For 'it' to stand on its own, the meaning and intention should not be altered by examining the context in which 'it' was made. Refusing to acknowledge the context results in a level of stupidity I would not like to see managing political issues.
Perhaps someone is suffering from deliberate ignorance? Context and environment can alter the effect in the way facts are used. Now say "Thank you, harlows_monkeys"
Why would the invasion at that time take place if no one believed that particular state had anything to do with or were preparing for attacks on other states? I don't know anyone that goes around attacking cupboards because it is possible despite being unlikely that they are hiding bogey men. I'd hazard you have no evidence that the invasion would have occurred had the list not been believed. Am I wrong?
We have evidence that heads of states (ours) kept trumpeting lies after they had been made aware of were lies to their citizens to eventually invade a state that had nothing to do with the initial cause of fear. That isn't even bringing in the argument that the story changed as their lies were exposed to give new reasons why we of the coalition 'should' attack a state that had no evidence for external maliciousness except to be uncooperative. Other states similarly uncooperative have not been invaded despite showing a greater propensity to external aggression.
Was Iraq failing to meet its international requirements wrt weapons? Yes. Was that sufficient provocation to invade? I don't believe so, but I'm willing to listen to arguments for it. So far I've only seen irrational myopic xenophobic arguments, but I'll listen for an actual argument.
Regardless, I believe the topic is about vaccines and differences of opinions of their effectiveness? I haven't seen a rational argument against vaccines either, but I'm glad to be proven wrong.
Ah... while I agree that GPs post was ignorant, where does the assertion that "JEWS" told the members of the coalition to invade Iraq come from? should you be saying "USA CITIZENS"? or British or Australian (or Israeli)* or whoever else joined the coalition to fight terrorism by inflicting terrorism on their own respective citizens and visitors.
* I can't be bothered to find out if and when Israel joined the coalition of the obnoxious.
Ever heard of different products being lumped under one homologous category? Swine flu is a variant strain of flu. Previous flu vaccines didn't work against it. Surprise.
I'm not surprised to find out that 100 years ago they made a vaccine against smallpox and had an outbreak of smallpox. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened 1 year ago. (I believe it did with the flu.) Most vaccine technologies (all to my knowledge) are based on key and lock principles. The particular strain inoculated against fits the vaccine like a lock, if the strain evolves, more than likely it doesn't 'fit' the vaccine lock any more and renders the vaccine ineffective (sorry, the metaphor breaks down now.) Point is, unless you can show that the strain(s) a vaccine was supposedly effective against were completely ineffective despite 'scientific' backing, your argument is a key without a lock. Useless.
While I'm not given to using language that causes others to squirm, the only thing irrational about 'foul language' is that it makes people squirm. We made the words to describe our world, why should they now affect our mental state? They are just words. Or is it the situation or objects they describe that makes people uncomfortable?
It is rational to use a tactic that will force the other side of the argument to not only deal with the complexity of the arguments details, but to also look past issues not related to the argument. Only rational thinking can separate the two matters and deal with the one that counts.
Of course, if the whole argument relies on offending the opposition entirely, they don't have an argument and are just enjoying the contention. GP did not demonstrate that.
Hmmm... I have a 3G running iOS4.2 and no noticeable problems (I don't play much music, perhaps that a factor). My point is that it seems not all recommendations by manufactures are realistic or universal. Some understate and some overstate. At the end of the day you just have to give it a go.
I do suggest waiting until the warranty runs out.
The basic point is that the government cannot continue to spend more than it takes in indefinitely without a collapse at some point.
While this particular point is true, everything I listened to from the Tea Party:
- calls for releasing restraints on institutions or industries that show themselves to be psychopathic and self-absorbed
- calls for reduction on spending in areas that plainly are the best investment to get better returns in the future --- excluding the USA's "national health" program which went from primitive to medieval post Obama
- ignores the enormous military black holes
- adds to the roar for war-mongerers that seem to be congregating in powerful positions.
rarely have I heard any pro-Tea Party rant say anything intelligent except the adage you can't take out more than you put in.
Why does this Australian care? Because that shrill party is messing up my backyard! >:
Wow, I thought rort and derivatives were generic English terms; global.
I would, however, expect rort to be decended from cockney rather than an obscure surname. In fact, a couple of online sources* suggest it is from an 19th century London term: rorty > "boisterous or rowdy, saucy, dissipated, or risqué".
Not sure where you came up with the political surname gig. Wait! Relying on presumptions will rort knowledge.
* yes there were more reputable sources, I just got bored.