No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.

Basic fact fail. The vote was 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. There were plenty of brave voices willing to stand up against the Iraq War. HRC was not one of them. She does not get a pass for that clusterfuck, nor any of the clusterfucks that occurred while she was serving in the Obama Administration.

Good for you. You're also adept at putting words into my mouth. But feel free to excuse away HRC's bad judgment if it makes you feel better.

Well I certainly feel justified in discriminating against the illiterate.

Way to change that up, from lowering costs due to government regulation to promoting discrimination.

I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].

This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that canâ(TM)t and shouldnâ(TM)t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasnâ(TM)t designed to promote good scienceâ"it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

So, you've got one guy on a political-agenda-driven website, who is not a lawyer, who says *in his opinion*, that's what the bill would do.

What specific parts/language of/in the bill forbids anonymized personal, individual data to be used in otherwise open and reproducible studies?

If the bill does contain such wording.language, if it were altered so that such pragmatic and practical concerns are handled, would you then support it?

Or is this just a vector of attack on a bill which you do not support the main intent (eliminating regulation-creation within Federal agencies/Depts with force of law based on secret studies/data) of?

Strat

I'd say the same thing about the left and global warming, but they have moved the goal posts so it is climate change and any out of the ordinary weather event is confirming evidence.

At least in your scenario the "Preachers of Hate" would be crushed by proof, There is absolutely nothing that will get a lefty to acknowledge they were wrong.

That came from yesterdays story and actually searching for the numbers. This isn't this devices first test outing, as far as I can see he took the most discreditable data point to attack.

Really why not just sample facebook find a post that says something crazy and then extrapolate to a large group of people.
You might as well complain about the new cult that thinks mankind was created by spaghetti.

The drive may or may not work, pretty hard to mismeasure a newton + of thrust, we will see. There is no doubt it's positively insane to go all guilt by association.

Stockholm syndrome got its name from a bank robbery that occurred in Stockholm; it has no real or perceived reference to Swedish soceity. Incidentally, that society is a social democracy and there's a huge difference between that and socialism by most definitions. Despite what you may have "learned" from cable news there's plenty of capitalism going on in Sweden....

Don't go bringing facts into this.

Science is pure like the love of god, Scientists are people who leave ego behind and selflessly work for the betterment of humanity
Things like studying if cocaine makes quail engage in risky sexual behavior http://blogs.scientificamerica...

Are absolutely needed for your own good, and if you doubt that you are too stupid to understand science, it's settled shut the fuck up.

Oh, by the way, your criticism of GWB, that he deposed a regime and created a power vacuum leaving an opening for Islamic extremists:

Did you pay attention to what we did in Libya? Or who the Secretary of State was while we were doing it?

Which part did you miss? The part where Senator Clinton voted in favor of the AUMF that authorized the Iraq War or the part where she served with an administration that made "regime change" in Syria national policy? Perhaps both?

You may be willing to stick your head in the sand and forget about the AUMF but I'm not. HRC was a policymaker when the seeds were laid for every problem that I outlined. She does not get a pass. Your knee-jerk defense of her suggests to me that you're a Democratic partisan and not worth taking seriously.

True enough for the cases where you already have a job and want to keep it. The problem with excessive regulation is that it makes American workers look less desirable for new positions.

If she disagreed with the policy and had any backbone she would have resigned. Since she didn't we can conclude that she either agreed with the policy or she didn't have enough courage of conviction to resign. Neither one of those options suggests that she's fit to sit in the Oval Office.

On a sane site this would be modded troll and flamebait.