When does the round start? I'll try to schedule being in my hometown. I'm not likely to log in as often if I'm coming home to a hotel room, drinking and smoking with a smoking hot chicka, in Boston or some small town in Wisconsin!

Ate All Of My Cookies

That sounds so mean, Chris. How about we just step back and let them spread their own chaos again. They've always been good at it. Besides, we have our own fires to put out. And fires to start!

It's funny how those claiming the moral high ground are the ones demanding that combatants not in uniform whose bombs kill women and children as often as enemy soldiers be treated as if they were uniformed enemy soldiers. Such demands are effectively demands that we regress back before rules of "civilized" warfare, removing motivations that soldiers fight soldiers [not bomb civilians as often as they do soldiers] in an understood fight.

The Geneva convention didn't simply seek to protect captives from atrocities: It sought to "civilize" warfare to some tiny extent that it reasonably can be without resulting in increased losses to "civilized" forces (accepting more losses of civilized uniformed soldiers in order to protect the lives of barbarians isn't exactly civilized, nor are policies which do so). Demanding that the rights of the Geneva Convention be given to those who observe 0 of those Conventions only removes all motivation to adhere to the Convention. How civilized and moral. You're arguing that we remove all motivation for our enemy to adhere to the Convention. That's quite a position to hold.

Oh wow, they brought crying about gun control in here. We'll ignore the fact that all the facts are against them, ignore them, and ignore the thread subject at the same time.

I agree Einstein. It's a wonder to me that a lunatic Muslim extremist could open fire on so many military personnel and not be gunned down within seconds. That's the effect of gun control right there. (If the location was specifically an exception, they _obviously_ should have had more guards posted if people snapping and killing people was such a threat as to ban guns there.)

-They're common knowledge.
-They're power hungry thugs. Have you ever read a history book? Lots of examples of political leaders being as much. Few of anything else.
-It's inherently tyrannical, which is not the natural state of things. If you are advocating tyranny, please explain what line of reasoning leads you to this position which goes against nature. (Nobody is born into such a feudal system owing their life and labor and belongings to an all-powerful state. If you defend such a system, please answer your own question: Why?)
-Better of in private companies? What?

I don't see you competing with us, Einstein. Somebody is talking the talk but walking the walk.... into a dark corner! Hiding! Scared! It's hard to hear you from way over there!

Legitimate green energy concerns have been hijacked by those who want to use "green" policy as a means for attaining more power. Just as people are quick to point out the conflicts of interest that can exist when big business funds research, people need to be aware that government funding brings the same conflict.

Hey Johnny. If your research finds that regulating x could have benefits and that my agency is the best one to regulate it, I've got a boatload of cash to fund more research projects and keep you getting that professional salary for years! The increase in publications will get you raises and tenure! I hope your findings are to my liking!

I don't see any particular way to avoid conflicts of interest, as they come from all sides (business, government, and even personal bias), except our astute readings of the research themselves. Only in the discourse of studies refuting studies lies the truth. I hope you know how to read serious academic work. I'm sure all voters do and put in the time to know that they're not voting for bullshit... nnnnnope, we're enacting all kinds of bullshit right now. Ignorance is bliss until you end up with a Soviet standard of living. Spain, here we come! Thanks for the hints on how to ruin our economy by spending on "green jobs."

Why do you ask for a label/imply it fits a certain group better than the others? My problem is with the behavior, not with a particular group who does it x often. Bringing in your personal distaste for a particular group just misses the point.

I used my real name until posts concerning the delta-9 isomer of tetrohydrocannabinol showed up on google. Who would have thought.

I've got balls of steel.