Andy9o8

I tried that already.

Individual anecdotes from people who are not trained medical professionals (especially total strangers online) are of very limited value. In fact, they can be misleading, because they might represent exceptions to generally-accepted medical knowledge, due to case-specific variables you might not recognize and/or cannot assess with requisite expertise. By contrast, even a freshly-minted medical professional is trained with the cumulative knowledge of thousands of case histories. Sorry to be a poop, but there you have it.

People should be temporarily sterilized & banned from marriage until age 35.

It will not hold up. See my post #29 in the Incidents thread. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4592911#4592911

There already is a thread about this in the Incidents forum. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4592999;page=unread#unread

No, I think the issue IS maturity, at least co-equal with liability. The pre-frontal cortex, which affects judgment and executive decisions, is still developing at ages 16 & 17. I know how often I've seen really, really stupid or reckless moves by drivers who were obviously teenagers; and I recall quite well how much I drove like an asshole when I was age 16, mainly because I (foolishly) thought, "I can do THIS MOVE (Hold my beer!) and it'll be OK". I don't like sounding like an old fud, but the more I'm behind the wheel - almost 40 years now - the more I think the average 16 year old is too immature to be trusted with a car. Look at THIS CHART. You'll note that, even in "modern" countries in Europe and South America, the majority of countries' minimum driving age is 18. Maybe there's a good policy reason for that.

Senators Introduce Chemical Safety And Drinking Water Protection Act In Response To West Virginia Spill

I would have put the period inside the quote. I wouldn't. Nor I.

I would have capitaliZed "Nazi".

There are multiple answers in this thread that either directly or impliedly refute your proposition that the two should be presumed to be mutually exclusive. You're just ignoring or summarily dismissing them. Anyhow, I'll add to them. People here know my posting history; you know I'm no fan of corporate greedsters (in any industry) and their politician lackeys. But I've deal a lot with the inner workings of pharma companies in my career, so I've got some informed perspective. First, the FDA, NIH and SEC all do a surprisingly efficient, aggressive and proactive job about subjecting pharma companies, their research & development (such as clinical trials) their manufacturing and quality control processes, and the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the products in their pipelines to close and strict scrutiny and regulation. This is the case not only in the US, but re: the corresponding agencies in other countries, as well. Second, directly to your rhetorical point, Pharma corporations are run for BOTH profit AND medicine. It's a fallacious premise to presume that they're mutually exclusive. Good medicine (effective products) make for good medicine and generate good profits. And bad products (or too much R&D invested into products that fail clinical trials) translate to bad medicine, which translates to loss rather than profit. The poster up-thread is right though: the horse has been thoroughly flogged.

Canada did not exist in 1814. British forces with the help of some loyalists and some Indians took Washington. I thought they were Pakis.

Jeez, you beat me to the OP by like 3 minutes. I was gonna title the thread "GOP chews its paw off", or some reference to cannibalism. Stupid fuckers. Leave it to them to snatch defeat from the jaws of opportunity. I wonder who Hillary's Vice President will be?

Just about any film with Jim Carrey in a comedic role, since I'm not under age 15. Yeah, he can stretch his face and act like he's the middle school clown. We get it. To his credit, he was very good in The Truman Show and playing Andy Kaufman (Man on the Moon).

You've just described all the reasons why a Pilot is a more forgiving canopy for a beginner than a Sabre2 at comparable wing loadings.

LOL, yes, no regional rivalry at work there, was it? By that metric, England should be German thanks to the cleverness of the Irish. ============================ ETA: Would the Brits like to take America back as well? We opened a can of Whup-Ass® on them once; we'd be happy to do it again.

Only now does West Virginia firm say second chemical spilled in river

The point, Oh Point-Misser, is that once Spain divested itself of its imperial occupation of the Falk...er, Malvinas, the logical nation to claim them (to the extent they were claimable in the first place) was the nation closest in proximity to them, and that was Argentina. And Argentina did claim them, immediately upon becoming an independent nation, and more than a decade before the imperialist English running dogs traveled 8,000 miles to infest them with a party of squatters. With bad teeth. So by your argument Cuba should belong to the USA and Alaska to Canada. By my argument Canada should belong to the US.

Not even Republicans believe that. This is the kind of silly shit that makes everybody pile on you when you say it.

Did so.

You mean like when Obamma and his accomplises said if you like your health care you can keep it? No, it's when Bush-2 argued that Iraq had to be attacked due to the presence of WMDs, or when he made his "Mission Accomplished" speech when the Iraq war was still to rage on for years. Lotta good people died because of that. It's when Bush-2 said "Read my lips, no new taxes". It's when Nixon said "I am not a crook." It's when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman, uh... Miss Lewinsky". (Of course, nobody died when Billy lied.) It's when LBJ said North Vietnam attacked a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin.

The point, Oh Point-Misser, is that once Spain divested itself of its imperial occupation of the Falk...er, Malvinas, the logical nation to claim them (to the extent they were claimable in the first place) was the nation closest in proximity to them, and that was Argentina. And Argentina did claim them, immediately upon becoming an independent nation, and more than a decade before the imperialist English running dogs traveled 8,000 miles to infest them with a party of squatters. With bad teeth.

My ancestors didn't take it from their ancestors. That being said, the property claims of the traditionally indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere have never been given proper deference under modern law.

The Falklands don't lie within the territories of Argentina, and Argentina has never had a permanent settlement on the Falklands. Now that one exists, and is made up of British people, they lay claim to it. Is that clever? The Argentine claim is that they acquired the Malvinas from Spain in 1816 upon achieving independence, and that national sovereignty does not arise from the subsequent presence of English squatters from 8,000 miles away. That, and the observation that England, in the Northern Hemisphere, is about 7 times as far away from the Islands as is Argentina. Pretty clever.

On another note... OMFG. What a wanker!

It's my way of inviting people to tell me to go fuck myself for all the world to see. Seems I've got it coming as often as not.