Previous 21 - 30 Next
Also, about your ranking of the Kochs as 59th - it's kind of BS: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/10/fox-news-hides-koch-funding-influence-to-shield/198848
http://theconsensusproject.com/ Here you will find a statistic that closely resembles my statement, along with an explanation of how the statistic was reached and a link to the paper explaining the conclusion in detail. Happy reading.
Oh I'm not saying the Democrats aren't bought and paid for, too. The amount of influence that corporations have on both sides of the aisle is disgusting. Also, your 58 "DEMOCRAT RICH DONORS" includes the NRA, Lockheed Martin, and more than a few distinctly-right groups, so...maybe actually read that list before accusing someone of not reading the list.
I eagerly await a link to the corrected percentage. I'll let you know if I find anything, but I'm not optimistic.
Meanwhile billionaires like the Koch brothers, as in the days of yore, have essentially more power than our politicians and are allowed to buy as much influence as they can afford (which is the entire Republican Party). Over 90% of climatologists agree that this is a problem and we're causing it, but the billionaires whip around their influence and suddenly, "Eh, what do climatologists know about the climate?"
Her'es the question that I always come back to: If there were such a thing as global warming or climate change, would you expect the fossil fuel industry to take it lying down? Or would you expect it to react like the tobacco industry did to the existential threats that science posed to it, funding their own studies with preordained conclusions and muddying the waters with BS science? And if there weren't such a thing and the democrats just wanted to make themselves rich off of getting people angry at Big Oil, then why make up a whole elaborate lie? Why not just go with peak oil, which makes more sense and is much harder to deny as a serious long-term threat to the global economy? And where are the ethical scientists coming forward to talk about the bribes the left offered them - over 90% of climatologists agree that climate change is a problem and that we're causing it, so there'd surely be a few who wouldn't take the offer and would come forward.
In response to:

The Emperor’s New Climate

jwilliams Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 3:30 PM
Her'es the question that I always come back to: If there were such a thing as global warming or climate change, would you expect the fossil fuel industry to take it lying down? Or would you expect it to react like the tobacco industry did to the existential threats that science posed to it, funding their own studies with preordained conclusions and muddying the waters with BS science? And if there weren't such a thing and the democrats just wanted to make themselves rich off of getting people angry at Big Oil, then why make up a whole elaborate lie? Why not just go with peak oil, which makes more sense and is much harder to deny as a serious long-term threat to the global economy? And where are the ethical scientists coming forward to talk about the bribes the left offered them - over 90% of climatologists agree that climate change is a problem and that we're causing it, so there'd surely be a few who wouldn't take the offer and would come forward.
In response to:

The Emperor’s New Climate

jwilliams Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 3:30 PM
Her'es the question that I always come back to: If there were such a thing as global warming or climate change, would you expect the fossil fuel industry to take it lying down? Or would you expect it to react like the tobacco industry did to the existential threats that science posed to it, funding their own studies with preordained conclusions and muddying the waters with BS science? And if there weren't such a thing and the democrats just wanted to make themselves rich off of getting people angry at Big Oil, then why make up a whole elaborate lie? Why not just go with peak oil, which makes more sense and is much harder to deny as a serious long-term threat to the global economy? And where are the ethical scientists coming forward to talk about the bribes the left offered them - over 90% of climatologists agree that climate change is a problem and that we're causing it, so there'd surely be a few who wouldn't take the offer and would come forward.
"I think it sends the wrong message and rewards the wrong people." Keeping it illegal rewards Mexican drug cartels. I think that's about as far in the "wrong people" category as one can get. I don't think it's going to be sunshine and roses making pot legal, but I think it will be a marked improvement.
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

jwilliams Wrote: Jul 21, 2014 6:35 PM
I would agree absolutely, though the same practice would protect two gay men from STD.
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

jwilliams Wrote: Jul 21, 2014 6:22 PM
And HPV spreads through straight populations. Diseases spread in populations. What's your point?
Previous 21 - 30 Next