Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sky Blue, Oct 25, 2010.

  1. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #1
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    See, here's the thing -- it's only bad when Democrats take foreign campaign money.
     
  3. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #3
    On the flip side I'm guessing Senators who embrace climate change are funded by companies whose interests are in green technology? Unless the money is making the policy I don't see what the problem is. You donate to people or causes that you believe in-- thats about as old as it gets.
     
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    Nice attempt at drawing a parallel. Kudos.
     
  5. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    Ding ding ding!
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    When are we going to make all this corporate donation crap illegal? This is just insane.
     
  7. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #7
    Why do you want to stifle free speech? If groups of people want to give money to candidates they support, why is that bad? Should we outlaw union donations as well since they to are a 'group of people'? Maybe all organizations?

    Amazing how inconsistent and hypocritical the liberal position is on this issue is. "Groups, you can give as much money as you want to any candidate, unless you have a 'LLC' or a 'INC' after your group's name.
     
  8. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #8
    I agree. I'd like to see all campaigns publicly funded and run over much shorter periods. Even if we're still making uninformed votes, at least they aren't for corporation shills.

    No one in here said anything of the sort. It seems to be quite popular to invent positions for the opposing side just to have the arguments.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    You seriously need to stop with this lumping liberals crap you do.

    And yes, I'd agree to make group donations illegal. Give each candidate a set amount of public funding and let them duke it out that way.

    Seeing as that won't ever happen here in the states, I'd ask for full disclosure, but that won't ever happen either.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    It is nothing to do with free speech. It is to do with huge corporations buying votes for their own commercial advantage. The politicians who are the recipients of this largesse do not acknowledge their paymasters, and the voters whom they reach because of the largesse are largely unaware of the crude commercial benefits they are being traded for.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    I just want to know when we're going to make all the money transparent? Unions, corporations, I don't care who's giving it. I just want to be able to follow the trail. If you're going to conduct your free speech activities in a way that affects the public, then the public should have a right to know who is doing the talking.

    Edit: And by transparent, I mean it needs to be out in the open at the very least by the end of the quarter in which a donation is given, and preferably within 30 days. Online, in a searchable format.
     
  12. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    Oh, I'm sorry! I guess I must have missed all the liberals complaining about all the labor union campaign contributions over the past few weeks! Guess I must not listen very well! ;)

    For the record, all of you want to eliminate all 'groups' from contributing to campaigns in the future? No more PETA contributions, no more NEA contributions, no more UAW contributions, no more American Bar Association Contributions.... just so we're clear!
     
  13. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    Once again... Amazing how inconsistent and hypocritical the liberal position is on this issue is. "Groups, you can give as much money as you want to any candidate, unless you have a 'LLC' or a 'INC' after your group's name.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    Why do you think that "liberals" are some sort of well organized group? Why do you insist of lumping all of them together as if they all share the same ideology?
     
  15. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #15
    In other words, you're allowed to assume our stance without first questioning it of us. You really believe everyone is going to make a thread for every single political event/trend that they don't agree with?

    So, skunk elaborates on the dangers of corporate contributions and this somehow necessarily dictates all of his views on campaigns contributions. Got it.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Fivepoint- it should all be illegal. I don't know how you come to these wacky conclusions of yours, but you need to stop making assumptions. It makes you look pretty darn silly.
     
  17. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #17
    Ok, you're no longer allowed to use the word 'conservative'... starting..... NOW!
    BTW, think a little.




    Ok, we've got one person willing to say they don't want 'group' contributions at all... corporations, unions, interest groups, etc. Anyone else going to agree with that? I'm going to assume Lee realizes the GLBTA falls into this category. ;)
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    Well the money could be coming fromthe companies PAC fund. That is basically money that the employees put into and pool the money so it has more wait. Assume like $25 per year per employee and it gets really big really fast.

    The number 25 comes from $1 per pay check every 2 weeks then made 25 for easier math and to account for some companies have like 26 check or 24 checks per year.
     
  19. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    I don't think the issue is the use of the word liberal or even the generalizations.

    I think the problem is your declaration that all liberals hold a certain position. Invariably, the position is not one the vast majority of liberals hold. When confronted with proof that no liberal has said anything along the lines of that position, you refuse to admit your declaration is faulty.

    (edit) BTW, I would like NO group contributions; strictly public funded campaigns. That would include all groups, even the ones I agree with. If not publiclly funded campaigns, I would try to somehow convince the SC to rethink Citizens United. In addition, pass laws to require transparancy of donations, and perhaps even provide shareholders of publicly traded corporations to have more of a say in how the company donates its money. Public results of that vote would be hlepful too, to show if any majority stockholder is overrulling the vother owners.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Which companies are they?
     
  21. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #21
    I've also stated I believe that. I'm sure not all "liberals" will agree with me. The process is too tainted. Even if it's transparent, how much better off are we when we know who's screwing us via a politician as opposed to guessing?
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Fivepoint- it should ALL be illegal. How many times would you like me to say it? Or would you rather continue to make yourself look foolish?
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Oh come on, it's much more fun to guess at this kind of thing instead of producing facts. Guesses are so much more malleable to one's predetermined worldview.
     
  24. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #24
    Lee, I specifically stated that you were the only one who had said so far that they thought no groups should be involved. So, you're the one who looks foolish. The GLBTA thing was a joke - sheesh!
     
  25. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #25
    I agree, too. Candidates should run with equal funds. The huge amounts of money poured into campaigns severely unbalances races to different parties depending on what part of the country it's in.

    As long as people or "people" (corporate personhood) are allowed to donate huge amounts to specific candidates, lobbying and bribing will remain a reality. We need to remove any sort of financial donation to members of congress. Lobbying needs to be made illegal. Leading this country shouldn't be one of the most lucrative jobs. The idea that paying huge amounts of money to politicians attracts the best minds is false. It only attracts the greediest.
     

Share This Page