http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Great, so you got a link to that survey of climate scientists where they all say it's a scam?

Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented, the only way to even try to have a dialogue is to reference an impartial source like a survey of a large numbers of scientists. Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something, they *could* all be wrong ... but they probably aren't.

Really? Saying (in a sarcastic fashion) that "liberals" might be motivated by something other than latent evil is trolling?

Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)

Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason. It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...

The Lone Ranger, John Carter, and Cowboys & Aliens might disagree with you on that ... though your point still remains mostly valid.

There are no free markets in the ISP business.

Sometimes people trying to help you can't unless you let them. Try finding a good therapist (which might take a few attempts) and then once you find someone you can develop trust with try working with doctors. But remember, when your perception of things is distorted, it can be easy to see malice or incompetence when honest and qualified people face a difficult problem like mental illness.

This may be hard to grasp, but a word can have multiple meanings. Just because you think you know what a word meant to one group of people at one point in history does not mean that all peoples throughout history have used that word the same way. To many people "redskin" undoubtedly means "person with red skin, aka an injun/Indian/Native American/etc.". However, it also was used to refer to the scalps of murdered Native Americans:

"The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."
(from http://www.esquire.com/blogs/n...)

Jus to be clear, "Purgatory" wasn't a euphism for Hell, it was a town (where evidently you could trade your scalps in for some serious cash). Our ancestors, being far more religiously-educated than we are, would not have confused Purgatory for Hell anyway (the two are very different places), and the second sentence further clarifies that they were talking about (pieces of) corpses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

"Starting with Gar Alperovitz, in his influential Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (1965), "revisionist" scholars have focused on the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the last days of World War II.[2] In their belief, the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in effect, started the Cold War. According to Alperovitz, the bombs were not used on an already defeated Japan to win the war, but to intimidate the Soviets, signaling that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons to stop Soviet expansion, however this they failed to do.[1]"

(You can follow the references for more info.)

Braves, Indians, etc. are not as offensive as Redskins (and obviously Cardinals doesn't even enter the picture). Brave or Indian means "Native American, the way your ancestors would have referred to them". Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".

Welcome to US history: Hiroshima was *far* from the first mass murder initiated by the American government.

There's a strong case to be made that the nuclear attack was NOT a science experiment, nor was it intended to (further) demoralize the Japanese. Rather, many historians would argue that the US, seeing the Cold War on the horizon, wanted to demonstrate to it's then-ally-but-clearly-future-enemy Russia just what America was capable of.

The short answer is that they've moved in to consulting. There's a whole (mildly interesting) book "Who says elephants can't jump" about their transition.

I don't think even adbusters would argue entirely against profit ... they're anti-excessive profit, anti-corporation, anti-marketing, etc. but even they recognize we can't all go back to subsitence farming. The ability to profit, and subsequently trade those profits to other people for things you can't produce yourself, is necessary for any viable economic system.