They would probably applaud you for doing the right thing. Just because you may not agree with someone on their view of politics, economics or ideology doesn't mean that you can't learn from each other.
1) You should not thank Canada, but rather it's Conservative Party. With that said, this is a party that is ruling a minority government, but acting as if it has a majority. It's also a party which stands a pretty good chance of losing it's minority government at the next election, which will probably happen within the next year (or sooner if we have a no-confidence vote in parliament) 2) When the U.S was going into Iraq, Canada abstained for the specific reason that there was no
[quote]Finally, your proposition based on history from that comment alone would suggest that you could just need to have a bit more money than the other candidate [/quote] Well, that's an assumption on your part. Again, employ a little common sense. I'm not talking about a democrat going head to head with a republican- both of those candidates will have massive coffers that are at least in the same ballpark. What I -am- talking about is a no-name independent going up against the
Hi Nitro- [quote]Obama...that war criminal!!!![/quote] Well, I can honestly say that for the first time I agree one hundred percent with one of your posts!
[quote]IMO Pelosi and Sheehan are both nuts. [/quote] And again, you're completely missing my point. I don't give a good nickel about your opinion of either candidate (by the way, Sheehan is one of the bravest people I can think of.... when was the last time you ran for office against an entrenched incumbent and won a significant chunk of the votes hmmm?) The point is, with more funds on your side you can ensure that your voice will be heard louder than the other guy's. You can
[quote]Plain and simple...corporations don't vote. I've never seen an ad that convinced me to vote for or against a candidate.[/quote] And yet, in almost every single case he who has the largest campaign coffers, on average, wins. Again, it's just like a casino- statistically the underdog will indeed win from time to time but the house always wins ultimately. The proof is in the pudding my good fellow. Why, look at the last election when Cindy Sheehan ran against Nancy Pelo
[quote]Thank god the founding fathers were smart enough to leave that word out of the Declaration and Constitution! fair is subjective.[/quote] No arguments there. Fair is absolutely subjective. However, a little common sense goes a helluva long way. Of course every "mickey-mouse" wouldn't get equal national air-time as you would undoubtedly have hundreds or thousands of candidates running for pres. It wouldn't be rocket science to establish a baseline requirement for who would
[quote]If their sole purpose was to elect someone, yes they could outweigh Joe the plumbers. However they would not do it long as they would go out of business [/quote] What this does is provide the opportunity for a small number of people, with a large sum of money, to essentially choose who will get into office through their donations. Of course no single company or person will just throw away billions in a hell-bent effort to elect a single politician. But between corporate and priv
[quote]Then you are limiting their free speech. Can you buy a 30 second commercial on a major network? [/quote] Well, this touches on another topic. Technically, in order to have a truly fair election, all candidates would need to have equal air-time and equal advertising. If this really were the case methinks your green party and independents would have much more of a presence in your political process.
[quote]And the unions could do the same. What is the difference between the AFl-CIO and Exxon? [/quote] From my perspective there is no difference, actually. I don't support -any- group being able to give unlimited amounts of money. That's a game changer that essentially subverts the entire democratic process. [quote]Exxon could spend $85 billion on a campaign, but your figures are way off. You are comparing what Exxon can spend to what the candidates spent, not what was spent.
"Well doctor, what have we got- A Republic or a Monarchy?" "A Republic, if you can keep it" -Benjamin Franklin, 1787. The above mentioned Republic is, for all intents and purposes, finished. It was done with the flick of a pen by your supreme court last month. For anyone not aware, the determination was made that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to support political candidates in their run for office. The fallacy of this should be obv
[quote]If you look at the chart above, which I scanned from the December issue of Home Power Magazine (a magazine dedicated to alternative energy so hardly some right-wing journal) it becomes pretty obvious that solar, wind, whatever are not serious alternatives.[/quote] Yes, this is true. And why is it exactly that they're not serious alternatives? Because they haven't been seriously pursued. Meanwhile, you live in a nation whose oil production peaked back in the 70's...and I d
Well, I'm no expert on global warming or climate change... namely, because I have no relevant credentials (do you?) nor have I ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic (have you?) Therefore, both you and I are relegated to the sidelines, kinda like common folk back in the day when Galileo said the earth wasn't the center of the universe and the church said it was... common folks like us could only sit on the sidelines and pontificate without being able to make an infor
Dr Guy [quote]The irony is they cannot even see their own silliness. Of course Bush is dumb as a stump, but of course he has the intelligence of a machiavellian Prince! It all goes back to my previous statement. if they were honest, they would state their beliefs - right or wrong - and stick with them instead of trying to portray Bush as almost god like in his manipulation of them. Perhaps that is why they throw reason out the window? They feel used by Bush, and now they are mad. So li
[quote]Arty, In 2008 I have personally been a few miles from the place where Al-Qaeda were stationed in Iraq before 2003. I have PERSONALLY heard stories, from locals, about the battle between the Peshmerga (with American support) and the Al-Qaeda terrorists in 2003. So PLEASE, for the sake of my sanity, PLEASE stop telling me that there was no Al-Qaeda connection.[/quote] Leauki, I'm actually not disputing that AQ were in Iraq prior to the invasion. But if their presence is justificat
[quote]The fact is that all western secret services believed in those WMDs, not just the CIA. If anything, the stupid Bush fell for it, just like Arty did. (Maybe Arty lied to us about the WMDs? He claimed he "believed" the story but that Bush "lied" about it. If Bush's belief in the story makes him a liar, why is Arty not a liar too?)[/quote] Leauki, the difference is that Bush (or at least his handlers literally knew better) there's a mountain of documented cases in which analysts in
[quote]I wonder how much oil the US military is "garrisoning" in Germany, Korea, Italy, and of course Afghanistan[/quote] Well, actually in the case of Afghanistan a large portion of the U.S military deployments are located near the proposed route for the mother-of-all-pipelines that's going to theoretically carry natural gas from the caspian area and bypass Russia entirely. If you look at your history, the Clinton and even Bush 2 administrations courted the Taliban
BFD- [quote]If people don't pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact, this country will be is such sorry shape it will not be able to "interfere" in other countries' affairs...then we will see how restrained those other countries will be in meddling in OUR affairs.[/quote] I don't think the U.S should be in the position to militarily interfere with any country, unless of course they are a beligerint who has declared war on you. Armies exist to defend a nation, -NOT-
[quote]Arty, if one were to listen to the media, WMD's would have been the entire reason for going to war in Iraq, but that is just, if I may us Al Gore's word's, an inconvenient truth. Saddam, was in violation of a number of UN resolutions, more than one of which mandated a military response. Europe which can talk a good talk, has very little will to back up its words. The WMD's was only the cherry on top of the cake[/quote] Ahh yes, the time honoured debate about the Iraq war. You st
[quote]Why are the JU Liberals so quite all of a sudden? How come they are not posting their opinions on recent events where Democrats are making fools of themselves? Why are they not making excuses, defending and at the least denying all these Demo-gate issues we are seeing on a daily basis?[/quote] 1) As with Bush, I'm giving Obama a bit of time to see what he does before I completely make up my mind. I was actually pro-Bush and pro-Republican until shortly after the Iraq
[quote]This rotting corpse of an article, about creating a new tax, is really boring me (and judging from the lack of interest, others as well). It should have died a natural death after post 14. Instead, I humored your tirade on various topics much longer than politely reasonable. I'll let someone else play if they are the least bit interested or you can finish with some cleaver insight or remark.[/quote] Okay Mr. Cranky Pants! No one is forcing you to post in this thread, last
It's time for another edition of "Evil Corporations", a fun game in which we expose and lambast those slimy sons of bitches we all love to hate. These are the folks who wantonly ruin the planet with their activities and would gladly curb-stomp your grandmother if it meant another dollar of profit for them. Most importantly, they outright depend on YOUR ignorance so that they can continue to reap in whirlwind profits without too many uncomfortable questions getting asked. So,
My apologies, have been away for a few days- [quote]Come on you can do better than that! You're a smart guy, right? Surely these workers want the highest pay and benefits they can get, just like the workers in Japan an German auto plants, right? Or maybe they just see how the UAW has destroyed jobs for tens of thousands and want no part of it. Oh there is a reason for the decline of the unions. It's because the workers are making a choice.[/quote] Nitro, this truly does illustra
Hi Tova, 1) Let's keep in mind that these are the e-mails from one university, and that the national science academies of virtually every nation on the planet have signed on to man made climate change, based on thousands of studies from across the planet. 2) What's to say that all of the e-mails are authentic? 3) If what this one university has found "proves" man-made climate change is bogus, why didn't anybody else twig on to it? If they did, then that would imply a trul
[quote]Unions are a form of monopoly and are hence specifically exempted from anti-trust law. Their only purpose is to monopolise labour and hence drive prices for labour above the level they would be in a market without such monopoly power.[/quote] Ahh yes, the famous "unions push wages above the market rates and therefore kill both themselves and their employer" This argument is an oldie but a goldie. You want to know a funny statistic? Adjusted for inflation, in what year did
Stardock Forums
JoeUser Forums