Head VS head

doobnVA said:

It's not the same as leaving your wallet on the floor. These corporations are essentially bribing our elected officials in order to get them to cast their votes for the corporate interest, rather than the interest of the individual citizens that make up the constituency.
The corporations are just as much to blame as the elected officials who allow themselves to be bought by said corporations. Let's not forgot those among US who parrot the corporate agenda without even realizing they are essentially standing up for those who seek to destroy them, they should share the blame, as well, to a lesser extent since they are unwitting pawns in the grand scheme of things.

The real problem with simply "voting them out of office" is that, unless the system is radically altered, another corporate puppet will take their place.

Click to expand...

all it would take is to make this law:


any canidiant with x number of signatures / following gets x money for thier campain. everone who has enough of a following gets the same amount and thats all they can use. may the best person win

problem is they can just get thier freinds to run the ads for them


unless you make a law saying no one can advertise for any canidate except for the canidate himself it would never work and we are doomed

A newly released scientific study published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen destroys one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists.

Click to expand...

The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth. The study correlates the change in the earth’s surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation. Lindzen’s study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases. This is exactly the opposite result that is assumed to occur in the UN climate models. The UN models predict that more radiation is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere as the temperature rises.

Click to expand...

http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-scientific-report-confirms-global.html

Here's the report:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf

I only mentioned global warming to underscore the ridiculous nature of Dr. Quinn's threat of a brokedick revolution.

I did not intend to sidetrack the debate.

Shall we repair to a more appropriate thread?

Big P said:

all it would take is to make this law:


any canidiant with x number of signatures / following gets x money for thier campain. everone who has enough of a following gets the same amount and thats all they can use. may the best person win

problem is they can just get thier freinds to run the ads for them


unless you make a law saying no one can advertise for any canidate except for the canidate himself it would never work and we are doomed

Click to expand...

I agree. I think corporate AND individual campaign contributions ought to be strictly limited. I mean, really, unless it's a Presidential campaign where the candidate has to travel the country, why do candidates need millions of dollars to run an effective campaign? Okay, so CA and Texas are big states and candidates need to visit remote locations and all that jazz... but wouldn't it be a lot more economical (and environmentally friendly) if say, the Dems or Repubs got a freaking tour bus or something and re-used it every other year during the campaigns?

I don't want to turn on the television and see a bunch of commercials for this candidate or that candidate, saying "Bob smith eats babies for lunch.. Do you want a baby eater for a Governor?" or "John Jones claims Bob Smith eats babies for lunch, but John Jones eats FETUSES for midday snacks!" It's a waste of money, a waste of time, and offensive to the sensibilities.

Johnnyorganic said:

http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-scientific-report-confirms-global.html

Here's the report:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf

I only mentioned global warming to underscore the ridiculous nature of Dr. Quinn's threat of a brokedick revolution.

I did not intend to sidetrack the debate.

Shall we repair to a more appropriate thread?

Click to expand...

That report is a bit too technical for me. I'm a philosophy person, not a science person (wait.. why are my majors poli sci and comp sci? OH SHIT!).

Computer models are often inaccurate. I don't really see how an inaccurate computer model is proof that global warming isn't being accelerated by man. So their model was wrong... does that mean the Earth isn't warming? No, not at all. Does it indicate that global warming isn't being accelerated by man? Again, no. Of course, there is no solid proof either way - but everyone can agree that the climate IS changing. The question is, what, if anything, can we do about it before its too late?