I don't think anybody is proposing requiring all vaccines. There are some vaccines which kids clearly shouldn't be required to have, like say, typhoid (though if parents were smart they'd give it to them if traveling to certain places). The thing is, which vaccines should be required has already been determined by most states. The problem is that parents can simply fill out an exception form in lieu of getting their kids vaccinated, and that's what needs to be done away with. The only reason on the exception form should be if they can't get the vaccine for medical reasons (e.g. allergic to it), which must be accompanied by a physician's signature (a real physician, not a naturopath or chiropractor).

As far as chickenpox vaccine, I do think that ought to be required. My kid shouldn't have to get sick and miss a bunch of school just because you don't want to pay $40 for the vaccine, because even if I vaccinate my kid, that particular vaccine is only 85% effective. If everyone is vaccinated, the chances of my kid catching it are very small (it's not just marginally effective if everyone gets it!), but if others don't get my kid pretty much has a 15% of getting it. Plus, I bet most parents spend more than $40 when their kid gets it! Doctor visit copay, medicine for the fever and itching, chicken noodle soup...etc (not to mention missed work for many parents!). So yeah, that vaccine should be required.

What do you mean by "public facility"? Do you mean government facility? What about grocery stores or sidewalks where an infected, unvaccinated kid could expose somebody else? Anything outside your house is a "public facility" in terms of exposing the public to infection. So then what? Force the kid to stay in the house their whole life? That's psychologically abusive.

No, it's not almost abuse. It is abuse.

The exact same arguments could be used against hitting your children. Some parents would say it's good for them - they need to learn not to act up and it builds character, if they are allowed to go without proper punishment they'll grow up to be spoiled brats. However, the government makes the decision that it's unhealthy to beat up your children, and makes it illegal, if you do it your kids will be taken away by CPS and you may go to jail.

No, but the government does tell you that you do have to feed your kids. If you don't CPS will take them away and you may be charged with neglect.

So you see...the slippery slope argument is complete logical fallacy. The government already has lines. With EVERYTHING. Like, once you allow interracial and homosexual marriage, what's next? People having sex in the street in front of children? Don't allow people to drive drunk? What's next?

If the government actually did massacre a bunch of peaceful protesters, the media would spin it as if the violent protesters opened fire on the on the peaceful government agents who were there to protect them, and the machine gun turret operator is a hero who was protecting his brethren and saved the city from certain annihilation by terrorists. Even if there's clear, unambiguous video getting past around every website, you know that won't beat proper media propaganda.

It's probably not a simple "increase safety" vs. "don't increase safety." The specifics matter. Were the safety measures actually going to be helpful? Or would it just create more bureaucracy to wade through and just make it harder to build more power plants?

It is also aimed at bringing that money back into the US economy. The GOP corporatists want a "repatriation holiday" where companies can bring in their double-Irish money back into the US tax free. This is a direct alternative to that. Rather than encouraging those company's methods of tax evasion, it's saying, "You're going to pay this tax either way, so the government gets some income and you might as well bring the money back into the US."

Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!

The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.

So then you must enjoy eating Organic, chemical-free vegetables, like tomatoes?

He might have been an ideological icon, but let's clarify one thing: He sure as fuck wasn't ideological about his platforms. He was the Green Party candidate and his platform was the environment, but he was pretty much one of the worst things politically to happen to the environment. If he had bowed out and endorsed Gore, Bush wouldn't have been president, simple as that. And no doubt he knew that (despite what he says publicly), because he's not dumb, so he just didn't give two shits about the environment. Or is somebody honestly going to try to tell me that more than half of the people who voted for him would have voted for Bush instead of Gore, especially in Florida where it would have decided the election?

Which is exactly what happened, despite Nader's denial. Regarding Florida, Nader himself says that "in the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." Which means Gore would have netted 12,665 votes over Bush, which would have won him the election (Bush won FL by 537 votes). So either Nader is really bad at math, or he's a dirty liar.

And yet they claim not to have resources to go after real crimes that they deem petty and unimportant, like theft.

Oh, and to clarify, Mars isn't a vacuum, it has atmosphere, just not much.

Smart enough to have tested a prototype in a vacuum chamber that simulates Mars' atmosphere. And probably smart enough to RTFA before bashing somebody else. But I'm sure after reading a one paragraph summary that you are more educated on the topic than they are.

You're confusing this with Lake Vostok.

That's sarcasm, right? Have you heard of the F-35?