq as he was about reforming NAFTA or closing Gitmo.
Blaming the Bush timetable is silly.....he had several years to change the timetable (and not to mention that Bush was an idiot so doing anything because that is what Bush planned is utterly moronic.
It's really not hard to understand. If you had hostile foreign troops occupying your land, would you want to extend them immunity to shoot you on the street for no reason?
The articles I linked to demonstrate that the Iraqis wanted the troops to stay.
See above.
But don't worry, most people are wrong sometimes.
Yes, you are.
I gave quotes that showed Obama clearly didn't want the troops to stay.
And I could spend all day posting promises from Obama's 2008 campaign. Broken promises. Moreso than most politicians, you ignore what he says and pay attention to what he does. And what Obama does is invade, occupy, bomb and assassinate with the best right wing conservative hawk you can name. Because he's one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Short excerpt from a large word salad, but I'm not seeing the words "peer-reviewed research" or "clinical trials" anywhere.
Miss the days of players deliberately making helmet-to-helmet tackles without penalty? If you want to have the brain of an 80 year old Alzheimer's patient before you can run for the Senate, go volunteer yourself, Sparky.
Except that's fucking bullshit. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up with evidence, not the audience. Otherwise I'll casually assert that you like have sex with goats. Is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it?
If you're referring to corrupt politicians, white collar crime, and war criminals, then no, we aren't putting enough people away. If you're referring to poor and blue collar crime, you're a moron, as the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population.
Almost all of which is made up of poor and blue collar offenders.
Wouldn't be the first time. Panetta bragged about listening on an Al Queda conference call, after the USG spent years demonizing whitsleblowers for revealing intelligence capabilities. It's not like Churchill ran around publicly boasting that Bletchley had cracked the Enigma.
Horsefuckery. Spying on government actions is not the same thing at all as spying on entire civilian populations. And to pretend that everything is equal here is as stupid as saying the Vatican is a military power on par with the entire U.S. military, as they both have guards with guns.
Because even if some other countries politicians are as keen on spying on every communication from every person on the planet as the NSA, they are as much in a physical or financial position to challenge the U.S. as the Vatican has in defeating the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Fortunate for us that your boot-licking fascism is only exceeded by your stupidity. Because that's what it takes to mouth the words "democratic process" in a sentence, when the topic is massive (unconstitutional) programs set up entirely outside of the "democratic process".
As long as you're fine with equivalent submissions from other sources, like some stooge from North Korea.
But it's not close to what you can deduct as a company, where you can write of just about any item as a cost of doing business. Corporate retreat in Hawaii? Business expense! Private gym and sauna next to the private parking garage for upper management? Business expense!
You can't do the same thing as an individual, writing off your every purchase as your cost of living.
My Spidey sense is detecting an ascent into the wingnutosphere....
Trite nonsense, if it's a tax on profit. Such a tax could be 95% or .005%, and it would result in neither of the above options. Because prices are always set to maximize profits, and wages are always set to minimize payroll. If companies could jack up prices without losing too many customers, or cut wages without losing too many employees, they would go ahead and do it, not wait for a tax.
Or not so much? The other side of the story is that the case was based on under-sized lobsters (i.e. overfishing), not the packaging. Sounds like one of those fables cooked up by dishonest right wingers to be repeated in spite of the facts. Like Clinton being responsible for Ruby Ridge (happened before he was elected president much less took office) or banning DDT from agricultural use causing millions of people to die from malaria.
As McNab's own brief in the 11th Circuit noted, "the principal charge against McNab was that some of his crew kept some percentage of lobsters with a tail length shorter than 5.5 inches."
It's true that violations also included packaging the lobsters incorrectly, but that was not the key part of the prosecution, Webb said.
"The notion the case was about packaging is incorrect," he said. "Packaging was the means by which the crime was concealed. It was the mechanism to conceal the extent of overharvesting."
The ones standing over there between Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? They don't exist, and neither do these "insults" you imagined reading.
So much time do you think women should serve in prison if they lie about being on the pill? Since fraud is fraud, and all that.
Because "justice" involves handing people over to be tortured. You trolls DGAF about justice anymore than Republicans care about perjury or affairs.
Before even seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if they promised not to hand him over to the U.S. Sweden has refused to do so.
The UK has more qualms about openly handing people over to regimes fond of torture and execution than Sweden does. Regimes like the United States, which spent a year and half torturing Manning with solitary confinement before trial.
Because you are a very poor on-call troll.
Repeating Big Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar. Before ever seeking asylum, Assange offered to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - something they have done before - an offer that has been ignored.
Clown shoes. Has the grown of almonds or the ranching of cattle been banned? Nope. How about reigning in farms using 15th century flood irrigation to grow rice? Also nope. You can't grow tomatoes in Wisconsin in December, but you can during the summer - has California made any moves to encourage seasonal farming, and save the thirsty crops for when they can't be grown elsewhere?
None of the above. Which means their actions are not being regulated. Pointing to ineffective and unenforced laws does not change that fact.
Net BSD running on SPARC?
But does it mean you'll stop spamming the talking point?
Hatebois gotta hate.
Why. Because you miss the days of monopolies and trusts openly buying U.S. Senate seats on the floors of statehouses?
You're going to put on those clown shoes in public? After whining about 20 year old Clinton Chronicle horseshit, you're going through a marthathon session of Twister to excuse the Bush Administration's constant, bald-faced lying on Iraq?
Really?
Well, thanks for making it clear you're as much of a drooling, brain dead partisan tribalist as an Obamabot who spent years railing against the Patriot Act only to snooze when Obama pushed the far more odious NDAA into law.
Could you guys all move out to Political Hack Island and fight it out, leaving the rest of us in peace?
You mean it matched the rest of his false campaign promises.
More campaign rhetoric - and they were both bad wars. If Obama had been president in 2003, he might not have launched a full scale invasion. Instead, he might have spent 7 months bombing the country in full violation of both the Constitution and the War Powers Act, as he did with Libya. Fun fact: Obama's own vice president vowed to support Bush's impeachment in 2007 if he had done the same thing with Iran. And instead of kidnapping innocent targest and torturing them, he would have simply murdered them with drones. And he could have funded extremists from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to come in as "freedom fighters", and we'd have had ISIS a decade early - fun for everybody.
But Obama's extension and expansion of the occupation of Afghanistan is a complete and utter debunking of the notion that he wanted to 'cut and run' from Iraq, and that's a fact that you and the Obamabots are just going to have to deal with. Do you guys meet for coffee on Tuesdays to discuss talking points?
That's the problem for you: I did read your posts. All of them in the thread. The notion that Obama was a cut-and-run peacenik who couldn't wait to get out of Iraq - at the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan and extending that occupation another 15 years - requires a level of willful ignorance that goes far beyond 11.
He's a nightmare rightwing freakshow. The greatest farce of our time is the battle between the Obamabots, who think he's a helpless bystander constrained by Republicans, and the wingers complaining about Obama being soft when he's the worst Dem warmonger since LBJ.
1) Facebook and Twitter are not school websites. What happens on them is not the school's business. Someone threatens another student, or you have some Steubenville-style jocks bragging about sexually assaulting someone? Turn it over to the police.
2) You have control over what you say. You don't have control over Billy Bob's Facebook postings, where he claims to have shared a bong with you at a party (that you didn't even attend)
3) Yes, people should be able to socialize without the state snooping on them without probable cause.
You misspelled indisputable fact.
At the same time he was tripling forces in Afghanistan and arranging them to stay there till the mid twenty twenties? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Obama was as serious about withdrawing from Iraq as he was about reforming NAFTA or closing Gitmo.
It's really not hard to understand. If you had hostile foreign troops occupying your land, would you want to extend them immunity to shoot you on the street for no reason?
See above.
Yes, you are.
And I could spend all day posting promises from Obama's 2008 campaign. Broken promises. Moreso than most politicians, you ignore what he says and pay attention to what he does. And what Obama does is invade, occupy, bomb and assassinate with the best right wing conservative hawk you can name. Because he's one of them.