Science is absolutely not about proofs. It's about gathering facts and comparing them to a prediction, along with the use of math to transform data sets into comparable sets.

To paraphrase: science is about the search for facts. If you want truth, philosophy is down the hall.

For the used car market to be close to pure capitalism, the buyers would have to have near perfect information about the cars in question. Which they most definitely do not. Either because they don't know cars, or because the car dealers actively lie.

On average, less physical strength and higher desirability as a rape target than a single male.

Shall I also explain to you why fire can be bad, and why eating is generally important?

Correction: it says much about the general public about what they know about the technology that powers their life. For most people, it might as well be Magic.

Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?

The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.

A broken clock is also right twice a day. What's your point?

Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.

Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.

Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.

Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.

The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else chimed in that the pay was "not prohibited on its face." So what we have here is someone asking around whether something is an issue, someone else provides information that it isn't, and the issue is dropped.

If anything, that article reinforces the idea that this is a total tempest in a teapot: the IRS actually didn't do something, but Republicans are trying to sound like Grassley was investigated by the IRS. There wasn't even an investigation - there was an email discussion about whether something was appropriate or not.

So when you say "she targeted a senator", you're completely misrepresenting the article - she actually didn't target the senator. As a matter of fact, if she thought that paying for Grassley's wife would be inappropriate, it would have been illegal for her NOT to investigate the senator, just because he is a senator with an (R).

Again, you're really not helping your cause here, and are just making it sound like the birth certificate all over again.

And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.

You mean the company that had widespread child abuse in its building for decades and everyone looked the other way? That BBC?

On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.

As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons. The rest seems pretty standard IT ineptitude. Plus there's the reality that the difference between a political lobbying group and a charitable organization is something that's almost impossible to legally define. It's kinda like porn that way: you and I both know which one is which, but in a court of law, you'll never get to a satisfactory conclusion - partially because you and I won't be able to agree to agree on which one is which, even if we do have a good idea of it ourselves.

Feel free to show me where I did anything of that sort. What, you can't? Then STFU with your assumptions about how I think.

I have a bit more of a history with some of the posters on this site than you (courtesy of multiple IDs since the days that 3-digit UIDs were run of the mill). So I'm aware of their posting history, much more than you are aware of their or mine.

Furthermore, in your rage at perceived hypocrisy, you completely gloss over the fact that people apparently think that Obama personally calls up every PR flunky and checks in on how tight of a leash they keep on the press. That's ridiculous, serves nothing but to reinforce polarizing stereotypes, and has no place in a discussion about self-censorship of the press under the guise of "access". Because that's all that this is about. It doesn't even have anything to do with your pet-peeve, which seems to be that the current government is somehow unusual in its expansiveness, or that it is even the main problem that we're facing today.