No, actually, it's quite true. Just a few examples:

Dana Nuccitelli (of Skeptical Science - an AGW support blog) is actually employed at Tetra Tech (the big oil company).

Pew Charitable Trust's Center for Climate and Energy Solutions are principally funded by Royal Dutch Shell, HP, and Entergy Corp.

The World Wildlife Foundation also received a lot of funding from Royal Dutch Shell, and John Loudon (former Shell president) actually served as the WWF president for four years.

Standard Oil's charitable arm has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others.

Four companies sponsor Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project: Exxon General Electric Sluberger (Oil Field Services company) Toyota

This is easily fixed. They can do it the same way they do every time they think they've got a case against someone, but screw up and realize the prosecution will fail. They just find some other scapegoat and charge them with obstruction of justice. The preeminent example is the Martha Stewart case. The feds were going after Peter Bacanovic for insider trading. When they discovered they didn't the evidence to indict, they looked at all the people they talked to during the investigation and decided Martha Stewart had lied, so they went after her for obstruction.

They can do the same switch in this case. Can't convict a suspect because their phone is encrypted? Charge some high-profile Google or Apple executive with obstruction of justice instead.

If you really believe that is true, I suggest you provide a list of all the companies advertising on Dice looking for "source code vulnerability auditors." Can't find any? That's because companies pushing out commercial software don't give a crap. It's hard enough just getting the get-the-features-out-focused managers to get why you're spending time writing tests, much less doing code reviews to look for vulnerabilities. I've even heard them say things like "It's not necessary because I found this free tool on the Internet that scans all your code for that, so we don't need to do manual work like that."

From Webster's:

That's how it's been used since 1947 (it's not something newly made-up), and seems to fit your viewpoint. I only use it because there are totalitarians on the left and the right, and it seems to be the only term to fit both. It also implies the view that there should be no hard limits on the authority of the central state (like the Constitution was intended to impose), and that also seems to fit your viewpoint ("compromise" means the state wants control of 100% of your time, and when you object they "compromise" by allowing you to have some free time).

I find your statement disgusting and completely unacceptable. But I will defend to the death your right to say it. You'll probably have to start your own forum that nobody visits in order to say things like that though, as you will be summarily banned from forums owned by others. Exercising a right does not absolve you from responsibility or consequences.

That's some pretty crazy world view filters you have on, there. Libertarian ideas expressed in simple terms (for simpletons, like you), often use "you own you" to explain how property rights flow from individual rights. Your most important property right is your body. That doesn't mean the libertarians you've met think there are no individual rights, just that you can't get out of your own bag enough to grok anyone else's viewpoint. So you latch onto some phrase so you can create ludicrous interpretations of what they say in order to justify your hatred of them.

SquirrelMail has changed in the last 13 years?

I call bullshit. SquirrelMail rocks. Especially compared to the craptastic load of mega ass crap that is the OWA of 2002.

So requiring state education (a.k.a. banning home schooling and private schools) is the same as "doing away with education"? How does that work? You SAY "it's a question of degrees", yet you reject any notion of individual rights. You clearly want no compromise at all, and have no interest in limiting the authority of the state. That's why I called you a statist and it's clearly completely accurate.

Well according to Wikipedia:

So this is not a vaccine, unless you use a really lose (personal) interpretation of that definition to make it fit.

Regardless of your ludicrous biases, I am not an Objectivist or anything like it. There is a difference between having a government respectful of individual rights, and one that justifies enforcing every aspect of everyone's life because they by claiming every activity affects all the taxpayers. You can have things like taxes that pay for education, without telling everyone their children will be wards of the state every day for eight hours or you go to jail, or that no one can smoke a plant because somewhere down the line the state has to pay for the consequences.

WTF ever happened to personal responsibility? Dismiss that, and you live under tyranny.

Actually, it's called the "tyranny of the majority", and it's how we got things like slavery, bans on gay marriage, prohibition, and the Third Reich.

You're imposing a false dichotomy. How about we give no one authority over anyone except themselves, and everyone authority over their own body and life. THAT is what is meant by valuing the rights of the individual. Or ... we do it your way, create a "society", put someone in charge, and THEN you have one person with absolute authority over all.

Does "they" refer to anarchist-leaning (or "Randians"), or does it refer to anyone that is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and is opposed to further centralization of authority and growth of the police state, military industrial complex, and mult-trillion-dollar debt?

It does (what, you expected me to read the summary before posting?). But there is nothing like a natural immunity to nicotine - in fact it works because it matches brain receptors that normally bind naturally to acetylcholine. It seems like a dangerous idea to mess around with a person's immune system that way. Autoimmune diseases are nasty, and many of them are deadly.

Nicotine is not a disease, and this is not a vaccine. The only reason I can think of for calling a drug a "vaccine" is to be able to use the blanket immunitiy from law suits and prosecution that pharmaceutical companies get for vaccines.