The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day.
So some guy who is not a doctor, not an expert on vaccines, and not a scientist, says something about vaccines that I can only assume was a gross exaggeration (and obviously untrue), therefore vaccines are bad?
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want more information.
Basically everyone (even the janitors) will make 70k
I know this is pedantic but... do any companies actually employ janitors rather than contracting it to a cleaning company?
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
Except the law at the heart of the controversy is the opposite of social progress. A huge portion of the country has taken a step forward while Indiana is taking a step backward. It leaves a much larger moral divide than if Indiana was just trying to keep the status quo.
Green eggs and ham...