Page 32 of 2473 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442821325321032 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 24728

Thread: Politics

  1. #311
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    12,803
    This contribution limit is not a simple issue. If we set fundraising limits, incumbents and rich folks will always have the advantage during an election. If you're the rich incumbent, then nobody will be able to oppose you because you're already well known and you're deeper pocket can always outspend opposition who's handicapped by the limit.

    If we don't set limits, of course rich people can still have the advantage, it's like a no win situation..., but at least a popular or slick politician could still get a shot if he's good at raising money. (Whether it's direct from people or rich corporations...)

    I think they really should just ban fund raising altogether... and just allocate portion of the govt fund to help people know the candidates. Like help them set up websites or something like that. Make sure the politicians spend time on the job doing the job right to raise your chance of re-election rather than just all over the place trying to raise money. Especially in this digital age. Who needs all these flyers or signs or TV ads? But anyway, even if that were the case, how do we really enforce politicians to not accepting money? Politicians can always be 'bought' under the table... Anyway, can never completely stop corruption, but I still think it's probably wiser to completely ban fundraising in the future. If you want to get to know the candidates better, go read their websites or something. There'd also be no more negative ads!

  2. #312
    What does the Bat say? Jason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    3,019
    I'd be totally ok with banning fundraising, and just using public dollars split evenly between candidates.

  3. #313
    Ask me about my bottom br FaultyMario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    8,233
    You mean rich men couldn't spend their money on the broadcasting industries they themselves own? how dare you? YOU MUST HATE FREEDOM!
    acket.

  4. #314
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,291
    Quote Originally Posted by overpowered View Post
    These guys claim bombing is not invasion.
    Ok maybe not, but not exactly peaceful.
    So an invasion is with ground troops, but air strikes with 100 times the fatalities isn't the same thing, it's somehow less.
    And coming in because you have citizens is ok, so Russia could use the same argument.

    Let's face it, the US marches in (or flies over or parks a fleet next door) to all parts of the planet, far and wide.
    Russia steps in to he place next door that says it wants them (and to join them) and suddenly it's he biggest evil ever.

    I'm with the Joker

  5. #315
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,096

    Diesel linked to deaths

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Diese...K-404202.shtml

    A new paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives says that, each year, about 11,000 people in the United States and the United Kingdom die as a result of exposure to diesel exhaust.

    Specifically, researchers with the Emory University and several other institutions in Europe say that, of the total number of lung cancer deaths reported in these countries on a yearly basis, 6% are caused by people's breathing in diesel emissions.

  6. #316
    What fresh hell is this? overpowered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Dicknose View Post
    I'm with the Joker
    As the article points out, a lot of the so called "invasions" don't fit any reasonable definition of invasion -- not even bombing without ground troops which the article did not accept. At least one proper invasion during the period was not included. Getting the facts straight actually does matter.

  7. #317
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,291
    The number and definition are a bit flimsy, but the point is that the US has done plenty that would be considered worse.
    How about grade them by fatalities?
    How many recent "actions" by the US has killed more people?
    I presume "actions" is a suitable word if you don't have ground troops or are just helping US citizens in another country.

    How often does the US talk about supporting democracy, but here is a case where the democratic decision was to break away and join Russia. Wouldn't supporting democracy be to support Crimea going to Russia?
    Or is Russia still the boogeyman?

  8. #318
    Ask me about my bottom br FaultyMario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ox.mx
    Posts
    8,233
    I'm sure you'll find them accurate.

    http://www.sainthoax.com/polivillains.html
    acket.

  9. #319
    Member Member 21Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Orange, CA, USA
    Posts
    5,307
    Kim Jong-Un

  10. #320
    Relaxing and enjoying life MR2 Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Posts
    5,392
    Video: Fox News Eliminates Distinction from Parody

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...y-220727363593

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •