nobody's_hero
Member

Market pressure. He doesn't really have a choice. Either he jumps on the bandwagon or Facebook becomes obsolete. It's not the worst thing in the world, though, for businesses to compete over who is the most staunchly pro- free speech. I'd even say that's how it should be in America.

So there's not really anything to lose by letting RFK,jr go ham then, if for nothing else than exposure. At least, that's how I see it.

I always think back to FMJ whenever accusations of racism get thrown around . . . "I do not look down on . . . " Then there's the Denis Leary quote: "Why hate someone for the color of their skin, when there are much better reasons to hate them?"

Say what you will of him, but I think back to the envelopes that got passed around at Bush, Sr's funeral and Jimmy got left out. I don't think he was part of 'the club.'

I dunno bout dat. There's a lot of white Californians I wouldn't grant an H1-B visa to come work in Georgia if it worked internally.

If the FDA approves it, there's no lawyer who is going to take up any case against a major food corporation. The FDA's approval is essentially shielding them from liability. Any lawsuit brought forth would be DoA. Hence, removal of such approval would not be 'more government', even if the result would be, in essence, a ban on those additives. This is one of those things I can't really get animated about. I see it the same as when people here freaked about governments (mainly states) going after Facebook and other social media. "Oh no, protect the free market!" Yeah, no. As suspected and was later revealed, Facebook was willfully working with the government to censor/ban/remove/throttle unpopular (dissenting) viewpoints.

A lot of people don't truly know what they're eating though, and I think the corporations who buy the lobbyists and use the revolving door at the FDA to keep favorable people in charge of the decision-making, like it that way. A proper role of government is to protect people from fraud, and I think a convincing case could be made against companies putting toxins in the food, on those grounds. It really wouldn't take much for us to ask our friends in Europe to share their research on why they banned certain chemicals from being used in food processing. Here in America it's like we just don't give a sh**. (but I think we would, if people were informed)

Technically it is a 'coup' if a government entity is initiating it.

Agree with this. Hypersonic missiles are the game-changer. We spent our money on designing a stealth destoyer. Russia spent its money on a missile that will whiz right over that destroyer and onto its target before the radar officer even gets out of his bunk. That's what irks me about people clamoring for the Ukraine war. As if Russia is still some backwoods country using spears and arrows. We're not dealing with Iraqi T-55s.

ER's keep cocaine stocked. It's an old remedy for nosebleeds, apparently. In over a decade of working in the hospital ER, I've never seen a doc order it. The only form of prescribed fentanyl I've ever actually seen used out-of-hospital is as a patch, but that has dropped off over the years as I think the vast majority of doctors are too wary of it. Doctors here have to personally administer fentanyl if given IV. (not 100% sure if that's a law or just our hospital policy)

I guess as a single male who does not have kids nor any intention of having kids, but who currently pays for a multitude of other people's kids, I can't really feel strongly opposed to this. I guess it would make more sense just to force marriages. But that would be acknowledging there is some importance in the family unit in some way, which government will not do.

Sounds like a pretty awesome mayor honestly.