ikol

I wasn't making any sort of argument about preemption or the Iraq War. I was just stating that national defense is a legitimate use of tax money.

Clearly, doing nothing is the only alternative to having the government do something! If helping people is the domain of a government, what the fuck is the purpose of private charity? dividing and harming people? Of course, "helping people" can be defined pretty broadly. Providing a national defense can be helpful. I'm not sure that means the government should also give everyone free ice cream and puppies.

No, we just shouldn't be lobbying our government to do something about them. World poverty, diseases, etc. are all great causes for private charities. Fair enough. I still don't see where our government needs to get involved.

That's also about the only one that's easy to solve. Most of the other goals would require overthrowing corrupt regimes, something which Boner and company are probably not too keen on.

Fine, use the $30 million to spray Africa with DDT.

Couldn't they just use the $30 million to help the poor?

Actually, they decided that solution was too gay and instead opted to have a big gay orgy to prevent the future generations from ever being born.

Has anyone here heard John Davis' (of Superdrag) solo album? Every song on there has a religious theme, and IMO they're as good as anything Superdrag ever played.

That would be redundant.

Totally.

YES!!!!!!!!!!

I like how when she tastes her food she has her yummy-gasm before it's physically possible for her to taste anything.

Yes.

I do agree he's a nutjob, and I didn't even need a pseudo-academic study to arrive at that conclusion. That's what I found funny about it. People actually devoted time and effort in an academic study to determine whether he's a dick.

Only if Bob Saget narrates.

I don't know what's funnier: the results of this study or the fact that someone actually did this study.

Great! Now we just have to kill off all those damn whales that eat plankton!

I'm more of a supporter of barley-based ethanol. Good. Why not do a little of both?

Well, I'm about an hour away from a nuclear plant, and it doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why people that want alternative energy sources never even mention nuclear as a possibility. Wind power only works in windy places, and it shreds birds. Solar is very expensive, and it's going to take some major technological advances before it's practical. The technology for nuclear already exists and it's relatively safe. If people are really worried about CO2 emissions, they're going to have to weigh the cost of using fossil fuels against the risk of nuclear.

I think I actually liked this one more than Shaun of the Dead.

I agree that having clean air is good. The question is whether CO2 is a pollutant. If CO2 emissions are not a significant contribution to global warming, then it would be better to focus on reducing other pollutants that actually do harm the environment and people. I'm not sure whether it's true that more people are getting lung cancer from soot. I somehow doubt it since the air is actually cleaner now than it was in the past. Wind, solar, and hydropower are all good ideas and could at least reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, though they would only be useful in some areas. I don't under

Find a new singer for Bright Eyes.

Thai food (which unfortunately I do have to live without most of the time, since there are no good Thai restaurants here), pizza, beer, Coke Zero

My point is that they aren't the opponents of climate change. There are plenty of scientists not affiliated with Bush (even some - gasp - leftwing ones) that don't think humans are the main cause of climate change. And I'm willing to bet some of them even don't manipulate data (though we'd all probably be shocked if we knew how many scientists in general actually do this kind of thing).

Those bastards don't deserve to exist if they're going to badmouth us.