Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[Genivaria]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

Generalizing much?

[Miss Defied]

There are so many blatant problems with this snippet I don't even know where to begin but I assume it'd be a good start to tell you to provide the numbers and sources. I have a horrible feeling you're using two horrible incomparable data sets. A horrible horrible feeling that the phrase "per x" never arose once in your sources. And that's just the start.

Read my post right above yours.
I thought about asking him for a source but I realized it would just be some blog, so I searched myself. Top two hits were i09 and Infowars, LOL.
Anyway the i09 linked to a CDC report which of course, doesn't exactly say what AuSable River said it did.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country.

Rated by whom? I would love to see this list.

Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

Well you could say that about lots of government agencies. So do you propose they be staffed by imbeciles who have no expertise in the areas they should be regulating or do we just throw out all the rules that protect the populace from adverse effects of companies doing business with no regard to the consequences of their actions?

Liberals are still delusional enough to believe the system can be fixed. They're desperately denying the reality that the system is irreparably broken and must be replaced, not left to limp on... Doing more harm than good because they've become corrupt down to the very marrow, but are still recognized as legitimate.

Take the EPA for the example. Liberals demand that the EPA's power be expanded, even though the EPA has been rated the most corrupt agencies in the country. Expanding an agency's power doesn't help when it's controlled by the same people they're supposed to keeping a lease over.

what where the next four most corrupt? in order.

Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...


Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Forest Service

Health Resources and Services Administration

Department of Homeland Security

Interior Department

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

You can get the full list here.
http://www.mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Agencies.htm

[Miss Defied]

Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Forest Service

Health Resources and Services Administration

Department of Homeland Security

Interior Department

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

You can get the full list here.
http://www.mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Agencies.htm

LOL it says "Most Corrupt Agencies Under Bush" WTF?
Well thanks for providing the list, it's funny. It doesn't say anything about the criteria for evaluation or anything. I wouldn't put much stock into what they say.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Forest Service

Health Resources and Services Administration

Department of Homeland Security

Interior Department

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

You can get the full list here.
http://www.mostcorrupt.com/Most-Corrupt-Agencies.htm

LOL it says "Most Corrupt Agencies Under Bush" WTF?
Well thanks for providing the list, it's funny. It doesn't say anything about the criteria for evaluation or anything. I wouldn't put much stock into what they say.

If you're looking for a more credible source. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington would be a good source. The EPA is also listed among the most corrupt agencies by them.

[Neo Art]

I got news for you dude. the only rat poison salesman is the FDA

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA (with healthy bribes from these very same pharma companies).

Oh, do you mean this? (It's a .pdf)

What's funny is that even his own source defeats his own argument:

His claim was "prescription drugs are the highest cause of accidental death in the USA". That's, of course, not true. The own source shows that, in 2008 at least, the highest cause of accidental death was poisoning. Not "prescription drugs". 41,000 deaths, to car accidents' 38,000

Then add this fact: "2008, 89% of poisoning deaths were caused by drugs."

So of those 41,000, 89% were caused by "drugs". Not "prescription drugs", not "legal drugs". Drugs. All drugs. The remaining 11% were from things such as mushroom poisoning, ingestion of chemicals, etc etc.

So, 89% of 41,000 is 36,490. 36,490 accidental deaths in 2008 caused by "drugs" (or we can cite directly the report "Of the 36,500 drug poisoning deaths in 2008..."). How many were caused by car accidents? Right, 38,000.

Funny, I think 38,000 is more than 36,500. That would mean that car accidents caused more accidental deaths than "drugs". Isn't that exactly the opposite of what the OP claimed? Didn't he claim that drugs (not just drugs, but explicitly prescription drugs) were the LEADING CAUSE of accidental deaths in the USA?

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA

Yup.

Oh well, so much for that theory. "drugs" as a catagory doesn't beat car accidents after all, and that's including legal AND illegal drugs.

So what about those illegal drugs hm? Let's see: "Opioid analgesics (note - painkillers) were involved in nearly 15,000 deaths in 2008, while cocaine was involved in about 5,100 deaths and heroin was involved in about 3,000 deaths"

So of those 36,500 deaths, 8,100 were clearly involving illegal drugs, and only 15,000 were attributable to LEGAL drugs. So now we've gone from "41,000 deaths by FDA approved drugs" to "15,000" (which by the way, is less than half that of car accidents, and fewer in number than those that fell to their deaths).

So now we're down to 15,000. So does that mean that 15,000 people died to FDA approved drugs, does that mean that those drugs should have not been approved?

of course not. In fact, from that very same report "misuse and abuse" of drugs has been on the rise. What's that mean? It means that many of those deaths were caused by people not following instructions, either because they didn't know them, or were addicted to them.

So we've gone from "FDA drugs kill over 40,000 people a year because they're unsafe" to "15,000 people died in 2008 due to toxicity caused in part by FDA drugs, the majority of which were caused due to misuse or abuse of that drug".

So here we have deaths caused by drugs that, if not dosed properly, can kill you, and the OP's solution is to...get rid of the organization responsible for ensuring they're labeled properly.

Brilliant!



Now, having taken the OPs advice to:

ponder that

I have, and upon reflection, have reached a conclusion.

You are HORRIBLY bad at this. Like, stunningly bad. To the point where you are, and I say this without reservation, literally the worst debator on this forum.

You are awful.

Ponder that, if you're able.

But aside from that, these deaths are occuring despite the regulatory powers of the FDA, not because of them. Funny though, you would think with all these bad drugs on the market that the consumers would be boycotting and "holding back" these irresponsible companies.
But they aren't. What will make consumers "hold back" these businesses when you just take away the FDA in your fantasy world?

Yeah, one would think that, wouldn't one?

And you also think that all we have to do is abolish FDA regulations and all of a sudden big pharma will stop rushing unsafe, untested drugs to the market? How will that happen exactly?

To channel the OP's logic - "fuck you, that's how"

[Neo Art]

Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...

Wait, didn't you say THE most. I'm pretty sure you did.

[Genivaria]

I must disagree. LogiChristianity is even worse.

[Jinos]

Mostcorrupt.com (a left-wing website) rated the EPA as one of top nine most corrupt agencies in the country following...

I'd hardly call a website that's only evidence seems to be to copy a hand full of articles from almost only ONE newspaper "authorative"

Seriously, all but three of their sources are all from the LA Times.

[Miss Defied]

LOL it says "Most Corrupt Agencies Under Bush" WTF?
Well thanks for providing the list, it's funny. It doesn't say anything about the criteria for evaluation or anything. I wouldn't put much stock into what they say.

If you're looking for a more credible source. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington would be a good source. The EPA is also listed among the most corrupt agencies by them.

Yes! Thank you.

[Greater Amerigo]

LOL it says "Most Corrupt Agencies Under Bush" WTF?
Well thanks for providing the list, it's funny. It doesn't say anything about the criteria for evaluation or anything. I wouldn't put much stock into what they say.

If you're looking for a more credible source. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington would be a good source. The EPA is also listed among the most corrupt agencies by them.

It is a commonly held fact among the academic community to link your source instead of saying "go find this". To me, that is tantamount to giving no evidence at all. I went to their website for all of ten seconds before cutting out. I will not be expected to back up your arguments when I am trying to block them.

That said, all things when talking about government, all things are relative. Governments are power, power attracts ambitious men, ambition fosters animosity and corruption. The problem isn't with government, it is with the power they give themselves. Complacent politicians-for-life give themselves cushy chairs and easy jobs by delegating and re-delegating work until their departments become bureaucratic hellholes.

Something that every empire in history has never been able to win is a fight against itself. Eventually the complacency of the people will reach a critical point (or as I believe, we have, and are living off borrowed time) and the system will collapse because with all the "power" the government has, the powers will never be used as intended, mostly because the agencies or legislatures become so impeded by this complacency.

I've always believed quite completely that government is bloated, redundant agencies and heavy-laden bureaucracy hinders the process of swift management. Do NOT take that to mean that I believe big government is bad. Big government is the only way this country is going to survive a collapse in on itself. Bloated government and Big government are different, no amount of propaganda will change that fact.

In order to fight the complacency of the people, a few good people must step up to plate to take the country by the reins. I'll go ahead and say it, most of the American people are incompetent, biased, and narrow minded. As someone who has seen and talked to thousands of people from around the country, I freely state this with complete confidence. I will not entrust the running of things that the EPA or FDA mandates to them or any of their corporate "friends". It is a massive recipe for disaster.

Call me what you will, a dirty corrupt liberal whom wants to take away all of your rights, but I feel it is the only way to run this country without destroying the entire system.

[The Terragon Isles]

While you should be lauded for actually trying to make an intelligent argument, (even if you are horribly failing in the process) you are, predictably, failing to do so here, I expect because you are trying to imitate the logical arguments you have seen being met with success, without actually understanding how or why a logical, intelligent argument is respected, where the irrational, essentially faith (not in the religious sense) based arguments that seem to have convinced you, typically fail to convince intelligent people, and will generally get you laughed out of the room. So allow me to show you what you did wrong:

First, you start off by essentially saying that all people on the left side of the isles are indoctrinated by the media and popular culture. This is, under the best of circumstances, a reckless opening since you are making a wild claim, that is sure to offend a large part of your audience, liberal and conservative alike. If you will recall your High School writing classes, the introduction to an essay, (which is typically just an extended argument), you are supposed to pull your audience in, not make yourself hostile to them. Now, it is possible, in theory, to get away with such a claim, but you absolutely must immediately follow it, either with a thesis that will prove it as such, or at least strong evidence or logical demonstration of fact, in order to back it up. In this way you win back the audience's attention, even if begrudgingly. You do neither. Your topic is about something else entirely, and you end up just taking this as a given. This means that, as a result, the only people that are going not be offended are essentially those that think this exact thing already, as you have already alienated everyone else. So then why write this? The only people liable to by sympathetic to your writing are those who already think the exact same thing, so clearly they don't need to be convinced. Therefore, unless you are just wanting to sit around wanking off to each other in written form, your argument has already failed.

The second place where you misstep is the third paragraph and onward, your main thesis and body paragraphs to go back to the High School writing courses (which I'm sure you didn't just blow off because you thought it wasn't important, or knew better). You start off by stating that the government is corrupt, then citing the influence of special interest groups and the recent financial crisis in America as evidence. The problem here is that this is not evidence, as you do not say what the logical link is between the two. You don't show how the presence of these special interest groups are corrupting our government, you don't show how the recent financial crisis is evidence of this. It is true that often someone constructing a logical argument might cite a historical or current event as evidence of their position with very little explanation and move on, but the reason they can do this and sometimes get away with it is that it is already commonly accepted that X event is an example of Y. (For instance, the continued aggression of Nazi Germany that eventually lead to WWII being an example of the failure of appeasement, to use a commonly accepted, if not particularly historically accurate, example) Even when people do this, it does not make for a particularly strong argument, and is really only socially allowed to occur because people understand that a person might be rushed for time or space. But in this case, the influence of special interest groups is NOT accepted as always making a government corrupt, and the recent financial crisis is NOT commonly accepted as being evidence of this. Indeed, the general, though by no means uncontested, view in America is that the financial crisis resulted from NOT ENOUGH government regulation of these financial institutions. Therefore, you needed to actually give fairly objective evidence, or a sound explanation of how exactly this is evidence of government corruption, which you don't do. This is echoed over and over again throughout your argument here, such as where you say the purpose of government is just for the material gain of the politicians (for which you give no evidence), that democrats are diverting scare resources (what resources, and how are they scarce) away from important sectors of the economy (what sectors of the economy, and why are they important?) just to bailout reckless firms and individuals (how are all the firms and individuals who benefited from the stimulus reckless?), for which you have also offered no logical proof. So, because you refuse to actually give proof for your claims, there is no reason your audience should accept them as legitimate.

The third problem is that you don't give us an alternative. Sure, your implied alternative is that if big government is bad, smaller, or no government, should be good, but this is not enough because, again, you are assuming most people agree with you, when in fact not even a plurality (read: biggest minority) of people agree necessarily agree with you. You haven't explained how a smaller government would solve these problems, how taking power away from the government would keep the already tremendous power of the special interest from crowding out any ability the government would have to fight back, or even how less government involvement in the affairs of these special interest would decrease their power. I suspect the reason for this is that you don't know yourself, but even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do, you have not given it, so there is no reason your audience should accept your alternative as better than the status quo, when indeed for all they know (since you HAVEN'T EXPLAINED what your alternative is) it is worse.

Your final blunder is simply the fact that you are being petulant and obnoxious. You are using a bunch of words and phrases that people other than yourself have uttered, in much better context and with much better justification, that appear to be intelligent, popular and edgy, with the apparent ability to rile people up (after all, they probably riled you up when you first heard them). For instance, you use "Obama, Bush, and the democrats", since you perceive that all three are unpopular, but without the contextual knowledge to know that, at the very least, Bush, his failures, and his unpopularity, are not allied with the democrats or Obama (or, on a slightly more complex note, that clumping the actions of congressional democrats with Obama is not entirely accurate either). You call this diatribe about how government only exists to benefit the politicians and this cronies the "preamble to Economics 101", as if you are trying to add some academic legitimacy to your work, when really it just ends up making you infuriating to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, as this has absolutely nothing to do with it, and patronizing to everyone else. You seemingly randomly break up your statement with diatribes against Obama and the democrats, which while in an intelligent discussion or essay might pass as humor, are just as baseless and petty as the rest of your argument, making your argument clunky, and making yourself appear petty and dishonest, as it make the audience question why you taking petty shots at people you don't like instead of explaining your argument, which in turn makes it look like you are trying to pull a fast one on them by insulting people instead of explaining yourself.

So basically, the problem with this topic, and your argument in general comes down to this: it isn't doing anything to make anyone more sympathetic to your position. You, in essence, don't make a case for yourself, you just sit there and throw out words you hope will get people as riled up as they got you. Your topic will not be sympathetic to anyone, except those who already agree with you, which makes it somewhat less useful than preaching to the choir, as in this case you are likely you are likely to alienate some of the choir. So really, I do applaud you for trying to make a logical, sympathetic argument, but this only makes it worse when you fail so horribly. And for the love of God, don't say you didn't fail, you failed to make a logical, sympathetic argument by every definition of the term. This is no reason you shouldn't keep trying, but for the love of God, make sure to learn from the mistakes you made here for next time.

[Souseiseki]

While you should be lauded for actually trying to make an intelligent argument, (even if you are horribly failing in the process) you are, predictably, failing to do so here, I expect because you are trying to imitate the logical arguments you have seen being met with success, without actually understanding how or why a logical, intelligent argument is respected, where the irrational, essentially faith (not in the religious sense) based arguments that seem to have convinced you, typically fail to convince intelligent people, and will generally get you laughed out of the room. So allow me to show you what you did wrong:

First, you start off by essentially saying that all people on the left side of the isles are indoctrinated by the media and popular culture. This is, under the best of circumstances, a reckless opening since you are making a wild claim, that is sure to offend a large part of your audience, liberal and conservative alike. If you will recall your High School writing classes, the introduction to an essay, (which is typically just an extended argument), you are supposed to pull your audience in, not make yourself hostile to them. Now, it is possible, in theory, to get away with such a claim, but you absolutely must immediately follow it, either with a thesis that will prove it as such, or at least strong evidence or logical demonstration of fact, in order to back it up. In this way you win back the audience's attention, even if begrudgingly. You do neither. Your topic is about something else entirely, and you end up just taking this as a given. This means that, as a result, the only people that are going not be offended are essentially those that think this exact thing already, as you have already alienated everyone else. So then why write this? The only people liable to by sympathetic to your writing are those who already think the exact same thing, so clearly they don't need to be convinced. Therefore, unless you are just wanting to sit around wanking off to each other in written form, your argument has already failed.

The second place where you misstep is the third paragraph and onward, your main thesis and body paragraphs to go back to the High School writing courses (which I'm sure you didn't just blow off because you thought it wasn't important, or knew better). You start off by stating that the government is corrupt, then citing the influence of special interest groups and the recent financial crisis in America as evidence. The problem here is that this is not evidence, as you do not say what the logical link is between the two. You don't show how the presence of these special interest groups are corrupting our government, you don't show how the recent financial crisis is evidence of this. It is true that often someone constructing a logical argument might cite a historical or current event as evidence of their position with very little explanation and move on, but the reason they can do this and sometimes get away with it is that it is already commonly accepted that X event is an example of Y. (For instance, the continued aggression of Nazi Germany that eventually lead to WWII being an example of the failure of appeasement, to use a commonly accepted, if not particularly historically accurate, example) Even when people do this, it does not make for a particularly strong argument, and is really only socially allowed to occur because people understand that a person might be rushed for time or space.

But in this case, the influence of special interest groups is NOT accepted as always making a government corrupt, and the recent financial crisis is NOT commonly accepted as being evidence of this. Indeed, the general, though by no means uncontested, view in America is that the financial crisis resulted from NOT ENOUGH government regulation of these financial institutions. Therefore, you needed to actually give fairly objective evidence, or a sound explanation of how exactly this is evidence of government corruption, which you don't do. This is echoed over and over again throughout your argument here, such as where you say the purpose of government is just for the material gain of the politicians (for which you give no evidence), that democrats are diverting scare resources (what resources, and how are they scarce) away from important sectors of the economy (what sectors of the economy, and why are they important?) just to bailout reckless firms and individuals (how are all the firms and individuals who benefited from the stimulus reckless?), for which you have also offered no logical proof. So, because you refuse to actually give proof for your claims, there is no reason your audience should accept them as legitimate.

The third problem is that you don't give us an alternative. Sure, your implied alternative is that if big government is bad, smaller, or no government, should be good, but this is not enough because, again, you are assuming most people agree with you, when in fact not even a plurality (read: biggest minority) of people agree necessarily agree with you. You haven't explained how a smaller government would solve these problems, how taking power away from the government would keep the already tremendous power of the special interest from crowding out any ability the government would have to fight back, or even how less government involvement in the affairs of these special interest would decrease their power. I suspect the reason for this is that you don't know yourself, but even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do, you have not given it, so there is no reason your audience should accept your alternative as better than the status quo, when indeed for all they know (since you HAVEN'T EXPLAINED what your alternative is) it is worse.

Your final blunder is simply the fact that you are being petulant and obnoxious. You are using a bunch of words and phrases that people other than yourself have uttered, in much better context and with much better justification, that appear to be intelligent, popular and edgy, with the apparent ability to rile people up (after all, they probably riled you up when you first heard them). For instance, you use "Obama, Bush, and the democrats", since you perceive that all three are unpopular, but without the contextual knowledge to know that, at the very least, Bush, his failures, and his unpopularity, are not allied with the democrats or Obama (or, on a slightly more complex note, that clumping the actions of congressional democrats with Obama is not entirely accurate either). You call this diatribe about how government only exists to benefit the politicians and this cronies the "preamble to Economics 101", as if you are trying to add some academic legitimacy to your work, when really it just ends up making you infuriating to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, as this has absolutely nothing to do with it, and patronizing to everyone else. You seemingly randomly break up your statement with diatribes against Obama and the democrats, which while in an intelligent discussion or essay might pass as humor, are just as baseless and petty as the rest of your argument, making your argument clunky, and making yourself appear petty and dishonest, as it make the audience question why you taking petty shots at people you don't like instead of explaining your argument, which in turn makes it look like you are trying to pull a fast one on them by insulting people instead of explaining yourself.

So basically, the problem with this topic, and your argument in general comes down to this: it isn't doing anything to make anyone more sympathetic to your position. You, in essence, don't make a case for yourself, you just sit there and throw out words you hope will get people as riled up as they got you. Your topic will not be sympathetic to anyone, except those who already agree with you, which makes it somewhat less useful than preaching to the choir, as in this case you are likely you are likely to alienate some of the choir. So really, I do applaud you for trying to make a logical, sympathetic argument, but this only makes it worse when you fail so horribly. And for the love of God, don't say you didn't fail, you failed to make a logical, sympathetic argument by every definition of the term. This is no reason you shouldn't keep trying, but for the love of God, make sure to learn from the mistakes you made here for next time.

you do seem to have paragraphs, but for some reason there's no line separation and it makes it pretty hard to read ):

[NMaa949]

Thank you, it would be much easier to read now if it were worth reading. Go read the news instead. You'll be glad you did.

[Vaklor]

[NMaa949]

Not sure what the Rainbow flag has to do with Stalinism.

[Vaklor]

It's how the picture came.

[Aethyopea]

The basic premise behind the argument is this: if a company sets up shop, selling rat poison in a capsule labeled "cancer cure", we don't need government to tell them they can't do that. We don't need government to require them to test the drug to ensure it ACTUALLY treats cancer. We don't need government to make them jump through all these beurocratic hoops.--neo art

I got news for you dude. the only rat poison salesman is the FDA

the highest cause of accidental death in the USA is from prescription drugs approved by the FDA (with healthy bribes from these very same pharma companies).

Indeed, more Americans die from prescription drugs than from heroin, marijuana, and cocaine combined !!!!!

essentially, private sector unregulated drug dealers are selling billions of dollars worth of illicit drugs and killing less Americans than those peddled by the FDA.

ponder that and reexamine the fallacious framework of your argument.

The problem with this argument is that it pretty much ignores the basics of toxicology
The vast majority of FDA-approved drugs are perfectly safe for everyone if they're used correctly and in the right amount.
A popular saying among toxicologists is "the dose makes the poison". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison) Too much of any substance (even air or water) can be lethal. No amount of government regulation is going to save

you if you use too much aspirin or something. This means that, if some idiot tries to get a legal high from drugs and fails, the FDA would get the blame according to you. It would also get the blame for suicides by overdosing on prescription drugs, forgetful people taking the same dose multiple times, people forgetting to read the small print on the box and individual doctors/pharmacies giving you the wrong drug to the wrong person (which could happen if a doctor works with hundreds of different medicines in different doses with similar names and lots of pressure. Even doctors can make mistakes sometimes)

A lot of problems with Big Pharma are also problems the FDA can't really solve. For instance, one problem is that big pharmaceutical companies these days withhold data from inconclusive or negative trials. If a company sees that chemical X doesn't work on disease Y, they don't publish this fact. This leads to a lot of reinventing the wheel as companies keep wasting resources researching the same chemical over and over again. The FDA can't really check that because the companies didn't release any medicine for them to test. (source: http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/by-me-in-the-bmj-the-dodginess-of-drug-company-trials/ it's a link by British doctor Ben Goldacre and perfectly safe as far as I can tell).

Does this mean that the FDA is completely off the hook? Of course not! Wikipedia even has an entire page worth criticisms about it, and there are even a few FDA approved drugs that were actually taken off the market due to being unsafe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... nistration) but that doesn't mean they're personally responsible for every idiot who decides to overdose on cough syrup.

[Avalar]

In Australia:

Liberal= Conservative

[Meowfoundland]

In Australia:

Liberal= Conservative

Nah, Big L Liberal = Conservative. Small l liberal = socially liberal, economically conservative.

[Avalar]

In Australia:

Liberal= Conservative

Nah, Big L Liberal = Conservative. Small l liberal = socially liberal, economically conservative.

Liberal=Conservative

Labor=Liberal

[Forster Keys]

In Australia:

Liberal= Conservative

Nah, Big L Liberal = Conservative. Small l liberal = socially liberal, economically conservative.

And within the big L Liberals, wet liberals mean liberals and dry liberals mean conservatives.

[Forster Keys]

Nah, Big L Liberal = Conservative. Small l liberal = socially liberal, economically conservative.

Liberal=Conservative

Labor=Liberal

There is no dichotomy I'm afraid.

[Meowfoundland]

Nah, Big L Liberal = Conservative. Small l liberal = socially liberal, economically conservative.

And within the big L Liberals, wet liberals mean liberals and dry liberals mean conservatives.

God we're confusing.

[Forster Keys]

And within the big L Liberals, wet liberals mean liberals and dry liberals mean conservatives.

God we're confusing.

Also elevators are lifts and lifts are elevators. And we drive on the left side of the road. Abandon hope all Yanks who enter.