So give every other country some too. Ace neutered.

More that they are all equally evil. The winners just get to write the propaganda.

And the facts prove that luck was mostly good luck. There was no anger in my post your defensiveness is clouding your judgement .
My own country was a nuclear power. We gave it up voluntarily (we still generate electricity with it though). Dismantled our bombs.

I didn't ask more give a crap about whether the us is a good steward or not. I said countries should have equal rights. I said it's impossible for you or anybody else to ever have moral authority when you prohibit other countries from actions you still do yourself.
If owning nukes is legal for you its legal for Iran. If you don't think it should be legal for them then give up your own.

It's logically, morally and philosophically impossible for there a legitimate justification why the same country can own nukes and deny them to others.

And showing his ignorance further - most of the ice-sheet growth in the arctic is BAD news - and being caused BY global warming. Ant-arctic melt is adding fresh water to the ocean. Fresh water freezes more easily than salt water. The "growth" in the artic is a tiny fraction of the fresh water from ant-arctic ice-melt freezing over when it gets to the other pole. Most of it doesn't get that far, and it's a tiny thin layer of ice, the total ice volume is still massively down on both ends.

That isn't happening. It's not happening now. It's never happened with the EPA and this law won't make what isn't happening not happen in future because this law has fuck-all to do with that.
What you just quoted is the propaganda story republicans are telling to justify this completely insane law. It has fuck-all to do with the actual purpose or content of the law.

You've been lied to.

Right... let's see how hard the republican senators fight the fight when the effect would be to bankrupt and big pharma, and indeed, make it completely impossible to ever again develop or sell a drug in the United States.

>So then, forcing the EPA to base that decision on publicly available science (actual peer reviewed papers and such), is fine then, right?

Which is what they are doing.
This law doesn't say what you think it says. You're an idiot for believing what republicans tell you their laws say.

If this law was saying that, and that wasn't ALREADY what was happening, then the scientists of America would be applauding the law. But instead all of the science organisations who have spoken out have DENOUNCED the law. They call it stifling research and banning perfectly legitimate science from consideration.

They are telling you the law does NOT say that. Republicans are telling VOTERS it says that, but it's NOT what it says and what you think it demands is the law already, RIGHT NOW.
What this law is about has nothing to do with what you think it is about.

And if anybody doubts it you can point out that with the establishment of the confederacy all states joining it had to sign the declaration of confederacy, an agreement under which it would operate. The declaration of confederacy does in fact explicitly mention slavery, in fact it's mention of it makes up most of the damn document.
What does it say about slavery ?

That if you join the confederacy you must promise that you will never in any way, shape or form ban slavery, regulate slavery or interfere with people's slave-owning in any way by passing any laws except those that protect slave-owners. With a long list of things you can and cannot legislate around slavery. In short, you weren't ALLOWED to join the confederacy unless your state was willing to promise that it would never, in all eternity, end slavery.

>It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.

What did you expect. Republicans support republican politicians -even AFTER they recently proved that the foreign minister of Iran knows the US constitution (and it's definition of treason and the laws passed based on that definition) better than the republicans in the Senate do.

And if ever you needed proof that congress is now a law unto themselves... had ANY citizens written that letter about the Iran negotiations they would have been sent to jail for three years for treason. The SOLE reason the writers of THIS letter aren't being prosecuted right now is that they are senators - the law does not make an exception for Senators (in fact - exactly the opposite), they just (correctly) assumed that the police and prosecutors would.

So are you surprized when Republican voters who shout constitution all the time turn out to have no idea what is in it or what it means ? Of course not, the senators they elect don't even know it !

>That being said, what exactly is your problem with requiring all information the EPA uses to set policies be open to the public and able to survive scientific scrutiny?

Nobody has ANY problem with that. Including senate democrats and the president and almost every scientific organisation in the USA who ALL oppose this bill... So why do they oppose the bill then ? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bill isn't about what the republicans say it's about ?

What it's ACTUALLY about is that the reps are desperate to prevent regulations around air pollution and climate change. The trouble is the scientific data to support such regulations are overwhelming. So they are trying to exclude huge swaths of completely legitimate science from consideration. Specifically any science that has any part of it's data covered by patient privilege. That would be just about every large public health study ever done.

What they want to do is to stop the EPA from using the exact same, perfectly legitimate, science that is used daily by biologists, pharmaceutical companies and more.
Don't you find it odd that this is limited to the EPA while so many others use the same studies, including the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry ? Surely if the EPA cannot regulate something based on these studies then big pharma shouldn't be able to get a drug approved based on them, and the FDA shouldn't be allowing approvals based on studies like this.
Studies which are ALSO covered by patient privilege make up almost the entirety of biomedical research, it's just a fact of life when you're dealing with studies involving people.
Why are they legitimate science when Bayer uses them but NOT when the EPA uses them ?

I'll tell you why: because Bayer is a campaign contributor and the EPA is somebody that pisses campaign contributors off.

The science involved is all perfectly legitimate and in line with the scientific method. The "secret science" name is a propaganda term with no real truth to it intended to disguise what wall street's representatives are trying to really do.

A new field of study ? Geologists had confirmed this decades ago. In fact, it's the ONLY possible explanation for why the sea is salty. CO2 from the early atmosphere was dissolved in the ocean, which turned it acidic, which then reacted with metals in rocks releasing minerals like salt into the ocean. If Ocean acidification from CO2 in the atmosphere is not as fact as anything in science can ever be - then the oceans water is fresh. Go taste some. I'll wait.

Right because it's breathing we care about... you do realize that a human needs almost 5 years to produce the CO2 your car produces in a day ?

I am pretty sure that even if we give the EPA an absolute right to control CO2 levels they wouldn't be bothered about regulating breathing for decades to come. There are so many much bigger much lower hanging fruit.

>One of the effects of the bill will be to make it impossible to use data from large scale public health studie

That's not an effect, that's the GOAL. The Republicans have a problem preventing sensible regulations around things like air pollution and climate change backed up by solid scientific research - so they are trying to make the science that backs it up illegal.
Science that is not "secret" by any definition that applies to the scientific method at all - which is why scientists around the US has denounced the bill. There is no problem with reproducability at all.

What does put SOME access restriction on these large public health studies is that, because of when they were done, they were not anonymous. The only "secret" bit about them is confidential patient information. What the republicans want to do is exclude from scientific research all data that is covered by patient privilege.

Which is insane.

Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Iran NOT have a nuclear weapon ?
You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious, you've accidentally dropped some on your own people at least 50 times, you've left them unguarded and forgotten on civilian runways more than once. On at least one occasion they were discovered by the damn catering staff.

You have not been very responsible with yours. Yet you maintain you have the right to have them. If you do... so does Iran. Either EVERY country has that right, or NO country has that right.
You can't make selective laws for countries anymore than you can for people.

Now take that as a fundamental premise and rethink your entire view of hte world. You'll find you come up with one that doesn't make the rest of the world hate Americans. One that produces a world where Al Queda could never have existed. One where your nation is not seen as a bunch of arrogant imperialists comparable to Elizabethan and Victorian England.
Take it as a basic premise that your country can ONLY do what it allows EVERYBODY ELSE to do as well - if something is truly to scary for North Korea to do - you can't do it either. Give COUNTRIES equal rights.

Then maybe we can negotiate in good faith. Then maybe the world can know some peace and stability. Then you'll have gained some philosophical soundness in your arguments. Go on. Think about it. I'll wait.

>Our efforts to tell certain countries like Germany and Japan how to run their countries worked out reasonably well, actually.

I wonder what we may learn from this ? Mmm, wait a moment, the people who wrote their constitutions were Rooseveldt's cabinet... they implemented in those constitutions the second bill of Rights that Rooseveldt had championed in the USA but had died before he could do anything about it.

Seems to have worked out pretty well for Japan and Germany though...
The most liberal president you ever had, and you tried all his ideas in OTHER countries, where they worked fantastically well - while rejecting them at home.

Charles Dickens would have wept.