Medicien Man #conspiracy

Medicien Man #conspiracy scienceblogs.com

"highly selective understanding of science" ?

We understand the "science" just fine. It's the stupid politics we don't get.

Why do we have entire agencies devoted to destroying freedom of choice in America? The FDA and EPA are two of the most dictatorial organizations in history. Both should have funding suspended pending criminal investigations into their far left political actions.

Better yet, fire everyone who mentions global warming and ship them off to Siberia in the dead of winter wearing only a loincloth. I bet they wish they had some of that global warming then.

By the way, Gadasil is a dangerous drug. If you wish to permanently damage someone, Gardasil would be the way to go. Far better than some poisons you would find in the pest control department.

Speaking of pest control, don't bother buying insect "killer" anymore. The EPA has everything so weakened down to the point where the label has more poisonous chemicals than does the liquid itself.

If you wish to kill inspects, screw the EPA and their regulations. Gasoline, diesel fuel, chlorox, etc. are all far better insect control methods than the products that the brain dead EPA basterds have their controls over. The dumbasses even took all the phosphates out of detergents. So, you buy soap without the ingredients that make it soap. Oh, how I would love to ship these basterds out of this country and put things back like they were. This type of tyranny is what you get when you put far left commie drug snorter hippy sissies in charge.

Well, maybe when Rick Perry gets elected, he will fire everyone involved in ruining America in the name of wealth redistribuion/global warming (same thing) and change everything back to the way it was. Better yet, I would love everyone involved to be in prison ... preferably in Siberia.

48 comments

old comment by LV426

Oh no! Safety regulations! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!

No, you don't understand the science at all. Just because Siberia (Why the Siberia obsession anyway?) is still cold doesn't mean the climate isn't changing. Try the science again.

Speaking of pest control, you're full of shit. I had a terrible terrible ant problem this past summer. Seriously, it was like being under siege. One trip to the hardware store, proper application of poison, problem solved. Maybe if you actually read the instructions it would help. On the other hand, if you really want to prove how weak it is please feel free to spray some all over yourself.

And if you don't like that idea, then I hope you enjoy dieing of the food poisoning you will inevitably contract once you dismantle the FDA.

old comment by J. James

@Not Today

Oh gods, that was worse than the entire rest of the thing.

Rick Perry... PRESIDENT...
image

And I'm not even particularly democratic! Seriously, the man's a Christofascist! If left to his own devices, he would turn America into Iran(he already killed more people IN TEXAS last year than IRAN did), deny the existence of other countries, and destroy the nation! Seriously, HOW DOES ONE FUCK UP TEXAS!? They survived George Bush, but fell to him, what do you think would happen to the rest of the country if we gave him EXECUTIVE POWER!?

I'm voting for Obama, Hillary, anyone, ANYONE but him. Even Ron Paul. Or Romney. Hell, I'll give BACHMANN more consideration than him.

Edit: Wow.... That image was wildly wrong. Fix'd, it's Farnsworth now.

old comment by Zeus Almighty

"Well, maybe when Rick Perry gets elected ..."

If Bachman is elected, my odds of leaving America are something like 99 percent.
With Perry, 75-80 percent.
Seriously, if there are enough people in this county stupid enough to elect either one of those raving lunatic morons*, this country is beyond saving.
Putting the nuclear codes in the hands of people who absolutely believe in the imminent "end of the world" which will result in Jesus: The Sequel is the equivalent of giving Marvin the Martian the Uranium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

* One would think that electing Dubya TWICE would be enough to prevent a solid majority of Americans from ever voting for another Republican. I could accept that there is a 20-percent block that's going to vote for the least-qualified conservative shitheel possible, but when a majority of voters insists on following along -- over and over and over -- it is apparent that as a nation we are either too stupid or eager to give our rights away and accept torture and eternal warfare as our national identity.

old comment by J. James

@His4Life

I didn't know that he attended the Bilderberg summits. Links or it didn't happen. But even if he did, that's really not that big a deal. He went to a big fancy annual socio-economic conference, so what? All that says about him is that he's probably paid too much by the taxpayers.

Much more worrisome is his complete diregard for Church-State separation. Look no further than his wildly illegal, sectarian "Response" prayer rally at which he invited all sorts of dominionist conspiracy theorist psychos to speak. He wants to outlaw gay marriage and abortion, he wants to gut social security and health programs, he wants to make the mega-rich even richer and the poor beholden to huge corporations. He believes in neither global warming nor evolution, and would destroy the environment. He wants to use schools to lie to children and degrade our education even further compared to the rest of the world.

End result? Economic nightmares like those happening in Texas, huge deficits, massive cuts to vital agencies, payouts to the neo-robber barons, environmental destruction, destroyed healthcare, education even more awful than it is now, religious bullshit, institutionalized bigotry, stripped reproductive rights and wholesale political catastrophe.

Yet you're focusing on an economic summit? What gives?

Besides that, Michelle Bachmann is almost as bad, and a vapid, idiotic anti-science anti-vaxxer to boot.

old comment by His4Life

J. James, I will find some links on the Bilderberg issue for you. As a conservative Christian, I'm not that put off by some of the other things you describe, such as his allegedly pro-life stance, etc. However, I believe this is a facade, just as it was with George Bush. The 'religious right' is rarely either and generally uses Christians to gain money and power. Right now, I am frankly disillusioned with most everyone in the Republican fold. I liked Ron Paul for a while, until it came out that he had given tacit approval to racism in the past (look up his newsletters for examples). Bachmann and Cain are not perfect, but they strike me as honest and coherent. I'll be voting for one of them in the primaries but haven't decided which yet. I also liked Mike Huckabee, but he dropped out early on, which was unfortunate - he was a pretty straightforward guy. Oh well. We'll see how the election goes, I guess.

old comment by J. James

@His4Life

I still don't understand what it would even mean if he went to a Bilderberg meeting. I highly doubt he is a regular member anyway, and if so, so what? They're just rich people talking about the economy and the west.

And globalism? Eh? What's wrong with international trade and relations? If anything, that actually raises my opinion of him. Slightly. Well, okay, not at all, but still, at least that indicates he has a hazy idea that other nations exist and affect the US.

Those other things aren't that bad!? The hell!? You actually WANT those things? Like pollution, robber barons, anti-union sentiments, oppression of gays, stripping women of their right to abort their fetuses, a shitty economy, outsourcing, tax breaks for billionaires that just cling to their money, prayer in schools, no healthcare or welfare or social security, huge deficits, etc...?

Yikes, lady. Why don't you see how Iran and other places like that are?

old comment by His4Life

J. James, you're lumping a bunch of things into one package, so I can't comment on everything you said. Of course I don't want a bad economy. In my opinion, Obama and the Democrats' socialist policies are ruining the economy. I think a solid conservative (which would probably not be Rick Perry, imo) would improve this. I do not believe aborting a fetus is a right. I'd be in favor of that part. I'm also not in favor of gay marriage, if that's what you mean by "opressing gays."

Also, interestingly enough, I am generally against prayer in schools, unless it is a Christian school. The reason being that not all teachers are Christian and I do not want Muslim teachers teching my children to do a Muslim prayer, or a Wiccan teacher teaching them a spell, etc.

old comment by J. James

@His4Life

If Obama is socialist, then Reagan's a friggin' commie. And I have yet to see his policies "destroying the nation". In fact, I think that if he actually got what he wanted from the gridlocked Congress, the recovery would go faster.

Conservative politics- like deregulation, outsourcing, tax breaks for the hyper-wealthy, warmongering, etc... These are all well and good in times of plenty, but when you have a unionized population with high standards and high innovation, leaving things alone causes boom-and-bust cycles, which lead to deficits, tax increases, spending cuts, worse depression... "Liberal" economics are a simple necessity sometimes. You HAVE to spend, you HAVE to keep things running, you HAVE to reign in the businesses that export jobs and that tanked the economy with their tomfoolery in the first place. Republicans know this.

In short, "trickle-down" is NOT applicable in a recession, when the rich clamp down on their fortunes. Job creation among Democratic regimes, particularly among the lower classes, is vastly greater than under Republican ones.

image
(Obama, not listed, is downward. Due to Bush fallout, of course.)
Source.
http://culturekitchen.com/mole333/blog/republicans_are_for_the_rich_democrats_are_for_everyone

It may be unpleasant, call it "class warfare," "anti-business".... It's what's necessary. Do you think, if McCain got elected, he would do anything different than Obama, ideology be damned? No. He would have stimulated the economy and set limits on businesses- because that's what works.

Sorry for rambling, but it just annoys me when people say that imaginary socialism is ruining the nation. It's the other way around. It's the rich and their interests that are destabilizing us for profit.

old comment by His4Life

Of course you have to stimulate spending. The way you do this is by reducing taxes so that common people like you and me have more to spend at the metaphorical marketplace. This in turn stimulates business, which brings in job growth. I do agree that outsourcing is a problem, though. There are plenty of poor people here that need those jobs.

Am I supposed to be surprised that jobs plummeted during Bush's administration? I've already said that I don't like Bush, although I'm ashamed to admit I campaigned for him in his first run in 2000. In my opinion, Bush is a liberal; he is just slightly less radical in his liberalism than Obama. One thing that people don't understand is that both the Dems and the Repubs are big government parties, in spite of what they claim, and they are both tied in with the same globalist agendas. And I am not a fan of McCain either (or Sarah Palin for that matter). I supported Huckabee in the last election and was considering Ron Paul at that time (this was before I learned about the racist remarks in his newsletters).

old comment by J. James

@His4Life

Cutting taxes is all well and good, but a vast and increasing amount of the wealth in America is being held by vanishingly fewer people. Unpleasant as it may be, we must force those same people to employ others through taxation carrot-and-stick gambits. It is simply unacceptable to let them just sit on their wealth, or the banks for that matter(which is why I believe in a temporary sliding-scale profit tax on banks that rises sharply as lending decreases and profits rise). Not to mention a recession obviously has inherent revenue issues that lead to soaring deficits even WITHOUT tax cuts. Taxing the rich is no longer an option, it is a priority. Wealth in America hasn't been so lopsided since nearly a century ago in the Monopoly era of crushed laborers and robber barons. And yet they get the tax cuts an tax breaks. We, the other 99%, should be the ones to get that.

And Bush, Liberal?! No. Nononononononono. NOT. A. LIBERAL. At any point. He was, however, forced to confront the reality that "liberal" economics are the only realistic options in most cases. Doing normal conservative things, like Hoover did, would be catastrophic. He wasn't a liberal by ANY MEASURE(well, compared to some of the absolute lunatic fringe nowadays, but those are barely even on the same plane of reality), he was simply forced to do what he must in order to survive.

The real thing we, the moderates and Democrats, fear isn't the abnormally crazy fringe rhetoric of the modern right, we know that historically speaking when shit hit the fan even folks like Reagan could be coaxed to abandon states rights, raise taxes(eleven times!) and more in order to save their own skin. What we fear is that the new crop of hyperconservatives are just crazy enough to drive us to ruin by sticking to their flawed ideology that government should just lower taxes, roll over and die, taking the country with them.

old comment by His4Life

Well, Rick Perry is not the solution. He is part of the problem. He is controlled by the same corporate interests that have bought off Obama, Bush, etc. You know, the more I look at it, the sadder I am about Ron Paul. His governing philosophy really is the closest to what I believe and what I think would revive our country. He actually mixes the best of both the liberal and conservative dimensions of politics. I may reconsider voting for him, but the antisemitism and thinly veiled contempt for blacks that was printed in his newsletter (whether he wrote it or someone else wrote it doesn't really matter to me - it had his name on it, he's responsible for it) bothers me a lot. I may look into the Libertarian party, but IIRC, they tend to be pro-abortion and in favor of gay marriage.

old comment by J. Ja

@His4Life

You know, I feel for you. It's hard to find someone to vote for no matter what you believe. I for one am moderate, so I like to vote for people like Obama that are more compromising and less extreme in any direction. But he also does things I disagree with, like continuing Bush era policies that are no good.

If I were you, I would vote for the Libertarians. Paul sounds good and all, but in reality he's basically a glossed-over extremist Hoover with a thinly-veiled contempt for the constitution, in particular the first and sixteenth amendments.

You mentioned the Libertarians don't necessarily take it upon themselves to be anti-homosexual and anti-choice, but in the scope of things that doesn't really matter very much anyway. Gay rights and abortion have been around for a long time now no matter WHO's opposing them, and unfortunately for people of your mindset the public opinion is shifting in their favor, particularly amongst younger generations such as myself.

If gays having the right to marry and morning-after pills are something you REALLY REALLY must politically oppose, then there's always those little "family" organizations you can join, and leave politics to the Libertarians.

old comment by His4Life

Depends on what you mean by morning-after pills. If they're abortive (as in, destroy a living fetus or embryo), then I'm against them, but I am not against birth control in general. In my mind, birth control and a pro-life worldview dovetail, because if women have access to resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they'll be less likely to resort to abortion after the baby is conceived. Marriage is a non-negotiable for me, though. Gays can have whatever type of relationship they want, but it is not marriage. I don't haev anything against gays in general, but I think their lifestyle should be kept private and not forced into the public school systems, military, etc. This is why I would probably not vote Libertarian. I used to listen to a black Libterarian named Larry Elders. In general a great guy and I really respect him for daring to be a black conservative (sort of), but on the social issues I completely split with him and had to flip the channel. His logic was was just too flawed and basically boiled down to "we should let everyone do whatever they want as long as they're not actively murdering someone in public." Still, I might give the Libertarians another look. God knows, I'm fed up with the republicans and if Rick Perry is the nominee, I'm staying home.

old comment by J. James

@His4Life

And who are you to decide what gays should and should not do? Who are you to say what marriage is and isn't?

You think that your religion is better than any other? Some sects of Christianity perform gay marriages. Is that invalid? If so, what's your justification for it? Furthermore, this nation is secular. Why should any particular sect hold more sway than another, and interfere with their religious practices through government? This also applies to polygamy. And atheists marrying.

Monogamy saved my gay uncle's life, in a roundabout way. It should be encouraged, not illegal.

What I really don't like is people trying to legislate based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. A close second is people that think they and their little sects exclusively have God's ear. Being anti-gay marriage is a distatseful blend of both, but if you can justify that to my lofty standards, I'll reconsider.

old comment by

@His4Life

What are you? The marriage police? The last time I checked, marriage was whatever the hell the religion/society says it is.

"I didn't say what gays can and cannot do."

You know that feeling you get when someone prefaces a rant with "I'm not racist, but..."? Yeah.

"They're welcome to have whatever relationship they want. If they want to view it as "marriage" in the context of their liberal church, that's their business."

In the context of their liberal church? The hell? So your context is the default normal, but everyone else's is only in the context of their "liberal churches"? Sorry, by trying to prevent them from doing something they have every right to do FOR NO GOOD REASON makes YOUR business also THEIR business.

"I just said that the state and society as whole shouldn't recognize it."

Waaaaaaaiiiit.... Didn't you just say "I didn't say what gays can and cannot do."? Now you presume to tell society as a whole should do, and the STATE?! That's some ego you have there.

And why shouldn't they? Gay marriage is not only performed by some Christian/whatever sects, it's accepted by a majority of Americans. A number that is increasing. It's their right to do so, it's the church/temple's right to marry them, and it's the right of the majority not to have the affairs of people controlled by the religion of a minority.

Seriously, what is so hard about this? We live in America. Secularism has been enshrined in our constitution and our nation since it's inception. One of the reasons that we broke away from Britain in the first place was their religion meddling with our affairs against our will. If you don't believe in gay marriage, wonderful. But don't try to oppress other people from doing so. This is just USA 101. Get used to it or leave.